Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea...

338
Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and Integrity Matrices (Version 3) Appendix BB to the Response submitted for Deadline IV Application Reference: EN010053 20 October 2015

Transcript of Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea...

Page 1: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and Integrity Matrices (Version 3)

Appendix BB to the Response submitted for Deadline IV

Application Reference: EN010053

20 October 2015

Page 2: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

i

SMart Wind Limited

Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm

Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment

Habitats Regulations Assessment

12.6.3- Screening and integrity matrices

SMart Wind Limited

11th Floor

140 London Wall

London

EC2Y 5DN

Tel 0207 7765500

Email [email protected]

Copyright © 2015.

All pre-existing rights reserved.

Liability

This report has been prepared by NIRAS Consulting Ltd with all reasonable skill, care and diligence within the terms of their contracts with SMart Wind Ltd

NIRAS Consulting Ltd has exercised due and customary care in compiling this report, but has not, save where specifically stated, independently verified third party information. No other warranty, express or implied, is made in relation to this report. This report may not be used or relied upon by any other party without the express written permission of the SMart Wind Ltd. Any communications regarding the content of this report should be directed to the SMart Wind Ltd. NIRAS Consulting Ltd assumes no liability for any loss or damage arising from reliance on or misuse of the contents of this document, or from misrepresentation made by others

Document release and authorisation record

Report number UK06-050200-REP-0054 PINS Doc Ref 12.6.3

Date January 2015

Company name SMart Wind Limited

Page 3: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

ii

Document release and authorisation record

Version Date Description Prepared Approved

V1 30/10/2014 Drafting by author MSM MHO

V2 RPS EIA team review

V3 Author update

V4 RPS check and sign-off

V5 SMW review

V6 Investor review

V7 Author update

V8 SMW senior management review

V9 Author update

V10 SMW final proof

Page 4: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

1

Table of Contents Appendix A – HRA Screening matrices ...................................................................................... 2

STAGE 1: SCREENING MATRICES ......................................................................................... 5

Stage 1 Matrix 1: Abberton Reservoir SPA .......................................................................... 6

Stage 1 Matrix 2: Abberton Reservoir Ramsar ..................................................................... 8

Stage 1 Matrix 3: Benfleet and Southend Marshes SPA ...................................................... 9

Stage 1 Matrix 4a : Berwickshire and North Northumberland Coast SAC (Annex 1 habitat features) 10

Stage 1 Matrix 4b : Berwickshire and North Northumberland Coast SAC (marine mammal features) 11

Stage 1 Matrix 5: Blackwater Estuary SPA ........................................................................ 13

Stage 1 Matrix 6: Blackwater Estuary Ramsar ................................................................... 16

Stage 1 Matrix 7: Breydon Water SPA ............................................................................... 18

Stage 1 Matrix 8: Broadland SPA ...................................................................................... 20

Stage 1 Matrix 9: Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast SPA ................................................... 22

Stage 1 Matrix 10 Calf of Eday SPA .................................................................................. 23

Stage 1 Matrix 11 Cape Wrath SPA ................................................................................... 24

Stage 1 Matrix 12 Colne Estuary SPA and Ramsar ........................................................... 25

Stage 1 Matrix 13: Coquet Island SPA ............................................................................... 27

Stage 1 Matrix 14: Cromarty Firth SPA .............................................................................. 28

Stage 1 Matrix 15 Crouch and Roach Estuaries SPA and Ramsar .................................... 30

Stage 1 Matrix 16 Debden Estuary SPA ............................................................................ 32

Stage 1 Matrix 17 Dengie Marshes SPA and Ramsar ....................................................... 34

Stage 1 Matrix 18 : Dogger Bank cSAC (Annex 1 habitat features) ................................... 36

Stage 1 Matrix 19: Dornoch Firth & Loch Fleet SPA .......................................................... 37

Stage 1 Matrix 20: East Caithness Cliffs SPA .................................................................... 38

Stage 1 Matrix 21: East Sanday Coast SPA ...................................................................... 40

Stage 1 Matrix 22: Fair Isle SPA ........................................................................................ 41

Stage 1 Matrix 23: Farne Islands SPA ............................................................................... 43

Stage 1 Matrix 24 Fetlar SPA ............................................................................................. 44

Stage 1 Matrix 25: Firth of Forth SPA ................................................................................ 45

Stage 1 Matrix 26a: Firth of Tay and Eden SAC (Annex I habitat) ..................................... 46

Stage 1 Matrix 27: Firth Tay & Eden Estuary SPA ............................................................. 48

Stage 1 Matrix 28 : Flamborough Head SAC (Annex 1 habitat features) ........................... 50

Stage 1 Matrix 29: Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA .................................................... 51

Stage 1 Matrix 29a: Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs SPA ..................................... 54

Stage 1 Matrix 30: Forth Islands SPA ................................................................................ 55

Stage 1 Matrix 31: Foula SPA ............................................................................................ 57

Stage 1 Matrix 32: Foulness SPA ...................................................................................... 59

Stage 1 Matrix 33: Fowlsheugh SPA ................................................................................. 61

Stage 1 Matrix 34: Hamford Water SPA ............................................................................ 62

Stage 1 Matrix 35: Hermaness Saxa Vord & Valla Field SPA ............................................ 64

Stage 1 Matrix 36: Hornsea Mere SPA .............................................................................. 65

Stage 1 Matrix 37: Hoy SPA .............................................................................................. 66

Stage 1 Matrix 38a : Humber Estuary Ramsar (Annex 1 habitat features) ........................ 67

Stage 1 Matrix 38b : Humber Estuary Ramsar (migratory fish features) ............................ 69

Stage 1 Matrix 38c : Humber Estuary Ramsar (marine mammal features) ........................ 71

Stage 1 Matrix 39a : Humber Estuary SAC (Annex 1 habitat features) .............................. 73

Stage 1 Matrix 39b : Humber Estuary SAC (migratory fish features) ................................. 75

Stage 1 Matrix 39c : Humber Estuary SAC (marine mammal features) ............................. 77

Stage 1 Matrix 39d: Humber Estuary SPA and Ramsar .................................................... 79

Stage 1 Matrix 40 : Inner Dowsing, Race Bank and North Ridge SAC (Annex 1 habitat features) 1

Stage 1 Matrix 41: Inner Moray Firth SPA............................................................................ 2

Stage 1 Matrix 42: Lindisfarne SPA ..................................................................................... 4

Stage 1 Matrix 43: Loch of Strathbeg SPA .......................................................................... 7

Stage 1 Matrix 44: Marwick Head SPA ................................................................................ 9

Stage 1 Matrix 45: Medway Estuary and Marshes SPA ..................................................... 10

Stage 1 Matrix 46: Minsmere and Walberswick SPA ......................................................... 13

Stage 1 Matrix 47: Montrose Basin SPA ............................................................................ 15

Stage 1 Matrix 48: Moray and Nairn Coast SPA ................................................................ 16

Stage 1 Matrix 49a: Moray Firth SAC (Annex I habitat) ..................................................... 18

Stage 1 Matrix 49b : Moray Firth SAC (marine mammal) .................................................. 19

Stage 1 Matrix 50: North Caithness Cliffs SPA .................................................................. 20

Stage 1 Matrix 51: North Norfolk Coast SPA ..................................................................... 21

Stage 1 Matrix 52: Northumbria Coast SPA ....................................................................... 25

Stage 1 Matrix 53: Noss SPA ............................................................................................. 26

Stage 1 Matrix 54: North Norfolk Coast SAC (Annex I habitat) .......................................... 27

Stage 1 Matrix 55 : North Norfolk Sandbanks and Saturn Reef cSAC (Annex 1 habitat features) 29

Stage 1 Matrix 56: Papa Stour SPA ................................................................................... 30

Stage 1 Matrix 57: Papa Westray SPA .............................................................................. 31

Page 5: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

2

Stage 1 Matrix 58a: River Derwent SAC (Annex I habitat) ................................................. 32

Stage 1 Matrix 58b : River Derwent SAC (migratory fish) .................................................. 33

Stage 1 Matrix 59: Ronas Hill – North Roe and Tingon SPA ............................................. 34

Stage 1 Matrix 60: Rousay SPA ......................................................................................... 35

Stage 1 Matrix 61: St Abb’s Head to Fast Castle SPA ....................................................... 36

Stage 1 Matrix 62: Stour and Orwell Estuaries SPA .......................................................... 37

Stage 1 Matrix 63: Sumburgh Head SPA ........................................................................... 39

Stage 1 Matrix 64: Thames Estuary Marshes SPA ............................................................ 40

Stage 1 Matrix 65: Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay SPA ................................................. 42

Stage 1 Matrix 66: The Swale SPA .................................................................................... 43

Stage 1 Matrix 67a: The Wash and North Norfolk Coast SAC (Annex I habitat) ................ 46

Stage 1 Matrix 67b : The Wash and North Norfolk Coast SAC (marine mammal) ...... 48

Stage 1 Matrix 68: The Wash SPA and Ramsar ................................................................ 49

Stage 1 Matrix 69: Troup Penan and Lion’s Heads SPA .................................................... 50

Stage 1 Matrix 70: West Westray SPA ............................................................................... 51

Stage 1 Matrix 71: Ythan Estuary, Sands of Forvie and Meikle Loch SPA ........................ 52

Stage 1 Matrix 72a: SBZ 1 / ZPS 1 SCI (Annex I habitat) .................................................. 53

Stage 1 Matrix 72b : SBZ 1 / ZPS 1 SCI (migratory fish) ................................................... 54

Stage 1 Matrix 72c : SBZ 1 / ZPS 1 SCI (marine mammal) ............................................ 55

Stage 1 Matrix 73a: SBZ 2 / ZPS 2 SCI (Annex I habitat) ............................................... 56

Stage 1 Matrix 74b : SBZ 2 / ZPS 2 SCI (migratory fish) ............................................... 57

Stage 1 Matrix 74c : SBZ 2 / ZPS 2 SCI (marine mammal) ............................................ 58

Stage 1 Matrix 75a: SBZ 3 / ZPS 3 SCI (Annex I habitat) ............................................... 59

Stage 1 Matrix 75b : SBZ 3 / ZPS 3 SCI (migratory fish) ............................................... 60

Stage 1 Matrix 75c : SBZ 3 / ZPS 3 SCI (marine mammal) ............................................ 61

Stage 1 Matrix 76a: Vlakte van de Raan pSCI (Annex I habitat) ................................... 62

Stage 1 Matrix 76b : Vlakte van de Raan pSCI (migratory fish).................................... 63

Stage 1 Matrix 76c : Vlakte van de Raan pSCI (marine mammal) ................................ 64

Stage 1 Matrix 77a: Borkum – Riffgrund SCI (Annex I habitat) .................................... 65

Stage 1 Matrix 77b : Borkum – Riffgrund SCI (migratory fish) ..................................... 66

Stage 1 Matrix 77c : Borkum – Riffgrund SCI (marine mammal) ................................. 67

Stage 1 Matrix 78a: Doggerbank (German Dogger Bank) SCI (Annex I habitat) ......... 69

Stage 1 Matrix 78b : Doggerbank (German Dogger Bank) SCI (marine mammal) ...... 70

Stage 1 Matrix 79a: Hamburgisches Wattenmeer SAC (Annex I habitat) .................... 71

Stage 1 Matrix 79b : Hamburgisches Wattenmeer SAC (migratory fish) .................... 73

Stage 1 Matrix 79c : Hamburgisches Wattenmeer SAC (marine mammal) ................. 74

Stage 1 Matrix 80a: Helgoland mit Helgoländer Felssockel SAC (Annex I habitat) ... 76

Stage 1 Matrix 80b : Helgoland mit Helgoländer Felssockel SAC (marine mammal) . 77

Stage 1 Matrix 81a: Nationalpark Niedersächsisches Wattenmeer SCI (Annex I habitat) 78

Stage 1 Matrix 81b : Nationalpark Niedersächsisches Wattenmeer SCI (migratory fish) 80

Stage 1 Matrix 81c : Nationalpark Niedersächsisches Wattenmeer SCI (marine mammal) ........................................................................................................................... 81

Stage 1 Matrix 82a: NTP S-H Wattenmeer und angrenzende Küstengebiete SCI (Annex I habitat) ............................................................................................................... 82

Stage 1 Matrix 82b : NTP S-H Wattenmeer und angrenzende Küstengebiete SCI (migratory fish) ................................................................................................................. 84

Stage 1 Matrix 82c : NTP S-H Wattenmeer und angrenzende Küstengebiete SCI (marine mammal) ............................................................................................................. 85

Stage 1 Matrix 83a: Östliche Deutsche Bucht SCI (Annex I habitat) ........................... 86

Stage 1 Matrix 83b : Östliche Deutsche Bucht SCI (migratory fish) ............................ 87

Stage 1 Matrix 83c : Östliche Deutsche Bucht SCI SCI (marine mammal) .................. 88

Stage 1 Matrix 84a: Sylter Außenriff SCI (Annex I habitat) ........................................... 89

Stage 1 Matrix 84b : Sylter Außenriff SCI (migratory fish) ........................................... 90

Stage 1 Matrix 84c : Sylter Außenriff SCI (marine mammal) ........................................ 91

Stage 1 Matrix 85a: Steingrund SAC (Annex I habitat) ................................................. 92

Stage 1 Matrix 85b : Steingrund SAC (marine mammal) .............................................. 93

Stage 1 Matrix 86a : Unterelbe SCI (marine mammal) .................................................. 94

Stage 1 Matrix 86b : Unterelbe SCI (migratory fish) ...................................................... 95

Stage 1 Matrix 87a: Dråby Vig SAC (Annex I habitat) ................................................... 96

Stage 1 Matrix 87b : Dråby Vig SAC (migratory fish) .................................................... 98

Stage 1 Matrix 87c : Dråby Vig SAC (marine mammal) ................................................. 99

Stage 1 Matrix 88a: Gule Rev pSCI (Annex I habitat) .................................................. 100

Stage 1 Matrix 88b : Gule Rev pSCI (marine mammal) ............................................... 101

Stage 1 Matrix 89a: Løgstør Bredning, Vejlerne og Bulbjerg SAC (Annex I habitat) 102

Stage 1 Matrix 89b : Løgstør Bredning, Vejlerne og Bulbjerg SAC (migratory fish) 105

Stage 1 Matrix 89c : Løgstør Bredning, Vejlerne og Bulbjerg SAC (marine mammal)106

Stage 1 Matrix 90a : Sydlige Nordsø SAC (Annex 1 habitat features) ....................... 107

Stage 1 Matrix 90b : Sydlige Nordsø SAC (marine mammal features) ...................... 108

Stage 1 Matrix 91a : Venø, Venø Sund SAC (Annex 1 habitat features) .................... 110

Stage 1 Matrix 90b : Venø, Venø Sund SAC (migratory fish features) ...................... 112

Stage 1 Matrix 90c : Venø, Venø Sund SAC (marine mammal features) ................... 113

Page 6: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

3

Stage 1 Matrix 91a : Vadehavet med Ribe Å, Tved Å og Varde Å vest for Varde SAC (Annex 1 habitat features) ............................................................................................. 114

Stage 1 Matrix 91b : Vadehavet med Ribe Å, Tved Å og Varde Å vest for Varde SAC (migratory fish features) ................................................................................................ 116

Stage 1 Matrix 91c : Vadehavet med Ribe Å, Tved Å og Varde Å vest for Varde SAC (marine mammal features) ............................................................................................ 118

Stage 1 Matrix 92a : Anse de Vauville SCI (Annex 1 habitat features) ...................... 120

Stage 1 Matrix 92b: Anse de Vauville SCI (marine mammal features) ....................... 121

Stage 1 Matrix 93a : Baie de canche et couloir des trois estuaires SCI (Annex 1 habitat features) ............................................................................................................. 123

Stage 1 Matrix 93b : Baie de canche et couloir des trois estuaires SCI (migratory fish features) 124

Stage 1 Matrix 93c : Baie de canche et couloir des trois estuaires SCI (marine mammal features) .......................................................................................................... 126

Stage 1 Matrix 94a : Baie de Seine occidentale SCI (Annex 1 habitat features) ....... 128

Stage 1 Matrix 94b: Baie de Seine occidentale SCI (migratory fish features) .......... 129

Stage 1 Matrix 94c : Baie de Seine occidentale SCI (marine mammal features) ...... 131

Stage 1 Matrix 95a : Bancs des Flandres pSCI (Annex 1 habitat features) ............... 133

Stage 1 Matrix 95b : Bancs des Flandres pSCI (marine mammal features) .............. 134

Stage 1 Matrix 96a : Banc et rècifs de Surtainville SCI (Annex 1 habitat features) .. 135

Stage 1 Matrix 96b : Banc et rècifs de Surtainville SCI (marine mammal features) . 136

Stage 1 Matrix 97a : Estuaire de la Seine SCI (Annex 1 habitat features) ................. 138

Stage 1 Matrix 97b : Estuaire de la Seine SCI (migratory fish features) .................... 140

Stage 1 Matrix 97c : Estuaire de la Seine SCI (marine mammal features) ................ 141

Stage 1 Matrix 98a : Estuaires et Littoral Picards (baies de Somme et d’Authie) SAC (Annex 1 habitat features) ............................................................................................. 142

Stage 1 Matrix 98b : Estuaires et Littoral Picards (baies de Somme et d’Authie) SAC (migratory fish features) ................................................................................................ 144

Stage 1 Matrix 98c : Estuaires et Littoral Picards (baies de Somme et d’Authie) SAC (marine mammal features) ............................................................................................ 145

Stage 1 Matrix 99a : Falaises du Cran aux oeufs et du cap gris-nez, dunes du chatelet, marais de tardinghen et dunes de wissant SCI (Annex 1 habitat features)147

Stage 1 Matrix 99b : Falaises du Cran aux oeufs et du cap gris-nez, dunes du chatelet, marais de tardinghen et dunes de wissant SCI (marine mammal features)149

Stage 1 Matrix 100a : Rècifs et landes de la Hague SCI (Annex 1 habitat features) . 151

Stage 1 Matrix 100b : Rècifs et landes de la Hague SCI (marine mammal features) 153

Stage 1 Matrix 101a : Récifs et marais arrière-littoraux du Cap Lévi à la Pointe de Saire SCI (Annex 1 habitat features) ............................................................................ 155

Stage 1 Matrix 101b : Récifs et marais arrière-littoraux du Cap Lévi à la Pointe de Saire SCI (marine mammal features) ............................................................................ 157

Stage 1 Matrix 102a : Récifs Gris-Nez Blanc-Nez SCI (Annex 1 habitat features) ... 159

Stage 1 Matrix 102b : Récifs Gris-Nez Blanc-Nez SCI (marine mammal features) ... 160

Stage 1 Matrix 103a : Ridens et dunes hydrauliques du detroit du pas-de-calais pSCI (Annex 1 habitat features) ............................................................................................. 161

Stage 1 Matrix 103b : Ridens et dunes hydrauliques du detroit du pas-de-calais pSCI (marine mammal features) ............................................................................................ 162

Stage 1 Matrix 104a : Doggersbank pSCI (Annex 1 habitat features) ....................... 163

Stage 1 Matrix 104b : Doggersbank pSCI (marine mammal features) ....................... 164

Stage 1 Matrix 105a : Klaverbank SCI (Annex 1 habitat features) ............................ 165

Stage 1 Matrix 105b : Klaverbank SCI (marine mammal features) ............................. 166

Stage 1 Matrix 106a : Noordzeekustzone SAC (Annex 1 habitat features) ............... 167

Stage 1 Matrix 106b : Noordzeekustzone SAC (migratory fish features) .................. 168

Stage 1 Matrix 106c : Noordzeekustzone SAC (marine mammal features) ............... 169

Stage 1 Matrix 107a : Noordzeekustzone II pSCI (Annex 1 habitat features) ........... 170

Stage 1 Matrix 107b : Noordzeekustzone II pSCI (migratory fish features) .............. 171

Stage 1 Matrix 107c : Noordzeekustzone II pSCI (marine mammal features) ........... 172

Stage 1 Matrix 108a: Vlakte van de Raan SAC (Annex I habitat) ............................... 173

Stage 1 Matrix 108b : Vlakte van de Raan SAC (migratory fish) ................................ 174

Stage 1 Matrix 108c : Vlakte van de Raan SAC (marine mammal) ............................. 175

Stage 1 Matrix 109a: Waddenzee SAC (Annex I habitat) ............................................ 176

Stage 1 Matrix 109b : Waddenzee SAC (migratory fish) ............................................. 177

Stage 1 Matrix 109c : Waddenzee SAC (marine mammal) .......................................... 178

Stage 1 Matrix 111: Southern North Sea dSAC (harbour porpoise) .......................... 181

STAGE 2 – INTEGRITY MATRICES ............................................................................... 183

Potential Impacts ............................................................................................................. 183

Stage 2 Matrix 1: Anse de Vauville SCI: Annex II Marine Mammals ...................................... 187

Stage 2 Matrix 2: Baie de canche et couloir des trois estuaires SCI: Annex II Marine Mammals188

Stage 2 Matrix 3: Baie de Seine occidentale SCI: Annex II Marine Mammals ....................... 189

Stage 2 Matrix 4: Bancs des Flandres pSCI: Annex II Marine Mammals ............................... 190

Stage 2 Matrix 5: Banc et rècifs de Surtainville SCI: Annex II Marine Mammals .................... 191

Stage 2 Matrix 6: Berwickshire and North Northumberland Coast SAC: Annex II Marine Mammals ................................................................................................................................ 192

Stage 2 Matrix 7: Borkum – Riffgrund SCI: Annex II Marine Mammals .................................. 193

Stage 2 Matrix 8: Doggerbank (German Dogger Bank) SCI: Annex II Marine Mammals ....... 194

Stage 2 Matrix 9: Doggersbank pSCI: Annex II Marine Mammals ......................................... 195

Page 7: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

4

Stage 2 Matrix 10: Dråby Vig SAC: Annex II Marine Mammals .............................................. 197

Stage 2 Matrix 11: Estuaire de la Seine SCI: Annex II Marine Mammals ............................... 198

Stage 2 Matrix 12: Estuaires et Littoral Picards (baies de Somme et d’Authie) SAC: Annex II Marine Mammals .................................................................................................................... 199

Stage 2 Matrix 13: Falaises du Cran aux oeufs et du cap gris-nez, dunes du chatelet, marais de tardinghen et dunes de wissant SCI: Annex II Marine Mammals ...................................... 200

Stage 2 Matrix 14: Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA: Offshore Bird Features .................. 201

Stage 2 Matrix 14a: Flamborough and Bempton Cliffs SPA ................................................... 203

Stage 2 Matrix 15: Forth Islands SPA: Offshore Bird Features .............................................. 204

Stage 2 Matrix 16: Fowlsheugh SPA: Offshore Bird Features ................................................ 205

Stage 2 Matrix 17: Gule Rev pSCI: Annex II Marine Mammals .............................................. 206

Stage 2 Matrix 18: Hamburgisches Wattenmeer SAC: Annex II Marine Mammals ................ 207

Stage 2 Matrix 19: Helgoland mit Helgoländer Felssockel SAC: Annex II Marine Mammals.. 208

Stage 2 Matrix 20a: Humber Estuary SAC: Annex I habitats.................................................. 209

Stage 2 Matrix 20b: Humber Estuary SAC: Annex II Migratory Fish ...................................... 211

Stage 2 Matrix 20c: Humber Estuary SAC: Annex II Marine Mammals .................................. 212

Stage 2 Matrix 21a: Humber Estuary Ramsar: Annex I habitat .............................................. 213

Stage 2 Matrix 21b: Humber Estuary Ramsar: Annex II Migratory Fish ................................. 215

Stage 2 Matrix 21c: Humber Estuary Ramsar: Annex II Marine Mammals ............................. 216

Stage 2 Matrix 21d: Humber Estuary Ramsar: Intertidal Bird Features .................................. 217

Stage 2 Matrix 22: Humber Estuary SPA: Intertidal Bird Features ......................................... 220

Stage 2 Matrix 23: Klaverbank SCI: Annex II Marine Mammals ............................................. 222

Stage 2 Matrix 24: Nationalpark Niedersächsisches Wattenmeer SCI: Annex II Marine Mammals ................................................................................................................................ 224

Stage 2 Matrix 25: Noordzeekustzone SAC: Annex II Marine Mammals ................................ 225

Stage 2 Matrix 26: Noordzeekustzone II pSCI: Annex II Marine Mammals ............................ 226

Stage 2 Matrix 27: NTP S-H Wattenmeer und angrenzende Küstengebiete SCI: Annex II Marine Mammals .................................................................................................................... 227

Stage 2 Matrix 28: Östliche Deutsche Bucht SCI: Annex II Marine Mammals ........................ 228

Stage 2 Matrix 29: Rècifs et landes de la Hague SCI: Annex II Marine Mammals ................. 229

Stage 2 Matrix 30: Récifs et marais arrière-littoraux du Cap Lévi à la Pointe de Saire SCI: Annex II Marine Mammals ...................................................................................................... 230

Stage 2 Matrix 31: Récifs Gris-Nez Blanc-Nez SCI: Annex II Marine Mammals .................... 231

Stage 2 Matrix 32: Ridens et dunes hydrauliques du detroit du pas-de-calais pSCI: Annex II Marine Mammals .................................................................................................................... 232

Stage 2 Matrix 33: River Derwent SAC: Annex II Migratory Fish ........................................... 233

Stage 2 Matrix 34: SBZ 1/ ZPS 1 SCI: Annex II Marine Mammals ......................................... 234

Stage 2 Matrix 35: SBZ 2/ ZPS 2 SCI: Annex II Marine Mammals ......................................... 235

Stage 2 Matrix 36: SBZ 3/ ZPS 3 SCI: Annex II Marine Mammals ......................................... 236

Stage 2 Matrix 37: Steingrund SAC: Annex II Marine Mammals ............................................ 237

Stage 2 Matrix 38: Sylter Außenriff SCI: Annex II Marine Mammals ...................................... 238

Stage 2 Matrix 39: Sydlige Nordsø SAC: Annex II Marine Mammals ..................................... 239

Stage 2 Matrix 40: The Wash and North Norfolk Coast SAC: Annex II Marine Mammals ...... 240

Stage 2 Matrix 41: Unterelbe SCI: Annex II Marine Mammals ............................................... 241

Stage 2 Matrix 42: Vadehavet med Ribe Å, Tved Å og Varde Å vest for Varde SAC: Annex II Marine Mammals .................................................................................................................... 242

Stage 2 Matrix 43: Venø, Venø Sund SAC: Annex II Marine Mammals ................................. 243

Stage 2 Matrix 44: Vlakte van de Raan pSCI: Annex II Marine Mammals .............................. 244

Stage 2 Matrix 45: Vlakte van de Raan SAC: Annex II Marine Mammals .............................. 245

Stage 2 Matrix 46: Southern North Sea dSAC: Harbour porpoise .......................................... 246

REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 247

Page 8: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

2

APPENDIX A – HRA SCREENING MATRICES

Potential Impacts

Potential impacts upon the European site(s)1 which are considered within the submitted Habitats Regulations Assessment report are provided in the tables below.

Impacts considered within the screening matrices (Annex I habitat)

Designation Impacts in submission information Presented in screening matrices as Construction and Decommissioning

• Disturbance • Changes to habitat

Construction and Decommissioning • Changes to water quality

• Changes to water quality

Operation and Maintenance • Disturbance • Loss of habitat • Introduction of hard substrate • Habitat modification due to changes in the hydrodynamic

regime

• Changes to habitat

Operation and Maintenance • Changes to water quality

• Changes to water quality

Operation and Maintenance • Changes to fishing activity

• Changes to fishing activity

• In-combination • In-combination

1 As defined in Advice Note 10.

Page 9: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

3

Impacts considered within the screening matrices (migrating fish)

Designation Impacts in submission information Presented in screening matrices as Construction and Decommissioning

• Disturbance • Underwater noise

• Behavioural disturbance/physical injury

Construction and Decommissioning • Changes to water quality

• Changes to water quality

Operation and Maintenance • Loss of habitat • Introduction of hard substrate

• Changes to habitat

Operation and Maintenance • Disturbance • Underwater noise • EMFs

• Behavioural disturbance/physical injury

Operation and Maintenance • Changes to water quality

• Changes to water quality

Operation and Maintenance • Changes to fishing activity

• Changes to fishing activity

• In-combination • In-combination

Impacts considered within the screening matrices (marine mammals)

Designation Impacts in submission information Presented in screening matrices as Construction and Decommissioning

• Underwater noise • Collision risk

• Behavioural disturbance/physical injury

Construction and Decommissioning • Changes to water quality

• Changes to water quality

Construction and Decommissioning • Changes in prey availability

• Changes in prey availability

Operation and Maintenance • Underwater noise • Collision risk • EMFs

• Behavioural disturbance/physical injury

Operation and Maintenance • Changes to water quality

• Changes to water quality

Operation and Maintenance • Changes in prey availability

• Changes in prey availability

• In-combination • In-combination

Page 10: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

4

Impacts considered within the integrity matrices (Offshore Bird Features)

Designation Impacts in submission information Presented in integrity matrices as European site name/designation SPA/pSPA

Operation and Maintenance • Collision • Displacement from physical presence of wind turbines

• Collision • Displacement

Impacts considered within the integrity matrices (Intertidal Bird Features)

Designation Impacts in submission information Presented in integrity matrices as European site name/designation SPA/Ramsar

Construction • Disturbance

• Disturbance

Decommissioning • Disturbance

• Disturbance

Page 11: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

5

STAGE 1: SCREENING MATRICES

Evidence for likely significant effects on their qualifying features is detailed within the footnotes to the screening matrices below.

Matrix Key:

���� = Likely significant effect cannot be excluded ���� = Likely significant effect can be excluded C = construction O = operation D = decommissioning Where effects are not applicable to a particular feature they are greyed out.

Page 12: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

Stage 1 Matrix 1: Abberton Reservoir SPA

Name of European site: Abberton Reservoir SPA

Distance to Hornsea Project Two: 225 km

European site features Likely Effects of Project Two

Article 4.1 – Winter Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Golden Plover Pluvialis apricaria ����a ����a ����a ����a

Article 4.2 – Migratory (Breeding) Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo ����a ����a ����a ����a

Article 4.2 – Migratory (Winter) Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Gadwall Anas strepera, ����a ����a ����a ����a

Shoveler Anas clypeata, ����a ����a ����a ����a

Teal Anas crecca ����a ����a ����a ����a

Mute Swan Cygnus olor ����a ����a ����a ����a

Article 4.2 – Assemblage (Winter) Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Black-tailed Godwit Limosa limosa islandica ����a ����a ����a ����a

Lapwing Vanellus vanellus ����a ����a ����a ����a

Coot Fulica atra ����a ����a ����a ����a

Goldeneye Bucephala clangula ����a ����a ����a ����a

Tufted Duck Aythya fuligula ����a ����a ����a ����a

Pochard Aythya ferina ����o ����b ����c ����c

Pintail Anas acuta ����j ����j ����j ����c

Wigeon Anas penelope ����p ����q ����c ����c

Page 13: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

7

Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo ����d ����e ����f ����c

Great Crested Grebe Podiceps cristatus ����r ����b ����c ����c

Shoveler Anas clypeata ����h ����h ����h ����c

Teal Anas crecca ����i ����b ����c ����c

Gadwall Anas strepera ����g ����g ����g ����c

Golden Plover Pluvialis apricaria ����a ����b ����c ����c

Evidence to support conclusions

a. The site is located 225 km from the Project Two site, there is not mechanism for effect on the features of this SPA, see Section 5.4 of the HRA Screening report (PINS Document Reference 12.6.1)

Page 14: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

8

Stage 1 Matrix 2: Abberton Reservoir Ramsar

Name of European site: Abberton Reservoir Ramsar

Distance to Hornsea Project Two: 186 km

European site features Likely Effects of Project Two

Ramsar criterion 6 - species/populations

occurring at levels of international

importance

Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Gadwall Anas strepera, ����a ����a ����a ����a

Shoveler Anas clypeata, ����a ����a ����a ����a

Wigeon Anas penelope ����a ����a ����a ����a

Ramsar criterion 6 - species/populations identified subsequent to designation for possible future consideration

under criterion 6.

Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Pochard Aythya ferina ����a ����a ����a ����a

Mute swan Cygnus olor ����a ����a ����a ����a

Ramsar criterion 5 Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

The site supports an assemblage of international importance of waterfowl with peak counts in winter.

����a ����a ����a

����a

Evidence supporting conclusions

a. The site is located 186 km from the Project Two site , there is no mechanism for effect on the features of the Ramsar site, see Section 5.4 of the HRA Screening report (PINS Document Reference 12.6.1).

Page 15: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

9

Stage 1 Matrix 3: Benfleet and Southend Marshes SPA

Name of European site: Benfleet and Southend Marshes SPA

Distance to Hornsea Project Two: 261km

European site features Likely Effects of Project Two

Article 4.2 – Migratory (Passage) Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Ringed Plover Charadrius hiaticula ����a ����a ����a ����a

Article 4.2 – Migratory (Winter) Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Dark-bellied Brent Goose Branta bernicla bernicla

����a ����a ����a

����a

Knot Calidris canutus ����a ����a ����a ����a

Grey Plover Pluvialis squatarola ����a ����a ����a ����a

Article 4.2 – Assemblage (Winter) Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Dunlin Calidris alpina alpina ����a ����a ����a ����a

Ringed Plover Charadrius hiaticula ����a ����a ����a ����a

Oystercatcher Haematopus ostralegus ����a ����a ����a ����a

Knot Calidris canutus ����a ����a ����a ����a

Grey Plover Pluvialis squatarola ����a ����a ����a ����a

Dark-bellied Brent Goose Branta bernicla bernicla

����a ����a ����a

����a

Evidence to support conclusions

a. The site is located 261 km from the Project Two site and there is not mechanism for effect, see Section 5.4 of the HRA Screening report (PINS Document Reference 12.6.1).

Page 16: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

10

Stage 1 Matrix 4a : Berwickshire and North Northumberland Coast SAC (Annex 1 habitat features)

Name of European site: Berwickshire and North Northumberland Coast SAC

Distance to PROJECT TWO 242 km (208 km to export cable)

European site features Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Changes to habitat Changes to water quality Changes to Fishing Activity In combination effects

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Large shallow inlets and bays Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Reefs Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Submerged or partially submerged sea caves Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Evidence supporting conclusions:

a. With regard to habitat disturbance, no potential interaction (impact pathway) and no predicted effect is anticipated on the SAC (see paragraphs 5.1.2 to 5.1.11 of HRA Screening Report). No LSE predicted for the Annex 1 habitat feature project alone or in-combination (See paragraph 5.1.55).

b. No potential interaction (impact pathway) and no predicted effect is anticipated on the SAC with regard to loss of habitat (See paragraphs 5.1.31 to 5.1.34 of HRA Screening Report), introduction of hard substrate (see paragraphs 5.1.35 to 5.1.36), habitat modification due to changes in the hydrodynamic regime (See paragraphs 5.1.37 to 5.1.43) and disturbance (See paragraphs 5.1.44 to 5.1.48) No LSE predicted for the Annex 1 habitat feature (See paragraph 5.1.55).

c. Given the distance of the SAC to the areas where increased suspended sediment and sediment deposition may occur, LSE on the feature is not anticipated to occur (see paragraphs 5.1.12 to 5.1.26 of HRA Screening Report). Also, taking into account designed-in mitigation measures and best practice approaches, LSE on the Annex I habitat feature associated with the release of sediment contaminants and/or accidental releases of pollutants is not anticipated as a result of Project Two either alone or in-combination (see paragraphs 5.1.27 to 5.1.30).

d. Taking into account designed-in mitigation measures and best practice approaches, LSE on the Annex I habitat feature associated with the release of sediment contaminants and/or accidental releases of pollutants is not anticipated as a result of Project Two, either alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.1.49 to 5.1.50 of HRA Screening Report).

e. Displacement of fishing activity will be dispersed over a large area, meaning that the specific increases in fishing activity in any one location would likely be minimal. LSEs on Annex I habitats are not anticipated as a result of Project Two either alone or in-combination (see paragraphs 5.1.51 and 5.1.52 of HRA Screening Report).

Page 17: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

11

Stage 1 Matrix 4b : Berwickshire and North Northumberland Coast SAC (marine mammal features)

Name of European site: Berwickshire and North Northumberland Coast SAC

Distance to PROJECT TWO 242 km (208 km to export cable)

European site features Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Behavioural disturbance/Physical injury Changes to water quality Changes in prey availability In combination effects

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Grey seal ����a ����b ����c Xd Xd Xd Xe Xf Xe ����a X b,d,f X c, d, e

Evidence supporting conclusions:

a. There is potential for a LSE in respect of behavioural disturbance associated with construction noise (See paragraphs 5.3.2 to 5.3.9 of HRA Screening Report). Whilst the grey seal population of the Berwickshire and North Northumberland Coast SAC is located at a considerable distance (242 km) from Subzone 2, it has been identified that there is potential connectivity between its grey seal population and Project Two. (See paragraphs 5.3.62 to 5.3.66 and Table 5.3).

b. With regard to operational underwater turbine noise a behavioural response is only likely within close proximity to turbines and no LSE is predicted (See paragraphs 5.3.36 to 5.3.39 of HRA Screening Report). Given the anticipated localised effects of disturbance associated with vessel traffic and the wide distribution range of Annex II marine mammals species, any impacts would be expected to be very limited and LSEs on marine mammals associated with vessel noise are not anticipated alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.3.41 to 5.3.43). There is little potential for the increased vessel activity to result in a significant impact in terms of collision risk with vessels and potential corkscrew injuries and no LSEs are predicted either alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.3.44 to 5.3.50). EMF effects will be localised within the immediate vicinity of the cables and no LSEs are predicted either alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.3.51 to 5.3.54).

c. During decommissioning piling will not be required. The noise resulting from wind turbine decommissioning is unlikely to result in any injury, avoidance or significant disturbance to marine mammals and no LSE is predicted either alone or in-combination (see paragraph 5.3.9 of HRA Screening Report). As per Construction, No LSEs have been identified with regard to vessel noise (See paragraphs 5.3.10) and collision risk (See paragraphs 5.3.13 to 5.3.20) during Decommissioning.

d. During Construction and Decommissioning, potential impacts associated with increased suspended sediment concentrations will be short term, intermittent and localised. Marine mammals frequently occur in relatively turbid areas and therefore are adapted to find prey in such conditions. Furthermore, they possess mechanisms to detect prey through means other than visual detection (See paragraphs 5.3.21 to 5.3.25 of HRA Screening Report). No LSE is predicted with regard to increased suspended sediment concentrations either alone or in-combination (See paragraph 5.3.25). A number of mitigation measures and best practice approaches will be implemented during the Construction and Decommissioning and Operation phases to mitigate potential impacts associated with potential accidental pollution events. Taking adherence to such approaches, LSEs on Annex II marine mammal qualifying features associated with accidental release of pollutants are not anticipated to arise during any phase of the Project (See paragraphs 5.3.26 to 5.3.28 and 5.3.55 to 5.3.56).

e. During Construction and Decommissioning, potential impacts on prey species have been identified with regard to habitat disturbance, increased suspended sediments and underwater noise for prey species (See paragraphs 5.3.29 to 5.3.35 of HRA Screening Report). No potential impacts have been identified with regard to accidental pollution events (See paragraph 5.3.34) Whilst an impact pathway has been identified, the potential loss of prey as a result of Project Two would be expected to be minimal. The potential impacts identified on fish receptors will be localised, short term and reversible. Furthermore, the fish community found in Project Two is characteristic of the fish and shellfish assemblage of the wider region and therefore marine mammals would be able to exploit similar resources in adjacent undisturbed areas. As such, LSEs associated with changes in prey availability are not anticipated to arise as a result of Project Two, either alone or in-combination with other plans and projects (See paragraph 5.3.35).

f. Whilst an impact pathway has been identified (See paragraphs 5.3.57 to 5.3.61 of HRA Screening Report), the potential loss of prey as a result of Project Two during Operation would be expected to be minimal and highly localised. There may be increased feeding opportunities within Project Two as a result of potential reef effects and reduction in fishing activity. Furthermore, the fish community found in Project Two is characteristic of the fish and shellfish assemblage of the wider region and therefore marine mammals would be able to exploit similar resources in adjacent

Page 18: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

12

undisturbed areas. LSEs associated with changes in prey availability are not anticipated to arise on marine mammals as a result of Project Two, either alone or in-combination with other plans or projects. (See paragraphs 5.3.57 to 5.3.61).

Page 19: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

13

Stage 1 Matrix 5: Blackwater Estuary SPA

Name of European site: Blackwater Estuary SPA

Distance to Hornsea Project Two: 229 km

European site features Likely Effects of Project Two

Article 4.1 – Breeding Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Little tern Sterna albifrons ����a ����a ����a ����a

Pochard Aythya ferina ����a ����a ����a ����a

Article 4.2 – Winter Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Avocet Recurvirostra avosetta ����a ����a ����a ����a

Golden Plover Pluvialis apricaria ����a ����a ����a ����a

Hen Harrier Circus cyaneus ����a ����a ����a ����a

Ruff Philomachus pugnax ����a ����a ����a ����a

Article 4.2 – Migratory (On passage) Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Ringed Plover Charadrius hiaticula ����a ����a ����a ����a

Article 4.2 – Migratory (Winter) Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Black-tailed Godwit Limosa limosa islandica ����a ����a ����a ����a

Dark-bellied Brent Goose Branta bernicla bernicla

����a ����a ����a

����a

Dunlin Calidris alpina alpina ����a ����a ����a ����a

Grey Plover Pluvialis squatarola ����a ����a ����a ����a

Redshank Tringa totanus ����a ����a ����a ����a

Page 20: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

14

Ringed Plover Charadrius hiaticula ����a ����a ����a ����a

Shelduck Tadorna tadorna ����a ����a ����a ����a

Article 4.2 – Assemblage (Winter) Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Great Crested Grebe Podiceps cristatus ����a ����a ����a ����a

Golden Plover Pluvialis apricaria ����a ����a ����a ����a

Ruff Philomachus pugnax ����a ����a ����a ����a

Dark-bellied Brent Goose Branta bernicla bernicla

����a ����a ����a

����a

Shelduck Tadorna tadorna ����a ����a ����a ����a

Ringed Plover Charadrius hiaticula ����a ����a ����a ����a

Grey Plover Pluvialis squatarola ����a ����a ����a ����a

Dunlin Calidris alpina alpina ����a ����a ����a ����a

Avocet Recurvirostra avosetta ����a ����a ����a ����a

Redshank Tringa totanus ����a ����a ����a ����a

Curlew Numenius arquata ����a ����a ����a ����a

Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo ����a ����a ����a ����a

Wigeon Anas penelope ����a ����a ����a ����a

Teal Anas crecca ����a ����a ����a ����a

Pintail Anas acuta ����a ����a ����a ����a

Shoveler Anas clypeata ����a ����a ����a ����a

Goldeneye Bucephala clangula ����a ����a ����a ����a

Red-breasted Merganser Mergus serrator ����a ����a ����a ����a

Lapwing Vanellus vanellus ����a ����a ����a ����a

Black-tailed Godwit Limosa limosa islandica ����a ����a ����a ����a

Evidence supporting conclusions

Page 21: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

15

a. The site is located 229 km from the Project Two site and there is no mechanism for effect, see Section 5.4 of the HRA Screening report (PINS Document Reference 12.6.1).

Page 22: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

16

Stage 1 Matrix 6: Blackwater Estuary Ramsar

Name of European site: Blackwater Estuary Ramsar

Distance to Hornsea Project Two: 229 km

European site features Likely Effects of Project Two

Ramsar criterion 6 - species/populations

occurring at levels of international

importance

Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Dark-bellied Brent Goose Branta bernicla bernicla

����a ����a ����a

����a

Grey Plover Pluvialis squatarola ����a ����a ����a ����a

Black-tailed Godwit Limosa limosa islandica ����a ����a ����a ����a

Dunlin Calidris alpina alpina ����a ����a ����a ����a

Ramsar criterion 6 - species/populations identified subsequent to designation for possible future consideration

under criterion 6.

Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Shelduck Tadorna tadorna ����a ����a ����a ����a

Golden Plover Pluvialis apricaria ����a ����a ����a ����a

Ramsar criterion 1

Saltmarsh; see footnote m.

Ramsar criterion 2

The site supports a number British Red Data Book invertebrates; see footnote m.

Ramsar criterion 3

Page 23: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

17

Saltmarsh plant communities; see footnote m.

Ramsar criterion 5 Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

The site supports an assemblage of international importance of waterfowl with peak counts in winter.

����a ����a ����a

����a

Evidence to support conclusions

a. The site is located 229 km from the Project Two site and there is no mechanism for effect, see Section 5.4 of the HRA Screening report (PINS Document Reference 12.6.1).

Page 24: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

18

Stage 1 Matrix 7: Breydon Water SPA

Name of European site: Breydon Water SPA

Distance to Hornsea Project Two: 135 km

European site features Likely Effects of Project Two

Article 4.1 – Breeding Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Common Tern Sterna hirundo ����a ����a ����a ����a

Article 4.1 – Over winter Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Avocet Recurvirostra avosetta ����a ����a ����a ����a

Bewick's Swan Cygnus columbianus bewickii ����a ����a ����a ����a

Golden Plover Pluvialis apricaria ����a ����a ����a ����a

Ruff Philomachus pugnax ����a ����a ����a ����a

Article 4.2 – Assemblage (Waterfowl) Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Black-tailed Godwit Limosa limosa islandica ����a ����a ����a ����a

Dunlin Calidris alpina alpina ����a ����a ����a ����a

Lapwing Vanellus vanellus ����a ����a ����a ����a

Shoveler Anas clypeata ����a ����a ����a ����a

Wigeon Anas penelope ����a ����a ����a ����a

White-fronted Goose Anser albifrons albifrons ����a ����a ����a ����a

Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo ����a ����a ����a ����a

Golden Plover Pluvialis apricaria ����a ����a ����a ����a

Avocet Recurvirostra avosetta ����d ����d ����d ����r

Bewick's Swan Cygnus columbianus bewickii ����e ����e ����e ����r

Page 25: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

19

Evidence to support conclusions

a. The site is located135 km from the Project Two site and there is no mechanism for effect, see Section 5.4 of the HRA Screening report (PINS Document Reference 12.6.1).

Page 26: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

20

Stage 1 Matrix 8: Broadland SPA

Name of European site: Broadland SPA

Distance to Hornsea Project Two: 117 km

European site features Likely Effects of Project Two

Article 4.1 – Breeding Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Bittern Botaurus stellaris ����a ����a ����a ����a

Marsh Harrier Circus aeruginosus ����a ����a ����a ����a

Article 4.1 – Over winter Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Bewick's Swan Cygnus columbianus bewickii ����a ����a ����a ����a

Bittern Botaurus stellaris ����a ����a ����a ����a

Hen Harrier Circus cyaneus ����a ����a ����a ����a

Ruff Philomachus pugnax ����a ����a ����a ����a

Whooper Swan Cygnus cygnus ����a ����a ����a ����a

Article 4.2 – Migratory (Over winter) Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Gadwall Anas strepera ����a ����a ����a ����a

Pink-footed Goose Anser brachyrhynchus ����a ����a ����a ����a

Shoveler Anas clypeata ����a ����a ����a ����a

Article 4.2 – Assemblage (Waterfowl) Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo ����a ����a ����a ����a

Bewick's Swan Cygnus columbianus bewickii ����a ����a ����a ����a

Whooper Swan Cygnus cygnus ����a ����a ����a ����a

Ruff Philomachus pugnax ����a ����a ����a ����a

Page 27: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

21

Name of European site: Broadland SPA

Distance to Hornsea Project Two: 117 km

European site features Likely Effects of Project Two

Pink-footed Goose Anser brachyrhynchus ����a ����a ����a ����a

Bittern Botaurus stellaris ����a ����a ����a ����a

Great Crested Grebe Podiceps cristatus ����a ����a ����a ����a

Coot Fulica atra ����a ����a ����a ����a

Bean Goose Anser fabalis ����a ����a ����a ����a

White-fronted Goose Anser albifrons albifrons ����a ����a ����a ����a

Wigeon Anas penelope ����a ����a ����a ����a

Teal Anas crecca ����a ����a ����a ����a

Pochard Aythya ferina ����a ����a ����a ����a

Tufted Duck Aythya fuligula ����a ����a ����a ����a

Shoveler Anas clypeata ����a ����a ����a ����a

Gadwall Anas strepera ����a ����a ����a ����a

Evidence supporting conclusions (Ref: Table A51 of Annex A of the HRA Report (Doc ref No 12.6)):

a. The site is located117 km from the Project Two site and there is no mechanism for effect, see Section 5.4 of the HRA Screening report (PINS Document Reference 12.6.1).

Page 28: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

22

Stage 1 Matrix 9: Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast SPA

Name of European site: Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast SPA

Distance to Hornsea Project Two: 425 km

European site features Likely Effects of Project Two

Article 4.2 – Assemblage Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Guillemot Uria aalge ����a �b �c ����c

Kittiwake Rissa tridactyla ����d �b �e ����c

Herring Gull Larus argentatus ����f �b �g ����c

Shag Phalacrocorax aristotelis ����h �h �h ����h

Fulmar Fulmarus glacialis ����i �b �j ����c

Evidence supporting conclusions

a. Very few birds recorded at collision height, no potential for LSE as a result of collision effects b. The duration, magnitude and extent of impact resulting from barrier effects on SPA qualifying species are assessed as being unlikely to compromise the conservation objectives of any designated

SPA. Consequently, no LSE with respect to designated SPA interest is concluded c. The site located beyond the mean maximum foraging for this species, no LSE is predicted during the breeding season. Outside of the breeding season no LSE has been predicted, see Annex A of

the HRA screening report and Appendix I of the HRA Report (Doc ref 12.6.1). d. Although this species is at risk of collision and recorded at risk height this site is beyond the mean maximum foraging range for this species (60km Thaxter et al. 2012), therefore no LSE predicted

during the breeding season. Outside of the breeding season no LSE as a result of collision has been predicted for birds originating from this site, see Appendix I of the HRA report (12.6). e. Kittiwake is not a species at risk to displacement effects (see Ornithology Technical report, Doc ref 7.2.5.1) f. Although this species is at risk of collision and recorded at risk height this site is beyond the mean maximum foraging range for this species (61.1km Thaxter et al. 2012), therefore no LSE predicted

during the breeding season. Outside of the breeding season no LSE as a result of collision has been predicted for birds originating from this site, see Annex A of the HRA screening report and Appendix I of the HRA Report (12.6).

g. Herring gull is not a species at risk to displacement effects (see Ornithology Technical report, Doc ref 7.2.5.1) h. Few birds recorded within the site specific surveys, (see Ornithology Technical report, Doc ref 7.2.5.1) i. Fulmar is not a species at risk to collision effects j. The site located beyond the mean maximum foraging for this species, no LSE is predicted during the breeding season. Outside of the breeding season no LSE has been predicted, see Annex A of

the HRA screening report and Appendix I of the HRA report (Doc ref 12.6.1).

Page 29: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

23

Stage 1 Matrix 10 Calf of Eday SPA

Name of European site: Calf of Eday SPA

Distance to PROJECT TWO 632 km

European site features Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Collision Barrier Displacement In combination effects

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Guillemot ����a �b �c

����c

Kittwake ����d �b �e ����c

Great black-backed gull ����f �b �g ����c

Cormorant ����h �h �h ����h

Fulmar ����i �b �j ����c

Evidence to support conclusions

a. Very few birds recorded at collision height, no potential for LSE as a result of collision effects b. The duration, magnitude and extent of impact resulting from barrier effects on SPA qualifying species are assessed as being unlikely to compromise the conservation objectives of any designated

SPA. Consequently, no LSE with respect to designated SPA interest is concluded c. The site located beyond the mean maximum foraging for this species, no LSE is predicted during the breeding season. Outside of the breeding season no LSE has been predicted, see Annex A of

the HRA screening report (Doc ref 12.6.1) and Appendix I of the HRA report (Doc ref 12.6) . d. Although this species is at risk of collision and recorded at risk height this site is beyond the mean maximum foraging range for this species (60km Thaxter et al. 2012), therefore no LSE predicted

during the breeding season. Outside of the breeding season no LSE as a result of collision has been predicted for birds originating from this site, see Appendix G of the HRA report (12.6). e. Kittiwake is not a species at risk to displacement effects (see Ornithology Technical report, Doc ref 7.2.5.1) f. Although this species is at risk of collision and recorded at risk height this site is beyond the mean maximum foraging range for this species (61.1km Thaxter et al. 2012), therefore no LSE predicted

during the breeding season. Outside of the breeding season no LSE as a result of collision has been predicted for birds originating from this site, see Annex A of the HRA screening report (12.6.1) and Appendix I of the HRA Report.

g. Great black-backed gull is not a species at risk to displacement effects (see Ornithology Technical report, Doc ref 7.2.5.1) h. Few birds recorded within the site specific surveys, (see Ornithology Technical report, Doc ref 7.2.5.1) i. Fulmar is not a species at risk to collision effects j. The site located beyond the mean maximum foraging for this species, no LSE is predicted during the breeding season. Outside of the breeding season no LSE has been predicted, see Annex A of

the HRA screening report (Doc ref 12.6.1) and Appendix I of the HRA report.

Page 30: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

24

Stage 1 Matrix 11 Cape Wrath SPA

Name of European site: Cape Wrath SPA

Distance to PROJECT TWO 639 km

European site features Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Collision Barrier Displacement In combination effects

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Puffin ����a �b �c

����c

Razorbill ����d �b �e ����c

Guillemot ����f �b �g ����c

Kittiwake ����h �b �i ����c

Fulmar ����j �b �k ����c

Evidence to support conclusions

a. This species were recorded flying below collision risk height and not considered to be a species at risk of collision b. The duration, magnitude and extent of impact resulting from barrier effects on SPA qualifying species are assessed as being unlikely to compromise the conservation objectives of any designated

SPA. Consequently, no LSE with respect to designated SPA interest is concluded c. The site located beyond the mean maximum foraging for this species, no LSE is predicted during the breeding season. Outside of the breeding season no LSE has been predicted, see Annex A of

the HRA screening report (Doc ref 12.6.1) and Appendix I of the HRA report. d. This species were recorded flying below collision risk height and not considered to be a species at risk of collision e. The site located beyond the mean maximum foraging for this species, no LSE is predicted during the breeding season. Outside of the breeding season no LSE has been predicted, see Annex A of

the HRA screening report (Doc ref 12.6.1) and Appendix I of the HRA report. f. This species were recorded flying below collision risk height and not considered to be a species at risk of collision g. The site located beyond the mean maximum foraging for this species, no LSE is predicted during the breeding season. Outside of the breeding season no LSE has been predicted, see Annex A of

the HRA screening report (Doc ref 12.6.1) and Appendix I of the HRA report. h. The site located beyond the mean maximum foraging for this species, no LSE is predicted during the breeding season. Outside of the breeding season no LSE has been predicted, see Annex A of

the HRA screening report (Doc ref 12.6.1) and Appendix I of the HRA report. i. Kittiwake is not a species at risk to displacement effects (see Ornithology Technical report, Doc ref 7.2.5.1) j. Fulmar is not a species at risk to collision effects k. The site located beyond the mean maximum foraging for this species, no LSE is predicted during the breeding season. Outside of the breeding season no LSE has been predicted, see Annex A of

the HRA screening report (Doc ref 12.6.1) and Appendix I of the HRA report.

Page 31: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

25

Stage 1 Matrix 12 Colne Estuary SPA and Ramsar

Name of European site: Colne Estuary SPA

Distance to Hornsea Project Two: 223 km

European site features Likely Effects of Project Two

Article 4.1 – Breeding Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Little Tern Sterna albifrons �a �b �c �x

Article 4.1 – Winter Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Avocet Recurvirostra avosetta �d �d �d �x

Golden Plover Pluvialis apricaria �e �f �g �x

Hen Harrier Circus cyaneus �h �h �h �x

Article 4.2 – Migratory (Winter) Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Dark-bellied Brent Goose Branta bernicla bernicla

�i �j �g

�x

Redshank Tringa totanus �k �k �k �x

Article 4.2 – Assemblage (Winter) Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Black-tailed Godwit Limosa limosa islandica �h �h �h �x

Dunlin Calidris alpina alpina �l �f �g �x

Lapwing Vanellus vanellus �m �n �g �x

Grey Plover Pluvialis squatarola �o �f �g �x

Ringed Plover Charadrius hiaticula �p �f �g �x

Shelduck Tadorna tadorna �q �r �r �x

Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo �s �t �u �x

Page 32: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

26

Great Crested Grebe Podiceps cristatus �v �f �g �x

Redshank Tringa totanus �k �k �k �x

Dark-bellied Brent Goose Branta bernicla bernicla

�j �k �f

�x

Golden Plover Pluvialis apricaria �e �f �g �x

Avocet Recurvirostra avosetta �d �d �d �x

Article 4.2 – Migratory (Breeding) Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Ringed Plover Charadrius hiaticula �p �f �g �x

Pochard Aythya ferina �w �f �g �x

Evidence to support conclusions

a. This site is located 223 km from the Project Two site with no mechanism for effect, see HRA screening report (Doc ref 12.6.1)

Page 33: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

27

Stage 1 Matrix 13: Coquet Island SPA

Name of European site: Coquet Island SPA

Distance to Hornsea Project Two: 242 km at nearest point

European site features Likely Effects of Project Two

Article 4.1 – Breeding

Article 4.2 - Assemblage

Habitat extent Disturbance and displacement Indirect effects Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D C O D C O D C O D

Common tern Sterna hirundo �a �a �a �a

Arctic Tern Sterna paradisaea �a �a �a �a

Roseate Tern Sterna dougallii �a �a �a �a

Sandwich Tern Sterna sandvicensis �a �a �a �a

Puffin Fratercula arctica �a �a �a �a

Black-headed Gull Larus ridibundus �a �a �a �a

Evidence to support conclusions

a. This site is located 242 km from the Project Two, beyond mean maximum foraging range for any of the features of the SPA, outside of the breeding no LSE was predicted for these species, see Annex A of the HRA screening Report (Doc Ref No 12.6.1) and Appendix I of the HRA report

Page 34: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

28

Stage 1 Matrix 14: Cromarty Firth SPA

Name of European site: Cromarty Firth SPA

Distance to Hornsea Project Two: 534 km

European site features Likely Effects of Project Two

Article 4.1 – Breeding Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Common Tern Sterna hirundo �a �a �a �a

Osprey Pandion haliaetus �a �a �a �a

Article 4.1 – Winter Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Bar-tailed Godwit Limosa lapponica �a �a �a �a

Whooper Swan Cygnus cygnus �a �a �a �a

Article 4.2 – Migratory Species (Over winter) Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Greylag Goose �a �a �a �a

Article 4.2 – Assemblage Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Redshank Tringa totanus �a �a �a �a

Curlew Numenius arquata �a �a �a �a

Dunlin Calidris alpina alpina �a �a �a �a

Knot Calidris canutus �a �a �a �a

Oystercatcher Haematopus ostralegus �a �a �a �a

Red-breasted Merganser Mergus serrator �a �a �a �a

Scaup Aythya marila �a �a �a �a

Pintail Anas acuta �a �a �a �a

Wigeon Anas penelope �a �a �a �a

Page 35: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

29

Greylag Goose Anser anser �a �a �a �a

Bar-tailed Godwit Limosa lapponica �a �a �a �a

Whooper Swan Cygnus cygnus �a �a �a �a

Evidence supporting conclusions

a. This site is located 534 km from the Project Two site, there is no potential for LSE as there is no mechanism for effects for the species listed as features of this SPA

Page 36: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

30

Stage 1 Matrix 15 Crouch and Roach Estuaries SPA and Ramsar

Name of European site: Crouch and Roach Estuaries SPA and Ramsar

Distance to PROJECT TWO 248 km

European site features Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Collision Barrier Displacement In combination effects

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Common tern ����a ����a ����a

����a

Osprey ����a ����a ����a ����a

Bar-tailed godwit ����a ����a ����a ����a

Whooper swan ����a ����a ����a ����a

Greylag goose ����a ����a ����a ����a

Redshank ����a ����a ����a ����a

Curlew ����a ����a ����a ����a

Dunlin ����a ����a ����a ����a

Knot ����a ����a ����a ����a

Oystercatcher ����a ����a ����a ����a

Red breasted merganser ����a ����a ����a ����a

Scaup ����a ����a ����a ����a

Pintail ����a ����a ����a ����a

Wigeon ����a ����a ����a ����a

Greylag goose ����a ����a ����a ����a

Barttailed godwit ����a ����a ����a ����a

Whooprt swan ����a ����a ����a ����a

Evidence supporting conclusions

Page 37: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

31

a. This site is located 248 km from the Project Two site, there is no potential for LSE as there is no mechanism for effects for the species listed as features of this SPA

Page 38: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

32

Stage 1 Matrix 16 Debden Estuary SPA

Name of European site: Denden Estuary SPA

Distance to PROJECT TWO 193 km

European site features Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Collision Barrier Displacement In combination effects

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Common tern �a �a �a

�a

Osprey �a �a �a �a

Bar-tailed godwit �a �a �a �a

Whooper swan �a �a �a �a

Greylag goose �a �a �a �a

Redshank �a �a �a �a

Curlew �a �a �a �a

Dunlin �a �a �a �a

Knot �a �a �a �a

Oystercatcher �a �a �a �a

Red breasted merganser �a �a �a �a

Scaup �a �a �a �a

Pintail �a �a �a �a

Wigeon �a �a �a �a

Greylag goose �a �a �a �a

Barttailed godwit �a �a �a �a

Whooprt swan v

Evidence supporting conclusions

Page 39: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

33

a. This site is located 193 km from the Project Two site, there is no potential for LSE as there is no mechanism for effects for the species listed as features of this SPA

Page 40: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

34

Stage 1 Matrix 17 Dengie Marshes SPA and Ramsar

Name of European site: Dengie Marshes SPA

Distance to Hornsea Project Two: 235 km

European site features Likely Effects of Project Two

Article 4.1 – Winter Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Bar-tailed Godwit Limosa lapponica �a �a �a �a

Hen Harrier Circus cyaneus �a �a �a �a

Article 4.2 – Migratory (Winter) Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Grey Plover Pluvialis squatarola �a �a �a �a

Knot Calidris canutus �a �a �a �a

Article 4.2 – Assemblage (Winter) Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Black-tailed Godwit Limosa limosa islandica �a �a �a �a

Dunlin Calidris alpina alpina �a �a �a �a

Lapwing Vanellus vanellus �a �a �a �a

Oystercatcher Haematopus ostralegus �a �a �a �a

Dark-bellied Brent Goose Branta bernicla bernicla

�a �a �a

�a

Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo �a �a �a �a

Great Crested Grebe Podiceps cristatus �a �a �a �a

Knot Calidris canutus �a �a �a �a

Grey Plover Pluvialis squatarola �a �a �a �a

Bar-tailed Godwit Limosa lapponica �a �a �a �a

Evidence supporting conclusions

Page 41: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

35

a. This site is located 193 km from the Project Two site, there is no potential for LSE as there is no mechanism for effects for the species listed as features of this SPA

Page 42: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

36

Stage 1 Matrix 18 : Dogger Bank cSAC (Annex 1 habitat features)

Name of European site: Dogger Bank cSAC

Distance to PROJECT TWO 31 km (35 km to export cable)

European site features Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Changes to habitat Changes to water quality Changes to Fishing Activity In combination effects

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time

Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Evidence supporting conclusions:

a. With regard to habitat disturbance, no potential interaction (impact pathway) and no predicted effect is anticipated on the SAC (see paragraphs 5.1.2 to 5.1.11 of HRA Screening Report). No LSE predicted for the Annex 1 habitat feature project alone or in-combination (See paragraph 5.1.55).

b. No potential interaction (impact pathway) and no predicted effect is anticipated on the SAC with regard to loss of habitat (See paragraphs 5.1.31 to 5.1.34 of HRA Screening Report), introduction of hard substrate (see paragraphs 5.1.35 to 5.1.36), habitat modification due to changes in the hydrodynamic regime (See paragraphs 5.1.37 to 5.1.43) and disturbance (See paragraphs 5.1.44 to 5.1.48) No LSE predicted for the Annex 1 habitat feature (See paragraph 5.1.55).

c. Given the distance of the SAC to the areas where increased suspended sediment and sediment deposition may occur, LSE on the feature is not anticipated to occur (see paragraphs 5.1.12 to 5.1.26 of HRA Screening Report). Also, taking into account designed-in mitigation measures and best practice approaches, LSE on the Annex I habitat feature associated with the release of sediment contaminants and/or accidental releases of pollutants is not anticipated as a result of Project Two either alone or in-combination (see paragraphs 5.1.27 to 5.1.30).

d. Taking into account designed-in mitigation measures and best practice approaches, LSE on the Annex I habitat feature associated with the release of sediment contaminants and/or accidental releases of pollutants is not anticipated as a result of Project Two, either alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.1.49 to 5.1.50 of HRA Screening Report).

e. Displacement of fishing activity will be dispersed over a large area, meaning that the specific increases in fishing activity in any one location would likely be minimal. LSEs on Annex I habitats are not anticipated as a result of Project Two either alone or in-combination (see paragraphs 5.1.51 and 5.1.52 of HRA Screening Report).

Page 43: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

37

Stage 1 Matrix 19: Dornoch Firth & Loch Fleet SPA

Name of European site: Dornoch Firth & Loch Fleet SPA

Distance to Hornsea Project Two: 538 km

European site features Likely Effects of Project Two

Article 4.1 – Breeding Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Osprey Pandion haliaetus ����a ����a ����a ����a

Article 4.1 – Winter Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Bar-tailed Godwit Limosa lapponica ����a ����a ����a ����a

Article 4.2 – Migratory Species (Over winter) Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Greylag Goose ����a ����a ����a ����a

Wigeon Anas penelope ����a ����a ����a ����a

Article 4.2 – Assemblage Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Curlew Numenius arquata ����a ����a ����a ����a

Dunlin Calidris alpina alpina ����a ����a ����a ����a

Oystercatcher Haematopus ostralegus ����a ����a ����a ����a

Teal Anas crecca ����a ����a ����a ����a

Wigeon Anas penelope ����a ����a ����a ����a

Greylag Goose Anser anser ����a ����a ����a ����a

Bar-tailed Godwit Limosa lapponica ����a ����a ����a ����a

Evidence to support conclusions

a. The site is located 538km from the Project Two site, there is no mechanism for effect on these species, see HRA screening report (PINS document reference 12.6.1)

Page 44: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

38

Stage 1 Matrix 20: East Caithness Cliffs SPA

Name of European site: East Caithness Cliffs SPA

Distance to Hornsea Project Two: 540 km

European site features Likely Effects of Project Two

Article 4.1 – Breeding Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Peregrine Falco peregrinus ����a ����a ����a ����e

Article 4.2 – Migratory Species (breeding) Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Guillemot Uria aalge ����b ����c ����d ����e

Herring Gull Larus argentatus ����f ����c ����g ����e

Kittiwake Rissa tridactyla ����h ����c ����i ����e

Razorbill Alca torda ����j ����c ����k ����e

Shag Phalacrocorax aristotelis ����l ����c ����l ����e

Article 4.2 – Assemblage Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Puffin Fratercula arctica ����m ����c ����n ����e

Great Black-backed Gull Larus marinus ����o ����c ����p ����e

Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo ����q ����c ����q ����e

Fulmar Fulmarus glacialis ����r ����c ����s ����e

Razorbill Alca torda ����j ����c ����k ����e

Guillemot Uria aalge ����b ����c ����d

����e

Kittiwake Rissa tridactyla ����h ����c ����i ����e

Herring Gull Larus argentatus ����f ����c ����g ����e

Shag Phalacrocorax aristotelis ����l ����c ����l ����e

Page 45: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

39

Evidence supporting conclusions

a. Peregrine were not recorded on any site specific surveys b. Guillemot are not a species recorded at collision risk height and therefore it is not considered there will be any potential for LSE as a result of collision effects c. The duration, magnitude and extent of impact resulting from barrier effects on SPA qualifying species are assessed as being unlikely to compromise the conservation objectives of any designated

SPA. Consequently, no LSE with respect to designated SPA interest is concluded d. The site located beyond the mean maximum foraging for this species, no LSE is predicted during the breeding season. Outside of the breeding season no LSE has been predicted, see Annex A of

the HRA screening report (Doc ref 12.6.1) and Appendix I of the HRA report. e. The site located beyond the mean maximum foraging for this species, no LSE is predicted during the breeding season. Outside of the breeding season no LSE has been predicted, see Annex A of

the HRA screening report (Doc ref 12.6.1) and Appendix I of the HRA report. f. The site located beyond the mean maximum foraging for this species, no LSE is predicted during the breeding season. Outside of the breeding season no LSE has been predicted, see Annex A of

the HRA screening report (Doc ref 12.6.1) and Appendix I of the HRA report. g. Herring gull is not considered to be a species at risk of displacement, see Ornithology Technical Report (Doc Ref No 7.2.5.1) h. The site located beyond the mean maximum foraging for this species, no LSE is predicted during the breeding season. Outside of the breeding season no LSE has been predicted, see Annex A of

the HRA screening report (Doc ref 12.6.1) and Appendix I of the HRA report. i. Kittiwake is not considered to be a species at risk of displacement, see Ornithology Technical Report (Doc Ref No 7.2.5.1) j. Razorbill fly close to the sea surface with low percentage of birds recorded at collision risk height, no potential for LSE is predicted k. The site located beyond the mean maximum foraging for this species, no LSE is predicted during the breeding season. Outside of the breeding season no LSE has been predicted, see Annex A of

the HRA screening report (Doc ref 12.6.1) and Appendix I of the HRA report. l. The site located beyond the mean maximum foraging for this species, no LSE is predicted during the breeding season. Outside of the breeding season no LSE has been predicted, see Annex A of

the HRA screening report (Doc ref 12.6.1) and Appendix I of the HRA report. m. Puffin fly close to the sea surface with low percentage of birds recorded at collision risk height, no potential for LSE is predicted n. The site located beyond the mean maximum foraging for this species, no LSE is predicted during the breeding season. Outside of the breeding season no LSE has been predicted, see Annex A of

the HRA screening report (Doc ref 12.6.1) and Appendix I of the HRA report. o. Although great black-backed gull are at risk of collision the SPA is located beyond the mean maximum foraging for this species, no LSE is predicted during the breeding season. Outside of the

breeding season no LSE has been predicted, see Annex A of the HRA screening report (Doc ref 12.6.1 and Appendix I of the HRA report). p. Great black-backed gull are not at risk of displacement, being more subject to collision effects. q. The site located beyond the mean maximum foraging for this species, no LSE is predicted during the breeding season. Outside of the breeding season no LSE has been predicted, see Annex A of

the HRA screening report (Doc ref 12.6.1

Page 46: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

40

Stage 1 Matrix 21: East Sanday Coast SPA

Name of European site: East Sanday Coast SPA

Distance to Hornsea Project Two: 640.3 km

European site features Likely Effects of Project Two

Article 4.1 Breeding birds Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Bar-tailed godwit �a �a �a �a

Article 4.2 Migratory Species Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Turnstone �a �a �a �a

Purple Sandpiper �a �a �a �a

Evidence to support conclusions

a. The site is located 629 km from the Project Two area, there is no mechanism for effect, see HRA screening report ( Doc Ref No 12.6.1)

Page 47: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

41

Stage 1 Matrix 22: Fair Isle SPA

Name of European site: Fair Isle SPA

Distance to Hornsea Project Two: 637 km

European site features Likely Effects of Project Two

Article 4.1 Breeding birds Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Arctic Tern �a �b �c �c

Fair Isle Wren �d �d �d �c

Article 4.2 Migratory Species Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Guillemot �e �b �f �c

Article 4.2 Assemblage Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Puffin �g �b �h �c

Razorbill �i �b �j �c

Kittiwake �k �b �l �c

Great Skua �m �b �n �c

Arctic Skua �o �b �p �c

Shag �q �b �q �c

Gannet �r �b �s �c

Fulmar �r �b �s �c

Guillemot �e �b �f �c

Arctic Tern �a �b �c �c

Evidence to support the conclusions

a. Migratory collision risk modelling shows no potential for LSE, see Ornithology Technical Report (Doc Ref 7.2.5.1)

Page 48: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

42

b. The duration, magnitude and extent of impact resulting from barrier effects on SPA qualifying species are assessed as being unlikely to compromise the conservation objectives of any designated SPA. Consequently, no LSE with respect to designated SPA interest is concluded

c. The site located beyond the mean maximum foraging for this species, no LSE is predicted during the breeding season. Outside of the breeding season no LSE has been predicted, see Annex A of the HRA screening report (Doc ref 12.6.1) and Appendix I of the HRA report.

d. Species not recorded during site specific surveys e. Guillemot are not a species recorded at collision risk height and therefore it is not considered there will be any potential for LSE as a result of collision effects f. The site located beyond the mean maximum foraging for this species, no LSE is predicted during the breeding season. Outside of the breeding season no LSE has been predicted, see Annex A

of the HRA screening report (Doc ref 12.6.1) and Appendix I of the HRA report. g. Puffin are not a species recorded at collision risk height and therefore it is not considered there will be any potential for LSE as a result of collision effects h. The site located beyond the mean maximum foraging for this species, no LSE is predicted during the breeding season. Outside of the breeding season no LSE has been predicted, see Annex A

of the HRA screening report (Doc ref 12.6.1) and Appendix I of the HRA report. i. Razorbill are not a species recorded at collision risk height and therefore it is not considered there will be any potential for LSE as a result of collision effects j. The site located beyond the mean maximum foraging for this species, no LSE is predicted during the breeding season. Outside of the breeding season no LSE has been predicted, see Annex A

of the HRA screening report (Doc ref 12.6.1) and Appendix I of the HRA report. k. Although a large number of kittiake were recorded at collision risk height the site located beyond the mean maximum foraging for this species, no LSE is predicted during the breeding season.

Outside of the breeding season no LSE has been predicted, see Annex A of the HRA screening report (Doc ref 12.6.1) and Appendix I of the HRA report. l. Kittiwake are not a species at risk of displacement effect, see Ornthology Technical Report (Doc Ref No 12.6.1) and Appendix I of the HRA report m. Migratory collision risk modelling shows no potential for LSE, see Ornithology Technical Report (Doc Ref 7.2.5.1) and Appendix I of the HRA report n. The duration, magnitude and extent of impact resulting from barrier effects on SPA qualifying species are assessed as being unlikely to compromise the conservation objectives of any

designated SPA. Consequently, no LSE with respect to designated SPA interest is concluded o. Migratory collision risk modelling shows no potential for LSE, see Ornithology Technical Report (Doc Ref 7.2.5.1) p. The duration, magnitude and extent of impact resulting from barrier effects on SPA qualifying species are assessed as being unlikely to compromise the conservation objectives of any

designated SPA. Consequently, no LSE with respect to designated SPA interest is concluded q. Few shag were recorded during site specific surveys r. The site located beyond the mean maximum foraging for this species, no LSE is predicted during the breeding season. Outside of the breeding season no LSE has been predicted, see Annex A

of the HRA screening report (Doc ref 12.6.1) and Appendix I of the HRA report. s. The site located beyond the mean maximum foraging for this species, no LSE is predicted during the breeding season. Outside of the breeding season no LSE has been predicted, see Annex A

of the HRA screening report (Doc ref 12.6.1) and Appendix I of the HRA report.

Page 49: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

43

Stage 1 Matrix 23: Farne Islands SPA

Name of European site: Farne Islands SPA

Distance to Hornsea Project Two: 235.8 km at nearest point

European site features Likely Effects of Project Two

Article 4.1 – Breeding

Article 4.2 - Assemblage

Habitat extent Disturbance and displacement Indirect effects Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D C O D C O D C O D

Arctic Tern Sterna paradisaea �a �a �a �a

Roseate Tern Sterna dougallii �a �a �a �a

Sandwich Tern Sterna sandvicensis �a �a �a �a

Puffin Fratercula arctica �a �a �a �a

Guillemot Uria aalge �a �a �a �a

Article 4.2 - Assemblage Habitat extent Disturbance and

displacement Indirect effects Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D C O D C O D C O D

Arctic Tern Sterna paradisaea �a �a �a �a

Roseate Tern Sterna dougallii �a �a �a �a

Sandwich Tern Sterna sandvicensis �a �a �a �a

Puffin Fratercula arctica �a �a �a �a

Guillemot Uria aalge �a �a �a �a

Kittiwake Rissa tridactyla �a �a �a �a

Shag Phalacrocorax aristotelis �a �a �a �a

Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo �a �a �a �a

Evidence to support conclusions

a. The site located beyond the mean maximum foraging for this species, no LSE is predicted during the breeding season. Outside of the breeding season no LSE has been predicted, see Annex A of

the HRA screening report (Doc ref 12.6.1) and Appendix I of the HRA report.

Page 50: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

44

Stage 1 Matrix 24 Fetlar SPA

Name of European site: Fetlar SPA

Distance to Hornsea Project Two: 739 km

European site features Likely Effects of Project Two

Article 4.1 Breeding birds Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Arctic Tern �a �a �a �a

Red-necked Phalarope �a �a �a �a

Article 4.2 Migratory Species Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Dunlin �a �a �a �a

Great Skua �a �a �a �a

Whimbrel �a �a �a �a

Article 4.2 Assemblage Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Arctic Skua �a �a �a �a

Fulmar �a �a �a �a

Great Skua �a �a �a �a

Arctic Tern �a �a �a �a

Red-necked Phalarope �a �a �a �a

Evidence to support conclusions

a. The site located beyond the mean maximum foraging for this species, no LSE is predicted during the breeding season. Outside of the breeding season no LSE has been predicted, see Annex A of

the HRA screening report (Doc ref 12.6.1) and Appendix I of the HRA report.

Page 51: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

45

Stage 1 Matrix 25: Firth of Forth SPA

Name of European site: Firth of Forth SPA

Distance to Hornsea Project Two: 337 km

European site features Likely Effects of Project Two

Article 4.1 – Breeding (Passage) Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Sandwich Tern Sterna sandvicensis �a �a �a �a

Article 4.1 – Breeding (Winter) Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Bar-tailed Godwit Limosa lapponica �a �a �a �a

Golden Plover Pluvialis apricaria �a �a �a �a

Red-throated Diver Gavia stellata �a �a �a �a

Slavonian Grebe Podiceps auritus �a �a �a �a

Article 4.2 – Migratory (Winter) Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Knot Calidris canutus �a �a �a �a

Pink-footed Goose Anser brachyrhynchus �a �a �a �a

Redshank Tringa totanus �a �a �a �a

Shelduck Tadorna tadorna �a �a �a �a

Turnstone Arenaria interpres �a �a �a �a

Evidence to support conclusions

a) The site is located 337 km from the Project Two site, there is no mechanism for effect, see HRA screening report (PINS Doc Ref 12.6.1)

Page 52: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

46

Stage 1 Matrix 26a: Firth of Tay and Eden SAC (Annex I habitat)

Name of European site: Firth of Tay and Eden SAC

Distance to PROJECT TWO: 375km

SAC Annex I habitat features Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Changes to habitat Changes to water quality Changes to fishing activity In combination effects

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Estuaries �a �a �a �b �b �b n/a �c n/a �a, b, c �a, b, c �a, b, c

Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all

the time �a �a �a �b �b �b n/a �c n/a �a, b, c �a, b, c �a, b, c

Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low

tide �a �a �a �b �b �b n/a �c n/a �a, b, c �a, b, c �a, b, c

Evidence supporting conclusions:

a. No LSE on Annex I habitat is anticipated in relation to changes in habitat associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The spatial extent of direct temporary habitat loss/disturbance effects will be highly localised, being limited to areas where works are being carried out. There is no potential for interaction, as outlined in paragraphs 5.1.2 to 5.1.11 (Construction and Decommissioning) and 5.1.31 to 5.1.48 (Operation and Maintenance) of the HRA Screening Report.

b. No LSE on Annex I habitat is anticipated in relation to changes in water quality associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The Firth of Tay and Eden SAC is located 375 km from Hornsea Project Two and increased suspended sediment and/or sediment deposition effects are not expected to extend to this range. Sufficient mitigation measures are in place for the release of contaminants/pollutants. There is no potential for interaction, as outlined in paragraphs 5.1.27 to 5.1.30 (Construction and Decommissioning) and 5.1.49 to 5.1.50 (Operation and Maintenance) of the HRA Screening Report.

c. No LSE on Annex I habitat is anticipated in relation to changes in fishing activity associated with the operation of Hornsea Project Two. It is anticipated that the potential effect of displacement of fishing activity will be dispersed over a large area, meaning that the specific increases in fishing activity in any one location would likely be minimal. See paragraphs 5.1.51 and 5.1.52 of the HRA Screening Report and Draft ES, Volume 2, Chapter 2: Subtidal and Intertidal Benthic Ecology.

Page 53: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

47

Stage 1 Matrix 26b: Firth of Tay and Eden SAC (marine mammal)

Name of European site: Firth of Tay and Eden SAC

Distance to PROJECT TWO: 375km

SAC marine mammal features

Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Behavioural disturbance/physical injury Changes to water quality Changes to prey availability In combination effects

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Harbour seal ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a

Evidence supporting conclusions:

a. No LSE on harbour seal is anticipated in relation to behavioural disturbance/physical injury, changes to water quality or changes to prey availability associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. It is considered that harbour seal populations from European sites located at distances greater than 120 km from Project Two are beyond any potential for direct and indirect effects on foraging trips, and therefore, no LSE is anticipated (see paragraph 5.3.67 of the HRA Screening Report).

Page 54: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

48

Stage 1 Matrix 27: Firth Tay & Eden Estuary SPA

Name of European site: Firth Tay & Eden Estuary SPA

Distance to Hornsea Project Two: 375 km

European site features Likely Effects of Project Two

Article 4.1 – Breeding Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Little Tern Sterna albifrons ����a ����a ����a ����a

Marsh Harrier Circus aeruginosus ����a ����a ����a ����a

Article 4.1 – Winter Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Bar-tailed Godwit Limosa lapponica ����a ����a ����a ����a

Article 4.2 – Migratory Species (Winter) Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Greylag Goose Anser anser ����a ����a ����a ����a

Pink-footed Goose Anser brachyrhynchus ����a ����a ����a ����a

Redshank Tringa totanus ����a ����a ����a ����a

Article 4.2 – Assemblage Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Velvet Scoter Melanitta fusca ����a ����a ����a ����a

Pink-footed Goose Anser brachyrhynchus ����a ����a ����a ����a

Greylag Goose Anser anser ����a ����a ����a ����a

Redshank Tringa totanus ����a ����a ����a ����a

Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo ����a ����a ����a ����a

Shelduck Tadorna tadorna ����a ����a ����a ����a

Eider Somateria mollissima ����a ����a ����a ����a

Bar-tailed Godwit Limosa lapponica ����a ����a ����a ����a

Page 55: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

49

Common Scoter Melanitta nigra ����a ����a ����a ����a

Black-tailed Godwit Limosa limosa islandica ����a ����a ����a ����a

Goldeneye Bucephala clangula ����a ����a ����a ����a

Red-breasted Merganser Mergus serrator ����a ����a ����a ����a

Goosander Mergus merganser ����a ����a ����a ����a

Oystercatcher Haematopus ostralegus ����a ����a ����a ����a

Grey Plover Pluvialis squatarola ����a ����a ����a ����a

Sanderling Calidris alba ����a ����a ����a ����a

Dunlin Calidris alpina alpina ����a ����a ����a ����a

Long-tailed duck Clangula hyemalis ����a ����a ����a ����a

Evidence supporting conclusions:

a. The site is located 375 km from the Project Two site, therefore there is no mechanism for effect. See HRA screening report (Doc Ref No 12.6.1)

Page 56: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

50

Stage 1 Matrix 28 : Flamborough Head SAC (Annex 1 habitat features)

Name of European site: Flamborough Head SAC

Distance to PROJECT TWO 94 km (47 km to export cable)

European site features Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Changed to habitat Changes to water quality Changes to Fishing Activity In combination effects

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Reefs Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Vegetated sea cliffs of the Atlantic and Baltic Coasts Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Submerged or partially submerged sea caves Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Evidence supporting conclusions:

a. With regard to habitat disturbance, no potential interaction (impact pathway) and no predicted effect is anticipated on the SAC (see paragraphs 5.1.2 to 5.1.11 of HRA Screening Report). No LSE predicted for the Annex 1 habitat feature project alone or in-combination (See paragraph 5.1.55).

b. No potential interaction (impact pathway) and no predicted effect is anticipated on the SAC with regard to loss of habitat (See paragraphs 5.1.31 to 5.1.34 of HRA Screening Report), introduction of hard substrate (see paragraphs 5.1.35 to 5.1.36), habitat modification due to changes in the hydrodynamic regime (See paragraphs 5.1.37 to 5.1.43) and disturbance (See paragraphs 5.1.44 to 5.1.48) No LSE predicted for the Annex 1 habitat feature (See paragraph 5.1.55).

c. Given the distance of the SAC to the areas where increased suspended sediment and sediment deposition may occur, LSE on the feature is not anticipated to occur (see paragraphs 5.1.12 to 5.1.26 of HRA Screening Report). Also, taking into account designed-in mitigation measures and best practice approaches, LSE on the Annex I habitat feature associated with the release of sediment contaminants and/or accidental releases of pollutants is not anticipated as a result of Project Two either alone or in-combination (see paragraphs 5.1.27 to 5.1.30).

d. Taking into account designed-in mitigation measures and best practice approaches, LSE on the Annex I habitat feature associated with the release of sediment contaminants and/or accidental releases of pollutants is not anticipated as a result of Project Two, either alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.1.49 to 5.1.50 of HRA Screening Report).

e. Displacement of fishing activity will be dispersed over a large area, meaning that the specific increases in fishing activity in any one location would likely be minimal. LSEs on Annex I habitats are not anticipated as a result of Project Two either alone or in-combination (see paragraphs 5.1.51 and 5.1.52 of HRA Screening Report).

Page 57: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

51

Stage 1 Matrix 29: Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA

Name of European site: Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA

Distance to Hornsea Project Two: 51.2 km (cable route) 97km from edge of Subzone 2

European site features Likely Effects of Project Two

Article 4.2 – Migratory (Breeding) Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Kittiwake Rissa tridactyla ����a ����b X c ����v

Razorbill Alca torda ����d ����e ����f ����v

Guillemot Uria aalge ����g ����h ����i ����v

Gannet Morus bassanus ����j ����k ����l ����v

Article 4.2 – Assemblage Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Puffin Fratercula arctica ����m ����n ����o ����v

Razorbill Alca torda ����d ����e ����f ����v

Guillemot Uria aalge ����g ����h ����i ����v

Herring Gull Larus argentatus X p ����q ����r X p

Gannet Morus bassanus ����j ����k ����l ����v

Kittiwake Rissa tridactyla ����a ����b X c ����v

Fulmar Fulmaris glacialis ����s ����t ����u ����v

Evidence to support conclusions

a. A large number of kittiwakes were recorded in site specific surveys with peak numbers during July, August and September. Of those in flight the large majority were below 22.5m. The SPA is outwith the mean maximum foraging range for kittiwake but within the maximum foraging range during the breeding season and therefore birds at this site may occur within the development area. Outwith the breeding season numbers recorded were lower but birds from this SPA may disperse widely.

b. The SPA is within the maximum foraging range for kittiwake during the breeding season and therefore regularly barrier effects may occur during this period. However, the distance from the breeding colony is at the far end of reported foraging range (Thaxter et al. 2012) and therefore barrier effects are not predicted to be significant. Furthermore, evidence from existing wind farms have not reported any barrier effects on kittiwakes (e.g. Zucco et al. 2006). During migration birds will be able to fly around the proposed development estimated as being up to 36 km without causing a significant increase in overall distance flown.

Page 58: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

52

c. Kittiwake is a species not at risk from displacement, being more at risk from collision effects, therefore no LSE is predicted.

d. . The majority of razorbill recorded during site specific surveys were below rotor height and therefore not at risk of collision.

e. The SPA is beyond the mean maximum foraging range for razorbill during the breeding season and therefore no regularly barrier effects will occur during this period. During migration birds will be able to fly around the proposed development estimated as being up to 36 km without causing a significant increase in overall distance flown.

f. Some evidence from constructed offshore wind farms indicates that razorbills may be displaced (e.g. Zucco et al. 2006; Petersen et al. 2006). There is therefore the potential for a likely significant effect from displacement outwith the breeding season. Screening identified a potential likely significant effect alone and/or in combination.

g. The majority of guillemot recorded during site specific surveys were below rotor height and therefore not at risk of collision.

h. The SPA is outwith the maximum foraging range for guillemot during the breeding season and therefore no regularly barrier effects will occur during this period. During migration birds will be able to fly around the proposed development estimated as being up to 36 km without causing a significant increase in overall distance flown.

i. Some evidence from constructed offshore wind farms indicates that guillemots may be displaced (e.g. Petersen et al. 2006). There is therefore the potential for a likely significant effect outwith the breeding season. The HRA screening report identified a potential likely significant effect alone and/or in combination.

j. The SPA is within the mean maximum foraging range for gannet during the breeding season and therefore birds at this site may occur in the area but at a low risk of being impacted. Outwith the breeding season gannets from this SPA may disperse widely. Collision risk modelling predicted some mortality may be from this SPA and therefore there is potential for LSE on this feature.

k. The SPA is within the mean-maximum foraging range for gannet during the breeding season and therefore barrier effects may occur. The additional estimated distance of up to 36 km will, if a barrier effect does occur, be a very small incremental increase in overall distance flown and therefore not cause a significant increase in energetic costs.

l. There is little evidence from constructed offshore wind farms on whether gannets may be displaced or not. However, should it occur the overall area of displacement would be relatively small for this widespread pelagic species and the survey results indicate that that the proposed development area is not proportionally of greater importance to gannet compared to elsewhere. However, the proximity of this SPA to the proposed development area indicates that there may be the potential for a significant effect.

m. A total of 2,495 puffins were recorded in Year 1 and 4,733 in Year 2. Peak numbers occurred from August to October. Of those recorded in flight all were below rotor height and therefore not at risk of collision.

n. The SPA is outwith the maximum foraging range for puffin during the breeding season and therefore no regularly barrier effects will occur during this period. During migration birds will be able to fly around the proposed development estimated as being up to 36 km without causing a significant increase in overall distance flown.

o. There is little evidence from constructed offshore wind farms on whether puffins may be displaced or not. However, should it occur there is the potential for a likely significant effect outwith the breeding season. Screening (Annex A and Table 4.3 of the HRA Report (Doc ref No 12.6)) identified a potential likely significant effect alone and/or in combination.

Page 59: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

53

p. A total of 940 herring gulls were recorded in flight, of which 73.9% were below rotor height. Collision risk modelling predicts on average up to 63 collisions per year in Hornsea Project Two (at a 98% avoidance rate). The SPA is outwith the mean maximum foraging range for herring gull during the breeding season and therefore birds at this site are at low risk of being impacted. Outwith the breeding season numbers recorded were higher and birds from this SPA may disperse widely. Birds from this SPA will not be at risk of a significant impact either alone or in-combination with other potential future developments. The HRA screening report identified a no likely significant effect alone and/or in combination.

q. The SPA is outwith the mean maximum foraging range for herring gull during the breeding season and therefore no regularly barrier effects will occur during this period. During migration birds will be able to fly around the proposed development estimated as being up to 36 km without causing a significant increase in overall distance flown.

r. Evidence from constructed offshore wind farms indicate that herring gulls are not displaced by wind farms (Petersen et al. 2006).

s. A total of 6,608 fulmars were recorded in Year 1 and 8,300 in Year 2; with peak numbers in May. Of those in flight 99.9% were below 22.5 m and therefore not at risk of collision. Collision risk modelling predicted zero collisions. Therefore the risk is very low.

t. The SPA is within the mean maximum foraging range for fulmar during the breeding season and therefore barrier effects may potentially occur. However, the additional estimated foraging distance of up to 36 km will, if a barrier effect occurs, be a small incremental increase in overall distance flown by this highly pelagic species.

u. There is little evidence from constructed offshore wind farms on whether fulmars may be displaced or not. However, should it occur the overall area displaced would be relatively small for this widespread pelagic species. Nevertheless, due to the proximity of this SPA population to Project Two, this cannot be ruled out.

v. In-combination LSE informed by the footnotes above for the individual receptors. Additional information to support the conclusions made with regard to the in-combination LSE screening is presented in the HRA report, paragraphs 4.3.213 et seq. of the HRA Report (Doc ref No 12.6) for Collision Effects, paragraphs 4.3.224 et seq. for Displacement Effects and paragraphs 4.3.229 et seq. for Barrier Effects.

Page 60: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

54

Stage 1 Matrix 29a: Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs SPA

Name of European site: Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA

Distance to Hornsea Project Two: 51.2 km (cable route) 99km from edge of Subzone 2

European site features Likely Effects of Project Two

Article 4.2 – Migratory (Breeding) Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Kittiwake Rissa tridactyla ����a ����b X c ����d

a. A large number of kittiwakes were recorded in site specific surveys with peak numbers during July, August and September. Of those in flight the large majority were below 22.5m. The SPA is outwith the mean maximum foraging range for kittiwake but within the maximum foraging range during the breeding season and therefore birds at this site may occur within the development area. Outwith the breeding season numbers recorded were lower but birds from this SPA may disperse widely.

b. The SPA is within the maximum foraging range for kittiwake during the breeding season and therefore regularly barrier effects may occur during this period. However, the distance from the breeding colony is at the far end of reported foraging range (Thaxter et al. 2012) and therefore barrier effects are not predicted to be significant. Furthermore, evidence from existing wind farms have not reported any barrier effects on kittiwakes (e.g. Zucco et al. 2006). During migration birds will be able to fly around the proposed development estimated as being up to 36 km without causing a significant increase in overall distance flown.

c. Kittiwake is a species not at risk from displacement, being more at risk from collision effects, therefore no LSE is predicted

d. In-combination LSE informed by the footnotes. Additional information to support the conclusions made with regard to the in-combination LSE screening is presented in the HRA report, paragraphs

4.3.213 et seq. of the HRA Report (Doc ref No 12.6) for Collision Effects, paragraphs 4.3.224 et seq. for Displacement Effects and paragraphs 4.3.229 et seq. for Barrier Effects.

Page 61: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

55

Stage 1 Matrix 30: Forth Islands SPA

Name of European site: Forth Islands SPA

Distance to Hornsea Project Two: 345 km

European site features Likely Effects of Project Two

Article 4.1 – Breeding Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Arctic Tern Sterna paradisaea �a �a �a �a

Common Tern Sterna hirundo �a �a �a �a

Roseate Tern Sterna dougallii �a �a �a �a

Sandwich Tern Sterna sandvicensis �a �a �a �a

Article 4.2 – Migratory Species Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Gannet Morus bassanus �a �a �a �a

Lesser Black-backed Gull Larus fuscus �a �a �a �a

Puffin Fratercula arctica �a �a �a �a

Shag Phalacrocorax aristotelis �a �a �a �a

Article 4.2 – Assemblage Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Razorbill Alca torda �a �a �a �a

Guillemot Uria aalge �a �a �a �a

Kittiwake Rissa tridactyla �a �a �a �a

Herring Gull Larus argentatus �a �a �a �a

Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo �a �a �a �a

Fulmar Fulmarus glacialis �b X b �b �b

Puffin Fratercula arctica �a �a �a �a

Lesser Black-backed Gull Larus fuscus �a �a �a �a

Page 62: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

56

Shag Phalacrocorax aristotelis �a �a �a �a

Gannet Morus bassanus �i �j �k �ee

Arctic Tern Sterna paradisaea �a �b �c �ee

Common Tern Sterna hirundo �d �e �c �ee

Roseate Tern Sterna dougallii �g �g �g �ee

Sandwich Tern Sterna sandvicensis �h �i �j �ee

Evidence to support conclusions

a. The site located beyond the mean maximum foraging for this species, no LSE is predicted during the breeding season. Outside of the breeding season no LSE has been predicted, see Annex A of the HRA screening report (Doc ref 12.6.1) and Appendix I of the HRA report.

b. The Project Two site is within mean-maximum foraging range for the species (400km Thaxter et al; 2012) and therefore there maybe potential connectivity with the Project Site and potential for LSE.

Page 63: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

57

Stage 1 Matrix 31: Foula SPA

Name of European site: Foula SPA

Distance to Hornsea Project Two: 709 km

European site features Likely Effects of Project Two

Article 4.1 Breeding birds Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Arctic Tern �a �a �a �a

Leach's Storm-petrel �a �a �a �a

Red-throated Diver �a �a �a �a

Article 4.2 Migratory Species Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Great Skua �a �a �a �a

Guillemot �a �a �a �a

Puffin �a �a �a �a

Shag �a �a �a �a

Article 4.2 Assemblage Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Leach's Storm-petrel �a �a �a �a

Razorbill �a �a �a �a

Kittiwake �a �a �a �a

Arctic Skua �a �a �a �a

Fulmar �a �a �a �a

Puffin �a �a �a �a

Guillemot �a �a �a �a

Great Skua �a �a �a �a

Shag �a �a �a �a

Page 64: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

58

Arctic Tern �a �b �c �dd

Evidence to support conclusions

a. The site located beyond the mean maximum foraging for this species, no LSE is predicted during the breeding season. Outside of the breeding season no LSE has been predicted, see Annex A of the HRA screening report (Doc ref 12.6.1) and Appendix I of the HRA report.

Page 65: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

59

Stage 1 Matrix 32: Foulness SPA

Name of European site: Foulness SPA

Distance to Hornsea Project Two: 244 km

European site features Likely Effects of Project Two

Article 4.1 – Breeding Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Avocet Recurvirostra avosetta �a �a �a Xa

Common Tern Sterna hirundo �a �a �a Xa

Little Tern Sterna albifrons �a �a �a Xa

Sandwich Tern Sterna sandvicensis �a �a �a Xa

Ringed Plover Charadrius hiaticula �a �a �a Xa

Article 4.1 – Winter Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Avocet Recurvirostra avosetta �a �a �a Xa

Bar-tailed Godwit Limosa lapponica �a �a �a Xa

Golden Plover Pluvialis apricaria �a �a �a Xa

Hen Harrier Circus cyaneus �a �a �a Xa

Article 4.2 – Migratory (Winter on passage) Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Redshank Tringa totanus �a �a �a Xa

Article 4.2 – Migratory (Over winter) Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Dark-bellied Brent Goose Branta bernicla bernicla,

�a �a �a

Xa

Grey Plover Pluvialis squatarola, �a �a �a Xa

Knot Calidris canutus, �a �a �a Xa

Page 66: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

60

Oystercatcher Haematopus ostralegus �a �a �a Xa

Article 4.2 – Assemblage (Winter) Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Redshank Tringa totanus �a �a �a Xa

Curlew Numenius arquata �a �a �a Xa

Black-tailed Godwit Limosa limosa islandica �a �a �a Xa

Dunlin Calidris alpina alpina �a �a �a Xa

Lapwing Vanellus vanellus �a �a �a Xa

Wigeon Anas penelope �a �a �a Xa

Shelduck Tadorna tadorna �a �a �a Xa

Little Grebe Tachybaptus ruficollis �a �a �a Xa

Knot Calidris canutus �a �a �a Xa

Grey Plover Pluvialis squatarola �a �a �a Xa

Oystercatcher Haematopus ostralegus �a �a �a Xa

Dark-bellied Brent Goose Branta bernicla bernicla

�a �a �a

Xa

Bar-tailed Godwit Limosa lapponica �a �a �a Xa

Golden Plover Pluvialis apricaria �a �a �a Xa

Avocet Recurvirostra avosetta �a �a �a Xa

Evidence to support conclusions

a. The site is located 244km from the Project Two site, there is no mechanism for effect, see the HRA Screening Report (PINS Document reference 12.6.1)

Page 67: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

61

Stage 1 Matrix 33: Fowlsheugh SPA

Name of European site: Fowlsheugh SPA

Distance to Hornsea Project Two: 380.3 km

European site features Likely Effects of Project Two

Article 4.2 – Migratory Species (Breeding) Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Guillemot Uria aalge �a �a �a Xa

Kittiwake Rissa tridactyla �a �a �a Xa

Article 4.2 – Assemblage Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Razorbill Alca torda �a �a �a Xa

Herring Gull Larus argentatus �a �a �a Xa

Fulmar Fulmarus glacialis �b X b �b �b

Guillemot Uria aalge �a �a �a Xa

Kittiwake Rissa tridactyla �a �a �a Xa

Evidence to support conclusions

a. The site located beyond the mean maximum foraging for this species, no LSE is predicted during the breeding season. Outside of the breeding season no LSE has been predicted, see Annex A of the HRA screening report (Doc ref 12.6.1) and Appendix I of the HRA report.

b. The Project Two site is within mean-maximum foraging range for the species (400km Thaxter et al; 2012) and therefore there maybe potential connectivity with the Project Site and potential for LSE.

Page 68: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

62

Stage 1 Matrix 34: Hamford Water SPA

Name of European site: Hamford Water SPA

Distance to Hornsea Project Two: 213 km

European site features Likely Effects of Project Two

Article 4.1 – Breeding Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Little Tern Sterna albifrons �a �a �a Xa

Article 4.1 – Winter Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Avocet Recurvirostra avosetta �a �a �a Xa

Golden Plover Pluvialis apricaria �a �a �a Xa

Ruff Philomachus pugnax �a �a �a Xa

Article 4.2 – Migratory (On passage) Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Ringed Plover Charadrius hiaticula �a �a �a Xa

Article 4.2 – Migratory (Over winter) Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Black-tailed Godwit Limosa limosa islandica �a �a �a Xa

Dark-bellied Brent Goose Branta bernicla bernicla

�a �a �a

Xa

Grey Plover Pluvialis squatarola �a �a �a Xa

Ringed Plover Charadrius hiaticula �a �a �a Xa

Teal Anas crecca �a �a �a Xa

Article 4.2 – Assemblage (Winter) Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Redshank Tringa totanus �a �a �a Xa

Page 69: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

63

Dunlin Calidris alpina alpina �a �a �a Xa

Lapwing Vanellus vanellus �a �a �a Xa

Wigeon Anas penelope �a �a �a Xa

Shelduck Tadorna tadorna �a �a �a Xa

Black-tailed Godwit Limosa limosa islandica �a �a �a Xa

Grey Plover Pluvialis squatarola �a �a �a Xa

Ringed Plover Charadrius hiaticula �a �a �a Xa

Teal Anas crecca �a �a �a Xa

Dark-bellied Brent Goose Branta bernicla bernicla

�a �a �a

Xa

Ruff Philomachus pugnax �a �a �a Xa

Golden Plover Pluvialis apricaria �a �a �a Xa

Avocet Recurvirostra avosetta �a �a �a Xa

Evidence to support conclusions

a) The site is located 213km from the Project Two site, there is no mechanism for effect, see the HRA Screening Report (PINS Document reference 12.6.1)

Page 70: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

64

Stage 1 Matrix 35: Hermaness Saxa Vord & Valla Field SPA

Name of European site: Hermaness Saxa Vord & Valla Field SPA

Distance to Hornsea Project Two: 761 km

European site features Likely Effects of Project Two

Article 4.1 Breeding birds Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination effects

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Red-throated diver ����a ����a ����a Xa

Article 4.2 Migratory Species Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination effects

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Gannet ����a ����a ����a Xa

Great skua ����a ����a ����a Xa

Puffin ����a ����a ����a Xa

Article 4.2 Assemblage Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination effects

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Guillemot ����a ����a ����a Xa

Kittiwake ����a ����a ����a Xa

Shag ����a ����a ����a Xa

Fulmar ����a ����a ����a Xa

Gannet ����a ����a ����a Xa

Great skua ����a ����a ����a Xa

Puffin ����a ����a ����a Xa

Evidence to support conclusions

a) The site located beyond the mean maximum foraging for this species, no LSE is predicted during the breeding season. Outside of the breeding season no LSE has been predicted, see Annex A of the HRA screening report (Doc ref 12.6.1) and Appendix I of the HRA report.

Page 71: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

65

Stage 1 Matrix 36: Hornsea Mere SPA

Name of European site: Hornsea Mere SPA

Distance to Hornsea Project Two: 106 km

European site features Likely Effects of Project Two

Article 4.2 – Migratory Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Gadwall �a �a �a �a

Mute swan �a �a �a �a

Evidence to support conclusions

a) The site is located 106km from the Project Two site, there is no mechanism for effect, see the HRA Screening Report (PINS Document reference 12.6.1)

Page 72: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

66

Stage 1 Matrix 37: Hoy SPA

Name of European site: Hoy SPA

Distance to Hornsea Project Two: 603 km

European site features Likely Effects of Project Two

Article 4.1 Breeding Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Peregrine Falco peregrinus �a �a �a �a

Red-throated Diver Gavia stellata �a �a �a �a

Article 4.2 – Migratory Species (br) Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Great Skua Catharacta skua �a �a �a �a

Article 4.2 – Assemblage Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Puffin Fratercula arctica �a �a �a �a

Guillemot Uria aalge �a �a �a �a

Kittiwake Rissa tridactyla �a �a �a �a

Great Black-backed Gull Larus marinus �a �a �a �a

Arctic Skua Stercorarius parasiticus �a �a �a �a

Fulmar Fulmarus glacialis �a �a �a �a

Great Skua Catharacta skua �e �f �g �w

Evidence to support conclusions

a) The site located beyond the mean maximum foraging for this species, no LSE is predicted during the breeding season. Outside of the breeding season no LSE has been predicted, see Annex A of the HRA screening report (Doc ref 12.6.1) and Appendix I of the HRA report.

Page 73: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

67

Stage 1 Matrix 38a : Humber Estuary Ramsar (Annex 1 habitat features)

Name of European site: Humber Estuary Ramsar

Distance to PROJECT TWO 89 km (0 km to export cable)

European site features Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Changes to habitat Changes to water quality Changes to Fishing Activity In combination effects

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Dune systems and humid dune slacks �b Xc, d, e, f Xi �g Xh Xi Xj �b, g Xc, d, e, f,

h, j Xi

Estuarine waters �a Xc, d, e, f Xi �g Xh Xi Xj �a, g Xc, d, e, f,

h, j Xi

Intertidal mud and sand flats �a Xc, d, e, f Xi �g Xh Xi Xj �a, g Xc, d, e, f,

h, j Xi

Saltmarshes �a Xc, d, e, f Xi �g Xh Xi Xj �a, g Xc, d, e, f,

h, j Xi

Coastal brackish/saline lagoons �a Xc, d, e, f Xi �g Xh Xi Xj �a, g Xc, d, e, f,

h, j Xi

Evidence supporting conclusions: a. The inshore section of the export cable corridor overlaps with the subtidal area of the Humber Estuary SAC and Ramsar. The spatial extent of direct temporary habitat loss/disturbance effects will be

highly localised, being limited to areas where works are being carried out. With regard to subtidal Annex I habitat features of the Humber Estuary SAC and Ramsar, LSEs cannot be ruled out at this stage as a result of Project Two either alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.1.2 to 5.1.3 of HRA Screening Report). With regard to intertidal habitats, direct temporary disturbance will occur as a result of ploughing/jetting/trenching to install export cables LSEs associated with this potential impact on the Annex I habitat cannot be ruled out at this stage as a result of Project Two either alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.1.4 to 5.1.9 of HRA Screening Report).

b. Annex I sand dune habitats of the Humber Estuary SAC and Ramsar may be affected as a result of access arrangements to the intertidal areas during the construction phase. LSE cannot be ruled out at this stage as a result of Project Two either alone or in-combination with other plans or projects (See paragraphs 5.1.4 to 5.1.9 of HRA Screening Report).

c. No loss of habitat during Operation and Maintenance. Rock placement and other forms of hard cable protection (i.e., concrete mattressing) resulting in long term habitat loss will not be used in subtidal parts of the Humber Estuary SAC and Ramsar. In the event that the required cable burial depths cannot be achieved in this area, frond mattressing would be used to protect the cable. The resulting habitat loss for using frond mattressing will be temporary rather than long term, due to the accretion of sediment and the recovery of communities into this. No LSEs associated with a permanent loss of seabed habitat are anticipated as a result of Project Two, either alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.1.31 to 5.1.34 of HRA Screening Report).

d. No LSEs as a result of Project Two is anticipated to occur on Annex I habitats as a result of changes in the hydrodynamic regime alone or in-combination (See Paragraphs 5.1.37 to 5.1.43). e. No LSE identified for disturbance during Operation and Maintenance. Routine inspections of the cables in the intertidal will be carried out during the operation and maintenance phase. Disturbance to

intertidal habitats from inspection access will occur predominantly to “mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide” and “Salicornia and other annuals colonising mud and sand” Annex I habitats of the Humber Estuary SAC and Ramsar (See paragraphs 5.1.46 to 5.1.47 of HRA Screening Report). In addition, it is anticipated that a short term temporary disturbance associated with

Page 74: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

68

maintenance access along the southern access route may occur on sand dune habitats (See paragraphs 5.1.46 to 5.1.47). Whilst an impact pathway has been identified, any effect on habitat features will be highly localised, short term, intermittent and reversible and therefore, significant effects are not to be expected on these habitats. LSEs on Annex I habitats are therefore not predicted as a result of Project Two, either alone or in-combination with other plans or projects are not anticipated due to disturbance during operation (See 5.1.44 to 5.1.48).

f. No potential effect pathway has been identified with regard to changes in the benthic community resulting from introduction of hard substrate. Rock placement and other forms of hard cable protection (i.e., concrete mattressing) will not be used in the subtidal section of the export cable corridor, which runs across the Humber Estuary SAC and Ramsar. Therefore LSEs are not anticipated as a result of Project Two, either alone or in-combination with other plans or projects on the Annex I habitat (See paragraphs 5.1.35 to 5.1.36 of HRA Screening Report).

g. The Humber Estuary SAC and Ramsar overlaps with the zone of influence of potential effects associated with increased suspended sediment and sediment deposition from the intertidal works. Therefore, a LSE as a result of Project Two, cannot be ruled out (See paragraphs 5.1.21 to 5.1.26 of HRA Screening Report).

h. Taking into account designed-in mitigation measures and best practice approaches, LSE on the Annex I habitat feature associated with the release of sediment contaminants and/or accidental releases of pollutants is not anticipated as a result of Project Two, either alone or in-combination for any phase of the project (See paragraphs 5.1.27 to 5.1.30 and 5.1.49 to 5.1.50 of HRA Screening Report).

i. After the operational phase, cables will more likely be left in situ, as such no LSEs associated with the removal of cables are anticipated during the decommission phase (See paragraphs 5.1.26 and 5.1.53) of HRA Screening Report).

j. Displacement of fishing activity will be dispersed over a large area, meaning that the specific increases in fishing activity in any one location would likely be minimal. LSEs on Annex I habitats are not anticipated as a result of Project Two either alone or in-combination (see paragraphs 5.1.51 and 5.1.52 of HRA Screening Report).

Page 75: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

69

Stage 1 Matrix 38b : Humber Estuary Ramsar (migratory fish features)

Name of European site: Humber Estuary Ramsar

Distance to PROJECT TWO 89 km (0 km to export cable

European site features Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Behavioural disturbance/physical injury

Changes to water quality Changes to habitat Changes in fishing activity In combination effects

C O D C O D C O D C O D C O D

River lamprey Lampetra fluviatilis Xa �b Xa �c Xd Xe Xf Xg �c �b Xa, e

Sea lamprey Petromyzon marinus Xa �b Xa �c Xd Xe Xf Xg �c �b Xa, e

Evidence supporting conclusions a. Disturbance will be limited to the immediate proximity of the inshore section of the export cable corridor covering a small spatial scale (See paragraph 5.2.7). The species are highly mobile and have

wide distribution ranges, being able to relocate and use equally suitable feeding areas in adjacent undisturbed locations. Whilst the lamprey populations of the Humber Estuary SAC are expected to be potentially directly affected by cable laying operations, a significant temporary loss of feeding grounds is not anticipated and No LSE is predicted with regard to disturbance (See paragraphs 5.2.6 and 5.2.7 of HRA Screening Report). Although there is potential for interaction between Annex II species and construction noise, this would be expected to be insignificant given the location of Subzone 2 and the HVAC reactive compensation substations relative to likely migratory routes and the habitat use of the species (See paragraphs 5.2.15 to 5.2.17). No LSEs associated with construction noise are anticipated (See paragraph 5.2.17)

b. Based upon the location of the Humber Estuary SAC, there is potential for an increased interaction between EMFs and lamprey populations, as these may transit the inshore section of the export cable during migration into and out of the Humber Estuary (See paragaphs 5.2.29 to 5.2.33 of HRA Screening Report). As such, a LSE as a result of Project Two, either alone or in combination cannot be ruled out at this stage (See paragraph 5.2.33). Levels of noise associated with Operation noise are low and the spatial extent of the potential impact is generally small and thus unlikely to result in any injury to fish (See paragraph 5.2.25). Any behavioural effects to occur on fish, would be limited to the immediate vicinity of the turbines or vessels (See paragraphs 5.2.25 to 5.2.27). No LSEs are anticipated due to operational noise (See paragraph 5.2.28). Whilst the lamprey populations of the Humber Estuary SAC are expected to be potentially directly affected by cable laying operations, a significant temporary loss of feeding grounds is not anticipated and No LSE is predicted with regard to disturbance (See paragraphs 5.2.34 to 5.2.36).

c. In respect of elevated suspended sediment concentrations, lamprey populations of the Humber Estuary SAC may be disturbed during migration along the estuary and its vicinity in relation to export cable installation activities. A LSE as a result of Project Two, either alone or in-combination cannot be ruled out at this stage (See paragraphs 5.2.8 to 5.2.12 of HRA Screening Report).

d. With regard to the release of sediment contaminants and accidental pollution events, a number of mitigation measures and best practice approaches will be implemented during the Operation phase (See paragraphs 5.2.37 and 5.2.38 of HRA Screening Report). No LSE is anticipated with regard to this during Operation.

e. Cables will likely be left in situ during decommissioning and therefore no LSEs associated with increased suspended sediment are anticipated to occur during this phase as a result of Project Two either alone or in-combination with other plans or projects (See paragraph 5.2.12 of HRA Screening Report). With regard to the release of sediment contaminants and accidental pollution events, mitigation measures and best practice approaches will be implemented during the Construction/Decommissioning phases to reduce potential impacts associated with pollution events (See paragraphs 5.2.13 and 5.2.14) and no LSE is anticipated(See paragraph 5.2.14).

f. Cable protection measures resulting in long term habitat loss (e.g., rock placement) will not be used in the area. Therefore a significant long term habitat loss is not anticipated to occur on Annex II migratory fish populations which transit the Humber Estuary (See paragraphs 5.2.18 to 5.2.20 of HRA Screening Report). Whilst there is a potential interaction (impact pathway) with Annex II migratory fish, this is anticipated to be very limited in the context of the wide habitat available to this species and therefore a LSE as a result of Project Two, either alone or in-combination is not anticipated (See paragraph 5.2.20). In respect of the introduction of hard substrate, this may indirectly have a localised effect on fish species, with the potential to act as an artificial reef and bring changes to food resources or result in a fish aggregation device (See paragraph 5.2.21). No LSEs have been identified with regard to the introduction of hard substrate (See paragraphs 5.2.21 to 5.2.23).

Page 76: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

70

g. The potential effect of displacement of fishing activity will be dispersed over a large area, meaning that the specific increases in fishing activity in any one location would likely be minimal on benthic habitats. Furthermore, Annex II migratory fish species rarely caught by the fishing methods used in the Project Two area, and therefore, if fishing effort is displaced into other areas the potential impact on these species would be minimal (See paragraphs 5.2.39 to 5.2.42 of HRA Screening Report). Therefore, no LSEs have been identified for Project Two alone or in-combination (See paragraph 5.2.42).

Page 77: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

71

Stage 1 Matrix 38c : Humber Estuary Ramsar (marine mammal features)

Name of European site: Humber Estuary Ramsar

Distance to PROJECT TWO 89 km (0 km to export cable

European site features Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Behavioural disturbance/Physical injury Changes to water quality Changes in prey availability In combination effects

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Grey seal Halichoerus grypus �c Xb, c Xd Xe Xe Xe Xf Xg Xf �c Xb, c, e, g Xd, e, f

Evidence supporting conclusions a. There is potential for a LSE in respect of behavioural disturbance associated with construction pilling for up to five years. No LSEs have been identified with regard to vessel noise (See paragraphs

5.3.10). With regard to collision risk during Construction, due to the overlap of the export cable route corridor with the Humber Estuary SAC, the SAC lies within the 30 NM risk zone that JNCC guidelines detail. The Developer will follow best practice in line with latest JNCC guidance which recommends to give consideration to alternatives to the use of ducted propellers and/or avoid the breeding season if possible. Whether mitigation options are required, these will be discussed through consultation with SNCBs (See paragraphs 5.3.13 to 5.3.20). No LSEs are anticipated in this respect as a result of Project Two, either alone or in-combination with other plans and projects (See paragraph 5.3.20).

b. With regard to operational underwater turbine noise a behavioural response is only likely within close proximity to turbines and no LSE is predicted (See paragraphs 5.3.36 to 5.3.39 of HRA Screening Report). Given the anticipated localised effects of disturbance associated with vessel traffic and the wide distribution range of Annex II marine mammals species, any impacts would be expected to be very limited and LSEs on marine mammals associated with vessel noise are not anticipated alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.3.41 to 5.3.43). EMF effects will be localised within the immediate vicinity of the cables and no LSEs are predicted either alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.3.51 to 5.3.54).

c. With regard to collision risk, in the particular case of operation and maintenance work within the cable route corridor, vessel activity could potentially occur within 4NM of the Humber Estuary SAC, which would represent a medium risk to seals. Consideration of mitigation measures such as using vessels without ducted propellers or avoiding activities during the grey seal breeding season may be required, and these will be discussed through consultation with SNCBs. No LSEs are predicted either alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.3.44 to 5.3.50).

d. During decommissioning piling will not be required. The noise resulting from wind turbine decommissioning is unlikely to result in any injury, avoidance or significant disturbance to marine mammals and no LSE is predicted either alone or in-combination (see paragraph 5.3.9 of HRA Screening Report). As per Construction, No LSEs have been identified with regard to vessel noise (See paragraphs 5.3.10) and collision risk (See paragraphs 5.3.13 to 5.3.20) during Decommissioning.

e. During Construction and Decommissioning, potential impacts associated with increased suspended sediment concentrations will be short term, intermittent and localised. Marine mammals frequently occur in relatively turbid areas and therefore are adapted to find prey in such conditions. Furthermore, they possess mechanisms to detect prey through means other than visual detection (See paragraphs 5.3.21 to 5.3.25 of HRA Screening Report). No LSE is predicted with regard to increased suspended sediment concentrations either alone or in-combination(See paragraph 5.3.25). A number of mitigation measures and best practice approaches will be implemented during the Construction and Decommissioning and Operation phases to mitigate potential impacts associated with potential accidental pollution events. Taking adherence to such approaches, LSEs on Annex II marine mammal qualifying features associated with accidental release of pollutants are not anticipated to arise during any phase of the Project (See paragraphs 5.3.26 to 5.3.28 and 5.3.55 to 5.3.56).

f. During Construction and Decommissioning, potential impacts on prey species have been identified with regard to habitat disturbance, increased suspended sediments and underwater noise for prey species (See paragraphs 5.3.29 to 5.3.35 of HRA Screening Report). No potential impacts have been identified with regard to accidental pollution events (See paragraph 5.3.34) Whilst an impact pathway has been identified, the potential loss of prey as a result of Project Two would be expected to be minimal. The potential impacts identified on fish receptors will be localised, short term and reversible. Furthermore, the fish community found in Project Two is characteristic of the fish and shellfish assemblage of the wider region and therefore marine mammals would be able to exploit similar resources in adjacent undisturbed areas. As such, LSEs associated with changes in prey availability are not anticipated to arise as a result of Project Two, either alone or in-combination with other plans and projects (See paragraph 5.3.35).

g. Whilst an impact pathway has been identified (See paragraphs 5.3.57 to 5.3.61 of HRA Screening Report), the potential loss of prey as a result of Project Two during Operation would be expected to be minimal and highly localised. There may be increased feeding opportunities within Project Two as a result of potential reef effects and reduction in fishing activity. Furthermore, the fish community found in Project Two is characteristic of the fish and shellfish assemblage of the wider region and therefore marine mammals would be able to exploit similar resources in adjacent undisturbed areas.

Page 78: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

72

LSEs associated with changes in prey availability are not anticipated to arise on marine mammals as a result of Project Two, either alone or in-combination with other plans or projects. (See paragraphs 5.3.57 to 5.3.61).

Page 79: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

73

Stage 1 Matrix 39a : Humber Estuary SAC (Annex 1 habitat features)

Name of European site: Humber Estuary SAC

Distance to PROJECT TWO 89 km (0 km to export cable) European site features Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Changes to habitat Changes to water quality Changes to Fishing Activity In combination effects

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Estuaries ����a Xc, d, e, f Xi ����g Xh Xi Xj ����a, g Xc, d, e, f,

h, j Xi

Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide ����a Xc, d, e, f Xi ����g Xh Xi Xj

����a, g Xc, d, e, f, h, j Xi

Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time

����a Xc, d, e, f Xi ����g Xh Xi Xj ����a, g Xc, d, e, f,

h, j Xi

Coastal lagoons ����a Xc, d, e, f Xi ����g Xh Xi Xj

����a, g Xc, d, e, f, h, j Xi

Salicornia and other annuals colonizing mud and sand ����a Xc, d, e, f Xi ����g Xh Xi Xj

����a, g Xc, d, e, f, h, j Xi

Atlantic salt meadows (Glauco-Puccinellietalia maritimae) ����a Xc, d, e, f Xi ����g Xh Xi Xj

����a, g Xc, d, e, f, h, j Xi

Embryonic shifting dunes ����b Xc, d, e, f Xi ����g Xh Xi Xj ����b, g Xc, d, e, f,

h, j Xi

Shifting dunes along the shoreline with Ammophila arenaria (white dunes)

����b Xc, d, e, f Xi ����g Xh Xi Xj ����b, g Xc, d, e, f,

h, j Xi

Fixed coastal dunes with herbaceous vegetation (grey dunes)

����b Xc, d, e, f Xi ����g Xh Xi Xj ����b, g Xc, d, e, f,

h, j Xi

Dunes with Hippopha rhamnoides ����b Xc, d, e, f Xi ����g Xh Xi Xj

����b, g Xc, d, e, f, h, j Xi

Evidence supporting conclusions: a. The inshore section of the export cable corridor overlaps with the subtidal area of the Humber Estuary SAC. The spatial extent of direct temporary habitat loss/disturbance effects will be highly

localised, being limited to areas where works are being carried out. With regard to subtidal Annex I habitat features of the Humber Estuary SAC, LSEs cannot be ruled out at this stage as a result of Project Two either alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.1.2 to 5.1.3 of HRA Screening Report). With regard to intertidal habitats, direct temporary disturbance will occur as a result of ploughing/jetting/trenching to install export cables LSEs associated with this potential impact on the Annex I habitat cannot be ruled out at this stage as a result of Project Two either alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.1.4 to 5.1.9 of HRA Screening Report).

b. Annex I sand dune habitats of the Humber Estuary SAC may be affected as a result of access arrangements to the intertidal areas during the construction phase. LSE cannot be ruled out at this stage as a result of Project Two either alone or in-combination with other plans or projects (See paragraphs 5.1.4 to 5.1.9 of HRA Screening Report).

c. No loss of habitat during Operation and Maintenance. Rock placement and other forms of hard cable protection (i.e., concrete mattressing) resulting in long term habitat loss will not be used in subtidal parts of the Humber Estuary SAC. In the event that the required cable burial depths cannot be achieved in this area, frond mattressing would be used to protect the cable. The resulting habitat loss for using frond mattressing will be temporary rather than long term, due to the accretion of sediment and the recovery of communities into this. No LSEs associated with a permanent loss of seabed habitat are anticipated as a result of Project Two, either alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.1.31 to 5.1.34 of HRA Screening Report).

Page 80: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

74

d. No LSEs as a result of Project Two is anticipated to occur on Annex I habitats as a result of changes in the hydrodynamic regime alone or in-combination (See Paragraphs 5.1.37 to 5.1.43). e. No LSE identified for disturbance during Operation and Maintenance. Routine inspections of the cables in the intertidal will be carried out during the operation and maintenance phase. Disturbance to

intertidal habitats from inspection access will occur predominantly to “mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide” and “Salicornia and other annuals colonising mud and sand” Annex I habitats of the Humber Estuary SAC (See paragraphs 5.1.46 to 5.1.47 of HRA Screening Report). In addition, it is anticipated that a short term temporary disturbance associated with maintenance access along the southern access route may occur on sand dune habitats (See paragraphs 5.1.46 to 5.1.47). Whilst an impact pathway has been identified, any effect on habitat features will be highly localised, short term, intermittent and reversible and therefore, significant effects are not to be expected on these habitats. LSEs on Annex I habitats are therefore not predicted as a result of Project Two, either alone or in-combination with other plans or projects are not anticipated due to disturbance during operation (See 5.1.44 to 5.1.48).

f. No potential effect pathway has been identified with regard to changes in the benthic community resulting from introduction of hard substrate. Rock placement and other forms of hard cable protection (i.e., concrete mattressing) will not be used in the subtidal section of the export cable corridor, which runs across the Humber Estuary SAC. Therefore LSEs are not anticipated as a result of Project Two, either alone or in-combination with other plans or projects on the Annex I habitat (See paragraphs 5.1.35 to 5.1.36 of HRA Screening Report).

g. The Humber Estuary SAC overlaps with the zone of influence of potential effects associated with increased suspended sediment and sediment deposition from the intertidal works. Therefore, a LSE as a result of Project Two, cannot be ruled out (See paragraphs 5.1.21 to 5.1.26 of HRA Screening Report).

h. Taking into account designed-in mitigation measures and best practice approaches, LSE on the Annex I habitat feature associated with the release of sediment contaminants and/or accidental releases of pollutants is not anticipated as a result of Project Two, either alone or in-combination for any phase of the project (See paragraphs 5.1.27 to 5.1.30 and 5.1.49 to 5.1.50 of HRA Screening Report).

i. After the operational phase, cables will more likely be left in situ, as such no LSEs associated with the removal of cables are anticipated during the decommission phase (See paragraphs 5.1.26 and 5.1.53) of HRA Screening Report).

j. Displacement of fishing activity will be dispersed over a large area, meaning that the specific increases in fishing activity in any one location would likely be minimal. LSEs on Annex I habitats are not anticipated as a result of Project Two either alone or in-combination (see paragraphs 5.1.51 and 5.1.52 of HRA Screening Report).

Page 81: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

75

Stage 1 Matrix 39b : Humber Estuary SAC (migratory fish features)

Name of European site: Humber Estuary SAC

Distance to PROJECT TWO 89 km (0 km to export cable

European site features Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Behavioural disturbance/physical injury

Changes to water quality Changes to habitat Changes in fishing activity In combination effects

C O D C O D C O D C O D C O D

River lamprey Xa �b Xa �c Xd Xe Xf Xg �c �b Xa, e

Sea lamprey Xa �b Xa �c Xd Xe Xf Xg �c �b Xa, e

Evidence supporting conclusions k. Disturbance will be limited to the immediate proximity of the inshore section of the export cable corridor covering a small spatial scale (See paragraph 5.2.7). The species are highly mobile and have

wide distribution ranges, being able to relocate and use equally suitable feeding areas in adjacent undisturbed locations. Whilst the lamprey populations of the Humber Estuary SAC are expected to be potentially directly affected by cable laying operations, a significant temporary loss of feeding grounds is not anticipated and No LSE is predicted with regard to disturbance (See paragraphs 5.2.6 and 5.2.7 of HRA Screening Report). Although there is potential for interaction between Annex II species and construction noise, this would be expected to be insignificant given the location of Subzone 2 and the HVAC reactive compensation substations relative to likely migratory routes and the habitat use of the species (See paragraphs 5.2.15 to 5.2.17). No LSEs associated with construction noise are anticipated (See paragraph 5.2.17)

l. Based upon the location of the Humber Estuary SAC, there is potential for an increased interaction between EMFs and lamprey populations, as these may transit the inshore section of the export cable during migration into and out of the Humber Estuary (See paragaphs 5.2.29 to 5.2.33 of HRA Screening Report). As such, a LSE as a result of Project Two, either alone or in combination cannot be ruled out at this stage (See paragraph 5.2.33). Levels of noise associated with Operation noise are low and the spatial extent of the potential impact is generally small and thus unlikely to result in any injury to fish (See paragraph 5.2.25). Any behavioural effects to occur on fish, would be limited to the immediate vicinity of the turbines or vessels (See paragraphs 5.2.25 to 5.2.27). No LSEs are anticipated due to operational noise (See paragraph 5.2.28). Whilst the lamprey populations of the Humber Estuary SAC are expected to be potentially directly affected by cable laying operations, a significant temporary loss of feeding grounds is not anticipated and No LSE is predicted with regard to disturbance (See paragraphs 5.2.34 to 5.2.36).

m. In respect of elevated suspended sediment concentrations, lamprey populations of the Humber Estuary SAC may be disturbed during migration along the estuary and its vicinity in relation to export cable installation activities. A LSE as a result of Project Two, either alone or in-combination cannot be ruled out at this stage (See paragraphs 5.2.8 to 5.2.12 of HRA Screening Report).

n. With regard to the release of sediment contaminants and accidental pollution events, a number of mitigation measures and best practice approaches will be implemented during the Operation phase (See paragraphs 5.2.37 and 5.2.38 of HRA Screening Report). No LSE is anticipated with regard to this during Operation.

o. Cables will likely be left in situ during decommissioning and therefore no LSEs associated with increased suspended sediment are anticipated to occur during this phase as a result of Project Two either alone or in-combination with other plans or projects (See paragraph 5.2.12 of HRA Screening Report). With regard to the release of sediment contaminants and accidental pollution events, mitigation measures and best practice approaches will be implemented during the Construction/Decommissioning phases to reduce potential impacts associated with pollution events (See paragraphs 5.2.13 and 5.2.14) and no LSE is anticipated(See paragraph 5.2.14).

p. Cable protection measures resulting in long term habitat loss (e.g., rock placement) will not be used in the area. Therefore a significant long term habitat loss is not anticipated to occur on Annex II migratory fish populations which transit the Humber Estuary (See paragraphs 5.2.18 to 5.2.20 of HRA Screening Report). Whilst there is a potential interaction (impact pathway) with Annex II migratory fish, this is anticipated to be very limited in the context of the wide habitat available to this species and therefore a LSE as a result of Project Two, either alone or in-combination is not anticipated (See paragraph 5.2.20). In respect of the introduction of hard substrate, this may indirectly have a localised effect on fish species, with the potential to act as an artificial reef and bring changes to food resources or result in a fish aggregation device (See paragraph 5.2.21). No LSEs have been identified with regard to the introduction of hard substrate (See paragraphs 5.2.21 to 5.2.23).

Page 82: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

76

q. The potential effect of displacement of fishing activity will be dispersed over a large area, meaning that the specific increases in fishing activity in any one location would likely be minimal on benthic habitats. Furthermore, Annex II migratory fish species rarely caught by the fishing methods used in the Project Two area, and therefore, if fishing effort is displaced into other areas the potential impact on these species would be minimal (See paragraphs 5.2.39 to 5.2.42 of HRA Screening Report). Therefore, no LSEs have been identified for Project Two alone or in-combination (See paragraph 5.2.42).

Page 83: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

77

Stage 1 Matrix 39c : Humber Estuary SAC (marine mammal features)

Name of European site: Humber Estuary SAC

Distance to PROJECT TWO 89 km (0 km to export cable

European site features Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Behavioural disturbance/Physical injury Changes to water quality Changes in prey availability In combination effects

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Grey seal �c Xb, c Xd Xe Xe Xe Xf Xg Xf �c Xb, c, e, g Xd, e, f

Evidence supporting conclusions r. There is potential for a LSE in respect of behavioural disturbance associated with construction pilling for up to five years. No LSEs have been identified with regard to vessel noise (See paragraphs

5.3.10). With regard to collision risk during Construction, due to the overlap of the export cable route corridor with the Humber Estuary SAC, the SAC lies within the 30 NM risk zone that JNCC guidelines detail. The Developer will follow best practice in line with latest JNCC guidance which recommends to give consideration to alternatives to the use of ducted propellers and/or avoid the breeding season if possible. Whether mitigation options are required, these will be discussed through consultation with SNCBs (See paragraphs 5.3.13 to 5.3.20). No LSEs are anticipated in this respect as a result of Project Two, either alone or in-combination with other plans and projects (See paragraph 5.3.20).

s. With regard to operational underwater turbine noise a behavioural response is only likely within close proximity to turbines and no LSE is predicted (See paragraphs 5.3.36 to 5.3.39 of HRA Screening Report). Given the anticipated localised effects of disturbance associated with vessel traffic and the wide distribution range of Annex II marine mammals species, any impacts would be expected to be very limited and LSEs on marine mammals associated with vessel noise are not anticipated alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.3.41 to 5.3.43). EMF effects will be localised within the immediate vicinity of the cables and no LSEs are predicted either alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.3.51 to 5.3.54).

t. With regard to collision risk, in the particular case of operation and maintenance work within the cable route corridor, vessel activity could potentially occur within 4NM of the Humber Estuary SAC, which would represent a medium risk to seals. Consideration of mitigation measures such as using vessels without ducted propellers or avoiding activities during the grey seal breeding season may be required, and these will be discussed through consultation with SNCBs. No LSEs are predicted either alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.3.44 to 5.3.50).

u. During decommissioning piling will not be required. The noise resulting from wind turbine decommissioning is unlikely to result in any injury, avoidance or significant disturbance to marine mammals and no LSE is predicted either alone or in-combination (see paragraph 5.3.9 of HRA Screening Report). As per Construction, No LSEs have been identified with regard to vessel noise (See paragraphs 5.3.10) and collision risk (See paragraphs 5.3.13 to 5.3.20) during Decommissioning.

v. During Construction and Decommissioning, potential impacts associated with increased suspended sediment concentrations will be short term, intermittent and localised. Marine mammals frequently occur in relatively turbid areas and therefore are adapted to find prey in such conditions. Furthermore, they possess mechanisms to detect prey through means other than visual detection (See paragraphs 5.3.21 to 5.3.25 of HRA Screening Report). No LSE is predicted with regard to increased suspended sediment concentrations either alone or in-combination(See paragraph 5.3.25). A number of mitigation measures and best practice approaches will be implemented during the Construction and Decommissioning and Operation phases to mitigate potential impacts associated with potential accidental pollution events. Taking adherence to such approaches, LSEs on Annex II marine mammal qualifying features associated with accidental release of pollutants are not anticipated to arise during any phase of the Project (See paragraphs 5.3.26 to 5.3.28 and 5.3.55 to 5.3.56).

w. During Construction and Decommissioning, potential impacts on prey species have been identified with regard to habitat disturbance, increased suspended sediments and underwater noise for prey species (See paragraphs 5.3.29 to 5.3.35 of HRA Screening Report). No potential impacts have been identified with regard to accidental pollution events (See paragraph 5.3.34) Whilst an impact pathway has been identified, the potential loss of prey as a result of Project Two would be expected to be minimal. The potential impacts identified on fish receptors will be localised, short term and reversible. Furthermore, the fish community found in Project Two is characteristic of the fish and shellfish assemblage of the wider region and therefore marine mammals would be able to exploit similar resources in adjacent undisturbed areas. As such, LSEs associated with changes in prey availability are not anticipated to arise as a result of Project Two, either alone or in-combination with other plans and projects (See paragraph 5.3.35).

x. Whilst an impact pathway has been identified (See paragraphs 5.3.57 to 5.3.61 of HRA Screening Report), the potential loss of prey as a result of Project Two during Operation would be expected to be minimal and highly localised. There may be increased feeding opportunities within Project Two as a result of potential reef effects and reduction in fishing activity. Furthermore, the fish community found in Project Two is characteristic of the fish and shellfish assemblage of the wider region and therefore marine mammals would be able to exploit similar resources in adjacent undisturbed areas.

Page 84: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

78

LSEs associated with changes in prey availability are not anticipated to arise on marine mammals as a result of Project Two, either alone or in-combination with other plans or projects. (See paragraphs 5.3.57 to 5.3.61).

Page 85: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

79

Stage 1 Matrix 39d: Humber Estuary SPA and Ramsar

Name of European site: Humber Estuary SPA

Distance to Hornsea Project Two: 0 km

European site features Likely Effects of Project Two

Article 4.1 - Breeding Habitat extent Disturbance and

displacement Indirect effects Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D C O D C O D C O D

Bittern Botaurus stellaris �a �aa �a �aa �a �aa �bb �bb �bb �a

�tt �aa

Marsh harrier Circus aeruginosus �b �aa �b �aa �b �aa �bb �bb �bb �b �tt �aa

Avocet Recurvirostra avosetta �c �aa �c �aa �c �aa �bb �bb �bb �c �tt �aa

Little tern Sterna albifrons �d �aa �d �aa �d �aa �dd �ff �gg �d �tt �aa

Article 4.1 – Winter Habitat extent Disturbance and

displacement Indirect effects Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D C O D C O D C O D

Bittern Botaurus stellaris �a �aa �a �aa �a �aa �bb �bb �bb �a

�tt �aa

Hen harrier Circus cyaneus �e �aa �e �aa �e �aa �bb �bb �bb �e �tt �aa

Bar-tailed godwit Limosa lapponica �f �aa �f �aa �f �aa �hh �cc �ee �ss �tt �aa

Golden plover Pluvialis apricaria �g �aa �g �aa �g �aa �bb �cc �dd �ss �tt �aa

Avocet Recurvirostra avosetta �c �aa �c �aa �c �aa �bb �bb �bb �c �tt �aa

Article 4.1 – On passage Habitat extent Disturbance and

displacement Indirect effects Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D C O D C O D C O D

Ruff Philomachus pugnax �h �aa �h �aa �h �aa �bb �bb �bb �h �tt �aa

Article 4.2 – Migratory (over winter) Habitat extent Disturbance and

displacement Indirect effects Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D C O D C O D C O D

Dunlin Calidris alpina alpina �i �aa �i �aa �i �aa �dd �cc �ee �ss �tt �aa

Knot Calidris canutus �j �aa �j �aa �j �aa �dd �cc �ee �ss �tt �aa

Page 86: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

80

Name of European site: Humber Estuary SPA

Distance to Hornsea Project Two: 0 km

European site features Likely Effects of Project Two

Black-tailed godwit Limosa limosa islandica �k �aa �k �aa �k �aa �bb �bb �bb �k �tt �aa

Shelduck Tadorna tadorna �l �aa �l �aa �l �aa �bb �bb �bb �l �tt �aa

Redshank Tringa totanus �m �aa �m �aa �m �aa �bb �bb �bb �ss �tt �aa

Article 4.2 – Migratory (on passage) Habitat extent Disturbance and

displacement Indirect effects Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D C O D C O D C O D

Dunlin Calidris alpina alpina �i �aa �i �aa �i �aa �dd �cc �ee �ss �tt �aa

Knot Calidris canutus �j �aa �j �aa �j �aa �dd �cc �ee �ss �tt �aa

Black-tailed godwit Limosa limosa islandica �k �aa �k �aa �k �aa �bb �bb �bb �k �tt �aa

Redshank Tringa totanus �m �aa �m �aa �m �aa �bb �bb �bb �ss �tt �aa

Article 4.2 – Assemblage Habitat extent Disturbance and

displacement Indirect effects Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D C O D C O D C O D

Teal Anas crecca �n �aa �n �aa �n �aa �ii �cc �ee �n �tt �aa

Wigeon Anas penelope �o �aa �o �aa �o �aa �jj �kk �ll �o �tt �aa

Mallard Anas platyrhynchos �p �aa �p �aa �p �aa �bb �cc �ee �p �tt �aa

Turnstone Arenaria interpres �q �aa �q �aa �q �aa �dd �cc �ee �q �tt �aa

Pochard Aythya ferina �a �aa �a �aa �a �aa �dd �cc �ee �a �tt �aa

Greater scaup Aythya marila �a �aa �a �aa �a �aa �bb �bb �bb �a �tt �aa

Bittern Botaurus stellaris �a �aa �a �aa �a �aa �bb �bb �bb �a

�tt �aa

Dark-bellied brent goose Branta bernicla bernicla �r �aa �r �aa �r �aa �mm �nn �ee �ss �tt �aa

Goldeneye Bucephala clangula �a �aa �a �aa �a �aa �bb �bb �bb �a �tt �aa

Page 87: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

81

Name of European site: Humber Estuary SPA

Distance to Hornsea Project Two: 0 km

European site features Likely Effects of Project Two

Sanderling Calidris alba �s �aa �s �aa �s �aa �bb �bb �bb �ss �tt �aa

Dunlin Calidris alpina alpina �i �aa �i �aa �i �aa �dd �cc �ee �ss �tt �aa

Knot Calidris canutus �j �aa �j �aa �j �aa �dd �cc �ee �ss �tt �aa

Ringed plover Charadrius hiaticula �t �aa �t �aa �t �aa �dd �cc �ee �ss �tt �aa

Oystercatcher Haematopus ostralegus �u �aa �u �aa �u �aa �dd �cc �ee �ss �tt �aa

Bar-tailed godwit Limosa lapponica �f �aa �f �aa �f �aa �hh �cc �ee �ss �tt �aa

Black-tailed godwit Limosa limosa islandica �k �aa �k �aa �k �aa �bb �bb �bb �k �tt �aa

Curlew Numenius arquata �v �aa �v �aa �v �aa �oo �cc �ee �v �tt �aa

Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus �w �aa �w �aa �w �aa �pp �cc �ee �w �tt �aa

Ruff Philomachus pugnax �h �aa �h �aa �h �aa �bb �bb �bb �h �tt �aa

Golden plover Pluvialis apricaria �g �aa �g �aa �g �aa �bb �cc �dd �ss �tt �aa

Grey plover Pluvialis squatarola �x �aa �x �aa �x �aa �bb �cc �ee �ss �tt �aa

Avocet Recurvirostra avosetta �c �aa �c �aa �c �aa �bb �bb �bb �c �tt �aa

Shelduck Tadorna tadorna �l �aa �l �aa �l �aa �bb �bb �bb �l �tt �aa

Greenshank Tringa nebularia �y �aa �y �aa �y �aa �bb �bb �bb �y �tt �aa

Redshank Tringa totanus �m �aa �m �aa �m �aa �bb �bb �bb �ss �tt �aa

Lapwing Vanellus vanellus �z �aa �z �aa �z �aa �qq �rr �ee �z �tt �aa

a. No LSE as no bitterns were recorded during surveys. Habitat surrounding cable landfall, onshore cable route corridor and HVDC converter/HVAC substation is unsuitable for this species (Ref: Table 4.11 of the HRA Report (Doc ref No 12.6)).

b. No LSEs alone or in-combination as cable landfall area is unsuitable breeding habitat for this species. Recorded single individuals are probably passage or wandering individuals and area is of little importance to SPA population. No LSE for onshore cable route corridor and HVDC converter/HVAC substation as there was no evidence of feeding or roosting during surveys (Ref: Table 4.11 of HRA).

Page 88: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

82

c. No LSEs alone or in-combination as this species is largely absent from the Horseshoe Point landfall site due to unsuitable habitat (peak of 0.3% of current SPA population). No LSE for onshore cable route corridor or HVDC converter/HVAC substation as this species was either absent or recorded at very low abundances in these areas (Ref: Table 4.11 of the HRA Report (Doc ref No 12.6)).

d. No LSEs alone or in-combination as this species no longer breeds in the vicinity of Horseshoe Point landfall site, with the small number of individuals recorded during WeBS counts only likely to be loafing or feeding offshore away from the nearest colonies. No LSE for onshore cable route corridor or HVDC converter/HVAC substation as this species was either absent or recorded at very low abundances in these areas (Ref: Table 4.11 of the HRA Report (Doc ref No 12.6)).

e. No LSEs alone or in-combination as the sandy substrate at Horseshoe Point is unsuitable for foraging hen harrier, although with occasional individuals recorded during baseline surveys, the area may form a minor part of the wintering range of the SPA population. Birds disperse from roost sites during daylight hours so are unlikely to be affected by activities. No LSE for onshore cable route corridor or HVDC converter/HVAC substation as this species was either absent or recorded at very low abundances in these areas (Ref: Table 4.11 of the HRA Report (Doc ref No 12.6)).

f. Potential for LSEs as the species is known to roost near the cable landfall site in numbers that are potentially significant in the context of the SPA population (up to 13% of current SPA value, although numbers appear to be highly variable between and within years). No LSE for onshore cable route corridor or HVDC converter/HVAC substation as this species was either absent or recorded at very low abundances in these areas (Ref: Table 4.11 of the HRA Report (Doc ref No 12.6)).

g. Potential for LSEs as the species was found near the cable landfall site in numbers that are potentially significant in the context of the SPA population (<16% of current value), despite considerable growth since the citation figure. No LSE for onshore cable route corridor or HVDC converter/HVAC substation as this species was either absent or recorded at very low abundances in these areas (Ref: Table 4.11 of the HRA Report (Doc ref No 12.6)).

h. No LSEs alone or in-combination as the species is found predominantly on the north estuary, and only a small number of individuals (peak count of 3) have been recorded briefly within the cable landfall site area on passage or over winter. Not significant within the context of the SPA population. No LSE for onshore cable route corridor or HVDC converter/HVAC substation as this species was either absent or recorded at very low abundances in these areas (Ref: Table 4.11 of the HRA Report (Doc ref No 12.6)).

i. Potential for LSEs as the species was found near the cable landfall site in numbers that are potentially significant in the context of the SPA population (<10%), particularly since there is evidence of decline since the citation figure. No LSE for onshore cable route corridor or HVDC converter/HVAC substation as this species was either absent or recorded at very low abundances in these areas (Ref: Table 4.11 of the HRA Report (Doc ref No 12.6)).

j. Potential for LSEs as the species was found near the cable landfall site in numbers that are potentially significant in the context of the SPA population (<7.8% of passage citation), despite growth since the citation figure. No LSE for onshore cable route corridor or HVDC converter/HVAC substation as this species was either absent or recorded at very low abundances in these areas (Ref: Table 4.11 of the HRA Report (Doc ref No 12.6)).

k. No LSEs alone or in-combination as very small peak numbers within the context of cited and current SPA populations, during all surveys, were recorded in the vicinity of the cable landfall site, indicating that the area is of unsuitable habitat and little significance to this species at an SPA level. No LSE for onshore cable route corridor or HVDC converter/HVAC substation as this species was either absent or recorded at very low abundances in these areas (Ref: Table 4.11 of the HRA Report (Doc ref No 12.6)).

l. No LSEs alone or in-combination for this species as numbers are increasing within the SPA and peak counts suggest that the population within the potential zone of influence of the cable landfall site is insignificant (<1%) compared to the cited SPA population, and that the habitat is unsuitable. No LSE for onshore cable route corridor or HVDC converter/HVAC substation as this species was either absent or recorded at very low abundances in these areas (Ref: Table 4.11 of the HRA Report (Doc ref No 12.6)).

m. Potential for LSEs. Although peak numbers in the area of the cable landfall site are relatively low compared to the overall SPA passage and wintering populations (<2%), the species has undergone a recent decline in numbers, and so significant effects cannot be ruled out at this stage. No LSE for onshore cable route corridor or HVDC converter/HVAC substation as this species was either absent or recorded at very low abundances in these areas (Ref: Table 4.11 of the HRA Report (Doc ref No 12.6)).

Page 89: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

83

n. No LSEs alone or in-combination for this species, as low numbers recorded during surveys suggest that the area of the cable landfall site is of little importance in the context of the SPA (<0.2% of population) and the habitat is unsuitable. No LSE for onshore cable route corridor or HVDC converter/HVAC substation as this species was either absent or recorded at very low abundances in these areas (Ref: Table 4.11 of the HRA Report (Doc ref No 12.6)).

o. No LSEs alone or in-combination for this species. Wigeon are distributed widely across the whole estuary, and despite an apparent decrease in overall numbers, the area around the cable landfall site appears to be of little importance within the context of the SPA population (<0.3%), and the habitat is unsuitable. No LSE for onshore cable route corridor or HVDC converter/HVAC substation as this species was either absent or recorded at very low abundances in these areas (Ref: Table 4.11 of the HRA Report (Doc ref No 12.6)).

p. No LSEs alone or in-combination for this species. Mallard are distributed widely across the whole estuary, and despite an apparent sharp decline in overall numbers, the area around the cable landfall site appears to be an unfavoured habitat and of little importance within the context of the SPA population (<0.1%). No LSE for onshore cable route corridor or HVDC converter/HVAC substation as this species was either absent or recorded at very low abundances in these areas (Ref: Table 4.11 of the HRA Report (Doc ref No 12.6)).

q. No LSEs alone or in-combination. WeBS surveys generally recorded low numbers, although recent surveys in the vicinity of the cable landfall site recorded higher numbers in late October. This however appeared to be a brief occurrence, as numbers were very low during the remainder of the survey period and habitat is generally unsuitable as the species prefers more rocky shorelines. No LSE for onshore cable route corridor or HVDC converter/HVAC substation as this species was either absent or recorded at very low abundances in these areas (Ref: Table 4.11 of the HRA Report (Doc ref No 12.6)).

r. Potential for LSEs as the species was found near the cable landfall site in numbers that are potentially significant (<18% of current SPA population) in the context of the cited SPA population (although there has been a large growth in SPA population since). No LSE for onshore cable route corridor or HVDC converter/HVAC substation as this species was either absent or recorded at very low abundances in these areas (Ref: HRA Report (Doc ref No 12.6)).

s. Potential for LSEs as the species was found roosting near the cable landfall site in numbers that are potentially significant in the context of the SPA population (<15% of current SPA population). No LSE for onshore cable route corridor or HVDC converter/HVAC substation as this species was either absent or recorded at very low abundances in these areas (Ref: HRA Report (Doc ref No 12.6)).

t. Potential for LSEs. The species was recorded in high numbers on passage and possibly over winter, (<4.8% of current SPA population) and although the SPA population appears to have stabilised over the recent past, a significant effect cannot be ruled out at this stage. No LSE for onshore cable route corridor or HVDC converter/HVAC substation as this species was either absent or recorded at very low abundances in these areas (Ref: HRA Report (Doc ref No 12.6)).

u. Potential for LSEs. The species was recorded in very high numbers within the context of the SPA population (<91% of current population). No LSE for onshore cable route corridor or HVDC converter/HVAC substation as this species was either absent or recorded at very low abundances in these areas (Ref: HRA Report (Doc ref No 12.6)).

v. No LSEs alone or in-combination for this species. The cable landfall site is not within a recognised key feeding or roosting area within the SPA, and in general peak numbers found close to this site are unlikely to be important in the context of the SPA population (<1.7% of current population recorded within the Horseshoe Point survey area). Converter station habitats outside of the SPA do not appear to provide significant functional support for curlew (i.e. not important as an important feeding or roost site) (Ref: Table 4.11 of the HRA Report (Doc ref No 12.6)).

w. No LSEs alone or in-combination for this species, as peak counts were very low during all surveys, with a peak of four birds during low tide counts in the vicinity of the cable landfall site. Only recorded on one occasion near to the converter station site. Only recorded on one occasion near to the converter station site (Ref: Table 4.11 of HRA).

x. Potential for LSEs. Although SPA numbers appear to have increased since the citation date, peak survey counts during brief passage periods were relatively high (<31% of current SPA population) and distributed throughout the Horseshoe Point survey area, and so a LSE cannot be discounted. No LSE for onshore cable route corridor or HVDC converter/HVAC substation as this species was either absent or recorded at very low abundances in these areas (Ref: Table 4.11 of the HRA Report (Doc ref No 12.6)).

Page 90: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

84

y. No LSEs alone or in-combination for this species. Although up to seven individuals were recorded near the cable landfall site in late August and September, these were the only surveys where this species was recorded. Birds are therefore likely only to be briefly on-site during passage periods. No LSE for onshore cable route corridor or HVDC converter/HVAC substation as this species was either absent or recorded at very low abundances in these areas (Ref: Table 4.11 of the HRA Report (Doc ref No 12.6)).

z. No LSEs alone or in-combination. Although the wider Grainthorpe area (to the south) appears to hold significant numbers, evidence from surveys at Horseshoe Point suggests that closer to the cable landfall site, numbers are much lower and unlikely to be important within the context of the SPA population (<1.9% of current SPA population). No LSE for onshore cable route corridor or HVDC converter/HVAC substation as this species was either absent or recorded at very low abundances in these areas (Ref: Table 4.11 of the HRA Report (Doc ref No 12.6)).

aa. No LSE during the decommissioning phase (either alone or in-combination) as cables are likely to remain in situ (Ref: Section 2.5 of the HRA Report (Doc ref No 12.6)).

bb.These species were recorded at very low abundances or not recorded during Project Two surveys (Ref: Annex A, Table A45 of the HRA Report (Doc ref No 12.6)).

cc. These species may fly around the wind farm, though the incremental increase in flight distance to the SPA is likely to be negligible (Ref: Annex A, Table A45 of the HRA Report (Doc ref No 12.6)).

dd.These species were recorded at low abundances and flying at low levels (i.e. below rotor height) and therefore are not at risk of collision (Ref: Annex A, Table A45 of the HRA Report (Doc ref No 12.6)).

ee. No birds were recorded using the area and no displacement effects are predicted (Ref: Annex A, Table A45 of the HRA Report (Doc ref No 12.6)).

ff. Little terns were very rarely recorded within the development area and no barrier effects have been reported (e.g. Zucco et al. 2006) (Ref: Annex A, Table A45 of the HRA Report (Doc ref No 12.6)).

gg.Evidence from constructed offshore wind farms indicates that little terns are not displaced by wind farms (e.g. Zucco et al. 2006) (Ref: Annex A, Table A45 of the HRA Report (Doc ref No 12.6)).

hh.A total of 29 bar-tailed godwit were recorded in the Hornsea Zone and 10 km Buffer, of which one was in the Hornsea Project Two. 82.8% of birds were recorded flying at rotor height and therefore at risk of collision. However, the number of bar-tailed godwit recorded was low and therefore at low risk of an effect (Ref: Annex A, Table A45 of the HRA Report (Doc ref No 12.6)).

ii. Teal were regularly recorded in small numbers throughout the development area with a total of 37 records in Year 1 and one in year 2. All birds were recorded flying below rotor height and therefore not at risk of collision (Ref: Annex A, Table A45 of the HRA Report (Doc ref No 12.6)).

jj. A total of 19 wigeon were recorded during two years of surveys. Collision risk modelling predicts up to 20 collisions per year (Ref: Annex A, Table A45 of the HRA Report (Doc ref No 12.6)).

kk. Wigeon migrate to the UK from Scandinavia and Russia and therefore the incremental increase in flight distance from flying around the Hornsea Project Two will be very small (Ref: Annex A, Table A45 of the HRA Report (Doc ref No 12.6)).

ll. All wigeon were recorded in flight and none were seen using the Hornsea Project Two. Therefore no displacement effects will occur (Ref: Annex A, Table A45 of the HRA Report (Doc ref No 12.6)).

Page 91: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

85

mm. A total of 7 dark-bellied brent geese were recorded, all but one were outwith Hornsea Project Two during two years of surveys. Small numbers recorded and predicted relatively high avoidance rates reported by geese, low risk of collision. Collision risk modelling predicts one collision per year (Ref: Annex A, Table A45 of the HRA Report (Doc ref No 12.6)).

nn.Geese are known to fly around or over offshore wind farms and therefore at risk of a barrier effect. The incremental increase in distance flown of approximately 36 km is negligible compared to the overall distance flown during migration to and from their breeding and wintering grounds (Ref: Annex A, Table A45 of the HRA Report (Doc ref No 12.6)).

oo.Only four curlew were recorded in the Hornsea development zone during Year 1 and 14 in Year 2. The low numbers recorded and predicted avoidance rates mean that the risk of a significant impact is very low (Ref: Annex A, Table A45 of the HRA Report (Doc ref No 12.6)).

pp.Eleven out of a total of 49 whimbrel recorded were in the Hornsea Project Two. 55.1% of all whimbrel recorded were flying above 22.5 m and therefore at potential risk of collision. However, the number of whimbrel recorded in the development zone was low and therefore at low risk of a significant effect (Ref: Annex A, Table A45 of the HRA Report (Doc ref No 12.6)).

qq.A total of 141 lapwing were recorded, of which 95.3% were flying above 22.5 m and therefore at risk of collision. However, the total number of lapwing recorded was relatively low and it is known that waders are able to avoid wind turbines (e.g. Petersen et al. 2006). Therefore the risk of an impact is low and will not be significant (Ref: Annex A, Table A45 of the HRA Report (Doc ref No 12.6)).

rr. A total of 148 lapwing were recorded. Any additional distance required to fly around the Hornsea Project Two will be negligible relative to the overall distance migrated (Ref: Annex A, Table A45 of the HRA Report (Doc ref No 12.6)).

ss. Plans/projects with potential for LSE on qualifying features in-combination with Project Two infrastructure within the Humber Estuary and onshore include: Land at Bishopthorpe Farm Newton Marsh Wind Farm Extension, Phillips 66 Tetney Sea Line Replacement Project, Tetney to Saltfleet Tidal Flood Defence Scheme and Able Marine Energy Park (AMEP) (see HRA Table 4.13 and paragraph 4.4.15 to 4.4.61 of the HRA Report (Doc ref No 12.6)).

tt. In-combination LSE informed by the footnotes above for the individual receptors as presented in Table A45 of Annex A of the HRA Report (Doc ref No 12.6). Additional information to support the conclusions made with regard to the in-combination LSE screening is presented in paragraphs 4.3.213 et seq. of the HRA Report (Doc ref No 12.6) for Collision Effects, HRA Report (Doc ref No 12.6) for Displacement Effects

Page 92: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

1

Stage 1 Matrix 40 : Inner Dowsing, Race Bank and North Ridge SAC (Annex 1 habitat features)

Name of European site: Inner Dowsing, Race Bank and North Ridge SAC

Distance to PROJECT TWO 64 km ( 12 km to export cable) European site features Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Changes to habitat Changes to water quality Changes to Fishing Activity In combination effects

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time

Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe Xa, c Xb, d, e Xa, c

Reefs Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe Xa, c Xb, d, e Xa, c Evidence supporting conclusions a. With regard to habitat disturbance, no potential interaction (impact pathway) and no predicted effect is anticipated on the SAC (see paragraphs 5.1.2 to 5.1.11 of HRA Screening Report). No LSE

predicted for the Annex 1 habitat feature project alone or in-combination (See paragraph 5.1.55). b. No potential interaction (impact pathway) and no predicted effect is anticipated on the SAC with regard to loss of habitat (See paragraphs 5.1.31 to 5.1.34 of HRA Screening Report), introduction

of hard substrate (see paragraphs 5.1.35 to 5.1.36), habitat modification due to changes in the hydrodynamic regime (See paragraphs 5.1.37 to 5.1.43) and disturbance (See paragraphs 5.1.44 to 5.1.48) No LSE predicted for the Annex 1 habitat feature (See paragraph 5.1.55).

c. The Inner Dowsing, Race Bank and North Ridge SAC is located within the zone of influence of increased suspended sediment concentrations and potential sediment re-deposition and is designated for ‘Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time’ and ‘Reefs’ (Sabellaria spinulosa). Taking into account the tolerance of the relevant habitat features of these sites to the predicted increases in suspended sediment concentrations and sediment deposition and the reduced spatial extent and persistence of any impacts, LSEs are not anticipated to occur in this respect as a result of Project Two either alone or in-combination with other plans or projects (See paragraphs 5.1.12 to 5.1.26 of HRA Screening Report). Also, taking into account designed-in mitigation measures and best practice approaches, LSE on the Annex I habitat feature associated with the release of sediment contaminants and/or accidental releases of pollutants is not anticipated as a result of Project Two either alone or in-combination (see paragraphs 5.1.27 to 5.1.30).

d. Taking into account designed-in mitigation measures and best practice approaches, LSE on the Annex I habitat feature associated with the release of sediment contaminants and/or accidental releases of pollutants is not anticipated as a result of Project Two, either alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.1.49 to 5.1.50 of HRA Screening Report).

e. Displacement of fishing activity will be dispersed over a large area, meaning that the specific increases in fishing activity in any one location would likely be minimal. LSEs on Annex I habitats are not anticipated as a result of Project Two either alone or in-combination (see paragraphs 5.1.51 and 5.1.52 of HRA Screening Report).

Page 93: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

2

Stage 1 Matrix 41: Inner Moray Firth SPA

Name of European site: Inner Moray Firth SPA

Distance to Hornsea Project Two: 522 km

European site features Likely Effects of Project Two

Article 4.1 – Breeding Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Common Tern Sterna hirundo �a �a �a �a

Osprey Pandion haliaetus �a �a �a �a

Article 4.1 – Over winter Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Bar-tailed Godwit Limosa lapponica �a �a �a �a

Article 4.2 – Migratory Species (Over winter) Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Greylag Goose Anser anser �a �a �a �a

Red-breasted Merganser Mergus serrator �a �a �a �a

Redshank Tringa totanus �a �a �a �a

Scaup Aythya marila �a �a �a �a

Article 4.2 – Assemblage Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Scaup Aythya marila �a �a �a �a

Curlew Numenius arquata �a �a �a �a

Oystercatcher Haematopus ostralegus �a �a �a �a

Goosander Mergus merganser �a �a �a �a

Goldeneye Bucephala clangula �a �a �a �a

Page 94: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

3

Teal Anas crecca �a �a �a �a

Wigeon Anas penelope �a �a �a �a

Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo �a �a �a �a

Redshank Tringa totanus �a �a �a �a

Red-breasted Merganser Mergus serrator �a �a �a �a

Greylag Goose Anser anser �a �a �a �a

Bar-tailed Godwit Limosa lapponica �a �a �a �a

Evidence to support conclusions

a) The site is located 522 km from the Project Two site, there is no mechanism for effect, see HRA screening report (PINS Doc reference 12.6.1)

Page 95: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

4

Stage 1 Matrix 42: Lindisfarne SPA

Name of European site: Lindisfarne SPA

Distance to Hornsea Project Two: 272 km

European site features Likely Effects of Project Two

Article 4.1 – Breeding (Passage) Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Little Tern Sterna albifrons �a �a �a �a

Roseate tern Sterna douga �a �a �a �a

Article 4.1 – Breeding (Over Winter) Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Bar-tailed Godwit Limosa lapponica �a �a �a �a

Golden Plover Pluvialis apricaria �a �a �a �a

Whooper Swan Cygnus cygnus �a �a �a �a

Article 4.2 – Migratory (On Passage) Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Ringed Plover Charadrius hiaticula �a �a �a �a

Article 4.2 – Migratory (Over Winter) Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Grey Plover Pluvialis squatarola �a �a �a �a

Greylag Goose Anser anser �a �a �a �a

Knot Calidris canutus �a �a �a �a

Light-bellied Brent Goose Branta bernicla hrota �a �a �a �a

Wigeon Anas penelope �a �a �a �a

Long-tailed duck Clangula hyemalis �a �a �a �a

Page 96: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

5

Name of European site: Lindisfarne SPA

Distance to Hornsea Project Two: 272 km

European site features Likely Effects of Project Two

Sanderling Calidris alba �a �a �a �a

Red-breasted Merganser Mergus serrator �a �a �a �a

Article 4.2 – Assemblage Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Pink-footed Goose Anser brachyrhynchus �a �a �a �a

Golden Plover Pluvialis apricaria �a �a �a �a

Bar-tailed Godwit Limosa lapponica �a �a �a �a

Greylag Goose Anser anser �a �a �a �a

Light-bellied Brent Goose Branta bernicla hrota �a �a �a �a

Wigeon Anas penelope �a �a �a �a

Whooper Swan Cygnus cygnus �a �a �a �a

Knot Calidris canutus �a �a �a �a

Redshank Tringa totanus �a �a �a �a

Shelduck Tadorna tadorna �a �a �a �a

Eider Somateria mollissima �a �a �a �a

Common Scoter Melanitta nigra �a �a �a �a

Ringed Plover Charadrius hiaticula �a �a �a �a

Lapwing Vanellus vanellus �a �a �a �a

Dunlin Calidris alpina alpina �a �a �a �a

Grey Plover Pluvialis squatarola �a �a �a �a

Page 97: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

6

Evidence to support conclusions

a) The site is located 522 km from the Project Two site, there is no mechanism for effect, see HRA screening report (PINS Doc reference 12.6.1)

Page 98: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

7

Stage 1 Matrix 43: Loch of Strathbeg SPA

Name of European site: Loch of Strathbeg SPA

Distance to Hornsea Project Two: 451 km

European site features Likely Effects of Project Two

Article 4.1 – Breeding Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Sandwich Tern Sterna sandvicensis �a �a �a �a

Article 4.1 – Winter Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Barnacle Goose Branta leucopsis �a �a �a �a

Whooper Swan Cygnus cygnus �a �a �a �a

Article 4.2 – Migratory Species (Winter) Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Greylag Goose Anser anser �a �a �a �a

Pink-footed Goose Anser brachyrhynchus �a �a �a �a

Article 4.2 – Assemblage Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Teal Anas crecca �a �a �a �a

Greylag Goose Anser anser �a �a �a �a

Pink-footed Goose Anser brachyrhynchus �a �a �a �a

Barnacle Goose Branta leucopsis �a �a �a �a

Whooper Swan Cygnus cygnus �a �a �a �a

Evidence to support conclusions

a) The site is located 451 km from the Project Two site, there is no mechanism for effect (see HRA screening report 12.6.1)

Page 99: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

8

Page 100: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

9

Stage 1 Matrix 44: Marwick Head SPA

Name of European site: Marwick Head SPA

Distance to Hornsea Project Two: 638 km

European site features Likely Effects of Project Two

Article 4.1 Breeding birds Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Guillemot ����a ����a ����a ����a

Article 4.2 Assemblage Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Guillemot ����a ����a ����a ����a

Kittiwake ����a ����a ����a ����a

Evidence to support conclusions

a) The site located beyond the mean maximum foraging for this species, no LSE is predicted during the breeding season. Outside of the breeding season no LSE has been predicted, see Annex A of the HRA screening report (Doc ref 12.6.1) and Appendix I of the HRA report.

Page 101: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

10

Stage 1 Matrix 45: Medway Estuary and Marshes SPA

Name of European site: Medway Estuary and Marshes SPA

Distance to Hornsea Project Two: 270 km

European site features Likely Effects of Project Two

Article 4.1 – Breeding Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Little tern Sterna albifrons ����a ����a ����a ����a

Avocet Recurvirostra avosetta ����a ����a ����a ����a

Article 4.1 – Winter Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Avocet Recurvirostra avosetta ����a ����a ����a ����a

Golden Plover Pluvialis apricaria ����a ����a ����a ����a

Hen Harrier Circus cyaneus ����a ����a ����a ����a

Ruff Philomachus pugnax ����a ����a ����a ����a

Article 4.2 – Migratory (On passage) Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Ringed Plover Charadrius hiaticula ����a ����a ����a ����a

Article 4.2 – Migratory (Winter) Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Black-tailed Godwit Limosa limosa islandica ����a ����a ����a ����a

Dark-bellied Brent Goose Branta bernicla bernicla

����a ����a ����a

����a

Dunlin Calidris alpina alpina ����a ����a ����a ����a

Grey Plover Pluvialis squatarola ����a ����a ����a ����a

Page 102: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

11

Name of European site: Medway Estuary and Marshes SPA

Distance to Hornsea Project Two: 270 km

European site features Likely Effects of Project Two

Redshank Tringa totanus ����a ����a ����a ����a

Ringed Plover Charadrius hiaticula ����a ����a ����a ����a

Shelduck Tadorna tadorna ����a ����a ����a ����a

Knot Calidris canutus islandica ����a ����a ����a ����a

Article 4.2 – Assemblage (Winter) Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Great Crested Grebe Podiceps cristatus ����a ����a ����a ����a

Golden Plover Pluvialis apricaria ����a ����a ����a ����a

Ruff Philomachus pugnax ����a ����a ����a ����a

Dark-bellied Brent Goose Branta bernicla bernicla

����a ����a ����a

����a

Shelduck Tadorna tadorna ����a ����a ����a ����a

Ringed Plover Charadrius hiaticula ����a ����a ����a ����a

Grey Plover Pluvialis squatarola ����a ����a ����a ����a

Dunlin Calidris alpina alpina ����a ����a ����a ����a

Avocet Recurvirostra avosetta ����a ����a ����a ����a

Redshank Tringa totanus ����a ����a ����a ����a

Curlew Numenius arquata ����a ����a ����a ����a

Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo ����a ����a ����a ����a

Wigeon Anas penelope ����a ����a ����a ����a

Teal Anas crecca ����a ����a ����a ����a

Page 103: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

12

Name of European site: Medway Estuary and Marshes SPA

Distance to Hornsea Project Two: 270 km

European site features Likely Effects of Project Two

Pintail Anas acuta ����a ����a ����a ����a

Shoveler Anas clypeata ����a ����a ����a ����a

Goldeneye Bucephala clangula ����a ����a ����a ����a

Red-breasted Merganser Mergus serrator ����a ����a ����a ����a

Lapwing Vanellus vanellus ����a ����a ����a ����a

Black-tailed Godwit Limosa limosa islandica ����a ����a ����a ����a

Evidence to support conclusions

a) The site is located 270 km from the Project Two site, there is no mechanism for effect, see HRA screening report (12.6.1)

Page 104: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

13

Stage 1 Matrix 46: Minsmere and Walberswick SPA

Name of European site: Minsmere and Walberswick SPA

Distance to Hornsea Project Two: 167 km

European site features Likely Effects of Project Two

Article 4.1 – Breeding Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Avocet Recurvirostra avosetta, ����a ����a ����a ����a

Bittern Botaurus stellarius ����a ����a ����a ����a

Little Tern Sterna albifrons ����a ����a ����a ����a

Marsh Harrier Circus aeruginosus ����a ����a ����a ����a

Nightjar Camprimulgus europaeus ����a ����a ����a ����a

Woodlark Lullula arborea ����a ����a ����a ����a

Article 4.1 – Winter Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Avocet Recurvirostra avosetta, ����a ����a ����a ����a

Bittern Botaurus stellarius ����a ����a ����a ����a

Hen harrier Circus cyaneus ����a ����a ����a ����a

Article 4.2 – Migratory (Breeding ) Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Gadwall Anas strepera ����a ����a ����a ����a

Shoveler Anas clypeata ����a ����a ����a ����a

Teal Anas crecca ����a ����a ����a ����a

Article 4.2 – Migratory (Winter ) Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Page 105: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

14

Gadwall Anas strepera ����a ����a ����a ����a

Shoveler Anas clypeata ����a ����a ����a ����a

White-fronted goose Anser albifrons albifrons ����a ����a ����a ����a

Evidence to support conclusions

a) The site is located 167 km from the Project Two site, there is no mechanism for effect, see HRA screening report (12.6.1)

Page 106: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

15

Stage 1 Matrix 47: Montrose Basin SPA

Name of European site: Montrose Basin SPA

Distance to Hornsea Project Two: 389 km

European site features Likely Effects of Project Two

Article 4.2 – Migratory Species (Winter) Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Greylag Goose Anser anser �a �a �a �a

Knot Calidris canutus �a �a �a �a

Pink-footed Goose Anser brachyrhynchus �a �a �a �a

Redshank Tringa totanus �a �a �a �a

Article 4.2 – Assemblage Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Dunlin Calidris alpina alpina �a �a �a �a

Oystercatcher Haematopus ostralegus �a �a �a �a

Eider Somateria mollissima �a �a �a �a

Wigeon Anas penelope �a �a �a �a

Shelduck Tadorna tadorna �a �a �a �a

Redshank Tringa totanus �a �a �a �a

Knot Calidris canutus �a �a �a �a

Greylag Goose Anser anser �a �a �a �a

Pink-footed Goose Anser brachyrhynchus �a �a �a �a

Evidence to support conclusions

a) The site is located 389 km from the Project Two site, there is no mechanism for effect, see HRA screening report (12.6.1) and Appendix I of the HRA report.

Page 107: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

16

Stage 1 Matrix 48: Moray and Nairn Coast SPA

Name of European site: Moray and Nairn Coast SPA

Distance to Hornsea Project Two: 493 km

European site features Likely Effects of Project Two

Article 4.1 – Breeding Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Osprey Pandion haliaetus ����a ����a ����a ����a

Article 4.1 – Over winter Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Bar-tailed Godwit Limosa lapponica ����a ����a ����a ����a

Article 4.2 – Migratory Species (Over winter) Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Greylag Goose Anser anser ����a ����a ����a ����a

Pink-footed Goose Anser brachyrhynchus ����a ����a ����a ����a

Redshank Tringa totanus ����a ����a ����a ����a

Article 4.2 – Assemblage Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Pink-footed Goose Anser brachyrhynchus ����a ����a ����a ����a

Dunlin Calidris alpina alpina ����a ����a ����a ����a

Oystercatcher Haematopus ostralegus ����a ����a ����a ����a

Red-breasted Merganser Mergus serrator ����a ����a ����a ����a

Velvet Scoter Melanitta fusca ����a ����a ����a ����a

Common Scoter Melanitta nigra ����a ����a ����a ����a

Long-tailed duck Clangula hyemalis ����a ����a ����a ����a

Page 108: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

17

Wigeon Anas penelope ����a ����a ����a ����a

Redshank Tringa totanus ����a ����a ����a ����a

Greylag Goose Anser anser ����a ����a ����a ����a

Bar-tailed Godwit Limosa lapponica ����a ����a ����a ����a

Evidence supporting conclusions

a) The site is located 493 km from the Project Two site, there is no mechanism for effect, see HRA screening report (12.6.1)

Page 109: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

18

Stage 1 Matrix 49a: Moray Firth SAC (Annex I habitat)

Name of European site: Moray Firth SAC

Distance to PROJECT TWO: 508 km

SAC Annex I habitat features Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Changes to habitat Changes to water quality Changes to fishing activity In combination effects

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time

�a �a �a �b �b �b n/a �c n/a �a, b, c �a, b, c �a, b, c

Evidence supporting conclusions: a. No LSE on Annex I habitat is anticipated in relation to changes in habitat associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The spatial extent of direct

temporary habitat loss/disturbance effects will be highly localised, being limited to areas where works are being carried out. There is no potential for interaction, as outlined in paragraphs 5.1.2 to 5.1.11 (Construction and Decommissioning) and 5.1.31 to 5.1.48 (Operation and Maintenance) of the HRA Screening Report.

b. No LSE on Annex I habitat is anticipated in relation to changes in water quality associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The Moray Firth SAC is located 508 km from Hornsea Project Two and increased suspended sediment and/or sediment deposition effects are not expected to extend to this range. Sufficient mitigation measures are in place for the release of contaminants/pollutants. There is no potential for interaction, as outlined in paragraphs 5.1.27 to 5.1.30 (Construction and Decommissioning) and 5.1.49 to 5.1.50 (Operation and Maintenance) of the HRA Screening Report.

c. No LSE on Annex I habitat is anticipated in relation to changes in fishing activity associated with the operation of Hornsea Project Two. It is anticipated that the potential effect of displacement of fishing activity will be dispersed over a large area, meaning that the specific increases in fishing activity in any one location would likely be minimal. See paragraphs 5.1.51 and 5.1.52 of the HRA Screening Report and Draft ES, Volume 2, Chapter 2: Subtidal and Intertidal Benthic Ecology.

Page 110: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

19

Stage 1 Matrix 49b : Moray Firth SAC (marine mammal)

Name of European site: Moray Firth SAC

Distance to PROJECT TWO: 508 km

SAC marine mammal features Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Behavioural disturbance/physical injury Changes to water quality Changes to prey availability In combination effects

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Bottlenose dolphin xa �a �a �b �b �b �c �c �c �a, b, c �a, b, c �a, b, c

Evidence supporting conclusions: a. No LSE on marine mammal features is anticipated in relation to behavioural disturbance/physical injury associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two.

There is no evidence from surveys to indicate that bottlenose dolphin occur in significant numbers or with any regularity within Hornsea Project Two and the Moray Firth SAC is located a considerable distance away. See Paragraphs 5.3.71 to 5.3.72 of the HRA Screening Report.

b. No LSE on marine mammal features is anticipated in relation to changes in water quality associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The Moray Firth SAC is located 508 km from Hornsea Project Two and increased suspended sediment and/or sediment deposition effects are not expected to extend to this range. Sufficient mitigation measures are in place for the release of contaminants/pollutants. There is no potential for interaction, as outlined in paragraphs 5.3.21 to 5.3.28 (Construction and Decommissioning) and 5.3.55 to 5.3.56 (Operation and Maintenance) of the HRA Screening Report.

c. No LSE on marine mammal features is anticipated in relation to changes in prey availability associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The potential impacts identified on fish receptors will be localised, short term and reversible. During the operational phase there may be increased feeding opportunities within Project Two as a result of potential reef effects and reduction in fishing activity. Furthermore, the fish community found in Project Two is characteristic of the fish and shellfish assemblage of the wider region and therefore marine mammals would be able to exploit similar resources in adjacent undisturbed areas (see Paragraphs 5.3.29 to 5.3.35 (Construction and Decommissioning) and 5.3.57 to 5.3.61 (Operation and Maintenance) of HRA Screening Report).

Page 111: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

20

Stage 1 Matrix 50: North Caithness Cliffs SPA

Name of European site: North Caithness Cliffs SPA

Distance to Hornsea Project Two: 574.1 km

European site features Likely Effects of Project Two

Article 4.1 Breeding Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Peregrine Falco peregrinus ����a ����a ����a ����a

Article 4.2 – Migratory Species (breeding) Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Guillemot Uria aalge ����a ����a ����a ����a

Article 4.2 – Assemblage Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Puffin Fratercula arctica ����a ����a ����a ����a

Fulmar Fulmarus glacialis ����b ����b ����b ����b

Razorbill Alca torda ����a ����a ����a ����a

Guillemot Uria aalge ����a ����a ����a ����a

Kittiwake Rissa tridactyla ����a ����a ����a ����a

Evidence supporting conclusions

a) The Project Two site is beyond mean-maximum foraging range for this species (see bird chapter) and no LSE was predicted outside of the breeding season, see Annex A of the HRA Screening report (12.6.1). No LSE was predicted as a result of collision risk outside the breeding season in the additional screening exercise detailed in Appendix H of the HRA report (PINS document reference 12.6) and Appendix I of the HRA report.

b) The Project Two site is beyond mean-maximum foraging range for this species (see bird chapter) and no LSE was predicted outside of the breeding season, see Annex A of the HRA Screening report (12.6.1). No LSE was predicted as a result of displacement impacts outside the breeding season in the additional screening exercise detailed in Appendix h of the HRA report (PINS document reference 12.6) and Appendix I of the HRA report.

Page 112: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

21

Stage 1 Matrix 51: North Norfolk Coast SPA

Name of European site: North Norfolk Coast SPA

Distance to Hornsea Project Two: 57.9 km

European site features Likely Effects of Project Two

Article 4.1 – Breeding Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Avocet Recurvirostra avosetta �a �a �a �kk

Bittern Botaurus stellaris �b �b �b �kk

Common Tern Sterna hirundo �c �d �e �kk

Little Tern Sterna albifrons �f �g �e �kk

Marsh Harrier Circus aeruginosus �a �a �a �kk

Mediterranean Gull Larus melanocephalus �a �a �a �kk

Roseate Tern Sterna dougallii �b �b �b �kk

Sandwich Tern Sterna sandvicensis �h �i �e �kk

Montagu's harrier Circus pygargus �ll �ll �ll �kk

Article 4.1 – Over winter Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Avocet Recurvirostra avosetta �a �a �a �kk

Bar-tailed Godwit Limosa lapponica �j �k �l �kk

Bittern Botaurus stellaris �b �b �b �kk

Golden Plover Pluvialis apricaria �m �k �l �kk

Hen Harrier Circus cyaneus �b �b �b �kk

Ruff Philomachus pugnax �b �b �b �kk

Article 4.2 – Migratory (Breeding) Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

Page 113: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

22

Name of European site: North Norfolk Coast SPA

Distance to Hornsea Project Two: 57.9 km

European site features Likely Effects of Project Two

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Redshank Tringa totanus �n �n �n �kk

Ringed Plover Charadrius hiaticula �o �k �l �kk

Article 4.2 – Migratory (On passage) Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Ringed Plover Charadrius hiaticula

�o �k �l

�kk

Article 4.2 – Migratory (Over winter) Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Dark-bellied Brent Goose Branta bernicla bernicla

�p �q �l

�kk

Knot Calidris canutus �r �k �l �kk

Pink-footed Goose Anser brachyrhynchus �s �t �l �kk

Pintail Anas acuta �a �a �a �kk

Redshank Tringa totanus �n �n �n �kk

Wigeon Anas penelope �u �v �l �kk

Article 4.2 – Assemblage (Waterfowl) Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Shelduck Tadorna tadorna �w �w �w �kk

Avocet Recurvirostra avosetta �a �a �a �kk

Golden Plover Pluvialis apricaria �m �k �l �kk

Page 114: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

23

Name of European site: North Norfolk Coast SPA

Distance to Hornsea Project Two: 57.9 km

European site features Likely Effects of Project Two

Ruff Philomachus pugnax �b �b �b �kk

Bar-tailed Godwit Limosa lapponica �j �k �l �kk

Pink-footed Goose Anser brachyrhynchus �s �t �l �kk

Dark-bellied Brent Goose Branta bernicla bernicla

�p �q �l

�kk

Wigeon Anas penelope �u �v �l �kk

Pintail Anas acuta �a �a �a �kk

Knot Calidris canutus �r �k �l �kk

Redshank Tringa totanus �n �n �n �kk

Bittern Botaurus stellaris �b �b �b �kk

White-fronted Goose Anser albifrons albifrons �b �b �b �kk

Dunlin Calidris alpina alpina �x �k �l �kk

Gadwall Anas strepera �y �y �y �kk

Teal Anas crecca �z �k �l �kk

Shoveler Anas clypeata �aa �aa �aa �kk

Common Scoter Melanitta nigra �bb �cc �l �kk

Velvet Scoter Melanitta fusca �b �b �b �kk

Oystercatcher Haematopus ostralegus �dd �k �l �kk

Ringed Plover Charadrius hiaticula �o �k �l �kk

Grey Plover Pluvialis squatarola �ee �k �l �kk

Lapwing Vanellus vanellus �ff �gg �l �kk

Page 115: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

24

Name of European site: North Norfolk Coast SPA

Distance to Hornsea Project Two: 57.9 km

European site features Likely Effects of Project Two

Sanderling Calidris alba �b �b �b �kk

Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo �hh �ii �jj �kk

Evidence supporting conclusions

Page 116: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

25

Stage 1 Matrix 52: Northumbria Coast SPA

Name of European site: Northumbria Coast SPA

Distance to Hornsea Project Two: 192 km

European site features Likely Effects of Project Two

Article 4.1 – Breeding Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Little Tern Sterna albifrons �a �a �a �a

Article 4.2 – Migratory Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Purple Sandpiper Calidris maritima �a �a �a �a

Turnstone Arenaria interpres �a �a �a �a

Evidence supporting conclusions

a) The site is located 192km from the Project Two site and there is no mechanism for effect (see HRA screening Report, 12.6.1)

Page 117: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

26

Stage 1 Matrix 53: Noss SPA

Name of European site: Noss SPA

Distance to Hornsea Project Two: 695km

European site features Likely Effects of Project Two

Article 4.1 Breeding birds Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Gannet �a �a �a �a

Great Skua �a �a �a �a

Guillemot �a �a �a �a

Article 4.2 Assemblage Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Gannet �a �a �a �a

Great Skua �a �a �a �a

Guillemot �a �a �a �a

Puffin �a �a �a �a

Kittiwake �a �a �a �a

Fulmar �a �a �a �a

Evidence to support conclusions

a) The site is located 695 km from the Project Two site, Project Two is beyond mean maximum foraging range for all features and so no LSE is predicted during the breeding season. No LSE has been predicted outside of the breeding season, see Annex A of the HRA screening report and Appendix I of the HRA report.

Page 118: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

27

Stage 1 Matrix 54: North Norfolk Coast SAC (Annex I habitat)

Name of European site: North Norfolk Coast SAC

Distance to PROJECT TWO: 100 km

SAC Annex I habitat features Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Changes to habitat Changes to water quality Changes to fishing activity In combination effects

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Coastal lagoons �a �a �a �b �b �b n/a �c n/a �a, b, c �a, b, c �a, b, c

Perennial vegetation of stony banks �a �a �a �b �b �b n/a �c n/a �a, b, c �a, b, c �a, b, c

Mediterranean and thermo-Atlantic halophilous scrubs (Sarcocornetea fruticosi)

�a �a �a �b �b �b n/a �c n/a �a, b, c �a, b, c �a, b, c

Embryonic shifting dunes �a �a �a �b �b �b n/a �c n/a �a, b, c �a, b, c �a, b, c

Shifting dunes along the shoreline with Ammophila arenaria (white dunes)

�a �a �a �b �b �b n/a �c n/a �a, b, c �a, b, c �a, b, c

Fixed coastal dunes with herbaceous vegetation (grey dunes)

�a �a �a �b �b �b n/a �c n/a �a, b, c �a, b, c �a, b, c

Humid dune slacks �a �a �a �b �b �b n/a �c n/a �a, b, c �a, b, c �a, b, c

Evidence supporting conclusions: a. No LSE on Annex I habitat is anticipated in relation to changes in habitat associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The spatial extent of direct

temporary habitat loss/disturbance effects will be highly localised, being limited to areas where works are being carried out. There is no potential for interaction, as outlined in paragraphs 5.1.2 to 5.1.11 (Construction and Decommissioning) and 5.1.31 to 5.1.48 (Operation and Maintenance) of the HRA Screening Report.

Page 119: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

28

b. No LSE on Annex I habitat is anticipated in relation to changes in water quality associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The North Norfolk Coast SAC is located 100 km from Hornsea Project Two and increased suspended sediment and/or sediment deposition effects are not expected to extend to this range. Sufficient mitigation measures are in place for the release of contaminants/pollutants. There is no potential for interaction, as outlined in paragraphs 5.1.27 to 5.1.30 (Construction and Decommissioning) and 5.1.49 to 5.1.50 (Operation and Maintenance) of the HRA Screening Report.

c. No LSE on Annex I habitat is anticipated in relation to changes in fishing activity associated with the operation of Hornsea Project Two. It is anticipated that the potential effect of displacement of fishing activity will be dispersed over a large area, meaning that the specific increases in fishing activity in any one location would likely be minimal. See paragraphs 5.1.51 and 5.1.52 of the HRA Screening Report and Draft ES, Volume 2, Chapter 2: Subtidal and Intertidal Benthic Ecology.

Page 120: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

29

Stage 1 Matrix 55 : North Norfolk Sandbanks and Saturn Reef cSAC (Annex 1 habitat features)

Name of European site: North Norfolk Sandbanks and Saturn Reef cSAC

Distance to PROJECT TWO 10 km (2 km to export cable)

European site features Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Changes to habitat Changes to water quality Changes to Fishing Activity In combination effects

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time

Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe Xa, c Xb, d, e Xa, c

Reefs Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe Xa, c Xb, d, e Xa, c

Evidence supporting conclusions a. With regard to habitat disturbance, no potential interaction (impact pathway) and no predicted effect is anticipated on the SAC (see paragraphs 5.1.2 to 5.1.11 of HRA Screening Report). No LSE

predicted for the Annex 1 habitat feature project alone or in-combination (See paragraph 5.1.55). b. With regard to habitat modification due to changes in the hydrodynamic regime the key wave events that control the sandbanks at the North Norfolk Sandbanks and Saturn Reef cSAC will not be

changed and no impacts in the long term response of Annex 1 habitats are to be expected (See paragraphs 5.1.37 to 5.1.43). No potential interaction (impact pathway) and no predicted effect is anticipated on the SAC with regard to loss of habitat (See paragraphs 5.1.31 to 5.1.34 of HRA Screening Report), introduction of hard substrate (see paragraphs 5.1.35 to 5.1.36) and disturbance (See paragraphs 5.1.44 to 5.1.48) No LSE predicted for the Annex 1 habitat feature (See paragraph 5.1.55).

c. The North Norfolk Sandbanks and Saturn Reef cSAC is located within the zone of influence of increased suspended sediment concentrations and potential sediment re-deposition and is designated for ‘Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time’ and ‘Reefs’ (Sabellaria spinulosa). Taking into account the tolerance of the relevant habitat features of these sites to the predicted increases in suspended sediment concentrations and sediment deposition and the reduced spatial extent and persistence of any impacts, LSEs are not anticipated to occur in this respect as a result of Project Two either alone or in-combination with other plans or projects (See paragraphs 5.1.12 to 5.1.26 of HRA Screening Report). Also, taking into account designed-in mitigation measures and best practice approaches, LSE on the Annex I habitat feature associated with the release of sediment contaminants and/or accidental releases of pollutants is not anticipated as a result of Project Two either alone or in-combination (see paragraphs 5.1.27 to 5.1.30).

d. Taking into account designed-in mitigation measures and best practice approaches, LSE on the Annex I habitat feature associated with the release of sediment contaminants and/or accidental releases of pollutants is not anticipated as a result of Project Two, either alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.1.49 to 5.1.50 of HRA Screening Report).

e. Displacement of fishing activity will be dispersed over a large area, meaning that the specific increases in fishing activity in any one location would likely be minimal. LSEs on Annex I habitats are not anticipated as a result of Project Two either alone or in-combination (see paragraphs 5.1.51 and 5.1.52 of HRA Screening Report).

Page 121: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

30

Stage 1 Matrix 56: Papa Stour SPA

Name of European site: Papa Stour SPA

Distance to Hornsea Project Two: 728 km

European site features Likely Effects of Project Two

Article 4.1 Breeding birds Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Arctic Tern �a �a �a �a

Article 4.2 Migratory Species Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Ringed Plover �a �a �a �a

Evidence to support conclusions

a) The site is located 728km from the Project Two site, there is no mechanism for effect on these species. See HRA screening report section 5.4 (Doc Ref 12.6.1)

Page 122: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

31

Stage 1 Matrix 57: Papa Westray SPA

Name of European site: Papa Westray SPA

Distance to Hornsea Project Two: 650 km

European site features Likely Effects of Project Two

Article 4.1 Breeding birds Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Arctic Tern �a �a �a �a

Article 4.2 Migratory Species Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Arctic Skua �a �a �a �a

Evidence supporting conclusion

a) The site is located 650 km from the Project Two site, there is no mechanism for effect on these species. See HRA screening report section 5.4 (Doc Ref 12.6.1)

Page 123: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

32

Stage 1 Matrix 58a: River Derwent SAC (Annex I habitat)

Name of European site: River Derwent SAC

Distance to PROJECT TWO: 143 km

SAC Annex I habitat features Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Changes to habitat Changes to water quality Changes to fishing activity In combination effects

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Water courses of plain to montane levels with the Ranunculion fluitantis and Callitricho-Batrachion vegetation

�a �a �a �b �b �b n/a �c n/a �a, b, c �a, b, c �a, b, c

Evidence supporting conclusions: a. No LSE on Annex I habitat is anticipated in relation to changes in habitat associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The spatial extent of direct

temporary habitat loss/disturbance effects will be highly localised, being limited to areas where works are being carried out. There is no potential for interaction, as outlined in paragraphs 5.1.2 to 5.1.11 (Construction and Decommissioning) and 5.1.31 to 5.1.48 (Operation and Maintenance) of the HRA Screening Report.

b. No LSE on Annex I habitat is anticipated in relation to changes in water quality associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The River Derwent SAC is located 143 km from Hornsea Project Two and increased suspended sediment and/or sediment deposition effects are not expected to extend to this range. Sufficient mitigation measures are in place for the release of contaminants/pollutants. There is no potential for interaction, as outlined in paragraphs 5.1.27 to 5.1.30 (Construction and Decommissioning) and 5.1.49 to 5.1.50 (Operation and Maintenance) of the HRA Screening Report.

c. No LSE on Annex I habitat is anticipated in relation to changes in fishing activity associated with the operation of Hornsea Project Two. It is anticipated that the potential effect of displacement of fishing activity will be dispersed over a large area, meaning that the specific increases in fishing activity in any one location would likely be minimal. See paragraphs 5.1.51 and 5.1.52 of the HRA Screening Report and Draft ES, Volume 2, Chapter 2: Subtidal and Intertidal Benthic Ecology.

Page 124: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

33

Stage 1 Matrix 58b : River Derwent SAC (migratory fish)

Name of European site: River Derwent SAC

Distance to PROJECT TWO: 143 km (45 km for export cable)

SAC marine mammal features Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Behavioural disturbance/physical injury Changes to water quality Changes to habitat Changes to fishing activity In combination effects

C O D C O D C O D C O D C O D

River lamprey �a �a �a �b �c �c n/a �d n/a n/a �e n/a �b �a, c, d, e �a, c, d, e

Sea lamprey �a �a �a �b �c �c n/a �d n/a n/a �e n/a �b �a, c, d, e �a, c, d, e

Evidence supporting conclusions: a. No LSE on migratory fish is anticipated in relation to behavioural disturbance/physical injury associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The Annex II

migratory fish species under consideration are highly mobile and have wide distribution ranges, being able to relocate and use equally suitable feeding areas in adjacent undisturbed locations. Any disturbance is likely to be over a relatively small spatial scale, limited to the immediate proximity of the inshore section of the export cable corridor. See paragraphs 5.2.5 to 5.2.7 (Construction and Decommissioning) and 5.2.34 to 5.2.36 (Operation and Maintenance) of the HRA Screening Report.

b. LSE on migratory fish in relation to changes to water quality associated with the construction of Hornsea Project Two cannot be ruled out. Increased suspended sediment concentrations resulting from the installation of export cables (jetting through sand and glacial till) and sandwave clearance has the potential to affect river and sea lamprey present in the Humber Estuary when in transit to and from the River Derwent SAC. See paragraphs 5.2.8 to 5.2.12 of the HRA Screening Report.

c. No LSE on migratory fish is anticipated in relation to changes to water quality associated with the operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. Sufficient mitigation measures are in place for the release of contaminants/pollutants and cables will likely be left in situ during decommissioning. See paragraphs 5.2.37 to 5.2.38 (operation) and 5.2.12 to 5.2.14 (decommissioning) of the HRA Screening Report.

d. No LSE on migratory fish is anticipated in relation to changes to habitat associated with the operation of Hornsea Project Two. Cable protection measures resulting in long term habitat loss (e.g., rock placement) will not be used along the export cable. The Annex II migratory fish species under consideration are highly mobile and have wide distribution ranges, being able to relocate and use equally suitable feeding areas in adjacent undisturbed locations. See paragraphs 5.2.18 to 5.2.23 of the HRA Screening Report.

e. No LSE on migratory fish is anticipated in relation to changes to fishing activity associated with the operation of Hornsea Project Two. The potential effect of displacement of fishing activity will be dispersed over a large area, meaning that the specific increases in fishing activity in any one location would likely be minimal. Annex II migratory fish species are rarely caught by the fishing methods used in the area, and therefore, if fishing effort is displaced into other areas the potential impact on these species would be minimal. See paragraphs 5.2.39 to 5.2.42 of the HRA Screening Report.

Page 125: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

34

Stage 1 Matrix 59: Ronas Hill – North Roe and Tingon SPA

Name of European site: Ronas Hill – North Roe and Tingon SPA

Distance to Hornsea Project Two: 744 km

European site features Likely Effects of Project Two

Article 4.1 Breeding birds Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Great Skua �a �a �a �a

Merlin �a �a �a �a

Red-throated diver �a �a �a �a

Evidence supporting conclusion

a) The site is located 744 km from the Project Two site, thee is no mechanism for effect on these species. See HRA screening report section 5.4 (Doc Ref 12.6.1)

Page 126: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

35

Stage 1 Matrix 60: Rousay SPA

Name of European site: Rousay SPA

Distance to Hornsea Project Two: 634 km

European site features Likely Effects of Project Two

Article 4.1 Breeding birds Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Arctic Tern �a �a �a �a

Article 4.2 Assemblage Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Guillemot �a �a �a �a

Kittiwake �a �a �a �a

Arctic Skua �a �a �a �a

Fulmar �a �a �a �a

Arctic Tern �a �a �a �a

Evidence supporting conclusions

a) The site is located 634 km from the Project Two site, Project Two is beyond mean maximum foraging range for all features and so no LSE is predicted during the breeding season. No LSE has been predicted outside of the breeding season, see Annex A of the HRA screening report. and Appendix I of the HRA report

Page 127: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

36

Stage 1 Matrix 61: St Abb’s Head to Fast Castle SPA

Name of European site: St Abb’s Head to Fast Castle SPA

Distance to Hornsea Project Two: 310 km

European site features Likely Effects of Project Two

Article 4.2 – Assemblage Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Razorbill Alca torda ����a ����a ����a ����a

Guillemot Uria aalge ����a ����a ����a ����a

Kittiwake Rissa tridactyla ����a ����a ����a ����a

Herring Gull Larus argentatus ����a ����a ����a ����a

Shag Phalacrocorax aristotelis ����a ����a ����a ����a

Evidence to support conclusions

a) The site is located 695 km from the Project Two site, Project Two is beyond mean maximum foraging range for all features and so no LSE is predicted during the breeding season. No LSE has been predicted outside of the breeding season, see Annex A of the HRA screening report and Appendix I of the HRA report.

Page 128: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

37

Stage 1 Matrix 62: Stour and Orwell Estuaries SPA

Name of European site: Stour and Orwell Estuaries SPA

Distance to Hornsea Project Two: 201 km

European site features Likely Effects of Project Two

Article 4.1 – Winter Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Hen Harrier Circus cyaneus ����a ����a ����a ����a

Article 4.2 – Migratory (Winter) Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Black-tailed Godwit Limosa limosa islandica, ����a ����a ����a ����a

Dunlin Calidris alpina alpina, ����a ����a ����a ����a

Grey Plover Pluvialis squatarola, ����a ����a ����a ����a

Pintail Anas acuta, ����a ����a ����a ����a

Redshank Tringa totanus, ����a ����a ����a ����a

Shelduck Tadorna tadorna, ����a ����a ����a ����a

Turnstone Arenaria interpres, ����a ����a ����a ����a

Dark-bellied Brent Goose Branta bernicla bernicla

����a ����a ����a

����a

Knot Calidris canutus ����a ����a ����a ����a

Article 4.2 – Assemblage (Winter) Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo ����a ����a ����a ����a

Ringed Plover Charadrius hiaticula, ����a ����a ����a ����a

Pintail Anas acuta ����a ����a ����a ����a

Page 129: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

38

Name of European site: Stour and Orwell Estuaries SPA

Distance to Hornsea Project Two: 201 km

European site features Likely Effects of Project Two

Grey Plover Pluvialis squatarola ����a ����a ����a ����a

Dunlin Calidris alpina alpina ����a ����a ����a ����a

Black-tailed Godwit Limosa limosa islandica ����a ����a ����a ����a

Redshank Tringa totanus ����a ����a ����a ����a

Shelduck Tadorna tadorna ����a ����a ����a ����a

Great Crested Grebe Podiceps cristatus ����a ����a ����a ����a

Curlew Numenius arquata ����a ����a ����a ����a

Dark-bellied Brent Goose Branta bernicla bernicla

����a ����a ����a

����a

Wigeon Anas penelope ����a ����a ����a ����a

Goldeneye Bucephala clangula ����a ����a ����a ����a

Oystercatcher Haematopus ostralegus ����a ����a ����a ����a

Lapwing Vanellus vanellus ����a ����a ����a ����a

Knot Calidris canutus ����a ����a ����a ����a

Turnstone Arenaria interpres ����a ����a ����a ����a

Article 4.1 – Breeding Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Avovcet Recurvirostra avosetta ����a ����a ����a ����a

Evidence supporting conclusion

a) The site is located 201 km from the Project Two site, thee is no mechanism for effect on these species. See HRA screening report section 5.4 (Doc Ref 12.6.1)

Page 130: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

39

Stage 1 Matrix 63: Sumburgh Head SPA

Name of European site: Sumburgh Head SPA

Distance to Hornsea Project Two: 669 km

European site features Likely Effects of Project Two

Article 4.1 Breeding birds Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Arctic Tern �a �b �c �l

Article 4.2 Assemblage Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Guillemot �d �e �f �l

Kittiwake �g �h �c �l

Fulmar �i �j �k �l

Arctic Tern �a �b �c �l

Evidence to support conclusions

a) The site is located 669 km from the Project Two site, Project Two is beyond mean maximum foraging range for all features and so no LSE is predicted during the breeding season. No LSE has been predicted outside of the breeding season, see Annex A of the HRA screening report and Appendix I of the HRA report.

Page 131: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

40

Stage 1 Matrix 64: Thames Estuary Marshes SPA

Name of European site: Thames Estuary Marshes SPA

Distance to Hornsea Project Two: 266 km

European site features Likely Effects of Project Two

Article 4.1 – Winter Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Avocet Recurvirostra avosetta ����a ����a ����a ����a

Hen Harrier Circus cyaneus ����a ����a ����a ����a

Article 4.2 – Migratory (On passage) Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Ringed Plover Charadrius hiaticula ����a ����a ����a ����a

Article 4.2 – Migratory (Winter) Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Ringed Plover Charadrius hiaticula ����a ����a ����a ����a

Knot Calidris canutus islandica ����a ����a ����a ����a

Redshank Tringa totanus ����a ����a ����a ����a

Dunlin Calidris alpina alpina ����a ����a ����a ����a

Grey Plover Pluvialis squatarola ����a ����a ����a ����a

Black-tailed Godwit Limosa limosa islandica ����a ����a ����a ����a

Article 4.2 – Assemblage (Winter) Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Redshank Tringa totanus ����a ����a ����a ����a

Black-tailed Godwit Limosa limosa islandica ����a ����a ����a ����a

Page 132: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

41

Dunlin Calidris alpina alpina ����a ����a ����a ����a

Lapwing Vanellus vanellus ����a ����a ����a ����a

Grey Plover Pluvialis squatarola ����a ����a ����a ����a

Shoveler Anas clypeata ����a ����a ����a ����a

Pintail Anas acuta ����a ����a ����a ����a

Gadwall Anas strepera ����a ����a ����a ����a

Shelduck Tadorna tadorna ����a ����a ����a ����a

White-fronted Goose Anser albifrons albifrons ����a ����a ����a ����a

Little Grebe Tachybaptus ruficollis ����a ����a ����a ����a

Ringed Plover Charadrius hiaticula ����a ����a ����a ����a

Avocet Recurvirostra avosetta ����a ����a ����a ����a

Evidence supporting conclusion

a) The site is located 266 km from the Project Two site, thee is no mechanism for effect on these species. See HRA screening report section 5.4 (Doc Ref 12.6.1)

Page 133: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

42

Stage 1 Matrix 65: Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay SPA

Name of European site: Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay SPA

Distance to Hornsea Project Two: 266 km

European site features Likely Effects of Project Two

Article 4.2 – Migratory (Winter) Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Turnstone Arenaria interpres ����a ����a ����a ����a

Little tern Sterna albifrons ����a ����a ����a ����a

Golden plover Pluvialis apricaria ����a ����a ����a ����a

Evidence supporting conclusion

a) The site is located 266 km from the Project Two site, thee is no mechanism for effect on these species. See HRA screening report section 5.4 (Doc Ref 12.6.1)

Page 134: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

43

Stage 1 Matrix 66: The Swale SPA

Name of European site: The Swale SPA

Distance to Hornsea Project Two: 273 km

European site features Likely Effects of Project Two

Article 4.1 – Breeding Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Avocet Recurvirostra avosetta �a �a �a �a

Marsh Harrier Circus aeruginosus �a �a �a �a

Mediterranean Gull Larus melanocephalus �a �a �a �a

Article 4.1 – Winter Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Avocet Recurvirostra avosetta �a �a �a �a

Bar-tailed Godwit Limosa lapponica �a �a �a �a

Golden Plover Pluvialis apricaria �a �a �a �a

Hen Harrier Circus cyaneus �a �a �a �a

Article 4.2 – Migratory (On passage) Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Ringed Plover Charadrius hiaticula �a �a �a �a

Article 4.2 – Migratory (Winter) Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Black-tailed Godwit Limosa limosa islandica �a �a �a �a

Grey Plover Pluvialis squatarola �a �a �a �a

Knot Calidris canutus �a �a �a �a

Page 135: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

44

Name of European site: The Swale SPA

Distance to Hornsea Project Two: 273 km

European site features Likely Effects of Project Two

Pintail Anas acuta �a �a �a �a

Redshank Tringa totanus �a �a �a �a

Shoveler Anas clypeata �a �a �a �a

Article 4.2 – Assemblage (Winter) Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

White-fronted Goose Anser albifrons albifrons �a �a �a �a

Golden Plover Pluvialis apricaria �a �a �a �a

Bar-tailed Godwit Limosa lapponica �a �a �a �a

Pintail Anas acuta �a �a �a �a

Shoveler Anas clypeata �a �a �a �a

Grey Plover Pluvialis squatarola �a �a �a �a

Knot Calidris canutus �a �a �a �a

Black-tailed Godwit Limosa limosa islandica �a �a �a �a

Redshank Tringa totanus �a �a �a �a

Avocet Recurvirostra avosetta �a �a �a �a

Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo �a �a �a �a

Curlew Numenius arquata �a �a �a �a

Dark-bellied Brent Goose Branta bernicla bernicla

�a �a �a

�a

Shelduck Tadorna tadorna �a �a �a �a

Wigeon Anas penelope �a �a �a �a

Page 136: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

45

Name of European site: The Swale SPA

Distance to Hornsea Project Two: 273 km

European site features Likely Effects of Project Two

Gadwall Anas strepera �a �a �a �a

Teal Anas crecca �a �a �a �a

Oystercatcher Haematopus ostralegus �a �a �a �a

Lapwing Vanellus vanellus �a �a �a �a

Dunlin Calidris alpina alpina �a �a �a �a

Little Grebe Tachybaptus ruficollis �a �a �a �a

Evidence supporting conclusion

a) The site is located 273 km from the Project Two site, thee is no mechanism for effect on these species. See HRA screening report section 5.4 (Doc Ref 12.6.1)

Page 137: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

46

Stage 1 Matrix 67a: The Wash and North Norfolk Coast SAC (Annex I habitat)

Name of European site: The Wash and North Norfolk Coast SAC

Distance to PROJECT TWO: 90 km

SAC Annex I habitat features Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Changes to habitat Changes to water quality Changes to fishing activity In combination effects

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time

�a �a �a �b �b �b n/a �c n/a �a, b, c �a, b, c �a, b, c

Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide

�a �a �a �b �b �b n/a �c n/a �a, b, c �a, b, c �a, b, c

Large shallow inlets and bays �a �a �a �b �b �b n/a �c n/a �a, b, c �a, b, c �a, b, c

Reefs �a �a �a �b �b �b n/a �c n/a �a, b, c �a, b, c �a, b, c

Salicornia and other annuals colonizing mud and sand �a �a �a �b �b �b n/a �c n/a �a, b, c �a, b, c �a, b, c

Atlantic salt meadows (Glauco-Puccinellietalia maritimae) �a �a �a �b �b �b n/a �c n/a �a, b, c �a, b, c �a, b, c

Mediterranean and thermo-Atlantic halophilous scrubs (Sarcocornetea fruticosi)

�a �a �a �b �b �b n/a �c n/a �a, b, c �a, b, c �a, b, c

Coastal lagoons �a �a �a �b �b �b n/a �c n/a �a, b, c �a, b, c �a, b, c

Evidence supporting conclusions: a. No LSE on Annex I habitat is anticipated in relation to changes in habitat associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The spatial extent of direct

temporary habitat loss/disturbance effects will be highly localised, being limited to areas where works are being carried out. There is no potential for interaction, as outlined in paragraphs 5.1.2 to 5.1.11 (Construction and Decommissioning) and 5.1.31 to 5.1.48 (Operation and Maintenance) of the HRA Screening Report.

Page 138: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

47

b. No LSE on Annex I habitat is anticipated in relation to changes in water quality associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The Wash and North

Norfolk Coast SAC is located 90 km from Hornsea Project Two and increased suspended sediment and/or sediment deposition effects are not expected to extend to this range. Sufficient mitigation measures are in place for the release of contaminants/pollutants. There is no potential for interaction, as outlined in paragraphs 5.1.27 to 5.1.30 (Construction and Decommissioning) and 5.1.49 to 5.1.50 (Operation and Maintenance) of the HRA Screening Report.

c. No LSE on Annex I habitat is anticipated in relation to changes in fishing activity associated with the operation of Hornsea Project Two. It is anticipated that the potential effect of displacement of fishing activity will be dispersed over a large area, meaning that the specific increases in fishing activity in any one location would likely be minimal. See paragraphs 5.1.51 and 5.1.52 of the HRA Screening Report and Draft ES, Volume 2, Chapter 2: Subtidal and Intertidal Benthic Ecology.

Page 139: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

48

Stage 1 Matrix 67b : The Wash and North Norfolk Coast SAC (marine mammal)

Name of European site: The Wash and North Norfolk Coast SAC

Distance to PROJECT TWO: 90 km

SAC marine mammal features Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Behavioural disturbance/physical injury Changes to water quality Changes to prey availability In combination effects

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Harbour Seal �a �b �b �c �c �c �d �d �d �a �b, c, d �b, c, d

Evidence supporting conclusions: a. LSE on marine mammal features in relation to behavioural disturbance/physical injury associated with the construction of Hornsea Project Two cannot be ruled out. The risk of auditory injury would

be negligible for all Annex II marine mammals species, however there is potential for behavioural disturbance to occur as a result of piling b. . It is considered that LSEs on harbour seal cannot be ruled out for all the European sites located within 120 km from Project Two. See paragraphs 5.3.2 to 5.3.9 and 5.3.67 to 5.3.68 of the HRA

Screening Report.

c. No LSE on marine mammal features is anticipated in relation to behavioural disturbance/physical injury associated with the operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. Given the low level and limited spatial extent of the radiated noise, the risk of behavioural impacts on marine mammals would be limited to the immediate vicinity of the turbines. Piling will not be required during decommissioning and the anticipated method for the removal of turbines, abrasive cutting, would not be expected to be generate noise significantly higher than general surface vessel noise. See paragraphs 5.3.36 to 5.3.43 (operation) and 5.3.9 (decommissioning) of the HRA Screening Report.

d. No LSE on marine mammal features is anticipated in relation to changes in water quality associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The Wash and North Norfolk Coast SAC is located 90 km from Hornsea Project Two and increased suspended sediment and/or sediment deposition effects are not expected to extend to this range. Sufficient mitigation measures are in place for the release of contaminants/pollutants. There is no potential for interaction, as outlined in paragraphs 5.3.21 to 5.3.28 (Construction and Decommissioning) and 5.3.55 to 5.3.56 (Operation and Maintenance) of the HRA Screening Report.

e. No LSE on marine mammal features is anticipated in relation to changes in prey availability associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The potential impacts identified on fish receptors will be localised, short term and reversible. During the operational phase there may be increased feeding opportunities within Project Two as a result of potential reef effects and reduction in fishing activity. Furthermore, the fish community found in Project Two is characteristic of the fish and shellfish assemblage of the wider region and therefore marine mammals would be able to exploit similar resources in adjacent undisturbed areas (see Paragraphs 5.3.29 to 5.3.35 (Construction and Decommissioning) and 5.3.57 to 5.3.61 (Operation and Maintenance) of HRA Screening Report).

Page 140: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

49

Stage 1 Matrix 68: The Wash SPA and Ramsar

Name of European site: The Wash SPA

Distance to Hornsea Project Two: 111 km

European site features Likely Effects of Project Two

Article 4.1 – Breeding Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Common Tern Sterna hirundo �a �a �a �a

Little Tern Sterna albifrons �a �a �a �a

Marsh Harrier Circus aeruginosus �a �a �a �a

Article 4.1 – Over winter Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Avocet Recurvirostra avosetta �a �a �a �a

Bar-tailed Godwit Limosa lapponica �a �a �a �a

Golden Plover Pluvialis apricaria �a �a �a �a

Whooper Swan Cygnus cygnus �a �a �a �a

Article 4.2 – Migratory (On passage) Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Grey Plover Pluvialis squatarola �a �a �a �a

Knot Calidris canutus �a �a �a �a

Evidence supporting conclusion

a) The site is located 273 km from the Project Two site, thee is no mechanism for effect on these species. See HRA screening report section 5.4 (Doc Ref 12.6.1)

Page 141: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

50

Stage 1 Matrix 69: Troup Penan and Lion’s Heads SPA

Name of European site: Troup Penan and Lion’s Heads SPA

Distance to Hornsea Project Two: 467 km

European site features Likely Effects of Project Two

Article 4.1 – Breeding Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Guillemot Uria aalge ����a ����a ����a ����a

Article 4.2 – Assemblage Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Razorbill Alca torda ����a ����a ����a ����a

Kittiwake Rissa tridactyla ����a ����a ����a ����a

Herring Gull Larus argentatus ����a ����a ����a ����a

Fulmar Fulmarus glacialis ����a ����a ����a ����a

Guillemot Uria aalge ����a ����a ����a ����a

Evidence supporting conclusions

a) The site is located 669 km from the Project Two site, Project Two is beyond mean maximum foraging range for all features and so no LSE is predicted during the breeding season. No LSE has been predicted outside of the breeding season, see Annex A of the HRA screening report

Page 142: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

51

Stage 1 Matrix 70: West Westray SPA

Name of European site: West Westray SPA

Distance to Hornsea Project Two: 644 km

European site features Likely Effects of Project Two

Article 4.1 Breeding birds Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Arctic Tern �a �b �c �p

Article 4.2 Migratory Species Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Guillemot �d �e �f �p

Article 4.2 Assemblage Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Razorbill �g �e �h �p

Kittiwake �i �e �c �p

Arctic Skua �j �k �l �p

Fulmar �m �n �o �p

Guillemot �d �e �f �p

Arctic Tern �a �b �c �p

Evidence supporting conclusions

a) The site is located 644 km from the Project Two site, Project Two is beyond mean maximum foraging range for all features and so no LSE is predicted during the breeding season. No LSE has been predicted outside of the breeding season, see Annex A of the HRA screening report and Appendix I of the HRA report.

Page 143: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

52

Stage 1 Matrix 71: Ythan Estuary, Sands of Forvie and Meikle Loch SPA

Name of European site: Ythan Estuary, Sands of Forvie and Meikle Loch SPA

Distance to Hornsea Project Two: 425 km

European site features Likely Effects of Project Two

Article 4.1 – Breeding Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Common Tern Sterna hirundo ����a ����b ����c ����p

Little Tern Sterna albifrons ����d ����e ����c ����p

Sandwich Tern Sterna sandvicensis ����f ����g ����c ����p

Article 4.2 – Migratory Species (Winter) Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Pink-footed Goose Anser brachyrhynchus ����h ����i ����j ����p

Article 4.2 – Assemblage Collision Barrier Displacement In-combination

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Redshank Tringa totanus ����k ����k ����k ����p

Lapwing Vanellus vanellus ����l ����m ����j ����p

Eider Somateria mollissima ����n ����o ����j ����p

Pink-footed Goose Anser brachyrhynchus ����j ����k ����j ����p

Evidence supporting conclusions

a) The site is located 273 km from the Project Two site, thee is no mechanism for effect on these species. See HRA screening report section 5.4 (Doc Ref 12.6.1)

Page 144: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

53

Stage 1 Matrix 72a: SBZ 1 / ZPS 1 SCI (Annex I habitat)

Name of European site: SBZ 1 / ZPS 1 SCI

Distance to PROJECT TWO: 298 km

SAC Annex I habitat features Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Changes to habitat Changes to water quality Changes to fishing activity In combination effects

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time

�a �a �a �b �b �b n/a �c n/a �a, b, c �a, b, c �a, b, c

Evidence supporting conclusions: a. No LSE on Annex I habitat is anticipated in relation to changes in habitat associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The spatial extent of direct

temporary habitat loss/disturbance effects will be highly localised, being limited to areas where works are being carried out. There is no potential for interaction, as outlined in paragraphs 5.1.2 to 5.1.11 (Construction and Decommissioning) and 5.1.31 to 5.1.48 (Operation and Maintenance) of the HRA Screening Report.

b. No LSE on Annex I habitat is anticipated in relation to changes in water quality associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The SBZ 1 / ZPS 1 SCI is located 298 km from Hornsea Project Two and increased suspended sediment and/or sediment deposition effects are not expected to extend to this range. Sufficient mitigation measures are in place for the release of contaminants/pollutants. There is no potential for interaction, as outlined in paragraphs 5.1.27 to 5.1.30 (Construction and Decommissioning) and 5.1.49 to 5.1.50 (Operation and Maintenance) of the HRA Screening Report.

c. No LSE on Annex I habitat is anticipated in relation to changes in fishing activity associated with the operation of Hornsea Project Two. It is anticipated that the potential effect of displacement of fishing activity will be dispersed over a large area, meaning that the specific increases in fishing activity in any one location would likely be minimal. See paragraphs 5.1.51 and 5.1.52 of the HRA Screening Report and Draft ES, Volume 2, Chapter 2: Subtidal and Intertidal Benthic Ecology.

Page 145: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

54

Stage 1 Matrix 72b : SBZ 1 / ZPS 1 SCI (migratory fish)

Name of European site: SBZ 1 / ZPS 1 SCI

Distance to PROJECT TWO: 298 km

SAC marine mammal features

Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Behavioural disturbance/physical injury Changes to water quality Changes to habitat Changes to fishing activity In combination effects

C O D C O D C O D C O D C O D

Twaite shad �a �a �a �b �b �b n/a �c n/a n/a �d n/a �a, b, c, d �a, b, c, d �a, b, c, d

Sea lamprey �a �a �a �b �b �b n/a �c n/a n/a �d n/a �a, b, c, d �a, b, c, d �a, b, c, d

Evidence supporting conclusions: a. No LSE on migratory fish is anticipated in relation to behavioural disturbance/physical injury associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The Annex II

migratory fish species under consideration are highly mobile and have wide distribution ranges, being able to relocate and use equally suitable feeding areas in adjacent undisturbed locations. Any disturbance is likely to be over a relatively small spatial scale, limited to the immediate proximity of the inshore section of the export cable corridor. See paragraphs 5.2.5 to 5.2.7 (Construction and Decommissioning) and 5.2.34 to 5.2.36 (Operation and Maintenance) of the HRA Screening Report.

b. No LSE on migratory fish is anticipated in relation to changes to water quality associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The SBZ 1 / ZPS 1 SCI is located 298 km from Hornsea Project Two and increased suspended sediment and/or sediment deposition effects are not expected to extend to this range. Sufficient mitigation measures are in place for the release of contaminants/pollutants and cables will likely be left in situ during decommissioning. See paragraphs 5.2.8 to 5.2.14 (construction and decommissioning) and 5.2.37 to 5.2.38 (operation) of the HRA Screening Report.

c. No LSE on migratory fish is anticipated in relation to changes to habitat associated with the operation of Hornsea Project Two. Cable protection measures resulting in long term habitat loss (e.g., rock placement) will not be used along the export cable. The Annex II migratory fish species under consideration are highly mobile and have wide distribution ranges, being able to relocate and use equally suitable feeding areas in adjacent undisturbed locations. See paragraphs 5.2.18 to 5.2.23 of the HRA Screening Report.

d. No LSE on migratory fish is anticipated in relation to changes to fishing activity associated with the operation of Hornsea Project Two. The potential effect of displacement of fishing activity will be dispersed over a large area, meaning that the specific increases in fishing activity in any one location would likely be minimal. Annex II migratory fish species are rarely caught by the fishing methods used in the area, and therefore, if fishing effort is displaced into other areas the potential impact on these species would be minimal. See paragraphs 5.2.39 to 5.2.42 of the HRA Screening Report.

Page 146: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

55

Stage 1 Matrix 72c : SBZ 1 / ZPS 1 SCI (marine mammal)

Name of European site: SBZ 1 / ZPS 1 SCI

Distance to PROJECT TWO: 298 km SAC marine mammal features

Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Behavioural disturbance/physical injury Changes to water quality Changes to prey availability In combination effects C O D C O D C O D C O D

Grey seal ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a Harbour seal ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b Harbour porpoise ����c ����d ����d ����e ����e ����e ����f ����f ����f ����c ����d, e, f ����d, e, f Evidence supporting conclusions: a. No LSE on grey seal is anticipated in relation to behavioural disturbance/physical injury, changes to water quality or changes to prey availability associated with the construction, operation and

decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. It is considered that harbour seal populations from European sites located at distances greater than 145 km from Project Two are beyond any potential for direct and indirect effects on foraging trips, and therefore, no LSE is anticipated (see paragraph 5.3.65 of the HRA Screening Report).

b. No LSE on harbour seal is anticipated in relation to behavioural disturbance/physical injury, changes to water quality or changes to prey availability associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. It is considered that harbour seal populations from European sites located at distances greater than 120 km from Project Two are beyond any potential for direct and indirect effects on foraging trips, and therefore, no LSE is anticipated (see paragraph 5.3.67 of the HRA Screening Report).

c. LSE on harbour porpoise in relation to behavioural disturbance/physical injury associated with the construction of Hornsea Project Two cannot be ruled out. The risk of auditory injury would be negligible for all Annex II marine mammals species, however there is potential for behavioural disturbance to occur as a result of piling. It is considered that LSEs on harbour porpoise cannot be ruled out for all the European sites included in the screening exercise, as they form part of the overall mobile North Sea population. See paragraphs 5.3.2 to 5.3.9 and 5.3.69 to 5.3.70 of the HRA Screening Report.

d. No LSE on harbour porpoise is anticipated in relation to behavioural disturbance/physical injury associated with the operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. Given the low level and limited spatial extent of the radiated noise, the risk of behavioural impacts on marine mammals would be limited to the immediate vicinity of the turbines. Piling will not be required during decommissioning and the anticipated method for the removal of turbines, abrasive cutting, would not be expected to be generate noise significantly higher than general surface vessel noise. See paragraphs 5.3.36 to 5.3.43 (operation) and 5.3.9 (decommissioning) of the HRA Screening Report.

e. No LSE on harbour porpoise is anticipated in relation to changes in water quality associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The SBZ 1 / ZPS 1 SCI is located 298 km from Hornsea Project Two and increased suspended sediment and/or sediment deposition effects are not expected to extend to this range. Sufficient mitigation measures are in place for the release of contaminants/pollutants. There is no potential for interaction, as outlined in paragraphs 5.3.21 to 5.3.28 (Construction and Decommissioning) and 5.3.55 to 5.3.56 (Operation and Maintenance) of the HRA Screening Report.

f. No LSE on harbour porpoise is anticipated in relation to changes in prey availability associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The potential impacts identified on fish receptors will be localised, short term and reversible. During the operational phase there may be increased feeding opportunities within Project Two as a result of potential reef effects and reduction in fishing activity. Furthermore, the fish community found in Project Two is characteristic of the fish and shellfish assemblage of the wider region and therefore marine mammals would be able to exploit similar resources in adjacent undisturbed areas (see Paragraphs 5.3.29 to 5.3.35 (Construction and Decommissioning) and 5.3.57 to 5.3.61 (Operation and Maintenance) of HRA Screening Report).

Page 147: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

56

Stage 1 Matrix 73a: SBZ 2 / ZPS 2 SCI (Annex I habitat)

Name of European site: SBZ 2 / ZPS 2 SCI

Distance to PROJECT TWO: 287 km SAC Annex I habitat features Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Changes to habitat Changes to water quality Changes to fishing activity In combination effects C O D C O D C O D C O D

Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time

����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c

Evidence supporting conclusions: a. No LSE on Annex I habitat is anticipated in relation to changes in habitat associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The spatial extent of direct

temporary habitat loss/disturbance effects will be highly localised, being limited to areas where works are being carried out. There is no potential for interaction, as outlined in paragraphs 5.1.2 to 5.1.11 (Construction and Decommissioning) and 5.1.31 to 5.1.48 (Operation and Maintenance) of the HRA Screening Report.

b. No LSE on Annex I habitat is anticipated in relation to changes in water quality associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The SBZ 2 / ZPS 2 SCI is located 287 km from Hornsea Project Two and increased suspended sediment and/or sediment deposition effects are not expected to extend to this range. Sufficient mitigation measures are in place for the release of contaminants/pollutants. There is no potential for interaction, as outlined in paragraphs 5.1.27 to 5.1.30 (Construction and Decommissioning) and 5.1.49 to 5.1.50 (Operation and Maintenance) of the HRA Screening Report.

c. No LSE on Annex I habitat is anticipated in relation to changes in fishing activity associated with the operation of Hornsea Project Two. It is anticipated that the potential effect of displacement of fishing activity will be dispersed over a large area, meaning that the specific increases in fishing activity in any one location would likely be minimal. See paragraphs 5.1.51 and 5.1.52 of the HRA Screening Report and Draft ES, Volume 2, Chapter 2: Subtidal and Intertidal Benthic Ecology.

Page 148: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

57

Stage 1 Matrix 74b : SBZ 2 / ZPS 2 SCI (migratory fish)

Name of European site: SBZ 2 / ZPS 2 SCI

Distance to PROJECT TWO: 287 km

SAC marine mammal features

Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Behavioural disturbance/physical injury Changes to water quality Changes to habitat Changes to fishing activity In combination effects C O D C O D C O D C O D C O D

Twaite shad ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a n/a ����d n/a ����a, b, c, d

����a, b, c, d

����a, b, c, d

Sea lamprey ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a n/a ����d n/a ����a, b, c, d

����a, b, c, d

����a, b, c, d

Evidence supporting conclusions: a. No LSE on migratory fish is anticipated in relation to behavioural disturbance/physical injury associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The Annex II

migratory fish species under consideration are highly mobile and have wide distribution ranges, being able to relocate and use equally suitable feeding areas in adjacent undisturbed locations. Any disturbance is likely to be over a relatively small spatial scale, limited to the immediate proximity of the inshore section of the export cable corridor. See paragraphs 5.2.5 to 5.2.7 (Construction and Decommissioning) and 5.2.34 to 5.2.36 (Operation and Maintenance) of the HRA Screening Report.

b. No LSE on migratory fish is anticipated in relation to changes to water quality associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The SBZ 2 / ZPS 2 SCI is located 287 km from Hornsea Project Two and increased suspended sediment and/or sediment deposition effects are not expected to extend to this range. Sufficient mitigation measures are in place for the release of contaminants/pollutants and cables will likely be left in situ during decommissioning. See paragraphs 5.2.8 to 5.2.14 (construction and decommissioning) and 5.2.37 to 5.2.38 (operation) of the HRA Screening Report.

c. No LSE on migratory fish is anticipated in relation to changes to habitat associated with the operation of Hornsea Project Two. Cable protection measures resulting in long term habitat loss (e.g., rock placement) will not be used along the export cable. The Annex II migratory fish species under consideration are highly mobile and have wide distribution ranges, being able to relocate and use equally suitable feeding areas in adjacent undisturbed locations. See paragraphs 5.2.18 to 5.2.23 of the HRA Screening Report.

d. No LSE on migratory fish is anticipated in relation to changes to fishing activity associated with the operation of Hornsea Project Two. The potential effect of displacement of fishing activity will be dispersed over a large area, meaning that the specific increases in fishing activity in any one location would likely be minimal. Annex II migratory fish species are rarely caught by the fishing methods used in the area, and therefore, if fishing effort is displaced into other areas the potential impact on these species would be minimal. See paragraphs 5.2.39 to 5.2.42 of the HRA Screening Report.

Page 149: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

58

Stage 1 Matrix 74c : SBZ 2 / ZPS 2 SCI (marine mammal)

Name of European site: SBZ 2 / ZPS 2 SCI

Distance to PROJECT TWO: 287 km SAC marine mammal features

Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Behavioural disturbance/physical injury Changes to water quality Changes to prey availability In combination effects C O D C O D C O D C O D

Grey seal ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a Harbour seal ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b Harbour porpoise ����c ����d ����d ����e ����e ����e ����f ����f ����f ����c ����d, e, f ����d, e, f Evidence supporting conclusions: a. No LSE on grey seal is anticipated in relation to behavioural disturbance/physical injury, changes to water quality or changes to prey availability associated with the construction, operation and

decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. It is considered that harbour seal populations from European sites located at distances greater than 145 km from Project Two are beyond any potential for direct and indirect effects on foraging trips, and therefore, no LSE is anticipated (see paragraph 5.3.65 of the HRA Screening Report).

b. No LSE on harbour seal is anticipated in relation to behavioural disturbance/physical injury, changes to water quality or changes to prey availability associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. It is considered that harbour seal populations from European sites located at distances greater than 120 km from Project Two are beyond any potential for direct and indirect effects on foraging trips, and therefore, no LSE is anticipated (see paragraph 5.3.67 of the HRA Screening Report).

c. LSE on harbour porpoise in relation to behavioural disturbance/physical injury associated with the construction of Hornsea Project Two cannot be ruled out. The risk of auditory injury would be negligible for all Annex II marine mammals species, however there is potential for behavioural disturbance to occur as a result of piling. It is considered that LSEs on harbour porpoise cannot be ruled out for all the European sites included in the screening exercise, as they form part of the overall mobile North Sea population. See paragraphs 5.3.2 to 5.3.9 and 5.3.69 to 5.3.70 of the HRA Screening Report.

d. No LSE on harbour porpoise is anticipated in relation to behavioural disturbance/physical injury associated with the operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. Given the low level and limited spatial extent of the radiated noise, the risk of behavioural impacts on marine mammals would be limited to the immediate vicinity of the turbines. Piling will not be required during decommissioning and the anticipated method for the removal of turbines, abrasive cutting, would not be expected to be generate noise significantly higher than general surface vessel noise. See paragraphs 5.3.36 to 5.3.43 (operation) and 5.3.9 (decommissioning) of the HRA Screening Report.

e. No LSE on harbour porpoise is anticipated in relation to changes in water quality associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The SBZ 2 / ZPS 2 SCI is located 287 km from Hornsea Project Two and increased suspended sediment and/or sediment deposition effects are not expected to extend to this range. Sufficient mitigation measures are in place for the release of contaminants/pollutants. There is no potential for interaction, as outlined in paragraphs 5.3.21 to 5.3.28 (Construction and Decommissioning) and 5.3.55 to 5.3.56 (Operation and Maintenance) of the HRA Screening Report.

f. No LSE on harbour porpoise is anticipated in relation to changes in prey availability associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The potential impacts identified on fish receptors will be localised, short term and reversible. During the operational phase there may be increased feeding opportunities within Project Two as a result of potential reef effects and reduction in fishing activity. Furthermore, the fish community found in Project Two is characteristic of the fish and shellfish assemblage of the wider region and therefore marine mammals would be able to exploit similar resources in adjacent undisturbed areas (see Paragraphs 5.3.29 to 5.3.35 (Construction and Decommissioning) and 5.3.57 to 5.3.61 (Operation and Maintenance) of HRA Screening Report).

Page 150: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

59

Stage 1 Matrix 75a: SBZ 3 / ZPS 3 SCI (Annex I habitat)

Name of European site: SBZ 3 / ZPS 3 SCI

Distance to PROJECT TWO: 290 km SAC Annex I habitat features Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Changes to habitat Changes to water quality Changes to fishing activity In combination effects C O D C O D C O D C O D

Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time

����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c

Evidence supporting conclusions: a. No LSE on Annex I habitat is anticipated in relation to changes in habitat associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The spatial extent of direct

temporary habitat loss/disturbance effects will be highly localised, being limited to areas where works are being carried out. There is no potential for interaction, as outlined in paragraphs 5.1.2 to 5.1.11 (Construction and Decommissioning) and 5.1.31 to 5.1.48 (Operation and Maintenance) of the HRA Screening Report.

b. No LSE on Annex I habitat is anticipated in relation to changes in water quality associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The SBZ 3 / ZPS 3 SCI is located 290 km from Hornsea Project Two and increased suspended sediment and/or sediment deposition effects are not expected to extend to this range. Sufficient mitigation measures are in place for the release of contaminants/pollutants. There is no potential for interaction, as outlined in paragraphs 5.1.27 to 5.1.30 (Construction and Decommissioning) and 5.1.49 to 5.1.50 (Operation and Maintenance) of the HRA Screening Report.

c. No LSE on Annex I habitat is anticipated in relation to changes in fishing activity associated with the operation of Hornsea Project Two. It is anticipated that the potential effect of displacement of fishing activity will be dispersed over a large area, meaning that the specific increases in fishing activity in any one location would likely be minimal. See paragraphs 5.1.51 and 5.1.52 of the HRA Screening Report and Draft ES, Volume 2, Chapter 2: Subtidal and Intertidal Benthic Ecology.

Page 151: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

60

Stage 1 Matrix 75b : SBZ 3 / ZPS 3 SCI (migratory fish)

Name of European site: SBZ 3 / ZPS 3 SCI

Distance to PROJECT TWO: 290 km

SAC marine mammal features

Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Behavioural disturbance/physical injury Changes to water quality Changes to habitat Changes to fishing activity In combination effects C O D C O D C O D C O D C O D

Twaite shad ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a n/a ����d n/a ����a, b, c, d

����a, b, c, d

����a, b, c, d

Sea lamprey ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a n/a ����d n/a ����a, b, c, d

����a, b, c, d

����a, b, c, d

Evidence supporting conclusions: a. No LSE on migratory fish is anticipated in relation to behavioural disturbance/physical injury associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The Annex II

migratory fish species under consideration are highly mobile and have wide distribution ranges, being able to relocate and use equally suitable feeding areas in adjacent undisturbed locations. Any disturbance is likely to be over a relatively small spatial scale, limited to the immediate proximity of the inshore section of the export cable corridor. See paragraphs 5.2.5 to 5.2.7 (Construction and Decommissioning) and 5.2.34 to 5.2.36 (Operation and Maintenance) of the HRA Screening Report.

b. No LSE on migratory fish is anticipated in relation to changes to water quality associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The SBZ 3 / ZPS 3 SCI is located 290 km from Hornsea Project Two and increased suspended sediment and/or sediment deposition effects are not expected to extend to this range. Sufficient mitigation measures are in place for the release of contaminants/pollutants and cables will likely be left in situ during decommissioning. See paragraphs 5.2.8 to 5.2.14 (construction and decommissioning) and 5.2.37 to 5.2.38 (operation) of the HRA Screening Report.

c. No LSE on migratory fish is anticipated in relation to changes to habitat associated with the operation of Hornsea Project Two. Cable protection measures resulting in long term habitat loss (e.g., rock placement) will not be used along the export cable. The Annex II migratory fish species under consideration are highly mobile and have wide distribution ranges, being able to relocate and use equally suitable feeding areas in adjacent undisturbed locations. See paragraphs 5.2.18 to 5.2.23 of the HRA Screening Report.

d. No LSE on migratory fish is anticipated in relation to changes to fishing activity associated with the operation of Hornsea Project Two. The potential effect of displacement of fishing activity will be dispersed over a large area, meaning that the specific increases in fishing activity in any one location would likely be minimal. Annex II migratory fish species are rarely caught by the fishing methods used in the area, and therefore, if fishing effort is displaced into other areas the potential impact on these species would be minimal. See paragraphs 5.2.39 to 5.2.42 of the HRA Screening Report.

Page 152: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

61

Stage 1 Matrix 75c : SBZ 3 / ZPS 3 SCI (marine mammal)

Name of European site: SBZ 3 / ZPS 3 SCI

Distance to PROJECT TWO: 290 km SAC marine mammal features

Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Behavioural disturbance/physical injury Changes to water quality Changes to prey availability In combination effects C O D C O D C O D C O D

Grey seal ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a Harbour seal ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b Harbour porpoise ����c ����d ����d ����e ����e ����e ����f ����f ����f ����c ����d, e, f ����d, e, f Evidence supporting conclusions: a. No LSE on grey seal is anticipated in relation to behavioural disturbance/physical injury, changes to water quality or changes to prey availability associated with the construction, operation and

decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. It is considered that harbour seal populations from European sites located at distances greater than 145 km from Project Two are beyond any potential for direct and indirect effects on foraging trips, and therefore, no LSE is anticipated (see paragraph 5.3.65 of the HRA Screening Report).

b. No LSE on harbour seal is anticipated in relation to behavioural disturbance/physical injury, changes to water quality or changes to prey availability associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. It is considered that harbour seal populations from European sites located at distances greater than 120 km from Project Two are beyond any potential for direct and indirect effects on foraging trips, and therefore, no LSE is anticipated (see paragraph 5.3.67 of the HRA Screening Report).

c. LSE on harbour porpoise in relation to behavioural disturbance/physical injury associated with the construction of Hornsea Project Two cannot be ruled out. The risk of auditory injury would be negligible for all Annex II marine mammals species, however there is potential for behavioural disturbance to occur as a result of piling. It is considered that LSEs on harbour porpoise cannot be ruled out for all the European sites included in the screening exercise, as they form part of the overall mobile North Sea population. See paragraphs 5.3.2 to 5.3.9 and 5.3.69 to 5.3.70 of the HRA Screening Report.

d. No LSE on harbour porpoise is anticipated in relation to behavioural disturbance/physical injury associated with the operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. Given the low level and limited spatial extent of the radiated noise, the risk of behavioural impacts on marine mammals would be limited to the immediate vicinity of the turbines. Piling will not be required during decommissioning and the anticipated method for the removal of turbines, abrasive cutting, would not be expected to be generate noise significantly higher than general surface vessel noise. See paragraphs 5.3.36 to 5.3.43 (operation) and 5.3.9 (decommissioning) of the HRA Screening Report.

e. No LSE on harbour porpoise is anticipated in relation to changes in water quality associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The SBZ 3 / ZPS 3 SCI is located 290 km from Hornsea Project Two and increased suspended sediment and/or sediment deposition effects are not expected to extend to this range. Sufficient mitigation measures are in place for the release of contaminants/pollutants. There is no potential for interaction, as outlined in paragraphs 5.3.21 to 5.3.28 (Construction and Decommissioning) and 5.3.55 to 5.3.56 (Operation and Maintenance) of the HRA Screening Report.

f. No LSE on harbour porpoise is anticipated in relation to changes in prey availability associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The potential impacts identified on fish receptors will be localised, short term and reversible. During the operational phase there may be increased feeding opportunities within Project Two as a result of potential reef effects and reduction in fishing activity. Furthermore, the fish community found in Project Two is characteristic of the fish and shellfish assemblage of the wider region and therefore marine mammals would be able to exploit similar resources in adjacent undisturbed areas (see Paragraphs 5.3.29 to 5.3.35 (Construction and Decommissioning) and 5.3.57 to 5.3.61 (Operation and Maintenance) of HRA Screening Report).

Page 153: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

62

Stage 1 Matrix 76a: Vlakte van de Raan pSCI (Annex I habitat)

Name of European site: Vlakte van de Raan pSCI

Distance to PROJECT TWO: 274 km SAC Annex I habitat features Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Changes to habitat Changes to water quality Changes to fishing activity In combination effects C O D C O D C O D C O D

Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time

����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c

Evidence supporting conclusions:

a. No LSE on Annex I habitat is anticipated in relation to changes in habitat associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The spatial extent of direct

temporary habitat loss/disturbance effects will be highly localised, being limited to areas where works are being carried out. There is no potential for interaction, as outlined in paragraphs 5.1.2 to 5.1.11 (Construction and Decommissioning) and 5.1.31 to 5.1.48 (Operation and Maintenance) of the HRA Screening Report.

b. No LSE on Annex I habitat is anticipated in relation to changes in water quality associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The Vlakte van de Raan pSCI is located 274 km from Hornsea Project Two and increased suspended sediment and/or sediment deposition effects are not expected to extend to this range. Sufficient mitigation measures are in place for the release of contaminants/pollutants. There is no potential for interaction, as outlined in paragraphs 5.1.27 to 5.1.30 (Construction and Decommissioning) and 5.1.49 to 5.1.50 (Operation and Maintenance) of the HRA Screening Report.

c. No LSE on Annex I habitat is anticipated in relation to changes in fishing activity associated with the operation of Hornsea Project Two. It is anticipated that the potential effect of displacement of fishing activity will be dispersed over a large area, meaning that the specific increases in fishing activity in any one location would likely be minimal. See paragraphs 5.1.51 and 5.1.52 of the HRA Screening Report and Draft ES, Volume 2, Chapter 2: Subtidal and Intertidal Benthic Ecology.

Page 154: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

63

Stage 1 Matrix 76b : Vlakte van de Raan pSCI (migratory fish)

Name of European site: Vlakte van de Raan pSCI

Distance to PROJECT TWO: 274 km

SAC marine mammal features

Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Behavioural disturbance/physical injury Changes to water quality Changes to habitat Changes to fishing activity In combination effects C O D C O D C O D C O D C O D

Twaite shad ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a n/a ����d n/a ����a, b, c, d

����a, b, c, d

����a, b, c, d

Sea lamprey ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a n/a ����d n/a ����a, b, c, d

����a, b, c, d

����a, b, c, d

Evidence supporting conclusions: a. No LSE on migratory fish is anticipated in relation to behavioural disturbance/physical injury associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The Annex II

migratory fish species under consideration are highly mobile and have wide distribution ranges, being able to relocate and use equally suitable feeding areas in adjacent undisturbed locations. Any disturbance is likely to be over a relatively small spatial scale, limited to the immediate proximity of the inshore section of the export cable corridor. See paragraphs 5.2.5 to 5.2.7 (Construction and Decommissioning) and 5.2.34 to 5.2.36 (Operation and Maintenance) of the HRA Screening Report.

b. No LSE on migratory fish is anticipated in relation to changes to water quality associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The Vlakte van de Raan pSCI is located 274 km from Hornsea Project Two and increased suspended sediment and/or sediment deposition effects are not expected to extend to this range. Sufficient mitigation measures are in place for the release of contaminants/pollutants and cables will likely be left in situ during decommissioning. See paragraphs 5.2.8 to 5.2.14 (construction and decommissioning) and 5.2.37 to 5.2.38 (operation) of the HRA Screening Report.

c. No LSE on migratory fish is anticipated in relation to changes to habitat associated with the operation of Hornsea Project Two. Cable protection measures resulting in long term habitat loss (e.g., rock placement) will not be used along the export cable. The Annex II migratory fish species under consideration are highly mobile and have wide distribution ranges, being able to relocate and use equally suitable feeding areas in adjacent undisturbed locations. See paragraphs 5.2.18 to 5.2.23 of the HRA Screening Report.

d. No LSE on migratory fish is anticipated in relation to changes to fishing activity associated with the operation of Hornsea Project Two. The potential effect of displacement of fishing activity will be dispersed over a large area, meaning that the specific increases in fishing activity in any one location would likely be minimal. Annex II migratory fish species are rarely caught by the fishing methods used in the area, and therefore, if fishing effort is displaced into other areas the potential impact on these species would be minimal. See paragraphs 5.2.39 to 5.2.42 of the HRA Screening Report.

Page 155: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

64

Stage 1 Matrix 76c : Vlakte van de Raan pSCI (marine mammal)

Name of European site: Vlakte van de Raan pSCI

Distance to PROJECT TWO: 274 km SAC marine mammal features

Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Behavioural disturbance/physical injury Changes to water quality Changes to prey availability In combination effects C O D C O D C O D C O D

Grey seal ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a Harbour seal ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b Harbour porpoise ����c ����d ����d ����e ����e ����e ����f ����f ����f ����c ����d, e, f ����d, e, f Evidence supporting conclusions: a. No LSE on grey seal is anticipated in relation to behavioural disturbance/physical injury, changes to water quality or changes to prey availability associated with the construction, operation and

decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. It is considered that harbour seal populations from European sites located at distances greater than 145 km from Project Two are beyond any potential for direct and indirect effects on foraging trips, and therefore, no LSE is anticipated (see paragraph 5.3.65 of the HRA Screening Report).

b. No LSE on harbour seal is anticipated in relation to behavioural disturbance/physical injury, changes to water quality or changes to prey availability associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. It is considered that harbour seal populations from European sites located at distances greater than 120 km from Project Two are beyond any potential for direct and indirect effects on foraging trips, and therefore, no LSE is anticipated (see paragraph 5.3.67 of the HRA Screening Report).

c. LSE on harbour porpoise in relation to behavioural disturbance/physical injury associated with the construction of Hornsea Project Two cannot be ruled out. The risk of auditory injury would be negligible for all Annex II marine mammals species, however there is potential for behavioural disturbance to occur as a result of piling. It is considered that LSEs on harbour porpoise cannot be ruled out for all the European sites included in the screening exercise, as they form part of the overall mobile North Sea population. See paragraphs 5.3.2 to 5.3.9 and 5.3.69 to 5.3.70 of the HRA Screening Report.

d. No LSE on harbour porpoise is anticipated in relation to behavioural disturbance/physical injury associated with the operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. Given the low level and limited spatial extent of the radiated noise, the risk of behavioural impacts on marine mammals would be limited to the immediate vicinity of the turbines. Piling will not be required during decommissioning and the anticipated method for the removal of turbines, abrasive cutting, would not be expected to be generate noise significantly higher than general surface vessel noise. See paragraphs 5.3.36 to 5.3.43 (operation) and 5.3.9 (decommissioning) of the HRA Screening Report.

e. No LSE on harbour porpoise is anticipated in relation to changes in water quality associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The Vlakte van de Raan pSCI is located 274 km from Hornsea Project Two and increased suspended sediment and/or sediment deposition effects are not expected to extend to this range. Sufficient mitigation measures are in place for the release of contaminants/pollutants. There is no potential for interaction, as outlined in paragraphs 5.3.21 to 5.3.28 (Construction and Decommissioning) and 5.3.55 to 5.3.56 (Operation and Maintenance) of the HRA Screening Report.

f. No LSE on harbour porpoise is anticipated in relation to changes in prey availability associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The potential impacts identified on fish receptors will be localised, short term and reversible. During the operational phase there may be increased feeding opportunities within Project Two as a result of potential reef effects and reduction in fishing activity. Furthermore, the fish community found in Project Two is characteristic of the fish and shellfish assemblage of the wider region and therefore marine mammals would be able to exploit similar resources in adjacent undisturbed areas (see Paragraphs 5.3.29 to 5.3.35 (Construction and Decommissioning) and 5.3.57 to 5.3.61 (Operation and Maintenance) of HRA Screening Report).

Page 156: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

65

Stage 1 Matrix 77a: Borkum – Riffgrund SCI (Annex I habitat)

Name of European site: Borkum – Riffgrund SCI

Distance to PROJECT TWO: 262 km SAC Annex I habitat features Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Changes to habitat Changes to water quality Changes to fishing activity In combination effects C O D C O D C O D C O D

Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time

����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c

Reefs ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c Evidence supporting conclusions: a. No LSE on Annex I habitat is anticipated in relation to changes in habitat associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The spatial extent of direct

temporary habitat loss/disturbance effects will be highly localised, being limited to areas where works are being carried out. There is no potential for interaction, as outlined in paragraphs 5.1.2 to 5.1.11 (Construction and Decommissioning) and 5.1.31 to 5.1.48 (Operation and Maintenance) of the HRA Screening Report.

b. No LSE on Annex I habitat is anticipated in relation to changes in water quality associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The Borkum – Riffgrund SCI is located 262 km from Hornsea Project Two and increased suspended sediment and/or sediment deposition effects are not expected to extend to this range. Sufficient mitigation measures are in place for the release of contaminants/pollutants. There is no potential for interaction, as outlined in paragraphs 5.1.27 to 5.1.30 (Construction and Decommissioning) and 5.1.49 to 5.1.50 (Operation and Maintenance) of the HRA Screening Report.

c. No LSE on Annex I habitat is anticipated in relation to changes in fishing activity associated with the operation of Hornsea Project Two. It is anticipated that the potential effect of displacement of fishing activity will be dispersed over a large area, meaning that the specific increases in fishing activity in any one location would likely be minimal. See paragraphs 5.1.51 and 5.1.52 of the HRA Screening Report and Draft ES, Volume 2, Chapter 2: Subtidal and Intertidal Benthic Ecology.

Page 157: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

66

Stage 1 Matrix 77b : Borkum – Riffgrund SCI (migratory fish)

Name of European site: Borkum – Riffgrund SCI

Distance to PROJECT TWO: 262 km

SAC marine mammal features

Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Behavioural disturbance/physical injury Changes to water quality Changes to habitat Changes to fishing activity In combination effects C O D C O D C O D C O D C O D

Twaite shad ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a n/a ����d n/a ����a, b, c, d

����a, b, c, d

����a, b, c, d

Evidence supporting conclusions: a. No LSE on migratory fish is anticipated in relation to behavioural disturbance/physical injury associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The Annex II

migratory fish species under consideration are highly mobile and have wide distribution ranges, being able to relocate and use equally suitable feeding areas in adjacent undisturbed locations. Any disturbance is likely to be over a relatively small spatial scale, limited to the immediate proximity of the inshore section of the export cable corridor. See paragraphs 5.2.5 to 5.2.7 (Construction and Decommissioning) and 5.2.34 to 5.2.36 (Operation and Maintenance) of the HRA Screening Report.

b. No LSE on migratory fish is anticipated in relation to changes to water quality associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The Borkum – Riffgrund SCI is located 262 km from Hornsea Project Two and increased suspended sediment and/or sediment deposition effects are not expected to extend to this range. Sufficient mitigation measures are in place for the release of contaminants/pollutants and cables will likely be left in situ during decommissioning. See paragraphs 5.2.8 to 5.2.14 (construction and decommissioning) and 5.2.37 to 5.2.38 (operation) of the HRA Screening Report.

c. No LSE on migratory fish is anticipated in relation to changes to habitat associated with the operation of Hornsea Project Two. Cable protection measures resulting in long term habitat loss (e.g., rock placement) will not be used along the export cable. The Annex II migratory fish species under consideration are highly mobile and have wide distribution ranges, being able to relocate and use equally suitable feeding areas in adjacent undisturbed locations. See paragraphs 5.2.18 to 5.2.23 of the HRA Screening Report.

d. No LSE on migratory fish is anticipated in relation to changes to fishing activity associated with the operation of Hornsea Project Two. The potential effect of displacement of fishing activity will be dispersed over a large area, meaning that the specific increases in fishing activity in any one location would likely be minimal. Annex II migratory fish species are rarely caught by the fishing methods used in the area, and therefore, if fishing effort is displaced into other areas the potential impact on these species would be minimal. See paragraphs 5.2.39 to 5.2.42 of the HRA Screening Report.

Page 158: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

67

Stage 1 Matrix 77c : Borkum – Riffgrund SCI (marine mammal)

Name of European site: Borkum – Riffgrund SCI

Distance to PROJECT TWO: 262 km SAC marine mammal features

Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Behavioural disturbance/physical injury Changes to water quality Changes to prey availability In combination effects C O D C O D C O D C O D

Grey seal ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a Harbour seal ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b Harbour porpoise ����c ����d ����d ����e ����e ����e ����f ����f ����f ����c ����d, e, f ����d, e, f Evidence supporting conclusions: a. No LSE on grey seal is anticipated in relation to behavioural disturbance/physical injury, changes to water quality or changes to prey availability associated with the construction, operation and

decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. It is considered that harbour seal populations from European sites located at distances greater than 145 km from Project Two are beyond any potential for direct and indirect effects on foraging trips, and therefore, no LSE is anticipated (see paragraph 5.3.65 of the HRA Screening Report).

b. No LSE on harbour seal is anticipated in relation to behavioural disturbance/physical injury, changes to water quality or changes to prey availability associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. It is considered that harbour seal populations from European sites located at distances greater than 120 km from Project Two are beyond any potential for direct and indirect effects on foraging trips, and therefore, no LSE is anticipated (see paragraph 5.3.67 of the HRA Screening Report).

c. LSE on harbour porpoise in relation to behavioural disturbance/physical injury associated with the construction of Hornsea Project Two cannot be ruled out. The risk of auditory injury would be negligible for all Annex II marine mammals species, however there is potential for behavioural disturbance to occur as a result of piling. It is considered that LSEs on harbour porpoise cannot be ruled out for all the European sites included in the screening exercise, as they form part of the overall mobile North Sea population. See paragraphs 5.3.2 to 5.3.9 and 5.3.69 to 5.3.70 of the HRA Screening Report.

d. No LSE on harbour porpoise is anticipated in relation to behavioural disturbance/physical injury associated with the operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. Given the low level and limited spatial extent of the radiated noise, the risk of behavioural impacts on marine mammals would be limited to the immediate vicinity of the turbines. Piling will not be required during decommissioning and the anticipated method for the removal of turbines, abrasive cutting, would not be expected to be generate noise significantly higher than general surface vessel noise. See paragraphs 5.3.36 to 5.3.43 (operation) and 5.3.9 (decommissioning) of the HRA Screening Report.

e. No LSE on harbour porpoise is anticipated in relation to changes in water quality associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The Borkum – Riffgrund SCI is located 262 km from Hornsea Project Two and increased suspended sediment and/or sediment deposition effects are not expected to extend to this range. Sufficient mitigation measures are in place for the release of contaminants/pollutants. There is no potential for interaction, as outlined in paragraphs 5.3.21 to 5.3.28 (Construction and Decommissioning) and 5.3.55 to 5.3.56 (Operation and Maintenance) of the HRA Screening Report.

f. No LSE on harbour porpoise is anticipated in relation to changes in prey availability associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The potential impacts identified on fish receptors will be localised, short term and reversible. During the operational phase there may be increased feeding opportunities within Project Two as a result of potential reef effects and reduction in fishing activity. Furthermore, the fish community found in Project Two is characteristic of the fish and shellfish assemblage of the wider region and therefore marine mammals would be able to exploit similar resources in adjacent undisturbed areas (see Paragraphs 5.3.29 to 5.3.35 (Construction and Decommissioning) and 5.3.57 to 5.3.61 (Operation and Maintenance) of HRA Screening Report).

Page 159: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

68

Page 160: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

69

Stage 1 Matrix 78a: Doggerbank (German Dogger Bank) SCI (Annex I habitat)

Name of European site: Doggerbank (German Dogger Bank) SCI

Distance to PROJECT TWO: 63 km SAC Annex I habitat features Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Changes to habitat Changes to water quality Changes to fishing activity In combination effects C O D C O D C O D C O D

Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time

����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c

Evidence supporting conclusions: a. No LSE on Annex I habitat is anticipated in relation to changes in habitat associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The spatial extent of direct

temporary habitat loss/disturbance effects will be highly localised, being limited to areas where works are being carried out. There is no potential for interaction, as outlined in paragraphs 5.1.2 to 5.1.11 (Construction and Decommissioning) and 5.1.31 to 5.1.48 (Operation and Maintenance) of the HRA Screening Report.

b. No LSE on Annex I habitat is anticipated in relation to changes in water quality associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The Doggerbank (German Dogger Bank) SCI is located 63 km from Hornsea Project Two and increased suspended sediment and/or sediment deposition effects are not expected to extend to this range. Sufficient mitigation measures are in place for the release of contaminants/pollutants. There is no potential for interaction, as outlined in paragraphs 5.1.27 to 5.1.30 (Construction and Decommissioning) and 5.1.49 to 5.1.50 (Operation and Maintenance) of the HRA Screening Report.

c. No LSE on Annex I habitat is anticipated in relation to changes in fishing activity associated with the operation of Hornsea Project Two. It is anticipated that the potential effect of displacement of fishing activity will be dispersed over a large area, meaning that the specific increases in fishing activity in any one location would likely be minimal. See paragraphs 5.1.51 and 5.1.52 of the HRA Screening Report and Draft ES, Volume 2, Chapter 2: Subtidal and Intertidal Benthic Ecology.

Page 161: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

70

Stage 1 Matrix 78b : Doggerbank (German Dogger Bank) SCI (marine mammal)

Name of European site: Doggerbank (German Dogger Bank) SCI

Distance to PROJECT TWO: 63 km SAC marine mammal features

Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Behavioural disturbance/physical injury Changes to water quality Changes to prey availability In combination effects C O D C O D C O D C O D

Harbour seal ����a ����b ����b ����c ����c ����c ����d ����d ����d ����a ����b, c, d ����b, c, d Harbour porpoise ����e ����b ����b ����c ����c ����c ����d ����d ����d ����e ����b, c, d ����b, c, d Evidence supporting conclusions: a. LSE on harbour seal in relation to behavioural disturbance/physical injury associated with the construction of Hornsea Project Two cannot be ruled out. The risk of auditory injury would be negligible

for all Annex II marine mammals species, however there is potential for behavioural disturbance to occur as a result of piling. It is considered that LSEs on harbour seal cannot be ruled out for European sites within 120 km of Project Two. See paragraph 5.3.67 of the HRA Screening Report).

b. No LSE on marine mammals is anticipated in relation to behavioural disturbance/physical injury associated with the operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. Given the low level and limited spatial extent of the radiated noise, the risk of behavioural impacts on marine mammals would be limited to the immediate vicinity of the turbines. Piling will not be required during decommissioning and the anticipated method for the removal of turbines, abrasive cutting, would not be expected to be generate noise significantly higher than general surface vessel noise. See paragraphs 5.3.36 to 5.3.43 (operation) and 5.3.9 (decommissioning) of the HRA Screening Report.

c. No LSE on marine mammals is anticipated in relation to changes in water quality associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The Doggerbank (German Dogger Bank) SCI is located 63 km from Hornsea Project Two and increased suspended sediment and/or sediment deposition effects are not expected to extend to this range. Sufficient mitigation measures are in place for the release of contaminants/pollutants. There is no potential for interaction, as outlined in paragraphs 5.3.21 to 5.3.28 (Construction and Decommissioning) and 5.3.55 to 5.3.56 (Operation and Maintenance) of the HRA Screening Report.

d. No LSE on marine mammals is anticipated in relation to changes in prey availability associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The potential impacts identified on fish receptors will be localised, short term and reversible. During the operational phase there may be increased feeding opportunities within Project Two as a result of potential reef effects and reduction in fishing activity. Furthermore, the fish community found in Project Two is characteristic of the fish and shellfish assemblage of the wider region and therefore marine mammals would be able to exploit similar resources in adjacent undisturbed areas (see Paragraphs 5.3.29 to 5.3.35 (Construction and Decommissioning) and 5.3.57 to 5.3.61 (Operation and Maintenance) of HRA Screening Report).

e. LSE on harbour porpoise in relation to behavioural disturbance/physical injury associated with the construction of Hornsea Project Two cannot be ruled out. The risk of auditory injury would be negligible for all Annex II marine mammals species, however there is potential for behavioural disturbance to occur as a result of piling. It is considered that LSEs on harbour porpoise cannot be ruled out for all the European sites included in the screening exercise, as they form part of the overall mobile North Sea population. See paragraphs 5.3.2 to 5.3.9 and 5.3.69 to 5.3.70 of the HRA Screening Report.

Page 162: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

71

Stage 1 Matrix 79a: Hamburgisches Wattenmeer SAC (Annex I habitat)

Name of European site: Hamburgisches Wattenmeer SAC

Distance to PROJECT TWO: 401 km SAC Annex I habitat features Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Changes to habitat Changes to water quality Changes to fishing activity In combination effects C O D C O D C O D C O D

Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time

����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c

Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide

����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c

Large shallow inlets and bays ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c Annual vegetation of drift lines ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c Salicornia and other annuals colonizing mud and sand ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c

Spartina swards (Spartinion maritimae) ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c

Atlantic salt meadows (Glauco-Puccinellietalia maritimae) ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c

Embryonic shifting dunes ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c Shifting dunes along the shoreline with Ammophila arenaria ("white dunes")

����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c

Fixed coastal dunes with herbaceous vegetation ("grey dunes")

����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c

Humid dune slacks ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c Evidence supporting conclusions: a. No LSE on Annex I habitat is anticipated in relation to changes in habitat associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The spatial extent of direct

temporary habitat loss/disturbance effects will be highly localised, being limited to areas where works are being carried out. There is no potential for interaction, as outlined in paragraphs 5.1.2 to 5.1.11 (Construction and Decommissioning) and 5.1.31 to 5.1.48 (Operation and Maintenance) of the HRA Screening Report.

b. No LSE on Annex I habitat is anticipated in relation to changes in water quality associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The Hamburgisches Wattenmeer SAC is located 401 km from Hornsea Project Two and increased suspended sediment and/or sediment deposition effects are not expected to extend to this range. Sufficient mitigation measures are in place for the release of contaminants/pollutants. There is no potential for interaction, as outlined in paragraphs 5.1.27 to 5.1.30 (Construction and Decommissioning) and 5.1.49 to 5.1.50 (Operation and Maintenance) of the HRA Screening Report.

Page 163: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

72

c. No LSE on Annex I habitat is anticipated in relation to changes in fishing activity associated with the operation of Hornsea Project Two. It is anticipated that the potential effect of displacement of

fishing activity will be dispersed over a large area, meaning that the specific increases in fishing activity in any one location would likely be minimal. See paragraphs 5.1.51 and 5.1.52 of the HRA Screening Report and Draft ES, Volume 2, Chapter 2: Subtidal and Intertidal Benthic Ecology.

Page 164: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

73

Stage 1 Matrix 79b : Hamburgisches Wattenmeer SAC (migratory fish)

Name of European site: Hamburgisches Wattenmeer SAC

Distance to PROJECT TWO: 401 km

SAC marine mammal features Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Behavioural disturbance/physical injury Changes to water quality Changes to habitat Changes to fishing activity In combination effects C O D C O D C O D C O D C O D

Twaite shad ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a n/a ����d n/a ����a, b, c, d ����a, b, c, d ����a, b, c, d River lamprey ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a n/a ����d n/a ����a, b, c, d ����a, b, c, d ����a, b, c, d Sea lamprey ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a n/a ����d n/a ����a, b, c, d ����a, b, c, d ����a, b, c, d Evidence supporting conclusions: a. No LSE on migratory fish is anticipated in relation to behavioural disturbance/physical injury associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The Annex II

migratory fish species under consideration are highly mobile and have wide distribution ranges, being able to relocate and use equally suitable feeding areas in adjacent undisturbed locations. Any disturbance is likely to be over a relatively small spatial scale, limited to the immediate proximity of the inshore section of the export cable corridor. See paragraphs 5.2.5 to 5.2.7 (Construction and Decommissioning) and 5.2.34 to 5.2.36 (Operation and Maintenance) of the HRA Screening Report.

b. No LSE on migratory fish is anticipated in relation to changes to water quality associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The Hamburgisches Wattenmeer SAC is located 401 km from Hornsea Project Two and increased suspended sediment and/or sediment deposition effects are not expected to extend to this range. Sufficient mitigation measures are in place for the release of contaminants/pollutants and cables will likely be left in situ during decommissioning. See paragraphs 5.2.8 to 5.2.14 (construction and decommissioning) and 5.2.37 to 5.2.38 (operation) of the HRA Screening Report.

c. No LSE on migratory fish is anticipated in relation to changes to habitat associated with the operation of Hornsea Project Two. Cable protection measures resulting in long term habitat loss (e.g., rock placement) will not be used along the export cable. The Annex II migratory fish species under consideration are highly mobile and have wide distribution ranges, being able to relocate and use equally suitable feeding areas in adjacent undisturbed locations. See paragraphs 5.2.18 to 5.2.23 of the HRA Screening Report.

d. No LSE on migratory fish is anticipated in relation to changes to fishing activity associated with the operation of Hornsea Project Two. The potential effect of displacement of fishing activity will be dispersed over a large area, meaning that the specific increases in fishing activity in any one location would likely be minimal. Annex II migratory fish species are rarely caught by the fishing methods used in the area, and therefore, if fishing effort is displaced into other areas the potential impact on these species would be minimal. See paragraphs 5.2.39 to 5.2.42 of the HRA Screening Report.

Page 165: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

74

Stage 1 Matrix 79c : Hamburgisches Wattenmeer SAC (marine mammal)

Name of European site: Hamburgisches Wattenmeer SAC

Distance to PROJECT TWO: 401 km SAC marine mammal features

Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Behavioural disturbance/physical injury Changes to water quality Changes to prey availability In combination effects C O D C O D C O D C O D

Grey seal ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a Harbour seal ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b Harbour porpoise ����c ����d ����d ����e ����e ����e ����f ����f ����f ����c ����d, e, f ����d, e, f Evidence supporting conclusions: a. No LSE on grey seal is anticipated in relation to behavioural disturbance/physical injury, changes to water quality or changes to prey availability associated with the construction, operation and

decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. It is considered that harbour seal populations from European sites located at distances greater than 145 km from Project Two are beyond any potential for direct and indirect effects on foraging trips, and therefore, no LSE is anticipated (see paragraph 5.3.65 of the HRA Screening Report).

b. No LSE on harbour seal is anticipated in relation to behavioural disturbance/physical injury, changes to water quality or changes to prey availability associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. It is considered that harbour seal populations from European sites located at distances greater than 120 km from Project Two are beyond any potential for direct and indirect effects on foraging trips, and therefore, no LSE is anticipated (see paragraph 5.3.67 of the HRA Screening Report).

c. LSE on harbour porpoise in relation to behavioural disturbance/physical injury associated with the construction of Hornsea Project Two cannot be ruled out. The risk of auditory injury would be negligible for all Annex II marine mammals species, however there is potential for behavioural disturbance to occur as a result of piling. It is considered that LSEs on harbour porpoise cannot be ruled out for all the European sites included in the screening exercise, as they form part of the overall mobile North Sea population. See paragraphs 5.3.2 to 5.3.9 and 5.3.69 to 5.3.70 of the HRA Screening Report.

d. No LSE on harbour porpoise is anticipated in relation to behavioural disturbance/physical injury associated with the operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. Given the low level and limited spatial extent of the radiated noise, the risk of behavioural impacts on marine mammals would be limited to the immediate vicinity of the turbines. Piling will not be required during decommissioning and the anticipated method for the removal of turbines, abrasive cutting, would not be expected to be generate noise significantly higher than general surface vessel noise. See paragraphs 5.3.36 to 5.3.43 (operation) and 5.3.9 (decommissioning) of the HRA Screening Report.

e. No LSE on harbour porpoise is anticipated in relation to changes in water quality associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The Hamburgisches Wattenmeer SAC is located 401 km from Hornsea Project Two and increased suspended sediment and/or sediment deposition effects are not expected to extend to this range. Sufficient mitigation measures are in place for the release of contaminants/pollutants. There is no potential for interaction, as outlined in paragraphs 5.3.21 to 5.3.28 (Construction and Decommissioning) and 5.3.55 to 5.3.56 (Operation and Maintenance) of the HRA Screening Report.

f. No LSE on harbour porpoise is anticipated in relation to changes in prey availability associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The potential impacts identified on fish receptors will be localised, short term and reversible. During the operational phase there may be increased feeding opportunities within Project Two as a result of potential reef effects and reduction in fishing activity. Furthermore, the fish community found in Project Two is characteristic of the fish and shellfish assemblage of the wider region and therefore marine mammals would be able to exploit similar resources in adjacent undisturbed areas (see Paragraphs 5.3.29 to 5.3.35 (Construction and Decommissioning) and 5.3.57 to 5.3.61 (Operation and Maintenance) of HRA Screening Report).

Page 166: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

75

Page 167: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

76

Stage 1 Matrix 80a: Helgoland mit Helgoländer Felssockel SAC (Annex I habitat)

Name of European site: Helgoland mit Helgoländer Felssockel SAC

Distance to PROJECT TWO: 374 km SAC Annex I habitat features Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Changes to habitat Changes to water quality Changes to fishing activity In combination effects C O D C O D C O D C O D

Reefs ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c Annual vegetation of drift lines ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c Perennial vegetation of stony banks ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c

Vegetated sea cliffs of the Atlantic and Baltic Coasts ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c

Embryonic shifting dunes ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c Shifting dunes along the shoreline with Ammophila arenaria ("white dunes")

����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c

Fixed coastal dunes with herbaceous vegetation ("grey dunes")

����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c

Dunes with Hippophaë rhamnoides ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c

Evidence supporting conclusions: a. No LSE on Annex I habitat is anticipated in relation to changes in habitat associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The spatial extent of direct

temporary habitat loss/disturbance effects will be highly localised, being limited to areas where works are being carried out. There is no potential for interaction, as outlined in paragraphs 5.1.2 to 5.1.11 (Construction and Decommissioning) and 5.1.31 to 5.1.48 (Operation and Maintenance) of the HRA Screening Report.

b. No LSE on Annex I habitat is anticipated in relation to changes in water quality associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The Helgoland mit Helgoländer Felssockel SAC is located 374 km from Hornsea Project Two and increased suspended sediment and/or sediment deposition effects are not expected to extend to this range. Sufficient mitigation measures are in place for the release of contaminants/pollutants. There is no potential for interaction, as outlined in paragraphs 5.1.27 to 5.1.30 (Construction and Decommissioning) and 5.1.49 to 5.1.50 (Operation and Maintenance) of the HRA Screening Report.

c. No LSE on Annex I habitat is anticipated in relation to changes in fishing activity associated with the operation of Hornsea Project Two. It is anticipated that the potential effect of displacement of fishing activity will be dispersed over a large area, meaning that the specific increases in fishing activity in any one location would likely be minimal. See paragraphs 5.1.51 and 5.1.52 of the HRA Screening Report and Draft ES, Volume 2, Chapter 2: Subtidal and Intertidal Benthic Ecology.

Page 168: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

77

Stage 1 Matrix 80b : Helgoland mit Helgoländer Felssockel SAC (marine mammal)

Name of European site: Helgoland mit Helgoländer Felssockel SAC

Distance to PROJECT TWO: 374 km SAC marine mammal features

Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Behavioural disturbance/physical injury Changes to water quality Changes to prey availability In combination effects C O D C O D C O D C O D

Grey seal ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a Harbour seal ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b Harbour porpoise ����c ����d ����d ����e ����e ����e ����f ����f ����f ����c ����d, e, f ����d, e, f Evidence supporting conclusions: a. No LSE on grey seal is anticipated in relation to behavioural disturbance/physical injury, changes to water quality or changes to prey availability associated with the construction, operation and

decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. It is considered that harbour seal populations from European sites located at distances greater than 145 km from Project Two are beyond any potential for direct and indirect effects on foraging trips, and therefore, no LSE is anticipated (see paragraph 5.3.65 of the HRA Screening Report).

b. No LSE on harbour seal is anticipated in relation to behavioural disturbance/physical injury, changes to water quality or changes to prey availability associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. It is considered that harbour seal populations from European sites located at distances greater than 120 km from Project Two are beyond any potential for direct and indirect effects on foraging trips, and therefore, no LSE is anticipated (see paragraph 5.3.67 of the HRA Screening Report).

c. LSE on harbour porpoise in relation to behavioural disturbance/physical injury associated with the construction of Hornsea Project Two cannot be ruled out. The risk of auditory injury would be negligible for all Annex II marine mammals species, however there is potential for behavioural disturbance to occur as a result of piling. It is considered that LSEs on harbour porpoise cannot be ruled out for all the European sites included in the screening exercise, as they form part of the overall mobile North Sea population. See paragraphs 5.3.2 to 5.3.9 and 5.3.69 to 5.3.70 of the HRA Screening Report.

d. No LSE on harbour porpoise is anticipated in relation to behavioural disturbance/physical injury associated with the operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. Given the low level and limited spatial extent of the radiated noise, the risk of behavioural impacts on marine mammals would be limited to the immediate vicinity of the turbines. Piling will not be required during decommissioning and the anticipated method for the removal of turbines, abrasive cutting, would not be expected to be generate noise significantly higher than general surface vessel noise. See paragraphs 5.3.36 to 5.3.43 (operation) and 5.3.9 (decommissioning) of the HRA Screening Report.

e. No LSE on harbour porpoise is anticipated in relation to changes in water quality associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The Helgoland mit Helgoländer Felssockel SAC is located 374 km from Hornsea Project Two and increased suspended sediment and/or sediment deposition effects are not expected to extend to this range. Sufficient mitigation measures are in place for the release of contaminants/pollutants. There is no potential for interaction, as outlined in paragraphs 5.3.21 to 5.3.28 (Construction and Decommissioning) and 5.3.55 to 5.3.56 (Operation and Maintenance) of the HRA Screening Report.

f. No LSE on harbour porpoise is anticipated in relation to changes in prey availability associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The potential impacts identified on fish receptors will be localised, short term and reversible. During the operational phase there may be increased feeding opportunities within Project Two as a result of potential reef effects and reduction in fishing activity. Furthermore, the fish community found in Project Two is characteristic of the fish and shellfish assemblage of the wider region and therefore marine mammals would be able to exploit similar resources in adjacent undisturbed areas (see Paragraphs 5.3.29 to 5.3.35 (Construction and Decommissioning) and 5.3.57 to 5.3.61 (Operation and Maintenance) of HRA Screening Report).

Page 169: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

78

Stage 1 Matrix 81a: Nationalpark Niedersächsisches Wattenmeer SCI (Annex I habitat)

Name of European site: Nationalpark Niedersächsisches Wattenmeer SCI

Distance to PROJECT TWO: 296 km SAC Annex I habitat features Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Changes to habitat Changes to water quality Changes to fishing activity In combination effects C O D C O D C O D C O D

Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time

����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c

Estuaries ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide

����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c

Coastal lagoons ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c Large shallow inlets and bays ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c Reefs ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c Salicornia and other annuals colonizing mud and sand ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c

Spartina swards (Spartinion maritimae) ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c

Atlantic salt meadows (Glauco-Puccinellietalia maritimae) ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c

Embryonic shifting dunes ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c Shifting dunes along the shoreline with Ammophila arenaria ("white dunes")

����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c

Fixed coastal dunes with herbaceous vegetation ("grey dunes")

����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c

Decalcified fixed dunes with Empetrum nigrum ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c

Atlantic decalcified fixed dunes (Calluno-Ulicetea) ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c

Dunes with Hippophaë rhamnoides ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c

Dunes with Salix repens ssp. argentea (Salicion arenariae) ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c

Wooded dunes of the Atlantic, Continental and Boreal region ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c

Humid dune slacks ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c

Page 170: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

79

Oligotrophic to mesotrophic standing waters with vegetation of the Littorelletea uniflorae and/or of the Isoëto-Nanojuncetea

����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c

Evidence supporting conclusions: a. No LSE on Annex I habitat is anticipated in relation to changes in habitat associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The spatial extent of direct

temporary habitat loss/disturbance effects will be highly localised, being limited to areas where works are being carried out. There is no potential for interaction, as outlined in paragraphs 5.1.2 to 5.1.11 (Construction and Decommissioning) and 5.1.31 to 5.1.48 (Operation and Maintenance) of the HRA Screening Report.

b. No LSE on Annex I habitat is anticipated in relation to changes in water quality associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The Nationalpark Niedersächsisches Wattenmeer SCI is located 296 km from Hornsea Project Two and increased suspended sediment and/or sediment deposition effects are not expected to extend to this range. Sufficient mitigation measures are in place for the release of contaminants/pollutants. There is no potential for interaction, as outlined in paragraphs 5.1.27 to 5.1.30 (Construction and Decommissioning) and 5.1.49 to 5.1.50 (Operation and Maintenance) of the HRA Screening Report.

c. No LSE on Annex I habitat is anticipated in relation to changes in fishing activity associated with the operation of Hornsea Project Two. It is anticipated that the potential effect of displacement of fishing activity will be dispersed over a large area, meaning that the specific increases in fishing activity in any one location would likely be minimal. See paragraphs 5.1.51 and 5.1.52 of the HRA Screening Report and Draft ES, Volume 2, Chapter 2: Subtidal and Intertidal Benthic Ecology.

Page 171: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

80

Stage 1 Matrix 81b : Nationalpark Niedersächsisches Wattenmeer SCI (migratory fish)

Name of European site: Nationalpark Niedersächsisches Wattenmeer SCI

Distance to PROJECT TWO: 296 km

SAC marine mammal features

Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Behavioural disturbance/physical injury Changes to water quality Changes to habitat Changes to fishing activity In combination effects C O D C O D C O D C O D C O D

Twaite shad ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a n/a ����d n/a ����a, b, c, d

����a, b, c, d

����a, b, c, d

River lamprey ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a n/a ����d n/a ����a, b, c, d

����a, b, c, d

����a, b, c, d

Sea lamprey ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a n/a ����d n/a ����a, b, c, d

����a, b, c, d

����a, b, c, d

Evidence supporting conclusions: a. No LSE on migratory fish is anticipated in relation to behavioural disturbance/physical injury associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The Annex II

migratory fish species under consideration are highly mobile and have wide distribution ranges, being able to relocate and use equally suitable feeding areas in adjacent undisturbed locations. Any disturbance is likely to be over a relatively small spatial scale, limited to the immediate proximity of the inshore section of the export cable corridor. See paragraphs 5.2.5 to 5.2.7 (Construction and Decommissioning) and 5.2.34 to 5.2.36 (Operation and Maintenance) of the HRA Screening Report.

b. No LSE on migratory fish is anticipated in relation to changes to water quality associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The Nationalpark Niedersächsisches Wattenmeer SCI is located 296 km from Hornsea Project Two and increased suspended sediment and/or sediment deposition effects are not expected to extend to this range. Sufficient mitigation measures are in place for the release of contaminants/pollutants and cables will likely be left in situ during decommissioning. See paragraphs 5.2.8 to 5.2.14 (construction and decommissioning) and 5.2.37 to 5.2.38 (operation) of the HRA Screening Report.

c. No LSE on migratory fish is anticipated in relation to changes to habitat associated with the operation of Hornsea Project Two. Cable protection measures resulting in long term habitat loss (e.g., rock placement) will not be used along the export cable. The Annex II migratory fish species under consideration are highly mobile and have wide distribution ranges, being able to relocate and use equally suitable feeding areas in adjacent undisturbed locations. See paragraphs 5.2.18 to 5.2.23 of the HRA Screening Report.

d. No LSE on migratory fish is anticipated in relation to changes to fishing activity associated with the operation of Hornsea Project Two. The potential effect of displacement of fishing activity will be dispersed over a large area, meaning that the specific increases in fishing activity in any one location would likely be minimal. Annex II migratory fish species are rarely caught by the fishing methods used in the area, and therefore, if fishing effort is displaced into other areas the potential impact on these species would be minimal. See paragraphs 5.2.39 to 5.2.42 of the HRA Screening Report.

Page 172: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

81

Stage 1 Matrix 81c : Nationalpark Niedersächsisches Wattenmeer SCI (marine mammal)

Name of European site: Nationalpark Niedersächsisches Wattenmeer SCI

Distance to PROJECT TWO: 296 km SAC marine mammal features

Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Behavioural disturbance/physical injury Changes to water quality Changes to prey availability In combination effects C O D C O D C O D C O D

Grey seal ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a Harbour seal ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b Harbour porpoise ����c ����d ����d ����e ����e ����e ����f ����f ����f ����c ����d, e, f ����d, e, f Evidence supporting conclusions: a. No LSE on grey seal is anticipated in relation to behavioural disturbance/physical injury, changes to water quality or changes to prey availability associated with the construction, operation and

decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. It is considered that harbour seal populations from European sites located at distances greater than 145 km from Project Two are beyond any potential for direct and indirect effects on foraging trips, and therefore, no LSE is anticipated (see paragraph 5.3.65 of the HRA Screening Report).

b. No LSE on harbour seal is anticipated in relation to behavioural disturbance/physical injury, changes to water quality or changes to prey availability associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. It is considered that harbour seal populations from European sites located at distances greater than 120 km from Project Two are beyond any potential for direct and indirect effects on foraging trips, and therefore, no LSE is anticipated (see paragraph 5.3.67 of the HRA Screening Report).

c. LSE on harbour porpoise in relation to behavioural disturbance/physical injury associated with the construction of Hornsea Project Two cannot be ruled out. The risk of auditory injury would be negligible for all Annex II marine mammals species, however there is potential for behavioural disturbance to occur as a result of piling. It is considered that LSEs on harbour porpoise cannot be ruled out for all the European sites included in the screening exercise, as they form part of the overall mobile North Sea population. See paragraphs 5.3.2 to 5.3.9 and 5.3.69 to 5.3.70 of the HRA Screening Report.

d. No LSE on harbour porpoise is anticipated in relation to behavioural disturbance/physical injury associated with the operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. Given the low level and limited spatial extent of the radiated noise, the risk of behavioural impacts on marine mammals would be limited to the immediate vicinity of the turbines. Piling will not be required during decommissioning and the anticipated method for the removal of turbines, abrasive cutting, would not be expected to be generate noise significantly higher than general surface vessel noise. See paragraphs 5.3.36 to 5.3.43 (operation) and 5.3.9 (decommissioning) of the HRA Screening Report.

e. No LSE on harbour porpoise is anticipated in relation to changes in water quality associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The Nationalpark Niedersächsisches Wattenmeer SCI is located 296 km from Hornsea Project Two and increased suspended sediment and/or sediment deposition effects are not expected to extend to this range. Sufficient mitigation measures are in place for the release of contaminants/pollutants. There is no potential for interaction, as outlined in paragraphs 5.3.21 to 5.3.28 (Construction and Decommissioning) and 5.3.55 to 5.3.56 (Operation and Maintenance) of the HRA Screening Report.

f. No LSE on harbour porpoise is anticipated in relation to changes in prey availability associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The potential impacts identified on fish receptors will be localised, short term and reversible. During the operational phase there may be increased feeding opportunities within Project Two as a result of potential reef effects and reduction in fishing activity. Furthermore, the fish community found in Project Two is characteristic of the fish and shellfish assemblage of the wider region and therefore marine mammals would be able to exploit similar resources in adjacent undisturbed areas (see Paragraphs 5.3.29 to 5.3.35 (Construction and Decommissioning) and 5.3.57 to 5.3.61 (Operation and Maintenance) of HRA Screening Report).

Page 173: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

82

Stage 1 Matrix 82a: NTP S-H Wattenmeer und angrenzende Küstengebiete SCI (Annex I habitat)

Name of European site: NTP S-H Wattenmeer und angrenzende Küstengebiete SCI

Distance to PROJECT TWO: 388 km SAC Annex I habitat features Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Changes to habitat Changes to water quality Changes to fishing activity In combination effects C O D C O D C O D C O D

Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time

����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c

Estuaries ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide

����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c

Coastal lagoons ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c Large shallow inlets and bays ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c Reefs ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c Annual vegetation of drift lines ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c Perennial vegetation of stony banks ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c

Salicornia and other annuals colonizing mud and sand ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c

Spartina swards (Spartinion maritimae) ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c

Atlantic salt meadows (Glauco-Puccinellietalia maritimae) ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c

Embryonic shifting dunes ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c Shifting dunes along the shoreline with Ammophila arenaria ("white dunes")

����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c

Evidence supporting conclusions: a. No LSE on Annex I habitat is anticipated in relation to changes in habitat associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The spatial extent of direct

temporary habitat loss/disturbance effects will be highly localised, being limited to areas where works are being carried out. There is no potential for interaction, as outlined in paragraphs 5.1.2 to 5.1.11 (Construction and Decommissioning) and 5.1.31 to 5.1.48 (Operation and Maintenance) of the HRA Screening Report.

Page 174: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

83

b. No LSE on Annex I habitat is anticipated in relation to changes in water quality associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The NTP S-H Wattenmeer und angrenzende Küstengebiete SCI is located 388 km from Hornsea Project Two and increased suspended sediment and/or sediment deposition effects are not expected to extend to this range. Sufficient mitigation measures are in place for the release of contaminants/pollutants. There is no potential for interaction, as outlined in paragraphs 5.1.27 to 5.1.30 (Construction and Decommissioning) and 5.1.49 to 5.1.50 (Operation and Maintenance) of the HRA Screening Report.

c. No LSE on Annex I habitat is anticipated in relation to changes in fishing activity associated with the operation of Hornsea Project Two. It is anticipated that the potential effect of displacement of fishing activity will be dispersed over a large area, meaning that the specific increases in fishing activity in any one location would likely be minimal. See paragraphs 5.1.51 and 5.1.52 of the HRA Screening Report and Draft ES, Volume 2, Chapter 2: Subtidal and Intertidal Benthic Ecology.

Page 175: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

84

Stage 1 Matrix 82b : NTP S-H Wattenmeer und angrenzende Küstengebiete SCI (migratory fish)

Name of European site: NTP S-H Wattenmeer und angrenzende Küstengebiete SCI

Distance to PROJECT TWO: 388 km

SAC marine mammal features

Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Behavioural disturbance/physical injury Changes to water quality Changes to habitat Changes to fishing activity In combination effects C O D C O D C O D C O D C O D

Twaite shad ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a n/a ����d n/a ����a, b, c, d

����a, b, c, d

����a, b, c, d

River lamprey ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a n/a ����d n/a ����a, b, c, d

����a, b, c, d

����a, b, c, d

Sea lamprey ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a n/a ����d n/a ����a, b, c, d

����a, b, c, d

����a, b, c, d

Evidence supporting conclusions: a. No LSE on migratory fish is anticipated in relation to behavioural disturbance/physical injury associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The Annex II

migratory fish species under consideration are highly mobile and have wide distribution ranges, being able to relocate and use equally suitable feeding areas in adjacent undisturbed locations. Any disturbance is likely to be over a relatively small spatial scale, limited to the immediate proximity of the inshore section of the export cable corridor. See paragraphs 5.2.5 to 5.2.7 (Construction and Decommissioning) and 5.2.34 to 5.2.36 (Operation and Maintenance) of the HRA Screening Report.

b. No LSE on migratory fish is anticipated in relation to changes to water quality associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The NTP S-H Wattenmeer und angrenzende Küstengebiete SCI is located 388 km from Hornsea Project Two and increased suspended sediment and/or sediment deposition effects are not expected to extend to this range. Sufficient mitigation measures are in place for the release of contaminants/pollutants and cables will likely be left in situ during decommissioning. See paragraphs 5.2.8 to 5.2.14 (construction and decommissioning) and 5.2.37 to 5.2.38 (operation) of the HRA Screening Report.

c. No LSE on migratory fish is anticipated in relation to changes to habitat associated with the operation of Hornsea Project Two. Cable protection measures resulting in long term habitat loss (e.g., rock placement) will not be used along the export cable. The Annex II migratory fish species under consideration are highly mobile and have wide distribution ranges, being able to relocate and use equally suitable feeding areas in adjacent undisturbed locations. See paragraphs 5.2.18 to 5.2.23 of the HRA Screening Report.

d. No LSE on migratory fish is anticipated in relation to changes to fishing activity associated with the operation of Hornsea Project Two. The potential effect of displacement of fishing activity will be dispersed over a large area, meaning that the specific increases in fishing activity in any one location would likely be minimal. Annex II migratory fish species are rarely caught by the fishing methods used in the area, and therefore, if fishing effort is displaced into other areas the potential impact on these species would be minimal. See paragraphs 5.2.39 to 5.2.42 of the HRA Screening Report.

Page 176: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

85

Stage 1 Matrix 82c : NTP S-H Wattenmeer und angrenzende Küstengebiete SCI (marine mammal)

Name of European site: NTP S-H Wattenmeer und angrenzende Küstengebiete SCI

Distance to PROJECT TWO: 388 km SAC marine mammal features

Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Behavioural disturbance/physical injury Changes to water quality Changes to prey availability In combination effects C O D C O D C O D C O D

Grey seal ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a Harbour seal ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b Harbour porpoise ����c ����d ����d ����e ����e ����e ����f ����f ����f ����c ����d, e, f ����d, e, f Evidence supporting conclusions: a. No LSE on grey seal is anticipated in relation to behavioural disturbance/physical injury, changes to water quality or changes to prey availability associated with the construction, operation and

decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. It is considered that harbour seal populations from European sites located at distances greater than 145 km from Project Two are beyond any potential for direct and indirect effects on foraging trips, and therefore, no LSE is anticipated (see paragraph 5.3.65 of the HRA Screening Report).

b. No LSE on harbour seal is anticipated in relation to behavioural disturbance/physical injury, changes to water quality or changes to prey availability associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. It is considered that harbour seal populations from European sites located at distances greater than 120 km from Project Two are beyond any potential for direct and indirect effects on foraging trips, and therefore, no LSE is anticipated (see paragraph 5.3.67 of the HRA Screening Report).

c. LSE on harbour porpoise in relation to behavioural disturbance/physical injury associated with the construction of Hornsea Project Two cannot be ruled out. The risk of auditory injury would be negligible for all Annex II marine mammals species, however there is potential for behavioural disturbance to occur as a result of piling. It is considered that LSEs on harbour porpoise cannot be ruled out for all the European sites included in the screening exercise, as they form part of the overall mobile North Sea population. See paragraphs 5.3.2 to 5.3.9 and 5.3.69 to 5.3.70 of the HRA Screening Report.

d. No LSE on harbour porpoise is anticipated in relation to behavioural disturbance/physical injury associated with the operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. Given the low level and limited spatial extent of the radiated noise, the risk of behavioural impacts on marine mammals would be limited to the immediate vicinity of the turbines. Piling will not be required during decommissioning and the anticipated method for the removal of turbines, abrasive cutting, would not be expected to be generate noise significantly higher than general surface vessel noise. See paragraphs 5.3.36 to 5.3.43 (operation) and 5.3.9 (decommissioning) of the HRA Screening Report.

e. No LSE on harbour porpoise is anticipated in relation to changes in water quality associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The NTP S-H Wattenmeer und angrenzende Küstengebiete SCI is located 388 km from Hornsea Project Two and increased suspended sediment and/or sediment deposition effects are not expected to extend to this range. Sufficient mitigation measures are in place for the release of contaminants/pollutants. There is no potential for interaction, as outlined in paragraphs 5.3.21 to 5.3.28 (Construction and Decommissioning) and 5.3.55 to 5.3.56 (Operation and Maintenance) of the HRA Screening Report.

f. No LSE on harbour porpoise is anticipated in relation to changes in prey availability associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The potential impacts identified on fish receptors will be localised, short term and reversible. During the operational phase there may be increased feeding opportunities within Project Two as a result of potential reef effects and reduction in fishing activity. Furthermore, the fish community found in Project Two is characteristic of the fish and shellfish assemblage of the wider region and therefore marine mammals would be able to exploit similar resources in adjacent undisturbed areas (see Paragraphs 5.3.29 to 5.3.35 (Construction and Decommissioning) and 5.3.57 to 5.3.61 (Operation and Maintenance) of HRA Screening Report).

Page 177: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

86

Stage 1 Matrix 83a: Östliche Deutsche Bucht SCI (Annex I habitat)

Name of European site: Östliche Deutsche Bucht SCI

Distance to PROJECT TWO: 351 km SAC Annex I habitat features Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Changes to habitat Changes to water quality Changes to fishing activity In combination effects C O D C O D C O D C O D

Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time

����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c

Reefs ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c Evidence supporting conclusions: a. No LSE on Annex I habitat is anticipated in relation to changes in habitat associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The spatial extent of direct

temporary habitat loss/disturbance effects will be highly localised, being limited to areas where works are being carried out. There is no potential for interaction, as outlined in paragraphs 5.1.2 to 5.1.11 (Construction and Decommissioning) and 5.1.31 to 5.1.48 (Operation and Maintenance) of the HRA Screening Report.

b. No LSE on Annex I habitat is anticipated in relation to changes in water quality associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The Östliche Deutsche Bucht SCI is located 351 km from Hornsea Project Two and increased suspended sediment and/or sediment deposition effects are not expected to extend to this range. Sufficient mitigation measures are in place for the release of contaminants/pollutants. There is no potential for interaction, as outlined in paragraphs 5.1.27 to 5.1.30 (Construction and Decommissioning) and 5.1.49 to 5.1.50 (Operation and Maintenance) of the HRA Screening Report.

c. No LSE on Annex I habitat is anticipated in relation to changes in fishing activity associated with the operation of Hornsea Project Two. It is anticipated that the potential effect of displacement of fishing activity will be dispersed over a large area, meaning that the specific increases in fishing activity in any one location would likely be minimal. See paragraphs 5.1.51 and 5.1.52 of the HRA Screening Report and Draft ES, Volume 2, Chapter 2: Subtidal and Intertidal Benthic Ecology.

Page 178: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

87

Stage 1 Matrix 83b : Östliche Deutsche Bucht SCI (migratory fish)

Name of European site: Östliche Deutsche Bucht SCI

Distance to PROJECT TWO: 351 km

SAC marine mammal features

Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Behavioural disturbance/physical injury Changes to water quality Changes to habitat Changes to fishing activity In combination effects C O D C O D C O D C O D C O D

Twaite shad ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a n/a ����d n/a ����a, b, c, d

����a, b, c, d

����a, b, c, d

River lamprey ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a n/a ����d n/a ����a, b, c, d

����a, b, c, d

����a, b, c, d

Evidence supporting conclusions: a. No LSE on migratory fish is anticipated in relation to behavioural disturbance/physical injury associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The Annex II

migratory fish species under consideration are highly mobile and have wide distribution ranges, being able to relocate and use equally suitable feeding areas in adjacent undisturbed locations. Any disturbance is likely to be over a relatively small spatial scale, limited to the immediate proximity of the inshore section of the export cable corridor. See paragraphs 5.2.5 to 5.2.7 (Construction and Decommissioning) and 5.2.34 to 5.2.36 (Operation and Maintenance) of the HRA Screening Report.

b. No LSE on migratory fish is anticipated in relation to changes to water quality associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The Östliche Deutsche Bucht SCI is located 351 km from Hornsea Project Two and increased suspended sediment and/or sediment deposition effects are not expected to extend to this range. Sufficient mitigation measures are in place for the release of contaminants/pollutants and cables will likely be left in situ during decommissioning. See paragraphs 5.2.8 to 5.2.14 (construction and decommissioning) and 5.2.37 to 5.2.38 (operation) of the HRA Screening Report.

c. No LSE on migratory fish is anticipated in relation to changes to habitat associated with the operation of Hornsea Project Two. Cable protection measures resulting in long term habitat loss (e.g., rock placement) will not be used along the export cable. The Annex II migratory fish species under consideration are highly mobile and have wide distribution ranges, being able to relocate and use equally suitable feeding areas in adjacent undisturbed locations. See paragraphs 5.2.18 to 5.2.23 of the HRA Screening Report.

d. No LSE on migratory fish is anticipated in relation to changes to fishing activity associated with the operation of Hornsea Project Two. The potential effect of displacement of fishing activity will be dispersed over a large area, meaning that the specific increases in fishing activity in any one location would likely be minimal. Annex II migratory fish species are rarely caught by the fishing methods used in the area, and therefore, if fishing effort is displaced into other areas the potential impact on these species would be minimal. See paragraphs 5.2.39 to 5.2.42 of the HRA Screening Report.

Page 179: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

88

Stage 1 Matrix 83c : Östliche Deutsche Bucht SCI SCI (marine mammal)

Name of European site: Östliche Deutsche Bucht SCI

Distance to PROJECT TWO: 351 km SAC marine mammal features

Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Behavioural disturbance/physical injury Changes to water quality Changes to prey availability In combination effects C O D C O D C O D C O D

Grey seal ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a Harbour seal ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b Harbour porpoise ����c ����d ����d ����e ����e ����e ����f ����f ����f ����c ����d, e, f ����d, e, f Evidence supporting conclusions: a. No LSE on grey seal is anticipated in relation to behavioural disturbance/physical injury, changes to water quality or changes to prey availability associated with the construction, operation and

decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. It is considered that harbour seal populations from European sites located at distances greater than 145 km from Project Two are beyond any potential for direct and indirect effects on foraging trips, and therefore, no LSE is anticipated (see paragraph 5.3.65 of the HRA Screening Report).

b. No LSE on harbour seal is anticipated in relation to behavioural disturbance/physical injury, changes to water quality or changes to prey availability associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. It is considered that harbour seal populations from European sites located at distances greater than 120 km from Project Two are beyond any potential for direct and indirect effects on foraging trips, and therefore, no LSE is anticipated (see paragraph 5.3.67 of the HRA Screening Report).

c. LSE on harbour porpoise in relation to behavioural disturbance/physical injury associated with the construction of Hornsea Project Two cannot be ruled out. The risk of auditory injury would be negligible for all Annex II marine mammals species, however there is potential for behavioural disturbance to occur as a result of piling. It is considered that LSEs on harbour porpoise cannot be ruled out for all the European sites included in the screening exercise, as they form part of the overall mobile North Sea population. See paragraphs 5.3.2 to 5.3.9 and 5.3.69 to 5.3.70 of the HRA Screening Report.

d. No LSE on harbour porpoise is anticipated in relation to behavioural disturbance/physical injury associated with the operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. Given the low level and limited spatial extent of the radiated noise, the risk of behavioural impacts on marine mammals would be limited to the immediate vicinity of the turbines. Piling will not be required during decommissioning and the anticipated method for the removal of turbines, abrasive cutting, would not be expected to be generate noise significantly higher than general surface vessel noise. See paragraphs 5.3.36 to 5.3.43 (operation) and 5.3.9 (decommissioning) of the HRA Screening Report.

e. No LSE on harbour porpoise is anticipated in relation to changes in water quality associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The Östliche Deutsche Bucht SCI is located 351 km from Hornsea Project Two and increased suspended sediment and/or sediment deposition effects are not expected to extend to this range. Sufficient mitigation measures are in place for the release of contaminants/pollutants. There is no potential for interaction, as outlined in paragraphs 5.3.21 to 5.3.28 (Construction and Decommissioning) and 5.3.55 to 5.3.56 (Operation and Maintenance) of the HRA Screening Report.

f. No LSE on harbour porpoise is anticipated in relation to changes in prey availability associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The potential impacts identified on fish receptors will be localised, short term and reversible. During the operational phase there may be increased feeding opportunities within Project Two as a result of potential reef effects and reduction in fishing activity. Furthermore, the fish community found in Project Two is characteristic of the fish and shellfish assemblage of the wider region and therefore marine mammals would be able to exploit similar resources in adjacent undisturbed areas (see Paragraphs 5.3.29 to 5.3.35 (Construction and Decommissioning) and 5.3.57 to 5.3.61 (Operation and Maintenance) of HRA Screening Report).

Page 180: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

89

Stage 1 Matrix 84a: Sylter Außenriff SCI (Annex I habitat)

Name of European site: Sylter Außenriff SCI

Distance to PROJECT TWO: 295 km SAC Annex I habitat features Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Changes to habitat Changes to water quality Changes to fishing activity In combination effects C O D C O D C O D C O D

Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time

����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c

Reefs ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c Evidence supporting conclusions: a. No LSE on Annex I habitat is anticipated in relation to changes in habitat associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The spatial extent of direct

temporary habitat loss/disturbance effects will be highly localised, being limited to areas where works are being carried out. There is no potential for interaction, as outlined in paragraphs 5.1.2 to 5.1.11 (Construction and Decommissioning) and 5.1.31 to 5.1.48 (Operation and Maintenance) of the HRA Screening Report.

b. No LSE on Annex I habitat is anticipated in relation to changes in water quality associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The Sylter Außenriff SCI is located 295 km from Hornsea Project Two and increased suspended sediment and/or sediment deposition effects are not expected to extend to this range. Sufficient mitigation measures are in place for the release of contaminants/pollutants. There is no potential for interaction, as outlined in paragraphs 5.1.27 to 5.1.30 (Construction and Decommissioning) and 5.1.49 to 5.1.50 (Operation and Maintenance) of the HRA Screening Report.

c. No LSE on Annex I habitat is anticipated in relation to changes in fishing activity associated with the operation of Hornsea Project Two. It is anticipated that the potential effect of displacement of fishing activity will be dispersed over a large area, meaning that the specific increases in fishing activity in any one location would likely be minimal. See paragraphs 5.1.51 and 5.1.52 of the HRA Screening Report and Draft ES, Volume 2, Chapter 2: Subtidal and Intertidal Benthic Ecology.

Page 181: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

90

Stage 1 Matrix 84b : Sylter Außenriff SCI (migratory fish)

Name of European site: Sylter Außenriff SCI

Distance to PROJECT TWO: 295 km

SAC marine mammal features

Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Behavioural disturbance/physical injury Changes to water quality Changes to habitat Changes to fishing activity In combination effects C O D C O D C O D C O D C O D

Twaite shad ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a n/a ����d n/a ����a, b, c, d

����a, b, c, d

����a, b, c, d

River lamprey ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a n/a ����d n/a ����a, b, c, d

����a, b, c, d

����a, b, c, d

Evidence supporting conclusions: a. No LSE on migratory fish is anticipated in relation to behavioural disturbance/physical injury associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The Annex II

migratory fish species under consideration are highly mobile and have wide distribution ranges, being able to relocate and use equally suitable feeding areas in adjacent undisturbed locations. Any disturbance is likely to be over a relatively small spatial scale, limited to the immediate proximity of the inshore section of the export cable corridor. See paragraphs 5.2.5 to 5.2.7 (Construction and Decommissioning) and 5.2.34 to 5.2.36 (Operation and Maintenance) of the HRA Screening Report.

b. No LSE on migratory fish is anticipated in relation to changes to water quality associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The Sylter Außenriff SCI is located 295 km from Hornsea Project Two and increased suspended sediment and/or sediment deposition effects are not expected to extend to this range. Sufficient mitigation measures are in place for the release of contaminants/pollutants and cables will likely be left in situ during decommissioning. See paragraphs 5.2.8 to 5.2.14 (construction and decommissioning) and 5.2.37 to 5.2.38 (operation) of the HRA Screening Report.

c. No LSE on migratory fish is anticipated in relation to changes to habitat associated with the operation of Hornsea Project Two. Cable protection measures resulting in long term habitat loss (e.g., rock placement) will not be used along the export cable. The Annex II migratory fish species under consideration are highly mobile and have wide distribution ranges, being able to relocate and use equally suitable feeding areas in adjacent undisturbed locations. See paragraphs 5.2.18 to 5.2.23 of the HRA Screening Report.

d. No LSE on migratory fish is anticipated in relation to changes to fishing activity associated with the operation of Hornsea Project Two. The potential effect of displacement of fishing activity will be dispersed over a large area, meaning that the specific increases in fishing activity in any one location would likely be minimal. Annex II migratory fish species are rarely caught by the fishing methods used in the area, and therefore, if fishing effort is displaced into other areas the potential impact on these species would be minimal. See paragraphs 5.2.39 to 5.2.42 of the HRA Screening Report.

Page 182: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

91

Stage 1 Matrix 84c : Sylter Außenriff SCI (marine mammal)

Name of European site: Sylter Außenriff SCI

Distance to PROJECT TWO: 295 km SAC marine mammal features

Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Behavioural disturbance/physical injury Changes to water quality Changes to prey availability In combination effects C O D C O D C O D C O D

Grey seal ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a Harbour seal ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b Harbour porpoise ����c ����d ����d ����e ����e ����e ����f ����f ����f ����c ����d, e, f ����d, e, f Evidence supporting conclusions: a. No LSE on grey seal is anticipated in relation to behavioural disturbance/physical injury, changes to water quality or changes to prey availability associated with the construction, operation and

decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. It is considered that harbour seal populations from European sites located at distances greater than 145 km from Project Two are beyond any potential for direct and indirect effects on foraging trips, and therefore, no LSE is anticipated (see paragraph 5.3.65 of the HRA Screening Report).

b. No LSE on harbour seal is anticipated in relation to behavioural disturbance/physical injury, changes to water quality or changes to prey availability associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. It is considered that harbour seal populations from European sites located at distances greater than 120 km from Project Two are beyond any potential for direct and indirect effects on foraging trips, and therefore, no LSE is anticipated (see paragraph 5.3.67 of the HRA Screening Report).

c. LSE on harbour porpoise in relation to behavioural disturbance/physical injury associated with the construction of Hornsea Project Two cannot be ruled out. The risk of auditory injury would be negligible for all Annex II marine mammals species, however there is potential for behavioural disturbance to occur as a result of piling. It is considered that LSEs on harbour porpoise cannot be ruled out for all the European sites included in the screening exercise, as they form part of the overall mobile North Sea population. See paragraphs 5.3.2 to 5.3.9 and 5.3.69 to 5.3.70 of the HRA Screening Report.

d. No LSE on harbour porpoise is anticipated in relation to behavioural disturbance/physical injury associated with the operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. Given the low level and limited spatial extent of the radiated noise, the risk of behavioural impacts on marine mammals would be limited to the immediate vicinity of the turbines. Piling will not be required during decommissioning and the anticipated method for the removal of turbines, abrasive cutting, would not be expected to be generate noise significantly higher than general surface vessel noise. See paragraphs 5.3.36 to 5.3.43 (operation) and 5.3.9 (decommissioning) of the HRA Screening Report.

e. No LSE on harbour porpoise is anticipated in relation to changes in water quality associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The Sylter Außenriff SCI is located 295 km from Hornsea Project Two and increased suspended sediment and/or sediment deposition effects are not expected to extend to this range. Sufficient mitigation measures are in place for the release of contaminants/pollutants. There is no potential for interaction, as outlined in paragraphs 5.3.21 to 5.3.28 (Construction and Decommissioning) and 5.3.55 to 5.3.56 (Operation and Maintenance) of the HRA Screening Report.

f. No LSE on harbour porpoise is anticipated in relation to changes in prey availability associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The potential impacts identified on fish receptors will be localised, short term and reversible. During the operational phase there may be increased feeding opportunities within Project Two as a result of potential reef effects and reduction in fishing activity. Furthermore, the fish community found in Project Two is characteristic of the fish and shellfish assemblage of the wider region and therefore marine mammals would be able to exploit similar resources in adjacent undisturbed areas (see Paragraphs 5.3.29 to 5.3.35 (Construction and Decommissioning) and 5.3.57 to 5.3.61 (Operation and Maintenance) of HRA Screening Report).

Page 183: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

92

Stage 1 Matrix 85a: Steingrund SAC (Annex I habitat)

Name of European site: Steingrund SAC

Distance to PROJECT TWO: 385 km SAC Annex I habitat features Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Changes to habitat Changes to water quality Changes to fishing activity In combination effects C O D C O D C O D C O D

Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time

����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c

Reefs ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c Evidence supporting conclusions: a. No LSE on Annex I habitat is anticipated in relation to changes in habitat associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The spatial extent of direct

temporary habitat loss/disturbance effects will be highly localised, being limited to areas where works are being carried out. There is no potential for interaction, as outlined in paragraphs 5.1.2 to 5.1.11 (Construction and Decommissioning) and 5.1.31 to 5.1.48 (Operation and Maintenance) of the HRA Screening Report.

b. No LSE on Annex I habitat is anticipated in relation to changes in water quality associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The Steingrund SAC is located 385 km from Hornsea Project Two and increased suspended sediment and/or sediment deposition effects are not expected to extend to this range. Sufficient mitigation measures are in place for the release of contaminants/pollutants. There is no potential for interaction, as outlined in paragraphs 5.1.27 to 5.1.30 (Construction and Decommissioning) and 5.1.49 to 5.1.50 (Operation and Maintenance) of the HRA Screening Report.

c. No LSE on Annex I habitat is anticipated in relation to changes in fishing activity associated with the operation of Hornsea Project Two. It is anticipated that the potential effect of displacement of fishing activity will be dispersed over a large area, meaning that the specific increases in fishing activity in any one location would likely be minimal. See paragraphs 5.1.51 and 5.1.52 of the HRA Screening Report and Draft ES, Volume 2, Chapter 2: Subtidal and Intertidal Benthic Ecology.

Page 184: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

93

Stage 1 Matrix 85b : Steingrund SAC (marine mammal)

Name of European site: Steingrund SAC

Distance to PROJECT TWO: 385 km SAC marine mammal features

Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Behavioural disturbance/physical injury Changes to water quality Changes to prey availability In combination effects C O D C O D C O D C O D

Grey seal ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a Harbour seal ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b Harbour porpoise ����c ����d ����d ����e ����e ����e ����f ����f ����f ����c ����d, e, f ����d, e, f Evidence supporting conclusions: a. No LSE on grey seal is anticipated in relation to behavioural disturbance/physical injury, changes to water quality or changes to prey availability associated with the construction, operation and

decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. It is considered that harbour seal populations from European sites located at distances greater than 145 km from Project Two are beyond any potential for direct and indirect effects on foraging trips, and therefore, no LSE is anticipated (see paragraph 5.3.65 of the HRA Screening Report).

b. No LSE on harbour seal is anticipated in relation to behavioural disturbance/physical injury, changes to water quality or changes to prey availability associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. It is considered that harbour seal populations from European sites located at distances greater than 120 km from Project Two are beyond any potential for direct and indirect effects on foraging trips, and therefore, no LSE is anticipated (see paragraph 5.3.67 of the HRA Screening Report).

c. LSE on harbour porpoise in relation to behavioural disturbance/physical injury associated with the construction of Hornsea Project Two cannot be ruled out. The risk of auditory injury would be negligible for all Annex II marine mammals species, however there is potential for behavioural disturbance to occur as a result of piling. It is considered that LSEs on harbour porpoise cannot be ruled out for all the European sites included in the screening exercise, as they form part of the overall mobile North Sea population. See paragraphs 5.3.2 to 5.3.9 and 5.3.69 to 5.3.70 of the HRA Screening Report.

d. No LSE on harbour porpoise is anticipated in relation to behavioural disturbance/physical injury associated with the operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. Given the low level and limited spatial extent of the radiated noise, the risk of behavioural impacts on marine mammals would be limited to the immediate vicinity of the turbines. Piling will not be required during decommissioning and the anticipated method for the removal of turbines, abrasive cutting, would not be expected to be generate noise significantly higher than general surface vessel noise. See paragraphs 5.3.36 to 5.3.43 (operation) and 5.3.9 (decommissioning) of the HRA Screening Report.

e. No LSE on harbour porpoise is anticipated in relation to changes in water quality associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The Steingrund SAC is located 385 km from Hornsea Project Two and increased suspended sediment and/or sediment deposition effects are not expected to extend to this range. Sufficient mitigation measures are in place for the release of contaminants/pollutants. There is no potential for interaction, as outlined in paragraphs 5.3.21 to 5.3.28 (Construction and Decommissioning) and 5.3.55 to 5.3.56 (Operation and Maintenance) of the HRA Screening Report.

f. No LSE on harbour porpoise is anticipated in relation to changes in prey availability associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The potential impacts identified on fish receptors will be localised, short term and reversible. During the operational phase there may be increased feeding opportunities within Project Two as a result of potential reef effects and reduction in fishing activity. Furthermore, the fish community found in Project Two is characteristic of the fish and shellfish assemblage of the wider region and therefore marine mammals would be able to exploit similar resources in adjacent undisturbed areas (see Paragraphs 5.3.29 to 5.3.35 (Construction and Decommissioning) and 5.3.57 to 5.3.61 (Operation and Maintenance) of HRA Screening Report).

Page 185: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

94

Stage 1 Matrix 86a : Unterelbe SCI (marine mammal)

Name of European site: Unterelbe SCI

Distance to PROJECT TWO: 433 km SAC marine mammal features

Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Behavioural disturbance/physical injury Changes to water quality Changes to prey availability In combination effects C O D C O D C O D C O D

Harbour seal ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a Harbour porpoise ����b ����c ����c ����d ����d ����d ����e ����e ����e ����b ����c, d, e ����c, d, e Evidence supporting conclusions: a. No LSE on harbour seal is anticipated in relation to behavioural disturbance/physical injury, changes to water quality or changes to prey availability associated with the construction, operation and

decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. It is considered that harbour seal populations from European sites located at distances greater than 120 km from Project Two are beyond any potential for direct and indirect effects on foraging trips, and therefore, no LSE is anticipated (see paragraph 5.3.67 of the HRA Screening Report).

b. LSE on harbour porpoise in relation to behavioural disturbance/physical injury associated with the construction of Hornsea Project Two cannot be ruled out. The risk of auditory injury would be negligible for all Annex II marine mammals species, however there is potential for behavioural disturbance to occur as a result of piling. It is considered that LSEs on harbour porpoise cannot be ruled out for all the European sites included in the screening exercise, as they form part of the overall mobile North Sea population. See paragraphs 5.3.2 to 5.3.9 and 5.3.69 to 5.3.70 of the HRA Screening Report.

c. No LSE on harbour porpoise is anticipated in relation to behavioural disturbance/physical injury associated with the operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. Given the low level and limited spatial extent of the radiated noise, the risk of behavioural impacts on marine mammals would be limited to the immediate vicinity of the turbines. Piling will not be required during decommissioning and the anticipated method for the removal of turbines, abrasive cutting, would not be expected to be generate noise significantly higher than general surface vessel noise. See paragraphs 5.3.36 to 5.3.43 (operation) and 5.3.9 (decommissioning) of the HRA Screening Report.

d. No LSE on harbour porpoise is anticipated in relation to changes in water quality associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The Unterelbe SCI is located 433 km from Hornsea Project Two and increased suspended sediment and/or sediment deposition effects are not expected to extend to this range. Sufficient mitigation measures are in place for the release of contaminants/pollutants. There is no potential for interaction, as outlined in paragraphs 5.3.21 to 5.3.28 (Construction and Decommissioning) and 5.3.55 to 5.3.56 (Operation and Maintenance) of the HRA Screening Report.

e. No LSE on harbour porpoise is anticipated in relation to changes in prey availability associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The potential impacts identified on fish receptors will be localised, short term and reversible. During the operational phase there may be increased feeding opportunities within Project Two as a result of potential reef effects and reduction in fishing activity. Furthermore, the fish community found in Project Two is characteristic of the fish and shellfish assemblage of the wider region and therefore marine mammals would be able to exploit similar resources in adjacent undisturbed areas (see Paragraphs 5.3.29 to 5.3.35 (Construction and Decommissioning) and 5.3.57 to 5.3.61 (Operation and Maintenance) of HRA Screening Report).

Page 186: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

95

Stage 1 Matrix 86b : Unterelbe SCI (migratory fish)

Name of European site: Unterelbe SCI

Distance to PROJECT TWO: 433 km

SAC marine mammal features

Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Behavioural disturbance/physical injury Changes to water quality Changes to habitat Changes to fishing activity In combination effects C O D C O D C O D C O D C O D

Twaite shad ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a n/a ����d n/a ����a, b, c, d

����a, b, c, d

����a, b, c, d

River lamprey ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a n/a ����d n/a ����a, b, c, d

����a, b, c, d

����a, b, c, d

Sea lamprey ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a n/a ����d n/a ����a, b, c, d

����a, b, c, d

����a, b, c, d

Atlantic salmon ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a n/a ����d n/a ����a, b, c, d

����a, b, c, d

����a, b, c, d

Evidence supporting conclusions: a. No LSE on migratory fish is anticipated in relation to behavioural disturbance/physical injury associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The Annex II

migratory fish species under consideration are highly mobile and have wide distribution ranges, being able to relocate and use equally suitable feeding areas in adjacent undisturbed locations. Any disturbance is likely to be over a relatively small spatial scale, limited to the immediate proximity of the inshore section of the export cable corridor. See paragraphs 5.2.5 to 5.2.7 (Construction and Decommissioning) and 5.2.34 to 5.2.36 (Operation and Maintenance) of the HRA Screening Report.

b. No LSE on migratory fish is anticipated in relation to changes to water quality associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The Unterelbe SCI is located 433 km from Hornsea Project Two and increased suspended sediment and/or sediment deposition effects are not expected to extend to this range. Sufficient mitigation measures are in place for the release of contaminants/pollutants and cables will likely be left in situ during decommissioning. See paragraphs 5.2.8 to 5.2.14 (construction and decommissioning) and 5.2.37 to 5.2.38 (operation) of the HRA Screening Report.

c. No LSE on migratory fish is anticipated in relation to changes to habitat associated with the operation of Hornsea Project Two. Cable protection measures resulting in long term habitat loss (e.g., rock placement) will not be used along the export cable. The Annex II migratory fish species under consideration are highly mobile and have wide distribution ranges, being able to relocate and use equally suitable feeding areas in adjacent undisturbed locations. See paragraphs 5.2.18 to 5.2.23 of the HRA Screening Report.

d. No LSE on migratory fish is anticipated in relation to changes to fishing activity associated with the operation of Hornsea Project Two. The potential effect of displacement of fishing activity will be dispersed over a large area, meaning that the specific increases in fishing activity in any one location would likely be minimal. Annex II migratory fish species are rarely caught by the fishing methods used in the area, and therefore, if fishing effort is displaced into other areas the potential impact on these species would be minimal. See paragraphs 5.2.39 to 5.2.42 of the HRA Screening Report.

Page 187: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

96

Stage 1 Matrix 87a: Dråby Vig SAC (Annex I habitat)

Name of European site: Dråby Vig SAC

Distance to PROJECT TWO: 533 km SAC Annex I habitat features Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Changes to habitat Changes to water quality Changes to fishing activity In combination effects C O D C O D C O D C O D

Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide

����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c

Coastal lagoons ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c Large shallow inlets and bays ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c Reefs ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c Annual vegetation of drift lines ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c Perennial vegetation of stony banks ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c

Salicornia and other annuals colonizing mud and sand ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c

Atlantic salt meadows (Glauco-Puccinellietalia maritimae) ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c

Fixed coastal dunes with herbaceous vegetation ("grey dunes")

����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c

Semi-natural dry grasslands and scrubland facies on calcareous substrates (Festuco-Brometalia) (* important orchid sites)

����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c

Species-rich Nardus grasslands, on silicious substrates in mountain areas (and submountain areas in Continental Europe)

����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c

Petrifying springs with tufa formation (Cratoneurion) ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c

Alkaline fens ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c Evidence supporting conclusions:

Page 188: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

97

a. No LSE on Annex I habitat is anticipated in relation to changes in habitat associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The spatial extent of direct temporary habitat loss/disturbance effects will be highly localised, being limited to areas where works are being carried out. There is no potential for interaction, as outlined in paragraphs 5.1.2 to 5.1.11 (Construction and Decommissioning) and 5.1.31 to 5.1.48 (Operation and Maintenance) of the HRA Screening Report.

b. No LSE on Annex I habitat is anticipated in relation to changes in water quality associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The Dråby Vig SAC is located 533 km from Hornsea Project Two and increased suspended sediment and/or sediment deposition effects are not expected to extend to this range. Sufficient mitigation measures are in place for the release of contaminants/pollutants. There is no potential for interaction, as outlined in paragraphs 5.1.27 to 5.1.30 (Construction and Decommissioning) and 5.1.49 to 5.1.50 (Operation and Maintenance) of the HRA Screening Report.

c. No LSE on Annex I habitat is anticipated in relation to changes in fishing activity associated with the operation of Hornsea Project Two. It is anticipated that the potential effect of displacement of fishing activity will be dispersed over a large area, meaning that the specific increases in fishing activity in any one location would likely be minimal. See paragraphs 5.1.51 and 5.1.52 of the HRA Screening Report and Draft ES, Volume 2, Chapter 2: Subtidal and Intertidal Benthic Ecology.

Page 189: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

98

Stage 1 Matrix 87b : Dråby Vig SAC (migratory fish)

Name of European site: Dråby Vig SAC

Distance to PROJECT TWO: 533 km

SAC marine mammal features

Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Behavioural disturbance/physical injury Changes to water quality Changes to habitat Changes to fishing activity In combination effects C O D C O D C O D C O D C O D

Twaite shad ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a n/a ����d n/a ����a, b, c, d

����a, b, c, d

����a, b, c, d

Evidence supporting conclusions: a. No LSE on migratory fish is anticipated in relation to behavioural disturbance/physical injury associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The Annex II

migratory fish species under consideration are highly mobile and have wide distribution ranges, being able to relocate and use equally suitable feeding areas in adjacent undisturbed locations. Any disturbance is likely to be over a relatively small spatial scale, limited to the immediate proximity of the inshore section of the export cable corridor. See paragraphs 5.2.5 to 5.2.7 (Construction and Decommissioning) and 5.2.34 to 5.2.36 (Operation and Maintenance) of the HRA Screening Report.

b. No LSE on migratory fish is anticipated in relation to changes to water quality associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The Dråby Vig SAC is located 533 km from Hornsea Project Two and increased suspended sediment and/or sediment deposition effects are not expected to extend to this range. Sufficient mitigation measures are in place for the release of contaminants/pollutants and cables will likely be left in situ during decommissioning. See paragraphs 5.2.8 to 5.2.14 (construction and decommissioning) and 5.2.37 to 5.2.38 (operation) of the HRA Screening Report.

c. No LSE on migratory fish is anticipated in relation to changes to habitat associated with the operation of Hornsea Project Two. Cable protection measures resulting in long term habitat loss (e.g., rock placement) will not be used along the export cable. The Annex II migratory fish species under consideration are highly mobile and have wide distribution ranges, being able to relocate and use equally suitable feeding areas in adjacent undisturbed locations. See paragraphs 5.2.18 to 5.2.23 of the HRA Screening Report.

d. No LSE on migratory fish is anticipated in relation to changes to fishing activity associated with the operation of Hornsea Project Two. The potential effect of displacement of fishing activity will be dispersed over a large area, meaning that the specific increases in fishing activity in any one location would likely be minimal. Annex II migratory fish species are rarely caught by the fishing methods used in the area, and therefore, if fishing effort is displaced into other areas the potential impact on these species would be minimal. See paragraphs 5.2.39 to 5.2.42 of the HRA Screening Report.

Page 190: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

99

Stage 1 Matrix 87c : Dråby Vig SAC (marine mammal)

Name of European site: Dråby Vig SAC

Distance to PROJECT TWO: 533 km SAC marine mammal features

Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Behavioural disturbance/physical injury Changes to water quality Changes to prey availability In combination effects C O D C O D C O D C O D

Harbour seal ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a Harbour porpoise ����b ����c ����c ����d ����d ����d ����e ����e ����e ����b ����c, d, e ����c, d, e Evidence supporting conclusions: a. No LSE on harbour seal is anticipated in relation to behavioural disturbance/physical injury, changes to water quality or changes to prey availability associated with the construction, operation and

decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. It is considered that harbour seal populations from European sites located at distances greater than 120 km from Project Two are beyond any potential for direct and indirect effects on foraging trips, and therefore, no LSE is anticipated (see paragraph 5.3.67 of the HRA Screening Report).

b. LSE on harbour porpoise in relation to behavioural disturbance/physical injury associated with the construction of Hornsea Project Two cannot be ruled out. The risk of auditory injury would be negligible for all Annex II marine mammals species, however there is potential for behavioural disturbance to occur as a result of piling. It is considered that LSEs on harbour porpoise cannot be ruled out for all the European sites included in the screening exercise, as they form part of the overall mobile North Sea population. See paragraphs 5.3.2 to 5.3.9 and 5.3.69 to 5.3.70 of the HRA Screening Report.

c. No LSE on harbour porpoise is anticipated in relation to behavioural disturbance/physical injury associated with the operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. Given the low level and limited spatial extent of the radiated noise, the risk of behavioural impacts on marine mammals would be limited to the immediate vicinity of the turbines. Piling will not be required during decommissioning and the anticipated method for the removal of turbines, abrasive cutting, would not be expected to be generate noise significantly higher than general surface vessel noise. See paragraphs 5.3.36 to 5.3.43 (operation) and 5.3.9 (decommissioning) of the HRA Screening Report.

d. No LSE on harbour porpoise is anticipated in relation to changes in water quality associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The Dråby Vig SAC is located 533 km from Hornsea Project Two and increased suspended sediment and/or sediment deposition effects are not expected to extend to this range. Sufficient mitigation measures are in place for the release of contaminants/pollutants. There is no potential for interaction, as outlined in paragraphs 5.3.21 to 5.3.28 (Construction and Decommissioning) and 5.3.55 to 5.3.56 (Operation and Maintenance) of the HRA Screening Report.

e. No LSE on harbour porpoise is anticipated in relation to changes in prey availability associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The potential impacts identified on fish receptors will be localised, short term and reversible. During the operational phase there may be increased feeding opportunities within Project Two as a result of potential reef effects and reduction in fishing activity. Furthermore, the fish community found in Project Two is characteristic of the fish and shellfish assemblage of the wider region and therefore marine mammals would be able to exploit similar resources in adjacent undisturbed areas (see Paragraphs 5.3.29 to 5.3.35 (Construction and Decommissioning) and 5.3.57 to 5.3.61 (Operation and Maintenance) of HRA Screening Report).

Page 191: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

100

Stage 1 Matrix 88a: Gule Rev pSCI (Annex I habitat)

Name of European site: Gule Rev pSCI

Distance to PROJECT TWO: 516 km SAC Annex I habitat features Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Changes to habitat Changes to water quality Changes to fishing activity In combination effects

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Reefs ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c Evidence supporting conclusions: a. No LSE on Annex I habitat is anticipated in relation to changes in habitat associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The spatial extent of direct

temporary habitat loss/disturbance effects will be highly localised, being limited to areas where works are being carried out. There is no potential for interaction, as outlined in paragraphs 5.1.2 to 5.1.11 (Construction and Decommissioning) and 5.1.31 to 5.1.48 (Operation and Maintenance) of the HRA Screening Report.

b. No LSE on Annex I habitat is anticipated in relation to changes in water quality associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The Gule Rev pSCI is located 516 km from Hornsea Project Two and increased suspended sediment and/or sediment deposition effects are not expected to extend to this range. Sufficient mitigation measures are in place for the release of contaminants/pollutants. There is no potential for interaction, as outlined in paragraphs 5.1.27 to 5.1.30 (Construction and Decommissioning) and 5.1.49 to 5.1.50 (Operation and Maintenance) of the HRA Screening Report.

c. No LSE on Annex I habitat is anticipated in relation to changes in fishing activity associated with the operation of Hornsea Project Two. It is anticipated that the potential effect of displacement of fishing activity will be dispersed over a large area, meaning that the specific increases in fishing activity in any one location would likely be minimal. See paragraphs 5.1.51 and 5.1.52 of the HRA Screening Report and Draft ES, Volume 2, Chapter 2: Subtidal and Intertidal Benthic Ecology.

Page 192: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

101

Stage 1 Matrix 88b : Gule Rev pSCI (marine mammal)

Name of European site: Gule Rev pSCI

Distance to PROJECT TWO: 516 km SAC marine mammal features

Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Behavioural disturbance/physical injury Changes to water quality Changes to prey availability In combination effects C O D C O D C O D C O D

Harbour porpoise ����a ����b ����b ����c ����c ����c ����d ����d ����d ����a ����b, c, d ����b, c, d Evidence supporting conclusions: a. LSE on harbour porpoise in relation to behavioural disturbance/physical injury associated with the construction of Hornsea Project Two cannot be ruled out. The risk of auditory injury would be

negligible for all Annex II marine mammals species, however there is potential for behavioural disturbance to occur as a result of piling. It is considered that LSEs on harbour porpoise cannot be ruled out for all the European sites included in the screening exercise, as they form part of the overall mobile North Sea population. See paragraphs 5.3.2 to 5.3.9 and 5.3.69 to 5.3.70 of the HRA Screening Report.

b. No LSE on harbour porpoise is anticipated in relation to behavioural disturbance/physical injury associated with the operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. Given the low level and limited spatial extent of the radiated noise, the risk of behavioural impacts on marine mammals would be limited to the immediate vicinity of the turbines. Piling will not be required during decommissioning and the anticipated method for the removal of turbines, abrasive cutting, would not be expected to be generate noise significantly higher than general surface vessel noise. See paragraphs 5.3.36 to 5.3.43 (operation) and 5.3.9 (decommissioning) of the HRA Screening Report.

c. No LSE on harbour porpoise is anticipated in relation to changes in water quality associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The Gule Rev pSCI is located 516 km from Hornsea Project Two and increased suspended sediment and/or sediment deposition effects are not expected to extend to this range. Sufficient mitigation measures are in place for the release of contaminants/pollutants. There is no potential for interaction, as outlined in paragraphs 5.3.21 to 5.3.28 (Construction and Decommissioning) and 5.3.55 to 5.3.56 (Operation and Maintenance) of the HRA Screening Report.

d. No LSE on harbour porpoise is anticipated in relation to changes in prey availability associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The potential impacts identified on fish receptors will be localised, short term and reversible. During the operational phase there may be increased feeding opportunities within Project Two as a result of potential reef effects and reduction in fishing activity. Furthermore, the fish community found in Project Two is characteristic of the fish and shellfish assemblage of the wider region and therefore marine mammals would be able to exploit similar resources in adjacent undisturbed areas (see Paragraphs 5.3.29 to 5.3.35 (Construction and Decommissioning) and 5.3.57 to 5.3.61 (Operation and Maintenance) of HRA Screening Report).

Page 193: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

102

Stage 1 Matrix 89a: Løgstør Bredning, Vejlerne og Bulbjerg SAC (Annex I habitat)

Name of European site: Løgstør Bredning, Vejlerne og Bulbjerg SAC

Distance to PROJECT TWO: 540 km SAC Annex I habitat features Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Changes to habitat Changes to water quality Changes to fishing activity In combination effects C O D C O D C O D C O D

Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time

����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c

Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide

����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c

Coastal lagoons ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c Large shallow inlets and bays ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c Reefs ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c Annual vegetation of drift lines ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c Perennial vegetation of stony banks ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c

Vegetated sea cliffs of the Atlantic and Baltic Coasts ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c

Salicornia and other annuals colonizing mud and sand ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c

Atlantic salt meadows (Glauco-Puccinellietalia maritimae) ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c

Embryonic shifting dunes ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c Shifting dunes along the shoreline with Ammophila arenaria ("white dunes")

����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c

Fixed coastal dunes with herbaceous vegetation ("grey dunes")

����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c

Decalcified fixed dunes with Empetrum nigrum ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c

Dunes with Hippophaë rhamnoides ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c

Dunes with Salix repens ssp. argentea (Salicion arenariae) ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c

Humid dune slacks ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c Coastal dunes with Juniperus spp. ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c

Page 194: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

103

Oligotrophic to mesotrophic standing waters with vegetation of the Littorelletea uniflorae and/or of the Isoëto-Nanojuncetea

����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c

Hard oligo-mesotrophic waters with benthic vegetation of Chara spp.

����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c

Natural eutrophic lakes with Magnopotamion or Hydrocharition - type vegetation

����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c

Natural dystrophic lakes and ponds ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c

Water courses of plain to montane levels with the Ranunculion fluitantis and Callitricho-Batrachion vegetation

����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c

Northern Atlantic wet heaths with Erica tetralix ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c

European dry heaths ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c Juniperus communis formations on heaths or calcareous grasslands

����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c

Semi-natural dry grasslands and scrubland facies on calcareous substrates (Festuco-Brometalia) (* important orchid sites)

����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c

Species-rich Nardus grasslands, on silicious substrates in mountain areas (and submountain areas in Continental Europe)

����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c

Molinia meadows on calcareous, peaty or clayey-silt-laden soils (Molinion caeruleae)

����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c

Transition mires and quaking bogs ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c

Petrifying springs with tufa formation (Cratoneurion) ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c

Alkaline fens ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c Luzulo-Fagetum beech forests ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c

Page 195: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

104

Sub-Atlantic and medio-European oak or oak-hornbeam forests of the Carpinion betuli

����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c

Old acidophilous oak woods with Quercus robur on sandy plains

����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c

Bog woodland ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c Alluvial forests with Alnus glutinosa and Fraxinus excelsior (Alno-Padion, Alnion incanae, Salicion albae)

����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c

Evidence supporting conclusions: a. No LSE on Annex I habitat is anticipated in relation to changes in habitat associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The spatial extent of direct

temporary habitat loss/disturbance effects will be highly localised, being limited to areas where works are being carried out. There is no potential for interaction, as outlined in paragraphs 5.1.2 to 5.1.11 (Construction and Decommissioning) and 5.1.31 to 5.1.48 (Operation and Maintenance) of the HRA Screening Report.

b. No LSE on Annex I habitat is anticipated in relation to changes in water quality associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The Løgstør Bredning, Vejlerne og Bulbjerg SAC is located 540 km from Hornsea Project Two and increased suspended sediment and/or sediment deposition effects are not expected to extend to this range. Sufficient mitigation measures are in place for the release of contaminants/pollutants. There is no potential for interaction, as outlined in paragraphs 5.1.27 to 5.1.30 (Construction and Decommissioning) and 5.1.49 to 5.1.50 (Operation and Maintenance) of the HRA Screening Report.

c. No LSE on Annex I habitat is anticipated in relation to changes in fishing activity associated with the operation of Hornsea Project Two. It is anticipated that the potential effect of displacement of fishing activity will be dispersed over a large area, meaning that the specific increases in fishing activity in any one location would likely be minimal. See paragraphs 5.1.51 and 5.1.52 of the HRA Screening Report and Draft ES, Volume 2, Chapter 2: Subtidal and Intertidal Benthic Ecology.

Page 196: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

105

Stage 1 Matrix 89b : Løgstør Bredning, Vejlerne og Bulbjerg SAC (migratory fish)

Name of European site: Løgstør Bredning, Vejlerne og Bulbjerg SAC

Distance to PROJECT TWO: 540 km

SAC marine mammal features

Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Behavioural disturbance/physical injury Changes to water quality Changes to habitat Changes to fishing activity In combination effects C O D C O D C O D C O D C O D

Sea lamprey ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a n/a ����d n/a ����a, b, c, d

����a, b, c, d

����a, b, c, d

Evidence supporting conclusions: a. No LSE on migratory fish is anticipated in relation to behavioural disturbance/physical injury associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The Annex II

migratory fish species under consideration are highly mobile and have wide distribution ranges, being able to relocate and use equally suitable feeding areas in adjacent undisturbed locations. Any disturbance is likely to be over a relatively small spatial scale, limited to the immediate proximity of the inshore section of the export cable corridor. See paragraphs 5.2.5 to 5.2.7 (Construction and Decommissioning) and 5.2.34 to 5.2.36 (Operation and Maintenance) of the HRA Screening Report.

b. No LSE on migratory fish is anticipated in relation to changes to water quality associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The Løgstør Bredning, Vejlerne og Bulbjerg SAC is located 540 km from Hornsea Project Two and increased suspended sediment and/or sediment deposition effects are not expected to extend to this range. Sufficient mitigation measures are in place for the release of contaminants/pollutants and cables will likely be left in situ during decommissioning. See paragraphs 5.2.8 to 5.2.14 (construction and decommissioning) and 5.2.37 to 5.2.38 (operation) of the HRA Screening Report.

c. No LSE on migratory fish is anticipated in relation to changes to habitat associated with the operation of Hornsea Project Two. Cable protection measures resulting in long term habitat loss (e.g., rock placement) will not be used along the export cable. The Annex II migratory fish species under consideration are highly mobile and have wide distribution ranges, being able to relocate and use equally suitable feeding areas in adjacent undisturbed locations. See paragraphs 5.2.18 to 5.2.23 of the HRA Screening Report.

d. No LSE on migratory fish is anticipated in relation to changes to fishing activity associated with the operation of Hornsea Project Two. The potential effect of displacement of fishing activity will be dispersed over a large area, meaning that the specific increases in fishing activity in any one location would likely be minimal. Annex II migratory fish species are rarely caught by the fishing methods used in the area, and therefore, if fishing effort is displaced into other areas the potential impact on these species would be minimal. See paragraphs 5.2.39 to 5.2.42 of the HRA Screening Report.

Page 197: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

106

Stage 1 Matrix 89c : Løgstør Bredning, Vejlerne og Bulbjerg SAC (marine mammal)

Name of European site: Løgstør Bredning, Vejlerne og Bulbjerg SAC

Distance to PROJECT TWO: 540 km SAC marine mammal features

Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Behavioural disturbance/physical injury Changes to water quality Changes to prey availability In combination effects C O D C O D C O D C O D

Harbour seal ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a Harbour porpoise ����b ����c ����c ����d ����d ����d ����e ����e ����e ����b ����c, d, e ����c, d, e Evidence supporting conclusions: a. No LSE on harbour seal is anticipated in relation to behavioural disturbance/physical injury, changes to water quality or changes to prey availability associated with the construction, operation and

decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. It is considered that harbour seal populations from European sites located at distances greater than 120 km from Project Two are beyond any potential for direct and indirect effects on foraging trips, and therefore, no LSE is anticipated (see paragraph 5.3.67 of the HRA Screening Report).

b. LSE on harbour porpoise in relation to behavioural disturbance/physical injury associated with the construction of Hornsea Project Two cannot be ruled out. The risk of auditory injury would be negligible for all Annex II marine mammals species, however there is potential for behavioural disturbance to occur as a result of piling. It is considered that LSEs on harbour porpoise cannot be ruled out for all the European sites included in the screening exercise, as they form part of the overall mobile North Sea population. See paragraphs 5.3.2 to 5.3.9 and 5.3.69 to 5.3.70 of the HRA Screening Report.

c. No LSE on harbour porpoise is anticipated in relation to behavioural disturbance/physical injury associated with the operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. Given the low level and limited spatial extent of the radiated noise, the risk of behavioural impacts on marine mammals would be limited to the immediate vicinity of the turbines. Piling will not be required during decommissioning and the anticipated method for the removal of turbines, abrasive cutting, would not be expected to be generate noise significantly higher than general surface vessel noise. See paragraphs 5.3.36 to 5.3.43 (operation) and 5.3.9 (decommissioning) of the HRA Screening Report.

d. No LSE on harbour porpoise is anticipated in relation to changes in water quality associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The Løgstør Bredning, Vejlerne og Bulbjerg SAC is located 540 km from Hornsea Project Two and increased suspended sediment and/or sediment deposition effects are not expected to extend to this range. Sufficient mitigation measures are in place for the release of contaminants/pollutants. There is no potential for interaction, as outlined in paragraphs 5.3.21 to 5.3.28 (Construction and Decommissioning) and 5.3.55 to 5.3.56 (Operation and Maintenance) of the HRA Screening Report.

e. No LSE on harbour porpoise is anticipated in relation to changes in prey availability associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The potential impacts identified on fish receptors will be localised, short term and reversible. During the operational phase there may be increased feeding opportunities within Project Two as a result of potential reef effects and reduction in fishing activity. Furthermore, the fish community found in Project Two is characteristic of the fish and shellfish assemblage of the wider region and therefore marine mammals would be able to exploit similar resources in adjacent undisturbed areas (see Paragraphs 5.3.29 to 5.3.35 (Construction and Decommissioning) and 5.3.57 to 5.3.61 (Operation and Maintenance) of HRA Screening Report).

Page 198: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

107

Stage 1 Matrix 90a : Sydlige Nordsø SAC (Annex 1 habitat features)

Name of European site: Sydlige Nordsø SAC

Distance to PROJECT TWO 349 km

European site features Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Changes to habitat Changes to water quality Changes to Fishing Activity In combination effects

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time

Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Evidence supporting conclusions a. With regard to habitat disturbance, no potential interaction (impact pathway) and no predicted effect is anticipated on the SAC (see paragraphs 5.1.2 to 5.1.11 of HRA Screening Report). No LSE

predicted for the Annex 1 habitat feature project alone or in-combination (See paragraph 5.1.55). b. No potential interaction (impact pathway) and no predicted effect is anticipated on the SAC with regard to loss of habitat (See paragraphs 5.1.31 to 5.1.34 of HRA Screening Report), introduction

of hard substrate (see paragraphs 5.1.35 to 5.1.36), habitat modification due to changes in the hydrodynamic regime (See paragraphs 5.1.37 to 5.1.43) and disturbance (See paragraphs 5.1.44 to 5.1.48) No LSE predicted for the Annex 1 habitat feature (See paragraph 5.1.55).

c. Given the distance of the SAC to the areas where increased suspended sediment and sediment deposition may occur, LSE on the feature is not anticipated to occur (see paragraphs 5.1.12 to 5.1.26 of HRA Screening Report). Also, taking into account designed-in mitigation measures and best practice approaches, LSE on the Annex I habitat feature associated with the release of sediment contaminants and/or accidental releases of pollutants is not anticipated as a result of Project Two either alone or in-combination (see paragraphs 5.1.27 to 5.1.30).

d. Taking into account designed-in mitigation measures and best practice approaches, LSE on the Annex I habitat feature associated with the release of sediment contaminants and/or accidental releases of pollutants is not anticipated as a result of Project Two, either alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.1.49 to 5.1.50 of HRA Screening Report).

e. Displacement of fishing activity will be dispersed over a large area, meaning that the specific increases in fishing activity in any one location would likely be minimal. LSEs on Annex I habitats are not anticipated as a result of Project Two either alone or in-combination (see paragraphs 5.1.51 and 5.1.52 of HRA Screening Report).

Page 199: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

108

Stage 1 Matrix 90b : Sydlige Nordsø SAC (marine mammal features)

Name of European site: Sydlige Nordsø SAC

Distance to PROJECT TWO 349 km European site features Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Behavioural disturbance/Physical injury Changes to water quality Changes in prey availability In combination effects C O D C O D C O D C O D

Grey seal Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Harbour seal Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Harbour porpoise ����c Xd Xe Xf Xf Xf Xg Xh Xg ����c Xd, f, h Xe, f, g Evidence supporting conclusions a. It is considered that grey seal populations from European sites located at distances greater than 145 km from Project Two, are beyond any potential for direct, and indirect effects on foraging trips.

Therefore, based upon the distance of the Sydlige Nordsø SAC from Project Two, No LSEs are anticipated for grey seal as a result of Project Two alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.3.65 to 5.3.66 of HRA Screening Report).

b. It is considered that harbour seal populations from European sites located at distances greater than 120 km from Project Two, are beyond any potential for direct and indirect effects on foraging trips. Therefore, based upon the distance of the Sydlige Nordsø SAC from Project Two, No LSEs are anticipated for harbour seal as a result of Project Two alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.3.67 to 5.3.68 of HRA Screening Report).

c. There is the potential for connectivity between Project Two and harbour porpoise feature of the Sydlige Nordsø SAC (see paragraphs 5.3.69 to 5.3.70 of HRA Screening Report). There is potential for a LSE in respect of behavioural disturbance associated with construction pilling for up to fiveyears No LSEs have been identified with regard to vessel noise (See paragraphs 5.3.10) and collision risk (See paragraphs 5.3.13 to 5.3.20) during Construction.

d. With regard to operational underwater turbine noise a behavioural response is only likely within close proximity to turbines and no LSE is predicted (See paragraphs 5.3.36 to 5.3.39 of HRA Screening Report). Given the anticipated localised effects of disturbance associated with vessel traffic and the wide distribution range of Annex II marine mammals species, any impacts would be expected to be very limited and LSEs on marine mammals associated with vessel noise are not anticipated alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.3.41 to 5.3.43). There is little potential for the increased vessel activity to result in a significant impact in terms of collision risk with vessels and potential corkscrew injuries and no LSEs are predicted either alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.3.44 to 5.3.50). EMF effects will be localised within the immediate vicinity of the cables and no LSEs are predicted either alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.3.51 to 5.3.54).

e. During decommissioning piling will not be required. The noise resulting from wind turbine decommissioning is unlikely to result in any injury, avoidance or significant disturbance to marine mammals and no LSE is predicted either alone or in-combination (see paragraph 5.3.9 of HRA Screening Report). As per Construction, No LSEs have been identified with regard to vessel noise (See paragraphs 5.3.10) and collision risk (See paragraphs 5.3.13 to 5.3.20) during Decommissioning.

f. During Construction and Decommissioning, potential impacts associated with increased suspended sediment concentrations will be short term, intermittent and localised. Marine mammals frequently occur in relatively turbid areas and therefore are adapted to find prey in such conditions. Furthermore, they possess mechanisms to detect prey through means other than visual detection (See paragraphs 5.3.21 to 5.3.25 of HRA Screening Report). No LSE is predicted with regard to increased suspended sediment concentrations either alone or in-combination (See paragraph 5.3.25). A number of mitigation measures and best practice approaches will be implemented during the Construction and Decommissioning and Operation phases to mitigate potential impacts associated with potential accidental pollution events. Taking adherence to such approaches, LSEs on Annex II marine mammal qualifying features associated with accidental release of pollutants are not anticipated to arise during any phase of the Project (See paragraphs 5.3.26 to 5.3.28 and 5.3.55 to 5.3.56).

g. During Construction and Decommissioning, potential impacts on prey species have been identified with regard to habitat disturbance, increased suspended sediments and underwater noise for prey species (See paragraphs 5.3.29 to 5.3.35 of HRA Screening Report). No potential impacts have been identified with regard to accidental pollution events (See paragraph 5.3.34) Whilst an impact pathway has been identified, the potential loss of prey as a result of Project Two would be expected to be minimal. The potential impacts identified on fish receptors will be localised, short term and reversible. Furthermore, the fish community found in Project Two is characteristic of the fish and shellfish assemblage of the wider region and therefore marine mammals would be able to

Page 200: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

109

exploit similar resources in adjacent undisturbed areas. As such, LSEs associated with changes in prey availability are not anticipated to arise as a result of Project Two, either alone or in-combination with other plans and projects (See paragraph 5.3.35).

h. Whilst an impact pathway has been identified (See paragraphs 5.3.57 to 5.3.61 of HRA Screening Report), the potential loss of prey as a result of Project Two during Operation would be expected to be minimal and highly localised. There may be increased feeding opportunities within Project Two as a result of potential reef effects and reduction in fishing activity. Furthermore, the fish community found in Project Two is characteristic of the fish and shellfish assemblage of the wider region and therefore marine mammals would be able to exploit similar resources in adjacent undisturbed areas. LSEs associated with changes in prey availability are not anticipated to arise on marine mammals as a result of Project Two, either alone or in-combination with other plans or projects. (See paragraphs 5.3.57 to 5.3.61).

Page 201: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

110

Stage 1 Matrix 91a : Venø, Venø Sund SAC (Annex 1 habitat features)

Name of European site: Venø, Venø Sund SAC

Distance to PROJECT TWO 501 km European site features Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Changes to habitat Changes to water quality Changes to Fishing Activity In combination effects

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Coastal lagoons Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c Large shallow inlets and bays Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c Reefs Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c Annual vegetation of drift lines Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c Perennial vegetation of stony banks Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Salicornia and other annuals colonizing mud and sand Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Atlantic salt meadows (Glauco-Puccinellietalia maritimae) Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Embryonic shifting dunes Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c Fixed coastal dunes with herbaceous vegetation ("grey dunes")

Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Decalcified fixed dunes with Empetrum nigrum Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

European dry heaths Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c Semi-natural dry grasslands and scrubland facies on calcareous substrates (Festuco-Brometalia) (* important orchid sites)

Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Species-rich Nardus grasslands, on silicious substrates in mountain areas (and submountain areas in Continental Europe)

Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Evidence supporting conclusions a. With regard to habitat disturbance, no potential interaction (impact pathway) and no predicted effect is anticipated on the SAC (see paragraphs 5.1.2 to 5.1.11 of HRA Screening Report). No LSE

predicted for the Annex 1 habitat feature project alone or in-combination (See paragraph 5.1.55). b. No potential interaction (impact pathway) and no predicted effect is anticipated on the SAC with regard to loss of habitat (See paragraphs 5.1.31 to 5.1.34 of HRA Screening Report), introduction

of hard substrate (see paragraphs 5.1.35 to 5.1.36), habitat modification due to changes in the hydrodynamic regime (See paragraphs 5.1.37 to 5.1.43) and disturbance (See paragraphs 5.1.44 to 5.1.48) No LSE predicted for the Annex 1 habitat feature (See paragraph 5.1.55).

Page 202: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

111

c. Given the distance of the SAC to the areas where increased suspended sediment and sediment deposition may occur, LSE on the feature is not anticipated to occur (see paragraphs 5.1.12 to 5.1.26 of HRA Screening Report). Also, taking into account designed-in mitigation measures and best practice approaches, LSE on the Annex I habitat feature associated with the release of sediment contaminants and/or accidental releases of pollutants is not anticipated as a result of Project Two either alone or in-combination (see paragraphs 5.1.27 to 5.1.30).

d. Taking into account designed-in mitigation measures and best practice approaches, LSE on the Annex I habitat feature associated with the release of sediment contaminants and/or accidental releases of pollutants is not anticipated as a result of Project Two, either alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.1.49 to 5.1.50 of HRA Screening Report).

e. Displacement of fishing activity will be dispersed over a large area, meaning that the specific increases in fishing activity in any one location would likely be minimal. LSEs on Annex I habitats are not anticipated as a result of Project Two either alone or in-combination (see paragraphs 5.1.51 and 5.1.52 of HRA Screening Report).

Page 203: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

112

Stage 1 Matrix 90b : Venø, Venø Sund SAC (migratory fish features)

Name of European site: Venø, Venø Sund SAC

Distance to PROJECT TWO 501 km European site features Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Behavioural

disturbance/physical injury Changes to water quality Changes to habitat Changes in fishing activity In combination effects

C O D C O D C O D C O D C O D

Twaite shad Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe Xf Xa, c Xb, d, e, f

Xa, c

Evidence supporting conclusions a. The Venø, Venø Sund SAC is located at a significant distance from Project Two. No LSEs alone or in-combination are anticipated with regard to direct temporary disturbance of seabed habitat

(See paragraphs 5.2.5 to 5.2.7 of HRA Screening Report). Based upon the location of the Subzone 2 and the HVAC reactive compensation substations relative to likely migratory routes and the habitat use of the species, any interaction with construction noise is expected to be insignificant (See paragraphs 5.2.15 to 5.2.17). No LSEs associated with construction noise are anticipated (See paragraph 5.2.17).

b. The Venø, Venø Sund SAC is located at a significant distance from Project Two. Levels of noise associated with Operation noise are low and the spatial extent of the potential impact is generally small and thus unlikely to result in any injury to fish (See paragraph 5.2.25 of HRA Screening Report). Any behavioural effects to occur on fish, would be limited to the immediate vicinity of the turbines or vessels (See paragraphs 5.2.25 to 5.2.27). No LSEs are anticipated alone or in-combination due to operational noise. No LSE has been identified relating to EMF as the Annex II migratory fish feature is not considered to have sufficient interaction with the cabling (See paragraphs 5.2.29 to 5.2.33). In respect of temporary disturbance from maintenance activities, undisturbed locations will be able to be utilised by Annex II migratory fish and No LSEs are anticipated (5.2.34 to 5.2.36).

c. The Venø, Venø Sund SAC is located at a significant distance from Project Two. During Construction, elevated suspended sediment concentrations are only expected to occur over relatively small areas (up to 16 km) and will be very short-lived (See paragraphs 5.2.8 to 5.2.12 of HRA Screening Report). No LSEs alone or in-combination are anticipated with regard to increase in suspended sediment concentrations and sediment deposition during Construction/Decomissioning (See paragraphs 5.2.10 to 5.2.12). With regard to the release of sediment contaminants and accidental pollution events, mitigation measures and best practice approaches will be implemented during the Construction/Decommissioning phases to reduce potential impacts associated with pollution events (See paragraphs 5.2.13 and 5.2.14). Taking adherence to such approaches, LSEs on Annex II migratory fish species are not anticipated alone or in-combination (See paragraph 5.2.14).

d. With regard to the release of sediment contaminants and accidental pollution events, a number of mitigation measures and best practice approaches will be implemented during the Operation phase (See paragraphs 5.2.37 and 5.2.38). No LSE is anticipated with regard to this during Operation.

e. The Venø, Venø Sund SAC is located at a significant distance from Project Two. Long term habitat loss will occur within the footprint of Project Two (See paragraph 5.2.18 of HRA Screening Report). No LSEs have been identified for Annex II migratory fish as a result of Project Two alone or in-combination for any European site with regard to loss of habitat (See paragraphs 5.2.18 to 5.2.20). In respect of the introduction of hard substrate, this may indirectly have a localised effect on fish species, with the potential to act as an artificial reef and bring changes to food resources or result in a fish aggregation device (See paragraph 5.2.21). No LSEs have been identified with regard to the introduction of hard substrate (See paragraphs 5.2.21 to 5.2.23).

f. The Venø, Venø Sund SAC is located at a significant distance from Project Two. The potential effect of displacement of fishing activity will be dispersed over a large area, meaning that the specific increases in fishing activity in any one location would likely be minimal on benthic habitats. Furthermore, Annex II migratory fish species rarely caught by the fishing methods used in the Project Two area, and therefore, if fishing effort is displaced into other areas the potential impact on these species would be minimal (See paragraphs 5.2.39 to 5.2.42 of HRA Screening Report). Therefore, no LSEs have been identified for Project Two alone or in-combination (See paragraph 5.2.42).

Page 204: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

113

Stage 1 Matrix 90c : Venø, Venø Sund SAC (marine mammal features)

Name of European site: Venø, Venø Sund SAC

Distance to PROJECT TWO 501 km European site features Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Behavioural disturbance/Physical injury Changes to water quality Changes in prey availability In combination effects C O D C O D C O D C O D

Harbour seal Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Harbour porpoise ����b Xc Xd Xe Xe Xe Xf Xg Xf ����b Xc, e, g Xd, e, f Evidence supporting conclusions a. It is considered that harbour seal populations from European sites located at distances greater than 120 km from Project Two, are beyond any potential for direct and indirect effects on foraging

trips. Therefore, based upon the distance of the Venø, Venø Sund SAC from Project Two, No LSEs are anticipated for harbour seal as a result of Project Two alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.3.67 to 5.3.68 of HRA Screening Report).

b. There is the potential for connectivity between Project Two and harbour porpoise feature of the Venø, Venø Sund SAC (see paragraphs 5.3.69 to 5.3.70 of HRA Screening Report). There is potential for a LSE in respect of behavioural disturbance associated with construction pilling for up to a five year construction period No LSEs have been identified with regard to vessel noise (See paragraphs 5.3.10) and collision risk (See paragraphs 5.3.13 to 5.3.20) during Construction.

c. With regard to operational underwater turbine noise a behavioural response is only likely within close proximity to turbines and no LSE is predicted (See paragraphs 5.3.36 to 5.3.39 of HRA Screening Report). Given the anticipated localised effects of disturbance associated with vessel traffic and the wide distribution range of Annex II marine mammals species, any impacts would be expected to be very limited and LSEs on marine mammals associated with vessel noise are not anticipated alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.3.41 to 5.3.43). There is little potential for the increased vessel activity to result in a significant impact in terms of collision risk with vessels and potential corkscrew injuries and no LSEs are predicted either alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.3.44 to 5.3.50). EMF effects will be localised within the immediate vicinity of the cables and no LSEs are predicted either alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.3.51 to 5.3.54).

d. During decommissioning piling will not be required. The noise resulting from wind turbine decommissioning is unlikely to result in any injury, avoidance or significant disturbance to marine mammals and no LSE is predicted either alone or in-combination (see paragraph 5.3.9 of HRA Screening Report). As per Construction, No LSEs have been identified with regard to vessel noise (See paragraphs 5.3.10) and collision risk (See paragraphs 5.3.13 to 5.3.20) during Decommissioning.

e. During Construction and Decommissioning, potential impacts associated with increased suspended sediment concentrations will be short term, intermittent and localised. Marine mammals frequently occur in relatively turbid areas and therefore are adapted to find prey in such conditions. Furthermore, they possess mechanisms to detect prey through means other than visual detection (See paragraphs 5.3.21 to 5.3.25 of HRA Screening Report). No LSE is predicted with regard to increased suspended sediment concentrations either alone or in-combination (See paragraph 5.3.25). A number of mitigation measures and best practice approaches will be implemented during the Construction and Decommissioning and Operation phases to mitigate potential impacts associated with potential accidental pollution events. Taking adherence to such approaches, LSEs on Annex II marine mammal qualifying features associated with accidental release of pollutants are not anticipated to arise during any phase of the Project (See paragraphs 5.3.26 to 5.3.28 and 5.3.55 to 5.3.56).

f. During Construction and Decommissioning, potential impacts on prey species have been identified with regard to habitat disturbance, increased suspended sediments and underwater noise for prey species (See paragraphs 5.3.29 to 5.3.35 of HRA Screening Report). No potential impacts have been identified with regard to accidental pollution events (See paragraph 5.3.34) Whilst an impact pathway has been identified, the potential loss of prey as a result of Project Two would be expected to be minimal. The potential impacts identified on fish receptors will be localised, short term and reversible. Furthermore, the fish community found in Project Two is characteristic of the fish and shellfish assemblage of the wider region and therefore marine mammals would be able to exploit similar resources in adjacent undisturbed areas. As such, LSEs associated with changes in prey availability are not anticipated to arise as a result of Project Two, either alone or in-combination with other plans and projects (See paragraph 5.3.35).

g. Whilst an impact pathway has been identified (See paragraphs 5.3.57 to 5.3.61 of HRA Screening Report), the potential loss of prey as a result of Project Two during Operation would be expected to be minimal and highly localised. There may be increased feeding opportunities within Project Two as a result of potential reef effects and reduction in fishing activity. Furthermore, the fish community found in Project Two is characteristic of the fish and shellfish assemblage of the wider region and therefore marine mammals would be able to exploit similar resources in adjacent undisturbed areas. LSEs associated with changes in prey availability are not anticipated to arise on marine mammals as a result of Project Two, either alone or in-combination with other plans or projects. (See paragraphs 5.3.57 to 5.3.61).

Page 205: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

114

Stage 1 Matrix 91a : Vadehavet med Ribe Å, Tved Å og Varde Å vest for Varde SAC (Annex 1 habitat features)

Name of European site: Vadehavet med Ribe Å, Tved Å og Varde Å vest for Varde SAC

Distance to PROJECT TWO 418 km European site features Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Changes to habitat Changes to water quality Changes to Fishing Activity In combination effects

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time

Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Estuaries Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide

Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Coastal lagoons Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c Large shallow inlets and bays Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c Reefs Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c Salicornia and other annuals colonizing mud and sand Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Spartina swards (Spartinion maritimae) Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Atlantic salt meadows (Glauco-Puccinellietalia maritimae) Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Embryonic shifting dunes Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c Shifting dunes along the shoreline with Ammophila arenaria ("white dunes")

Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Fixed coastal dunes with herbaceous vegetation ("grey dunes")

Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Decalcified fixed dunes with Empetrum nigrum Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Dunes with Hippophaë rhamnoides Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Dunes with Salix repens ssp. argentea (Salicion arenariae) Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Evidence supporting conclusions a. With regard to habitat disturbance, no potential interaction (impact pathway) and no predicted effect is anticipated on the SAC (see paragraphs 5.1.2 to 5.1.11 of HRA Screening Report). No LSE

predicted for the Annex 1 habitat feature project alone or in-combination (See paragraph 5.1.55).

Page 206: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

115

b. No potential interaction (impact pathway) and no predicted effect is anticipated on the SAC with regard to loss of habitat (See paragraphs 5.1.31 to 5.1.34 of HRA Screening Report), introduction of hard substrate (see paragraphs 5.1.35 to 5.1.36), habitat modification due to changes in the hydrodynamic regime (See paragraphs 5.1.37 to 5.1.43) and disturbance (See paragraphs 5.1.44 to 5.1.48) No LSE predicted for the Annex 1 habitat feature (See paragraph 5.1.55).

c. Given the distance of the SAC to the areas where increased suspended sediment and sediment deposition may occur, LSE on the feature is not anticipated to occur (see paragraphs 5.1.12 to 5.1.26 of HRA Screening Report). Also, taking into account designed-in mitigation measures and best practice approaches, LSE on the Annex I habitat feature associated with the release of sediment contaminants and/or accidental releases of pollutants is not anticipated as a result of Project Two either alone or in-combination (see paragraphs 5.1.27 to 5.1.30).

d. Taking into account designed-in mitigation measures and best practice approaches, LSE on the Annex I habitat feature associated with the release of sediment contaminants and/or accidental releases of pollutants is not anticipated as a result of Project Two, either alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.1.49 to 5.1.50 of HRA Screening Report).

e. Displacement of fishing activity will be dispersed over a large area, meaning that the specific increases in fishing activity in any one location would likely be minimal. LSEs on Annex I habitats are not anticipated as a result of Project Two either alone or in-combination (see paragraphs 5.1.51 and 5.1.52 of HRA Screening Report).

Page 207: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

116

Stage 1 Matrix 91b : Vadehavet med Ribe Å, Tved Å og Varde Å vest for Varde SAC (migratory fish features)

Name of European site: Vadehavet med Ribe Å, Tved Å og Varde Å vest for Varde SAC

Distance to PROJECT TWO 418 km European site features Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Behavioural

disturbance/physical injury Changes to water quality Changes to habitat Changes in fishing activity In combination effects

C O D C O D C O D C O D C O D

River lamprey Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe Xf Xa, c Xb, d, e, f

Xa, c

Sea lamprey Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe Xf Xa, c Xb, d, e, f

Xa, c

Twaite shad Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe Xf Xa, c Xb, d, e, f

Xa, c

Atlantic salmon. Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe Xf Xa, c Xb, d, e, f

Xa, c

Evidence supporting conclusions a. The Vadehavet med Ribe Å, Tved Å og Varde Å vest for Varde SAC is located at a significant distance from Project Two. No LSEs alone or in-combination are anticipated with regard to direct

temporary disturbance of seabed habitat (See paragraphs 5.2.5 to 5.2.7 of HRA Screening Report). Based upon the location of the Subzone 2 and the HVAC reactive compensation substations relative to likely migratory routes and the habitat use of the species, any interaction with construction noise is expected to be insignificant (See paragraphs 5.2.15 to 5.2.17). No LSEs associated with construction noise are anticipated (See paragraph 5.2.17).

b. The Vadehavet med Ribe Å, Tved Å og Varde Å vest for Varde SAC is located at a significant distance from Project Two. Levels of noise associated with Operation noise are low and the spatial extent of the potential impact is generally small and thus unlikely to result in any injury to fish (See paragraph 5.2.25 of HRA Screening Report). Any behavioural effects to occur on fish, would be limited to the immediate vicinity of the turbines or vessels (See paragraphs 5.2.25 to 5.2.27). No LSEs are anticipated alone or in-combination due to operational noise. No LSE has been identified relating to EMF as the Annex II migratory fish feature is not considered to have sufficient interaction with the cabling (See paragraphs 5.2.29 to 5.2.33). In respect of temporary disturbance from maintenance activities, undisturbed locations will be able to be utilised by Annex II migratory fish and No LSEs are anticipated (5.2.34 to 5.2.36).

c. The Vadehavet med Ribe Å, Tved Å og Varde Å vest for Varde SAC is located at a significant distance from Project Two. During Construction, elevated suspended sediment concentrations are only expected to occur over relatively small areas (up to 16 km) and will be very short-lived (See paragraphs 5.2.8 to 5.2.12 of HRA Screening Report). No LSEs alone or in-combination are anticipated with regard to increase in suspended sediment concentrations and sediment deposition during Construction/Decomissioning (See paragraphs 5.2.10 to 5.2.12). With regard to the release of sediment contaminants and accidental pollution events, mitigation measures and best practice approaches will be implemented during the Construction/Decommissioning phases to reduce potential impacts associated with pollution events (See paragraphs 5.2.13 and 5.2.14). Taking adherence to such approaches, LSEs on Annex II migratory fish species are not anticipated alone or in-combination (See paragraph 5.2.14).

d. With regard to the release of sediment contaminants and accidental pollution events, a number of mitigation measures and best practice approaches will be implemented during the Operation phase (See paragraphs 5.2.37 and 5.2.38). No LSE is anticipated with regard to this during Operation.

e. The Vadehavet med Ribe Å, Tved Å og Varde Å vest for Varde SAC is located at a significant distance from Project Two. Long term habitat loss will occur within the footprint of Project Two (See paragraph 5.2.18 of HRA Screening Report). No LSEs have been identified for Annex II migratory fish as a result of Project Two alone or in-combination for any European site with regard to loss of habitat (See paragraphs 5.2.18 to 5.2.20). In respect of the introduction of hard substrate, this may indirectly have a localised effect on fish species, with the potential to act as an artificial reef and bring changes to food resources or result in a fish aggregation device (See paragraph 5.2.21). No LSEs have been identified with regard to the introduction of hard substrate (See paragraphs 5.2.21 to 5.2.23).

Page 208: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

117

f. The Vadehavet med Ribe Å, Tved Å og Varde Å vest for Varde SAC is located at a significant distance from Project Two. The potential effect of displacement of fishing activity will be dispersed over a large area, meaning that the specific increases in fishing activity in any one location would likely be minimal on benthic habitats. Furthermore, Annex II migratory fish species rarely caught by the fishing methods used in the Project Two area, and therefore, if fishing effort is displaced into other areas the potential impact on these species would be minimal (See paragraphs 5.2.39 to 5.2.42 of HRA Screening Report). Therefore, no LSEs have been identified for Project Two alone or in-combination (See paragraph 5.2.42).

Page 209: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

118

Stage 1 Matrix 91c : Vadehavet med Ribe Å, Tved Å og Varde Å vest for Varde SAC (marine mammal features)

Name of European site: Vadehavet med Ribe Å, Tved Å og Varde Å vest for Varde SAC

Distance to PROJECT TWO 418 km European site features Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Behavioural disturbance/Physical injury Changes to water quality Changes in prey availability In combination effects C O D C O D C O D C O D

Grey seal Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Harbour seal Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Harbour porpoise ����c Xd Xe Xf Xf Xf Xg Xh Xg ����c Xd, f, h Xe, f, g Evidence supporting conclusions a. It is considered that grey seal populations from European sites located at distances greater than 145 km from Project Two, are beyond any potential for direct, and indirect effects on foraging trips.

Therefore, based upon the distance of the Vadehavet med Ribe Å, Tved Å og Varde Å vest for Varde SAC from Project Two, No LSEs are anticipated for grey seal as a result of Project Two alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.3.65 to 5.3.66 of HRA Screening Report).

b. It is considered that harbour seal populations from European sites located at distances greater than 120 km from Project Two, are beyond any potential for direct and indirect effects on foraging trips. Therefore, based upon the distance of the Vadehavet med Ribe Å, Tved Å og Varde Å vest for Varde SAC from Project Two, No LSEs are anticipated for harbour seal as a result of Project Two alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.3.67 to 5.3.68 of HRA Screening Report).

c. There is the potential for connectivity between Project Two and harbour porpoise feature of the Vadehavet med Ribe Å, Tved Å og Varde Å vest for Varde SAC (see paragraphs 5.3.69 to 5.3.70 of HRA Screening Report). There is potential for a LSE in respect of behavioural disturbance associated with construction pilling for up to 1.75 years over a seven year construction period or 0.73 years over a fiveyear construction period (See paragraphs 5.3.2 to 5.3.9). No LSEs have been identified with regard to vessel noise (See paragraphs 5.3.10) and collision risk (See paragraphs 5.3.13 to 5.3.20) during Construction.

d. With regard to operational underwater turbine noise a behavioural response is only likely within close proximity to turbines and no LSE is predicted (See paragraphs 5.3.36 to 5.3.39 of HRA Screening Report). Given the anticipated localised effects of disturbance associated with vessel traffic and the wide distribution range of Annex II marine mammals species, any impacts would be expected to be very limited and LSEs on marine mammals associated with vessel noise are not anticipated alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.3.41 to 5.3.43). There is little potential for the increased vessel activity to result in a significant impact in terms of collision risk with vessels and potential corkscrew injuries and no LSEs are predicted either alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.3.44 to 5.3.50). EMF effects will be localised within the immediate vicinity of the cables and no LSEs are predicted either alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.3.51 to 5.3.54).

e. During decommissioning piling will not be required. The noise resulting from wind turbine decommissioning is unlikely to result in any injury, avoidance or significant disturbance to marine mammals and no LSE is predicted either alone or in-combination (see paragraph 5.3.9 of HRA Screening Report). As per Construction, No LSEs have been identified with regard to vessel noise (See paragraphs 5.3.10) and collision risk (See paragraphs 5.3.13 to 5.3.20) during Decommissioning.

f. During Construction and Decommissioning, potential impacts associated with increased suspended sediment concentrations will be short term, intermittent and localised. Marine mammals frequently occur in relatively turbid areas and therefore are adapted to find prey in such conditions. Furthermore, they possess mechanisms to detect prey through means other than visual detection (See paragraphs 5.3.21 to 5.3.25 of HRA Screening Report). No LSE is predicted with regard to increased suspended sediment concentrations either alone or in-combination (See paragraph 5.3.25). A number of mitigation measures and best practice approaches will be implemented during the Construction and Decommissioning and Operation phases to mitigate potential impacts associated with potential accidental pollution events. Taking adherence to such approaches, LSEs on Annex II marine mammal qualifying features associated with accidental release of pollutants are not anticipated to arise during any phase of the Project (See paragraphs 5.3.26 to 5.3.28 and 5.3.55 to 5.3.56).

g. During Construction and Decommissioning, potential impacts on prey species have been identified with regard to habitat disturbance, increased suspended sediments and underwater noise for prey species (See paragraphs 5.3.29 to 5.3.35 of HRA Screening Report). No potential impacts have been identified with regard to accidental pollution events (See paragraph 5.3.34) Whilst an impact pathway has been identified, the potential loss of prey as a result of Project Two would be expected to be minimal. The potential impacts identified on fish receptors will be localised, short term and reversible. Furthermore, the fish community found in Project Two is characteristic of the fish and shellfish assemblage of the wider region and therefore marine mammals would be able to exploit similar resources in adjacent undisturbed areas. As such, LSEs associated with changes in prey availability are not anticipated to arise as a result of Project Two, either alone or in-combination with other plans and projects (See paragraph 5.3.35).

Page 210: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

119

h. Whilst an impact pathway has been identified (See paragraphs 5.3.57 to 5.3.61 of HRA Screening Report), the potential loss of prey as a result of Project Two during Operation would be expected to be minimal and highly localised. There may be increased feeding opportunities within Project Two as a result of potential reef effects and reduction in fishing activity. Furthermore, the fish community found in Project Two is characteristic of the fish and shellfish assemblage of the wider region and therefore marine mammals would be able to exploit similar resources in adjacent undisturbed areas. LSEs associated with changes in prey availability are not anticipated to arise on marine mammals as a result of Project Two, either alone or in-combination with other plans or projects. (See paragraphs 5.3.57 to 5.3.61).

Page 211: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

120

Stage 1 Matrix 92a : Anse de Vauville SCI (Annex 1 habitat features)

Name of European site: Anse de Vauville SCI

Distance to PROJECT TWO 519 km European site features Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Changes to habitat Changes to water quality Changes to Fishing Activity In combination effects

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time

Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Reefs Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c Evidence supporting conclusions a. With regard to habitat disturbance, no potential interaction (impact pathway) and no predicted effect is anticipated on the SAC (see paragraphs 5.1.2 to 5.1.11 of HRA Screening Report). No LSE

predicted for the Annex 1 habitat feature project alone or in-combination (See paragraph 5.1.55). b. No potential interaction (impact pathway) and no predicted effect is anticipated on the SAC with regard to loss of habitat (See paragraphs 5.1.31 to 5.1.34 of HRA Screening Report), introduction

of hard substrate (see paragraphs 5.1.35 to 5.1.36), habitat modification due to changes in the hydrodynamic regime (See paragraphs 5.1.37 to 5.1.43) and disturbance (See paragraphs 5.1.44 to 5.1.48) No LSE predicted for the Annex 1 habitat feature (See paragraph 5.1.55).

c. Given the distance of the SAC to the areas where increased suspended sediment and sediment deposition may occur, LSE on the feature is not anticipated to occur (see paragraphs 5.1.12 to 5.1.26 of HRA Screening Report). Also, taking into account designed-in mitigation measures and best practice approaches, LSE on the Annex I habitat feature associated with the release of sediment contaminants and/or accidental releases of pollutants is not anticipated as a result of Project Two either alone or in-combination (see paragraphs 5.1.27 to 5.1.30).

d. Taking into account designed-in mitigation measures and best practice approaches, LSE on the Annex I habitat feature associated with the release of sediment contaminants and/or accidental releases of pollutants is not anticipated as a result of Project Two, either alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.1.49 to 5.1.50 of HRA Screening Report).

e. Displacement of fishing activity will be dispersed over a large area, meaning that the specific increases in fishing activity in any one location would likely be minimal. LSEs on Annex I habitats are not anticipated as a result of Project Two either alone or in-combination (see paragraphs 5.1.51 and 5.1.52 of HRA Screening Report).

Page 212: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

121

Stage 1 Matrix 92b: Anse de Vauville SCI (marine mammal features)

Name of European site: Anse de Vauville SCI

Distance to PROJECT TWO 519 km

European site features Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Behavioural disturbance/Physical injury Changes to water quality Changes in prey availability In combination effects C O D C O D C O D C O D

Grey seal Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Harbour seal Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Harbour porpoise ����c Xd Xe Xf Xf Xf Xg Xh Xg ����c Xd, f, h Xe, f, g Bottlenose dolphin Xi Xi Xi Xi Xi Xi Xi Xi Xi Xi Xi Xi Evidence supporting conclusions a. It is considered that grey seal populations from European sites located at distances greater than 145 km from Project Two, are beyond any potential for direct, and indirect effects on foraging trips.

Therefore, based upon the distance of the Anse de Vauville SCI from Project Two, No LSEs are anticipated for grey seal as a result of Project Two alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.3.65 to 5.3.66 of HRA Screening Report).

b. It is considered that harbour seal populations from European sites located at distances greater than 120 km from Project Two, are beyond any potential for direct and indirect effects on foraging trips. Therefore, based upon the distance of the Anse de Vauville SCI from Project Two, No LSEs are anticipated for harbour seal as a result of Project Two alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.3.67 to 5.3.68 of HRA Screening Report).

c. There is the potential for connectivity between Project Two and harbour porpoise feature of the Anse de Vauville SCI (see paragraphs 5.3.69 to 5.3.70 of HRA Screening Report). There is potential for a LSE in respect of behavioural disturbance associated with construction pilling for up five years (See paragraphs 5.3.2 to 5.3.9). No LSEs have been identified with regard to vessel noise (See paragraphs 5.3.10) and collision risk (See paragraphs 5.3.13 to 5.3.20) during Construction.

d. With regard to operational underwater turbine noise a behavioural response is only likely within close proximity to turbines and no LSE is predicted (See paragraphs 5.3.36 to 5.3.39 of HRA Screening Report). Given the anticipated localised effects of disturbance associated with vessel traffic and the wide distribution range of Annex II marine mammals species, any impacts would be expected to be very limited and LSEs on marine mammals associated with vessel noise are not anticipated alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.3.41 to 5.3.43). There is little potential for the increased vessel activity to result in a significant impact in terms of collision risk with vessels and potential corkscrew injuries and no LSEs are predicted either alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.3.44 to 5.3.50). EMF effects will be localised within the immediate vicinity of the cables and no LSEs are predicted either alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.3.51 to 5.3.54).

e. During decommissioning piling will not be required. The noise resulting from wind turbine decommissioning is unlikely to result in any injury, avoidance or significant disturbance to marine mammals and no LSE is predicted either alone or in-combination (see paragraph 5.3.9 of HRA Screening Report). As per Construction, No LSEs have been identified with regard to vessel noise (See paragraphs 5.3.10) and collision risk (See paragraphs 5.3.13 to 5.3.20) during Decommissioning.

f. During Construction and Decommissioning, potential impacts associated with increased suspended sediment concentrations will be short term, intermittent and localised. Marine mammals frequently occur in relatively turbid areas and therefore are adapted to find prey in such conditions. Furthermore, they possess mechanisms to detect prey through means other than visual detection (See paragraphs 5.3.21 to 5.3.25 of HRA Screening Report). No LSE is predicted with regard to increased suspended sediment concentrations either alone or in-combination (See paragraph 5.3.25). A number of mitigation measures and best practice approaches will be implemented during the Construction and Decommissioning and Operation phases to mitigate potential impacts associated with potential accidental pollution events. Taking adherence to such approaches, LSEs on Annex II marine mammal qualifying features associated with accidental release of pollutants are not anticipated to arise during any phase of the Project (See paragraphs 5.3.26 to 5.3.28 and 5.3.55 to 5.3.56).

g. During Construction and Decommissioning, potential impacts on prey species have been identified with regard to habitat disturbance, increased suspended sediments and underwater noise for prey species (See paragraphs 5.3.29 to 5.3.35 of HRA Screening Report). No potential impacts have been identified with regard to accidental pollution events (See paragraph 5.3.34) Whilst an impact pathway has been identified, the potential loss of prey as a result of Project Two would be expected to be minimal. The potential impacts identified on fish receptors will be localised, short term and reversible. Furthermore, the fish community found in Project Two is characteristic of the fish and shellfish assemblage of the wider region and therefore marine mammals would be able to

Page 213: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

122

exploit similar resources in adjacent undisturbed areas. As such, LSEs associated with changes in prey availability are not anticipated to arise as a result of Project Two, either alone or in-combination with other plans and projects (See paragraph 5.3.35).

h. Whilst an impact pathway has been identified (See paragraphs 5.3.57 to 5.3.61 of HRA Screening Report), the potential loss of prey as a result of Project Two during Operation would be expected to be minimal and highly localised. There may be increased feeding opportunities within Project Two as a result of potential reef effects and reduction in fishing activity. Furthermore, the fish community found in Project Two is characteristic of the fish and shellfish assemblage of the wider region and therefore marine mammals would be able to exploit similar resources in adjacent undisturbed areas. LSEs associated with changes in prey availability are not anticipated to arise on marine mammals as a result of Project Two, either alone or in-combination with other plans or projects. (See paragraphs 5.3.57 to 5.3.61).

i. There is no evidence from surveys to indicate that bottlenose dolphin occur in significant numbers or with any regularity within Project Two (See paragraphs 5.3.69 to 5.3.72 of HRA Screening Report), whilst the Anse de Vauville SCI is located at a considerable distance from Project Two. Therefore, No LSEs are anticipated to occur on bottlenose dolphin populations as a result of Project Two.

Page 214: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

123

Stage 1 Matrix 93a : Baie de canche et couloir des trois estuaires SCI (Annex 1 habitat features)

Name of European site: Baie de canche et couloir des trois estuaires SCI

Distance to PROJECT TWO 362 km European site features Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Changes to habitat Changes to water quality Changes to Fishing Activity In combination effects

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time

Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Estuaries Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide

Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Annual vegetation of drift lines Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c Evidence supporting conclusions a. With regard to habitat disturbance, no potential interaction (impact pathway) and no predicted effect is anticipated on the SAC (see paragraphs 5.1.2 to 5.1.11 of HRA Screening Report). No LSE

predicted for the Annex 1 habitat feature project alone or in-combination (See paragraph 5.1.55). b. No potential interaction (impact pathway) and no predicted effect is anticipated on the SAC with regard to loss of habitat (See paragraphs 5.1.31 to 5.1.34 of HRA Screening Report), introduction

of hard substrate (see paragraphs 5.1.35 to 5.1.36), habitat modification due to changes in the hydrodynamic regime (See paragraphs 5.1.37 to 5.1.43) and disturbance (See paragraphs 5.1.44 to 5.1.48) No LSE predicted for the Annex 1 habitat feature (See paragraph 5.1.55).

c. Given the distance of the SAC to the areas where increased suspended sediment and sediment deposition may occur, LSE on the feature is not anticipated to occur (see paragraphs 5.1.12 to 5.1.26 of HRA Screening Report). Also, taking into account designed-in mitigation measures and best practice approaches, LSE on the Annex I habitat feature associated with the release of sediment contaminants and/or accidental releases of pollutants is not anticipated as a result of Project Two either alone or in-combination (see paragraphs 5.1.27 to 5.1.30).

d. Taking into account designed-in mitigation measures and best practice approaches, LSE on the Annex I habitat feature associated with the release of sediment contaminants and/or accidental releases of pollutants is not anticipated as a result of Project Two, either alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.1.49 to 5.1.50 of HRA Screening Report).

e. Displacement of fishing activity will be dispersed over a large area, meaning that the specific increases in fishing activity in any one location would likely be minimal. LSEs on Annex I habitats are not anticipated as a result of Project Two either alone or in-combination (see paragraphs 5.1.51 and 5.1.52 of HRA Screening Report).

Page 215: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

124

Stage 1 Matrix 93b : Baie de canche et couloir des trois estuaires SCI (migratory fish features)

Name of European site: Baie de canche et couloir des trois estuaires SCI

Distance to PROJECT TWO 362 km European site features Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Behavioural

disturbance/physical injury Changes to water quality Changes to habitat Changes in fishing activity In combination effects

C O D C O D C O D C O D C O D

River lamprey Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe Xf Xa, c Xb, d, e, f

Xa, c

Sea lamprey Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe Xf Xa, c Xb, d, e, f

Xa, c

Shad spp. Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe Xf Xa, c Xb, d, e, f

Xa, c

Atlantic salmon Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe Xf Xa, c Xb, d, e, f

Xa, c

Evidence supporting conclusions a. The Baie de canche et couloir des trois estuaires SCI is located at a significant distance from Project Two. No LSEs alone or in-combination are anticipated with regard to direct temporary

disturbance of seabed habitat (See paragraphs 5.2.5 to 5.2.7 of HRA Screening Report). Based upon the location of the Subzone 2 and the HVAC reactive compensation substations relative to likely migratory routes and the habitat use of the species, any interaction with construction noise is expected to be insignificant (See paragraphs 5.2.15 to 5.2.17). No LSEs associated with construction noise are anticipated (See paragraph 5.2.17).

b. The Baie de canche et couloir des trois estuaires SCI is located at a significant distance from Project Two. Levels of noise associated with Operation noise are low and the spatial extent of the potential impact is generally small and thus unlikely to result in any injury to fish (See paragraph 5.2.25 of HRA Screening Report). Any behavioural effects to occur on fish, would be limited to the immediate vicinity of the turbines or vessels (See paragraphs 5.2.25 to 5.2.27). No LSEs are anticipated alone or in-combination due to operational noise. No LSE has been identified relating to EMF as the Annex II migratory fish feature is not considered to have sufficient interaction with the cabling (See paragraphs 5.2.29 to 5.2.33). In respect of temporary disturbance from maintenance activities, undisturbed locations will be able to be utilised by Annex II migratory fish and No LSEs are anticipated (5.2.34 to 5.2.36).

c. The Baie de canche et couloir des trois estuaires SCI is located at a significant distance from Project Two. During Construction, elevated suspended sediment concentrations are only expected to occur over relatively small areas (up to 16 km) and will be very short-lived (See paragraphs 5.2.8 to 5.2.12 of HRA Screening Report). No LSEs alone or in-combination are anticipated with regard to increase in suspended sediment concentrations and sediment deposition during Construction/Decomissioning (See paragraphs 5.2.10 to 5.2.12). With regard to the release of sediment contaminants and accidental pollution events, mitigation measures and best practice approaches will be implemented during the Construction/Decommissioning phases to reduce potential impacts associated with pollution events (See paragraphs 5.2.13 and 5.2.14). Taking adherence to such approaches, LSEs on Annex II migratory fish species are not anticipated alone or in-combination (See paragraph 5.2.14).

d. With regard to the release of sediment contaminants and accidental pollution events, a number of mitigation measures and best practice approaches will be implemented during the Operation phase (See paragraphs 5.2.37 and 5.2.38). No LSE is anticipated with regard to this during Operation.

e. The Baie de canche et couloir des trois estuaires SCI is located at a significant distance from Project Two. Long term habitat loss will occur within the footprint of Project Two (See paragraph 5.2.18 of HRA Screening Report). No LSEs have been identified for Annex II migratory fish as a result of Project Two alone or in-combination for any European site with regard to loss of habitat (See paragraphs 5.2.18 to 5.2.20). In respect of the introduction of hard substrate, this may indirectly have a localised effect on fish species, with the potential to act as an artificial reef and bring changes to food resources or result in a fish aggregation device (See paragraph 5.2.21). No LSEs have been identified with regard to the introduction of hard substrate (See paragraphs 5.2.21 to 5.2.23).

f. The Baie de canche et couloir des trois estuaires SCI is located at a significant distance from Project Two. The potential effect of displacement of fishing activity will be dispersed over a large area, meaning that the specific increases in fishing activity in any one location would likely be minimal on benthic habitats. Furthermore, Annex II migratory fish species rarely caught by the fishing

Page 216: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

125

methods used in the Project Two area, and therefore, if fishing effort is displaced into other areas the potential impact on these species would be minimal (See paragraphs 5.2.39 to 5.2.42 of HRA Screening Report). Therefore, no LSEs have been identified for Project Two alone or in-combination (See paragraph 5.2.42).

Page 217: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

126

Stage 1 Matrix 93c : Baie de canche et couloir des trois estuaires SCI (marine mammal features)

Name of European site: Baie de canche et couloir des trois estuaires SCI

Distance to PROJECT TWO 362 km European site features Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Behavioural disturbance/Physical injury Changes to water quality Changes in prey availability In combination effects C O D C O D C O D C O D

Grey seal Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Harbour seal Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Harbour porpoise ����c Xd Xe Xf Xf Xf Xg Xh Xg ����c Xd, f, h Xe, f, g Evidence supporting conclusions a. It is considered that grey seal populations from European sites located at distances greater than 145 km from Project Two, are beyond any potential for direct, and indirect effects on foraging trips.

Therefore, based upon the distance of the Baie de canche et couloir des trois estuaires SCI from Project Two, No LSEs are anticipated for grey seal as a result of Project Two alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.3.65 to 5.3.66 of HRA Screening Report).

b. It is considered that harbour seal populations from European sites located at distances greater than 120 km from Project Two, are beyond any potential for direct and indirect effects on foraging trips. Therefore, based upon the distance of the Baie de canche et couloir des trois estuaires SCI from Project Two, No LSEs are anticipated for harbour seal as a result of Project Two alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.3.67 to 5.3.68 of HRA Screening Report).

c. There is the potential for connectivity between Project Two and harbour porpoise feature of the Baie de canche et couloir des trois estuaires SCI (see paragraphs 5.3.69 to 5.3.70 of HRA Screening Report). There is potential for a LSE in respect of behavioural disturbance associated with construction pilling for up to five years (See paragraphs 5.3.2 to 5.3.9). No LSEs have been identified with regard to vessel noise (See paragraphs 5.3.10) and collision risk (See paragraphs 5.3.13 to 5.3.20) during Construction.

d. With regard to operational underwater turbine noise a behavioural response is only likely within close proximity to turbines and no LSE is predicted (See paragraphs 5.3.36 to 5.3.39 of HRA Screening Report). Given the anticipated localised effects of disturbance associated with vessel traffic and the wide distribution range of Annex II marine mammals species, any impacts would be expected to be very limited and LSEs on marine mammals associated with vessel noise are not anticipated alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.3.41 to 5.3.43). There is little potential for the increased vessel activity to result in a significant impact in terms of collision risk with vessels and potential corkscrew injuries and no LSEs are predicted either alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.3.44 to 5.3.50). EMF effects will be localised within the immediate vicinity of the cables and no LSEs are predicted either alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.3.51 to 5.3.54).

e. During Decommissioning piling will not be required. The noise resulting from wind turbine decommissioning is unlikely to result in any injury, avoidance or significant disturbance to marine mammals and no LSE is predicted either alone or in-combination (see paragraph 5.3.9 of HRA Screening Report). As per Construction, No LSEs have been identified with regard to vessel noise (See paragraphs 5.3.10) and collision risk (See paragraphs 5.3.13 to 5.3.20) during Decommissioning.

f. During Construction and Decommissioning, potential impacts associated with increased suspended sediment concentrations will be short term, intermittent and localised. Marine mammals frequently occur in relatively turbid areas and therefore are adapted to find prey in such conditions. Furthermore, they possess mechanisms to detect prey through means other than visual detection (See paragraphs 5.3.21 to 5.3.25 of HRA Screening Report). No LSE is predicted with regard to increased suspended sediment concentrations either alone or in-combination (See paragraph 5.3.25). A number of mitigation measures and best practice approaches will be implemented during the Construction and Decommissioning and Operation phases to mitigate potential impacts associated with potential accidental pollution events. Taking adherence to such approaches, LSEs on Annex II marine mammal qualifying features associated with accidental release of pollutants are not anticipated to arise during any phase of the Project (See paragraphs 5.3.26 to 5.3.28 and 5.3.55 to 5.3.56).

g. During Construction and Decommissioning, potential impacts on prey species have been identified with regard to habitat disturbance, increased suspended sediments and underwater noise for prey species (See paragraphs 5.3.29 to 5.3.35 of HRA Screening Report). No potential impacts have been identified with regard to accidental pollution events (See paragraph 5.3.34) Whilst an impact pathway has been identified, the potential loss of prey as a result of Project Two would be expected to be minimal. The potential impacts identified on fish receptors will be localised, short term and reversible. Furthermore, the fish community found in Project Two is characteristic of the fish and shellfish assemblage of the wider region and therefore marine mammals would be able to exploit similar resources in adjacent undisturbed areas. As such, LSEs associated with changes in prey availability are not anticipated to arise as a result of Project Two, either alone or in-combination with other plans and projects (See paragraph 5.3.35).

Page 218: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

127

h. Whilst an impact pathway has been identified (See paragraphs 5.3.57 to 5.3.61 of HRA Screening Report), the potential loss of prey as a result of Project Two during Operation would be expected to be minimal and highly localised. There may be increased feeding opportunities within Project Two as a result of potential reef effects and reduction in fishing activity. Furthermore, the fish community found in Project Two is characteristic of the fish and shellfish assemblage of the wider region and therefore marine mammals would be able to exploit similar resources in adjacent undisturbed areas. LSEs associated with changes in prey availability are not anticipated to arise on marine mammals as a result of Project Two, either alone or in-combination with other plans or projects. (See paragraphs 5.3.57 to 5.3.61).

Page 219: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

128

Stage 1 Matrix 94a : Baie de Seine occidentale SCI (Annex 1 habitat features)

Name of European site: Baie de Seine occidentale SCI

Distance to PROJECT TWO 502 km European site features Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Changes to habitat Changes to water quality Changes to Fishing Activity In combination effects

C O D C O D C O D C O D

Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time

Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Large shallow inlets and bays Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c Reefs Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c Evidence supporting conclusions a. With regard to habitat disturbance, no potential interaction (impact pathway) and no predicted effect is anticipated on the SAC (see paragraphs 5.1.2 to 5.1.11 of HRA Screening Report). No LSE

predicted for the Annex 1 habitat feature project alone or in-combination (See paragraph 5.1.55). b. No potential interaction (impact pathway) and no predicted effect is anticipated on the SAC with regard to loss of habitat (See paragraphs 5.1.31 to 5.1.34 of HRA Screening Report), introduction

of hard substrate (see paragraphs 5.1.35 to 5.1.36), habitat modification due to changes in the hydrodynamic regime (See paragraphs 5.1.37 to 5.1.43) and disturbance (See paragraphs 5.1.44 to 5.1.48) No LSE predicted for the Annex 1 habitat feature (See paragraph 5.1.55).

c. Given the distance of the SAC to the areas where increased suspended sediment and sediment deposition may occur, LSE on the feature is not anticipated to occur (see paragraphs 5.1.12 to 5.1.26 of HRA Screening Report). Also, taking into account designed-in mitigation measures and best practice approaches, LSE on the Annex I habitat feature associated with the release of sediment contaminants and/or accidental releases of pollutants is not anticipated as a result of Project Two either alone or in-combination (see paragraphs 5.1.27 to 5.1.30).

d. Taking into account designed-in mitigation measures and best practice approaches, LSE on the Annex I habitat feature associated with the release of sediment contaminants and/or accidental releases of pollutants is not anticipated as a result of Project Two, either alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.1.49 to 5.1.50 of HRA Screening Report).

e. Displacement of fishing activity will be dispersed over a large area, meaning that the specific increases in fishing activity in any one location would likely be minimal. LSEs on Annex I habitats are not anticipated as a result of Project Two either alone or in-combination (see paragraphs 5.1.51 and 5.1.52 of HRA Screening Report).

Page 220: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

129

Stage 1 Matrix 94b: Baie de Seine occidentale SCI (migratory fish features)

Name of European site: Baie de Seine occidentale SCI

Distance to PROJECT TWO 502 km European site features Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Behavioural

disturbance/physical injury Changes to water quality Changes to habitat Changes in fishing activity In combination effects

C O D C O D C O D C O D C O D

River lamprey Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe Xf Xa, c Xb, d, e, f

Xa, c

Sea lamprey Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe Xf Xa, c Xb, d, e, f

Xa, c

Shad spp. Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe Xf Xa, c Xb, d, e, f

Xa, c

Atlantic salmon Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe Xf Xa, c Xb, d, e, f

Xa, c

Evidence supporting conclusions a. The Baie de Seine occidentale SCI is located at a significant distance from Project Two. No LSEs alone or in-combination are anticipated with regard to direct temporary disturbance of seabed

habitat (See paragraphs 5.2.5 to 5.2.7 of HRA Screening Report). Based upon the location of the Subzone 2 and the HVAC reactive compensation substations relative to likely migratory routes and the habitat use of the species, any interaction with construction noise is expected to be insignificant (See paragraphs 5.2.15 to 5.2.17). No LSEs associated with construction noise are anticipated (See paragraph 5.2.17).

b. The Baie de Seine occidentale SCI is located at a significant distance from Project Two. Levels of noise associated with Operation noise are low and the spatial extent of the potential impact is generally small and thus unlikely to result in any injury to fish (See paragraph 5.2.25 of HRA Screening Report). Any behavioural effects to occur on fish, would be limited to the immediate vicinity of the turbines or vessels (See paragraphs 5.2.25 to 5.2.27). No LSEs are anticipated alone or in-combination due to operational noise. No LSE has been identified relating to EMF as the Annex II migratory fish feature is not considered to have sufficient interaction with the cabling (See paragraphs 5.2.29 to 5.2.33). In respect of temporary disturbance from maintenance activities, undisturbed locations will be able to be utilised by Annex II migratory fish and No LSEs are anticipated (5.2.34 to 5.2.36).

c. The Baie de Seine occidentale SCI is located at a significant distance from Project Two. During Construction, elevated suspended sediment concentrations are only expected to occur over relatively small areas (up to 16 km) and will be very short-lived (See paragraphs 5.2.8 to 5.2.12 of HRA Screening Report). No LSEs alone or in-combination are anticipated with regard to increase in suspended sediment concentrations and sediment deposition during Construction/Decomissioning (See paragraphs 5.2.10 to 5.2.12). With regard to the release of sediment contaminants and accidental pollution events, mitigation measures and best practice approaches will be implemented during the Construction/Decommissioning phases to reduce potential impacts associated with pollution events (See paragraphs 5.2.13 and 5.2.14). Taking adherence to such approaches, LSEs on Annex II migratory fish species are not anticipated alone or in-combination (See paragraph 5.2.14).

d. With regard to the release of sediment contaminants and accidental pollution events, a number of mitigation measures and best practice approaches will be implemented during the Operation phase (See paragraphs 5.2.37 and 5.2.38). No LSE is anticipated with regard to this during Operation.

e. The Baie de Seine occidentale SCI is located at a significant distance from Project Two. Long term habitat loss will occur within the footprint of Project Two (See paragraph 5.2.18 of HRA Screening Report). No LSEs have been identified for Annex II migratory fish as a result of Project Two alone or in-combination for any European site with regard to loss of habitat (See paragraphs 5.2.18 to 5.2.20). In respect of the introduction of hard substrate, this may indirectly have a localised effect on fish species, with the potential to act as an artificial reef and bring changes to food resources or result in a fish aggregation device (See paragraph 5.2.21). No LSEs have been identified with regard to the introduction of hard substrate (See paragraphs 5.2.21 to 5.2.23).

f. The Baie de Seine occidentale SCI is located at a significant distance from Project Two. The potential effect of displacement of fishing activity will be dispersed over a large area, meaning that the specific increases in fishing activity in any one location would likely be minimal on benthic habitats. Furthermore, Annex II migratory fish species rarely caught by the fishing methods used in the

Page 221: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

130

Project Two area, and therefore, if fishing effort is displaced into other areas the potential impact on these species would be minimal (See paragraphs 5.2.39 to 5.2.42 of HRA Screening Report). Therefore, no LSEs have been identified for Project Two alone or in-combination (See paragraph 5.2.42).

Page 222: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

131

Stage 1 Matrix 94c : Baie de Seine occidentale SCI (marine mammal features)

Name of European site: Baie de Seine occidentale SCI

Distance to PROJECT TWO 502 km European site features Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Behavioural disturbance/Physical injury Changes to water quality Changes in prey availability In combination effects C O D C O D C O D C O D

Grey seal, Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Harbour seal, Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Harbour porpoise, ����c Xd Xe Xf Xf Xf Xg Xh Xg ����c Xd, f, h Xe, f, g Bottlenose dolphin Xi Xi Xi Xi Xi Xi Xi Xi Xi Xi Xi Xi Evidence supporting conclusions a. It is considered that grey seal populations from European sites located at distances greater than 145 km from Project Two, are beyond any potential for direct, and indirect effects on foraging trips.

Therefore, based upon the distance of the Baie de Seine occidentale SCI from Project Two, No LSEs are anticipated for grey seal as a result of Project Two alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.3.65 to 5.3.66 of HRA Screening Report).

b. It is considered that harbour seal populations from European sites located at distances greater than 120 km from Project Two, are beyond any potential for direct and indirect effects on foraging trips. Therefore, based upon the distance of the Baie de Seine occidentale SCI from Project Two, No LSEs are anticipated for harbour seal as a result of Project Two alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.3.67 to 5.3.68 of HRA Screening Report).

c. There is the potential for connectivity between Project Two and harbour porpoise feature of the Baie de Seine occidentale SCI (see paragraphs 5.3.69 to 5.3.70 of HRA Screening Report). There is potential for a LSE in respect of behavioural disturbance associated with construction pilling for up to five years (See paragraphs 5.3.2 to 5.3.9). No LSEs have been identified with regard to vessel noise (See paragraphs 5.3.10) and collision risk (See paragraphs 5.3.13 to 5.3.20) during Construction.

d. With regard to operational underwater turbine noise a behavioural response is only likely within close proximity to turbines and no LSE is predicted (See paragraphs 5.3.36 to 5.3.39 of HRA Screening Report). Given the anticipated localised effects of disturbance associated with vessel traffic and the wide distribution range of Annex II marine mammals species, any impacts would be expected to be very limited and LSEs on marine mammals associated with vessel noise are not anticipated alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.3.41 to 5.3.43). There is little potential for the increased vessel activity to result in a significant impact in terms of collision risk with vessels and potential corkscrew injuries and no LSEs are predicted either alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.3.44 to 5.3.50). EMF effects will be localised within the immediate vicinity of the cables and no LSEs are predicted either alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.3.51 to 5.3.54).

e. During decommissioning piling will not be required. The noise resulting from wind turbine decommissioning is unlikely to result in any injury, avoidance or significant disturbance to marine mammals and no LSE is predicted either alone or in-combination (see paragraph 5.3.9 of HRA Screening Report). As per Construction, No LSEs have been identified with regard to vessel noise (See paragraphs 5.3.10) and collision risk (See paragraphs 5.3.13 to 5.3.20) during Decommissioning.

f. During Construction and Decommissioning, potential impacts associated with increased suspended sediment concentrations will be short term, intermittent and localised. Marine mammals frequently occur in relatively turbid areas and therefore are adapted to find prey in such conditions. Furthermore, they possess mechanisms to detect prey through means other than visual detection (See paragraphs 5.3.21 to 5.3.25 of HRA Screening Report). No LSE is predicted with regard to increased suspended sediment concentrations either alone or in-combination (See paragraph 5.3.25). A number of mitigation measures and best practice approaches will be implemented during the Construction and Decommissioning and Operation phases to mitigate potential impacts associated with potential accidental pollution events. Taking adherence to such approaches, LSEs on Annex II marine mammal qualifying features associated with accidental release of pollutants are not anticipated to arise during any phase of the Project (See paragraphs 5.3.26 to 5.3.28 and 5.3.55 to 5.3.56).

g. During Construction and Decommissioning, potential impacts on prey species have been identified with regard to habitat disturbance, increased suspended sediments and underwater noise for prey species (See paragraphs 5.3.29 to 5.3.35 of HRA Screening Report). No potential impacts have been identified with regard to accidental pollution events (See paragraph 5.3.34) Whilst an impact pathway has been identified, the potential loss of prey as a result of Project Two would be expected to be minimal. The potential impacts identified on fish receptors will be localised, short term and reversible. Furthermore, the fish community found in Project Two is characteristic of the fish and shellfish assemblage of the wider region and therefore marine mammals would be able to

Page 223: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

132

exploit similar resources in adjacent undisturbed areas. As such, LSEs associated with changes in prey availability are not anticipated to arise as a result of Project Two, either alone or in-combination with other plans and projects (See paragraph 5.3.35).

h. Whilst an impact pathway has been identified (See paragraphs 5.3.57 to 5.3.61 of HRA Screening Report), the potential loss of prey as a result of Project Two during Operation would be expected to be minimal and highly localised. There may be increased feeding opportunities within Project Two as a result of potential reef effects and reduction in fishing activity. Furthermore, the fish community found in Project Two is characteristic of the fish and shellfish assemblage of the wider region and therefore marine mammals would be able to exploit similar resources in adjacent undisturbed areas. LSEs associated with changes in prey availability are not anticipated to arise on marine mammals as a result of Project Two, either alone or in-combination with other plans or projects. (See paragraphs 5.3.57 to 5.3.61).

i. There is no evidence from surveys to indicate that bottlenose dolphin occur in significant numbers or with any regularity within Project Two (See paragraphs 5.3.69 to 5.3.72 of HRA Screening Report), whilst the Baie de Seine occidentale SCI is located at a considerable distance from Project Two. Therefore, No LSEs are anticipated to occur on bottlenose dolphin populations as a result of Project Two.

Page 224: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

133

Stage 1 Matrix 95a : Bancs des Flandres pSCI (Annex 1 habitat features)

Name of European site: Bancs des Flandres pSCI

Distance to PROJECT TWO 282 km European site features Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Changes to habitat Changes to water quality Changes to Fishing Activity In combination effects C O D C O D C O D C O D Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time

Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Evidence supporting conclusions a. With regard to habitat disturbance, no potential interaction (impact pathway) and no predicted effect is anticipated on the SAC (see paragraphs 5.1.2 to 5.1.11 of HRA Screening Report). No LSE predicted for the

Annex 1 habitat feature project alone or in-combination (See paragraph 5.1.55). b. No potential interaction (impact pathway) and no predicted effect is anticipated on the SAC with regard to loss of habitat (See paragraphs 5.1.31 to 5.1.34 of HRA Screening Report), introduction of hard substrate

(see paragraphs 5.1.35 to 5.1.36), habitat modification due to changes in the hydrodynamic regime (See paragraphs 5.1.37 to 5.1.43) and disturbance (See paragraphs 5.1.44 to 5.1.48) No LSE predicted for the Annex 1 habitat feature (See paragraph 5.1.55).

c. Given the distance of the SAC to the areas where increased suspended sediment and sediment deposition may occur, LSE on the feature is not anticipated to occur (see paragraphs 5.1.12 to 5.1.26 of HRA Screening Report). Also, taking into account designed-in mitigation measures and best practice approaches, LSE on the Annex I habitat feature associated with the release of sediment contaminants and/or accidental releases of pollutants is not anticipated as a result of Project Two either alone or in-combination (see paragraphs 5.1.27 to 5.1.30).

d. Taking into account designed-in mitigation measures and best practice approaches, LSE on the Annex I habitat feature associated with the release of sediment contaminants and/or accidental releases of pollutants is not anticipated as a result of Project Two, either alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.1.49 to 5.1.50 of HRA Screening Report).

e. Displacement of fishing activity will be dispersed over a large area, meaning that the specific increases in fishing activity in any one location would likely be minimal. LSEs on Annex I habitats are not anticipated as a result of Project Two either alone or in-combination (see paragraphs 5.1.51 and 5.1.52 of HRA Screening Report).

Page 225: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

134

Stage 1 Matrix 95b : Bancs des Flandres pSCI (marine mammal features)

Name of European site: Bancs des Flandres pSCI

Distance to PROJECT TWO 282 km European site features Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Behavioural disturbance/Physical injury Changes to water quality Changes in prey availability In combination effects C O D C O D C O D C O D Grey seal Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Harbour seal Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Harbour porpoise ����c Xd Xe Xf Xf Xf Xg Xh Xg ����c Xd, f, h Xe, f, g Evidence supporting conclusions a. It is considered that grey seal populations from European sites located at distances greater than 145 km from Project Two, are beyond any potential for direct, and indirect effects on foraging trips. Therefore, based

upon the distance of the Bancs des Flandres pSCI from Project Two, No LSEs are anticipated for grey seal as a result of Project Two alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.3.65 to 5.3.66 of HRA Screening Report).

b. It is considered that harbour seal populations from European sites located at distances greater than 120 km from Project Two, are beyond any potential for direct and indirect effects on foraging trips. Therefore, based upon the distance of the Bancs des Flandres pSCI from Project Two, No LSEs are anticipated for harbour seal as a result of Project Two alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.3.67 to 5.3.68 of HRA Screening Report).

c. There is the potential for connectivity between Project Two and harbour porpoise feature of the Bancs des Flandres pSCI (see paragraphs 5.3.69 to 5.3.70 of HRA Screening Report). There is potential for a LSE in respect of behavioural disturbance associated with construction pilling for up to five years No LSEs have been identified with regard to vessel noise (See paragraphs 5.3.10) and collision risk (See paragraphs 5.3.13 to 5.3.20) during Construction.

d. With regard to operational underwater turbine noise a behavioural response is only likely within close proximity to turbines and no LSE is predicted (See paragraphs 5.3.36 to 5.3.39 of HRA Screening Report). Given the anticipated localised effects of disturbance associated with vessel traffic and the wide distribution range of Annex II marine mammals species, any impacts would be expected to be very limited and LSEs on marine mammals associated with vessel noise are not anticipated alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.3.41 to 5.3.43). There is little potential for the increased vessel activity to result in a significant impact in terms of collision risk with vessels and potential corkscrew injuries and no LSEs are predicted either alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.3.44 to 5.3.50). EMF effects will be localised within the immediate vicinity of the cables and no LSEs are predicted either alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.3.51 to 5.3.54).

e. During decommissioning piling will not be required. The noise resulting from wind turbine decommissioning is unlikely to result in any injury, avoidance or significant disturbance to marine mammals and no LSE is predicted either alone or in-combination (see paragraph 5.3.9 of HRA Screening Report). As per Construction, No LSEs have been identified with regard to vessel noise (See paragraphs 5.3.10) and collision risk (See paragraphs 5.3.13 to 5.3.20) during Decommissioning.

f. During Construction and Decommissioning, potential impacts associated with increased suspended sediment concentrations will be short term, intermittent and localised. Marine mammals frequently occur in relatively turbid areas and therefore are adapted to find prey in such conditions. Furthermore, they possess mechanisms to detect prey through means other than visual detection (See paragraphs 5.3.21 to 5.3.25 of HRA Screening Report). No LSE is predicted with regard to increased suspended sediment concentrations either alone or in-combination (See paragraph 5.3.25). A number of mitigation measures and best practice approaches will be implemented during the Construction and Decommissioning and Operation phases to mitigate potential impacts associated with potential accidental pollution events. Taking adherence to such approaches, LSEs on Annex II marine mammal qualifying features associated with accidental release of pollutants are not anticipated to arise during any phase of the Project (See paragraphs 5.3.26 to 5.3.28 and 5.3.55 to 5.3.56).

g. During Construction and Decommissioning, potential impacts on prey species have been identified with regard to habitat disturbance, increased suspended sediments and underwater noise for prey species (See paragraphs 5.3.29 to 5.3.35 of HRA Screening Report). No potential impacts have been identified with regard to accidental pollution events (See paragraph 5.3.34) Whilst an impact pathway has been identified, the potential loss of prey as a result of Project Two would be expected to be minimal. The potential impacts identified on fish receptors will be localised, short term and reversible. Furthermore, the fish community found in Project Two is characteristic of the fish and shellfish assemblage of the wider region and therefore marine mammals would be able to exploit similar resources in adjacent undisturbed areas. As such, LSEs associated with changes in prey availability are not anticipated to arise as a result of Project Two, either alone or in-combination with other plans and projects (See paragraph 5.3.35).

h. Whilst an impact pathway has been identified (See paragraphs 5.3.57 to 5.3.61 of HRA Screening Report), the potential loss of prey as a result of Project Two during Operation would be expected to be minimal and highly localised. There may be increased feeding opportunities within Project Two as a result of potential reef effects and reduction in fishing activity. Furthermore, the fish community found in Project Two is characteristic of the fish and shellfish assemblage of the wider region and therefore marine mammals would be able to exploit similar resources in adjacent undisturbed areas. LSEs associated with changes in prey availability are not anticipated to arise on marine mammals as a result of Project Two, either alone or in-combination with other plans or projects. (See paragraphs 5.3.57 to 5.3.61).

Page 226: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

135

Stage 1 Matrix 96a : Banc et rècifs de Surtainville SCI (Annex 1 habitat features)

Name of European site: Banc et rècifs de Surtainville SCI

Distance to PROJECT TWO 535 km European site features Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Changes to habitat Changes to water quality Changes to Fishing Activity In combination effects C O D C O D C O D C O D Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time

Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Reefs Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c Evidence supporting conclusions a. With regard to habitat disturbance, no potential interaction (impact pathway) and no predicted effect is anticipated on the SAC (see paragraphs 5.1.2 to 5.1.11 of HRA Screening Report). No LSE predicted for the

Annex 1 habitat feature project alone or in-combination (See paragraph 5.1.55). b. No potential interaction (impact pathway) and no predicted effect is anticipated on the SAC with regard to loss of habitat (See paragraphs 5.1.31 to 5.1.34 of HRA Screening Report), introduction of hard substrate

(see paragraphs 5.1.35 to 5.1.36), habitat modification due to changes in the hydrodynamic regime (See paragraphs 5.1.37 to 5.1.43) and disturbance (See paragraphs 5.1.44 to 5.1.48) No LSE predicted for the Annex 1 habitat feature (See paragraph 5.1.55).

c. Given the distance of the SAC to the areas where increased suspended sediment and sediment deposition may occur, LSE on the feature is not anticipated to occur (see paragraphs 5.1.12 to 5.1.26 of HRA Screening Report). Also, taking into account designed-in mitigation measures and best practice approaches, LSE on the Annex I habitat feature associated with the release of sediment contaminants and/or accidental releases of pollutants is not anticipated as a result of Project Two either alone or in-combination (see paragraphs 5.1.27 to 5.1.30).

d. Taking into account designed-in mitigation measures and best practice approaches, LSE on the Annex I habitat feature associated with the release of sediment contaminants and/or accidental releases of pollutants is not anticipated as a result of Project Two, either alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.1.49 to 5.1.50 of HRA Screening Report).

e. Displacement of fishing activity will be dispersed over a large area, meaning that the specific increases in fishing activity in any one location would likely be minimal. LSEs on Annex I habitats are not anticipated as a result of Project Two either alone or in-combination (see paragraphs 5.1.51 and 5.1.52 of HRA Screening Report).

Page 227: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

136

Stage 1 Matrix 96b : Banc et rècifs de Surtainville SCI (marine mammal features)

Name of European site: Banc et rècifs de Surtainville SCI

Distance to PROJECT TWO 535 km European site features Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Behavioural disturbance/Physical injury Changes to water quality Changes in prey availability In combination effects C O D C O D C O D C O D Grey seal, Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Harbour seal, Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Harbour porpoise, ����c Xd Xe Xf Xf Xf Xg Xh Xg ����c Xd, f, h Xe, f, g Bottlenose dolphin Xi Xi Xi Xi Xi Xi Xi Xi Xi Xi Xi Xi Evidence supporting conclusions a. It is considered that grey seal populations from European sites located at distances greater than 145 km from Project Two, are beyond any potential for direct, and indirect effects on foraging trips. Therefore, based

upon the distance of the Banc et rècifs de Surtainville SCI from Project Two, No LSEs are anticipated for grey seal as a result of Project Two alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.3.65 to 5.3.66 of HRA Screening Report).

b. It is considered that harbour seal populations from European sites located at distances greater than 120 km from Project Two, are beyond any potential for direct and indirect effects on foraging trips. Therefore, based upon the distance of the Banc et rècifs de Surtainville SCI from Project Two, No LSEs are anticipated for harbour seal as a result of Project Two alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.3.67 to 5.3.68 of HRA Screening Report).

c. There is the potential for connectivity between Project Two and harbour porpoise feature of the Banc et rècifs de Surtainville SCI (see paragraphs 5.3.69 to 5.3.70 of HRA Screening Report). There is potential for a LSE in respect of behavioural disturbance associated with construction pilling for up to five years (See paragraphs 5.3.2 to 5.3.9). No LSEs have been identified with regard to vessel noise (See paragraphs 5.3.10) and collision risk (See paragraphs 5.3.13 to 5.3.20) during Construction.

d. With regard to operational underwater turbine noise a behavioural response is only likely within close proximity to turbines and no LSE is predicted (See paragraphs 5.3.36 to 5.3.39 of HRA Screening Report). Given the anticipated localised effects of disturbance associated with vessel traffic and the wide distribution range of Annex II marine mammals species, any impacts would be expected to be very limited and LSEs on marine mammals associated with vessel noise are not anticipated alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.3.41 to 5.3.43). There is little potential for the increased vessel activity to result in a significant impact in terms of collision risk with vessels and potential corkscrew injuries and no LSEs are predicted either alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.3.44 to 5.3.50). EMF effects will be localised within the immediate vicinity of the cables and no LSEs are predicted either alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.3.51 to 5.3.54).

e. During decommissioning piling will not be required. The noise resulting from wind turbine decommissioning is unlikely to result in any injury, avoidance or significant disturbance to marine mammals and no LSE is predicted either alone or in-combination (see paragraph 5.3.9 of HRA Screening Report). As per Construction, No LSEs have been identified with regard to vessel noise (See paragraphs 5.3.10) and collision risk (See paragraphs 5.3.13 to 5.3.20) during Decommissioning.

f. During Construction and Decommissioning, potential impacts associated with increased suspended sediment concentrations will be short term, intermittent and localised. Marine mammals frequently occur in relatively turbid areas and therefore are adapted to find prey in such conditions. Furthermore, they possess mechanisms to detect prey through means other than visual detection (See paragraphs 5.3.21 to 5.3.25 of HRA Screening Report). No LSE is predicted with regard to increased suspended sediment concentrations either alone or in-combination (See paragraph 5.3.25). A number of mitigation measures and best practice approaches will be implemented during the Construction and Decommissioning and Operation phases to mitigate potential impacts associated with potential accidental pollution events. Taking adherence to such approaches, LSEs on Annex II marine mammal qualifying features associated with accidental release of pollutants are not anticipated to arise during any phase of the Project (See paragraphs 5.3.26 to 5.3.28 and 5.3.55 to 5.3.56).

g. During Construction and Decommissioning, potential impacts on prey species have been identified with regard to habitat disturbance, increased suspended sediments and underwater noise for prey species (See paragraphs 5.3.29 to 5.3.35 of HRA Screening Report). No potential impacts have been identified with regard to accidental pollution events (See paragraph 5.3.34) Whilst an impact pathway has been identified, the potential loss of prey as a result of Project Two would be expected to be minimal. The potential impacts identified on fish receptors will be localised, short term and reversible. Furthermore, the fish community found in Project Two is characteristic of the fish and shellfish assemblage of the wider region and therefore marine mammals would be able to exploit similar resources in adjacent undisturbed areas. As such, LSEs associated with changes in prey availability are not anticipated to arise as a result of Project Two, either alone or in-combination with other plans and projects (See paragraph 5.3.35).

h. Whilst an impact pathway has been identified (See paragraphs 5.3.57 to 5.3.61 of HRA Screening Report), the potential loss of prey as a result of Project Two during Operation would be expected to be minimal and highly localised. There may be increased feeding opportunities within Project Two as a result of potential reef effects and reduction in fishing activity. Furthermore, the fish community found in Project Two is characteristic of the fish and shellfish assemblage of the wider region and therefore marine mammals would be able to exploit similar resources in adjacent undisturbed areas. LSEs associated with changes in prey availability are not anticipated to arise on marine mammals as a result of Project Two, either alone or in-combination with other plans or projects. (See paragraphs 5.3.57 to 5.3.61).

Page 228: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

137

i. There is no evidence from surveys to indicate that bottlenose dolphin occur in significant numbers or with any regularity within Project Two (See paragraphs 5.3.69 to 5.3.72 of HRA Screening Report), whilst the Banc et rècifs de Surtainville SCI is located at a considerable distance from Project Two. Therefore, No LSEs are anticipated to occur on bottlenose dolphin populations as a result of Project Two.

Page 229: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

138

Stage 1 Matrix 97a : Estuaire de la Seine SCI (Annex 1 habitat features)

Name of European site: Estuaire de la Seine SCI

Distance to PROJECT TWO 488 km European site features Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Changes to habitat Changes to water quality Changes to Fishing Activity In combination effects C O D C O D C O D C O D Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time

Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Estuaries Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide

Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Annual vegetation of drift lines Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c Perennial vegetation of stony banks

Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Salicornia and other annuals colonizing mud and sand

Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Atlantic salt meadows (Glauco-Puccinellietalia maritimae)

Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Embryonic shifting dunes Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c Shifting dunes along the shoreline with Ammophila arenaria ("white dunes")

Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Fixed coastal dunes with herbaceous vegetation ("grey dunes")

Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Dunes with Hippophaë rhamnoides Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Wooded dunes of the Atlantic, Continental and Boreal region Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Humid dune slacks Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c Hard oligo-mesotrophic waters with benthic vegetation of Chara spp.

Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Natural eutrophic lakes with Magnopotamion or Hydrocharition - type vegetation

Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Water courses of plain to montane levels with the Ranunculion fluitantis and Callitricho-Batrachion vegetation

Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Semi-natural dry grasslands and scrubland facies on calcareous substrates (Festuco-Brometalia)

Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Page 230: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

139

(* important orchid sites) Hydrophilous tall herb fringe communities of plains and of the montane to alpine levels

Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Lowland hay meadows (Alopecurus pratensis, Sanguisorba officinalis)

Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Caves not open to the public Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c Atlantic acidophilous beech forests with Ilex and sometimes also Taxus in the shrublayer (Quercion robori-petraeae or Ilici-Fagenion)

Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Asperulo-Fagetum beech forests Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c Tilio-Acerion forests of slopes, screes and ravines Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Evidence supporting conclusions a. With regard to habitat disturbance, no potential interaction (impact pathway) and no predicted effect is anticipated on the SAC (see paragraphs 5.1.2 to 5.1.11 of HRA Screening Report). No LSE predicted for the

Annex 1 habitat feature project alone or in-combination (See paragraph 5.1.55). b. No potential interaction (impact pathway) and no predicted effect is anticipated on the SAC with regard to loss of habitat (See paragraphs 5.1.31 to 5.1.34 of HRA Screening Report), introduction of hard substrate

(see paragraphs 5.1.35 to 5.1.36), habitat modification due to changes in the hydrodynamic regime (See paragraphs 5.1.37 to 5.1.43) and disturbance (See paragraphs 5.1.44 to 5.1.48) No LSE predicted for the Annex 1 habitat feature (See paragraph 5.1.55).

c. Given the distance of the SAC to the areas where increased suspended sediment and sediment deposition may occur, LSE on the feature is not anticipated to occur (see paragraphs 5.1.12 to 5.1.26 of HRA Screening Report). Also, taking into account designed-in mitigation measures and best practice approaches, LSE on the Annex I habitat feature associated with the release of sediment contaminants and/or accidental releases of pollutants is not anticipated as a result of Project Two either alone or in-combination (see paragraphs 5.1.27 to 5.1.30).

d. Taking into account designed-in mitigation measures and best practice approaches, LSE on the Annex I habitat feature associated with the release of sediment contaminants and/or accidental releases of pollutants is not anticipated as a result of Project Two, either alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.1.49 to 5.1.50 of HRA Screening Report).

e. Displacement of fishing activity will be dispersed over a large area, meaning that the specific increases in fishing activity in any one location would likely be minimal. LSEs on Annex I habitats are not anticipated as a result of Project Two either alone or in-combination (see paragraphs 5.1.51 and 5.1.52 of HRA Screening Report).

Page 231: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

140

Stage 1 Matrix 97b : Estuaire de la Seine SCI (migratory fish features)

Name of European site: Estuaire de la Seine SCI

Distance to PROJECT TWO 488 km European site features Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Behavioural disturbance/physical

injury Changes to water quality Changes to habitat Changes in fishing activity In combination effects

C O D C O D C O D C O D C O D River lamprey Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe Xf Xa, c Xb, d, e, f Xa, c Sea lamprey Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe Xf Xa, c Xb, d, e, f Xa, c Shad spp. Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe Xf Xa, c Xb, d, e, f Xa, c Atlantic salmon Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe Xf Xa, c Xb, d, e, f Xa, c Evidence supporting conclusions a. The Estuaire de la Seine SCI is located at a significant distance from Project Two. No LSEs alone or in-combination are anticipated with regard to direct temporary disturbance of seabed habitat (See paragraphs

5.2.5 to 5.2.7 of HRA Screening Report). Based upon the location of the Subzone 2 and the HVAC reactive compensation substations relative to likely migratory routes and the habitat use of the species, any interaction with construction noise is expected to be insignificant (See paragraphs 5.2.15 to 5.2.17). No LSEs associated with construction noise are anticipated (See paragraph 5.2.17).

b. The Estuaire de la Seine SCI is located at a significant distance from Project Two. Levels of noise associated with Operation noise are low and the spatial extent of the potential impact is generally small and thus unlikely to result in any injury to fish (See paragraph 5.2.25 of HRA Screening Report). Any behavioural effects to occur on fish, would be limited to the immediate vicinity of the turbines or vessels (See paragraphs 5.2.25 to 5.2.27). No LSEs are anticipated alone or in-combination due to operational noise. No LSE has been identified relating to EMF as the Annex II migratory fish feature is not considered to have sufficient interaction with the cabling (See paragraphs 5.2.29 to 5.2.33). In respect of temporary disturbance from maintenance activities, undisturbed locations will be able to be utilised by Annex II migratory fish and No LSEs are anticipated (5.2.34 to 5.2.36).

c. The Estuaire de la Seine SCI is located at a significant distance from Project Two. During Construction, elevated suspended sediment concentrations are only expected to occur over relatively small areas (up to 16 km) and will be very short-lived (See paragraphs 5.2.8 to 5.2.12 of HRA Screening Report). No LSEs alone or in-combination are anticipated with regard to increase in suspended sediment concentrations and sediment deposition during Construction/Decomissioning (See paragraphs 5.2.10 to 5.2.12). With regard to the release of sediment contaminants and accidental pollution events, mitigation measures and best practice approaches will be implemented during the Construction/Decommissioning phases to reduce potential impacts associated with pollution events (See paragraphs 5.2.13 and 5.2.14). Taking adherence to such approaches, LSEs on Annex II migratory fish species are not anticipated alone or in-combination (See paragraph 5.2.14).

d. With regard to the release of sediment contaminants and accidental pollution events, a number of mitigation measures and best practice approaches will be implemented during the Operation phase (See paragraphs 5.2.37 and 5.2.38). No LSE is anticipated with regard to this during Operation.

e. The Estuaire de la Seine SCI is located at a significant distance from Project Two. Long term habitat loss will occur within the footprint of Project Two (See paragraph 5.2.18 of HRA Screening Report). No LSEs have been identified for Annex II migratory fish as a result of Project Two alone or in-combination for any European site with regard to loss of habitat (See paragraphs 5.2.18 to 5.2.20). In respect of the introduction of hard substrate, this may indirectly have a localised effect on fish species, with the potential to act as an artificial reef and bring changes to food resources or result in a fish aggregation device (See paragraph 5.2.21). No LSEs have been identified with regard to the introduction of hard substrate (See paragraphs 5.2.21 to 5.2.23).

f. The Estuaire de la Seine SCI is located at a significant distance from Project Two. The potential effect of displacement of fishing activity will be dispersed over a large area, meaning that the specific increases in fishing activity in any one location would likely be minimal on benthic habitats. Furthermore, Annex II migratory fish species rarely caught by the fishing methods used in the Project Two area, and therefore, if fishing effort is displaced into other areas the potential impact on these species would be minimal (See paragraphs 5.2.39 to 5.2.42 of HRA Screening Report). Therefore, no LSEs have been identified for Project Two alone or in-combination (See paragraph 5.2.42).

Page 232: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

141

Stage 1 Matrix 97c : Estuaire de la Seine SCI (marine mammal features)

Name of European site: Estuaire de la Seine SCI

Distance to PROJECT TWO 488 km European site features Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Behavioural disturbance/Physical injury Changes to water quality Changes in prey availability In combination effects C O D C O D C O D C O D Grey seal Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Harbour seal Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Harbour porpoise ����c Xd Xe Xf Xf Xf Xg Xh Xg ����c Xd, f, h Xe, f, g Evidence supporting conclusions a. It is considered that grey seal populations from European sites located at distances greater than 145 km from Project Two, are beyond any potential for direct, and indirect effects on foraging trips. Therefore, based

upon the distance of the Estuaire de la Seine SCI from Project Two, No LSEs are anticipated for grey seal as a result of Project Two alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.3.65 to 5.3.66 of HRA Screening Report).

b. It is considered that harbour seal populations from European sites located at distances greater than 120 km from Project Two, are beyond any potential for direct and indirect effects on foraging trips. Therefore, based upon the distance of the Estuaire de la Seine SCI from Project Two, No LSEs are anticipated for harbour seal as a result of Project Two alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.3.67 to 5.3.68 of HRA Screening Report).

c. There is the potential for connectivity between Project Two and harbour porpoise feature of the Estuaire de la Seine SCI (see paragraphs 5.3.69 to 5.3.70 of HRA Screening Report). There is potential for a LSE in respect of behavioural disturbance associated with construction pilling for up to five years No LSEs have been identified with regard to vessel noise (See paragraphs 5.3.10) and collision risk (See paragraphs 5.3.13 to 5.3.20) during Construction.

d. With regard to operational underwater turbine noise a behavioural response is only likely within close proximity to turbines and no LSE is predicted (See paragraphs 5.3.36 to 5.3.39 of HRA Screening Report). Given the anticipated localised effects of disturbance associated with vessel traffic and the wide distribution range of Annex II marine mammals species, any impacts would be expected to be very limited and LSEs on marine mammals associated with vessel noise are not anticipated alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.3.41 to 5.3.43). There is little potential for the increased vessel activity to result in a significant impact in terms of collision risk with vessels and potential corkscrew injuries and no LSEs are predicted either alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.3.44 to 5.3.50). EMF effects will be localised within the immediate vicinity of the cables and no LSEs are predicted either alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.3.51 to 5.3.54).

e. During decommissioning piling will not be required. The noise resulting from wind turbine decommissioning is unlikely to result in any injury, avoidance or significant disturbance to marine mammals and no LSE is predicted either alone or in-combination (see paragraph 5.3.9 of HRA Screening Report). As per Construction, No LSEs have been identified with regard to vessel noise (See paragraphs 5.3.10) and collision risk (See paragraphs 5.3.13 to 5.3.20) during Decommissioning.

f. During Construction and Decommissioning, potential impacts associated with increased suspended sediment concentrations will be short term, intermittent and localised. Marine mammals frequently occur in relatively turbid areas and therefore are adapted to find prey in such conditions. Furthermore, they possess mechanisms to detect prey through means other than visual detection (See paragraphs 5.3.21 to 5.3.25 of HRA Screening Report). No LSE is predicted with regard to increased suspended sediment concentrations either alone or in-combination (See paragraph 5.3.25). A number of mitigation measures and best practice approaches will be implemented during the Construction and Decommissioning and Operation phases to mitigate potential impacts associated with potential accidental pollution events. Taking adherence to such approaches, LSEs on Annex II marine mammal qualifying features associated with accidental release of pollutants are not anticipated to arise during any phase of the Project (See paragraphs 5.3.26 to 5.3.28 and 5.3.55 to 5.3.56).

g. During Construction and Decommissioning, potential impacts on prey species have been identified with regard to habitat disturbance, increased suspended sediments and underwater noise for prey species (See paragraphs 5.3.29 to 5.3.35 of HRA Screening Report). No potential impacts have been identified with regard to accidental pollution events (See paragraph 5.3.34) Whilst an impact pathway has been identified, the potential loss of prey as a result of Project Two would be expected to be minimal. The potential impacts identified on fish receptors will be localised, short term and reversible. Furthermore, the fish community found in Project Two is characteristic of the fish and shellfish assemblage of the wider region and therefore marine mammals would be able to exploit similar resources in adjacent undisturbed areas. As such, LSEs associated with changes in prey availability are not anticipated to arise as a result of Project Two, either alone or in-combination with other plans and projects (See paragraph 5.3.35).

h. Whilst an impact pathway has been identified (See paragraphs 5.3.57 to 5.3.61 of HRA Screening Report), the potential loss of prey as a result of Project Two during Operation would be expected to be minimal and highly localised. There may be increased feeding opportunities within Project Two as a result of potential reef effects and reduction in fishing activity. Furthermore, the fish community found in Project Two is characteristic of the fish and shellfish assemblage of the wider region and therefore marine mammals would be able to exploit similar resources in adjacent undisturbed areas. LSEs associated with changes in prey availability are not anticipated to arise on marine mammals as a result of Project Two, either alone or in-combination with other plans or projects. (See paragraphs 5.3.57 to 5.3.61).

Page 233: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

142

Stage 1 Matrix 98a : Estuaires et Littoral Picards (baies de Somme et d’Authie) SAC (Annex 1 habitat features)

Name of European site: Estuaires et Littoral Picards (baies de Somme et d’Authie) SAC

Distance to PROJECT TWO 383 km European site features Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Changes to habitat Changes to water quality Changes to Fishing Activity In combination effects C O D C O D C O D C O D Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time

Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Estuaries Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide

Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Coastal lagoons Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c Annual vegetation of drift lines Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c Perennial vegetation of stony banks

Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Vegetated sea cliffs of the Atlantic and Baltic Coasts

Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Salicornia and other annuals colonizing mud and sand

Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Atlantic salt meadows (Glauco-Puccinellietalia maritimae)

Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Mediterranean and thermo-Atlantic halophilous scrubs (Sarcocornetea fruticosi)

Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Embryonic shifting dunes Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c Shifting dunes along the shoreline with Ammophila arenaria ("white dunes")

Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Fixed coastal dunes with herbaceous vegetation ("grey dunes")

Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Dunes with Hippophaë rhamnoides Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Dunes with Salix repens ssp. argentea (Salicion arenariae) Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Wooded dunes of the Atlantic, Continental and Boreal region Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Humid dune slacks Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c Oligotrophic waters containing very few minerals of sandy plains (Littorelletalia uniflorae)

Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Hard oligo-mesotrophic waters with benthic vegetation of Chara Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Page 234: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

143

spp. Natural eutrophic lakes with Magnopotamion or Hydrocharition - type vegetation

Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Molinia meadows on calcareous, peaty or clayey-silt-laden soils (Molinion caeruleae)

Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Hydrophilous tall herb fringe communities of plains and of the montane to alpine levels

Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Alkaline fens Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c Alluvial forests with Alnus glutinosa and Fraxinus excelsior (Alno-Padion, Alnion incanae, Salicion albae)

Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Evidence supporting conclusions a. With regard to habitat disturbance, no potential interaction (impact pathway) and no predicted effect is anticipated on the SAC (see paragraphs 5.1.2 to 5.1.11 of HRA Screening Report). No LSE predicted for the

Annex 1 habitat feature project alone or in-combination (See paragraph 5.1.55). b. No potential interaction (impact pathway) and no predicted effect is anticipated on the SAC with regard to loss of habitat (See paragraphs 5.1.31 to 5.1.34 of HRA Screening Report), introduction of hard substrate

(see paragraphs 5.1.35 to 5.1.36), habitat modification due to changes in the hydrodynamic regime (See paragraphs 5.1.37 to 5.1.43) and disturbance (See paragraphs 5.1.44 to 5.1.48) No LSE predicted for the Annex 1 habitat feature (See paragraph 5.1.55).

c. Given the distance of the SAC to the areas where increased suspended sediment and sediment deposition may occur, LSE on the feature is not anticipated to occur (see paragraphs 5.1.12 to 5.1.26 of HRA Screening Report). Also, taking into account designed-in mitigation measures and best practice approaches, LSE on the Annex I habitat feature associated with the release of sediment contaminants and/or accidental releases of pollutants is not anticipated as a result of Project Two either alone or in-combination (see paragraphs 5.1.27 to 5.1.30).

d. Taking into account designed-in mitigation measures and best practice approaches, LSE on the Annex I habitat feature associated with the release of sediment contaminants and/or accidental releases of pollutants is not anticipated as a result of Project Two, either alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.1.49 to 5.1.50 of HRA Screening Report).

e. Displacement of fishing activity will be dispersed over a large area, meaning that the specific increases in fishing activity in any one location would likely be minimal. LSEs on Annex I habitats are not anticipated as a result of Project Two either alone or in-combination (see paragraphs 5.1.51 and 5.1.52 of HRA Screening Report).

Page 235: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

144

Stage 1 Matrix 98b : Estuaires et Littoral Picards (baies de Somme et d’Authie) SAC (migratory fish features)

Name of European site: Estuaires et Littoral Picards (baies de Somme et d’Authie) SAC

Distance to PROJECT TWO 383 km European site features Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Behavioural disturbance/physical

injury Changes to water quality Changes to habitat Changes in fishing activity In combination effects

C O D C O D C O D C O D C O D River lamprey Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe Xf Xa, c Xb, d, e, f Xa, c Evidence supporting conclusions a. The Estuaires et Littoral Picards (baies de Somme et d’Authie) SAC is located at a significant distance from Project Two. No LSEs alone or in-combination are anticipated with regard to direct temporary disturbance

of seabed habitat (See paragraphs 5.2.5 to 5.2.7 of HRA Screening Report). Based upon the location of the Subzone 2 and the HVAC reactive compensation substations relative to likely migratory routes and the habitat use of the species, any interaction with construction noise is expected to be insignificant (See paragraphs 5.2.15 to 5.2.17). No LSEs associated with construction noise are anticipated (See paragraph 5.2.17).

b. The Estuaires et Littoral Picards (baies de Somme et d’Authie) SAC is located at a significant distance from Project Two. Levels of noise associated with Operation noise are low and the spatial extent of the potential impact is generally small and thus unlikely to result in any injury to fish (See paragraph 5.2.25 of HRA Screening Report). Any behavioural effects to occur on fish, would be limited to the immediate vicinity of the turbines or vessels (See paragraphs 5.2.25 to 5.2.27). No LSEs are anticipated alone or in-combination due to operational noise. No LSE has been identified relating to EMF as the Annex II migratory fish feature is not considered to have sufficient interaction with the cabling (See paragraphs 5.2.29 to 5.2.33). In respect of temporary disturbance from maintenance activities, undisturbed locations will be able to be utilised by Annex II migratory fish and No LSEs are anticipated (5.2.34 to 5.2.36).

c. The Estuaires et Littoral Picards (baies de Somme et d’Authie) SAC is located at a significant distance from Project Two. During Construction, elevated suspended sediment concentrations are only expected to occur over relatively small areas (up to 16 km) and will be very short-lived (See paragraphs 5.2.8 to 5.2.12 of HRA Screening Report). No LSEs alone or in-combination are anticipated with regard to increase in suspended sediment concentrations and sediment deposition during Construction/Decomissioning (See paragraphs 5.2.10 to 5.2.12). With regard to the release of sediment contaminants and accidental pollution events, mitigation measures and best practice approaches will be implemented during the Construction/Decommissioning phases to reduce potential impacts associated with pollution events (See paragraphs 5.2.13 and 5.2.14). Taking adherence to such approaches, LSEs on Annex II migratory fish species are not anticipated alone or in-combination (See paragraph 5.2.14).

d. With regard to the release of sediment contaminants and accidental pollution events, a number of mitigation measures and best practice approaches will be implemented during the Operation phase (See paragraphs 5.2.37 and 5.2.38). No LSE is anticipated with regard to this during Operation.

e. The Estuaires et Littoral Picards (baies de Somme et d’Authie) SAC is located at a significant distance from Project Two. Long term habitat loss will occur within the footprint of Project Two (See paragraph 5.2.18 of HRA Screening Report). No LSEs have been identified for Annex II migratory fish as a result of Project Two alone or in-combination for any European site with regard to loss of habitat (See paragraphs 5.2.18 to 5.2.20). In respect of the introduction of hard substrate, this may indirectly have a localised effect on fish species, with the potential to act as an artificial reef and bring changes to food resources or result in a fish aggregation device (See paragraph 5.2.21). No LSEs have been identified with regard to the introduction of hard substrate (See paragraphs 5.2.21 to 5.2.23).

f. The Estuaires et Littoral Picards (baies de Somme et d’Authie) SAC is located at a significant distance from Project Two. The potential effect of displacement of fishing activity will be dispersed over a large area, meaning that the specific increases in fishing activity in any one location would likely be minimal on benthic habitats. Furthermore, Annex II migratory fish species rarely caught by the fishing methods used in the Project Two area, and therefore, if fishing effort is displaced into other areas the potential impact on these species would be minimal (See paragraphs 5.2.39 to 5.2.42 of HRA Screening Report). Therefore, no LSEs have been identified for Project Two alone or in-combination (See paragraph 5.2.42).

Page 236: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

145

Stage 1 Matrix 98c : Estuaires et Littoral Picards (baies de Somme et d’Authie) SAC (marine mammal features)

Name of European site: Estuaires et Littoral Picards (baies de Somme et d’Authie) SAC

Distance to PROJECT TWO 383 km European site features Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Behavioural disturbance/Physical injury Changes to water quality Changes in prey availability In combination effects C O D C O D C O D C O D Grey seal, Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Harbour seal, Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Harbour porpoise ����c Xd Xe Xf Xf Xf Xg Xh Xg ����c Xd, f, h Xe, f, g Bottlenose dolphin Xi Xi Xi Xi Xi Xi Xi Xi Xi Xi Xi Xi Evidence supporting conclusions a. It is considered that grey seal populations from European sites located at distances greater than 145 km from Project Two, are beyond any potential for direct, and indirect effects on foraging trips. Therefore, based

upon the distance of the Estuaires et Littoral Picards (baies de Somme et d’Authie) SAC from Project Two, No LSEs are anticipated for grey seal as a result of Project Two alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.3.65 to 5.3.66 of HRA Screening Report).

b. It is considered that harbour seal populations from European sites located at distances greater than 120 km from Project Two, are beyond any potential for direct and indirect effects on foraging trips. Therefore, based upon the distance of the Estuaires et Littoral Picards (baies de Somme et d’Authie) SAC from Project Two, No LSEs are anticipated for harbour seal as a result of Project Two alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.3.67 to 5.3.68 of HRA Screening Report).

c. There is the potential for connectivity between Project Two and harbour porpoise feature of the Estuaires et Littoral Picards (baies de Somme et d’Authie) SAC (see paragraphs 5.3.69 to 5.3.70 of HRA Screening Report). There is potential for a LSE in respect of behavioural disturbance associated with construction pilling for up to five years) (See paragraphs 5.3.2 to 5.3.9). No LSEs have been identified with regard to vessel noise (See paragraphs 5.3.10) and collision risk (See paragraphs 5.3.13 to 5.3.20) during Construction.

d. With regard to operational underwater turbine noise a behavioural response is only likely within close proximity to turbines and no LSE is predicted (See paragraphs 5.3.36 to 5.3.39 of HRA Screening Report). Given the anticipated localised effects of disturbance associated with vessel traffic and the wide distribution range of Annex II marine mammals species, any impacts would be expected to be very limited and LSEs on marine mammals associated with vessel noise are not anticipated alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.3.41 to 5.3.43). There is little potential for the increased vessel activity to result in a significant impact in terms of collision risk with vessels and potential corkscrew injuries and no LSEs are predicted either alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.3.44 to 5.3.50). EMF effects will be localised within the immediate vicinity of the cables and no LSEs are predicted either alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.3.51 to 5.3.54).

e. During decommissioning piling will not be required. The noise resulting from wind turbine decommissioning is unlikely to result in any injury, avoidance or significant disturbance to marine mammals and no LSE is predicted either alone or in-combination (see paragraph 5.3.9 of HRA Screening Report). As per Construction, No LSEs have been identified with regard to vessel noise (See paragraphs 5.3.10) and collision risk (See paragraphs 5.3.13 to 5.3.20) during Decommissioning.

f. During Construction and Decommissioning, potential impacts associated with increased suspended sediment concentrations will be short term, intermittent and localised. Marine mammals frequently occur in relatively turbid areas and therefore are adapted to find prey in such conditions. Furthermore, they possess mechanisms to detect prey through means other than visual detection (See paragraphs 5.3.21 to 5.3.25 of HRA Screening Report). No LSE is predicted with regard to increased suspended sediment concentrations either alone or in-combination (See paragraph 5.3.25). A number of mitigation measures and best practice approaches will be implemented during the Construction and Decommissioning and Operation phases to mitigate potential impacts associated with potential accidental pollution events. Taking adherence to such approaches, LSEs on Annex II marine mammal qualifying features associated with accidental release of pollutants are not anticipated to arise during any phase of the Project (See paragraphs 5.3.26 to 5.3.28 and 5.3.55 to 5.3.56).

g. During Construction and Decommissioning, potential impacts on prey species have been identified with regard to habitat disturbance, increased suspended sediments and underwater noise for prey species (See paragraphs 5.3.29 to 5.3.35 of HRA Screening Report). No potential impacts have been identified with regard to accidental pollution events (See paragraph 5.3.34) Whilst an impact pathway has been identified, the potential loss of prey as a result of Project Two would be expected to be minimal. The potential impacts identified on fish receptors will be localised, short term and reversible. Furthermore, the fish community found in Project Two is characteristic of the fish and shellfish assemblage of the wider region and therefore marine mammals would be able to exploit similar resources in adjacent undisturbed areas. As such, LSEs associated with changes in prey availability are not anticipated to arise as a result of Project Two, either alone or in-combination with other plans and projects (See paragraph 5.3.35).

h. Whilst an impact pathway has been identified (See paragraphs 5.3.57 to 5.3.61 of HRA Screening Report), the potential loss of prey as a result of Project Two during Operation would be expected to be minimal and highly localised. There may be increased feeding opportunities within Project Two as a result of potential reef effects and reduction in fishing activity. Furthermore, the fish community found in Project Two is characteristic of the fish and shellfish assemblage of the wider region and therefore marine mammals would be able to exploit similar resources in adjacent undisturbed areas. LSEs associated with changes in prey availability are not anticipated to arise on marine mammals as a result of Project Two, either alone or in-combination with other plans or projects. (See paragraphs 5.3.57 to 5.3.61).

Page 237: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

146

i. There is no evidence from surveys to indicate that bottlenose dolphin occur in significant numbers or with any regularity within Project Two (See paragraphs 5.3.69 to 5.3.72 of HRA Screening Report), whilst the Estuaires et Littoral Picards (baies de Somme et d’Authie) SAC is located at a considerable distance from Project Two. Therefore, No LSEs are anticipated to occur on bottlenose dolphin populations as a result of Project Two.

Page 238: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

147

Stage 1 Matrix 99a : Falaises du Cran aux oeufs et du cap gris-nez, dunes du chatelet, marais de tardinghen et dunes de wissant SCI (Annex 1 habitat features)

Name of European site: Falaises du Cran aux oeufs et du cap gris-nez, dunes du chatelet, marais de tardinghen et dunes de wissant SCI

Distance to PROJECT TWO 326 km European site features Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Changes to habitat Changes to water quality Changes to Fishing Activity In combination effects C O D C O D C O D C O D Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time

Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide

Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Reefs Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c Vegetated sea cliffs of the Atlantic and Baltic Coasts

Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Embryonic shifting dunes Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c Shifting dunes along the shoreline with Ammophila arenaria ("white dunes")

Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Fixed coastal dunes with herbaceous vegetation ("grey dunes")

Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Dunes with Hippophaë rhamnoides

Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Dunes with Salix repens ssp. argentea (Salicion arenariae)

Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Wooded dunes of the Atlantic, Continental and Boreal region

Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Humid dune slacks Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c Oligotrophic to mesotrophic standing waters with vegetation of the Littorelletea uniflorae and/or of the Isoëto-Nanojuncetea

Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Hard oligo-mesotrophic waters with benthic vegetation of Chara spp.

Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Natural eutrophic lakes with Magnopotamion or Hydrocharition - type vegetation

Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Species-rich Nardus grasslands, on silicious substrates in mountain areas (and submountain areas in Continental Europe)

Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Molinia meadows on calcareous, Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Page 239: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

148

peaty or clayey-silt-laden soils (Molinion caeruleae) Hydrophilous tall herb fringe communities of plains and of the montane to alpine levels

Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Lowland hay meadows (Alopecurus pratensis, Sanguisorba officinalis)

Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Petrifying springs with tufa formation (Cratoneurion)

Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Alkaline fens Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c Evidence supporting conclusions a. With regard to habitat disturbance, no potential interaction (impact pathway) and no predicted effect is anticipated on the SAC (see paragraphs 5.1.2 to 5.1.11 of HRA Screening Report). No LSE predicted for the

Annex 1 habitat feature project alone or in-combination (See paragraph 5.1.55). b. No potential interaction (impact pathway) and no predicted effect is anticipated on the SAC with regard to loss of habitat (See paragraphs 5.1.31 to 5.1.34 of HRA Screening Report), introduction of hard substrate

(see paragraphs 5.1.35 to 5.1.36), habitat modification due to changes in the hydrodynamic regime (See paragraphs 5.1.37 to 5.1.43) and disturbance (See paragraphs 5.1.44 to 5.1.48) No LSE predicted for the Annex 1 habitat feature (See paragraph 5.1.55).

c. Given the distance of the SAC to the areas where increased suspended sediment and sediment deposition may occur, LSE on the feature is not anticipated to occur (see paragraphs 5.1.12 to 5.1.26 of HRA Screening Report). Also, taking into account designed-in mitigation measures and best practice approaches, LSE on the Annex I habitat feature associated with the release of sediment contaminants and/or accidental releases of pollutants is not anticipated as a result of Project Two either alone or in-combination (see paragraphs 5.1.27 to 5.1.30).

d. Taking into account designed-in mitigation measures and best practice approaches, LSE on the Annex I habitat feature associated with the release of sediment contaminants and/or accidental releases of pollutants is not anticipated as a result of Project Two, either alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.1.49 to 5.1.50 of HRA Screening Report).

e. Displacement of fishing activity will be dispersed over a large area, meaning that the specific increases in fishing activity in any one location would likely be minimal. LSEs on Annex I habitats are not anticipated as a result of Project Two either alone or in-combination (see paragraphs 5.1.51 and 5.1.52 of HRA Screening Report).

Page 240: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

149

Stage 1 Matrix 99b : Falaises du Cran aux oeufs et du cap gris-nez, dunes du chatelet, marais de tardinghen et dunes de wissant SCI (marine mammal features)

Name of European site: Falaises du Cran aux oeufs et du cap gris-nez, dunes du chatelet, marais de tardinghen et dunes de wissant SCI

Distance to PROJECT TWO 326 km European site features Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Behavioural disturbance/Physical injury Changes to water quality Changes in prey availability In combination effects C O D C O D C O D C O D Grey seal, Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Harbour seal, Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Harbour porpoise, ����c Xd Xe Xf Xf Xf Xg Xh Xg ����c Xd, f, h Xe, f, g Bottlenose dolphin Xi Xi Xi Xi Xi Xi Xi Xi Xi Xi Xi Xi Evidence supporting conclusions a. It is considered that grey seal populations from European sites located at distances greater than 145 km from Project Two, are beyond any potential for direct, and indirect effects on foraging trips. Therefore, based

upon the distance of the Falaises du Cran aux oeufs et du cap gris-nez, dunes du chatelet, marais de tardinghen et dunes de wissant SCI from Project Two, No LSEs are anticipated for grey seal as a result of Project Two alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.3.65 to 5.3.66 of HRA Screening Report).

b. It is considered that harbour seal populations from European sites located at distances greater than 120 km from Project Two, are beyond any potential for direct and indirect effects on foraging trips. Therefore, based upon the distance of the Falaises du Cran aux oeufs et du cap gris-nez, dunes du chatelet, marais de tardinghen et dunes de wissant SCI from Project Two, No LSEs are anticipated for harbour seal as a result of Project Two alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.3.67 to 5.3.68 of HRA Screening Report).

c. There is the potential for connectivity between Project Two and harbour porpoise feature of the Falaises du Cran aux oeufs et du cap gris-nez, dunes du chatelet, marais de tardinghen et dunes de wissant SCI (see paragraphs 5.3.69 to 5.3.70 of HRA Screening Report). There is potential for a LSE in respect of behavioural disturbance associated with construction pilling for up to five years No LSEs have been identified with regard to vessel noise (See paragraphs 5.3.10) and collision risk (See paragraphs 5.3.13 to 5.3.20) during Construction.

d. With regard to operational underwater turbine noise a behavioural response is only likely within close proximity to turbines and no LSE is predicted (See paragraphs 5.3.36 to 5.3.39 of HRA Screening Report). Given the anticipated localised effects of disturbance associated with vessel traffic and the wide distribution range of Annex II marine mammals species, any impacts would be expected to be very limited and LSEs on marine mammals associated with vessel noise are not anticipated alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.3.41 to 5.3.43). There is little potential for the increased vessel activity to result in a significant impact in terms of collision risk with vessels and potential corkscrew injuries and no LSEs are predicted either alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.3.44 to 5.3.50). EMF effects will be localised within the immediate vicinity of the cables and no LSEs are predicted either alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.3.51 to 5.3.54).

e. During decommissioning piling will not be required. The noise resulting from wind turbine decommissioning is unlikely to result in any injury, avoidance or significant disturbance to marine mammals and no LSE is predicted either alone or in-combination (see paragraph 5.3.9 of HRA Screening Report). As per Construction, No LSEs have been identified with regard to vessel noise (See paragraphs 5.3.10) and collision risk (See paragraphs 5.3.13 to 5.3.20) during Decommissioning.

f. During Construction and Decommissioning, potential impacts associated with increased suspended sediment concentrations will be short term, intermittent and localised. Marine mammals frequently occur in relatively turbid areas and therefore are adapted to find prey in such conditions. Furthermore, they possess mechanisms to detect prey through means other than visual detection (See paragraphs 5.3.21 to 5.3.25 of HRA Screening Report). No LSE is predicted with regard to increased suspended sediment concentrations either alone or in-combination (See paragraph 5.3.25). A number of mitigation measures and best practice approaches will be implemented during the Construction and Decommissioning and Operation phases to mitigate potential impacts associated with potential accidental pollution events. Taking adherence to such approaches, LSEs on Annex II marine mammal qualifying features associated with accidental release of pollutants are not anticipated to arise during any phase of the Project (See paragraphs 5.3.26 to 5.3.28 and 5.3.55 to 5.3.56).

g. During Construction and Decommissioning, potential impacts on prey species have been identified with regard to habitat disturbance, increased suspended sediments and underwater noise for prey species (See paragraphs 5.3.29 to 5.3.35 of HRA Screening Report). No potential impacts have been identified with regard to accidental pollution events (See paragraph 5.3.34) Whilst an impact pathway has been identified, the potential loss of prey as a result of Project Two would be expected to be minimal. The potential impacts identified on fish receptors will be localised, short term and reversible. Furthermore, the fish community found in Project Two is characteristic of the fish and shellfish assemblage of the wider region and therefore marine mammals would be able to exploit similar resources in adjacent undisturbed areas. As such, LSEs associated with changes in prey availability are not anticipated to arise as a result of Project Two, either alone or in-combination with other plans and projects (See paragraph 5.3.35).

h. Whilst an impact pathway has been identified (See paragraphs 5.3.57 to 5.3.61 of HRA Screening Report), the potential loss of prey as a result of Project Two during Operation would be expected to be minimal and highly localised. There may be increased feeding opportunities within Project Two as a result of potential reef effects and reduction in fishing activity. Furthermore, the fish community found in Project Two is characteristic of the fish and shellfish assemblage of the wider region and therefore marine mammals would be able to exploit similar resources in adjacent undisturbed areas. LSEs associated with changes in prey availability are not anticipated to arise on marine mammals as a result of Project Two, either alone or in-combination with other plans or projects. (See paragraphs 5.3.57 to 5.3.61).

Page 241: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

150

i. There is no evidence from surveys to indicate that bottlenose dolphin occur in significant numbers or with any regularity within Project Two (See paragraphs 5.3.69 to 5.3.72 of HRA Screening Report), whilst the Falaises du Cran aux oeufs et du cap gris-nez, dunes du chatelet, marais de tardinghen et dunes de wissant SCI is located at a considerable distance from Project Two. Therefore, No LSEs are anticipated to occur on bottlenose dolphin populations as a result of Project Two.

Page 242: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

151

Stage 1 Matrix 100a : Rècifs et landes de la Hague SCI (Annex 1 habitat features)

Name of European site: Rècifs et landes de la Hague SCI

Distance to PROJECT TWO 508 km European site features Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Changes to habitat Changes to water quality Changes to Fishing Activity In combination effects C O D C O D C O D C O D Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time

Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide

Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Reefs Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c Annual vegetation of drift lines Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c Vegetated sea cliffs of the Atlantic and Baltic Coasts

Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Atlantic salt meadows (Glauco-Puccinellietalia maritimae)

Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Humid dune slacks Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c European dry heaths Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c Hydrophilous tall herb fringe communities of plains and of the montane to alpine levels

Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Degraded raised bogs still capable of natural regeneration

Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Atlantic acidophilous beech forests with Ilex and sometimes also Taxus in the shrublayer (Quercion robori-petraeae or Ilici-Fagenion)

Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Tilio-Acerion forests of slopes, screes and ravines

Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Evidence supporting conclusions a. With regard to habitat disturbance, no potential interaction (impact pathway) and no predicted effect is anticipated on the SAC (see paragraphs 5.1.2 to 5.1.11 of HRA Screening Report). No LSE predicted for the

Annex 1 habitat feature project alone or in-combination (See paragraph 5.1.55). b. No potential interaction (impact pathway) and no predicted effect is anticipated on the SAC with regard to loss of habitat (See paragraphs 5.1.31 to 5.1.34 of HRA Screening Report), introduction of hard substrate

(see paragraphs 5.1.35 to 5.1.36), habitat modification due to changes in the hydrodynamic regime (See paragraphs 5.1.37 to 5.1.43) and disturbance (See paragraphs 5.1.44 to 5.1.48) No LSE predicted for the Annex 1 habitat feature (See paragraph 5.1.55).

c. Given the distance of the SAC to the areas where increased suspended sediment and sediment deposition may occur, LSE on the feature is not anticipated to occur (see paragraphs 5.1.12 to 5.1.26 of HRA Screening Report). Also, taking into account designed-in mitigation measures and best practice approaches, LSE on the Annex I habitat feature associated with the release of sediment contaminants and/or accidental releases of pollutants is not anticipated as a result of Project Two either alone or in-combination (see paragraphs 5.1.27 to 5.1.30).

d. Taking into account designed-in mitigation measures and best practice approaches, LSE on the Annex I habitat feature associated with the release of sediment contaminants and/or accidental releases of pollutants is not anticipated as a result of Project Two, either alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.1.49 to 5.1.50 of HRA Screening Report).

Page 243: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

152

e. Displacement of fishing activity will be dispersed over a large area, meaning that the specific increases in fishing activity in any one location would likely be minimal. LSEs on Annex I habitats are not anticipated as a result of Project Two either alone or in-combination (see paragraphs 5.1.51 and 5.1.52 of HRA Screening Report).

Page 244: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

153

Stage 1 Matrix 100b : Rècifs et landes de la Hague SCI (marine mammal features)

Name of European site: Rècifs et landes de la Hague SCI

Distance to PROJECT TWO 508 km European site features Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Behavioural disturbance/Physical injury Changes to water quality Changes in prey availability In combination effects C O D C O D C O D C O D Grey seal Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Harbour seal Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Harbour porpoise ����c Xd Xe Xf Xf Xf Xg Xh Xg ����c Xd, f, h Xe, f, g Bottlenose dolphin Xi Xi Xi Xi Xi Xi Xi Xi Xi Xi Xi Xi Evidence supporting conclusions a. It is considered that grey seal populations from European sites located at distances greater than 145 km from Project Two, are beyond any potential for direct, and indirect effects on foraging trips. Therefore, based

upon the distance of the Rècifs et landes de la Hague SCI from Project Two, No LSEs are anticipated for grey seal as a result of Project Two alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.3.65 to 5.3.66 of HRA Screening Report).

b. It is considered that harbour seal populations from European sites located at distances greater than 120 km from Project Two, are beyond any potential for direct and indirect effects on foraging trips. Therefore, based upon the distance of the Rècifs et landes de la Hague SCI from Project Two, No LSEs are anticipated for harbour seal as a result of Project Two alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.3.67 to 5.3.68 of HRA Screening Report).

c. There is the potential for connectivity between Project Two and harbour porpoise feature of the Rècifs et landes de la Hague SCI (see paragraphs 5.3.69 to 5.3.70 of HRA Screening Report). There is potential for a LSE in respect of behavioural disturbance associated with construction pilling for up to five years. No LSEs have been identified with regard to vessel noise (See paragraphs 5.3.10) and collision risk (See paragraphs 5.3.13 to 5.3.20) during Construction.

d. With regard to operational underwater turbine noise a behavioural response is only likely within close proximity to turbines and no LSE is predicted (See paragraphs 5.3.36 to 5.3.39 of HRA Screening Report). Given the anticipated localised effects of disturbance associated with vessel traffic and the wide distribution range of Annex II marine mammals species, any impacts would be expected to be very limited and LSEs on marine mammals associated with vessel noise are not anticipated alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.3.41 to 5.3.43). There is little potential for the increased vessel activity to result in a significant impact in terms of collision risk with vessels and potential corkscrew injuries and no LSEs are predicted either alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.3.44 to 5.3.50). EMF effects will be localised within the immediate vicinity of the cables and no LSEs are predicted either alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.3.51 to 5.3.54).

e. During decommissioning piling will not be required. The noise resulting from wind turbine decommissioning is unlikely to result in any injury, avoidance or significant disturbance to marine mammals and no LSE is predicted either alone or in-combination (see paragraph 5.3.9 of HRA Screening Report). As per Construction, No LSEs have been identified with regard to vessel noise (See paragraphs 5.3.10) and collision risk (See paragraphs 5.3.13 to 5.3.20) during Decommissioning.

f. During Construction and Decommissioning, potential impacts associated with increased suspended sediment concentrations will be short term, intermittent and localised. Marine mammals frequently occur in relatively turbid areas and therefore are adapted to find prey in such conditions. Furthermore, they possess mechanisms to detect prey through means other than visual detection (See paragraphs 5.3.21 to 5.3.25 of HRA Screening Report). No LSE is predicted with regard to increased suspended sediment concentrations either alone or in-combination (See paragraph 5.3.25). A number of mitigation measures and best practice approaches will be implemented during the Construction and Decommissioning and Operation phases to mitigate potential impacts associated with potential accidental pollution events. Taking adherence to such approaches, LSEs on Annex II marine mammal qualifying features associated with accidental release of pollutants are not anticipated to arise during any phase of the Project (See paragraphs 5.3.26 to 5.3.28 and 5.3.55 to 5.3.56).

g. During Construction and Decommissioning, potential impacts on prey species have been identified with regard to habitat disturbance, increased suspended sediments and underwater noise for prey species (See paragraphs 5.3.29 to 5.3.35 of HRA Screening Report). No potential impacts have been identified with regard to accidental pollution events (See paragraph 5.3.34) Whilst an impact pathway has been identified, the potential loss of prey as a result of Project Two would be expected to be minimal. The potential impacts identified on fish receptors will be localised, short term and reversible. Furthermore, the fish community found in Project Two is characteristic of the fish and shellfish assemblage of the wider region and therefore marine mammals would be able to exploit similar resources in adjacent undisturbed areas. As such, LSEs associated with changes in prey availability are not anticipated to arise as a result of Project Two, either alone or in-combination with other plans and projects (See paragraph 5.3.35).

h. Whilst an impact pathway has been identified (See paragraphs 5.3.57 to 5.3.61 of HRA Screening Report), the potential loss of prey as a result of Project Two during Operation would be expected to be minimal and highly localised. There may be increased feeding opportunities within Project Two as a result of potential reef effects and reduction in fishing activity. Furthermore, the fish community found in Project Two is characteristic of the fish and shellfish assemblage of the wider region and therefore marine mammals would be able to exploit similar resources in adjacent undisturbed areas. LSEs associated with changes in prey availability are not anticipated to arise on marine mammals as a result of Project Two, either alone or in-combination with other plans or projects. (See paragraphs 5.3.57 to 5.3.61).

Page 245: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

154

i. There is no evidence from surveys to indicate that bottlenose dolphin occur in significant numbers or with any regularity within Project Two (See paragraphs 5.3.69 to 5.3.72 of HRA Screening Report), whilst the Rècifs et landes de la Hague SCI is located at a considerable distance from Project Two. Therefore, No LSEs are anticipated to occur on bottlenose dolphin populations as a result of Project Two.

Page 246: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

155

Stage 1 Matrix 101a : Récifs et marais arrière-littoraux du Cap Lévi à la Pointe de Saire SCI (Annex 1 habitat features)

Name of European site: Récifs et marais arrière-littoraux du Cap Lévi à la Pointe de Saire SCI

Distance to PROJECT TWO 490 km European site features Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Changes to habitat Changes to water quality Changes to Fishing Activity In combination effects C O D C O D C O D C O D Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time

Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide

Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Reefs Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c Annual vegetation of drift lines Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c Perennial vegetation of stony banks

Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Vegetated sea cliffs of the Atlantic and Baltic Coasts

Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Salicornia and other annuals colonizing mud and sand

Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Atlantic salt meadows (Glauco-Puccinellietalia maritimae)

Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Mediterranean salt meadows (Juncetalia maritimi)

Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Embryonic shifting dunes Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c Shifting dunes along the shoreline with Ammophila arenaria ("white dunes")

Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Fixed coastal dunes with herbaceous vegetation ("grey dunes")

Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Humid dune slacks Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c Oligotrophic waters containing very few minerals of sandy plains (Littorelletalia uniflorae)

Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

European dry heaths Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c Species-rich Nardus grasslands, on silicious substrates in mountain areas (and submountain areas in Continental Europe)

Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Molinia meadows on calcareous, peaty or clayey-silt-laden soils (Molinion caeruleae)

Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Hydrophilous tall herb fringe Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Page 247: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

156

communities of plains and of the montane to alpine levels Lowland hay meadows (Alopecurus pratensis, Sanguisorba officinalis)

Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Atlantic acidophilous beech forests with Ilex and sometimes also Taxus in the shrublayer (Quercion robori-petraeae or Ilici-Fagenion)

Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Evidence supporting conclusions a. With regard to habitat disturbance, no potential interaction (impact pathway) and no predicted effect is anticipated on the SAC (see paragraphs 5.1.2 to 5.1.11 of HRA Screening Report). No LSE predicted for the

Annex 1 habitat feature project alone or in-combination (See paragraph 5.1.55). b. No potential interaction (impact pathway) and no predicted effect is anticipated on the SAC with regard to loss of habitat (See paragraphs 5.1.31 to 5.1.34 of HRA Screening Report), introduction of hard substrate

(see paragraphs 5.1.35 to 5.1.36), habitat modification due to changes in the hydrodynamic regime (See paragraphs 5.1.37 to 5.1.43) and disturbance (See paragraphs 5.1.44 to 5.1.48) No LSE predicted for the Annex 1 habitat feature (See paragraph 5.1.55).

c. Given the distance of the SAC to the areas where increased suspended sediment and sediment deposition may occur, LSE on the feature is not anticipated to occur (see paragraphs 5.1.12 to 5.1.26 of HRA Screening Report). Also, taking into account designed-in mitigation measures and best practice approaches, LSE on the Annex I habitat feature associated with the release of sediment contaminants and/or accidental releases of pollutants is not anticipated as a result of Project Two either alone or in-combination (see paragraphs 5.1.27 to 5.1.30).

d. Taking into account designed-in mitigation measures and best practice approaches, LSE on the Annex I habitat feature associated with the release of sediment contaminants and/or accidental releases of pollutants is not anticipated as a result of Project Two, either alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.1.49 to 5.1.50 of HRA Screening Report).

e. Displacement of fishing activity will be dispersed over a large area, meaning that the specific increases in fishing activity in any one location would likely be minimal. LSEs on Annex I habitats are not anticipated as a result of Project Two either alone or in-combination (see paragraphs 5.1.51 and 5.1.52 of HRA Screening Report).

Page 248: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

157

Stage 1 Matrix 101b : Récifs et marais arrière-littoraux du Cap Lévi à la Pointe de Saire SCI (marine mammal features)

Name of European site: Récifs et marais arrière-littoraux du Cap Lévi à la Pointe de Saire SCI

Distance to PROJECT TWO 490 km European site features Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Behavioural disturbance/Physical injury Changes to water quality Changes in prey availability In combination effects C O D C O D C O D C O D Grey seal Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Harbour seal Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Harbour porpoise ����c Xd Xe Xf Xf Xf Xg Xh Xg ����c Xd, f, h Xe, f, g Bottlenose dolphin Xi Xi Xi Xi Xi Xi Xi Xi Xi Xi Xi Xi Evidence supporting conclusions a. It is considered that grey seal populations from European sites located at distances greater than 145 km from Project Two, are beyond any potential for direct, and indirect effects on foraging trips. Therefore, based

upon the distance of the Récifs et marais arrière-littoraux du Cap Lévi à la Pointe de Saire SCI from Project Two, No LSEs are anticipated for grey seal as a result of Project Two alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.3.65 to 5.3.66 of HRA Screening Report).

b. It is considered that harbour seal populations from European sites located at distances greater than 120 km from Project Two, are beyond any potential for direct and indirect effects on foraging trips. Therefore, based upon the distance of the Récifs et marais arrière-littoraux du Cap Lévi à la Pointe de Saire SCI from Project Two, No LSEs are anticipated for harbour seal as a result of Project Two alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.3.67 to 5.3.68 of HRA Screening Report).

c. There is the potential for connectivity between Project Two and harbour porpoise feature of the Récifs et marais arrière-littoraux du Cap Lévi à la Pointe de Saire SCI (see paragraphs 5.3.69 to 5.3.70 of HRA Screening Report). There is potential for a LSE in respect of behavioural disturbance associated with construction pilling for up to five years. No LSEs have been identified with regard to vessel noise (See paragraphs 5.3.10) and collision risk (See paragraphs 5.3.13 to 5.3.20) during Construction.

d. With regard to operational underwater turbine noise a behavioural response is only likely within close proximity to turbines and no LSE is predicted (See paragraphs 5.3.36 to 5.3.39 of HRA Screening Report). Given the anticipated localised effects of disturbance associated with vessel traffic and the wide distribution range of Annex II marine mammals species, any impacts would be expected to be very limited and LSEs on marine mammals associated with vessel noise are not anticipated alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.3.41 to 5.3.43). There is little potential for the increased vessel activity to result in a significant impact in terms of collision risk with vessels and potential corkscrew injuries and no LSEs are predicted either alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.3.44 to 5.3.50). EMF effects will be localised within the immediate vicinity of the cables and no LSEs are predicted either alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.3.51 to 5.3.54).

e. During decommissioning piling will not be required. The noise resulting from wind turbine decommissioning is unlikely to result in any injury, avoidance or significant disturbance to marine mammals and no LSE is predicted either alone or in-combination (see paragraph 5.3.9 of HRA Screening Report). As per Construction, No LSEs have been identified with regard to vessel noise (See paragraphs 5.3.10) and collision risk (See paragraphs 5.3.13 to 5.3.20) during Decommissioning.

f. During Construction and Decommissioning, potential impacts associated with increased suspended sediment concentrations will be short term, intermittent and localised. Marine mammals frequently occur in relatively turbid areas and therefore are adapted to find prey in such conditions. Furthermore, they possess mechanisms to detect prey through means other than visual detection (See paragraphs 5.3.21 to 5.3.25 of HRA Screening Report). No LSE is predicted with regard to increased suspended sediment concentrations either alone or in-combination (See paragraph 5.3.25). A number of mitigation measures and best practice approaches will be implemented during the Construction and Decommissioning and Operation phases to mitigate potential impacts associated with potential accidental pollution events. Taking adherence to such approaches, LSEs on Annex II marine mammal qualifying features associated with accidental release of pollutants are not anticipated to arise during any phase of the Project (See paragraphs 5.3.26 to 5.3.28 and 5.3.55 to 5.3.56).

g. During Construction and Decommissioning, potential impacts on prey species have been identified with regard to habitat disturbance, increased suspended sediments and underwater noise for prey species (See paragraphs 5.3.29 to 5.3.35 of HRA Screening Report). No potential impacts have been identified with regard to accidental pollution events (See paragraph 5.3.34) Whilst an impact pathway has been identified, the potential loss of prey as a result of Project Two would be expected to be minimal. The potential impacts identified on fish receptors will be localised, short term and reversible. Furthermore, the fish community found in Project Two is characteristic of the fish and shellfish assemblage of the wider region and therefore marine mammals would be able to exploit similar resources in adjacent undisturbed areas. As such, LSEs associated with changes in prey availability are not anticipated to arise as a result of Project Two, either alone or in-combination with other plans and projects (See paragraph 5.3.35).

h. Whilst an impact pathway has been identified (See paragraphs 5.3.57 to 5.3.61 of HRA Screening Report), the potential loss of prey as a result of Project Two during Operation would be expected to be minimal and highly localised. There may be increased feeding opportunities within Project Two as a result of potential reef effects and reduction in fishing activity. Furthermore, the fish community found in Project Two is characteristic of the fish and shellfish assemblage of the wider region and therefore marine mammals would be able to exploit similar resources in adjacent undisturbed areas. LSEs associated with changes in prey availability are not anticipated to arise on marine mammals as a result of Project Two, either alone or in-combination with other plans or projects. (See paragraphs 5.3.57 to 5.3.61).

Page 249: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

158

i. There is no evidence from surveys to indicate that bottlenose dolphin occur in significant numbers or with any regularity within Project Two (See paragraphs 5.3.69 to 5.3.72 of HRA Screening Report), whilst the Récifs et marais arrière-littoraux du Cap Lévi à la Pointe de Saire SCI is located at a considerable distance from Project Two. Therefore, No LSEs are anticipated to occur on bottlenose dolphin populations as a result of Project Two.

Page 250: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

159

Stage 1 Matrix 102a : Récifs Gris-Nez Blanc-Nez SCI (Annex 1 habitat features)

Name of European site: Récifs Gris-Nez Blanc-Nez SCI

Distance to PROJECT TWO 315 km European site features Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Changes to habitat Changes to water quality Changes to Fishing Activity In combination effects C O D C O D C O D C O D Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time

Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Reefs Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c Evidence supporting conclusions a. With regard to habitat disturbance, no potential interaction (impact pathway) and no predicted effect is anticipated on the SAC (see paragraphs 5.1.2 to 5.1.11 of HRA Screening Report). No LSE predicted for the

Annex 1 habitat feature project alone or in-combination (See paragraph 5.1.55). b. No potential interaction (impact pathway) and no predicted effect is anticipated on the SAC with regard to loss of habitat (See paragraphs 5.1.31 to 5.1.34 of HRA Screening Report), introduction of hard substrate

(see paragraphs 5.1.35 to 5.1.36), habitat modification due to changes in the hydrodynamic regime (See paragraphs 5.1.37 to 5.1.43) and disturbance (See paragraphs 5.1.44 to 5.1.48) No LSE predicted for the Annex 1 habitat feature (See paragraph 5.1.55).

c. Given the distance of the SAC to the areas where increased suspended sediment and sediment deposition may occur, LSE on the feature is not anticipated to occur (see paragraphs 5.1.12 to 5.1.26 of HRA Screening Report). Also, taking into account designed-in mitigation measures and best practice approaches, LSE on the Annex I habitat feature associated with the release of sediment contaminants and/or accidental releases of pollutants is not anticipated as a result of Project Two either alone or in-combination (see paragraphs 5.1.27 to 5.1.30).

d. Taking into account designed-in mitigation measures and best practice approaches, LSE on the Annex I habitat feature associated with the release of sediment contaminants and/or accidental releases of pollutants is not anticipated as a result of Project Two, either alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.1.49 to 5.1.50 of HRA Screening Report).

e. Displacement of fishing activity will be dispersed over a large area, meaning that the specific increases in fishing activity in any one location would likely be minimal. LSEs on Annex I habitats are not anticipated as a result of Project Two either alone or in-combination (see paragraphs 5.1.51 and 5.1.52 of HRA Screening Report).

Page 251: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

160

Stage 1 Matrix 102b : Récifs Gris-Nez Blanc-Nez SCI (marine mammal features)

Name of European site: Récifs Gris-Nez Blanc-Nez SCI

Distance to PROJECT TWO 315 km European site features Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Behavioural disturbance/Physical injury Changes to water quality Changes in prey availability In combination effects C O D C O D C O D C O D Grey seal, Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Harbour seal, Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Harbour porpoise ����c Xd Xe Xf Xf Xf Xg Xh Xg ����c Xd, f, h Xe, f, g Evidence supporting conclusions a. It is considered that grey seal populations from European sites located at distances greater than 145 km from Project Two, are beyond any potential for direct, and indirect effects on foraging trips. Therefore, based

upon the distance of the Récifs Gris-Nez Blanc-Nez SCI from Project Two, No LSEs are anticipated for grey seal as a result of Project Two alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.3.65 to 5.3.66 of HRA Screening Report).

b. It is considered that harbour seal populations from European sites located at distances greater than 120 km from Project Two, are beyond any potential for direct and indirect effects on foraging trips. Therefore, based upon the distance of the Récifs Gris-Nez Blanc-Nez SCI from Project Two, No LSEs are anticipated for harbour seal as a result of Project Two alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.3.67 to 5.3.68 of HRA Screening Report).

c. There is the potential for connectivity between Project Two and harbour porpoise feature of the Récifs Gris-Nez Blanc-Nez SCI (see paragraphs 5.3.69 to 5.3.70 of HRA Screening Report). There is potential for a LSE in respect of behavioural disturbance associated with construction pilling for up to five years. No LSEs have been identified with regard to vessel noise (See paragraphs 5.3.10) and collision risk (See paragraphs 5.3.13 to 5.3.20) during Construction.

d. With regard to operational underwater turbine noise a behavioural response is only likely within close proximity to turbines and no LSE is predicted (See paragraphs 5.3.36 to 5.3.39 of HRA Screening Report). Given the anticipated localised effects of disturbance associated with vessel traffic and the wide distribution range of Annex II marine mammals species, any impacts would be expected to be very limited and LSEs on marine mammals associated with vessel noise are not anticipated alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.3.41 to 5.3.43). There is little potential for the increased vessel activity to result in a significant impact in terms of collision risk with vessels and potential corkscrew injuries and no LSEs are predicted either alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.3.44 to 5.3.50). EMF effects will be localised within the immediate vicinity of the cables and no LSEs are predicted either alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.3.51 to 5.3.54).

e. During decommissioning piling will not be required. The noise resulting from wind turbine decommissioning is unlikely to result in any injury, avoidance or significant disturbance to marine mammals and no LSE is predicted either alone or in-combination (see paragraph 5.3.9 of HRA Screening Report). As per Construction, No LSEs have been identified with regard to vessel noise (See paragraphs 5.3.10) and collision risk (See paragraphs 5.3.13 to 5.3.20) during Decommissioning.

f. During Construction and Decommissioning, potential impacts associated with increased suspended sediment concentrations will be short term, intermittent and localised. Marine mammals frequently occur in relatively turbid areas and therefore are adapted to find prey in such conditions. Furthermore, they possess mechanisms to detect prey through means other than visual detection (See paragraphs 5.3.21 to 5.3.25 of HRA Screening Report). No LSE is predicted with regard to increased suspended sediment concentrations either alone or in-combination (See paragraph 5.3.25). A number of mitigation measures and best practice approaches will be implemented during the Construction and Decommissioning and Operation phases to mitigate potential impacts associated with potential accidental pollution events. Taking adherence to such approaches, LSEs on Annex II marine mammal qualifying features associated with accidental release of pollutants are not anticipated to arise during any phase of the Project (See paragraphs 5.3.26 to 5.3.28 and 5.3.55 to 5.3.56).

g. During Construction and Decommissioning, potential impacts on prey species have been identified with regard to habitat disturbance, increased suspended sediments and underwater noise for prey species (See paragraphs 5.3.29 to 5.3.35 of HRA Screening Report). No potential impacts have been identified with regard to accidental pollution events (See paragraph 5.3.34) Whilst an impact pathway has been identified, the potential loss of prey as a result of Project Two would be expected to be minimal. The potential impacts identified on fish receptors will be localised, short term and reversible. Furthermore, the fish community found in Project Two is characteristic of the fish and shellfish assemblage of the wider region and therefore marine mammals would be able to exploit similar resources in adjacent undisturbed areas. As such, LSEs associated with changes in prey availability are not anticipated to arise as a result of Project Two, either alone or in-combination with other plans and projects (See paragraph 5.3.35).

h. Whilst an impact pathway has been identified (See paragraphs 5.3.57 to 5.3.61 of HRA Screening Report), the potential loss of prey as a result of Project Two during Operation would be expected to be minimal and highly localised. There may be increased feeding opportunities within Project Two as a result of potential reef effects and reduction in fishing activity. Furthermore, the fish community found in Project Two is characteristic of the fish and shellfish assemblage of the wider region and therefore marine mammals would be able to exploit similar resources in adjacent undisturbed areas. LSEs associated with changes in prey availability are not anticipated to arise on marine mammals as a result of Project Two, either alone or in-combination with other plans or projects. (See paragraphs 5.3.57 to 5.3.61).

Page 252: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

161

Stage 1 Matrix 103a : Ridens et dunes hydrauliques du detroit du pas-de-calais pSCI (Annex 1 habitat features)

Name of European site: Ridens et dunes hydrauliques du detroit du pas-de-calais pSCI

Distance to PROJECT TWO 320 km European site features Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Changes to habitat Changes to water quality Changes to Fishing Activity In combination effects C O D C O D C O D C O D Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time

Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Reefs

Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Evidence supporting conclusions a. With regard to habitat disturbance, no potential interaction (impact pathway) and no predicted effect is anticipated on the SAC (see paragraphs 5.1.2 to 5.1.11 of HRA Screening Report). No LSE predicted for the

Annex 1 habitat feature project alone or in-combination (See paragraph 5.1.55). b. No potential interaction (impact pathway) and no predicted effect is anticipated on the SAC with regard to loss of habitat (See paragraphs 5.1.31 to 5.1.34 of HRA Screening Report), introduction of hard substrate

(see paragraphs 5.1.35 to 5.1.36), habitat modification due to changes in the hydrodynamic regime (See paragraphs 5.1.37 to 5.1.43) and disturbance (See paragraphs 5.1.44 to 5.1.48) No LSE predicted for the Annex 1 habitat feature (See paragraph 5.1.55).

c. Given the distance of the SAC to the areas where increased suspended sediment and sediment deposition may occur, LSE on the feature is not anticipated to occur (see paragraphs 5.1.12 to 5.1.26 of HRA Screening Report). Also, taking into account designed-in mitigation measures and best practice approaches, LSE on the Annex I habitat feature associated with the release of sediment contaminants and/or accidental releases of pollutants is not anticipated as a result of Project Two either alone or in-combination (see paragraphs 5.1.27 to 5.1.30).

d. Taking into account designed-in mitigation measures and best practice approaches, LSE on the Annex I habitat feature associated with the release of sediment contaminants and/or accidental releases of pollutants is not anticipated as a result of Project Two, either alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.1.49 to 5.1.50 of HRA Screening Report).

e. Displacement of fishing activity will be dispersed over a large area, meaning that the specific increases in fishing activity in any one location would likely be minimal. LSEs on Annex I habitats are not anticipated as a result of Project Two either alone or in-combination (see paragraphs 5.1.51 and 5.1.52 of HRA Screening Report).

Page 253: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

162

Stage 1 Matrix 103b : Ridens et dunes hydrauliques du detroit du pas-de-calais pSCI (marine mammal features)

Name of European site: Ridens et dunes hydrauliques du detroit du pas-de-calais pSCI

Distance to PROJECT TWO 320 km European site features Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Behavioural disturbance/Physical injury Changes to water quality Changes in prey availability In combination effects C O D C O D C O D C O D Grey seal Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Harbour seal Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Harbour porpoise ����c Xd Xe Xf Xf Xf Xg Xh Xg ����c Xd, f, h Xe, f, g Evidence supporting conclusions a. It is considered that grey seal populations from European sites located at distances greater than 145 km from Project Two, are beyond any potential for direct, and indirect effects on foraging trips. Therefore, based

upon the distance of the Ridens et dunes hydrauliques du detroit du pas-de-calais pSCI from Project Two, No LSEs are anticipated for grey seal as a result of Project Two alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.3.65 to 5.3.66 of HRA Screening Report).

b. It is considered that harbour seal populations from European sites located at distances greater than 120 km from Project Two, are beyond any potential for direct and indirect effects on foraging trips. Therefore, based upon the distance of the Ridens et dunes hydrauliques du detroit du pas-de-calais pSCI from Project Two, No LSEs are anticipated for harbour seal as a result of Project Two alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.3.67 to 5.3.68 of HRA Screening Report).

c. There is the potential for connectivity between Project Two and harbour porpoise feature of the Ridens et dunes hydrauliques du detroit du pas-de-calais pSCI (see paragraphs 5.3.69 to 5.3.70 of HRA Screening Report). There is potential for a LSE in respect of behavioural disturbance associated with construction pilling for up to five years. No LSEs have been identified with regard to vessel noise (See paragraphs 5.3.10) and collision risk (See paragraphs 5.3.13 to 5.3.20) during Construction.

d. With regard to operational underwater turbine noise a behavioural response is only likely within close proximity to turbines and no LSE is predicted (See paragraphs 5.3.36 to 5.3.39 of HRA Screening Report). Given the anticipated localised effects of disturbance associated with vessel traffic and the wide distribution range of Annex II marine mammals species, any impacts would be expected to be very limited and LSEs on marine mammals associated with vessel noise are not anticipated alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.3.41 to 5.3.43). There is little potential for the increased vessel activity to result in a significant impact in terms of collision risk with vessels and potential corkscrew injuries and no LSEs are predicted either alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.3.44 to 5.3.50). EMF effects will be localised within the immediate vicinity of the cables and no LSEs are predicted either alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.3.51 to 5.3.54).

e. During decommissioning piling will not be required. The noise resulting from wind turbine decommissioning is unlikely to result in any injury, avoidance or significant disturbance to marine mammals and no LSE is predicted either alone or in-combination (see paragraph 5.3.9 of HRA Screening Report). As per Construction, No LSEs have been identified with regard to vessel noise (See paragraphs 5.3.10) and collision risk (See paragraphs 5.3.13 to 5.3.20) during Decommissioning.

f. During Construction and Decommissioning, potential impacts associated with increased suspended sediment concentrations will be short term, intermittent and localised. Marine mammals frequently occur in relatively turbid areas and therefore are adapted to find prey in such conditions. Furthermore, they possess mechanisms to detect prey through means other than visual detection (See paragraphs 5.3.21 to 5.3.25 of HRA Screening Report). No LSE is predicted with regard to increased suspended sediment concentrations either alone or in-combination (See paragraph 5.3.25). A number of mitigation measures and best practice approaches will be implemented during the Construction and Decommissioning and Operation phases to mitigate potential impacts associated with potential accidental pollution events. Taking adherence to such approaches, LSEs on Annex II marine mammal qualifying features associated with accidental release of pollutants are not anticipated to arise during any phase of the Project (See paragraphs 5.3.26 to 5.3.28 and 5.3.55 to 5.3.56).

g. During Construction and Decommissioning, potential impacts on prey species have been identified with regard to habitat disturbance, increased suspended sediments and underwater noise for prey species (See paragraphs 5.3.29 to 5.3.35 of HRA Screening Report). No potential impacts have been identified with regard to accidental pollution events (See paragraph 5.3.34) Whilst an impact pathway has been identified, the potential loss of prey as a result of Project Two would be expected to be minimal. The potential impacts identified on fish receptors will be localised, short term and reversible. Furthermore, the fish community found in Project Two is characteristic of the fish and shellfish assemblage of the wider region and therefore marine mammals would be able to exploit similar resources in adjacent undisturbed areas. As such, LSEs associated with changes in prey availability are not anticipated to arise as a result of Project Two, either alone or in-combination with other plans and projects (See paragraph 5.3.35).

h. Whilst an impact pathway has been identified (See paragraphs 5.3.57 to 5.3.61 of HRA Screening Report), the potential loss of prey as a result of Project Two during Operation would be expected to be minimal and highly localised. There may be increased feeding opportunities within Project Two as a result of potential reef effects and reduction in fishing activity. Furthermore, the fish community found in Project Two is characteristic of the fish and shellfish assemblage of the wider region and therefore marine mammals would be able to exploit similar resources in adjacent undisturbed areas. LSEs associated with changes in prey availability are not anticipated to arise on marine mammals as a result of Project Two, either alone or in-combination with other plans or projects. (See paragraphs 5.3.57 to 5.3.61).

Page 254: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

163

Stage 1 Matrix 104a : Doggersbank pSCI (Annex 1 habitat features)

Name of European site: Doggersbank pSCI

Distance to PROJECT TWO 63 km European site features Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Changes to habitat Changes to water quality Changes to Fishing Activity In combination effects C O D C O D C O D C O D Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time

Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Evidence supporting conclusions a. With regard to habitat disturbance, no potential interaction (impact pathway) and no predicted effect is anticipated on the SAC (see paragraphs 5.1.2 to 5.1.11 of HRA Screening Report). No LSE predicted for the

Annex 1 habitat feature project alone or in-combination (See paragraph 5.1.55). b. No potential interaction (impact pathway) and no predicted effect is anticipated on the SAC with regard to loss of habitat (See paragraphs 5.1.31 to 5.1.34 of HRA Screening Report), introduction of hard substrate

(see paragraphs 5.1.35 to 5.1.36), habitat modification due to changes in the hydrodynamic regime (See paragraphs 5.1.37 to 5.1.43) and disturbance (See paragraphs 5.1.44 to 5.1.48) No LSE predicted for the Annex 1 habitat feature (See paragraph 5.1.55).

c. Given the distance of the SAC to the areas where increased suspended sediment and sediment deposition may occur, LSE on the feature is not anticipated to occur (see paragraphs 5.1.12 to 5.1.26 of HRA Screening Report). Also, taking into account designed-in mitigation measures and best practice approaches, LSE on the Annex I habitat feature associated with the release of sediment contaminants and/or accidental releases of pollutants is not anticipated as a result of Project Two either alone or in-combination (see paragraphs 5.1.27 to 5.1.30).

d. Taking into account designed-in mitigation measures and best practice approaches, LSE on the Annex I habitat feature associated with the release of sediment contaminants and/or accidental releases of pollutants is not anticipated as a result of Project Two, either alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.1.49 to 5.1.50 of HRA Screening Report).

e. Displacement of fishing activity will be dispersed over a large area, meaning that the specific increases in fishing activity in any one location would likely be minimal. LSEs on Annex I habitats are not anticipated as a result of Project Two either alone or in-combination (see paragraphs 5.1.51 and 5.1.52 of HRA Screening Report).

Page 255: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

164

Stage 1 Matrix 104b : Doggersbank pSCI (marine mammal features)

Name of European site: Doggersbank pSCI

Distance to PROJECT TWO 63 km European site features Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Behavioural disturbance/Physical injury Changes to water quality Changes in prey availability In combination effects C O D C O D C O D C O D Grey seal ����a Xd Xe Xf Xf Xf Xg Xh Xg ����a Xd, f, h Xe, f, g Harbour seal ����b Xd Xe Xf Xf Xf Xg Xh Xg ����b Xd, f, h Xe, f, g Harbour porpoise ����c Xd Xe Xf Xf Xf Xg Xh Xg ����c Xd, f, h Xe, f, g Evidence supporting conclusions a. It is considered that there is potential for connectivity between Project Two and the Doggersbank pSCI with regard to Grey seal (See paragraphs 5.3.65 and 5.3.66 of HRA Screening Report). There is potential for a

LSE in respect of behavioural disturbance associated with construction pilling for up to five years. No LSEs have been identified with regard to vessel noise (See paragraphs 5.3.10) and collision risk (See paragraphs 5.3.13 to 5.3.20) during Construction.

b. It is considered that there is potential for connectivity between Project Two and the Doggersbank pSCI with regard to Harbour seal (See paragraphs 5.3.67 and 5.3.68 of HRA Screening Report). There is potential for a LSE in respect of behavioural disturbance associated with construction pilling for up to five years. No LSEs have been identified with regard to vessel noise (See paragraphs 5.3.10) and collision risk (See paragraphs 5.3.13 to 5.3.20) during Construction.

c. It is considered that there is potential for connectivity between Project Two and the Doggersbank pSCI with regard to Harbour porpoise (See paragraphs 5.3.69 and 5.3.70 of HRA Screening Report). There is potential for a LSE in respect of behavioural disturbance associated with construction pilling for up to five years. No LSEs have been identified with regard to vessel noise (See paragraphs 5.3.10) and collision risk (See paragraphs 5.3.13 to 5.3.20) during Construction.

d. With regard to operational underwater turbine noise a behavioural response is only likely within close proximity to turbines and no LSE is predicted (See paragraphs 5.3.36 to 5.3.39 of HRA Screening Report). Given the anticipated localised effects of disturbance associated with vessel traffic and the wide distribution range of Annex II marine mammals species, any impacts would be expected to be very limited and LSEs on marine mammals associated with vessel noise are not anticipated alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.3.41 to 5.3.43). There is little potential for the increased vessel activity to result in a significant impact in terms of collision risk with vessels and potential corkscrew injuries and no LSEs are predicted either alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.3.44 to 5.3.50). EMF effects will be localised within the immediate vicinity of the cables and no LSEs are predicted either alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.3.51 to 5.3.54).

e. During decommissioning piling will not be required. The noise resulting from wind turbine decommissioning is unlikely to result in any injury, avoidance or significant disturbance to marine mammals and no LSE is predicted either alone or in-combination (see paragraph 5.3.9 of HRA Screening Report). As per Construction, No LSEs have been identified with regard to vessel noise (See paragraphs 5.3.10) and collision risk (See paragraphs 5.3.13 to 5.3.20) during Decommissioning.

f. During Construction and Decommissioning, potential impacts associated with increased suspended sediment concentrations will be short term, intermittent and localised. Marine mammals frequently occur in relatively turbid areas and therefore are adapted to find prey in such conditions. Furthermore, they possess mechanisms to detect prey through means other than visual detection (See paragraphs 5.3.21 to 5.3.25 of HRA Screening Report). No LSE is predicted with regard to increased suspended sediment concentrations either alone or in-combination (See paragraph 5.3.25). A number of mitigation measures and best practice approaches will be implemented during the Construction and Decommissioning and Operation phases to mitigate potential impacts associated with potential accidental pollution events. Taking adherence to such approaches, LSEs on Annex II marine mammal qualifying features associated with accidental release of pollutants are not anticipated to arise during any phase of the Project (See paragraphs 5.3.26 to 5.3.28 and 5.3.55 to 5.3.56).

g. During Construction and Decommissioning, potential impacts on prey species have been identified with regard to habitat disturbance, increased suspended sediments and underwater noise for prey species (See paragraphs 5.3.29 to 5.3.35 of HRA Screening Report). No potential impacts have been identified with regard to accidental pollution events (See paragraph 5.3.34) Whilst an impact pathway has been identified, the potential loss of prey as a result of Project Two would be expected to be minimal. The potential impacts identified on fish receptors will be localised, short term and reversible. Furthermore, the fish community found in Project Two is characteristic of the fish and shellfish assemblage of the wider region and therefore marine mammals would be able to exploit similar resources in adjacent undisturbed areas. As such, LSEs associated with changes in prey availability are not anticipated to arise as a result of Project Two, either alone or in-combination with other plans and projects (See paragraph 5.3.35).

h. Whilst an impact pathway has been identified (See paragraphs 5.3.57 to 5.3.61 of HRA Screening Report), the potential loss of prey as a result of Project Two during Operation would be expected to be minimal and highly localised. There may be increased feeding opportunities within Project Two as a result of potential reef effects and reduction in fishing activity. Furthermore, the fish community found in Project Two is characteristic of the fish and shellfish assemblage of the wider region and therefore marine mammals would be able to exploit similar resources in adjacent undisturbed areas. LSEs associated with changes in prey availability are not anticipated to arise on marine mammals as a result of Project Two, either alone or in-combination with other plans or projects. (See paragraphs 5.3.57 to 5.3.61).

Page 256: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

165

Stage 1 Matrix 105a : Klaverbank SCI (Annex 1 habitat features)

Name of European site: Klaverbank SCI

Distance to PROJECT TWO 50 km European site features Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Changes to habitat Changes to water quality Changes to Fishing Activity In combination effects C O D C O D C O D C O D Reefs Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c Evidence supporting conclusions a. With regard to habitat disturbance, no potential interaction (impact pathway) and no predicted effect is anticipated on the SAC (see paragraphs 5.1.2 to 5.1.11 of HRA Screening Report). No LSE predicted for the

Annex 1 habitat feature project alone or in-combination (See paragraph 5.1.55). b. No potential interaction (impact pathway) and no predicted effect is anticipated on the SAC with regard to loss of habitat (See paragraphs 5.1.31 to 5.1.34 of HRA Screening Report), introduction of hard substrate

(see paragraphs 5.1.35 to 5.1.36), habitat modification due to changes in the hydrodynamic regime (See paragraphs 5.1.37 to 5.1.43) and disturbance (See paragraphs 5.1.44 to 5.1.48) No LSE predicted for the Annex 1 habitat feature (See paragraph 5.1.55).

c. Given the distance of the SAC to the areas where increased suspended sediment and sediment deposition may occur, LSE on the feature is not anticipated to occur (see paragraphs 5.1.12 to 5.1.26 of HRA Screening Report). Also, taking into account designed-in mitigation measures and best practice approaches, LSE on the Annex I habitat feature associated with the release of sediment contaminants and/or accidental releases of pollutants is not anticipated as a result of Project Two either alone or in-combination (see paragraphs 5.1.27 to 5.1.30).

d. Taking into account designed-in mitigation measures and best practice approaches, LSE on the Annex I habitat feature associated with the release of sediment contaminants and/or accidental releases of pollutants is not anticipated as a result of Project Two, either alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.1.49 to 5.1.50 of HRA Screening Report).

e. Displacement of fishing activity will be dispersed over a large area, meaning that the specific increases in fishing activity in any one location would likely be minimal. LSEs on Annex I habitats are not anticipated as a result of Project Two either alone or in-combination (see paragraphs 5.1.51 and 5.1.52 of HRA Screening Report).

Page 257: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

166

Stage 1 Matrix 105b : Klaverbank SCI (marine mammal features)

Name of European site: Klaverbank SCI

Distance to PROJECT TWO 50 km European site features Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Behavioural disturbance/Physical injury Changes to water quality Changes in prey availability In combination effects C O D C O D C O D C O D Grey seal ����a Xd Xe Xf Xf Xf Xg Xh Xg ����a Xd, f, h Xe, f, g Harbour seal ����b Xd Xe Xf Xf Xf Xg Xh Xg ����b Xd, f, h Xe, f, g Harbour porpoise ����c Xd Xe Xf Xf Xf Xg Xh Xg ����c Xd, f, h Xe, f, g Evidence supporting conclusions a. It is considered that there is potential for connectivity between Project Two and the Doggersbank pSCI with regard to Grey seal (See paragraphs 5.3.65 and 5.3.66 of HRA Screening Report). There is potential for a

LSE in respect of behavioural disturbance associated with construction pilling for up to five years. No LSEs have been identified with regard to vessel noise (See paragraphs 5.3.10) and collision risk (See paragraphs 5.3.13 to 5.3.20) during Construction.

b. It is considered that there is potential for connectivity between Project Two and the Doggersbank pSCI with regard to Harbour seal (See paragraphs 5.3.67 and 5.3.68 of HRA Screening Report). There is potential for a LSE in respect of behavioural disturbance associated with construction pilling for up to five years. No LSEs have been identified with regard to vessel noise (See paragraphs 5.3.10) and collision risk (See paragraphs 5.3.13 to 5.3.20) during Construction.

c. It is considered that there is potential for connectivity between Project Two and the Doggersbank pSCI with regard to Harbour porpoise (See paragraphs 5.3.69 and 5.3.70 of HRA Screening Report). There is potential for a LSE in respect of behavioural disturbance associated with construction pilling for up to five years. No LSEs have been identified with regard to vessel noise (See paragraphs 5.3.10) and collision risk (See paragraphs 5.3.13 to 5.3.20) during Construction.

d. With regard to operational underwater turbine noise a behavioural response is only likely within close proximity to turbines and no LSE is predicted (See paragraphs 5.3.36 to 5.3.39 of HRA Screening Report). Given the anticipated localised effects of disturbance associated with vessel traffic and the wide distribution range of Annex II marine mammals species, any impacts would be expected to be very limited and LSEs on marine mammals associated with vessel noise are not anticipated alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.3.41 to 5.3.43). There is little potential for the increased vessel activity to result in a significant impact in terms of collision risk with vessels and potential corkscrew injuries and no LSEs are predicted either alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.3.44 to 5.3.50). EMF effects will be localised within the immediate vicinity of the cables and no LSEs are predicted either alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.3.51 to 5.3.54).

e. During decommissioning piling will not be required. The noise resulting from wind turbine decommissioning is unlikely to result in any injury, avoidance or significant disturbance to marine mammals and no LSE is predicted either alone or in-combination (see paragraph 5.3.9 of HRA Screening Report). As per Construction, No LSEs have been identified with regard to vessel noise (See paragraphs 5.3.10) and collision risk (See paragraphs 5.3.13 to 5.3.20) during Decommissioning.

f. During Construction and Decommissioning, potential impacts associated with increased suspended sediment concentrations will be short term, intermittent and localised. Marine mammals frequently occur in relatively turbid areas and therefore are adapted to find prey in such conditions. Furthermore, they possess mechanisms to detect prey through means other than visual detection (See paragraphs 5.3.21 to 5.3.25 of HRA Screening Report). No LSE is predicted with regard to increased suspended sediment concentrations either alone or in-combination (See paragraph 5.3.25). A number of mitigation measures and best practice approaches will be implemented during the Construction and Decommissioning and Operation phases to mitigate potential impacts associated with potential accidental pollution events. Taking adherence to such approaches, LSEs on Annex II marine mammal qualifying features associated with accidental release of pollutants are not anticipated to arise during any phase of the Project (See paragraphs 5.3.26 to 5.3.28 and 5.3.55 to 5.3.56).

g. During Construction and Decommissioning, potential impacts on prey species have been identified with regard to habitat disturbance, increased suspended sediments and underwater noise for prey species (See paragraphs 5.3.29 to 5.3.35 of HRA Screening Report). No potential impacts have been identified with regard to accidental pollution events (See paragraph 5.3.34) Whilst an impact pathway has been identified, the potential loss of prey as a result of Project Two would be expected to be minimal. The potential impacts identified on fish receptors will be localised, short term and reversible. Furthermore, the fish community found in Project Two is characteristic of the fish and shellfish assemblage of the wider region and therefore marine mammals would be able to exploit similar resources in adjacent undisturbed areas. As such, LSEs associated with changes in prey availability are not anticipated to arise as a result of Project Two, either alone or in-combination with other plans and projects (See paragraph 5.3.35).

h. Whilst an impact pathway has been identified (See paragraphs 5.3.57 to 5.3.61 of HRA Screening Report), the potential loss of prey as a result of Project Two during Operation would be expected to be minimal and highly localised. There may be increased feeding opportunities within Project Two as a result of potential reef effects and reduction in fishing activity. Furthermore, the fish community found in Project Two is characteristic of the fish and shellfish assemblage of the wider region and therefore marine mammals would be able to exploit similar resources in adjacent undisturbed areas. LSEs associated with changes in prey availability are not anticipated to arise on marine mammals as a result of Project Two, either alone or in-combination with other plans or projects. (See paragraphs 5.3.57 to 5.3.61).

Page 258: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

167

Stage 1 Matrix 106a : Noordzeekustzone SAC (Annex 1 habitat features)

Name of European site: Noordzeekustzone SAC

Distance to PROJECT TWO 192 km European site features Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Changes to habitat Changes to water quality Changes to Fishing Activity In combination effects C O D C O D C O D C O D Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time

Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide

Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Salicornia and other annuals colonizing mud and sand

Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Atlantic salt meadows (Glauco-Puccinellietalia maritimae)

Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Embryonic shifting dunes Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c Humid dune slacks Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c Evidence supporting conclusions a. With regard to habitat disturbance, no potential interaction (impact pathway) and no predicted effect is anticipated on the SAC (see paragraphs 5.1.2 to 5.1.11 of HRA Screening Report). No LSE predicted for the

Annex 1 habitat feature project alone or in-combination (See paragraph 5.1.55). b. No potential interaction (impact pathway) and no predicted effect is anticipated on the SAC with regard to loss of habitat (See paragraphs 5.1.31 to 5.1.34 of HRA Screening Report), introduction of hard substrate

(see paragraphs 5.1.35 to 5.1.36), habitat modification due to changes in the hydrodynamic regime (See paragraphs 5.1.37 to 5.1.43) and disturbance (See paragraphs 5.1.44 to 5.1.48) No LSE predicted for the Annex 1 habitat feature (See paragraph 5.1.55).

c. Given the distance of the SAC to the areas where increased suspended sediment and sediment deposition may occur, LSE on the feature is not anticipated to occur (see paragraphs 5.1.12 to 5.1.26 of HRA Screening Report). Also, taking into account designed-in mitigation measures and best practice approaches, LSE on the Annex I habitat feature associated with the release of sediment contaminants and/or accidental releases of pollutants is not anticipated as a result of Project Two either alone or in-combination (see paragraphs 5.1.27 to 5.1.30).

d. Taking into account designed-in mitigation measures and best practice approaches, LSE on the Annex I habitat feature associated with the release of sediment contaminants and/or accidental releases of pollutants is not anticipated as a result of Project Two, either alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.1.49 to 5.1.50 of HRA Screening Report).

e. Displacement of fishing activity will be dispersed over a large area, meaning that the specific increases in fishing activity in any one location would likely be minimal. LSEs on Annex I habitats are not anticipated as a result of Project Two either alone or in-combination (see paragraphs 5.1.51 and 5.1.52 of HRA Screening Report).

Page 259: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

168

Stage 1 Matrix 106b : Noordzeekustzone SAC (migratory fish features)

Name of European site: Noordzeekustzone SAC

Distance to PROJECT TWO 192 km European site features Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Behavioural disturbance/physical

injury Changes to water quality Changes to habitat Changes in fishing activity In combination effects

C O D C O D C O D C O D C O D Sea lamprey, Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe Xf Xa, c Xb, d, e, f Xa, c River lamprey Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe Xf Xa, c Xb, d, e, f Xa, c Twaite shad Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe Xf Xa, c Xb, d, e, f Xa, c Evidence supporting conclusions a. The Noordzeekustzone SAC is located at a significant distance from Project Two. No LSEs alone or in-combination are anticipated with regard to direct temporary disturbance of seabed habitat (See paragraphs

5.2.5 to 5.2.7 of HRA Screening Report). Based upon the location of the Subzone 2 and the HVAC reactive compensation substations relative to likely migratory routes and the habitat use of the species, any interaction with construction noise is expected to be insignificant (See paragraphs 5.2.15 to 5.2.17). No LSEs associated with construction noise are anticipated (See paragraph 5.2.17).

b. The Noordzeekustzone SAC is located at a significant distance from Project Two. Levels of noise associated with Operation noise are low and the spatial extent of the potential impact is generally small and thus unlikely to result in any injury to fish (See paragraph 5.2.25 of HRA Screening Report). Any behavioural effects to occur on fish, would be limited to the immediate vicinity of the turbines or vessels (See paragraphs 5.2.25 to 5.2.27). No LSEs are anticipated alone or in-combination due to operational noise. No LSE has been identified relating to EMF as the Annex II migratory fish feature is not considered to have sufficient interaction with the cabling (See paragraphs 5.2.29 to 5.2.33). In respect of temporary disturbance from maintenance activities, undisturbed locations will be able to be utilised by Annex II migratory fish and No LSEs are anticipated (5.2.34 to 5.2.36).

c. The Noordzeekustzone SAC is located at a significant distance from Project Two. During Construction, elevated suspended sediment concentrations are only expected to occur over relatively small areas (up to 16 km) and will be very short-lived (See paragraphs 5.2.8 to 5.2.12 of HRA Screening Report). No LSEs alone or in-combination are anticipated with regard to increase in suspended sediment concentrations and sediment deposition during Construction/Decomissioning (See paragraphs 5.2.10 to 5.2.12). With regard to the release of sediment contaminants and accidental pollution events, mitigation measures and best practice approaches will be implemented during the Construction/Decommissioning phases to reduce potential impacts associated with pollution events (See paragraphs 5.2.13 and 5.2.14). Taking adherence to such approaches, LSEs on Annex II migratory fish species are not anticipated alone or in-combination (See paragraph 5.2.14).

d. With regard to the release of sediment contaminants and accidental pollution events, a number of mitigation measures and best practice approaches will be implemented during the Operation phase (See paragraphs 5.2.37 and 5.2.38). No LSE is anticipated with regard to this during Operation.

e. The Noordzeekustzone SAC is located at a significant distance from Project Two. Long term habitat loss will occur within the footprint of Project Two (See paragraph 5.2.18 of HRA Screening Report). No LSEs have been identified for Annex II migratory fish as a result of Project Two alone or in-combination for any European site with regard to loss of habitat (See paragraphs 5.2.18 to 5.2.20). In respect of the introduction of hard substrate, this may indirectly have a localised effect on fish species, with the potential to act as an artificial reef and bring changes to food resources or result in a fish aggregation device (See paragraph 5.2.21). No LSEs have been identified with regard to the introduction of hard substrate (See paragraphs 5.2.21 to 5.2.23).

f. The Noordzeekustzone SAC is located at a significant distance from Project Two. The potential effect of displacement of fishing activity will be dispersed over a large area, meaning that the specific increases in fishing activity in any one location would likely be minimal on benthic habitats. Furthermore, Annex II migratory fish species rarely caught by the fishing methods used in the Project Two area, and therefore, if fishing effort is displaced into other areas the potential impact on these species would be minimal (See paragraphs 5.2.39 to 5.2.42 of HRA Screening Report). Therefore, no LSEs have been identified for Project Two alone or in-combination (See paragraph 5.2.42).

Page 260: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

169

Stage 1 Matrix 106c : Noordzeekustzone SAC (marine mammal features)

Name of European site: Noordzeekustzone SAC

Distance to PROJECT TWO 192 km European site features Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Behavioural disturbance/Physical injury Changes to water quality Changes in prey availability In combination effects C O D C O D C O D C O D Grey seal Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Harbour seal Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Harbour porpoise ����c Xd Xe Xf Xf Xf Xg Xh Xg ����c Xd, f, h Xe, f, g Evidence supporting conclusions a. It is considered that grey seal populations from European sites located at distances greater than 145 km from Project Two, are beyond any potential for direct, and indirect effects on foraging trips. Therefore, based

upon the distance of the Noordzeekustzone SAC from Project Two, No LSEs are anticipated for grey seal as a result of Project Two alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.3.65 to 5.3.66 of HRA Screening Report).

b. It is considered that harbour seal populations from European sites located at distances greater than 120 km from Project Two, are beyond any potential for direct and indirect effects on foraging trips. Therefore, based upon the distance of the Noordzeekustzone SAC from Project Two, No LSEs are anticipated for harbour seal as a result of Project Two alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.3.67 to 5.3.68 of HRA Screening Report).

c. There is the potential for connectivity between Project Two and harbour porpoise feature of the Noordzeekustzone SAC (see paragraphs 5.3.69 to 5.3.70 of HRA Screening Report). There is potential for a LSE in respect of behavioural disturbance associated with construction pilling for up to five years. No LSEs have been identified with regard to vessel noise (See paragraphs 5.3.10) and collision risk (See paragraphs 5.3.13 to 5.3.20) during Construction.

d. With regard to operational underwater turbine noise a behavioural response is only likely within close proximity to turbines and no LSE is predicted (See paragraphs 5.3.36 to 5.3.39 of HRA Screening Report). Given the anticipated localised effects of disturbance associated with vessel traffic and the wide distribution range of Annex II marine mammals species, any impacts would be expected to be very limited and LSEs on marine mammals associated with vessel noise are not anticipated alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.3.41 to 5.3.43). There is little potential for the increased vessel activity to result in a significant impact in terms of collision risk with vessels and potential corkscrew injuries and no LSEs are predicted either alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.3.44 to 5.3.50). EMF effects will be localised within the immediate vicinity of the cables and no LSEs are predicted either alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.3.51 to 5.3.54).

e. During decommissioning piling will not be required. The noise resulting from wind turbine decommissioning is unlikely to result in any injury, avoidance or significant disturbance to marine mammals and no LSE is predicted either alone or in-combination (see paragraph 5.3.9 of HRA Screening Report). As per Construction, No LSEs have been identified with regard to vessel noise (See paragraphs 5.3.10) and collision risk (See paragraphs 5.3.13 to 5.3.20) during Decommissioning.

f. During Construction and Decommissioning, potential impacts associated with increased suspended sediment concentrations will be short term, intermittent and localised. Marine mammals frequently occur in relatively turbid areas and therefore are adapted to find prey in such conditions. Furthermore, they possess mechanisms to detect prey through means other than visual detection (See paragraphs 5.3.21 to 5.3.25 of HRA Screening Report). No LSE is predicted with regard to increased suspended sediment concentrations either alone or in-combination (See paragraph 5.3.25). A number of mitigation measures and best practice approaches will be implemented during the Construction and Decommissioning and Operation phases to mitigate potential impacts associated with potential accidental pollution events. Taking adherence to such approaches, LSEs on Annex II marine mammal qualifying features associated with accidental release of pollutants are not anticipated to arise during any phase of the Project (See paragraphs 5.3.26 to 5.3.28 and 5.3.55 to 5.3.56).

g. During Construction and Decommissioning, potential impacts on prey species have been identified with regard to habitat disturbance, increased suspended sediments and underwater noise for prey species (See paragraphs 5.3.29 to 5.3.35 of HRA Screening Report). No potential impacts have been identified with regard to accidental pollution events (See paragraph 5.3.34) Whilst an impact pathway has been identified, the potential loss of prey as a result of Project Two would be expected to be minimal. The potential impacts identified on fish receptors will be localised, short term and reversible. Furthermore, the fish community found in Project Two is characteristic of the fish and shellfish assemblage of the wider region and therefore marine mammals would be able to exploit similar resources in adjacent undisturbed areas. As such, LSEs associated with changes in prey availability are not anticipated to arise as a result of Project Two, either alone or in-combination with other plans and projects (See paragraph 5.3.35).

h. Whilst an impact pathway has been identified (See paragraphs 5.3.57 to 5.3.61 of HRA Screening Report), the potential loss of prey as a result of Project Two during Operation would be expected to be minimal and highly localised. There may be increased feeding opportunities within Project Two as a result of potential reef effects and reduction in fishing activity. Furthermore, the fish community found in Project Two is characteristic of the fish and shellfish assemblage of the wider region and therefore marine mammals would be able to exploit similar resources in adjacent undisturbed areas. LSEs associated with changes in prey availability are not anticipated to arise on marine mammals as a result of Project Two, either alone or in-combination with other plans or projects. (See paragraphs 5.3.57 to 5.3.61).

Page 261: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

170

Stage 1 Matrix 107a : Noordzeekustzone II pSCI (Annex 1 habitat features)

Name of European site: Noordzeekustzone II pSCI

Distance to PROJECT TWO 192 km European site features Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Changes to habitat Changes to water quality Changes to Fishing Activity In combination effects C O D C O D C O D C O D Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time

Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c

Evidence supporting conclusions a. With regard to habitat disturbance, no potential interaction (impact pathway) and no predicted effect is anticipated on the SAC (see paragraphs 5.1.2 to 5.1.11 of HRA Screening Report). No LSE predicted for the

Annex 1 habitat feature project alone or in-combination (See paragraph 5.1.55). b. No potential interaction (impact pathway) and no predicted effect is anticipated on the SAC with regard to loss of habitat (See paragraphs 5.1.31 to 5.1.34 of HRA Screening Report), introduction of hard substrate

(see paragraphs 5.1.35 to 5.1.36), habitat modification due to changes in the hydrodynamic regime (See paragraphs 5.1.37 to 5.1.43) and disturbance (See paragraphs 5.1.44 to 5.1.48) No LSE predicted for the Annex 1 habitat feature (See paragraph 5.1.55).

c. Given the distance of the SAC to the areas where increased suspended sediment and sediment deposition may occur, LSE on the feature is not anticipated to occur (see paragraphs 5.1.12 to 5.1.26 of HRA Screening Report). Also, taking into account designed-in mitigation measures and best practice approaches, LSE on the Annex I habitat feature associated with the release of sediment contaminants and/or accidental releases of pollutants is not anticipated as a result of Project Two either alone or in-combination (see paragraphs 5.1.27 to 5.1.30).

d. Taking into account designed-in mitigation measures and best practice approaches, LSE on the Annex I habitat feature associated with the release of sediment contaminants and/or accidental releases of pollutants is not anticipated as a result of Project Two, either alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.1.49 to 5.1.50 of HRA Screening Report).

e. Displacement of fishing activity will be dispersed over a large area, meaning that the specific increases in fishing activity in any one location would likely be minimal. LSEs on Annex I habitats are not anticipated as a result of Project Two either alone or in-combination (see paragraphs 5.1.51 and 5.1.52 of HRA Screening Report).

Page 262: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

171

Stage 1 Matrix 107b : Noordzeekustzone II pSCI (migratory fish features)

Name of European site: Noordzeekustzone II pSCI

Distance to PROJECT TWO 192 km European site features Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Behavioural disturbance/physical

injury Changes to water quality Changes to habitat Changes in fishing activity In combination effects

C O D C O D C O D C O D C O D Sea lamprey Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe Xf Xa, c Xb, d, e, f Xa, c River lamprey Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe Xf Xa, c Xb, d, e, f Xa, c Twaite shad Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe Xf Xa, c Xb, d, e, f Xa, c Evidence supporting conclusions a. The Noordzeekustzone II pSCI is located at a significant distance from Project Two. No LSEs alone or in-combination are anticipated with regard to direct temporary disturbance of seabed habitat (See paragraphs

5.2.5 to 5.2.7 of HRA Screening Report). Based upon the location of the Subzone 2 and the HVAC reactive compensation substations relative to likely migratory routes and the habitat use of the species, any interaction with construction noise is expected to be insignificant (See paragraphs 5.2.15 to 5.2.17). No LSEs associated with construction noise are anticipated (See paragraph 5.2.17).

b. The Noordzeekustzone II pSCI is located at a significant distance from Project Two. Levels of noise associated with Operation noise are low and the spatial extent of the potential impact is generally small and thus unlikely to result in any injury to fish (See paragraph 5.2.25 of HRA Screening Report). Any behavioural effects to occur on fish, would be limited to the immediate vicinity of the turbines or vessels (See paragraphs 5.2.25 to 5.2.27). No LSEs are anticipated alone or in-combination due to operational noise. No LSE has been identified relating to EMF as the Annex II migratory fish feature is not considered to have sufficient interaction with the cabling (See paragraphs 5.2.29 to 5.2.33). In respect of temporary disturbance from maintenance activities, undisturbed locations will be able to be utilised by Annex II migratory fish and No LSEs are anticipated (5.2.34 to 5.2.36).

c. The Noordzeekustzone II pSCI is located at a significant distance from Project Two. During Construction, elevated suspended sediment concentrations are only expected to occur over relatively small areas (up to 16 km) and will be very short-lived (See paragraphs 5.2.8 to 5.2.12 of HRA Screening Report). No LSEs alone or in-combination are anticipated with regard to increase in suspended sediment concentrations and sediment deposition during Construction/Decomissioning (See paragraphs 5.2.10 to 5.2.12). With regard to the release of sediment contaminants and accidental pollution events, mitigation measures and best practice approaches will be implemented during the Construction/Decommissioning phases to reduce potential impacts associated with pollution events (See paragraphs 5.2.13 and 5.2.14). Taking adherence to such approaches, LSEs on Annex II migratory fish species are not anticipated alone or in-combination (See paragraph 5.2.14).

d. With regard to the release of sediment contaminants and accidental pollution events, a number of mitigation measures and best practice approaches will be implemented during the Operation phase (See paragraphs 5.2.37 and 5.2.38). No LSE is anticipated with regard to this during Operation.

e. The Noordzeekustzone II pSCI is located at a significant distance from Project Two. Long term habitat loss will occur within the footprint of Project Two (See paragraph 5.2.18 of HRA Screening Report). No LSEs have been identified for Annex II migratory fish as a result of Project Two alone or in-combination for any European site with regard to loss of habitat (See paragraphs 5.2.18 to 5.2.20). In respect of the introduction of hard substrate, this may indirectly have a localised effect on fish species, with the potential to act as an artificial reef and bring changes to food resources or result in a fish aggregation device (See paragraph 5.2.21). No LSEs have been identified with regard to the introduction of hard substrate (See paragraphs 5.2.21 to 5.2.23).

f. The Noordzeekustzone II pSCI is located at a significant distance from Project Two. The potential effect of displacement of fishing activity will be dispersed over a large area, meaning that the specific increases in fishing activity in any one location would likely be minimal on benthic habitats. Furthermore, Annex II migratory fish species rarely caught by the fishing methods used in the Project Two area, and therefore, if fishing effort is displaced into other areas the potential impact on these species would be minimal (See paragraphs 5.2.39 to 5.2.42 of HRA Screening Report). Therefore, no LSEs have been identified for Project Two alone or in-combination (See paragraph 5.2.42).

Page 263: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

172

Stage 1 Matrix 107c : Noordzeekustzone II pSCI (marine mammal features)

Name of European site: Noordzeekustzone II pSCI

Distance to PROJECT TWO 192 km European site features Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Behavioural disturbance/Physical injury Changes to water quality Changes in prey availability In combination effects C O D C O D C O D C O D Grey seal Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Xa Harbour seal Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Xb Harbour porpoise ����c Xd Xe Xf Xf Xf Xg Xh Xg ����c Xd, f, h Xe, f, g Evidence supporting conclusions a. It is considered that grey seal populations from European sites located at distances greater than 145 km from Project Two, are beyond any potential for direct, and indirect effects on foraging trips. Therefore, based

upon the distance of the Noordzeekustzone II pSCI from Project Two, No LSEs are anticipated for grey seal as a result of Project Two alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.3.65 to 5.3.66 of HRA Screening Report).

b. It is considered that harbour seal populations from European sites located at distances greater than 120 km from Project Two, are beyond any potential for direct and indirect effects on foraging trips. Therefore, based upon the distance of the Noordzeekustzone II pSCI from Project Two, No LSEs are anticipated for harbour seal as a result of Project Two alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.3.67 to 5.3.68 of HRA Screening Report).

c. There is the potential for connectivity between Project Two and harbour porpoise feature of the Noordzeekustzone II pSCI (see paragraphs 5.3.69 to 5.3.70 of HRA Screening Report). There is potential for a LSE in respect of behavioural disturbance associated with construction pilling for up to five years. No LSEs have been identified with regard to vessel noise (See paragraphs 5.3.10) and collision risk (See paragraphs 5.3.13 to 5.3.20) during Construction.

d. With regard to operational underwater turbine noise a behavioural response is only likely within close proximity to turbines and no LSE is predicted (See paragraphs 5.3.36 to 5.3.39 of HRA Screening Report). Given the anticipated localised effects of disturbance associated with vessel traffic and the wide distribution range of Annex II marine mammals species, any impacts would be expected to be very limited and LSEs on marine mammals associated with vessel noise are not anticipated alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.3.41 to 5.3.43). There is little potential for the increased vessel activity to result in a significant impact in terms of collision risk with vessels and potential corkscrew injuries and no LSEs are predicted either alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.3.44 to 5.3.50). EMF effects will be localised within the immediate vicinity of the cables and no LSEs are predicted either alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.3.51 to 5.3.54).

e. During decommissioning piling will not be required. The noise resulting from wind turbine decommissioning is unlikely to result in any injury, avoidance or significant disturbance to marine mammals and no LSE is predicted either alone or in-combination (see paragraph 5.3.9 of HRA Screening Report). As per Construction, No LSEs have been identified with regard to vessel noise (See paragraphs 5.3.10) and collision risk (See paragraphs 5.3.13 to 5.3.20) during Decommissioning.

f. During Construction and Decommissioning, potential impacts associated with increased suspended sediment concentrations will be short term, intermittent and localised. Marine mammals frequently occur in relatively turbid areas and therefore are adapted to find prey in such conditions. Furthermore, they possess mechanisms to detect prey through means other than visual detection (See paragraphs 5.3.21 to 5.3.25 of HRA Screening Report). No LSE is predicted with regard to increased suspended sediment concentrations either alone or in-combination (See paragraph 5.3.25). A number of mitigation measures and best practice approaches will be implemented during the Construction and Decommissioning and Operation phases to mitigate potential impacts associated with potential accidental pollution events. Taking adherence to such approaches, LSEs on Annex II marine mammal qualifying features associated with accidental release of pollutants are not anticipated to arise during any phase of the Project (See paragraphs 5.3.26 to 5.3.28 and 5.3.55 to 5.3.56).

g. During Construction and Decommissioning, potential impacts on prey species have been identified with regard to habitat disturbance, increased suspended sediments and underwater noise for prey species (See paragraphs 5.3.29 to 5.3.35 of HRA Screening Report). No potential impacts have been identified with regard to accidental pollution events (See paragraph 5.3.34) Whilst an impact pathway has been identified, the potential loss of prey as a result of Project Two would be expected to be minimal. The potential impacts identified on fish receptors will be localised, short term and reversible. Furthermore, the fish community found in Project Two is characteristic of the fish and shellfish assemblage of the wider region and therefore marine mammals would be able to exploit similar resources in adjacent undisturbed areas. As such, LSEs associated with changes in prey availability are not anticipated to arise as a result of Project Two, either alone or in-combination with other plans and projects (See paragraph 5.3.35).

h. Whilst an impact pathway has been identified (See paragraphs 5.3.57 to 5.3.61 of HRA Screening Report), the potential loss of prey as a result of Project Two during Operation would be expected to be minimal and highly localised. There may be increased feeding opportunities within Project Two as a result of potential reef effects and reduction in fishing activity. Furthermore, the fish community found in Project Two is characteristic of the fish and shellfish assemblage of the wider region and therefore marine mammals would be able to exploit similar resources in adjacent undisturbed areas. LSEs associated with changes in prey availability are not anticipated to arise on marine mammals as a result of Project Two, either alone or in-combination with other plans or projects. (See paragraphs 5.3.57 to 5.3.61).

Page 264: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

173

Stage 1 Matrix 108a: Vlakte van de Raan SAC (Annex I habitat)

Name of European site: Vlakte van de Raan SAC

Distance to PROJECT TWO: 275 km SAC Annex I habitat features Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Changes to habitat Changes to water quality Changes to fishing activity In combination effects C O D C O D C O D C O D Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time

����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c

Evidence supporting conclusions: a. No LSE on Annex I habitat is anticipated in relation to changes in habitat associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The spatial extent of direct temporary habitat

loss/disturbance effects will be highly localised, being limited to areas where works are being carried out. There is no potential for interaction, as outlined in paragraphs 5.1.2 to 5.1.11 (Construction and Decommissioning) and 5.1.31 to 5.1.48 (Operation and Maintenance) of the HRA Screening Report.

b. No LSE on Annex I habitat is anticipated in relation to changes in water quality associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The Vlakte van de Raan SAC is located 275 km from Hornsea Project Two and increased suspended sediment and/or sediment deposition effects are not expected to extend to this range. Sufficient mitigation measures are in place for the release of contaminants/pollutants. There is no potential for interaction, as outlined in paragraphs 5.1.27 to 5.1.30 (Construction and Decommissioning) and 5.1.49 to 5.1.50 (Operation and Maintenance) of the HRA Screening Report.

c. No LSE on Annex I habitat is anticipated in relation to changes in fishing activity associated with the operation of Hornsea Project Two. It is anticipated that the potential effect of displacement of fishing activity will be dispersed over a large area, meaning that the specific increases in fishing activity in any one location would likely be minimal. See paragraphs 5.1.51 and 5.1.52 of the HRA Screening Report and Draft ES, Volume 2, Chapter 2: Subtidal and Intertidal Benthic Ecology.

Page 265: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

174

Stage 1 Matrix 108b : Vlakte van de Raan SAC (migratory fish)

Name of European site: Vlakte van de Raan SAC

Distance to PROJECT TWO: 275 km

SAC marine mammal features

Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Behavioural disturbance/physical injury Changes to water quality Changes to habitat Changes to fishing activity In combination effects C O D C O D C O D C O D C O D Twaite shad ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a n/a ����d n/a ����a, b, c, d ����a, b, c, d ����a, b, c, d River lamprey ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a n/a ����d n/a ����a, b, c, d ����a, b, c, d ����a, b, c, d Sea lamprey ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a n/a ����d n/a ����a, b, c, d ����a, b, c, d ����a, b, c, d Evidence supporting conclusions: a. No LSE on migratory fish is anticipated in relation to behavioural disturbance/physical injury associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The Annex II migratory fish

species under consideration are highly mobile and have wide distribution ranges, being able to relocate and use equally suitable feeding areas in adjacent undisturbed locations. Any disturbance is likely to be over a relatively small spatial scale, limited to the immediate proximity of the inshore section of the export cable corridor. See paragraphs 5.2.5 to 5.2.7 (Construction and Decommissioning) and 5.2.34 to 5.2.36 (Operation and Maintenance) of the HRA Screening Report.

b. No LSE on migratory fish is anticipated in relation to changes to water quality associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The Vlakte van de Raan SAC is located 275 km from Hornsea Project Two and increased suspended sediment and/or sediment deposition effects are not expected to extend to this range. Sufficient mitigation measures are in place for the release of contaminants/pollutants and cables will likely be left in situ during decommissioning. See paragraphs 5.2.8 to 5.2.14 (construction and decommissioning) and 5.2.37 to 5.2.38 (operation) of the HRA Screening Report.

c. No LSE on migratory fish is anticipated in relation to changes to habitat associated with the operation of Hornsea Project Two. Cable protection measures resulting in long term habitat loss (e.g., rock placement) will not be used along the export cable. The Annex II migratory fish species under consideration are highly mobile and have wide distribution ranges, being able to relocate and use equally suitable feeding areas in adjacent undisturbed locations. See paragraphs 5.2.18 to 5.2.23 of the HRA Screening Report.

d. No LSE on migratory fish is anticipated in relation to changes to fishing activity associated with the operation of Hornsea Project Two. The potential effect of displacement of fishing activity will be dispersed over a large area, meaning that the specific increases in fishing activity in any one location would likely be minimal. Annex II migratory fish species are rarely caught by the fishing methods used in the area, and therefore, if fishing effort is displaced into other areas the potential impact on these species would be minimal. See paragraphs 5.2.39 to 5.2.42 of the HRA Screening Report.

Page 266: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

175

Stage 1 Matrix 108c : Vlakte van de Raan SAC (marine mammal)

Name of European site: Vlakte van de Raan SAC

Distance to PROJECT TWO: 275 km SAC marine mammal features Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Behavioural disturbance/physical injury Changes to water quality Changes to prey availability In combination effects C O D C O D C O D C O D Grey seal ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a Harbour seal ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b Harbour porpoise ����c ����d ����d ����e ����e ����e ����f ����f ����f ����c ����d, e, f ����d, e, f Evidence supporting conclusions: a. No LSE on grey seal is anticipated in relation to behavioural disturbance/physical injury, changes to water quality or changes to prey availability associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of

Hornsea Project Two. It is considered that harbour seal populations from European sites located at distances greater than 145 km from Project Two are beyond any potential for direct and indirect effects on foraging trips, and therefore, no LSE is anticipated (see paragraph 5.3.65 of the HRA Screening Report).

b. No LSE on harbour seal is anticipated in relation to behavioural disturbance/physical injury, changes to water quality or changes to prey availability associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. It is considered that harbour seal populations from European sites located at distances greater than 120 km from Project Two are beyond any potential for direct and indirect effects on foraging trips, and therefore, no LSE is anticipated (see paragraph 5.3.67 of the HRA Screening Report).

c. LSE on harbour porpoise in relation to behavioural disturbance/physical injury associated with the construction of Hornsea Project Two cannot be ruled out. The risk of auditory injury would be negligible for all Annex II marine mammals species, however there is potential for behavioural disturbance to occur as a result of piling. It is considered that LSEs on harbour porpoise cannot be ruled out for all the European sites included in the screening exercise, as they form part of the overall mobile North Sea population. See paragraphs 5.3.2 to 5.3.9 and 5.3.69 to 5.3.70 of the HRA Screening Report.

d. No LSE on harbour porpoise is anticipated in relation to behavioural disturbance/physical injury associated with the operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. Given the low level and limited spatial extent of the radiated noise, the risk of behavioural impacts on marine mammals would be limited to the immediate vicinity of the turbines. Piling will not be required during decommissioning and the anticipated method for the removal of turbines, abrasive cutting, would not be expected to be generate noise significantly higher than general surface vessel noise. See paragraphs 5.3.36 to 5.3.43 (operation) and 5.3.9 (decommissioning) of the HRA Screening Report.

e. No LSE on harbour porpoise is anticipated in relation to changes in water quality associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The Vlakte van de Raan SAC is located 275 km from Hornsea Project Two and increased suspended sediment and/or sediment deposition effects are not expected to extend to this range. Sufficient mitigation measures are in place for the release of contaminants/pollutants. There is no potential for interaction, as outlined in paragraphs 5.3.21 to 5.3.28 (Construction and Decommissioning) and 5.3.55 to 5.3.56 (Operation and Maintenance) of the HRA Screening Report.

f. No LSE on harbour porpoise is anticipated in relation to changes in prey availability associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The potential impacts identified on fish receptors will be localised, short term and reversible. During the operational phase there may be increased feeding opportunities within Project Two as a result of potential reef effects and reduction in fishing activity. Furthermore, the fish community found in Project Two is characteristic of the fish and shellfish assemblage of the wider region and therefore marine mammals would be able to exploit similar resources in adjacent undisturbed areas (see Paragraphs 5.3.29 to 5.3.35 (Construction and Decommissioning) and 5.3.57 to 5.3.61 (Operation and Maintenance) of HRA Screening Report).

Page 267: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

176

Stage 1 Matrix 109a: Waddenzee SAC (Annex I habitat)

Name of European site: Waddenzee SAC

Distance to PROJECT TWO: 199 km SAC Annex I habitat features Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Changes to habitat Changes to water quality Changes to fishing activity In combination effects C O D C O D C O D C O D Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time

����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c

Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide

����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c

Salicornia and other annuals colonizing mud and sand

����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c

Spartina swards (Spartinion maritimae)

����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c

Atlantic salt meadows (Glauco-Puccinellietalia maritimae)

����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c

Embryonic shifting dunes ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c Shifting dunes along the shoreline with Ammophila arenaria ("white dunes")

����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c

Fixed coastal dunes with herbaceous vegetation ("grey dunes")

����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c

Dunes with Hippophaë rhamnoides ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c

Humid dune slacks ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a ����a, b, c ����a, b, c ����a, b, c Evidence supporting conclusions: a. No LSE on Annex I habitat is anticipated in relation to changes in habitat associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The spatial extent of direct temporary habitat

loss/disturbance effects will be highly localised, being limited to areas where works are being carried out. There is no potential for interaction, as outlined in paragraphs 5.1.2 to 5.1.11 (Construction and Decommissioning) and 5.1.31 to 5.1.48 (Operation and Maintenance) of the HRA Screening Report.

b. No LSE on Annex I habitat is anticipated in relation to changes in water quality associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The Waddenzee SAC is located 199 km from Hornsea Project Two and increased suspended sediment and/or sediment deposition effects are not expected to extend to this range. Sufficient mitigation measures are in place for the release of contaminants/pollutants. There is no potential for interaction, as outlined in paragraphs 5.1.27 to 5.1.30 (Construction and Decommissioning) and 5.1.49 to 5.1.50 (Operation and Maintenance) of the HRA Screening Report.

c. No LSE on Annex I habitat is anticipated in relation to changes in fishing activity associated with the operation of Hornsea Project Two. It is anticipated that the potential effect of displacement of fishing activity will be dispersed over a large area, meaning that the specific increases in fishing activity in any one location would likely be minimal. See paragraphs 5.1.51 and 5.1.52 of the HRA Screening Report and Draft ES, Volume 2, Chapter 2: Subtidal and Intertidal Benthic Ecology.

Page 268: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

177

Stage 1 Matrix 109b : Waddenzee SAC (migratory fish)

Name of European site: Waddenzee SAC

Distance to PROJECT TWO: 199 km

SAC marine mammal features

Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Behavioural disturbance/physical injury Changes to water quality Changes to habitat Changes to fishing activity In combination effects C O D C O D C O D C O D C O D Twaite shad ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a n/a ����d n/a ����a, b, c, d ����a, b, c, d ����a, b, c, d River lamprey ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a n/a ����d n/a ����a, b, c, d ����a, b, c, d ����a, b, c, d Sea lamprey ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b n/a ����c n/a n/a ����d n/a ����a, b, c, d ����a, b, c, d ����a, b, c, d Evidence supporting conclusions: a. No LSE on migratory fish is anticipated in relation to behavioural disturbance/physical injury associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The Annex II migratory fish

species under consideration are highly mobile and have wide distribution ranges, being able to relocate and use equally suitable feeding areas in adjacent undisturbed locations. Any disturbance is likely to be over a relatively small spatial scale, limited to the immediate proximity of the inshore section of the export cable corridor. See paragraphs 5.2.5 to 5.2.7 (Construction and Decommissioning) and 5.2.34 to 5.2.36 (Operation and Maintenance) of the HRA Screening Report.

b. No LSE on migratory fish is anticipated in relation to changes to water quality associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. The Waddenzee SAC is located 199 km from Hornsea Project Two and increased suspended sediment and/or sediment deposition effects are not expected to extend to this range. Sufficient mitigation measures are in place for the release of contaminants/pollutants and cables will likely be left in situ during decommissioning. See paragraphs 5.2.8 to 5.2.14 (construction and decommissioning) and 5.2.37 to 5.2.38 (operation) of the HRA Screening Report.

c. No LSE on migratory fish is anticipated in relation to changes to habitat associated with the operation of Hornsea Project Two. Cable protection measures resulting in long term habitat loss (e.g., rock placement) will not be used along the export cable. The Annex II migratory fish species under consideration are highly mobile and have wide distribution ranges, being able to relocate and use equally suitable feeding areas in adjacent undisturbed locations. See paragraphs 5.2.18 to 5.2.23 of the HRA Screening Report.

d. No LSE on migratory fish is anticipated in relation to changes to fishing activity associated with the operation of Hornsea Project Two. The potential effect of displacement of fishing activity will be dispersed over a large area, meaning that the specific increases in fishing activity in any one location would likely be minimal. Annex II migratory fish species are rarely caught by the fishing methods used in the area, and therefore, if fishing effort is displaced into other areas the potential impact on these species would be minimal. See paragraphs 5.2.39 to 5.2.42 of the HRA Screening Report.

Page 269: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

178

Stage 1 Matrix 109c : Waddenzee SAC (marine mammal)

Name of European site: Waddenzee SAC

Distance to PROJECT TWO: 199 km SAC marine mammal features Likely Effects of PROJECT TWO

Behavioural disturbance/physical injury Changes to water quality Changes to prey availability In combination effects C O D C O D C O D C O D Grey seal ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a ����a Harbour seal ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b ����b Evidence supporting conclusions: a. No LSE on grey seal is anticipated in relation to behavioural disturbance/physical injury, changes to water quality or changes to prey availability associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of

Hornsea Project Two. It is considered that harbour seal populations from European sites located at distances greater than 145 km from Project Two are beyond any potential for direct and indirect effects on foraging trips, and therefore, no LSE is anticipated (see paragraph 5.3.65 of the HRA Screening Report).

b. No LSE on harbour seal is anticipated in relation to behavioural disturbance/physical injury, changes to water quality or changes to prey availability associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Hornsea Project Two. It is considered that harbour seal populations from European sites located at distances greater than 120 km from Project Two are beyond any potential for direct and indirect effects on foraging trips, and therefore, no LSE is anticipated (see paragraph 5.3.67 of the HRA Screening Report).

Page 270: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

179

Page 271: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

180

Stage 1 Matrix 110: Greater Wash pSPA

Name of European site: Possible Greater Wash SPA

Distance to Hornsea Project Two: 0 km

European site features Likely Effects of Project Two

Collision Barrier Displacement Disturbance In-combination

C O D C O O C O D C O D C O D

Red-throated diver Gavia stellata (non-breeding) ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b

����b ����c

����c ����c

Little gull Hydrocoloeus minutus (non-breeding); ����d ����d ����d ����b ����b ����b ����c

����c ����c

Common scoter Melanitta nigra (non-breeding); ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b ����c

����c ����c

Sandwich tern Sterna sandvicensis (breeding) ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b ����c

����c ����c

Common tern Sterna hirundo (breeding) ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b ����c

����c ����c

Little tern Sternula albifrons (breeding) ����a ����a ����a ����b ����b ����b ����c

����c ����c

Evidence to support conclusions

a. There is no mechanism for effect on the feature of the possible SPA as there is no connectivity between the feature and Subzone 2 (where turbines are to be located), see Possible Greater Wash SPA Shadow Screening Report

b. Only minimal disturbance anticipated on the feature of the possible SPA, provided best practice measures and protocols are implemented to reduce disturbance to birds associated with vessel transit, see Possible Greater Wash SPA Shadow Screening Report

c. There is no mechanism for effect on the feature of the possible SPA. Only minimal impacts identified as a result of Project Two alone, see Possible Greater Wash SPA Shadow Screening Report

d. Little gull has low sensitivity to displacement and barrier effects, collision risk modelling undertaken predicted very low collision rates for this species (0.76 per annum at 98% avoidance rate), see Possible Greater Wash SPA Shadow Screening Report

Page 272: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

181

Stage 1 Matrix 111: Southern North Sea dSAC (harbour porpoise)

Name of European site: Southern North Sea dSAC

Distance to NSIP: 0 km European Site Feature Likely Effects of NSIP

Behavioural disturbance/ physical injury Changes to water quality Changes in prey availability In combination effects C O D C O D C O D C O D Harbour porpoise �a Xb Xc Xd Xd Xd Xe Xf Xe �a Xb, d, f Xc, d, e Evidence supporting conclusions: c. It is considered that there is potential for connectivity between Project Two and harbour porpoise associated with the Southern North Sea dSAC. Specifically, there is potential for a LSE in respect of behavioural

disturbance associated with construction pilling for up to 1.32 years spread over a five year construction period. In line with the existing HRA Report and the assessment carried out by DECC for Teesside A&B, no LSEs have been identified with regard to vessel noise and collision risk during Construction.

d. With regard to operational underwater turbine noise a behavioural response is only likely within close proximity to turbines and no LSE is predicted (See paragraphs 5.3.36 to 5.3.40 of HRA Screening Report). Given the anticipated localised effects of disturbance associated with vessel traffic and the wide distribution range of harbour porpoise, any impacts would be expected to be very limited and LSE associated with vessel noise are not anticipated alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.3.41 to 5.3.43). There is little potential for the increased vessel activity to result in a significant impact in terms of collision risk with vessels and no LSEs are predicted either alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.3.44 to 5.3.50). EMF effects will be localised within the immediate vicinity of the cables and no LSEs are predicted either alone or in-combination (See paragraphs 5.3.51 to 5.3.54).

e. During decommissioning piling will not be required. The noise resulting from wind turbine decommissioning is unlikely to result in any injury, avoidance or significant disturbance to harbour porpoise and no LSE is predicted either alone or in-combination (see paragraph 5.3.9 of HRA Screening Report). As per Construction, No LSEs have been identified with regard to vessel noise (See paragraphs 5.3.10) and collision risk (See paragraphs 5.3.13 to 5.3.20) during Decommissioning.

f. During Construction and Decommissioning, potential impacts associated with increased suspended sediment concentrations will be short term, intermittent and localised. Harbour porpoise frequently occur in relatively turbid areas and therefore are adapted to find prey in such conditions. Furthermore, they possess mechanisms to detect prey through means other than visual detection (See paragraphs 5.3.21 to 5.3.25 of HRA Screening Report). No LSE is predicted with regard to increased suspended sediment concentrations either alone or in-combination (See paragraph 5.3.25). A number of mitigation measures and best practice approaches will be implemented during the Construction and Decommissioning and Operation phases to mitigate potential impacts associated with potential accidental pollution events. Taking adherence to such approaches, LSEs on harbour porpoise associated with accidental release of pollutants are not anticipated to arise during any phase of the Project (See paragraphs 5.3.26 to 5.3.28 and 5.3.55 to 5.3.56).

g. During Construction and Decommissioning, potential impacts on prey species have been identified with regard to habitat disturbance, increased suspended sediments and underwater noise (See paragraphs 5.3.29 to 5.3.35 of HRA Screening Report). Whilst an impact pathway has been identified, the potential loss of prey as a result of Project Two would be expected to be minimal. The potential impacts identified on fish receptors will be localised, short term and reversible. Furthermore, the fish community found in Project Two is characteristic of the fish and shellfish assemblage of the wider region and therefore harbour porpoise would be able to exploit similar resources in adjacent undisturbed areas. As such, LSEs associated with changes in prey availability are not anticipated to arise as a result of Project Two, either alone or in-combination with other plans and projects (See paragraph 5.3.35).

h. Whilst an impact pathway has been identified (See paragraphs 5.3.57 to 5.3.61 of HRA Screening Report), the potential loss of prey as a result of Project Two during Operation would be expected to be minimal and highly localised. There may be increased feeding opportunities within Project Two as a result of potential reef effects and reduction in fishing activity. Furthermore, the fish community found in Project Two is

Page 273: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

182

characteristic of the fish and shellfish assemblage of the wider region and therefore harbour porpoise would be able to exploit similar resources in adjacent undisturbed areas. LSEs associated with changes in prey availability are not anticipated to arise on harbour porpoise as a result of Project Two, either alone or in-combination with other plans or projects. (See paragraphs 5.3.57 to 5.3.61).

Page 274: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

183

STAGE 2 – INTEGRITY MATRICES

Potential Impacts

Potential impacts upon the European site(s)† which are considered within the submitted Habitats Regulations Assessment report (PINS document reference 12.6) are provided in the tables below.

Impacts considered within the integrity matrices (Annex I Habitat Features)

Designation Impacts in submission information Presented in integrity matrices as European site name/designation SAC/Ramsar

Construction • Disturbance/loss of habitat during construction

• Disturbance/loss of habitat

Construction • Changes to water quality (increased suspended sediment

concentrations and deposition)

• Changes to water quality

† As defined in Advice Note 10.

Page 275: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

184

Impacts considered within the integrity matrices (Annex II Migratory Fish Features)

Designation Impacts in submission information Presented in integrity matrices as European site name/designation SAC/Ramsar

Construction

• Changes to water quality (increased suspended sediment concentrations and deposition)

• Changes to water quality

Operation and Maintenance • EMFs during the operational phase

• EMFs

Impacts considered within the integrity matrices (Annex II Marine Mammal Features)

Designation Impacts in submission information Presented in integrity matrices as European site name/designation SAC/Ramsar/SCI/pSCI

Construction • Underwater noise during construction (piling activity)

• Underwater piling noise

Impacts considered within the integrity matrices (Offshore Bird Features)

Designation Impacts in submission information Presented in integrity matrices as European site name/designation SPA/pSPA

Operation and Maintenance • Collision • Displacement from physical presence of wind turbines

• Collision • Displacement

Impacts considered within the integrity matrices (Intertidal Bird Features)

Designation Impacts in submission information Presented in integrity matrices as European site name/designation SPA/Ramsar

Construction • Disturbance

• Disturbance

Decommissioning • Disturbance

• Disturbance

Page 276: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

185

STAGE 2: EFFECTS ON INTEGRITY

Likely significant effects have been identified for the following sites: Anse de Vauville SCI Baie de canche et couloir des trois estuaires SCI Baie de Seine occidentale SCI Bancs des Flandres pSCI Banc et rècifs de Surtainville SCI Berwickshire and North Northumberland Coast SAC Borkum – Riffgrund SCI Doggerbank (German Dogger Bank) SCI Doggersbank pSCI Dråby Vig SAC Estuaire de la Seine SCI Estuaires et Littoral Picards (baies de Somme et d’Authie) SAC Falaises du Cran aux oeufs et du cap gris-nez, dunes du chatelet, marais de tardinghen et dunes de wissant SCI Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA Forth Islands SPA Fowlsheugh SPA Gule Rev pSCI Hamburgisches Wattenmeer SAC Helgoland mit Helgoländer Felssockel SAC Humber Estuary SAC Humber Estuary Ramsar Humber Estuary SPA Klaverbank SCI Nationalpark Niedersächsisches Wattenmeer SCI Noordzeekustzone SAC Noordzeekustzone II pSCI NTP S-H Wattenmeer und angrenzende Küstengebiete SCI Östliche Deutsche Bucht SCI Rècifs et landes de la Hague SCI Récifs et marais arrière-littoraux du Cap Lévi à la Pointe de Saire SCI Récifs Gris-Nez Blanc-Nez SCI Ridens et dunes hydrauliques du detroit du pas-de-calais pSCI River Derwent SAC SBZ 1/ ZPS 1 SCI SBZ 2/ ZPS 2 SCI SBZ 3/ ZPS 3 SCI Steingrund SAC Sylter Außenriff SCI Sydlige Nordsø SAC The Wash and North Norfolk Coast SAC Unterelbe SCI Vadehavet med Ribe Å, Tved Å og Varde Å vest for Varde SAC

Page 277: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

186

Venø, Venø Sund SAC Vlakte van de Raan pSCI Vlakte van de Raan SAC These sites have been subject to further assessment in order to establish if the PROJECT TWO could have an adverse effect on their integrity. Evidence for the conclusions reached on integrity is detailed within the footnotes to the matrices below.

Matrix Key ���� = Adverse effect on integrity cannot be excluded ���� = Adverse effect on integrity can be excluded C = construction O = operation D = decommissioning Where effects are not applicable to a particular feature the matrix cell is formatted as follows: n/a

Page 278: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

187

187

Stage 2 Matrix 1: Anse de Vauville SCI: Annex II Marine Mammals

Name of European site: Anse de Vauville SCI

Distance to PROJECT TWO 519 km

European site features Adverse effect on integrity

Underwater piling noise In combination effects C O D C O D

Harbour porpoise Xa Xb, c

Evidence supporting conclusions

a. See Section 5.7 of the HRA for assessment of impacts on harbour porpoise. As described significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not be expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term (e.g., seven to eight years) and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated.

b. See Section 5.7 HRA for the Tier 1 projects, maximum-adverse scenarios and in-combination assessment of adverse effects on integrity for harbour porpoise. As described significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations of the European sites considered in this assessment are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated in-combination with other plans or projects (Tier 1).

c. See Section 5.7 HRA for the Tier 2 projects, maximum-adverse scenarios and in-combination assessment of adverse effects on integrity for harbour porpoise. As described in paragraphs significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not to be expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term (e.g., up to eleven years) and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations of the European sites considered in this assessment are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated in-combination with other plans or projects.

Page 279: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

188

188

Stage 2 Matrix 2: Baie de canche et couloir des trois estuaires SCI: Annex II Marine Mammals

Name of European site: Baie de canche et couloir des trois estuaires SCI

Distance to PROJECT TWO 362 km

European site features Adverse effect on integrity

Underwater piling noise In combination effects C O D C O D

Harbour porpoise Xa Xb, c

Evidence supporting conclusions

a. See Section 5.7 of the HRA for assessment of impacts on harbour porpoise. As described in paragraphs significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not be expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term (e.g., seven to eight years) and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated.

b. See Section 5.7 of the HRA of the HRA for the Tier 1 projects, maximum-adverse scenarios and in-combination assessment of adverse effects on integrity for harbour porpoise. As described in significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations of the European sites considered in this assessment are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated in-combination with other plans or projects (Tier 1)

c. See Section 5.7 of the HRA for the Tier 2 projects, maximum-adverse scenarios and in-combination assessment of adverse effects on integrity for harbour porpoise. As described in paragraphs significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not to be expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term (e.g., up to eleven years) and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations of the European sites considered in this assessment are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated in-combination with other plans or projects.

Page 280: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

189

189

Stage 2 Matrix 3: Baie de Seine occidentale SCI: Annex II Marine Mammals

Name of European site: Baie de Seine occidentale SCI

Distance to PROJECT TWO 502 km

European site features Adverse effect on integrity

Underwater piling noise In combination effects C O D C O D

Harbour porpoise Xa Xb, c

Evidence supporting conclusions

a. See Section 5.7 of the HRA of the HRA for assessment of impacts on harbour porpoise. As described in paragraphs in the HRA significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not be expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term (e.g., seven to eight years) and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated (See paragraphs 5.7.139 and 5.7.140 of the HRA).

b. See paragraphs Section 5.7 of the HRA for the Tier 1 projects, maximum-adverse scenarios and in-combination assessment of adverse effects on integrity for harbour porpoise. As described in in the HRA, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations of the European sites considered in this assessment are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated in-combination with other plans or projects (Tier 1).

c. See Section 5.7 of the HRA for the Tier 2 projects, maximum-adverse scenarios and in-combination assessment of adverse effects on integrity for harbour porpoise. As described in paragraphs in the HRA, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not to be expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term (e.g., up to eleven years) and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations of the European sites considered in this assessment are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated in-combination with other plans or projects.

Page 281: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

190

190

i.

Stage 2 Matrix 4: Bancs des Flandres pSCI: Annex II Marine Mammals

Name of European site: Bancs des Flandres pSCI

Distance to PROJECT TWO 282 km

European site features Adverse effect on integrity

Underwater piling noise In combination effects C O D C O D

Harbour porpoise Xa Xb, c

Evidence supporting conclusions

a. See Section 5.7 of the HRA for assessment of impacts on harbour porpoise. As described in the HRA, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not be expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term (e.g., seven to eight years) and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated

b. See Section 5.7 of the HRA for the Tier 1 projects, maximum-adverse scenarios and in-combination assessment of adverse effects on integrity for harbour porpoise. As described in the HRA, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations of the European sites considered in this assessment are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated in-combination with other plans or projects (Tier 1) (See paragraphs 5.7.190 to 5.7.191 of the HRA).

c. See Section 5.7 of the HRA for the Tier 2 projects, maximum-adverse scenarios and in-combination assessment of adverse effects on integrity for harbour porpoise. As described in f the HRA, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not to be expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term (e.g., up to eleven years) and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations of the European sites considered in this assessment are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated in-combination with other plans or projects

Page 282: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

191

191

.

Stage 2 Matrix 5: Banc et rècifs de Surtainville SCI: Annex II Marine Mammals

Name of European site: Banc et rècifs de Surtainville SCI

Distance to PROJECT TWO 535 km

European site features Adverse effect on integrity

Underwater piling noise In combination effects C O D C O D

Harbour porpoise Xa Xb, c

Evidence supporting conclusions

a. See Section 5.7 the HRA for assessment of impacts on harbour porpoise. As described in the HRA, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not be expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term (e.g., seven to eight years) and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated.

b. See Section 5.7 of the HRA for the Tier 1 projects, maximum-adverse scenarios and in-combination assessment of adverse effects on integrity for harbour porpoise. As described in f the HRA, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations of the European sites considered in this assessment are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated in-combination with other plans or projects (Tier 1)

c. See Section 5.7 of the HRA for the Tier 2 projects, maximum-adverse scenarios and in-combination assessment of adverse effects on integrity for harbour porpoise. As described in the HRA, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not to be expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term (e.g., up to eleven years) and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations of the European sites considered in this assessment are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated in-combination with other plans or projects

Page 283: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

192

192

Stage 2 Matrix 6: Berwickshire and North Northumberland Coast SAC: Annex II Marine Mammals

Name of European site: Berwickshire and North Northumberland Coast SAC

Distance to PROJECT TWO 242 km 208 km to Export Cable

European site features Adverse effect on integrity

Underwater piling noise In combination effects C O D C O D

Grey seal Xa Xb, c

Evidence supporting conclusions

a. See Section 5.7 of the HRA for assessment of impacts on grey seal. As relatively small areas and number of animals are anticipated to be affected by construction noise, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution of this species within European sites are not to be expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is predicted to occur and consequently no significant long term effects on grey seal populations are likely to occur). No adverse effects are anticipated

b. See paragraphs Section 5.7 of the HRA for the Tier 1 projects, maximum adverse scenarios and in-combination assessment of adverse effects on integrity for grey seal. Any disturbance will be intermittent and recovery to baseline levels is anticipated in the long term. Significant disturbance to the species and changes in the population and distribution of this species within European sites are therefore not to be expected in the long term. No adverse effects are anticipated in-combination with other plans or projects (Tier 1) .

c. See Section 5.7 of the HRA for the Tier 2 projects, maximum adverse scenarios and in-combination assessment of adverse effects on integrity for grey seal. Disturbance will be intermittent during this period and recovery to baseline levels would be anticipated in the long term. As such, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution of this species within European sites are not to be expected in the long term. No adverse effects are anticipated in-combination with other plans or projects (Tier 2).

Page 284: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

193

193

Stage 2 Matrix 7: Borkum – Riffgrund SCI: Annex II Marine Mammals

Name of European site: Borkum – Riffgrund SCI

Distance to PROJECT TWO 262 km

European site features Adverse effect on integrity

Underwater piling noise In combination effects C O D C O D

Harbour porpoise Xa Xb, c

Evidence supporting conclusions

a. See paragraphs 5.7.113 to 5.7.140 of the HRA for assessment of impacts on harbour porpoise. As described in paragraphs 5.7.130 to 5.7.138 of the HRA, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not be expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term (e.g., seven to eight years) and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated (See paragraphs 5.7.139 and 5.7.140 of the HRA).

b. See paragraphs 5.7.180 to 5.7.191 of the HRA for the Tier 1 projects, maximum-adverse scenarios and in-combination assessment of adverse effects on integrity for harbour porpoise. As described in paragraphs 5.7.183 to 5.7.189 of the HRA, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations of the European sites considered in this assessment are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated in-combination with other plans or projects (Tier 1) (See paragraphs 5.7.190 to 5.7.191 of the HRA).

c. See paragraphs 5.7.192 to 5.7.201 of the HRA for the Tier 2 projects, maximum-adverse scenarios and in-combination assessment of adverse effects on integrity for harbour porpoise. As described in paragraphs 5.7.195 to 5.7.199 of the HRA, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not to be expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term (e.g., up to eleven years) and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations of the European sites considered in this assessment are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated in-combination with other plans or projects (See paragraphs 5.7.200 and 5.7.201 of the HRA).

Page 285: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

194

194

Stage 2 Matrix 8: Doggerbank (German Dogger Bank) SCI: Annex II Marine Mammals

Name of European site: Doggerbank (German Dogger Bank) SCI

Distance to PROJECT TWO 63 km

European site features Adverse effect on integrity

Underwater piling noise In combination effects C O D C O D

Harbour porpoise Xa Xb, c

Evidence supporting conclusions

a. See paragraphs 5.7.113 to 5.7.140 of the HRA for assessment of impacts on harbour porpoise. As described in paragraphs 5.7.130 to 5.7.138 of the HRA, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not be expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term (e.g., seven to eight years) and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated (See paragraphs 5.7.139 and 5.7.140 of the HRA).

b. See paragraphs 5.7.180 to 5.7.191 of the HRA for the Tier 1 projects, maximum-adverse scenarios and in-combination assessment of adverse effects on integrity for harbour porpoise. As described in paragraphs 5.7.183 to 5.7.189 of the HRA, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations of the European sites considered in this assessment are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated in-combination with other plans or projects (Tier 1) (See paragraphs 5.7.190 to 5.7.191 of the HRA).

c. See paragraphs 5.7.192 to 5.7.201 of the HRA for the Tier 2 projects, maximum-adverse scenarios and in-combination assessment of adverse effects on integrity for harbour porpoise. As described in paragraphs 5.7.195 to 5.7.199 of the HRA, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not to be expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term (e.g., up to eleven years) and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations of the European sites considered in this assessment are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated in-combination with other plans or projects (See paragraphs 5.7.200 and 5.7.201 of the HRA).

Page 286: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

195

195

Stage 2 Matrix 9: Doggersbank pSCI: Annex II Marine Mammals

Name of European site: Doggersbank pSCI

Distance to PROJECT TWO 63 km

European site features Adverse effect on integrity

Underwater piling noise In combination effects C O D C O D

Grey seal Xa Xb, c

harbour seal Xd Xe, f

Harbour porpoise Xg Xh, i

Evidence supporting conclusions

a. See paragraphs 5.7.68 to 5.7.85 of the HRA for assessment of impacts on grey seal. As relatively small areas and number of animals are anticipated to be affected by construction noise, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution of this species within European sites are not to be expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is predicted to occur and consequently no significant long term effects on grey seal populations are likely to occur (See paragraphs 5.7.81 to 5.7.84 of the HRA). No adverse effects are anticipated (See paragraph 5.7.85 of the HRA).

b. See paragraphs 5.7.147 to 5.7.157 of the HRA for the Tier 1 projects, maximum adverse scenarios and in-combination assessment of adverse effects on integrity for grey seal. Any disturbance will be intermittent and recovery to baseline levels is anticipated in the long term. Significant disturbance to the species and changes in the population and distribution of this species within European sites are therefore not to be expected in the long term. No adverse effects are anticipated in-combination with other plans or projects (Tier 1) (See paragraphs 5.7.156 and 5.7.157 of the HRA).

c. See paragraphs 5.7.158 to 5.7.164 of the HRA for the Tier 2 projects, maximum adverse scenarios and in-combination assessment of adverse effects on integrity for grey seal. Disturbance will be intermittent during this period and recovery to baseline levels would be anticipated in the long term. As such, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution of this species within European sites are not to be expected in the long term. No adverse effects are anticipated in-combination with other plans or projects (Tier 2) (See paragraphs 5.7.163 and 5.7.164 of the HRA).

d. See paragraphs 5.7.91 to 5.7.111 of the HRA for assessment of impacts on harbour seal. As discussed within paragraphs 5.7.105 to 5.7.109 of the HRA, the small areas where impacts are to be expected, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not to be expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour seal populations are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated (See paragraphs 5.7.110 and 5.7.111).

e. See paragraphs 5.7.165 to 5.7.178 of the HRA for the Tier 1 projects, maximum-adverse scenarios and in-combination assessment of adverse effects on integrity for harbour seal. Any disturbance will be intermittent, as piling at Tier 1 projects will be phased over their respective construction periods and the areas likely affected at a given time small in the context of the wider habitat available to the species. Furthermore, recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to occur in the medium term (e.g., recovery to baseline levels expected following cessation of piling). Significant disturbance to the species and changes in the population and distribution of this species within European sites are therefore not to be expected in the long term. No adverse effects are anticipated in-combination with other plans or projects (See paragraphs 5.7.177 and 5.7.178 of the HRA).

f. An in-combination assessment for Tier 2 projects is not deemed necessary in relation to harbour seal as harbour seal were not assessed as a VER for these projects (See paragraph 5.7.179 of the HRA.

g. See paragraphs 5.7.113 to 5.7.140 of the HRA for assessment of impacts on harbour porpoise. As described in paragraphs 5.7.130 to 5.7.138 of the HRA, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not be expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term (e.g., seven to eight years) and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated (See paragraphs 5.7.139 and 5.7.140 of the HRA).

h. See paragraphs 5.7.180 to 5.7.191 of the HRA for the Tier 1 projects, maximum-adverse scenarios and in-combination assessment of adverse effects on integrity for harbour porpoise. As described in paragraphs 5.7.183 to 5.7.189 of the HRA, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not expected.

Page 287: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

196

196

Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations of the European sites considered in this assessment are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated in-combination with other plans or projects (Tier 1) (See paragraphs 5.7.190 to 5.7.191 of the HRA).

i. See paragraphs 5.7.192 to 5.7.201 of the HRA for the Tier 2 projects, maximum-adverse scenarios and in-combination assessment of adverse effects on integrity for harbour porpoise. As described in paragraphs 5.7.195 to 5.7.199 of the HRA, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not to be expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term (e.g., up to eleven years) and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations of the European sites considered in this assessment are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated in-combination with other plans or projects (See paragraphs 5.7.200 and 5.7.201 of the HRA).

Page 288: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

197

197

Stage 2 Matrix 10: Dråby Vig SAC: Annex II Marine Mammals

Name of European site: Dråby Vig SAC

Distance to PROJECT TWO 533 km

European site features Adverse effect on integrity

Underwater piling noise In combination effects C O D C O D

Harbour porpoise Xa Xb, c

Evidence supporting conclusions

a. See paragraphs 5.7.113 to 5.7.140 of the HRA for assessment of impacts on harbour porpoise. As described in paragraphs 5.7.130 to 5.7.138 of the HRA, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not be expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term (e.g., seven to eight years) and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated (See paragraphs 5.7.139 and 5.7.140 of the HRA).

b. See paragraphs 5.7.180 to 5.7.191 of the HRA for the Tier 1 projects, maximum-adverse scenarios and in-combination assessment of adverse effects on integrity for harbour porpoise. As described in paragraphs 5.7.183 to 5.7.189 of the HRA, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations of the European sites considered in this assessment are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated in-combination with other plans or projects (Tier 1) (See paragraphs 5.7.190 to 5.7.191 of the HRA).

c. See paragraphs 5.7.192 to 5.7.201 of the HRA for the Tier 2 projects, maximum-adverse scenarios and in-combination assessment of adverse effects on integrity for harbour porpoise. As described in paragraphs 5.7.195 to 5.7.199 of the HRA, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not to be expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term (e.g., up to eleven years) and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations of the European sites considered in this assessment are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated in-combination with other plans or projects (See paragraphs 5.7.200 and 5.7.201 of the HRA).

Page 289: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

198

198

Stage 2 Matrix 11: Estuaire de la Seine SCI: Annex II Marine Mammals

Name of European site: Estuaire de la Seine SCI

Distance to PROJECT TWO 488 km

European site features Adverse effect on integrity

Underwater piling noise In combination effects C O D C O D

Harbour porpoise Xa Xb, c

Evidence supporting conclusions

a. See paragraphs 5.7.113 to 5.7.140 of the HRA for assessment of impacts on harbour porpoise. As described in paragraphs 5.7.130 to 5.7.138 of the HRA, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not be expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term (e.g., seven to eight years) and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated (See paragraphs 5.7.139 and 5.7.140 of the HRA).

b. See paragraphs 5.7.180 to 5.7.191 of the HRA for the Tier 1 projects, maximum-adverse scenarios and in-combination assessment of adverse effects on integrity for harbour porpoise. As described in paragraphs 5.7.183 to 5.7.189 of the HRA, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations of the European sites considered in this assessment are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated in-combination with other plans or projects (Tier 1) (See paragraphs 5.7.190 to 5.7.191 of the HRA).

c. See paragraphs 5.7.192 to 5.7.201 of the HRA for the Tier 2 projects, maximum-adverse scenarios and in-combination assessment of adverse effects on integrity for harbour porpoise. As described in paragraphs 5.7.195 to 5.7.199 of the HRA, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not to be expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term (e.g., up to eleven years) and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations of the European sites considered in this assessment are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated in-combination with other plans or projects (See paragraphs 5.7.200 and 5.7.201 of the HRA).

Page 290: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

199

199

Stage 2 Matrix 12: Estuaires et Littoral Picards (baies de Somme et d’Authie) SAC: Annex II Marine Mammals

Name of European site: Estuaires et Littoral Picards (baies de Somme et d’Authie) SAC

Distance to PROJECT TWO 383 km

European site features Adverse effect on integrity

Underwater piling noise In combination effects C O D C O D

Harbour porpoise Xa Xb, c

Evidence supporting conclusions

a. See paragraphs 5.7.113 to 5.7.140 of the HRA for assessment of impacts on harbour porpoise. As described in paragraphs 5.7.130 to 5.7.138 of the HRA, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not be expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term (e.g., seven to eight years) and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated (See paragraphs 5.7.139 and 5.7.140 of the HRA).

b. See paragraphs 5.7.180 to 5.7.191 of the HRA for the Tier 1 projects, maximum-adverse scenarios and in-combination assessment of adverse effects on integrity for harbour porpoise. As described in paragraphs 5.7.183 to 5.7.189 of the HRA, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations of the European sites considered in this assessment are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated in-combination with other plans or projects (Tier 1) (See paragraphs 5.7.190 to 5.7.191 of the HRA).

c. See paragraphs 5.7.192 to 5.7.201 of the HRA for the Tier 2 projects, maximum-adverse scenarios and in-combination assessment of adverse effects on integrity for harbour porpoise. As described in paragraphs 5.7.195 to 5.7.199 of the HRA, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not to be expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term (e.g., up to eleven years) and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations of the European sites considered in this assessment are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated in-combination with other plans or projects (See paragraphs 5.7.200 and 5.7.201 of the HRA).

Page 291: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

200

200

Stage 2 Matrix 13: Falaises du Cran aux oeufs et du cap gris-nez, dunes du chatelet, marais de tardinghen et dunes de wissant SCI: Annex II Marine Mammals

Name of European site: Falaises du Cran aux oeufs et du cap gris-nez, dunes du chatelet, marais de tardinghen et dunes de wissant SCI

Distance to PROJECT TWO 326 km

European site features Adverse effect on integrity

Underwater piling noise In combination effects C O D C O D

Harbour porpoise Xa Xb, c

Evidence supporting conclusions

a. See paragraphs 5.7.113 to 5.7.140 of the HRA for assessment of impacts on harbour porpoise. As described in paragraphs 5.7.130 to 5.7.138 of the HRA, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not be expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term (e.g., seven to eight years) and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated (See paragraphs 5.7.139 and 5.7.140 of the HRA).

b. See paragraphs 5.7.180 to 5.7.191 of the HRA for the Tier 1 projects, maximum-adverse scenarios and in-combination assessment of adverse effects on integrity for harbour porpoise. As described in paragraphs 5.7.183 to 5.7.189 of the HRA, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations of the European sites considered in this assessment are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated in-combination with other plans or projects (Tier 1) (See paragraphs 5.7.190 to 5.7.191 of the HRA).

c. See paragraphs 5.7.192 to 5.7.201 of the HRA for the Tier 2 projects, maximum-adverse scenarios and in-combination assessment of adverse effects on integrity for harbour porpoise. As described in paragraphs 5.7.195 to 5.7.199 of the HRA, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not to be expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term (e.g., up to eleven years) and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations of the European sites considered in this assessment are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated in-combination with other plans or projects (See paragraphs 5.7.200 and 5.7.201 of the HRA).

Page 292: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

201

201

Stage 2 Matrix 14: Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA: Offshore Bird Features

Name of European site: Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA

Distance to PROJECT TWO 100 km

European site features Adverse effect on integrity

Displacement Collision In combination effects C O D C O D C O D

Fulmar Xa Xb

Gannet Xc Xd Xe, f

Kittiwake Xg Xh

Guillemot Xi Xj

Razorbill Xk Xl

Puffin Xm Xn

Evidence supporting conclusions

a. Based on a worst case assumption of 100% of the birds originating from the Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA displacement analysis predicted a mortality of 8 fulmar during the breeding season (See Table 5-31), based on a displacement rate of 30% and mortality rate of 2%. This represents 0.0032% of the pSPA assemblage feature. During the post-breeding season (September to October), displacement analysis predicted 0 mortality based on a displacement rate of 30% and mortality of 1%. During the non-breeding season (November) the mean peak population estimate within Subzone 2 and 2 km buffer was 57 individual fulmar. Displacement analysis predicted a mortality of 0 fulmar during the non-breeding season based on a displacement rate of 30% and mortality rate of 1. In the pre-breeding season (December to March) displacement analysis predicted a mortality of 0 based on a displacement rate of 30% and mortality rate of 1%. Given the small number of mortalities predicted as a result of displacement and based on the precautionary nature of the assessment during the breeding there is unlikely to be an adverse effect of the fulmar component of the Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA assemblage feature.

b. In-combination mortality as a result of displacement. Taking a precautionary breeding season predicted mortality of 15 birds which represents a small proportion SPA population and only 0.07% of the assemblage feature of which the fulmar is a component, any increase in baseline mortality is likely to be sustainable. Outside of the breeding season a mortality of 2 birds represents less the 0.02% of the assemblage feature of the pSPA and therefore no adverse effect is predicted. Therefore, there is no indication of an adverse effect due to in-combination displacement mortality on fulmar as a component of the assemblage feature of Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA.

c. Apppendix N of the Applicant’s resonse to Deadline III provides an updated assessment for the gannet feature of the of the Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA. It is agreed between the Applicant and Natural England that there is no potential for an adverse effect on the integrity of the gannet feature of the FFC pSPA as a result of the Project alone, see Appendix Y of the Applicant’ s response do Deadline 3, SoCG between the Applicant and Natural England.

d. Apppendix N of the Applicant’s resonse to Deadline III provides an updated assessment for the gannet feature of the of the Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA. It is agreed between the Applicant and Natural England that there is no potential for an adverse effect on the integrity of the gannet feature of the FFC pSPA as a result of the Project alone, see Appendix Y of the Applicant’ s response do Deadline 3, SoCG between the Applicant and Natural England.

e. Apppendix N of the Applicant’s resonse to Deadline III provides an updated in-combination assessment for the gannet feature of the of the Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA. It is agreed between the Applicant and Natural England that there is no potential for an adverse effect on the integrity of the gannet feature of the FFC pSPA as a result of the Project in-combination with other plans and projects, see Appendix Y of the Applicant’ s response do Deadline 3, SoCG between the Applicant and Natural England.

f. Apppendix N of the Applicant’s resonse to Deadline III provides an updated in-combination assessment for the gannet feature of the of the Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA. It is agreed between the Applicant and Natural England that there is no potential for an adverse effect on the integrity of the gannet feature of the FFC pSPA as a result of the Project in-combination with other plans and projects, see Appendix Y of the Applicant’ s response do Deadline 3, SoCG between the Applicant and Natural England.

Page 293: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

202

202

g. Appendix P of the Applicant’s response to Deadline III provides a clarification on the Project alone assessment of kittiwake from the FFC pSPA. The Applicant’s position using Option 4 results in 5.1 collisions apportioned to the pSPA. According to PVA outputs presented in Appendix M of the Applicant’s response to Deadline III no adverse effect on the integrity of the kittiwake feature is predicted.

h. Appendix P of the Applicant’s response to Deadline III provides a clarification on the in-combination assessment of kittiwake from the FFC pSPA. The Applicant’s position using the extende model where available predicts in-combination collision risk estimate of 146 collisions According to PVA outputs presented in Appendix M of the Applicant’s response to Deadline III no adverse effect on the integrity of the kittiwake feature is predicted.

i. Apppendix O of the Applicant’s resonse to Deadline III provides an updated assessment for the guillemot feature of the of the Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA. It is agreed between the Applicant and Natural England that there is no potential for an adverse effect on the integrity of the guillemot feature of the FFC pSPA as a result of the Project alone, see Appendix Y of the Applicant’ s response do Deadline 3, SoCG between the Applicant and Natural England.

j. Apppendix O of the Applicant’s resonse to Deadline III provides an updated in-combination assessment for the guillemot feature of the of the Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA. It is agreed between the Applicant and Natural England that there is no potential for an adverse effect on the integrity of the guilleot feature of the FFC pSPA as a result of the Project in-combination with other plans and projects, see Appendix Y of the Applicant’ s response do Deadline 3, SoCG between the Applicant and Natural England.

k. Apppendix R of the Applicant’s resonse to Deadline III provides an updated assessment for the razorbill feature of the of the Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA. It is agreed between the Applicant and Natural England that there is no potential for an adverse effect on the integrity of the razrobill feature of the FFC pSPA as a result of the Project alone, see Appendix Y of the Applicant’ s response do Deadline 3, SoCG between the Applicant and Natural England.

l. Apppendix R of the Applicant’s resonse to Deadline III provides an updated in-combination assessment for the razorbill feature of the of the Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA. It is agreed between the Applicant and Natural England that there is no potential for an adverse effect on the integrity of the razorbill feature of the FFC pSPA as a result of the Project in-combination with other plans and projects, see Appendix Y of the Applicant’ s response do Deadline 3, SoCG between the Applicant and Natural England.

m. Apppendix Q of the Applicant’s resonse to Deadline III provides an updated assessment for puffin as part of the seabird assemblage feature of the of the Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA. It is agreed between the Applicant and Natural England that there is no potential for an adverse effect on the integrity of the puffin component of the seabird assemblage feature of the FFC pSPA as a result of the Project alone, see Appendix Y of the Applicant’ s response do Deadline 3, SoCG between the Applicant and Natural England.

n. Apppendix Q of the Applicant’s resonse to Deadline III provides an updated in-combination assessment for puffin as part of the seabird assemblage feature of the of the Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA. It is agreed between the Applicant and Natural England that there is no potential for an adverse effect on the integrity of the puffin component of the seabird assemblage feature of the FFC pSPA as a result of the Project in-combination with other plans and projects, see Appendix Y of the Applicant’ s response do Deadline 3, SoCG between the Applicant and Natural England.

Page 294: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

203

203

Stage 2 Matrix 14a: Flamborough and Bempton Cliffs SPA

Name of European site: Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs

Distance to PROJECT TWO 100 km

European site features Adverse effect on integrity

Displacement Collision In combination effects C O D C O D C O D

Kittiwake Xa Xb

Evidence supporting conclusions

a. As stated in paragraph 5.4.55 of the HRA Screening Report any conclusions drawn in relation to Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA also apply to Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs SPA. The qualifying features at the pSPA are analogous with those at the existing SPA and as such any conclusions drawn are valid for both sites. It should be noted that Natural England recommended using the recent citation figures for the pSPA for the basis of the assessment, 44,520 pairs. Appendix P of the Applicant’s response to Deadline III provides a clarification on the Project alone assessment of kittiwake from the Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs SPA. The Applicant’s position using Option 4 results in 5.1 collisions apportioned to the pSPA. According to PVA outputs presented in Appendix M of the Applicant’s response to Deadline III no adverse effect on the integrity of the kittiwake feature is predicted.

b. Appendix P of the Applicant’s response to Deadline III provides a clarification on the in-combination assessment of kittiwake from the Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs SPA. The Applicant’s position using the extende model where available predicts in-combination collision risk estimate of 146 collisions According to PVA outputs presented in Appendix M of the Applicant’s response to Deadline III no adverse effect on the integrity of the kittiwake feature is predicted

Page 295: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

204

204

Stage 2 Matrix 15: Forth Islands SPA: Offshore Bird Features

Name of European site: Forth Islands SPA

Distance to PROJECT TWO 345 km

European site features Adverse effect on integrity

Displacement Collision In combination effects C O D C O D C O D

Fulmar Xa Xb

Evidence supporting conclusions

a. For the Project-alone displacement assessment of Fulmar. Based on the precautionary assumption that 100 % of the birds present within the Project area during the breeding season originate from the Forth Islands SPA, displacement analysis predicted a mortality of 4fulmar during the breeding season based on a displacement rate of 30% and mortality rate of 2%. This represents 0.25% of the current SPA breeding population. Outside of the breeding season the proportion of birds likely to originate from the Flamborough and Filey coast pSPA was calculated based on the proportion the SPA population contributes to the BDMPS in the non-breeding season (38%). Displacement analysis predicted a mortality of 0 during the non-breeding season using a displacement rate of 30% and mortality rate of 1%. No adverse effects are predicted.

b. Although Hornsea Project Two and Two is within mean maximum foraging range of breeding fulmar from the Forth Islands SPA, other fulmar breeding features are closer to this Project (e.g Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA). Nevertheless, taking a precautionary breeding season predicted mortality of 13 birds and represents a small proportion SPA population and only 0.4% of the breeding population, any increase in baseline mortality is likely to be sustainable Outside of the breeding season mortality if 3 birds represents less the 0.09% of the breeding feature and therefore no adverse effect is predicted. No indication of adverse effect in-combination with other plans and projects.

Page 296: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

205

205

Stage 2 Matrix 16: Fowlsheugh SPA: Offshore Bird Features

Name of European site: Fowlsheugh SPA

Distance to PROJECT TWO 394 km

European site features Adverse effect on integrity

Displacement Collision In combination effects C O D C O D C O D

Fulmar Xa Xb

Evidence supporting conclusions

a. For the Project-alone displacement assessment of Fulmar. Based on the precautionary assumption that 100 % of the birds present within the Project area during the breeding season originate from the Fowlsheugh SPA, displacement analysis predicted a mortality of 6 fulmar during the breeding season, based on a displacement rate of 30% and mortality rate of 2%.

This represents 0.25% of the current SPA breeding population. In the post breeding season, 0 mortalities were predicted using a 30% displacement rate and 1% mortality rate. In the non-breeding season and pre-breeding season, 0 mortalities were also predicted using a 30% displacement rate and 1% mortality rate No adverse effects are predicted

b. For the In-combination displacement assessment of Fulmar. Although Hornsea Project Two and Two is within mean maximum foraging range of breeding fulmar from the Fowlsheugh SPA, other fulmar breeding features are closer to this Project (e.g Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA). Nevertheless, taking a precautionary breeding season predicted mortality of 13 birds

represents a small proportion of the SPA population and only 0.5% of the breeding population. Therefore, any increase in baseline mortality is likely to be sustainable. Outside of the

breeding season, mortality of 3 birds represents less the 0.13% of the breeding feature and therefore no adverse effect is predicted No indication of adverse effect in-combination with other plans and projects

Page 297: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

206

206

Stage 2 Matrix 17: Gule Rev pSCI: Annex II Marine Mammals

Name of European site: Gule Rev pSCI

Distance to PROJECT TWO 516 km

European site features Adverse effect on integrity

Underwater piling noise In combination effects C O D C O D

Harbour porpoise Xa Xb, c

Evidence supporting conclusions

a. See paragraphs 5.7.113 to 5.7.140 of the HRA for assessment of impacts on harbour porpoise. As described in paragraphs 5.7.130 to 5.7.138 of the HRA, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not be expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term (e.g., seven to eight years) and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated (See paragraphs 5.7.139 and 5.7.140 of the HRA).

b. See paragraphs 5.7.180 to 5.7.191 of the HRA for the Tier 1 projects, maximum-adverse scenarios and in-combination assessment of adverse effects on integrity for harbour porpoise. As described in paragraphs 5.7.183 to 5.7.189 of the HRA, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations of the European sites considered in this assessment are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated in-combination with other plans or projects (Tier 1) (See paragraphs 5.7.190 to 5.7.191 of the HRA).

c. See paragraphs 5.7.192 to 5.7.201 of the HRA for the Tier 2 projects, maximum-adverse scenarios and in-combination assessment of adverse effects on integrity for harbour porpoise. As described in paragraphs 5.7.195 to 5.7.199 of the HRA, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not to be expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term (e.g., up to eleven years) and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations of the European sites considered in this assessment are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated in-combination with other plans or projects (See paragraphs 5.7.200 and 5.7.201 of the HRA).

Page 298: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

207

207

Stage 2 Matrix 18: Hamburgisches Wattenmeer SAC: Annex II Marine Mammals

Name of European site: Hamburgisches Wattenmeer SAC

Distance to PROJECT TWO 401 km

European site features Adverse effect on integrity

Underwater piling noise In combination effects C O D C O D

Harbour porpoise Xa Xb, c

Evidence supporting conclusions

a. See paragraphs 5.7.113 to 5.7.140 of the HRA for assessment of impacts on harbour porpoise. As described in paragraphs 5.7.130 to 5.7.138 of the HRA, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not be expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term (e.g., seven to eight years) and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated (See paragraphs 5.7.139 and 5.7.140 of the HRA).

b. See paragraphs 5.7.180 to 5.7.191 of the HRA for the Tier 1 projects, maximum-adverse scenarios and in-combination assessment of adverse effects on integrity for harbour porpoise. As described in paragraphs 5.7.183 to 5.7.189 of the HRA, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations of the European sites considered in this assessment are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated in-combination with other plans or projects (Tier 1) (See paragraphs 5.7.190 to 5.7.191 of the HRA).

c. See paragraphs 5.7.192 to 5.7.201 of the HRA for the Tier 2 projects, maximum-adverse scenarios and in-combination assessment of adverse effects on integrity for harbour porpoise. As described in paragraphs 5.7.195 to 5.7.199 of the HRA, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not to be expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term (e.g., up to eleven years) and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations of the European sites considered in this assessment are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated in-combination with other plans or projects (See paragraphs 5.7.200 and 5.7.201 of the HRA).

j. k.

Page 299: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

208

208

Stage 2 Matrix 19: Helgoland mit Helgoländer Felssockel SAC: Annex II Marine Mammals

Name of European site: Helgoland mit Helgoländer Felssockel SAC

Distance to PROJECT TWO 374 km

European site features Adverse effect on integrity

Underwater piling noise In combination effects C O D C O D

Harbour porpoise Xa Xb, c

Evidence supporting conclusions

a. See paragraphs 5.7.113 to 5.7.140 of the HRA for assessment of impacts on harbour porpoise. As described in paragraphs 5.7.130 to 5.7.138 of the HRA, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not be expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term (e.g., seven to eight years) and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated (See paragraphs 5.7.139 and 5.7.140 of the HRA).

b. See paragraphs 5.7.180 to 5.7.191 of the HRA for the Tier 1 projects, maximum-adverse scenarios and in-combination assessment of adverse effects on integrity for harbour porpoise. As described in paragraphs 5.7.183 to 5.7.189 of the HRA, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations of the European sites considered in this assessment are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated in-combination with other plans or projects (Tier 1) (See paragraphs 5.7.190 to 5.7.191 of the HRA).

c. See paragraphs 5.7.192 to 5.7.201 of the HRA for the Tier 2 projects, maximum-adverse scenarios and in-combination assessment of adverse effects on integrity for harbour porpoise. As described in paragraphs 5.7.195 to 5.7.199 of the HRA, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not to be expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term (e.g., up to eleven years) and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations of the European sites considered in this assessment are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated in-combination with other plans or projects (See paragraphs 5.7.200 and 5.7.201 of the HRA).

l.

Page 300: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

209

209

Stage 2 Matrix 20a: Humber Estuary SAC: Annex I habitats

Name of European site: Humber Estuary SAC

Distance to PROJECT TWO 89 km 0 km to Export Cable European site features Adverse effect on integrity

Disturbance/loss of habitat Changes to water quality In combination effects C O D C O D C O D

Estuaries

Xa

Xg Xm, n

Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide Xb Xh Xm, o

Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time

Coastal lagoons Xc Xi Xm, p Salicornia and other annuals colonising mud and sand

Xd Xj

Xm, q

Atlantic salt meadows (Glauco-

Puccinellietalia maritimae)

Xe

Xk

Xm, p

Embryonic shifting dunes Xf Xl Xm, r

Shifting dunes along the shoreline with Ammophila arenaria (“white dunes”); Xf

Xl Xm, r

Evidence supporting conclusions

a. Works are expected to disturb a negligible area in the context of the extent of this habitat within the SAC (e.g., < 0.1%). Any impact will be short term and reversible, having no potential to result in significant impacts on this feature in terms of long term habitat deterioration, reduction in habitat extent or impacts on its structure, function, supporting processes or typical species. No adverse effect is predicted (See paragraphs 5.5.50 to 5.5.51 of the HRA).

b. The intertidal biotopes have low sensitivity to, and high recoverability from, temporary sediment displacement. Any effects of increased predation from birds fish or other fauna are likely to be short term, with the species characterising these habitats having high rates of recovery. Eelgrass beds will not be directly disturbed given the distance from the works. Significant effects in terms of long term habitat deterioration, reduction in habitat extent or impacts on its structure, function, supporting processes or typical species are not to be expected. No adverse effect is predicted (See paragraphs 5.5.52 to 5.5.53 of the the HRA).

c. There will be minimal interaction between the proposed access and the Northcoates coastal lagoon system and therefore significant effects in terms of long term habitat deterioration, reduction in habitat extent or impacts on its structure, function, supporting processes or typical species are not to be expected (See paragraph 5.5.54 of the HRA). No adverse effect is predicted (See paragraph 5.5.54 of the HRA).

d. Evidence from analogous works in Salicornia habitat, indicate high recovery rates for this type of habitat (i.e., within one year) (See paragraph 5.5.58 of HRA). Mitigation and monitoring measures will minimise impacts (See paragraph 5.5.59 of the HRA). Significant effects in terms of long term habitat deterioration, reduction in habitat extent or impacts on its structure, function, supporting processes or typical species are not to be expected. No adverse effect is predicted (See paragraph 5.5.60 of the HRA).

Page 301: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

210

210

e. Given that areas where this habitat is present will be avoided during cable installation, significant effects in terms of long term habitat deterioration, reduction in habitat extent or impacts on its structure, function, supporting processes or typical species are not to be expected. (See paragraphs 5.5.61 to 5.5.62 of the HRA). No adverse effect is predicted (See paragraph 5.5.61 of the HRA).

f. The potential areas affected are localised. Ground protection measures will be implemented. Taking account of the small magnitude and localised nature of any potential impact and the mitigation measures to be implemented, significant impacts are not to be expected in terms of long term habitat deterioration, reduction in habitat extent or impacts on its structure, function, supporting processes or typical species (See paragraphs 5.5.63 to 5.5.71 of the HRA). No adverse effect is predicted (See paragraph 5.5.71 of the HRA).

g. Impacts will be short lived and affect relatively small areas. background concentrations within the Humber Estuary are comparatively high. Taking this into account together the extent of the estuary and the temporary and short lived nature of the potential effects, significant effects in terms of long term habitat deterioration, reduction in habitat extent or impacts on its structure, function, supporting processes or typical species are not to be expected. No adverse effect is predicted (See paragraph 5.5.78 to 5.5.79 of the HRA).

h. The habitat has low intolerance to increased suspended sediment concentrations. An increase in inorganic particles may interfere with the feeding apparatus of suspension feeders, however, the majority of fauna would be unaffected. Benthic communities recovery and recolonization is likely to be high. Eelgrass will not be subject to the highest levels of increased suspended sediment concentrations due to its location. Significant effects in terms of long term habitat deterioration, reduction in habitat extent or impacts on its structure, function, supporting processes or typical species are not to be expected on this habitat (See paragraphs 5.5.80 to 5.5.82 of the HRA). No adverse effect is predicted (See paragraph 5.5.82 of the HRA).

i. Given the location of the coastal lagoons and their feeder channels relative to the area of influence of increased suspended sediment concentrations and sediment deposition, and the short lived and small magnitude of the potential effects significant effects are not predicted. It is likely that much of the works will occur in the dry during low water, further minimising the potential for suspension of sediments and subsequent deposition in the vicinity of the lagoons and feeder channels (See paragraphs 5.5.83 to 5.5.85 of the HRA). No adverse effect is predicted (See paragraph 5.5.85 of the HRA).

j. The habitat and its component species have high recovery rates. The mitigation and monitoring proposed will minimise potential impacts on this habitat in the intertidal (See paragraphs 5.5.86 to 5.5.89 of the HRA). The impact is expected to be localised, short lived, and therefore of low magnitude and significant effects are not anticipated. No adverse effect is predicted (See 5.5.88 to 5.5.89 of the HRA).

k. Given their location on the shore line, it is not anticipated that sand dune habitats will be subject to the potential impacts associated with increased suspended sediment concentration and sediment deposition. No adverse effect is predicted (See paragraphs 5.5.90 to 5.5.93 of the HRA).

l. There is potential for cable installation to occur concurrently between Project Two and Project Two. The level of effect associated with cable installation predicted for Project Two is, as predicted for Project Two, highly localised and short lived. For reasons of practicality and safety, it is unlikely that the cable laying equipment for both export cables will be operating in close proximity. Therefore, cumulative effects of increases in suspended sediment are considered negligible. As a result potential in-combination impacts associated with increased suspended sediment concentrations and deposition are not considered further in this assessment (See paragraph 5.5.98 of the HRA).

m. For the Tier 1 assessment the total predicted disturbance/loss of habitat within the Humber Estuary SAC has been estimated at 536,000 m2 which equates to 0.15% of the total area of habitat within the SAC. No adverse effects are predicted as a result of Project Two in-combination with other plans and projects (See paragraphs 5.5.102 and 5.5.103 of the HRA).

n. The intertidal biotopes within this habitat have low sensitivity to, and high recoverability from, temporary sediment displacement. A relatively small area of habitat will be potentially affected. No adverse effects are anticipated to occur as a result of Project Two in-combination with other plans and projects (See paragraphs 5.5.104 to 5.5.106 of the HRA).

o. Based on the location and information provided in the ES for relevant plans and projects, there is not potential for in-combination effects on this feature (See paragraph 5.5.100 of the HRA). p. Whether the intertidal works for Project Two are undertaken in the year following the Project Two intertidal cable works, recovery may be longer than the one year predicted for Project Two

alone. Recovery to pre-impact densities is however still predicted to occur rapidly due to seed availability. There may be a reduction in the extent of Salicornia habitat within the Humber Estuary SAC in the short term (e.g., up to two years). Given the mitigation options proposed and the high recovery rates of this habitat type, however, significant effects are not to be expected. No adverse effects are anticipated as a result of Project Two in-combination with other plans and projects (see paragraphs 5.5.107 to 5.5.110 of the HRA).

q. The in-combination temporary area of disturbance/loss which equates to approximately 0.12% of the habitat. Taking account of the small magnitude and localised nature of any potential impact and the mitigation measures to be implemented for Project Two and the Phillips66 Replacement Pipeline, significant impacts are not to be expected. No adverse effect is predicted for Project Two in-combination (See paragraphs 5.5.111 and 5.5.112 of the HRA).

Page 302: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

211

211

Stage 2 Matrix 20b: Humber Estuary SAC: Annex II Migratory Fish

Name of European site: Humber Estuary SAC

Distance to PROJECT TWO 89 km 0 km to Export Cable

European site features Adverse effect on integrity

Changes to water quality EMFs In combination effects C O D C O D C O D

River lamprey Xa Xb Xc Xd

Sea lamprey Xa Xb Xc Xd

Evidence supporting conclusions

a. The greatest potential for interaction between effects associated with increased suspended sediment concentrations and these species is anticipated to be a result of activities associated with cable installation in the subtidal and intertidal section of the export cable, due to the distance of Subzone Two from home rivers (See paragraph 5.6.21 of the HRA). Regarding the export cable installation and intertidal works, increases in suspended sediment concentrations are expected to be very short lived, localised and small scale (See paragraphs 5.6.19 to 5.6.23 of the HRA). As such, significant impacts are not anticipated on the river and sea lamprey populations of the Humber Estuary SAC as a result of Project Two. No adverse effects are predicted (See paragraphs 5.6.22 and 5.6.24 of the HRA).

b. EMFs would be highly localised being limited to the immediate vicinity of the cables. Inter-array cables, inter-accommodation cables, export cables and platform inter-connector cables will either be buried to a target minimum burial depth of 1 m (2 m in the intertidal) or by cable protection (See paragraphs 5.6.25 to 5.6.33 of the HRA). Any potential impacts are expected to be short term, potentially resulting in temporary behavioural effects rather than causing a barrier to migration. No adverse effects are predicted (See paragraphs 5.6.33 and 5.6.34 of the HRA).

c. Should interaction occur, the result is predicted to be a short term, localised increase in suspended sediment concentration (up to 5 mg/l) over that which would otherwise be expected from either activity alone (See paragraph 5.6.38 of the HRA). The likely ability of these species to be able to tolerate high levels for suspended sediment during migration and the results of the in combination assessment indicate that impacts in terms of significant disturbance, effects to the population level and/or changes in the distribution or river and sea lamprey within the site in the long term are not to be expected (See paragraph 5.6.39 of the HRA). No adverse effects are predicted in-combination with other plans or projects (See paragraphs 5.6.39 and 5.6.40 of the HRA).

d. As presented in the assessment of the potential impact of Project Two alone, any potential impacts associated with EMFs would be highly localised being limited to the immediate vicinity of the cables. Any potential impacts are expected to be short term, potentially resulting in temporary and short term behavioural effects rather than causing a barrier to migration. (See paragraphs 5.6.41 to 5.6.45 of the HRA). No adverse effects are anticipated (See paragraphs 5.6.45 and 5.6.46 of the HRA).

Page 303: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

212

212

Stage 2 Matrix 20c: Humber Estuary SAC: Annex II Marine Mammals

Name of European site: Humber Estuary SAC

Distance to PROJECT TWO 89 km 0 km to Export Cable

European site features Adverse effect on integrity

Underwater piling noise In combination effects C O D C O D

Grey seal Xa Xb, c

Evidence supporting conclusions

a. See paragraphs 5.7.68 to 5.7.85 of the HRA for assessment of impacts on grey seal. As relatively small areas and number of animals are anticipated to be affected by construction noise, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution of this species within European sites are not to be expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is predicted to occur and consequently no significant long term effects on grey seal populations are likely to occur (See paragraphs 5.7.81 to 5.7.84 of the HRA). No adverse effects are anticipated (See paragraph 5.7.85 of the HRA).

b. See paragraphs 5.7.147 to 5.7.157 of the HRA for the Tier 1 projects, maximum adverse scenarios and in-combination assessment of adverse effects on integrity for grey seal. Any disturbance will be intermittent and recovery to baseline levels is anticipated in the long term. Significant disturbance to the species and changes in the population and distribution of this species within European sites are therefore not to be expected in the long term. No adverse effects are anticipated in-combination with other plans or projects (Tier 1) (See paragraphs 5.7.156 and 5.7.157 of the HRA).

c. See paragraphs 5.7.158 to 5.7.164 of the HRA for the Tier 2 projects, maximum adverse scenarios and in-combination assessment of adverse effects on integrity for grey seal. Disturbance will be intermittent during this period and recovery to baseline levels would be anticipated in the long term. As such, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution of this species within European sites are not to be expected in the long term. No adverse effects are anticipated in-combination with other plans or projects (Tier 2) (See paragraphs 5.7.163 and 5.7.164 of the HRA).

Page 304: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

213

213

Stage 2 Matrix 21a: Humber Estuary Ramsar: Annex I habitat

Name of European site: Humber Estuary Ramsar

Distance to PROJECT TWO 89 km 0 km to Export Cable

European site features Adverse effect on integrity

Disturbance/loss of habitat Changes to water quality In combination effects C O D C O D C O D

Dune systems and humid dune slacks

Xa

Xe

Xj, k

Estuarine waters Xf Xj,

Intertidal mud and sand flats Xb Xg Xj, l

Saltmarshes Xc Xh Xj, m

Coastal brackish/saline lagoons Xd Xi Xj, n

Evidence supporting conclusions

a. The potential areas affected are localised. Ground protection measures will be implemented. Taking account of the small magnitude and localised nature of any potential impact and the mitigation measures to be implemented, significant impacts are not to be expected in terms of long term habitat deterioration, reduction in habitat extent or impacts on its structure, function, supporting processes or typical species (See paragraphs 5.5.63 to 5.5.71 of HRA). No adverse effect is predicted (See paragraph 5.5.71 of the HRA).

b. The intertidal biotopes have low sensitivity to, and high recoverability from, temporary sediment displacement. Any effects of increased predation from birds fish or other fauna are likely to be short term, with the species characterising these habitats having high rates of recovery. Eelgrass beds will not be directly disturbed given the distance from the works. Significant effects in terms of long term habitat deterioration, reduction in habitat extent or impacts on its structure, function, supporting processes or typical species are not to be expected. No adverse effect is predicted (See paragraphs 5.5.52 to 5.5.53 of the HRA).

c. Evidence from analogous works in Salicornia habitat, indicate high recovery rates for this type of habitat (i.e., within one year) (See paragraph 5.5.58 of the HRA). Mitigation and monitoring measures will minimise impacts (See paragraph 5.5.59 of the HRA). No adverse effect is predicted for Salicornia habitat (See paragraph 5.5.60 of the HRA). Given that areas where Atlantic Salt Meadows are present will be avoided during cable installation, significant effects in terms of long term habitat deterioration, reduction in habitat extent or impacts on its structure, function, supporting processes or typical species are not to be expected. (See paragraphs 5.5.61 to 5.5.62 of the HRA). No adverse effect is predicted (See paragraph 5.5.61 of the HRA).

d. There will be minimal interaction between the proposed access and the Northcoates coastal lagoon system and therefore significant effects in terms of long term habitat deterioration, reduction in habitat extent or impacts on its structure, function, supporting processes or typical species are not to be expected (See paragraph 5.5.54 of HRA). No adverse effect is predicted (See paragraph 5.5.54 of HRA).

e. Given their location on the shore line, it is not anticipated that sand dune habitats will be subject to the potential impacts associated with increased suspended sediment concentration and sediment deposition. No adverse effect is predicted (See paragraphs 5.5.90 to 5.5.93 of HRA).

f. Impacts will be short lived and affect relatively small areas. background concentrations within the Humber Estuary are comparatively high. Taking this into account together the extent of the estuary and the temporary and short lived nature of the potential effects, significant effects in terms of long term habitat deterioration, reduction in habitat extent or impacts on its structure, function, supporting processes or typical species are not to be expected. No adverse effect is predicted (See paragraph 5.5.78 to 5.5.79 of HRA).

g. The habitat has low intolerance to increased suspended sediment concentrations. An increase in inorganic particles may interfere with the feeding apparatus of suspension feeders, however, the majority of fauna would be unaffected. Benthic communities recovery and recolonisation is likely to be high. Eelgrass will not be subject to the highest levels of increased suspended sediment concentrations due to its location. Significant effects in terms of long term habitat deterioration, reduction in habitat extent or impacts on its structure, function, supporting processes or typical species are not to be expected on this habitat (See paragraphs 5.5.80 to 5.5.82 of the HRA). No adverse effect is predicted (See paragraph 5.5.82 of the HRA).

Page 305: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

214

214

h. The Salicornia habitat and its component species have high recovery rates. The mitigation and monitoring proposed will minimise potential impacts on this habitat in the intertidal (See paragraphs 5.5.86 to 5.5.89 of HRA). The impact is expected to be localised, short lived, and therefore of low magnitude and significant effects are not anticipated. No adverse effect is predicted (See 5.5.88 to 5.5.89 of the HRA).

i. Given the location of the coastal lagoons and their feeder channels relative to the area of influence of increased suspended sediment concentrations and sediment deposition, and the short lived and small magnitude of the potential effects significant effects are not predicted. It is likely that much of the works will occur in the dry during low water, further minimising the potential for suspension of sediments and subsequent deposition in the vicinity of the lagoons and feeder channels (See paragraphs 5.5.83 to 5.5.85 of HRA). No adverse effect is predicted (See paragraph 5.5.85 of the HRA).

j. There is potential for cable installation to occur concurrently between Project Two and Project Two. The level of effect associated with cable installation predicted for Project Two is, as predicted for Project Two, highly localised and short lived. For reasons of practicality and safety, it is unlikely that the cable laying equipment for both export cables will be operating in close proximity. Therefore, cumulative effects of increases in suspended sediment are considered negligible. As a result potential in-combination impacts associated with increased suspended sediment concentrations and deposition are not considered further in this assessment (See paragraph 5.5.98 of the HRA).

k. Taking account of the small magnitude and localised nature of any potential impact and the mitigation measures to be implemented for Project Two and the Phillips66 Replacement Pipeline, significant impacts are not to be expected. No adverse effect is predicted for Project Two in-combination (See paragraphs 5.5.111 and 5.5.112 of the HRA).

l. The intertidal biotopes within this habitat have low sensitivity to, and high recoverability from, temporary sediment displacement. A relatively small area of habitat will be potentially affected. No adverse effects are anticipated to occur as a result of Project Two in-combination with other plans and projects (See paragraphs 5.5.104 to 5.5.106 of the HRA).

m. Based on the location and information provided in the ES for relevant plans and projects, there is not potential for in-combination effects on Atlantic salt meadow habitat (See paragraph 5.5.100 of HRA). With regard to Salicornia, whether the intertidal works for Project Two are undertaken in the year following the Project Two intertidal cable works, recovery may be longer than the one year predicted for Project Two alone. Recovery to pre-impact densities is however still predicted to occur rapidly due to seed availability. There may be a reduction in the extent of Salicornia habitat within the Humber Estuary SAC in the short term (e.g., up to two years). Given the mitigation options proposed and the high recovery rates of this habitat type, however, significant effects are not to be expected. No adverse effects are anticipated as a result of Project Two in-combination with other plans and projects (see paragraphs 5.5.107 to 5.5.110 of the HRA).

n. Based on the location and information provided in the ES for relevant plans and projects, there is not potential for in-combination effects on lagoon features (See paragraph 5.5.100 of the HRA).

Page 306: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

215

215

Stage 2 Matrix 21b: Humber Estuary Ramsar: Annex II Migratory Fish

Name of European site: Humber Estuary Ramsar

Distance to PROJECT TWO 89 km 0 km to Export Cable

European site features Adverse effect on integrity

Changes to water quality EMFs In combination effects C O D C O D C O D

River lamprey Lampetra fluviatilis Xa Xb Xc Xd Sea lamprey Petromyzon marinus Xa Xb Xc Xd

Evidence supporting conclusions

a. The greatest potential for interaction between effects associated with increased suspended sediment concentrations and these species is anticipated to be a result of activities associated with cable installation in the subtidal and intertidal section of the export cable, due to the distance of Subzone Two from home rivers (See paragraph 5.6.21 of the HRA). Regarding the export cable installation and intertidal works, increases in suspended sediment concentrations are expected to be very short lived, localised and small scale (See paragraphs 5.6.19 to 5.6.23 of the HRA). As such, significant impacts are not anticipated on the river and sea lamprey populations of the Humber Estuary Ramsar as a result of Project Two. No adverse effects are predicted (See paragraphs 5.6.22 and 5.6.24 of the HRA).

b. EMFs would be highly localised being limited to the immediate vicinity of the cables. Inter-array cables, inter-accommodation cables, export cables and platform inter-connector cables will either be buried to a target minimum burial depth of 1 m (2 m in the intertidal) or by cable protection (See paragraphs 5.6.25 to 5.6.33 of the HRA). Any potential impacts are expected to be short term, potentially resulting in temporary behavioural effects rather than causing a barrier to migration. No adverse effects are predicted (See paragraphs 5.6.33 and 5.6.34 of the HRA).

c. Should interaction occur, the result is predicted to be a short term, localised increase in suspended sediment concentration (up to 5 mg/l) over that which would otherwise be expected from either activity alone (See paragraph 5.6.38 of the HRA). The likely ability of these species to be able to tolerate high levels for suspended sediment during migration and the results of the in combination assessment indicate that impacts in terms of significant disturbance, effects to the population level and/or changes in the distribution or river and sea lamprey within the site in the long term are not to be expected (See paragraph 5.6.39 of the HRA). No adverse effects are predicted in-combination with other plans or projects (See paragraphs 5.6.39 and 5.6.40 of the HRA).

d. As presented in the assessment of the potential impact of Project Two alone, any potential impacts associated with EMFs would be highly localised being limited to the immediate vicinity of the cables. Any potential impacts are expected to be short term, potentially resulting in temporary and short term behavioural effects rather than causing a barrier to migration. (See paragraphs 5.6.41 to 5.6.45 of the HRA). No adverse effects are anticipated (See paragraphs 5.6.45 and 5.6.46 of the HRA).

Page 307: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

216

216

Stage 2 Matrix 21c: Humber Estuary Ramsar: Annex II Marine Mammals

Name of European site: Humber Estuary Ramsar

Distance to PROJECT TWO 89 km 0 km to Export Cable

European site features Adverse effect on integrity

Underwater piling noise In combination effects C O D C O D

Grey seal Halichoerus grypus Xa Xb, c

Evidence supporting conclusions

a. See paragraphs 5.7.68 to 5.7.85 of the HRA for assessment of impacts on grey seal. As relatively small areas and number of animals are anticipated to be affected by construction noise, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution of this species within European sites are not to be expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is predicted to occur and consequently no significant long term effects on grey seal populations are likely to occur (See paragraphs 5.7.81 to 5.7.84 of the HRA). No adverse effects are anticipated (See paragraph 5.7.85 of the HRA).

b. See paragraphs 5.7.147 to 5.7.157 of the HRA for the Tier 1 projects, maximum adverse scenarios and in-combination assessment of adverse effects on integrity for grey seal. Any disturbance will be intermittent and recovery to baseline levels is anticipated in the long term. Significant disturbance to the species and changes in the population and distribution of this species within European sites are therefore not to be expected in the long term. No adverse effects are anticipated in-combination with other plans or projects (Tier 1) (See paragraphs 5.7.156 and 5.7.157 of the HRA).

c. See paragraphs 5.7.158 to 5.7.164 of the HRA for the Tier 2 projects, maximum adverse scenarios and in-combination assessment of adverse effects on integrity for grey seal. Disturbance will be intermittent during this period and recovery to baseline levels would be anticipated in the long term. As such, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution of this species within European sites are not to be expected in the long term. No adverse effects are anticipated in-combination with other plans or projects (Tier 2) (See paragraphs 5.7.163 and 5.7.164 of the HRA).

Page 308: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

217

217

Stage 2 Matrix 21d: Humber Estuary Ramsar: Intertidal Bird Features

Name of European site: Humber Estuary SAC

Distance to PROJECT TWO 89 km 0 km to Export Cable

European site features Adverse effect on integrity

Disturbance In combination effects C O D C O D

European golden plover, Pluvialis apricaria apricaria, P. a. altifrons Iceland & Faroes/E Atlantic

Xk

Xk Xn Xn

Red knot (Calidris canutus islandica), W & Southern Africa (wintering) Xl Xl Xn Xn

Dunlin (Calidris alpina alpina), W Siberia/W Europe Xf Xf Xn Xn

Black-tailed godwit (Limosa limosa islandica), Iceland/W Europe

Common redshank (Tringa totanus totanus) Xi Xi Xn Xn Common shelduck , NW Europe Xm Xm Xn Xn

European golden plover , Pluvialis apricaria apricaria, P. a. altifrons Iceland & Faroes/E Atlantic

Xk

Xk Xn Xn

Red knot (Calidris canutus islandica), W & Southern Africa (wintering) Xl Xl Xn Xn

Dunlin (Calidris alpina alpina), W Siberia/W Europe Xf Xf Xn Xn

Black-tailed godwit (Limosa limosa islandica), Iceland/W Europe

Bar-tailed godwit (Limosa lapponica lapponica), W Palearctic Xg Xg Xn Xn

Common redshank, (Tringa totanus brittanica) Xi Xi Xn Xn

Bittern

Marsh Harrier Xj Xj Xn Xn Avocet Xj Xj Xn Xn Little tern

Dark-bellied brent goose (Branta bernicla bernicla) Xa Xa Xn Xn

Wigeon

Teal Xj Xj Xn Xn Pochard

Page 309: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

218

218

Scaup

Goldeneye (Bucephala clangula clangula)

Hen harrier Xj Xj Xn Xn Oystercatcher (Haematopus ostralegus Ostralegus) Xb Xb Xn Xn

Ringed plover (Charadrius hiaticula hiaticula) Xc Xc Xn Xn

Ringed plover (Charadrius hiaticula psammodroma) Xc Xc Xn Xn

Grey plover (Pluvialis squatarola squatarola) Xd Xd Xn Xn

Lapwing Xj Xj Xn Xn Sanderling Xe Xe Xn Xn Curlew (Numenius arquata arquata) Xh Xh Xn Xn

Turnstone (Arenaria interpres interpres)

Ruff Xj Xj Xn Xn Whimbrel Xj Xj Xn Xn

Greenshank Xj Xj Xn Xn Evidence supporting conclusions

a. The two flocks recorded by site specific surveys, were located at a sufficient distance of the cable corridor and HDD compound on saltmarsh, their primary food resource. This combined with the comparatively low frequency of birds in the cable landfall survey area, implies that dark-bellied brent goose are unlikely to be significantly affected by localised construction effects. (See paragraphs 5.9.46 to 5.9.47 of the HRA). No adverse effects are predicted (See paragraphs 5.9.47 and 5.9.106 to 5.9.107 of the HRA).

b. Oystercatchers are relatively tolerant of moderate and high level visual disturbance, with avoidance of high level disturbance from construction works advised from within 200 m of birds. Site specific surveys recorded few oystercatchers within 200 m of either the proposed area of the HDD compound or cable corridor, and therefore the range at which noise emission and visual disturbance is predicted to cause displacement of birds (See paragraphs 5.9.50 to 5.9.52 of the HRA). No adverse effects are predicted (See paragraphs 5.9.52 and 5.9.106 to 5.9.107 of the HRA).

c. Few ringed plover in the cable landfall survey area were recorded within 200 m of the proposed HDD compound and, therefore, within range at which noise emission is predicted to cause displacement of birds. Ringed plover are very tolerant of moderate and high level visual disturbance events. Most ringed plover in the cable landfall survey area were recorded 100 m beyond the cable corridor and at which noise and visual disturbance from cable installation may result. At distances of over 100 m from activity, birds rarely show signs of a behavioural response, with avoidance of high level disturbance from construction works advised from within 50 m of ringed plover (See paragraphs 5.9.53 to 5.9.54 of the HRA). No adverse effects predicted (See paragraphs 5.9.54 and 5.9.106 to 5.9.107 of the HRA).

d. Majority of birds within the study area recorded outside of the areas of potential disturbance. Extensive areas of similar habitat existing in which birds can forage beyond disturbance distance (See paragraphs 5.9.57 to 5.9.59 of the HRA). No adverse effects predicted ( See paragraphs 5.9.59 and 5.9.106 to 5.9.107 of the HRA).

e. Sanderling are tolerant of moderate and high level visual disturbance events. Majority of birds within the study area recorded outside of the areas of potential disturbance. (See paragraphs 5.9.62 and 5.9.63 of the HRA). No adverse effects predicted (See paragraphs 5.9.63 and 5.9.106 to 5.9.107 of the HRA).

f. Majority of birds within the study area recorded outside of the areas of potential disturbance. Extensive areas of similar habitat exist in which birds can forage beyond disturbance distance from the cable corridor (See paragraphs 5.9.64 to 5.9.66 of the HRA). No adverse effects are anticipated (See paragraphs 5.9.66 and 5.9.106 to 5.9.107 of the HRA).

g. Bar-tailed godwit are considered to be tolerant of moderate and high level visual disturbance events. Given the limitations to the spatial extent of construction activities far fewer bar-tailed godwit than the peak population estimates are likely to be affected by disturbance. Extensive areas of similar habitat exist in which birds can forage beyond disturbance distance from the cable corridor (See paragraphs 5.9.67 to 5.9.69 of the HRA). No adverse effects predicted (See paragraphs 5.9.69 and 5.9.106 to 5.9.107 of the HRA).

Page 310: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

219

219

h. At any one time few individual curlew would be within the range at which noise and visual disturbance may result from the HDD compound and the cable corridor, the latter event likely to be intermittent and not from across the whole cable corridor. Extensive areas of similar habitat exist in which birds can forage beyond disturbance distance from the cable corridor (See paragraphs 5.9.70 to 5.9.73 of the HRA). No adverse effects are predicted (See paragraphs 5.9.73 and 5.9.106 to 5.9.107 of the HRA).

i. Majority of birds within the study area recorded outside of the areas of potential disturbance. Extensive areas of similar habitat exist in which birds can forage beyond disturbance distance from the cable corridor (See paragraphs 5.9.74 to 5.9.75 of the HRA). No adverse effects are anticipated (See paragraphs 5.9.75 and 5.9.106 to 5.9.107 of the HRA).

j. Marsh harrier, teal, mallard, avocet, lapwing, ruff, whimbrel and greenshank recorded within the period April to September, infrequently during baseline surveys and in very low numbers. Much greater expanses of more preferred foraging habitat exists elsewhere within the Humber Estuary and/or the adjacent terrestrial habitats than the cable landfall survey area. This combined with low abundance and frequency of birds in the cable landfall survey area, implies that these species are unlikely to be significantly affected by localised construction effects. (See paragraph 5.9.76 of the HRA). No adverse effect predicted (See paragraphs 5.9.106 to 5.9.107 of the HRA).

k. Avoidance of high level disturbance from construction works recommended from within 200 m of birds. Site specific surveys recorded no golden plover within 200 m of either the proposed area of the HDD compound or cable corridor (See paragraphs 5.9.55 to 5.9.56 of the HRA). No adverse effects predicted (See paragraphs 5.9.56 and 5.9.106 to 5.9.107 of the HRA).

l. Majority of birds within the study area recorded outside of the areas of potential disturbance. Knot are naturally mobile foragers. Extensive areas of similar habitat existing in which birds can forage beyond disturbance distance. Additional disturbance from the project may be intermittent and not across the whole cable corridor (See paragraphs 5.9.60 to 5.9.61 of the HRA). No adverse effects predicted (See paragraphs 5.9.61 and 5.9.107 to 5.9.107 of the HRA).

m. Extensive areas of similar habitat exist in which the few birds present can forage beyond disturbance distance from the cable corridor. Furthermore, the majority of birds recorded were beyond the range at which noise disturbance may result from the cable corridor and HDD compound (See paragraphs 5.9.48 to 5.9.49 of the HRA). No adverse effects are predicted (See paragraphs 5.9.49 and 5.9.106 to 5.9.107 of the HRA).

n. With regard to in-combination effects, the increased area of spatial disturbance due to simultaneous construction activity occurring across the intertidal and the increased duration of disturbance and displacement effect due to extended construction time on the intertidal are not anticipated to give rise to significant effects. No adverse effects are predicted in-combination with other plans and projects. See Table 5-66 of the HRA for assessment of cumulative effects under the worst case spatial and temporal scenarios which are outlined in paragraphs 5.9.77 to 5.9.105 of the HRA.

Page 311: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

220

220

Stage 2 Matrix 22: Humber Estuary SPA: Intertidal Bird Features

Name of European site: Humber Estuary SPA

Distance to PROJECT TWO 89 km 0 km to Export Cable

European site features Adverse effect on integrity

Disturbance In combination effects C O D C O D

Breeding - Bittern

Breeding - Marsh harrier Xh Xh Xn Xn Breeding - Avocet Xh Xh Xn Xn Breeding - Little tern

Wintering - Bittern

Wintering - Hen harrier Xh Xh Xn Xn

Wintering - Bar-tailed godwit Xf Xf Xn Xn Wintering - Golden plover Xb Xb Xn Xn Wintering - Avocet Xh Xh Xn Xn Passage - Ruff Xh Xh Xn Xn Wintering - Dunlin (Calidris alpina alpina) Xe Xe Xn Xn Wintering - Knot Xc Xc Xn Xn Wintering - Black-tailed godwit (Limosa limosa islandica)

Wintering - Shelduck Xa Xa Xn Xn Wintering - Redshank Xg Xg Xn Xn Passage - Dunlin (Calidris alpina alpina) Xe Xe Xn Xn Passage - Knot Xc Xc Xn Xn Passage - Black-tailed godwit (Limosa limosa islandica)

Passage - Sanderling Xd Xd Xn Xn

Passage - Redshank Xg Xg Xn Xn Assemblage of species (not otherwise listed):Teal, wigeon, mallard, turnstone, pochard , scaup, dark-bellied brent goose, goldeneye, ringed plover, oystercatcher, curlew, whimbrel, grey plover, greenshank, lapwing.

Xh, I, j, k, l, m

Xh, I, j, k, l, m

Xn Xn

Evidence supporting conclusions

a. Extensive areas of similar habitat exist in which the few birds present can forage beyond disturbance distance from the cable corridor. Furthermore, the majority of birds recorded were beyond the range at which noise disturbance may result from the cable corridor and HDD compound (See paragraphs 5.9.48 to 5.9.49 of the HRA). No adverse effects are predicted (See paragraphs 5.9.49 and 5.9.106 to 5.9.107 of the HRA).

b. Avoidance of high level disturbance from construction works recommended from within 200 m of birds. Site specific surveys recorded no golden plover within 200 m of either the proposed area of the HDD compound or cable corridor (See paragraphs 5.9.55 to 5.9.56 of the HRA). No adverse effects predicted (See paragraphs 5.9.56 and 5.9.106 to 5.9.107 of the HRA).

Page 312: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

221

221

c. Majority of birds within the study area recorded outside of the areas of potential disturbance. Knot are naturally mobile foragers. Extensive areas of similar habitat existing in which birds can forage beyond disturbance distance. Additional disturbance from the project may be intermittent and not across the whole cable corridor (See paragraphs 5.9.60 to 5.9.61 of the HRA). No adverse effects predicted (See paragraphs 5.9.61 and 5.9.107 to 5.9.107 of the HRA).

d. Sanderling are tolerant of moderate and high level visual disturbance events. Majority of birds within the study area recorded outside of the areas of potential disturbance. (See paragraphs 5.9.62 and 5.9.63 of the HRA). No adverse effects predicted (See paragraphs 5.9.63 and 5.9.106 to 5.9.107 of the HRA).

e. Majority of birds within the study area recorded outside of the areas of potential disturbance. Extensive areas of similar habitat exist in which birds can forage beyond disturbance distance from the cable corridor (See paragraphs 5.9.64 to 5.9.66 of the HRA). No adverse effects are anticipated (See paragraphs 5.9.66 and 5.9.106 to 5.9.107 of the HRA).

f. Bar-tailed godwit are considered to be tolerant of moderate and high level visual disturbance events. Given the limitations to the spatial extent of construction activities far fewer bar-tailed godwit than the peak population estimates are likely to be affected by disturbance. Extensive areas of similar habitat exist in which birds can forage beyond disturbance distance from the cable corridor (See paragraphs 5.9.67 to 5.9.69 of the HRA). No adverse effects predicted (See paragraphs 5.9.69 and 5.9.106 to 5.9.107 of the HRA).

g. Majority of birds within the study area recorded outside of the areas of potential disturbance. Extensive areas of similar habitat exist in which birds can forage beyond disturbance distance from the cable corridor (See paragraphs 5.9.74 to 5.9.75 of the HRA). No adverse effects are anticipated (See paragraphs 5.9.75 and 5.9.106 to 5.9.107 of the HRA).

h. Marsh harrier, teal, mallard, avocet, lapwing, ruff, whimbrel and greenshank recorded within the period April to September, infrequently during baseline surveys and in very low numbers. Much greater expanses of more preferred foraging habitat exists elsewhere within the Humber Estuary and/or the adjacent terrestrial habitats than the cable landfall survey area. This combined with low abundance and frequency of birds in the cable landfall survey area, implies that these species are unlikely to be significantly affected by localised construction effects. (See paragraph 5.9.76 of the HRA). No adverse effect predicted (See paragraphs 5.9.106 to 5.9.107 of the HRA).

i. The two flocks recorded by site specific surveys, were located at a sufficient distance of the cable corridor and HDD compound on saltmarsh, their primary food resource. This combined with the comparatively low frequency of birds in the cable landfall survey area, implies that dark-bellied brent goose are unlikely to be significantly affected by localised construction effects. (See paragraphs 5.9.46 to 5.9.47 of the HRA). No adverse effects are predicted (See paragraphs 5.9.47 and 5.9.106 to 5.9.107 of the HRA).

j. Few ringed plover in the cable landfall survey area were recorded within 200 m of the proposed HDD compound and, therefore, within range at which noise emission is predicted to cause displacement of birds. Ringed plover are very tolerant of moderate and high level visual disturbance events. Most ringed plover in the cable landfall survey area were recorded 100 m beyond the cable corridor and at which noise and visual disturbance from cable installation may result. At distances of over 100 m from activity, birds rarely show signs of a behavioural response, with avoidance of high level disturbance from construction works advised from within 50 m of ringed plover (See paragraphs 5.9.53 to 5.9.54 of the HRA). No adverse effects predicted (See paragraphs 5.9.54 and 5.9.106 to 5.9.107 of the HRA).

k. Oystercatchers are relatively tolerant of moderate and high level visual disturbance, with avoidance of high level disturbance from construction works advised from within 200 m of birds. Site specific surveys recorded few oystercatchers within 200 m of either the proposed area of the HDD compound or cable corridor, and therefore the range at which noise emission and visual disturbance is predicted to cause displacement of birds (See paragraphs 5.9.50 to 5.9.52 of the HRA). No adverse effects are predicted (See paragraphs 5.9.52 and 5.9.106 to 5.9.107 of the HRA).

l. At any one time few individual curlew would be within the range at which noise and visual disturbance may result from the HDD compound and the cable corridor, the latter event likely to be intermittent and not from across the whole cable corridor. Extensive areas of similar habitat exist in which birds can forage beyond disturbance distance from the cable corridor (See paragraphs 5.9.70 to 5.9.73 of the HRA). No adverse effects are predicted (See paragraphs 5.9.73 and 5.9.106 to 5.9.107 of the HRA).

m. Majority of grey plover within the study area recorded outside of the areas of potential disturbance. Extensive areas of similar habitat existing in which birds can forage beyond disturbance distance (See paragraphs 5.9.57 to 5.9.59 of the HRA). No adverse effects predicted ( See paragraphs 5.9.59 and 5.9.106 to 5.9.107 of the HRA).

n. With regard to in-combination effects, the increased area of spatial disturbance due to simultaneous construction activity occurring across the intertidal and the increased duration of disturbance and displacement effect due to extended construction time on the intertidal are not anticipated to give rise to significant effects. No adverse effects are predicted in-combination with other plans and projects. See Table 5-66 of the HRA for assessment of cumulative effects under the worst case spatial and temporal scenarios which are outlined in paragraphs 5.9.77 to 5.9.105 of the HRA.

Page 313: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

222

222

Stage 2 Matrix 23: Klaverbank SCI: Annex II Marine Mammals

Name of European site: Klaverbank SCI

Distance to PROJECT TWO 50 km

European site features Adverse effect on integrity

Underwater piling noise In combination effects C O D C O D

Grey seal Xa Xb, c

harbour seal Xd Xe, f

Harbour porpoise Xg Xh, i

Evidence supporting conclusions

a. See paragraphs 5.7.68 to 5.7.85 of the HRA for assessment of impacts on grey seal. As relatively small areas and number of animals are anticipated to be affected by construction noise, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution of this species within European sites are not to be expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is predicted to occur and consequently no significant long term effects on grey seal populations are likely to occur (See paragraphs 5.7.81 to 5.7.84 of the HRA). No adverse effects are anticipated (See paragraph 5.7.85 of the HRA).

b. See paragraphs 5.7.147 to 5.7.157 of the HRA for the Tier 1 projects, maximum adverse scenarios and in-combination assessment of adverse effects on integrity for grey seal. Any disturbance will be intermittent and recovery to baseline levels is anticipated in the long term. Significant disturbance to the species and changes in the population and distribution of this species within European sites are therefore not to be expected in the long term. No adverse effects are anticipated in-combination with other plans or projects (Tier 1) (See paragraphs 5.7.156 and 5.7.157 of the HRA).

c. See paragraphs 5.7.158 to 5.7.164 of the HRA for the Tier 2 projects, maximum adverse scenarios and in-combination assessment of adverse effects on integrity for grey seal. Disturbance will be intermittent during this period and recovery to baseline levels would be anticipated in the long term. As such, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution of this species within European sites are not to be expected in the long term. No adverse effects are anticipated in-combination with other plans or projects (Tier 2) (See paragraphs 5.7.163 and 5.7.164 of the HRA).

d. See paragraphs 5.7.91 to 5.7.111 of the HRA for assessment of impacts on harbour seal. As discussed within paragraphs 5.7.105 to 5.7.109 of the HRA, the small areas where impacts are to be expected, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not to be expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour seal populations are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated (See paragraphs 5.7.110 and 5.7.111).

e. See paragraphs 5.7.165 to 5.7.178 of the HRA for the Tier 1 projects, maximum-adverse scenarios and in-combination assessment of adverse effects on integrity for harbour seal. Any disturbance will be intermittent, as piling at Tier 1 projects will be phased over their respective construction periods and the areas likely affected at a given time small in the context of the wider habitat available to the species. Furthermore, recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to occur in the medium term (e.g., recovery to baseline levels expected following cessation of piling). Significant disturbance to the species and changes in the population and distribution of this species within European sites are therefore not to be expected in the long term. No adverse effects are anticipated in-combination with other plans or projects (See paragraphs 5.7.177 and 5.7.178 of the HRA).

f. An in-combination assessment for Tier 2 projects is not deemed necessary in relation to harbour seal as harbour seal were not assessed as a VER for these projects (See paragraph 5.7.179 of the HRA.

g. See paragraphs 5.7.113 to 5.7.140 of the HRA for assessment of impacts on harbour porpoise. As described in paragraphs 5.7.130 to 5.7.138 of the HRA, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not be expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term (e.g., seven to eight years) and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated (See paragraphs 5.7.139 and 5.7.140 of the HRA).

h. See paragraphs 5.7.180 to 5.7.191 of the HRA for the Tier 1 projects, maximum-adverse scenarios and in-combination assessment of adverse effects on integrity for harbour porpoise. As described in paragraphs 5.7.183 to 5.7.189 of the HRA, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not expected.

Page 314: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

223

223

Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations of the European sites considered in this assessment are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated in-combination with other plans or projects (Tier 1) (See paragraphs 5.7.190 to 5.7.191 of the HRA).

i. See paragraphs 5.7.192 to 5.7.201 of the HRA for the Tier 2 projects, maximum-adverse scenarios and in-combination assessment of adverse effects on integrity for harbour porpoise. As described in paragraphs 5.7.195 to 5.7.199 of the HRA, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not to be expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term (e.g., up to eleven years) and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations of the European sites considered in this assessment are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated in-combination with other plans or projects (See paragraphs 5.7.200 and 5.7.201 of the HRA).

Page 315: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

224

224

Stage 2 Matrix 24: Nationalpark Niedersächsisches Wattenmeer SCI: Annex II Marine Mammals

Name of European site: Nationalpark Niedersächsisches Wattenmeer SCI

Distance to PROJECT TWO 296 km

European site features Adverse effect on integrity

Underwater piling noise In combination effects C O D C O D

Harbour porpoise Xa Xb, c

Evidence supporting conclusions

a. See paragraphs 5.7.113 to 5.7.140 of the HRA for assessment of impacts on harbour porpoise. As described in paragraphs 5.7.130 to 5.7.138 of the HRA, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not be expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term (e.g., seven to eight years) and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated (See paragraphs 5.7.139 and 5.7.140 of the HRA).

b. See paragraphs 5.7.180 to 5.7.191 of the HRA for the Tier 1 projects, maximum-adverse scenarios and in-combination assessment of adverse effects on integrity for harbour porpoise. As described in paragraphs 5.7.183 to 5.7.189 of the HRA, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations of the European sites considered in this assessment are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated in-combination with other plans or projects (Tier 1) (See paragraphs 5.7.190 to 5.7.191 of the HRA).

c. See paragraphs 5.7.192 to 5.7.201 of the HRA for the Tier 2 projects, maximum-adverse scenarios and in-combination assessment of adverse effects on integrity for harbour porpoise. As described in paragraphs 5.7.195 to 5.7.199 of the HRA, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not to be expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term (e.g., up to eleven years) and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations of the European sites considered in this assessment are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated in-combination with other plans or projects (See paragraphs 5.7.200 and 5.7.201 of the HRA).

Page 316: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

225

225

Stage 2 Matrix 25: Noordzeekustzone SAC: Annex II Marine Mammals

Name of European site: Noordzeekustzone SAC

Distance to PROJECT TWO 192 km

European site features Adverse effect on integrity

Underwater piling noise In combination effects C O D C O D

Harbour porpoise Xa Xb, c

Evidence supporting conclusions

a. See paragraphs 5.7.113 to 5.7.140 of the HRA for assessment of impacts on harbour porpoise. As described in paragraphs 5.7.130 to 5.7.138 of the HRA, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not be expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term (e.g., seven to eight years) and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated (See paragraphs 5.7.139 and 5.7.140 of the HRA).

b. See paragraphs 5.7.180 to 5.7.191 of the HRA for the Tier 1 projects, maximum-adverse scenarios and in-combination assessment of adverse effects on integrity for harbour porpoise. As described in paragraphs 5.7.183 to 5.7.189 of the HRA, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations of the European sites considered in this assessment are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated in-combination with other plans or projects (Tier 1) (See paragraphs 5.7.190 to 5.7.191 of the HRA).

c. See paragraphs 5.7.192 to 5.7.201 of the HRA for the Tier 2 projects, maximum-adverse scenarios and in-combination assessment of adverse effects on integrity for harbour porpoise. As described in paragraphs 5.7.195 to 5.7.199 of the HRA, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not to be expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term (e.g., up to eleven years) and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations of the European sites considered in this assessment are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated in-combination with other plans or projects (See paragraphs 5.7.200 and 5.7.201 of the HRA).

Page 317: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

226

226

Stage 2 Matrix 26: Noordzeekustzone II pSCI: Annex II Marine Mammals

Name of European site: Noordzeekustzone II pSCI

Distance to PROJECT TWO 192 km

European site features Adverse effect on integrity

Underwater piling noise In combination effects C O D C O D

Harbour porpoise Xa Xb, c

Evidence supporting conclusions

a. See paragraphs 5.7.113 to 5.7.140 of the HRA for assessment of impacts on harbour porpoise. As described in paragraphs 5.7.130 to 5.7.138 of the HRA, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not be expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term (e.g., seven to eight years) and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated (See paragraphs 5.7.139 and 5.7.140 of the HRA).

b. See paragraphs 5.7.180 to 5.7.191 of the HRA for the Tier 1 projects, maximum-adverse scenarios and in-combination assessment of adverse effects on integrity for harbour porpoise. As described in paragraphs 5.7.183 to 5.7.189 of the HRA, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations of the European sites considered in this assessment are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated in-combination with other plans or projects (Tier 1) (See paragraphs 5.7.190 to 5.7.191 of the HRA).

c. See paragraphs 5.7.192 to 5.7.201 of the HRA for the Tier 2 projects, maximum-adverse scenarios and in-combination assessment of adverse effects on integrity for harbour porpoise. As described in paragraphs 5.7.195 to 5.7.199 of the HRA, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not to be expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term (e.g., up to eleven years) and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations of the European sites considered in this assessment are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated in-combination with other plans or projects (See paragraphs 5.7.200 and 5.7.201 of the HRA).

Page 318: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

227

227

Stage 2 Matrix 27: NTP S-H Wattenmeer und angrenzende Küstengebiete SCI: Annex II Marine Mammals

Name of European site: NTP S-H Wattenmeer und angrenzende Küstengebiete SCI

Distance to PROJECT TWO 388 km

European site features Adverse effect on integrity

Underwater piling noise In combination effects C O D C O D

Harbour porpoise Xa Xb, c

Evidence supporting conclusions

a. See paragraphs 5.7.113 to 5.7.140 of the HRA for assessment of impacts on harbour porpoise. As described in paragraphs 5.7.130 to 5.7.138 of the HRA, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not be expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term (e.g., seven to eight years) and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated (See paragraphs 5.7.139 and 5.7.140 of the HRA).

b. See paragraphs 5.7.180 to 5.7.191 of the HRA for the Tier 1 projects, maximum-adverse scenarios and in-combination assessment of adverse effects on integrity for harbour porpoise. As described in paragraphs 5.7.183 to 5.7.189 of the HRA, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations of the European sites considered in this assessment are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated in-combination with other plans or projects (Tier 1) (See paragraphs 5.7.190 to 5.7.191 of the HRA).

c. See paragraphs 5.7.192 to 5.7.201 of the HRA for the Tier 2 projects, maximum-adverse scenarios and in-combination assessment of adverse effects on integrity for harbour porpoise. As described in paragraphs 5.7.195 to 5.7.199 of the HRA, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not to be expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term (e.g., up to eleven years) and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations of the European sites considered in this assessment are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated in-combination with other plans or projects (See paragraphs 5.7.200 and 5.7.201 of the HRA).

Page 319: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

228

228

Stage 2 Matrix 28: Östliche Deutsche Bucht SCI: Annex II Marine Mammals

Name of European site: Östliche Deutsche Bucht SCI

Distance to PROJECT TWO 351 km

European site features Adverse effect on integrity

Underwater piling noise In combination effects C O D C O D

Harbour porpoise Xa Xb, c

Evidence supporting conclusions

a. See paragraphs 5.7.113 to 5.7.140 of the HRA for assessment of impacts on harbour porpoise. As described in paragraphs 5.7.130 to 5.7.138 of the HRA, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not be expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term (e.g., seven to eight years) and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated (See paragraphs 5.7.139 and 5.7.140 of the HRA).

b. See paragraphs 5.7.180 to 5.7.191 of the HRA for the Tier 1 projects, maximum-adverse scenarios and in-combination assessment of adverse effects on integrity for harbour porpoise. As described in paragraphs 5.7.183 to 5.7.189 of the HRA, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations of the European sites considered in this assessment are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated in-combination with other plans or projects (Tier 1) (See paragraphs 5.7.190 to 5.7.191 of the HRA).

c. See paragraphs 5.7.192 to 5.7.201 of the HRA for the Tier 2 projects, maximum-adverse scenarios and in-combination assessment of adverse effects on integrity for harbour porpoise. As described in paragraphs 5.7.195 to 5.7.199 of the HRA, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not to be expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term (e.g., up to eleven years) and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations of the European sites considered in this assessment are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated in-combination with other plans or projects (See paragraphs 5.7.200 and 5.7.201 of the HRA).

Page 320: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

229

229

Stage 2 Matrix 29: Rècifs et landes de la Hague SCI: Annex II Marine Mammals

Name of European site: Rècifs et landes de la Hague SCI

Distance to PROJECT TWO 508 km

European site features Adverse effect on integrity

Underwater piling noise In combination effects C O D C O D

Harbour porpoise Xa Xb, c

Evidence supporting conclusions

a. See paragraphs 5.7.113 to 5.7.140 of the HRA for assessment of impacts on harbour porpoise. As described in paragraphs 5.7.130 to 5.7.138 of the HRA, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not be expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term (e.g., seven to eight years) and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated (See paragraphs 5.7.139 and 5.7.140 of the HRA).

b. See paragraphs 5.7.180 to 5.7.191 of the HRA for the Tier 1 projects, maximum-adverse scenarios and in-combination assessment of adverse effects on integrity for harbour porpoise. As described in paragraphs 5.7.183 to 5.7.189 of the HRA, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations of the European sites considered in this assessment are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated in-combination with other plans or projects (Tier 1) (See paragraphs 5.7.190 to 5.7.191 of the HRA).

c. See paragraphs 5.7.192 to 5.7.201 of the HRA for the Tier 2 projects, maximum-adverse scenarios and in-combination assessment of adverse effects on integrity for harbour porpoise. As described in paragraphs 5.7.195 to 5.7.199 of the HRA, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not to be expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term (e.g., up to eleven years) and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations of the European sites considered in this assessment are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated in-combination with other plans or projects (See paragraphs 5.7.200 and 5.7.201 of the HRA).

Page 321: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

230

230

Stage 2 Matrix 30: Récifs et marais arrière-littoraux du Cap Lévi à la Pointe de Saire SCI: Annex II Marine Mammals

Name of European site: Récifs et marais arrière-littoraux du Cap Lévi à la Pointe de Saire SCI

Distance to PROJECT TWO 490 km

European site features Adverse effect on integrity

Underwater piling noise In combination effects C O D C O D

Harbour porpoise Xa Xb, c

Evidence supporting conclusions

a. See paragraphs 5.7.113 to 5.7.140 of the HRA for assessment of impacts on harbour porpoise. As described in paragraphs 5.7.130 to 5.7.138 of the HRA, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not be expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term (e.g., seven to eight years) and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated (See paragraphs 5.7.139 and 5.7.140 of the HRA).

b. See paragraphs 5.7.180 to 5.7.191 of the HRA for the Tier 1 projects, maximum-adverse scenarios and in-combination assessment of adverse effects on integrity for harbour porpoise. As described in paragraphs 5.7.183 to 5.7.189 of the HRA, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations of the European sites considered in this assessment are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated in-combination with other plans or projects (Tier 1) (See paragraphs 5.7.190 to 5.7.191 of the HRA).

c. See paragraphs 5.7.192 to 5.7.201 of the HRA for the Tier 2 projects, maximum-adverse scenarios and in-combination assessment of adverse effects on integrity for harbour porpoise. As described in paragraphs 5.7.195 to 5.7.199 of the HRA, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not to be expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term (e.g., up to eleven years) and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations of the European sites considered in this assessment are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated in-combination with other plans or projects (See paragraphs 5.7.200 and 5.7.201 of the HRA).

Page 322: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

231

231

Stage 2 Matrix 31: Récifs Gris-Nez Blanc-Nez SCI: Annex II Marine Mammals

Name of European site: Récifs Gris-Nez Blanc-Nez SCI

Distance to PROJECT TWO 315 km

European site features Adverse effect on integrity

Underwater piling noise In combination effects C O D C O D

Harbour porpoise Xa Xb, c

Evidence supporting conclusions

a. See paragraphs 5.7.113 to 5.7.140 of the HRA for assessment of impacts on harbour porpoise. As described in paragraphs 5.7.130 to 5.7.138 of the HRA, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not be expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term (e.g., seven to eight years) and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated (See paragraphs 5.7.139 and 5.7.140 of the HRA).

b. See paragraphs 5.7.180 to 5.7.191 of the HRA for the Tier 1 projects, maximum-adverse scenarios and in-combination assessment of adverse effects on integrity for harbour porpoise. As described in paragraphs 5.7.183 to 5.7.189 of the HRA, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations of the European sites considered in this assessment are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated in-combination with other plans or projects (Tier 1) (See paragraphs 5.7.190 to 5.7.191 of the HRA).

c. See paragraphs 5.7.192 to 5.7.201 of the HRA for the Tier 2 projects, maximum-adverse scenarios and in-combination assessment of adverse effects on integrity for harbour porpoise. As described in paragraphs 5.7.195 to 5.7.199 of the HRA, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not to be expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term (e.g., up to eleven years) and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations of the European sites considered in this assessment are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated in-combination with other plans or projects (See paragraphs 5.7.200 and 5.7.201 of the HRA).

Page 323: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

232

232

Stage 2 Matrix 32: Ridens et dunes hydrauliques du detroit du pas-de-calais pSCI: Annex II Marine Mammals

Name of European site: Ridens et dunes hydrauliques du detroit du pas-de-calais pSCI

Distance to PROJECT TWO 320 km

European site features Adverse effect on integrity

Underwater piling noise In combination effects C O D C O D

Harbour porpoise Xa Xb, c

Evidence supporting conclusions

a. See paragraphs 5.7.113 to 5.7.140 of the HRA for assessment of impacts on harbour porpoise. As described in paragraphs 5.7.130 to 5.7.138 of the HRA, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not be expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term (e.g., seven to eight years) and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated (See paragraphs 5.7.139 and 5.7.140 of the HRA).

b. See paragraphs 5.7.180 to 5.7.191 of the HRA for the Tier 1 projects, maximum-adverse scenarios and in-combination assessment of adverse effects on integrity for harbour porpoise. As described in paragraphs 5.7.183 to 5.7.189 of the HRA, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations of the European sites considered in this assessment are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated in-combination with other plans or projects (Tier 1) (See paragraphs 5.7.190 to 5.7.191 of the HRA).

c. See paragraphs 5.7.192 to 5.7.201 of the HRA for the Tier 2 projects, maximum-adverse scenarios and in-combination assessment of adverse effects on integrity for harbour porpoise. As described in paragraphs 5.7.195 to 5.7.199 of the HRA, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not to be expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term (e.g., up to eleven years) and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations of the European sites considered in this assessment are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated in-combination with other plans or projects (See paragraphs 5.7.200 and 5.7.201 of the HRA).

Page 324: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

233

233

Stage 2 Matrix 33: River Derwent SAC: Annex II Migratory Fish

Name of European site: River Derwent SAC

Distance to PROJECT TWO 143 km 45 km to Export Cable

European site features Adverse effect on integrity

Changes to water quality EMFs In combination effects C O D C O D C O D

River lamprey Lampetra fluviatilis Xa Xb Xc Xd Sea lamprey Petromyzon marinus Xa Xb Xc Xd

Evidence supporting conclusions

a. The greatest potential for interaction between effects associated with increased suspended sediment concentrations and these species is anticipated to be a result of activities associated with cable installation in the subtidal and intertidal section of the export cable, due to the distance of Subzone Two from home rivers (See paragraph 5.6.21 of the HRA). Regarding the export cable installation and intertidal works, increases in suspended sediment concentrations are expected to be very short lived, localised and small scale (See paragraphs 5.6.19 to 5.6.23 of the HRA). As such, significant impacts are not anticipated on the river and sea lamprey populations of the River Derwent SAC as a result of Project Two. No adverse effects are predicted (See paragraphs 5.6.22 and 5.6.24 of the HRA).

b. EMFs would be highly localised being limited to the immediate vicinity of the cables. Inter-array cables, inter-accommodation cables, export cables and platform inter-connector cables will either be buried to a target minimum burial depth of 1 m (2 m in the intertidal) or by cable protection (See paragraphs 5.6.25 to 5.6.33 of the HRA). Any potential impacts are expected to be short term, potentially resulting in temporary behavioural effects rather than causing a barrier to migration. No adverse effects are predicted (See paragraphs 5.6.33 and 5.6.34 of the HRA).

c. Should interaction occur, the result is predicted to be a short term, localised increase in suspended sediment concentration (up to 5 mg/l) over that which would otherwise be expected from either activity alone (See paragraph 5.6.38 of the HRA). The likely ability of these species to be able to tolerate high levels for suspended sediment during migration and the results of the in combination assessment indicate that impacts in terms of significant disturbance, effects to the population level and/or changes in the distribution or river and sea lamprey within the site in the long term are not to be expected (See paragraph 5.6.39 of the HRA). No adverse effects are predicted in-combination with other plans or projects (See paragraphs 5.6.39 and 5.6.40 of the HRA).

d. As presented in the assessment of the potential impact of Project Two alone, any potential impacts associated with EMFs would be highly localised being limited to the immediate vicinity of the cables. Any potential impacts are expected to be short term, potentially resulting in temporary and short term behavioural effects rather than causing a barrier to migration. (See paragraphs 5.6.41 to 5.6.45 of the HRA). No adverse effects are anticipated (See paragraphs 5.6.45 and 5.6.46 of the HRA).

Page 325: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

234

234

Stage 2 Matrix 34: SBZ 1/ ZPS 1 SCI: Annex II Marine Mammals

Name of European site: SBZ 1/ ZPS 1 SCI

Distance to PROJECT TWO 298 km

European site features Adverse effect on integrity

Underwater piling noise In combination effects C O D C O D

Harbour porpoise Xa Xb, c

Evidence supporting conclusions

a. See paragraphs 5.7.113 to 5.7.140 of the HRA for assessment of impacts on harbour porpoise. As described in paragraphs 5.7.130 to 5.7.138 of the HRA, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not be expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term (e.g., seven to eight years) and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated (See paragraphs 5.7.139 and 5.7.140 of the HRA).

b. See paragraphs 5.7.180 to 5.7.191 of the HRA for the Tier 1 projects, maximum-adverse scenarios and in-combination assessment of adverse effects on integrity for harbour porpoise. As described in paragraphs 5.7.183 to 5.7.189 of the HRA, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations of the European sites considered in this assessment are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated in-combination with other plans or projects (Tier 1) (See paragraphs 5.7.190 to 5.7.191 of the HRA).

c. See paragraphs 5.7.192 to 5.7.201 of the HRA for the Tier 2 projects, maximum-adverse scenarios and in-combination assessment of adverse effects on integrity for harbour porpoise. As described in paragraphs 5.7.195 to 5.7.199 of the HRA, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not to be expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term (e.g., up to eleven years) and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations of the European sites considered in this assessment are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated in-combination with other plans or projects (See paragraphs 5.7.200 and 5.7.201 of the HRA).

Page 326: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

235

235

Stage 2 Matrix 35: SBZ 2/ ZPS 2 SCI: Annex II Marine Mammals

Name of European site: SBZ 2/ ZPS 2 SCI

Distance to PROJECT TWO 287 km

European site features Adverse effect on integrity

Underwater piling noise In combination effects C O D C O D

Harbour porpoise Xa Xb, c

Evidence supporting conclusions

a. See paragraphs 5.7.113 to 5.7.140 of the HRA for assessment of impacts on harbour porpoise. As described in paragraphs 5.7.130 to 5.7.138 of the HRA, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not be expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term (e.g., seven to eight years) and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated (See paragraphs 5.7.139 and 5.7.140 of the HRA).

b. See paragraphs 5.7.180 to 5.7.191 of the HRA for the Tier 1 projects, maximum-adverse scenarios and in-combination assessment of adverse effects on integrity for harbour porpoise. As described in paragraphs 5.7.183 to 5.7.189 of the HRA, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations of the European sites considered in this assessment are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated in-combination with other plans or projects (Tier 1) (See paragraphs 5.7.190 to 5.7.191 of the HRA).

c. See paragraphs 5.7.192 to 5.7.201 of the HRA for the Tier 2 projects, maximum-adverse scenarios and in-combination assessment of adverse effects on integrity for harbour porpoise. As described in paragraphs 5.7.195 to 5.7.199 of the HRA, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not to be expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term (e.g., up to eleven years) and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations of the European sites considered in this assessment are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated in-combination with other plans or projects (See paragraphs 5.7.200 and 5.7.201 of the HRA).

Page 327: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

236

236

Stage 2 Matrix 36: SBZ 3/ ZPS 3 SCI: Annex II Marine Mammals

Name of European site: SBZ 3/ ZPS 3 SCI

Distance to PROJECT TWO 290 km

European site features Adverse effect on integrity

Underwater piling noise In combination effects C O D C O D

Harbour porpoise Xa Xb, c

Evidence supporting conclusions

a. See paragraphs 5.7.113 to 5.7.140 of the HRA for assessment of impacts on harbour porpoise. As described in paragraphs 5.7.130 to 5.7.138 of the HRA, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not be expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term (e.g., seven to eight years) and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated (See paragraphs 5.7.139 and 5.7.140 of the HRA).

b. See paragraphs 5.7.180 to 5.7.191 of the HRA for the Tier 1 projects, maximum-adverse scenarios and in-combination assessment of adverse effects on integrity for harbour porpoise. As described in paragraphs 5.7.183 to 5.7.189 of the HRA, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations of the European sites considered in this assessment are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated in-combination with other plans or projects (Tier 1) (See paragraphs 5.7.190 to 5.7.191 of the HRA).

c. See paragraphs 5.7.192 to 5.7.201 of the HRA for the Tier 2 projects, maximum-adverse scenarios and in-combination assessment of adverse effects on integrity for harbour porpoise. As described in paragraphs 5.7.195 to 5.7.199 of the HRA, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not to be expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term (e.g., up to eleven years) and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations of the European sites considered in this assessment are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated in-combination with other plans or projects (See paragraphs 5.7.200 and 5.7.201 of the HRA).

Page 328: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

237

237

Stage 2 Matrix 37: Steingrund SAC: Annex II Marine Mammals

Name of European site: Steingrund SAC

Distance to PROJECT TWO 385 km

European site features Adverse effect on integrity

Underwater piling noise In combination effects C O D C O D

Harbour porpoise Xa Xb, c

Evidence supporting conclusions

a. See paragraphs 5.7.113 to 5.7.140 of the HRA for assessment of impacts on harbour porpoise. As described in paragraphs 5.7.130 to 5.7.138 of the HRA, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not be expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term (e.g., seven to eight years) and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated (See paragraphs 5.7.139 and 5.7.140 of the HRA).

b. See paragraphs 5.7.180 to 5.7.191 of the HRA for the Tier 1 projects, maximum-adverse scenarios and in-combination assessment of adverse effects on integrity for harbour porpoise. As described in paragraphs 5.7.183 to 5.7.189 of the HRA, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations of the European sites considered in this assessment are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated in-combination with other plans or projects (Tier 1) (See paragraphs 5.7.190 to 5.7.191 of the HRA).

c. See paragraphs 5.7.192 to 5.7.201 of the HRA for the Tier 2 projects, maximum-adverse scenarios and in-combination assessment of adverse effects on integrity for harbour porpoise. As described in paragraphs 5.7.195 to 5.7.199 of the HRA, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not to be expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term (e.g., up to eleven years) and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations of the European sites considered in this assessment are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated in-combination with other plans or projects (See paragraphs 5.7.200 and 5.7.201 of the HRA).

Page 329: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

238

238

Stage 2 Matrix 38: Sylter Außenriff SCI: Annex II Marine Mammals

Name of European site: Sylter Außenriff SCI

Distance to PROJECT TWO 295 km

European site features Adverse effect on integrity

Underwater piling noise In combination effects C O D C O D

Harbour porpoise Xa Xb, c

Evidence supporting conclusions

a. See paragraphs 5.7.113 to 5.7.140 of the HRA for assessment of impacts on harbour porpoise. As described in paragraphs 5.7.130 to 5.7.138 of the HRA, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not be expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term (e.g., seven to eight years) and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated (See paragraphs 5.7.139 and 5.7.140 of the HRA).

b. See paragraphs 5.7.180 to 5.7.191 of the HRA for the Tier 1 projects, maximum-adverse scenarios and in-combination assessment of adverse effects on integrity for harbour porpoise. As described in paragraphs 5.7.183 to 5.7.189 of the HRA, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations of the European sites considered in this assessment are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated in-combination with other plans or projects (Tier 1) (See paragraphs 5.7.190 to 5.7.191 of the HRA).

c. See paragraphs 5.7.192 to 5.7.201 of the HRA for the Tier 2 projects, maximum-adverse scenarios and in-combination assessment of adverse effects on integrity for harbour porpoise. As described in paragraphs 5.7.195 to 5.7.199 of the HRA, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not to be expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term (e.g., up to eleven years) and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations of the European sites considered in this assessment are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated in-combination with other plans or projects (See paragraphs 5.7.200 and 5.7.201 of the HRA).

Page 330: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

239

239

Stage 2 Matrix 39: Sydlige Nordsø SAC: Annex II Marine Mammals

Name of European site: Sydlige Nordsø SAC

Distance to PROJECT TWO 349 km

European site features Adverse effect on integrity

Underwater piling noise In combination effects C O D C O D

Harbour porpoise Xa Xb, c

Evidence supporting conclusions

a. See paragraphs 5.7.113 to 5.7.140 of the HRA for assessment of impacts on harbour porpoise. As described in paragraphs 5.7.130 to 5.7.138 of the HRA, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not be expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term (e.g., seven to eight years) and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated (See paragraphs 5.7.139 and 5.7.140 of the HRA).

b. See paragraphs 5.7.180 to 5.7.191 of the HRA for the Tier 1 projects, maximum-adverse scenarios and in-combination assessment of adverse effects on integrity for harbour porpoise. As described in paragraphs 5.7.183 to 5.7.189 of the HRA, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations of the European sites considered in this assessment are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated in-combination with other plans or projects (Tier 1) (See paragraphs 5.7.190 to 5.7.191 of the HRA).

c. See paragraphs 5.7.192 to 5.7.201 of the HRA for the Tier 2 projects, maximum-adverse scenarios and in-combination assessment of adverse effects on integrity for harbour porpoise. As described in paragraphs 5.7.195 to 5.7.199 of the HRA, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not to be expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term (e.g., up to eleven years) and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations of the European sites considered in this assessment are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated in-combination with other plans or projects (See paragraphs 5.7.200 and 5.7.201 of the HRA).

Page 331: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

240

240

m.

Stage 2 Matrix 40: The Wash and North Norfolk Coast SAC: Annex II Marine Mammals

Name of European site: The Wash and North Norfolk Coast SAC

Distance to PROJECT TWO 90 km 40 km to Export Cable

European site features Adverse effect on integrity

Underwater piling noise In combination effects C O D C O D

Harbour seal Xa Xb, c

Evidence supporting conclusions

a. See paragraphs 5.7.91 to 5.7.111 of the HRA for assessment of impacts on harbour seal. As discussed within paragraphs 5.7.105 to 5.7.109 of the HRA, the small areas where impacts are to be expected, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not to be expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour seal populations are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated (See paragraphs 5.7.110 and 5.7.111).

b. See paragraphs 5.7.165 to 5.7.178 of the HRA for the Tier 1 projects, maximum-adverse scenarios and in-combination assessment of adverse effects on integrity for harbour seal. Any disturbance will be intermittent, as piling at Tier 1 projects will be phased over their respective construction periods and the areas likely affected at a given time small in the context of the wider habitat available to the species. Furthermore, recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to occur in the medium term (e.g., recovery to baseline levels expected following cessation of piling). Significant disturbance to the species and changes in the population and distribution of this species within European sites are therefore not to be expected in the long term. No adverse effects are anticipated in-combination with other plans or projects (See paragraphs 5.7.177 and 5.7.178 of the HRA).

c. An in-combination assessment for Tier 2 projects is not deemed necessary in relation to harbour seal as harbour seal were not assessed as a VER for these projects (See paragraph 5.7.179 of the HRA.

Page 332: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

241

241

Stage 2 Matrix 41: Unterelbe SCI: Annex II Marine Mammals

Name of European site: Unterelbe SCI

Distance to PROJECT TWO 433 km

European site features Adverse effect on integrity

Underwater piling noise In combination effects C O D C O D

Harbour porpoise Xa Xb, c

Evidence supporting conclusions

a. See paragraphs 5.7.113 to 5.7.140 of the HRA for assessment of impacts on harbour porpoise. As described in paragraphs 5.7.130 to 5.7.138 of the HRA, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not be expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term (e.g., seven to eight years) and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated (See paragraphs 5.7.139 and 5.7.140 of the HRA).

b. See paragraphs 5.7.180 to 5.7.191 of the HRA for the Tier 1 projects, maximum-adverse scenarios and in-combination assessment of adverse effects on integrity for harbour porpoise. As described in paragraphs 5.7.183 to 5.7.189 of the HRA, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations of the European sites considered in this assessment are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated in-combination with other plans or projects (Tier 1) (See paragraphs 5.7.190 to 5.7.191 of the HRA).

c. See paragraphs 5.7.192 to 5.7.201 of the HRA for the Tier 2 projects, maximum-adverse scenarios and in-combination assessment of adverse effects on integrity for harbour porpoise. As described in paragraphs 5.7.195 to 5.7.199 of the HRA, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not to be expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term (e.g., up to eleven years) and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations of the European sites considered in this assessment are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated in-combination with other plans or projects (See paragraphs 5.7.200 and 5.7.201 of the HRA).

Page 333: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

242

242

Stage 2 Matrix 42: Vadehavet med Ribe Å, Tved Å og Varde Å vest for Varde SAC: Annex II Marine Mammals

Name of European site: Vadehavet med Ribe Å, Tved Å og Varde Å vest for Varde SAC

Distance to PROJECT TWO 418 km

European site features Adverse effect on integrity

Underwater piling noise In combination effects C O D C O D

Harbour porpoise Xa Xb, c

Evidence supporting conclusions

a. See paragraphs 5.7.113 to 5.7.140 of the HRA for assessment of impacts on harbour porpoise. As described in paragraphs 5.7.130 to 5.7.138 of the HRA, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not be expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term (e.g., seven to eight years) and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated (See paragraphs 5.7.139 and 5.7.140 of the HRA).

b. See paragraphs 5.7.180 to 5.7.191 of the HRA for the Tier 1 projects, maximum-adverse scenarios and in-combination assessment of adverse effects on integrity for harbour porpoise. As described in paragraphs 5.7.183 to 5.7.189 of the HRA, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations of the European sites considered in this assessment are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated in-combination with other plans or projects (Tier 1) (See paragraphs 5.7.190 to 5.7.191 of the HRA).

c. See paragraphs 5.7.192 to 5.7.201 of the HRA for the Tier 2 projects, maximum-adverse scenarios and in-combination assessment of adverse effects on integrity for harbour porpoise. As described in paragraphs 5.7.195 to 5.7.199 of the HRA, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not to be expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term (e.g., up to eleven years) and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations of the European sites considered in this assessment are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated in-combination with other plans or projects (See paragraphs 5.7.200 and 5.7.201 of the HRA).

Page 334: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

243

243

Stage 2 Matrix 43: Venø, Venø Sund SAC: Annex II Marine Mammals

Name of European site: Venø, Venø Sund SAC

Distance to PROJECT TWO 501 km

European site features Adverse effect on integrity

Underwater piling noise In combination effects C O D C O D

Harbour porpoise Xa Xb, c

Evidence supporting conclusions

a. See paragraphs 5.7.113 to 5.7.140 of the HRA for assessment of impacts on harbour porpoise. As described in paragraphs 5.7.130 to 5.7.138 of the HRA, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not be expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term (e.g., seven to eight years) and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated (See paragraphs 5.7.139 and 5.7.140 of the HRA).

b. See paragraphs 5.7.180 to 5.7.191 of the HRA for the Tier 1 projects, maximum-adverse scenarios and in-combination assessment of adverse effects on integrity for harbour porpoise. As described in paragraphs 5.7.183 to 5.7.189 of the HRA, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations of the European sites considered in this assessment are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated in-combination with other plans or projects (Tier 1) (See paragraphs 5.7.190 to 5.7.191 of the HRA).

c. See paragraphs 5.7.192 to 5.7.201 of the HRA for the Tier 2 projects, maximum-adverse scenarios and in-combination assessment of adverse effects on integrity for harbour porpoise. As described in paragraphs 5.7.195 to 5.7.199 of the HRA, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not to be expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term (e.g., up to eleven years) and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations of the European sites considered in this assessment are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated in-combination with other plans or projects (See paragraphs 5.7.200 and 5.7.201 of the HRA).

Page 335: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

244

244

Stage 2 Matrix 44: Vlakte van de Raan pSCI: Annex II Marine Mammals

Name of European site: Vlakte van de Raan pSCI

Distance to PROJECT TWO 274 km

European site features Adverse effect on integrity

Underwater piling noise In combination effects C O D C O D

Harbour porpoise Xa Xb, c

Evidence supporting conclusions

a. See paragraphs 5.7.113 to 5.7.140 of the HRA for assessment of impacts on harbour porpoise. As described in paragraphs 5.7.130 to 5.7.138 of the HRA, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not be expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term (e.g., seven to eight years) and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated (See paragraphs 5.7.139 and 5.7.140 of the HRA).

b. See paragraphs 5.7.180 to 5.7.191 of the HRA for the Tier 1 projects, maximum-adverse scenarios and in-combination assessment of adverse effects on integrity for harbour porpoise. As described in paragraphs 5.7.183 to 5.7.189 of the HRA, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations of the European sites considered in this assessment are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated in-combination with other plans or projects (Tier 1) (See paragraphs 5.7.190 to 5.7.191 of the HRA).

c. See paragraphs 5.7.192 to 5.7.201 of the HRA for the Tier 2 projects, maximum-adverse scenarios and in-combination assessment of adverse effects on integrity for harbour porpoise. As described in paragraphs 5.7.195 to 5.7.199 of the HRA, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not to be expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term (e.g., up to eleven years) and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations of the European sites considered in this assessment are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated in-combination with other plans or projects (See paragraphs 5.7.200 and 5.7.201 of the HRA).

Page 336: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

245

245

Stage 2 Matrix 45: Vlakte van de Raan SAC: Annex II Marine Mammals

Name of European site: Vlakte van de Raan SAC

Distance to PROJECT TWO 275 km

European site features Adverse effect on integrity

Underwater piling noise In combination effects C O D C O D

Harbour porpoise Xa Xb, c

Evidence supporting conclusions

a. See paragraphs 5.7.113 to 5.7.140 of the HRA for assessment of impacts on harbour porpoise. As described in paragraphs 5.7.130 to 5.7.138 of the HRA, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not be expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term (e.g., seven to eight years) and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated (See paragraphs 5.7.139 and 5.7.140 of the HRA).

b. See paragraphs 5.7.180 to 5.7.191 of the HRA for the Tier 1 projects, maximum-adverse scenarios and in-combination assessment of adverse effects on integrity for harbour porpoise. As described in paragraphs 5.7.183 to 5.7.189 of the HRA, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations of the European sites considered in this assessment are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated in-combination with other plans or projects (Tier 1) (See paragraphs 5.7.190 to 5.7.191 of the HRA).

c. See paragraphs 5.7.192 to 5.7.201 of the HRA for the Tier 2 projects, maximum-adverse scenarios and in-combination assessment of adverse effects on integrity for harbour porpoise. As described in paragraphs 5.7.195 to 5.7.199 of the HRA, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species within European sites are not to be expected. Furthermore, full recovery to baseline levels is anticipated to take place in the medium term (e.g., up to eleven years) and consequently, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations of the European sites considered in this assessment are likely to occur. No adverse effects are anticipated in-combination with other plans or projects (See paragraphs 5.7.200 and 5.7.201 of the HRA).

Page 337: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

246

246

Stage 2 Matrix 46: Southern North Sea dSAC: Harbour porpoise

Name of European site: Southern North Sea dSAC

Distance to NSIP 0 km

European site features Adverse effect on integrity

Underwater piling noise In combination effects C O D C O D

Harbour porpoise Xa Xb

Evidence supporting conclusions

a. See paragraph 4.1.1 et seq of the Addendum to the HRA for assessment of impacts on the harbour porpoise population alone. As described in paragraph 4.1.6 of the Addendum to the HRA, significant disturbance and changes in the population and distribution on this species across the North Sea are not expected. Furthermore, although there will be medium term effects of disturbance, individuals are anticipated to move back into the area of impact in the short term and populations will return to baseline levels on cessation of piling. As such, and combined with the extensive availability of alternative habitat, no significant long term effects on harbour porpoise populations are likely to occur and no adverse effects are anticipated (paragraph 4.1.6 of the Addendum to the HRA).

b. See paragraph 5.1.1 et seq of the Addendum to the HRA for the in-combination assessment of adverse effects on integrity for harbour porpoise. Significant disturbance and long term changes in the population and distribution on this species across the North Sea are not expected. No adverse effects are anticipated in-combination with other plans or projects (See paragraph 5.2.6 of the Addendum to the HRA).

Page 338: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening and …...20 October 2015 sdf i SMart Wind Limited Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two – Habitats Regulations Assessment Habitats Regulations

sdf

247

247

REFERENCES SMartWind. (2014). Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm, Project Two: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening Report.