Habitats Regulations Assessment: Screening and integrity ... · Stage 1 Matrix 53: Noss SPA ......
Transcript of Habitats Regulations Assessment: Screening and integrity ... · Stage 1 Matrix 53: Noss SPA ......
Habitats Regulations Assessment: Screening and integrity matrices
PINS Document reference 12.6.3 APFP Regulation 5(2)(g)
January 2015
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
PINS document reference 12.6.3
Report number UK06-050200-REP-0054
Date January 2015
Company name SMart Wind Limited
sdf
ii
Table of Contents Appendix A – HRA Screening matrices ...................................................................................... 1
STAGE 1: SCREENING MATRICES .......................................................................................... 4
Stage 1 Matrix 1: Abberton Reservoir SPA .......................................................................... 5
Stage 1 Matrix 2: Abberton Reservoir Ramsar ..................................................................... 7
Stage 1 Matrix 3: Benfleet and Southend Marshes SPA ...................................................... 8
Stage 1 Matrix 4a : Berwickshire and North Northumberland Coast SAC (Annex 1 habitat features)……… .................................................................................................................... 9
Stage 1 Matrix 4b : Berwickshire and North Northumberland Coast SAC (marine mammal features)…… ...................................................................................................................... 10
Stage 1 Matrix 5: Blackwater Estuary SPA ........................................................................ 12
Stage 1 Matrix 6: Blackwater Estuary Ramsar ................................................................... 15
Stage 1 Matrix 7: Breydon Water SPA ............................................................................... 17
Stage 1 Matrix 8: Broadland SPA ....................................................................................... 19
Stage 1 Matrix 9: Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast SPA ................................................... 21
Stage 1 Matrix 10 Calf of Eday SPA .................................................................................. 22
Stage 1 Matrix 11 Cape Wrath SPA ................................................................................... 23
Stage 1 Matrix 12 Colne Estuary SPA and Ramsar ........................................................... 24
Stage 1 Matrix 13: Coquet Island SPA ............................................................................... 26
Stage 1 Matrix 14: Cromarty Firth SPA .............................................................................. 27
Stage 1 Matrix 15 Crouch and Roach Estuaries SPA and Ramsar .................................... 29
Stage 1 Matrix 16 Debden Estuary SPA ............................................................................ 31
Stage 1 Matrix 17 Dengie Marshes SPA and Ramsar ....................................................... 33
Stage 1 Matrix 18 : Dogger Bank cSAC (Annex 1 habitat features) ................................... 35
Stage 1 Matrix 19: Dornoch Firth & Loch Fleet SPA .......................................................... 36
Stage 1 Matrix 20: East Caithness Cliffs SPA .................................................................... 37
Stage 1 Matrix 21: East Sanday Coast SPA ...................................................................... 39
Stage 1 Matrix 22: Fair Isle SPA ........................................................................................ 40
Stage 1 Matrix 23: Farne Islands SPA ............................................................................... 42
Stage 1 Matrix 24 Fetlar SPA ............................................................................................. 43
Stage 1 Matrix 25: Firth of Forth SPA ................................................................................ 44
Stage 1 Matrix 26a: Firth of Tay and Eden SAC (Annex I habitat) ..................................... 45
Stage 1 Matrix 27: Firth Tay & Eden Estuary SPA ............................................................. 47
Stage 1 Matrix 28 : Flamborough Head SAC (Annex 1 habitat features) ........................... 49
Stage 1 Matrix 29: Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA .................................................... 50
Stage 1 Matrix 30: Forth Islands SPA ................................................................................. 52
Stage 1 Matrix 31: Foula SPA ............................................................................................. 54
Stage 1 Matrix 32: Foulness SPA ....................................................................................... 56
Stage 1 Matrix 33: Fowlsheugh SPA .................................................................................. 58
Stage 1 Matrix 34: Hamford Water SPA ............................................................................. 59
Stage 1 Matrix 35: Hermaness Saxa Vord & Valla Field SPA ............................................. 61
Stage 1 Matrix 36: Hornsea Mere SPA ............................................................................... 62
Stage 1 Matrix 37: Hoy SPA ............................................................................................... 63
Stage 1 Matrix 38a : Humber Estuary Ramsar (Annex 1 habitat features) ......................... 64
Stage 1 Matrix 38b : Humber Estuary Ramsar (migratory fish features) ............................. 66
Stage 1 Matrix 38c : Humber Estuary Ramsar (marine mammal features) ......................... 68
Stage 1 Matrix 39a : Humber Estuary SAC (Annex 1 habitat features) .............................. 70
Stage 1 Matrix 39b : Humber Estuary SAC (migratory fish features) .................................. 72
Stage 1 Matrix 39c : Humber Estuary SAC (marine mammal features) .............................. 74
Stage 1 Matrix 39d: Humber Estuary SPA and Ramsar ..................................................... 76
Stage 1 Matrix 40 : Inner Dowsing, Race Bank and North Ridge SAC (Annex 1 habitat features)………. .................................................................................................................. 82
Stage 1 Matrix 41: Inner Moray Firth SPA .......................................................................... 83
Stage 1 Matrix 42: Lindisfarne SPA .................................................................................... 85
Stage 1 Matrix 43: Loch of Strathbeg SPA ......................................................................... 87
Stage 1 Matrix 44: Marwick Head SPA ............................................................................... 88
Stage 1 Matrix 45: Medway Estuary and Marshes SPA ..................................................... 89
Stage 1 Matrix 46: Minsmere and Walberswick SPA .......................................................... 92
Stage 1 Matrix 47: Montrose Basin SPA ............................................................................. 94
Stage 1 Matrix 48: Moray and Nairn Coast SPA ................................................................. 95
Stage 1 Matrix 49a: Moray Firth SAC (Annex I habitat) ...................................................... 97
Stage 1 Matrix 49b : Moray Firth SAC (marine mammal) ................................................... 98
Stage 1 Matrix 50: North Caithness Cliffs SPA ................................................................... 99
Stage 1 Matrix 51: North Norfolk Coast SPA .................................................................... 100
Stage 1 Matrix 52: Northumbria Coast SPA ...................................................................... 103
Stage 1 Matrix 53: Noss SPA ........................................................................................... 104
Stage 1 Matrix 54: North Norfolk Coast SAC (Annex I habitat) ......................................... 105
Stage 1 Matrix 55 : North Norfolk Sandbanks and Saturn Reef cSAC (Annex 1 habitat features)……….. ............................................................................................................... 106
Stage 1 Matrix 56: Papa Stour SPA .................................................................................. 107
sdf
iii
Stage 1 Matrix 57: Papa Westray SPA ............................................................................ 108
Stage 1 Matrix 58a: River Derwent SAC (Annex I habitat) ............................................... 109
Stage 1 Matrix 58b : River Derwent SAC (migratory fish) ................................................ 110
Stage 1 Matrix 59: Ronas Hill – North Roe and Tingon SPA ........................................... 111
Stage 1 Matrix 60: Rousay SPA ....................................................................................... 112
Stage 1 Matrix 61: St Abb’s Head to Fast Castle SPA ..................................................... 113
Stage 1 Matrix 62: Stour and Orwell Estuaries SPA ........................................................ 114
Stage 1 Matrix 63: Sumburgh Head SPA ......................................................................... 116
Stage 1 Matrix 64: Thames Estuary Marshes SPA .......................................................... 117
Stage 1 Matrix 65: Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay SPA ............................................... 119
Stage 1 Matrix 66: The Swale SPA .................................................................................. 120
Stage 1 Matrix 67a: The Wash and North Norfolk Coast SAC (Annex I habitat) .............. 123
Stage 1 Matrix 67b : The Wash and North Norfolk Coast SAC (marine mammal) ........... 125
Stage 1 Matrix 68: The Wash SPA and Ramsar .............................................................. 126
Stage 1 Matrix 69: Troup Penan and Lion’s Heads SPA .................................................. 127
Stage 1 Matrix 70: West Westray SPA ............................................................................. 128
Stage 1 Matrix 71: Ythan Estuary, Sands of Forvie and Meikle Loch SPA ...................... 129
Stage 1 Matrix 72a: SBZ 1 / ZPS 1 SCI (Annex I habitat) ................................................ 130
Stage 1 Matrix 72b : SBZ 1 / ZPS 1 SCI (migratory fish) ................................................. 131
Stage 1 Matrix 72c : SBZ 1 / ZPS 1 SCI (marine mammal).............................................. 132
Stage 1 Matrix 73a: SBZ 2 / ZPS 2 SCI (Annex I habitat) ................................................ 132
Stage 1 Matrix 74b : SBZ 2 / ZPS 2 SCI (migratory fish) ................................................. 134
Stage 1 Matrix 74c : SBZ 2 / ZPS 2 SCI (marine mammal).............................................. 135
Stage 1 Matrix 75a: SBZ 3 / ZPS 3 SCI (Annex I habitat) ................................................ 136
Stage 1 Matrix 75b : SBZ 3 / ZPS 3 SCI (migratory fish) ................................................. 137
Stage 1 Matrix 75c : SBZ 3 / ZPS 3 SCI (marine mammal).............................................. 138
Stage 1 Matrix 76a: Vlakte van de Raan pSCI (Annex I habitat) ...................................... 139
Stage 1 Matrix 76b : Vlakte van de Raan pSCI (migratory fish) ....................................... 140
Stage 1 Matrix 76c : Vlakte van de Raan pSCI (marine mammal) ................................... 141
Stage 1 Matrix 77a: Borkum – Riffgrund SCI (Annex I habitat) ........................................ 142
Stage 1 Matrix 77b : Borkum – Riffgrund SCI (migratory fish) .......................................... 143
Stage 1 Matrix 77c : Borkum – Riffgrund SCI (marine mammal) ...................................... 144
Stage 1 Matrix 78a: Doggerbank (German Dogger Bank) SCI (Annex I habitat) ............. 145
Stage 1 Matrix 78b : Doggerbank (German Dogger Bank) SCI (marine mammal) ........... 146
Stage 1 Matrix 79a: Hamburgisches Wattenmeer SAC (Annex I habitat) ........................ 147
Stage 1 Matrix 79b : Hamburgisches Wattenmeer SAC (migratory fish) .......................... 148
Stage 1 Matrix 79c : Hamburgisches Wattenmeer SAC (marine mammal) ...................... 149
Stage 1 Matrix 80a: Helgoland mit Helgoländer Felssockel SAC (Annex I habitat) .......... 150
Stage 1 Matrix 80b : Helgoland mit Helgoländer Felssockel SAC (marine mammal) ....... 151
Stage 1 Matrix 81a: Nationalpark Niedersächsisches Wattenmeer SCI (Annex I habitat) 152
Stage 1 Matrix 81b : Nationalpark Niedersächsisches Wattenmeer SCI (migratory fish).. 154
Stage 1 Matrix 81c : Nationalpark Niedersächsisches Wattenmeer SCI (marine mammal).......... ................................................................................................................. 155
Stage 1 Matrix 82a: NTP S-H Wattenmeer und angrenzende Küstengebiete SCI (Annex I habitat)……. ...................................................................................................................... 156
Stage 1 Matrix 82b : NTP S-H Wattenmeer und angrenzende Küstengebiete SCI (migratory fish) .................................................................................................................. 157
Stage 1 Matrix 82c : NTP S-H Wattenmeer und angrenzende Küstengebiete SCI (marine mammal). .......................................................................................................................... 158
Stage 1 Matrix 83a: Östliche Deutsche Bucht SCI (Annex I habitat) ................................ 159
Stage 1 Matrix 83b : Östliche Deutsche Bucht SCI (migratory fish) .................................. 160
Stage 1 Matrix 83c : Östliche Deutsche Bucht SCI SCI (marine mammal) ....................... 161
Stage 1 Matrix 84a: Sylter Außenriff SCI (Annex I habitat) ............................................... 162
Stage 1 Matrix 84b : Sylter Außenriff SCI (migratory fish) ................................................ 163
Stage 1 Matrix 84c : Sylter Außenriff SCI (marine mammal) ............................................ 164
Stage 1 Matrix 85a: Steingrund SAC (Annex I habitat) ..................................................... 165
Stage 1 Matrix 85b : Steingrund SAC (marine mammal) .................................................. 166
Stage 1 Matrix 86a : Unterelbe SCI (marine mammal) ..................................................... 167
Stage 1 Matrix 86b : Unterelbe SCI (migratory fish) ......................................................... 168
Stage 1 Matrix 87a: Dråby Vig SAC (Annex I habitat) ...................................................... 169
Stage 1 Matrix 87b : Dråby Vig SAC (migratory fish) ........................................................ 171
Stage 1 Matrix 87c : Dråby Vig SAC (marine mammal) .................................................... 172
Stage 1 Matrix 88a: Gule Rev pSCI (Annex I habitat) ....................................................... 173
Stage 1 Matrix 88b : Gule Rev pSCI (marine mammal) .................................................... 174
Stage 1 Matrix 89a: Løgstør Bredning, Vejlerne og Bulbjerg SAC (Annex I habitat) ........ 175
Stage 1 Matrix 89b : Løgstør Bredning, Vejlerne og Bulbjerg SAC (migratory fish) .......... 178
Stage 1 Matrix 89c : Løgstør Bredning, Vejlerne og Bulbjerg SAC (marine mammal) ...... 179
Stage 1 Matrix 90a : Sydlige Nordsø SAC (Annex 1 habitat features) .............................. 180
Stage 1 Matrix 90b : Sydlige Nordsø SAC (marine mammal features) ............................. 181
Stage 1 Matrix 91a : Venø, Venø Sund SAC (Annex 1 habitat features) .......................... 183
Stage 1 Matrix 90b : Venø, Venø Sund SAC (migratory fish features) ............................. 185
sdf
iv
Stage 1 Matrix 90c : Venø, Venø Sund SAC (marine mammal features) ......................... 186
Stage 1 Matrix 91a : Vadehavet med Ribe Å, Tved Å og Varde Å vest for Varde SAC (Annex 1 habitat features) ................................................................................................ 187
Stage 1 Matrix 91b : Vadehavet med Ribe Å, Tved Å og Varde Å vest for Varde SAC (migratory fish features) ................................................................................................... 189
Stage 1 Matrix 91c : Vadehavet med Ribe Å, Tved Å og Varde Å vest for Varde SAC (marine mammal features) ............................................................................................... 190
Stage 1 Matrix 92a : Anse de Vauville SCI (Annex 1 habitat features) ............................ 192
Stage 1 Matrix 92b: Anse de Vauville SCI (marine mammal features) ............................. 193
Stage 1 Matrix 93a : Baie de canche et couloir des trois estuaires SCI (Annex 1 habitat features)……………. ........................................................................................................ 195
Stage 1 Matrix 93b : Baie de canche et couloir des trois estuaires SCI (migratory fish features)………. ............................................................................................................... 196
Stage 1 Matrix 93c : Baie de canche et couloir des trois estuaires SCI (marine mammal features)………. ............................................................................................................... 197
Stage 1 Matrix 94a : Baie de Seine occidentale SCI (Annex 1 habitat features) .............. 199
Stage 1 Matrix 94b: Baie de Seine occidentale SCI (migratory fish features) .................. 200
Stage 1 Matrix 94c : Baie de Seine occidentale SCI (marine mammal features) ............. 201
Stage 1 Matrix 95a : Bancs des Flandres pSCI (Annex 1 habitat features) ..................... 203
Stage 1 Matrix 95b : Bancs des Flandres pSCI (marine mammal features) ..................... 204
Stage 1 Matrix 96a : Banc et rècifs de Surtainville SCI (Annex 1 habitat features) .......... 205
Stage 1 Matrix 96b : Banc et rècifs de Surtainville SCI (marine mammal features) ......... 206
Stage 1 Matrix 97a : Estuaire de la Seine SCI (Annex 1 habitat features) ....................... 207
Stage 1 Matrix 97b : Estuaire de la Seine SCI (migratory fish features) .......................... 209
Stage 1 Matrix 97c : Estuaire de la Seine SCI (marine mammal features) ...................... 210
Stage 1 Matrix 98a : Estuaires et Littoral Picards (baies de Somme et d’Authie) SAC (Annex 1 habitat features) ................................................................................................ 211
Stage 1 Matrix 98b : Estuaires et Littoral Picards (baies de Somme et d’Authie) SAC (migratory fish features) ................................................................................................... 213
Stage 1 Matrix 98c : Estuaires et Littoral Picards (baies de Somme et d’Authie) SAC (marine mammal features) ............................................................................................... 214
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) ...................... 216
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) ..................... 218
Stage 1 Matrix 100a : Rècifs et landes de la Hague SCI (Annex 1 habitat features) ....... 220
Stage 1 Matrix 100b : Rècifs et landes de la Hague SCI (marine mammal features) ....... 221
Stage 1 Matrix 101a : Récifs et marais arrière-littoraux du Cap Lévi à la Pointe de Saire SCI (Annex 1 habitat features) .......................................................................................... 222
Stage 1 Matrix 101b : Récifs et marais arrière-littoraux du Cap Lévi à la Pointe de Saire SCI (marine mammal features) ......................................................................................... 224
Stage 1 Matrix 102a : Récifs Gris-Nez Blanc-Nez SCI (Annex 1 habitat features) .......... 226
Stage 1 Matrix 102b : Récifs Gris-Nez Blanc-Nez SCI (marine mammal features) .......... 227
Stage 1 Matrix 103a : Ridens et dunes hydrauliques du detroit du pas-de-calais pSCI (Annex 1 habitat features) ................................................................................................. 228
Stage 1 Matrix 103b : Ridens et dunes hydrauliques du detroit du pas-de-calais pSCI (marine mammal features) ................................................................................................ 229
Stage 1 Matrix 104a : Doggersbank pSCI (Annex 1 habitat features) ............................. 230
Stage 1 Matrix 104b : Doggersbank pSCI (marine mammal features) .............................. 231
Stage 1 Matrix 105a : Klaverbank SCI (Annex 1 habitat features) ................................... 232
Stage 1 Matrix 105b : Klaverbank SCI (marine mammal features) ................................... 233
Stage 1 Matrix 106a : Noordzeekustzone SAC (Annex 1 habitat features)....................... 234
Stage 1 Matrix 106b : Noordzeekustzone SAC (migratory fish features) .......................... 235
Stage 1 Matrix 106c : Noordzeekustzone SAC (marine mammal features) ...................... 236
Stage 1 Matrix 107a : Noordzeekustzone II pSCI (Annex 1 habitat features) .................. 237
Stage 1 Matrix 107b : Noordzeekustzone II pSCI (migratory fish features) ...................... 238
Stage 1 Matrix 107c : Noordzeekustzone II pSCI (marine mammal features) .................. 239
Stage 1 Matrix 108a: Vlakte van de Raan SAC (Annex I habitat) ..................................... 240
Stage 1 Matrix 108b : Vlakte van de Raan SAC (migratory fish) ...................................... 241
Stage 1 Matrix 108c : Vlakte van de Raan SAC (marine mammal) .................................. 242
Stage 1 Matrix 109a: Waddenzee SAC (Annex I habitat) ................................................. 243
Stage 1 Matrix 109b : Waddenzee SAC (migratory fish)................................................... 244
Stage 1 Matrix 109c : Waddenzee SAC (marine mammal) ............................................... 245
STAGE 2 – INTEGRITY MATRICES ................................................................................ 246
Potential Impacts .............................................................................................................. 246
Stage 2 Matrix 1: Anse de Vauville SCI: Annex II Marine Mammals ....................................... 250
Stage 2 Matrix 2: Baie de canche et couloir des trois estuaires SCI: Annex II Marine Mammals……. ........................................................................................................................ 251
Stage 2 Matrix 3: Baie de Seine occidentale SCI: Annex II Marine Mammals ........................ 252
Stage 2 Matrix 4: Bancs des Flandres pSCI: Annex II Marine Mammals ................................ 253
Stage 2 Matrix 5: Banc et rècifs de Surtainville SCI: Annex II Marine Mammals..................... 254
Stage 2 Matrix 6: Berwickshire and North Northumberland Coast SAC: Annex II Marine Mammals ................................................................................................................................ 255
Stage 2 Matrix 7: Borkum – Riffgrund SCI: Annex II Marine Mammals ................................... 256
sdf
v
Stage 2 Matrix 8: Doggerbank (German Dogger Bank) SCI: Annex II Marine Mammals ....... 257
Stage 2 Matrix 9: Doggersbank pSCI: Annex II Marine Mammals .......................................... 258
Stage 2 Matrix 10: Dråby Vig SAC: Annex II Marine Mammals .............................................. 260
Stage 2 Matrix 11: Estuaire de la Seine SCI: Annex II Marine Mammals ............................... 261
Stage 2 Matrix 12: Estuaires et Littoral Picards (baies de Somme et d’Authie) SAC: Annex II Marine Mammals .................................................................................................................... 262
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 ...................................... 263
Stage 2 Matrix 14: Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA: Offshore Bird Features .................. 264
Stage 2 Matrix 15: Forth Islands SPA: Offshore Bird Features .............................................. 266
Stage 2 Matrix 16: Fowlsheugh SPA: Offshore Bird Features ................................................ 267
Stage 2 Matrix 17: Gule Rev pSCI: Annex II Marine Mammals .............................................. 268
Stage 2 Matrix 18: Hamburgisches Wattenmeer SAC: Annex II Marine Mammals ................ 269
Stage 2 Matrix 19: Helgoland mit Helgoländer Felssockel SAC: Annex II Marine Mammals .. 270
Stage 2 Matrix 20a: Humber Estuary SAC: Annex I habitats .................................................. 271
Stage 2 Matrix 20b: Humber Estuary SAC: Annex II Migratory Fish ...................................... 273
Stage 2 Matrix 20c: Humber Estuary SAC: Annex II Marine Mammals .................................. 274
Stage 2 Matrix 21a: Humber Estuary Ramsar: Annex I habitat .............................................. 275
Stage 2 Matrix 21b: Humber Estuary Ramsar: Annex II Migratory Fish ................................. 277
Stage 2 Matrix 21c: Humber Estuary Ramsar: Annex II Marine Mammals ............................. 278
Stage 2 Matrix 21e: Humber Estuary Ramsar: Intertidal Bird Features .................................. 279
Stage 2 Matrix 22: Humber Estuary SPA: Intertidal Bird Features ......................................... 282
Stage 2 Matrix 23: Klaverbank SCI: Annex II Marine Mammals ............................................. 284
Stage 2 Matrix 24: Nationalpark Niedersächsisches Wattenmeer SCI: Annex II Marine Mammals ................................................................................................................................ 286
Stage 2 Matrix 25: Noordzeekustzone SAC: Annex II Marine Mammals ................................ 287
Stage 2 Matrix 26: Noordzeekustzone II pSCI: Annex II Marine Mammals ............................ 288
Stage 2 Matrix 27: NTP S-H Wattenmeer und angrenzende Küstengebiete SCI: Annex II Marine Mammals .................................................................................................................... 289
Stage 2 Matrix 28: Östliche Deutsche Bucht SCI: Annex II Marine Mammals ........................ 290
Stage 2 Matrix 29: Rècifs et landes de la Hague SCI: Annex II Marine Mammals ................. 291
Stage 2 Matrix 30: Récifs et marais arrière-littoraux du Cap Lévi à la Pointe de Saire SCI: Annex II Marine Mammals ...................................................................................................... 292
Stage 2 Matrix 31: Récifs Gris-Nez Blanc-Nez SCI: Annex II Marine Mammals .................... 293
Stage 2 Matrix 32: Ridens et dunes hydrauliques du detroit du pas-de-calais pSCI: Annex II Marine Mammals .................................................................................................................... 294
Stage 2 Matrix 33: River Derwent SAC: Annex II Migratory Fish ............................................ 295
Stage 2 Matrix 34: SBZ 1/ ZPS 1 SCI: Annex II Marine Mammals .......................................... 296
Stage 2 Matrix 35: SBZ 2/ ZPS 2 SCI: Annex II Marine Mammals .......................................... 297
Stage 2 Matrix 36: SBZ 3/ ZPS 3 SCI: Annex II Marine Mammals .......................................... 298
Stage 2 Matrix 37: Steingrund SAC: Annex II Marine Mammals ............................................. 299
Stage 2 Matrix 38: Sylter Außenriff SCI: Annex II Marine Mammals ....................................... 300
Stage 2 Matrix 39: Sydlige Nordsø SAC: Annex II Marine Mammals ...................................... 301
Stage 2 Matrix 40: The Wash and North Norfolk Coast SAC: Annex II Marine Mammals ....... 302
Stage 2 Matrix 41: Unterelbe SCI: Annex II Marine Mammals ................................................ 303
Stage 2 Matrix 42: Vadehavet med Ribe Å, Tved Å og Varde Å vest for Varde SAC: Annex II Marine Mammals ..................................................................................................................... 304
Stage 2 Matrix 43: Venø, Venø Sund SAC: Annex II Marine Mammals .................................. 305
Stage 2 Matrix 44: Vlakte van de Raan pSCI: Annex II Marine Mammals .............................. 306
Stage 2 Matrix 45: Vlakte van de Raan SAC: Annex II Marine Mammals ............................... 307
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................ 308
1
APPENDIX A – HRA SCREENING MATRICES
Potential Impacts
Potential impacts upon the European site(s)* 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
* As defined in Advice Note 10.
sdf
2
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
sdf
3
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
sdf
4
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.
sdf
5
Stage 1 Matrix 1: Abberton Reservoir SPA
Name of European site: Abberton Reservoir SPA
Distance to Hornsea Project One: 225 km
European site features Likely Effects of Project One
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
sdf
6
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)
sdf
7
Stage 1 Matrix 2: Abberton Reservoir Ramsar
Name of European site: Abberton Reservoir Ramsar
Distance to Hornsea Project One: 186 km
European site features Likely Effects of Project One
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).
sdf
8
Stage 1 Matrix 3: Benfleet and Southend Marshes SPA
Name of European site: Benfleet and Southend Marshes SPA
Distance to Hornsea Project One: 261km
European site features Likely Effects of Project One
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).
sdf
9
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 NSIP 242 km (208 km to export cable)
European site features Likely Effects of NSIP
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).
sdf
10
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 NSIP 242 km (208 km to export cable)
European site features 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
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
sdf
11
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).
sdf
12
Stage 1 Matrix 5: Blackwater Estuary SPA
Name of European site: Blackwater Estuary SPA
Distance to Hornsea Project One: 229 km
European site features Likely Effects of Project One
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
sdf
13
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
sdf
14
Evidence supporting 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).
sdf
15
Stage 1 Matrix 6: Blackwater Estuary Ramsar
Name of European site: Blackwater Estuary Ramsar
Distance to Hornsea Project One: 229 km
European site features Likely Effects of Project One
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
sdf
16
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).
sdf
17
Stage 1 Matrix 7: Breydon Water SPA
Name of European site: Breydon Water SPA
Distance to Hornsea Project One: 135 km
European site features Likely Effects of Project One
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
sdf
18
Bewick's Swan Cygnus columbianus bewickii e e e r
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).
sdf
19
Stage 1 Matrix 8: Broadland SPA
Name of European site: Broadland SPA
Distance to Hornsea Project One: 117 km
European site features Likely Effects of Project One
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
sdf
20
Name of European site: Broadland SPA
Distance to Hornsea Project One: 117 km
European site features Likely Effects of Project One
Ruff Philomachus pugnax a a a a
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).
sdf
21
Stage 1 Matrix 9: Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast SPA
Name of European site: Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast SPA
Distance to Hornsea Project One: 425 km
European site features Likely Effects of Project One
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).
sdf
22
Stage 1 Matrix 10 Calf of Eday SPA
Name of European site: Calf of Eday SPA
Distance to NSIP 632 km
European site features Likely Effects of NSIP
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.
sdf
23
Stage 1 Matrix 11 Cape Wrath SPA
Name of European site: Cape Wrath SPA
Distance to NSIP 639 km
European site features Likely Effects of NSIP
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.
sdf
24
Stage 1 Matrix 12 Colne Estuary SPA and Ramsar
Name of European site: Colne Estuary SPA
Distance to Hornsea Project One: 223 km
European site features Likely Effects of Project One
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
sdf
25
Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo s t u x
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)
sdf
26
Stage 1 Matrix 13: Coquet Island SPA
Name of European site: Coquet Island SPA
Distance to Hornsea Project One: 242 km at nearest point
European site features Likely Effects of Project One
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
sdf
27
Stage 1 Matrix 14: Cromarty Firth SPA
Name of European site: Cromarty Firth SPA
Distance to Hornsea Project One: 534 km
European site features Likely Effects of Project One
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
sdf
28
Wigeon Anas penelope a a a a
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
sdf
29
Stage 1 Matrix 15 Crouch and Roach Estuaries SPA and Ramsar
Name of European site: Crouch and Roach Estuaries SPA and Ramsar
Distance to NSIP 248 km
European site features Likely Effects of NSIP
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
sdf
30
Evidence supporting conclusions
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
sdf
31
Stage 1 Matrix 16 Debden Estuary SPA
Name of European site: Denden Estuary SPA
Distance to NSIP 193 km
European site features Likely Effects of NSIP
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
sdf
32
Evidence supporting conclusions
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
sdf
33
Stage 1 Matrix 17 Dengie Marshes SPA and Ramsar
Name of European site: Dengie Marshes SPA
Distance to Hornsea Project One: 235 km
European site features Likely Effects of Project One
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
sdf
34
Evidence supporting conclusions
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
sdf
35
Stage 1 Matrix 18 : Dogger Bank cSAC (Annex 1 habitat features)
Name of European site: Dogger Bank cSAC
Distance to NSIP 31 km (35 km to export cable)
European site features Likely Effects of NSIP
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).
sdf
36
Stage 1 Matrix 19: Dornoch Firth & Loch Fleet SPA
Name of European site: Dornoch Firth & Loch Fleet SPA
Distance to Hornsea Project One: 538 km
European site features Likely Effects of Project One
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)
sdf
37
Stage 1 Matrix 20: East Caithness Cliffs SPA
Name of European site: East Caithness Cliffs SPA
Distance to Hornsea Project One: 540 km
European site features Likely Effects of Project One
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
sdf
38
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
sdf
39
Stage 1 Matrix 21: East Sanday Coast SPA
Name of European site: East Sanday Coast SPA
Distance to Hornsea Project One: 640.3 km
European site features Likely Effects of Project One
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)
sdf
40
Stage 1 Matrix 22: Fair Isle SPA
Name of European site: Fair Isle SPA
Distance to Hornsea Project One: 637 km
European site features Likely Effects of Project One
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
sdf
41
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) 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.
sdf
42
Stage 1 Matrix 23: Farne Islands SPA
Name of European site: Farne Islands SPA
Distance to Hornsea Project One: 235.8 km at nearest point
European site features Likely Effects of Project One
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.
sdf
43
Stage 1 Matrix 24 Fetlar SPA
Name of European site: Fetlar SPA
Distance to Hornsea Project One: 739 km
European site features Likely Effects of Project One
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.
sdf
44
Stage 1 Matrix 25: Firth of Forth SPA
Name of European site: Firth of Forth SPA
Distance to Hornsea Project One: 337 km
European site features Likely Effects of Project One
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)
sdf
45
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 NSIP: 375km
SAC Annex I habitat features Likely Effects of NSIP
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.
sdf
46
Stage 1 Matrix 26b: Firth of Tay and Eden SAC (marine mammal)
Name of European site: Firth of Tay and Eden SAC
Distance to NSIP: 375km
SAC marine mammal features
Likely Effects of NSIP
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).
sdf
47
Stage 1 Matrix 27: Firth Tay & Eden Estuary SPA
Name of European site: Firth Tay & Eden Estuary SPA
Distance to Hornsea Project One: 375 km
European site features Likely Effects of Project One
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
sdf
48
Bar-tailed Godwit Limosa lapponica a a a a
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)
sdf
49
Stage 1 Matrix 28 : Flamborough Head SAC (Annex 1 habitat features)
Name of European site: Flamborough Head SAC
Distance to NSIP 94 km (47 km to export cable)
European site features Likely Effects of NSIP
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).
sdf
50
Stage 1 Matrix 29: Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA
Name of European site: Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA
Distance to Hornsea Project One: 51.2 km
European site features Likely Effects of Project One
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 v
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.
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.
sdf
51
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. 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.
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 One (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 may be at risk of a significant impact either alone or in-combination with other potential future developments. 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.
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 One, this cannot be ruled out. v. In-combination LSE informed by the footnotes above for the individual receptors as presented in Annex A, Table A43 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 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.
sdf
52
Stage 1 Matrix 30: Forth Islands SPA
Name of European site: Forth Islands SPA
Distance to Hornsea Project One: 345 km
European site features Likely Effects of Project One
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
sdf
53
Lesser Black-backed Gull Larus fuscus a a a a
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.
sdf
54
Stage 1 Matrix 31: Foula SPA
Name of European site: Foula SPA
Distance to Hornsea Project One: 709 km
European site features Likely Effects of Project One
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
sdf
55
Shag a a a a
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.
sdf
56
Stage 1 Matrix 32: Foulness SPA
Name of European site: Foulness SPA
Distance to Hornsea Project One: 244 km
European site features Likely Effects of Project One
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
sdf
57
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)
sdf
58
Stage 1 Matrix 33: Fowlsheugh SPA
Name of European site: Fowlsheugh SPA
Distance to Hornsea Project One: 380.3 km
European site features Likely Effects of Project One
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.
sdf
59
Stage 1 Matrix 34: Hamford Water SPA
Name of European site: Hamford Water SPA
Distance to Hornsea Project One: 213 km
European site features Likely Effects of Project One
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
sdf
60
Redshank Tringa totanus 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
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)
sdf
61
Stage 1 Matrix 35: Hermaness Saxa Vord & Valla Field SPA
Name of European site: Hermaness Saxa Vord & Valla Field SPA
Distance to Hornsea Project One: 761 km
European site features Likely Effects of Project One
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.
sdf
62
Stage 1 Matrix 36: Hornsea Mere SPA
Name of European site: Hornsea Mere SPA
Distance to Hornsea Project One: 106 km
European site features Likely Effects of Project One
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)
sdf
63
Stage 1 Matrix 37: Hoy SPA
Name of European site: Hoy SPA
Distance to Hornsea Project One: 603 km
European site features Likely Effects of Project One
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.
sdf
64
Stage 1 Matrix 38a : Humber Estuary Ramsar (Annex 1 habitat features)
Name of European site: Humber Estuary Ramsar
Distance to NSIP 89 km (0 km to export cable)
European site features Likely Effects of NSIP
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 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
sdf
65
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).
sdf
66
Stage 1 Matrix 38b : Humber Estuary Ramsar (migratory fish features)
Name of European site: Humber Estuary Ramsar
Distance to NSIP 89 km (0 km to export cable
European site features Likely Effects of NSIP
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-
sdf
67
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).
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).
sdf
68
Stage 1 Matrix 38c : Humber Estuary Ramsar (marine mammal features)
Name of European site: Humber Estuary Ramsar
Distance to NSIP 89 km (0 km to export cable
European site features 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
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 1.75 years over a seven year construction period or 0.73 years over a six year
construction period (depending on whether one installation vessel or two vessels are used) (See paragraphs 5.3.2 to 5.3.9 of HRA Screening Report). 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).
sdf
69
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).
sdf
70
Stage 1 Matrix 39a : Humber Estuary SAC (Annex 1 habitat features)
Name of European site: Humber Estuary SAC
Distance to NSIP 89 km (0 km to export cable) European site features Likely Effects of NSIP
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
sdf
71
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 (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).
sdf
72
Stage 1 Matrix 39b : Humber Estuary SAC (migratory fish features)
Name of European site: Humber Estuary SAC
Distance to NSIP 89 km (0 km to export cable
European site features Likely Effects of NSIP
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
sdf
73
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).
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).
sdf
74
Stage 1 Matrix 39c : Humber Estuary SAC (marine mammal features)
Name of European site: Humber Estuary SAC
Distance to NSIP 89 km (0 km to export cable
European site features 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
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 1.75 years over a seven year construction period or 0.73 years over a six year
construction period (depending on whether one installation vessel or two vessels are used) (See paragraphs 5.3.2 to 5.3.9 of HRA Screening Report). 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
sdf
75
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. 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).
sdf
76
Stage 1 Matrix 39d: Humber Estuary SPA and Ramsar
Name of European site: Humber Estuary SPA
Distance to Hornsea Project One: 0 km
European site features Likely Effects of Project One
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
sdf
77
Name of European site: Humber Estuary SPA
Distance to Hornsea Project One: 0 km
European site features Likely Effects of Project One
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
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
sdf
78
Name of European site: Humber Estuary SPA
Distance to Hornsea Project One: 0 km
European site features Likely Effects of Project One
Goldeneye Bucephala clangula a aa a aa a aa bb bb bb a tt aa
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).
sdf
79
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)).
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)).
sdf
80
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)).
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 One 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 One. 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 One 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 One. Therefore no displacement effects will occur (Ref: Annex A, Table A45 of the HRA Report (Doc ref
No 12.6)). mm. A total of 7 dark-bellied brent geese were recorded, all but one were outwith Hornsea Project One 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)).
sdf
81
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 One. 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 One 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 One 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
sdf
82
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 NSIP 64 km ( 12 km to export cable) European site features Likely Effects of NSIP
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).
83
Stage 1 Matrix 41: Inner Moray Firth SPA
Name of European site: Inner Moray Firth SPA
Distance to Hornsea Project One: 522 km
European site features Likely Effects of Project One
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
Teal Anas crecca a a a a
sdf
84
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)
sdf
85
Stage 1 Matrix 42: Lindisfarne SPA
Name of European site: Lindisfarne SPA
Distance to Hornsea Project One: 272 km
European site features Likely Effects of Project One
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
Sanderling Calidris alba a a a a
sdf
86
Name of European site: Lindisfarne SPA
Distance to Hornsea Project One: 272 km
European site features Likely Effects of Project One
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
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)
sdf
87
Stage 1 Matrix 43: Loch of Strathbeg SPA
Name of European site: Loch of Strathbeg SPA
Distance to Hornsea Project One: 451 km
European site features Likely Effects of Project One
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)
sdf
88
Stage 1 Matrix 44: Marwick Head SPA
Name of European site: Marwick Head SPA
Distance to Hornsea Project One: 638 km
European site features Likely Effects of Project One
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.
sdf
89
Stage 1 Matrix 45: Medway Estuary and Marshes SPA
Name of European site: Medway Estuary and Marshes SPA
Distance to Hornsea Project One: 270 km
European site features Likely Effects of Project One
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
Redshank Tringa totanus a a a a
Ringed Plover Charadrius hiaticula a a a a
sdf
90
Name of European site: Medway Estuary and Marshes SPA
Distance to Hornsea Project One: 270 km
European site features Likely Effects of Project One
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
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
sdf
91
Name of European site: Medway Estuary and Marshes SPA
Distance to Hornsea Project One: 270 km
European site features Likely Effects of Project One
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)
sdf
92
Stage 1 Matrix 46: Minsmere and Walberswick SPA
Name of European site: Minsmere and Walberswick SPA
Distance to Hornsea Project One: 167 km
European site features Likely Effects of Project One
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
Gadwall Anas strepera a a a a
sdf
93
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)
sdf
94
Stage 1 Matrix 47: Montrose Basin SPA
Name of European site: Montrose Basin SPA
Distance to Hornsea Project One: 389 km
European site features Likely Effects of Project One
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.
sdf
95
Stage 1 Matrix 48: Moray and Nairn Coast SPA
Name of European site: Moray and Nairn Coast SPA
Distance to Hornsea Project One: 493 km
European site features Likely Effects of Project One
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
Wigeon Anas penelope a a a a
sdf
96
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)
sdf
97
Stage 1 Matrix 49a: Moray Firth SAC (Annex I habitat)
Name of European site: Moray Firth SAC
Distance to NSIP: 508 km
SAC Annex I habitat features Likely Effects of NSIP
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.
sdf
98
Stage 1 Matrix 49b : Moray Firth SAC (marine mammal)
Name of European site: Moray Firth SAC
Distance to NSIP: 508 km
SAC marine mammal features Likely Effects of NSIP
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).
sdf
99
Stage 1 Matrix 50: North Caithness Cliffs SPA
Name of European site: North Caithness Cliffs SPA
Distance to Hornsea Project One: 574.1 km
European site features Likely Effects of Project One
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.
sdf
100
Stage 1 Matrix 51: North Norfolk Coast SPA
Name of European site: North Norfolk Coast SPA
Distance to Hornsea Project One: 57.9 km
European site features Likely Effects of Project One
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
C O D C O D C O D C O D
sdf
101
Name of European site: North Norfolk Coast SPA
Distance to Hornsea Project One: 57.9 km
European site features Likely Effects of Project One
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
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
sdf
102
Name of European site: North Norfolk Coast SPA
Distance to Hornsea Project One: 57.9 km
European site features Likely Effects of Project One
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
Sanderling Calidris alba b b b kk
Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo hh ii jj kk
sdf
103
Stage 1 Matrix 52: Northumbria Coast SPA
Name of European site: Northumbria Coast SPA
Distance to Hornsea Project One: 192 km
European site features Likely Effects of Project One
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)
sdf
104
Stage 1 Matrix 53: Noss SPA
Name of European site: Noss SPA
Distance to Hornsea Project One: 695km
European site features Likely Effects of Project One
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.
sdf
105
Stage 1 Matrix 54: North Norfolk Coast SAC (Annex I habitat)
Name of European site: North Norfolk Coast SAC
Distance to NSIP: 100 km
SAC Annex I habitat features Likely Effects of NSIP
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.
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.
sdf
106
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 NSIP 10 km (2 km to export cable)
European site features Likely Effects of NSIP
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).
sdf
107
Stage 1 Matrix 56: Papa Stour SPA
Name of European site: Papa Stour SPA
Distance to Hornsea Project One: 728 km
European site features Likely Effects of Project One
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)
sdf
108
Stage 1 Matrix 57: Papa Westray SPA
Name of European site: Papa Westray SPA
Distance to Hornsea Project One: 650 km
European site features Likely Effects of Project One
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)
sdf
109
Stage 1 Matrix 58a: River Derwent SAC (Annex I habitat)
Name of European site: River Derwent SAC
Distance to NSIP: 143 km
SAC Annex I habitat features Likely Effects of NSIP
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.
sdf
110
Stage 1 Matrix 58b : River Derwent SAC (migratory fish)
Name of European site: River Derwent SAC
Distance to NSIP: 143 km (45 km for export cable)
SAC marine mammal features Likely Effects of NSIP
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.
sdf
111
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 One: 744 km
European site features Likely Effects of Project One
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)
sdf
112
Stage 1 Matrix 60: Rousay SPA
Name of European site: Rousay SPA
Distance to Hornsea Project One: 634 km
European site features Likely Effects of Project One
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
sdf
113
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 One: 310 km
European site features Likely Effects of Project One
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.
sdf
114
Stage 1 Matrix 62: Stour and Orwell Estuaries SPA
Name of European site: Stour and Orwell Estuaries SPA
Distance to Hornsea Project One: 201 km
European site features Likely Effects of Project One
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
Grey Plover Pluvialis squatarola a a a a
Dunlin Calidris alpina alpina a a a a
sdf
115
Name of European site: Stour and Orwell Estuaries SPA
Distance to Hornsea Project One: 201 km
European site features Likely Effects of Project One
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)
sdf
116
Stage 1 Matrix 63: Sumburgh Head SPA
Name of European site: Sumburgh Head SPA
Distance to Hornsea Project One: 669 km
European site features Likely Effects of Project One
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.
sdf
117
Stage 1 Matrix 64: Thames Estuary Marshes SPA
Name of European site: Thames Estuary Marshes SPA
Distance to Hornsea Project One: 266 km
European site features Likely Effects of Project One
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
Dunlin Calidris alpina alpina a a a a
Lapwing Vanellus vanellus a a a a
sdf
118
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)
sdf
119
Stage 1 Matrix 65: Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay SPA
Name of European site: Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay SPA
Distance to Hornsea Project One: 266 km
European site features Likely Effects of Project One
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)
sdf
120
Stage 1 Matrix 66: The Swale SPA
Name of European site: The Swale SPA
Distance to Hornsea Project One: 273 km
European site features Likely Effects of Project One
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
Pintail Anas acuta a a a a
Redshank Tringa totanus a a a a
sdf
121
Name of European site: The Swale SPA
Distance to Hornsea Project One: 273 km
European site features Likely Effects of Project One
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
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
sdf
122
Name of European site: The Swale SPA
Distance to Hornsea Project One: 273 km
European site features Likely Effects of Project One
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)
sdf
123
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 NSIP: 90 km
SAC Annex I habitat features Likely Effects of NSIP
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.
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
sdf
124
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.
sdf
125
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 NSIP: 90 km
SAC marine mammal features Likely Effects of NSIP
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. 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.
b. 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.
c. 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.
d. 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).
sdf
126
Stage 1 Matrix 68: The Wash SPA and Ramsar
Name of European site: The Wash SPA
Distance to Hornsea Project One: 111 km
European site features Likely Effects of Project One
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)
sdf
127
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 One: 467 km
European site features Likely Effects of Project One
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
sdf
128
Stage 1 Matrix 70: West Westray SPA
Name of European site: West Westray SPA
Distance to Hornsea Project One: 644 km
European site features Likely Effects of Project One
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.
sdf
129
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 One: 425 km
European site features Likely Effects of Project One
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)
sdf
130
Stage 1 Matrix 72a: SBZ 1 / ZPS 1 SCI (Annex I habitat)
Name of European site: SBZ 1 / ZPS 1 SCI
Distance to NSIP: 298 km
SAC Annex I habitat features Likely Effects of NSIP
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.
sdf
131
Stage 1 Matrix 72b : SBZ 1 / ZPS 1 SCI (migratory fish)
Name of European site: SBZ 1 / ZPS 1 SCI
Distance to NSIP: 298 km
SAC marine mammal features
Likely Effects of NSIP
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.
sdf
132
Stage 1 Matrix 72c : SBZ 1 / ZPS 1 SCI (marine mammal)
Name of European site: SBZ 1 / ZPS 1 SCI
Distance to NSIP: 298 km SAC marine mammal features
Likely Effects of NSIP
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).
sdf
133
Stage 1 Matrix 73a: SBZ 2 / ZPS 2 SCI (Annex I habitat)
Name of European site: SBZ 2 / ZPS 2 SCI
Distance to NSIP: 287 km SAC Annex I habitat features
Likely Effects of NSIP
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.
sdf
134
Stage 1 Matrix 74b : SBZ 2 / ZPS 2 SCI (migratory fish)
Name of European site: SBZ 2 / ZPS 2 SCI
Distance to NSIP: 287 km
SAC marine mammal features
Likely Effects of NSIP
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.
sdf
135
Stage 1 Matrix 74c : SBZ 2 / ZPS 2 SCI (marine mammal)
Name of European site: SBZ 2 / ZPS 2 SCI
Distance to NSIP: 287 km SAC marine mammal features
Likely Effects of NSIP
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).
sdf
136
Stage 1 Matrix 75a: SBZ 3 / ZPS 3 SCI (Annex I habitat)
Name of European site: SBZ 3 / ZPS 3 SCI
Distance to NSIP: 290 km SAC Annex I habitat features
Likely Effects of NSIP
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.
sdf
137
Stage 1 Matrix 75b : SBZ 3 / ZPS 3 SCI (migratory fish)
Name of European site: SBZ 3 / ZPS 3 SCI
Distance to NSIP: 290 km
SAC marine mammal features
Likely Effects of NSIP
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.
sdf
138
Stage 1 Matrix 75c : SBZ 3 / ZPS 3 SCI (marine mammal)
Name of European site: SBZ 3 / ZPS 3 SCI
Distance to NSIP: 290 km SAC marine mammal features
Likely Effects of NSIP
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).
sdf
139
Stage 1 Matrix 76a: Vlakte van de Raan pSCI (Annex I habitat)
Name of European site: Vlakte van de Raan pSCI
Distance to NSIP: 274 km SAC Annex I habitat features
Likely Effects of NSIP
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.
sdf
140
Stage 1 Matrix 76b : Vlakte van de Raan pSCI (migratory fish)
Name of European site: Vlakte van de Raan pSCI
Distance to NSIP: 274 km
SAC marine mammal features
Likely Effects of NSIP
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.
sdf
141
Stage 1 Matrix 76c : Vlakte van de Raan pSCI (marine mammal)
Name of European site: Vlakte van de Raan pSCI
Distance to NSIP: 274 km SAC marine mammal features
Likely Effects of NSIP
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).
sdf
142
Stage 1 Matrix 77a: Borkum – Riffgrund SCI (Annex I habitat)
Name of European site: Borkum – Riffgrund SCI
Distance to NSIP: 262 km SAC Annex I habitat features
Likely Effects of NSIP
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.
sdf
143
Stage 1 Matrix 77b : Borkum – Riffgrund SCI (migratory fish)
Name of European site: Borkum – Riffgrund SCI
Distance to NSIP: 262 km
SAC marine mammal features
Likely Effects of NSIP
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.
sdf
144
Stage 1 Matrix 77c : Borkum – Riffgrund SCI (marine mammal)
Name of European site: Borkum – Riffgrund SCI
Distance to NSIP: 262 km SAC marine mammal features
Likely Effects of NSIP
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).
sdf
145
Stage 1 Matrix 78a: Doggerbank (German Dogger Bank) SCI (Annex I habitat)
Name of European site: Doggerbank (German Dogger Bank) SCI
Distance to NSIP: 63 km SAC Annex I habitat features
Likely Effects of NSIP
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.
sdf
146
Stage 1 Matrix 78b : Doggerbank (German Dogger Bank) SCI (marine mammal)
Name of European site: Doggerbank (German Dogger Bank) SCI
Distance to NSIP: 63 km SAC marine mammal features
Likely Effects of NSIP
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.
sdf
147
Stage 1 Matrix 79a: Hamburgisches Wattenmeer SAC (Annex I habitat)
Name of European site: Hamburgisches Wattenmeer SAC
Distance to NSIP: 401 km SAC Annex I habitat features
Likely Effects of NSIP
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.
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.
sdf
148
Stage 1 Matrix 79b : Hamburgisches Wattenmeer SAC (migratory fish)
Name of European site: Hamburgisches Wattenmeer SAC
Distance to NSIP: 401 km
SAC marine mammal features Likely Effects of NSIP
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.
sdf
149
Stage 1 Matrix 79c : Hamburgisches Wattenmeer SAC (marine mammal)
Name of European site: Hamburgisches Wattenmeer SAC
Distance to NSIP: 401 km SAC marine mammal features
Likely Effects of NSIP
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).
sdf
150
Stage 1 Matrix 80a: Helgoland mit Helgoländer Felssockel SAC (Annex I habitat)
Name of European site: Helgoland mit Helgoländer Felssockel SAC
Distance to NSIP: 374 km SAC Annex I habitat features
Likely Effects of NSIP
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.
sdf
151
Stage 1 Matrix 80b : Helgoland mit Helgoländer Felssockel SAC (marine mammal)
Name of European site: Helgoland mit Helgoländer Felssockel SAC
Distance to NSIP: 374 km SAC marine mammal features
Likely Effects of NSIP
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).
sdf
152
Stage 1 Matrix 81a: Nationalpark Niedersächsisches Wattenmeer SCI (Annex I habitat)
Name of European site: Nationalpark Niedersächsisches Wattenmeer SCI
Distance to NSIP: 296 km SAC Annex I habitat features
Likely Effects of NSIP
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 Oligotrophic to mesotrophic standing waters with a a a b b b n/a c n/a a, b, c a, b, c a, b, c
sdf
153
vegetation of the Littorelletea uniflorae and/or of the Isoëto-Nanojuncetea 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.
sdf
154
Stage 1 Matrix 81b : Nationalpark Niedersächsisches Wattenmeer SCI (migratory fish)
Name of European site: Nationalpark Niedersächsisches Wattenmeer SCI
Distance to NSIP: 296 km
SAC marine mammal features
Likely Effects of NSIP
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.
sdf
155
Stage 1 Matrix 81c : Nationalpark Niedersächsisches Wattenmeer SCI (marine mammal)
Name of European site: Nationalpark Niedersächsisches Wattenmeer SCI
Distance to NSIP: 296 km SAC marine mammal features
Likely Effects of NSIP
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).
sdf
156
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 NSIP: 388 km SAC Annex I habitat features
Likely Effects of NSIP
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.
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.
sdf
157
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 NSIP: 388 km
SAC marine mammal features
Likely Effects of NSIP
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.
sdf
158
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 NSIP: 388 km SAC marine mammal features
Likely Effects of NSIP
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).
sdf
159
Stage 1 Matrix 83a: Östliche Deutsche Bucht SCI (Annex I habitat)
Name of European site: Östliche Deutsche Bucht SCI
Distance to NSIP: 351 km SAC Annex I habitat features
Likely Effects of NSIP
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.
sdf
160
Stage 1 Matrix 83b : Östliche Deutsche Bucht SCI (migratory fish)
Name of European site: Östliche Deutsche Bucht SCI
Distance to NSIP: 351 km
SAC marine mammal features
Likely Effects of NSIP
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.
sdf
161
Stage 1 Matrix 83c : Östliche Deutsche Bucht SCI SCI (marine mammal)
Name of European site: Östliche Deutsche Bucht SCI
Distance to NSIP: 351 km SAC marine mammal features
Likely Effects of NSIP
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).
sdf
162
Stage 1 Matrix 84a: Sylter Außenriff SCI (Annex I habitat)
Name of European site: Sylter Außenriff SCI
Distance to NSIP: 295 km SAC Annex I habitat features
Likely Effects of NSIP
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.
sdf
163
Stage 1 Matrix 84b : Sylter Außenriff SCI (migratory fish)
Name of European site: Sylter Außenriff SCI
Distance to NSIP: 295 km
SAC marine mammal features
Likely Effects of NSIP
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.
sdf
164
Stage 1 Matrix 84c : Sylter Außenriff SCI (marine mammal)
Name of European site: Sylter Außenriff SCI
Distance to NSIP: 295 km SAC marine mammal features
Likely Effects of NSIP
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).
sdf
165
Stage 1 Matrix 85a: Steingrund SAC (Annex I habitat)
Name of European site: Steingrund SAC
Distance to NSIP: 385 km SAC Annex I habitat features
Likely Effects of NSIP
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.
sdf
166
Stage 1 Matrix 85b : Steingrund SAC (marine mammal)
Name of European site: Steingrund SAC
Distance to NSIP: 385 km SAC marine mammal features
Likely Effects of NSIP
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).
sdf
167
Stage 1 Matrix 86a : Unterelbe SCI (marine mammal)
Name of European site: Unterelbe SCI
Distance to NSIP: 433 km SAC marine mammal features
Likely Effects of NSIP
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).
sdf
168
Stage 1 Matrix 86b : Unterelbe SCI (migratory fish)
Name of European site: Unterelbe SCI
Distance to NSIP: 433 km
SAC marine mammal features
Likely Effects of NSIP
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.
sdf
169
Stage 1 Matrix 87a: Dråby Vig SAC (Annex I habitat)
Name of European site: Dråby Vig SAC
Distance to NSIP: 533 km SAC Annex I habitat features
Likely Effects of NSIP
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: 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
sdf
170
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.
sdf
171
Stage 1 Matrix 87b : Dråby Vig SAC (migratory fish)
Name of European site: Dråby Vig SAC
Distance to NSIP: 533 km
SAC marine mammal features
Likely Effects of NSIP
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.
sdf
172
Stage 1 Matrix 87c : Dråby Vig SAC (marine mammal)
Name of European site: Dråby Vig SAC
Distance to NSIP: 533 km SAC marine mammal features
Likely Effects of NSIP
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).
sdf
173
Stage 1 Matrix 88a: Gule Rev pSCI (Annex I habitat)
Name of European site: Gule Rev pSCI
Distance to NSIP: 516 km SAC Annex I habitat features
Likely Effects of NSIP
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.
sdf
174
Stage 1 Matrix 88b : Gule Rev pSCI (marine mammal)
Name of European site: Gule Rev pSCI
Distance to NSIP: 516 km SAC marine mammal features
Likely Effects of NSIP
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).
sdf
175
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 NSIP: 540 km SAC Annex I habitat features
Likely Effects of NSIP
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
sdf
176
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
sdf
177
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.
sdf
178
Stage 1 Matrix 89b : Løgstør Bredning, Vejlerne og Bulbjerg SAC (migratory fish)
Name of European site: Løgstør Bredning, Vejlerne og Bulbjerg SAC
Distance to NSIP: 540 km
SAC marine mammal features
Likely Effects of NSIP
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.
sdf
179
Stage 1 Matrix 89c : Løgstør Bredning, Vejlerne og Bulbjerg SAC (marine mammal)
Name of European site: Løgstør Bredning, Vejlerne og Bulbjerg SAC
Distance to NSIP: 540 km SAC marine mammal features
Likely Effects of NSIP
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).
sdf
180
Stage 1 Matrix 90a : Sydlige Nordsø SAC (Annex 1 habitat features)
Name of European site: Sydlige Nordsø SAC
Distance to NSIP 349 km
European site features Likely Effects of NSIP
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).
sdf
181
Stage 1 Matrix 90b : Sydlige Nordsø SAC (marine mammal features)
Name of European site: Sydlige Nordsø SAC
Distance to NSIP 349 km European site features 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 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 1.75 years over a seven year construction period or 0.73 years over a six year construction period (depending on whether one installation vessel or two vessels are used) (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).
sdf
182
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).
sdf
183
Stage 1 Matrix 91a : Venø, Venø Sund SAC (Annex 1 habitat features)
Name of European site: Venø, Venø Sund SAC
Distance to NSIP 501 km European site features Likely Effects of NSIP
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).
sdf
184
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).
sdf
185
Stage 1 Matrix 90b : Venø, Venø Sund SAC (migratory fish features)
Name of European site: Venø, Venø Sund SAC
Distance to NSIP 501 km European site features Likely Effects of NSIP
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).
sdf
186
Stage 1 Matrix 90c : Venø, Venø Sund SAC (marine mammal features) Name of European site: Venø, Venø Sund SAC
Distance to NSIP 501 km European site features 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 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 1.75 years over a seven year construction period or 0.73 years over a six year construction period (depending on whether one installation vessel or two vessels are used) (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.
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).
sdf
187
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 NSIP 418 km European site features Likely Effects of NSIP
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). 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).
sdf
188
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).
sdf
189
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 NSIP 418 km European site features Likely Effects of NSIP
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).
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).
sdf
190
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 NSIP 418 km European site features 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 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 six year construction period (depending on whether one installation vessel or two vessels are used) (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).
sdf
191
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).
sdf
192
Stage 1 Matrix 92a : Anse de Vauville SCI (Annex 1 habitat features)
Name of European site: Anse de Vauville SCI
Distance to NSIP 519 km European site features Likely Effects of NSIP
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).
sdf
193
Stage 1 Matrix 92b: Anse de Vauville SCI (marine mammal features)
Name of European site: Anse de Vauville SCI
Distance to NSIP 519 km
European site features 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 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 to 1.75 years over a seven year construction period or 0.73 years over a six year construction period (depending on whether one installation vessel or two vessels are used) (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
sdf
194
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).
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.
sdf
195
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 NSIP 362 km European site features Likely Effects of NSIP
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).
sdf
196
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 NSIP 362 km European site features Likely Effects of NSIP
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 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).
sdf
197
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 NSIP 362 km European site features 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 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 1.75 years over a seven year construction period or 0.73 years over a six year construction period (depending on whether one installation vessel or two vessels are used) (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).
sdf
198
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).
sdf
199
Stage 1 Matrix 94a : Baie de Seine occidentale SCI (Annex 1 habitat features)
Name of European site: Baie de Seine occidentale SCI
Distance to NSIP 502 km European site features Likely Effects of NSIP
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).
sdf
200
Stage 1 Matrix 94b: Baie de Seine occidentale SCI (migratory fish features) Name of European site: Baie de Seine occidentale SCI
Distance to NSIP 502 km European site features Likely Effects of NSIP
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 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).
sdf
201
Stage 1 Matrix 94c : Baie de Seine occidentale SCI (marine mammal features)
Name of European site: Baie de Seine occidentale SCI
Distance to NSIP 502 km European site features 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 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 1.75 years over a seven year construction period or 0.73 years over a six year construction period (depending on whether one installation vessel or two vessels are used) (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
sdf
202
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).
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.
sdf
203
Stage 1 Matrix 95a : Bancs des Flandres pSCI (Annex 1 habitat features)
Name of European site: Bancs des Flandres pSCI
Distance to NSIP 282 km European site features Likely Effects of NSIP
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).
sdf
204
Stage 1 Matrix 95b : Bancs des Flandres pSCI (marine mammal features)
Name of European site: Bancs des Flandres pSCI
Distance to NSIP 282 km European site features 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 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 1.75 years over a seven year construction period or 0.73 years over a six year construction period (depending on whether one installation vessel or two vessels are used) (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).
sdf
205
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 NSIP 535 km European site features Likely Effects of NSIP
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).
sdf
206
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 NSIP 535 km European site features 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 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 1.75 years over a seven year construction period or 0.73 years over a six year construction period (depending on whether one installation vessel or two vessels are used) (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).
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.
sdf
207
Stage 1 Matrix 97a : Estuaire de la Seine SCI (Annex 1 habitat features)
Name of European site: Estuaire de la Seine SCI
Distance to NSIP 488 km European site features Likely Effects of NSIP
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) (* important orchid sites)
Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c
sdf
208
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).
sdf
209
Stage 1 Matrix 97b : Estuaire de la Seine SCI (migratory fish features)
Name of European site: Estuaire de la Seine SCI
Distance to NSIP 488 km European site features Likely Effects of NSIP
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).
sdf
210
Stage 1 Matrix 97c : Estuaire de la Seine SCI (marine mammal features)
Name of European site: Estuaire de la Seine SCI
Distance to NSIP 488 km European site features 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 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 1.75 years over a seven year construction period or 0.73 years over a six year construction period (depending on whether one installation vessel or two vessels are used) (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).
sdf
211
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 NSIP 383 km European site features Likely Effects of NSIP
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 spp.
Xa Xb Xa Xc Xd Xc Xe X a, c X b, d, e X a, c
sdf
212
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).
sdf
213
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 NSIP 383 km European site features Likely Effects of NSIP
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).
sdf
214
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 NSIP 383 km European site features 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 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 1.75 years over a seven year construction period or 0.73 years over a six year construction period (depending on whether one installation vessel or two vessels are used) (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).
sdf
215
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.
sdf
216
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 NSIP 326 km European site features Likely Effects of NSIP
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
sdf
217
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
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).
sdf
218
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 NSIP 326 km European site features 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 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 1.75 years over a seven year construction period or 0.73 years over a six year construction period (depending on whether one installation vessel or two vessels are used) (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).
sdf
219
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.
sdf
220
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 NSIP 508 km European site features Likely Effects of NSIP
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).
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).
sdf
221
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 NSIP 508 km European site features 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 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 1.75 years over a seven year construction period or 0.73 years over a six year construction period (depending on whether one installation vessel or two vessels are used) (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).
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.
sdf
222
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 NSIP 490 km European site features Likely Effects of NSIP
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 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
sdf
223
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).
sdf
224
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 NSIP 490 km European site features 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 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 1.75 years over a seven year construction period or 0.73 years over a six year construction period (depending on whether one installation vessel or two vessels are used) (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).
sdf
225
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.
sdf
226
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 NSIP 315 km European site features Likely Effects of NSIP
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).
sdf
227
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 NSIP 315 km European site features 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 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 1.75 years over a seven year construction period or 0.73 years over a six year construction period (depending on whether one installation vessel or two vessels are used) (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).
sdf
228
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 NSIP 320 km European site features Likely Effects of NSIP
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).
sdf
229
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 NSIP 320 km European site features 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 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 1.75 years over a seven year construction period or 0.73 years over a six year construction period (depending on whether one installation vessel or two vessels are used) (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).
sdf
230
Stage 1 Matrix 104a : Doggersbank pSCI (Annex 1 habitat features)
Name of European site: Doggersbank pSCI
Distance to NSIP 63 km European site features Likely Effects of NSIP
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).
sdf
231
Stage 1 Matrix 104b : Doggersbank pSCI (marine mammal features)
Name of European site: Doggersbank pSCI
Distance to NSIP 63 km European site features 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 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 1.75 years over a seven year construction period or 0.73 years over a six year construction period (depending on whether one installation vessel or two vessels are used) (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.
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 1.75 years over a seven year construction period or 0.73 years over a six year construction period (depending on whether one installation vessel or two vessels are used) (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.
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 1.75 years over a seven year construction period or 0.73 years over a six year construction period (depending on whether one installation vessel or two vessels are used) (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).
sdf
232
Stage 1 Matrix 105a : Klaverbank SCI (Annex 1 habitat features)
Name of European site: Klaverbank SCI
Distance to NSIP 50 km European site features Likely Effects of NSIP
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).
sdf
233
Stage 1 Matrix 105b : Klaverbank SCI (marine mammal features)
Name of European site: Klaverbank SCI
Distance to NSIP 50 km European site features 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 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 1.75 years over a seven year construction period or 0.73 years over a six year construction period (depending on whether one installation vessel or two vessels are used) (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.
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 1.75 years over a seven year construction period or 0.73 years over a six year construction period (depending on whether one installation vessel or two vessels are used) (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.
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 1.75 years over a seven year construction period or 0.73 years over a six year construction period (depending on whether one installation vessel or two vessels are used) (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).
sdf
234
Stage 1 Matrix 106a : Noordzeekustzone SAC (Annex 1 habitat features)
Name of European site: Noordzeekustzone SAC
Distance to NSIP 192 km European site features Likely Effects of NSIP
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).
sdf
235
Stage 1 Matrix 106b : Noordzeekustzone SAC (migratory fish features)
Name of European site: Noordzeekustzone SAC
Distance to NSIP 192 km European site features Likely Effects of NSIP
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).
sdf
236
Stage 1 Matrix 106c : Noordzeekustzone SAC (marine mammal features)
Name of European site: Noordzeekustzone SAC
Distance to NSIP 192 km European site features 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 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 1.75 years over a seven year construction period or 0.73 years over a six year construction period (depending on whether one installation vessel or two vessels are used) (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).
sdf
237
Stage 1 Matrix 107a : Noordzeekustzone II pSCI (Annex 1 habitat features)
Name of European site: Noordzeekustzone II pSCI
Distance to NSIP 192 km European site features Likely Effects of NSIP
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).
sdf
238
Stage 1 Matrix 107b : Noordzeekustzone II pSCI (migratory fish features)
Name of European site: Noordzeekustzone II pSCI
Distance to NSIP 192 km European site features Likely Effects of NSIP
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).
sdf
239
Stage 1 Matrix 107c : Noordzeekustzone II pSCI (marine mammal features)
Name of European site: Noordzeekustzone II pSCI
Distance to NSIP 192 km European site features 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 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 1.75 years over a seven year construction period or 0.73 years over a six year construction period (depending on whether one installation vessel or two vessels are used) (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).
sdf
240
Stage 1 Matrix 108a: Vlakte van de Raan SAC (Annex I habitat)
Name of European site: Vlakte van de Raan SAC
Distance to NSIP: 275 km SAC Annex I habitat features Likely Effects of NSIP
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.
sdf
241
Stage 1 Matrix 108b : Vlakte van de Raan SAC (migratory fish)
Name of European site: Vlakte van de Raan SAC
Distance to NSIP: 275 km
SAC marine mammal features
Likely Effects of NSIP
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.
sdf
242
Stage 1 Matrix 108c : Vlakte van de Raan SAC (marine mammal)
Name of European site: Vlakte van de Raan SAC
Distance to NSIP: 275 km SAC marine mammal features Likely Effects of NSIP
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).
sdf
243
Stage 1 Matrix 109a: Waddenzee SAC (Annex I habitat)
Name of European site: Waddenzee SAC
Distance to NSIP: 199 km SAC Annex I habitat features Likely Effects of NSIP
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.
sdf
244
Stage 1 Matrix 109b : Waddenzee SAC (migratory fish) Name of European site: Waddenzee SAC
Distance to NSIP: 199 km
SAC marine mammal features
Likely Effects of NSIP
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.
sdf
245
Stage 1 Matrix 109c : Waddenzee SAC (marine mammal)
Name of European site: Waddenzee SAC
Distance to NSIP: 199 km SAC marine mammal features Likely Effects of NSIP
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).
sdf
246
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
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
† As defined in Advice Note 10.
sdf
247
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
sdf
248
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 Venø, Venø Sund SAC Vlakte van de Raan pSCI Vlakte van de Raan SAC
sdf
249
These sites have been subject to further assessment in order to establish if the NSIP 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
sdf
250
250
Stage 2 Matrix 1: Anse de Vauville SCI: Annex II Marine Mammals
Name of European site: Anse de Vauville SCI
Distance to NSIP 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.
sdf
251
251
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 NSIP 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.
sdf
252
252
Stage 2 Matrix 3: Baie de Seine occidentale SCI: Annex II Marine Mammals
Name of European site: Baie de Seine occidentale SCI
Distance to NSIP 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.
sdf
253
253
Stage 2 Matrix 4: Bancs des Flandres pSCI: Annex II Marine Mammals
Name of European site: Bancs des Flandres pSCI
Distance to NSIP 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
sdf
254
254
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 NSIP 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
sdf
255
255
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 NSIP 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).
sdf
256
256
Stage 2 Matrix 7: Borkum – Riffgrund SCI: Annex II Marine Mammals
Name of European site: Borkum – Riffgrund SCI
Distance to NSIP 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).
sdf
257
257
Stage 2 Matrix 8: Doggerbank (German Dogger Bank) SCI: Annex II Marine Mammals
Name of European site: Doggerbank (German Dogger Bank) SCI
Distance to NSIP 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).
sdf
258
258
Stage 2 Matrix 9: Doggersbank pSCI: Annex II Marine Mammals
Name of European site: Doggersbank pSCI
Distance to NSIP 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. 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).
sdf
259
259
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).
sdf
260
260
Stage 2 Matrix 10: Dråby Vig SAC: Annex II Marine Mammals
Name of European site: Dråby Vig SAC
Distance to NSIP 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).
sdf
261
261
Stage 2 Matrix 11: Estuaire de la Seine SCI: Annex II Marine Mammals
Name of European site: Estuaire de la Seine SCI
Distance to NSIP 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).
sdf
262
262
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 NSIP 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).
sdf
263
263
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 NSIP 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).
sdf
264
264
Stage 2 Matrix 14: Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA: Offshore Bird Features
Name of European site: Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA
Distance to NSIP 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. For the Project-alone displacement assessment of Gannet. Displacement analysis for gannet predicted a mortality of five gannet in the breeding season based on a displacement rate of 70% and a mortality rate of 2% (as previously described, 2% mortality is applied to gannets during the breeding season due to the large foraging range of the species providing sufficient alternative foraging opportunities). As the only breeding gannet colony within foraging range of Project Two, it is assumed that all displacement effects associated with Project Two can be attributed to the breeding population at Flamborough head and Filey Coast pSPA. As such, those birds lost to the population as a result of displacement represent 0.03% of the pSPA breeding population (8,469 pairs) and would result in a 0.36% increase in background mortality. During the post-breeding season (September to November the mean peak population estimate within Subzone 2 and 2 km buffer was 773 individual gannet. During this period 1.9% of birds are likely to originate from the Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA (see Appendix B). Based on a displacement rate of 70% and mortality rate of 1%, a mortality of 0 gannet is predicted in the post breeding season. In the pre-breeding period (December - March), the mean peak population estimate within Subzone 2 and 2km buffer was 171 birds. During this period 6.7% of birds are likely to originate from the Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA based on the information in Appendix B. Using a displacement rate of 70% and a mortality rate of 1% the predicted mortality of gannet in the pre-breeding season is No adverse effect predicted
d. For the Project-alone collision risk assessment for Gannet. Collision risk modelling results presented in Table 5-37 of the HRA using both Option 1 and Option 4. Predicted annual mortality is well within the PBR value which was calculated to establish whether the predicted increases in baseline mortality were sustainable (No indication of an adverse effect
e. For the In-combination displacement assessment for Gannet. Quantitative data only available for two projects, providing a total displacement mortality of 15 gannet based on variable displacement and mortality rates. This represents 0.09% of the Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA population and results in an increase in background mortality of 1%.. There is no indication of an adverse effect arising from in-combination displacement on the breeding gannet feature of the Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA .
f. The predicted total annual number of gannet collisions apportioned to the Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA is 188. This represents a 11.7% increase in background mortality. However, it represents only 41.5% of the calculated PBR value of 452 birds (f = 0.5) and is therefore considered sustainable in the context of the pSPA population
sdf
265
265
g. For the Project-alone collision assessment of kittiwake. Collision risk modelling results presented in T able 5-46 of the HRA using both Option 1 and Option 4. the annual collision figure attributed to the pSPA is 4 birds. This represents 0.005% of the pSPA population and 0.04% increase in baseline mortality Annual mortality predictions for both options well within the PBR value and therefore considered sustainable. No indication of an adverse effect arising from collision on the kittiwake feature of the Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA
h. For the In-combination collision assessment for kittiwake. The predicted total annual number of kittiwake collisions apportioned to the Flamborough and Filey Coast is 114. This represents a 1.0% increase in background mortality and represents 11% of the calculated PBR value of 1023 birdsand no adverse effect is predicted on the kittiwake feature of the Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA in-combination with other plans and projects
i. For the Project-alone displacement assessment of guillemot a mortality of 27 birds is predicted in the breeding season based on a displacement rate of 30% and a mortality rate of 10%. This represents 0.6% increase in baseline mortality (). In the non-breeding season (August-February) 4.62% of birds are likely to originate from the Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA based on the information in Appendix D. Using a displacement rate of 30% and a mortality rate of 1%, the predicted mortality of guillemot in the non-breeding season is 2 birdsNo adverse effect is anticipated
j. For the In-combination displacement assessment for guillemot. The predicted in-combination mortality attributable to the Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA during the breeding season is 147 birds using a 30% displacement rate and 10% mortality rate. In the nonbreeding season a mortality of 9 birds is predicted based on a displacement rate of 30% and mortality rate of 2%. No adverse effect is predicted in-combination with other plans and projects.
k. Based on 36.74% of birds present within the Project Two site originating from the Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA (see Appendix E) a displacement rate of 40% and mortality rate of 10%, a mortality of 37 birds is predicted during the breeding season. This equates to an increase in baseline mortality of 1.75%. During the post-breeding period (August to October), the mean peak population estimate was 4,221 birds within Subzone 2 and 2 km buffer. In the post-breeding season 4% of birds are likely to originate from the Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA (see Appendix E). Based on a displacement rate of 40% and mortality rate of 2%, a mortality of 1 bird is predicted. In the non-breeding season (November - December) 3% of birds are likely to originate from the Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA based on the information in Appendix E. Using a displacement rate of 40% and a mortality rate of 1%, the predicted mortality of razorbill in the non-breeding season is 0. For the Project-alone displacement assessment of razorbill. PBR modelling suggests no adverse effect in the breeding season, even when using overly precautionary displacement and mortality rates. No adverse effect is anticipated
l. For the In-combination displacement assessment of razorbill. The predicted in-combination mortality attributable to the Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA during the breeding season is 129 birds using a 40% displacement rate and 10% mortality rate. During the post breeding season the predicted mortality attributable to Flamborough and Filey Coast is 8 birds based on displacement rate of 30% and mortality rate of 2%. In the non-breeding season a mortality of 2 birds is predicted and in the pre-breeding season a mortality of 6 birds is predicted based on a displacement rate of 30% and mortality rate of 1%. PBR and PVA modelling suggests that predicted displacement mortalities are sustainable in the context of the Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA population. No adverse effects are predicted in-combination with other plans and projects.
m. For the Project-alone displacement assessment of puffin Based on 5.77% (see Appendix F) of birds originating from the Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA, a predicted mortality of 1 puffin is predicted during the breeding season based on a displacement rate of 40% and a mortality rate of 10%. In the non-breeding season (August-March ) 0.004% of birds are likely to originate from the Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA based on the information in Appendix E. Using a displacement rate of 40% and a mortality rate of 1% the predicted mortality of puffin in the non-breeding season is 0.
n. For the In-combination assessment of puffin. In-combination displacement mortality is considered sustainable. The predicted in-combination displacement mortality for puffin is 14 birds during the breeding season using a displacement rate of 40% and mortality rate of 10%. This is a 9.39 % increase in baseline mortality. No deaths are predicted outside of the breeding season when using a 40% displacement rate and 2% mortality rate. The very small area of resource affected by the proposed development indicates that, should displacement occur, that there are extensive areas of good quality foraging habitat available to puffin outside of the development area. No adverse effects are predicted in-combination with other plans and projects.
sdf
266
266
Stage 2 Matrix 15: Forth Islands SPA: Offshore Bird Features
Name of European site: Forth Islands SPA
Distance to NSIP 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 One 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.
sdf
267
267
Stage 2 Matrix 16: Fowlsheugh SPA: Offshore Bird Features
Name of European site: Fowlsheugh SPA
Distance to NSIP 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 One 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
sdf
268
268
Stage 2 Matrix 17: Gule Rev pSCI: Annex II Marine Mammals
Name of European site: Gule Rev pSCI
Distance to NSIP 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).
sdf
269
269
Stage 2 Matrix 18: Hamburgisches Wattenmeer SAC: Annex II Marine Mammals
Name of European site: Hamburgisches Wattenmeer SAC
Distance to NSIP 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).
sdf
270
270
Stage 2 Matrix 19: Helgoland mit Helgoländer Felssockel SAC: Annex II Marine Mammals
Name of European site: Helgoland mit Helgoländer Felssockel SAC
Distance to NSIP 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).
sdf
271
271
Stage 2 Matrix 20a: Humber Estuary SAC: Annex I habitats
Name of European site: Humber Estuary SAC
Distance to NSIP 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).
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).
sdf
272
272
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 One and Project Two. The level of effect associated with cable installation predicted for Project One 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 One 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).
sdf
273
273
Stage 2 Matrix 20b: Humber Estuary SAC: Annex II Migratory Fish
Name of European site: Humber Estuary SAC
Distance to NSIP 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).
sdf
274
274
Stage 2 Matrix 20c: Humber Estuary SAC: Annex II Marine Mammals
Name of European site: Humber Estuary SAC
Distance to NSIP 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).
sdf
275
275
Stage 2 Matrix 21a: Humber Estuary Ramsar: Annex I habitat
Name of European site: Humber Estuary Ramsar
Distance to NSIP 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).
sdf
276
276
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 One and Project Two. The level of effect associated with cable installation predicted for Project One 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 One 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).
sdf
277
277
Stage 2 Matrix 21b: Humber Estuary Ramsar: Annex II Migratory Fish
Name of European site: Humber Estuary Ramsar
Distance to NSIP 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).
sdf
278
278
Stage 2 Matrix 21c: Humber Estuary Ramsar: Annex II Marine Mammals
Name of European site: Humber Estuary Ramsar
Distance to NSIP 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).
sdf
279
279
Stage 2 Matrix 21e: Humber Estuary Ramsar: Intertidal Bird Features
Name of European site: Humber Estuary SAC
Distance to NSIP 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 Scaup Goldeneye (Bucephala clangula clangula)
sdf
280
280
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).
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
sdf
281
281
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.
sdf
282
282
Stage 2 Matrix 22: Humber Estuary SPA: Intertidal Bird Features
Name of European site: Humber Estuary SAC
Distance to NSIP 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).
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).
sdf
283
283
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.
sdf
284
284
Stage 2 Matrix 23: Klaverbank SCI: Annex II Marine Mammals
Name of European site: Klaverbank SCI
Distance to NSIP 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. 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).
sdf
285
285
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).
sdf
286
286
Stage 2 Matrix 24: Nationalpark Niedersächsisches Wattenmeer SCI: Annex II Marine Mammals
Name of European site: Nationalpark Niedersächsisches Wattenmeer SCI
Distance to NSIP 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).
sdf
287
287
Stage 2 Matrix 25: Noordzeekustzone SAC: Annex II Marine Mammals
Name of European site: Noordzeekustzone SAC
Distance to NSIP 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).
sdf
288
288
Stage 2 Matrix 26: Noordzeekustzone II pSCI: Annex II Marine Mammals
Name of European site: Noordzeekustzone II pSCI
Distance to NSIP 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).
sdf
289
289
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 NSIP 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).
sdf
290
290
Stage 2 Matrix 28: Östliche Deutsche Bucht SCI: Annex II Marine Mammals
Name of European site: Östliche Deutsche Bucht SCI
Distance to NSIP 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).
sdf
291
291
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 NSIP 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).
sdf
292
292
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 NSIP 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).
sdf
293
293
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 NSIP 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).
sdf
294
294
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 NSIP 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).
sdf
295
295
Stage 2 Matrix 33: River Derwent SAC: Annex II Migratory Fish
Name of European site: River Derwent SAC
Distance to NSIP 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).
sdf
296
296
Stage 2 Matrix 34: SBZ 1/ ZPS 1 SCI: Annex II Marine Mammals
Name of European site: SBZ 1/ ZPS 1 SCI
Distance to NSIP 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).
sdf
297
297
Stage 2 Matrix 35: SBZ 2/ ZPS 2 SCI: Annex II Marine Mammals
Name of European site: SBZ 2/ ZPS 2 SCI
Distance to NSIP 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).
sdf
298
298
Stage 2 Matrix 36: SBZ 3/ ZPS 3 SCI: Annex II Marine Mammals
Name of European site: SBZ 3/ ZPS 3 SCI
Distance to NSIP 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).
sdf
299
299
Stage 2 Matrix 37: Steingrund SAC: Annex II Marine Mammals
Name of European site: Steingrund SAC
Distance to NSIP 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).
sdf
300
300
Stage 2 Matrix 38: Sylter Außenriff SCI: Annex II Marine Mammals
Name of European site: Sylter Außenriff SCI
Distance to NSIP 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).
sdf
301
301
Stage 2 Matrix 39: Sydlige Nordsø SAC: Annex II Marine Mammals
Name of European site: Sydlige Nordsø SAC
Distance to NSIP 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).
sdf
302
302
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 NSIP 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.
sdf
303
303
Stage 2 Matrix 41: Unterelbe SCI: Annex II Marine Mammals
Name of European site: Unterelbe SCI
Distance to NSIP 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).
sdf
304
304
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 NSIP 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).
sdf
305
305
Stage 2 Matrix 43: Venø, Venø Sund SAC: Annex II Marine Mammals
Name of European site: Venø, Venø Sund SAC
Distance to NSIP 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).
sdf
306
306
Stage 2 Matrix 44: Vlakte van de Raan pSCI: Annex II Marine Mammals
Name of European site: Vlakte van de Raan pSCI
Distance to NSIP 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).
sdf
307
307
Stage 2 Matrix 45: Vlakte van de Raan SAC: Annex II Marine Mammals
Name of European site: Vlakte van de Raan SAC
Distance to NSIP 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).
sdf
308
308
REFERENCES
SMartWind. (2014). Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm, Project Two: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening Report.