WALNEY EXTENSION OFFSHORE WIND FARM - · PDF fileWalney Extension Offshore Wind Farm Statement...

PINS Reference: EN010027

WALNEY EXTENSION OFFSHORE WIND FARM

Walney Extension Offshore Wind Farm

Statement of Common Ground

Between:

1. DONG Energy Walney Extension (UK) Limited

2. Natural England

3. Joint Nature Conservation Committee

Walney Extension Offshore Wind Farm Statement of Common Ground between DONG Energy Walney Extension (UK) Ltd and Natural England / JNCC PINS Reference: EN010027

/44

Walney Extension Offshore Wind Farm Statement of Common Ground – December 2013

DONG Energy Walney Extension (UK) Ltd.

33 Grosvenor Place, Belgravia, London, SW1X 7HY

Pictures: © DONG Energy Power (UK) Ltd., 2013

Prepared by: Andrew Prior, Source Low Carbon LLP

Checked by: Allen Risby, DONG Energy

Accepted by: Sally Holroyd, DONG Energy

Approved by: Cliff Pullen, DONG Energy

Revision history

Version Date Author History

1 07/10/2013 Andrew Prior, Source Low

Carbon LLP

First draft sent to Natural England and JNCC for

discussion at the meeting on 17/10/2013


Carbon LLP

Incorporating comments from Natural England


Carbon LLP, Allen Risby

DONG Energy

Updated to reflect discussion with Natural England /

JNCC 05/12/2013

Final 12/12/2013 Sally Holroyd, DONG Energy Signed by all parties for submission to the Examining

Authority for Deadline No. 1 of 16th December 2013

Walney Extension Offshore Wind Farm Statement of Common Ground between DONG Energy Walney Extension (UK) Ltd and Natural England / JNCC PINS Reference: EN010027

/44

Signed

Printed Name Dr. James Bussell Luca Doria

Position Principal Adviser Offshore Industries Advisor

On behalf of Natural England Joint Nature Conservation Committee

Date 12th December 2013

Signed

Printed Name Cliff Pullen

Position Project Manager

On behalf of DONG Energy Walney Extension (UK) Limited

Date 12th December 2013

Walney Extension Offshore Wind Farm SoCG between DONG Energy Walney Extension (UK) Ltd and Natural England / JNCC PINS Reference: EN010027

/44

1 Introduction

1.1 This Statement of Common Ground (SoCG) has been prepared in respect of the application for a development consent order (DCO) for the Walney Extension Offshore Wind Farm, submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) by DONG Energy Walney Extension (UK) Limited (the Applicant) on 28 June 2013 under the Planning Act 2008 (the Application).

1.2 This SoCG with Natural England and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) has been produced to identify where there are areas of agreement, and where there remain topics or specific issues of disagreement, between the parties. SoCGs are an established means in the planning process of allowing all parties to focus on specific issues that need to be addressed during examination and are envisaged by Rule 8(e) of the Infrastructure Planning (Examination Procedure) Rules 2010. Additionally, the SoCGs may be requested by PINS as a means of informing their examination of a DCO application.

2 Structure

2.1 The structure of this SoCG is based upon the topics raised within PINS Rule 8 letter dated 20th November 2013 and the information contained within the combined single relevant representation dated 20th September (representation no. 63) made by Natural England and the JNCC in response to the publication of the Application. The structure of this SoCG is as follows:

• The Development

• Response to Examining Authority’s Rule 8 Questions

• Application elements under remit of Natural England and the JNCC

• Consultation

• Topic specific matters agreed, not agreed and actions to resolve in relation to:

• Ornithology – abundance estimates, species level identification, collision risk modelling

• Ribble and Alt Estuaries SPA & Morecambe Bay SPA – Lesser black backed gull

• Morecambe Bay SPA – Herring gull

• Martin Mere SPA – Pink footed goose, Whooper Swan

• Saltmarsh and associated Belted Beauty moth population (Morecambe Bay SAC, Lune Estuary SSSI)

• Inter-tidal mudflats and sand flats and over-wintering bird species (Morecambe Bay SAC, Morecambe Bay SPA, Lune Estuary SSSI)

• Annex 1 reefs (Morecambe Bay SAC and Shell Flat and Lune Deep SAC)


/44

• Alternative habitat for terrestrial nesting birds

• Spatial extent of potential auditory injury area for grey seal

• Marine mammal mitigation and cumulative effects

• A limited number of marine licence provisions

• Glossary

2.2 Unless otherwise stated, the points set out in this SoCG are agreed between the parties to it. Points that are not agreed are clearly stated and will be the subject of on-going discussion wherever possible to resolve, or refine, the extent of disagreement between the parties.

2.3 For clarity, there is no disagreement between the Applicant and Natural England/JNCC with regard to the following topics and accordingly these are not covered further in this SoCG:

• The policy context relating to the Project outlined in Chapter 2 of the ES

• The ES methodology outlined in Chapter 3 of the ES other than in respect of the cumulative assessment of marine mammals and ornithology and the cumulative effect of offshore cables)

• The project description set out in Chapter 4 of the ES other than in respect of cable burial and protection issues

• The description and process of site selection and consideration of alternatives set out in Chapter 5 of the ES and Chapter 3 of the Planning Statement other than in respect of the cable landfall at Middleton Sands

• Metocean, coastal processes, sediment and water quality other than the effects of cable protection on SAC/SPA features

• Benthic ecology other than in respect of Annex 1 reefs and loss of habitat arising from cable burial and protection.

• Fish and shellfish ecology

• Seascape, landscape and visual impact issues (offshore and onshore)

• Onshore/terrestrial ecology and nature conservation other than in respect of mitigation for nesting birds


/44

3 The Development

3.1 The Application relates to the construction and operation of an offshore wind farm located in the Irish Sea approximately 19 km west-south-west of the Isle of Walney coast in Cumbria, 26 km southwest of the Millom coast in Cumbria, 35 km northwest of the Fleetwood and Blackpool coast, and 31 km southeast of the Isle of Man (the Project). The proposed Project covers an area of 149 km² and will connect, via underground cables, to a new onshore substation, which will be built by the Applicant close to the existing Heysham 400 kV substation.

3.2 The proposed DCO will, amongst other things, authorise:

3.2.1 offshore – wind turbines and foundations (up to 207 wind turbines with a maximum tip height of 222m to provide an installed capacity of up to 750MW); up to three offshore substations and foundations; undersea cables between the wind turbines and offshore substations; up to five buried offshore undersea export cable systems to transmit electricity from the offshore substations to the shore;

3.2.2 onshore – a landfall site at Middleton Sands near Heysham, with onshore transition joint bays to connect the offshore and onshore cable systems; up to five onshore underground export cable systems with jointing bays to transmit electricity to a new onshore substation, close to the existing Heysham 400 kV substation, to connect the offshore wind farm to the National Grid;

3.2.3 the permanent and/or temporary compulsory acquisition of land and/or rights for the Project; overriding of easements and other rights over or affecting land for the Project; the application and/or disapplication of legislation relevant to the Project including inter alia legislation relating to compulsory purchase; and

3.2.4 such ancillary, incidental and consequential provisions, permits or consents as are necessary and/or convenient.

3.3 The Project is described in detail in Chapter 4 of the Environmental Statement (ES) which accompanies the application for development consent

3.4 The exact size, layout and methodology for delivery of the proposed wind farm is yet to be determined and the Applicant needs to retain some flexibility to take into account technological advancements, infrastructure availability and costs up to the time of construction. For this reason, the proposal is described in the form of a design envelope, which states the maximum adverse case scenario within which the project would be built. This is an established principle, also known as the ‘Rochdale envelope’ which is commonly used for proposals of this type, where there is a rapid development of the technology, changing market conditions and a long lead- time to construction.

3.5 The Application was submitted to PINS on 28 June 2013 and accepted for examination on 22 July 2013 under PINS reference EN010027. Notice of the Application was publicised between 1 August and 20 September 2013.


/44

4 Response to Examining Authority’s Rule 8 Questions

4.1 The following questions for Natural England / JNCC, or the Applicant, raised in the Examining Authorities Rule 8 letter are addressed in this SOCG:

Question number

Topic SOCG paragraph number

Q1.1 Bird collision risk modelling and the use of Band (2012) options 1, 2, and 3

7.3

Q1.10 Use of aerial and boat-based survey data 7.1

Q1.11 Apportioning of gulls and auks to species level 7.2

Q1.12 Definition of regional populations 7.4

Q1.14 In-combination assessment for a number of bird species 8.3, 9.3, 10.5

Q1.16 The assessment of effects on SPAs for breeding lesser black-backed gulls, herring gulls, and wintering pink-footed geese and whooper swans

8.1, 9.1, 10.1, 10.4

Q1.17 Impacts on habitat features of Morecambe Bay SAC and Lune Estuary SSSI

12.1, 12.2

Q1.21 Further measures to avoid impacts on knot and bar-tailed godwit at Morecambe Bay SPA [Middleton Sands] during April

16.4

Q1.31 Grey seal noise impact modelling 15.1

Q1.32 Marine mammal auditory injury occurring beyond the standard 500m mitigation zone

15.2

Q1.33 Cumulative construction impacts 15.3

Q1.35 Annex I stony reef 13.1

Q1.42 HDD – feasibility and assessment of alternatives 11.1

Q1.43 Scour effects of cables 12.1

Q1.49 (part) Whooper swan and pink footed geese CRM impacts 10.1, 10.4

Q1.54 In-combination assessments for lesser black backed gull and herring gull

8.1, 9.1


/44

Q1.55 Cumulative impact assessment for whooper swan and pink-footed geese

10.2, 10.5

Q1.56 Cable installation impacts on Morecambe Bay SAC 12.1, 12.2, 13.2, 13.3

4.2 The following questions in the Examining Authority's Rule 8 letter are not addressed in this Statement of Common Ground. It is anticipated that the Applicant and Natural England / JNCC will, where possible, work to establish an agreed position on these issues. The Applicant's response to these questions will be provided to the Examining Authority by Deadline I and will be shared with Natural England / JNCC.

Q1.2 & 1.3 Operational efficiency of wind turbines and their use in the assessment of the worst case scenario

Q1.4 Buffers used to establish bird densities

Q1.5 Omission of direct habitat loss from assessment

Q1.6 Assessment criteria and the use of the DMRB methodology

Q1.7 & Q1.8 EIA – Turbine parameters for the "worst case scenario"

Q1.9 EIA - Identification of sensitive receptors

Q1.15 Monitoring programme

Q1.18 Assessment criteria for inter-tidal ornithology

Q1.19 Adjustment of survey data in inter-tidal

Q1.20 Number of affected species in inter-tidal

Q1.22 Data gathering for the inter-tidal works study area

Q1.23 Onshore ecology impact within the cable corridor

Q1.24 Bat surveys

Q1.25 Further great crested newt surveys?

Q1.26 EPS licencing for great-crested newts

Q1.30 Definitions of significance for marine mammals

Q1.34 Results of noise monitoring from Walney 1&2


/44

Q1.38 Features missing from HRA report, reasons for no LSE

Q1.44 Basis for whooper swan popn numbers at Martin Mere and Ribble and Alt Estuaries SPAs

Q1.45 Use of the Migratory Assessment Tool for passage bird CRM

Q1.46 Swan population, tracking SPA populations and CRM

Q1.47 Swan CRM and clarification of population %

Q1.48 Approach to ringed swans

Q1.49 (part) Approach to assessing impacts on HRA breeding birds outside the breeding season

Q1.50 (part) Potential additive effects

Q1.51 Cumulative collision risk – individual SPA populations

Q1.52 99.8% Avoidance rate for pink-footed goose

Q1.53 Manx Shearwater displacement. Cumulative population vs. individual SPAs

Q10.1 Issues with cable burial on other schemes

5 Application elements under remit of Natural England and the JNCC

5.1 Natural England is a non-departmental public body established under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 (“NERC” Act). Natural England is the statutory adviser to Government on nature conservation in England and promotes the conservation of England’s wildlife and natural features. Under section 1(3) of the NERC Act Natural England’s functions are exercisable in relation to England and the territorial sea adjacent to England up to 12 nautical miles.

5.2 JNCC is a non-departmental public body established under the NERC Act. JNCC is the public body that advises the United Kingdom Government and devolved administrations on UK-wide and international nature conservation, including in relation to the UK offshore region (from 12 to 200 nautical miles offshore).

5.3 Natural England is a statutory consultee:

• In respect of plans or projects that are subject to the requirements of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (the “Habitats Regulations”) which are likely to have a significant effect on European sites and European marine sites (including Special Areas of Conservation (“SAC”) (and candidate SACs (“cSACs”)), Special Protection Areas (“SPA”),


/44

and, by way of Government policy, sites listed under the 1971 Convention on Wetlands of International Importance (“Ramsar site”)) which lie within 12 nautical miles from the English coastline; and

• In relation to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) (the “1981 Act”), proposals likely to damage any of the flora, fauna or geological or physiographical features for which a Site of Special Scientific Interest (“SSSI”) has been notified.

5.4 JNCC is a statutory consultee in respect of plans or projects that are subject to the requirements of the Habitats Regulations which are likely to have a significant effect on European offshore marine sites (including SACs (and cSACs), SPAs, and, by way of Government policy, Ramsar sites) which lie beyond 12 nautical miles from the United Kingdom coastline.

5.5 Natural England and the JNCC are also statutory consultees pursuant to the Offshore Marine Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 2007 (the “2007 Regulations”). Under regulation 25(3)(a) of the 2007 Regulations, where the assessment relates to a European offshore marine site, the competent authority must consult the JNCC. Where the assessment relates to a European site (including a European marine site), then the competent authority must consult Natural England, in accordance with regulation 25(3)(b) of the 2007 Regulations.

5.6 In determining the application for a Development Consent Order for the Project the Secretary of State will be acting as the competent authority for the purposes of the Habitats Regulations and the 2007 Regulations. The Secretary of State is also a section 28G authority with specific duties under the 1981 Act in respect of SSSIs.

5.7 The 2013 Triennial Review of JNCC and Natural England/Environment Agency concluded that JNCC and Natural England should work more collaboratively when providing marine conservation advice that spans the 12 nautical mile boundary. In particular this would include the delegation of renewable energy advice from JNCC to country conservation bodies, including Natural England in English offshore waters. The purpose in doing this is to provide a more streamlined and efficient service to the customer. The Examining Authority should note that pursuant to an authorisation made on 9th December 2013 by the JNCC under paragraph 17(c) of Schedule 4 to the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, Natural England is now authorised to exercise the JNCC’s functions as a statutory consultee in respect of certain applications for offshore renewable energy installations located in the English offshore zone. It should be noted, however, that for internal administrative reasons a transitional handover period will be required for the Walney Extension Offshore Wind Farm case during which JNCC will continue to provide advice and assistance on certain aspects of the case falling within their statutory remit. It is anticipated that all of JNCC’s statutory functions in respect those aspects of the Walney Extension Offshore Wind Farm case taking place beyond 12nm will be handed over to Natural England shortly after Examination Timetable Deadline I. It will be clearly indicated which aspects of the case the JNCC have continued to provide advice.

6 Consultation

6.1 The consultation carried out by the Applicant, and the way in which it has informed the Project proposals, is set out in full in the Consultation Report (Document 5.0) submitted with the


/44

Application. This pre-application consultation included both Natural England and JNCC from an early project planning stage.

6.2 Natural England and JNCC were provided with documentation for review and comment during the pre-application process, for example through provision of Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI), technical reports and draft ES chapters. Additionally a number of meetings, as described in the Consultation Report, were held during the preparation of the Application to discuss outstanding issues.

6.3 The design of the Project has evolved following consultation with Natural England and JNCC and a number of amendments have been made to the Project as a result of this engagement, most notably:

• Relocation of the proposed landfall to minimise export cable distance beneath the salt marsh;

• Removal of the use of explosives from the decommissioning process; and

• Use of Horizontal Direct Drilling (HDD) techniques to cross beneath the salt marsh and sea defence in order to reduce the environmental impact on the salt marsh to the extent that they are not significant in environmental impact assessment (EIA) terms.

6.4 Following submission of the application a telephone conference took place with Natural England and JNCC on 13th September 2013 to discuss Natural England and the JNCC's indications of the content of their Relevant Representation. Consultation with Natural England and the JNCC continues in order to discuss and resolve outstanding issues and develop resolutions as listed in this SoCG. A teleconference meeting was held on the 17th October 2013 to discuss the Natural England and JNCC Relevant Representation followed by further teleconferences on the 5th and 6th November 2013. Subsequent discussions were held on the 29th November 2013 and the 5th December 2013.


/44

7 Ornithology – data analysis

Ref Issue Comments of Natural England and JNCC Comments of Applicant Status

7.1 Differences between bird data collected by boat and by digital aerial survey for lesser black-backed gull, herring gull, Manx shearwater, great black-backed gull and guillemot

For these species, estimated abundances are an order of magnitude greater from boat surveys. Natural England and JNCC reserve some concerns about the sole reliance on aerial survey data, which might underestimate the impact when compared to boat-based survey data. Natural England has initiated discussions with the Applicant to resolve this – focusing on precision of estimates from the two survey methods. At present this remains a source of uncertainty in the assessment.

The differences in the datasets are acknowledged. The Applicant will provide Natural England and JNCC with a statistical analysis of the two datasets. Our view currently is that the 22 aerial surveys present a more valid representation of abundance than the 12 boat based surveys. We will present this view in a Paper to Natural England / JNCC. A conclusion on the best way forward on this issue will inform the presentation of collision risk data.

A Paper ("Clarification Note - Aerial and boat-based survey data: statistical comparison") was provided on 14/10/2013. Further discussions were held with Natural England to consider the precision of aerial surveys and how best to present this information. A Note was sent to Natural England (Alex Banks) on 3rd December 2013 and discussed on the 5th December. The Applicant has identified that this analysis will be re-presented using standard error. This information was presented to Natural England / JNCC on the 9th December 2013. It is now agreed that it is appropriate to base the assessment on the aerial survey data, as these data have been shown objectively to be more precise.

7.2 Estimates of proportions of gull and auk species at group level

Although the material provided discusses the approach to proportioning these unidentified gulls and auks to species level for assessment, it is not clear that this has been done. It is important that such data are proportioned out to ensure the assessment does not underestimate effects, particularly on gulls

A clarification paper setting out how the proportions have been assigned will be provided to Natural England and JNCC

A Paper ("Clarification Note - Partitioning of unidentified birds recorded during project-specific surveys") was provided on 14/10/2013. Natural England has confirmed (teleconference 5/11/13)


/44


associated with SPAs in foraging range. that it is content with this Paper.

It is agreed that partitioned data for auks and gulls is incorporated throughout the Offshore Ornithology ES chapter including ES section 13.6 (baseline environment) and section 13.11 (assessment of significance).

7.3 Collision risk modelling – use of Band (2012) option 3

CRM outputs are from the Band (2012) model, recommended by the Statutory Nature Conservation Bodies (SNCBs) including Natural England and JNCC. However, within this model, there are several options (referred to as 1, 2 and 3) which represent bird flight distribution in different ways. Options 1 and 2, having been subject to some mathematical scrutiny in the past, are those recommended by the SNCBs. Outputs from Option 3 have been used by the Applicant in the assessment, with limited presentation of results for the other options). Natural England and JNCC do not currently advise the use of Option 3 and, because of the reservations we have regarding some of the assumptions underpinning this option, we advise that these predictions must be regarded with caution. Natural England and JNCC currently advise projects to present CRM statistics under all three scenarios (i.e. Band

The Applicant will provide a collision risk assessment for the key species using rates from each applicable Band (2012) option. A Paper ("Clarification Note: Collision risk modelling options and potential collision height") was provided on 25/11/13.

Natural England has confirmed (5/11/13) that where site data are not robust the Band 2012 Option 2 model is acceptable.

In response to the Clarification Note provided on the 25th November 2013 it is agreed that the Band (2012) CRM options for the species identified in Table 3 of that Note are appropriate if it can be shown why no site specific data were used from before March 2012 (see section 4.1 in JNCC and Natural England Relevant Representations for further explanation).

The only exception is with regard to gannet and kittiwake where Natural England consider that sufficient


/44


Model Options 1-3) for those seabirds sensitive to collision mortality (predominantly gulls, terns, skuas, and gannets). We do not support the selection of CRM Option 3 outputs as the sole basis on which assessment of impact should be made.

records are available to support an option 1 CRM analysis.

7.4 Selection of relevant regional population

The “regional population‟ of birds relative to Walney Extension has been defined contrary to Natural England and JNCC’s advice when consulted informally on certain aspects of the draft ES. The breeding population of the entire west coast of Britain and Ireland has been considered to reflect “regional‟ abundance year round. This makes no allowance for immigration / emigration / non-breeding component and does not appear to be a meaningful “regional‟ population. (Additionally, for several species, the breeding figures in JNCC (2013) are somewhat outdated as changes have occurred since – 51% decline in lesser black-backed gulls, for example). This approach risks screening out sensitive receptors that might otherwise have attained “regional‟ importance.

Potential alternative regional populations could be based on, for example, all colonies within foraging range of the proposed OWF, strategic

The Applicant will provide Natural England and JNCC with a clarification paper providing alternative regional population estimates

A Paper ("Clarification Note - definition of regional populations") was provided on 14/10/2013. Natural England has confirmed (5/11/13) that this is comprehensive but noted the requirement to update the collision risk model for kittiwake, common gull, and great black-backed gull.

Updates to the model for these species will be provided to Natural England / JNCC by deadline II (17th January 2014).


/44


offshore wind farm survey areas, or the sea areas in Stone et al. (1995).


/44

8 Ribble and Alt Estuaries SPA & Morecambe Bay SPA – Lesser black backed gull


8.1 Impact on SPA population of lesser black backed gull arising from potential collision

Natural England cannot at this time be certain, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, that there will not be an adverse effect on the integrity of this feature of the Morecambe Bay SPA and Ribble and Alt Estuaries SPA.

Natural England is not yet clear on the possible range of impact, in the absence of CRM outputs using Option 1 of the Band (2012) CRM. Natural England therefore requests that the data be presented in accordance with Option 1, rather than Option 3.

As discussed in the Clarification Note provided to Natural England / JNCC on 25/11/13 (see 7.3 above) the Applicant considers that there are insufficient site specific records of lesser black-backed gull to provide a robust collision risk model using Band (2012) option 1. The Clarification Note provides CRM estimates for this species at option 2 and option 3.

It is agreed (following the Clarification Note on collision risk modelling options and potential collision height, issued on 25/11/13) that Band (2012) option 1 is not suitable for this species at the Project site (due to insufficiency of records) if it can be shown why no site specific data were used from before March 2012. (see section 4.1 in JNCC and Natural England Relevant Representations for further explanation).

It was agreed that an updated in-combination assessment for this species will need to reflect the similar assessment being undertaken for Burbo Bank Extension offshore wind farm site.

The Applicant expects to produce an updated in-combination assessment by deadline III (4th February 2014).

8.2 Parameters within Potential Biological

Natural England cannot at this time be certain, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, that there will not be an adverse effect on the integrity of

The Applicant will continue to discuss with Natural England and JNCC the use of appropriate parameters within the PBR

The Applicant expects to produce an updated in-combination assessment, taking account of "f" value advice, by


/44


Removal (PBR) model this feature of the Morecambe Bay SPA and Ribble and Alt Estuaries SPA.

Although Natural England agrees with the approach taken to apportion effects to different breeding colonies within the foraging range of Walney Extension OWF, Natural England advises that parameters within the Potential Biological Removal (PBR) model used to assess the significance of impact to the SPA(s) require further discussion with the Applicant.

model, noting in particular Natural England advice on "f" values provided at the Burbo Extension DCO Application Issue Specific Hearing.

deadline III (4th February 2014).

It is agreed that the approach to interpreting the PBR analysis should also include the identification of the "f" value associated with a particular cumulative CRM value and an interpretation of how this relates to a range of "f" threshold values.

8.3 In-combination effects Although the proportion of effect currently attributed to the Ribble and Alt Estuaries SPA is smaller than that for Morecambe Bay SPA, we also note the need to be mindful of other „live‟ projects in combination – specifically, Burbo Bank Extension Offshore Wind Farm and the consent granted to BAE Warton to cull lesser black-backed gulls at the SPA.

There also remain concerns about in combination assessment. Data from five of 11 offshore wind farms have contributed to the current assessment, meaning that the contribution of six others is unknown. If such quantitative data do not exist, Natural England advises an approach to assessment that recognises the in combination contribution of

A revised cumulative assessment including the effects of the BAE Warton cull and taking into account the absence of quantitative data on a number of offshore wind farms will be presented to Natural England and JNCC.

The Applicant expects to produce an updated in-combination assessment by deadline III (4th February 2014).


/44


all relevant projects that accounts for the confidence in data associated with each contributing project.


/44

9 Morecambe Bay SPA – Herring gull


9.1 Impact on SPA population of herring gull arising from potential collision

Natural England cannot at this time be certain beyond reasonable scientific doubt that there will not be an adverse effect on the integrity of this feature in the Morecambe Bay SPA.

This is because, firstly, we are not yet clear on the possible range of impact, in the absence of CRM outputs using Option 1 of the Band (2012) CRM. Natural England therefore requests that the data be presented in accordance with Option 1, rather than Option 3.

As discussed in the Clarification Note provided to Natural England / JNCC on 25/11/13 (see 7.3 above) the Applicant considers that there are insufficient site specific records of herring gull to provide a robust collision risk model using Band (2012) option 1. The Clarification Note provides CRM estimates for this species at option 2 and option 3.

It is agreed that for this species at the Project site there are insufficient records to support the use of Band (2012) option 1 if it can be shown why no site specific data were used from before March 2012. (see section 4.1 in JNCC and Natural England Relevant Representations for further explanation).

It is also agreed that the offshore wind farm sites off the north Wales / Wirral coastline (namely: Gywnt y Mor, Rhyl Flats, North Hoyle, Burbo Bank, and Burbo Bank Extension) together with the Irish Sea Zone wind farm Rhiannon lie beyond the mean-maximum foraging range for herring gull from the South Walney (Morecambe Bay SPA) colony and can therefore be disregarded for the in-combination assessment.

The Applicant intends to supply an updated in-combination assessment for this species at the Morecambe Bay


/44


SPA by deadline II (17th January 2014).

9.2 Parameters within Potential Biological Removal (PBR) model

Natural England cannot at this time be certain beyond reasonable scientific doubt that there will not be an adverse effect on the integrity of this feature in the Morecambe Bay SPA.

Although Natural England agrees with the approach taken to apportion effects to different breeding colonies within the foraging range of Walney Extension OWF, Natural England advises that parameters within the PBR model used to assess the significance of impact to the SPA require further discussion with the Applicant.

The Applicant will continue to discuss with Natural England and JNCC the use of appropriate parameters within the PBR model.

The Applicant expects to produce an updated in-combination assessment, taking account of "f" value advice, by deadline II (17th January 2014).

It is agreed that the approach to interpreting the PBR analysis should also include the identification of the "f" value associated with a particular cumulative CRM value and an interpretation of how this relates to a range of "f" threshold values.

9.3 In-combination effects There also remain concerns about in combination assessment. Data from one of nine offshore wind farms have contributed to the current assessment, meaning that the contribution of eight others is unknown. If such quantitative data do not exist, Natural England advises that a subjective assessment is the minimum requirement to recognise that the assessment is incomplete.

A revised cumulative assessment taking into account the absence of quantitative data on a number of offshore wind farms will be presented to Natural England and JNCC.

The Applicant expects to produce an updated in-combination assessment by deadline II (17th January 2014).


/44

10 Martin Mere SPA – Pink footed goose, Whooper Swan


10.1 Pink footed goose – migratory model

The Applicant has presented a theoretical approach to predicting impact to migrating geese. Whilst Natural England agrees with the principles of the model, in its view more work is necessary to understand potential impacts on individual SPAs for wintering geese. Natural England would note that there are several assumptions in the model, none of which are fully testable, and would welcome further discussions on these with the Applicant.

A discussion paper on the model outlining the basis of the assumptions made and the approach taken has been provided to Natural England and JNCC. ("Clarification note - approach to collision risk modelling for pink-footed goose and whooper swan" provided to Natural England and JNCC on 27/10/13.)

It is agreed that Natural England recognises the difficulty of doing a complete in-combination assessment for this species.

10.2 Pink footed goose – cumulative effect

The in combination modelling of cumulative collision risk for offshore wind farms would also benefit from further discussion with the Applicant, noting that there are several scenarios modelled within the information provided. Given the lack of certainty over which scenario is most appropriate, Natural England advises that a realistic worst case scenario is assessed in the first instance.

The Applicant has responded to comments made on the draft ES / HRA documents and has included an assessment of collision risk to pink-footed geese on migration and overland winter movements (west to east coast). The in-combination collision risk assessment fails to show collision mortality at a level that would result in a significant effect for the Morecambe Bay, Ribble and Alt Estuaries, or Martin Mere SPAs. Given this extensive analysis - documented in the HRA Report (section 8.5 and elsewhere) - it would be helpful to understand what further scenario Natural England consider should

A Paper ("Clarification note - approach to collision risk modelling for pink-footed goose and whooper swan") was provided to Natural England and JNCC on 27/10/13. It is agreed that Natural England recognises the difficulty of doing a complete in-combination assessment for this species. Natural England is continuing to review the evidence with the aim of reaching an agreement with the applicant.


/44


be assessed.

10.3 Pink footed goose – winter movements

Whilst Natural England appreciates the difficulties associated with predicting impacts for a species which is highly mobile when wintering within the UK (moving between sites in England and between England and Scotland), some assessment of the predicted impact of this is required. Natural England has commissioned a project which should be of benefit to the Examination Authority in addressing such questions, which we hope to be able to advise on later during the examination process.

This issue has been outstanding for a considerable period of time now and was raised by Natural England in respect of Round 2 projects. Certainty on the delivery date of the Natural England project is required as it is not reasonable to expect significant amendments to the assessment during the examination process, particularly given the low level of risk involved and the significant higher levels of collision likely to arise from onshore infrastructure such as power lines and terrestrial wind farms. In the absence of such certainty the Applicant proposes to make representations to ExA that the issue is unlikely to give rise to a significant adverse effect on the SPA (the position accepted by the Secretary of State in respect of the Walney 1 and 2 and West of Duddon Sands projects)

A Paper ("Clarification note - approach to collision risk modelling for pink-footed goose and whooper swan") was provided to Natural England and JNCC on 27/10/13.

10.4 Whooper Swan – migratory model

The Applicant has presented a theoretical approach to predicting impact to migrating swans. Whilst Natural England agrees with the principles of the model, in its view more work is necessary in order to understand potential impacts to individual SPAs for wintering swans. Natural England would welcome further

The assessment of collision risk across the migratory front - for a range of avoidance rates and population densities - is presented in HRA Report Table 8.3. A consideration of impact on 2 SPAs (Martin Mere and Ribble & Alt Estuaries SPA) is

A Paper ("Clarification note - approach to collision risk modelling for pink-footed goose and whooper swan") was provided to Natural England and JNCC on 27/10/13.


/44


discussions with the Applicant on this in order to enable assessment.

presented in Table 8.4. The Applicant would welcome advice on what further work is required

10.5 Whooper Swan – cumulative effects

The in combination modelling of cumulative collision risk for offshore wind farms would also benefit from further discussion, noting that there are several scenarios modelled within the information provided. In the imperfect knowledge of which scenario is most appropriate, we advise a realistic worst case scenario is assessed in the first instance.

In the context of data gaps the Applicant considers that the scenarios modelled for cumulative collision risk are both robust and appropriate. If Natural England / JNCC consider that the scenarios are not appropriate the Applicant would welcome specific advice from Natural England on the nature of the concerns and on what the “realistic worst case scenario” should consider.

It is agreed that Natural England is not currently able to offer any further advice on the additional scenarios to be assessed.


/44

11 Saltmarsh and associated Belted Beauty moth population (Morecambe Bay SAC, Lune Estuary SSSI)


11.1 Salt marsh and belted beauty moth – horizontal direct drilling (HDD)

Natural England welcome the proposal to use HDD at the cable landfall in order to minimise impacts to the saltmarsh and population of the Belted Beauty moth (Lycia zonaria), a BAP priority species under Section 41 of the NERC Act 2006. Geotechnical surveys which would determine the feasibility of this method are ongoing. There should be some provision for the potential failure or unfeasibility of this method, and as such alternatives should be assessed by the Applicant, to ensure that this issue has been fully assessed.

Alternative routes and the site selection process are described in Chapter 5 of the ES. The Applicant believes that the current approach using HDD represents the optimal route while providing a high level of environmental protection.

Prior to Deadline II the Applicant will provide Natural England with information to show that it is confident that HDD will be successful.

The Applicant does not believe that provision for the failure or unfeasibility of HDD is required and will therefore not be assessing further alternative approaches.

In response to the representation the Applicant has amended the DCO by removing the option to adopt an alternative installation method (approval for which would have been required from the MMO and local planning authority). This amendment means that in the unlikely event of HDD not being feasible it would not be possible to install the cable in any location without a new Marine

An HDD feasibility study is to be provided to Natural England prior to Deadline II (17th January 2014). It is agreed that further discussion will be needed once this Report is provided.


/44


Licence and planning permission.

The amendments to the DCO are as follows:

Requirement 25(3)d deletion of “unless otherwise approved in writing by the relevant local planning authority in consultation with Natural England and the MMO”

Schedule 10 – condition 6(2)(c) deletion of “unless otherwise approved in writing pursuant to Requirement 25 of the Order”

11.2 Receding saltmarsh There is some evidence provided by the Applicant that the saltmarsh is receding due to anthropogenic causes. Natural England seeks further reassurance/evidence that the HDD and trenching works in the area next to the saltmarsh will not contribute to that loss.

The DCO and marine licence impose a “no-working” area which excludes activities from a buffer around the salt marsh. The Applicant is not aware of a mechanism by which trenching on the beach 50m beyond the edge of the saltmarsh (DCO requirement 25(3)b) could contribute to damage to that feature.

Natural England agrees that a 50m buffer for trenching and HDD activities is sufficient. However, the works on the access point (Work Areas 4 and 5) are immediately adjacent to the saltmarsh, and do not appear to be within a 50m buffer. As this is the only access point, we would seek reassurance that the works and subsequent use of these areas will not impact the saltmarsh.


/44


The Applicant advises that the DCO requirement restricts all activities including traffic movement from within a 50m buffer of the saltmarsh. The Applicant has provided (28/11/13) JNCC/Natural England with an enlargement of the relevant works plan showing the location of the buffers (lines XX and YY) providing a 50m buffer from the edge of the saltmarsh . It is agreed that this resolves these concerns regarding impacts on the saltmarsh.

11.3 Lighting of HDD operations

During HDD operations it is stated by the Applicant that there may be requirement for 24 hour lighting. It is not clear if this would apply at both potential locations of the HDD compound (landward or seaward). Either option may result in mortality or disruption to the lifecycle of the Belted Beauty moth (Lycia zonaria) as HDD will occur during the moths main periods of activity (April to September) and male moths may be attracted to the lighting. Natural England would like to see further consideration of this issue and potential mitigation options put forward by the Applicant.

The HDD operations will require both a seaward and landward compound to be established. The seaward compound will be located approximately 50m to the west of the saltmarsh and the landward compound approximately 40m east of the saltmarsh.

The mitigation text provided at paragraph 24.9.2.84 states “As a precaution, lighting will be directed to where it is needed and light spillage avoided. In addition, measures set out in the CoCP, and as detailed in Section 24.9 will be followed”. This text should have directed the reader to Section 24.9.2.52 – mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts

Natural England considers that the use of the same mitigation measures for bats is appropriate, and should reduce possible impacts of lighting on the moth significantly.

It is agreed that the current DCO requirements secure the relevant mitigation in this respect.


/44


from lighting for bats. These measures include following measures recommended by the Bat Conservation Trust and comprise:

• Use of lower intensity lighting where possible;

• Directing lighting where it is needed through the use of hoods, cowls and shields, i.e. directing it away from the saltmarsh; and

• Placing lighting on columns that are as short as possible;

As such, any lighting will be located at least 40m from the saltmarsh (with an intervening seawall on the landward side) and will be directed at the works and away from the saltmarsh adhering to the lighting measures recommended by the Bat Conservation Trust. Such an approach would also provide mitigation for potential impacts on moths.


/44

12 Inter-tidal mudflats and sand flats and over-wintering bird species (Morecambe Bay SAC, Morecambe Bay SPA, Lune Estuary SSSI)


12.1 Inter-tidal mudflats and sandflats of Morecambe Bay SAC / SPA

Natural England considers that, In terms of the HRA, the assessment does not provide a full assessment of effects on the designated features or rule out a likely significant effect (LSE) on them. In particular, there is insufficient clarity on predicted recovery times of infauna in the intertidal area after trenching and HDD. In relation to bird species the current installation and ongoing maintenance of the West of Duddon Sands (WODS) export cable may result in cumulative or in-combination effects for Walney extension. The successive disturbance of foraging habitat coupled with the potential disturbance on bird species may result in an unacceptable pressure on those species.

The Applicant has provided (28/11/13) Natural England with a clarification note ("Clarification Note - Export cable installation and maintenance within Morecambe Bay SAC and SPA") setting out the potential impacts of cable installation and (preventative and corrective) maintenance (including cumulative effects with the WODS cables) on the benthic features of the SAC and any associated effects on inter-tidal bird species. That note confirms the conclusion of the Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) for the Project that no adverse effect on the Morecambe Bay SAC and SPA will arise by reason of installation, maintenance or decommissioning of the Project, or from the Project in-combination with effects arising from maintenance of other export cables in the SAC and SPA.

Natural England are reviewing the clarification note provided. There are some uncertainties surrounding the recovery rate for the intertidal area, which will be discussed further with the Applicant.

12.2 Cable protection in near shore and inter-tidal areas

It is unclear from the application whether cable protection will be required in the near shore and intertidal areas. Natural England requires further clarity on the potential requirement of coastal protection and/or cable protection in

A clarification note "Export cable installation and maintenance within Morecambe Bay SAC and SPA" (provided to Natural England on 28/11/13) includes an amendment to Chart 4.5 showing the

It is agreed that no LSE on the SAC or SPA will arise from coastal processes or scour associated with the installation of cable protection.


/44


the nearshore and intertidal, as the placement of such forms of protection may impact coastal processes with possible impacts upon the mudflats and sandflats.

areas in which the Applicant proposes to install cable protection. That note confirms the conclusion of the Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) for the Project that no adverse effect on the Morecambe Bay SAC and SPA will arise by reason of installation, maintenance or decommissioning of the Project, or from the Project in-combination with effects arising from maintenance of other export cables in the SAC and SPA. The DCO provides for maximum levels of scour protection and the requirement for any cable protection to be approved by MMO prior to construction

It is further agreed that, as identified in the Clarification Note, no rock protection will be required in the intertidal or near shore zones.

Natural England are satisfied that the assessment of cable protection has identified the area most likely to require cable protection, and this does not include nearshore or intertidal areas.


/44

13 Annex 1 reefs (Morecambe Bay SAC and Shell Flat and Lune Deep SAC)


13.1 Stony reef – camera surveys

While the Applicant has concluded, on the basis of its surveys, that there are no Annex I stony reef in the regions of the export cable, Natural England suggest that further drop down camera surveys in some key areas would improve the confidence in the assessment.

The Applicant believes that sufficient surveys have been carried out to ascertain the potential extent of Annex I stony reef habitat and will not be carrying out further surveys prior to the examination. The assessment is fit for purpose and sufficiently robust to provide confidence.

The deemed marine licence provides for pre-construction surveys prior to the commencement of development to facilitate micro-siting around any Annex I habitat which may be found.

Natural England were consulted on the benthic ecology survey programme and, following the initial campaign, further surveys were carried out at their request. The results of the survey undertaken to identify potential Annex I stony reef habitat along export cable route were provided to Natural England in early July 2013 as a technical annexes to the ES (Annex B.4.K).

Annex B.4.K presents the results of

This issue is agreed.

Natural England agrees that the Annex 1 survey only showed one area of low ‘reefiness’ of the six transects undertaken and is satisfied that the drop-down camera data ground-truthed the acoustic data . Additional surveys during the pre-construction period will be useful to ensure no Annex 1 habitat exists, particularly in the area to the north of the six transects. Natural England has requested that it is fully consulted on the pre-construction survey methodology.

The Applicant has proposed additional drafting in the draft marine licence to require that the pre-construction survey methodology is agreed with the MMO in consultation with Natural England.


/44


investigations into the potential occurrence of Annex I stony reef (or biogenic reef) habitat along the export cable route corridor. Investigations comprised:

1.Summary of relevant existing information (e.g. work for other local offshore wind farms and JNCC data);

2.Acoustic (sidescan sonar survey) of the route;

3.Targeted drop down camera survey based on the results of 1 and 2.

Acoustic data from the whole export cable route was reviewed and camera transects were targeted at all locations where habitat features of interest were considered potentially present.

There was clear evidence that seabed habitats were not stony reef at five of the six camera transects. At one location the seabed imagery suggested that the habitat could represent stony reef and habitat features were assessed against guideline criteria published by Irvine


/44


(2009). It was concluded that the area in question had ‘low reefiness’.

13.2 Estimates of cable protection levels

Clarification is also required on how estimates of cable protection within Morecambe Bay SAC were reached. Specifically: why 30% of glacial till and boulder fields may require placement of rock protection; and what the minimum feasible burial depth is before such protection may be required. It is stated that the maximum depth would be 3 metres but there is no minimum. The glacial till and boulder fields would logically be the most likely substrates to cause difficulty in burying the cable, but there is insufficient evidence provided as to why only 30% of the cable that runs through these substrates would require cable protection.

As stated in the ES a cable burial study was commissioned and the Applicant is satisfied that the calculations are robust. It should be noted that it is in the Applicant’s interest that cables are fully buried and that installing cable protection incurs significant additional expense, therefore there is an incentive to reach target burial depths.

Furthermore, the level of cable protection assessed in the ES is precautionary and does not give rise to a significant adverse effect and therefore the level of protection for which consent is sought does not require significant further study.

It is noteworthy that such levels of assessment, identifying the location of protection and stating the maximum levels of cable protections, are significantly in excess of those provided in other assessments for offshore wind farms which have received consent under the Planning Act processes.


As discussed above at 12.2 above, a clarification note on the location of and nature of cable protection, including a minor amendment to Chart 4.5, was provided to Natural England on 28/11/13. Natural England is satisfied that locations are realistic given the substrate type and the similar experience of the Barrow OWF in particular.


/44


As with other offshore wind farms the final decision on whether any particular section of cable would be protected would only be reached after installation and attempted burial. It is likely that cables which only attained a shallow burial (less than 1m) would need to be protected.

Till and boulder fields are not continuous features and the 30% figure recognises that within these areas target burial depths would be attained in many locations.

13.3 Cumulative effects on SAC

There is no assessment in the Applicant’s documentation of the cumulative impact of cables from other developments in Morecambe Bay SAC. Other cables have required cable protection in the subtidal and Natural England would like to see an assessment of the potential effects on the features of the SAC such as Annex I stony reef, should cable protection be required.

The assessment of cumulative and in-combination impacts on the Morecambe Bay SAC and the site's qualifying features that may be affected by the project (mudflat and sandflat habitat) is outlined in document 7.0 - Habitats Regulations Assessment report (HRA report). Section 8.3 of this report outlines the screening process for identifying potential in-combination effects on Morecambe Bay SAC and concludes that given the lack of overlap spatially and temporally between different cable installations in the SAC, there is considered to be an adequate

As discussed at 12.2 above a clarification note "Export cable installation and maintenance within Morecambe Bay SAC and SPA" was provided to Natural England on 28/11/13.

It is agreed that cumulative / in-combination effects are considered in the clarification note.


/44


recovery period for intertidal habitats and communities of the Morecambe Bay SAC.

Within the HRA report it is concluded that there are no confirmed areas of Annex I reef (a feature of the Morecambe Bay SAC) along the Offshore Cable Corridor within the Morecambe Bay SAC (and outside the SAC boundaries, as outlined in Annex B.4.K of the ES). Given this and the distance between the reef features in Morecambe Bay SAC and the Offshore Cable Corridor, there is therefore no mechanism for an effect on this feature.

There is therefore no potential for the project to contribute to significant cumulative or in-combination impacts on the Morecambe Bay SAC features.


/44

14 Alternative habitat for terrestrial nesting birds


14.1 Management and recovery of hedgerows – nesting birds

The management and recovery of hedgerows and provision of alternative habitat for nesting birds should be further considered. Screening planting will need to be undertaken sufficiently early to allow it to have sufficient time to establish in order to be an effective alternative habitat for nesting birds. The Applicant’s suggestion of bird boxes are only suitable for a relatively small suite of species.

The detail for the management and recovery of hedgerows is being provided within the Landscape Management Plan which is being developed in close consultation with the County Ecologist (Sarah Manchester – Lancashire County Council). This includes using a range of locally appropriate native hedgerow species, use of larger specimens and stock-proofing where appropriate. The Landscape Management Plan will also include details of future monitoring to ensure the newly planted hedgerow species establish. The statement at paragraph 24.9.2.70 “Screening planting around the substation to provide habitat during construction and compensatory habitat upon completion” is incorrect and should only have only referred to the provision of additional nesting habitat upon completion. The majority of the onshore works are located within agriculturally improved grassland and so impacts to nesting birds are limited to temporary displacement (noise related) to birds using adjacent habitats – which


Natural England is satisfied that the Applicant has addressed this issue, and it particularly supports the Lancashire County Ecologist being fully consulted over the development of the Landscape Management Plan.


/44


are typically hay meadow / grazing marsh. As stated at paragraph 24.9.3.11 “Within 2km of the Substation there is approximately 467ha of coastal floodplain grazing marsh habitat”. This demonstrates the availability of similar nesting habitat that is available to bird species during periods of temporary disturbance. In addition, a mix of additional nesting habitats will form part of the Landscape Management Plan (newly created habitats available post-construction). The Landscape Management Plan is in preparation and the contents are being discussed with the County ecologist.


/44

15 Auditory injury area of grey seal


15.1 Worst case impact zones for auditory injury for grey seal

The worst case impact zones for auditory injury for grey seal put forward by the Applicant are of concern. However, the large radius predicted is likely caused by highly conservative assumptions, thresholds and parameters and seems unrealistic. JNCC and Natural England recommend that the developer re-runs the modelling in order to present a more realistic worst case scenario which will aid in more informative mitigation discussions. This may include considering different thresholds, and including soft start and a mitigation zone into the noise modelling.

Remodelling of the grey seal radius for auditory injury (TTS) has been carried out by the Applicant and a clarification note summarising the reduced areas of effect has been provided to Natural England / JNCC on 30th October 2013.

The Grey Seal clarification note issued by the developer (30/10/13) details the results from remodelling of the radius of auditory injury, using the approach used to assess impacts from offshore wind farm developments in the Moray Firth. Having reviewed this document, the SNCBs are satisfied that the results are more realistic and provide a precautionary estimate of the potential impact. This issue is therefore agreed.

15.2 Marine Mammal Mitigation Plan

Auditory injury for some marine mammal species is predicted to occur beyond the standard 500m mitigation zone (as specified in the JNCC piling guidelines). The mitigation zone proposed in the Marine Mammal Mitigation Plan should reflect those predictions. JNCC and Natural England would welcome discussion with the Applicant about how best to achieve this.

Noted. The Applicant intends to address this issue when discharging the relevant marine licence condition. Given the relevant distances (table 12.20 in the ES) this is unlikely to be problematic as monitoring this area would necessitate only a limited increase in monitoring resources.


The grey seal auditory report issued by the applicant concludes that the PTS ranges for grey seal are out with the mitigation area that can be monitored visually by MMOs (e.g. the 500m within the JNCC guidelines).

The Applicant has agreed that the increased area can be effectively


/44


monitored by increasing resources for the MMMP.

The Applicant agrees to consider the use of ADDs as part of the MMMP and will keep up to date on work carried out under ORJIP in relation to ADD efficiency.

The Applicant and JNCC/Natural England agree to collaboratively develop a suitable MMMP closer to the time of construction in accordance with the Deemed Marine Licence condition.

15.3 Cumulative effect and simultaneous piling

JNCC has responded on this issue as follows: “In the first draft of the SoCG document and teleconference meeting on 17/10/13 the applicant acknowledges this need and invites SNCBs specific proposals in this respect and in particular whether any DCO requirement or Marine Licence condition is proposed. In case that any requirement/condition is proposed, the Applicant invites Natural England to draft this prior to the preliminary meeting with the aim to understand the scheduling/hearing implications of this issue. The Applicant

The Applicant and JNCC/Natural England have discussed the issue of potential cumulative effects on marine mammals arising from piling noise. The parties agree that given that the design envelopes used in the assessment are a worst case it is agreed between the parties that flexibility is important.

At present the Applicant does not consider there is a requirement for DML drafting. Further detail would be available closer to construction on the timing of the

Following a discussion with the Applicant on 5th December, and having considered the drafting provided by the Applicant. Natural England and JNCC agree that following finalisation of the project’s construction plans the applicant will model the relevant effects at the time to inform the EPS licence application for Walney Extension and the MMMP, which could then include measures to limit cumulative effects if deemed


/44


understands timing restrictions although is of the opinion that the overlap will be small and that given availability of large habitat the impact should not be significant” Furthermore JNCC also states that “It is difficult to advise specific construction programming requirements at this stage, particularly as Rochdale envelopes are still to be finalised and construction programming is indicative at present, with greater certainty only being able to be provided closer to the point of construction. JNCC consider flexibility is required in this regard and should possibly be developed alongside the development of the MMMP, once Rochdale envelope parameters have been revised and the construction time period is closer. JNCC welcome discussion with the developer as to how such issues can be addressed at this stage”.

two relevant projects (the Burbo and Walney extensions) as well as information on the magnitude of noise impacts, which would fall within the worst case assessed in the ES. If, following finalisation of the project’s construction plans (which are submitted for approval under DML condition 9.1(c) of Schedule 9), there is a likelihood of both spatial and temporal cumulative effects then the Applicant will provide modelling of the relevant effects at that time to inform the EPS licence application for the project and the marine mammal mitigation plan (MMMP - condition 9.1(f) of Schedule 9), which could then include measures to limit cumulative effects if deemed necessary.

As assessed In the ES the parties acknowledge that there is the potential for a cumulative impact to arise in respect of the Rhiannon offshore wind farm. However, given the uncertainties surrounding the design envelope and timing of the Rhiannon project (which is currently at the “pre-planning” stage, having not yet submitted an ES), the Applicant proposes that any such impacts would most appropriately be managed

necessary.


/44


through the EPS licence application and MMMP for that project.


/44

16 Marine licence provisions


16.1 Pre- and post-construction monitoring plans for marine mammals

Further work is required in relation to the Draft Marine Licences (DMLs) on a number of issues, particularly with regard to pre and post-construction monitoring plans for marine mammals. Natural England and JNCC would welcome the opportunity to discuss the DMLs soon with the Applicant and the Marine Management Organisation (MMO).

The Applicant is not currently proposing a monitoring programme for marine mammals and notes that the marine licences for Galloper and Triton Knoll (with similar construction techniques and marine mammal densities to the Project) do not contain such provisions.

The Applicant is willing to discuss any detailed comments Natural England/JNCC may have on the DMLs. It is requested that such comments are provided prior to the preliminary meeting to facilitate the scheduling of the issues.

Comprehensive discussion on the DMLs with the MMO has already taken place and is the subject of a separate statement of common ground.

JNCC agree that the Walney Extension location and region of influence is not thought to be particularly important for any marine mammal species and the EIA did not identify any significant impacts arising from it; this considered, it is agreed that a monitoring condition for marine mammals is not required for the Project.

16.2 Approval of scour protection and cable installation plans

The DCO states that a scour protection management plan and a cable specification and installation plan will be required. Both these documents should be agreed in consultation with the SNCBs and include a draft HRA, if appropriate. Natural England and JNCC are particularly keen to ensure ongoing discussions around the estimates for cable protection on

The Applicant disagrees that the scour protection plan and cable installation plans will require HRA. These issues have been assessed in the ES and limits on the level of scour protection have been set out in the DCO and marine licences.

As referred to at 12.2 above a clarification note on cable protection has been provided to Natural England / JNCC. Natural England has requested that it be consulted on scour management and cable protection management plans. The Applicant has


/44


the export cable.

The estimates for cable protection are discussed above (13.2) and are deemed to be robust and appropriate, particularly in the context of similar applications for development consent. Further discussion will take place on this issue to obtain a better understanding of Natural England/JNCC’s concerns.

proposed additional drafting in the draft marine licence to require that the cable protection management plan is agreed with the MMO in consultation with Natural England.

Natural England are satisfied that this allows them sufficient opportunity to comment on those plans.

16.3 Decommissioning The DCO states that a decommissioning plan will be required post consent. The application states that the impacts of decommissioning should be similar to construction. However, the decommissioning of the existing Walney wind farm is not discussed in the application. The decommissioning plan should include an assessment on whether in-combination decommissioning impacts have been assessed fully and, if not, request additional information on the impact assessment.

The Applicant confirms that a decommissioning plan is a requirement of the Energy Act 2004.

The decommissioning activities are described in Chapter 4 of the ES (Project Description) and assessed within each relevant chapter.

The decommissioning of the existing Walney project was considered in the original Round 2 ES and consultation took place with relevant stakeholders on the approved outline decommissioning plan at the appropriate time.

The decommissioning plan for the extension project will be agreed at the relevant time under the provisions of the

Natural England appreciates that the decommissioning plan will be agreed at a later date, and will welcome discussion on the potential for cumulative impacts with the existing Walney project at that time.


/44


Energy Act 2004. A cumulative impact from decommissioning is unlikely to arise (the projects’ lifespans are over 5 years apart).

16.4 Inter-tidal birds – licence condition

The DCO states that licenced works will only take place in the intertidal zone between 1st April and 30 September each year. In the ES it is stated that this is in order to reduce the potential for large adverse effects from disturbance on several SPA/Ramsar non-breeding bird species. However, the ES also identifies that there is potential for large numbers of two internationally important bird species, knot and bar-tailed godwit, to be present at the end of March and into April, prior to departing to their arctic breeding grounds. It identifies that additional measures would need to be put in place should intrusive intertidal works be planned to commence at the beginning of April. The Applicant has acknowledged this mitigation needs to be agreed with Natural England. Natural England will work with the Applicant to try to ensure that suitable mitigation is agreed, and secured.

The Applicant requests further information on Natural England’s proposals for this mitigation.

The Applicant proposes that a marine licence condition restricting intertidal access 2 hours either side of high tide for the first two weeks of April should be sufficient to reduce the effects of working in the already limited area of the inter-tidal order limits. The Applicant will supply a Paper justifying this position.

Having reviewed the paper provided on 09/12/13, Natural England agrees that this proposed mitigation will minimise disturbance impacts to those bird species.


/44

8 Glossary

2008 Act The Planning Act 2008

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

ES Environmental Statement

JNCC the Joint Nature Conservation Committee

HRA Habitats Regulations Assessment

WALNEY EXTENSION OFFSHORE WIND FARM - · PDF fileWalney Extension Offshore Wind Farm Statement...

Documents

Transcript of WALNEY EXTENSION OFFSHORE WIND FARM - · PDF fileWalney Extension Offshore Wind Farm Statement...