Galloper Wind Farm Project · Galloper Wind Farm Project Environmental Statement – Chapter 8:...

Galloper Wind Farm ProjectEnvironmental Statement – Chapter 8: Nature Conservation

Designations October 2011

Document Reference – 5.2.8

Galloper Wind Farm Limited

Document title Galloper Wind Farm Project

Environmental Statement – Chapter 8: Nature

Conservation Designations

Document short title Galloper Wind Farm ES

Document Reference 5.2.8

Regulation Reference APFP Regulations, 5(2)(a)

Version 6

Status Final Report

Date October 2011

Project name Galloper Wind Farm Project

Client Galloper Wind Farm Limited

Royal Haskoning

Reference

9V3083/R01/303424/Exet

Drafted by Sarah Strong

Checked by Peter Gaches and Rob Staniland

Date/initials check PG and RS 28.09.2011

Approved by Martin Budd

Date/initials approval MB 27.10.2011

GWFL Approved by Kate Harvey

Date/initials approval KH 01.11.2011

Galloper Wind Farm ES 9V3083/R01/303424/Exet

Final Report - iii - October 2011

CONTENTS Page

8 NATURE CONSERVATION DESIGNATIONS 4 8.1 Introduction 4 8.2 Guidance and Consultation 5 8.3 Methodology 9 8.4 Existing Environment 12 8.5 Assessment of Impacts - Worse Case Definition 37 8.6 Assessment of Impacts during the Construction Phase 37 8.7 Assessment of Impacts during the Operation Phase 51 8.8 Assessment of Impacts during the Decommissioning

Phase 59 8.9 Inter-relationships 59 8.10 Cumulative Impacts 61 8.11 Transboundary Effects 65 8.12 Summary 65 8.13 References 71


Final Report Chapter 8 - Page 4 October 2011

8 NATURE CONSERVATION DESIGNATIONS

8.1 Introduction

8.1.1 There are a number of local, national and international designated sites of nature conservation importance in the vicinity of both the onshore and offshore components of the proposed Galloper Wind Farm (GWF) project.

8.1.2 This Chapter of the Environmental Statement (ES) describes the policy behind the designations assessed and outlines the baseline conditions in respect to the species and sites. The assessment of impacts has been informed using the following relevant Chapters of the ES, which are referred to throughout:

Chapter 9 Physical Environment;

Chapter 11 Offshore Ornithology;

Chapter 12 Marine and Intertidal Ecology;

Chapter 13 Fish and Shellfish Resource;

Chapter 14 Marine Mammals;

Chapter 20 Seascape and Landscape Visual Character;

Chapter 22 Geology, Hydrology and Land Quality; and

Chapter 23 Terrestrial Ecology.

8.1.3 The ES Chapters listed in paragraph 8.1.2 above include a number of plans

showing relevant statutory and non-statutory sites and features of nature conservation, habitats of protected species, important habitats or other diversity features and an assessment of the effects on such habitats and features likely to be caused by the proposed development. In each Chapter the relevant plans are identified and these, taken together with the ES Chapter itself and Figures 8.1 - 8.4, fulfil the requirement of Regulation 5(2)(l) of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 to provide such plans and an assessment of any effects on such sites, features or habitats likely to be caused by the proposed development.

8.1.4 The assessment of impacts on internationally designated sites has also been informed by a Habitat Regulations Assessment (HRA), which is submitted in a separate report alongside the DCO application.

8.1.5 As requested by the Marine Management Organisation (MMO) during the consultation process (see Table 8.2), this Chapter also considers the impacts of the GWF on those species and habitats on the OSPAR List of Threatened and Declining Species and Habitats.



8.2 Guidance and Consultation

Legislation, policy and guidance

8.2.1 The assessment of potential impacts upon designated sites has been made with specific reference to the relevant National Policy Statements (NPS). These are the principal decision making documents for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIP).

8.2.2 The Overarching NPS for Energy (EN-1) (July 2011) (DECC, 2011) sets out policy for the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) with regard to generic impacts on designated sites.

8.2.3 The specific assessment requirements for designated sites, as detailed within the EN-1, are repeated in the following paragraphs. Where any part of the NPS guidance has not been followed within this assessment, it is stated after the NPS text and a justification provided. In all other cases the assessment requirements suggested within the NPSs have been applied to this assessment.

8.2.4 Paragraph 5.3.3 stating that: “Where the development is subject to EIA the applicant should ensure that the Environmental Statement (ES) clearly sets out any effects on internationally, nationally and locally designated sites of ecological or geological conservation importance, on protected species and on habitats and other species identified as being of principal importance for the conservation of biodiversity. The IPC should also expect the applicant to provide environmental information proportionate to the infrastructure where Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is not required.” (Sections 8.6 to 8.10)

8.2.5 Paragraph 5.3.4 stating that: “The applicant should show how the project has taken advantage of opportunities to conserve and enhance biodiversity and geological conservation interests.” (Sections 8.6 to 8.10).

8.2.1 Further specific NPS requirements for the receptors discussed in this Chapter (i.e. terrestrial habitats and species) are detailed within the relevant Chapters of the ES.

8.2.2 The statutory designations described within this section are detailed in Table 8.1.

Table 8.1 Description of statutory designations found within the UK

Rationality of designation

Designation Legislation sites designated under

Internationally

designated sites

Ramsar The Convention on Wetlands of

International Importance especially

as Waterfowl Habitat (Ramsar





Convention or Wetlands

Convention).

European designated

sites (‘Natura 2000’)

Special Protection Area

(SPA)

European Community Council

Directive 79/409/EEC on the

Conservation of Wild Birds (Birds

Directive) and the Offshore Marine

Conservation (Natural Habitats&c.)

Regulations 2007 (as amended in

2010) for those sites which have

marine components.

Special Area of

Conservation (SAC)

European Community Council

Directive 92/43/EEC on the

Conservation of Natural Habitats

and of Wild Fauna and Flora

(Habitats Directive) and the

Offshore Marine Conservation

(Natural Habitats&c.) Regulations

2007 (as amended in 2010) for

those sites which have marine

components.

Nationally designated

sites

Sites of Special Scientific

Interest (SSSI)

National Parks and Access to the

Countryside Act 1949 and the

Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981

(amended by the Countryside and

Rights of Way (CROW) Act 2000

and the Natural Environment and

Rural Communities (NERC) Act

2006.

National Nature Reserve

(NNR)

National Parks and Access to the

Countryside Act 1949 and the

Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981

(amended by the Countryside and

Rights of Way (CROW) Act 2000

and the Natural Environment and

Rural Communities (NERC) Act





2006).

8.2.3 In addition, non-statutory sites which are designated by local plans and by-laws of potential relevance to the proposed GWF project are as follows:

Local Nature Reserves (LNR);

Heritage Coasts;

County Wildlife Sites (CWS);

Wildlife Trust Reserves (WTR);

County Geological Sites (CGS);

Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC);

Ancient Woodland (AW); and

Sensitive Marine Areas (SMA).

8.2.4 This Chapter also considers those species and habitats on the OSPAR List of Threatened and Declining Species and Habitats. OSPAR is the mechanism by which 15 Governments of the western coasts and catchments of Europe, together with the European Community, cooperate to protect the marine environment of the North-East Atlantic. It started in 1972 with the Oslo Convention against dumping and was broadened to cover land-based sources and the offshore industry by the Paris Convention of 1974. These two conventions were unified, updated and extended by the 1992 OSPAR Convention.

8.2.5 The OSPAR Biological Diversity and Ecosystems Strategy sets out that the OSPAR Commission will assess which species and habitats need to be protected. This work is to guide the setting of priorities by the OSPAR Commission for its activities in implementing Annex V to the Convention ("On the Protection and Conservation of the Ecosystems and Biological Diversity of the Maritime Area"). The OSPAR List of Threatened and/or Declining Species and Habitats has been developed to fulfil this commitment.

8.2.6 The purpose of the list is to guide the OSPAR Commission in setting priorities for its further work on the conservation and protection of marine biodiversity.

Consultation

8.2.7 Consultation has been ongoing throughout the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process. It has taken place through the scoping phase and through formal Section 42 and Section 47 consultation under the



Planning Act 2008 (see Chapter 7 Consultation) via the submission of a Preliminary Environmental Report (PER).

8.2.8 Consultation responses received are presented in the Consultation Report that accompanies this application. Comments from a variety of consultees have been received that relate to the ecological and physical features associated with the designated sites discussed within this Chapter; these are detailed and considered within the relevant ES Chapters.

8.2.9 In addition, specific and detailed consultation has been undertaken with the Statutory Nature Conservation Agencies (SNCAs) with regard to potential impacts on European designated sites through the Habitats Regulations Assessment process. This consultation is fully detailed within the GWF HRA Report (and associated appendices) that supports this application.

8.2.10 Table 8.2 details only those comments of specific relevance to the national and or local statutory and non-statutory designated sites discussed in this Chapter (i.e. SSSI, Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), Heritage Coast etc). The GWF HRA Report should be referred to for a detailed account of consultation which has been undertaken on the impacts associated with internationally designated sites (i.e. Special Area of Conservation (SAC), Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar), alongside the consultation contained in technical Chapters 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 20, 22 and 23.

Table 8.2 Summary of consultation and issues

Date Consulted Summary of issues Section where addressed

November 2010

Natural England

The ES should consider potential impacts to the nearby Sizewell Marshes SSSI, should plans ultimately require a cable route to pass under the SSSI.

Cable route does not pass under SSSI, but impacts on the SSSI are assessed in Sections 8.6. 8.7 and 9.8 and Chapter 23

March 2011 Suffolk Wildlife Trust

Potential impacts on Sizewell Marshes SSSI associated with routing cables under the SSSI.

Cable route does not pass under SSSI, but impacts on the SSSI are assessed in Sections 8.6. 8.7 and 8.8 and Chapter 23

July 2011 Natural England and Joint Nature Conservation Committee

Further detail required on mitigation strategy to fully demonstrate there will be no impact on Sizewell Marshes SSSI or shingle habitats.

Mitigation measures are detailed in Chapter 23



Date Consulted Summary of issues Section where addressed

(Section 42)

August 2010

Environment Agency (Scoping Opinion)

The proposed green field development is also in the Suffolk Coast and Heaths Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and, although next to the existing power stations, the developer will have to consider its impact on the landscape and determine how any negative impact can be minimised or mitigated for.

Impacts on AONB are assessed in Sections 8.6. 8.7, 8.8 and Chapter 20

July 2011 Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB Unit

Suffolk Coastal District Council

Suffolk County Council

Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) / Natural England (Section 42)

Further consideration in regard to impacts on the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB is required (consultation responses are fully detailed in Chapter 20).

Impacts on AONB are assessed in Sections 8.6. 8.7, 8.8 and Chapter 20

July 2011 Theberton and Eastbridge Parish Council (Section 42)

As these buildings are in an AONB on our Heritage Coast, we urge you to design these buildings with quality and sympathetic to the local vernacular and landscape. We do not simply want “concrete flat roofed boxes” and would ask that the design drawings are made available to us at an early stage.

AONB assessed in Sections 8.6. 8.7, 8.8 and Chapter 20

July 2011 MMO (Section 42)

The EIA must include an assessment of the environmental effects of those species and habitats on the OSPAR List of Threatened and Declining Species and Habitats.

OSPAR habitats/species are assessed in Sections 8.6. 8.7 and 8.8

8.3 Methodology

Study area

8.3.1 This Chapter details nature conservation designations for both the onshore and offshore environment associated with the proposed GWF project. The proposed works (as detailed in Chapter 5 Project Details) are being



undertaken in marine and terrestrial environments, resulting in different study area boundaries.

8.3.2 Onshore, designations within 2km of the footprint of the works have been considered. Distances have been measured from a central point at the onshore substation and the area encompasses the substation, cable landfall and cable route. The onshore works are relatively localised in nature and this study area is considered appropriate and proportionate to the scale of the development. This approach was promoted within the Scoping Report (SSER and RWE NRL, 2010) for the project and no objections were raised.

8.3.3 The offshore works are considered to have greater potential for wider reaching effects within the marine environment. This is as a result of mobile species from distant sites having the potential to be present within the GWF site (i.e. birds and marine mammals) as well as the potential impacts associated with physical processes (see Chapter 9). Subsequently, the study area for the offshore environment encompasses a much wider region depending on the feature being assessed (details of which are provided in Chapters 9, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 20) Distances stated for offshore designations are measured from the closest point to the wind farm boundary.

Characterisation of existing environment

8.3.4 This Chapter of the ES identifies all statutory and non-statutory designations within the study areas through a desk based study. The main features of the relevant sites are presented together with the distance to the proposed GWF site. Due consideration has been given to the site features and potential impact sources when establishing the relevant sites, including the potential for impacts from coastal process changes.

Assessment of impacts

8.3.5 The assessment of the potential impacts on designated sites arising from GWF has been informed using the information and assessment detailed within the Chapters relevant to the features of those sites, these being; Chapters 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 20, 22 and 23.

8.3.6 The assessment for national statutory and non-statutory designated sites (i.e. SSSI, CWS, AONB etc) and OSPAR species has been undertaken in line with the methodology set out in Chapter 4 EIA Process.

8.3.7 Due to the range of sites and features which have been identified in Section 8.4, the impact assessment has been divided into sites of potential relevance to the onshore development footprint and those which are relevant to the offshore works. In addition, due to the potential for the offshore components of the development to have an effect on onshore designated site features (through potential changes to the physical environment and ornithological receptors) the offshore sections also include any such relevant onshore sites.



8.3.8 The onshore development footprint is considered to encompass the proposed GWF substation (comprising the GWF compound and transmission compound), sealing end compounds and associated laydown areas and access tracks. It also includes the footprint of the cable corridor above Mean Low Water Springs (MLWS) to the GWF substation (as detailed in Chapter 5).

8.3.9 The offshore works comprise the GWF site, export cable corridor and the intertidal area at the proposed landfall site, extending from mean low water springs (MLWS) to MHWS.

Statutory international designated sites

8.3.10 A HRA is required under Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna (the ‘Habitats Directive’) wherever a project that is not directly connected to, or necessary for, the management of a Natura 2000 site has the potential to have a significant effect on the Conservation Objectives of the site. The statutory international designated sites have been assessed using HRA methodology, in line with the GWF HRA Report.

8.3.11 A HRA comprises sequential steps, the first being ‘Screening’: identifying the effects of the project on the habitats and species that form the basis of the designation of a Natura 2000 site, either alone or in-combination with other plans or projects, and considers whether these effects are likely to be significant in the context of the site’s Conservation Objectives. This step is the precursor to an Appropriate Assessment which may be required if it is concluded that a development proposal may have a significant effect on a Natura 2000 site. The Appropriate Assessment is conducted by the relevant competent authority, based on all information presented in the HRA Report.

8.3.12 A HRA Screening Report was submitted to the JNCC, Natural England and the IPC in July 2011. The purpose of this report was to provide the initial assessment of the potential impacts on Natura 2000 sites in order to screen out those sites where likely significant effects are not anticipated. The next step of this process is to assess those sites where there is likely to be a significant effect in further detail, this is done within the Information to Inform the Appropriate Assessment, which forms part of the HRA Report. Consultation was undertaken with the SNCAs with regard to those sites where it was considered there is the potential for significant effect and those where no significant effects are anticipated, through the HRA screening process. This Chapter is reflective of the outcomes of that process and aligned with the HRA report.

8.3.13 Where the HRA has concluded that there will be no effects on a European site it is stated that there will be “no likely significant effect”. Where a potential for effects on a European designated site has been identified through the screening process, “likely significant effect” is stated (with reasons) within this Chapter. Further detail is then provided in regard to the



additional assessment undertaken and the outcome of this (using information provided in the GWF HRA Report). Further details on the assessment of impacts on Natura 2000 sites, and methodology, can be found within the HRA Report, which is being submitted alongside the ES as part of the application.

8.4 Existing Environment

Statutory international designated sites

Background

8.4.1 Statutory international designated sites in the United Kingdom (UK) include Ramsar and SPA and SAC (see Table 8.1).

8.4.2 SACs and SPAs form the Natura 2000 network, which is designed to protect Europe’s most important areas for wildlife. Listed Ramsar sites are also afforded the same protection at a policy level, in respect of new development, as is afforded to SACs and SPAs. Sites that have yet to be fully designated are listed separately.

Ramsar sites

8.4.3 The interest features (i.e. habitats, species and assemblages) of the Ramsar sites relevant to the GWF application are indicated in Table 8.3. The locations of these Ramsar sites are presented in Figure 8.1.



Table 8.3 Ramsar sites within the vicinity of GWF

Ramsar site Distance to GWF site (km)

Site features

Onshore Offshore

Minsmere – Walberswick (JNCC, 2009a)

1.9 34.4 Ramsar criterion 1 - The site contains a mosaic of marine, freshwater, marshland and associated habitats complete with transition areas in between. Contains the largest continuous stand of reedbeds in England and Wales and rare transition in grazing marsh ditch plants from brackish to fresh water.

Ramsar criterion 2 - This site supports nine nationally scarce plants and at least 26 red data book invertebrates. Supports a population of the mollusc Vertigo angustior (Habitats Directive Annex II; British Red Data Book Endangered), recently discovered on the Blyth estuary river walls.

An important assemblage of rare breeding birds associated with marshland and reedbeds including: Botaurus stellaris, Anas strepera, Anas crecca, Anas clypeata, Circus aeruginosus, Recurvirostra avosetta, Panurus biarmicus.

Alde-Ore Estuary (JNCC, 2009b)

5.4 27 The site comprises the estuary complex of the rivers Alde, Butley and Ore, including Havergate Island and Orfordness. There are a variety of habitats including, intertidal mudflats, saltmarsh, vegetated shingle (including the second-largest and best-preserved area in Britain at Orfordness), saline lagoons and grazing marsh. The Orfordness / Shingle Street landform is unique within Britain in combining a shingle spit with a cuspate foreland.

Ramsar criterion 2 - The site supports a number of nationally-scarce plant species and British Red Data Book invertebrates.

Ramsar criterion 3 - The site supports a notable assemblage of breeding and wintering wetland birds.

Ramsar criterion 6 – species/populations occurring at levels of international importance.

Qualifying Species/populations (as identified at designation):

Species regularly supported during the breeding season - LBBG , Larus fuscus graellsii;

Species with peak counts in winter - Pied avocet Recurvirostra avosetta,

Common redshank Tringa totanus totanus.





Special Protection Areas

8.4.4 SPAs are statutory designated sites that are classified under EU law in accordance with Article 4 of the European Council (EC) Directive on the conservation of wild birds (79/409/EEC) (known as the Birds Directive). They are classified for rare and vulnerable birds, listed in Annex I to the Birds Directive, and for regularly occurring migratory species.

8.4.5 The interest features (i.e. species and assemblages) of the SPA are indicated in Table 8.4. The location of SPA relative to the GWF site is presented in Figure 8.1.



Table 8.4 SPA sites within the vicinity of GWF


Distance to GWF site (km)

Site features

Onshore Offshore

Minsmere – Walberswick (JNCC, 2009c)

1.9 34.4 Located on the Suffolk coast south of Southwold in eastern England. It comprises two large marshes, the tidal Blyth Estuary and associated habitats. This composite coastal site contains a complex mosaic of habitats, notably areas of marsh with dykes, extensive reedbeds, mud-flats, lagoons, shingle, woodland and areas of lowland heath.

Article 4.1 Qualification (79/409/EEC)

During the breeding season the area regularly supports:

Botaurus stellaris (Europe - breeding) 35% of the breeding population in Great Britain (Scotland, Wales and England) (GB) (5 year mean, 1993-1997);

Caprimulgus europaeus 0.7% of the GB breeding population, count as at 1990;

Circus aeruginosus 10.2% of the GB breeding population 5 year mean, 1993-1997;

Recurvirostra avosetta (Western Europe/Western Mediterranean - breeding) 10.4% of the GB breeding population, count, as at early 1990s;

Sterna albifrons (Eastern Atlantic - breeding) 1.2% of the GB breeding population, 5 year mean, 1992-1996.

Over winter the area regularly supports:

Circus cyaneus 2% of the GB population 5 year peak mean, 1985/6-1989/90



Anas clypeata (North-western/Central Europe) 2.3% of the population in Great Britain, count as at 1990;

Anas crecca (North-western Europe) 4.9% of the population in Great Britain, count as at 1990;





Site features

Onshore Offshore

Anas strepera (North-western Europe) 3.1% of the population in Great Britain, count as at 1990.


Anas clypeata (North-western/Central Europe) 1% of the population in Great Britain 5 year peak mean 1991/92-1995/96;

Anas strepera (North-western Europe) 1.1% of the population in Great Britain 5 year peak mean 1991/92-1995/96;

Anser albifrons albifrons (North-western Siberia/North-eastern & Northwestern Europe) 1.1% of the population in Great Britain 5 year peak mean 1991/92-1995/96.

The Sandlings (JNCC, 2009d)

0.4 30.8 The site lies near the Suffolk coast between the Deben Estuary and Leiston.



Caprimulgus europaeus - 3.2% of the GB breeding population, count as at 1992;

Lullula arborea – 10.3% of the GB breeding population, count as at 1997.

The Alde-Ore Estuary (JNCC, 2009e)

5.4 27 Located on the Suffolk coast in eastern England. It comprises the estuarine complex of the rivers Alde, Butley and Ore, including Havergate Island and Orfordness. There is a variety of habitats including intertidal mud-flats, saltmarsh, vegetated shingle (including the second-largest and best-preserved area in Britain at Orfordness), saline lagoons and semi-intensified grazing marsh.



Circus aeruginosus at least 1.9% of the GB breeding population 5 year mean, 1993-1997;

Recurvirostra avosetta (Western Europe/Western Mediterranean – breeding) 23.1% of the GB breeding





Site features

Onshore Offshore

population 5 year mean, 1990-1994;

Sterna albifrons (Eastern Atlantic – breeding) 2% of the GB breeding population, 5 count mean, 1993-4,1996-8;

Sterna sandvicensis (Western Europe/Western Africa) 1.2% of the GB breeding population, 5 year mean, 1992-1996.


Philomachus pugnax (Western Africa – wintering) 0.4% of the GB population, 5 year peak mean 1991/92-1995/96;

Recurvirostra avosetta (Western Europe/Western Mediterranean – breeding) 60.3% of the GB population, 5 year peak mean 1991/92-1995/96.



Larus fuscus (Western Europe/Mediterranean/Western Africa) 11.3% of the breeding population, 5 year mean 1994-1998.


Tringa tetanus (Eastern Atlantic – wintering) 1.1% of the population, 5 year peak mean 1991/92-1995/96.

Outer Thames Estuary

1 5.5, also overlaps with the export cable corridor

One of only three entirely marine SPA in the UK.

The site regularly supports more than 1% (38% or 6,466 individuals) of the GB over-wintering population of red-throated diver (Gavia stellata) listed in Annex 1 of the EC Birds Directive.

The boundary setting protocol has resulted in the density threshold used in the Outer Thames (0.62 birds km-2).





Site features

Onshore Offshore

Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs SPA

Located over 250km from the GWF site

The cliffs support large numbers of breeding seabirds including kittiwake (Rissa tridactyla), guillemot (Uria aalge), razorbill (Alca torda), puffin (Fratercula arctica), herring gull (Larus argentatus) and gannet (Morus bassanus). The site also supports the largest colony of kittiwake in the UK, with 2.6% of the breeding population.

Although located over 250km from the site, the population of gannet associated with this SPA has been included in the assessment due to its wide foraging range (approximately 600km).

Note: this site has only been included within the ornithological assessment for gannet, no other features will be impacted due to the distance between GWF and the SPA..



Special Areas of Conservation

8.4.6 SACs are sites designated under EU Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of habitats and wild flora and fauna (known as the Habitats Directive), because they make a significant contribution to conserving the 189 habitat types and 788 species identified in Annexes I and II of the Directive.

8.4.7 The interest features (i.e. habitats and species) of the SAC sites relevant to the GWF application are indicated in Table 8.5. The location of the SACs relative to GWF are presented in Figure 8.1.



Table 8.5 SAC sites in the vicinity of GWF


Distance to GWF site Site features

Onshore Offshore

Alde, Ore and Butley Estuaries (JNCC, 2009f)

5.4 27.1 Annex I qualifying habitats (as a primary reason for selection) are;

Estuaries.

Annex I habitats( present as a qualifying feature, but not a primary reason for selection of this site) are:

Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide; and

Atlantic salt meadows.

Essex Estuaries (JNCC, 2009g)

56 52.4 Annex I qualifying habitats (as a primary reason for selection) are;

Estuaries;

Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide;

Salicornia and other annuals colonising mud and sand;

Spartina swards (Spartinion maritimae);

Atlantic salt meadows (Glauco-Puccinellietalia maritimae); and

Mediterranean and thermo-Atlantic halophilous scrubs (Sarcocornetea fruticosi).


Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time.

Minsmere to Walberswick Heaths and Marshes (JNCC, 2009h)

1.9 34.4 Annex I qualifying habitats (as a primary reason for selection) are;

Annual vegetation of drift lines; and

European Dry Heaths.




Distance to GWF site Site features

Onshore Offshore


Perennial vegetation of stony banks.

Orfordness –

Shingle Street (JNCC, 2009i)

8.1 27 Annex I qualifying habitats (as a primary reason for selection) are;

Coastal lagoons;

Annual vegetation of drift lines; and

Perennial vegetation of stony banks.



Future international designations

8.4.8 Natural England and the JNCC are proceeding with the selection and designation of a second series of SACs in the UK inshore area (0 – 12nm zone) and offshore marine area (in UK waters beyond 12nm) (JNCC, 2009j). These sites will contain qualifying marine habitats and/or species listed in Annex I and II of the Habitats Directive, including the additional Annex I marine habitat types of reefs, sandbanks, submarine structures made by leaking gases and submerged or partially submerged sea caves (JNCC, 2009j).

8.4.9 All candidate SACs (cSAC) have been entered into the Register of European sites, as required by law under Regulation 13 of The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. These sites are considered throughout the ES as being fully designated in regards to the legislative protection and impact assessment. There is one cSAC relevant to GWF, that being the Margate and Long Sands cSAC, which was submitted to the European Commission for approval for designation in August 2010 (see Figure 8.2).

8.4.10 This cSAC lies 12.3km to the south-west of the proposed GWF site off the Kent coast and is being considered due to the presence of sandbanks which are slightly covered by seawater all the time. The sandbanks are composed of well-sorted sandy sediments, with muddier and more gravelly sediments in the troughs between banks. The upper crests of some of the larger banks dry out at low tide (Natural England, 2010). The sandbanks are tidally-influenced and dynamic, experiencing significant movement of their edges over time (Natural England, 2010).

8.4.11 Faunal communities of the bank crests are characteristic of species-poor, mobile sand environments, dominated by polychaete worms and amphipods, whilst the troughs and bank slopes support a higher diversity of polychaetes, crustacea, molluscs and echinoderms (Natural England, 2010). Although this site is being put forward for designation on the basis of the presence of Sandbank Annex I interest feature, there is a significant amount of the reef-forming ross worm Sabellaria spinulosa at this site, which under certain conditions qualifies as an Annex I habitat (biogenic reef) (Natural England, 2010).

8.4.12 A further candidate site, Haisborough, Hammond and Winterton cSAC is also identified off the Suffolk coast. However at 68km from the GWF site, it is not considered of relevance. This site is designated for sandbanks, and it is considered that there is no potential for impacts as any coastal process effects caused by GWF will be localised and impacts restricted to the vicinity of, or within GWF (see Chapter 9).

Marine Conservation Zones

8.4.13 The Marine and Coastal Access Act (2009) created a new type of Marine Protected Area (MPA), called a Marine Conservation Zone (MCZ). MCZs,



together with other types of MPA (e.g. SAC, SPA etc.) will deliver the Government’s aim for an ecologically coherent network of MPAs.

8.4.14 The Marine Conservation Zone Project in England is being led by Natural England and the JNCC. Through four Regional Projects, MCZ areas will be identified and recommended to Government.

8.4.15 The regional MCZ projects established stakeholder groups, which enabled the collection of data and identification of potential sites to be submitted as recommendations to the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). The sites will be fully designated during 2012.

8.4.16 The Marine Conservation Zones Project for the North Sea is being delivered by Net Gain1. The 3rd iteration of the draft MCZ (dMCZ) network was submitted to the Science Advisory Panel in February 2011 (Netgain, 2011a). Following this, two further rounds of Regional meetings were held which contributed to Net Gain’s draft final recommendations, submitted in June 2011. This report further developed draft conservation objectives and management measures for the dMCZs.

8.4.17 Net Gain’s final MCZ recommendations were submitted 31st August 2011 after a number of additional regional meetings. The recommendations include a total of 18 recommended MCZs (rMCZ) and 13 recommended Reference Areas (rRA). Conservation objectives have been drafted for all features at each site, and discussions have been held on potential management measures required to achieve the objectives.

8.4.18 During September and October 2011 the Science Advisory Panel will review the Regional Project recommendations. This will be followed by period of public consultation in summer 2012, prior to the final designation of MCZs in December 2012.

8.4.19 Of potential relevance to GWF are two dMCZ’s, detailed below and shown in

Figure 8.2:

Site NG1b (Orford Inshore) is located adjacent to the GWF cable corridor (8.4km from the offshore development site) and covers 71.95km². The features proposed for designation of this site comprise subtidal mixed sediment (broad scale habitat). The Site Assessment Document (SAD) states that “The site consists of the recommended feature subtidal mixed sediments covering nearly the entirety of the site in waters that are between 20-30m deep. It lies approximately 14.36km off the East of England, offshore from the Alde Ore Estuary, with most of the site within the 6-12nm limits and a small portion beyond the 12nm limit. The site is of high importance as a nursery and spawning ground for fish species, and has a low diversity of seabirds but may be important for foraging species.” The conservation objective set out in the SAD states that

1 www.netgainmcz.org



“subtidal mixed sediment is widespread around the British Isles and mainland Europe. Subject to natural change, recover the Subtidal mixed sediments to favourable condition by 2020”

Site NG1c (Alde Ore Estuary) is located 5.4km from GWF landfall, 27.3km form the offshore development site and covers 12.24km². Features proposed for designation of the site comprise estuarine rocky habitats (habitat of conservation importance), sheltered muddy gravels (habitat of conservation importance), smelt Osmerus eperlanus (species of conservation importance) and Orfordness Subtidal (geological feature). The conservation objectives are to maintain all features.





Statutory national designations

8.4.20 At a national level, and within 2km of the onshore works, there are three SSSI (shown in Figure 8.3) and one AONB (Table 8.6). There are also a number of NNRs in the wider area. However, all are over 6km from the onshore works and subsequently do not fall within the study area.

Table 8.6 Statutory National Designations within 2km radius of landfall site

Designated site Distance to onshore site (km)

Distance to offshore site (km)

Leiston-Aldeburgh SSSI 0.4 29.9

Minsmere-Walberswick Heaths and Marshes SSSI

1.8 34.4

Sizewell Marshes SSSI 0.2 33.5

Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB GWF substation is located within this designation

Leiston-Aldeburgh SSSI

8.4.21 The Leiston-Aldeburgh SSSI is formed from a Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) reserve and a Suffolk Wildlife Trust reserve. The site was formerly known as ‘North Warren and Thorpeness mere’ prior to revision in 1999. The heathland of North Warren, Aldringham Common, The Walks and Thorpeness Common is a fragment of the once extensive Sandlings heaths of coastal Suffolk. The SSSI contains a rich mosaic of habitats including acid grassland, heath, scrub, woodland, fen, open water and vegetated shingle. This mix of habitats in close juxtaposition is unusual in the Suffolk Coast and Heaths area. The variety of habitats support a diverse and abundant community of breeding and overwintering birds including European nightjar Caprimulgus europaeus, wood lark Lullula arborea and sky lark Alauda arvensis on the dry grassland and heath, a high number of dragonfly species and many scarce plants (Natural England, 2009b).

8.4.22 On the vegetated shingle, there is a gradual transition between the strandline community and shingle heath, resulting from increasing stability and distance from tidal influence. On the open shingle, sea kale Crambe maritima and yellow horned poppy Glaucium flavum are frequent. The stable shingle areas support many species including early hair-grass Aira praecox, the nationally scarce sand catchfly Silene conica, dune fescue Vulpia fasciculata, bur medick Medicago minima, suffocated clover Trifolium suffucatum and sea pea Lathyrus japonicus (Natural England, 2009b).




8.4.23 The Minsmere-Walberswick Heaths and Marshes SSSI is a composite site of nature reserves situated on the coast of Suffolk between Southwold in the north and Sizewell in the south. It contains a complex series of habitats, notably mudflats, shingle beach, reedbeds, heathland and grazing marsh, which combine to create an area of exceptional scientific interest (Natural England, 2009c). This site is over 1.5km to the north of the proposed onshore works.

Sizewell Marshes SSSI

8.4.24 Sizewell Marshes SSSI is important for its large area of lowland, unimproved wet meadows which supports outstanding assemblages of invertebrates and breeding birds. Several nationally scarce plants are also present. The site occupies a low-laying basin of deep fen peat (Natural England, 2009d).

8.4.25 The water table is permanently high, with the area being prone to flooding, and there is an extensive network of ditches across the site. The Sizewell Marshes ditch system contains diverse aquatic fauna and the marshes are of exceptional interest for their invertebrate fauna, supporting a wide range of taxa and many nationally rare or scarce species (Natural England, 2009d).

8.4.26 The breeding bird assemblage is also of national significance with many species that are typical of wet grassland and associated habitats, including shoveler (Anas clypeata), gadwall (Anas strepera), teal (Anas crecca), snipe Gallinago gallinago) and lapwing (Vanellus vanellus). This site is to the north of the proposed onshore works (Natural England, 2009d).

AONB description (Natural England, 2009i)

8.4.27 AONBs are nationally designated landscapes, which have statutory protection, have a high value and thus a high sensitivity. The Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB extends along the east coast in an open but narrow band of sand and shingle from Great Yarmouth, where it borders the Broads, to Harwich and the south bank of the Stour. All of the onshore works are within the AONB boundary.

8.4.28 The Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB contains a rich mixture of unique and vulnerable lowland landscape created over many centuries by the interaction of natural processes and human activity. There are large areas of lowland heath, grazing marsh, and reedbeds (including the largest reedbed in the country), separated by large tracts of arable land. The coast is deeply indented by the estuaries of the Blyth, Alde-Ore, and to the south, the Deben, Orwell and Stour and bounded by the eroding cliffs and long shingle beaches of the low North Sea coastline (which are considered in the Suffolk Coast Natural Area).





Non Statutory Designations

8.4.29 The principal types of non-statutory sites of conservation importance are as follows:

Local Nature Reserves (LNR);

Heritage Coasts;

County Wildlife Sites (CWS);

County Geological Sites (CGS);

Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC);

Ancient Woodland (AW); and

Sensitive Marine Areas (SMA, none within 2km of the onshore works).

8.4.30 Table 8.7 lists the non-statutory sites which are located within 2km of the onshore works, as shown in Figure 8.4.

Table 8.7 Non Statutory National Designations within 2km radius of onshore works

Designated site Distance to GWF onshore site (km)

Leiston Common CWS 0.9

Sizewell Levels and Associated

Areas CWS

0.7

Southern Minsmere Levels CWS 2.0

Sizewell Rigs CWS 1.1

Suffolk Shingle Beaches CWS 0.8

Dower House CWS 1.4

Aldringham to Aldeburgh

Disused Railway CWS

1.0

Suffolk Heritage Coast GWF onshore works are located within

this designation

CWS descriptions

8.4.31 CWS are non-statutory designations listed within the Local Authority Plans and are material considerations during planning applications. There are over 800 CWS in Suffolk and these are jointly managed by the Suffolk Wildlife Trust, Suffolk County Council and Suffolk Biological Records Centre. The sites cover a wide range of habitats including ancient woodland, wild flower meadows, ponds, rivers, heathland and fens.



8.4.32 There are eight CWSs close to the proposed onshore works as follows:

Leiston Common CWS: bell heather Erica cinerea, a rare plant in Suffolk, grows on Leiston Common together with more widespread plants for example harebell Campanula rotundifolia, heath bedstraw Galium saxatile and tormentil Potentilla erecta. Another notable and uncommon feature of the site is the presence of an extensive and diverse lichen flora (Greater Gabbard Offshore Wind Limited (GGOWL), 2005)

Sizewell Levels and Associated Areas CWS: a large area of land, consisting of woodland, plantation, wet meadow, osier beds and scrub situated behind Sizewell Power Station. This site is considered to be of both regional and national importance for wildlife conservation. The area not within the SSSI boundary, which comprises wet meadow, sallow scrub and birch/alder woodland, is of conservation importance. The flora of the marshes includes a number of uncommon plants, for example ragged robin Lychnis flos-cuculi and purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria. The main importance of the grazing marshes lies in the diversity and abundance of the birds which inhabit the area. The ground remains waterlogged throughout the winter and numerous dykes provide good cover for high numbers of mute swan (Cygnus olor), teal, mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) and moorhen Gallinula chloropus. Also of ornithological importance are the plantations situated to the north of Sizewell Belts; Goose Hill, Nursery Covert and Kenton Hills. The areas support breeding populations of a number of nationally rare birds which are specially protected (Schedule 1 of Wildlife and Countryside Act). The whole site, therefore, with its diversity of habitats, is considered to be one of the most important CWS in the county (GGOWL, 2005).

Southern Minsmere Levels CWS: this site contains all the marshes east of Eastbridge to the sea, south of Minsmere New Cut. It abuts the internationally important Minsmere-Walberswick SSSI, which contains the Minsmere RSPB reserve. The entire valley is of great importance for wildlife forming perhaps the last unspoilt and least improved of Suffolk’s larger marshland river valleys. This eastern portion of the valley is of interest principally for breeding wader and wildfowl and for overwintering birds. The extensive area of open marsh, managed in the traditional manner with cattle grazing and high water levels provides ideal conditions for feeding birds. Botanically the marshes are not of the same quality as those further up the valley. Many of them are improved, although some of the dykes retain a reasonable flora with plants such as broad leaved pondweed Potamogeton natans and water violet Hottonia palustris (GGOWL, 2005).

Sizewell Rigs CWS: these two rigs are situated offshore from Sizewell Power Station. Since 1995 the rigs have been home to a growing breeding colony of black-legged kittiwake, which is now the most



southerly colony in the North Sea. Nationally, breeding numbers of black-legged kittiwake have declined in recent years. In 2003 the national average fledging success was 0.66 chicks per nest. Colonies in the north of Scotland averaged 0.43 whilst those in Suffolk averaged 0.93 (GGOWL, 2005).

Suffolk Shingle Beaches CWS: vegetated shingle is a rare and decreasing habitat, both in the UK and in Europe. The fragile plant community which survives in the hostile maritime environment is prone to damage from intense visitor pressure. The stretches of shingle beach along the Suffolk coast are of a national conservation importance for the range of shingle plants that grow here. Sea pea, which is a nationally rare plant, grows in profusion on many stretches of beach. In addition, many other scarce plants for example, sea kale, sea holly Eryngium maritimum and sea bindweed Calystegia soldanella can also be found. Furthermore, a number of rare invertebrates which are associated with these plants have been recorded here. Following a recent survey of the shingle by the Suffolk Wildlife Trust, a number of stretches of the coastline were identified as being of high conservation value. Those sections which are not statutorily protected have been included in the Register of CWS. Low-level heathland is also a biodiversity priority in the Suffolk County Council Biodiversity Plan.

Dower House CWS: grassland on the cliff top of the Dower House is a valuable example of unimproved dry acid/dry maritime grassland. The sward composition includes species typically associated with acid grasslands and heaths such as heath dog violet (Viola canina).

Aldringham to Aldeburgh Disused Railway CWS: a section of disused railway line which serves as a public footpath supports a species-diverse flora both on the line of the old track and on the gently sloping embankments.

Heritage Coast description (Natural England, 2009j)

8.4.33 Heritage coasts, although nationally designated, are protected only via local plan policy. The Suffolk Coast is one of the 43 designated Heritage Coasts in England and Wales. The Heritage Coast classification scheme was initiated in 1972 to protect coastline of special scenic and environmental value from inappropriate development. The landfall and substation also fall within the Suffolk Coast Heritage Coast.





OSPAR List of Threatened and/or Declining Species and Habitats

8.4.34 Part I of the OSPAR list includes over 30 invertebrates, birds, fish, reptiles and mammals and Part II details 16 habitat types. Those species and habitats found in OSPAR Region II, where the proposed GWF is located are listed in Table 8.8 (Region II comprises the North Sea, the English Channel, the Skagerrak and the Kattegat to the limits of the OSPAR maritime area, bounded on the north by latitude 62°N, on the west by longitude 5°W and the east coast of Great Britain, and on the south by latitude 48°N).

8.4.35 The species and habitats of relevance to the GWF project are described and assessed within Chapters 12, 13, 14 and 23. Table 8.8 details which of these species and habitats might be present in the GWF site and those highlighted in green have been carried through to the impact assessment. Those which are unlikely to be present at the GWF site are not considered further in this Chapter.

Table 8.8 OSPAR species and habitats of potential relevance to the GWF site

Latin name Common name

Presence at the GWF site

INVERTEBRATES

Arctica islandica Ocean quahog

Found all around, and offshore from, British and Irish coasts however they are not commonly recorded off the south east coast (Sabatini et al. 2008), presence has not been highlighted during subtidal surveys (see Chapter 12).

Nucella lapillus Dog whelk A common and ubiquitous species found around the rocky coasts of Britain and Ireland and as a result dog whelk may be present at the GWF site.

Ostrea edulis Flat oyster

Widely distributed around the British Isles, found associated with highly productive estuarine and shallow coastal water habitats and present in the Thames Estuary (Jackson and Wilding, 2009).

BIRDS

Puffinus mauretanicus

Balearic shearwater

Not identified during the ornithological surveys (see Chapter 11).

Rissa tridactyla Black-legged kittiwake

Present during ornithological surveys and identified as a species of principle concern (see Chapter 11).

Uria lomvia Thick-billed murre

Not identified during the ornithological surveys (see Chapter 11).

Sterna dougii

Roseate tern Not identified during the ornithological surveys (see Chapter 11).





FISH

Acipenser sturio Sturgeon Landings data and site specific surveys indicate that this species is unlikely to be present at the GWF site (see Chapter 13).

Alosa alosa Allis shad Known to migrate through the Thames Estuary and therefore could be present at the GWF site (see Chapter 13).

Anguilla anguilla European eel Species might be present at the GWF site (landings data) and is known to migrate through the Thames Estuary (see Chapter 13).

Centroscymnus coelolepis

Portuguese dogfish

Landings data and site specific surveys indicate that this species is unlikely to be present at the GWF site (see Chapter 13).

Centrophorus squamosus

Leafscale gulper shark


Cetorhinus maximus

Basking shark Records indicate that this species is unlikely to be present at the GWF site (Wilding and Pizzolla, 2009).

Coregonus lavaretus oxyrinchus (Linnæus, 1758)

Houting Landings data and site specific surveys indicate that this species is unlikely to be present at the GWF site (see Chapter 13).

Dipturus batis (synonym: Raja batis)

Common Skate


Raja montagui (synonym: Dipturus montagui)

Spotted Ray Species likely to be present at the GWF site (recorded during site specific survey) (see Chapter 13).

Gadus morhua Cod Species likely to be present at the GWF site (recorded during site specific survey) (see Chapter 13).

Hippocampus guttulatus (synonym: Hippocampus ramulosus)

Long-snouted seahorse

Records indicate that this species is unlikely to be present at the GWF site (Sabatini and Ballerstedt, 2007), in addition there is limited suitable habitat at the site in the shallower areas where it would be most likely to be found (i.e. eelgrass).

Hippocampus hippocampus

Short-snouted seahorse

Records indicate that this species is unlikely to be present at the GWF site (Neish, 2007), in addition there is limited suitable habitat at the site in the shallower areas where it would be most likely to be found (i.e. eelgrass).

Lamna nasus Porbeagle

An epipelagic oceanic and coastal species, which can be found in surface waters down to a depth of over 700 m but can also occasionally venture into close inshore waters (Barnes, 2008). However site specific and landings data indicate that this species is unlikely to be





present at the GWF site.

Petromyzon marinus

Sea lamprey Known to migrate through the Thames Estuary and therefore could be present at the GWF site (see Chapter 13).

Raja clavata Thornback skate / ray

Species likely to be present at the GWF site (recorded during site specific survey) (see Chapter 13).

Rostroraja alba White skate Landings data and site specific surveys indicate that this species is unlikely to be present at the GWF site (see Chapter 13).

Salmo salar Salmon Known to migrate through the Thames Estuary and therefore could be present at the GWF site (see Chapter 13).

Squalus acanthias [North-east Atlantic] spurdog

Species likely to be present at the GWF site (recorded during site specific survey) (see Chapter 13).

Squatina squatina Angel shark Landings data and site specific surveys indicate that this species is unlikely to be present at the GWF site (see Chapter 13).

REPTILES

Dermochelys coriacea

Leatherback turtle

This species generally inhabits open seas although is present mostly in August and September off the south and west coasts of Britain and Ireland. Records show that it is unlikely to be present at the GWF site (Reeds, 2004).

MAMMALS

Balaenoptera musculus

Blue whale This species is an open ocean whale, not often seen near the coast in north-west Europe and is very unlikely to be present at the GWF site.

Eubalaena glacialis Northern right whale

This species is an open ocean whale, not often seen near the coast in north-west Europe and is very unlikely to be present at the GWF site.

Phocoena phocoena

Harbour porpoise

Present within the GWF site (see Chapter 14).

HABITATS Presence at the GWF site

Coral Gardens No evidence to suggest that this habitat is present at the GWF site (see Chapter 12).

Intertidal Mytilus edulis beds on mixed and sandy sediments

No evidence to suggest that this habitat is present at the GWF site (see Chapter 12).

Intertidal mudflats No evidence to suggest that this habitat is present at the GWF site (see Chapter 12).





Littoral chalk communities


Lophelia pertusa reefs

No evidence to show this habitat is present at the GWF site, found in cold deep waters (200 - >2000m).

Maerl beds No evidence to suggest that this habitat is present at the GWF site (see Chapter 12).

Modiolus modiolus beds


Ostrea edulis beds No evidence to suggest that this habitat is present at the GWF site (see Chapter 12).

Sabellaria spinulosa reefs

Habitat might be present at the GWF site, although dense aggregations that constitute the reef like habitat are unlikely (see Chapter 12).

Sea-pen and burrowing megafauna communities


Zostera beds No evidence to suggest that this habitat is present at the GWF site (see Chapter 12).

Potential for species/habitat to be present at the site, and has therefore been carried through to the impact assessment.

8.5 Assessment of Impacts - Worse Case Definition

8.5.1 Establishing the worst case scenario from the range under consideration (see Chapter 5) ensures that the assessment for each receptor has been focused on the maximum potential adverse impact that could arise from the development.

8.5.2 This Chapter considers the effects on a designated site and or feature based on the outcome of the assessments made in the relevant technical Chapters (namely Chapters 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 20, 22 and 23) of this ES. Within these technical Chapters extensive consideration has been given to defining the worst case scenario for any given impact on the receptor. Consequently the worst case scenario for the designated sites and or features is informed through the information detailed within these technical Chapters and therefore is not repeated here.

8.6 Assessment of Impacts during the Construction Phase

Internationally designated sites (SPA, SAC, Ramsar) of relevance to the onshore works

8.6.1 A detailed assessment of the potential impacts on internationally designated sites has been carried out through the HRA process and is presented in the GWF HRA Report. The following sections which assess the impacts on internationally designated sites represents a summary of the findings of that



assessment and have also been informed from the information presented in Chapters 9, 11, 12 and 23.

8.6.2 The proposed onshore construction phase is not expected to result in impacts that will extend beyond 2km of the construction footprint, as detailed in Chapter 23. Within 2km of the proposed onshore works footprint the following designated international sites are considered of relevance to terrestrial receptors (see Figure 8.1):

Minsmere to Walberswick Ramsar, SPA and SAC; and

Sandlings SPA.

8.6.1 In respect to the Minsmere to Walberswick Ramsar, SPA, and SAC, given the distance from the onshore works (which are located approximately 2km from the designated sites), the localised scale and nature of the likely effects, and the lack of connectivity between the proposed development and the designated area, it is considered that neither the integrity of the habitats, nor the qualifying interests within the Ramsar / SAC / SPA site are likely to be affected by the works. Therefore, no likely significant effects anticipated for these sites (further detail provided in the GWF HRA Report).

8.6.2 The Sandlings SPA site lies approximately 250m to the south west of the proposed works footprint and no SPA qualifying species were recorded on the onshore development footprint site during the breeding bird surveys. Given the proximity of the works from the SPA it is possible that indirect effects (i.e. noise disturbance to qualifying bird species) may occur during the construction phase. As described in Chapter 23, noise disturbance will be associated with general site activities (vehicles travelling to and from site and machinery in operation) and also some short-term high level disturbance activities such as piling at the substation site. Noise attenuation and ground absorption factors are expected to reduce construction noise (including piling) at this distance to background levels and there will be no likely significant effect on the site (further detail provided in the GWF HRA Report).

Internationally designated sites (SPA, SAC, Ramsar) of relevance to the offshore works

8.6.3 Internationally designated sites which are of relevance to the offshore works comprise: sites primarily designated for their terrestrial features but which also have coastal qualifying features; those sites which are exclusively marine in their designated features (including marine ornithological interests) or are designated for their estuarine (including coastal and/or offshore ornithological) features.

8.6.4 Those sites which are designated primarily for terrestrial features have been assessed within the sections of this Chapter relevant to the onshore works but are also assessed within this section due to those features which could



be influenced by coastal processes (annual vegetation of drift lines and coastal lagoons). These are:

Minismere to Walberswick Heaths and Marshes SAC; and

Orfordness to Shingle Street SAC.

8.6.5 Chapter 9 of the ES assesses the potential effects on the physical

environment as a result of the offshore works. Effects are considered to be localised and short term in their nature; therefore, no significant effects are anticipated on near or far field coastal processes. In regard to the intertidal works, there will be no direct impacts on the designated sites as the footprint of the landfall does not fall within any European site. In addition, Chapter 12 concludes that the methodology used to connect the export cables to the onshore transition pit (directional drilling – see Chapter 5) will result in a minimal and localised impact on intertidal habitats and, therefore, no indirect impacts are anticipated.

8.6.6 It is considered that there will be no impact on coastal features and no likely significant effect on the Minismere to Walberswick Heaths and Marshes SAC or Orfordness to Shingle Street SAC during construction (further detail provided in the GWF HRA Report).

8.6.7 Those internationally designated sites which are estuarine in their nature and or include offshore ornithological features, comprise:

Alde, Ore and Butley Estuaries SAC; and

Alde-Ore Estuary SPA.

8.6.8 The GWF offshore site is located 29km from the Alde, Ore and Butley

Estuaries SAC which is designated for its estuaries, Atlantic salt meadows, mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide. As outlined in Chapter 9, the effects of the GWF development on the physical environment are not anticipated to be significant and will be localised in their nature. Therefore, effects on coastal processes, and those habitats which are shaped by those processes, will not be significant. As a result no likely significant effect is anticipated for the Alde, Ore and Butley Estuaries SAC (further detail provided in the GWF HRA Report).

8.6.9 The GWF offshore site is located 28km from the Alde-Ore Estuary SPA. As detailed in Section 8.4, there are a number of features which are of relevance to the offshore works, including coastal features, breeding birds and overwintering birds. No impacts on the coastal features are anticipated due to the distance between GWF, the designated site and the localised and short term effects on physical process which are likely to occur during construction, both offshore and within the intertidal area. However, as detailed in Chapter 11, the construction works have the potential to impact



the breeding population of LBBG associated with the Alde-Ore Estuary SPA, through habitat loss and / or disturbance.

8.6.10 Any direct loss of marine habitat as a result of construction activities will be negligible, and outside of the SPA. In addition, LBBG is rated as being of very low sensitivity to habitat loss (see Chapter 11). In regard to disturbance effects, GWF survey evidence (detailed in Chapter 11) suggests the species is not affected by the presence of human-related activities, often being attracted to fishing vessels in search of food. Disturbance effects on LBBG are, therefore, considered unlikely. Any temporary disturbance to prey items will not be significant for this species as effects will be temporary and abundant alternative habitat will be available elsewhere. As a result, no likely significant effect is anticipated for the Alde-Ore Estuary SPA during the construction phase (further detail provided in the GWF HRA Report).

8.6.11 Marine sites (including those designated for marine ornithological interests) of relevance to the offshore works comprise:

Outer Thames Estuary SPA; and

Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs SPA.

8.6.12 The Outer Thames Estuary SPA is designated for its population of red-throated diver. This species is highly sensitive to non-physical disturbance by noise and visual presence (see Chapter 11). Potential impacts on red-throated diver, and subsequently the SPA, during the construction of GWF may be a result of habitat loss and / or disturbance. The only permanent loss of SPA habitat will be associated with the placement of cable crossing protection material for the three inshore cable crossings (Chapter 5). However, it is considered that these do not represent a significant proportion of the SPA habitat.

8.6.13 As detailed in Chapter 9, no far field effects on wave, hydrodynamic or sedimentary regimes that may result in changes to habitats further afield (such as within the SPA) are anticipated from the construction phase. In addition, Chapter 12 concludes that the methodology used to connect the export cables to the onshore transition pit (directional drilling) will result in a minimal and localised impact on intertidal habitats and therefore no indirect impacts are anticipated.

8.6.14 Disturbance from construction vessel activity is also possible. However, the Greater Thames supports high volumes of boat traffic already and despite this, the Greater Thames area is nationally important for red-throated diver, and numbers have remained stable at least in recent years (see Chapter 11). It is, therefore, likely that any displacement effect would be temporary and that birds will return if the area was of sufficient quality for food resources (see Chapter 11 for the full assessment). No significant impacts are anticipated for red throated diver during construction, therefore no likely



significant effect is anticipated on the Outer Thames Estuary SPA during this phase (further detail provided in the GWF HRA Report).

8.6.1 The GWF site and onshore substation are located over 250km away from the Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs SPA. However, the SPA population of gannet is included in the ornithological assessment, due to the large foraging range (600km) of the species, which could be impacted by disturbance and displacement during the construction phase (see Chapter 11 and the GWF HRA Report). Gannet are considered to have a low general sensitivity to disturbance and, although the species is wide-spread in the offshore environment, the highest densities of gannet in the breeding season are associated with breeding colonies in northern European waters (see Chapter 11). As a result it is considered that the southern North Sea, inclusive of the GWF study area, is relatively unimportant for the species (see Chapter 11). As a result, no likely significant effect on the Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs SPA is anticipated as a result of the construction of GWF (further detail provided in the GWF HRA Report).

Future designated sites of relevance to the project

8.6.2 The Margate and Long Sands cSAC will be designated for sandbanks and the reef-forming ross worm Sabellaria spinulosa. It is located 16km from the GWF site. Potential construction related impacts are associated with habitat loss and disturbance to the designated features. Given the distance of GWF from the nearest boundary of the cSAC, there is unlikely to be a potentially significant effect on the hydrodynamics, wave and sediment regime (see Chapter 9), essential for the maintenance of the sandbanks and function of the S. spinulosa reefs. As a result it is considered that there will be no likely significant effects on the cSAC during construction (further detail provided in the GWF HRA Report).

Marine Conservation Zones

8.6.3 As detailed in Section 8.4, rMCZs have been confirmed by Netgain and have been submitted to the science advisory panel together with the associated conservation objectives. Site NG1b and Site NG1c are not located in the direct footprint of the proposed GWF site, however the boundary of NG1b is next to the northern edge of the proposed GWF export cable corridor and although the corridor is up to 1000m wide in places, the cable could be placed immediately adjacent to NG1b.

8.6.4 The features proposed for designation of NG1b comprise subtidal mixed sediment (broad scale habitat) and due to its location there is potential for this habitat to be impacted by construction at GWF, particularly during cable installation. No direct impacts on the rMCZ are anticipated as there is no overlap in the footprint of the GWF site and the rMCZ site boundary, however there is the potential for indirect effects.

8.6.5 As detailed in Chapter 9, the export cable installation could create elevated levels of suspended sediment, however this is anticipated to be temporary in



nature and confined primarily to the area in the immediate vicinity of the installation activity.

8.6.6 The JNCC and Natural England have recently published (June 2011) “General advice on assessing potential impacts of and mitigation for human activities on MCZ features, using existing regulation and legislation” (advice from the JNCC and Natural England to the Regional MCZ Projects). In support of this conclusion, the guidance states that “EIAs demonstrate that the impacts of each of these (cable laying) techniques are likely to be similar in nature, short lived and limited to the width of the cable corridor.”

8.6.7 Similar temporary and localised effects will be associated with foundation installation and the use of jack up barges (see Chapter 9).

8.6.8 Site NG1c is designated for the estuarine features of the Alde-Ore Estuary. The site is located 5.4km from the landfall site and does not fall within the footprint of the proposed GWF site. No indirect impacts are anticipated due to the localised effects anticipated both onshore (see Chapter 23) and offshore (see Chapter 9).

8.6.9 The JNCC and Natural England guidance (2011) suggests that, for features protected by MCZs, no additional mitigation of impacts will be required compared with the mitigation of impacts required if the features are not protected by MCZ. This is because the mitigation of impacts arising from offshore wind farm development, required for habitats and species of conservation interest protected by MCZs, is the same as that required if they are not protected by MCZs. In addition, the footprint of WTGS and their cables is unlikely to significantly impact on broadscale habitats, provided that the EIA process has identified potential impacts and recommended the mitigation for protection of features that will be required in the absence of an MCZ (which the GWF EIA has done).

8.6.10 As detailed above, the effects on the physical environment will be confined to near field. Therefore, taking into account the information currently available on MCZs, there is no pathway for impacts and there will be no impacts on the rMCZs which have been put forward by Netgain.

Statutory national designated sites of relevance to the onshore works

8.6.11 Statutory national designated sites within 2km of the proposed works comprise:

Sizewell Marshes SSSI;

Minsmere to Walberswick Heaths and Marshes SSSI;

Leiston to Aldeburgh SSSI; and

Suffolk Coast and Heath AONB.



8.6.12 The Sizewell Marshes and Leiston to Aldeburgh SSSI are located 100m and 250m respectively from the main onshore works (the substation build). At its closest point the cable corridor between the GWF substation and Sizewell Marshes SSSI will be approximately 10m apart. However no direct impacts are anticipated. Given the proximity of both SSSIs to the proposed works, in particular the cable corridor, it is possible that indirect effects may occur during the construction phase.

8.6.13 In regard to the Leiston to Aldeburgh SSSI, indirect effects could comprise disturbance to qualifying bird species. However, noise attenuation and ground absorption factors will quickly reduce construction and operational noise levels to background levels (see Chapter 26). Therefore, disturbance is not anticipated to be an issue. In addition, no SSSI qualifying species (birds or other species) were recorded on the development site during the surveys and therefore no impacts are anticipated on this site.

8.6.14 The key qualifying interest of the Sizewell Marshes SSSI is the large area of lowland unimproved wet meadows and associated invertebrate, bird and plant assemblages (see Chapter 23). Indirect damage of habitats could potentially result from pollution of these largely wetland sites as a result of accidental spillage from construction plant (moving via surface or groundwater pathways). However, such migrations are considered highly unlikely (see Chapter 22). In addition, there is potential for disturbance or displacement of birds to other parts of the SSSI as a result of the construction activity (such as piling), although this is anticipated to be temporary effect. Although the magnitude of these impacts is considered to be low, the high sensitivity of the site (being of national importance) results in a potential temporary impact of minor adverse significance.

8.6.15 The Minsmere to Walberswick SSSI is located approximately 2km north of the onshore development and given the distance between the development area and the SSSI, the localised scale and nature of the likely effects associated with the works (as detailed in Chapter 23), and considering the lack of connectivity between the proposed development and the designated area, it is considered that the integrity of the qualifying habitats will not be directly or indirectly affected by the works. As such, no impacts are anticipated on this SSSI as a result of the onshore construction works.

8.6.16 As detailed within Chapter 20, onshore construction is expected to cause localised effects of high magnitude upon the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB, which is considered to be a landscape of high sensitivity. Within the proposed onshore development site and an area up to approximately 0.5km from the site, the effects will be of high magnitude and major significance during construction. Beyond these distances the effects will still be adverse; however, the magnitude and significance of effect will reduce fairly rapidly with distance and as existing vegetation, landform and development buffers effects.



Mitigation and residual impact

8.6.17 A range of mitigation measures are outlined within Chapter 23, for example best practice construction methods will be adhered to in order to avoid pollution incidents, an onshore code of construction practice and best practice noise control and management techniques (see Chapter 23 for full list of potential mitigation measures).

8.6.18 By implementing the outlined mitigation the risk of pollution incidents affecting Sizewell Marshes SSSI will be maintained as negligible and construction related noise will be maintained below the accepted 65dB threshold. However, short-term high level disturbance activities such as piling at the substation will still be required which has the potential for the short-term displacement of birds closest to the works, i.e. those associated with Sizewell Marshes SSSI. As such a short-term minor adverse residual impact remains.

8.6.19 In regard to the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB, careful consideration has been given to the route of the cable connection corridor to ensure that there is only a minimal lasting visible effect upon the surrounding landscape. The close alignment of the proposed cable connection to the route of the connection to the GGOWF substation will minimise the additional spread of construction activity and extent of landscape disturbance. During construction, effects will also be minimised by retaining and protecting as much existing vegetation as possible and trees will be protected in accordance with recommendations by an arboriculturalist. As detailed in Chapter 20, the mitigation measures form part of the proposals assessed and the residual impacts are effectively the same as those detailed in the above assessment (major to major-moderate significance, reducing with distance).

Statutory national designated sites of relevance to the offshore works

8.6.20 Both the Leiston-Aldeburgh SSSI and Minsmere-Walberswick Heaths and Marshes SSSI contain features which are potentially influenced by coastal processes, including mudflats, shingle beach and vegetated shingle. Neither site is located within the footprint of the offshore or coastal works and, as the hydrodynamic modelling (as detailed within Chapter 9) indicates that any effects on coastal processes will be localised in scale and short term in nature, and the coastal works at the landfall site will not result in significant effects on the intertidal habitats (Chapter 12), it is considered that the integrity of the qualifying habitats will not be directly or indirectly affected by the works. As a result, no impacts in regards to both the Leiston-Aldeburgh SSSI and Minsmere-Walberswick Heaths and Marshes SSSI are anticipated during the construction phase.

8.6.21 As detailed in Chapter 20, the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB has the potential to be influenced by the offshore aspect of the development during construction. However, the presence of the construction vessels and the associated marine activity is considered to be relatively insignificant due to



the existing baseline of significant marine activity in the study area and the overall significance of the seascape effect, and subsequently the effect on the AONB, is predicted to be negligible.

8.6.22 No further statutory designated sites are considered of relevance to the offshore works.

Non-statutory sites of relevance to the onshore works

8.6.23 There are six CWS of relevance to the onshore works. The majority of these sites are considered to be located far enough from the development footprint and / or have very limited connectivity between the development area and the site, that there will be no effects on the site as a result of the onshore works. No impacts are anticipated on the Sizewell Levels and Associated Areas CWS, Southern Minsmere Levels CWS, Leiston Common CWS, Dower House CWS, and the Aldringham to Aldeburgh Disused Railway CWS (see Chapter 23).

8.6.24 The Suffolk Shingle Beaches CWS is located directly within the proposed works footprint and this could lead to temporary damage of the shingle habitats during excavation works and general site activities, as well as potential disturbance for associated species. Although the CWS is a non-statutory designation, these transitional shingle habitats are rare in Suffolk and represent a receptor of regional sensitivity. Damage associated with vehicular access to the foreshore, although temporary, will represent an impact of high magnitude and, therefore, a moderate adverse impact is anticipated in the absence of mitigation.

8.6.25 The proposed cable corridor will pass through the Suffolk Heritage Coast between its landfall and the transition pit. The cable corridor passes through the Suffolk Heritage Coast and localised effects of high magnitude up to approximately 200m from the cable corridor are anticipated. This represents a moderate impact during construction. The proposed substation lies beyond the boundaries of the Suffolk Heritage Coast designation. As detailed in Chapter 20 the character of this area of landscape is already strongly influenced by the presence of the existing pylons and overhead wires which are larger structures than those within the proposed development. However, a moderate impact is predicted during construction on this pocket of Heritage Coast. Beyond this area the effects will rapidly reduce to negligible due to the presence of Sizewell power station to the north and the buffering effects of vegetation and landform to the north, east and south.


8.6.26 A range of mitigation measures are outlined within Chapter 23, for example directional drilling techniques will be employed (within the barren shingle) to avoid excavation of the vegetated shingle, and where vehicular access is required across the dune, within the CWS designation, temporary gridded matting, or similar, will be placed along all such access routes to minimise



disturbance from vehicles (see Chapter 23 for full list of potential mitigation measures).

8.6.27 By employing some, or all, of the mitigation measures detailed, the magnitude of the potential impact to the Suffolk Shingle Beaches CWS will be reduced to negligible and the residual impact on this site will be negligible.

8.6.28 In regard to the Suffolk Heritage Coast, careful consideration has been given to the route of the cable connection corridor to ensure that there is only a minimal lasting visible effect upon the surrounding landscape. The close alignment of the proposed cable connection to the route of the connection to GGOWF substation will minimise the additional spread of construction activity and extent of landscape disturbance. During construction, effects will also be minimised by retaining and protecting as much existing vegetation as possible and trees will be protected in accordance with recommendations by an arboriculturalist. As detailed in Chapter 20, the mitigation measures form part of the proposals assessed and the residual impacts are effectively the same as those detailed in the above assessment.

Non-statutory sites of relevance to the offshore works

8.6.29 Of relevance to the offshore and coastal works is the Suffolk Shingle Beaches CWS which is designated for its vegetated shingle.

8.6.30 This habitat is influenced by coastal processes and any effects on physical processes as a result of the offshore construction have the potential to impact upon this site. However, as detailed in Chapter 9, hydrodynamic modelling suggests that impacts are likely to be small scale and localised in their nature. Subsequently, no impact is anticipated on the coastal habitats associated with the site, and no impacts are expected on the Suffolk Shingle Beaches CWS.

8.6.31 The only CWS site located within the marine environment is the Sizewell Rigs site which is designated for a breeding colony of black-legged kittiwake, which is now the most southerly colony in the North Sea (see Chapter 11). The site is located over 30km from the offshore works. As the CWS is a non-statutory designation the sensitivity of the site is considered to be low. Chapter 11 assesses impacts associated with construction activities on kittiwakes present at the proposed GWF site to be of minor to negligible adverse significance; therefore, it is considered that the impact magnitude is likely to be low. Subsequently, an impact of negligible significance is anticipated for the Sizewell Rigs CWS.

8.6.32 In regard to the Suffolk Heritage Coast, as detailed in Chapter 20, the presence of the construction vessels and associated marine activity is considered to be relatively insignificant, due to the existing baseline of significant marine activity in the study area. The overall significance of the seascape effect, and subsequently the effect on the Heritage Coast, is predicted to be negligible.




8.6.33 Table 8.9 provides an assessment of the potential impacts on OSPAR species and habitats identified within Section 8.4 (Table 8.8). Detailed assessments on marine ecology, ornithology, fish and marine mammals are provided in Chapters 11, 12, 13 and 14 and should be referred to.



Table 8.9 Impact of the GWF construction on OSPAR species and habitats


Assessment

INVERTEBRATES

Nucella lapillus Dog whelk As a ubiquitous species, the sensitivity is considered to be low. The magnitude, as a result of the temporary disruption caused during construction (detailed in Chapter 12), is also considered to be low. As a result an impact of negligible significance is anticipated.


As this species is common and widely distributed around the British Isles (Jackson and Wilding, 2009), and it has not been highlighted in the marine ecology surveys (Chapter 12), the sensitivity is considered to be low. The magnitude, as a result of the temporary disruption caused during construction (detailed in Chapter 12), is also considered to be low. As a result an impact of negligible significance is anticipated.

BIRDS


Numbers recorded at the site are of regional importance but not national importance. As detailed in Chapter 11, the impact significance on this species as a result of a range of construction related impacts is of negligible to minor adverse significance.

FISH

Alosa alosa Allis shad

The sensitivity of the species to construction related activities, taking into consideration its highly protected status, is considered to be medium. No Allis shad were recorded during the site specific surveys or the landings data and no significant impacts associated with construction activities have been highlighted in the fisheries assessment (Chapter 13). As a result, the magnitude of effect is considered to be negligible and the significance of the impact is likely to be negligible.

Anguilla anguilla European eel

No European eel were recorded during the site specific surveys and no significant impacts associated with construction activities have been highlighted in the fisheries assessment (Chapter 13). Whilst the European eel may pass in close proximity to the proposed GWF site during certain life stages, its passage would be transient and there are no key habitats within the vicinity of GWF which are required as part of the eels lifecycle. As a result the sensitivity is considered to be low and magnitude of effect as a result of the temporary disturbance associated with construction is also likely to be low. As a result, the significance of the impact is likely to be negligible.




Assessment

Raja montagui (synonym: Dipturus montagui)

Spotted Ray

Low numbers were recorded during the site specific surveys and no significant impacts associated with construction activities have been highlighted for this species in the fisheries assessment. Sensitivity to construction related activities for this species is considered to be low (see Chapter 13) and the magnitude of effect as a result of the temporary disturbance associated with construction is also likely to be low. As a result the significance of the impact is likely to be negligible.

Gadus morhua Cod

Cod has a medium sensitivity to underwater sound, which is the primary source of impact during the construction phase (see Chapter 13). The GWF site is situated within a low intensity spawning and nursery ground. As a result, the magnitude of effect is considered to be low. The resultant significance is anticipated to be minor adverse.

Petromyzon marinus

Sea lamprey

The sensitivity of the species to construction related activities, taking into consideration its protected status, is considered to be medium. No sea lamprey were recorded during the site specific surveys or the landings data and no significant impacts associated with construction activities have been highlighted in the fisheries assessment (Chapter 13). As a result, the magnitude of effect is considered to be negligible and the significance of the impact is likely to be negligible.


Thornback ray was one of the most abundant species recorded in site specific surveys. The sensitivity of this species is considered to be medium due to its regional importance (see Chapter 13). The magnitude of the effect of the temporary construction activities is considered to be low. As a result, the impact significance is considered to be minor adverse.

Salmo salar Salmon

The sensitivity of the species to construction related activities, taking into consideration its highly protected status, is considered to be medium. No salmon were recorded during the site specific surveys or the landings data and no significant impacts associated with construction activities have been highlighted in the fisheries assessment (Chapter 13). As a result, the magnitude of effect is considered to be negligible and the significance of the impact is considered to be negligible.

Squalus acanthias Spurdog

The sensitivity of this species is considered to be medium, due to the depleted status of the stock (see Chapter 13). Only a single spurdog was recorded during the GWF surveys. The impact magnitude is considered to be low, based on the short-term nature of the construction related impacts. As a result, the impact significance is considered to be minor adverse.




Assessment

MAMMALS

Phocoena phocoena

Harbour porpoise

As detailed in Chapter 14 the sensitivity of harbour porpoise to noise associated with the construction of GWF, taking into consideration its protected status, is considered to be high. The magnitude of the impact as a result of the relatively low numbers of animals affected is low. As a result the significance of the impact is anticipated to be minor adverse.



A pre-construction survey will be used to confirm whether any reef feature is present and, where present, to determine its extent. However, as detailed in Chapter 12, although S. spinulosa was present at the site, no dense aggregations or reefs were recorded within the site boundary. The magnitude of the impact is anticipated to be negligible and, assuming there are no reef like aggregations as the evidence suggests, the sensitivity would be low. As a result, the significance of the impact is considered to be negligible. It should also be noted that several wind farms have been consented within or near areas that have been recommended for designation as Special Areas of Conservation for sandbank habitat and biogenic (Sabellaria) reefs, suggesting that wind farms and protection of these habitats can co-exist (JNCC/ Natural England 2011).




8.6.34 A number of construction related mitigation measures are outlined in Chapters 11, 12, 13 and 14 which are relevant to the impacts identified for OSPAR species. The primary method of mitigating the impact associated with construction related noise is the use of soft starts during the pile driving process (detailed in Chapters 13 and 14). Soft start is an effective method of mitigating lethal effects and physical injury on fish and marine mammals. However, as detailed in Chapter 13 and 14, these measures do not reduce the lower noise levels which can result in behavioural effects. As a result impact significance for cod, thornback ray, spurdog and harbour porpoise will not change as a result of this mitigation and the residual impact will remain as outlined in Table 8.9.

8.6.35 For kittiwake, the application of a Project Environmental Management and Monitoring Plan (EMMP) prior to offshore construction activities commencing will help to minimize direct and indirect disturbance on this species (see Chapter 11), however the residual impact will remain as outlined in Table 8.9.

8.6.36 The potential impact on the remainder of habitats / species assessed will remain at negligible.

8.7 Assessment of Impacts during the Operation Phase

Designated sites of relevance to the onshore works

8.7.1 There are unlikely to be any additional operational impacts on terrestrial ecology once the onshore works have been installed and reinstatement works have taken place (Chapter 23). Tree planting, as a form of mitigation, will take time to establish but other disturbed habitats, being mostly arable land, will re-establish quickly post construction. In addition to temporary habitat damage post construction, there may be limited disturbance associated with the operational noise of the substation. However, operational noise is expected to be below levels expected to disturb any of the species identified on site (refer to Chapter 26).

8.7.2 In the event of a cable failure, it may be necessary to excavate the cable trench and replace / repair the faulty cables along limited stretches. If repair works are required, the mitigation measures proposed within Chapter 23 for the construction activities will be adhered to, and potential impacts will be minimised.

8.7.3 Overall no likely significant effects are anticipated for internationally designated sites of relevance to the onshore works (further detail provided in GWF HRA Report) and it is considered that there will be no impacts on statutory and non statutory national sites.

8.7.4 The exception to this is the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB and Suffolk Heritage Coast which are designated for their landscape features. The



proposed substation will introduce a series of new elements within part of the AONB (see Chapter 20). The substation, and the activities and landscape disturbance associated with its construction, can be viewed as a significant additional element within a local area of the AONB, where the existing integrity and quality of the landscape is already significantly compromised by the presence of built structures and activities.

8.7.5 As detailed in Chapter 20, the assessment on landscape features has been undertaken for year one of operation and year 15 of operation, year 15 being the residual impact. In year one, effects on the AONB up to approximately 0.5km to the west, south and north will be of high magnitude (major significance).

8.7.6 For the Suffolk Heritage Coast, in year one the area between Sandy Lane and the belt of trees west of Sizewell Beach car park will have a medium magnitude of effect (moderate significance).

8.7.7 Effects in year one will reduce fairly rapidly beyond these areas and are limited to a small proportion of the Heritage Coast and the AONB.

Mitigation measures and residual impact

8.7.1 A range of mitigation measures are being considered to reduce the potential impact on landscape designations (Suffolk Heritage Coast and Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB), and a landscape mitigation strategy is presented within Chapter 20 (and associated appendices).

8.7.2 The proposed GWF substation will have become enclosed by woodland by year 15 which, as detailed in Chapter 20, has been assessed as the residual impact. In year 15, effects on the AONB up to approximately 0.5km to the west, south and north will be reduced to medium magnitude (major-moderate significance). For the Heritage Coast in year 15 the two fields to the east / south-east of the substation will have a low magnitude of effect (moderate-minor significance).

8.7.3 The potential effects associated with the proposed GWF substation will reduce fairly rapidly to negligible beyond these areas and will be confined to a small area of the AONB and Heritage Coast, in an area that is already influenced by the presence of GGOWF substation, electricity towers and Sizewell A and B power stations.

Internationally designated sites of relevance to the offshore operation

8.7.4 For both Minismere to Walberswick Heaths and Marshes SAC and Orfordness to Shingle Street SAC which are primarily terrestrial designations but that also contain designated features which are influenced by coastal processes, evidence from hydrodynamic modelling indicate that physical process effects will be contained to the near field during the operational phase of GWF (see Chapter 9). The same conclusion can be drawn for the Alde, Ore and Butley Estuaries SAC as a result of the predicted limited



impacts on coastal processes. Subsequently no likely significant effects are anticipated on these sites as a result of the offshore operational phase (further detail provided in the GWF HRA Report).

8.7.5 At the Alde-Ore Estuary SPA, potential impacts for lesser black-backed gull (LBBG) as a result of displacement, barrier effects and collision with turbines during the operation phase have been identified. Despite large numbers of individuals being recorded in the vicinity of the wind farm, it is unlikely that birds will be significantly affected by displacement and there is no evidence to suggest that there is a regular foraging route between breeding colonies and particular foraging areas via the wind farm area. Therefore, it is unlikely that there will be any barrier or disturbance effects in the context of the SPA (further evidence is provided in the GWF HRA Report).

8.7.6 LBBG have a high sensitivity to collision risk and as nationally important numbers have been recorded within the wind farm area, with substantial numbers having been recorded at collision risk height this potential impact has been thoroughly assessed as part of the ornithological assessment in Chapter 11 and the GWF HRA Report.

8.7.7 Given the sensitivity and relative abundance of LBBG within the GWF study area the HRA Screening assessment suggested that there was the potential for a likely significant effect on the conservation objectives of the SPA due to the potential collision risk posed to this species during operation of the GWF. Detailed information on the collision risk to LBBG is provided in Chapter 11 and Technical Appendix 11.A. For detailed information relating to the implications of this collision in terms of the SPA integrity, readers should refer to the HRA Report that supports this application. Based on the evidence provided within the technical ornithological studies and the HRA Report it has been concluded that there will be no adverse impacts on the Conservation Objectives of the Alde-Ore Estuary SPA, due to the GWF construction and operation phases, either alone or in-combination with other projects. This means that the integrity of the SPA will not be adversely affected, and that favourable conservation status can be restored over the long-term, despite any impacts associated with the GWF development, and there is no likely significant effect on the SPA.

8.7.8 Gannet at the Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs SPA could also be impacted by habitat loss, collision with turbines and barrier effects during operation of GWF. Gannet are considered to have a low general sensitivity to direct displacement effects and although there were regionally important numbers found within the GWF site in November 2008 displacement effects are not anticipated to be significant (see Chapter 11). In regard to collision risk, gannet population estimates within the GWF survey area in 2008/09 and 2009/10, have been mostly below the 1% regional winter population threshold and it does not appear that the GWF area is important for the gannet during the breeding season, compared to the total GB population. Gannet are rated as being of very low general sensitivity to barrier effects and the total number of birds potentially affected by a barrier to flight will not



result in a significant impact. As a result of these conclusions, it is considered that there will be no likely significant effect on the Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs SPA (further detail provided in the GWF HRA Report).

8.7.9 Potential impacts on the Outer Thames Estuary SPA exist as a result of displacement, barrier effects and collision risk for red-throated diver, for which it is designated.

8.7.10 The main concentrations of red-throated diver in the Greater Thames areas are well inshore to the south and west of GWF, and this is likely to be due to the surrounding area being sub-optimal habitat for the species, being in deeper water than preferred. It is unlikely that surrounding areas are at carrying capacity for the species, based on historic data (refer to Chapter 11 Offshore Ornithology for further information) and, therefore, the relatively small numbers that might be displaced from the GWF site will be able to settle elsewhere. If this is the case, then any effect on the SPA population as a result of displacement will be insignificant, particularly as it will only be expected to affect individuals in the short-term. In regard to barrier effects, information on preferred foraging areas is incomplete, but there is no evidence to suggest that birds must commute in the vicinity of the GWF to reach important feeding areas. Collision risk modelling indicates that significant impacts at SPA population are not anticipated as a result of the operation of GWF.

8.7.11 The lack of significant impacts on the designated feature of the SPA indicates that there will be no likely significant effect on the Outer Thames Estuary SPA during the operation phase (further detail provided in the GWF HRA Report).

8.7.12 The Margate and Long Sands cSAC is located 16km from the GWF site. Chapter 9 details the minimal and localised effects on physical processes during operation, and as a result no likely significant effect is expected on the site (further detail provided in the GWF HRA Report).

Other designated sites of relevance to the offshore operation

8.7.13 As detailed in Chapters 9 and 12, direct and indirect impacts on physical processes and marine and intertidal ecology as a result of the operational phase are anticipated to negligible and localised in their nature. Therefore, no additional significant impacts are anticipated on the features of designated sites (statutory and non-statutory) of relevance to the offshore operational phase, including those with coastal features.

8.7.14 In regard to the Sizewell Rigs CWS which is designated for a breeding colony of black-legged kittiwake, Chapter 11 assesses impacts associated with operational activities on kittiwakes present at the proposed GWF site to be of minor to negligible adverse significance; therefore, it is considered that the impact magnitude is likely to be low. As the CWS is a non-statutory designation, the sensitivity of the site is also considered to be low.



Subsequently an impact of negligible significance is anticipated for the Sizewell Rigs CWS.

8.7.1 In regard to landscape designations (Suffolk Coasts and Heaths AONB and

Suffolk Heritage Coast), as detailed in Chapter 20 opportunities for views from inland areas towards the proposed WTGs will generally be very limited and sea views from inland areas of farmland will be limited by the screening effects of the undulating landform and intervening vegetation in the wider landscape. Where distant views of the WTGs are seen they will appear as very distant elements on the far horizon line, whose additional presence will be barely perceptible in the context of the existing views towards the GGOWF, the majority of which is closer to shore. Consequently, the magnitude of operational effect of the proposed offshore development on the landscape of the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB and the Suffolk Heritage Coast is considered to be negligible. However, as the sensitivity value of the AONB is high, and is high-medium for the Heritage coast, the overall significance of operational effect is considered to be negligible for both landscape designations.

8.7.2 No impact to the existing environment for all statutory and non statutory designated sites (with the exception of the two landscape designations described above and Sizewell Rigs CWS) is expected during operation.


8.7.3 Table 8.10 provides an assessment of the potential impacts on OSPAR species. Detailed assessments on marine ecology, ornithology, fish and marine mammals are provided in Chapters 11, 12, 13 and 14 and should be referred to.



Table 8.10 Impact of the GWF operation on OSPAR species and habitats


Assessment

INVERTEBRATES

Nucella lapillus Dog whelk As a ubiquitous species, the sensitivity is considered to be low. The magnitude of effect during the operation phase where only limited disturbance might occur during maintenance activities is negligible. As a result, an impact of negligible significance is anticipated.


As this species is widely distributed around the British Isles (Jackson and Wilding, 2009), and it has not been highlighted in the marine ecology surveys (Chapter 12) the sensitivity is considered to be low. The magnitude of effect during the operation phase where only limited disturbance might occur during maintenance activities is negligible. As a result, an impact of negligible significance is anticipated.

BIRDS


Numbers recorded at the site are of regional importance but not national importance. As detailed in Chapter 11, the impact significance on this species as a result of a range of operational impacts is of negligible to minor adverse significance.

FISH

Alosa alosa Allis shad

As a result of potential impacts associated with electromagnetic fields (EMF), the sensitivity to the operational phase is considered to be high (see Chapter 13). The magnitude is considered to be low because the intensity of EMF varies depending on the operating capacity of the wind farm. As a result, the significance of the impact is considered to be minor adverse.

Anguilla anguilla European eel

Whilst the European eel may pass in close proximity to the proposed GWF site during certain life stages its passage would be transient and there are no key habitats within the vicinity of GWF which are required as part of the eels lifecycle. However, as a result of potential impacts associated with electromagnetic fields, the sensitivity to the operational phase is considered to be high (see Chapter 13). The magnitude is considered to be low because the intensity of EMF varies depending on the operating capacity of the wind farm. As a result the significance of the impact is likely to be minor adverse.

Raja montagui (synonym: Dipturus

Spotted Ray Low numbers were recorded during the site specific surveys, however as a result of potential impacts associated with electromagnetic fields, the sensitivity to the operational phase is considered to be high (see Chapter 13). The




Assessment

montagui) magnitude is considered to be low because the intensity of EMF varies depending on the operating capacity of the wind farm. As a result, the significance of the impact is likely to be minor adverse.

Gadus morhua Cod

The GWF site is situated within a low intensity spawning and nursery ground. Although cod are known to use low level grunting sounds for communication the sensitivity of fish species to such small levels of noise are considered to be low (see Chapter 13). The magnitude of the impact is also considered to be low, given the localised extent of the impact. As such, the impact to fish species from underwater noise and vibration during operation would be of negligible significance.

Petromyzon marinus

Sea lamprey

As a result of potential impacts associated with electromagnetic fields, the sensitivity to the operational phase is considered to be high (see Chapter 13). The magnitude is considered to be low, because the intensity of EMF varies depending on the operating capacity of the wind farm. As a result, the significance of the impact is likely to be minor adverse.


One of the most abundant species recorded in site specific surveys. The sensitivity of this species is considered to be medium due to its regional importance. The magnitude of the effect of the operational activities is considered to be negligible. As a result, the impact significance is considered to be negligible.

Salmo salar Salmon

As a result of potential impacts associated with electromagnetic fields, and the protected status of salmon, the sensitivity to the operational phase is considered to be high (see Chapter 13). The magnitude is considered to be low because the intensity of EMF varies depending on the operating capacity of the wind farm. As a result, the significance of the impact is considered to be minor adverse.

Squalus acanthias [North-east Atlantic] spurdog

As a result of potential impacts associated with electromagnetic fields, the sensitivity to the operational phase is considered to be high (see Chapter 13). The magnitude is considered to be low because the intensity of EMF varies depending on the operating capacity of the wind farm. As a result, the significance of the impact is considered to be minor adverse.

MAMMALS

Phocoena phocoena

Harbour porpoise

The sensitivity of harbour porpoise to activities associated with the operational phase of GWF is considered to be low. The magnitude of the impact as a result of the relatively low numbers of animals affected is low. As a result the significance of the impact is anticipated to be negligible.





Assessment


As detailed in Chapter 12, although S. spinulosa was present at the site, no dense aggregations or reefs were recorded within the site boundary (pre-construction survey will be used to confirm this or determine any reef locations). Disturbance associated with the operational phase will be minor. As a result, the magnitude of the impact is anticipated to be negligible, and the sensitivity would be low. As a result, the significance of the impact is considered to be negligible. It should also be noted that several wind farms have been consented within or near areas that have been recommended for designation as SACs for sandbank habitat and biogenic (Sabellaria) reefs, suggesting that wind farms and protection of these habitats can co-exist (JNCC / Natural England 2011).




8.7.1 A number of construction related mitigation measures are outlined in Chapters 11, 12, 13 and 14 which are relevant to the impacts identified for OSPAR species. The most significant impacts (minor adverse) are associated with fish species which are susceptible to impacts associated with EMF (Allis shad, European eel, spotted ray, sea lamprey, salmon, spurdog). As detailed in Chapter 13 cable armouring and cable burial to sufficient depths will reduce EMF. However, the impact significance will not reduce as a result of the uncertainties associated with EMF impacts.

8.7.2 Operational mitigation measures to minimise impacts on kittiwake are limited, (as detailed in Chapter 11) as a result the residual impact on these species will remain as outlined in Table 8.10.

8.7.3 The potential impact on the remainder of habitats / species assessed will remain at negligible.

8.8 Assessment of Impacts during the Decommissioning Phase

Designated sites and species of relevance to the onshore and offshore works

8.8.1 When GWF is decommissioned it will be subject to a dedicated EIA and will be required to adhere to legislation relevant at that juncture. The specific decommissioning processes and activities will be subject to agreement from the relevant regulators at that time. The removal of the substation and offshore infrastructure will lead to temporary disturbance of a similar scale and magnitude to that associated with the construction phase. However, impacts on species that are sensitive to sound (i.e. fish and marine mammals) will be less significant as no piling works will be required during the decommissioning phase.

8.9 Inter-relationships

8.9.1 The assessment presented in this Chapter has drawn upon the assessments from a number of Chapters as well as the GWF HRA Report. Table 8.11 lists the designated sites assessed within this Chapter and which Chapters of the ES have been used to inform the assessment and, therefore, where the inter-relationships lie.

Table 8.11 Nature conservation designations inter-relationships

Designation assessed Inter-related Chapter(s)

Minsmere – Walberswick SPA, SAC and Ramsar SPA/Ramsar: Chapter 23 (and HRA Report)

SAC: Chapter 9 and 12 (and HRA Report)

Alde-Ore Estuary SPA and Ramsar


Chapter 11 (and HRA Report)



Designation assessed Inter-related Chapter(s)

The Sandlings SPA Chapter 23 (and HRA Report)

Outer Thames Estuary SPA Chapter 9, 11 and 12 (and HRA Report)

Alde, Ore and Butley Estuaries SAC

Margate and Long Sands cSAC

Chapter 9 (and HRA Report)

Orfordness –

Shingle Street SAC

Chapter 9 and 12 (and HRA Report)

rMCZ – Site NG1b and NG1c Chapter 9 and 23

Leiston-Aldeburgh SSSI Chapter 22, 23, 26

Minsmere-Walberswick Heaths and Marshes

SSSI

Sizewell Marshes SSSI

Leiston Common CWS

Sizewell Levels and Associated Areas CWS

Southern Minsmere Levels CWS

Dower House CWS

Aldringham to Aldeburgh Disused Railway CWS

Chapter 23

Sizewell Rigs CWS Chapter 12

Suffolk Shingle Beaches CWS Chapter 9 and 23

Suffolk Heritage Coast

Suffolk Coast and Heath AONB

Chapter 20

OSPAR Species and Habitats Chapter 11, 12, 13 and 14



8.10 Cumulative Impacts

European designated sites

8.10.1 GWFL has undertaken an HRA to be submitted alongside the ES and which accompanies the application. Through the HRA process, potential cumulative impacts on European designated sites have been identified and assessed (for both onshore and offshore aspects of the development).

8.10.2 The following plans and projects have been incorporated into the cumulative impact assessment (further details provided in the GWF HRA Report and Chapter 11):

Additional renewable development projects from Rounds 1, 2, 2.5 and 3;

o GGOWF;

o Gunfleet Sands I, II and III;

o Kentish Flats (including Extension);

o Thanet;

o London Array (Phases I and II); and

o East Anglia ONE.

8.10.1 In addition, the following projects were considered for relevant bird species as a result of their wide foraging ranges:

Scroby Sands and

Projects within the Greater Wash Strategic Area and east coast of Great Britain (see Chapter 11).

8.10.2 There are a number of aggregate extraction areas and active dumping grounds within the vicinity of GWF; the most relevant being the application / prospecting areas in close proximity to the export cable route: in particular, Shipwash 507/5 (Cemex UK Marine Ltd) and Area 498 (Volker Dredging Ltd and Britannia Aggregates Ltd ).

8.10.3 In respect to onshore plans and projects the proposed Sizewell B Dry Fuel Store has a construction phase expected to take place during 2012/2013, and, therefore, will be in operation upon commencement of construction at GWF in 2014. In addition, EDF Energy also has plans for a new nuclear site at Sizewell C.

8.10.4 As detailed in the HRA Report, with the exception of collision risk for LBBG at the Alde-Ore Estuary SPA, there is no potential for cumulative impacts as a result of the proposed GWF project and the activities/projects/plans outlined above as detailed in Table 8.12.



Table 8.12 Summary of cumulative assessment for European designated sites

European designated site Cumulative assessment outcome

Justification summary Reference

Sites of relevance to the onshore works Minsmere to Walberswick Ramsar, SPA.

No likely significant cumulative impacts

Primarily due to the location of the European sites being outside the GWF project boundary, the temporary and localised nature of construction works, the limited disturbance likely to be associated with the operation phase and there being no spatial or temporal overlaps of projects / activities that would result in significant cumulative impacts.

Chapter 23 (Section 23.10), Section 6.2-6.3 and Table 6.2 of the GWF Report Minsmere to Walberswick Heaths

and Marshes SAC Sandlings SPA

Sites of relevance to the offshore works – coastal/estuarine features Minismere to Walberswick Heaths and Marshes SAC


Given that the effects on physical environment as a result of the proposed GWF development will be temporary and localised in nature, there is no potential pathway for cumulative impacts

Chapter 9 (Sections 9.6-9.8 and 9.10), Section 6.2-6.3 and Table 6.2 of the GWF Report Orfordness to Shingle Street SAC.

Alde, Ore and Butley Estuaries SAC

Sites of relevance to the offshore works – marine and/or offshore ornithological features Outer Thames Estuary SPA;


Evidence from other wind farms in the Outer Thames indicates that there will not be any significant impacts on red-throated diver. It is considered unlikely that any significant effects will result, due to the localised and temporary nature of the works at GWF and the relatively small area which might result in habitat loss and/or displacement effects. The sub-optimal habitat present in GWF and the other wind farm areas assessed, and the widespread availability of similar habitat in the region further supports the assessment outcome. There are low levels of predicted mortality due to collisions and the vast majority of flights in the Thames Strategic Area were recorded below collision height

Chapter 11 (Sections 11.6-11.8 and 11.10), Section 6.2-6.3 and Table 6.2 of the GWF Report

Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs SPA.


The only species and impact considered of relevance to the assessment is collision risk for gannet. It is considered that few collisions will be birds from the SPA, which will likely be present on migration only, and so the GWF will not contribute significantly to cumulative mortality on gannets.

Chapter 11 (Sections 11.6-11.8 and 11.10), Section 6.2-6.3 and Table 6.2 of the GWF Report

Margate and Long Sands cSAC No likely significant cumulative impacts

All potential impacts will be localised and therefore, there is no potential pathway for in-combination effects to occur.

Chapter 11 (Sections 11.6-11.8 and 11.10), Chapter 12 (12.6-12.8 and 12.10). Section 6.2-6.3 and Table 6.2 of the GWF HRA Report



8.10.6 With regard to LBBG, the HRA screening process highlighted that there was potential for a likely significant effect on the Alde-Ore Estuary SPA as a result of collision risk to this species. Therefore GWFL has provided information to inform an appropriate assessment. No other cumulative impacts associated with the Alde Ore Estuary SPA LBBG population are anticipated, as detailed in Table 6.2 of the GWF HRA Report, and Section 11.10 of Chapter 11. Based on the evidence provided in the technical studies (see Technical Appendix 11.A) and the HRA report it is concluded that there will be no adverse impacts on the Conservation Objectives of the Alde-Ore Estuary SPA, due to the GWF construction, operation and decommissioning phases, either alone or in-combination with other projects. This means that the integrity of the SPA will not be adversely affected, and that favourable conservation status can be restored over the long-term, despite any impacts associated with the proposed GWF development.

8.10.7 As a result no significant cumulative impacts are anticipated on any European designated sites due to the proposed GWF development. Full details of the cumulative assessment for European designated sites are provided in the GWF HRA Report.

Statutory and non statutory designates sites of relevance to the onshore development

8.10.8 The unmitigated impacts identified during the construction, operation, and decommissioning phases for the designated sites which might be affected by the onshore aspects of the proposed GWF project that have the potential to result in cumulative effects comprise:

Damage and disturbance to designated habitats and associated species within Sizewell Marshes SSSI and Suffolk Shingle Beaches CWS during construction; and

Impacts on the landscape designations Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB and Suffolk Heritage Coast during construction and operation.

8.10.9 For cumulative impacts onshore, the likely effects of the proposed GWF substation, and onshore cable connection have been considered in relation to the onshore works for GGOWF, the Sizewell A (decommissioning) Sizewell B Dry Fuel Store and the potential for development of Sizewell C (see Chapter 23) .

8.10.10 As detailed in Chapter 23 there are not considered to be any significant cumulative impacts between the construction of GWF and any other activities.

8.10.11 It is likely that GWF substation and Sizewell C Power Station will be operational during an overlapping timescale. However, GWF will be present for a shorter period (25 year operational phase) than Sizewell C (expected to be approximately 60 year operational phase). During this overlapping period there are likely to be cumulative adverse landscape and visual impacts.



These are likely to be greatest if an area east of Sandy Lane (within the Sizewell C nominated site area) is developed, but much less if only the area to the north is developed.

Statutory and non statutory designated sites of relevance to the offshore development

8.10.12 As detailed in Section 8.7 and 8.8, no impacts have been identified for the majority of statutory and non statutory designated sites which might be affected by the offshore construction, operation and decommissioning. As a result no cumulative impacts on statutory and non statutory designated sites, of relevance to the offshore development, are anticipated.

8.10.13 The exception to this is the landscape designations of the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB during construction and operation, and the Suffolk Heritage coast as a result of the presence of the operational GWF.

8.10.14 As detailed in Chapter 20, potential cumulative seascape effects could come from existing operational offshore wind farms, planned and consented offshore wind farms which are located within the study area. These comprise the operational Gunfleet Sands I & II offshore wind farms; the operational offshore wind farm at Thanet; GGOWF (under construction); London Array (Phase I, with Phase II dependant on meeting the requirements of the project’s Grampian condition); and the planned East Anglia ONE offshore wind farm.

8.10.15 The proposed GWF will not significantly add to the existing cumulative effects generated by the consented and existing operational offshore wind farms in the study area. Although the proposed GWF WTGs will add to the existing spread of WTGs seen on the horizon line, when viewed from land, they will rarely alter the degree or extent of existing visual exposure, nor will they generate significant additional effects on landscape or seascape character. The overall cumulative effect of the proposed GWF over and above that caused by the existing and consented wind farms of the study area is considered, therefore, to be no more than low to negligible. And therefore no cumulative impacts are anticipated on AONB or Heritage Coast designations.

8.10.16 The planned East Anglia ONE offshore wind farm lies 45km from the coastline and is within the GWF study area. However, as detailed in Chapter 20 only those wind farm projects which are within 30 to 35km of a coastal receptor are considered as part of the cumulative assessment. Beyond these distances cumulative effects will be negligible. In regard to future development within the Round 3 Zone, there could potentially, therefore, be some significant overall cumulative effects, but these would be due to the East Anglia Round 3 Zone alone (due to its size and proximity from the coast) and not by the addition of GWF. The extent of these cumulative effects can only be determined when details of the East Anglia Round 3 zone are known.



OSPAR habitats and species

8.10.17 No significant cumulative impacts have been identified for the OSPAR species and habitats assessed in this Chapter (see Chapter 11, 12, 13, 14); therefore, no significant cumulative impacts are anticipated for any of the species listed in Table 8.8.

8.11 Transboundary Effects

8.11.1 This Chapter has considered the potential for transboundary effects to occur on nature conservation designations as a result of the construction, operation or decommissioning of the proposed GWF project. In all cases it is concluded that the potential impacts arising, by virtue of the predicted spatial and temporal magnitude of the effects, would not give rise to significant transboundary effects on the environment of another European Economic Area (EEA) member state. A summary of the likely transboundary effects of the proposed GWF are summarised in Chapter 31 Transboundary Effects.

8.12 Summary

8.12.1 Table 8.12 provides a summary of the impact assessment undertaken within this Chapter.



Table 8.12 Summary of impact assessment undertaken for nature conservation designations

Site Relevant to offshore or onshore

Impact Mitigation Measures

Residual Impact

Construction Phase

Ramsar

Minsmere to Walberswick Onshore No likely significant effect N/A N/A

Alde-Ore Estuary Offshore No likely significant effect N/A N/A

SPA

Minsmere to Walberswick Onshore No likely significant effect N/A N/A

The Sandlings Onshore No likely significant effect N/A N/A

The Alde-Ore Estuary Offshore No likely significant effect N/A N/A


Offshore No likely significant effect N/A N/A

Outer Thames Estuary Offshore No likely significant effect N/A N/A

SAC

Alde, Ore and Butley Estuaries

Offshore No likely significant effect N/A N/A

Minsmere to Walberswick Onshore and offshore

No likely significant effect N/A N/A

Orfordness –

Shingle Street

Onshore and offshore

No likely significant effect N/A N/A

Future designations

Margate and Long Sands Offshore No likely significant effect N/A N/A





Residual Impact

cSAC

rMCZ

Sites NG1b and NG1c

Offshore No Impact N/A N/A


Dog whelk, flat oyster, allis shad, European eel, spotted ray, sea lamprey, salmon, Sabellaria spinulosa reefs

Offshore Negligible See Chapters 11, 12, 13 and 14

Negligible

Cod, thornback ray, spurdog, harbour porpoise

Offshore Minor adverse See Chapters 13 and 14

Minor adverse

Black-legged kittiwake Offshore Negligible – minor adverse See Chapter 11 Negligible – minor adverse

Statutory National designations

Leiston-Aldeburgh SSSI Onshore and offshore

No Impact N/A N/A



No Impact N/A N/A

Sizewell Marshes SSSI Onshore Minor adverse (noise disturbance) See Chapter 23 Minor adverse (noise disturbance)

Suffolk Coast and Heath AONB


Onshore: major significance (adverse but reducing rapidly further than 0.75km from the site)

Offshore: negligible

See Chapter 20 No reduction in impact significance





Residual Impact

Non statutory designations

Leiston Common CWS Onshore No Impact N/A N/A

Sizewell Levels and Associated Areas CWS

Onshore No Impact N/A N/A

Southern Minsmere Levels CWS


Sizewell Rigs CWS Offshore Negligible N/A Negligible

Suffolk Shingle Beaches CWS


Onshore: moderate adverse

Offshore: no impact

See Chapter 23 Negligible (onshore)

Suffolk Heritage Coast Onshore and offshore

Onshore: moderate significance (adverse but localised)


See Chapter 20 No reduction in impact significance

Dower House CWS Onshore No Impact N/A N/A

Aldringham to Aldeburgh Disused Railway CWS


Operation phase

Suffolk coast and heaths AONB


Onshore (year 1)

Up to 0.5km: major significance (adverse)

Effects beyond will reduce rapidly to negligible


See Chapter 20 Onshore (year 15)

Up to 0.5km: major-moderate significance (adverse)







Residual Impact

Suffolk Heritage Coast Onshore and offshore

Onshore (year 1)

Between Sandy Lane and trees west of Sizewell beach car park: Moderate significance (adverse)



See Chapter 20 Onshore (year 15)

Fields east/ south-east of substation: Moderate-minor significance (adverse)

Effects beyond will reduce rapidly


Alde-Ore Estuary SPA Offshore No likely significant effect (see evidence provided in HRA Report)

N/A N/A

Sizewell Rigs CWS Offshore Negligible N/A Negligible

All other sites of relevance to the onshore and offshore works


No impact / no likely significant effect N/A N/A


Dog whelk, flat oyster, cod, thornback ray, harbour porpoise, Sabellaria spinulosa reefs

Offshore Negligible N/A Negligible

Black-legged kittiwake Offshore Negligible – minor adverse See Chapter 11 Negligible – minor adverse

Allis shad, European eel, spotted ray, sea lamprey, salmon, spurdog

Offshore Minor adverse See Chapter 13 Minor adverse

Decommissioning phase

All designated sites and species of relevance to

Onshore and Impacts during decommissioning will be no more significant than those detailed during construction. Where noise impacts represent a primary source of potential adverse impact (i.e. marine





Residual Impact

offshore and onshore decommissioning

offshore mammals/fish), the impact significance is likely to be reduced as a result of there being no piling required during decommissioning.



8.13 References

Barnes, M (2008). Lamna nasus. Porbeagle shark. Marine Life Information Network: Biology and Sensitivity Key Information Sub-programme [on-line]. Plymouth: Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom. [cited 19/09/2011]. Available from: <http://www.marlin.ac.uk/speciesinformation.php?speciesID=3617> Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) (2011) Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1) (June 2011) Greater Gabbard Offshore Winds Ltd (GGOWL) (2005) Environmental statement, October 2005 IPC (2010). Scoping Opinion Proposed Galloper Wind Farm Project. August 2010 Jackson, A and Wilding, C (2009). Ostrea edulis. Native oyster. Marine Life Information Network: Biology and Sensitivity Key Information Sub-programme [on-line]. Plymouth: Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom. [cited 19/09/2011]. Available from: <http://www.marlin.ac.uk/speciesfullreview.php?speciesID=3997> Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) (2008). Progress towards completing the UK network of marine Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) for Annex I Habitats and site proposals for Hatton Bank and Bassurelle Bank. December 2008 Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) (2009a). Information Sheet on Ramsar Wetlands (RIS). Minsmere-Walberswick. Available at URL: http://www.jncc.gov.uk/pdf/RIS/UK11044.pdf. Accessed 07/07/2011 Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) (2009b). Information Sheet on Ramsar Wetlands (RIS).Ore-Alde Estuary. Available at URL: http://www.jncc.gov.uk/pdf/RIS/UK11002.pdf. Accessed 07/07/2011 Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) (2009c). Natura 2000 Standard Data Form. Minsmere-Walberswick . Available at URL: http://www.jncc.gov.uk/pdf/SPA/UK9009101.pdf. Accessed 07/07/2011 Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) (2009d). Natura 2000 Standard Data Form. The Sandlings. Available at URL: http://www.jncc.gov.uk/pdf/SPA/UK9020286.pdf Accessed 07/07/2011. Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) (2009e). Natura 2000 Standard Data Form. Alde-Ore Estuary. Available at URL: http://www.jncc.gov.uk/pdf/SPA/UK9009112.pdf. Accessed 07/07/2011



Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) (2009f). Natura 2000 Standard Data Form: Alde, Ore and Butley Estuaries Available at URL: http://www.jncc.gov.uk/ProtectedSites/SACselection/n2kforms/UK0030076.pdf Accessed 07/07/2011 Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) (2009g). Natura 2000 Standard Data Form. Essex Estuaries. Available at URL: http://www.jncc.gov.uk/ProtectedSites/SACselection/n2kforms/UK0013690.pdf. Accessed 07/07/2011 Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) (2009h). Natura 2000 Standard Data Form. Minsmere to Walberswick Heaths and Marshes. Available at URL: http://www.jncc.gov.uk/ProtectedSites/SACselection/n2kforms/UK0012809.pdf. Accessed 07/07/2011 Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) (2009i). Natura 2000 Standard Data Form. Orfordness – Shingle Street. Available at URL: http://www.jncc.gov.uk/ProtectedSites/SACselection/n2kforms/UK0014780.pdf. Accessed 07/07/2011 Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) (2009j). Completion of the UK Network of SAC for Marine Habitats. Available at URL: http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-3053. Accessed 07/07/2011 Joint Nature Conservation Committee and Natural England (2011). General advice on assessing potential impacts of and mitigation for human activities on MCZ features, using existing regulation and legislation. Advice from the JNCC and Natural England to the Regional MCZ Projects. June 2011 Natural England (2009a). Departmental Brief: Outer Thames Estuary Potential Special Protection Area, July 2009 Natural England (2009b). Sites of Special Scientific Interest. SSSI Information. Leiston-Aldeburgh. Available at URL: http://www.sssi.naturalengland.org.uk/citation/citation_photo/2000370.pdf Accessed 07/07/2011 Natural England (2009c). Sites of Special Scientific Interest. SSSI Information. Minsmere-Walberswick Heaths and Marshes. Available at URL: http://www.sssi.naturalengland.org.uk/citation/citation_photo/1000721.pdf. Accessed 07/07/2011 Natural England (2009d). Sites of Special Scientific Interest. SSSI Information. Sizewell Marshes SSSI. Available at URL: http://www.sssi.naturalengland.org.uk/citation/citation_photo/1003416.pdf Accessed 07/07/2011



Natural England (2009e). Benacre NNR. Available at URL: http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/conservation/designatedareas/nnr/1006015.aspx. Accessed 07/07/2011 Natural England (2009f) Orfordness-Havergate NNR. Available at URL: http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/conservation/designatedareas/nnr/1006116.aspx. Accessed 07/07/2011 Natural England (2009g). Hamford Water NNR. Available at URL: http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/conservation/designatedareas/nnr/1006070.aspx. Accessed 07/07/2011 Natural England (2009h). Designated Areas. Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Suffolk Coast AONB. Available at URL: http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/conservation/designatedareas/aonb/suffolk.aspx . Accessed 07/07/2011 Natural England (2009i). Designated Areas. Heritage Coasts. Suffolk. Available at URL: http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/conservation/designatedareas/heritagecoasts/suffolk.aspx . Accessed 07/07/2011 Natural England (2010). Inshore Special Area of Conservation (SAC): Margate and Long Sands SAC Selection Assessment Version 2.5 Neish, A (2007). Hippocampus guttulatus. Long snouted seahorse. Marine Life Information Network: Biology and Sensitivity Key Information Sub-programme [on-line]. Plymouth: Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom. [cited 19/09/2011]. Available from: <http://www.marlin.ac.uk/speciesinformation.php?speciesID=3505> Net Gain (2011a). Progress report for the 3rd iteration. Submission to the science Advisory Panel. Available at www.netgainmcz.org. Accessed 10.03.11 Net Gain (2011b). Final draft recommendations to the Science Advisory Panel. Submission to the science Advisory Panel. Available at http://www.netgainmcz.org/docs/110607%20SB%20MV%20draft%20final%20report.pdf Parvin S J and Nedwell J R. (2006). Underwater noise survey during impact piling to construct the Barrow Offshore Wind Farm. COWRIE Project ACO-04-2002 Reeds, K (2004). Dermochelys coriacea. Leatherback turtle. Marine Life Information Network: Biology and Sensitivity Key Information Sub-programme [on-line]. Plymouth: Marine Biological Association of the United



Kingdom. [cited 19/09/2011]. Available from: <http://www.marlin.ac.uk/speciesinformation.php?speciesID=3137> Sabatini, M and Ballerstedt, S (2007). Hippocampus hippocampus. Short snouted seahorse. Marine Life Information Network: Biology and Sensitivity Key Information Sub-programme [on-line]. Plymouth: Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom. [cited 19/09/2011]. Available from: <http://www.marlin.ac.uk/speciesfullreview.php?speciesID=3506> Sabatini, M., Pizzolla, P. and Wilding, C (2008). Arctica islandica. Icelandic cyprine. Marine Life Information Network: Biology and Sensitivity Key Information Sub-programme [on-line]. Plymouth: Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom. [cited 19/09/2011]. Available from: <http://www.marlin.ac.uk/speciesinformation.php?speciesID=2588> Suffolk County Council (2010) County Wildlife Sites and Roadside Nature Reserves, source: Suffolk Biological Records Centre, 2008. Available at URL: http://www.suffolk.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/931D5069-797C-48D2-9D88-007CEC671166/0/PickEverardSite29App4.pdf Accessed 07/07/2011 SSER and RWE NRL (2010). Scoping Report for the Galloper Wind Farm project. The Crown Estate, (2010). A guide to an Offshore Wind Farm. Wilding, C and Pizzolla, P (2009). Cetorhinus maximus. Basking shark. Marine Life Information Network: Biology and Sensitivity Key Information Sub-programme [on-line]. Plymouth: Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom. [cited 19/09/2011]. Available from: <http://www.marlin.ac.uk/speciesfullreview.php?speciesID=2940>

Date post:	22-Mar-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	5 times
Download:	0 times

Galloper Wind Farm Project · Galloper Wind Farm Project Environmental Statement – Chapter 8:...

Documents