1 THE PLANNING ACT 2008 THE INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING (EXAMINATION PROCEDURE) RULES 2010 DOGGER BANK – DOGGER BANK TEESSIDE A & B APPLICATION Written Representations of Natural England RWE npower renewables, SSE plc., Statoil Ltd., and Statkraft Ltd. for: The construction and operation of Dogger Bank Teesside A & B Offshore Wind Farm situated between 125 km and 290 km off the UK North East coast Planning Inspectorate Reference: EN010051 WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS OF NATURAL ENGLAND Dated 3 rd September 2014
Transcript
1
THE PLANNING ACT 2008
THE INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING (EXAMINATION PROCEDURE)
RULES 2010
DOGGER BANK – DOGGER BANK TEESSIDE A & B APPLICATION
Written Representations of Natural England
RWE npower renewables, SSE plc., Statoil Ltd., and Statkraft Ltd.
for:
The construction and operation of Dogger Bank Teesside A & B
Offshore Wind Farm situated between 125 km and 290 km off the UK
4.1. European Commission guidance and national policy ....................................................... 19 4.2. European Commission guidance on European sites: ....................................................... 19 4.3. UK policy on European sites and SSSIs: ............................................................................ 19
5. CONSERVATION DESIGNATIONS, FEATURES AND INTERESTS THAT COULD BE
AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT ........................................................................ 20
International conservation designations .......................................................................................... 20 5.2. Special Protection Areas ....................................................................................................... 20 5.3. Special Areas of Conservation ............................................................................................. 22 5.4. Sites of Special Scientific Interest ....................................................................................... 24 5.5. Marine Conservation Zones .................................................................................................. 32 Protected Species ............................................................................................................................... 34 5.6. European Protected Species (EPS) ...................................................................................... 34 5.7. Nationally Protected Species (NPS) ..................................................................................... 35
6. NATURAL ENGLAND'S CONCERNS AND ADVICE ................................................... 37
6.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 37 6.2. The principal issues ............................................................................................................... 37 6.3. Progress since Relevant Representation ............................................................................ 38 6.4. Overview ................................................................................................................................. 38 6.5. A. Principal issues in relation to ornithology ..................................................................... 38 6.6. B. Principal issues in relation to non-ornithological issues ............................................. 49
Annex A: Designated site maps ........................................................................................................ 55 Annex B: Designated site citations ................................................................................................... 57 Annex C: Documentation submitted by the Applicant to Natural England post submission of
the Relevant Representation ................................................................................................ 59 Annex D: Natural England’s Site Integrity Position Statement ...................................................... 62 Annex E: Expert Report on offshore ornithology ............................................................................ 73
3
Annex F: Schedule of NE‘s responses to Examining Authority‘s initial questions. .................. 113 Annex G: The ExA’s First Written Questions: Natural England’s answer to 2.25. ..................... 142 Annex H: Summary of Relevant Representation ........................................................................... 149 Annex I: Summary of Written Representation ............................................................................... 154
4
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Purpose and structure of these representations
1.1.1. These Written Representations are submitted in pursuance of rule 10(1) of the Infrastructure Planning (Examination Procedure) Rules 2010 (‘ExPR’) in relation to an application under the Planning Act 2008 for a Development Consent Order (‘DCO’) for the construction and operation of an offshore wind farm called Dogger Bank Teesside A & B and associated infrastructure (‘the Project’) submitted by Forewind, a consortium comprising RWE npower renewables, SSE plc., Statoil Ltd. and Statkraft Ltd., (‘the Applicant’) to the Secretary of State. The wind turbines (“the Array”) is situated in the North Sea between 125 km and 290 km from the nearest point to land; with the export cables achieving landfall along the Dogger Bank Teesside Coastline, between Redcar and Marske-by-the-Sea. The grid connection is at the existing Lackenby substation, near Eston. The offshore wind farm will be used for the generation of electricity.
1.1.2. Natural England has already provided a summary of its principal concerns in its Relevant Representations, submitted to the Planning Inspectorate on 12th June 2014. This document comprises a detailed statement of Natural England‘s views, as they have developed in view of the common ground discussions that have taken place with the Applicant to date. These are structured as follows:
a. Section 2 introduces the status and functions of Natural England.
b. Section 3 is an account of the legislative framework.
c. Section 4 is an account of the policy framework.
d. Section 5 describes the statutory nature conservation and landscape
designations, features and interests that may be affected by the Project
and need to be considered.
e. Section 6 comprises Natural England’s submissions in respect of the
issues that concern it. This submission cross-refers to, and is supported
by, the evidence contained in the Annexes.
f. Annex I provides a summary of Natural England’s case.
g. The Annexes contain evidence referred to in the main body of these
Representations.
1.1.3. In its letter of 11th August 2014 the Examining Authority asked the parties, including Natural England, a number of first written questions. The answers to those questions are contained within these Written Representations at Annex F.
5
2. STATUS AND FUNCTIONS OF NATURAL ENGLAND AND JNCC
2.1. Natural England
2.1.1. Natural England is a statutory body established under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 (‘NERC Act’). Natural England is the statutory advisor to Government on nature conservation in England and promotes the conservation of England‘s wildlife and natural features. It is financed by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (‘Defra’) but is a Non-Departmental Public Body, which forms its own views based on the best scientific evidence available.
2.1.2. Natural England works for people, places and nature, to enhance biodiversity, landscapes and wildlife in rural, urban, coastal and marine areas; promoting access, recreation and public well-being, and contributing to the way natural resources are managed so that they can be enjoyed now and by future generations.
2.1.3. Section 2 of the NERC Act provides that Natural England‘s general statutory purpose is:
‘… to ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced and
managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby
contributing to sustainable development.’
2.1.4. Section 2(2) states that Natural England‘s general purpose includes
a. promoting nature conservation and protecting biodiversity;
b. conserving and enhancing the landscape;
c. securing the provision and improvement of facilities for the study,
understanding and enjoyment of the natural environment;
d. promoting access to the countryside and open spaces and encouraging
open-air recreation; and
e. contributing, in other ways, to social and economic well-being through
management of the natural environment.
2.1.5. Natural England is required to keep under review all matters relating to its general purpose,1 and to provide public authorities with advice where they request this.2 Natural England’s remit extends to the territorial sea adjacent to England, up to the 12 nautical mile limit from the coastline.3
2.1.6. Natural England is a statutory consultee in respect of (amongst other matters):
a. all applications for consent for Nationally Significant Infrastructure
Projects which are likely to affect land in England;4 and
1 NERC Act, s.3(1).
2 NERC Act, s.4(1).
3 NERC Act, s.1(3).
4Planning Act s.42; Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure)
Regulations 2009, reg. 3 and sched.1.
6
b. the environmental information submitted pursuant to the Infrastructure
(‘Offshore Regs’) which are likely to have a significant effect on European
protected sites – that is, sites designated as Special Areas of
Conservation (‘SACs’) (and candidate SACs (‘cSACs’))6 and Special
Protection Areas (‘SPAs’) and potential SPAs (‘pSPAs’)7 for the purposes
of the EU Habitats and Birds Directives – in England;8
d. proposals likely to damage any of the flora, fauna or geological or
physiographical features for which a Site of Special Scientific Interest
(‘SSSI’) has been notified pursuant to the Wildlife and Countryside Act
1981 (as amended) (‘WCA 1981’);9
e. proposals relating to the English territorial sea capable of affecting, other
than insignificantly, any of the protected features of a Marine
Conservation Zone (‘MCZ’) or any ecological or geomorphological
process on which the conservation of any protected feature of an MCZ is
(wholly or in part) dependent, where the Examining Authority believes that
there is or may be a significant risk of the act hindering the achievement
of the conservation objectives stated for the MCZ.10
5 Regs. 2(1), 8(6), 9(1), 13(2)(b), 17(3)(g), 18(3)(f), 19(3)(e) of the EIA Regs.
6 As a matter of law cSACs are protected as they are included within the definition of ‘European site’
set out at regulation 8 of the Habitats Regs. A cSAC is the term given to sites which Member States
have decided are Sites of Community Importance (‘SCI’) within their borders containing either species
prescribed in Annex II of the Habitats Directive or which have Annex I habitat types. Sites containing
priority habitats or species must be listed as SCIs and then designated as SACs. These sites are
known as cSACs until such time as those sites are confirmed as SACs or a decision is taken that they
should not be SACs.
7 As a matter of policy, the Government expects public authorities to treat pSPAs as if they are fully
designated European Sites, for the purpose of considering development proposals that may affect
them. National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012), para 118; PINS Advice Note 10: Habitats
Regulation Assessment for nationally significant infrastructure projects, p.4.
8 Regulation 61 of the Habitats Regs; regulations 24(1) and (3) and 25(3)(b) of the Offshore Regs.
9 Section 28I of the 1981 Act.
10 Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, ss.126(2) and 147(1). The first MCZs are anticipated to be
designated in the course of 2013. It is submitted that where an expanse of sea is under consideration
for designation as an MCZ this is a material consideration.
7
2.1.7. It is also the Government’s policy to consult Natural England in respect of sites listed for the purposes of the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat signed at Ramsar on 2 February 1971 (‘Ramsar sites’), as if they were European protected sites.11
2.1.8. In addition, Natural England performs duties relating to SSSIs under the WCA 1981, and in relation to European protected sites and species under the Habitats Regulations.
2.2. Authorisation to delegate
2.2.1. The Examination Authority should note that pursuant to an authorisation made on the 9th December 2013 by the JNCC under paragraph 17(c) of Schedule 4 to the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, Natural England is authorised to exercise the JNCC’s functions as a statutory consultee in respect of applications for offshore renewable energy installations in offshore waters (0-200nm) adjacent to England. This application was included in that authorisation and therefore Natural England will be providing statutory advice in respect of that delegated authority. However, JNCC retains responsibility as the statutory advisors for European Protected sites that are located outside the territorial sea and UK internal waters (i.e. more than 12 nautical miles offshore), in this instance the Dogger Bank SCI and as such continues to provide advice to Natural England on the significance of any potential impacts on interest features of the site.
11 National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012), para 118; PINS Advice Note 10: Habitats
Regulation Assessment for nationally significant infrastructure projects, p.4.
8
3. LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
3.1. Environmental Impact Assessment
3.1.1. The Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 (‘EIA Regs’) transposed Council Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (as amended). That directive and its amending instruments have since been repealed and replaced by consolidated Council Directive 2011/92/EU (‘the EIAD’). Development consent cannot lawfully be granted for EIA development unless there has been substantial compliance with the EIA Regs.12
3.1.2. The descriptions in the schedules apply broadly, and are not to be interpreted as mutually exclusive ‘pigeonholes’.13 In assessing whether a development is likely to have a significant effect on the environment, the Planning Inspectorate must have regard to criteria in Schedule 3 of the EIA Regs.14
3.1.3. Where the Examining Authority is considering adopting a scoping opinion in which it specifies what information should be required in the environmental statement, it must consult Natural England in respect of proposed applications likely to affect land in England and the marine environment.15.
3.1.4. The environmental statement must meet the requirements of Schedule 4 to the EIA Regulations. These include providing:
a. an outline of the main alternatives studied by the Applicant and an
indication of the main reasons for the Applicant's choice, taking into
account the environmental effects;
b. a description of the development, its construction and operation phases,
its production processes, and an estimate by type and quantity of its
emissions and residues;
c. a description of the aspects of the environment likely to be significantly
affected by the development including air, water, soil, fauna and flora, and
landscape;
d. a description of the likely significant effects of the development on the
environment, including direct, indirect, secondary, cumulative, long- and
short-term, temporary and permanent effects;
12 Berkeley v SSE [2001] 2 AC 603, HL which also concerned the materially identical Town and
Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999..
13 R(Warley) v Wealden DC [2011] EWHC 2083 (Admin) at [41]-[44] and [63]-[64] per Singh J, in
relation to the materially identical Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment)
(England and Wales) Regulations 1999.
14 EIA Regs, reg 7(1).
15 Regulation 8(6) of the EIA Regs.
9
e. a description of the measures envisaged in order to prevent/avoid,
reduce and remedy/offset the significant adverse effects on the
environment;
f. the data required to identify and assess the main effects which the
development is likely to have on the environment.
3.1.5. Regulation 3(2) of the EIA Regs provides that a DCO must not be made unless environmental information has been taken into consideration. ‘Environmental information’ means the required environmental statement, including any further information requested, any other relevant information, and any duly made representations made about the environmental effects of the development and of any associated development.16 The environmental statement must meet the required standard before consent may be granted.17 Consideration of the environmental information must be done conscientiously. Where the development qualifies as EIA Development consent will be unlawful if the decision ignores issues relating to the significance of environmental impacts or the effectiveness of mitigation.18
3.2. Duty to conserve biodiversity
3.2.1. Section 40 of the NERC Act imposes a ‘duty to conserve biodiversity’ on public authorities, including members of the Examining Authority and the Secretary of State. In pursuance of this, section 40(1) states:
‘Every public authority must, in exercising its functions, have regard, so far as
is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions, to the purpose of
conserving biodiversity.’
3.2.2. For the purposes of the NERC Act, conservation includes restoring or enhancing a habitat or population of organisms.19 The Secretary of State must in particular have regard to the Convention on Biological Diversity when performing his duty.20
3.2.3. Section 41 of the NERC Act requires the Secretary of State to publish a list of the living organisms and types of habitat which in the Secretary of State's opinion are of principal importance for the purpose of conserving biodiversity in England. Section 41(3) states:
‘the Secretary of State must–
(a) take such steps as appear to the Secretary of State to be reasonably practicable to further the conservation of the living organisms and types of habitat included in any list published under this section, or
(b) promote the taking by others of such steps.’
16 EIA Regs, reg. 2(1).
17 R v Cornwall CC, ex p Hardy [2001] Env LR 25.
18 Smith v SSETR [2003] EWCA Civ 262.
19 NERC Act, s.40(3).
20 NERC Act, s.40(2).
10
3.3. European Sites
3.3.1. The Secretary of State and the individual members of the Examining Authority are each a ‘competent authority’ for the purposes of the Habitats Regulations, with a duty to have regard to the requirements of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (‘the Habitats Directive’) and Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the conservation of wild birds (‘Wild Birds Directive’).21 So far as lies within their powers, a competent authority in exercising any function in or in relation to the United Kingdom must use all reasonable endeavours to avoid any pollution or deterioration of habitats of wild birds.22
3.3.2. The Secretary of State is also the ‘appropriate authority’ for the purposes of the Habitats Regulations.23 He must accordingly exercise his functions which are relevant to nature conservation so as to secure compliance with the requirements of the Habitats Directive and Wild Birds Directive.24 He must furthermore take such steps as he considers appropriate to secure the objective of the preservation, maintenance and re-establishment of a sufficient diversity and area of habitat for wild birds in the United Kingdom, including by means of the upkeep, management and creation of such habitat, as appropriate, having regard to the requirements of article 2 of the Wild Birds Directive.25
3.3.3. The Wild Birds Directive applies to all species of naturally occurring birds in the wild state in the European territory of the UK, including their nests, eggs and habitats.26 Article 2 of the Wild Birds Directive requires populations of wild birds to be maintained ‘at a level which corresponds in particular to ecological, scientific and cultural requirements, while taking account of economic and recreational requirements’.27 Article 3 requires Member States, in the light of Article 2, to ‘take the requisite measures to preserve, maintain or re-establish a sufficient diversity and area of habitats’. Article 5 requires Member States to take the requisite measures to establish a general system of protection for all their wild birds, prohibiting the deliberate killing or capture, deliberate destruction or removal of nests and eggs, and deliberate disturbance of the birds insofar as this is significant having regard to the objectives of the Directive. Article 4 requires SPAs to be established in respect of particular species, in order to ensure the survival and reproduction of these species in their area of distribution. In respect of SPAs, Article 4 requires that the Member States ‘shall take appropriate steps to avoid pollution or deterioration of habitats or any disturbances affecting the birds, in so far as these would be significant having regard to the objectives of this Article’. It requires that ‘[o]utside these protection areas, Member States shall also strive to
21 Habitats Regs, regs 7(1)(a), 3(1), and 9(3). Directive 2009/147/EC has replaced Council
Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds.
22 Habitats Regs, reg.9A(8).
23 Habitats Regs, reg.3(1).
24 Habitats Regulations, reg. 9(1) and (2).
25 Habitats Regs, reg 9A(1), (3)
26 Wild Birds Directive, art.1.
27 Wild Birds Directive, article 2.
11
avoid pollution or deterioration of habitats.’ Article 13 provides that application of measures taken pursuant to the Directive may not lead to a deterioration in the present situation as regards the conservation of wild birds.
3.3.4. The Habitats Directive aims to contribute towards ensuring biodiversity through the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. It provides that measures taken pursuant to the Directive shall be designed to maintain or restore, at favourable conservation status, natural habitats and species of wild fauna and flora of community interest.28 Member States, in consultation with the European Commission, must select and designate areas for protection as SACs pursuant to articles 3 and 4 of the Habitats Directive. Together with SPAs, these sites make up the Natura 2000 ecological network, which is supposed to be a coherent ecological European network that enables ‘the natural habitat types and the species' habitats concerned to be maintained or, where appropriate, restored at a favourable conservation status in their natural range’.29
3.3.5. Article 6 of the Habitats Directive applies both to SACs and to SPAs.30 Article 6(2) requires that Member States shall take appropriate steps to avoid, in the European sites, the deterioration of natural habitats and the habitats of species as well as disturbance of the species for which the areas have been designated, in so far as such disturbance could be significant in relation to the objectives of the Habitats Directive. Article 6(3) requires that any project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the European site but likely to have a significant effect thereon, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects, shall be subject to appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in view of the site's conservation objectives. In the light of the conclusions of the assessment of the implications for the site the competent national authorities shall agree to the project only after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned, unless it meets the enumerated criteria for derogation.
3.3.6. If an adverse effect on the integrity of the site cannot be ruled out, then the effect of Article 6(4) is that the project may only be carried out where (i) there are no alternative solutions, (ii) it must go ahead for imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including reasons of a social or economic nature; and (iii) all compensatory measures necessary to protect the overall coherence of the Natura 2000 network are taken. Where the site concerned hosts a priority natural habitat type and/or a priority species, the only considerations which may be raised as ‘imperative reasons of overriding public importance’ are those relating to human health or public safety, to beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment or such other matters contained in an opinion of the European Commission.31
28 Habitats Directive, art.2.
29 Habitats Directive, art.3(1).
30 Habitats Directive, art. 6 applies to SACs and art.7 applies it to SPAs designated under the Wild
Birds Directive.
31 Regulations 62 and 66 of the Habitats Regulations, transposing Article 6(4) of the Habitats
Directive.
12
3.3.7. SACs and SPAs are protected as European sites in inshore waters off England (up to 12 nautical miles) by the Habitats Regs and in offshore waters (i.e. outside 12 nautical miles) by the Offshore Regs, which transpose the relevant parts of the Habitats Directive into domestic law. The provisions of Article 6 of the Habitats Directive which are noted above are found at regulations 61, 62 and 66 of the Habitats Regs and regulations 25, 26 and 30 of the Offshore Regs. In determining these applications, the Secretary of State will be acting as a competent authority for the purposes of those Regulations.
3.3.8. The Regulations describe a sequence of steps to be taken by the competent authority in respect of a European site when deciding whether to authorise a project. Those steps are:
Step 1 Consider whether the project is directly connected with or
necessary to the management of the site?32 If not—
Step 2 Consider33 whether the project is likely to have a significant effect
on the site, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects. If
such an effect cannot be excluded –
Step 3 Make an appropriate assessment of the implications for the site in
view of its current conservation objectives.34 In so doing, it is mandatory to
consult Natural England35 and have regard to its representations, and
optional to obtain the opinion of the general public.36 The competent
authority is empowered to require the Applicant to provide information for
the purposes of the appropriate assessment, or to enable the authority to
determine whether such an assessment is required.37
Step 4 Consider38 whether the project will adversely affect the integrity of
the site, having regard to the manner in which it is proposed to be carried
out, and any conditions or restrictions subject to which that authorisation
might be given (the ‘Integrity Test’).
Step 5 Reject the project, unless it is ascertained that the project will not
adversely affect the integrity of the site.39
32 Under regulation 61(1)(b) of the Habitats Regs or reg. 25(1)(c) of the Offshore Regs.
33 Under regulation 61(1)(a) of the Habitats Regs or reg.25(1)(b) of the Offshore Regs.
34 Under regulations 61(1) of the Habitats Regs.or 25(1) of the Offshore Regs.
35 under regulations 61(3) of the Habitats Regs or 25(3)(b) of the Offshore Regs.
36 under regulation 61(4) of the Habitats Regs or 25(3)(f) of the Offshore Regs.
37 By regulation 61(2) of the Habitats Regs or 25(2) of the Offshore Regs.
38 Pursuant to regulation 61(5) and (6) of the Habitats Regs or 25(4) and (5) of the Offshore Regs.
39 Applying regulation 61(5) of the Habitats Regs, subject to regulation 62, or reg 25(4) of the Offshore
Regs subject to reg.26.
13
Step 6 If the project fails the Integrity Test in respect of the site, consider,
whether one is satisfied that there is no alternative solution.40 If not so
satisfied, reject the project; but if so satisfied, proceed to steps 7 and 8.
Step 7 Consider whether one is satisfied that the project must be carried
out for imperative reasons of overriding public interest.41 If not, reject the
application. If so, proceed to Step 8.
Step 8 Consider whether one can secure that compensatory measures
are taken which would be necessary to secure that the overall coherence
of Natura 2000 is protected. If not, reject the application; if so, accept the
application subject to requirements securing that the necessary
compensatory measures will be implemented in the appropriate
timeframe.42
3.3.9. The Directives are both to be construed purposively in the light of Article 191 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’). Article 191(1) TFEU provides that ‘Union policy on the environment shall contribute to the pursuit of the…objectives [of] preserving, protecting and improving the quality of the environment’; and Article 191(2) provides that Union policy on the environment shall aim at a high level of protection, and shall be based on the precautionary principle and on the principle that preventive action should be taken.
3.3.10. The case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union has established the following points:
a. Articles 6(2) and 6(3) are aimed at achieving the same level of protection.
The Habitats Directive therefore requires that Member States take
systematic and effective measures pursuant to Article 6(3) which
guarantee the avoidance in fact of significant deterioration of the habitats
or disturbance of the species for which SPAs and SACs have been
designated.43
b. ‘Article 6(3) of [the] Directive makes the requirement for an appropriate
assessment of the implications of a plan or project conditional on there
being a probability or a risk that that plan or project will have a significant
effect on the site concerned. In the light, in particular, of the
precautionary principle, such a risk exists if it cannot be excluded on the
basis of objective information that the plan or project will have a
significant effect on the site concerned... It follows that the Habitats
Directive requires that any plan or project undergo an appropriate
40 in accordance with regulation 62(1) of the Habitats Regs or 26(1) of the Offshore Regs.
41 in accordance with regulation 62(1) of the Habitats Regs or 26(1) of the Offshore Regs.
42 As required by regulation 66 of the Habitats Regs or 30 of the Offshore Regs.
43 CJEU, Case C-241/08 Commission v France at paras 30-36; Case C-535/07 Commission v Austria
at paras 57-58.
14
assessment of its implications if it cannot be excluded on the basis of
objective information that that plan or project will have a significant effect
on the site concerned’.44
c. Under Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive, ‘an appropriate assessment of
the implications for the site concerned of the plan or project implies that,
prior to its approval, all aspects of the plan or project which can, by
themselves or in combination with other plans or projects, affect the site’s
conservation objectives must be identified in the light of the best scientific
knowledge in the field’.45
d. ‘An assessment made under Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive cannot
be regarded as appropriate if it contains gaps and lacks complete, precise
and definitive findings and conclusions capable of removing all
reasonable scientific doubt as to the effects of the works proposed on the
SPA concerned’.46
e. In the context of priority habitats within SACs, ‘a plan or project not
directly connected with or necessary to the management of a site will
adversely affect the integrity of that site if it is liable to prevent the lasting
preservation of the constitutive characteristics of the site that are
connected to the presence of a priority natural habitat whose conservation
was the objective justifying the designation of the site in the list of SCIs, in
accordance with the directive. The precautionary principle should be
applied for the purposes of that appraisal’.47
3.4. Ramsar Convention
3.4.1. The UK is a party to the 1971 Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, done at Ramsar, Iran (‘the Ramsar Convention’).
3.4.2. Article 2(1) of the Convention provides that ‘Each Contracting Party shall designate suitable wetlands within its territory for inclusion in a List of Wetlands of International Importance’.
3.4.3. Article 4 of the Convention provides:
a. Each Contracting Party shall promote the conservation of wetlands and
waterfowl by establishing nature reserves on wetlands, whether they are
included in the List or not, and provide adequately for their wardening.
44 CJEU Case C-418/04 Commission v Ireland at paras 226 to 227; Case C-127/02, Landelijke
Vereniging tot Behoud van de Waddenzee v Staatsecretaris van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij at paras 43-45 45
CJEU Case C-127/02 Waddenzee at para 61.
46 CJEU Case C-404/09 Commission v Spain at para 100; cf case C-304/05 Commission v Italy
[2007] ECR I-7495, paras 58-59, 67-70.
47 CJEU Case C-258/11 Peter Sweetman and Others v An Bord Pleanála [2013] ECR-000, para 48.
15
b. Where a Contracting Party in its urgent national interest, deletes or
restricts the boundaries of a wetland included in the List, it should as far
as possible compensate for any loss of wetland resources, and in
particular it should create additional nature reserves for waterfowl and for
the protection, either in the same area or elsewhere, of an adequate
portion of the original habitat.
c. The Contracting Parties shall encourage research and the exchange of
data and publications regarding wetlands and their flora and fauna.
d. The Contracting Parties shall endeavour through management to
increase waterfowl populations on appropriate wetlands.’
3.4.4. The Government designates Ramsar sites in accordance with the criteria set out in
the Convention, in recognition of the international importance of these sites as a
wetland wildlife habitat.
3.4.5. In accordance with Government Circular: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation
Statutory Obligations and their Impact within the Planning System (ODPM
06/2005), and the National Planning Policy Framework (2012), paragraph 118,
Ramsar sites are subject to the same procedures described in the preceding
section (in relation to European sites) as a matter of UK Government Policy, in
order to assist the Government in fully meeting its obligations under the Ramsar
Convention.
3.5. Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs)
3.5.1. SSSIs are designated as such by Natural England under section 28 of the WCA 1981, where we are of the opinion that land is of special interest by reason of any of its flora, fauna, or geological or physiographical features.
3.5.2. Section 28G of the WCA 1981 places legal obligations on public authorities in relation to SSSIs. These authorities are known as ‘section 28G authorities’, and the definition given at s.28G(3) embraces all public office-holders including the Secretary of State and the Examining Authority.
3.5.3. An authority to whom section 28G applies has a duty in exercising its functions so far as their exercise is likely to affect the flora, fauna or geological or physiographical features by reason of which a SSSI is of special interest to:
‘take reasonable steps, consistent with the proper exercise of the authority’s
functions, to further the conservation and enhancement of the flora, fauna or
geological or physiographical features by reason of which the site is of special
scientific interest.’
3.5.4. In addition, where the permission of a section 28G authority is needed before proposed operations may be carried out, the section 28G authority must, in accordance with section 28I(5) of the WCA 1981, take any advice received from Natural England into account:
(a) in deciding whether or not to permit the proposed operations; and
16
(b) if it does decide to do so, in deciding what (if any) conditions are to be
attached to the permission.
3.5.5. ‘Permission’ is defined so as to include any kind of consent or authorisation.48 As the Applicant requires development consent from the Secretary of State in order to proceed with its proposals, and as the Secretary of State is a section 28G authority, the duties under section 28I(5) apply to the Secretary of State.49
3.5.6. Section 35 of the WCA 1981 empowers Natural England to declare as a ‘National Nature Reserve’ (‘NNR’) any land which is managed as a nature reserve and is of national importance. There is no additional protection for these over and above SSSI, European or Ramsar site status.
3.6. European Protected Species
3.6.1. Regulation 9(5) of the Habitats Regs, headed ‘Exercise of functions in accordance with the Habitats Directive’, stipulates that:
‘a competent authority, in the exercising of any of their functions, must have
regard to the requirements of the Habitats Directive so far as they may be
affected by the exercise of those functions’.
The Examining Authority and Secretary of State are both ‘competent authorities’ by virtue of reg.7(1), which includes any person holding a public office.
3.6.2. In relation to species of animals and plants listed in Annex IV of the Habitats Directive, article 12 of the Directive provides that the UK must take the requisite measures to ensure that they are subject to a system of strict protection.
3.6.3. In relation to the animal species, the system must in particular prevent the deliberate capture or killing of specimens of these species in the wild; deliberate disturbance of these species; deliberate destruction or taking of eggs from the wild; and deterioration or destruction of breeding sites or resting places. Disturbance or destruction may be indirect, for instance through noise or light pollution, or loss of habitat.50
3.6.4. The plant species must be protected in particular from deliberate picking, collecting, cutting, uprooting or destruction in their natural range in the wild.
3.6.5. Article 16 of the Habitats Directive provides that this strict protection may be derogated from only where (i) there is no satisfactory alternative, (ii) the derogation is not detrimental to the maintenance of the populations of the species concerned
48 WCA 1981, s.28I(7).
49 Natural England accepts that the notice requirements of section 28I(2) to (4) have been satisfied for
the purposes of the Secretary of State’s determination of the planning applications at issue here.
50 CJEU Case C-103/00, Commission v Greece, judgment para 34 and Opinion of Léger AG delivered
on 25 October 2001, paras 46, 56 and 57; R(Morge) v Hampshire CC [2010] EWCA Civ 608 at [49].
[2011] UKSC 2 at [19].
17
at a favourable conservation status in their natural range, and (iii) the purpose is (a) protecting wild fauna and flora and conserving natural habitats; (b) preventing serious damage to crops, livestock, forests, fisheries and water and other types of property; (c) public health and safety, or for other imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment; (d) research, education, and repopulating and re-introducing these species; or (e) to allow, under strictly supervised conditions, on a selective basis and to a limited extent, the taking or keeping of certain specimens of the species listed in Annex IV in limited numbers specified by the competent national authorities.
3.6.6. Regulation 41 of the Habitats Regs and the provisions of the WCA 1981 make it a criminal offence to engage in the behaviour prohibited by the Habitats Directive. However, prohibitions enforced by penalties for infractions are not in themselves adequate to implement the Directive if they will not prevent significant destruction or disturbance taking place in fact: ‘such protection requires that individuals be prevented in advance from engaging in potentially harmful activities’.51
3.6.7. The Court of Justice of the European Union has accordingly ruled that Member States must not only adopt a comprehensive legislative framework but also to implement concrete and specific protection measures that are coherent, co-ordinated and preventive in nature.52 Such a system of strict protection must enable the effective avoidance of deterioration or destruction of breeding sites or resting places caused by development.53 Strict protection must be enforced even if the population of the species is not declining.54
3.6.8. The Secretary of State should follow the guidance in paragraphs 99 and 116 of Circular 06/2005, and take care to ensure that any disturbance of protected species, including harm to their habitats, food-sources, resting-places or breeding sites, is avoided unless he considers that the derogation criteria are likely to be met, in which case he should require any necessary licence to be obtained before development commences.55
51 CJEU, Case C-418/04 Commission v Ireland at para 208.
52 CJEU Case C-183/05, Commission v Ireland, paras 29-30.
53 CJEU Case C-383/09 Commission v France, opinion of Advocate-General Kokott at para 89;
judgment at paras 21, 35, 37.
54 CJEU Case C-103/00 Commission v Greece para 31; CJEU Case C-518/04 Commission v Greece,
para 21.
55 That was the approach endorsed by the High Court in R(Woolley) v East Cheshire DC [2010] Env.
L.R. 5 at [27]-[28]. In Morge v Hampshire CC, the Supreme Court appears to have thought that it
would not be unlawful to grant permission for a development unconditionally, unless it were thought
unlikely that the criteria would be met. This was on the premise that it was sufficient for the prohibited
conduct to be subject to criminal penalties if no species licence were obtained. However, the CJEU
authorities cited above - which the Supreme Court did not consider in that case – make it clear that a
preventive approach must be taken by the planning authority. It would be unsafe for the Secretary of
18
3.7. Nationally Protected Species
3.7.1. Certain birds, other animals and plants which are listed in the schedules to the WCA 1981 are protected from disturbance, injury and capture or taking by the provisions of Part 1 that Act, which makes it a criminal offence to disturb, injure, capture or take them.
3.7.2. Under section 16 of the WCA 1981, licences may be issued to authorise these activities, provided that certain enumerated conditions are met. The enumerated conditions do not include derogation for the purpose of facilitating development, nor for general social or economic purposes.
3.7.3. Badgers and their setts are also protected under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992, which makes it illegal to kill, injure or take badgers or to interfere with a badger sett. There is provision within the legislation for Natural England to permit activities affecting badgers or their setts where there is suitable justification and the problem cannot be resolved by alternative means.
3.8. Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (‘AONBs’)
3.8.1. Section 85(1) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (‘CRWA 2000’) requires all persons holding public office, public bodies and Ministers of the Crown, when exercising or performing any functions so as to affect land in an AONB to ‘have regard to the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the area of outstanding natural beauty’. By section 92(2) of the CRWA 2000, this includes having regard for conserving its fauna, flora and geological and physiographical features.
State to grant consent without ensuring, so far as he can, that the requirements of the Directive would
be met.
19
4. POLICY FRAMEWORK
4.1. European Commission guidance and national policy
4.1.1. It should be noted that guidance and national policy documents are available which can assist when competent authorities are considering the legal steps set out above in respect of European sites and SSSIs. These documents include the following:
4.2. European Commission guidance on European sites:
a. Managing Natura 2000 sites: The provisions of Article 6 of the 'Habitats'
Directive 92/43/EEC (2000);
b. EC (2001) Assessment of plans and projects significantly affecting Natura
2000 sites: Methodological guidance on the provisions of Article 6 (3) and
(4) of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC (November 2001)
c. Guidance document on Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC
(2007);
d. The implementation of the Birds and Habitats Directives in estuaries and
coastal zones (2011)
e. Wind energy developments and Natura 2000 (October 2010)
f. Non-energy mineral extraction and Natura 2000 (July 2010)
g. Guidance document on the strict protection of animal species of
Community interest under the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC (final version
Feb 2007 )
4.3. UK policy on European sites and SSSIs:
a. Government Circular: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation –
Statutory Obligations and their Impact within the Planning System (ODPM
06/2005)
b. National Planning Policy Framework (2012) (particularly paragraphs 118
and 119).
4.3.2. Natural England‘s approach to assessing issues such as ‘integrity‘, ‘coherence‘, ‘deterioration‘, and ‘disturbance‘ is informed by the guidance provided in these documents. As these documents are overarching policy documents which are central and applicable to all such applications before the Examining Authority, it has not been thought necessary to include them as Annexes to these Written Representations. However, should the Examining Authority require copies of the policy documents referred to, these can be provided.
20
5. CONSERVATION DESIGNATIONS, FEATURES AND INTERESTS THAT
COULD BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5.1.1. The following is a brief summary of the interest features of the relevant designated areas of concern in this matter. Designation citations and maps are either provided as links (where available) or in Annex A and Annex B.
International conservation designations
5.2. Special Protection Areas
5.2.1. Farne Islands SPA
a. The Farne Islands SPA was first classified by the UK Government as an
SPA under the provisions of the Birds Directive in 1985. The SPA covers
101.8ha Northumberland.
b. The SPA is classified under Article 4.1 of the Birds Directive as it is used
regularly by 1% or more of the Great Britain populations of the following
5.5.3. Review of the SNCBs advice to Defra on rMCZs Prepared by the Independent Expert Review Group: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment data/file/69589/pb13812-sncb-advise-review.pdf
Protected Species
5.6. European Protected Species (EPS)
5.6.1. Harbour Porpoise (Phocoena phocoena)
a. The Harbour Porpoise is a small, highly mobile species of cetacean that is
common to all UK waters. Due to threats from pressures such as
incidental fisheries by-catch, the species has been assessed as under
threat / in decline in the Greater North Sea and Celtic Sea, resulting in its
recognition as a species of conservation importance under several
directives and conventions. This includes Annexes II and IV of the
Habitats Directive, Appendix II of the Bonn Convention and the UK
Biodiversity Action Plan. Protection under Annexes II and IV of the
Habitats Directive gives Harbour Porpoise the status of a European
marine protected species.
b. The Habitat Regulations (HR) for England and Wales (as amended) and
the Offshore Marine Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations
2007 (as amended) make it an offence to kill, injure or disturb European
marine protected species.
c. In the second UK report on implementation of the Habitats Directive, the
conservation status of Harbour Porpoise in UK waters was assessed as
35
favourable with medium confidence, and the species is expected to
survive and prosper under the current conservation approach.
5.6.2. Minke Whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata)
a. Minke Whales are part of the baleen whale family and reach lengths of up
to 10m. Their dark bodies are sleek with a white underside. They have a
wide range of distribution and can occur in occur in polar, temperate, and
tropical waters. In UK waters they are the smallest and most numerous of
the baleen whales. Prey species include crustaceans, plankton and small
schooling fish. Threats to Minke Whales include incidental by-catch and
underwater noise.
b. Minke Whales are protected under the EC Habitats Directive Annex IV, as
a species ‘of community interest in need of strict protection’ as well as
under Schedule 2 of the Conservation of Habitats Species Regulations
2010, which gives them the status of a European Protected Species.
They are furthermore protected under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and
a. White-beaked Dolphins are protected under the EC Habitats Directive
Annex IV, as a species ‘of community interest in need of strict protection’
as well as under Schedule 2 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species
Regulations 2010, which gives them the status of a European Protected
Species. They are furthermore protected under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife
and Countryside Act 1981.
b. White beaked dolphins are relatively small, reaching lengths of ca. 2.4-
3.2m, with a very small beak and white “lips”. Sexual maturity is reached
after 7-12 years. They are broadly distributed in temperate waters of the
North Atlantic where they feed on mesopelagic and schooling fish.
5.6.4. Any other EPS that has been identified as present within the zonal envelope by pre-construction surveys or from verified evidence provided by third parties.
5.7. Nationally Protected Species (NPS)
5.7.1. Nationally Protected Species includes all the species listed above under European Protected Species in addition to the following species:
5.7.2. Grey Seal (Halichoerus grypus)
a. Grey Seals are a long lived species feeding in the open sea mainly at
depths up to 100m on a variety of prey including sandeels, gadoids and
flatfish. They are known to cover long distances while foraging and
between haul out sites. They are larger than Harbour Seals. Pupping
along the East Coast of England occurs mainly between early November
to mid-December. There is clear evidence that, except for the central and
36
southern North Sea, the so far increasing population growth is levelling
off.
b. Grey Seals are protected under the EC Habitats directive, particularly
Annex II and V. Grey Seals therefore qualify as a species whose
conservation requires the designation of SAC’s’, and whose taking in the
wild and exploitation may be subject to management measures’. Grey
Seals are also protected under the Conservation of Habitats and Species
regulations 2010 Schedule 4, and the Conservation of Seals Act 1970,
which in Scotland is replaced by the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010.
5.7.3. Harbour Seal (Phoca vitulina)
a. Compared to Grey Seals, Harbour (or Common) Seals cover smaller
distances whilst foraging and between haul out sites (ca. 40-50km). Prey
species include sandeels, gadoids, herring and sprat, flatfish, octopus and
squid. Pupping occurs in June and July with the pups being able to swim
almost immediately. Within the UK, the distribution of Harbour Seals is
concentrated in Scottish waters (79%), whilst England holds ca. 16% of
the UK population. However, in Scotland, major population declines have
been documented since 2000. This decline is not considered to be linked
to the phocine distemper virus, which had affected the East Coast of
England in 1988 and 2002.
b. Harbour Seals are protected under the EC Habitats Directive Annex II and
V as species whose conservation requires the designations of SACs and
whose taking in the wild and exploitation may be subject to management
measures’. They are further protected by the Conservation of Habitats
and Species regulations 2010 Schedule 4, and the Conservation of Seals
Act 1970, which in Scotland is replaced by the Marine (Scotland) Act
2010.
5.7.4. Water Vole (Arvicola amphibious)
a. Water Voles are currently declining at a rapid rate. Water voles are
protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) from
killing or taking by certain prohibited methods. Their breeding and resting
places are fully protected from damage, destruction or obstruction, it is
also an offence to disturb them in these places.
5.7.5. Any other NPS that has been identified as present within the zonal envelope by pre-construction surveys or from verified evidence provided by third parties.
37
6. NATURAL ENGLAND'S CONCERNS AND ADVICE
6.1. Introduction
6.1.1. In this section Natural England will set out its concerns and advice regarding the Project at the time of submission of these Representations. In some instances more detailed advice is available in the form of Expert Reports which have been produced by specialists. These Expert reports can be found in the Annexes and where relevant are referred to in the main body of this representation.
6.2. The principal issues
6.2.1. Natural England identified the following main issues in our Relevant Representations which were submitted to PINS on 12th June 2014:
a. Natural England was uncertain about the effect on site integrity from the
Dogger Bank Teesside A & B project in-combination with oil and gas
industry development, aggregate extraction areas and the Dogger Bank
b. Natural England could not conclude that there will be no adverse effect on
site integrity arising from the Dogger Bank Creyke Beck project in-
combination with oil and gas industry development, aggregate extraction
areas, the Dogger Bank Creyke Beck offshore renewable projects and
fishing activities within the site.
c. Natural England was unable to advise beyond all reasonable scientific
doubt that the project both alone and in-combination, would not have an
adverse effect on the integrity of the Flamborough and Filey Coast
pSPA/Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs SPA due to the potential
impacts associated with the wind turbine generators on a number of
qualifying features and other species identified in the SPA review (Stroud
et al. 2001): Atlantic puffin, Black-legged kittiwake, Common guillemot,
Northern gannet and Razorbill.
d. Natural England was unable to advise beyond all reasonable scientific
doubt that the project both alone and in-combination, would not have an
adverse effect on the integrity of the Farne Islands SPA due to the
potential impacts associated with the wind turbine generators on a
number of qualifying features other species identified in the SPA review
(Stroud et al. 2001): Black-legged kittiwake, Common guillemot, Razorbill
and Atlantic pufffin.
e. Natural England was unable to advise with certainty that the project will
not have a significant impact on a number of EIA seabird species which
include Atlantic puffin, Black-legged kittiwake, Common guillemot, Great
black-backed gull, Lesser black-backed gull, Northern Gannet and
Razorbill.
f. Natural England identified a number of methodological issues which
required addressing in relation to the marine and intertidal ornithological
assessment.
38
g. Natural England was unable to make a conclusion on the cumulative and
in-combination assessment for marine and intertidal ornithology as it was
incomplete.
h. Natural England identified a number of areas of the application which
required further work/ consideration with regards to the assessments
made for: marine physical processes; marine and intertidal ecology
assessment; marine water and sediment quality; fish and shellfish
ecology and marine mammals.
i. Natural England identified a number of areas which required further work/
consideration with regards the Development Consent Order (DCO) and
deemed marine licenses (DMLs).
6.3. Progress since Relevant Representation
6.3.1. Since the Relevant Representations were submitted to PINs on 12th June 2014 the Applicant has supplied Natural England with a number of documents providing new information and updating / reworking information that was requested in the Relevant Representations and in subsequent meetings. A full list of this new material is provided in Annex C. In addition to written correspondence, Natural England has also met with the Applicant on six separate occasions to discuss this information and further information required and engagement strategy for the Examination period: two meetings to discuss onshore matters (30th June and 14th August 2014) and four meetings to discuss offshore matters (19th June, 14th August, 19th August and 22nd August 2014). Natural England’s comments in the Written Representation are provided on the basis of having had the benefit of reviewing this additional information and where necessary indicate the resolution of relevant issues.
6.3.2. During this period Natural England has also engaged with the Applicant to set out matters of agreement and disagreement. The full details of these matters are set out in the Statements of Common Ground (SoCG) which are to be submitted by the Applicant.
6.3.3. Issues that were raised in Natural England’s Relevant Representations and addressed during SoCG discussions are not considered any further here. As such, Natural England has only listed the outstanding principle issues below:
6.4. Overview
6.4.1. These issues will be addressed under to distinct sections:
a. Principal issues in relation to ornithology (A more detailed report on
issues in relation to ornithology is contained in Annex E).
b. Principal issues in relation to non-ornithological issues
6.5. A. Principal issues in relation to ornithology
Offshore ornithology
39
6.5.1. Natural England advises the Examining Authority that the views expressed and conclusions reached in our Written Representations regarding ornithological matters are based upon the content of the documents submitted in the context of Dogger Bank Teesside A & B application: essentially the Environmental Statement, Habitats Regulations Assessment reports and supporting Appendices. Natural England notes that in many respects the detailed figures within these documents and the approaches to impact assessment within them are very similar and in some cases, identical to those submitted at an equivalent stage in the case of the Dogger Bank Creyke Beck project. Accordingly, the views and conclusions which Natural England has included in its Written Representation reflect Natural England’s views and conclusions at the same stage in the Dogger Bank Creyke Beck examination process.
6.5.2. Natural England acknowledges that Forewind have, in consultation with Natural England, undertaken much additional work on many matters during the latter stages of the Dogger Bank Creyke Beck examination process. As a result of that work, Natural England was ultimately able to exclude significant effects and to rule out adverse effects on site integrity in respect of almost all species at all sites/population scales.
6.5.3. Natural England’s final position on ornithological matters in the context of both EIA and HRA for Dogger Bank Creyke Beck were set out in its Supplementary Ornithological Expert Report (updated) submitted by NE on 7th July 2014. As the information provided in the context of Dogger Bank Creyke Beck included anticipated effects of Dogger Bank Teesside A & B, and on the assumption that i) those figures will not change (markedly) and ii) the approaches to assessment which will ultimately be considered as part of the Dogger Bank Teesside A & B examination process will be in line with those at Dogger Bank Creyke Beck, Natural England anticipates that it is likely to reach the same conclusions in the current case as it did in that case, and that those conclusions will be substantially clearer and different to those which we are constrained to present in this Written Representation.
6.5.4. However, at this stage in the Dogger Bank Teesside A & B examination, Natural England has identified several areas of uncertainty within the ornithological information provided by the Applicant. Some of these uncertainties mean that it is not currently possible to agree with conclusions of no likely significant effect on several species associated with SPAs, particularly in-combination, and also that it is not possible to agree with conclusions of no significant adverse effects on the site integrity of the Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA, and Farne Islands SPA.
6.5.5. The EIA process (see section 3.1 for the legislative framework) requires the consideration of all likely significant effects on the environment not just those on protected sites such as SPAs. Consequently, it is important to take into account potentially significant effects to seabird populations outside the HRA process and European protected sites. This may result in the same species of birds being considered as subject to significant effects from the proposed development following assessment under either process or both.
6.5.6. Following a review of the environmental information submitted by the Applicant, Natural England identified HRA concerns in relation to four bird species which are potentially at risk of collision or displacement related mortality from the constructed, operational offshore wind farm (OWF). All four species are linked to marine or coastal sites protected as SPAs, Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) and / or
40
Ramsar sites and activities may impact upon the classified bird interest of these sites. These are:
a. Northern gannet Morus bassanus (associated with Flamborough and
Filey Coast pSPA and Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs SPA);
b. Black-legged kittiwake Rissa tridactyla (associated with Flamborough
Head and Bempton Cliffs SPA, Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA,
Farne Islands SPA and SSSI and Durham Coast SSSI);
c. Common guillemot Uria aalge (associated with Flamborough and Filey
Coast pSPA, Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs SPA and Farne
Islands SPA); and
d. Razorbill Alca torda (associated with Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA,
Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs SPA and Farne Islands SPA).
6.5.7. Following a review of the environmental information submitted by the Applicant, Natural England identified EIA concerns in relation to seven bird species which are potentially at risk of collision or displacement related mortality from the constructed, operational offshore wind farm (OWF).
Northern gannet Morus bassanus
Black-legged kittiwake Rissa tridactyla
Common guillemot Uria aalge
Razorbill Alca torda
Atlantic puffin Fratercula arctica
Great black backed gull Larus marinus
Lesser black-backed gull Larus fuscus
6.5.8. At the Relevant Representations Natural England also raised concerns about the data and analysis underpinning the original environmental assessment, namely and applicable to both HRA and EIA issues, namely:
a. The use of Extended Band (2012) models (Option 3) for use in collision risk
modelling (CRM);
b. Methods used to assess displacement within the development area and
buffer;
c. The use of appropriate population scales;
d. The use of appropriate foraging ranges to enable apportioning of breeding
season impacts to individual SPAs;
e. Inclusion of all appropriate projects into the cumulative and in-combination
assessments;
f. The use of consistent methods for inclusion in cumulative and in-combination
assessments;
42
cannot currently be excluded. Option 2 results have been presented but have yet to be formerly reviewed. If agreed, Option 2 results should be used at a cumulative/in-combination level and inclusion of operational wind farm sites should presented. Results using avoidance rate of 99% are still being used. 98% should also be taken through to final analysis.
Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA; Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs SPA; Farne Islands SPA
57
and SSSI; and Durham Coast SSSI
Black-legged kittiwake
There is still some disagreement over the use of the Extended Band Model (Option 3) causing uncertainty in the effects of collision from the project both alone and in-combination.
Adverse effect on integrity of the sites cannot currently be excluded. Further assessment of Band model Option 2 should be presented and used at an in-combination level and inclusion of operational wind farm sites should be presented.
Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA; Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs
57;
and Farne
Islands SPA58
Common guillemot
There are outstanding issues with the methods used to assess displacement within the site and its 2km buffer and to estimate the number of birds using the area. There is also disagreement over the use of mean population figures for population estimates, mean peak figures have been recommended by Natural England
Adverse effect on integrity of the site cannot currently be excluded as scientific doubt remains for both SPAs both as a result of the Dogger Bank Teesside A & B projects acting alone and in combination with other projects.
58 This species was identified in the SPA Review (Stroud et al. 2001) as a qualifying feature in its own right.
However, it is not formally recognised as such on the current citation. In order to future proof their
application, and as a matter of best practice, Natural England advise that the Applicant should include this
species in an HRA assessment
44
Methodological issues – applicable to HRA and EIA issues (unless stated)
6.5.12. Collision risk modelling (CRM): Following discussions with Natural England, the Applicant has completed a thorough review of the use of the Extended Band Model and the application of avoidance rates of 98% (JNCC/NE/Forewind SoCG Appendix 4, Forewind 2014a). Natural England is in discussion with the Applicant, but are as yet still unable to fully agree with the sole use of Option 3 for the CRM both for the site individually and as part of the cumulative/in-combination assessment. Option 2 outputs have been presented by the Applicant and also used in revised figures for the cumulative assessment of the Dogger Bank development projects (Dogger Bank Creyke Beck A and B and Dogger Bank Teesside A, B, C and D). Further agreement is also required regarding the use of different avoidance rates within CRM and in particular within the extended models. In the absence of agreement on appropriate avoidance rates to use with the Extended Band Model (Option 3) and how sensitive they are to errors in flight height data, it is advised that Option 2 is used, using historically applied avoidance rates. Natural England await the publication of a Marine Scotland Science report, reviewing the use of the Extended Band Model, due to be published in autumn 2014 before making a decision regarded the use of alternative avoidance rates and Option 3.
6.5.13. Displacement methodology and buffer: The review of displacement rates used in other offshore wind farm developments was welcomed by Natural England and supported appropriate analysis of displacement by the Applicant, largely following guidance notes from Natural England and JNCC. However, the use of a variable displacement rate across the wind farm development zone and buffer is contrary to the advice given. While it is likely that the impact of the wind farm on displacement of species will decrease with distance, there is only limited empirical evidence for auks to date that provides any scale over which the decline would occur nor which would suggest any such scale would remain consistent regardless of development site conditions. Natural England, therefore, continues to advise displacement effects should be assessed at a constant rate within the defined buffer area until such time that evidence suggests otherwise.
6.5.14. Population scales: The Applicant should provide more detailed recent species-specific information for the calculation of ‘wider regional’ populations which would allow verification of whether appropriate Biologically Defined Minimum Population Scales (BDMPS) have been used. Natural England has commissioned a review of appropriate BDMPS which is currently in preparation, which NE understands the Applicant has started to use as the basis of their updates to apportionment methods (MacArthur Green 2014b, 2014c, 2014d).
6.5.15. Foraging ranges (HRA issue): The Applicant has used a combination of mean-maximum foraging ranges and maximum foraging ranges to inform apportioning of impacts to individual SPAs. Natural England has agreed this approach and acknowledges the changes made by the Applicant with regard to this. While the use of maximum foraging ranges for some species has the potential to spread impacts across too wide an array of breeding sites, methods of apportioning should address this issue. The Applicant has issued a number of documents, originally presented as part of the Dogger Bank Creyke Beck examination detailing an alternative method for apportionment which builds on the approach used for East Anglia ONE and has been accepted by Natural England. The Applicant is in the process of preparing results and documents for submission to the Dogger Bank Teesside A & B examination which should be available in Autumn 2014. Natural
45
England will carry out a thorough review of these documents in order to confirm that the approach and the figures used are scientifically sound.
6.5.16. Cumulative and in-combination assessments: The cumulative and in-combination assessments presented by the Applicant are weakened by issues of inconsistency and exclusion of other relevant offshore wind farms. The issues of consistent CRM approaches for use within cumulative and in-combination assessment have been discussed previously and further inconsistencies in approach are present in the efforts to combine the findings of displacement assessments. While the Applicant has for the most part followed Natural England guidance, carrying out the assessment using a tiered approach, the Applicant is still excluding a number of operational wind farms in spite of repeated requests by Natural England for their inclusion.
6.5.17. Migratory birds (HRA issue): The methods used by the Applicant to assess the impacts on migratory waterbirds have been fully understood by Natural England but we have requested the use of alternative methods presented in the SOSS05 project. The Applicant does not feel this approach to be appropriate and has not yet presented results to this effect. Further discussions are required on this point to reach an agreement on the approaches presented.
6.5.18. Baseline mortality: Natural England and JNCC highlighted in their Relevant Representations concerns over the use of inappropriate thresholds when considering the magnitude of changes to baseline mortality. They suggested further work may be required to investigate certain species identified as ‘at risk’. In response, the Applicant has submitted a Potential Biological Removal (PBR) report for northern gannet and black-legged kittiwake which has been welcomed by Natural England. The same document was submitted as part of the Dogger Bank Creyke Beck examination and the approach used was largely agreed by Natural England. However, there is still some disagreement between the Applicant and Natural England regarding which PBR value to take forward for use as a reference. The Applicant has presented a range of results and has argued for the use of a less precautionary approach, contrary to advice from Natural England.
6.5.19. Baseline review: The Applicant has carried out a thorough review of baseline ornithological information to form the basis of their analyses. Following comments at the initial review stage adjustments were made to ensure appropriate biogeographical population estimates were employed and suitable foraging ranges were used to identify all of the potential SPA sites with the exception of migratory waterbird SPAs, which could be affected by the development. It is also noted that the Applicant has followed advice and used local data sources to inform definitions of breeding seasons for key species.
6.5.20. Monitoring of the site has been completed for a suitable length of time using the recommended methods for offshore ornithology. However the interpretation and analysis of some data is not in line with advice from Natural England. The use of mean monthly estimates goes against the recommendation for using mean peak values as the basis of site specific estimates for displacement effects and could serve to lessen the assessed impact of displacement. The Applicant has used an appropriate buffer around the development area, however there are some concerns with regard to the methods used to assess the difference in impacts within the development area and the buffer itself.
46
6.5.21. The data presented in Section 4 of Chapter 11 goes some way to describing the existing baseline conditions. However, some concerns remain over the interpretation of some data sets and protocols. We note the method of population estimation uses a novel method, which is undergoing peer review, and await the outcome of that review – though at this stage we are not requesting the Applicant to undertake more work on this issue.
Offshore ornithology HRA species
6.5.22. Northern Gannet: The first issue identified is the potential impact on the breeding population of northern gannet, a qualifying feature of the Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA and an assemblage component of the Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs SPA57, due to collision with offshore wind turbine generators.
6.5.23. The Applicant has assessed the significance of this potential impact on the basis of Collision Risk Modelling and the apportioning of the impacts to a range of UK SPA sites. There is still some disagreement over some of the parameters used and the use of the Extended Band Model (Option 3) though ongoing discussions are being held with Natural England.
6.5.24. The complications of considering individuals from Scottish SPA sites such as Bass Rock have largely been agreed on though some issues still remain with regard to the cumulative impact assessment methodology.
6.5.25. For the Dogger Bank Creyke Beck examination, it was concluded that alone, the proposed development would not cause an adverse effect on integrity (AEOI) for northern gannet. Given the similarities in location and predicted number of collisions it is expected that the same conclusion will be reached for Dogger Bank Teesside A & B once revised data sets have been made available.
6.5.26. Natural England considers that, on the basis of the available evidence, reasonable scientific doubt remains as to the absence of an adverse effect on the integrity of the Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA / Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs SPA due to collision mortality of gannets at Dogger Bank Teesside A & B projects acting jointly with displacement mortality alone. Full conclusions with regard to the cumulative impacts have yet to be resolved.
6.5.27. Black-legged Kittiwake: The second issue identified is the potential impact on the breeding population of black-legged kittiwake, a qualifying feature of the Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs SPA, the Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA and assemblage component of the Farne Islands SPA57, due to collision with offshore wind turbine generators.
6.5.28. The Applicant has assessed the significance of this potential impact on the basis of Collision Risk Modelling and the apportioning of the impacts to a range of UK SPA sites. There is still some disagreement over some of the parameters used and the use of the Extended Band Model (Option 3) though ongoing discussions are being held with Natural England.
6.5.29. On the basis of the available evidence Natural England considers that there is still some scientific doubt as to the absence of an adverse effect on the integrity of both sites due to collision mortality of black-legged kittiwake caused by the Dogger Bank Teesside A & B wind farm projects alone. The continued uncertainty over the cumulative and in-combination effects caused by weaknesses in this assessment mean that no firm conclusion has been reached over the impacts of Dogger Bank Teesside A & B in combination with other wind farm developments.
47
6.5.30. Common guillemot: The third issue identified is the potential impact on the breeding population of common guillemot, a qualifying feature of the Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA and the Farne Islands SPA58, and an assemblage component of the Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs SPA57 and due to displacement from the operational wind farm.
6.5.31. The Applicant has assessed the significance of this potential impact on the basis of population estimates based on boat and aerial surveys and disturbance rates derived for individual species. While the approach used and the rates used for disturbance and mortality are broadly in line with methods recommended by Natural England and JNCC, there are some issues with the methods used to assess displacement within the site and its 2km buffer and with the methods used to estimate the numbers of birds using the area. Natural England currently advise that a fixed displacement rate across the buffer area is preferred, in the absence of empirical data to inform a variable rate.
6.5.32. Given the possibility that greater numbers than those suggested by the Applicant could be affected, scientific doubt remains as to the absence of an adverse effect for both SPAs both as a result of the Dogger Bank Teesside A & B projects acting alone and in combination with other projects.
6.5.33. Razorbill: The fourth issue identified is the potential impact on the breeding population of razorbill - a qualifying feature of the Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA, and an assemblage feature of the Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs SPA57 and Farne Islands SPA57 - due to displacement from the operational wind farm.
6.5.34. The Applicant has assessed the significance of this potential impact on the basis of population estimates based on boat and aerial surveys and disturbance rates derived for individual species. While the approach used and the rates used for disturbance and mortality are broadly in line with methods recommended by Natural England and JNCC there are some issues with the methods used to assess displacement within the site and its 2km buffer and with the methods used to estimate the numbers of birds using the area.
6.5.35. Given the possibility that greater numbers than those suggested by the Applicant could be affected, scientific doubt remains as to the absence of an adverse effect for both SPAs both as a result of the Dogger Bank Teesside A & B projects acting alone and in combination with other projects.
Offshore ornithology EIA species
6.5.36. Given the uncertainty surrounding a number of crucial elements to the Dogger Bank Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), outlined in Section 2 above, it is not possible to conclude at this stage that the project will not have a significant impact on a number of seabird species. In particular, conclusions are currently unable to be drawn at a cumulative level for the species listed below, due the incomplete nature of the cumulative impact assessment as presented by the Applicant in the Environmental Statement (ES).
6.5.37. Species Sensitive to Displacement. common guillemot, razorbill and Atlantic puffin. There are a number of queries regarding the assessment of displacement for these species, as raised above.
48
6.5.38. Species Sensitive to Collision. As raised above, the selection of the collision risk model option, has a substantial influence on the predicted level of mortality and hence the final outcome of the assessment, as does the approach to cumulative assessment. As such there is uncertainty surrounding a number of seabird species with regards to potential impacts (particularly cumulatively). Specific species are black-legged kittiwake, northern gannet, great black-backed gull and lesser black-backed gull.
References
6.5.39. All ornithological references are available in Annex E.
49
6.6. B. Principal issues in relation to non-ornithological issues
Marine processes
6.6.1. Cumulative Operational Impacts of sediment deposition and suspended sediment plumes in a transboundary context: In their point by point response to Natural England’s section 42 consultations (submitted on 13th November 2013), the Applicant states: “there is very little deposition of sediment from the cumulative plume across the international boundary (maximum of 0.1mm to 0.5mm). In terms of the suspended sediment concentrations, the exceedence data shows that the vast majority of the cumulative plume that crosses the international boundary only exceeds the baseline up to 10% of the time.” However, Natural England requires further clarification as to whether the conclusions made were as a result of the sampling locations (i.e. were the sampling points situated away from the international boundary?).
6.6.2. Operational impacts of cable protection within the Dogger Bank SCI: In its Relevant Representations, Natural England noted that inter-array cable protection and auxiliary structures were not included in the modelled assessments for operational impacts (e.g. interruption to sediment transport, changes to bathymetry and suspended sediment concentrations).
6.6.3. Through recent SoCG discussions, the Applicant has confirmed (via email on 22nd August 2014) that the worst case inter-array cable protection requirements are 20% unburied (thus 80% buried) within Dogger Bank Teesside A and Dogger Bank Teesside B.
6.6.4. Natural England is currently waiting for the Applicant to respond with further detailed information on the cable protection requirements within the Dogger Bank SCI. We have also asked the Applicant to provide further information on potential cable burial techniques that could be used in areas where the seabed sediment is composed of a high mud or clay content to minimise the need for cable protection (see 6.6.10). Natural England cannot comment further on the operational impacts of cable protection within the Dogger Bank SCI until this information is received. This outstanding concern has implications on Natural England’s current position on the effects of Dogger Bank Teesside A & B on the Dogger Bank SCI site integrity, as outlined in Appendix D of this Written Representation.
6.6.5. Operational impacts of the disposal mounds: In its Relevant Representations, Natural England submitted its position on the effect of Dogger Bank Teesside A & B on the site integrity of the Dogger Bank SCI. Since our Relevant Representations were submitted, Natural England has given further consideration to this matter. Our current position is outlined in Appendix D of this Written Representation.
6.6.6. However, our concerns regarding the benthic communities supported by the Dogger Bank SCI are underpinned by our concerns regarding the changes to topography and changes to surface sediment composition likely to result from the deposition of monopole drill arisings as disposal mounds.
6.6.7. The Applicant has recently provided details of the likely changes to surface sediment composition that may result from the deposition of this material. Based on these predictions, the Applicant has been able to model the bathymetric changes and thus, the size (and footprint size) of the disposal mounds.
50
6.6.8. Natural England questions the results of this exercise as we note that only deposited mud has been included as a disposal mound component. Given that the Applicant also predicts high proportions of sand and gravel to be deposited at the disposal site, Natural England considers the worst case disposal mound size (and footprint size) to be underestimated. As stated above, this has implications for the assessment of habitat loss and habitat introduction in regards to benthic communities.
Marine and intertidal Ecology
6.6.9. Site integrity of the Dogger Bank SCI. We are considering whether the proposed Dogger Bank Teesside A & B project, alone and in combination with other plans and projects, will have an adverse effect on the integrity of the Dogger Bank SCI. This is a complex area of work for which we are working closely with the JNCC on to reach a conclusion. As such, we are not able to provide final advice in our written representations. We anticipate providing our final advice as part of future Interested Parties responses and as part of the Issue Specific Hearings and, in particular, for the Interested Parties Deadline 8 on the Report on the Implications for European Sites (RIES) document.
6.6.10. However, through recent discussions with JNCC, Natural England has developed an interim position on the matter (Appendix D). Natural England and JNCC wish to make it clear to the Secretary of State and Examining Authority that we expect to receive further information from the Applicant regarding (i) cable protection requirements (predicted volumes, footprint and materials) within the Dogger Bank SCI; (ii) the potential use of low impact cable installation techniques which reduce the need for cable protection; (iii) the technical ability to remove all installed scour and cable protection as well as, potentially, remedial action to address changes in sediment composition and benthic communities (e.g. removal of clay deposits); (iv) and any evidence/findings from any other projects where piles have been driven in similar sediment to that of Dogger Bank that might inform our understanding of the likely nature of the clay arisings and behaviour of the disposal mounds. Natural England and JNCC cannot provide final advice on this matter until this information is received.
6.6.11. Biotope Mapping and VERs: In its Relevant Representations Natural England outlined concerns regarding the biotope mapping undertaken by the Applicant to inform assessments made in the ES. Whilst we consider that the Dogger Bank Zone has been assessed adequately using the VERs produced for Dogger Bank Teesside A & B assessment, Natural England has remaining concerns regarding future cumulative assessments of the Dogger Bank Zone. These concerns are due to the knowledge that the VERs produced for the Dogger Bank Creyke Beck ES were derived using a different methodology to that of Dogger Bank Teesside A & B. As such Natural England seeks assurances that, if both projects get consent, a consistent analysis of biotopes will be developed to assess baseline, pre- and post-construction data at a zonal level. The Applicant has already provided these assurances to Natural England during a meeting between the Applicant and Natural England held on 19th August 2014. However, Natural England would like these discussions set out in a clarification note.
Marine Mammals
51
6.6.12. All but one of our marine mammal concerns that were raised in our Relevant Representations have been addressed as set out in section 7 of the offshore SOCG:
6.6.13. SMRU Harbour Seal Telemetry Data: In its Relevant Representation, Natural England noted the importance of including the more recent telemetry data for harbour seal from SMRU. At a statement of common ground meeting held on 14th August 2014, the Applicant committed into looking into the availability of this dataset. Natural England looks forward to hearing of any progress on this matter
6.6.14. Other matters raised as a matter of prudence: Natural England would like to raise the following marine mammal matters as a matter of prudence:
6.6.15. EPS licensing. An EPS license will be required to cover the risk of disturbance to all cetacean species identified as likely to be in the area under regulations 39(1)(a) and (b) of the Offshore Marine Conservation Natural Habitats, & (c.) Regulations 2007 (as amended). For this, the consideration of less noisy alternatives to piling, the total area of impact, the duration of impact and the number of animals likely to be affected will need to be clearly presented.
6.6.16. Natural England notes that the planned development of renewable energy in UK waters could involve multiple piling events occurring concurrently and sequentially across a species’ range, over several years. This has the potential to have a detrimental impact on the favourable conservation status of populations of cetacean species occurring in UK waters. Continued strategic discussion is required between UK Regulators and SNCBs to consider the wider issues of an EPS licensing framework across UK waters as a whole.
6.6.17. Mitigation, monitoring and alternatives. Given the potential impacts on marine mammals described in the ES, it is clear that mitigation will play a key role in any wind farm developments in the North Sea, in particular mitigation that will minimise risk on Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS) onset and reduce cumulative effects arising from disturbance. It will therefore be beneficial if developers make a concerted attempt to reduce the acoustic output from pile driving by considering new mitigation technologies as they advance. The Applicant has recently undertaken a review of such mitigation technologies and concluded that, as yet, none have matured to the degree necessary for them to be a feasible option for Dogger Bank. Nevertheless, Natural England recommends that the Applicant maintains a watch on emerging technologies.
6.6.18. Natural England welcomes the Applicant’s commitment to developing an effective pre-construction marine mammal mitigation plan (MMMP). When drafting this document Natural England advises that the Applicant should refer to the work carried out under the Offshore Renewables Joint Industry Project (ORJIP) on Acoustic Mitigation Devices and any further developments of best practice in relation to mitigation options including those relating to ‘Corkscrew’ deaths. In addition to the commitment to adopt appropriate mitigation measures Natural England advises that participation in strategic studies e.g. DEPONS is also required to verify the ES predictions. If this is not possible then a site specific marine mammal monitoring programme will be necessary. Natural England is pleased to note that the Applicant intends to do set out the monitoring requirements through the development of an In Principle Monitoring Plan (IPMP).
6.6.19. Construction programming (siting and timing) at individual wind farm sites or close clusters of projects should be considered in order to both minimise total area of
52
disturbance at any one time and reduce the total period of disturbance (acknowledging that some form of trade-off will be inevitable). It is recommended that a strategic overview is undertaken by the regulator and SNCBs of concurrent and sequential pile driving in the North Sea to that effect. Construction programming may need to be considered across all projects and the Applicant should be prepared to work with other developers, alongside Regulators and SNCBs, in order to reduce cumulative effects as required. The Offshore Wind Developers Forum (OWDF) could be a potential host for these discussions.
Terrestrial Ecology
6.6.20. Golden Plover and Lapwing mitigation during construction: Natural England wish the examining authority to note that the following statement supersedes our position in Appendix 3 of the onshore Statement of Uncommon Ground (SoUG) between the Applicant and Natural England:
6.6.21. Natural England notes that high numbers of wintering golden plover and lapwing have been observed regularly at the landfall site in the area known as Grundales Fields during the months of November and December. We therefore support the proposal not to carry out any onshore construction work at the landfall site during these months.
6.6.22. Numbers appear to vary considerably during the January to March period. Although there are records of up to 1200 golden plover during this period, surveys carried out by the Applicant indicate that lower numbers have been present in more recent years, with mean monthly peaks of 51 to 54 golden plover for the 2011-2013 period. This variation appears to be largely due to weather conditions, which in turn has an influence on the timing of agricultural activity through the winter period. Lapwing numbers appear to be more consistent with several hundred birds typically present.
6.6.23. Golden plover is included in Annex 1 of the Birds Directive 2009. The Birds Directive sets out requirements for the protection of Annex 1 and regularly occurring migratory species outside the protected sites network, as well as those that are included as interest features of Special Protection Areas (SPAs).
6.6.24. As indicated in Section 3.3 of the Peak Ecology report Golden Plover and lapwing at the landfall – Desk based assessment and additional field surveys Dogger Bank Teesside A & B Onshore Electrical Connection submitted to Natural England in February 2014, the landfall fields represent an important habitat resource for foraging waders in a local context, as there are few alternative sites with similar characteristics in the surrounding area. However, we note that construction works will only occupy 6% of the total area of Grundales Fields at any one time. Given the relatively low numbers of birds likely to be present, and the fact that the majority of records have been located more than 250m from the cable landfall envelope (as shown on the figure Wintering bird survey: Lapwing & Golden Plover distribution & density), we consider that construction work is unlikely to cause significant disturbance to birds outside of the months of November and December.
6.6.25. In the interest of best practice and in order to minimise the risk of disturbance, we advise that where possible, construction works in the landfall fields are avoided during January and February. If works are required during this period, they should be carried out in accordance with the mitigation measures set out in Section 4.2.3
53
of the report Construction works at the landfall and Table 6.3 in Chapter 29 (Noise and Vibration) of the ES. We also advise that further information regarding baseline noise levels around the landfall cable envelope, and maximum noise levels (LAmax) that will be experienced from construction activities, should be collected in order to inform whether further mitigation measures are required.
6.6.26. In order to reduce impacts further, efforts should be made to carry out cable landfall works for Dogger Bank Teesside A at the same time Dogger Bank Teesside B especially during January to March. Also where possible winter activities should be minimised e.g. restricted to cable pull-through rather than horizontal directional drill duct installation. Should the landfall cable installation of Dogger Bank Teesside A and Dogger Bank Teesside B projects take place in different years, Natural England advise that the construction compound should be removed and arable fields reinstated between projects except when sequential over wintering periods are likely to be impacted.
6.6.27. Natural England recognises that further details about the works and timing of them will be known post consent. Therefore to ensure that the Impacts are likely to be within those predicted in the ES and supporting documents Natural England wishes to ensure that the DCO includes a requirement for the Applicant to produce a pre-construction terrestrial cable burial plan including landfall work and/or construction method statement that we are consulted on by the local authority.
Draft Development Consent Order / Deemed Marine Licences
6.6.28. Natural England would like to direct the Applicant to the Dogger Bank Creyke Beck project Written Representation (submitted on 18th March 2014) and recent Issue Specific Hearing discussions 2nd- 5th June and 16 h July 2014 for comments to address on the Dogger Bank Teesside A & B DCO and DMLs. Natural England believe that it would be beneficial wherever possible for the DCO/DML to reflect the requirements/conditions agreed for the Dogger Bank Creyke Beck projects. Natural England believes that the Applicant intends to submit a revised DCO/DML as part of their written representation and therefore we will provide further comments if required for deadline IV.
Decommissioning
6.6.29. Natural England acknowledges that a decommissioning plan will be required prior to decommissioning and that this will be agreed at the relevant time under the provisions of the Energy Act 2004. The decommissioning plan should include an assessment of whether in-combination decommissioning impacts have been assessed fully and, if not, request additional information on the impact assessment. Natural England would welcome a discussion with the Applicant on the potential for in-combination impacts at that time.
Natural England advices that for impacts to the Dogger Bank SCI to be considered long-term temporary, all turbines and associated infrastructure will need to be removed at the time of decommissioning. Furthermore, Natural England recommends that removal of all cable protection (and potentially cables) where scour is severe is essential in order for the seabed to return to its natural state as required under OSPAR. These matters should be subject to consideration at the time of decommissioning.
54
7. ANNEXES
55
THE PLANNING ACT 2008
THE INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING (ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURE RULES)
2010
DOGGER BANK TEESSIDE A & B OFFSHORE WIND FARM ORDER APPLICATION
Annex A: Designated site maps
3rd September 2014
57
THE PLANNING ACT 2008
THE INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING (ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURE RULES)
2010
DOGGER BANK TEESSIDE A & B OFFSHORE WIND FARM ORDER APPLICATION
Annex B: Designated site citations
3rd September 2014
Page 59 of 162
THE PLANNING ACT 2008
THE INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING (ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURE RULES)
2010
DOGGER BANK TEESSIDE A & B OFFSHORE WIND FARM ORDER APPLICATION
Annex C: Documentation submitted by the Applicant to Natural England post
submission of the Relevant Representation
3rd September 2014
Page 61 of 162
15th August 2014 Draft Dogger Bank Teesside A & B Farne Islands
SPA in-combination displacement assessment for
common guillemot and razorbill
15th August 2014 Draft Dogger Bank Teesside A & B In-combination
displacement assessment for common guillemot
and razorbill for FFC pSPA
15th August 2014 Draft Dogger Bank Teesside A & B Farne Islands
SPA – In-combination Kittiwake collision risk
15th August 2014 Draft Dogger Bank Teesside A & B FFC pSPA – In-
combination Kittiwake and Gannet collision risk
15th August 2014 Meeting minutes between Natural England and the
Applicant: Onshore concerns and SoCG review,
held on 14th August 2014.
18th August 2014 Draft Onshore Statement of Uncommon Ground
(SoUG)
19th August 2014 Draft Offshore SoCG. Updated to include comments
from Natural England.
19th August 2014 Updated Draft SoCG Appendix 12: Point by point
responses to Natural England’s relevant
representations for all non-birds related offshore
topics. Note that this has two holds where
engineering input is required.
22nd August 2014 Draft Onshore SoCG. Updated to include comments
from Natural England.
22nd August 2014 Draft Onshore SoCG. Updated to include comments
from Natural England.
28th August 2014 Final Onshore SoCG. Updated to include comments
from Natural England
Page 62 of 162
THE PLANNING ACT 2008
THE INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING (ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURE RULES) 2010
DEADLINE III: DOGGER BANK TEESSIDE A & B OFFSHORE WIND FARM ORDER APPLICATION
Annex D: Natural England’s Site Integrity Position Statement
3rd September 2014
Page 63 of 162
1. Site Integrity of the Dogger Bank Site of Community Importance
1.1 Introduction
1.1.1 Since the submission of our Relevant Representations (particularly see paragraphs 4.31. – 4.37.), Natural England and JNCC have been giving further consideration to the potential effect of the Dogger Bank Teesside A & B project on site integrity of the Dogger Bank Site of Community Importance (SCI).
1.1.2 Our advice here has been developed from advice given during the Dogger Bank Creyke Beck project Examination (Natural England’s Response to Deadline IV. Appendix C: Natural England’s Site Integrity Position Statement) in regards to the potential effect of the Dogger Bank Creyke Beck project on site integrity of the Dogger Bank SCI.
1.1.3 Natural England and JNCC wish to make it clear to the Secretary of State and Examining Authority that we expect to receive further information from the Applicant regarding: (i) cable protection requirements (predicted volumes, footprint and materials) within the Dogger Bank SCI; (ii) the potential use of low impact cable installation techniques which reduce the need for cable protection; (iii) the technical ability to remove all installed scour and cable protection as well as, potentially, remedial action to address changes in sediment composition and benthic communities (e.g. removal of clay deposits); (iv) and any evidence/findings from any other projects where piles have been driven in similar sediment to that of Dogger Bank that might inform our understanding of the likely nature of the clay arisings and behaviour of the disposal mounds . It is hoped that this evidence will provide further support for the conclusions of the ES and enable us to provide more detailed advice. As such, this position statement outlines Natural England and JNCC’s interim position which will be reviewed again on receipt of this new information.
1.1.4 We have considered the effect on site integrity from the Dogger Bank Teesside A & B project alone and also in combination with other anthropogenic activities. The scenarios that we have provided our advice on below are:
A. Construction and operation of the Dogger Bank Teesside A & B project alone; B. Construction and operation of the Dogger Bank Teesside A & B project in
combination with oil and gas industry development59, aggregate extraction60, Dogger Bank Creyke Beck A&B and Dogger Bank Teesside C & D offshore wind farm projects only (but excluding fishing activities); and
C. Construction and operation of the Dogger Bank Teesside A & B project in combination with oil and gas industry development61, aggregate extraction62, and
59 GDF Suez Cygnus Field Development Project
60 Licence areas 466 and 485 1/2
61 GDF Suez Cygnus Field Development Project
Page 64 of 162
the Dogger Bank Creyke Beck and Dogger Bank Teesside C & D offshore wind farm projects and fishing activities within the site.
1.1.5 As already highlighted throughout the Dogger Bank Creyke Beck project examination, the current status of the Dogger Bank SCI is a key consideration in formulating our advice. Consequently, we have reiterated some of the main points regarding the SCI status in the following section.
1.2 SCI status
1.2.1 Dogger Bank is the largest sandbank in Europe. The section of the bank lying in UK waters was submitted to the European Commission as a candidate SAC in 2011 and approved as an SCI in November 2012 for the Annex I habitat ’Sandbanks which are slightly covered by seawater all the time‘. The SCI has a total area of 12,331 km2, 100% of which is considered to comprise Annex 1 sandbank habitat. Dogger Bank SCI represents around 71% of the UK known Annex 1 sandbank resource.
1.2.2 The conservation objective for the Dogger Bank ‘Sandbanks which are slightly covered by seawater all the time’ is:
Subject to natural change, restorea the sandbanks to favourable condition, such that:
• The natural environmental qualityb is restored; • The natural environmental processesc and the extentd are maintained; • The physical structuree, diversityf, community structureg and typical speciesh,
representative of sandbanks which are slightly covered by seawater all the time, in the Southern North Sea, are restored.63
1.2.3 The Dogger Bank SCI is currently considered to be in unfavourable condition, primarily as a result of impacts from fishing activity. Hence, the conservation objective is to restore (rather than maintain) the favourable condition of the site. Restoration of marine habitats typically involves the removal of negative impacts to allow habitat recovery, where possible, rather than habitat recreation. Active restoration of the site would be difficult since the structure and functions of the habitat and methods of restoration are not known64.
62 Licence areas 466 and 485 1/2
63 The superscript letters a-h refer to explanatory text provided in section 1.4 of the Conservation Objectives
and Advice on Operations (JNCC, March 2012) which can be found here
64 JNCC 2011. Offshore Special Area of Conservation: Dogger Bank SAC Selection Assessment Document.
Version 9.0.
Page 65 of 162
1.3 Fishing activity and its management in the SCI
1.3.1 As highlighted above, a ‘restore’ conservation objective has been identified for the SCI largely as a consequence of pressure from fishing activities. As a result, fisheries management measures are being developed for the Dogger Bank SCI (and also for contiguous European member states’ SCIs).
1.3.2 It is our understanding that the proposed fisheries management measures would close approximately one third of the UK SCI to bottom contacting gear. The proposed fisheries management plans are agreed at a technical level but their implementation remains under discussion between relevant member states. As such it is unclear if, and when the plans will be implemented.
1.3.3 Although the intention of the proposed management measures is to allow the restoration of the SCI to favourable condition, it is not certain exactly what would represent favourable condition or how we would measure its achievement.. Even the implementation of the proposed management measures for fisheries may not result in the achievement of favourable condition and further adaptive fisheries management may be required.
1.3.4 The connection between fishing activity and the ‘restore’ conservation objective for the Dogger Bank SCI means that any meaningful impact assessment for the site cannot be undertaken without considering the impact fishing activity is having on the sandbank feature. Furthermore, recent guidance from Defra has indicated that fishing activity should be considered as if it were a plan or project65.
65 The Defra policy statement reads – The Department’s strong preference is for the assessment to be carried
out in a manner that is consistent with the provisions of Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive
Page 66 of 162
1.4 Effect on site integrity from the Dogger Bank Teesside A & B project alone
1.4.1 At deadline IV of the Dogger Bank Creyke Beck project examination, Natural England
and JNCC considered that there would be no adverse effect on site integrity arising from the Dogger Bank Creyke Beck project alone, provided that ultimately there would be successful decommissioning of the project.
1.4.2 Natural England and JNCC cannot currently reach the same position on consideration of Dogger Bank Teesside A & B project alone. This is in light of discussions held between Natural England and the Applicant during the development of the Deadline II joint Statement of Common Ground. During these discussions, Natural England has identified that further information is required from the Applicant before Natural England and JNCC can form a complete position regarding the potential impacts on site integrity.
1.4.3 As stated in paragraph 1.1.3, the requirement for further information relates to (i) cable protection requirements (predicted volumes, footprint and materials) within the Dogger Bank SCI; (ii) the potential use of low impact cable installation techniques which reduce the need for cable protection; (iii) the technical ability to remove all installed scour and cable protection as well as, potentially, remedial action to address changes in sediment composition and benthic communities (e.g. removal of clay deposits); (iv) and any evidence/findings from any other projects where piles have been driven in similar sediment to that of Dogger Bank that might inform our understanding of the likely nature of the clay arisings and behaviour of the disposal mounds. It is hoped that this evidence will provide further support for the conclusions of the ES and enable us to provide more detailed advice. As such, this position statement outlines Natural England and JNCC’s interim position which will be reviewed again on receipt of this new information.
1.4.4 In the sections below we have provided some additional considerations which Natural England will take into account in reaching a position regarding the potential for the Dogger Bank Teesside A & B project to have an adverse effect on site integrity alone. We recommend that the Examining Authority and the Secretary of State should also take these factors into consideration in their deliberations.
Page 67 of 162
Habitat loss
1.4.5 The Applicant has concluded that the loss of habitat resulting from the construction and operation of the Dogger Bank Teesside A & B project would be long-term temporary (Deadline II Statement of Common Ground between the Applicant and Natural England. Appendix 12: Point by Point Responses to Relevant Representation: Natural England). On consideration of Dogger Bank Teesside project A & B alone, we agree that this impact is long-term temporary, provided that the habitat is able to recover following decommissioning of the project. This would require the removal of all infrastructure that lies on or protrudes above the seabed (including all protection measures such as rock and mattresses).
1.4.6 The Examining Authority and the Secretary of State should be aware that in theory most infrastructure is removable. However, at decommissioning the safety risks of undertaking such operations are often deemed to outweigh the environmental benefits of removal. Consequently, we recommend that consideration is given to placing conditions on the project to ensure that post-decommissioning habitat recovery is allowed to occur. These conditions may include but are not limited to:
• Limiting scour prevention and cable protection measures to the use of measures, which currently have the greatest potential for being removed completely without safety issues arising at decommissioning.
• Requiring that the foundation types used are those that may be completely and safely removed or reduced to a level below the seabed at decommissioning.
• Use of the most appropriate cable installation tool/technique that reduces impacts to the site, this may involve reducing the amount of cable protection required by using a cutting tool through hard areas of clay, for example.
1.4.7 Whilst Natural England and JNCC have confidence in the Applicant’s assessment, in our experience as more specific information regarding installation conditions and the local environment becomes available through detailed engineering works conducted post consent additional cable/pipeline protection is often requested. Natural England and JNCC would like to make the Examining Authority and the Secretary of State aware that if ground conditions proved more challenging than currently expected there is a risk that additional habitat loss could occur, potentially resulting in an adverse effect on site integrity.
Page 68 of 162
‘Habitat’ introduction and changes in benthic communities
1.4.8 The Dogger Bank Teesside A & B project would result in the introduction of a significant amount of hard substrate into the SCI, which the Applicant has acknowledged. The Applicant has assessed the potential effects on the mainly sedimentary environment of the Dogger Bank and identified that it would potentially lead to changes in benthic communities. Although the changes were not identified as having an adverse effect on site integrity the Applicant recognised that there is a poor evidence base regarding this issue and suggested that long-term monitoring is required to better understand this potential effect.
1.4.9 Natural England and JNCC agree with the Applicant that the evidence base surrounding the potential effects on sandbank communities from the introduction of hard infrastructure is limited. We would therefore advise the Examining Authority and the Secretary of State to give consideration to placing conditions on the project in order to test the conclusions of the ES in relation to the introduction of hard infrastructure and inform the design of subsequent proposals. These conditions may include, but are not limited to:
• Monitoring benthic communities post-construction, including the presence of any invasive non-native species (INNS) and wider community type/structure, to identify changes that may affect site integrity. Results could inform future developments and the decommissioning of the Dogger Bank Teesside A & B project.
1.4.10 Despite the conclusion of no adverse effect on site integrity from the introduction of hard substrate material, any development within the SCI should be sustainable and impacts minimised. So, the potential conditions identified previously with regard to habitat loss would additionally support the reduction of effects from the introduction of hard substrate material into the SCI.
Page 69 of 162
Changes in topography and interaction with natural physical processes
1.4.11 If the Applicant were to use gravity bases or suction bucket foundations for the development of the project, seabed preparation would be required to ensure a level surface for installation. This would result in the accumulation of sediments in mounds adjacent to each turbine installed in this way. If the Applicant were to use piled foundations for the development of the project, drilling may also be required, which would result in a mound of drill arisings adjacent to each turbine installed in this manner
1.4.12 Natural England and JNCC would like to highlight that the location of Dogger Bank Teesside A & B project area has a slightly higher mud/clay content to that found in the Dogger Bank Creyke Beck project area Furthermore, the clay is nearer to the surface in the Dogger Bank Teesside development area (i.e. the overlying sand layer is shallower). This has potential implications for construction and sea bed preparation. In relation to construction it may mean that if monopiles are the chosen foundation there would be an increased requirement for the drill-drive-drill installation method to be used. This could result in significantly greater quantities of clay being included in the disposal mounds. In relation to seabed preparation, there is a greater likelihood that clay may be exposed and incorporated into disposal mounds. For these reasons the impacts are likely to be greater than the Dogger Bank Creyke Beck projects when considered alone.
1.4.13 Within the ES, the Applicant used expert judgement to determine that the resultant disposal mounds would be smoothed by natural physical processes to match the form of natural sand waves across the site.
1.4.14 However, the Applicant has since re-visited the issue, particularly where drill arisings or seabed preparation disposal material might contain clay-rich sediments derived from sub-surface geological foundations. The Applicant now acknowledges that a proportion of mud within the drill arising will be deposited as large lumps of consolidated clay or ‘clasts’ within/on the mound. However, the footprint of the mound is predicted to be smaller in size than the worst case footprint created by gravity base foundations and scour. Thus, the Applicant can conclude no adverse effect on site integrity.
1.4.15 There is no direct evidence that this conclusion would be realised, especially given a change in sediment composition from the clay, therefore we would recommend that the Examining Authority and the Secretary of State consider placing conditions on the project in order to test this assertion. We will provide further advice on potential conditions and monitoring once we have received from the Applicant the additional information that we describe above.
Page 70 of 162
Changes in surface sediments and benthic communities
1.4.16 If the Applicant were to use piled foundations, the resultant disposal mounds would consist of sub-surface sediments, estimated to comprise 33% mud/clay, 56% sand and 11% gravel66. Seabed preparation could also result in changes in sediment composition through the addition of aggregates for infrastructure stabilisation or the inclusion of sub-surface sediments within disposal mounds.
1.4.17 The applicant recognises that in considering the nature of deposited drill arisings there are many variables and uncertainties, yet the applicant has concluded no adverse effect on site integrity. Significant changes in sediment composition have the potential to alter benthic community composition and to alter the extent of the feature covered by sandy sediment.
1.4.18 There is no direct evidence that the Applicant’s conclusion would be realised, therefore we would recommend that the Examining Authority and the Secretary of State consider placing conditions on the project in order to test this assertion. We will provide further advice on potential conditions and monitoring once we have received from the Developer the additional information that we describe above.
Changes in water quality and potential effects on benthic communities
1.4.19 The various construction activities proposed by the Applicant will result in the formation of sediment plumes across the SCI. Although these will be temporary in nature, the actual suspended sediment concentration will depend on the specific sediment characteristics and the environmental conditions at the time. The modelled worst case scenario indicated that the plume could ultimately cover a large proportion of the SCI. Overall, these potential impacts were not considered to be an adverse effect on site integrity by the Applicant.
1.4.20 We would like to highlight to the Examining Authority and the Secretary of State that the increase in suspended sediment concentrations above background levels may have negative effect on filter-feeding species and consequently on the overall benthic community composition.
Overall Impacts to Attribute Features:
1.4.21 It should be noted that whilst the advice above considers each conservation objective attribute (extent, structure etc.) individually, any position regarding site integrity should consider all of the conservation objective attributes together in order to provide a single assessment against the ‘restore’ conservation objective. Natural England and JNCC recognise that there is a risk of the built project having an overall negative impact greater than that predicted in the ES. This overall impact may require further monitoring and consideration in order to determine whether or not the impacts are adverse and if so, what mitigation measures may be required beyond those already agreed with the applicant.
66 Percentages are average drill arising components for Dogger Bank Teesside A and Dogger Bank Teesside B.
Page 71 of 162
1.5 Effect on site integrity from the Dogger Bank Teesside A & B project in combination with all other anthropogenic activities except fishing
1.5.1 NE and JNCC are uncertain about the effect on site integrity from the Dogger Bank Teesside A & B project in combination with oil and gas industry development, aggregate extraction areas, the Dogger Bank Creyke Beck and the Dogger Bank Teesside C & D offshore renewable projects only (excluding fishing activities).
1.5.2 The magnitude of impact of the Dogger Bank Creyke Beck project and other non-fishing activities on the extent of the SCI lies within the ‘contentious’ range of impact scales in relation to previous decisions, i.e. in some cases this scale of impact on extent has been treated as adverse effect on site integrity, in others as no adverse effect on site integrity. Natural England and JNCC would like to make the examining authority aware that due to the inclusion of the Dogger Bank Teesside C & D offshore renewable projects, the magnitude of impact lies further within the contentious range, than the in-combination scenario considered through the Dogger Bank Creyke Beck examination process.
Effect thresholds in relation to extent
1.5.3 There are no established ‘universal’ thresholds for the degree of effect on feature extent (for example the percentage loss of habitat) that would constitute an adverse effect on site integrity. However, there is precedence and case law that suggests that the level of impact from the Dogger Bank Teesside A & B projects in combination with oil and gas industry development, aggregate extraction areas, the Dogger Bank Creyke Beck and the Dogger Bank Teesside C & D offshore renewable projects falls within a range of values that is considered contentious in respect of potential adverse effect on site integrity.
1.5.4 Hoskin & Tyldesley (2006)67 reviewed legal judgements and Inspectors’ decisions relating to habitat loss and site integrity. The review examined development projects with small scale effects of approximately 1.0% or less of land take or habitat loss. The review concluded that habitat loss of a very small scale, including losses in the order of 0.1% or less of a site, in specific cases has been regarded as an adverse effect on site integrity of a designated site. The Habitats Regulations Assessment Handbook68 reiterates this and points out that in other cases such a loss may not be an adverse effect on site integrity. Both references emphasise that percentage loss is not the only consideration and that ecological function of the area affected should also be assessed in the ‘integrity test’.
67 Hoskin, R. And Tyldesley, D. (2006) How the scale of effects on internationally designated nature
conservation sites in Britain has been considered in decision making: A review of authoritative decisions.
Assessing effects on other conservation objective attributes
1.5.5 The assessment of impacts from offshore wind developments on the Dogger Bank SCI has centred on habitat loss. In order for consideration to be given to other conservation objective attributes, Natural England has asked the Applicant to carry out a review of other legal judgments and Inspectors’ decisions relating to ecological function. Natural England and JNCC consider that this will better inform the Examining Authority and Secretary of State. The results of this study will be available at an appropriate deadline during the Dogger Bank Teesside A & B projects examination.
1.6 Effect on site integrity from the Dogger Bank Teesside A & B project in combination with all other anthropogenic activities (including fishing)
1.6.1 Natural England and JNCC cannot conclude that there will be no adverse effect on site integrity arising from the Dogger Bank Teesside A & B project in-combination with oil and gas industry development, aggregate extraction areas, the Dogger Bank Creyke Beck projects and the Dogger Bank Teesside C & D offshore renewable projects and fishing activities within the site.
1.6.2 However, we would wish the Examining Authority and the Secretary of State to note that this conclusion is based upon the overwhelming contribution of fishing activities to the unfavourable condition of the site. It could be considered that the combined impacts of other non-fishing activities are significantly smaller in magnitude than the inter-annual variation in pressure from fishing activities. However, it should also be acknowledged that the exact interactions between fishing within the site and the Dogger Bank Teesside A & B projects are currently unclear and dependent on a variety of factors including fishing intensity and location, infrastructure construction techniques and the resilience and recovery rates of benthic communities.
1.6.3 The effects of the Dogger Bank Teesside A & B project need to be considered in the
context of the proposed fisheries management measures, which it is hoped will be
fully implemented and make a significant contribution to the restoration of the site to
favourable condition. However Natural England and JNCC would like to highlight to
the Examining Authority that at this time no positive fisheries management measures
to help the sandbank feature reach favourable condition have been implemented.
1.6.4 As stated in 1.4.5., it is our view that the habitat loss would be long-term temporary if
the habitat were able to recover following decommissioning of the project. This would
require appropriate licence conditions to ensure the removal of all infrastructure that
lies on or protrudes above the seabed (including all protection measures such as
rock and mattresses).
Page 73 of 162
THE PLANNING ACT 2008
THE INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING (ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURE RULES)
2010
DOGGER BANK DOGGER BANK TEESSIDE A & B OFFSHORE WIND FARM
ORDER APPLICATION
Annex E: Expert Report on offshore ornithology
3rd September 2014
Page 74 of 162
2. Introduction
1.1. Natural England’s ornithologists and our consultants the Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust (Consulting) Ltd (WWT Consulting) have undertaken a combined reviewed the offshore ornithological information submitted to PINS by the Applicant.
Natural England
Richard Caldow – Senior Environmental Specialist Ornithology
1.2. Dr Caldow holds a Bachelor of Science Honours Degree in Zoology (1st class) (1985) from the University of Glasgow and a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) degree in Zoology (1989) from the University of Glasgow. Between 1989 and 2007 Dr Caldow worked as a Higher Scientific Officer and latterly a Senior Scientific Officer with the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology and latterly the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology. Between 2008 and 2011 Dr Caldow held a Visiting Professorship at The University of Greenwich.
1.3. Dr Caldow’s PhD research concerned the foraging ecology, breeding ecology, morphology and evolution of skuas. He then spent 18 years working as a research scientist concerned primarily with developing and applying a computer based simulation modelling approach to predicting the population-level consequences of environmental change on wading birds and waterfowl. This approach was based on an understanding of variation between individuals within populations and the ways in which they compete with one another for access to limited food resources. Dr Caldow has authored/co-authored in excess of 60 papers in scientific journals/books and conference proceedings (14 as lead author) and over 40 commissioned research reports (12 as lead author).
1.4. Dr Caldow has been employed by Natural England since 2008, first as an H grade Conservation Officer and since 2009 as a Senior Specialist in marine ornithology within the Marine Evidence: Systems and Advice Team. His main role is to review and provide advice upon impact assessments on birds in coastal and offshore environments. Dr Caldow provides advice to Natural England staff and, on behalf of Natural England, to a range of stakeholders including: ecological consultants, other Statutory Nature Conservation Bodies (“SNCBs”), developers and regulators. In addition, Dr Caldow has been involved in the process of designation of two marine Special Protection Areas (“SPAs”) in English waters and continues to be involved in ongoing work with the JNCC to identify further possible sea areas that could be suitable for designation as SPAs for various seabird species.
1.5. As part of Dr Caldow’s ornithological work for Natural England he has helped manage the production of „Regulation 33‟ packages
1 (under the Conservation of Habitats and Species
Regulations 2010 these packages are referred to as Regulation 35 packages), provided advice on Conservation Objectives and produced Favourable Condition Tables (necessary for site monitoring and informing the scope of an Appropriate Assessment) for European Marine Sites. Dr Caldow has provided non-statutory advice on: draft Environmental Statements (“ESs”), Preliminary Environmental Reports (“PER”, also known as PEI (Preliminary Environmental Information)), and Draft Habitats Regulation Assessments (“HRAs”) to offshore windfarm developers and their consultants; Final ESs and HRAs to regulators and on post-construction monitoring plans and reports to developers, consultants and regulators. Dr Caldow has been involved in work on in excess of 20 offshore windfarm developments.
1 This is a package of environmental information provided by the appropriate nature conservation body,
as directed by Regulation 33 of the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994, in order to advise other relevant authorities as to (a) the conservation objectives for that site, and (b) any operations which may cause deterioration of natural habitats or the habitats of species, or disturbance of species, for which the site has been designated.
WWT Consulting
1.6. WWT Consulting has been providing expert ornithological support to a wide range of statutory agencies and developers for over 13 years. As a provider of aerial surveys, WWT Consulting have collected data for a number of offshore energy developments around much
Page 75 of 162
of the Scottish, Welsh and English coast. WWT Consulting have worked directly with developers and government agencies such as DTI, DBERR and the Crown Estate. Through this work, WWT Consulting have gained vital experience of the level of evidence required for EIAs for offshore developments.
1.7. WWT Consulting has also been actively involved in seabird ecology and marine studies for over a decade. We have a dedicated team of experienced marine ornithologists who have gained in-depth knowledge of marine and coastal waterbirds around the UK through marine surveys, analysis and reporting for clients including Natural England, JNCC, SNH, NRW, Marine Scotland, Crown Estate and offshore wind farm developers.
1.8. Recent framework contracts with Natural England have also seen WWT Consulting working closely with marine staff from both JNCC and Natural England to review ornithological chapters of EIA submissions for offshore wind farms in the North Sea. This has included the review of Section 42 and Habitats Regulations sections of the EIA and the production of Relevant Representations, highlighting issues with the methodologies or data sets used by the developer within their assessments.
1.9. WWT Consulting employs a team of seven people responsible for ornithological projects. The following three members have contributed to this report:
1.10. Gareth is a highly competent ornithologist specialising in waterbirds with extensive experience of managing and conducting marine visual and digital aerial surveys, boat surveys, Wetland Bird Surveys (WeBS), and breeding bird and productivity surveys, including seabird colony counts.
1.11. As a Senior Consultant, Gareth has experience of managing projects such as spatial modelling and windfarm sensitivity mapping of seabirds in English waters for Natural England, a Population Viability Analysis study of gannets Morus bassanus for the Crown Estate, and a digital and visual aerial survey monitoring pilot study for the Liverpool Bay Special Protection Area (SPA) for JNCC.
1.12. In 2012 Gareth completed his MSc in Biological Recording with a dissertation on the at sea distributions of adult and immature gannets.
Michael Shackshaft BSc (Hons), MSc – Consultant
1.13. Michael is an experienced aerial bird survey team leader and has completed over 100 surveys. He is also a certified European Seabirds at Sea (ESAS) surveyor. Michael has applied his aerial survey experience to recent advancements in digital aerial surveying and has assisted in staff training and the development of identification protocols. Michael’s varied experience means that he is fully aware of the range of problems faced by completing bird surveys and in particular the problems of surveying in marine environments.
1.14. Michael is an experienced user of ArcGIS and has worked on a range of projects providing GIS support. Over the last three years Michael has worked on a number of marine mapping projects, this has included the development of a combined ESAS and aerial survey database for Welsh and English waters, a sensitivity index for inclusion in risk mapping for tidal energy devices and the development of sensitivity maps for fishing activities in Welsh waters. Through these and previous aerial survey projects Michael has gained experience of mapping and utilising a wide range of marine data sets to create practical tools for marine spatial planning.
1.15. In his role as an experienced member of WWT Consulting’s marine ornithology team, Michael has provided expert ornithological support to framework contracts held with Natural England and Natural Resources Wales. As a Consultant Michael has also gained experience as a project manager, including a diverse range of projects such as Ecological Surveys of Staines Moor SSSI, Hydro-ecological Surveys and management planning for East Harnham Meadows SSSI and aerial survey data requests for a number of developers, consultants and statutory agencies.
Page 76 of 162
James Darke BSc (Hons), MCIEEM – Consultant
1.16. James is an experienced aerial bird survey team leader and has completed over 100 aerial surveys around the UK, Denmark and Norway, and 20 days of boat surveys in the North Sea, English Channel and Bay of Biscay using ESAS methodology. James also has three years experience of productivity monitoring and colony counts of seabirds on Skomer and Skokholm Islands in Pembrokeshire.
1.17. James has assessed over 60,000 records of high definition video footage from aerial seabird and cetacean surveys and has trained staff in the technique. James has experience of marine dataset manipulation and mapping in Esri ArcMap and in marine line transect distance analysis using program Distance and ‘R’.
1.18. In his role as an experienced member of WWT Consulting’s marine ornithology team, James has provided expert ornithological support to framework contracts held with Natural England and Natural Resources Wales. James has also been able to gain valuable project management experience of a range of different projects, including; Eco-hydrological surveys of potential development sites near York and Cardiff, Aerial survey statistical analysis for JNCC and habitat and topography surveys at a nature reserve near Falkirk.
2. Summary
2.1. This report covers issues relating to offshore marine ornithology associated with offshore elements of the application and draws on the information contained within the application documents submitted by the Applicant to PINS – in particular in the Habitats Regulations Assessment Report (HRA Report) the Environmental Statement (ES Report) and the Ornithological Technical Reports. Additionally this report covers issues raised in various additional appendices that have been supplied by the Applicant as supporting evidence to the Statement of Common Ground (SoCG) subsequent to the submission of our Relevant Representations.
2.2. Natural England has identified several areas of uncertainty within the original ornithological information provided by the Applicant but understands that following updates made during the Dogger Bank Creyke Beck examination, that elements of the methodologies used by the Applicant are due to be updated. The Applicant has presented a number of documents from this earlier application, which has been accepted by Natural England in the context of the Dogger Bank Creyke Beck examination process, as reference documents for the methodologies they now propose. Once updated results have been published and reviewed fully, it is likely, given the conclusions reached by Natural England regarding the Dogger Bank Creyke Beck examination that Natural England will be in a position to agree that no adverse impact would occur on several species associated with SPAs, particularly when considering Dogger Bank Teesside A & B alone.
2.3. The EIA process (see section 3.1 for the legislative framework) requires the consideration of all likely significant effects on the environment not just those on protected sites such as SPAs. Consequently, it is important to take into account potentially significant effects to seabird populations outside the HRA process and European protected sites. This may result in the same species of birds being considered as subject to significant effects from the proposed development following assessment under either process or both.
2.4. Following a review of the environmental information submitted by the Applicant, Natural England identified HRA concerns in relation to four bird species which are potentially at risk of collision or displacement related mortality from the constructed, operational offshore wind farm (OWF). All four species are linked to marine or coastal sites protected as SPAs, Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) and / or Ramsar sites and activities may impact upon the classified bird interest of these sites. These are:
Northern gannet Morus bassanus (associated with Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA and Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs SPA);
Page 77 of 162
Black-legged kittiwake Rissa tridactyla (associated with Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs SPA, Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA, Farne Islands SPA and SSSI and Durham Coast SSSI);
Common guillemot Uria aalge (associated with Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA,
Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs SPA and Farne Islands SPA); and
Razorbill Alca torda (associated with Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA, Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs SPA and Farne Islands SPA).
2.5. Following a review of the environmental information submitted by the Applicant, Natural England identified EIA concerns in relation to seven bird species which are potentially at risk of collision or displacement related mortality from the constructed, operational offshore wind farm (OWF).
Northern gannet Morus bassanus
Black-legged kittiwake Rissa tridactyla
Common guillemot Uria aalge
Razorbill Alca torda
Atlantic puffin Fratercula arctica
Great black backed gull Larus marinus
Lesser black-backed gull Larus fuscus
2.6. Natural England also raised concerns at the Relevant Representations stage about the data and analysis underpinning the original environmental assessment and applicable to both HRA and EIA issues, namely
The use of Extended Band (2012) models (Option 3) for use in collision risk modelling (CRM);
Methods used to assess displacement within the development area and buffer;
The use of appropriate population scales;
The use of appropriate foraging ranges to enable apportioning of breeding season impacts to individual SPAs;
Inclusion of all appropriate projects into the cumulative and in-combination assessments;
The use of consistent methods for inclusion in cumulative and in-combination assessments ;
Inappropriate methods used to attribute effects on migratory birds to English SPAs; and
The use of inappropriate thresholds when considering the magnitude of changes to baseline mortality.
2.7. Several of these issues have been addressed by the Applicant during the latter stages of the Dogger Bank Creyke Beck examination with supporting documents provided as part of the SoCG for Dogger Bank Teesside A & B A & B. Ongoing consultation with Natural England has been used to try to resolve issues with the data and methodology.
2.8. There remain a number of outstanding HRA and EIA issues surrounding the assessment, in particular in relation to black-legged kittiwake, northern gannet, common guillemot and razorbill. All of these issues are subject to ongoing review by Natural England with the overall
Page 79 of 162
to final analysis.
Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA; Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs SPA; Farne
Islands SPA69
and SSSI; and Durham Coast SSSI
Black-legged kittiwake
There is still some disagreement over the use of the Extended Band Model (Option 3) causing uncertainty in the effects of collision from the project both alone and in-combination.
Adverse effect on integrity of the sites cannot currently be excluded. Further assessment of Band model Option 2 should be presented and used at a cumulative/in-combination level and inclusion of operational wind farm sites should be presented.
Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA; Flamborough Head and
Bempton Cliffs69
;
and Farne
Islands SPA70
Common guillemot
There are outstanding issues with the methods used to assess displacement within the site and its 2km buffer and to estimate the number of birds using the area. There is also disagreement over the use of mean population figures for population estimates, mean peak figures have been recommended by Natural England
Adverse effect on integrity of the site cannot currently be excluded as scientific doubt remains for both SPAs both as a result of the Dogger Bank Teesside A & B projects acting alone and in combination with other projects. Displacement effects should be assessed at a constant rate within the defined buffer area and these rates also assessed at an in-combination scale.
Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA; Flamborough Head and
Bempton Cliffs69
;
and Farne
Islands SPA69
Razorbill There are outstanding issues with the methods used to assess displacement within the site and its 2km buffer and to estimate the number of birds using the area. There is also disagreement over the use of mean population figures for population estimates, mean peak figures have been recommended by Natural England
.Adverse effect on integrity of the site cannot currently be excluded as scientific doubt remains for both SPAs both as a result of the Dogger Bank Teesside A & B projects acting alone and in combination with other projects. Displacement effects should be assessed at a constant rate
70 This species was identified in the SPA Review (Stroud et al. 2001) as a qualifying feature in its own right.
However, it is not formally recognised as such on the current citation. In order to future proof their
application, and as a matter of best practice, Natural England advise that the Applicant should include this
species in an HRA assessment
Page 81 of 162
2.12. Population scales: The Applicant should provide more detailed recent species-specific information for the calculation of ‘wider regional’ populations which would allow verification of whether appropriate Biologically Defined Minimum Population Scales (BDMPS) have been used. Natural England has commissioned a review of appropriate BDMPS which is currently in preparation, which NE understands the Applicant has started to use as the basis of their updates to apportionment methods (MacArthur Green 2014b, 2014c, 2014d).
2.13. Foraging ranges (HRA issue): The Applicant has used a combination of mean-maximum foraging ranges and maximum foraging ranges to inform apportioning of impacts to individual SPAs. Natural England has agreed this approach and acknowledge the changes made by the Applicant with regard to this. While the use of maximum foraging ranges for some species has the potential to spread impacts across too wide an array of breeding sites, methods of apportioning should address this issue. The Applicant has issued a number of documents, originally presented as part of the Dogger Bank Creyke Beck examination detailing an alternative method for apportionment which builds on the approach used for East Anglia ONE and has been accepted by Natural England. The Applicant is in the process of preparing results and documents for submission to the Dogger Bank Teesside A & B examination which should be available in Autumn 2014. Natural England will carry out a thorough review of these documents in order to confirm that the approach and the figures used are scientifically sound.
2.14. Cumulative and in-combination assessments: The cumulative and in-combination assessments presented by the Applicant are weakened by issues of inconsistency and exclusion of other relevant offshore wind farms. The issues of consistent CRM approaches for use within cumulative and in-combination assessment have been discussed previously and further inconsistencies in approach are present in the efforts to combine the findings of displacement assessments. While the Applicant has for the most part followed Natural England guidance, carrying out the assessment using a tiered approach, the Applicant is still excluding a number of operational wind farms in spite of repeated requests by Natural England for their inclusion.
2.15. Migratory birds (HRA issue): The methods used by the Applicant to assess the impacts on migratory waterbirds have been fully understood by Natural England but we have requested the use of alternative methods presented in the SOSS05 project. The Applicant does not feel this approach to be appropriate and has not yet presented results to this effect. Further discussions are required on this point to reach an agreement on the approaches presented.
2.16. Baseline mortality: Natural England and JNCC highlighted in their Relevant Representations concerns over the use of inappropriate thresholds when considering the magnitude of changes to baseline mortality. They suggested further work may be required to investigate certain species identified as ‘at risk’. In response, the Applicant has submitted a Potential Biological Removal (PBR) report for northern gannet and black-legged kittiwake which has been welcomed by Natural England. The same document was submitted as part of the Dogger Bank Creyke Beck examination and the approach used was largely agreed by Natural England. However, there is still some disagreement between the Applicant and Natural England regarding which PBR value to take forward for use as a reference. The Applicant has presented a range of results and has argued for the use of a less precautionary approach, contrary to advice from Natural England.
2.17. Baseline review: The Applicant has carried out a thorough review of baseline ornithological information to form the basis of their analyses. Following comments at the initial review stage adjustments were made to ensure appropriate biogeographical population estimates were employed and suitable foraging ranges were used to identify all of the potential SPA sites with the exception of migratory waterbird SPAs, which could be affected by the development. It is also noted that the Applicant has followed advice and used local data sources to inform definitions of breeding seasons for key species.
2.18. Monitoring of the site has been completed for a suitable length of time using the recommended methods for offshore ornithology. However the interpretation and analysis of some data is not in line with advice from Natural England. The use of mean monthly estimates goes against the recommendation for using mean peak values as the basis of site
Page 82 of 162
specific estimates for displacement effects and could serve to lessen the assessed impact of displacement. The Applicant has used an appropriate buffer around the development area, however there are some concerns with regard to the methods used to assess the difference in impacts within the development area and the buffer itself.
2.19. The data presented in Section 4 of Chapter 11 goes some way to describing the existing baseline conditions. However, some concerns remain over the interpretation of some data sets and protocols. We note the method of population estimation uses a novel method, which is undergoing peer review, and await the outcome of that review – though at this stage we are not requesting the Applicant to undertake more work on this issue.
Offshore ornithology HRA species
2.20. Northern Gannet: The first issue identified is the potential impact on the breeding population of northern gannet, a qualifying feature of the Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA and
assemblage component of the Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs SPA69
due to collision
with offshore wind turbine generators.
2.21. The Applicant has assessed the significance of this potential impact on the basis of Collision Risk Modelling and the apportioning of the impacts to a range of UK SPA sites. There is still some disagreement over some of the parameters used and the use of the Extended Band Model (Option 3) though ongoing discussions are being held with Natural England.
2.22. The complications of considering individuals from Scottish SPA sites such as Bass Rock have largely been agreed on though some issues still remain with regard to the cumulative impact assessment methodology.
2.23. For the Dogger Bank Creyke Beck examination, it was concluded that alone, the proposed development would not cause an adverse effect on integrity (AEOI) for northern gannet. Given the similarities in location and predicted number of collisions it is expected that the same conclusion will be reached for Dogger Bank Teesside A & B once revised data sets have been made available.
2.24. Natural England considers that, on the basis of the available evidence, reasonable scientific doubt remains as to the absence of an adverse effect on the integrity of the Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA / Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs SPA due to collision mortality of gannets at Dogger Bank Teesside A & B projects acting jointly with displacement mortality alone. Full conclusions with regard to the cumulative impacts have yet to be resolved.
2.25. Black-legged Kittiwake: The second issue identified is the potential impact on the breeding population of black-legged kittiwake, a qualifying feature of the Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs SPA, the Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA and assemblage component of
the Farne Islands SPA69
, due to collision with offshore wind turbine generators.
2.26. The Applicant has assessed the significance of this potential impact on the basis of Collision Risk Modelling and the apportioning of the impacts to a range of UK SPA sites. There is still some disagreement over some of the parameters used and the use of the Extended Band Model (Option 3) though ongoing discussions are being held with Natural England.
2.27. On the basis of the available evidence Natural England considers that there is still some scientific doubt as to the absence of an adverse effect on the integrity of both sites due to collision mortality of black-legged kittiwake caused by the Dogger Bank Teesside A & B wind farm projects alone. The continued uncertainty over the cumulative and in-combination effects caused by weaknesses in this assessment mean that no firm conclusion has been reached over the impacts of Dogger Bank Teesside A & B in combination with other wind farm developments.
2.28. Common guillemot: The third issue identified is the potential impact on the breeding population of common guillemot, a qualifying feature of the Flamborough and Filey Coast
pSPA and the Farne Islands SPA70
, and an assemblage component of the Flamborough
Head and Bempton Cliffs SPA69
and due to displacement from the operational wind farm.
Page 83 of 162
2.29. The Applicant has assessed the significance of this potential impact on the basis of population estimates based on boat and aerial surveys and disturbance rates derived for individual species. While the approach used and the rates used for disturbance and mortality are broadly in line with methods recommended by Natural England and JNCC, there are some issues with the methods used to assess displacement within the site and its 2km buffer and with the methods used to estimate the numbers of birds using the area. Natural England currently advise that a fixed displacement rate across the buffer area is preferred, in the absence of empirical data to inform a variable rate.
2.30. Given the possibility that greater numbers than those suggested by the Applicant could be affected, scientific doubt remains as to the absence of an adverse effect for both SPAs both as a result of the Dogger Bank Teesside A & B projects acting alone and in combination with other projects.
2.31. Razorbill: The fourth issue identified is the potential impact on the breeding population of razorbill - a qualifying feature of the Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA, and an assemblage
feature of the Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs SPA69
and Farne Islands SPA69
- due
to displacement from the operational wind farm.
2.32. The Applicant has assessed the significance of this potential impact on the basis of population estimates based on boat and aerial surveys and disturbance rates derived for individual species. While the approach used and the rates used for disturbance and mortality are broadly in line with methods recommended by Natural England and JNCC there are some issues with the methods used to assess displacement within the site and its 2km buffer and with the methods used to estimate the numbers of birds using the area.
2.33. Given the possibility that greater numbers than those suggested by the Applicant could be affected, scientific doubt remains as to the absence of an adverse effect for both SPAs both as a result of the Dogger Bank Teesside A & B projects acting alone and in combination with other projects.
Offshore Ornithology EIA species
2.34. Given the uncertainty surrounding a number of crucial elements to the Dogger Bank Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), outlined in Section 2 above, it is not possible to conclude at this stage that the project will not have a significant impact on a number of seabird species. In particular, conclusions are currently unable to be drawn at a cumulative level for the species listed below, due the incomplete nature of the cumulative impact assessment as presented by the Applicant in the Environmental Statement (ES).
2.35. Species Sensitive to Displacement: common guillemot, razorbill and Atlantic puffin. There are a number of queries regarding the assessment of displacement for these species, as raised above.
2.36. Species Sensitive to Collision. As raised above, the selection of the collision risk model option, has a substantial influence on the predicted level of mortality and hence the final outcome of the assessment, as does the approach to cumulative assessment. As such there is uncertainty surrounding a number of seabird species with regards to potential impacts (particularly cumulatively). Specific species are black-legged kittiwake, northern gannet., great black-backed gull and lesser black-backed gull.
Page 84 of 162
3. Report
3.1. Scope of the report
Part 1: Description of protected sites
Part 2: Significant HRA and EIA ornithological issues identified by Natural England
Part 3: Mitigation required to resolve outstanding concerns
Part 4: Conclusions
Part 5: References
3.2. Part 1: Description of protected sites
3.2.1. Full descriptions of the relevant statutory sites can be found in Section 5 of Natural England’s Written Representations.
Species identified as pSPAs and in the SPA Review (2001):
3.2.2. Two SPA sites have been identified as those potentially affected by the project. These are the Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs SPA and the Farne Islands SPA. Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA has superseded the previous designation of Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs SPA and the Applicant was instructed by Natural England to use the pSPA qualifying features as the basis of their assessment. This pSPA has been extended to protect nesting seabirds at Filey and also includes an extension from the cliffs up to 2km from the shore.
3.2.3. The Farne Islands SPA was identified as supporting additional qualifying features in the SPA review (Stroud et al. 2001). This included common guillemot as an individual breeding qualifying feature, and also the seabird assemblage of greater than 20,000 breeding seabirds (including black-legged kittiwakes and razorbills). Please see section 5.2.4 of Natural England’s Written Representation for further detail on the SPA review.
Protected sites of interest:
Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA/Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs SPA:
3.2.4. Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs SPA was classified in 1993 on the basis that it supports an internationally important population of black-legged kittiwake as well as an internationally important seabird assemblage. The protected site is now a pSPA (Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA) due to a proposed extension to include an additional important component of the breeding seabird colony at Filey and to add marine extensions to the site. Until the status of the pSPA boundaries have been confirmed, it is necessary, under Habitat Regulations, that both the original SPA and new pSPA are both considered in the assessment.
3.2.5. Black-legged kittiwake, northern gannet, common guillemot and razorbill: The site regularly supports more than 1% of the biogeographical population of four regularly occurring seabirds species: black-legged kittiwake, northern gannet, common guillemot and razorbill. The original Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs SPA designation only included the breeding numbers of black-legged kittiwake as a distinct qualifying feature with the other species included as part of the overall breeding assemblage found at the site. The proposed extension to the SPA has resulted in the inclusion of northern gannet, common guillemot and razorbill as individual qualifying features. However, in addition to the legal protection afforded by the Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA, Natural England considers that any species named in the species assemblage of the Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs SPA by the SPA review (Stroud et
Page 85 of 162
al. 2001) should also be included within the Applicant’s HRA assessments in order to future proof the application, and as a matter of best practice. This relates to northern gannet, common guillemot and razorbill.
3.2.6. Monitoring of breeding seabird numbers within the pSPA between 2008 and 2011 have revealed that an estimated 2% of the North Atlantic population of black-legged kittiwake breed at the site with an estimated 44,520 breeding pairs equating to 89,040 individuals.
3.2.7. Breeding sites for black-legged kittiwake are widespread throughout the UK though a high percentage is found in northern Scotland and along the North Sea coast of England. Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs hold possibly the largest colony in the North Atlantic.
3.2.8. The pSPA holds the only breeding colony for northern gannet in England and the site supports an estimated 2.6% of the North Atlantic population. This equates to an estimated 8,469 breeding pairs and 16,938 individuals at breeding age. The site has seen a major increase in breeding northern gannet numbers in recent years with only 20 pairs present at the site in 1988. The rest of the British breeding colonies are largely to be found in Scotland with the exception of small numbers breeding in the Channel Islands and a large colony on Grassholm, Wales.
3.2.9. Common guillemot breed in large numbers on the cliffs of the pSPA with an estimated 15.6% of the biogeographical population found at the site. The 2008-2011 average counts for the site were 41,607 pairs and 83,214 breeding adults. Again, Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs is one of the largest breeding colonies in England with larger colonies generally restricted to the islands and coasts of Scotland.
3.2.10. The final qualifying species of the pSPA, razorbill, is found in smaller numbers than common guillemot with an average of 10,570 breeding pairs recorded between 2008-2011. This equates to 2.3% of the biogeographical population. Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs are again one of the principal breeding sites in England and Wales. Only in northern Scotland are larger colonies found with breeding sites located in Shetland, the Western Islands, Caithness and Sutherland.
Breeding seabird assemblage
3.2.11. The pSPA also qualifies as it is used regularly by over 20,000 seabirds. The breeding assemblage includes northern fulmar which breed in sufficient numbers to contribute more than 10% of the total assemblage count. Between 2008-2011 an average of 1,447 pairs were recorded at the site. The SPA supports considerable populations of Atlantic puffin, herring gull and several pairs of European shag and great cormorant. While not meeting numbers of national importance (1% of GB population) or contributing 10% or more to the minimum qualifying assemblage of 20,000 seabirds, these migratory species are still considered part of the designated assemblage protected by the SPA in accordance with the SPA selection guidelines (Stroud et al. 2001).
3.2.12. The Conservation Objectives for this pSPA are:
Subject to natural change, to maintain or restore:
The extent and distribution of the habitats of the qualifying features;
The structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying features;
The supporting processes on which the habitats of the qualifying features rely;
The populations of the qualifying features;
The distribution of the qualifying features within the site.
Page 86 of 162
3.2.13. The proposed Dogger Bank Teesside A & B offshore wind farm has the potential to act counter to the maintenance of the breeding populations and seabird assemblage at the Flamborough & Filey Coast pSPA, in particular to qualifying species such as black-legged kittiwake, northern gannet, common guillemot and razorbill, should unsustainable mortality result from collisions with or displacement from the operational wind farm turbines, alone or in combination with other plans or projects.
Farne Islands SPA
3.2.14. Located 2-6km off the coast of Northumberland, the Farne Islands SPA is a group of low-lying islands that support a diverse assemblage of breeding sea birds including terns, auks and gulls. More distant than Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA, the Farne Islands are approximately 252km from the Dogger Bank Teesside A & B development site.
3.2.15. The site qualifies for its breeding seabird interest, including three 71
species of native tern (arctic, common and Sandwich) and supports in excess of 140,000 individual seabirds, qualifying as a seabird assemblage of international importance. This includes the individual qualifying features along with other species such as black-legged kittiwake, razorbill, European shag and cormorant.
3.2.16. Black-legged kittiwakeError! Bookmark not defined.
, RazorbillError! Bookmark not defined.
and Common illemot
Error! Bookmark not defined.: As qualifying features of the SPA assemblage and species
regularly recorded during monitoring of the development site, common guillemot, razorbill and black-legged kittiwake could suffer from negative impacts resulting from the development of the Dogger Bank Teesside A & B site. Please see section 5.2.3 of Natural England’s Written Representation for further detail on the SPA review.
3.2.17. An estimated 23,499 breeding pairs of common guillemot have been recorded on the islands (1997), representing at least 1% of the breeding East Atlantic population. This species was identified in the SPA Review (Stroud et al. 2001) as a qualifying feature in its own right. However, it is not formally recognised as such on the current citation. In order to future proof their application, and as a matter of best practice, Natural England advise that the Applicant should include this species in an HRA assessment.
3.2.18. Black-legged kittiwake occur in smaller numbers at the site and are included as a qualifying feature as part of the seabird assemblage. This species was identified during the SPA review (Stroud et al. 2001) as part of the overall species assemblage. Although this does not afford it legal protection, in order to future proof their application, and as a matter of best practice, Natural England advise that the Applicant should include this species in an HRA assessment.
3.2.19. The Seabird 2000 census recorded 5,915 individuals at the site equating to just over 1% of the UK population.
3.2.20. Razorbill occur in small numbers on the site. This species is not a qualifying feature at this site. Instead, this species was identified during the SPA review (Stroud et al. 2001) as part of the overall species assemblage. Although this does not afford it legal protection, in order to future proof their application, and as a matter of best practice, Natural England advise that the Applicant should include this species in an HRA assessment.
3.2.21. The Conservation Objectives for this SPA are:
With regard to the individual species and/or assemblage of species for which the site has been classified (the qualifying features), the SPA Conservation Objective is to avoid the deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying features, and the significant disturbance of the
71 Roseate tern Sterna dougallii, guillemot and Atlantic puffin were identified as further qualifying features in
the SPA review (Stroud et al. 2001).
Page 87 of 162
qualifying features, ensuring the integrity of the site is maintained and the site makes a full
contribution to achieving the aims of the Birds Directive.
Subject to natural change, to maintain or restore (more specifically):
The extent and distribution of the habitats of the qualifying features;
The structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying features;
The supporting processes on which the habitats of the qualifying features rely;
The populations of the qualifying features; and
The distribution of the qualifying features within the site
3.2.22. The proposed Dogger Bank (Dogger Bank Teesside) offshore wind farm has the potential to act counter to the maintenance of the breeding seabird assemblage at the Farne Islands SPA, in particular to qualifying features and assemblage species such as black-legged kittiwake razorbill and common guillemot should unsustainable mortality result from collisions with or displacement from the operational wind farm turbines, alone or in combination with other plans or projects.
3.3. Part 2: Significant ornithological issues identified by Natural England
Introduction to significant issues relating to both the HRA and EIA Assessment (except where explicitly detailed)
3.3.1. The Applicant’s ES, including its technical appendices and annexes, presents the assessment of likely significant environmental impacts that would occur as a result of the proposed development. This assessment covers the construction and operational phases of the Dogger Bank Teesside A & B offshore windfarm and the associated developments, including post-operation and decommissioning phases. Impacts identified within the ES are then considered within the Habitats Regulations Assessment Report (HRA) and associated appendices. Appendices linked to the SoCG have also been considered, though many of these have been produced specifically for Dogger Bank Creyke Beck and have been submitted at this stage as reference documents. Updated data sets and results are due to be provided by the Applicant during the autumn of 2014.
3.3.2. Since Relevant Representations were submitted and through the Dogger Bank Creyke Beck examination process, Natural England has been working with the Applicant to further understand the uncertainties originally highlighted.
3.3.3. Those ornithological issues within the scope of the ES and HRA that we consider to be most significant and have been considered further in detail are as follows:
Additional mortality of northern gannets present at the Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA /
Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs SPA due to collisions with operational turbines;
Additional mortality of black-legged kittiwakes of the Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA /
Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs SPA due to collisions with operational turbines;
Additional mortality of common guillemots and razorbills at the Flamborough and Filey Coast
pSPA / Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs SPA due to displacement;
Additional mortality of black-legged kittiwakes at the Farne Islands SPA due to collisions with
operational turbines; and
Additional mortality of common guillemots and razorbills at the Farne Islands SPA due to
displacement.
Page 88 of 162
Additional mortality of northern gannet, black-legged kittiwake, lesser black-backed gull and
greater black-back gull at an EIA scale due to collision.
Additional mortality of common guillemots, razorbill and Atlantic puffin at an EIA scale due to
displacement.
3.3.4. Key overarching methodological issues that apply to several species under HRA and EIA:
Collision risk modelling (CRM);
Displacement;
Population scales;
Assessment of multiple impacts on receptors;
Apportioning impacts to SPAs (HRA only);
Cumulative assessment and in-combination assessment;
Definition of seabird breeding seasons;
Waterbirds migrating to English SPAs (HRA only);
Availability bias; and
Baseline mortality.
3.3.5. Further details regarding these issues are set out below:
Collision risk modelling (CRM)
3.3.6. In Natural England and JNCCs’ Relevant Representations it was noted that CRM outputs presented in the Applicant’s ES reports are from the Extended Band Model Option 3 with the results of the Basic Band Model (Options 1 and 2), as recommended by Natural England (Band 2012), only included for reference and not taken through to final analyses
3.3.7. As part of the examination process for the Dogger Bank Creyke Beck windfarm, Natural England and the Applicant have discussed at length the use of both the extended and basic models. The Applicant has presented evidence in support of its use, JNCC/NE/Forewind SoCG Appendix 4, (Forewind 2014a). This evidence will be discussed during planned meetings for September 2014. Both parties await the publication of a Marine Science Scotland report, designed to clarify the use of the extended Band Model and also the use of different avoidance rates. It is anticipated that this report will be published in autumn 2014.
3.3.8. As part of the discussions relating to Dogger Bank Creyke Beck, it has been accepted that Option 2 of the Band Model is more appropriate for this project. It is noted that the Applicant has published additional results in the JNCC/NE/Forewind SoCG Appendix 2 (Forewind 2014b) summarising, as requested by NE, Option 2 results for Dogger Bank Teesside A & B A + B at a range of avoidance rates.
3.3.9. It is noted that the use of modelled proportions of birds at collision risk height have been
taken from the SOSS(02) project (Cook et al 2012) in line with recommendations from Natural England. The results of this report have been published with upper and lower confidence levels; for example in the case of gannet, the figure for the percentage of birds flying at
Page 89 of 162
collision height has (in the May 2012 version of the report) a mean value of 9.6% but a 95% confidence interval around that which ranges from <0.1% to 19.9%. It has not been clarified by the Applicant whether or not this variation has been considered as part of their analyses. From the Applicant’s response to this issue (paras 2- 4 of JNCC/NE/Forewind SoCG Appendix 2 (Forewind 2014b)), it would appear that the point raised by NE has not been addressed. NE notes that the point it has raised is based on the recommendations provided in Band (2012) which states (para 30 of Band 2012) that “ In addition, alternative +/- estimates should also be presented, reflecting the possibility of a higher or lower proportion of birds flying at risk height. Confidence intervals on flight height data should be used where these are available”. Paragraph 93 of Band (2012) goes on to recommend that “Where the extended model is applied using the generic height data from Cook et al, that paper provides confidence intervals around the median data points. The range of uncertainty relating to flight height can be estimated by replacing the median set of data (as shown in Sheet 5: Flightheight) by, respectively, the upper and lower 95% confidence levels, and noting the corresponding uncertainty in the collision risk.”
3.3.10. The Extended Band Options (i.e. Option 3) attempt to take account of the fact that the probability of a bird colliding on transit through a rotor swept area varies with the height at which it encounters the swept area (lower probability at the top and bottom of the swept area than close to the hub height) and that the distribution of bird flight heights across the height band covered by the swept area is also not uniform but tends to be concentrated towards the lower (less risky) height bands. The extended model is therefore a more refined model which takes into account the effect of flight height distribution.
3.3.11. The two models (basic and extended) yield different predictions of the rate of collisions before avoidance is taken into account. The final predicted collision mortality figure must then take into account the proportion of birds avoiding the turbines (e.g. by displacement, or by evasive action), by multiplying the no-avoidance collision rates by the proportion of birds which do not avoid the turbines. This proportion is typically between 0 and 10% of birds giving rise to an AR in the range 90-100%.
3.3.12. The two models (basic versus extended) require the use of different non-avoidance rates. The extended model takes into account a form of “avoidance” resulting from a skewed flight height distribution, which leads to a smaller proportion of birds passing through the rotor, and bird passages through parts of the rotor with less risk, than if the distribution were uniform (as in the basic model). This type of “avoidance” is contained within the calculation of collisions in the extended model, while the basic model does not take account of the effect at all, such that it remains to be covered within the AR figure that needs to be applied. The result of this is that the generic ARs (typically 98%) that have been calculated using the basic Band model are not directly transferable to use with the Extended Band Model and in order to use the extended model, new ARs (which will be lower than those used with the Basic Model) will need to be generated. This point is made clear in paragraph 80 of Band (2012) (see below).
3.3.13. This is explained in the guidance prepared for The Crown Estate as part of the Strategic Ornithological Support Services Programme, project SOSS-02 (Band 2012) which states: “…if the extended model taking account of flight height distribution is used, it is important that the calculations on which avoidance rates are based also start with a no-avoidance collision rate derived using the extended model” and “…if an avoidance rate is calculated by comparing collision rate observations with a calculated avoidance rate using the basic (uniform flight density) model, then that avoidance rate will already include for the fact that low-flying birds will more often miss the rotor. Using such an avoidance rate in conjunction with the extended model would double-count that factor”.
3.3.14. An additional consideration is the sensitivity of the Extended Options to errors in flight height measurements and categorisation. This issue is being reviewed in the current Marine Scotland Science project due to be published in the autumn of 2014 and should help inform the use of the Extended Options. In the absence of agreement on appropriate avoidance rates to use with the Extended Band Model (Option 3) and how sensitive they are to errors and variation in flight height data, we have considered impacts for the relevant species using the Basic Band Model outputs (Option 2), which also promotes a common currency in assessing cumulative and in combination effects.
Page 90 of 162
Displacement
3.3.15. As commented in their Relevant Representations, Natural England and JNCC welcome the review of displacement presented in the report (Environmental Statement Chapter 11, Appendix B). The Applicant has followed Natural England and JNCC guidance in producing displacement matrices for sensitive species. However, the Applicant, while assessing impacts over a 2km buffer, has reduced the impact of effect on a decreasing scale with increasing distance from the wind farm footprint over the buffer area. While it may be likely that the impact of the wind farm on displacement of species will decrease with distance, the Applicant has only identified a single study from Danish offshore windfarms (Petersen et al 2006) which supports this empirically. As only a single study can be offered as evidence, Natural England continues to advise displacement effects should be assessed at a constant rate within the defined buffer area until such time that evidence suggests otherwise.
3.3.16. The displacement-associated mortality rates selected by the Applicant of 50% displacement and 5% mortality are within the range of those provided by other Applicants for auks. However, ongoing discussion between Natural England and the Applicant relating to their Dogger Bank Creyke Beck application may lead to the Applicant being asked to present the final assessment based on the more precautionary mortality rate of 10% highlighted in the Technical Appendix. Given the almost total uncertainty concerning realistic levels of mortality of displaced birds, Natural England has recently, in their submissions regarding both Dogger Bank Creyke Beck and Hornsea (project 1) made the suggestion that the numbers of deaths predicted to arise across the range of likely levels of displacement (eg 30% - 70%) and associated mortality (eg 1%-10%) should be compared with predicted levels of sustainable mortality such as those which might be generated by tools such as Potential Biological Removal (PBR) modelling (JNCC & Natural England 2013, Natural England, 2014). In the face of uncertainty, this would enable a judgment to be made regarding the likelihood that, given the range of possible outcomes, mortality arising from displacement (in isolation) (and in combination with collision mortality) could give rise to a significant adverse impact.
3.3.17. Application of a 70% displacement rate with a 10% mortality rate uniformly across the breeding, post breeding and non-breeding season yields displacement mortality estimates which can be used as a worst case scenario for assessment of displacement impacts and these figures are presented in Table 3 and 4 for guillemot and razorbill respectively.
3.3.18. During the examination for Dogger Bank Creyke Beck consideration was given to application of these rates to common guillemot and razorbill in arriving at an estimate of in combination annual mortality apportioned to the Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA. This produced a predicted mortality of 875 and 364 individuals respectively. For both species Natural England were able to conclude that these mortality levels allowed a conclusion of no adverse effect on integrity to be reached. Given that the results for both species at Dogger Bank Teesside A & B are lower, it can be concluded that, even considering the absolute worst case scenario, the displacement impact of Dogger Bank Teesside A & B alone would not be significant.
Page 93 of 162
3.3.22. The Applicant has chosen to use mean estimates of bird numbers recorded at the site as the basis on which to assess impacts from displacement. In the Joint Natural England and JNCC Interim Advice Note (Presenting information to inform assessment of the potential magnitude and consequences of displacement of seabirds in relation to offshore windfarm developments) Natural England and JNCC recommend using the mean peak population estimate across years within a given season for assessment. For example, for the breeding season assessment: the average of the peak monthly figures between e.g. April and July 2009 and April and July 2010 even if that means use of different months in the 2 years e.g. May 2009 and June 2010. This allows for year to year variation in the precise time as well as magnitude of peak abundance estimates to be taken into account in arriving at a mean peak population estimate for a given season. Using the overall mean and not the peak mean will cause the number of birds potentially impacted to be underestimated.
3.3.23. The Applicant and NE have yet to reach agreement over the nature of displacement impacts. The Applicant has treated displacement as a one off impact that is not repeated annually. The Applicant considers that displacement represents effective habitat loss and that after an initial impact, adjustment of the population to altered habitat resources would then be subject to “normal” drivers of change. NE argue that displacement should be treated as an annual impact and the loss of habitat and disturbance by boat traffic would have an impact on breeding success and feeding activity beyond the first year of operation. Ongoing discussions between the Applicant and NE are seeking to resolve this difference in opinion.
3.3.24. Displacement, particularly cumulative displacement, has the potential to reduce species survival/productivity, and consequently could impact at a site or population level. The Applicant has extracted data from other windfarm sites where easily available. However, only those which have presented mortality rates have been taken into the final assessments. Having defined an appropriate spatial scale for the cumulative and in combination effects, it is then imperative that it is possible to fully understand the extent of the impacts at that scale. The absence of data and therefore an impact from a number of sites means that the current assessment cannot be considered complete at this time.
3.3.25. If published displacement figures are available it is possible to apply a standard % mortality figure to this for use in a cumulative assessment. Similarly, if population estimates are available then it is also possible to calculate displacement levels for constructed and consented OWFS that did not conduct a displacement assessment, and to use this information in the cumulative assessment.
Population Scales
3.3.26. For adequate assessment of EIA impacts in particular, it is important to present predicted mortality (from collision and displacement) against appropriate population scales. It is particularly important to characterise and define the Biologically Defined Minimum Population Scale (BDMPS). This is the minimum biologically appropriate scale at which, cumulatively and alone, all predicted impacts can be quantified and measured against. For some species more recent estimates are available, for example the SOSS04 PVA report for northern gannets and Frederiksen et al. (2012) for black-legged kittiwakes. MacArthur Green is currently revising a draft contract report for NE in which the BDMPS for various species in various seasons has been reviewed. NE understands that the findings of earlier versions of this work have informed the work by MacArthur Green on behalf of the Applicant and hence the methods outlined in the Appendices 5, 6 and 7 to the SoCG. It is hoped that the final version of this report to NE will be available before the closing of the examination period for this project and will inform ongoing discussions with the Applicant over the methods used It is hoped that an agreement over the final details of methods used will be eventually reached.
Assessment of multiple impacts on receptors
3.3.27. Natural England note that perhaps as a result of the impact-by-impact approach taken to assessing ornithology impacts in the Environmental Statement and information to inform the Appropriate Assessment (hereafter referred to as the AA report), neither document quantitatively considers multiple impacts on a single receptor even when the existence of numbers affected by separate impacts would allow these to be summed. For example, no
Page 94 of 162
effort has been made to combine displacement and collision impacts for a receptor. Acting alone, these impacts may have a negligible impact which could become significant when considered in combination. This has the potential to result in under-estimation of impacts. This issue is relevant to both the consideration of impacts at the SPA and larger population scales.
3.3.28. Following discussions between the Applicant and NE it has been concluded that this issue of the need to combine multiple impacts need only be considered in the case of northern gannet, as agreed during the examination period for Dogger Bank Creyke Beck. Disagreement over the nature of displacement impacts means that further engagement between the Applicant and NE is required before an agreed approach can be used to assess these impacts.
Apportioning breeding season impacts to individual English SPAs (HRA only)
3.3.29. For black-legged kittiwakes, common guillemots and razorbills Natural England agrees it has been appropriate to retain maximum foraging ranges to screen in breeding colonies from which birds seen at the proposed development site during the breeding season might originate. This reflects preliminary results from FAME tracking data which indicates larger maximum foraging ranges than those reported by Thaxter et al. (2012) and additionally, reflects the concentration of birds in the western part of the Dogger Bank Zone during the breeding season which suggests that birds from breeding colonies do forage in this area. For Northern gannet, Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA / Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs SPA is the only pSPA/SPA within the mean maximum foraging range given in Thaxter et al (2012). However, the Applicant has also scoped in Forth Islands SPA which is within the maximum foraging range (but not the mean max) cited in Thaxter et al (2012) based on tracking data from Wakefield et al (2013). However whilst this study shows that Bass Rock birds have travelled to Dogger Bank, the tracking data from Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs birds suggest a far higher proportion of birds at Dogger Bank will be from these colonies and, further, this is presented in Wakefield et al. (2013) as evidence for mutual exclusion in foraging areas between colonies. When considering species with large maximum foraging ranges, such as northern gannet the use of maximum recorded foraging ranges risks potential impacts being spread across too wide a range of seabird colony SPAs, many of which are too distant to account for any meaningful proportion of the birds present at Dogger Bank in the breeding season, based on our knowledge of mean maximum foraging ranges. However, having screened such distant sites into the assessment by virtue of using species’ maximum foraging ranges, this issue of “impact dilution” can be addressed to some extent by use of an appropriate means of apportioning of birds to SPAs at different distances (and sizes).
3.3.30. In response to queries raised during the Dogger Bank Creyke Beck examination period, the Applicant has commissioned a series of reports designed to address the issues of foraging range and apportionment. As part of ongoing discussions with NE, the Applicant has published Appendices 5, 6, and 7 to support work towards the NE/JNCC/Forewind SoCG (MacArthur Green 2014b, 2014c and 2014d). These investigate different approaches for apportioning the bird populations, and therefore the potential impacts, of North Sea windfarm sites on key SPA populations both during and outside of the breeding season. However, as they stand, these appendices do not provide apportioned mortality figures per se but simply present the derived % values which the Applicant considers appropriate to use to apportion mortality at each windfarm to various individual SPAs for various species.
3.3.31. The methods presented in these appendices have in principle (though not necessarily in all of the detail) are understood to been accepted for Dogger Bank Creyke Beck by NE as the approach used builds on that adopted for East Anglia ONE. Results tables for Dogger Bank Teesside A & B based on the apportionment % values in these appendices have yet to be published and it is understood that these will be finalised in the autumn of 2014. NE await the publication of these results before confirming their acceptance of the details of the approach proposed by the Applicant or finalising its advice regarding the significance or predicted impacts.
Assessment of non-English SPAs
Page 95 of 162
3.3.32. It is acknowledged that there are ongoing differences in methodological approaches to apportioning between different SNCBs. Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) continue to advise that in Scottish waters there is no requirement for impacts to SPAs outwith the breeding season to be assessed under HRA. Instead, they consider that the assessment of impact at larger populations scales (e.g. national, biogeographic), and for the appropriate season, should be presented as part of the EIA process. It is not within Natural England’s jurisdiction to advise on the significance of impacts on SPA’s outside of England. Consequently the Applicant should obtain advice from SNH to adequately capture their assessment.
Cumulative assessment and in-combination assessment
3.3.33. Natural England welcomes the inclusion of a number of Scottish and English wind farm sites in the cumulative/in-combination assessments completed by the Applicant. The use of data from Firth of Forth A+B, Inch Cape, Neart na Gaoithe, Hornsea, East Anglia One, Beatrice and Moray results in a more thorough assessment that considers most of the sites developing concurrently with Dogger Bank Teesside A & B. Wind farms commissioned and operational before the start of bird monitoring for Dogger Bank Teesside A & B have been omitted from the assessment by the Applicant on the basis that the impacts of these would already be reflected in the baseline.
3.3.34. Natural England do not agree with this assumption and recommend that all such projects listed under Tier 1 in NEs submissions regarding East Anglia One and Rampion OWFs are included in any cumulative assessment. High survival rates and relatively slow rates of reproduction of some seabirds suggest that the impacts of these existing wind farms would not as yet be reflected in any baseline value that might be used for population sizes. Furthermore, given that most estimates of average seabird productivity and survival that might be used to define “baseline” conditions are usually averaged over many years and often include data from many years ago, it is very unlikely that any residual impacts from recently operational windfarms have yet been captured in the figures used.
3.3.35. The Applicant has reiterated their disagreement with NE over this point in Appendix 2 of the NE/JNCC/Forewind SoCG (Forewind 2014b), including a table of estimated collisions for kittiwake and northern gannet at Blyth, Gunfleet Sands, Kentish Flats, Lynn and Inner Dowsing and Scroby Sands, all Tier 1 projects omitted from the original assessment, taken from NE’s Written Representations for East Anglia ONE. Collisions at all of these sites are negligible and their inclusion would not affect the outcome of the CIA. NE acknowledge that the Applicant has made some effort to review the potential impact of these sites but would prefer to see all of these sites’ predicted impacts included within the final CIA. While their impact may be negligible, it is important that the Applicant has considered all projects with the potential to impact seabird populations.
3.3.36. As part of the assessment the Applicant has acknowledged that no effort has been made to standardise methods from the numerous projects included in the cumulative impact. For example, the collision risk assessment uses the results from a range of different Band model Options (1, 2 and 3) and options. Where possible, efforts should have been made to use standardised results as the basis of assessment. The use of different model options and avoidance rates makes it inappropriate, in some cases, to combine results. The Applicant argues that this approach is overly precautionary and not a realistic worst case scenario.
3.3.37. As part of the Dogger Bank Creyke Beck examination, the Applicant has provided “common currency” tables in line with NE’s request. These are not yet available for Dogger Bank Teesside A & B but will be provided at a suitable time in the examination period, following consultation with NE.
Migratory waterbirds migrating to English SPAs
3.3.38. The AA report does not currently provide sufficient site-specific information regarding collision impacts on migrating waterbird SPAs to allow a conclusion of no adverse effect on integrity to be reached, both alone and in-combination with other offshore wind farms. Natural England understand the method used, assessing the percentage of overlap between each species’ migration route and the development zone, but attempts must then be made, e.g. using the
Page 96 of 162
alternative ways presented in Wright et al. (2012) to assess potential effects on individual SPAs so that a conclusion on adverse effect on integrity can be reached.
3.3.39. Assessing the impact against the national population could result in a predicted level of impact which may not apply within a particular geographical region or to a specific designated site. While it is acknowledged that the distant offshore location of Dogger Bank Teesside A & B and Dogger Bank Creyke Beck make it difficult to attribute impacts to specific coastal SPAs, greater consideration should be given to the possibility of whether there may be differing proportionate effects to specific sites that are important to migratory birds at collision risk.
3.3.40. Within Appendix 2 of the NE/JNCC/Forewind SoCG (Forewind 2014b), the Applicant has listed all of the alternative methods for apportioning impacts on migratory species to SPA’s, highlighting that they consider it inappropriate to consider methods which assume birds migrate point to point directly to or from any given SPA and that they have taken the following approach;
3.3.41. The total mortality could be distributed evenly between all UK SPA populations (i.e. all SPA
populations lose the same percentage of birds).
3.3.42. While this method could over-estimate the impact for a number of sites, the blanket approach adopted here is perhaps not the worst case scenario. Wright et al (2012) comment that apportioning to SPAs “could be done in a number of ways, and should be agreed with the relevant statutory nature conservation body”. NE acknowledges that while the Applicant has used one of these methods, that method is unlikely to represent a worst case scenario for certain species at certain SPAs.
3.3.43. However, it is also noted that NE have concluded no Adverse Effect on Integrity (AEOI) on migrating waterbird SPAs as part of the Dogger Bank Creyke Beck examination both alone and in combination with other projects, including Dogger Bank Teesside A & B Accordingly NE can advise that, as the basis for assessment in the current case is the same as that in the examination of Dogger Bank Creyke Beck, NE are likely to reach the same conclusion on this matter.
Baseline Mortality
3.3.44. Natural England notes that only the impacts of collision mortality in terms of potential increase relative to background annual adult mortality has been provided. Changes to baseline mortality need to be assessed for the other impacts too eg displacement. However, there seems to be a discrepancy in the interpretation of threshold values. We consider additional mortality (from a plan or project) that results in a predicted increase of 1% relative to baseline mortality (i.e. additional mortality as a percentage of baseline mortality eg 10% baseline mortality being increased to more than 10.1%), as a threshold above which further investigation as to the likelihood of significant impact is required. The derivation of this threshold originates from the ‘small numbers’ concept, which in turn was devised to address exploitation of species that may be hunted or taken judiciously for other purposes, under Article 9 of the Birds Directive . By comparison, the Applicant considers <5% increase in background adult mortality has negligible impact (Table 5) Where figures presented represent >1% increase in mortality, further assessment of the population level consequences should be made, for example through the use of population modelling techniques, or reference to existing literature (e.g. SOSS-04, PVA for northern gannets) before a conclusion can be made regarding the magnitude and significance of impact. .
Page 99 of 162
model as the basis for assessment. This is the subject of ongoing investigation and has been discussed at length as part of the Dogger Bank Creyke Beck Examination. Outputs using Option 2 of the Band (2012) CRM should be used. Our preference for these CRM options reflects the fact that “standard” avoidance rates are only applicable for use with the “Basic” Band models and are not currently considered appropriate rates to use with Option 3. Natural England also expects equal consideration to be given to collision mortality figures based on a 98% avoidance rate. The current uncertainties concerning SNCBs regarding CRM and AR include the following (as summarised in the MROG paper previously provided to the Applicant):
Mathematics and assumptions of flight height distribution data: There are currently questions as to the appropriateness of deriving metre-by-metre flight height distributions from current boat-based survey methods (as in SOSS-02). Our understanding of SOSS-02 is that the fine scale flight height distribution for each species is derived from the fit of a statistical model to pooled data (i.e. from numerous flight height surveys); comprising proportions of birds originally recorded to coarse flight height bands. While the statistical models applied to these pooled coarse-scale flight height data may be appropriate, the assumptions underpinning the derivation of flight height distributions are questionable. The SOSS-02 report has undergone peer review and has been published (Johnston et al., 2014). Whilst improvements have been made to the model selection process, it has not been possible to date to consider in detail the validity of the flight height distributions from SOSS-02 which currently inform Option 2 and are the core of Option 3. Caveats on the use of the Cook et al data exist within the CRM guidance document (i.e. Band 2012).
Implicit to the modelling approach undertaken in SOSS-02 is the assumption that birds are always correctly assigned to their respective flight height bands. This assumption exists when you use uniform flight height data in CRM (regardless of the model option) but the implications of violating this assumption may be more significant in the case of Option 3. There is a growing concern that data collection methods, particularly boat-based surveys, produced biased height estimates due to sampling error. For all Options this risks falsely assigning birds to being in or out of risk height but for Option 3 may result in additional error due to birds being falsely assigned to a height within the rotor swept area of greater or lesser collision risk. It is possible that other methods, such as digital aerial survey, may provide more accuracy, but so far no comparisons or ‘truthing’ have been undertaken.
Implications of avoidance rates, and their use on different models and options: Options 1 and 2 are based on the same principles as the original onshore Band Model that has been in use for a number of years (Band 2000, Band et al. 2007). In particular these options are based on the assumption that the number of birds flying at any height within the predicted collision height (PCH) is uniform across the height band from minimum to maximum rotor swept height. A critical factor to all collision mortality predictions is the Avoidance Rate (AR) applied to the raw ‘no-avoidance’ estimate (see Band 2012). Research has shown that AR is one of the key influences on model outputs (Chamberlain et al. 2006), although more recently other variables, such as percentage of birds at PCH, have been shown to have as strong an influence (Liz Masden, pers comm.). This latter work is ongoing and will attempt to incorporate variability and uncertainty into the model.
ARs ideally should be calculated empirically for each species, by using pre- and post-construction monitoring data from existing windfarms. However, almost all of the existing empirical work has involved onshore collision studies using the basic model, where for example, corpses can be counted under wind turbines. Complexities of the offshore environment mean that it is more difficult to derive an empirical AR. To date, theoretical values (e.g. 95%, 98%, 99%) have been used based on our understanding of collision risk in onshore environments. There is, at present, limited firm data on levels of avoidance behaviour (both near and far) by marine birds.
The use of the extended model has highlighted concerns regarding the application of ARs derived from one model to another (e.g. from basic to extended Band models).
Page 100 of 162
This issue is highlighted in Band (2012), with paragraph 80 noting; “If the extended model taking account of flight height distribution is used, it is important that the calculations on which avoidance rates are based also start with a no-avoidance collision rate derived using the extended model”. If ARs calculated from the basic model are used, then that AR already incorporates an element to account for the fact that low-flying birds will more often miss the rotor; “Using such an avoidance rate in conjunction with the extended model would double-count that factor” (Band 2012).
Differences in approaches between countries in the UK: While there is general agreement on the current areas of concern in collision risk modelling in the offshore environment, there are differences in the provision of advice between MROG members. In particular, there are different views on whether it is appropriate to apply the same avoidance rate across options using both the basic and extended model. There is an urgent need to tackle these concerns and knowledge gaps. However, there is now a review contract on avoidance rates being undertaken via Marine Scotland Science, which includes reviewing the applicability of empirically derived avoidance rates for different CRMs. This is due to be published in autumn 2014. NE await this publication before providing further comment on the use of AR
3.3.53. Using Option 3 of the Band model and a 99% avoidance rate, the Applicant has estimated 68 collisions per year with 34 during the breeding season and 34 collisions during the non-breeding season at Dogger Bank Teesside A & B A&B. Of these, ten were apportioned to Flamborough Head and Filey Coast pSPA based on apportioning using colony size and inverse distance squared weighting. This was reported as equating to <0.05% of the site population and an increase in background mortality of 0.79%. Changes to the method of apportionment have been presented in Appendix 6 of the JNCC/NE/Forewind SoCG following methods provisionally agreed between the Applicant and NE. With the Applicant due to provide results for Dogger Bank Teesside A & B using this revised apportionment approach at a later date within the examination, NE would like to have a full opportunity to review both the approach and the results before passing further comment. The approach presented in the original ES submission was not fully accepted but it is hoped that agreement can be reached over the updated approach.
3.3.54. In Appendix 2 of the JNCC/NE/Forewind SoCG,(Forewind 2014b) the Applicant provides collision estimates using Option 2 of the Band model at a range of avoidance rates, in response to comments in the Relevant Representations. For a direct comparison with the results derived using Option 3 described above, consideration has been given to the results presented using an AR of 99%. For northern gannets, 33 collisions per year are estimated under Option 2 compared to 68 using Option 3. This figure of 33 is comprised of 16 during the breeding season and 16 during the non-breeding season. Using the same apportioning method as the Applicant this would equate to 5 birds from Flamborough Head and Filey Coast pSPA and an increase in background mortality of 0.38%
3.3.55. Natural England considers equal consideration should be given to collision figures based on 98% and 99% for the assessment of impacts using the Basic Band Model Option 2 since the evidence for use of a 99% AR for northern gannet is largely based on evidence presented in one study in the Netherlands (Krijgsveld et al. 2011) which may not be representative of all scenarios.
3.3.56. Using a 98% avoidance rate, the above collision estimates would be doubled, resulting in 65 collisions per year under Option 2 and 136 under Option 3 at Dogger Bank Teesside A & B A&B.
3.3.57. Given the changes proposed by the Applicant regarding apportionment of impacts to SPA sites, it is important that NE are given the opportunity to fully review the results and the approach before making further comment.
3.3.58. Apportioning impacts between SPAs: As discussed in section 2, the Applicant has presented methodologies for apportionment that have yet to be fully reviewed by NE for Dogger Bank Teesside A & B. It is understood that the Applicant plans to submit the results of
Page 101 of 162
their updated analysis in Autumn 2014. NE would like the opportunity to review these fully before passing further comment on the apportioning approach adopted by the Applicant.
3.3.59. Consideration of mortality due to displacement: We do not agree with the Applicant’s approach of applying a 0% displacement related mortality rate for northern gannets in assessing the impacts of Dogger Bank Teesside A & B projects on their own, and it seems counter intuitive to the Applicant’s approach of applying a 5% mortality rate for cumulative assessment purposes.
3.3.60. The Applicant has estimated that during the breeding season 256 birds will be displaced from the Dogger Bank Teesside A & B sites during operation (mean of 2010 and 2010/11 and 2011/12 data). Applying a 5% mortality rate figure to this estimate yields potential additional mortality of 13 birds.
3.3.61. The Applicant, while assessing impacts over a 2km buffer, has reduced the impact of effect on a decreasing scale with distance from the wind farm footprint over the buffer area. While we do not disagree that it is likely that the impact of the wind farm on displacement of species will decrease with distance, there is limited empirical evidence to date that provides any scale over which the decline would occur. Natural England therefore continue to advise displacement effects should be assessed at a constant rate within the defined buffer area until such time that evidence suggests otherwise.
3.3.62. Natural England also advises that mean peak abundance estimates should be used for breeding and non-breeding seasons and not means, as discussed in Section 2 above. The breeding season (April – September) mean peak estimate for the Dogger Bank Teesside A & B projects plus buffers (188 in June 2010 + 551 in September 2011 + 1,500 in May 2012/3 = 1,239. Applying a 75% displacement rate and a 5% mortality rate to that mean peak number suggests 929 birds would be displaced of which 46 may die from the Dogger Bank Teesside A & B project areas and 2km buffers.
3.3.63. With the Applicant planning to publish revised apportioning results, in line with an updated approach, it is not possible to consider how an increase in displacement related mortality would impact on individual SPA sites. Given the discrepancy between the mean peak and mean population estimates, it would be useful for the Applicant to consider a range of population estimates in their final analyses.
3.3.64. In combination impact assessment: The Applicant has presented impacts from collision, displacement and barrier effects from Dogger Bank Creyke Beck, Dogger Bank Teesside A & B and Dogger Bank Teesside C & D projects combined. The data collection and analysis methods for Dogger Bank Teesside A & B are identical to those for Dogger Bank Creyke Beck and so the above methodological concerns equally apply.
3.3.65. Using Option 3 of the Band model and a 99% avoidance rate, the Applicant has estimated 217 collisions per year with 104 during the breeding season and 113 collisions during the non-breeding season from Dogger Bank Teesside A & B, Dogger Bank Creyke Beck A and B and Dogger Bank Teesside C & D projects combined. Of these, approximately 34 are apportioned to Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA on apportioning using colony size and inverse distance squared weighting. This was reported as equating to 0.18% of the site population and an increase in background mortality of 2.69%.
3.3.66. In Appendix 3 of the JNCC/NE/Forewind SoCG, the Applicant provides collision estimates using Option 2 of the Band model but maintaining a 99% avoidance rate. Here, for northern gannets, 105 collisions per year are estimated, comprised of 50 during the breeding season and 55 during the non-breeding season. Using the same apportioning method as the Applicant this would equate to approximately 11 birds from Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA / Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs SPA during the breeding season and an increase in background mortality of 1.3%.
3.3.67. Using a 98% avoidance rate the above collision estimates would be doubled, resulting in 209 collisions per year and an increased impact at Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA / Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs SPA. Apportioning using 98% AR and the original
Page 102 of 162
apportionment method has not been completed by the Applicant. NE would like the Applicant to consider the impacts at 98% AR when presenting their new methodology as there is still disagreement over the application of different avoidance rates.
3.3.68. The Applicant has estimated that during the breeding season 1,002 birds will at risk of being displaced from the Dogger Bank Teesside A & B, Dogger Bank Creyke Beck A and B and Dogger Bank Teesside C & D projects during operation. Applying a 5% mortality rate to this estimate yields potential additional mortality of 50 birds. This estimate is based on the mean of the seasonal estimates of abundance within the impact zone and not the peak mean. Abundance estimates for Dogger Bank Teesside C & D plus buffer are not provided so revised estimates using peak mean cannot be completed here. From comparison of the figures for Dogger Bank Creyke Beck and Dogger Bank Teesside A & B presented above, it is possible that additional mortality due to displacement from these three projects combined that can be apportioned to Flamborough Head and Filey Coast pSPA is likely to be around treble that from Dogger Bank Teesside A & B alone, i.e. approximately 30-35 birds.
3.3.69. Given the potential increases in collision and displacement related mortality when considering the different approaches detailed above, it is vital that NE are given the opportunity to assess the impacts at Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA / Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs SPA once the Applicant has finalised their apportionment approach. The combined collision and displacement impact on Northern Gannet has the potential to have a considerable impact on the breeding population at Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA / Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs SPA, especially when considering all of the Dogger Bank development projects cumulatively.
3.3.70. Considering these projects against agreed PBR values will help to reveal how large the potential impact could be. As part of the Written Representations for Dogger Bank Creyke Beck, it was estimated that predicted mortality arising from collisions and displacement of gannets at Dogger Bank Creyke Beck and Dogger Bank Teesside A & B could account for around a third of a PBR vale of 362 birds (assuming that F=0.4). NE would welcome further discussion with the Applicant on this subject with recent submissions to the application including PBR analysis for northern gannet and future submissions planned related to apportionment. If a high proportion of the PBR is “used up” by the developments at Dogger Bank, Natural England advises that there is considerable uncertainty as to whether an adverse effect on integrity of the Flamborough Head and Filey Coast pSPA due to in combination levels of collision mortality with all other relevant windfarm developments can be ruled out. Comparisons with mortality predictions from other projects (e.g. East Anglia One, Triton Knoll, Galloper) would need to be drawn to ensure that PBR levels have not been reached.
3.3.71. Additionally, the assessment excludes a number of constructed/operational projects (e.g., Gunfleet Sands, Kentish Flats, Lynn and Inner Dowsing and Scroby Sands). Impacts from these wind farms are unlikely to have been incorporated as part of the baseline and as such should be included in the cumulative/in-combination assessment. This is discussed in section 2 in more detail.
3.3.72. For displacement impacts the Applicant has only included information from other sites that have presented displacement mortality figures in their reports, i.e numbers displaced AND numbers expected to die, which reduces the number of projects that have been included.
3.3.73. Where the Applicant has included projects in their collision risk assessment they have not used consistent models and parameters, for example Band Option and avoidance rate used, which makes it extremely challenging to draw conclusions on the significance of impact from the in-combination assessment.
3.3.74. Conclusion on northern gannet: Natural England considers that, on the basis of the available evidence, scientific doubt remains as to the absence of an adverse effect on the integrity of the Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA / Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs SPA due to collision mortality of northern gannets at Dogger Bank Teesside A & B projects acting jointly with displacement mortality. The approach used is broadly agreed by Natural England but it is important that all sources of mortality, regardless of season, can be considered before full confidence is given to the results presented by the Applicant.
Page 103 of 162
3.3.75. Natural England advises that if all projects included in the Natural England & JNCC advice to PINS (NE & JNCC 2013) (up to Tier 4) are included in the in combination impacts assessment then scientific doubt remains as to the absence of adverse effects on the integrity of the Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA / Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs SPA associated with the proposed Dogger Bank Teesside A & B projects in combination with other offshore wind farm developments. While it is acknowledged that the Applicant has scoped in the majority of developments, the lack of displacement data from developments that have used different methodologies means that the assessment cannot be considered complete.
Part 2.2: Additional mortality of black-legged kittiwakes of the Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA / Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs SPA due to collisions with operational turbines
3.3.76. Natural England cannot at this time agree beyond reasonable scientific doubt that there will not be an adverse effect on the integrity of the site for this feature, either alone or in-combination with other plans and projects. Natural England considers that the collision mortality due to Dogger Bank Teesside A & B, alone and in-combination, on the black-legged kittiwakes of Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA / Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs SPA requires further consideration before any conclusion regarding the significance of the effect can be reached.
3.3.77. In the Natural England and JNCCs’ Relevant Representations, concerns were raised regarding two main issues:
The use of Option 3 of the Extended Band Model (Band 2012) for CRM; and
The assessment of in combination mortality that can be attributed to the Flamborough and
Filey Coast pSPA / Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs SPA black-legged kittiwake
colony.
3.3.78. Collision Risk Modelling and assessment of collision mortality impacts: Natural England do not at this time agree with the use of Option 3 of the Band model as the basis for assessment. This is the subject of ongoing investigation. Outputs using Option 2 of the Band (2012) CRM should be used as stated as part of the Dogger Bank Creyke Beck examination. Our preference for these CRM options reflects the fact that ”standard” avoidance rates are only applicable for use with the “Basic” Band models and are not appropriate rates to use with Option 3.
3.3.79. Using Option 3 of the Band model, the Applicant has estimated 335 collisions per year with 217 during the breeding season and 118 collisions during the non-breeding season from Dogger Bank Teesside A & B. Of these, 67 are apportioned to Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA based on apportioning using colony size and inverse distance squared weighting. This was reported as equating to <1% of the site population and an increase in background mortality of 1.34%.
3.3.80. In Appendix 2 of the JNCC/NE/Forewind SoCG, (Forewind 2014b) the Applicant provides collision estimates using Option 2 of the Band model. Here, for black-legged kittiwakes, 808 collisions per year are estimated at an avoidance rate of 98%, comprised of 522 during the breeding season and 286 during the non-breeding season. Using the same apportioning method as the Applicant this would equate to 404 birds from and an increase in background mortality of 8.07%
3.3.81. The additional mortality from collision of 404 birds from Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA from the Dogger Bank Teesside A & B projects alone represents 56% of the PBR threshold for the site of 716 (based on an F value of 0.1 and an adult survival rate of 0.865), as presented by
the Applicant in Appendix 6 of the JNCC/NE/Forewind SoCG.(MacArthur Green 2014e)
3.3.82. In-combination impact assessment: The Applicant has presented impacts from collision, displacement and barrier effects from Dogger Bank Teesside A & B, Dogger Bank Creyke Beck, and Dogger Bank Teesside A & B projects combined.
Page 104 of 162
3.3.83. Using Option 3 of the Band model, the Applicant has estimated 553 collisions per year with 388 during the breeding season and 165 collisions during the non-breeding season from Dogger Bank Teesside A & B, Dogger Bank Creyke Beck A and B and Dogger Bank Teesside C & D projects cumulatively. Of these, 284 are apportioned to Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA based on apportioning using colony size and inverse distance squared weighting. This was reported as equating to 0.3% of the site population and an increase in background mortality of 5.72%.
3.3.84. Collision estimates using Option 2 of the Band model were 3,332 collisions per year, comprised of 2,338 during the breeding season and 993 during the non-breeding season. Using the same apportioning method as the Applicant this would equate to 1,716 birds from Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA and an increase in background mortality of 34%.
3.3.85. The additional mortality from collision of 1,716 birds from Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA from the Dogger Bank Teesside A & B, Dogger Bank Creyke Beck A and B and Dogger Bank Teesside C & D projects represents 239% of the PBR threshold for the site of 716 (based on an F value of 0.1 and an adult survival rate of 0.865), as presented by the Applicant in
Appendix 6 of the JNCC/NE/Forewind SoCG.
3.3.86. Given the great disparity between the Option 3 and Option 2 collision mortality estimates for this species it may be useful to present worked examples of the collision risk models to understand the large differences in output.
3.3.87. The cumulative impact assessment for collision follows the tiered approach recommended by NE with an agreed approach adopted by the Applicant as part of the Dogger Bank Creyke Beck examination. However NE and the Applicant still disagree over the inclusion of a number of constructed and operational projects (e.g., Gunfleet Sands, Kentish Flats, Lynn and Inner Dowsing and Scroby Sands). Impacts from these wind farms are unlikely to have been incorporated as part of the baseline and as such should be included in the cumulative/in-combination assessment.
3.3.88. As detailed above, the Applicant has referenced tables extracted from the Written Representations for East Anglia ONE which show the low numbers of black-legged kittiwake predicted to be killed by these projects in Appendix 2 of the JNCC/NE/Forewind SoCG (Forewind 2014b). While their impact may be negligible, it is important that the Applicant has considered all projects with the potential to impact seabird populations.
3.3.89. In the CIA, the Applicant has not used consistent models and parameters, for example Band Option and avoidance rate used, which makes it extremely challenging to draw conclusions on the significance of impact from the in-combination assessment. Where possible, efforts should have been made to use standardised results as the basis of assessment. The use of different model options and avoidance rates makes it inappropriate, in some cases, to combine results. The Applicant argues (JNCC/NE/Forewind SoCG (Forewind 2014b)). that standardising results to a “lowest common denominator” would give an overly precautionary approach.
3.3.90. However, as part of the Dogger Bank Creyke Beck examination, the Applicant has provided “common currency” tables in line with NE’s request. These are not yet available for Dogger Bank Teesside A & B but will be provided at a suitable time in the examination period, following consultation with NE.
3.3.91. Conclusions on black-legged kittiwake: Natural England considers that, on the basis of the available evidence, scientific doubt remains as to the absence of an adverse effect on the integrity of the Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA / Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs SPA due to collision mortality of black-legged kittiwakes at the proposed Dogger Bank Teesside A & B wind farm projects alone. Similarly, the same conclusion applies to the in combination effect on the black-legged kittiwake features of the pSPA.
Part 2.3: Additional mortality of common guillemot and razorbill of the Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA / Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs SPA due to displacement
Page 105 of 162
3.3.92. In the Natural England Relevant Representations, concerns were raised regarding four main issues for these species:
Population estimates – the use of mean or peak mean estimate values
Displacement rates and mortality rates
Apportioning to specific SPAs; and
Cumulative and In-combination assessments – limited data have been used from other
sites and other sources should be considered and used to inform these assessments.
3.3.93. The displacement approach used by the Applicant broadly followed guidance from Natural England and JNCC and the Applicant also commissioned a review of displacement assessment methods to support their approach and submission. The similarities in the methods used and the ecological similarities between common guillemots and razorbills mean that the issues are shared by both species and enable combined comments.
3.3.94. Baseline population estimates: The Applicant has based all impact assessments (for both collision and displacement) on mean population abundance estimates (averaged across years) that have been generated for Dogger Bank Teesside A & B for the breeding season and for the other months of the year. The use of mean population estimates is contrary to advice from Natural England, presented in their interim advice note. They advised that;
“The mean peak population estimate across years within a given season is recommended to be used for assessment, e.g. for the breeding season assessment: the average of the peak monthly figures between e.g. April and July 2009 and April and July 2010 even if that means use of different months in the 2 years e.g. May 2009 and June 2010. This allows for year to year variation in the precise time as well as magnitude of peak abundance estimates to be taken into account in arriving at a mean peak population estimate.”
3.3.95. The Applicant has argued that the use of mean peak figures is not appropriate in this instance and prevents the use of data for cumulative assessments. Given the discrepancy between the data presented and the advice from Natural England and JNCC it would have been preferable for the Applicant to have presented both cases to enable comparison.
3.3.96. The Applicant has calculated mean values for common guillemot breeding and non-breeding months of the year and added these to calculate a mean number of birds. The final estimates taken through to analysis have not been clearly identified in the Environmental Statement or the accompanying Technical Appendix. While the Applicant has provided detailed monthly results, it is not easy to ascertain what figure they have subsequently taken through to displacement analysis. Assuming a 50% displacement rate, the Applicant has predicted that 5,511 Common Guillemot would be displaced from Dogger Bank Teesside A&B alone. For razorbills smaller numbers were estimated and the mean number of individuals estimated to be displaced has been set at 1,804.
3.3.97. Estimating the populations used by the Applicant, from Table 4.7 of the Environmental Statement gives mean values of approximately 10,000 guillemots at risk of displacement during the breeding season and 5,500 outside of the breeding season. Using mean peak abundance estimates across years would give higher breeding season population estimates for Dogger Bank Teesside A & B with populations mean peak estimates of 18,865 for the breeding season and 13,523 outside of the breeding season. Peak counts for common guillemot occurred early in the breeding season with peak counts recorded in March in 2010 (12,396) and April in both 2011 (22,112) and 2012 (22,088). Similar calculations for Razorbill suggest that the use of peak means would result in population estimates up to 3 times larger than the mean estimates.
3.3.98. Given the disagreement over the methods used and the estimated number of birds displaced it is not appropriate to conclude beyond doubt that there would be no adverse effect on the integrity of the site. Natural England would welcome further discussion with the Applicant on
Page 106 of 162
this topic, clarification from the Applicant regarding the final estimates taken through to analysis would also be welcomed.
3.3.99. Displacement and Mortality Rates: Common guillemot and razorbills have been categorised as having a medium sensitivity to disturbance and as such have been attributed displacement rates of 50% in the Applicants assessment. Mortality rates associated with displacement have been listed by the Applicant in Appendix 3 of Appendix 11a and the figures selected for auk species such as common guillemot and razorbill are within the range of those used for other sites in the UK.
3.3.100. However, ongoing discussion between Natural England and the Applicant relating to their Dogger Bank Creyke Beck application may lead to the Applicant being asked to present the final assessment based on the more precautionary mortality rate of 10% highlighted in the Technical Appendix.
3.3.101. As discussed previously, the Applicant has submitted a review of predicted mortality rates derived from a simulation model of displacement and barrier effectson seabirds at sites in Scotland (JNCC/NE/Forewind SoCG Appendix 9, MacArthur Green 2014a). The contents of this study have not been fully reviewed by Natural England at this stage, though initial checks, and the authors own comments, make clear that the study presented is site specific and may not be suitable for use at different locations. Until a time that the lower mortality rates have been agreed, it is recommended that the Applicant take results using both 5% and 10% mortality rates through to final assessment.
3.3.102. The Applicant also continues to use variable displacement rates across the main development area and buffer. While we do not disagree that it is likely that the impact of the wind farm on displacement of species will decrease with distance, there is only limited empirical evidence to date that provides any scale over which the decline would occur. Natural England therefore continue to advise displacement effects should be assessed at a constant rate within the defined buffer area until such time that evidence suggests otherwise.
3.3.103. Apportioning impacts to SPAs: As discussed in section 2, the Applicant has presented methodologies for apportionment that have yet to be fully reviewed by NE for Dogger Bank Teesside A & B. It is understood that the Applicant plans to submit the results of their updated analysis in Autumn 2014. NE would like the opportunity to review these fully before passing further comment on the apportioning approach adopted by the Applicant.
3.3.104. Cumulative and in-combination assessment: Displacement, particularly cumulative displacement, has the potential to reduce species survival/productivity, and consequently could impact at a site or population level. It is noted that the cumulative impact assessment includes a range of other wind farm developments and this is welcomed. However, only those which have presented mortality rates have been taken into the final assessments. Having defined an appropriate spatial scale for the cumulative and in combination effects, it is then imperative that it is possible to fully understand the extent of the impacts at that scale. The absence of data and therefore an impact from a number of sites means that the current assessment cannot be considered complete at this time.
3.3.105. Estimates of displacement mortality have been compiled by the Applicant from a number of North Sea windfarm developments for common guillemot and razorbill. Only those which have included both displacement and mortality figures have been included in the assessment, meaning that projects such as Inch Cape and Moray in Scotland have been excluded.
3.3.106. The number of projects screened into the assessment has been limited by the outputs included within the assessments for each of the projects. Seasonal variation is not available for all projects and some projects had combined their estimates for all auk species. As a worst case scenario these have been included.
3.3.107. The concerns raised in the previous section (variable displacement rates, baseline population estimates, apportioning impacts to SPAs) still stand with regard to the displacement calculations. It is also not clear what methods have been used to calculate the displacement
Page 107 of 162
estimates for other sites. Without this clarity it cannot be confirmed that the method used to combine estimates is appropriate.
3.3.108. Conclusion on common guillemots and razorbills: Natural England considers that given the range of possible additional year round displacement mortality due to Dogger Bank Teesside A & B projects alone, scientific doubt remains as to the absence of an adverse effect on the integrity of the Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA / Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs SPA for common guillemot and razorbill.
3.3.109. Natural England is unable to conclude that there will be no adverse effect on site integrity for the Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA / Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs SPA populations of common guillemot and razorbill on the basis of displacement mortality due to Dogger Bank Teesside A & B projects operating in combination with mortality from other plans and projects.
Part 2.4: Additional mortality of black-legged kittiwakes of the Farne Islands SPA due to collisions with operational turbines
3.3.110. For the reasons given for Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA / Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs SPA black-legged kittiwakes, Natural England consider that the collision mortality due to Dogger Bank Teesside A & B alone and in-combination on the black-legged kittiwakes of Farne Islands SPA requires further consideration before any conclusion regarding the significance of the effect can be reached.
3.3.111. In Natural England Relevant Representation, concerns were raised regarding two main issues:
The use of Option 3 of the Extended Band Model (Band 2012) for CRM; and
The assessment of in combination mortality that can be attributed to the Farne Island SPA black-
legged kittiwake colony.
3.3.112. Collision Risk Modelling and assessment of collision mortality impacts: Using Option 3 of the Band model, currently unsupported by the SNCBs for the reasons given in Section 2, the Applicant has apportioned 1.12 of the 134 collisions per year to Farne Islands SPA based on apportioning using colony size and inverse distance squared weighting. This was reported as equating to <0.1% of the site population and an increase in background mortality of 0.17%.
3.3.113. Using Option 2 of the Band model, of the estimated 808 collisions per year 6 birds have been apportioned to Farne Islands SPA. This represents an increase of 1% relative to background mortality and 0.6% of the site population.
3.3.114. Results generated using Option 3 and 2 of the Band model suggest that the collision impact of Dogger Bank Teesside A & B alone is negligible. However, with the Applicant due to submit revised apportionment figures in autumn 2014, it is not appropriate for Natural England to provide comment at this stage. It is anticipated that the new approach and results will supersede those presented in the Environmental Statement. Natural England will provide comment following a thorough review of the new approach and the results derived from it.
3.3.115. In-combination impact assessment: The Applicant has presented impacts from collision, displacement and barrier effects from Dogger Bank Teesside A & B Beck A and B, Dogger Bank Creyke Beck A and B, and Dogger Bank Teesside C & D projects combined. The data collection and analysis methods for Dogger Bank Teesside A & B are identical to those for Dogger Bank Creyke Beck and so the methodological concerns discussed above equally apply.
3.3.116. Using Option 3 of the Band model, of the estimated 553 collisions per year 8-9 birds have been apportioned to Farne Islands SPA (using colony size and inverse distance squared weighting). This represents an increase of 1.72% relative to background mortality.
Page 108 of 162
3.3.117. Collision estimates using Option 2 of the Band model were 3,332 collisions per year, of which 53.52 were apportioned to Farne Islands SPA (with a 24% relative increase in background mortality).
3.3.118. As with the impacts at Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA / Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs SPA, it is important to consider that the Applicant is due to submit alternative apportionment results in autumn, only then will Natural England be able to comment in full regarding cumulative impact on the Farne Islands SPA.
3.3.119. Given the disparity between the Option 2 and Option 1 collision mortality estimates for this species it may be useful to present worked examples of the collision risk models to understand the differences in output.
3.3.120. Conclusions cannot currently be drawn at a cumulative level due to the incomplete nature of the cumulative impact assessment as presented by the Applicant, and their combination of inconsistent approaches from different projects as discussed above in section 2.2 regarding the impact on black-legged kittiwake at Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA / Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs SPA.
Conclusions on black-legged kittiwake
3.3.121. Natural England considers that, on the basis of the available evidence, scientific doubt remains as to the absence of an adverse effect on the integrity of the Farne Islands SPA due to collision mortality of black-legged kittiwakes at the proposed Dogger Bank Teesside A & B wind farm projects alone. Similarly, the same conclusion applies to the in combination effect on the black-legged kittiwake features of the pSPA.
Part 2.5: Additional mortality of common guillemot and razorbill of the Farne Islands SPA due to displacement
3.3.122. In the Natural England Relevant Representations, concerns were raised regarding four main issues for this species:
Population estimates – The use of mean or peak mean estimate values
Displacement rates – Natural England advises caution against the use of variable
displacement rates across the development zone and buffer.
Mortality rates
Cumulative and In-combination assessments – Limited data has been used from other sites
and other sources should be considered and used to inform these assessments.
3.3.123. The methodological issues highlighted for the same species at Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA / Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs SPA are also true when considering the impacts of displacement on the breeding populations present on the Farne Islands.
3.3.124. Though a smaller population is likely to contribute fewer birds to the numbers recorded at the Dogger Bank Creyke Beck A and B sites the problems with the methodology mean that the conclusions drawn by the Applicant regarding the potential impact on the breeding bird populations of the Farne Islands SPA cannot be agreed at this stage.
3.3.125. Conclusion on common guillemots and razorbills: Natural England considers that given the range of possible additional year round displacement mortality due to Dogger Bank Teesside A & B projects alone, scientific doubt remains as to the absence of an adverse effect on the integrity of the Farne Islands SPA for common guillemot and razorbill.
3.3.126. Natural England is unable to conclude that there will be no adverse effect on site integrity for the Farne Islands SPA populations of common guillemot and razorbill on the basis of
Page 109 of 162
displacement mortality due to Dogger Bank Teesside A & B projects operating in combination with mortality from other plans and projects.
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
3.3.127. Given the uncertainty surrounding a number of crucial elements to the Dogger Bank Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), outlined in Sections 2 and 3 above, it is not possible to conclude at this stage that the project will not have a significant impact on a number of seabird species. In particular, conclusions are currently unable to be drawn at a cumulative level for the species listed below, due the incomplete nature of the cumulative impact assessment as presented by the Applicant in the Environmental Statement (ES).
3.3.128. Species Sensitive to Displacement. Common guillemot, razorbill and Atlantic puffin. There are a number of queries regarding the assessment of displacement for these species, as raised above. Consequently, it is currently not possible to conclude that there will not be a significant effecton common guillemot, razorbill or Atlantic puffin in a cumulative context at the scale of the wider biologically relevant populations eg the North Sea populations.
3.3.129. Species Sensitive to Collision. As raised above, the selection of the collision risk model option, and the percentage of birds flying at rotor risk height, has a substantial influence on the predicted level of mortality and hence the final outcome of the assessment, as does the approach to cumulative assessment. As such there is uncertainty surrounding a number of seabird species with regards to potential impacts (particularly cumulatively). Specific species are noted below.
3.3.129.1. Black-legged kittiwake. Predicted collision mortality using CRM Option 2 raises concerns at both the project based and cumulative scales. Dogger Bank Teesside A & B on their own are predicted to kill 808 black-legged kittiwake per annum using Option 2 of the Band (2012) collision risk model and an avoidance rate of 98%. Considering Dogger Bank Teesside A & B (A and B, C and D) and Dogger Bank Creyke Beck (A and B) cumulatively, it is estimated that an average of 3,332 black-legged kittiwake would be killed per annum (Option 2, 98% AR)
3.3.129.2. Great black-backed gull, lesser black-backed gull and northern gannet. While the potential numbers of predicted collisions of these species may not be an issue for Dogger Bank Teesside A & B on its own when considering impacts on wider populations, Natural England is unable to conclude at this stage that populations of these species will not be adversely affected when the impacts of Dogger Bank Teesside A & B are considered cumulatively with those predicted to occur at all other relevant windfarm developments and at an appropriate population scale. As outlined above, it is important to assess impacts at the appropriate BDMPS and at present there is a risk of under-estimating impacts if considering effects in relation to larger biogeographic scales.
4. Part 4: Mitigation required
4.1. Natural England acknowledge that the Applicant has adjusted key characteristics of the wind farm and turbine design in such a way as to make it likely that the impact on key ornithological receptors would be less than it would otherwise be. At this stage Natural England are not in a position to confirm whether or not these changes have lessened the predicted impact of the wind farm to the point where further mitigation is not required. Regardless of whether that point has been reached or not, or will be reached during the examination by further mitigation, Natural England stress the importance of post-consent monitoring.
4.2. It is unlikely that SPA-specific mitigation will be feasible for either the Flamborough & Filey Coast pSPA / Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs SPA or Farne Islands SPA. Birds at these sites tend to nest on the sheer sea cliffs, and such habitat is not prone to direct management. Similarly, predation is unlikely to be a major issue for cliff-nesting species. Additionally, several species (e.g.
Page 110 of 162
gannets at Flamborough & Filey Coast pSPA / Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs SPA) show increasing trends which suggests any current management may already be effective.
4.3. Alternative forms of mitigation might include: reduction of mortality from other sources acting on the populations in question (for instance, fisheries bycatch, if an issue for any relevant species); increased availability of prey resources, if food shortage is an issue and if prey species can be managed; changes in operational protocols of the Dogger Bank Teesside A & B wind farm to reduce collision impacts when bird numbers are at their peak at Dogger Bank; and minimisation of displacement, for instance, through changing wind farm footprint design.
4.4. Agreeing an effective post-consent monitoring package is extremely important regardless of any mitigation identified as realistic. Predictions within ESs are based on theoretical models of reality and, although such models provide in many cases the best available basis for impact assessment, checking the effectiveness of in-built assumptions within such models, and hence their predictions, on which impact assessments are made, is crucial through post-consent monitoring of sensitive receptors. Such post-consent monitoring should focus on testing key predictions and assumptions of these models of collision mortality and displacement mortality for key sensitive receptors i.e. those concerning which either there is no agreement on, or there is greatest uncertainty regarding, the magnitude of predicted impacts. Furthermore, effects at the colonies themselves should be monitored to assess sustainability of actual impacts.
Part 5: References
Band, W. 2000. Guidance WINDFARMS AND BIRDS: calculating a theoretical collision risk assuming
no avoidance action. Guidance notes series 2000. Scottish Natural Heritage, Battleby
Band, W. 2012. Using a collision risk model to assess bird collision risks for offshore wind farms.
Report to The Crown Estate Strategic Ornithological Support Services (SOSS), SOSS-02.
Wakefield, E.D., Bodey, T.W., Bearhop, S., Blackburn, J., Colhoun, K., Davies, R., Dwyer, R.G.,
Green, J., Grémillet, D., Jackson, A.L., Jessopp, M.J., Kane, A., Langston, R.H., Lescroël, A., Murray,
S., Le Nuz, M., Patrick, S.C., Péron, C., Soanes, L., Wanless, S., Votier, S.C. & Hamer, K.C. 2013.
Space partitioning without territoriality in gannets. Science, DOI: 10.1126/science.1236077
Wright, L.J., Ross-Smith, V.H., Austin, G.E., Massimino, D., Dadam, D., Cook, A.S.C.P. & Calbrade,
N.A. & Burton, N.H.K. 2012. Assessing the risk of offshore wind farm development to migratory birds
designated as features of UK Special Protection Areas (and other Annex 1 species). Strategic
Ornithological Support Services Project SOSS-05. BTO Research Report No. 592. BTO, Thetford
WWT Consulting & MacArthur Green Ltd. 2012. Gannet Population Viability Analysis. Demographic
data, population model and outputs. Strategic Ornithological Support Services Project SOSS-04
Page 113 of 162
THE PLANNING ACT 2008
THE INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING (ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURE RULES)
2010
DOGGER BANK DOGGER BANK TEESSIDE A & B OFFSHORE WIND FARM
ORDER APPLICATION
Annex F: Schedule of Natural England‘s responses to Examining Authority‘s
initial questions.
3rd September 2014
Page 142 of 162
THE PLANNING ACT 2008
THE INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING (ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURE RULES)
2010
DOGGER BANK TEESSIDE A & B OFFSHORE WIND FARM ORDER APPLICATION
Annex G: The Examining Authority’s First Written Questions: Natural England’s answer to 2.25.
3rd September 2014
Page 144 of 162
Northumbria Coast SPA*
The conservation objectives for the Northumbria Coast SPA are to “Avoid the deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying features, and the significant disturbance of the qualifying features, ensuring the integrity of the site is maintained and the site makes a full contribution to achieving the aims of the Birds Directive” such that “subject to natural change, to maintain or restore”:
The extent and distribution
of the habitats of the
qualifying features;
The structure and function
of the habitats of the
qualifying features;
The supporting processes
on which the habitats of
the qualifying features
rely;
The populations of the
qualifying features; and
The distribution of the qualifying features within the site.
A148 Calidris
maritima Purple
sandpiper
(wintering) – big
decline
A169 Arenaria
interpres Ruddy
turnstone
(wintering) – big
decline
A195 Sterna
albifrons Little
tern (breeding)-
ok
The information provided below is based on information contained in English Nature, 2000 (English Nature’s advice given under Regulation 33(2) of the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations 1994). This information was based upon the best available knowledge at the time of writing and therefore may not reflect the current understanding of the features sensitivities or vulnerabilities. Only information which is considered most relevant to the Dogger Bank Teesside developments has been included and full information can be found in English Nature, 2000). The Northumbria Coast SPA is designated for its national and internationally important populations of breeding little tern, and overwintering purple sandpiper and turnstone. The supporting habitats for the SPA interest features are:
Sandy beaches
Shallow inshore waters
Rocky shores with associated boulder and cobble beaches
High tide artificial roost sites
The purple sandpiper and the ruddy turnstone demonstrate
moderate vulnerability to physical loss and physical damage to
rocky shore supporting habitat, visual and noise (including
recreational) disturbance and toxic contamination. The supporting
habitat of the purple sandpiper and ruddy turnstone demonstrates:
High sensitivity to physical loss
Moderate sensitivity to physical damage (abrasion, selective
extraction), non-physical disturbance (noise and visual),
The Northumbria Coast Ramsar is designated due to the achievement of Ramsar criterion 6, in that it supports internationally important populations of breeding little tern and wintering purple sandpiper and ruddy turnstone. The supporting habitat features are considered to be the same as those for the Northumbria Coast SPA (see above) due to the designated area being concurrent and because the same species are present. Therefore the Conservation Objectives and details of the supporting habitat sub-feature vulnerabilities and sensitivities provided above (for Northumbria Coast SPA) are also applicable here.
Page 146 of 162
A195 Sterna
albifrons Little
tern (breeding)
Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast SPA*
The conservation objectives for the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast SPA are: “Avoid the deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying features, and the significant disturbance of the qualifying features, ensuring the integrity of the site is maintained and the site makes a full contribution to achieving the aims of the Birds Directive” such that “subject to natural change, to maintain or restore”:
The extent and distribution
of the habitats of the
qualifying features;
The structure and function
of the habitats of the
qualifying features;
The supporting processes
on which the habitats of
the qualifying features
rely;
The populations of the
A143 Calidris
canutus; Red
knot (Non-
breeding) – big
decline
A162 Tringa
totanus; Common
redshank (Non-
breeding) -
decline
A191 Sterna
sandvicensis;
Sandwich tern
(Non-breeding) –
decline (but not
sure what is
going on here!)
A195 Sterna
albifrons; Little
tern (Breeding) –
currently ok
Waterbird
The information provided below is based on information contained
in English Nature, 2000 (English Nature’s advice given under
Regulation 33(2) of the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.)
Regulations 1994). This information was based upon the best
available knowledge at the time of writing and therefore may not
reflect the current understanding of the features sensitivities or
vulnerabilities. Only information which is considered most relevant
to the Dogger Bank Teesside developments has been included and
full information can be found in English Nature, 2000).
The Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast SPA is designated for its national and internationally important populations of breeding little tern, overwintering knot, and on passage redshank, ringed plover and sandwich tern. In addition, the site regularly supports over 21,000 wintering waterfowl, including species such as cormorant, lapwing, sanderling, and shelduck. The supporting habitats for the SPA interest features are:
sand and shingle areas,
intertidal sandflat and mudflat,
shallow coastal water,
rocky shores,
intertidal sandflat and mudflat, and
Page 147 of 162
qualifying features; and
The distribution of the qualifying features within the site.
assemblage saltmarsh and grazing marsh.
Little tern demonstrate moderate vulnerability to physical loss, whilst all bird species for which the site is designated demonstrate:
high vulnerability to toxic contamination and non-toxic contamination, and
moderate vulnerability to non-physical disturbance (visual and noise), toxic contamination
a cause for concern to biological disturbance.
Supporting habitat sub-features demonstrate:
High sensitivity to physical loss, physical damage (abrasion
and selective extraction), non-physical disturbance (noise
and visual),
Moderate sensitivity to toxic contamination, non-toxic
contamination (nutrient loading, organic loading and
turbidity), and biological disturbance,
Low sensitivity to physical damage (siltation) and non-toxic
contamination (salinity).
Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast Ramsar*
NA A143 Calidris
canutus; Red
knot (Non-
breeding) – big
decline
A162 Tringa
totanus; Common
The Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast Ramsar is designated due to the achievement of Ramsar criterion 6, in that it supports internationally important populations of breeding little tern and wintering purple sandpiper and ruddy turnstone. The supporting habitat features are considered to be the same as those for the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast SPA (see above) due to the designated area being concurrent and because the same species are present.
Page 148 of 162
redshank (Non-
breeding) -
decline
Waterbird
assemblage
Therefore the Conservation Objectives and details of the
supporting habitat sub-feature vulnerabilities and sensitivities
provided above (for Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast SPA) are also
applicable here.
Doggerbank SCI (Germany)
This site is not within Natural
England’s remit -
It is not within Natural England’s remit to provide information on
sites outwith England.
Doggerbank SCI (Netherlands)
This site is not within Natural
England’s remit -
It is not within Natural England’s remit to provide information on
sites outwith England.-
*A definitive conservation status is not provided for these sites. Instead, conservation objectives are provided based on the knowledge of
available population estimates/trends and habitat availability/condition to help inform Natural England’s advice on the general condition of the
site, which in turn informs the management required.
Page 149 of 162
THE PLANNING ACT 2008
THE INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING (ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURE RULES)
2010
DOGGER BANK DOGGER BANK TEESSIDE A & B OFFSHORE WIND FARM
ORDER APPLICATION
Annex H: Summary of Relevant Representation
3rd September 2014
Page 150 of 162
Summary of Relevant Representation content
7.1.1. Natural England submitted Relevant Representations on 12th June 2014. This document presents a summary of those Representations.
7.1.2. The Representations contained a summary of what Natural England considered to be the main nature conservation and related issues in relation to the DCO application, as well as the Deemed Marine Licenses contained therein, and indicated the principal submissions for consideration.
7.1.3. Part I provided an overview of the issues and a summary of Natural England’s advice at the time of the submission. Part II set out all the significant issues which at the time of submission Natural England advised should be addressed by the Applicant and the Examining Authority as part of the examination process in order to ensure the project can be consented.
7.1.4. In Part I Natural England advised that concerns remained relating to a number of Special Protection Areas (SPAs), Special Areas of Conservation (SACs), Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) and recommended Marine Conservation Zones (rMCZs):
a. Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA;
b. Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliff SPA
c. Farne Islands SPA;
d. Dogger Bank cSAC/SCI;
e. Durham Coast SSSI;
f. Farne Islands SSSI; and
g. Flamborough Head SSSI;
h. Compass Rose (Amber rMCZ)
i. Runswick Bay (Amber rMCZ)
7.1.5. In Part I Natural England also advised that concerns remained relating to a number of ornithological species from an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) level:
a. Atlantic Puffin;
b. Black-legged kittiwake;
c. Common guillemot;
d. Great black-backed gull;
e. Lesser black-backed gull;
f. Northern gannet; and;
g. Razorbill.
7.1.6. In Part I Natural England also advised that concerns remained relating to a number of Nationally Protected Species (NPS), species listed on the OSPAR List of Threatened Species, Bap priority species and habitats and species of Conservation Interest from an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) level:
NPS Species
Page 151 of 162
a. Grey Seal (Halichoerus grypus)
b. Harbour Seal (Phoca vitulina)
c. Water Vole (Arvicola amphibious)
d. Lapwing (Vanellus vanellus)
e. Golden Plover (Pluvialis apricaria)
Species listed on the OSPAR List of Threatened Species
f. Ocean Quahog (Artica islandica)
g. Seapen and Burrowing Megafauna
BAP priority species and habitats
h. Sabellaria spinulosa reef
i. Mytilus edulis
j. Brittlestars
Any other NPS species, species listed on the OSPAR List of Threatened Species,
BAP priority species or habitat, or species of conservation interest that has been
identified as present within the zonal envelope by pre-construction surveys or from
verified evidence provided by third parties.
Main Issues
7.1.7. Natural England’s and JNCC’s concerns can broadly be divided into two categories, ornithological and all other matters.
Ornithology
7.1.8. Natural England and JNCC raised a number of methodological issues relevant to the ornithological assessment:
a. Collision Risk Modelling (CRM);
b. Displacement and the size of the buffer used to study displacement
effects;
c. Population scales;
d. Apportioning breeding season impacts to individual English SPAs;
e. Cumulative assessment and in-combination assessment of impacts;
f. Definition of seabird breeding seasons;
g. Migratory waterbirds migrating to English SPAs;
h. Availability bias;
i. Baseline mortality;
j. Assessment of multiple impacts on receptors;
7.1.9. As a result of the above, Natural England was unable to conclude beyond all reasonable scientific doubt that the project would not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA and Farne Islands SPA
Page 152 of 162
due to the potential impacts associated with the wind turbine generators on a number of qualifying features (Northern Gannet, Black-legged Kittiwake, Common Guillemot, Razorbill and Atlantic Puffin).
7.1.10. Natural England was unable to conclude with certainty that the project would not have a significant impact on a number of EIA seabird species (Common Guillemot, Black-legged Kittiwake, Razorbill, Great Black-backed Gull, Northern Gannet, Atlantic Puffin And Lesser Black-backed Gull).
Non ornithology
7.1.11. Natural England considered that there would be no adverse effect on site integrity arising from the Dogger Bank Teesside projects alone, provided that, ultimately, there would be successful decommissioning of the project and therefore ensuring that the impacts are long-term, but temporary. However, Natural England’s outstanding concerns regarding the effects of Dogger Bank Teesside projects A & B on the Dogger Bank SCI were largely based on the eventual nature of the disposal mounds. The potential impacts of concern were:
Habitat loss
Habitat introduction
Changes in topography
Changes in surface sediments
7.1.12. Natural England directed the Applicant to the Dogger Bank Creyke Beck to recent Issues Specific Hearing discussions 2nd- 5th June 2014 for agreed wording to the DML conditions (condition 15) and an agreed approach to include requirements within mitigation measures of the Appropriate Assessment to ensure that the above conditions were considered fully
7.1.13. Natural England was unable to conclude that there would be no adverse effect on site integrity arising from the Dogger Bank Teesside A & B project in-combination with oil and gas industry development, aggregate extraction areas, the Dogger Bank Teesside A & B offshore renewable projects and fishing activities within the site.
7.1.14. Natural England and JNCC identified a number of areas which required further work / consideration with regards the Development Consent Order (DCO) and deemed marine licenses (DMLs).
Other issues
7.1.15. In addition to the above, a number of areas were highlighted where further information would improve the assessment including details and the assessment of:
nearshore sediment transport during operation; active transport zone; export cable
scour impacts; operational impacts of inter-array cable protection and auxiliary
structures; cumulative operational impacts of turbine scour protection, bypassing
method for cofferdams; backfilling of cofferdam pits; cumulative operational impacts
of sediment deposition and suspended sediment plumes in a transboundary context;
and a targeted approach to turbine scour protection
Marine water and sediment quality: Deterioration in water quality due to re-
suspension of contaminated sediments along the cable route during construction
Page 153 of 162
Marine and Intertidal Ecology: Cumulative operational impacts of the introduction of
hard substrates into a mainly sedimentary environment; biotope mapping; cumulative
impacts; sample size; MCZs; monitoring of construction phase impacts; loss of
habitat due to scour protection; brittlestars and ocean quahog
Fish and Shellfish: Impacts to herring eggs in inshore spawning grounds from burial
under sediment; effects of cable protection
Terrestrial Ecology: Wintering birds
HRA: Interruption to sediment transport pathways within the Dogger Bank SCI; and
Northern gannet/ black-legged kittiwake as features of Flamborough Head and Filey
Coast pSPA / Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs SPA; in-combination
electromagnetic field effects from the export cable corridor
Page 154 of 162
THE PLANNING ACT 2008
THE INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING (ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURE RULES)
2010
DOGGER BANK DOGGER BANK TEESSIDE A & B OFFSHORE WIND FARM
ORDER APPLICATION
Annex I: Summary of Written Representation
3rd September 2014
Page 155 of 162
Summary Written Representation
1. Natural England’s Written Representations provide Natural England’s statutory advice in
respect of the potential impacts of the proposed development on the natural
environment. Natural England’s Written Representations expand upon the issues
outlined in Natural England’s Relevant Representations, in view of common ground
discussions that have taken place with the Applicant to date and a number of clarification
notes that have been submitted by the Applicant to address certain issues.
2. In its letter of 11th August 2014 the Examining Authority asked the parties, including
Natural England, a number of first written questions. The answers to those questions are
contained within Annex F of the Written Representations.
Overview of the sections to Natural England’s Written Representations
3. The introductory and background sections of Natural England’s Written Representations are as follows:
3.1. Section 1 sets out the introductory and background sections of the Written Representations.
3.2. Section 2 sets out the status and functions of Natural England.
3.3. Section 3 provides information on the legislative framework which applies in this case, with reference to the relevant pieces of environmental law and policy.
3.4. Section 4 provides an account of the policy framework that can provide assistance to competent authorities when considering the legal steps sets out in section 3 in respect of European sites and SSSIs.
3.5. Section 5 introduces the statutory nature conservation designations and interests in the area of the proposed development. Further information relating to designation citations and boundary maps are included in Annexes A and B to the Written Representations. The relevant protected sites potentially affected by the proposed development are as follows:
Farne Islands SPA
The Flamborough and Filey Coast potential Special Protection Area (pSPA) /
Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs SPA
Dogger Bank SCI
Durham Coast SSSI
Farne Islands SSSI
Flamborough Head SSSI
Compass Rose rMCZ
Runswick Bay rMCZ
4. The relevant European protected species potentially affected by the proposed development are as follows:
Harbour Porpoise
Minke Whale
White-beaked Dolphin
Page 156 of 162
Any other EPS that has been identified as present within the zonal envelope by
pre-construction surveys or from verified evidence provided by third parties.
5. The relevant nationally protected species potentially affected by the proposed development are as follows:
Grey Seal
Harbour Seal
Water Vole
Any other EPS that has been identified as present within the zonal envelope by
pre-construction surveys or from verified evidence provided by third parties.
6. Section 6 contains the statutory advice of Natural England with regard to the issues of concern arising as a result of the proposed development. In its Relevant Representations, Natural England identified the main issues of concern which are dealt with in the Written Representation under two sections: principal issues in relation to ornithology and principal issues in relation to non-ornithology.
7. Issues that were raised in Natural England’s Relevant Representations and addressed
during statement of common ground discussions are not considered any further here. As
such, Natural England has only listed the outstanding principle issues below:
Principal issues in relation to ornithology
8. In the Relevant Representation Natural England and JNCC raised concerns about
aspects of the data and analysis that underpin the offshore ornithological assessment,
namely:
a. Collision Risk Modelling (CRM)
b. Methods used to assess displacement and buffer;
c. Population scales;
d. Foraging ranges to enable apportioning of breeding season impacts;
e. Inclusion of all appropriate projects into the cumulative and in-combination
assessments;
f. Methodology for inclusion in cumulative and in-combination assessments;
g. Migratory birds;
h. Baseline mortality.
9. The views expressed and conclusions reached in our Written Representations regarding
ornithological matters are based upon the content of the documents submitted in the
context of Dogger Bank Teesside A & B application. Natural England notes that in many
respects the detailed figures within these documents and the approaches to impact
assessment within them are very similar and in some cases, identical to those submitted
at an equivalent stage in the case of Dogger Bank Creyke Beck. Accordingly, the views
and conclusions which Natural England has included in its Written Representation reflect
Page 157 of 162
Natural England’s views and conclusions at the same stage in the Dogger Bank Creyke
Beck examination process.
10. Natural England acknowledges that Forewind have, in consultation with Natural England,
undertaken much additional work on many matters during the latter stages of the Dogger
Bank Creyke Beck examination process. As a result of that work Natural England was
ultimately able to exclude significant effects and to rule out adverse effects on site
integrity in respect of almost all species at all sites/population scales.
11. Natural England’s final position on ornithological matters in the context of both EIA and
HRA for Dogger Bank Creyke Beck were set out in its Supplementary Ornithological
Expert Report (updated), and on the assumption that i) those figures will not change
(markedly) and ii) the approaches to assessment which will ultimately be considered as
part of the Dogger Bank Teesside A & B examination process will be in line with those at
Dogger Bank Creyke Beck, Natural England anticipates that it is likely to reach the same
conclusions in the current case as it did in that case, and that those conclusions will be
substantially clearer and different to those which we are constrained to present in this
Written Representation.
12. Offshore ornithology HRA species
13. Natural England focussed on the assessment of impacts on four offshore ornithological features
of the Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA (hereafter “FFC pSPA) and Farne Islands SPA (hereafter
FI SPA):
Northern gannet Morus bassanus (associated with FFC pSPA and FHBC SPA);
Black-legged kittiwake Rissa tridactyla (associated with FFC pSPA, and FHBC SPA
and FI SPA);
Common guillemot Uria aalge (associated with FFC pSPA, and FHBC SPA and FI
SPA); and
Razorbill Alca torda (associated with FFC pSPA, and FHBC SPA and FI SPA).
14. The first issue identified is the potential impact on the breeding population of gannet, a
qualifying feature of the FFC pSPA (and as identified in the SPA Review, an assemblage
feature of the FHBC SPA), due to collision with offshore wind turbine generators.
15. The Applicant has assessed the significance of this potential impact on the basis of Collision Risk Modelling and the apportioning of the impacts to a range of UK SPA sites. There is still some disagreement over some of the parameters used and the use of the Extended Band Model (Option 3) though ongoing discussions are being held with Natural England.
16. The complications of considering individuals from Scottish SPA sites such as Bass Rock have largely been agreed on, though some issues still remain with regard to the cumulative impact assessment methodology.
17. Natural England considers that, on the basis of the available evidence, reasonable scientific doubt remains as to the absence of an adverse effect on the integrity of the FFC pSPA (and FHBC SPA) due to collision mortality of gannets at Dogger Bank
Page 158 of 162
Teesside A & B projects acting jointly with displacement mortality. Full conclusions with regard to the cumulative impacts have yet to be resolved.
18. The second issue identified is the potential impact on the breeding population of black-legged kittiwake, a qualifying feature of the FFC pSPA (and as identified in the SPA Review, an assemblage feature of the FHBC SPA and FI SPA), due to collision with offshore wind turbine generators.
19. The Applicant has assessed the significance of this potential impact on the basis of Collision Risk Modelling and the apportioning of the impacts to a range of UK SPA sites. There is still some disagreement over some of the parameters used and the use of the Extended Band Model (Option 3) though ongoing discussions are being held with Natural England.
20. On the basis of the available evidence Natural England consider that there is still some scientific doubt as to the absences of an adverse effect on the integrity of these sites due to collision mortality of black-legged kittiwake caused by the Dogger Bank Teesside A & B wind farm projects alone. The continued uncertainty over the cumulative and in -combination effects caused by weaknesses in this assessment mean that no firm conclusion has been reached over the impacts of Dogger Bank Teesside A & B in-combination with other wind farm developments.
Auk Species – Common guillemot Uria aalge (hereafter “guillemot”) and Razorbill Alca
torda;
21. The third issue identified is the potential impact on the breeding population of common guillemot, a qualifying feature of the FFC pSPA (and as identified in the SPA Review, an assemblage feature of the FHBC SPA) and FI SPA, due to displacement from the operational wind farm.
22. The Applicant has assessed the significance of this potential impact on the basis of population estimates based on boat and aerial surveys and disturbance rates derived for individual species. While the approach used and the rates used for disturbance and mortality are broadly in line with methods recommended by Natural England and JNCC, there are some issues with the methods used to assess displacement within the site and its 2km buffer and with the methods used to estimate the numbers of birds using the area.
23. Given the possibility that greater numbers than those suggested by the Applicant could be affected, scientific doubt remains as to the absence of an adverse effect for both SPAs both as a result of the Dogger Bank Teesside A & B projects acting alone and in combination with other projects.
Razorbill Alca torda (hereafter “razorbill”)
24. The fourth issue identified is the potential impact on the breeding population of razorbill, a qualifying feature of the FFC pSPA and as identified in the SPA Review, an assemblage feature of the FHBC SPA and FI SPA, due to displacement from the operational wind farm.
25. The Applicant has assessed the significance of this potential impact on the basis of population estimates based on boat and aerial surveys and disturbance rates derived for
Page 159 of 162
individual species. While the approach used and the rates used for disturbance and mortality are broadly in line with methods recommended by Natural England and JNCC there are some issues with the methods used to assess displacement within the site and its 2km buffer and with the methods used to estimate the numbers of birds using the area.
26. Given the possibility that greater numbers than those suggested by the Applicant could be affected, scientific doubt remains as to the absence of an adverse effect for both SPAs both as a result of the Dogger Bank Teesside A & B projects acting alone and in combination with other projects.
27.
Offshore ornithology EIA species
28. Given the uncertainty surrounding a number of crucial elements to the Dogger Bank Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), outlined in Section 2 above, it is not possible to conclude at this stage that the project will not have a significant impact on a number of seabird species. In particular, conclusions are currently unable to be drawn at a cumulative level for the species listed below, due the incomplete nature of the cumulative impact assessment as presented by the Applicant in this Environmental Statement (ES). The species of concern are:
Great black-backed gull Larus marinus
Lesser black-backed gull Larus fuscus
Gannet Morus bassanus
Kittiwake Rissa tridactyla
Guillemot Uria aalge
Razorbill Alca torda
Atlantic puffin Fratercula arctica
29. Species Sensitive to Displacement. Common guillemot, razorbill and Atlantic puffin. There are a number of queries regarding the assessment of displacement for species, as raised above. Specifically, we are currently unable to conclude no significant adverse impact to East Coast populations of common guillemot, razorbill and Atlantic puffin in a cumulative context.
30. Species Sensitive to Collision. As raised above, the selection of the collision risk model option, and the percentage of birds flying at rotor risk height, has a substantial influence on the predicted level of mortality and hence the final outcome of the assessment, as does the approach to cumulative assessment. As such there is uncertainty surrounding a number of seabird species (Great black-backed gull, Lesser black-backed gull, Kittwake, Gannet) with regards to potential impacts (particularly cumulatively).
Principal non-ornithological issues
Marine processes
31. Cumulative Operational Impacts of sediment deposition and suspended sediment
plumes in a transboundary context: The Applicant has predicted that the vast majority
of the cumulative plume that crosses the international boundary only exceeds the
baseline up to 10% of the time. However, Natural England requires further clarification as
to whether the conclusions made were as a result of the sampling locations (i.e. were the
sampling points situated away from the international boundary?).
Page 160 of 162
32. Operational impacts of cable protection within the Dogger Bank SCI: Natural
England has noted that inter-array cable protection and auxiliary structures were not
included in the modelled assessments for operational impacts (e.g. interruption to
sediment transport, changes to bathymetry and suspended sediment concentrations).
33. Through recent SoCG discussions, the Applicant has confirmed that the worst case inter-
array cable protection requirements are 20% unburied (thus 80% buried) within Dogger
Bank Teesside A and Dogger Bank Teesside B.
34. Natural England is currently waiting for the Applicant to respond with further detailed information on the cable protection requirements within the Dogger Bank SCI. We have also asked the Applicant to provide further information on potential cable burial techniques that could be used in areas where the seabed sediment is composed of a high mud or clay content to minimise the need for cable protection. This outstanding concern has implications on Natural England’s current position on the effects of Dogger Bank Teesside A & B on the Dogger Bank SCI site integrity.
35. Operational impacts of the disposal mounds: Natural England’s concerns regarding the benthic communities supported by the Dogger Bank SCI, are underpinned by our concerns regarding the changes to topography and changes to surface sediment composition likely to result from the deposition of monopole drill arisings as disposal mounds.
36. The Applicant has recently provided details of the likely changes to surface sediment
composition that may result from the deposition of this material. Based on these
predictions, the Applicant has been able to model the bathymetric changes and thus, the
size (and footprint size) of the disposal mounds.
37. Natural England questions the results of this exercise as we note that only deposited mud has been included as a disposal mound component. Given that the Applicant also predicts high proportions of sand and gravel to be deposited at the disposal site, Natural England considers the worst case disposal mound size (and footprint size) to be underestimated. As stated above, this has implications for the assessment of habitat loss and habitat introduction in regards to benthic communities.
Marine and intertidal Ecology
38. Site integrity of the Dogger Bank SCI. We are considering whether the proposed
Dogger Bank Teesside A & B project, alone and in combination with other plans and
projects, will have an adverse effect on the integrity of the Dogger Bank SCI. This is a
complex area of work for which we are working closely with the JNCC on to reach a
conclusion. As such, we are not able to provide final advice in our written
representations. We anticipate providing our final advice as part of future Interested
Parties responses and as part of the Issue Specific Hearings and, in particular, for the
Interested Parties Deadline 8 on the Report on the Implications for European Sites
(RIES) document.
Page 161 of 162
39. However, through recent discussions with JNCC, Natural England has developed an
interim position on the matter (Appendix D). However, through recent discussions with
JNCC, Natural England has developed an interim position on the matter (Appendix D).
Natural England and JNCC wish to make it clear to the Secretary of State and Examining
Authority that we expect to receive further information from the Applicant regarding (i)
cable protection requirements (predicted volumes, footprint and materials) within the
Dogger Bank SCI; (ii) the potential use of low impact cable installation techniques which
reduce the need for cable protection; (iii) the technical ability to remove all installed scour
and cable protection as well as, potentially, remedial action to address changes in
sediment composition and benthic communities (e.g. removal of clay deposits); (iv) and
any evidence/findings from any other projects where piles have been driven in similar
sediment to that of Dogger Bank that might inform our understanding of the likely nature
of the clay arisings and behaviour of the disposal mounds. Natural England and JNCC
cannot provide final advice on this matter until this information is received.
40. Biotope Mapping and VERs: Natural England has remaining concerns regarding future
cumulative assessments of the Dogger Bank Zone. These concerns are due to the
knowledge that the VERs produced for the Dogger Bank Creyke Beck ES were derived
using a different methodology to that of Dogger Bank Teesside A & B. As such Natural
England seeks assurances that, if both projects get consent, a consistent analysis of
biotopes will be developed to assess baseline, pre- and post-construction data at a zonal
level. The Applicant has already provided these assurances to Natural England during a
meeting between the Applicant and Natural England held on 19th August 2014. However,
Natural England would like these discussions set out in a clarification note.
Marine Mammals
41. All but one of our marine mammal concerns that were raised in our Relevant
Representations have been addressed as set out in section 7 of the offshore SOCG:
42. SMRU Harbour Seal Telemetry Data: In its Relevant Representation, Natural England
noted the importance of including the more recent telemetry data for harbour seal from
SMRU. At a statement of common ground meeting held on 14th August 2014, the
Applicant committed into looking into the availability of this dataset. Natural England
looks forward to hearing of any progress on this matter.
Terrestrial Ecology
43. Golden Plover and Lapwing mitigation during construction: In the interest of best
practice In the interest of best practice and in order to minimise the risk of disturbance,
we advise that where possible, construction works in the landfall fields are avoided
during January and February. If works are required during this period, they should be
carried out in accordance with the mitigation measures set out in Section 4.2.3 of the
report Construction works at the landfall and Table 6.3 in Chapter 29 (Noise and
Vibration) of the ES. We also advise that further information regarding baseline noise
levels around the landfall cable envelope, and maximum noise levels (LAmax) that will
be experienced from construction activities, should be collected in order to inform
whether further mitigation measures are required.
Page 162 of 162
44. In order to reduce impacts further, efforts should be made to carry out cable landfall
works for Dogger Bank Teesside A at the same time Dogger Bank Teesside B especially
during January to March. Also where possible winter activities should be minimised e.g.
restricted to cable pull-through rather than horizontal directional drill duct installation.
Should the landfall cable installation of Dogger Bank Teesside A and Dogger Bank
Teesside B projects take place in different years, Natural England advise that the
construction compound should be removed and arable fields reinstated between projects
except when sequential over wintering periods are likely to be impacted.
45. Natural England recognises that further details about the works and timing of them will
be known post consent. Therefore to ensure that the Impacts are likely to be within those
predicted in the ES and supporting documents Natural England wishes to ensure that the
DCO includes a requirement for the Applicant to produce a pre-construction terrestrial
cable burial plan including landfall work and/or construction method statement that we
are consulted on by the local authority.
Draft Development Consent Order / Deemed Marine Licenses
46. Natural England would like to direct the Applicant to the Dogger Bank Creyke Beck
project Written Representation (submitted on 18th March 2014) and recent Issues
Specific Hearing discussions 2nd- 5th June and 16th July 2014 for comments to address
on the Dogger Bank Teesside A & B DCO and DMLs. Natural England believe that it
would be beneficial wherever possible for the DCO/DML to reflect the
requirements/conditions agreed for the Dogger Bank Creyke Beck projects. Natural
England believes that the Applicant intends to submit a revised DCO/DML as part of their
written representation and therefore we will provide further comments if required for
deadline IV.
Decommissioning
47. Natural England acknowledges that a decommissioning plan will be required prior to
decommissioning and that this will be agreed at the relevant time under the provisions of
the Energy Act 2004. The decommissioning plan should include an assessment of
whether in-combination decommissioning impacts have been assessed fully and, if not,
request additional information on the impact assessment. Natural England would
welcome a discussion with the Applicant on the potential for in-combination impacts at
that time.
48. Natural England advises that for impacts to the Dogger Bank SCI to be considered long
term, but temporary, all turbines and associated infrastructure will need to be removed at
the time of decommissioning. Furthermore, Natural England recommends that removal
of all cable protection (and potentially cables) where scour is severe is essential in order
for the seabed to return to its natural state as required under OSPAR. These matters
should be subject to consideration at the time of decommissioning.
