Sectoral marine plan: appropriate assessment

12. Is the Plan likely to have a significant effect on the qualifying interests?

12.1.1 The Pre-Screening and Scoping reports identified that the Plan is likely to have a significant effect on a range of qualifying interests. A summary of the broad impact pathways is provided below. Table 18 (Appendix Four) provides an overview of the generic impact pathways associated with the Plan, which can be broadly split into the following categories:

• Physical loss/gain of habitats from removal or smothering;
• Physical damage of habitats and species from siltation, erosion or physical injury/death;
• Non-physical (indirect) disturbance from noise or visual presence and reduced availability or exclusion/displacement of species, including prey;
• Toxic contamination form the introduction of synthetic compounds, introduction of non-synthetic compounds;
• Non-toxic contamination from nutrient enrichment, organic enrichment, changes in suspended sediment and turbidity, changes in salinity or changes to the thermal regime; and
• Biological disturbance from introduction of microbial pathogens, the introduction of invasive non-native species ("INNS") and translocation, or from selective extraction of selected species.

12.2 Habitat

12.2.1 Given the size of the area covered by the draft Plan, a large number of European/Ramsar sites were identified where it was not possible to rule out LSE from development under the draft Plan for some, or all, of the qualifying interests. It was concluded that, given the scale of the Plan, it was not necessary to individually review the full list of sites and the qualifying seabed interests they support. The screening phase concluded it was not possible to rule out LSE for a range of Annex I qualifying habitats features, as follows:

• Morphological features encompassing a range of habitats;
  • Estuaries (1130) which will encompass sub-feature habitats such as saltmarsh, eelgrass, mussel beds, as well as many other Annex I habitats (cited separately below); and
  • Large shallow inlets and bays (1160) which, as with estuaries, encompass a range of other feature and sub-feature habitats.
• Sub-tidal habitats with typically soft-sediment habitat;
• Subtidal sandbanks (i.e. sandbanks which are slightly covered by seawater at all time' 1110)
• Subtidal habitats with typically hard-substratum habitat:
  • Reefs (1170);
  • Submarine structures made by leaking gases (1180); and
  • Submerged or partially submerged sea caves (8330).
• Intertidal habitats (including saltmarshes):
  • Intertidal mudflats and sandflats (i.e. 'Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide' 1140);
  • Annual vegetation of drift lines (1210);
  • Salicornia and other annuals colonising mud and sand (1310);
  • Spartina swards (1320);
• Atlantic salt meadows (1330); and
• Mediterranean and thermo-Atlantic halophilous scrubs.
• Supralittoral habitats:
• Coastal lagoons (1150);
• Supralittoral dune habitats encompassing the following
  • 2130 Fixed dunes with herbaceous vegetation (`grey dunes`);
  • 2150 Atlantic decalcified fixed dunes Calluno-Ulicetea;
  • 2170 Dunes with Salix repens spp. argentea Salicion arenariae;
  • 2250 Coastal dunes with Juniperus spp;
  • 2120 Shifting dunes along the shoreline with Ammophila arenaria (`white dunes`);
• Perennial vegetation of stony banks (1220); and
• Vegetated sea cliffs.

12.2.2 In addition to these habitats, there are individual habitats that are identified within Ramsar citations (e.g. "sand and shingle spit") although these individual features are not listed. There are also sub-features of SACs which include a range of habitats and fish species, which have not been cited as qualifying features;

• Rocky shore communities;
• Kelp forest communities;
• Sublittoral faunal turf communities;
• Mussel bed communities;
• Eelgrass communities;
• Intertidal sea cave communities;
• Subtidal sea cave communities;
• Rocky and coarse sediment shores;
• Extensive reedbeds in the inner Firth of Tay;
• A population of nationally rare fish 'smelt' (or sparling) in the Firth of Tay;
• Rocky scar communities; and
• Infralittoral gravel and sand communities.

12.2.3 The impact pathways for these supporting features are considered to be the same as for the qualifying habitat interest features (with particular distinctions being possible between soft sediment, hard substratum, intertidal and supralittoral categories, as identified above). Therefore, the impacts to these specific habitats were not considered separately within the HRA Report.

12.2.4 For the purposes of the HRA Report, these habitat and sub-habitat features were divided into four distinct categories (reefs, subtidal sandflats, intertidal (including saltmarsh) and supralittoral habitats), thus ensuring Annex I habitats 'estuaries' and 'large shallow inlets and bays' are not considered separately, as these habitats encompass a range of the component features.

12.2.5 The HRA Report identifies that the habitat interest features may be subject to LSE as a result of the following impact pathways:

• Physical loss/gain of habitat (loss of onshore or offshore habitat);
• Physical damage to habitat (damage of onshore or offshore habitat);
• Toxic contamination (contamination and spillages);
• Non-toxic contamination (elevated turbidity); and
• Biological disturbance (introduction of non-native species).

12.3 Marine Mammals

12.3.1 For screening, all relevant SAC and Ramsar sites located within the 100 km buffer of the DPOs were included. A total of 99 SACs with qualifying marine mammal interest features were screened into the assessment given the number of DPOs and the extensive ranges of some marine mammals. Figures F6 and F7 of the HRA Report show the SACs screened in for harbour porpoise and bottlenose dolphin.^[21]

12.3.2 The screening phase concluded that there was a possibility of LSE (or that it was not possible to rule out the risk of LSE) for the following four qualifying marine mammal interest features:

• Harbour seal Phoca vitulina;
• Grey seal Halichoerus grypus;
• Bottlenose dolphin Tursips truncatus; and
• Harbour porpoise Phocoena phocoena.

12.3.3 The HRA Report identified the following impact pathways may result in LSE for the marine mammal qualifying interests of the sites;

• Physical loss/gain of habitat (loss of foraging area);
• Physical loss/gain of habitat (fish aggregating effects);
• Physical damage to habitat (reduction in foraging habitat quality);
• Physical damage to species (damage to seal haul-outs);
• Physical damage to species (collision risk);
• Non-physical disturbance (noise/visual disturbance causing barrier and exclusion effects);
• Non-physical disturbance (Electromagnetic fields);
• Toxic contamination (contamination and spillages); and
• Non-toxic contamination (increased turbidity).

12.3.4 In its advice, dated 25 March 2020, JNCC advised that there would be no LSE on SACs designated for harbour porpoise, due to the distance between the DPOs and harbour porpoise SACs and the lack of overlap of the area of disturbance and SACs. SNH concur with this view for SACs located outwith Scottish waters, but that LSE does still exist within the Inner Hebrides and Minches SAC (depending on the route of offshore export cables associated with development).

12.3.5 JNCC provided comments regarding potential impacts from the clearance of unexploded ordnance associated with development. JNCC agree that this impacts should be assessed and mitigated at a project-level but stated that, currently, potential injury from large devices cannot be mitigated to negligible levels, without the use of noise abatement measures or deflagration. If those alternatives/mitigation measures are not feasible, devices should be cleared in conjunction with a European Protected Species ("EPS") licence for injury. JNCC provided detailed comments on how these issues should be considered and assessed at a project-level.

12.4 Ornithology

12.4.1 The screening phase concluded that there was a possibility of LSE (or that it was not possible to rule out the risk of LSE) from the draft Plan for some, or all, of the qualifying bird interest features for 135 SPAs, 15 pSPAs and a further 51 Ramsar sites (with qualifying bird or habitat interest features).

12.4.2 An individual review of the full list of screened in sites has not been undertaken, given the scale of the Plan and uncertainties surrounding future development, but consideration has been given at a regional level of the potential for cumulative impacts on identified seabird species of concern given the recent consultation responses for OWF development in the Moray, Forth and Tay regions (see later, Section 14.3).

12.4.3 The screening phase identified that LSE was possible for seabird qualifying interests set out in Table 10.

12.4.4 SPA and Ramsar sites also contained other interest features for which it could not be concluded that there was no LSE (e.g. eelgrass) and/or the habitats within them are an important component of the functionality of the European/Ramsar sites (e.g. provision of foraging area for bird species) and have, therefore, been assigned conservation objectives.

12.4.5 The HRA Report identified that the following impact pathways may result in LSE for the qualifying interests of these SPA, pSPA and Ramsar sites:

• Physical loss/gain of habitat (foraging and onshore habitat loss);
• Physical loss/gain of habitat (fish aggregation or artificial reef);
• Physical damage to habitat (reduction in habitat quality);
• Physical damage to species (collision risk);
• Non-physical disturbance (noise/visual disturbance causing exclusion effects);
• Toxic contamination (contamination and spillages); and
• Non-toxic contamination (increased turbidity).

12.5 Diadromous Fish and Freshwater Pearl Mussel Features

12.5.1 Given the size of the area covered by the draft Plan, a large number of European/Ramsar sites were identified where it was not possible to rule out LSE from development under the draft Plan on qualifying diadromous fish and freshwater pearl mussel interest features. Although some diadromous fish species such as Atlantic salmon migrate much further than 100 km from their natal rivers in the absence of detailed information on migration routes a 100 km buffer was used for screening. Figure 7 provides an overview of the SAC, cSAC and SCI sites screened in using the 100 km buffer.

12.5.2 It was concluded that, given the scale of the Plan, it was not necessary to individually review the full list of sites and the qualifying diadromous fish and freshwater pearl mussel interest features that they support within the HRA Report. European sites support additional fish species as 'typical species of habitat' features, for example, sparling (the European smelt Osmerus operlanus). The impact pathways for these supporting features are considered to be the same as the qualifying interest fish features and, therefore, have not been considered separately in the HRA Report or this AA. It is recognised that differences in their life histories may mean they are more or less susceptible to impacts than other species and that this may influence the level of risk of impact and project-level mitigation measures.

12.5.3 The screening phase concluded that there was a possibility of LSE (or that it was not possible to conclude no LSE) for the following fish and freshwater pearl mussel features:

• Atlantic salmon Salmo salar;
• Sea lamprey Petromyzon marinus;
• River lamprey Lampreta fluviatilis;
• Allis shad Alosa alosa;
• Twaite shad Alosa fallax; and
• Freshwater pearl mussel Margaritifera margaritifera.

12.5.4 The HRA Report identified the following key effects on the qualifying interests;

• Physical loss/gain of habitat (loss of onshore and offshore habitat);
• Physical loss/gain of habitat (fish aggregating effects);
• Physical damage to habitat (reduction in foraging habitat quality);
• Physical damage to species (collision risk);
• Non-physical disturbance (noise disturbance causing barrier and exclusion effects);
• Non-physical disturbance (Electromagnetic fields);
• Toxic contamination (contamination and spillages); and
• Non-toxic contamination (increased turbidity).

12.6 LSE Conclusion

12.6.1 Scottish Ministers have undertaken an AA for the qualifying interests and sites listed above.