ptec: information to support habitats regulations ...€¦ · page 1 introduction 1 1.2 project...

PTEC: INFORMATION TO SUPPORT

HABITATS REGULATIONS ASSESSMENT

(HRA)

FINAL VERSION, 17.10.14

Royal HaskoningDHV

Information to Support Habitats Regulation Assessment

CONTENTS Page

INTRODUCTION 1 1

Project background 1 1.2

Abbreviations 1 1.3

HABITAT REGULATION ASSESSMENT 3 2

The Habitats Directive 3 2.1

The Birds Directive 3 2.2

Natura 2000 network 3 2.3

Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) 3 2.4

Special Protection Areas (SPAs) 4 2.5

Sites of Community Importance 4 2.6

APPROACH TO HRA 7 3

Stage 1 Screening 7 3.2Source-pathway-receptor approach 8

Stage 2 – Information to support appropriate assessment 8 3.3In-combination Assessment 8

Stage 3 - Appropriate Assessment (AA) 8 3.4

STAGE 1 – HRA SCREENING OF SACS 10 4

SAC Screening 10 4.2Step 1 Identification of relevant SACs 10 Step 2 Screening SACs for LSE 13 Screening outcome 25 Species and Habitats description 25

STAGE 1 - HRA SCREENING OF SPAS AND RAMSAR SITES 27 5SPA Screening 27 Identification of relevant SPAs and Ramsar sites 27 Stage 1 screening criteria 28 Screening outcome 34

STAGE 2 – INFORMATION TO SUPPORT APPROPRIATE ASSESSEMENT OF 6SACS 35

South Wight Maritime SAC 35 6.2

Conservation objectives for the South Wight Maritime SAC 37 6.3Reefs 37 Vegetated sea cliffs of the Atlantic and Baltic coasts 37

Advice on operations for the interest feature 38 6.4

Current condition of the South Wight Maritime SAC 39 6.5

iii

Appraisal of potential impacts on site integrity 40 6.6

Impacts to sea caves 40 Impacts to reef structures within the South Wight Maritime SAC 40 Magnitude of effect 49 Embedded mitigation 50 Significance of Impact 50 Impact to vegetated sea cliffs of the Atlantic and Baltic coasts 51

Significance of impact 52 6.7

In- Combination Assessment 53 6.8

STAGE 2 – INFORMATION TO SUPPORT APPROPRIATE ASSESSEMENT OF 7SPAS 54

Conservation objectives for SPAs 54 7.2

Current condition of the qualifying features 54 7.3

Vulnerability to tidal device impacts 55 7.4

Value of PTEC offshore site as a potential supporting habitat 55 7.5

Collision 56 7.6

Significance of impact 57 7.7

In - combination Assessment 61 7.8

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR APPROPRIATE ASSESSMENT62 8

SAC conclusions and recommendations 62 8.1

SPA conclusions and recommendations 62 8.2

REFERENCES 63 9

iv

Revision no.

Date Author Approved by

Comment/ reason for issue

1 03/10/2014 DT FF 1st draft for PTEC review 2 21/10/2014 DT PP 2nd draft for PTEC review 3 24/10/2014 PP GK 3rd draft for PTEC review/ NE interim

submission 4 17/10/2014 DT FF Final Draft, following NE comments This project has been co-funded by ERDF under the INTERREG IVB NWE programme. The report reflects the authors’ views and the Programme Authorities are not liable for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.

v

INTRODUCTION 1

This report has been produced to inform the Habitat Regulations Assessment (HRA) process 1.1.1for the proposed Perpetuus Tidal Energy Centre (PTEC) project. This report should be used in conjunction with the accompanying documents supplied as part of the application for a Marine Licence (under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009), s36 licence (under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989), and permission for the onshore components of the project (under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990), in particular the PTEC Environmental Statement (ES) (PTEC, 2014).

This report clearly sets out the HRA process and outlines supporting information gathered to 1.1.2inform that process. This report also considers the potential for the PTEC project to have a Likely Significant Effect (LSE) on relevant sites of international nature conservation importance and provides information to inform the Appropriate Assessment (AA) that may be carried out by the Marine Management Organisation (MMO) (with Natural England as their advisors) as the competent authority. Where appropriate, mitigation measures are suggested and a prediction of the likely significance of each impact is provided.

The legal basis and background for HRA is detailed in Section 2 of this report. 1.1.3

A detailed description of the PTEC project is presented in Chapter 5, Project Description of 1.1.4the ES. This information is summarised below.

Project background 1.2

PTEC is being developed to facilitate the demonstration of tidal energy devices. PTEC is a 1.2.1multi-device demonstration facility, primarily for small arrays of tidal devices up to 10MW, with a total project capacity of 30MW. It will move the industry beyond the testing of single devices (including early prototypes), such as that offered at the European Marine Energy Centre (EMEC) testing facility in Orkney, providing instead, commercial demonstration.

The project will provide the electrical supporting infrastructure to enable a number of small 1.2.2arrays located at ‘berths’ within the overall PTEC development site. The project aims to secure a broad consent envelope which will encompass the range of tidal devices and arrays with potential to be installed and operated at the PTEC facility (see Chapter 5, Project Description for further detail).

Abbreviations 1.3

AA Appropriate Assessment

EC European Commission

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

EMEC European Marine Energy Centre

ES Environmental Statement

EU European Union

HRA Habitat Regulations Assessment

JNCC Joint Nature Conservation Committee

1

LSE Likely Significant Effect

MarLIN Marine Life Information Network

PTEC Perpetuus Tidal Energy Centre

SAC Special Area of Conservation

SPA Special Protection Area

TEC Tidal Energy Converter

2

HABITAT REGULATION ASSESSMENT 2

The Habitats Directive 2.1

Council directive 92/43/EEC on the ‘Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and 2.1.1flora’ , commonly referred to as ‘the Habitats Directive’ was adopted in 1992. This directive is the means by which the European Union meets its obligations in relation to the natural habitats, flora and fauna agreed under the Bern Convention. It also contributes to meeting the expectations of the Convention of Biological Diversity1. The Directive recognised that in the European territory of the member states natural habitats are continuing to deteriorate, with an increasing number of wild species being seriously threatened. The threatened habitats and species form part of the community’s natural heritage and the threats were often trans-boundary in nature. The Directive states that the measures taken at a community level are necessary to conserve these threatened species.

The Birds Directive 2.2

The European Union has an obligation for the protection of wild birds and their habitats 2.2.1agreed under the Ramsar Convention, the Bern convention and the Bonn Convention. These obligations, together with more general duties, are met by means of Directive 2009/147/EC on the conservation of wild birds.

Natura 2000 network 2.3

The Habitats Directive and Birds Directive aim to ensure the long term survival of certain 2.3.1species and habitats by protecting them from the adverse effects of plans and projects. All Member States are required to take measures to maintain or restore natural habitats and wild species listed in the Annexes to the Directives to a favourable conservation status by introducing a robust level of protection for those habitats and species of European importance. There is an obligation to contribute to a coherent European ecological network of protected sites by designating Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) for habitats listed in Annex I and for species listed in Annex II. These measures are also to be applied to Special Protection Areas (SPAs) classified under Article 4 of the Birds Directive. Together SACs and SPAs make up the Natura 2000 network of protected areas.

Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) 2.4

SACs are sites designated under the Habitats Directive (see explanation above) because 2.4.1collectively they make a significant contribution to conserving the 189 habitat types and 788 species identified in Annexes I and II of the Directive.

A section of the subsea export cable for the proposed PTEC project on the south coast of the 2.4.2Isle of Wight falls within the South Wight Maritime Special Area of Conservation (SAC) designated under the Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC).

Designated SACs that have been considered during the screening process for the PTEC 2.4.3project are listed in Table 4.1, with their locations shown in Figure 2.1, below.

1 The global Convention on Biological Diversity opened for signature on 5 June 1992 at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Developmental (the Rio “Earth Summit”)

3

Special Protection Areas (SPAs) 2.5

SPAs are statutory designated sites that are classified under European Union (EU) law in 2.5.1accordance with Article 4 of the European Council (EC) Directive on the conservation of wild birds (2009/147/EC) (known as the Birds Directive). They are classified for rare and vulnerable birds, listed in Annex I to the Birds Directive, and for regularly occurring migratory species.

SPAs which may potentially be affected by the PTEC project are listed in Table 5.1 and their 2.5.2locations are shown in Figure 2.2. Where these sites are also designated as Ramsar sites this is noted in Table 5.1.

Sites of Community Importance 2.6

Sites of Community Importance (SCIs) are SAC and SPA sites that have been adopted 2.6.1by the European Commission but not yet formally designated by the government of each country.

4

Figure 2.1 SACs considered during screening for the PTEC development site

5

Figure 2.2 SPAs considered during screening for the PTEC development site. Note SPAs over 100km from the PTEC project are not included in the Figure; they are however included within Table 5.1 and Table 5.2Table 5.2 where appropriate

6

APPROACH TO HRA 3

The PTEC project is not connected to, or necessary for, the management of any European 3.1.1Sites, but the proposal may have the potential to have a LSE on some sites of international nature conservation importance. This report has been developed to demonstrate to the MMO as the competent authority the process which PTEC Ltd has adhered to in order to comply with Stages 1 and 2 outlined in the Defra HRA process guidance (Defra 2010, UK Marine Policy Statement: Habitats Regulations Assessment and PINS, 2008).

The approach is driven by the legal requirements of the regulations which require a thorough 3.1.2screening stage which tests the project’s potential for impact on the integrity of the relevant European sites as determined in relation to the sites’ Conservation Objectives. The conclusions of the report then provide a summary of the appraisal which is accessible and sufficient.

Guidance on the methods for undertaking HRA has also been prepared for Natural England, 3.1.3Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) and Countryside Council for Wales (CCW) (David Tyldesley Associates, 2014). This report takes into consideration this guidance and uses many of the ideas and techniques recommended.

Stage 1 Screening 3.2

The purpose of the screening stage is to identify any European sites which may be affected 3.2.1by any aspect of the project, either alone or in combination with other aspects of the same project or other projects.

The screening process for the PTEC project was conducted in two steps: 3.2.2

• Step 1 Identification of all European sites within potential range of effects from the

project; and

• Step 2 Identification of potential for LSE to occur.

‘Likely’, in this context, should not simply be interpreted as ‘probable’ or ‘more likely than not’, 3.2.3but rather whether a significant effect can objectively be ruled out. The test considers whether a plan or project, either alone or in–combination with other projects or plans, could undermine the site’s conservation objectives which would be a significant effect. During the assessment process the characteristics and the environmental status of the site are considered in parallel with the conservation objectives. All direct and indirect effects on the designated site features are considered and the likelihood of the effect occurring is a case-by-case judgement, taking account of the precautionary principle and the local circumstances of the site. If the effect is considered likely then the magnitude of the effect is assessed. If a LSE cannot be discounted at the screening stage of the HRA then further consideration is required.

The screening stage also identifies those aspects of the project where it is not possible to 3.2.4discount a risk of significant effect on a European site arising from the construction, operation or decommissioning of the project. Mitigation measures should then be considered for the remaining aspects of the Project, so that the likelihood of them having a significant effect on a European site can be ruled out on the basis of objective information and they too can be screened out.

7

Source-pathway-receptor approach

By adopting the ‘source-pathway-receptor’ approach it is possible to consider the potential for 3.2.5a LSE on the features of each relevant European site to arise during project construction, operation & maintenance (O&M), repowering, and decommissioning. Tabulating findings wherever possible, the screening process identifies for each relevant designated site and its features:

• The SOURCE of the impact (e.g. installation and presence of foundation structures on the seabed);

• The PATHWAY for the impact (the route the source takes to reach the receptor, e.g. physical loss of habitat, non-physical disturbance such as noise and vibration, etc.); and

• The RECEPTOR (if an impact is to cause harm, it must reach a receptor, e.g. a SAC or SPA qualifying feature).

For an LSE to occur, an impact must have a source, a clear linking pathway and a negative 3.2.6

effect upon the receptor.

Stage 2 – Information to support appropriate assessment 3.3

Once the European sites and the relevant conservation objects have been identified, stage 2 3.3.1of the HRA is the provision of information which will inform the competent authority allowing them to complete an Appropriate Assessment (AA) (Stage 3). The information provided in this report (Section 6) includes:

• The Conservation Objectives for sites which may have LSE; • The operations which have been identified as having potential to affect the integrity of

the site; • Current (most recently assessed) condition of the sites; • An appraisal of the potential effects of the project on the site; and • An impact assessment using standard EIA tests to conclude the likely significance of

impacts to the European site.

In-combination Assessment

The distance between most of the designated sites and the PTEC offshore site means that it 3.3.2is unlikely there will be project-specific impacts on their qualifying habitat and species features The Directive recognises that in some cases the effects of a plan on its own would be either unlikely or insignificant, however there may be a number of plans or projects, each of which would be unlikely to have a significant effect alone, but the effects in-combination would cause LSE. Therefore other projects are screened to ensure that the potential in- combination impacts from PTEC with other operational, planned and in-construction activities in the area do not have an adverse effect on site integrity of any Natura 2000 site.

Stage 3 - Appropriate Assessment (AA) 3.4

The requirement in the Directive is for the competent authority, in this instance the MMO, to 3.4.1undertake an AA of a plan or project if it cannot be ascertained that no LSE can occur on the site integrity. The AA will determine the implications of the PTEC project in view of the

8

screened-in sites’ interest features and conservation objectives. In addition, the AA also considers the potential for in -combination effects as discussed above.

The MMO will consult with Natural England as the statutory nature conservation body; the AA 3.4.2will also have regard to any further proposed mitigation measures. The regulator will only consent the project if the AA can ascertain that it will not adversely affect the integrity of any Natura 2000 site.

9

STAGE 1 – HRA SCREENING OF SACS 4

Screening of SACs and SPAs which could be affected by the PTEC project has been 4.1.1conducted

SAC Screening 4.2

The purpose of this screening section is to anticipate whether or not the PTEC project will 4.2.1have a LSE on the integrity of the European sites detailed in Table 4.1 and Table 4.2 concluding which sites and species may require Appropriate Assessment.

Step 1 Identification of relevant SACs

The process of SAC identification and screening has been conducted through the formal 4.2.2Scoping process, consultation with Natural England and through desk based studies.

This section provides details of SACs that are considered to be potentially relevant based on 4.2.3the range of the primary features of each designated site and the distance from the PTEC project site.

During step 1 screening an initial list was composed which included: 4.2.4

• SACs with marine components located within a 100km buffer of the PTEC offshore site; and

• SACs with terrestrial components located on the Isle of Wight

This rationale behind this criteria is as follows. Effects of the PTEC project are highly unlikely 4.2.5to extend further than 100km from the PTEC offshore site and, as the onshore components of the project are based solely on the Isle of Wight, it is only here that terrestrial SACs could be affected. Using these parameters the SACs listed in Table 4.1 were included in the screening process.

Table 4.1: Special Areas of Conservation with the potential requirement for Appropriate Assessment

Special Areas of Conservation Approximate distance from the PTEC project (rounded to the nearest km)

SACs with Marine component (distance measured by sea from nearest point of both SAC and PTEC project boundary)

South Wight Maritime

PTEC subsea cable corridor overlaps with the marine components of the SAC however the terrestrial features are approximately 870m from the PTEC project.

Solent and Isle of Wight Lagoons 17

Wight-Barfleur Reef 19

Solent Maritime 31

River Avon 39

Studland to Portland SCI 40

River Itchen 53

10

Special Areas of Conservation Approximate distance from the PTEC project (rounded to the nearest km)

Chesil and the Fleet 85

Lyme Bay and Torbay 99

Terrestrial SACs (distance measured by land)*

Isle of Wight Downs <1

Briddlesford Copses 12

*only terrestrial SACs located on the Isle of Wight are included.

A brief overview of each SAC is provided below which includes the features that are relevant 4.2.6to the HRA for the PTEC project.

South Wight Maritime SAC

The South Wight Maritime SAC is designated for three different Annex I habitats and no 4.2.7Annex II species. These Annex I habitats are Reefs, Vegetated Sea Cliffs and Submerged or Partially Submerged Sea Caves. The site is particularly interesting because it contains three different examples of reef which are formed by either: chalk, sandstone or limestone. The site covers a large area which takes in the entire southern coast of the Isle of Wight . The PTEC subsea cable corridor overlaps with this SAC, covering 3693m2, which equates to approximately 0.002% of the area of the SAC.

Solent and Isle of Wight Lagoons SAC

The Solent and Isle of Wight Lagoons SAC has been designated due to its Coastal Lagoon 4.2.8habitat. No other Annex I habitat or Annex II species form part of its designation. This SAC encompasses a series of coastal lagoons, including percolation, isolated and sluiced lagoons. A number of lagoons make up the site including behind the sea-wall at Bembridge Harbour which is located on the Isle of Wight (and therefore the closest to the PTEC project) and three on the mainland. The lagoons show a range of salinities and substrates, ranging from soft mud to muddy sand.

Wight-Barfleur Reef SAC

The Wight-Barfleur Reef SAC is designated for its bedrock and stony reef. No other Annex I 4.2.9habitat or Annex II species form part of its designation. The rock is generally sandstone, mudstone and siltstone, although different regions within the SAC can be distinguished on the basis of the different textures formed by different types of rock. It is an offshore SAC located to the south of the Isle of Wight between St Catherine’s Point and Barfleur Point on the Cotentin Peninsula in northern France.

Solent Maritime SAC

The Solent Maritime SAC is designated for the presence of three intertidal habitats: 4.2.10Estuaries, Spartina swards and Atlantic salt meadows. Also present as qualifying features, but not the primary reason for designation, are seven other Annex I habitats and one Annex II species. This SAC encompasses a number of sites on both sides of the Solent stretching from Hurst Castle in the west to West Wittering in the East.

11

River Avon SAC

The River Avon SAC in Hampshire is designated due to its riverine habitat and due to the 4.2.11presence of five Annex II species which include sea lamprey, brook lamprey and Atlantic salmon. The Avon, which enters the English Channel at Christchurch, is a large, lowland river system that includes sections running through chalk and clay, with transitions between the two.

Studland to Portland SCI

The Studland to Portland SCI is designated solely for its reef features. The site which lies off 4.2.12the south coast of Dorset contains numerous areas of reef in many forms, which exhibit a large amount of geological variety and biological diversity. Also present as a qualifying feature, but not a primary reason for selection of this site, are Atlantic salt meadows.

River Itchen SAC

The River Itchen is designated for its Annex I riverine habitat and two Annex II species. Four 4.2.13other Annex II species are present as qualifying features, but not a primary reason for site selection, including brook lamprey and Atlantic salmon. The river Itchen enters the Solent via Southampton water.

Chesil and Fleet SAC

The Chesil and Fleet SAC is designated primarily for the presence of four different Annex I 4.2.14habitats one of which is Coastal Lagoons and the other three are terrestrial habitats.

Lyme Bay and Torbay SAC

The Lyme Bay and Torbay SAC is designated for its Reefs and Submerged or Partially 4.2.15Submerged Sea Caves. The site which lies to the west of Portland is situated mostly within the Western English Channel and Celtic Regional Sea areas and will therefore be subject to different marine conditions to that of the PTEC project.

Isle of Wight Downs SAC

The Isle of Wight Downs SAC is designated for its Vegetated Sea Cliffs, European Dry Heath 4.2.16and Semi-natural Dry Grasslands Annex I habitats. Furthermore the site is designated for the presence of the Annex II species Early Gentian. The site is composed of four areas; three of which are located at the western edge of the Isle of Wight adjacent to The Needles and one which is located to the east of Ventnor, approximately 870m from where the onshore components of the PTEC project would be placed.

The Isle of Wight Downs represents one of the best examples of chalk grassland under 4.2.17maritime influence in the south of England. The exposed and weathered cliff tops provide a range of sheltered and exposed conditions. The most exposed chalk cliff tops support important assemblages of nationally rare lichens, including Fulgensia fulgens.

Briddlesford Copses SAC

The Briddlesford Copses SAC is designated solely for presences of Bechstein`s bat Myotis 4.2.18bechsteinii. no other species or habitat are listed as qualifying. The Briddlesford Copse complex of woodlands which is located on the eastern side of the Isle of Wight to the south of

12

Fishbourne represents the most varied, structurally diverse and species-rich cluster of ancient broadleaved woodland on the Isle of Wight and supports an important breeding population of the rare Bechstein’s bat. The bats use holes and crevices in mature trees for roosting and the interconnecting woodlands for feeding.

Step 2 Screening SACs for LSE

Step 2 of the screening process identifies which SAC can be screened out and therefore not 4.2.19be considered further in the HRA. This process takes into account the designated features of each site identified in step 1 of the screening process and uses the source – pathway – receptor approach to determine which features of which sites would not be subject to LSE. Justification is provided for why each feature and site is screened out.

13

Table 4.2: SAC Screening Table for HRA (Green = Screened out; Orange = Screened in for further consideration)

Natura Site Features Species or features of interest

Seasonality and Key Characteristics of Feature

Potential LSE – Y/N

Justification notes Inclusion in HRA – Y/N

South Wight Maritime SAC Inshore sublittoral Rock Annex I habitats that are a primary reason for selection of this site

Reefs The reef structures are a permanent feature of the site

Yes Further consideration is required as the project will interact with features of interest.

Yes

Supralittoral rock Annex I habitats that are a primary reason for selection of this site

Vegetated sea cliffs of the Atlantic and Baltic coasts

The vegetated sea cliffs are a permanent feature of the site

Yes Further consideration is required as the project will interact with features of interest.

Yes

Submerged or partially submerged sea caves Annex I habitats that are a primary reason for selection of this site

Submerged or partially submerged sea caves

The sea caves are a permanent feature of the site

Yes Further consideration is required due to the proximity of the PTEC project to features of interest

Yes

Solent and Isle of Wight Lagoons SAC Inshore sublittoral sediment Annex I habitats that are a primary reason for selection of this site

Coastal lagoons The coastal lagoons are a permanent feature of the site

No No further consideration required as, due to the geography of the Isle of Wight there is limited potential connectivity between this site feature and effects of the PTEC project.

No

14





Wight-Barfleur Reef SAC Inshore sublittoral Rock Annex I habitats that are a primary reason for selection of this site

Reefs The reef structures which are a permanent feature of the site are formed by hard bedrock. moderate and soft bedrock with high to medium topographic complexity. Stony reef also occurs.

No No further consideration required as, due to the distance from the PTEC project (Table 4.1), there is limited potential connectivity between the site feature and likely impacts of the construction, operation or decommissioning of the PTEC project.

No

Solent Maritime SAC Estuaries Annex I habitats that are a primary reason for selection of this site

Estuaries The estuaries are a permanent feature of the site

No No further consideration required as, due to the geography of the Isle of Wight (Figure 2.1), there is no pathway by which impacts from the PTEC project could interact with this feature.

No

Littoral sediment Annex I habitats that are a primary reason for selection of this site

Spartina swards (Spartinion maritimae)

The Spartina swards are a permanent feature of the site

No No further consideration required as, due to the geography of the Isle of Wight (Figure 2.1) there is no pathway by which impacts from the PTEC project could interact with this feature

No

15





Atlantic salt meadows (Glauco-Puccinellietalia maritimae)

The Atlantic salt medows are a permanent feature of the site


No

Inshore sublittoral sediment Annex I habitats present as a qualifying feature, but not a primary reason for site selection

Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time

The sandbanks are a permanent feature of the site


No

Coastal lagoons The coastal lagoons are a permanent feature of the site


No

Supralittoral sediment Annex I habitats present as a qualifying feature, but not a primary reason for site selection

Annual vegetation of drift lines

These shingle deposits occur as fringing beaches that are subject to periodic displacement or overtopping by high tides and storms. The distinctive vegetation, which may form only sparse cover, is therefore ephemeral and composed of annual or short-lived perennial species.


No

16





Perennial vegetation of stony banks

The ecological variation in this habitat type depends on stability, the amount of fine material accumulating between pebbles, climatic conditions, width of the foreshore, and past management of the site. The ridges and lows formed also influence the vegetation patterns, resulting in characteristic zonations of vegetated and bare shingle.


No

Littoral sediment Annex I habitats present as a qualifying feature, but not a primary reason for site selection

Salicornia and other annuals colonizing mud and sand

This habitat is a permanent feature of the site


No

Supralittoral sediment Annex I habitats present as a qualifying feature, but not a primary reason for site selection

Shifting dunes along the shoreline with Ammophila arenaria (white dunes)

Shifting dunes are a permeant feature of the site


No

Invertebrate Annex II species present as a qualifying feature, but not a primary reason for site selection.

Desmoulin`s whorl snail Vertigo moulinsiana

This species does not migrate No This species does not migrate and therefore will not be affected by the project.

No

17





River Avon SAC

Rivers and streams Annex I habitats that are a primary reason for selection of this site

Water courses of plain to montane levels with the Ranunculion fluitantis and Callitricho-Batrachion vegetation


No No further consideration is required as any effects on marine physical processes caused by the PTEC project will be highly localised and short term (see Chapter 7, Physical Processes of the Environmental Statement) and will not extend to the river Avon.

No

Invertebrate species: Mollusc Annex II species that are a primary reason for selection of this site

Desmoulin`s whorl snail

This species does not migrate No This species does not migrate and therefore will not be affected by the project.

No

Vertebrate species: fish Annex II species that are a primary reason for selection of this site

Sea lamprey Petromyzon marinus

Downstream migration July to September to open sea. Upstream migration April-May spawning in May/June

No It is not possible to rule out the presence of this species within the PTEC project site however the defuse nature of their presence in the area means no material effect would occur.

No


Brook lamprey Lampetra planeri

This species does not migrate from its natal river

No No further consideration required as this species does not migrate and therefore there is no pathway for impact.

No

Atlantic salmon Salmo salar

Downstream migrations April – May Upstream migration All year round with peak in late summer early autumn (Adults)

No No further consideration required as the migration path of this species from or to the river Avon is unlikely to overlap with the PTEC offshore site. It is not possible to rule out the presence of this species within the offshore site, however, the defuse nature of their presence in the area means no material effect would occur. This position also reflects advice

No

18





received from Natural England.


Bullhead Cottus gobio



No

Studland to Portland SCI Inshore sublittoral Rock Annex I habitats that are a primary reason for selection of this site

Reefs This habitat is a permanent feature of the site

No No further consideration required as, due to the distance from the PTEC project (Table 4.1), there is limited potential connectivity between the site feature and likely significant impacts of the construction and operation of the PTEC project.

No

River Itchen SAC

Rivers and streams Annex I habitats that are a primary reason for selection of this site

Water courses of plain to montane levels with the Ranunculion fluitantis and Callitricho-Batrachion vegetation


No No further consideration is required as any effects on marine physical processes caused by the PTEC project will be highly localised and short term (see Chapter 7, Physical Processes of the Environmental Statement) and will not extend to the River Itchen

No

19





Invertebrate species: arthropods Annex II species that are a primary reason for selection of this site

Southern damselfly Coenagrion mercuriale

This species has very specialised habitat requirements, being confined to shallow, well-vegetated, base-rich runnels and flushes in open areas or small side-channels of chalk rivers

No The specialised habitats that this species requires are not present within the project site onshore and the distance between the project site and the SAC mean that there is no pathway by which the project could affect this species.

No


Bullhead Cottus gobio



No

Invertebrate species: arthropods Annex II species present as a qualifying feature, but not a primary reason for site selection

White-clawed (or Atlantic stream) crayfish Austropotamobius pallipes



No

Vertebrate species: fish Annex II species present as a qualifying feature, but not a primary reason for site selection

Brook lamprey Lampetra planeri



No

Vertebrate species: fish Annex II species present as a qualifying feature, but not a primary reason for site selection

Atlantic salmon Salmo salar

Downstream migrations April – May Upstream migration all year round with peak in late summer / early autumn (Adults)

No No further consideration required as the migration path of this species from or to the River Itchen is unlikely to overlap with the PTEC offshore site. It is not possible to rule out the presence of this species within the offshore site, however, the defuse nature of their presence in the area means no material effect would occur. This position also reflects advice received from Natural England.

No

20





Vertebrate species: mammals Annex II species present as a qualifying feature, but not a primary reason for site selection

Otter Lutra lutra Otters are present all year round in the Itchen

No No further consideration required as, due to the distance from the PTEC project (Table 4.1), there is no potential connectivity with PTEC for otters using the SAC

No

Chesil and the Fleet SAC Inshore sublittoral sediment Annex I habitats that are a primary reason for selection of this site

Coastal lagoons

The coastal lagoons are a permanent feature of the site

No No further consideration required as, due to the distance from the PTEC project (Table 4.1), there is no pathway by which the project could affect this feature.

No

Supralittoral sediment Annex I habitats that are a primary reason for selection of this site

Annual vegetation of drift lines

These shingle deposits occur as fringing beaches that are subject to periodic displacement or overtopping by high tides and storms. The distinctive vegetation, which may form only sparse cover, is therefore ephemeral and composed of annual or short-lived perennial species.


No

21





Perennial vegetation of stony banks

The ecological variation in this habitat type depends on stability, the amount of fine material accumulating between pebbles, climatic conditions, width of the foreshore, and past management of the site. The ridges and lows formed also influence the vegetation


No

Littoral sediment Annex I habitats that are a primary reason for selection of this site

Mediterranean and thermo-Atlantic halophilous scrubs (Sarcocornetea fruticosi)

Not relevant No No further consideration required as, due to the distance from the PTEC project (Table 4.1), there is no pathway by which the project could affect this feature.

No

Littoral sediment Annex I habitats present as a qualifying feature, but not a primary reason for selection of this site

Atlantic salt meadows

Not relevant No No further consideration required as, due to the distance from the PTEC project (Table 4.1), there is no pathway by which the project could affect this feature.

No

Lyme Bay and Torbay SAC

Inshore sublittoral Rock Annex I habitats that are a primary reason for selection of this site

Reefs Reefs are a permanent feature of this site


No

22





Annex I habitats that are a primary reason for selection of this site


The sea caves are a permanent feature of the site. A large number of infralittoral sea caves have been identified within Torbay and the surrounding coastline from Mackerel Cove in the north, to Sharkham Point in the south


No

Isle of Wight Downs SAC

Supralittoral rock Annex I habitats that are a primary reason for selection of this site

Vegetated sea cliffs of the Atlantic and Baltic Coasts

Not relevant No No further consideration is required as there is no overlap between this SAC and the project site.

No

Dwarf shrub heath Annex I habitats that are a primary reason for selection of this site

European dry heaths


No

Calcareous Grassland Annex I habitats that are a primary reason for selection of this site

Semi-natural dry grasslands and scrubland facies on calcareous substrates (Festuco-Brometalia) (* important orchid sites)


No

23





Briddlesford Copses

Vertebrate species: mammals Annex II species that are a primary reason for selection of this site

Bechstein`s bat Myotis bechsteini

The species is closely associated with mature deciduous woodland and appears to select old woodpecker holes or rot holes in trees for breeding.

No This species requires no further consideration due to both the distance from the PTEC offshore site (Table 4.1) and the fact that the specific habitat requirements of this species are not present within the PTEC onshore site mean there is no pathway for an effect to occur.

No

24

Screening outcome

The screening exercise above is summarised in Table 4.3 below where the features of 4.2.20relevant SACs that will be taken forward to Stage 2 for further consideration are identified.

Table 4.3: Summary of SACs and species which may require Appropriate Assessment

Special Area of Conservation Feature for which AA may be required

South Wight Maritime SAC

Reefs



Species and Habitats description

Reefs

Reefs are marine habitats that occur widely around the UK coast, and are found in both 4.2.21inshore and offshore waters. Two main types of reef can be recognised: those where animal and plant communities develop on rock or stable boulders and cobbles, and those where structure is created by the animals themselves (biogenic reefs). There is a far greater range and extent of rocky reefs than biogenic concretions as only a few invertebrate species are able to develop the reef, and these have restricted distribution and extent in the UK. The reef features within the South Wight Maritime SAC are all rocky reefs.

Reefs are extremely variable in form and in the communities that they support. A wide range 4.2.22of topographical reef forms meet the EU definition of this habitat type. These range from vertical rock walls to horizontal ledges, sloping or flat bed rock, broken rock, boulder fields, and aggregations of cobbles.

The South Wight Maritime European marine site is a dynamic site encompassing a large 4.2.23range of different reef types and associated marine communities on the south coast of the Isle of Wight. The site includes some of the most important subtidal chalk reefs in Britain, representing 5% of Europe’s coastal chalk exposures and supporting a diverse range of species both in the subtidal and intertidal.


Submerged or partially submerged sea caves are a sub-group within the reef features 4.2.24described above. Caves vary in size, from only a few metres to more extensive systems, which may extend hundreds of metres into the rock. There may be tunnels or caverns with one or more entrances, in which vertical and overhanging rock faces provide the principal marine habitat.

25

The exposure of the south coast of the Island to high wave energy has allowed the erosion of 4.2.25the Cretaceous calcareous hard cliffs to form sea caves. Examples of this habitat can be found from the Needles along the south-west coast of the Island to Watcombe Bay, and also in Culver Cliff on the south-east coast of the Island. This site also contains the only known location of subtidal chalk caves in the UK. The large littoral caves in the chalk cliffs are of ecological importance, with many hosting rare algal species, which are restricted to this type of habitat. The fauna of these sea caves includes a range of mollusc species such as limpets Patella spp. and the horseshoe worm Phoronis hippocrepia.


Vegetated sea cliffs are steep slopes fringing hard or soft coasts, created by past or present 4.2.26marine erosion, and supporting a wide diversity of vegetation types with variable maritime influence. Exposure to the sea is a key determinant of the type of sea cliff vegetation.

“The cliffs at South Wight Maritime SAC include contrasting Cretaceous hard cliffs, semi-4.2.27stable soft cliffs and mobile soft cliffs. The western and eastern extremities of the site consist of high chalk cliffs with species-rich calcareous grassland vegetation, the former exposed to maritime influence and the latter comparatively sheltered. At the western end, the site adjoins the Isle of Wight Downs, providing an unusual combination of maritime and chalk grassland. The most exposed chalk cliff tops support important assemblages of nationally rare lichens, including Fulgensia fulgens. The longest section is composed of slumping acidic sandstones and neutral clays with an exposed south-westerly aspect. The vegetation communities are a mixture of acidic and mesotrophic grasslands with some scrub and a greater element of maritime species, such as thrift Armeria maritima, than is usual on soft cliffs. This section supports the Glanville fritillary butterfly Melitaea cinxia in its main English stronghold. A small, separate section of the site on clays has a range of successional stages, including woodland, influenced by landslips. These cliffs are minimally affected by sea defence works, which elsewhere disrupt ecological processes linked to coastal erosion, and together they form one of the longest lengths of naturally-developing soft cliffs on the UK coastline.” (JNCC, 2010)

26

STAGE 1 - HRA SCREENING OF SPAS AND RAMSAR SITES 5

SPA Screening

The proposed PTEC project may have the potential to affect a number of SPAs and Ramsar 5.1.1sites. The purpose of this screening section is to anticipate whether or not the PTEC project has potential for a LSE on the integrity of European sites.

Identification of relevant SPAs and Ramsar sites

Qualifying breeding seabird species for all SPAs and Ramsar sites were screened for 5.1.2potential connectivity with the PTEC offshore site and its vicinity (1km buffer). Theoretical connectivity was determined using breeding season foraging range metrics for each species as reviewed by Thaxter et al. (2012). If the closest distance between the designated site and PTEC 1km buffer was less than the mean foraging range distance, the theoretical level of connectivity was rated as High. If the separation distance was greater than the mean distance but less than the mean maximum foraging range distance (MMFR), the theoretical level of connectivity was rated as Medium. If the separation distance was greater than the MMFR distance but less than the maximum foraging range distance, the theoretical level of connectivity was rated as Low and if it exceeded the maximum range then no connectivity was assumed (Table 5.1).

No foraging range metrics are available for great black-backed gull and for this species the 5.1.3metric for herring gull are used instead. Herring gull is considered to be an appropriate surrogate because it has a similar breeding ecology.

The ratings of theoretical breeding season connectivity are present for all qualifying breeding 5.1.4species at SPAs and Ramsar sites where at least one species has at least low connectivity (Table 5.1). All other SPAs and Ramsar sites with breeding seabird qualifying features (i.e. those not listed in Table 5.1) were also screened for potential LSE but all qualifying species at these were rated as having no theoretical connectivity to the PTEC offshore site during the breeding season.

There is also the possibility of connectivity between the PTEC site and more distant SPAs 5.1.5designated for breeding seabirds due to the occurrence of qualifying features on the PTEC site during passage or in winter. However, many of the relevant seabird species were either not recorded on the PTEC site during the non-breeding period (e.g. lesser black-backed gull) or were recorded in very low numbers only - e.g. gannet and fulmar (ES Appendix 10A, PTEC Ornithology Technical Report). Even for the most abundant seabird species on the PTEC site during the non-breeding period (e.g. guillemot, for which the peak estimate on the survey area was 363 birds - ES Appendix 10A, PTEC Ornithology Technical Report), the proportion of any SPA population that would be estimated to be present on the PTEC site would be very small due to the relative size of the Biologically Defined Minimum Population Scale (BDMPS) and the level of on-site abundance. Therefore, there would be no possibility of LSE for these more distant seabird SPAs and they are not considered for screening.

All SPAs and Ramsar sites with qualifying wintering or passage waterfowl and wader species 5.1.6and that lie (at closest) within 100 km of the PTEC offshore site were also screened for potential LSE (Table 5.2).

27

Stage 1 screening criteria

All breeding seabird qualifying features that had at least theoretical connectivity to the PTEC 5.1.7offshore site and which were shown by the baseline survey programme (ES Appendix 10A, PTEC Ornithology Technical Report) to make use of the PTEC offshore site in the breeding season were screened in. I.e. for these qualifying species the Stage 1 HRA screening was unable to rule out the potential for the project to give rise to an LSE.

In the case of Mediterranean gull, a nationally rare species, despite not being seen in the 5.1.8PTEC offshore site during the breeding season it was, adopting a cautious approach, screened in on the basis of the regular presence of birds during the non-breeding season and the judgement that some of these birds may be from one or other of the two local SPAs where it is a qualifying species.

Common, little and Sandwich tern associated with the potential Solent and Dorset Coast 5.1.9marine SPA all have high potential connectivity with the development site on the basis that this potential SPA is adjacent to the development site. However, the locations of any little tern breeding colonies that will occur within this extensive area are all beyond the maximum foraging range of this species from the site (i.e. 11km, Thaxter et al. 2012), and common terns were not recorded on the site during the surveys (ES Appendix 10A, PTEC Ornithology Technical Report). Therefore, no potential for LSE was concluded for little tern and common tern from this potential SPA.

Wintering and passage waterfowl and wader qualifying species were screened in if the 5.1.10

baseline survey programme (PTEC Ornithology Technical Report) showed it to make use of the ecological resources (e.g. for foraging) of the PTEC offshore site and its vicinity (1km buffer). Species (e.g. dark-bellied brent goose) that were only recorded flying over the site were not considered to be making use of its ecological resources. Screening showed that none of the wintering and passage waterfowl and wader qualifying features considered used the PTEC offshore site and therefore it was concluded there was no potential for LSE (Table 5.2).

28

Table 5.1: HRA screening results for breeding seabird SPAs and Ramsar sites (Green = Screened out; Orange = Screened in for further consideration)

Qualifying feature Seasonality Mean Foraging Range (km)

Mean Maximum Foraging Range

(km)

MMFR + 1SD (km)

Estimated potential for connectivity

Use of PTEC offshore site and vicinity (1km buffer) based on Baseline Surveys results

Potential for LSE

Solent Marshes and Southampton Water SPA/Ramsar (multi-site SPA, 17 to 46 km away) Mediterranean gull Breeding

12 20 unknown Low Not recorded using PTEC offshore

site in breeding season, when marine habitats not used. Recorded in low numbers in winter.

Yes

Little tern

Breeding 2 6 9 None Not recorded using PTEC offshore site. 1 passage bird seen nearby.

No

Sandwich tern Breeding

12 49 56 Medium Recorded in very small numbers using PTEC offshore site during breeding season; single bird seen on two occasions only.

Yes

Common tern Breeding

5 15 26 Low Not recorded at PTEC offshore site. No

Chichester and Langstone Harbours SPA/Ramsar (30 to 42 km away) Little tern

Breeding 2 6 9 None Not recorded using PTEC offshore site. 1 passage bird seen nearby.

No

Sandwich tern Breeding 12 49 56 Medium Recorded in very small numbers using PTEC offshore site during breeding season; single bird seen on two occasions only.

Yes

Common tern Breeding 5 15 26 None Not recorded at PTEC offshore site. No

Pagham Harbour SPA/Ramsar (38 to 42km away)

Sandwich tern Breeding 12 49 56 Medium Recorded in very small numbers using PTEC offshore site during breeding season; single bird seen on two occasions only.

Yes

29



(km)

MMFR + 1SD (km)



Potential for LSE

Little tern (Ramsar) Breeding 2 6 9 None Not recorded using PTEC offshore site. 1 passage bird seen nearby

No

Poole Harbour SPA and Ramsar (47-57 km away)

Mediterranean gull Breeding 12 20 unknown Low Not recorded using PTEC offshore site in breeding season, when marine habitats not used. Recorded in low numbers in winter.

Yes

Common tern Breeding 5 15 26 None Not recorded at PTEC offshore site. No

Solent and Dorset Coast (Potential) marine SPA) (0km)

Common tern Breeding 5 15 26 High Not recorded at PTEC offshore site. No

Little tern Breeding 2 6 9 High Not recorded using PTEC offshore site. 1 passage bird seen nearby

No

Sandwich tern Breeding 12 49 56 HIgh Recorded in very small numbers using PTEC offshore site during breeding season; single bird seen on two occasions only.

No

Archipel des Sept-Iles SPA (240 km away)

Northern gannet

Breeding

93 229 354 Low Present in low numbers in breeding season.

Yes

Atlantic puffin Breeding 4 105 151 None Not recorded using PTEC offshore site.

No

Razorbill Breeding 24 49 84 None Not recorded using PTEC offshore site in breeding season.

No

Black-legged kittiwake Breeding 25 60 83 None Present in low numbers. No

European shag Breeding 6 15 19 None Not recorded using PTEC offshore site.

No

Herring gull Breeding 10.5 61 105 None Common at PTEC offshore site. No

30



(km)

MMFR + 1SD (km)



Potential for LSE

Great black-backed gull

Breeding 10.5* 61* 105* None Common at PTEC offshore site.

* based on herring gull foraging ranges

No

Northern fulmar Breeding 48 400 646 Medium Not recorded in PTEC offshore site during breeding season.

No

Baie de Seine Occidentale SPA (Iles de Saint Marcouf) (116 km)

Lesser black-backed gull

Breeding 72 141 181 Medium Occasionally recorded in small numbers in breeding season.

Yes

Great cormorant Breeding 5 25 35 None Not recorded in PTEC offshore site. No European Shag Breeding 6 15 18 None Not recorded in PTEC offshore site. No Black-legged kittiwake Breeding 25 60 83 None Present in low numbers. No Alderney West Coast and the Burhou Islands (Ortac and Les Etacs) Ramsar site (113 km) Northern gannet

Breeding

93 229 354 Medium Present in low numbers in breeding season.

Yes

Foraging ranges and theoretical connectivity estimates were taken from Thaxter et al., 2012.

31

Table 5.2: HRA screening results for non-breeding marine and coastal birds of SPAs and Ramsar sites (Green = Screened out; Orange = Screened in for further consideration)

Qualifying feature Seasonality Justification notes Potential for LSE

Solent Marshes and Southampton Water SPA/Ramsar (multi-site SPA, 17 to 46 km away)

Dark-bellied brent goose Wintering Not recorded using PTEC offshore site, 4 seen flying over No Eurasian teal Wintering Not recorded in PTEC offshore site No Ringed plover Wintering Not recorded in PTEC offshore site No Black-tailed godwit Wintering Not recorded in PTEC offshore site No Chichester and Langstone Harbours SPA/Ramsar (30 to 42 km away) Dark-bellied brent goose Wintering Not recorded using PTEC offshore site, 4 seen flying over No Common shelduck Wintering Not recorded in PTEC offshore site No Wigeon Wintering Not recorded in PTEC offshore site No Eurasian teal Wintering Not recorded in PTEC offshore site No Pintail Wintering Not recorded in PTEC offshore site No Shoveler Wintering Not recorded in PTEC offshore site No Red-breasted merganser Wintering Not recorded in PTEC offshore site No Ringed plover Wintering Not recorded in PTEC offshore site No Grey plover Wintering Not recorded in PTEC offshore site No Sanderling Wintering Not recorded in PTEC offshore site No Dunlin Wintering Not recorded in PTEC offshore site No Bar-tailed godwit Wintering Not recorded in PTEC offshore site No Eurasian curlew Wintering Not recorded in PTEC offshore site No Common redshank Wintering Not recorded in PTEC offshore site No Turnstone Wintering Not recorded in PTEC offshore site No Poole Harbour SPA/Ramsar (47-57 km away)

Shelduck Wintering Not recorded in PTEC offshore site No Avocet Wintering Not recorded in PTEC offshore site No Black-tailed godwit Wintering Not recorded in PTEC offshore site No

32

Qualifying feature Seasonality Justification notes Potential for LSE

Little egret Wintering Not recorded in PTEC offshore site No Portsmouth Harbour SPA/Ramsar site (29 to 35 km away) Dark-bellied brent goose Wintering Not recorded using PTEC offshore site, 4 seen flying over No Red-breasted merganser Wintering Not recorded in PTEC offshore site No Dunlin Wintering Not recorded in PTEC offshore site No Black-tailed godwit Wintering Not recorded in PTEC offshore site No Pagham Harbour SPA/Ramsar(38 to 42km away) Dark-bellied brent goose Wintering Not recorded using PTEC offshore site, 4 seen flying over No Ruff Wintering Not recorded using PTEC offshore site, 4 seen flying over No Chesil Beach and The Fleet SPA/Ramsar (81-93 km away) Dark-bellied brent goose Wintering Not recorded using PTEC offshore site, 4 seen flying over No Mute Swan (Ramsar) Wintering Not recorded in PTEC offshore site No Widgeon (Ramsar) Wintering Not recorded in PTEC offshore site No Red-breasted Merganser (Ramsar) Wintering Not recorded in PTEC offshore site No

33

Screening outcome

The screening section of this report has been developed to determine the potential for LSE 5.1.11on SPA and Ramsar habitats and species. .

Screening identified no potential for LSE arising from the PTEC project on the wintering or 5.1.12migrant coastal bird qualifying features (e.g. wader and waterfowl species) for any SPA or Ramsar site.

Screening identified qualifying breeding seabird features at six SPAs for which LSE could not 5.1.13be ruled out. In addition LSE could not be ruled out for one qualifying species (gannet) at one breeding seabird site that is Ramsar designated but that is not SPA designated. The qualifying features at these designated sites for which LSE could not be ruled out require more detailed consideration in the HRA process.

Table 5.3: HRA screening summary Site Name Type Feature Solent Marshes and Southampton Water SPA SPA Sandwich tern

Mediterranean gull Chichester and Langstone Harbours SPA Sandwich tern Pagham Harbour SPA Sandwich tern Poole Harbour SPA Mediterranean gull Solent and Dorset Coast Potential SPA Sandwich tern Archipel des Sept-Iles SPA Northern gannet Baie de Seine Occidentale (Iles de Saint Marcouf)

SPA Lesser black-backed gull

Alderney West Coast and the Burhou Islands (Ortac and Les Etacs)

Ramsar Northern gannet

Those species and habitats screened out at this stage will not be considered further within 5.1.14

the HRA.

34

STAGE 2 – INFORMATION TO SUPPORT APPROPRIATE ASSESSEMENT OF SACS 6

To anticipate whether an Appropriate Assessment may be required, the following information 6.1.1must be taken into account:

• The species/habitats’ conservation importance; • The current conservation status; • Viability of typical species as components of the habitat; • Direct and indirect loss of reef habitat (and possible recovery); • Smothering effects caused by installation; • Consideration of changes to the tidal regime; • Contamination of water or sediment; and • Effects on community composition and species associated with the reef.

South Wight Maritime SAC 6.2

The South Wight Maritime SAC (Figure 7.1) is designated for three qualifying habitats which 6.2.1were all screened in at Stage 1 (refer to Table 4.2). Part of the subsea cable corridor of the PTEC project would be located within the SAC and as such the project has potential to directly impact the qualifying features.

In 2001 English Nature (now Natural England) published their advice for the South Wight 6.2.2Maritime European marine site given under Regulation 33(2) of the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations 1994. This document provides information on the status of the conservation features at the time of writing.

“South Wight Maritime European marine site has a range of reef types and associated 6.2.3communities, including chalk, limestone, sandstone, clay/mudstone and greensand bedrock and boulder reefs, providing an important diversity of habitats. All of these reef types, a number of which extend into the littoral zone, are generally soft and characteristically burrowed into extensively by shellfish and worms, adding to their diversity. The chalk provides a sufficiently stable substratum for long-lived, slow growing species of axinellid sponge and soft corals such as Alcyonium digitatum, whilst remaining soft enough to support burrowing piddocks such as Pholas dactylus. In contrast, the Wealden sandstone is an easily eroded substratum colonised by rapidly growing and relatively short-lived species such as encrusting sponges and bryozoa. The soft nature of the rock makes this an ideal habitat for burrowing piddocks such as P. dactylus which are commoner here than in the chalk (Bunker, 2000 in prep.). Greensand boulders also provide a stable substratum for the growth of marine species but although generally a soft rock, the boulders are often too hard for burrowing piddocks such as P. dactylus and Barnea candida. Instead they are colonised by the anotherboring bivalve, the ‘red nose’ Hiatella arctica. Clay exposures or mudstone reefs, which are not a very common subtidal habitat in Britain (Fowler, 1995), are associated with the greensand rock and provide a good habitat for piddocks such as P. dactylus and B. candida. Areas found off Sandown and Shanklin are of particular interest. “

35

Figure 6.1: Illustrating the overlap between the South Wight Maritime SAC and the PTEC development site.

36

Conservation objectives for the South Wight Maritime SAC 6.3

The overall conservation objectives for the South Wight Maritime SAC are as follows: 6.3.1

Box 1 “With regard to the natural habitats and/or species for which the site has been designated (‘the Qualifying Features listed below); Avoid the deterioration of the qualifying natural habitats and the habitats of qualifying species, and the significant disturbance of those qualifying species, ensuring the integrity of the site is maintained and the site makes a full contribution to achieving Favourable Conservation Status of each of the qualifying features. Subject to natural change, to maintain or restore:

The extent and distribution of qualifying natural habitats and habitats of qualifying species; The structure and function (including typical species) of qualifying natural habitats and habitats of

qualifying species; The supporting processes on which qualifying natural habitats and habitats of qualifying species

rely; The populations of qualifying species; and The distribution of qualifying species within the site.

Qualifying Features: H1170. Reefs H1230. Vegetated sea cliffs of the Atlantic and Baltic coasts H8330. Submerged or partially submerged sea caves” Reefs

As stated in English Nature’s (now Natural England) advice given under Regulation 33(2) 6.3.2(English Nature, 2001) the conservation objectives for the reef are as follows:

Box 2 Subject to natural change, maintain the reefs in favourable condition, in particular:

Rocky shore communities Kelp forest communities Subtidal red algae communities Subtidal faunal turf communities Sea cave communities


Due to the fact that the sea cliffs are classified as a terrestrial habitat the conservation 6.3.3objectives to maintain vegetated sea cliffs of the Atlantic and Baltic coasts in favourable condition are identified within English Nature’s conservation objectives for the relevant SSSIs within the SAC boundary.

37

The Reasons for the Compton Chine to Steephill Cove SSSI Notification are as follows: 6.3.4

Box 3 The site is notified for its vegetated maritime cliffs and slopes, species-rich unimproved chalk grassland, nationally rare plant species, an assemblage of nationally scarce plants, an outstanding assemblage of nationally rare and scarce invertebrates, exposed and moderately exposed rocky shores (littoral rock) and nationally important coastal geomorphology. In addition the cliffs and foreshore between Hanover Point to St Catherine’s Point are a nationally important geological site for successions of the Wealden Group and the overlying Lower Greensand Group. The Wealden Group is of international importance for the diverse fauna of early Cretaceous dinosaurs that it has yielded, and also contains important elements of the flora present at the time these reptiles were alive.

Further detail on the relevant features of terrestrial SSSIs are presented in Chapter 11 6.3.5Terrestrial Ecology.

Advice on operations for the interest feature 6.4

In English Nature’s (now Natural England) advise under regulation 33(2) of the Conservation 6.4.1(Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations 1994 the following is provided:

Box 4

In pursuit of the conservation objective for the reefs, the relevant and competent authorities for the South Wight Maritime European marine site are advised to manage human activities within their remit such that they do not result in deterioration or disturbance to habitats or species for which the site has been designated through any of the following:

• Physical loss through removal and/or smothering.

• Physical damage through siltation and/or abrasion.

• Changes in toxic contamination through the introduction of synthetic compounds

• Non-toxic contamination through changes in nutrient and/or organic loading and/or changes in turbidity.

• Biological disturbance through the introduction of non-natives and/or translocation of species and/or the

selective extraction of species.

Section 6.6 contains information which will help the competent authority decide if the PTEC 6.4.2

project is likely to have any of the above impacts on the features of the South Wight SAC and therefore affect the integrity of the site.

38

Current condition of the South Wight Maritime SAC 6.5

Site condition monitoring surveys were completed in 2004 (Bunker et al. 2005) to assess the 6.5.1status of condition of the sublittoral habitats within the SAC. The conclusions of this report were as follows:

• Kelp forest communities. No decrease in distribution and range of biotopes from baseline (which was established in 2001);

• Red algal communities: No significant deviation of algal species composition from baseline; and

• Faunal turf communities: No significant deviation of species composition from baseline.

More recent surveys (O’Dell, 2013) have been commissioned by Natural England to map the 6.5.2habitat of the South Wight Maritime SAC. Although the survey report does not specifically make an assessment of the condition of the site, it does conclude that “there has been no reduction in the extent of reef features, or in the distribution of characteristic biotopes and species”, when compared with previous surveys (Bunker et al. 2005).

39

Appraisal of potential impacts on site integrity 6.6

The following section provides information on how the PTEC project may affect the features 6.6.1of the South Wight Maritime SAC based on those impacts identified in English Nature’s advice (English Nature, 2001 Section 6.5.1).

Impacts to sea caves

The installation of the PTEC subsea export cables would have potential to affect the integrity 6.6.2of the SAC by interacting with any submerged or partially submerged sea caves present within the vicinity of the PTEC project boundary.

In English Nature’s (now Natural England) advice given under Regulation 33(2) they state 6.6.3that “Examples of this habitat can be found from the Needles along the south-west coast of the Island to Watcombe Bay, and also in Culver Cliff on the south-east coast of the Island”. The map in Appendix I of that report illustrates these known locations.

The stretch of coastline between the Needles and Watcombe Bay is located nearly 20km 6.6.4west ,of the PTEC project site and Culver Cliff is approximately 11.7km to the east of the site. Furthermore no evidence was found during the benthic survey or intertidal survey that sea caves were present within the PTEC offshore site (Chapter 12, Benthic and Intertidal Ecology Appendix 12C and 12E).

Embedded Mitigation

When laying the subsea export cables for the PTEC project, pre-construction surveys will be 6.6.5completed in order to identify the best location for cable installation. Should significant features such as sea caves be identified during these surveys, the cables would be micro sited to avoid such features.

Magnitude of effect

Due to the fact that cave features have not been identified within the area of the SAC which 6.6.6would be occupied by the PTEC project and the fact that any such features would be identified through pre-construction surveys and avoided through micro-siting of the cables, it is considered that the PTEC project will have no LSE on cave features.

Impacts to reef structures within the South Wight Maritime SAC

Information provided in this section directly relates to those impacts identified in English 6.6.7Nature’s advice (English Nature, 2001, Section 6.5.1) and uses the findings of the Chapter 7, Physical Processes and Chapter 12, Benthic and Intertidal Ecology to provide an assessment of the significance of such impacts, although these consider the impacts to Benthic Ecology as a whole rather than just the reef ecology within the SAC. The chapter provides an assessment of the sensitivity of each biotope identified within the project study area using the sensitivity assessments developed from MarLIN species sensitivities (see Section 12.3). The sensitivities are summarised in Table 7.1 below.

40

It should be noted that the impacts identified by English Nature (now Natural England) as 6.6.8provided in Box 4 do not correspond exactly with the impacts assessed within the PTEC ES; however there is considerable overlap which can be used to inform this assessment.

Biotopes found within the South Wight Maritime SAC during the Benthic Survey.

Site specific benthic and geophysical surveys were used to create biotope maps for the 6.6.9PTEC project (details of the techniques employed to create the maps can be found in Section 3, Appendix 12C of the PTEC ES).

These surveys identified the potential reef biotopes CR.HCR, CR.HCR.XFa and 6.6.10IR.MIR.KR.XFoR (Appendix 12C) to be within the overlapping area of PTEC subsea cable corridor and the SAC. The habitat mapping techniques also showed that the most northerly extent of the subsea cable corridor is likely to support the biotope IR.HIR.

The interpreted data from the CCO (Pastel coloured areas in Figure 12.2) indicates that 6.6.11CR.HCR (High energy circalittoral rock), IR.HIR (High energy infralittoral rock) and CR.HCR.XFa (Mixed faunal turf communities) are very common habitats within the SAC. CR.HCR and CR.HCR.Xfa were also found to be common in the ground-truthing and Habitat survey (O’Dell, 2013).

The more complex IR.MIR.KR.XfoR biotope is composed of dense foliose red seaweeds on 6.6.12silty moderately exposed infralittoral rock; during the 2003-2004 surveys (Bunker et al., 2005) red seaweed dominated communities were seen in all the transects survey within the SAC indicating that this type of biotope is also common within the SAC. The site specific survey (Appendix 12C) and ground-thruthing survey (O’Dell, 2013) support this as the IR.MIR.KR.XfoR biotope was identified within each of the potential cable corridors and at further locations between cable corridors (Appendix 12C of the ES) and more widely within the SAC.

All other biotopes identified within the subsea cable corridor (eastern most corridor in Figure 6.6.1312.2 of Chapter 12, Benthic and Intertidal Ecology) are sediment dominated and therefore not considered to be reef communities for which the South Wight Maritime SAC is designated. These coarse sand areas, due to the strong currents appear to be impoverished and will likely show rapid recovery to any disturbance.

41

Table 6.1 Key species sensitivity information from the MarLIN relating to the Biotopes identified within the overlap between the South Wight Maritime SAC and the subsea cable corridor

Biotope Species Substratum loss Habitat (physical) disturbance

Increased Suspended sediments

Smothering

Changes in levels of synthetic chemicals

Changes to hydrodynamic regime (water flow rate increase or decrease)

CR.HCR., Balanus crenatus

Moderate Low Low Moderate Moderate Very low

Halichondria panicea

Moderate Low Not sensitive Moderate Low Low

CR.HCR.XFa Nemertesia ramosa

Moderate Low Very Low Low Insufficient information available

Low

Flustra foliacea

Moderate Low Not Sensitive Not sensitive Moderate Low

Alcyonium digitatum

Moderate Low Very Low Low Low Low

IR.MIR.KR.XFoR Delesseria sanguinea

Moderate Low Not sensitive Low Moderate Low

H. panacea Moderate Low Not sensitive Moderate Low Low SS.SCS.ICS Lanice

conchilega Moderate Low Not sensitive Low Moderate Low

42

Physical loss through removal and/or smothering - Subtidal

Installation of the PTEC project has the potential to remove existing habitat through the 6.6.14placement of infrastructure on the seabed and has the potential to change habitat by altering the hydrodynamic regime which could lead to smothering. Impacts 2 and 7 in Chapter 12, Benthic Ecology and intertidal Ecology are relevant to this assessment.

Magnitude of effect

When considering physical loss, the estimated worst case scenario for the project footprint 6.6.15within the SAC is 3,693m2. This includes the cables themselves, which will consist of three sets of two bundled cables, cable protection in the form of mattresses or rock bags (see Chapter 5, Project Description of the PTEC ES for further detail) and the trench which may be required at cable landfall. 3,693m2 equates to approximately 0.002% of the area of the SAC.

The site specific surveys identified that the biotopes displayed in Table 6.1 were present 6.6.16within the overlapping area between the subsea cable corridor and the SAC. None of these biotopes are considered to be particularly rare within the SAC or of particular importance to its designated features (See Section 12.3 of Chapter 12, Benthic and Intertidal habitat for further detail).

The surveys were completed when PTEC Ltd were considering different options for subsea 6.6.17export cable landfall and areas were surveyed outside of the offshore site (Figure 12.2 in Chapter 12, Benthic and Intertidal Ecology). PTEC Ltd has since identified the eastern most of these options as the area in which they would install the subsea export cables. Therefore in addition to the subsea cable corridor shown in Figure 6.1, the available data includes two other areas outside of the offshore site (and within the SAC). These surveys were augmented with data from the Channel Coastal Observatory (CCO) to indicate the biotopes in the surrounding area. The resultant biotope maps are displayed in Figure 12.2, Chapter 12, Benthic and Intertidal Ecology. The pastel shaded areas in this Figure are interpreted from geophysical data and have not been ground-truthed, therefore less confidence can be assigned to these areas. The data provided encompass the PTEC subsea cable corridor and approximately 8% of the wider SAC.

It is predicted that up to 96% of the total area (198.63km2) of the SAC is reef habitat (English 6.6.18Nature, 2001). Table 6.2 shows the project footprint as a percentage of each of the biotopes which could be lost as a result of construction if all the subsea export cabling is exclusively installed within each biotope (this is a very precautionary worst case scenario as it is very unlikely that all of the cables would be placed within a single biotope).

43

Table 6.2Table 6.2: Percentage of known areas of each biotope that could be lost as a result of the placement of infrastructure on the seabed.

Biotope Project footprint as a % of the known area of biotope surveyed2

CR.HCR 0.03% CR.HCR.XFa 0.10% IR.HIR 0.15%

IR.MIR.KR.XFoR 0.13% SS.SCS 0.29% SS.SCS.ICS 0.14%

When considering smothering, the impact source could be from the installation of the subsea 6.6.19

export cables within the SAC and construction activities outside of the SAC (such as foundation installation and drilling). Both sources could cause elevated levels of suspended sediments and deposition.

Throughout the offshore development site and the majority of the subsea cable corridor, 6.6.20there is a paucity of surface sediment; the substrate being predominantly bedrock, cobbles and rock boulders which will not form part of a sediment plume even if disturbed during construction. This means that other than in seabed areas closest to shore (<4km) along the subsea cable corridor, where a patch of gravelly sands exists, there will be negligible effects from installation activities on surface sediments.

The disturbance of sediments below seabed surface level from drilling for piled foundations 6.6.21may release finer sediments than those present at the surface. Release of these would be highly localised and unlikely to affect the SAC.

Chapter 7, Physical Processes of the ES concludes that changes in suspended sediment 6.6.22concentrations due to installation activities would be of low to negligible magnitude. Changes would be well within the natural variation for the area.

During operation it is assumed that there will be up to five maintenance events for the subsea 6.6.23export cables and therefore there would be minimal potential for habitat loss and smothering effects within the SAC. During repowering all activity would be within the development site as the subsea cables would not be replaced, therefore there would be no habitat loss or smothering effects within the SAC.

During decommissioning, if the subsea export cables are fully removed then the impact 6.6.24magnitude would be as for construction. It should be noted, however, that the preference would be to leave the cables in situ upon decommissioning.

Sensitivity of reef features

It should be noted that the biotopes recorded in recent surveys (Appendix 12C) within the 6.6.25subsea cable corridor overlap of the SAC are not listed in the original Regulation 33 advice from English Nature (now Natural England) for the SAC (English Nature, 2001). This may be

2 Note this equates only to the percentage of area recorded in surveys, not the percentage of the total area of each biotope across the whole SAC (which is not known). The whole SAC figure would be much lower.

44

due to the subjectivity of assigning biotopes, as well as changes in the biotope codes themselves (in 2004). This assessment therefore assumes that the biotopes recorded in recent surveys adequately represent the ‘reef’ feature designated. The relevant sensitivities are summarised in Table 6.1.

It should also be noted that during the site specific benthic survey no evidence was found 6.6.26indicating the presence of any threatened and/or declining species listed under OSPAR (2008), UKBAP (2011) or Annex 11 Species List.

The MarLIN definition for its sensitivity assessment for “substratum loss” is as follows: 6.6.27

“All of substratum occupied by the species or biotope under consideration is removed. A single event is assumed for sensitivity assessment. Once the activity or event has stopped (or between regular events) suitable substratum remains or is deposited. Species or community recovery assumes that the substratum within the habitat preferences of the original species or community is present.”

And the definition of smothering is: 6.6.28

“All of the population of a species or an area of a biotope is smothered by sediment to a depth of 5 cm above the substratum for one month. Impermeable materials, such as concrete, oil, or tar, are likely to have a greater effect”.

Impacts associated with the PTEC project within the SAC are likely to be of equivalent or 6.6.29more likely on a lesser scale than these definitions. Therefore the Marlin sensitivity assessment for these impacts is considered appropriate and precautionary for this assessment.

Table 6.1 and Table 6.2 show that, although some the biotopes within the SAC have a 6.6.30moderate sensitivity to habitat loss and smothering, the area of each biotope which could be impacted (under a very precautionary worst case scenario) is very small and represents a minimal percentage of the known area of that biotope within the SAC.

Species found within the overlapping area between the subsea cable corridor and the SAC 6.6.31are likely to rapidly recover following the physical loss and smothering which would occur during construction. A number of key species which live in high energy changeable environments such as those found off the south coast of the Isle of Wight often have short lifecycles and can recolonise areas rapidly.

As no antifouling is anticipated on the export cables or on the cable protection these features 6.6.32are likely to be colonised rapidly by those organisms from the surrounding area, therefore becoming homogenous with the surrounding habitat. This assumption is supported by studies have shown that when a subsea marine cable is placed on a rocky substrate the colinising communities are often indistinguishable from that in the sourrounding area (Burnett et al., 2013).

The methodology used by Marlin in assessing the sensitivity of the species listed in Table 6.1 6.6.33considers recoverability within the assessment and all apart from Nemertesia ramosa have high or very high recoverability to substratum loss and smothering. Nemertesia ramosa is used in Table 6.1 to assign a sensitivity to the biotope CR.HCR.XFa which was only found at

45

one sample location during the benthic survey and is predicted to occupy a very small section of the subsea cable corridor. MarLIN define “High” recoverability as:

“full recovery will occur but will take many months (or more likely years) but should be complete within about five years”.

The benthic survey (Appendix 12C) also reported the presence of hydroids such as Tubularia 6.6.34indivisa. Hydroid species in general (Schmidt et al., 1991) and in particular this species are known to rapidly (over a one or two year period) regenerate or regrow (Hughes, 1983). Encrusting sponges were also identified within the CR.HCR.Xfa (Mixed faunal turf communities biotope) identified at one sample station within the subsea cable corridor (Appendix 12C). It is anticipated that sponges would be amongst the slowest species to recover from physical disturbance and smothering as they are slow growing organisms (Ayling, 1983), however the CR.HCR.Xfa biotope only represents a very small area (0.004km2) on the eastern edge of the subsea corridor.

Embedded mitigation

The embedded mitigation during the installation of subsea export cables comprises: 6.6.35

• Routing to avoid key reef features and minimise impacts on the seabed ecology as well as reducing physical risks to the export cables, in particular:

o Avoid or minimise crossing of: slopes; scarps; ridges; scour lines; or other areas where there are rapid variations in bathymetry which

could represent a reef feature. • Surface laying of the cables along the majority of the subsea export corridor,

minimising the need for drilling, blasting or jetting a cable trench; and • No use of antifouling on cables of cable protection. • Using appropriate cable protection to avoid the cable moving around on the seabed.

Significance of impact

When assessing the significance of the potential impacts of habitat loss and smothering it 6.6.36should be noted that the area of impact will be very small when compared to the known area occupied by each biotope and indeed the total area of reef habitat within the SAC. Furthermore, the characteristics of the cable and rock bags or mattresses which would hold the cables in place will represent a similar habitat to the rocky reefs themselves. Therefore, the significance on the impact is likely to be no worse than negligible.

Physical loss through removal.- Intertidal

During the installation of cables within intertidal zone at the Castle Cove landfall location the 6.6.37preferred option is to trench the cables through the intertidal area. The trench would be up to 500m long thus extending approximately 100m through the intertidal and 400m into the subtidal), between 3 and 10m wide and 1.5 m deep (Chapter 5, Project Description) and would take up to 28 days to construct. Once the cable is in place all material would be backfilled into the trench.

46

The shore at Castle Cove does support “rocky shore communities” which are part of the reef designated feature for which the South Wight Maritime SAC is designated (see Box 2) Magnitude of effect

During the intertidal survey, an area of approximately 300m of shore was surveyed down to 6.6.38the low water mark (approximately 24,000m2). The habitat across the survey area was found to be typical of an intertidal rocky shore on the south coast of England (Appendix 12D) and relatively homogenous with lateral movement across the shore. Furthermore, the coastal defences which make up the northern part of the survey area represent a highly modified habitat and disturbance, though both anthropogenic and physical influences is likely to be frequent.


No species or habitats regarded as being rare or particularly sensitive were recorded during 6.6.39the intertidal survey. Due to the exposed nature of the site to prevailing south westerly wind and wave regimes, habitats and species of the intertidal are not likely to be sensitive to disturbance beyond immediate short term impacts. With careful removal of larger boulders, storage in the intertidal and reinstatement after trenching, the intertidal should recover relatively rapidly. This type of approach, using material disturbed during cable laying for backfilling and cable burial, is recommended (BERR, 2008) for offshore windfarm cable landfalls in the intertidal and is equally applicable for PTEC.

Mitigation

Prior to the excavation of the trench and installation of the cables a detailed installation 6.6.40methodology would be produced and agreed with Natural England. This will outline how the substratum will be reinstated with the right stratification of layers, and how physical impacts will be kept to a minimum. For example the implementation of restricted working corridors for equipment vehicles and personnel.


When assessing the significance of the potential impacts of habitat loss within the intertidal it should be noted that the area of impact will be small when compared to the known area occupied by that habitat, the duration of the impact will be short (maximum of 28 days) and careful reinstatement of any boulders removed should minimise the time taken for recovery. Therefore it is anticipated that the impact to the rocky shore communities will be of minor adverse significance. Physical damage through siltation and/or abrasion

Installation of the PTEC subsea export cables would have the potential to directly impact the 6.6.41reef features of the South Wight Martime SAC and where the cables are buried, the burial process would create increased levels of suspended sediment which could damage the organisms inhabiting the reef through abrasion. Furthermore, construction of the berths and installation of the tidal devices taking place outside of the SAC has the potential to create

47

sediment which could lead to damage of the organisms which inhabit the reef features through siltation.

Abrasion would occur where the subsea cables require re-positioning from original position in 6.6.42order to avoid potential snags and boulders, further detail of these methods are presented within Chapter 5, Project Description (Section 5.12). The relevant impacts within Chapter 12, Benthic and Intertidal Ecology are Impacts 1, 4 and 8.

Magnitude of effect

For the purposes of this assessment a precautionary approach has been taken assuming 6.6.43that a 21m wide area of direct disturbance may occur when laying the subsea export cables. The actual cable will be directly laid on the seabed and will be 13cm in diameter. A maximum length of 15.2km of subsea export cable will be installed within the SAC; this equates to a worst case estimated area of disturbance of 0.32km2 (equivalent to 0.16% of the SAC or 0.17% of the SAC which is likely to contain reefs (see the Natura 2000 standard data form (JNCC, 2011b)). For the purposes of assessing this impact it has been assumed that any organisms within the area of direct disturbance could be affected by abrasion.

When assessing the magnitude of siltation, Impact 1 in Chapter 7, Physical of the PTEC ES 6.6.44provides an assessment of both changes in suspended sediment and changes in deposition due to construction. The assessment concludes that due to the strong currents that are a feature of the SAC, any drill arising or disturbed sediment will rapidly disperse leading to a negligible to low magnitude effect and will be short lived (lasting a matter of hours). Furthermore during operation of the PTEC project, changes in sediment regime due to presence of project infrastructure such as tidal device foundations (impact 6) would be of a low magnitude and effects would be limited to the near field and therefore unlikely to reach the SAC.

During operation it is assumed that there will be up to five maintenance events for the subsea 6.6.45export cables and therefore there would be minimal potential for abrasion effects within the SAC. During repowering all activity would be within the development site as the subsea export cables would not be replaced, therefore there would be no abrasion effects within the SAC.

During decommissioning, if the subsea cables are fully removed then the impact magnitude 6.6.46would be as for construction.


The equivalent impacts used in the MarLIN sensitivities assessments are “Increased 6.6.47Suspended sediments” and “Physical disturbance or abrasion”. The MarLIN definition for Increased Suspended sediments is:

“An arbitrary short term, acute change in background suspended sediment concentration e.g., a change of 100 mg/l for 1 month.”

And the definition for Physical disturbance or abrasion is: 6.6.48

48

“mechanical interference, crushing, physical blows against, or rubbing and erosion of the organism or habitat of interest. Force equivalent to a standard scallop dredge landing on or being dragged across the organism. A single event is assumed for assessment.”

Impacts associated with PTEC project with the SAC are likely to be of equivalent or on a 6.6.49lesser scale than these definitions. Therefore the MarLIN sensitivity assessment for these impacts is considered appropriate to use for this assessment.

The relevant sensitivities to physical damage through siltation and/or abrasion are 6.6.50summarised in Table 6.1. The biotopes which may be affected by construction of the PTEC project have low sensitivity to physical damage through siltation and/or abrasion.

Embedded Mitigation

The subsea export cable routes have been located to avoid key reef features, to minimise 6.6.51impacts on the seabed ecology, and reduce physical risks to the subsea export cable, in particular by:

• Avoiding or minimising crossing of slopes beyond 10° which pose risks of cable movement and damage when surface laid; and

• Avoiding crossing scarps, ridges, scour lines or other areas where there are rapid variations in bathymetry which could lead to damage of the cables if laid across such a feature.


When assessing the significance of the impacts of abrasion and siltation of the reef features it 6.6.52should be recognised that the PTEC project would effect a very small proportion of the South Wight Maritime SAC. The effect of this impact would be temporary only, with the effected communities anticipated to largely recover to pre-construction levels as a result of being populated by nearby non affected similar habitats within two years. The sensitivity of the biotopes which would be affected by the construction process is low and therefore the significance of the impact is likely to be minor adverse.

Changes in toxic contamination through the introduction of synthetic compounds

There are two mechanisms by which toxic compounds could be introduced to the SAC by the 6.6.53PTEC project:

• Through the disturbance of contaminated sediment • Through the accidental spillage or release toxic compounds from installation vessels,

tidal devices or associated infrastructure.

Magnitude of effect

The substrate within the development site comprises cobbles, boulders and bedrock, and the 6.6.54dominance of these hard sediments in the development site and along most of the subsea cable route means there is little potential for sediment release and that the area does not provide a good sink for contaminants (Chapter 7, Physical Processes and Chapter 9, Marine Water and Sediment Quality of the PTEC ES). Based on the physical properties of

49

the site, the impact assessment concluded that release of contaminated sediments would be of negligible magnitude and negligible significance.

Whilst the majority of the structures would be transported to site having been pre-assembled 6.6.55or manufactured on land, it is likely that the use of grout would be required for some foundation types. In addition, there is the potential for other substances such as grease or oil and antifouling paints to be accidentally released into the marine environment.

Chapter 9, Water and Sediment quality concludes that Change in Water and/or Sediment 6.6.56Quality due to accidental release or spills of construction or operation materials or chemicals are likely to be of negligible significance (Impacts 3 and 5).


The equivalent impacts used in the MarLIN sensitivities assessments are “Changes in levels 6.6.57of synthetic chemicals”

“Evidence of reduced abundance, or extent of a population of the species or community of 6.6.58interest (either short or long term) in response to a contaminant will be ranked as moderate sensitivity”

It is very unlikely that there would be any reduction in abundance or extent of populations or 6.6.59community interest within the SAC as a result of contamination by synthetic chemicals from the PTEC project and therefore the MarLIN assessment for this impact is considered very precautionary.

However, the relevant sensitivities to changes in toxic contamination through the introduction 6.6.60of synthetic compounds are shown in Table 6.1. All of the habitats which are present within the subsea cable corridor of the PTEC project and within the SAC have a moderate sensitivity to synthetic compound contamination.

Embedded mitigation

The ES identifies mitigation solutions and provides an outline of the Environmental 6.6.61Management Plan (EMP). Prior to the start of construction of the PTEC project a detailed EMP will be produced which will define how potential toxic materials will be handled to minimise the potential for any release of such substances; the plan will be agreed and signed off by the MMO and Natural England. The plan will include an emergency action plan that will put in place procedures designed to limit the impact if any substances were to be accidently released into the environment.

Significance of Impact

When considering the significance of the effect of the release of toxic compounds on the reef 6.6.62features of the SAC it is necessary to take into consideration the fact that such releases will be very unlikely due to the strict controls which will be in place and the fact that sediment which is present within the area is unlikely to be contaminated. Therefore the significance of such an impact should be considered to be negligible.

50

Non-toxic contamination through changes in nutrient and/or organic loading and/or changes in turbidity.

It is not anticipated that construction, O&M, repowering or decommissioning of the PTEC 6.6.63project will alter the nutrient, organic loading or turbidity of the South Wight Maritime SAC in any measureable way.

Biological disturbance through the introduction of non-natives and/or translocation of species and/or the selective extraction of species.

Under embedded mitigation PTEC have committed to applying best-practice techniques 6.6.64including appropriate vessel maintenance as outlined in the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MarPOL). This would minimise the risk of the introduction of non-native species. Therefore it is considered very unlikely that the PTEC project would introduce non-native species to the South Wight Maritime SAC.

Alteration of substrate within the SAC would be limited to the subsea export cables and their 6.6.65protection (in the form of rock bags and mattresses) equating to small area (2393m2). The area of introduced substrate will not differ greatly in characteristics from that of the surrounding habitat and therefore would not represent a new “niche” which could be colonised by non-native species. It is therefore not considered that the small area of alteration of substrate within the SAC (or indeed any colonisation of infrastructure outside the SAC) presents a new pathway for alien species to colonise the area. Therefore no significant impact is likely to occur

Impact to vegetated sea cliffs of the Atlantic and Baltic coasts

Chapter 7, Coastal Processes of the PTEC Environmental Statement concludes that there 6.6.66will be no significant impact on the coast from the offshore elements of the project. Therefore the only pathway for impact on this feature would be through the onshore elements of the project. However the onshore components of the project do not overlap with any SSSIs.

The closest SSSI to the project is the Compton Chine to Steephill Cove SSSI which is 6.6.67located approximately 350m to the east of the onshore components of the PTEC project. As presented in Box 3 the site is notified for vegetated maritime cliffs and slopes, species-rich unimproved chalk grassland, nationally rare plant species, an assemblage of nationally scarce plants, nationally rare and scarce invertebrates. Chapter 11 Terrestrial Ecology provides further detail on the species features and assesses potential impacts to these. Chapter 11 Terrestrial Ecology does not identify any impacts to species and habitats associated with any SSSI.

There are three options for cable installation which are currently being considered at the 6.6.68landfall location (see Chapter 5, Project Description of the PTEC ES for further detail). These are the use of Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD), open trenching and utilising an existing outfall pipe. The option which would be most likely to cause an effect to sea cliffs is the open trenching option. However this option would involve trenching in an area adjacent to an existing slipway affecting the existing sea defences (which will then be restored), therefore not impacting on any habitat other than heavily modified areas and anthropogenic structures.

51

Due to the fact that there is no overlap between the project site and vegetated sea cliffs, 6.6.69cable installation would have a minimal effect on the coastline. Therefore, it is considered that the PTEC project would not impact on vegetated sea cliffs.

Significance of impact 6.7

The sections above show that the area of the South Wight Maritime SAC impacted will be 6.7.1relatively small compared to the available biological resource and that the resource is robust and should recover rapidly.

52

In- Combination Assessment 6.8

As it has been demonstrated in the screening exercise Section 4.2 and Table 4.2 the PTEC 6.8.1project only has HRA implications for its potential to affect the designated reef features of the South Wight Maritime SAC.

During consultation with the MMO the following list of developments were provided for 6.8.2consideration of in –combination impacts:

1. BT Telecommunications cable between Portsmouth and Ryde; 2. The Plat-O tidal turbine trials at Yarmouth; 3. The Royal Pier Waterfront in Southampton; 4. The Cowes Outer Harbour; 5. Rampion Offshore Wind Farm; 6. Navitus Bay Offshore Wind Farm

Consultation with Natural England identified that following should also be considered as 6.8.3potential to have in-combination effects:

7. Portsmouth Approach Capital Dredge scheme; and 8. Southampton Approach Capital Dredge scheme

None of the above developments are located within the South Wight Maritime SAC or are 6.8.4likely to affect the reef features for which it has been designated. Developments 1-4 and 7 and 8 are located to the north of the Isle of Wight and are therefore geographically removed from the PTEC project. Rampion Offshore Windfarm is located over 50km to the east of the PTEC project and is therefore considered that no pathway exists for that project to impact upon the South Wight Maritime SAC. Navitus Bay Offshore windfarm is located in the vicinity of the PTEC project, however no impacts to the South Wight Maritime SAC were identified in the Benthic Chapter of the Navitus Bay Environmental Statement (Navitus Bay Devlopement limited, 2014a) and in was concluded in the Navitus Bay HRA screening report that no LSE on the designated features of the SAC is expected as a result of the Navitus Bay project.

Furthermore in accordance with Defras revised advice on commercial fishing and the 6.8.5Habitats Directive (Defra, 2013) commercial fishing must also be considered in the cumulative impact assessment. Chapter 15, Commercial Fisheries highlights that the fishiong methods used in the offshore site is used, such as potting and rod and line, would not act cumulatively with the PTEC project to impact upon benthic or intertidal ecology.

Therefore it is predicted that the PTEC project would not act in combination with any other 6.8.6known proposed development to affect the designated features of, or the site integrity of, any European designated site.

53

STAGE 2 – INFORMATION TO SUPPORT APPROPRIATE ASSESSEMENT OF SPAS 7

In determining where a project could affect the integrity of an SPA / Ramsar the 7.1.1judgement is made against the stated Conservation Objectives of the SPA / Ramsar. These Conservation Objectives are those referred to in the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (the “Habitats Regulations”) and Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive.

The Conservation Objectives must be considered when a competent authority is required 7.1.2to make a HRA including an AA, under the relevant parts of this legislation. Where the objectives are met, the site will be considered to exhibit a high degree of integrity and to be contributing to achieving the aims of the Birds Directive with regard to the SPA / Ramsar and the individual species and/or assemblage of species for which the site has been classified (the ‘Qualifying Features’), and subject to natural change.

In undertaking an AA for the SPA / Ramsar qualifying features where the potential for LSE 7.1.3has not been ruled out, it is considered that information on the following topics are relevant and should therefore be taken into account:

• The condition of the qualifying feature, i.e. the current conservation status of qualifying feature;

• Connectivity between the qualifying feature (in this case the population of individuals forming a SPA / Ramsar qualifying feature) and the area potentially affected by the development.

• The importance of the area potentially affected for supporting the qualifying feature (i.e. an SPA / Ramsar population).

• The sensitivity of the qualifying feature to the effects predicted to arise from the development.

• Any other aspect of the ecology of the qualifying feature that is relevant to evaluating the likely impacts to it from the development.

Conservation objectives for SPAs 7.2

The Conservation Objectives for all the SPAs / Ramsar identified in the previous screening 7.2.1are the same and are as follows:

• Ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the Birds Directive, by maintaining or restoring:

o The extent and distribution of the habitats of the qualifying features o The structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying features o The supporting processes on which the habitats of the qualifying features rely o The population of each of the qualifying features, and, o The distribution of the qualifying features within the site.

Current condition of the qualifying features 7.3

54

All the qualifying breeding seabird features for which HRA screening did not rule out potential 7.3.1for a LSE to arise from the PTEC project currently have a Favourable Conservation Status (Table 7.1). In the case of Sandwich tern, numbers show long-term stability (Mitchell et al. 2004), whereas in the case of Mediterranean gull, lesser black-backed gull and northern gannet, numbers at the SPAs identified have shown long-term increases (Mitchell et al. 2004, Holling and RBBP 2012, Cadiou, 2011).

Vulnerability to tidal device impacts 7.4

Development projects comprising tidal devices and associated infrastructure have the 7.4.1potential to impact on seabirds principally through displacement, disturbance and collision effects (Furness et al., 2013). The vulnerability of seabirds species to the impacts arising from tidal devices have been recently reviewed and categorised by Furness et al (2013). Three of the four breeding seabird species with potential for LSE identified through Stage 1 screening (Table 5.1) are rated by Furness et al. as having either low vulnerability (Sandwich tern and northern gannet) or very low vulnerability (lesser-black-backed gull) to the impacts of tidal devices (Table 7.1). These low ratings are a consequence of these species having a high or very high tolerance of human activities in the marine environment (in particular vessels) and their lack of or low potential to dive to and spend time at the water depths at which TECs would operate. Dive depths of lesser black-backed gull do not exceed 1m (and are generally less than this), whilst those of Sandwich tern do not exceed 2m, and average 1m (Furness et al. 2012). For gannet, the majority of dives are within the upper 5 – 6m of the water column, although they can dive to depths of more than 20m on occasion (ES Appendix 10B, PTEC Ornithology Technical Report, Furness et al. 2012). The vulnerability of Mediterranean gull to the impacts of tidal devices was not considered by Furness et al., however the behavioural ecology of this species is similar to that of other gulls (in particular they show a high tolerance to human activities, and do not dive below the surface and use extensive foraging habitats). It is therefore assumed that the appropriate vulnerability rating for Mediterranean gull is ‘very low’, the same as that for all the gull species that are considered by Furness et al. Thus, of these four seabird species, only gannets will have the ability to dive to depths that are sufficient to interact with the TEC devices.

Value of PTEC offshore site as a potential supporting habitat 7.5

One potential pathway through which the PTEC project could compromise the Conservation 7.5.1Objectives of the SPAs / Ramsar identified through screening as having potential for LSE is through causing a significant reduction in the availability or quality of the habitat required to support a qualifying species. For breeding seabirds this would act through a reduction in the availability or quality of the foraging habitat required by an SPA / Ramsar qualifying species population.

The proportion of individuals of an SPA / Ramsar qualifying species population that regularly 7.5.2use the area potentially affected (the anticipated impacted footprint (AIF)) by the PTEC project for foraging gives a robust measure of the likely value of this area as a supporting habitat necessary for sustaining the population.

The results of the baseline characterisation ESAS surveys (ES Appendix 10A, PTEC 7.5.3Ornithology Technical Report) provide a measure of the use by each seabird species of the PTEC offshore site and its vicinity. For the purposes of evaluating the value of the PTEC offshore site as a supporting habitat to SPA / Ramsar populations, the number of each seabird species using (or flying through) an AIF comprising the development sites and a

55

buffer of 1km is considered. For the four species of interest, the extent of the defined AIF is considered to be highly precautionary for the types of impacts that might arise (disturbance, displacement and collision). For the purposes of assessment it is cautiously assumed that the birds present are from the SPA population under consideration; in most cases this is unlikely (and therefore precautionary) because the birds present may comprise birds from a number of other breeding colonies as well as include non-breeding birds. The importance of the AIF as a supporting habitat is determined by expressing the mean number of birds present as a percentage of the qualifying species SPA population size (Table 7.1).

These cautious evaluations clearly demonstrate that the PTEC AIF has a very low 7.5.4importance as a supporting habitat for each of the seabird species SPA / Ramsar breeding populations considered (Table 7.1). During the breeding season the number of individuals using the PTEC AIF in all cases represents well below 0.1% of the SPA / Ramsar species population considered, and therefore the AIF might reasonably be rated as having negligible importance as a supporting habitat to these populations (Table 7.1).

In the case of Mediterranean gull, no individuals were recorded using the PTEC offshore site 7.5.5during the breeding season, reflecting this species’ habitat preference for freshwater systems during the breeding season. However small numbers (maximum 12) of this species were present in the winter months and these are likely to be largely of local breeding origin including from the colonies at Poole Harbour SPA and Solent Marshes and Southampton Water SPA where this species it is a qualifying feature. They are also likely to include birds breeding at Chichester and Langstone Harbours SPA (498 pairs in 2011, RBBP Report) where this species is not a qualifying component of the SPA.

Given that the PTEC surveys encompassed a single year, comparisons have been 7.5.6undertaken with the data from the Navitus Bay and Rampion wind farm sites, which lie approximately 25 and 70km from the PTEC site (Navitus Bay Development Ltd, 2013, RSK Environment Ltd, 2012). Details of these comparisons for the four species with potential LSE are presented in ES Appendix 10A, PTEC Ornithology Technical Report). These comparisons show that for all four species, the densities recorded at Navitus Bay were similar to those recorded at PTEC, whilst for Rampion the densities of three of the species were similar to those at PTEC. The single exception at Rampion was gannet, for which breeding season densities were approximately twice as high as at PTEC, whilst the autumn/winter densities were approximately 70 times greater than those at PTEC (there being a total of only three gannets recorded on the PTEC survey area during the autumn/winter period). Despite this difference in gannet densities between the PTEC surveys and those undertaken at Rampion, it seems reasonable to conclude that the densities of all four species recorded during the PTEC surveys are likely to be representative, given that the Navitus Bay site is considerably closer to PTEC than is the Rampion site.

Collision 7.6

Diving birds can be potentially exposed to a collision risk from operating tidal devices 7.6.1(Furness et al. 2012). PTEC TECs will be at least three metres below the surface at all states of the tide, and in many cases the minimum clearance with the water surface will be considerably more. There is no potential for collision risk to arise from the PTEC project to lesser black-backed gulls, Mediterranean gulls and Sandwich terns because these species only dive at most to shallow depths (less than 1 metre on average) and it is therefore not plausible they would dive to the depths occupied by TECs.

56

Diving gannets typically attain depths below the surface of less than five metres but 7.6.2occasionally attain depths of 20 metres or more. Therefore there is a small potential for a collision risk. However, encounter rate modelling undertaken for gannet at the PTEC site demonstrated a very low level of predicted mortality from collisions with TECs (equivalent to 0.23 deaths per breeding season), which was concluded to be of negligible significance to the regional breeding population and is sufficiently low to be considered as de minimus (Chapter 10 Ornithology, of the PTEC ES). Therefore, it is not plausible that it could result in a level of mortality that could compromise the Conservation Objectives of the sites designated for gannet, or that it could add in any significant way to an in-combination assessment with other proposed developments that predict impacts on these populations (e.g. for collision impacts on the Alderney West Coast and the Burhou Islands Ramsar site from the Navitus Bay and Rampion wind farms), Furthermore, the two gannet populations considered (Archipel des Sept-Iles SPA and Alderney West Coast and the Burhou Islands Ramsar site) have both shown a long-term increase in numbers (Mitchell et al. 2004).

Significance of impact 7.7

Taking into consideration the information presented above and summarised in Table 7.1, the 7.7.1significance any impact arising from the PTEC project on all the breeding seabird SPA / Ramsar qualifying species examined is likely to be no greater than negligible.

57

Table 7.1 Information on number of breeding pairs, conservation status, vulnerability to impacts of tidal devices and value of PTEC offshore site as a potential supporting habitat for SPA seabirds features for which potential for LSE was identified through Stage 1 screening.

Qualifying feature

Breeding pairs Conservation status at SPA

Vulnerability to tidal device

impacts (Furness et al

2013)

Vulnerability to disturbance & displacement (Furness et al

2013)

Estimated potential for connectivity (Table 5.1)

Value of PTEC offshore site and its vicinity (1 km buffer) as a potential

supporting habitat. (based on baseline survey results)

LSE

Solent Marshes and Southampton Water SPA (multi-site SPA, 17 to 46 km away)

Mediterranean gull

19 breeding pairs (2011)

Favourable (increasing) (2011 RBBP Report)

Very low (assumed to be same as for other gull species)

Low (assumed to be same as for other gull species)

Low

Very low. Not recorded in breeding season. Occasionally present in winter. Peak winter number 12 birds. Mean winter number two birds, representing approx. 1% of population for this SPA and Solent Marshes and Southampton Water SPA combined, however this is not likely as local wintering population largely comprises non-SPA birds.

No

Sandwich tern

231 breeding pairs (peak mean 1993-1997)

Favourable (stable) (Mitchell et al. 2004)

Low Low Medium

Very low. Recorded in very small numbers using PTEC offshore site during breeding season; single birds seen on two occasions only. Peak number 1 bird. Mean number 0.3, representing less than 0.1% of SPA population even if all individuals from this SPA, which is unlikely.

No

Chichester and Langstone Harbours SPA (30 to 42 km away)

Sandwich tern 158 breeding pairs (1998)

Favourable (stable) (Mitchel et al. 2004)

Low Low Medium

Very low. Recorded in very small numbers using PTEC offshore site during breeding season; single birds seen on two occasions only. Peak number 1 bird. Mean number 0.3, representing 0.1% of SPA population even if all individuals from this SPA, which is unlikely.

No

58

Qualifying feature




2013)


2013)




LSE

Poole Harbour SPA (47-57 km away)

Mediterranean gull

80 breeding pairs (2011)

Favourable (increasing) (2011 RBBP Report)

Very low (assumed to be same as for other gull species)

Low (assumed to be same as for other gull species)

Low

Very low. Not recorded in breeding season. Occasionally present in winter. Peak winter number 12 birds. Mean winter number two birds, representing approx. 1% of population for this SPA and Solent Marshes and Southampton Water SPA combined, however this is not likely as local wintering population largely comprises non-SPA birds.

No

Solent and Dorset Coast (Potential) marine SPA (0km)

Sandwich tern Unknown* Unknown* Low Low High

Very low. Recorded in very small numbers using PTEC offshore site during breeding season; single birds seen on two occasions only. Peak number 1 bird. Mean number 0.3, representing 0.1% of SPA population even if all individuals from this SPA, which is unlikely.

No

Archipel des Sept-Iles SPA (240 km away)

Northern gannet

21,880 breeding pairs (2010)

Favourable (increasing)

Low Low Low

Very low. Present in low numbers in breeding season. Peak number 22 birds. Mean number 9, representing 0.02% of SPA population even if all individuals from this SPA, which is very unlikely. (Most likely is that almost all birds are from Alderney colonies).

No

Baie de Seine Occidentale SPA (116 km)

Lesser black-backed gull

653-1,089 breeding pairs (2009-2010)

Favourable (increasing)

Very low Very low Medium

Very low. Present in very low numbers in breeding season. Peak estimated number 2 birds. Mean number 0.4, representing ca 0.02% of SPA population even if all individuals from this SPA, which is very unlikely as large numbers breed at closer non-SPA colonies.

No

59

Qualifying feature




2013)


2013)




LSE

Alderney West Coast and the Burhou Islands Ramsar site (113 km)

Northern gannet

7,885 breeding pairs (2011)

Favourable (increasing) (Mitchell et al. 2004, Alderney Wildlife Trust, after Navitus Bay Development Ltd 2013)

Low Low Medium

Very low. Present in low numbers in breeding season. Peak number 22 birds. Mean number 9, representing, 0.08% of SPA population if all individuals from this SPA (which is quite likely). Accounting for immature birds reduces figure to 0.06%.

No

*Breeding pairs and conservation status are unknown as this is a potential Marine SPA for which citation populations are yet to be defined. Sources for numbers of breeding pairs Mediterranean gull - Solent Marshes and Southampton Water SPA and Poole Harbour SPA (Holling and RBBP 2012) Sandwich tern - Solent Marshes and Southampton Water SPA (JNCC SPA site review - http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/default.aspx?page=2037) Sandwich tern - Chichester and Langstone Harbours SPA (JNCC SPA site review - http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/default.aspx?page=2034) Northern gannet - Archipel des Sept-Iles SPA (Cadiou 2011) Northern gannet, - Alderney West Coast and the Burhou Islands Ramsar site (Alderney Wildlife Trust, after Navitus Bay Development Ltd 2013) Lesser black-backed gull - Baie de Seine Occidentale SPA (Cadiou 2011)

60

http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/default.aspx?page=2037

http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/default.aspx?page=2037

In - combination Assessment 7.8

During consultation with the MMO the following list of developments were provided for 7.8.1consideration in the in combination assessment:

1. BT Telecommunications cable between Portsmouth and Ryde; 2. The Plat-O tidal turbine trials at Yarmouth; 3. The Royal Pier Waterfront in Southampton; 4. The Cowes Outer Harbour; 5. Rampion Offshore Windfarm; and 6. Navitus Bay Offshore Wind Farm

Consultation with Natural England identified that following should also be considered as 7.8.2

potential to have in-combination effects:

7. Portsmouth Approach Capital Dredge scheme; and 8. Southampton Approach Capital Dredge scheme

The only SPA qualifying species for which Stage 1 screening identified potential for LSE (on 7.8.3the basis of theoretical connectivity) and for which the information presented in Stage 2 shows to use the PTEC offshore site are gannet, lesser black-backed gull, Sandwich tern and Mediterranean gull. However it has also been shown for all these species that the numbers using the PTEC offshore site are extremely small in the context of the SPA qualifying population sizes that might potentially have connectivity (Table 8.1) and that the birds using the PTEC offshore site are also likely to include non-SPA birds because the site is also within foraging range of birds from non-designated breeding colonies. It is concluded that the actual level of connectivity between PTEC and the SPA populations of the four aforementioned species is at most very low, and that the PTEC offshore site has negligible importance as habitat for supporting these SPA populations.

The same four species are also shown to have low or very low vulnerability to impacts from 7.8.4tidal devices, vessel disturbance and displacement (Table 8.1). It is therefore further concluded that the potential for adverse impacts on these species’ SPA qualifying features are in all case so small as to be trivial and inconsequential. As a consequence it is not plausible that the effects from PTEC on these qualifying features could add to the effects from other developments to an extent that could increase the significance of the In –combination impact. Therefore it is predicted that the PTEC project would not act in combination with any other known proposed development to affect the designated features of, or the site integrity of, any European designated site.

61

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR APPROPRIATE ASSESSMENT 8

SAC conclusions and recommendations 8.1

The screening exercise identified one European Site with the potential to be affected by the 8.1.1PTEC project. When assessing likely significant effect it was concluded that the only feature for which there are pathways for effect is the Reef features of the South Wight Maritime SAC.

Information is presented which relates to the advice provided by English Nature (now Natural 8.1.2England) regarding operation’s impact mechanisms by which the integrity of the South Wight Maritime SAC could be threatened. The information provided for each of these operations relates to the sensitivity of the reef feature, the magnitude of impact that the project will create and the significance of that impact upon the reef feature.

It is considered that impacts to the Reef features of the SAC will be at worst of low 8.1.3magnitude, and that the sensitivity of the reef features to these impacts is generally low. Therefore, this is unlikely to result in any LSE.

SPA conclusions and recommendations 8.2

It is considered that the project will not result in LSE on any bird SPA qualifying species. 8.2.1

The conclusion of no LSE is based on the following elements of the assessment: 8.2.2

• Theoretical connectivity between the project and SPA breeding seabird qualifying species determined using foraging range metadata is assessed as being at most either low or medium;

• The vulnerability of seabird SPA species potentially using the project site is rated as being low or very low;

• The numbers of individuals of a species using the project site is at most very low in the context of the SPA population, so it cannot be concluded that the project site constitutes important feeding habitat ; and

• The seabird SPA features screen in at Stage 1 all have a conservation status that was favourable (either stable or increasing) at last assessment.

62

REFERENCES 9

Ayling. A. L (1983) Growth and regeneration rates in thinly encrusting demospongiae from temperate waters. Biol. Bull. October 1, 1983 vol. 165 no. 2 343-352 Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR) (2008). Review of cabling and environmental effects applicable to the offshore wind farm industry. Technical Report in association with Defra. Burnett D. R., Beckman. R. C., and Donovan. T.M. (2013) Submarine Cables: The Handbook of Law and Policy. Publisher: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. ISBN: 9004260323 Bunker .F., Mercer. T., and C. Howson (2005) South Wight maritime European marine site sublittoral monitoring 2003 – 2004 English nature contract No. FST20-46-16 Cadiou, B. (2011). Fifth national census of breeding seabirds in mainland France 2009-2010. Agence des aires marines protégées. March 2011 David Tyldesley and Associates (2014). The Habitats Regulations Assessment Handbook EC, European Commission (2001). Assessment of plans and projects significantly affecting Natura 2000 sites. English Nature (2001) advice for the South Wight Maritime European marine site given under Regulation 33(2) of the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations 1994 Furness, R. W., Wade, H. M., Robbins, A. M. C., & Masden, E. A. (2012). Assessing the sensitivity of seabird populations to adverse effects from tidal stream turbines and wave energy devices. ICES Journal of Marine Science: Journal Du Conseil, 69(8), 1466–1479. doi:10.1093/icesjms/fss131 Furness, R. (2014). Final Draft. Biologically appropriate, species-specific, geographic non-breeding season population estimates for seabirds. Unpublished report MacArthur Green Ltd. Hughes, RG. J (1983). The life-history of Tubularia indivisa (Hydrozoa: Tubulariidae) with observations of the status of T. ceratogyne.. MAR. BIOL. ASSOC. Vol. 63, no. 2, pp. 467-479 Holling, M. and RBBP (2012). Rare Breeding Bird Panel Report for 2011 - British Birds Vol.106 (2012), 496-554 JNCC (2010) South Wight Maritime SAC. Site details webpage http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/protectedsites/sacselection/sac.asp?EUCode=UK0030061 JNCC (2011a) UK Biodiversity Action Plan; Priority Habitat Descriptions. BRIG (ed. Ant Maddock (2008)) JNCC (2011b) South Wight Maritime Natura 2000 Data Form http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/protectedsites/sacselection/n2kforms/UK0030061.pdf

63

http://www.rbbp.org.uk/downloads/rbbp-report-2011.pdf

http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/protectedsites/sacselection/n2kforms/UK0030061.pdf

Mitchell, P.I., Newton S.F., Ratcliffe, N. and Dunnn, T.E. 2004. Seabird populations of Britain and Ireland. Christopher Helm, London. Navitus Bay Development Limited (2014a) Environmental Statement, Volume B - Offshore Chapter 9 benthic Ecology. Document 6.1.2.9 Navitus Bay Development Limited (2014b) Habitats Regulation Screening Report. Document 5.3 PINS (2008) Advice note ten: Habitat Regulations Assessment relevant to nationally significant infrastructure projects O’Dell, J., Axelsson, M., Dewey, S., Allen, C. and Hawes, J. (2013). South Wight Maritime SAC – inshore ground-truthing and habitat survey. A report to Natural England PTEC (2014) Environmental Statement for the Perpetuus Tidal Energy Centre Project Schmidt. G. H, and Warner, G.F. (1991) The settlement and growth of Sertularia cupressina (Hydrozoa, Sertulariidae) in Langstone Harbour, Hampshire, UK. Journal Hydrobiologia. Issue Volume 216-217, Number 1 / June, 1991. Thaxter, C. B., Lascelles, B., Sugar, K., Cook, A. S. C. P., Roos, S., Bolton, M., Langston, R. H. W. & Burton, N. H. K. 2012. Seabird foraging ranges as a tool for identifying Marine Protected Areas. Biological Conservation, 156, 53-61.

64

ptec: information to support habitats regulations ...€¦ · page 1 introduction 1 1.2 project...

Documents