5.5. Assessment of LSE for Marine Ornithological Features

5.5.1. Site Overviews

As outlined in section 4.4, a total of 46 European sites were identified in the initial screening process to be taken forward for determination of LSE. These sites and the associated qualifying features are set out in Table 5.16 Open ▸ below. Within Table 5.16 Open ▸ , the sites are distinguished according to the four categories identified in section 4.4.2 (with the migratory waterbird SPA category subdivided according to whether sites are estuarine or inland), and, within each of these categories, listed in order of increasing distance from the Proposed Development.

Table 5.16: The SPAs and Ramsar sites taken forward for determination of LSE, with details of the associated qualifying features

Notes:

1. The named components of the assemblage features which are listed exclude those which are also qualifying features in their own right.

2. Breeding seabird qualifying features which are included on the basis of potential connectivity during the breeding season only.

3. Breeding seabird qualifying features which are included on the basis of potential connectivity during the non-breeding season only.

5.5.2. Pathways for LSE: Potential Impacts on marine ornithological Features

A range of potential impacts on the marine ornithological features have been identified which may occur during the construction, operation and maintenance, and decommissioning phases of the Proposed Development. These are the impacts which are taken into account when determining the potential for LSE on the designated sites and seabirds or migratory waterbird features identified in section 4.4. The list of potential impacts on seabirds and migratory waterbirds has been compiled using the experience and knowledge gained from previous offshore wind farm projects, including the Seagreen 1 offshore wind farm development, as well as published literature. At this stage in the Proposed Development Programme, full analysis of baseline survey information for the Proposed Development has not yet been completed, therefore a precautionary approach is taken to the LSE screening.
Consideration of the potential impacts identified for the marine ornithological features is presented in the following sections to inform the determination of LSE in section 5.5.3. Many of the European sites screened in include an assemblage qualifying feature, with the named components of each of these assemblage features also being identified in Table 5.16 Open ▸ . For the purposes of considering the potential effect pathways, these named components are treated as qualifying features (with the potential effect pathways also considered for the overall assemblage feature).

Construction Phase

Direct Habitat Loss

Direct habitat loss arising from the presence of infra-structure may occur during the construction phase of the Proposed Development. This is a temporary (and relatively short-term) effect in relation to the construction period and is unlikely to be significant for marine ornithological features using the array area. However, there is potential for effects to occur in relation to the offshore export cable corridor which passes through the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex SPA. Indirect loss of habitats used by marine ornithological features is assessed as displacement. Therefore, it is considered that there is potential for LSE in relation to the qualifying features of the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex SPA.

Disturbance and Displacement

For the purposes of determining LSE, disturbance and displacement are considered together although these effects will be treated as separate pathways in the assessment for adverse effects on integrity.
The presence of vessels and construction works may disturb seabirds from offshore foraging or roosting areas in the short-term, causing changes in behaviour or displacing them from the affected areas. Temporary disturbance/displacement may lead to a reduction in foraging opportunities or increased energy expenditure, resulting in decreased survival rates or productivity in the population. This would only be likely to apply to seabirds which use the area of the marine environment in which construction activities will occur. Although migratory waterbird species would not be significantly affected when passing through (or over) the Proposed Development site on migration (as they are not expected to forage or rest in the marine environment around the Proposed Development), the offshore export cable corridor passes through the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex SPA (so that there is the potential for LSE in relation to this site).
Given the above, and following advice from NS (2020a), it is considered that there is the potential for LSE to result from this effect pathway in relation to SPA populations of breeding kittiwake, guillemot, razorbill and puffin (as well as breeding seabird assemblages), the qualifying features of the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex SPA and the non-breeding red-throated diver population of the Firth of Forth SPA (due to the particular sensitivity of red-throated diver to anthropogenic disturbance – see section 4.4.2).

Changes to Prey Availability

Indirect impacts on seabirds may occur as a result of changes in prey distribution, availability or abundance. Reduction or disruption to prey availability to seabirds may cause displacement from foraging grounds in the area or reduced energy intake, affecting survival rates or productivity in the population in the short-term. Although migratory waterbird species would not be significantly affected when passing through (or over) the site on migration (as they are not expected to forage or rest in the marine environment around the Proposed Development), the offshore export cable corridor passes through the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex SPA (so that there is the potential for LSE in relation to this site).

Accidental Pollution

Following advice from NS (2020a) and MSS (2020a), accidental pollution associated with construction activities is not considered as an effect pathway because this will be subject to other regulatory control through both legislation and the requirements for contingency plans.

Operation and Maintenance Phase

Direct Habitat Loss

Direct habitat loss may occur during the operation and maintenance phase of the Proposed Development. Given the large foraging ranges used by seabirds and the extent of marine habitats available for other functions (e.g. roosting), direct habitat loss due to the Proposed Development is unlikely to have effects on SPA breeding seabird populations. Similarly, no effects are predicted on migratory waterbird populations as a result of birds passing through (or over) the Proposed Development site on migration. However, the offshore export cable corridor passes through the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex SPA, so that there is the potential for LSE in relation to the qualifying features of this site (as is the case for the construction period).

Disturbance and Displacement

As noted for the construction period, disturbance and displacement are considered together for the purposes of determining LSE but will be treated as separate pathways in the assessment for adverse effects on integrity.
The presence of operational wind turbines, as well as the associated maintenance activities, may disturb seabirds and displace them from foraging or roosting areas over the long-term. This may lead to a reduction in foraging opportunities or increased competition and energy expenditure, resulting in decreased survival rates or productivity in the population. Such effects may be most likely in relation to seabirds using the marine habitats within the Proposed Development array area, although species are known to vary in their sensitivity to displacement (e.g. large gull species show little evidence of displacement from offshore wind farms whereas gannet and red-throated diver show marked displacement - Dierschke et al., 2018; Dorsch et al., 2020). Additionally, the effects of such displacement are likely to be minimal for species such as gannet and fulmar (irrespective of their sensitivity to the effect), which have particularly large foraging ranges, because the resultant habitat loss will represent a small proportion of the available habitat. However, NS (2020a) and MSS (2020a) advise that emerging (but, as yet, unpublished) evidence suggests that the large distances over which gannets may be displaced, together with the increasing number of offshore wind farms (with implications for in-combination effects), means that there is potential for LSE due to the displacement of gannets during the breeding season.
Such disturbance and displacement effects do not have the potential for LSE in relation to migratory waterbirds because they do not forage or roost in the marine habitats around the Proposed Development and only transit the area on migration.
During operation, the offshore export cable is an immobile structure on the seabed with minimal maintenance activity involving vessel activity. As such, there is considered to be no potential for LSE due to disturbance and displacement associated with the offshore export cable corridor during the operational period.

Collision

Collisions of seabirds and/or migratory waterbirds with the rotating blades of the wind turbines may result in the death or injury of individuals. Such mortality may be additive, so could cause population declines or, in some situations, prevent population recovery. Therefore, seabird species which forage within, or commute through, the Proposed Development array area may be vulnerable to such effects, as is also the case for migratory waterbirds which transit this area on migration. For seabirds, collision risk may vary between species in relation to a range of factors associated with flight behaviour but with flight heights being of fundamental importance in predicting the vulnerability to this effect (Johnston et al., 2014a,b). Thus, species which fly at low heights and below the rotor swept area (e.g. fulmar and auk species) are not vulnerable to this effect pathway, in contrast to other species which generally fly at greater heights and are at risk of collision for a proportion of their flight time (e.g. kittiwake, large gull species and gannet). Given the offshore location of the Proposed Development array area, it is extremely unlikely that any of the migratory waterbird species associated with European sites would make more frequent movements across the Proposed Development array area (e.g. when commuting between foraging and roosting sites), and it is considered that collision risk for these species is limited to their migratory movements.

Barrier to Movement

Large scale offshore wind farms may act as barriers to seabird and/or migratory waterbird movements, causing individuals to fly around or over the wind turbine arrays. For migratory waterbird species making one-off movements across the Proposed Development array area, usually in spring and autumn, the increase in energy expenditure incurred as a result of such effects is unlikely to be of significance, given the substantial distances across which they migrate. However, seabird species that commute frequently across the Proposed Development array area could incur greater energetic costs as a consequence of these effects, with the potential for this to result in decreased survival rates or productivity in the population. In particular, this is relevant to seabirds during the breeding season, when they frequently commute between the colony and foraging areas (e.g. Searle et al., 2018).

Changes to Prey Availability

Indirect impacts on seabirds may occur as a result of changes in prey distribution, availability or abundance in the marine environment. Reduction or disruption to prey availability to seabirds may cause displacement from the area or reduced energy intake, affecting survival rates or productivity in the population in the long-term. Although migratory waterbird species would not be significantly affected when passing through (or over) the site on migration (as they are not expected to forage or rest in the marine environment around the Proposed Development), the offshore export cable corridor passes through the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex SPA (so that there is the potential for LSE in relation to this site).

Accidental Pollution

As discussed above in this section for the construction phase, accidental pollution is not considered as an effect pathway because this will be subject to other regulatory control through both legislation and the requirements for contingency plans (NS, 2020a; MSS, 2020a).

Decommissioning Phase

The impacts during the decommissioning phase are considered to be similar and potentially less than those outlined above for the construction phase. The impacts of direct habitat loss, collision and barriers to movement are not applicable to the decommissioning phase and therefore have been greyed out in Table 5.16 Open ▸ to Table 5.62 Open ▸ .

5.5.3. Determination of LSE for marine ornithological Features

Table 5.16 Open ▸ to Table 5.62 Open ▸ present the conclusions in relation to the determination of LSE as a result of the Proposed Development. Separate LSE screening tables are presented for each of the 46 European sites which are taken forward for determination of LSE on the basis of the information and analysis in section 4.4 (and which are listed in Table 5.15 Open ▸ ). The European Sites are listed in the same order as in Table 5.15 Open ▸ , with the single marine SPA covered in Table 5.16 Open ▸ , the breeding seabird colony SPAs in Table 5.17 Open ▸ to Table 5.44 Open ▸ and the migratory waterbird SPAs in Table 5.45 Open ▸ to Table 5.61 Open ▸ . The conclusion on whether LSE can be excluded or not is presented for each of the qualifying features screened in for each of these 46 sites in relation to each effect pathway.
These assessments have been made in the absence of mitigation measures. The footnotes to these tables briefly outline the rationale for the conclusion in relation to LSE for each qualifying feature. Effects that are not applicable to a particular feature are greyed out.

Table 5.17: LSE Matrix for Marine Ornithological Features of the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex SPA (C = construction, O&M = operation and maintenance, D = decommissioning;  = potential for LSE,  = no potential for LSE)

a: Direct habitat loss – as stated in section 5.5.2, LSE on the qualifying features of this SPA cannot be excluded as a result of direct habitat loss associated with the offshore export cable corridor during construction and operation.

b: Disturbance and displacement – for construction and decommissioning, it is considered that activities associated with the offshore export cable corridor and (for seabirds which may use the more offshore waters in the eastern parts of the SPA) the array area mean that LSE on the qualifying features of this SPA cannot be excluded.

For operation, no LSE is concluded in relation to the; (i) waterbird features; (ii) seabird features with breeding season foraging ranges which do not extend out to the array area from the nearest SPA colony locations (see Table 4.5 Open ▸ ) or which predominantly use more inshore habitats; and (iii) seabird features which are relatively insensitive to displacement (e.g. herring gull). For those seabirds features which are likely to use the more offshore waters in the eastern parts of the SPA and which may be sensitive to displacement, LSE cannot be excluded because of the potential for birds to be displaced from those parts of the SPA which are adjacent and close to the array area. Note, although the presence of wind turbines may result in the displacement of non-breeding red-throated diver over distances of several kilometres, the distribution of this qualifying feature is concentrated in the more inshore waters of this SPA (SNH 2018l) so that there is no potential for LSE from displacement associated with the wind turbines.

c: Collision – the primary function of this SPA is to protect important feeding, moulting and roosting areas for non-breeding inshore waterbirds and important feeding areas for seabirds during both the breeding and non-breeding seasons. In relation to seabirds, this SPA is used as a foraging area by breeding populations associated with nearby breeding seabird colony SPAs (e.g. the Forth Islands SPA). The array area is outside the SPA so there is no potential for LSE in relation to collisions for the majority of the qualifying features. However, given that the array area abuts the eastern boundary of this SPA, seabird features which use the more offshore waters may be expected to also use the array area on a frequent basis. Therefore, for those seabird features which use the more offshore waters and which are considered vulnerable to collisions, the potential for LSE in relation to collision effects cannot be excluded.

d. Barrier to movement – the primary function of this SPA is to protect important feeding, moulting and roosting areas for non-breeding inshore waterbirds and important feeding areas for seabirds during both the breeding and non-breeding seasons. In relation to seabirds, this SPA is used as a foraging area by breeding populations associated with nearby breeding seabird colony SPAs (e.g. the Forth Islands SPA). The array area is outside the SPA and only abuts the SPA along its eastern boundary, where the SPA extends furthest offshore. Therefore, it is considered that there is no potential for LSE in relation to barrier effects for either the waterbird or seabird qualifying features. Although some of the seabirds will use (and feed in) the waters adjacent to the array area, the array area will not act as a barrier in terms of movements within the SPA and, notably, during the breeding season it is unlikely to affect movements between the key breeding colonies and this SPA (based upon the respective locations – Figure 4.4).

Table 5.18: LSE Matrix for Marine Ornithological Features of the St Abb’s Head to Fast Castle SPA (C = construction, O&M = operation and maintenance, D = decommissioning;  = potential for LSE,  = no potential for LSE)

a: Direct habitat loss – as detailed in section 5.5.2, direct habitat loss due to the Proposed Development is unlikely to have effects on SPA breeding seabird populations due to the large foraging ranges used by seabirds and the extent of marine habitats available for other functions (e.g. roosting). Also, direct habitat loss during the construction period is a temporary and relatively short-term effect. Therefore, it is considered that there is no potential for LSE in relation to this effect pathway for this SPA.

b: Disturbance and displacement – guillemot, razorbill and kittiwake from this SPA may be affected by disturbance and displacement from the Proposed Development array area and its surrounds. Herring gull is considered to be relatively insensitive to such effects. The potential effects of disturbance and displacement on kittiwake are likely to be limited to the breeding season only, whilst for the two auk species the effect pathway is considered relevant to both the breeding and non-breeding seasons (MSS 2020b, NS 2020c). Therefore, it is considered that the potential for LSE in relation to this effect pathway cannot be excluded for the guillemot, razorbill, kittiwake and seabird assemblage qualifying features of this SPA.

c. Collision – kittiwake and herring gull may be vulnerable to collisions within the Proposed Development array area. Guillemot and razorbill generally fly below the lower rotor swept height and are not considered vulnerable to collision effects. Therefore, it is considered that the potential for LSE in relation to this effect pathway cannot be excluded for the kittiwake, herring gull and seabird assemblage qualifying features of this SPA.

d: Barrier to movement – guillemot, razorbill and kittiwake from this SPA may be affected by barrier effects from the Proposed Development array area. Herring gull is considered to be relatively insensitive to such effects. The potential for barrier effects on kittiwake is likely to be limited to the breeding season only, whilst for the two auk species the effect pathway is considered relevant to both the breeding and non-breeding seasons (MSS 2020b, NS 2020c). Therefore, it is considered that the potential for LSE in relation to this effect pathway cannot be excluded for the guillemot, razorbill, kittiwake and seabird assemblage qualifying features of this SPA.

Table 5.19: LSE Matrix for Marine Ornithological Features of the Forth Islands SPA (C = construction, O&M = operation and maintenance, D = decommissioning;  = potential for LSE,  = no potential for LSE)

b: Disturbance and displacement – guillemot, razorbill, puffin, gannet and kittiwake from this SPA may be affected by disturbance and displacement from the Proposed Development array area and its surrounds. Herring gull and lesser black-backed gull are considered to be relatively insensitive to such effects. The potential for effects of disturbance and displacement on gannet has been identified on the basis of emerging evidence concerning the large distances over which this species is displaced, although previous advice suggested that the large foraging range of this species meant that effects of such displacement are unlikely to be important (NS 2020a, MSS 2020a, see section 5.5.2). For gannet and kittiwake displacement effects are likely to be limited to the breeding season only, whilst for the three auk species the effect pathway is considered relevant to both the breeding and non-breeding seasons (MSS 2020b, NS 2020c). Arctic tern and common tern are both considered relatively insensitive to anthropogenic disturbance when foraging and commuting in the marine environment, but evidence relating to the sensitivity of these species to displacement effects is sparse (Furness et al., 2013, Dierschke et al., 2018). Therefore, it is considered that the potential for LSE in relation to this effect pathway cannot be excluded for the Arctic tern, common tern, guillemot, razorbill, puffin, gannet, kittiwake and seabird assemblage qualifying features of this SPA.

c. Collision – Arctic tern, common tern, gannet, herring gull, lesser black-backed gull and kittiwake may be vulnerable to collisions within the Proposed Development array area. Guillemot, razorbill and puffin generally fly below the lower rotor swept height and are not considered vulnerable to collision effects. Therefore, it is considered that the potential for LSE in relation to this effect pathway cannot be excluded for the Arctic tern, common tern, gannet, herring gull, lesser black-backed gull, kittiwake and seabird assemblage qualifying features of this SPA.

d: Barrier to movement – guillemot, razorbill, puffin, gannet and kittiwake from this SPA may be affected by barrier effects from the Proposed Development array area. Herring gull and lesser black-backed gull are considered to be relatively insensitive to such effects. The potential for barrier effects on gannet has been identified on the basis of emerging evidence, although previous advice suggested that the large foraging range of this species meant that such barrier effects are unlikely to be important (NS 2020a, MSS 2020a). For gannet and kittiwake barrier effects are likely to be limited to the breeding season only, whilst for the three auk species the effect pathway is considered relevant to both the breeding and non-breeding seasons (MSS 2020b, NS 2020c). Arctic tern and common tern are both considered relatively insensitive to anthropogenic disturbance when foraging and commuting in the marine environment, but evidence relating to the sensitivity of these species to barrier effects is sparse (Furness et al., 2013, Dierschke et al., 2018). Therefore, it is considered that the potential for LSE in relation to this effect pathway cannot be excluded for the Arctic tern, common tern, guillemot, razorbill, puffin, gannet, kittiwake and seabird assemblage qualifying features of this SPA.

Table 5.20: LSE Matrix for Marine Ornithological Features of the Fowlsheugh SPA (C = construction, O&M = operation and maintenance, D = decommissioning;  = potential for LSE,  = no potential for LSE)

b: Disturbance and displacement – guillemot, razorbill and kittiwake from this SPA may be affected by disturbance and displacement from the Proposed Development array area and its surrounds. Herring gull is considered to be relatively insensitive to such effects, whilst the particularly large foraging range of fulmar means that any effects of disturbance within, or displacement from, the Proposed Development array area are likely to be minimal. The potential effects of disturbance and displacement on kittiwake are likely to be limited to the breeding season only, whilst for the two auk species the effect pathway is considered relevant to both the breeding and non-breeding seasons (MSS 2020b, NS 2020c). Therefore, it is considered that the potential for LSE in relation to this effect pathway cannot be excluded for the guillemot, razorbill, kittiwake and seabird assemblage qualifying features of this SPA.

c. Collision – kittiwake and herring gull may be vulnerable to collisions within the Proposed Development array area. Guillemot, razorbill and fulmar generally fly below the lower rotor swept height and are not considered vulnerable to collision effects. Therefore, it is considered that the potential for LSE in relation to this effect pathway cannot be excluded for the kittiwake, herring gull and seabird assemblage qualifying features of this SPA.

d: Barrier to movement – guillemot, razorbill and kittiwake from this SPA may be affected by barrier effects from the Proposed Development array area. Herring gull is considered to be relatively insensitive to such effects, whilst the particularly large foraging range of fulmar means that the consequences of barrier effects resulting from the Proposed Development array area are likely to be minimal on this species. The potential for barrier effects on kittiwake is likely to be limited to the breeding season only, whilst for the two auk species the effect pathway is considered relevant to both the breeding and non-breeding seasons (MSS 2020b, NS 2020c). Therefore, it is considered that the potential for LSE in relation to this effect pathway cannot be excluded for the guillemot, razorbill, kittiwake and seabird assemblage qualifying features of this SPA.

f: In-combination effects – other plans or projects which have the potential to cause effects on the qualifying features of this SPA may combine with potential effects associated with the Proposed Development, so that the potential for LSE cannot be excluded in relation to in-combination effects. The exception in this regard is fulmar, for which no effect pathways to LSE are identified in relation to the Proposed Development (so that there is no potential to contribute to in-combination effects).

Table 5.21: LSE Matrix for Marine Ornithological Features of the Farne Islands SPA (C = construction, O&M = operation and maintenance, D = decommissioning;  = potential for LSE,  = no potential for LSE)

b: Disturbance and displacement – guillemot, puffin and kittiwake from this SPA may be affected by disturbance and displacement from the Proposed Development array area and its surrounds. The potential effects of disturbance and displacement on kittiwake are likely to be limited to the breeding season only, whilst for the two auk species the effect pathway is considered relevant to both the breeding and non-breeding seasons (MSS 2020b, NS 2020c). Therefore, it is considered that the potential for LSE in relation to this effect pathway cannot be excluded for the guillemot, puffin, kittiwake and seabird assemblage qualifying features of this SPA.

c. Collision – kittiwake may be vulnerable to collisions within the Proposed Development array area. Guillemot and puffin generally fly below the lower rotor swept height and are not considered vulnerable to collision effects. Therefore, it is considered that the potential for LSE in relation to this effect pathway cannot be excluded for the kittiwake and seabird assemblage qualifying features of this SPA.

d: Barrier to movement – guillemot, puffin and kittiwake from this SPA may be affected by barrier effects from the Proposed Development array area. The potential for barrier effects on kittiwake is likely to be limited to the breeding season only, whilst for the two auk species the effect pathway is considered relevant to both the breeding and non-breeding seasons (MSS 2020b, NS 2020c). Therefore, it is considered that the potential for LSE in relation to this effect pathway cannot be excluded for the guillemot, puffin, kittiwake and seabird assemblage qualifying features of this SPA.

Table 5.22: LSE Matrix for Marine Ornithological Features of the Coquet Island SPA (C = construction, O&M = operation and maintenance, D = decommissioning;  = potential for LSE,  = no potential for LSE)

b: Disturbance and displacement – puffin and kittiwake from this SPA may be affected by disturbance and displacement from the Proposed Development array area and its surrounds. Herring gull and lesser black-backed gull are considered to be relatively insensitive to such effects, whilst the particularly large foraging range of fulmar means that any effects of disturbance within, or displacement from, the Proposed Development array area are likely to be minimal. The potential effects of disturbance and displacement on kittiwake are likely to be limited to the breeding season only, whilst for puffin the effect pathway is considered relevant to both the breeding and non-breeding seasons (MSS 2020b, NS 2020c). Therefore, it is considered that the potential for LSE in relation to this effect pathway cannot be excluded for the puffin, kittiwake and seabird assemblage qualifying features of this SPA.

c. Collision – kittiwake, herring gull and lesser black-backed gull may be vulnerable to collisions within the Proposed Development array area. Puffin and fulmar generally fly below the lower rotor swept height and are not considered vulnerable to collision effects. Therefore, it is considered that the potential for LSE in relation to this effect pathway cannot be excluded for the kittiwake, herring gull, lesser black-backed gull and seabird assemblage qualifying features of this SPA.

d: Barrier to movement – puffin and kittiwake from this SPA may be affected by barrier effects from the Proposed Development array area. Herring gull and lesser black-backed gull are considered to be relatively insensitive to such effects, whilst the particularly large foraging range of fulmar means that the consequences of barrier effects resulting from the Proposed Development array area are likely to be minimal on this species. The potential for barrier effects on kittiwake is likely to be limited to the breeding season only, whilst for puffin the effect pathway is considered relevant to both the breeding and non-breeding seasons (MSS 2020b, NS 2020c). Therefore, it is considered that the potential for LSE in relation to this effect pathway cannot be excluded for the puffin, kittiwake and seabird assemblage qualifying features of this SPA.

Table 5.23: LSE Matrix for Marine Ornithological Features of the Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast SPA (C = construction, O&M = operation and maintenance, D = decommissioning;  = potential for LSE,  = no potential for LSE)

b: Disturbance and displacement – guillemot and kittiwake from this SPA may be affected by disturbance and displacement from the Proposed Development array area and its surrounds. The particularly large foraging range of fulmar means that any effects of disturbance within, or displacement from, the Proposed Development array area are likely to be minimal. The potential effects of disturbance and displacement on kittiwake are likely to be limited to the breeding season only, whilst for guillemot the effect pathway is considered relevant to both the breeding and non-breeding seasons (MSS 2020b, NS 2020c). Therefore, it is considered that the potential for LSE in relation to this effect pathway cannot be excluded for the guillemot, kittiwake and seabird assemblage qualifying features of this SPA.

c. Collision – kittiwake may be vulnerable to collisions within the Proposed Development array area. Guillemot and fulmar generally fly below the lower rotor swept height and are not considered vulnerable to collision effects. Therefore, it is considered that the potential for LSE in relation to this effect pathway cannot be excluded for the kittiwake and seabird assemblage qualifying features of this SPA.

d: Barrier to movement – guillemot and kittiwake from this SPA may be affected by barrier effects from the Proposed Development array area. The particularly large foraging range of fulmar means that the consequences of barrier effects resulting from the Proposed Development array area are likely to be minimal on this species. The potential for barrier effects on kittiwake is likely to be limited to the breeding season only, whilst for guillemot the effect pathway is considered relevant to both the breeding and non-breeding seasons (MSS 2020b, NS 2020c). Therefore, it is considered that the potential for LSE in relation to this effect pathway cannot be excluded for the guillemot, kittiwake and seabird assemblage qualifying features of this SPA.

Table 5.24: LSE Matrix for Marine Ornithological Features of the Troup, Pennan and Lion’s Heads SPA (C = construction, O&M = operation and maintenance, D = decommissioning;  = potential for LSE,  = no potential for LSE)

b: Disturbance and displacement – guillemot, razorbill and kittiwake from this SPA may be affected by disturbance and displacement from the Proposed Development array area and its surrounds. The particularly large foraging range of fulmar means that any effects of disturbance within, or displacement from, the Proposed Development array area are likely to be minimal. The potential effects of disturbance and displacement on kittiwake are likely to be limited to the breeding season only, whilst for the two auk species the effect pathway is considered relevant to both the breeding and non-breeding seasons (MSS 2020b, NS 2020c). Therefore, it is considered that the potential for LSE in relation to this effect pathway cannot be excluded for the guillemot, razorbill, kittiwake and seabird assemblage qualifying features of this SPA.

c. Collision – kittiwake may be vulnerable to collisions within the Proposed Development array area. Guillemot, razorbill and fulmar generally fly below the lower rotor swept height and are not considered vulnerable to collision effects. Therefore, it is considered that the potential for LSE in relation to this effect pathway cannot be excluded for the kittiwake and seabird assemblage qualifying features of this SPA.

d: Barrier to movement – guillemot, razorbill and kittiwake from this SPA may be affected by barrier effects from the Proposed Development array area. The particularly large foraging range of fulmar means that the consequences of barrier effects resulting from the Proposed Development array area are likely to be minimal on this species. The potential for barrier effects on kittiwake is likely to be limited to the breeding season only, whilst for the two auk species the effect pathway is considered relevant to both the breeding and non-breeding seasons (MSS 2020b, NS 2020c). Therefore, it is considered that the potential for LSE in relation to this effect pathway cannot be excluded for the guillemot, razorbill, kittiwake and seabird assemblage qualifying features of this SPA.

Table 5.25: LSE Matrix for Marine Ornithological Features of the East Caithness Cliffs SPA (C = construction, O&M = operation and maintenance, D = decommissioning;  = potential for LSE,  = no potential for LSE)

b: Disturbance and displacement – razorbill and kittiwake from this SPA may be affected by disturbance and displacement from the Proposed Development array area and its surrounds. The particularly large foraging range of fulmar means that any effects of disturbance within, or displacement from, the Proposed Development array area are likely to be minimal. The potential effects of disturbance and displacement on kittiwake are likely to be limited to the breeding season only, whilst for this SPA razorbill is only considered to have connectivity with Proposed Development during the non-breeding season (see section 4.4.2) so the effect pathway for this species is limited to the non-breeding season. Therefore, it is considered that the potential for LSE in relation to this effect pathway cannot be excluded for the razorbill, kittiwake and seabird assemblage qualifying features of this SPA.

c. Collision – kittiwake may be vulnerable to collisions within the Proposed Development array area. Razorbill and fulmar generally fly below the lower rotor swept height and are not considered vulnerable to collision effects. Therefore, it is considered that the potential for LSE in relation to this effect pathway cannot be excluded for the kittiwake and seabird assemblage qualifying features of this SPA.

d: Barrier to movement – razorbill and kittiwake from this SPA may be affected by barrier effects from the Proposed Development array area. The particularly large foraging range of fulmar means that the consequences of barrier effects resulting from the Proposed Development array area are likely to be minimal on this species. The potential for barrier effects on kittiwake is likely to be limited to the breeding season only, whilst for this SPA razorbill is only considered to have connectivity with Proposed Development during the non-breeding season (see section 4.4.2) so the effect pathway for this species is limited to the non-breeding season. Therefore, it is considered that the potential for LSE in relation to this effect pathway cannot be excluded for the razorbill, kittiwake and seabird assemblage qualifying features of this SPA.

Table 5.26: LSE Matrix for Marine Ornithological Features of the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA (C = construction, O&M = operation and maintenance, D = decommissioning;  = potential for LSE,  = no potential for LSE)

b: Disturbance and displacement – puffin, razorbill, gannet and kittiwake from this SPA may be affected by disturbance and displacement from the Proposed Development array area and its surrounds. The particularly large foraging range of fulmar means that any effects of disturbance within, or displacement from, the Proposed Development array area are likely to be minimal. The potential for effects of disturbance and displacement on gannet has been identified on the basis of emerging evidence concerning the large distances over which this species is displaced, although previous advice suggested that the large foraging range of this species meant that effects of such displacement are unlikely to be important (NS 2020a, MSS 2020a, see section 5.5.2). For gannet and kittiwake displacement effects are likely to be limited to the breeding season only, whilst for puffin the effect pathway is considered relevant to both the breeding and non-breeding seasons (MSS 2020b, NS 2020c). For this SPA, razorbill is only considered to have connectivity with Proposed Development during the non-breeding season (see section 4.4.2) so the effect pathway for this species is limited to the non-breeding season. Therefore, it is considered that the potential for LSE in relation to this effect pathway cannot be excluded for the razorbill, puffin, gannet, kittiwake and seabird assemblage qualifying features of this SPA.

c. Collision – gannet and kittiwake may be vulnerable to collisions within the Proposed Development array area. Razorbill, puffin and fulmar generally fly below the lower rotor swept height and are not considered vulnerable to collision effects. Therefore, it is considered that the potential for LSE in relation to this effect pathway cannot be excluded for the gannet, kittiwake and seabird assemblage qualifying features of this SPA.

d: Barrier to movement – puffin, razorbill, gannet and kittiwake from this SPA may be affected by barrier effects from the Proposed Development array area. The particularly large foraging range of fulmar means that the consequences of barrier effects resulting from the Proposed Development array area are likely to be minimal on this species. The potential for barrier effects on gannet has been identified on the basis of emerging evidence, although previous advice suggested that the large foraging range of this species meant that such barrier effects are unlikely to be important (NS 2020a, MSS 2020a). For gannet and kittiwake barrier effects are likely to be limited to the breeding season only, whilst for puffin the effect pathway is considered relevant to both the breeding and non-breeding seasons (MSS 2020b, NS 2020c). For this SPA, razorbill is only considered to have connectivity with Proposed Development during the non-breeding season (see section 4.4.2) so the effect pathway for this species is limited to the non-breeding season. Therefore, it is considered that the potential for LSE in relation to this effect pathway cannot be excluded for the razorbill, puffin, gannet, kittiwake and seabird assemblage qualifying features of this SPA.

Table 5.27: LSE Matrix for Marine Ornithological Features of the North Caithness Cliffs SPA (C = construction, O&M = operation and maintenance, D = decommissioning;  = potential for LSE,  = no potential for LSE)

c. Collision – kittiwake may be vulnerable to collisions within the Proposed Development array area. Puffin and fulmar generally fly below the lower rotor swept height and are not considered vulnerable to collision effects. Therefore, it is considered that the potential for LSE in relation to this effect pathway cannot be excluded for the kittiwake and seabird assemblage qualifying features of this SPA.

Table 5.28: LSE Matrix for Marine Ornithological Features of the Hoy SPA (C = construction, O&M = operation and maintenance, D = decommissioning;  = potential for LSE,  = no potential for LSE)

b: Disturbance and displacement – puffin and kittiwake from this SPA may be affected by disturbance and displacement from the Proposed Development array area and its surrounds. The particularly large foraging range of fulmar means that any effects of disturbance within, or displacement from, the Proposed Development array area are likely to be minimal. For this SPA, great skua is only considered to have connectivity with Proposed Development during the non-breeding season (see section 4.4.2) and, on this basis, it is considered that disturbance and displacement from the Proposed Development array area would have minimal effects on the SPA population because of the substantial areas of alternative marine habitat available. The potential effects of disturbance and displacement on kittiwake are likely to be limited to the breeding season only, whilst for puffin the effect pathway is considered relevant to both the breeding and non-breeding seasons (MSS 2020b, NS 2020c). Therefore, it is considered that the potential for LSE in relation to this effect pathway cannot be excluded for the puffin, kittiwake and seabird assemblage qualifying features of this SPA.

c. Collision – kittiwake and great skua may be vulnerable to collisions within the Proposed Development array area. Puffin and fulmar generally fly below the lower rotor swept height and are not considered vulnerable to collision effects. Therefore, it is considered that the potential for LSE in relation to this effect pathway cannot be excluded for the kittiwake, great skua and seabird assemblage qualifying features of this SPA.

d: Barrier to movement – puffin and kittiwake from this SPA may be affected by barrier effects from the Proposed Development array area. The particularly large foraging range of fulmar means that the consequences of barrier effects resulting from the Proposed Development array area are likely to be minimal on this species. For this SPA, great skua is only considered to have connectivity with Proposed Development during the non-breeding season (see section 4.4.2) and, on this basis, it is considered that any barrier effect associated with the Proposed Development array area would be of little consequence because of the infrequent occurrence of the effect on the SPA population. The potential for barrier effects on kittiwake is likely to be limited to the breeding season only, whilst for puffin the effect pathway is considered relevant to both the breeding and non-breeding seasons (MSS 2020b, NS 2020c). Therefore, it is considered that the potential for LSE in relation to this effect pathway cannot be excluded for the puffin, kittiwake and seabird assemblage qualifying features of this SPA.

e: Changes in prey availability – as detailed in section 5.5.2 above, the potential for LSE cannot be excluded in relation to indirect effects resulting from effects on the availability or abundance of prey species. The exceptions in this regard are fulmar and great skua, for which this effect pathway is unlikely to be important because of the very extensive areas of alternative marine habitat available to these species (with the great skua SPA population having connectivity with the Proposed Development in the non-breeding season only).

Table 5.29: LSE Matrix for Marine Ornithological Features of the Copinsay SPA (C = construction, O&M = operation and maintenance, D = decommissioning;  = potential for LSE,  = no potential for LSE)

b: Disturbance and displacement – kittiwake from this SPA may be affected by disturbance and displacement from the Proposed Development array area and its surrounds. The particularly large foraging range of fulmar means that any effects of disturbance within, or displacement from, the Proposed Development array area are likely to be minimal. The potential effects of disturbance and displacement on kittiwake are likely to be limited to the breeding season only (MSS 2020b, NS 2020c). Therefore, it is considered that the potential for LSE in relation to this effect pathway cannot be excluded for the kittiwake and seabird assemblage qualifying features of this SPA.

c. Collision – kittiwake may be vulnerable to collisions within the Proposed Development array area. Fulmar generally fly below the lower rotor swept height and is not considered vulnerable to collision effects. Therefore, it is considered that the potential for LSE in relation to this effect pathway cannot be excluded for the kittiwake and seabird assemblage qualifying features of this SPA.

d: Barrier to movement – kittiwake from this SPA may be affected by barrier effects from the Proposed Development array area. The particularly large foraging range of fulmar means that the consequences of barrier effects resulting from the Proposed Development array area are likely to be minimal on this species. The potential for barrier effects on kittiwake is likely to be limited to the breeding season only (MSS 2020b, NS 2020c). Therefore, it is considered that the potential for LSE in relation to this effect pathway cannot be excluded for the kittiwake and seabird assemblage qualifying features of this SPA.

Table 5.30: LSE Matrix for Marine Ornithological Features of the Handa SPA (C = construction, O&M = operation and maintenance, D = decommissioning;  = potential for LSE,  = no potential for LSE)

b: Disturbance and displacement – the particularly large foraging range of fulmar means that any effects of disturbance within, or displacement from, the Proposed Development array area are likely to be minimal. Therefore, it is considered that there is no potential for LSE in relation to this effect pathway for this SPA (given that breeding fulmar is the only component of the seabird assemblage qualifying feature which has connectivity with the Proposed Development).

c. Collision – fulmar generally fly below the lower rotor swept height and is not considered vulnerable to collision effects. Therefore, it is considered that there is no potential for LSE in relation to this effect pathway for this SPA (given that breeding fulmar is the only component of the seabird assemblage qualifying feature which has connectivity with the Proposed Development).

d: Barrier to movement – the particularly large foraging range of fulmar means that the consequences of barrier effects resulting from the Proposed Development array area are likely to be minimal on this species. Therefore, it is considered that there is no potential for LSE in relation to this effect pathway for this SPA (given that breeding fulmar is the only component of the seabird assemblage qualifying feature which has connectivity with the Proposed Development).

e: Changes in prey availability – for fulmar this effect pathway is unlikely to be important because of the particularly large foraging range of the species (and hence extensive availability of alternative marine habitats). Therefore, it is considered that there is no potential for LSE in relation to this effect pathway for this SPA (given that breeding fulmar is the only component of the seabird assemblage qualifying feature which has connectivity with the Proposed Development).

f: In-combination effects – no effect pathways to LSE are identified in relation to the Proposed Development for any of the qualifying features which are considered to have connectivity with the Proposed Development. Therefore, it is concluded that there is no potential for the Proposed Development to contribute to in-combination effects on this SPA.

Table 5.31: LSE Matrix for Marine Ornithological Features of the Cape Wrath SPA (C = construction, O&M = operation and maintenance, D = decommissioning;  = potential for LSE,  = no potential for LSE)

b: Disturbance and displacement – the particularly large foraging range of fulmar means that any effects of disturbance within, or displacement from, the Proposed Development array area are likely to be minimal. Therefore, it is considered that there is no potential for LSE in relation to this effect pathway for this SPA (given that breeding fulmar is the only component of the seabird assemblage qualifying feature which has connectivity with the Proposed Development).

d: Barrier to movement – the particularly large foraging range of fulmar means that the consequences of barrier effects resulting from the Proposed Development array area are likely to be minimal on this species. Therefore, it is considered that there is no potential for LSE in relation to this effect pathway for this SPA (given that breeding fulmar is the only component of the seabird assemblage qualifying feature which has connectivity with the Proposed Development).

Table 5.32: LSE Matrix for Marine Ornithological Features of the Shiant Isles SPA (C = construction, O&M = operation and maintenance, D = decommissioning;  = potential for LSE,  = no potential for LSE)

b: Disturbance and displacement – the particularly large foraging range of fulmar means that any effects of disturbance within, or displacement from, the Proposed Development array area are likely to be minimal. Therefore, it is considered that there is no potential for LSE in relation to this effect pathway for this SPA (given that breeding fulmar is the only component of the seabird assemblage qualifying feature which has connectivity with the Proposed Development).

d: Barrier to movement – the particularly large foraging range of fulmar means that the consequences of barrier effects resulting from the Proposed Development array area are likely to be minimal on this species. Therefore, it is considered that there is no potential for LSE in relation to this effect pathway for this SPA (given that breeding fulmar is the only component of the seabird assemblage qualifying feature which has connectivity with the Proposed Development).

Table 5.33: LSE Matrix for Marine Ornithological Features of the Rousay SPA (C = construction, O&M = operation and maintenance, D = decommissioning;  = potential for LSE,  = no potential for LSE)

b: Disturbance and displacement – the particularly large foraging range of fulmar means that any effects of disturbance within, or displacement from, the Proposed Development array area are likely to be minimal. Therefore, it is considered that there is no potential for LSE in relation to this effect pathway for this SPA (given that breeding fulmar is the only component of the seabird assemblage qualifying feature which has connectivity with the Proposed Development).

d: Barrier to movement – the particularly large foraging range of fulmar means that the consequences of barrier effects resulting from the Proposed Development array area are likely to be minimal on this species. Therefore, it is considered that there is no potential for LSE in relation to this effect pathway for this SPA (given that breeding fulmar is the only component of the seabird assemblage qualifying feature which has connectivity with the Proposed Development).

Table 5.34: LSE Matrix for Marine Ornithological Features of the Calf of Eday SPA (C = construction, O&M = operation and maintenance, D = decommissioning;  = potential for LSE,  = no potential for LSE)

b: Disturbance and displacement – the particularly large foraging range of fulmar means that any effects of disturbance within, or displacement from, the Proposed Development array area are likely to be minimal. Therefore, it is considered that there is no potential for LSE in relation to this effect pathway for this SPA (given that breeding fulmar is the only component of the seabird assemblage qualifying feature which has connectivity with the Proposed Development).

d: Barrier to movement – the particularly large foraging range of fulmar means that the consequences of barrier effects resulting from the Proposed Development array area are likely to be minimal on this species. Therefore, it is considered that there is no potential for LSE in relation to this effect pathway for this SPA (given that breeding fulmar is the only component of the seabird assemblage qualifying feature which has connectivity with the Proposed Development).

Table 5.35: LSE Matrix for Marine Ornithological Features of the West Westray SPA (C = construction, O&M = operation and maintenance, D = decommissioning;  = potential for LSE,  = no potential for LSE)

b: Disturbance and displacement – the particularly large foraging range of fulmar means that any effects of disturbance within, or displacement from, the Proposed Development array area are likely to be minimal. Therefore, it is considered that there is no potential for LSE in relation to this effect pathway for this SPA (given that breeding fulmar is the only component of the seabird assemblage qualifying feature which has connectivity with the Proposed Development).

d: Barrier to movement – the particularly large foraging range of fulmar means that the consequences of barrier effects resulting from the Proposed Development array area are likely to be minimal on this species. Therefore, it is considered that there is no potential for LSE in relation to this effect pathway for this SPA (given that breeding fulmar is the only component of the seabird assemblage qualifying feature which has connectivity with the Proposed Development).

Table 5.36: LSE Matrix for Marine Ornithological Features of the Sule Skerry and Sule Stack SPA (C = construction, O&M = operation and maintenance, D = decommissioning;  = potential for LSE,  = no potential for LSE)

c. Collision – gannet may be vulnerable to collisions within the Proposed Development array area. Therefore, it is considered that the potential for LSE in relation to this effect pathway cannot be excluded for the gannet and seabird assemblage qualifying features of this SPA.

Table 5.37: LSE Matrix for Marine Ornithological Features of the Fair Isle SPA (C = construction, O&M = operation and maintenance, D = decommissioning;  = potential for LSE,  = no potential for LSE)

b: Disturbance and displacement – gannet from this SPA may be affected by disturbance and displacement from the Proposed Development array area and its surrounds. The potential for effects of disturbance and displacement on gannet has been identified on the basis of emerging evidence concerning the large distances over which this species is displaced, although previous advice suggested that the large foraging range of this species meant that effects of such displacement are unlikely to be important (NS 2020a, MSS 2020a, see section 5.5.2). For gannet displacement effects are likely to be limited to the breeding season only (MSS 2020b, NS 2020c). The particularly large foraging range of fulmar means that any effects of disturbance within, or displacement from, the Proposed Development array area are likely to be minimal. Therefore, it is considered that the potential for LSE in relation to this effect pathway cannot be excluded for the gannet and seabird assemblage qualifying features of this SPA.

c. Collision – gannet may be vulnerable to collisions within the Proposed Development array area. Fulmar generally fly below the lower rotor swept height and is not considered vulnerable to collision effects. Therefore, it is considered that the potential for LSE in relation to this effect pathway cannot be excluded for the gannet and seabird assemblage qualifying features of this SPA.

d: Barrier to movement – gannet from this SPA may be affected by barrier effects from the Proposed Development array area. The potential for barrier effects on gannet has been identified on the basis of emerging evidence, although previous advice suggested that the large foraging range of this species meant that such barrier effects are unlikely to be important (NS 2020a, MSS 2020a). For gannet barrier effects are likely to be limited to the breeding season only (MSS 2020b, NS 2020c). The particularly large foraging range of fulmar means that the consequences of barrier effects resulting from the Proposed Development array area are likely to be minimal on this species. Therefore, it is considered that the potential for LSE in relation to this effect pathway cannot be excluded for the gannet and seabird assemblage qualifying features of this SPA.

Table 5.38: LSE Matrix for Marine Ornithological Features of the North Rona and Sula Stack SPA (C = construction, O&M = operation and maintenance, D = decommissioning;  = potential for LSE,  = no potential for LSE)

b: Disturbance and displacement – gannet from this SPA may be affected by disturbance and displacement from the Proposed Development array area and its surrounds. The potential for effects of disturbance and displacement on gannet has been identified on the basis of emerging evidence concerning the large distances over which this species is displaced, although previous advice suggested that the large foraging range of this species meant that effects of such displacement are be important (NS 2020a, MSS 2020a, see section 5.5.2). For gannet displacement effects are likely to be limited to the breeding season only (MSS 2020, NS 2020b). The particularly large foraging range of fulmar means that any effects of disturbance within, or displacement from, the Proposed Development array area are likely to be minimal. Therefore, it is considered that the potential for LSE in relation to this effect pathway cannot be excluded for the gannet and seabird assemblage qualifying features of this SPA.

Table 5.39: LSE Matrix for Marine Ornithological Features of the Sumburgh Head SPA (C = construction, O&M = operation and maintenance, D = decommissioning;  = potential for LSE,  = no potential for LSE)

b: Disturbance and displacement – the particularly large foraging range of fulmar means that any effects of disturbance within, or displacement from, the Proposed Development array area are likely to be minimal. Therefore, it is considered that there is no potential for LSE in relation to this effect pathway for this SPA (given that breeding fulmar is the only component of the seabird assemblage qualifying feature which has connectivity with the Proposed Development).

d: Barrier to movement – the particularly large foraging range of fulmar means that the consequences of barrier effects resulting from the Proposed Development array area are likely to be minimal on this species. Therefore, it is considered that there is no potential for LSE in relation to this effect pathway for this SPA (given that breeding fulmar is the only component of the seabird assemblage qualifying feature which has connectivity with the Proposed Development).

Table 5.40: LSE Matrix for Marine Ornithological Features of the Flannan Isles SPA (C = construction, O&M = operation and maintenance, D = decommissioning;  = potential for LSE,  = no potential for LSE)

b: Disturbance and displacement – the particularly large foraging range of fulmar means that any effects of disturbance within, or displacement from, the Proposed Development array area are likely to be minimal. Therefore, it is considered that there is no potential for LSE in relation to this effect pathway for this SPA (given that breeding fulmar is the only component of the seabird assemblage qualifying feature which has connectivity with the Proposed Development).

d: Barrier to movement – the particularly large foraging range of fulmar means that the consequences of barrier effects resulting from the Proposed Development array area are likely to be minimal on this species. Therefore, it is considered that there is no potential for LSE in relation to this effect pathway for this SPA (given that breeding fulmar is the only component of the seabird assemblage qualifying feature which has connectivity with the Proposed Development).

Table 5.41: LSE Matrix for Marine Ornithological Features of the Foula SPA (C = construction, O&M = operation and maintenance, D = decommissioning;  = potential for LSE,  = no potential for LSE)

a: Direct habitat loss – as detailed in section 5.5.2, direct habitat loss due to the Proposed Development is unlikely to have effects on SPA breeding seabird populations due to the large foraging ranges used by seabirds and the extent of marine habitats available for other functions (e.g. roosting). Also, direct habitat loss during the construction period is a temporary and relatively short-term effect. it is considered that there is no potential for LSE in relation to this effect pathway for this SPA.

b: Disturbance and displacement – the particularly large foraging range of fulmar means that any effects of disturbance within, or displacement from, the Proposed Development array area are likely to be minimal. For this SPA, great skua is only considered to have connectivity with Proposed Development during the non-breeding season (see section 4.4.2) and, on this basis, it is considered that disturbance and displacement from the Proposed Development array area would have minimal effects on the SPA population because of the substantial areas of alternative marine habitat available. Therefore, it is considered that there is no potential for LSE in relation to this effect pathway for this SPA.

c. Collision – great skua may be vulnerable to collisions within the Proposed Development array area. Fulmar generally fly below the lower rotor swept height and are not considered vulnerable to collision effects. Therefore, it is considered that the potential for LSE in relation to this effect pathway cannot be excluded for the great skua and seabird assemblage qualifying features of this SPA.

d: Barrier to movement – the particularly large foraging range of fulmar means that the consequences of barrier effects resulting from the Proposed Development array area are likely to be minimal on this species. For this SPA, great skua is only considered to have connectivity with Proposed Development during the non-breeding season (see section 4.4.2) and, on this basis, it is considered that any barrier effect associated with the Proposed Development array area would be of little consequence because of the infrequent occurrence of the effect on the SPA population. Therefore, it is considered that there is no potential for LSE in relation to this effect pathway for this SPA.

e: Changes in prey availability – for fulmar and great skua this effect pathway is unlikely to be important because of the very extensive areas of alternative marine habitat available to these species (with the great skua SPA population having connectivity with the Proposed Development in the non-breeding season only). Therefore, it is considered that there is no potential for LSE in relation to this effect pathway for this SPA.

Table 5.42: LSE Matrix for Marine Ornithological Features of the Noss SPA (C = construction, O&M = operation and maintenance, D = decommissioning;  = potential for LSE,  = no potential for LSE)

b: Disturbance and displacement – gannet from this SPA may be affected by disturbance and displacement from the Proposed Development array area and its surrounds. The potential for effects of disturbance and displacement on gannet has been identified on the basis of emerging evidence concerning the large distances over which this species is displaced, although previous advice suggested that the large foraging range of this species meant that effects of such displacement are unlikely to be important (NS 2020a, MSS 2020a, see section 5.5.2). For gannet displacement effects are likely to be limited to the breeding season only (MSS 2020, NS 2020b). The particularly large foraging range of fulmar means that any effects of disturbance within, or displacement from, the Proposed Development array area are likely to be minimal. Therefore, it is considered that the potential for LSE in relation to this effect pathway cannot be excluded for the gannet and seabird assemblage qualifying features of this SPA.

Table 5.43: LSE Matrix for Marine Ornithological Features of the St Kilda SPA (C = construction, O&M = operation and maintenance, D = decommissioning;  = potential for LSE,  = no potential for LSE)

b: Disturbance and displacement – the particularly large foraging range of fulmar means that any effects of disturbance within, or displacement from, the Proposed Development array area are likely to be minimal. Therefore, it is considered that there is no potential for LSE in relation to this effect pathway for this SPA (given that breeding fulmar is the only component of the seabird assemblage qualifying feature which has connectivity with the Proposed Development).

d: Barrier to movement – the particularly large foraging range of fulmar means that the consequences of barrier effects resulting from the Proposed Development array area are likely to be minimal on this species. Therefore, it is considered that there is no potential for LSE in relation to this effect pathway for this SPA (given that breeding fulmar is the only component of the seabird assemblage qualifying feature which has connectivity with the Proposed Development).

Table 5.44: LSE Matrix for Marine Ornithological Features of the Fetlar SPA (C = construction, O&M = operation and maintenance, D = decommissioning;  = potential for LSE,  = no potential for LSE)

a: Direct habitat loss – as detailed in section 5.5.2, direct habitat loss due to the Proposed Development is unlikely to have effects on SPA breeding seabird populations due to the large foraging ranges used by seabirds and the extent of marine habitats available for other functions (e.g. roosting). Also, direct habitat loss during the construction period is a temporary and relatively short-term effect. it is considered that there is no potential for LSE in relation to this effect pathway for this SPA.

b: Disturbance and displacement – the particularly large foraging range of fulmar means that any effects of disturbance within, or displacement from, the Proposed Development array area are likely to be minimal. For this SPA, great skua is only considered to have connectivity with Proposed Development during the non-breeding season (see section 4.4.2) and, on this basis, it is considered that disturbance and displacement from the Proposed Development array area would have minimal effects on the SPA population because of the substantial areas of alternative marine habitat available. Therefore, it is considered that there is no potential for LSE in relation to this effect pathway for this SPA.

d: Barrier to movement – the particularly large foraging range of fulmar means that the consequences of barrier effects resulting from the Proposed Development array area are likely to be minimal on this species. For this SPA, great skua is only considered to have connectivity with Proposed Development during the non-breeding season (see section 4.4.2) and, on this basis, it is considered that any barrier effect associated with the Proposed Development array area would be of little consequence because of the infrequent occurrence of the effect on the SPA population. Therefore, it is considered that there is no potential for LSE in relation to this effect pathway for this SPA.

Table 5.45: LSE Matrix for Marine Ornithological Features of the Hermaness, Saxa Vord and Valla Field SPA (C = construction, O&M = operation and maintenance, D = decommissioning;  = potential for LSE,  = no potential for LSE)

b: Disturbance and displacement – gannet from this SPA may be affected by disturbance and displacement from the Proposed Development array area and its surrounds. The potential for effects of disturbance and displacement on gannet has been identified on the basis of emerging evidence concerning the large distances over which this species is displaced, although previous advice suggested that the large foraging range of this species meant that effects of such displacement are unlikely to be important (NS 2020a, MSS 2020a, see section 5.5.2). For gannet displacement effects are likely to be limited to the breeding season only (MSS 2020b, NS 2020c). The particularly large foraging range of fulmar means that any effects of disturbance within, or displacement from, the Proposed Development array area are likely to be minimal. For this SPA, great skua is only considered to have connectivity with Proposed Development during the non-breeding season (see section 4.4.2) and, on this basis, it is considered that disturbance and displacement from the Proposed Development array area would have minimal effects on the SPA population because of the substantial areas of alternative marine habitat available. Therefore, it is considered that the potential for LSE in relation to this effect pathway cannot be excluded for the gannet and seabird assemblage qualifying features of this SPA.

c. Collision – gannet and great skua may be vulnerable to collisions within the Proposed Development array area. Fulmar generally fly below the lower rotor swept height and is not considered vulnerable to collision effects. Therefore, it is considered that the potential for LSE in relation to this effect pathway cannot be excluded for the gannet, great skua and seabird assemblage qualifying features of this SPA.

d: Barrier to movement – gannet from this SPA may be affected by barrier effects from the Proposed Development array area. The potential for barrier effects on gannet has been identified on the basis of emerging evidence, although previous advice suggested that the large foraging range of this species meant that such barrier effects are unlikely to be important (NS 2020a, MSS 2020a). For gannet barrier effects are likely to be limited to the breeding season only (MSS 2020b, NS 2020c). The particularly large foraging range of fulmar means that the consequences of barrier effects resulting from the Proposed Development array area are likely to be minimal on this species. For this SPA, great skua is only considered to have connectivity with Proposed Development during the non-breeding season (see section 4.4.2) and, on this basis, it is considered that any barrier effect associated with the Proposed Development array area would be of little consequence because of the infrequent occurrence of the effect on the SPA population. Therefore, it is considered that the potential for LSE in relation to this effect pathway cannot be excluded for the gannet and seabird assemblage qualifying features of this SPA.

Table 5.46: LSE Matrix for Marine Ornithological Features of the Firth of Forth SPA and Ramsar site (C = construction, O&M = operation and maintenance, D = decommissioning;  = potential for LSE,  = no potential for LSE)

As detailed in section 5.5.2 above, for the migratory waterbird SPAs, collisions (c) and barrier to movement (d) (both of which are restricted to the operation and maintenance period) are the only effect pathways for which the potential for LSE cannot be excluded. As a consequence of the conclusions for these two effect pathways, it is also the case that the potential for LSE as a result of in-combination effects with other plans and projects (f) cannot be excluded. For all other effect pathways, it is considered that there is no potential for LSE.

For the migratory waterbird SPAs, the Firth of Forth SPA is the only exception in this regard. This is because this SPA is close enough to the offshore export cable corridor for there to be the potential for disturbance and displacement of the non-breeding red-throated diver qualifying feature during construction and decommissioning (see section 4.4.2). Therefore, for this qualifying feature at this SPA the potential for LSE in relation to disturbance and displacement (b) during construction and decommissioning cannot be excluded.

Table 5.47: LSE Matrix for Marine Ornithological Features of the Montrose Basin SPA and Ramsar site (C = construction, O&M = operation and maintenance, D = decommissioning;  = potential for LSE,  = no potential for LSE)

Table 5.48: LSE Matrix for Marine Ornithological Features of the Northumbria Coast SPA and Ramsar site (C = construction, O&M = operation and maintenance, D = decommissioning;  = potential for LSE,  = no potential for LSE)

Table 5.49: LSE Matrix for Marine Ornithological Features of the Firth of Tay and Eden Estuary SPA and Ramsar site (C = construction, O&M = operation and maintenance, D = decommissioning;  = potential for LSE,  = no potential for LSE)

Table 5.50: LSE Matrix for Marine Ornithological Features of the Lindisfarne SPA and Ramsar site (C = construction, O&M = operation and maintenance, D = decommissioning;  = potential for LSE,  = no potential for LSE)

Table 5.51: LSE Matrix for Marine Ornithological Features of the Ythan Estuary, Sands of Forvie and Meikle Loch SPA / Ythan Estuary and Meikle Loch Ramsar site (C = construction, O&M = operation and maintenance, D = decommissioning;  = potential for LSE,  = no potential for LSE)

Table 5.52: LSE Matrix for Marine Ornithological Features of the Cameron Reservoir SPA and Ramsar site (C = construction, O&M = operation and maintenance, D = decommissioning;  = potential for LSE,  = no potential for LSE)

Table 5.53: LSE Matrix for Marine Ornithological Features of the Holburn Lake and Moss SPA and Ramsar site (C = construction, O&M = operation and maintenance, D = decommissioning;  = potential for LSE,  = no potential for LSE)

Table 5.54: LSE Matrix for Marine Ornithological Features of the Greenlaw Moor SPA and Ramsar site (C = construction, O&M = operation and maintenance, D = decommissioning;  = potential for LSE,  = no potential for LSE)

Table 5.55: LSE Matrix for Marine Ornithological Features of the Loch of Kinnordy SPA and Ramsar site (C = construction, O&M = operation and maintenance, D = decommissioning;  = potential for LSE,  = no potential for LSE)

Table 5.56: LSE Matrix for Marine Ornithological Features of the Din Moss - Hoselaw Loch SPA and Ramsar site (C = construction, O&M = operation and maintenance, D = decommissioning;  = potential for LSE,  = no potential for LSE)

Table 5.57: LSE Matrix for Marine Ornithological Features of the Fala Flow SPA and Ramsar site (C = construction, O&M = operation and maintenance, D = decommissioning;  = potential for LSE,  = no potential for LSE)

Table 5.58: LSE Matrix for Marine Ornithological Features of the Loch Leven SPA and Ramsar site (C = construction, O&M = operation and maintenance, D = decommissioning;  = potential for LSE,  = no potential for LSE)

Table 5.59: LSE Matrix for Marine Ornithological Features of the Gladhouse Reservoir SPA and Ramsar site (C = construction, O&M = operation and maintenance, D = decommissioning;  = potential for LSE,  = no potential for LSE)

Table 5.60: LSE Matrix for Marine Ornithological Features of the South Tayside Goose Roosts SPA and Ramsar site (C = construction, O&M = operation and maintenance, D = decommissioning;  = potential for LSE,  = no potential for LSE)

Table 5.61: LSE Matrix for Marine Ornithological Features of the Westwater SPA and Ramsar site (C = construction, O&M = operation and maintenance, D = decommissioning;  = potential for LSE,  = no potential for LSE)

Table 5.62: LSE Matrix for Marine Ornithological Features of the Slamannan Plateau SPA (C = construction, O&M = operation and maintenance, D = decommissioning;  = potential for LSE,  = no potential for LSE)

Previous part

Next part

Tables ▼