Sensitivity of the receptor
  1. Kittiwake sensitivity to collision is discussed in paragraph 556 onwards. Based on evidence and reviews from other operational offshore wind farms, kittiwake sensitivity to collision impacts from operational offshore wind farms is considered to be high ( Table 11.16   Open ▸ ).
Significance of the effect
  1. For cumulative displacement and collision effects for kittiwake, for the Developer Approach, the magnitude of the impact is deemed to be low, and the sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be high. The effect will, therefore, be of minor to moderate adverse significance, which is significant in EIA terms.
  2. For Scoping Approach A, the magnitude of the impact is deemed to be low, and the sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be high. The effect will, therefore, be of minor to moderate adverse significance, which is significant in EIA terms.
  3. For Scoping Approach B, the magnitude of the impact is deemed to be medium, and the sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be high. The effect will, therefore, be of moderate to major adverse significance, which is significant in EIA terms.
  4. As outlined in Section 11.9.2, in cases where the range for the significance of effect spans the significance threshold (minor to moderate), the final significance is based upon the expert's professional judgement as to which outcome delineates the most likely effect, with an explanation as to why this is the case.
  5.  As highlighted by NS in the NnG Scoping Opinion (Marine Scotland, 2017a), collision risk and displacement are considered to be mutually exclusive impacts, and therefore combining mortality estimates for displacement and collision as was done for the PVA should be considered extremely precautionary.
  6. On this basis, it is considered that for the Developer and Scoping Approach A, the effect will be of minor adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms. For Scoping Approach B, it is considered that the effect will be of moderate adverse significance, which is significant in EIA terms. For further discussion on levels of precaution in the Scoping Approach, see volume 3, appendix 11.3 and appendix 11.4.
Secondary and Tertiary Mitigation and Residual Effect
  1. For the Developer Approach and Scoping Approach A, no offshore and intertidal ornithology mitigation is considered necessary because the likely effect in the absence of further mitigation (beyond designed in measures outlined in section 11.10) is not significant in EIA terms. Therefore, the residual impact is considered to be of minor adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms.
  2. For Scoping Approach B, the residual cumulative impact is considered to be of moderate adverse significance, which is significant in EIA terms. However, it is considered that the combined displacement and collision mortality estimates used in the PVA for Scoping Approach B are highly precautionary, for the reasons outlined in paragraph 454 and also in volume 3, appendix 11.3. Consequently, no additional mitigation is proposed.
Herring Gull
  1. There is potential for cumulative collision impacts on herring gulls from Tier 2 offshore wind farms.
  2. The estimated cumulative collision impacts on herring gull from the relevant projects during each bio-season are presented in Table 11.133   Open ▸ . There are a number of projects for which there are no, or limited, data on the number of herring gulls predicted to be impacted. In particular, for some of the earlier Round 1 and Round 2 developments.
  3. The mean maximum foraging range +1 SD for herring gull is 85.6 km (Woodward et al., 2019).  Projects within foraging range during the breeding period are highlighted in bold in Table 11.133   Open ▸ and these have been used to assess the potential cumulative collision impacts on herring gulls during the breeding and non-breeding periods.

 

Table 11.133:
Estimated Cumulative Collisions for Herring Gull by bio-season for Tier 2 Projects based on Consented Scenarios. (Estimates are rounded to nearest whole bird).

Table 11.133: Estimated Cumulative Collisions for Herring Gull by bio-season for Tier 2 Projects based on Consented Scenarios. (Estimates are rounded to nearest whole bird).

 

Magnitude of Impact
  1. The overall baseline mortality rates were based on age-specific demographic rates and age class proportions as presented in Table 11.21   Open ▸ . The potential magnitude of impact was estimated by calculating the increase in baseline mortality within each bio-season with respect to the regional populations.

 

Table 11.134:
Estimated Cumulative Numbers of Collisions for Herring Gull for Tier 2 projects by bio-season for Developer Approach

Table 11.134: Estimated Cumulative Numbers of Collisions for Herring Gull for Tier 2 projects by bio-season for Developer Approach

1 Breeding season assessment is for breeding adults only.

 

Table 11.135:
Estimated Cumulative Numbers of Collisions for Herring Gull for Tier 2 projects by bio-season for Scoping Approach

Table 11.135: Estimated Cumulative Numbers of Collisions for Herring Gull for Tier 2 projects by bio-season for Scoping Approach

1 Breeding season assessment is for breeding adults only.

 

Breeding Season
  1. The total cumulative estimated number of herring gull collisions based on North Sea offshore wind farm consented estimates and the Development Approach during the breeding season was 53 birds ( Table 11.134   Open ▸ ). However, this includes non-breeding adults and immature birds, as well as breeding adults. For the purposes of this assessment, the estimated proportion of immature, non-breeding herring gulls across all wind farms was based on the age breakdown calculated for the Berwick Bank PVA study (see volume 3, appendix 11.6). Based on this breakdown, 62.2% of birds present are likely to be immature birds, with 37.8% of birds likely to be adult birds. This would mean that 20 collisions would involve adult herring gulls during the breeding period.
  2. However, a proportion of adult birds present at colonies in the breeding season will opt not to breed in a particular breeding season. It has been estimated that 35% of adult herring gulls may be “sabbatical” birds in any particular breeding season (volume 3, appendix 11.6), and this has been applied for this assessment. On this basis, seven adult herring gulls were considered to be not breeding and so 13 breeding adult herring gulls were taken forward for the breeding season assessment.
  3. The total herring gull regional baseline breeding population is estimated to be 29,600 individuals. Using the adult baseline mortality rate of 0.122 ( Table 11.21   Open ▸ ), the predicted baseline mortality of herring gulls is 3,611 adult birds per breeding season. The additional predicted mortality of 13 adult herring gulls would increase the baseline mortality rate by 0.36% ( Table 11.134   Open ▸ ).
  4. The total cumulative estimated number of herring gull collisions based on North Sea offshore wind farm consented estimates and the Scoping Approach during the breeding season was 70 birds ( Table 11.134   Open ▸ ). For the purposes of this assessment, the estimated proportion of immature, non-breeding herring gulls across all wind farms was based on the age breakdown calculated for the Berwick Bank PVA study (see volume 3, appendix 11.6). Based on this breakdown, 62.2% of birds present are likely to be immature birds, with 37.8% of birds likely to be adult birds. This would mean that 26 collisions would involve adult herring gulls during the breeding period.
  5. Applying the 35% rate for “sabbatical” non-breeding birds, resulted in nine birds being considered as non-breeding “sabbatical birds, with 17 adult breeding herring gulls being taken forward for the breeding season assessment.
  6. Using the adult baseline mortality rate of 0.122 ( Table 11.21   Open ▸ ), the predicted baseline mortality of herring gulls is 3,611 adult birds per breeding season. The additional predicted mortality of 17 adult herring gulls would increase the baseline mortality rate by 0.47% ( Table 11.135   Open ▸ ).
Non-breeding Season
  1. The total cumulative estimated number of herring gull collisions based on North Sea offshore wind farm consented estimates and the Development Approach during the non-breeding season was 55 birds ( Table 11.134   Open ▸ ). However, this includes non-breeding adults and immature birds, as well as breeding adults. Based on information presented in Furness (2015), in the non-breeding season 52% of the population present are immature birds and 48% of birds are adults. Based on this breakdown, 26 collisions would involve adult herring gulls, and 29 collisions would involve immature birds.
  2. Scoping Opinion advice for herring gulls was to use the regional breeding population within mean maximum foraging range +1S.D (29,600 birds). as the reference population for the non-breeding season. However, a correction factor was required to account for the influx of continental breeding birds into eastern Scotland/UK in the non-breeding season. At the road map meetings, MSS advised (volume 3, appendix 11.8) that this correction factor should be calculated from the proportions of overseas and western UK birds in the UK North Sea and Channel BDMPS (Furness 2015). This correction factor was calculated to be 0.67 (volume 3, appendix 11.5), which results in an additional 19,832 herring gulls as the estimated influx of continental breeding birds. The total herring gull regional baseline population in the non-breeding season, is therefore estimated to be 49,432 individuals. Using the average baseline mortality rate of 0.141 ( Table 11.21   Open ▸ ), the estimated regional baseline mortality of herring gulls is 6,970 birds in the non-breeding season. The additional predicted mortality of 55 herring gulls would increase the baseline mortality rate by 0.79% ( Table 11.134   Open ▸ ).
  3. The total cumulative estimated number of herring gull collisions based on North Sea offshore wind farm consented estimates and the Scoping Approach during the non-breeding season was 58 birds ( Table 11.135   Open ▸ ). However, this includes non-breeding adults and immature birds, as well as breeding adults. Based on information presented in Furness (2015), in the non-breeding season 52% of the population present are immature birds and 48% of birds are adults. Based on this breakdown, 28 collisions would involve adult herring gulls, and 30 collisions would involve immature birds.
  4. As above, using the average baseline mortality rate of 0.141 ( Table 11.21   Open ▸ ), the predicted regional baseline mortality of herring gulls is 6,970 birds in the non-breeding season. The additional predicted mortality of 58 herring gulls of all ages would increase the baseline mortality rate by 0.83% ( Table 11.135   Open ▸ ).
Assessment of Cumulative Collision Mortality throughout the Year
  1. Predicted herring gull mortality as a result of cumulative collisions for North Sea offshore wind farms and the Developer and Scoping approaches for the Proposed Development for all bio-seasons as calculated above, was summed for the whole year.
  2. Based on cumulative collisions for North Sea offshore wind farms and the Developer Approach, the predicted theoretical additional annual cumulative mortality due to collision was an estimated 68 herring gulls. This corresponds to an increase in the baseline mortality rate of 1.15% ( Table 11.134   Open ▸ ).
  3. Based on cumulative collisions for North Sea offshore wind farms and the Scoping Approach, the predicted theoretical additional annual mortality due to collision was an estimated 75 herring gulls. This corresponds to an increase in the baseline mortality rate of 1.3% ( Table 11.135   Open ▸ ).
Summary of PVA Assessment
  1. As these cumulative collision mortality estimates suggested a potentially significant increase in the cumulative baseline mortality rate for North Sea offshore wind farms and both the Developer Approach and the Scoping Approach, cumulative PVA analysis was conducted on the herring gull regional SPA population. The cumulative PVA analysis was carried out considering a range of cumulative collision scenarios.
  2. The results of the cumulative PVA for predicted collision impacts for the Developer Approach and Scoping Approach with both other Forth and Tay consented projects and other North Sea consented projects during the operation phase for the herring gull regional SPA population for the 35-year projection is summarised in Table 11.136   Open ▸ . Further details of the PVA methodology, input parameters and an explanation of how to interpret the PVA results can be found in volume 3, appendix 11.6.

 

Table 11.136:
Summary of PVA Cumulative Collision Outputs for Herring Gull for the Proposed Development array area after 35 years

Table 11.136: Summary of PVA Cumulative Collision Outputs for Herring Gull for the Proposed Development array area after 35 years

1 Starting population taken from volume 3, appendix 11.6.
Developer Approach = CRM based on mean monthly density.
Scoping Approach = CRM based on maximum monthly density.

 

  1. For both the with and without Project scenarios, the herring gull regional SPA population is predicted to increase over the 35-year period. For the Developer Approach with other Forth and Tay consented projects, the end population size with Project scenario was slightly lower than the without Project scenario. There was a slight predicted decrease in the counterfactual of the population growth rate, and the counterfactual of the population size was also very close to 1.000, while the 50th Centile value was very close to 50. These values indicate that the PVA did not predict a significant negative effect from the cumulative effects of collision mortality from the Developer Approach and other Forth and Tay consented projects on the herring gull regional SPA population after 35 years.
  2. For the Scoping Approach with other Forth and Tay consented projects, the end population size with Project scenario was lower than the without Project scenario. There was a slight predicted decrease in the counterfactual of the population growth rate, and the counterfactual of the population size was also close to 1.000, while the 50th Centile value was close to 50. These values indicate that the PVA did not predict a significant negative effect from the cumulative effects of collision mortality from the Scoping Approach and other Forth and Tay consented projects on the herring gull regional SPA population after 35 years.
  3. For the Developer Approach with other North Sea consented projects, the end population size with Project scenario was lower than the without Project scenario. There was a slight predicted decrease in the counterfactual of the population growth rate, and the counterfactual of the population size was also close to 1.000, while the 50th Centile value was close to 50. These values indicate that the PVA did not predict a significant negative effect from the cumulative effects of collision mortality from the Developer Approach and other North Sea consented projects on the herring gull regional SPA population after 35 years.
  4. For the Scoping Approach with other North Sea consented projects, the end population size with Project scenario was lower than the without Project scenario. There was a slight predicted decrease in the counterfactual of the population growth rate, and the counterfactual of the population size was also close to 1.000, while the 50th Centile value was relatively close to 50. These values indicate that the PVA did not predict a significant negative effect from the cumulative effects of collision mortality from the Scoping Approach and other North Sea consented projects on the herring gull regional SPA population after 35 years.
  5. Based on the results from the cumulative collision assessment and the cumulative PVA for the Developer Approach, the magnitude of impact on the regional SPA herring gull population is negligible.
  6. Based on the results from the cumulative collision assessment and the cumulative PVA for the Scoping Approach, the magnitude of impact on the regional SPA herring gull population is negligible.
Sensitivity of the receptor
  1. Herring gull sensitivity to collision is discussed in paragraph 495 onwards. Based on evidence and reviews from other operational offshore wind farms, herring gull sensitivity to collision impacts from operational offshore wind farms is considered to be very high ( Table 11.16   Open ▸ ).
Significance of the effect
  1. For cumulative collision effects for herring gull, for the Developer Approach, the magnitude of the cumulative impact is deemed to be negligible, and the sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be very high. The effect will, therefore, be of minor adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms.
  2. For the Scoping Approach, the magnitude of the cumulative impact is deemed to be negligible, and the sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be very high. The effect will, therefore, be of minor adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms.
Secondary and Tertiary Mitigation and Residual Effect
  1. No offshore and intertidal ornithology mitigation is considered necessary because the likely effect in the absence of further mitigation (beyond designed in measures outlined in section 11.10) is not significant in EIA terms. Therefore, the residual impact is considered to be of minor adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms.
Lesser Black-backed Gull
  1. There is potential for cumulative collision impacts on lesser black-backed gulls from Tier 2 offshore wind farms.
  2. The estimated cumulative collision impacts on lesser black-backed gull from the relevant projects during each bio-season are presented in Table 11.137   Open ▸ . There are a number of projects for which there are no, or limited, data on the number of lesser black-backed gulls predicted to be impacted. In particular, for some of the earlier Round 1 and Round 2 developments.
  3. The mean maximum foraging range +1 SD for lesser black-backed gull is 236 km (Woodward et al., 2019).  Projects within foraging range during the breeding period are highlighted in bold in Table 11.137   Open ▸ and these have been used to assess the potential cumulative collision impacts on lesser black-backed gulls during the breeding season.

 

Table 11.137:
Estimated Cumulative Collisions for Lesser Black-backed Gull by bio-season for Tier 2 Projects based on Consented Scenarios. (Estimates are rounded to nearest whole bird).

Table 11.137: Estimated Cumulative Collisions for Lesser Black-backed Gull by bio-season for Tier 2 Projects based on Consented Scenarios. (Estimates are rounded to nearest whole bird).

 

Magnitude of Impact
  1. The overall baseline mortality rates were based on age-specific demographic rates and age class proportions as presented in Table 11.21   Open ▸ . The potential magnitude of impact was estimated by calculating the increase in baseline mortality within each bio-season with respect to the regional populations.

 

Table 11.138:
Estimated Cumulative Numbers of Collisions for Lesser Black-backed Gull for Tier 2 projects by bio-season for Developer Approach

Table 11.138: Estimated Cumulative Numbers of Collisions for Lesser Black-backed Gull for Tier 2 projects by bio-season for Developer Approach

1 Breeding season assessment is for breeding adults only.

 

Table 11.139:
Estimated Cumulative Numbers of Collisions for Lesser Black-backed Gull for Tier 2 projects by bio-season for Scoping Approach

Table 11.139: Estimated Cumulative Numbers of Collisions for Lesser Black-backed Gull for Tier 2 projects by bio-season for Scoping Approach

1 Breeding season assessment is for breeding adults only.

 

Breeding Season
  1. The total cumulative estimated number of lesser black-backed gull collisions based on North Sea offshore wind farm consented estimates and the Developer Approach during the breeding season was 13 birds ( Table 11.133   Open ▸ Table 11.137). However, this includes non-breeding adults and immature birds, as well as breeding adults. For the purposes of this assessment, the estimated proportion of immature, non-breeding lesser black-backed gulls across all wind farms was based on the age breakdown calculated for the Berwick Bank PVA study (see volume 3, appendix 11.6). Based on this breakdown, 53.4% of birds present are likely to be immature birds, with 46.6% of birds likely to be adult birds. This would mean that six collisions would involve adult lesser black-backed gulls during the breeding period.
  2. However, a proportion of adult birds present at colonies in the breeding season will opt not to breed in a particular breeding season. It has been estimated that 35% of adult lesser black-backed gulls may be “sabbatical” birds in any particular breeding season (volume 3, appendix 11.6), and this has been applied for this assessment. On this basis, two adult lesser black-backed gulls were considered to be not breeding and so four breeding adult lesser black-backed gulls were taken forward for the breeding season assessment.
  3. The total lesser black-backed gull regional baseline breeding population is estimated to be 13,994 individuals ( Table 11.9   Open ▸ ). The adult baseline survival rate is estimated to be 0.913 ( Table 11.21   Open ▸ ), which means that the corresponding rate for adult mortality is 0.087. Applying this mortality rate, the estimated regional baseline mortality of lesser black-backed gulls is 1,217 adult birds per breeding season. The additional predicted cumulative mortality of four adult lesser black-backed gulls would increase the baseline mortality rate by 0.33% ( Table 11.138   Open ▸ ).
  4. The total cumulative estimated number of lesser black-backed gull collisions based on North Sea offshore wind farm consented estimates and the Scoping Approach during the breeding season was 16 birds ( Table 11.133   Open ▸ Table 11.137). For the purposes of this assessment, the estimated proportion of immature, non-breeding lesser black-backed gulls across all wind farms was based on the age breakdown calculated for the Berwick Bank PVA study (see volume 3, appendix 11.6). Based on this breakdown, 53.4% of birds present are likely to be immature birds, with 46.6% of birds likely to be adult birds. This would mean that seven collisions would involve adult lesser black-backed gulls during the breeding period.
  5. Applying the 35% rate for “sabbatical” non-breeding birds, resulted in two birds being considered as non-breeding “sabbatical birds, with five adult breeding lesser black-backed gulls being taken forward for the breeding season assessment.
  6. Using the adult baseline mortality rate of 0.087 ( Table 11.21   Open ▸ ), the predicted baseline mortality of lesser black-backed gulls is 1,217 adult birds per breeding season. The additional predicted mortality of five adult lesser black-backed gulls would increase the baseline mortality rate by 0.41% ( Table 11.139   Open ▸ ).
Non-breeding Season
  1. As no lesser black-backed gull collisions were predicted for the non-breeding season for either the Developer Approach or the Scoping Approach, no further assessment was undertaken for this period.
Summary of PVA Assessment
  1. It was not possible to undertake a cumulative PVA assessment for lesser black-backed gull as there were no in combination totals available for this species. The most relevant information pertaining to effects on the Forth Islands SPA population derived from the 2014 MS AA for the Forth & Tay projects. This stated that a predicted effect of < -0.1% decline in adult survival was identified on this SPA population as a result of the NnG project and concluded no adverse effect on site integrity. Therefore, it is assumed that existing in-combination effects are inconsequential and can be ignored. Further details are presented in Volume 3, Appendix 11.6.
  2. Based on the results from the cumulative collision assessment for the Developer Approach and other North Sea projects, the magnitude of impact on the regional SPA lesser black-backed gull population is negligible.
  3. Based on the results from the cumulative collision assessment for the Scoping Approach and other Forth and Tay projects, the magnitude of impact on the regional SPA lesser black-backed gull population is negligible.
Sensitivity of the receptor
  1. Lesser black-backed gull sensitivity to collision is discussed in paragraph 522 onwards. Based on evidence and reviews from other operational offshore wind farms, lesser black-backed gull sensitivity to collision impacts from operational offshore wind farms is considered to be very high ( Table 11.16   Open ▸ ).
Significance of the effect
  1. For cumulative collision effects for lesser black-backed gull, for the Developer Approach, the magnitude of the cumulative impact is deemed to be negligible, and the sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be very high. The effect will, therefore, be of minor adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms.
  2. For the Scoping Approach, the magnitude of the cumulative impact is deemed to be negligible, and the sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be very high. The effect will, therefore, be of minor adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms.
Secondary and Tertiary Mitigation and Residual Effect
  1. No offshore and intertidal ornithology mitigation is considered necessary because the likely effect in the absence of further mitigation (beyond designed in measures outlined in section 11.10) is not significant in EIA terms. Therefore, the residual impact is considered to be of minor adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms.

11.12.3.         Proposed Monitoring

  1. As per section 11.11.1 above.

11.13. Transboundary Effects

  1. A screening of transboundary impacts has been carried out and any potential for significant transboundary effects with regard to offshore and intertidal ornithology from the Proposed Development upon the interests of other EEA States has been assessed as part of the EIA. The potential transboundary impacts are summarised below:
  • disturbance of birds from vessels and other construction activities;
  • disturbance from operation and maintenance activities;
  • barrier effects arising from presence of wind turbines;
  • displacement (avoidance resulting from presence of wind turbines, loss of foraging habitat);
  • collisions with wind turbines; and
  • changes in prey availability.
    1. Based on the location of the Proposed Development and the likely key receptors, it is considered that there will be no significant transboundary effects on birds in the breeding season, on the basis that, (with the exception of fulmar) there are no non-UK seabird colonies within mean-maximum foraging range (+1SD) of the Proposed Development. Fulmars are not considered at risk of impacts from offshore wind projects due to their typically low flight height and large foraging range (e.g. Furness and Wade, 2012, Bradbury et al., 2014), therefore there will be no transboundary effects for this species.
    2. In the non-breeding season, it is possible that birds from non-UK seabird colonies may occur within the Proposed Development and therefore there may be impacts on birds originating from non-UK colonies.
    3. The above potential impacts are assessed for transboundary effects in Table 11.140   Open ▸ below. Overall, no significant transboundary effects were predicted for seabirds from non-UK seabird colonies in the non-breeding season.

 

Table 11.140:
Assessment of Potential Transboundary Effects for Offshore and Intertidal Ornithology from the Proposed Development upon the interests of other EEA States

Table 11.140: Assessment of Potential Transboundary Effects for Offshore and Intertidal Ornithology from the Proposed Development upon the interests of other EEA States

11.14. Inter-Related Effects (And Ecosystem Assessment)

  1. A description of the likely inter-related effects arising from the Proposed Development on offshore and intertidal ornithology is provided in volume 3, appendix 20 of the Offshore EIA Report.
  2. For offshore and intertidal ornithology, the following potential impacts have been considered within the inter-related assessment:
  • Disturbance and displacement from increased vessel activity and other construction/decommissioning activity
  • Temporary and long-term subtidal habitat loss/disturbance;
  • Increased suspended sediment concentrations; and
  • Disturbance and loss of seabed habitat arising from cable installation/removal within the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex SPA
    1. Table 11.141   Open ▸ lists the inter-related effects (project lifetime effects) that are predicted to arise during the construction, operation and maintenance phase, and decommissioning of the Proposed Development. Table 11.141   Open ▸ also lists the inter-related effects where stressors may combine to lead to greater effects on offshore and intertidal ornithology receptors (receptor-led effects).
    2. One key stressor has been identified for offshore and intertidal ornithology. The assessment considers the overall effects on foraging seabirds from potential changes in prey communities that could be caused by disturbance, habitat loss, SSC, and therefore, in this respect, has taken an ecosystem-based approach. The assessment of effects, however, demonstrated that due to the high mobility of foraging seabirds and their ability to exploit different prey species, and the small scale of potential changes in context of wider available habitat, the changes to fish prey communities are unlikely to have a significant effect on foraging seabirds. Further discussion is presented in volume 3, appendix 20.

 

Table 11.141:
Summary of Potential Inter-Related Effects for Offshore and Intertidal Ornithology from Individual Effects Occurring across the Construction, Operation and Maintenance and Decommissioning Phases of the Proposed Development and from Multiple Effects Interacting Across all Phases (Receptor-led Effects)

Table 11.141: Summary of Potential Inter-Related Effects for Offshore and Intertidal Ornithology from Individual Effects Occurring across the Construction, Operation and Maintenance and Decommissioning Phases of the Proposed Development and from Multiple Effects Interacting Across all Phases (Receptor-led Effects)

11.15. Summary of Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Monitoring

  1. Information on offshore and intertidal ornithology within the Offshore Ornithological regional study area, the Offshore Ornithology study area and the Intertidal Ornithology study area was collected through desktop review, digital aerial and boat-based site surveys, and consultation with stakeholders.
  2. Table 11.142   Open ▸ presents a summary of the potential impacts, mitigation measures and the conclusion of LSEs in EIA terms in respect to offshore and intertidal ornithology. The impacts assessed include: disturbance and displacement from increased vessel activity and other construction activity within proposed development array area, disturbance from aviation and navigation lighting, indirect effects as a result of habitat loss/displacement of prey species due to increased noise and disturbance to seabed, disturbance and loss of seabed habitat arising from cable installation/removal within the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex SPA, displacement and barrier effects from offshore infrastructure, and collision effects from wind turbines during operation phase. Overall, it is concluded that there will an LSE on guillemot for Scoping Approach B arising from displacement effects from the Proposed Development during the operation and maintenance phase.
  3. Table 11.143   Open ▸ presents a summary of the potential cumulative impacts, mitigation measures and the conclusion of LSEs on offshore and intertidal ornithology in EIA terms. The cumulative effects assessed include: displacement and barrier effects from offshore infrastructure and collision effects from wind turbines during the operation phase. Overall, it is concluded that there will be an LSE on guillemot for the Developer Approach and Scoping Approaches A and B arising from cumulative displacement effects from the Proposed Development alongside other projects/plans. In addition, there will be an LSE on razorbill for Scoping Approach B from cumulative displacement effects from the Proposed Development alongside other projects/plans. There will also be an LSE on gannet and kittiwake for Scoping Approach B from combined displacement and collision effects from the Proposed Development alongside other projects/plans.
  4. No likely significant transboundary effects have been identified in regard to effects on offshore and intertidal ornithology from the Proposed Development.
Table 11.142:
Summary of Likely Significant Environmental Effects, Mitigation and Monitoring

Table 11.142: Summary of Likely Significant Environmental Effects, Mitigation and Monitoring

 

Table 11.143:
Summary of Likely Significant Cumulative Environment Effects, Mitigation and Monitoring

Table 11.143: Summary of Likely Significant Cumulative Environment Effects, Mitigation and Monitoring

11.16. References

Alerstam T., Rosén M., Bäckman J., Ericson P.G.P. and Hellgren O. (2007) Flight speeds among bird species: allometric and phylogenetic effects. (PLoS Biology, 5, 1656-1662).

Band, W., M. (2012). Using a collision risk model to assess bird collision risks for offshore windfarms. Final version, August 2012. (SOSS, The Crown Estate).

BERR (2008). Review of cabling techniques and environmental effects applicable to the offshore wind farm industry. Technical Report. January 2008.

Bowgen, K. and Cook, A. (2018). Bird Collision Avoidance: Empirical evidence and impact assessments. JNCC Report No. 614, JNCC, Peterborough, ISSN 0963-8091.

Bradbury, G., Trinder, M., Furness, B., Banks, A.N., and Caldow, R.W.G. (2014) Mapping Seabird Sensitivity to Offshore Wind farms. PLoS ONE 9(9): e106366. doi:10.1371/ journal.pone. 0106366

Buckingham, L., Bogdanova, M.I., Green, J.A., Dunn, R.E., Wanless, S., Bennett, S., Bevan, R.M., Call, A., Canham, M., Corse, C.J. and Harris, M.P. (2022). Interspecific variation in non-breeding aggregation: a multi-colony tracking study of two sympatric seabirds. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 684, pp.181-197. Available at: https://www.int-res.com/articles/meps_oa/m684p181.pdf

Butler, A., Carroll, M., Searle, K., Bolton, M., Waggitt, J., Evans, P., Rehfisch, M., Goddard, B., Brewer, M., Burthe, S. and Daunt, F. (2020). Attributing seabirds at sea to appropriate breeding colonies and populations (CR/2015/18). Scottish Marine and Freshwater Science Vol 11 No 8, 140pp. DOI: 10.7489/2006-1.

Camphuysen, C. J. (1995). Herring Gull (Larus argentatus) and Lesser Black-backed Gull (L. fuscus) feeding at fishing vessels in the breeding season: competitive scavenging versus efficient flying. Ardea, 83, 365-380.

CIEEM. (2022). Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK and Ireland: Terrestrial, Freshwater, Coastal and Marine version 1.2. Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management, Winchester.

Cook, A.S.C.P., Humphreys, E.M., Masden, E.A. and Burton, N.H.K. (2014) The avoidance rates of collision between birds and offshore turbines. (BTO Research Report No. 656).

Desholm, M. and Kahlert, J. (2005). Avian Collision Risk at an Offshore Wind Farm. Biology Letters, 1, 296-298.

Dierschke, V., Furness R.W. and Garthe, S. (2016). Seabirds and offshore wind farms in European waters: Avoidance and attraction. Biological Conservation 202: 59-68.

Dirksen, S., Spaans, A.L. & van der Winden, J. (1998). Studies on Nocturnal Flight Paths and Altitudes of Waterbirds in Relation to Wind Turbines: A Review of Current Research in the Netherlands. In Proceedings of the National Avian-Wind Power Planning Meeting III, San Diego, California, May 2000. Prepared for the National Wind Coordinating Committee. Ontario: LGL Ltd.

Drewitt, A. & Langston, R. (2008). Collision Effects of Wind‐power Generators and Other Obstacles on Birds. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 1134. 233 - 266. 10.1196/annals.1439.015.

Forrester, R.W., Andrews, I.J., McInerny, C.J., Murray, R.D., McGowan, R.Y., Zonfrillo, B., Betts, M.W., Jardine, D.C. and Grundy, D.S. (eds). (2007). The Birds of Scotland. The Scottish Ornithologists’ Club, Aberlady.

Furness, R.W. (2015) Non-breeding season populations of seabirds in UK waters: Population sizes for Biologically Defined Minimum Population Scales (BDMPS). (Natural England Commissioned Report Number 164. 389 pp).

Furness, R.W. and Wade, H.M. (2012). Vulnerability of Scottish seabirds to offshore wind turbines. Report to Marine Scotland.

Furness, R.W., Wade, H.M. and Masden, E.A. (2013). Assessing vulnerability of marine bird populations to offshore wind farms. Journal of Environmental Management, 119, 56-66.

Garthe, S. and Hüppop, O. (2004) Scaling possible adverse effects of marine wind farms on seabirds: developing and applying a vulnerability index. (J. Ap. Ecol. 41: 724-734).

Horswill, C. and Robinson R. A. (2015). Review of seabird demographic rates and density dependence. JNCC Report No. 552. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough.

Hughes, S.L., Hindson, J., Berx, B., Gallego, A. and Turrell, W.R. (2018) Scottish Ocean Climate Status Report 2016. Scottish Marine and Freshwater Science Vol 9 No 4, 167pp. DOI: 10.7489/12086-1.

Hüppop, O. and Wurm, S. (2000). Effect of winter fishery activities on resting numbers, food and body condition of large gulls Larus argentatus and L. marinus in the south-eastern North Sea. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 194, 241-247.

Johnston, A., Cook, A.S.C.P., Wright, L.J., Humphreys, E.M. and Burton, E.H.K. (2014a). Modelling flight heights of marine birds to more accurately assess collision risk with offshore wind turbines. Journal of Applied Ecology, 51, 31-41.

Johnston, A., Cook, A.S.C.P., Wright, L.J., Humphreys, E.M. and Burton, N.H.K. (2014b). Corrigendum. Journal of Applied Ecology, 51, doi: 10.1111/1365-2664.12260.

Kerlinger, P., Gehring, J.L., Erickson, W.P., Curry, R., Jain, A., and Guarnaccia, J. (2010) Night migrant fatalities and obstruction lighting at wind turbines in North America. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology, 122(4): 744 – 754.

King, S., Maclean, I., Norman, T. and Prior, A. (2009). Developing Guidance on Ornithological Cumulative Impact Assessment for Offshore Wind Farm Developers. A Report for COWRIE.

Kotzerka, J., Garthe, S. and Hatch, S. (2010). GPS tracking devices reveal foraging strategies of Black-legged Kittiwakes. Journal of Ornithology. 151. 459 - 467.

Krijgsveld, K.L., Fijn, R.C., Japink, M., van Horssen, P.W., Heunks, C., Collier, M.P., Poot, M.J.M., Beuker, D. and Dirksen, S. (2011). Effect studies Offshore Wind Farm Egmond aan Zee. Final report on fluxes, flight altitudes and behaviour of flying birds. NoordzeeWind report OWEZ_R_231_T1_20111114_flux&flight / Bureau Waardenburg report nr 10-219. Bureau Waardenburg, Culemborg, Netherlands.

Leopold, M.F., van Bemmelen, R.S.A., Zuur, A.F. (2013). Responses of local birds to the offshore wind farms PAWP and OWEZ off the Dutch mainland coast. Report C151/12. Imares, Wageningen.

MacArthur Green. (2019). Norfolk Vanguard Offshore Wind Farm. The Applicant Responses to First Written Questions. Appendix 3.3 - Operational Auk and Gannet Displacement: update and clarification.

MacArthur Green. (2021). Beatrice Offshore Wind Farm Year 1 Post-construction Ornithological Monitoring Report 2019.

Maclean I.M.D., Wright L.J., Showler D.A. and Rehfisch M.M. (2009) A review of assessment methodologies for offshore wind farms. (British Trust for Ornithology commissioned by Cowrie Ltd).

Marine Scotland (2011) Scotland's Marine Atlas: Information for The National Marine Plan. Available at: https://www.gov.scot/publications/scotlands-marine-atlas-information-national-marine-plan/pages/9/ Accessed on: 09/03/2022.

Marine Scotland. (2017a) Scoping Opinion for the proposed Section 36 Consent and Associated Marine Licence Application for the Revised NnG Offshore Wind Farm and Revised NnG Offshore Transmission Works. Available from http://www.gov.scot/Topics/marine/Licensing/marine/scoping/NnGRev2017/SO-092017

Marine Scotland. (2017b). Scoping Opinion for the proposed Section 36 Consent and Associated Marine Licence Application for the revised Inch Cape offshore wind farm and revised Inch Cape Offshore Transmission Works.

Masden, E.A. (2015). Developing an avian collision risk model to incorporate variability and uncertainty. Scottish Marine and Freshwater Science Vol 6 No 14.

McGregor, R.M., King, S., Donovan, C.R., Caneco, B. and Webb, A. (2018). A stochastic collision risk model for seabirds in flight. Marine Scotland commissioned report.

Mobbs, D., Searle, K., Daunt, F. & Butler, A. (2020). A Population Viability Analysis Modelling Tool for Seabird Species: Guide for using the PVA tool (v2.0) user interface. Available at: https://github.com/naturalengland/Seabird_PVA_Tool/blob/master/Documentation/PVA_Tool_UI_Guidance.pdf (Downloaded: November 2021).

NatureScot. (2016). Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex Proposed Special Protection Area (pSPA) NO. UK9020316. SPA Site Selection Document: Summary of the scientific case for site selection.

NatureScot. (2020). Seasonal Periods for Birds in the Scottish Marine Environment. Short Guidance Note Version 2. NatureScot.

Pennycuick, C.J. (1987). Flight of auks (Alcidae) and other northern seabirds compared with southern Procellariiformes: ornithodolite observations. Journal of Experimental Biology, 128, 335-347.

Robinson, R.A. (2005). Bird Facts: profiles of birds occurring in Britain & Ireland. BTO Research Report 407, BTO, Thetford.

Schwemmer, P. Mendal, B., Sonntag, N., Dierschke, V. and Garthe, S. (2011). Effects of ship traffic on seabirds in offshore waters: implications for marine conservation and spatial planning. Ecological Applications, 21, 1851-1860.

Scottish Government. (2015). Scotland’s National Marine Plan: A Single Framework for Managing Our Seas. Available at: https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/strategy-plan/2015/03/scotlands-national-marine-plan/documents/00475466-pdf/00475466-pdf/govscot%3Adocument/00475466.pdf?forceDownload=true . Accessed on: 08/08/2022.

Searle, K.R., Mobbs, D.C., Butler, D., Furness, R.W., Trinder, M.N. and Daunt, F. (2018). Fate of displaced birds. CEH Report NEC05978 to Marine Scotland Science.

Searle, K., Mobbs, D., Daunt, F., and Butler, A. (2019). A Population Viability Analysis Modelling Tool for Seabird Species. Centre for Ecology and Hydrology report for Natural England. Natural England Commissioned Report NECR274. pp.23

Skov, H., Heinänen, S., Norman, T., Ward, R.M., Méndez-Roldán, S. and Ellis, I. (2018). ORJIP Bird Collision and Avoidance Study. Final report – April 2018. The Carbon Trust. United Kingdom. 247 pp.

SMP (Seabird Monitoring Programme) (2022) Online Database. Available at: https://app.bto.org/seabirds/public/index.jsp

SNCBs. (2017). Joint SNCB Interim Displacement Advice Note. [Online]. JNCC, Natural Resources Wales, Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs/Northern Ireland Environment Agency, Natural England and Scottish Natural Heritage. http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/pdf/Joint_SNCB_Interim_Displacement_AdviceNote_2017.pdf. Accessed 28/10/2021.

Stanbury, A., Eaton, M., Aebischer, N., Balmer, D., Brown, A., Douse, A., Lindley, P., McCulloch, N., Noble D. and Win, I. (2021). The status of our bird populations: the fifth Birds of Conservation Concern in the United Kingdom, Channel Islands and Isle of Man and second IUCN Red List assessment of extinction risk for Great Britain. British Birds 114: 723–747.

Syposz, M., Padget, O., Willis, J., Van Doren, B.M., Gillies, N., Fayet, A.L., Wood, M.J., Alejo, A. and Guilford, T. (2021). Avoidance of different durations, colours and intensities of artificial light by adult seabirds. Sci Rep 11: 18941. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-97986-x

Wade, H.M., Masden, E.A., Jackson, A.C. and Furness, R.W. (2016). Incorporating data uncertainty when estimating potential vulnerability of Scottish seabirds to marine renewable energy developments. Mar. Policy 70 108–13.

Wanless, S., Harris, M.P. and Greenstreet, S.P.R. (1998). Summer sandeel consumption by seabirds breeding in the Firth of Forth, south-east Scotland. (ICES Journal of Marine Science, 55: 1141–1151).

Welch, S. (2019a). Species account for Herring Gull (long account), 17 pp. [updated September 2022]. Made available electronically within the reference collection for the published book: Murray, R.D., Andrews, I.J. & Holling, M. 2019. Birds in South-east Scotland 2007-13: a tetrad atlas of the birds of Lothian and Borders. The Scottish Ornithologists’ Club, Aberlady.

Welch, S. (2019b). Species account for Lesser Black-backed Gull (long account), 18 pp. [updated September 2022]. Made available electronically within the reference collection for the published book: Murray, R.D., Andrews, I.J. & Holling, M. 2019. Birds in South-east Scotland 2007-13: a tetrad atlas of the birds of Lothian and Borders. The Scottish Ornithologists’ Club, Aberlady.

Welcker, M., Liesenjohann, M., Blew, J., Nehls, G. & Grunkorn, T. (2017). Nocturnal migrants do not incur higher collision risk at wind turbines than diurnally active species. Ibis, 159, 366–373.

Woodward, I., Thaxter, C., Owen, E. and Cook, A. (2019). Desk-based revision of seabird foraging ranges used for HRA screening. BTO research report number 724. Thetford.

WWT. (2014). Migratory species collision risk modelling assessments. Strategic assessment of collision risk of Scottish offshore wind farms to migrating birds. A Report to the Scottish Government.

 

[1] C = Construction, O = Operation and maintenance, D = Decommissioning

[2] C = Construction, O = Operation and maintenance, D = Decommissioning

[3] Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora) and Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds.

[4] Pomarine skua was not ranked in Furness and Wade (2012) but sensitivity to disturbance assumed to be similar to Arctic skua and great skua.

[5] C = Construction, O = Operation and maintenance, D = Decommissioning

[6] C = Construction, O = Operation and maintenance, D = Decommissioning

[7] C = Construction, O = Operation and maintenance, D = Decommissioning

[8] C = Construction, O = Operation and maintenance, D = Decommissioning