1.6. Summary of Survey Results of the Intertidal and Nearshore Habitats Specifically in Relation to Outer Firth of Forth and St. Andrews Bay Complex SPA

120. This section considers the importance of the intertidal and nearshore habitats of the Survey Area for qualifying bird species associated with the designated sites within the Firth of Forth (as introduced in Section 1.1). Only the Outer Firth of Forth and St. Andrews Bay Complex SPA overlaps with the export cable corridor. Indeed, the nearshore boundary of the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex SPA follows the Mean Low Water Springs (MLWS) mark. The export cable corridor therefore passes through the SPA, and the cable landfall is immediately adjacent at the MLWS mark. Other SPAs located within the Firth of Forth were outside the export cable corridor and thus not considered for determining the relative importance of the Survey Area in the context of the local SPAs. However, for true seabird species (e.g., gannet) which forage at some distances from their colonies in summer, we used the latest SPAs colony size (i.e., no. of pairs or individuals) from adjacent SPAS as a true reflection of the population size susceptible to use the export cable corridor. The survey data for the species of the Outer Firth of Forth and St. Andrews Bay Complex SPA are discussed with an associated table which presents the monthly counts and overall peak counts for each species in each survey sector (Table 17). This table also shows what proportion the overall peak counts represent, compared with the various SPA species latest population estimates, as provided in Table A1, Appendix 1. These representative proportions allow the relative importance of each count sector for individual SPA qualifying species to be identified for each season. A critical threshold of 1% of species’ qualifying populations was used to determine whether the particular sectors and/or the wider Survey Area were of regional importance for species designated in the Outer Firth of Forth and St. Andrews Bay Complex SPA. Sectors of greatest importance for SPA qualifying species, and intertidal and nearshore waterbirds in general, could then be identified, allowing a confident interpretation of the value of specific habitats within the study area.

Outer Firth of Forth and St. Andrews Bay Complex SPA

121. Table 17 shows the significance of the survey results for qualifying populations of the Outer Firth of Forth and St. Andrews Bay Complex SPA. For true seabird species such as gannet, guillemot, kittiwake and razorbill, the significance of the survey results was shown in the context of the latest breeding populations from adjacent SPAs. For example, the relative importance of each sector for gannet was calculated using the Forth Island SPA colony of Bass Rock (75,259 pairs in 2014). For guillemot, kittiwake and razorbill, the breeding population size is derived from the latest colony counts at the Forth Islands SPA, the Fowlsheugh SPA, and the St Abb’s Head to Fast Castle SPA. For guillemot and kittiwake, we used non-breeding population size derived from Furness, 2015[7]; non-breeding population size included adult and immature birds from the Forth Islands SPA, the Fowlsheugh SPA, and the St Abb’s Head to Fast Castle SPA, given that individuals from these SPAs are expected to be present in the North Sea during the non-breeding season.

Table 17:  Importance of Intertidal and Nearshore Habitats for Qualifying Species of the Outer Firth of Forth and St. Andrews Bay Complex SPA

1 Gannet breeding population size derived from the latest breeding count at Forth Islands SPA (75,259 pairs in 2014)

2 Kittiwake breeding population size derived from the latest breeding counts at Forth Islands SPA (3,514 pairs), Fowlsheugh SPA (14,039 pairs), and St Abb’s Head to Fast Castle SPA (4,902 pairs).

3 Guillemot breeding population size derived from the latest breeding counts at Forth Islands SPA (28,786 individuals), Fowlsheugh SPA (55,507 individuals), and St Abb’s Head to Fast Castle (36,206 individuals).

4 Razorbill breeding population size derived from the latest breeding counts at Forth Islands SPA (9,144 individuals), Fowlsheugh SPA (13,872 individuals), and St Abb’s Head to Fast Castle (4,428 individuals).

1.7.        Summary and Conclusions

1.7. Summary and Conclusions

122. The intertidal and nearshore bird survey data demonstrate that the Survey Area supports a diversity of bird species typical of coastal areas in the Firth of Forth, including waterfowl (predominantly seaducks), wading birds, divers, grebes and other seabirds.
123. The comparative WeBS data corresponded relatively closely with the intertidal and nearshore bird survey data. This demonstrated that the survey data were a robust representation of the diversity and abundance of the birds which typically occur within the Survey Area.
124. Of the qualifying species of SPAs, Ramsar and SSSIs associated with the Firth of Forth, the intertidal shore and nearshore waters of the Survey Area are typically of local importance for the majority of these birds. Higher numbers were recorded (i.e. approximately at or above 1% of the designated populations) however and Table 18 shows the species which had significant proportions of the Outer Firth of Forth and St. Andrews Bay Complex SPA populations present within the Survey Area. The table also presents the frequency in which they occurred in such numbers during the periods for which they are designated (i.e. regularly, occasionally or rarely).

Table 18:  Summary List of SPA Qualifying Species Recorded in Significant Numbers (i.e. > than one per cent) Relative to the Outer Firth of Forth and St. Andrews Bay Complex SPA

125. Of the qualifying species of the Outer Firth of Forth and St. Andrews Bay Complex, the only species occurring in any notable numbers in the section of the offshore export cable corridor from nearshore to the proposed Berwick Bank Wind Farm were seabirds, notably guillemot, puffin and kittiwake. These species were both prevalent in the breeding season, and the former in the post-breeding period as well. Even despite the relatively high densities at these times of the year, these are not considered significant constraints for the cable laying process, with the risk of disturbance being mitigated through adoption of a suitable Vessel Management Plan. Kittiwake were also present in significant numbers during the non-breeding season. However, the numbers of birds calculated as a proportion of the adjacent SPAs population might be over-estimated using this approach. Indeed, kittiwake from colonies located in the North-East Atlantic might also overwinter in the area.

Overall, the baseline data on which to base an assessment of the export cable’s effects on birds is robust. Taking account of standard mitigation approaches such as deployment of an Ecological Clerk of Works and adoption of a suitable Vessel Management Plan, it is envisaged that predicted residual effects are unlikely to present an obstacle to consent.

Annex A      Qualifying Species Associated with the Outer Firth of Forth and St. Andrews Bay Complex SPA

Annex A Qualifying Species Associated with the Outer Firth of Forth and St. Andrews Bay Complex SPA

Table A1: Qualifying Species of the Outer Firth of Forth and St. Andrews Bay Complex SPA.

[1] SNH SiteLink website. Available at: (http://gateway.snh.gov.uk/sitelink/index.jsp).

[2] RPS (2020) Berwick Bank Habitat Regulations Appraisal: Stage 1 Screening Report, September 2020. https://marine.gov.scot/ml/berwick-bank-offshore-wind-farm

[3] Musgrove, A., Langston, R., Baker, H. and Ward, R. (2003). Estuarine Waterbirds at Low Tide: The WeBS Low Tide Counts 1992–93 to 1988–99. WSG/BTO/WWT/RSPB/JNCC, Thetford.

[4] Waggitt, J. J., Evans , P. G. H., Andrade, J., Banks, A. N., Boisseau, O., Bolton, M., Bradbury, G., Brereton, T., Camphuysen, C. J., Durinck, J., Felce, T., Fijn, R. C., Garcia-Baron, I., Garthe, S., Geelhoed, S. C. V., Gilles, A., Goodhall, M., Haelters, J., Hamilton, S. and Hiddink, J. G. (2020). Distribution maps of cetacean and seabird populations in the North-East Atlantic. Journal of Applied Ecology, 57(2), 253-269.

[5] Wakefield, E., Owen, E., Baer, J., Carroll, M., Daunt, F., Dodd, S., Green, J., Guildford, T., Mavor, R., Miller, P., Newell, M., Newton, S., Robertson, G., Shoji, A., Soanes, L., Votier, S., Wanless, S. and Bolton, M. (2017) Breeding density, fine-scale tracking, and large-scale modelling reveal the regional distribution of four seabird species. Ecological Applications, 27(7), 2017, pp. 2074–2091

[6] Cleasby, I., E., Owen, E., Wilson, L., Wakefield, E., O’Connell, P. and Bolton, M. (2020) identifying Important atsea areas for seabirds using species distribution models and hot spot mapping. Biological Conservation, 241 (2020), 108375.

[7] 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 Reports, Number 164.