Collision risk - operation and maintenance
  1. For the breeding season, kittiwake collision estimates apportioned to the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA for other offshore wind farms that are in planning, consented, under construction or in operation were derived from the information collated in the East Anglia TWO and East Anglia ONE North submissions (MacArthur Green and Royal HaskoningDHV 2021), with the collision numbers for some projects updated using more recent design information where required (Offshore EIA Report, annex E of volume 3, appendix 11.6). As for the breeding season collision estimates derived from the other UK North Sea wind farms for the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA gannet, it was assumed that these collision estimates were entirely attributable to adult birds.
  2. The in-combination collision estimates for the non-breeding passage periods were also extracted from the information collated in the East Anglia TWO and East Anglia ONE North submissions (again with updates for more recent design information where required). These estimates were apportioned to the SPA population according to the BDMPS approach as detailed in the assessment for the East Anglia THREE wind farm (MacArthur Green 2015, Royal HaskoningDHV et al. 2015).
  3. Collision estimates based on consented and ‘as-built’11 designs were also considered (Offshore EIA Report, annex E of volume 3, appendix 11.6). For the current SPA population adoption of the ‘as-built’ designs reduced the in-combination totals by approximately 35 adults and nine immatures compared to those derived from the consented designs.
  4. In contrast to the displacement estimates derived for the other plans and projects, existing collision estimates for the other plans and projects were not adjusted to align with the Scoping Approach of using the maximum (rather than the mean) monthly estimate of the density of birds in flight (with all of the other projects likely to have followed the ‘standard’ approach of using the mean density). Such an adjustment would require the re-calculation of the CRMs for each project, which would not be feasible in many cases because of the difficulty in accessing the appropriate baseline data.
  5. As for displacement, the potential mortality estimates derived for the other plans and projects were combined with those for the Proposed Development to give estimates for the Proposed Development in-combination with the other UK North Sea wind farms according to both the Scoping Approach and Developer Approach (noting that for the Scoping Approach it is only the estimates for the Proposed Development that are calculated according to this approach) (Table 5.189).

 

Table 5.189:
Predicted Collision Effects on the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA Kittiwake Population Due to the Proposed Development In-Combination with Other Projects in the UK North Sea Waters. Estimates are Presented for both the Scoping Approach and Developer Approach

Table 5.189: Predicted Collision Effects on the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA Kittiwake Population Due to the Proposed Development In-Combination with Other Projects in the UK North Sea Waters. Estimates are Presented for both the Scoping Approach and Developer Approach

 

  1. The incorporation of the potential collisions associated with the other plans and projects results in substantive increases in the predicted collision mortality relative to that from the Proposed Development alone, with a consequence of this being that the predicted mortalities differ little between the Developer and Scoping Approaches. Thus, the potential mortality of adult birds from the Proposed Development in-combination with the other UK North Sea wind farms is 18 to 25 times greater than for the Proposed Development alone, whilst for the immature age class there is a five to sevenfold increase (with the increase being greater for the Developer Approach in both cases) (compare Tables 5.186 and 5.188). The predicted mortality amongst the immature age class remains low compared to that of the adults. The majority of the mortality amongst the adults (i.e. almost 70%) is attributable to the breeding season but amongst the immature age class it is all attributable to the non-breeding periods (Table 5.188).
  2. For the Proposed Development in-combination with the other UK North Sea wind farms, the additional annual mortality of adult kittiwakes from the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA population predicted due to collisions represents 0.49% of the current adult breeding population at this colony (i.e. 91,008 individuals – Table 3.3 in the Offshore EIA Report, volume 3, appendix 11.5) as determined by the Developer Approach, and 0.50% of this population as determined by the Scoping Approach. In terms of percentage increases in the baseline annual adult mortality of the population (which is based on applying a mortality rate of 0.146 – see Table 2.13 in the Offshore EIA Report, volume 3, appendix 11.6), the estimates of adult collision mortality equate to an increase of 3.4% for both the Developer and Scoping Approaches.
  3. Using the collision estimates for the ‘as-built’ (as opposed to the consented) designs reduces the total annual in-combination collision estimates to 418 adult and 65 immature birds for the Scoping Approach and to 411 adult and 61 immature birds for the Developer Approach. This potential level of adult mortality represents 0.45% of the current adult population and a 3.1% increase to the baseline annual adult mortality.
  4. The potential levels of impact on the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA kittiwake population resulting from the predicted collision mortality associated with the Proposed Development in-combination with the other UK North Sea wind farms during the operation and maintenance phase are considered in more detail below in the In- combination: Population-Level Impacts section. This presents the outputs from PVAs of the combined effects of predicted displacement and collision mortality on the SPA population.
In-combination: population-level impacts
  1. As for the Proposed Development alone, PVA was undertaken on the mortality to the adult and immature age classes predicted due to the combined displacement and collision effects associated with the Proposed Development in-combination the other UK North Sea wind farms. This was on the basis of the potential mortality as determined by both the Scoping and Developer Approaches (see Tables 5.188 and 5.189 above).
  2. The approach to the PVA and the metrics used to summarise the PVA outputs are as described for the Proposed Development alone (see Project Alone: Population-Level Impacts section above.

 

Table 5.190:
Projected 35 Year Population Sizes and Associated PVA Metrics for the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA Kittiwake Population Under Different Impact Scenarios for the Proposed Development In-Combination with the other UK North Sea Wind Farms

Table 5.190: Projected 35 Year Population Sizes and Associated PVA Metrics for the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA Kittiwake Population Under Different Impact Scenarios for the Proposed Development In-Combination with the other UK North Sea Wind Farms

 

  1. Given that the in-combination effects are inevitably greater than those for the Proposed Development alone, the PVA metrics for the Proposed Development in-combination with the other UK North Sea wind farms suggest greater population-level impacts than as predicted for the Proposed Development alone (compare Table 5.190 with Table 5.187). Thus, the CPS value for the Developer Approach indicates that the SPA population size would be reduced by 13% relative to the predicted population size under baseline conditions after 35 years, whilst the equivalent reduction for the Scoping Approach is 14 – 16% (Table 5.190). Reductions in the annual population growth rate (relative to that predicted under baseline conditions) are estimated to be 0.4% for the Developer Approach and 0.4 – 0.5% for the Scoping Approach. The values for the centile metric are estimated as 38.5 after 35 years for the Developer Approach and as 36.2 – 37.6 for the Scoping Approach. These suggest at least moderate levels of overlap in the distribution of the predicted impacted and un-impacted population sizes and, hence, a reasonably high likelihood of the impacted population being similar in size to the un-impacted population after 35 years.
  2. Undertaking the PVAs on the basis of the collision estimates for the ‘as-built’ (as opposed to the consented) designs for the Proposed Development in-combination with the other UK North Sea wind farms results in CPS values that are 0.010 higher than those for the equivalent impact scenario in Table 5.190, CPGR values that are 0.001 higher than those for the equivalent impact scenario in Table 5.190, and centile values that are 0.9 – 1.0 higher than those for the equivalent impact scenario in Table 5.190 (see Tables 3.1 and 3.3 in the Offshore EIA Report, volume 3, appendix 11.6). Therefore, the predicted impacts for both the Developer and Scoping Approaches are marginally reduced when the collision estimates are based upon the ‘as-built’ (as opposed to the consented) designs.
  3. The context within which the PVA metrics from these in-combination scenarios should be considered is outlined above in the Project Alone: Population-Level Impacts section for this SPA population.
In-combination: conclusion
  1.  For the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA kittiwake population, the SACOs identify the requirement to restore the size of the breeding population to a level which is above 83,700 breeding pairs, whilst avoiding deterioration from its current level (see section above on The Potential for Impacts on the Kittiwake Population for this SPA population). This is despite the uncertainty over the veracity of the evidence pertaining to size of this population in the late 1980s and, hence, the long-term status of the population. If the 1987 population estimate (and hence citation population size of 83,370 breeding pairs (or 166,740 individuals) for the now superseded Flamborough and Bempton Cliffs SPA on which this SACO target is based) is accepted, the target to restore this population represents a major challenge because it requires the impacts from both fisheries management and climate change to be addressed (these being the factors of greatest importance in determining the status of kittiwake populations in the North Sea - Frederiksen et al. 2004, Carroll et al. 2017).
  2. Compared to these wider scale management and environmental factors, it is likely that the predicted impacts from the Proposed Development in-combination with the other UK North Sea wind farms will be relatively minor (as determined by either the Developer or Scoping Approaches). Within the context of PVAs that are based on a density independent population model which does not account for the likely operation of compensatory density dependent mechanisms (as detailed in the section on Project Alone: Population-Level Impacts for the St Abb’s Head to Fast Castle SPA kittiwake population), the resultant metrics indicate (at most) moderate levels of reduction in the size of the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA kittiwake population after 35 years, relative to that which would occur in the absence of the wind farm effects. Furthermore, the PVA metrics also indicate a reasonably high likelihood of the impacted population being similar in size to the un-impacted population after 35 years.
  3. However, these levels of predicted impact may still be sufficient to reduce the chances of achieving the target of restoring the SPA population size and, as such, it is considered that the predicted impacts from the Proposed Development in-combination with the other UK North Sea wind farms have the potential to result in an adverse effect on the SPA population. This conclusion applies to the predicted impacts as determined by both the Developer and Scoping Approaches, whilst the reduction in the levels of these impacts obtained by basing the collision estimates on the ‘as-built’ (as opposed to the consented) designs is not considered to be sufficient to affect the conclusion.

Assessment for the razorbill population

  1. The Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA razorbill population is currently estimated to number 37,476 individuals, based upon the most recently available count data from 2015 - 2018 (Offshore EIA Report, volume 3, appendix 11.6). This is higher than the citation level of 21,140 individuals (Table 5.177), whilst the available count data for the population indicate a consistent increase in numbers since at least 1987 when the population was estimated to number 10,302 individuals.
The potential for impacts on the razorbill population
  1. The Proposed Development and two kilometre buffer around the Proposed Development array area7 do not overlap with the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA, so that potential impacts on its razorbill population will only occur as a result of individuals from the colony occurring in the area (or vicinity) of the Proposed Development. Consequently, the main focus of the assessment for this qualifying feature is concerned with the Conservation Objective of maintaining or restoring the populations of each qualifying feature, because the other conservation objectives either apply to the site itself, and not to areas beyond the boundary, or are encompassed by the assessment of this Conservation Objective (as for maintaining or restoring the structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying features, because habitat structure and function would only be considered significant if it caused an adverse effect on the maintenance or restoration of the population of the qualifying features). In terms of the SACOs, this focus is most closely reflected in the breeding populations abundance attribute which has the target of maintaining the size of the breeding population above the citation level whilst avoiding deterioration from its current level. Clearly, other attributes (e.g. connectivity with supporting habitats) are also relevant but, as for the conservation objectives above, their significance is linked to whether they prevent achievement of the attribute concerned with maintaining the abundance of the breeding population (see appendix 3A).
  2. The Proposed Development is considerably beyond the breeding season foraging range of razorbill from the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA so that connectivity is limited to the non-breeding periods (HRA Stage One Screening Report, Woodward et al. 2019). The full non-breeding period for razorbill is defined as mid-August to March, following the NatureScot (2020) guidance.
  3. Based on the NatureScot scoping advice (volume 3, appendix 6.2 of the Offshore EIA Report), which draws upon the findings from Buckingham et al. (2022), razorbills are assumed to disperse more widely than guillemots during the non-breeding period, with their distribution concentrated in central areas of the North Sea during the mid-winter period. Consequently, it is assumed (for the purposes of the assessment) that during the non-breeding period birds from the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA population have the potential to occur within offshore wind farms throughout the UK North Sea waters during the autumn and spring passage periods and in mid-winter (defined as mid-August to October, January to March and November to December, respectively, on the basis of applying the BDMPS defined periods within the context of the overall non-breeding period defined by NatureScot – Furness 2015, NatureScot 2020, Offshore EIA Report, volume 3, appendix 11.5). Given this, the Proposed Development may have potential effects on the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA razorbill population during the non-breeding periods.
Project alone: construction and decommissioning
Disturbance
  1. Direct disturbance to razorbills during the construction phase may arise within the Proposed Development array area (and its immediate vicinity) as a result of increased vessel movements and helicopter activity, as well as from other activities directly associated with the installation of the wind turbine foundations and other infrastructure, whilst there will also be increased vessel activity along the Proposed Development export cable corridor due to the cable laying activities. The levels of such activities that could arise are outlined in Table 4.1, with these activities occurring during construction campaigns within a construction period of at most eight years duration.
  2. A total of up to 11,482 vessel round trips may occur over the construction phase, whilst it is estimated that a maximum of 134 vessels could occur within the area of the Proposed Development at any one time (Table 4.1). However, this is within the context of high baseline levels of vessel traffic within this area (e.g. surveys recorded an average of 14 vessels per day within a 10 nm buffer around the Proposed Development over a 14-day period in August 2022, whilst also showing an average of three to four vessels intersecting the Proposed Development array area per day over summer - Offshore EIA Report, volume 2, chapter 13).
  3. When using the marine environment (and not at the breeding colony), razorbills are considered to have a moderate sensitivity to such sources of direct disturbance. Thus, reviews of the sensitivity of different seabird species to disturbance from vessels and helicopter traffic assign razorbill as ‘3’ on a five-scale ranking system, where 1 indicates hardly any or limited escape/avoidance behaviour and very short flight distance when approached and 5 indicates strong escape/avoidance behaviour and a large response distance (Garthe and Hüppop 2004, Furness et al. 2013).
  4. The Proposed Development array area encompasses 1,010 km2, whilst the Proposed Development export cable corridor encompasses 168 km2. During the non-breeding periods, razorbills from the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA population are likely to occur across large parts of the North Sea, as well as more southern European waters (Furness 2015, Buckingham et al. 2022). Therefore, the total area to be affected by construction-related disturbance over the full eight years of the construction phase represents a very small proportion of the total area of marine habitat available to the SPA population.
  5. In addition to the above, it is important to consider that the construction activities will not occur simultaneously across the entirety of the Proposed Development array area or the Proposed Development export cable corridor but, rather, will be carried out in different areas at different times. Thus, the activities will be concentrated within discrete (often small) parts of these wider areas, and within such areas they will not extend over the full duration of the construction phase, so further reducing the potential to which birds may be subject to disturbance effects. For example, cable laying for the Proposed Development export cable will occur over a total of two years, whilst within the Proposed Development array area it is likely that construction activities would be confined largely to discrete areas at any one time.
  6. The potential for disturbance effects during decommissioning is assumed to be the same (or less) as for construction, noting that the duration of the decommissioning phase will not exceed that of construction, and may be shorter.
  7. Given the moderate sensitivity of razorbill to disturbance effects, the fact that potential connectivity with the Proposed Development is limited to the non-breeding season (when the SPA population may occur across a large expanse of the North Sea and more southern waters), the relatively small areas that will be subject to activities with the potential to result in disturbance at any given time during the construction period and the fact that these potential effects will be temporary, it is considered that there is no potential for construction or decommissioning related disturbance to lead to an adverse effect on the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA razorbill population.
Displacement
  1. As detailed above, razorbill is considered to have a moderate sensitivity to disturbance and the potential for effects of disturbance on the SPA population is limited to the non-breeding periods, whilst construction will (at most) extend over an eight year period (with a likely similar or shorter period for decommissioning). Furthermore, as detailed above, potential effects of disturbance will not occur simultaneously across the entirety of the Proposed Development array area or Proposed Development export cable corridor but, rather, will be carried out in different areas at different times. Thus, at any given time the potential for disturbance effects that could lead to displacement of razorbills from this SPA will be limited to relatively small areas during the non-breeding periods, with the potential effects also being of a temporary nature.
  2. Based upon the above, it is considered that there is little potential for the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA razorbill population to be affected by displacement during the construction or decommissioning phases, with any such effects only extending across relatively small areas and tending to be temporary in nature. Consequently, it is considered that there is no potential for construction or decommissioning related displacement to lead to an adverse effect on the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA razorbill population.
 Changes to prey availability
  1. Sandeels are key prey for razorbills, with a range of other species taken including sprat and juvenile herring (del Hoyo et al., 1996). Indirect effects on razorbills may arise as a result of changes in the availability, distribution, or abundance of these species during the construction and decommissioning phases of the Proposed Development. Reduction or disruption to prey availability may cause displacement from foraging grounds or reduced energy intake, affecting survival rates or productivity in the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA razorbill population in the short-term.
  2. During construction and decommissioning there are a number of ways in which effects on key prey species of seabirds may occur, which are outlined in the section on Project Alone: Construction and Decommissioning – Changes to Prey Availability for the St Abb’s Head to Fast Castle SPA kittiwake population. The evidence base and context for assessing the potential for such effects to have impacts on the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA razorbill population are as for the St Abb’s Head to Fast Castle SPA razorbill population (and are detailed above in the equivalent section for that SPA population). Additionally, the potential for effects on the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA razorbill population is limited to the non-breeding periods when foraging ranges are not constrained by the location of the breeding colonies and the population may be widely distributed across large parts of the North Sea, as well as more southern European waters (Furness 2015, Buckingham et al. 2022).
  3. Given this, it is considered that there is little potential for the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA razorbill population to be affected by changes to prey availability during the construction and decommissioning phases, with any such effects being largely intermittent across a relatively small spatial extent, with most effects temporary in nature. Consequently, it is considered that there is no potential for construction or decommissioning related changes in prey availability to lead to an adverse effect on the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA razorbill population.
Project alone: operation and maintenance
Disturbance
  1. Vessel use and associated activities within the Proposed Development array area and export cable corridor during the operation and maintenance phase may lead to direct disturbance of razorbills from Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA. As described in the section on Project Alone: Construction and Decommissioning – Disturbance for the SPA population, razorbills are considered to have a moderate sensitivity to such sources of direct disturbance at sea (Garthe and Hüppop 2004, Furness et al., 2013).
  2. The maximum design scenario is for up to 3,393 vessel round trips per year over the operational lifetime of the project. Vessel types which will be required during the operation and maintenance phase include those used during routine inspections, repairs and replacement of equipment, major component replacement, painting or other coatings, removal of marine growth, replacement of access ladders, and geophysical surveys (Table 4.1).
  3. Based on information presented in the section on Project Alone: Operation and Maintenance – Disturbance for the St Abb’s Head to Fast Castle SPA kittiwake population and in the Offshore EIA Report, volume 2, chapter 13, baseline levels of vessel traffic in the Offshore Ornithology study area are relatively high. In the context of the baseline levels of vessel traffic across the Offshore Ornithology study area, the increase during the operation and maintenance phase is considered to be relatively small. Vessel movements will be within the Proposed Development array area and export cable corridor and will follow existing shipping routes to/from ports. In addition, Project Codes of Conduct included as a part of the NSVMP (Offshore EIA Report, volume 4, appendix 25) will be issued to all project vessel operators to avoid sudden changes in course or speed which will minimise the potential for disturbance. Within the Proposed Development array area, movements and associated maintenance activities will be restricted to individual wind turbines over a period of days to weeks.
  4. The size and noise outputs from vessels during the operation and maintenance phase will be similar to those used in the construction phase. However, the number of vessel return trips per year and their frequency will be much lower for the operation and maintenance phase compared to the construction phase. In addition, activities during the operation and maintenance phase will not occur simultaneously across the entirety of the Proposed Development array area and export cable corridor but intermittently within discrete (often very small) parts of these wider areas.
  5. Given the small, discrete, areas that will be subject intermittently to potential disturbance from vessel use and maintenance activities relative to the large expanses of sea over which this SPA is likely to be distributed during the non-breeding periods (Furness 2015), and the fact that these potential effects will be reduced compared to the construction and decommissioning phases, it is considered that there is no potential for disturbance during operation and maintenance to lead to an adverse effect on the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA razorbill population.
Displacement/barrier effects
  1. As outlined above, displacement effects on the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA razorbill population are estimated using the SNCB matrix approach, as applied to the Proposed Development array and two kilometre buffer (SNCBs 2022, Offshore EIA Report, volume 3, appendix 11.4). Thus, throughout this section, mortality from displacement is assumed to refer to that which results from both displacement and barrier effects. The approach used to derive predicted levels of mortality is as described in the section on Project Alone: Operation and Maintenance – Displacement / Barrier effects for the St Abb’s Head to Fast Castle SPA kittiwake population above (and in the Offshore EIA Report, volume 3, appendix 11.4).
  2. On the basis of the advice provided in the Scoping Opinion (volume 3, appendix 6.2 of the Offshore EIA Report), displacement effects on razorbill are estimated for the breeding and non-breeding periods, although in the case of the Flamborough and Filey SPA population it is only the non-breeding period which is relevant (due to the absence of connectivity with the Proposed Development in the breeding period – HRA Stage One Screening Report). The displacement and associated mortality rates advised in the Scoping Opinion (subsequently termed the Scoping Approach) for razorbill are:
  • Breeding period: 60% displacement with lower and upper mortality rates of 3% and 5%.
  • Non-breeding periods: 60% displacement with lower and upper mortality rates of 1% and 3%.
    1. As with other species for which displacement effects are assessed (see above), the approach to estimating razorbill displacement effects advocated by the Scoping Opinion was considered overly precautionary in relation to both the displacement and mortality rates that were proposed, with these rates being higher than is considered to be justified on the basis of the available evidence (even when allowing for the incorporation of precaution in the assessment - volume 3, appendix 11.4, annex G of the Offshore EIA Report). Furthermore, the mortality rates advocated by the Scoping Opinion represented a marked change from the assumptions applied in assessments for other recent Scottish offshore wind farms (Marine Scotland 2017a,b,c) with no clear evidence apparently being available to justify such a change.
    2. Based upon a consideration of the available evidence for razorbill displacement, the potential consequent mortality, previous precedent and a need to incorporate precaution within the assessment, an alternative Developer Approach to estimating displacement effects was determined (volume 3, appendix 11.4, annex G of the Offshore EIA Report). The rates adopted by the Developer Approach are:
  • Breeding period: 50% displacement with a mortality rate of 1%.
  • Non-breeding period: 50% displacement with a mortality rate of 1%.
    1. Estimates of razorbill mortality were produced using the SNCB matrix on the basis of both the Scoping Approach and the Developer Approach (Offshore EIA Report, volume 3, appendix 11.4), with these estimates then apportioned to the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA razorbill population during the non-breeding periods according to the BDMPS approach (Offshore EIA Report, volume 3, appendix 11.5, Table 5.191, Furness 2015).

 

Table 5.191:
The Mean Peak Abundance Estimates of Razorbill in the Proposed Development Array Area and 2 km Buffer for the Non-Breeding Periods, Together with the Proportion of Birds Estimated to Belong to the Breeding Adult Age Class and to be from the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA Population in Each Period. Breeding Period Data are not shown because there is no Breeding Season Connectivity with the Proposed Development

Table 5.191: The Mean Peak Abundance Estimates of Razorbill in the Proposed Development Array Area and 2 km Buffer for the Non-Breeding Periods, Together with the Proportion of Birds Estimated to Belong to the Breeding Adult Age Class and to be from the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA Population in Each Period. Breeding Period Data are not shown because there is no Breeding Season Connectivity with the Proposed Development

 

  1. Based upon the estimates and assumptions detailed above, the potential annual mortality amongst the SPA razorbill population as a result of displacement is estimated as 3.5 adult and 2.5 immature birds based on the lower mortality rates for the Scoping Approach (i.e. Scoping Approach A) and as approximately 11 adult and eight immature birds based upon the higher mortality rates for the Scoping Approach (i.e. Scoping Approach B) (Table 5.192).
  2. The annual mortality from displacement as determined using the Developer Approach is predicted to approximate to a three adult two immature birds, equating to 80% and 26% of the mortality predicted for the lower and upper range of the Scoping Approach, respectively (Table 5.192).

 

Table 5.192:
Estimated Potential Annual Mortality of Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA Razorbills as a Result of Displacement from the Proposed Development Array Area and 2 km Buffer as Determined by the Scoping Approach and Developer Approach. There is no Breeding Season Connectivity with the Proposed Development

Table 5.192: Estimated Potential Annual Mortality of Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA Razorbills as a Result of Displacement from the Proposed Development Array Area and 2 km Buffer as Determined by the Scoping Approach and Developer Approach. There is no Breeding Season Connectivity with the Proposed Development

 

  1. The additional annual mortality of adult razorbill from the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA population predicted due to displacement from the Proposed Development array represents less than 0.01% of the current adult breeding population at this colony (i.e. 37,476 individuals – Table 2.6 in the Offshore EIA Report, volume 3, appendix 11.6) as determined by the Developer Approach, and 0.01 – 0.03% of this population as determined by the lower and upper estimates from the Scoping Approach. In terms of percentage increases in the baseline annual adult mortality of the population (which is based on applying a mortality rate of 0.090 – see Table 2.19 in the Offshore EIA Report, volume 3, appendix 11.6), the estimates of adult mortality equate to an increase of less than 0.1% for the Developer Approach and of 0.1 – 0.3% for the lower and upper estimates from the Scoping Approach.
  2. The potential levels of impact on the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA razorbill population resulting from the mortality predicted from displacement and barrier effects associated with the Proposed Development array during the operation and maintenance phase are considered in more detail below in the Project Alone: Population-Level Impacts section. This presents the outputs from PVAs of the potential effects of predicted displacement mortality on the SPA population.
Changes to prey availability
  1. Potential impacts on key prey species for razorbills breeding at Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA during the operation and maintenance phase have been assessed in volume 2, chapter 9 of the Offshore EIA Report using the appropriate maximum design scenarios for these receptors. Reduction or disruption to prey availability through temporary and long-term subtidal habitat loss/disturbance, increased SSC and deposition, reductions in water clarity, EMF from subsea electrical cabling, and colonisation of subsea structures, could affect razorbill survival and productivity in the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA population.
  2. The same evidence basis and context in relation to this effect pathway for the operation and maintenance phase applies to the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA razorbill population as to the St Abb’s Head to Fast Castle SPA razorbill population. This is detailed in the section on Project Alone: Operation and Maintenance – Changes to Prey Availability for the St Abb’s Head to Fast Castle SPA population. In addition, such effects are only relevant to the non-breeding periods for the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA razorbill population (when birds will be widely distributed across the North Sea and more southern European waters – Furness 2015).
  3. Given this, it is considered that there is relatively little potential for the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA razorbill population to be affected by changes to prey availability during the operation and maintenance phase, with any such effects being largely intermittent across a relatively small spatial extent. Consequently, it is considered that there is no potential for operational or maintenance related changes in prey availability to lead to an adverse effect on the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA razorbill population.
Project alone: population-level impacts
  1. As determined above, the effects from the Proposed Development alone which could lead to an adverse effect on the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA razorbill population are limited to displacement (inclusive of barrier effects) during the operation and maintenance phase. For other effect pathways, there is considered to be no potential for an adverse effect on this population as a result of the Proposed Development alone, with any such effects likely to be small and of little, or no, consequence in terms of impacts at the population level.
  2. Given this, PVA was undertaken on the mortality to the adult and immature age classes predicted due to the displacement effects associated with the Proposed Development, as determined by both the Scoping and Developer Approaches (see Table 5.192 above). The population model for the SPA population was a stochastic, density independent, matrix model, based upon the demographic parameters specified in Table 2.19 of the Offshore EIA Report, volume 3, appendix 11.6. The starting population size was the 2017 count for the SPA, with the projected population trends considered over a 35 year timescale (Offshore EIA Report, volume 3, appendix 11.5). The approach and methods to undertaking the PVA are as described in the section on Project Alone: Population-Level Impacts for the St Abb’s to Fast Castle SPA kittiwake population above (with further details provided in the Offshore EIA Report, volume 3, appendix 11.6).
  3. Outputs from the PVA are summarised according to the median predicted population-sizes at the end of the projection period, and the three metrics which the Scoping Opinion (volume 3, appendix 6.2 of the Offshore EIA Report) advised should be used for the interpretation of outputs and which have been shown to have relatively low sensitivity to factors such as varying population status and the mis-specification of the demographic rates underpinning the population model (Cook and Robinson 2015, Jitlal et al., 2017). These metrics are:
  • The CPS – the median of the ratio of the end-point size of the impacted to un-impacted (or baseline) population, expressed as a proportion;
  • The CPGR - the median of the ratio of the annual growth rate of the impacted to un-impacted population, expressed as a proportion; and
  • The centile of the un-impacted population that matches the median (i.e. 50th centile) of the impacted population (based upon the distribution of the end-point population-sizes generated by the multiple replications of the model runs, the value should always be less than 50 because the median for the impacted population is not expected to exceed that for the un-impacted population).

 

Table 5.193:
Projected 35 Year Population Sizes and Associated PVA Metrics for the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA Razorbill Population Under Different Impact Scenarios for the Proposed Development Alone

Table 5.193: Projected 35 Year Population Sizes and Associated PVA Metrics for the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA Razorbill Population Under Different Impact Scenarios for the Proposed Development Alone

 

  1. The PVA predicted that the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA razorbill population would increase over the 35 year projection period irrespective of the effects from the Proposed Development. Thus, the population is predicted to be five times larger than the current estimate of 37,476 adult birds under all scenarios, including the baseline which assumes no wind farm effects (Table 5.193). Although the predicted increases in population size are inevitably greatest for the baseline scenario (because the PVAs are based on density independent models, which assume all mortality from the wind farm effects is additive and that there are no compensatory mechanisms operating within the population), the differences with the impact scenarios are small. Whilst the predicted levels of increase are unlikely to occur in reality (and are, in part, a consequence of the absence of any compensatory density dependence within the models – as discussed in the section on Project Alone: Population-level impacts for the St Abb’s Head to Fast Castle SPA kittiwake population), the prediction for an increasing trend is consistent with the documented long-term trend for this SPA population (see above).
  2. The predicted population-level impacts are small, irrespective of whether these are determined using the Developer or Scoping Approaches. Thus, for the higher mortality rates for the Scoping Approach (B), the CPS value indicates that the displacement effects from the Proposed Development alone would result in a reduction of 1% in the size of the SPA population after 35 years, relative to that in the absence of any wind farm effects (Table 5.193). The associated reduction in annual population growth rate (relative to that predicted under baseline conditions) is not detectable (at least when the CPGR is expressed to three decimal places), whilst the centile value of 48.4 indicates a considerable overlap in the distributions of the predicted impacted and un-impacted population sizes and, hence, a high likelihood of the impacted population being of a similar size to the un-impacted population after 35 years. As would be expected, the metrics as determined from either the lower mortality rates of the Scoping Approach or the Developer Approach suggest even smaller levels of impact (Table 5.193).
  3. For the same reasons as described in the section on Project-Alone: Population-Level Impacts for the St Abb’s Head to Fast Castle SPA razorbill population, the assessment of the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA razorbill population incorporates high levels of precaution, which extend beyond the differences between the Developer and Scoping Approaches that are outlined above (and detailed in the Offshore EIA Report, volume 3, appendix 11.4). Notably, the concerns over the extent to which the seasonal mean peak abundances (which provide the basis for the displacement mortality estimates) are likely to be representative of the overall usage of the Proposed Development array and two kilometre buffer by razorbill are also relevant to the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA population, albeit that this only applies in relation to the non-breeding periods for this SPA population.
Project alone: conclusion
  1. It is considered that the predicted levels of impact from the Proposed Development alone on the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA razorbill population are of a small scale, as determined by both the Developer and Scoping Approaches. For both the Developer and Scoping Approaches it is also the case that the centile metric indicates a high likelihood of the impacted population being of similar size to the un-impacted population after 35 years. These levels of impact are within the context of an assessment which incorporates high levels of precaution (particularly as determined by the Scoping Approach). Given this, it is concluded that the effects from the Proposed Development alone (as determined by either the Developer or Scoping Approaches) would not result in an adverse effect on this SPA population.
Effects in-combination
Effects of relevance to the in-combination assessment
  1. As detailed above, any effects from the Proposed Development alone on the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA razorbill population during construction and decommissioning and resulting from disturbance and changes to prey availability during operation and maintenance will be small and highly localised. As such, there is considered to be no potential for these effect pathways to add to impacts at the population-level that might result from other effects pathways associated with the Proposed Development or from the effects due to other plans and projects.
  2. Therefore, the potential for effects of the Proposed Development to act on the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA razorbill population in-combination with other plans and projects is limited to the displacement (inclusive of barrier effects) effect pathway during operation and maintenance. The following sections consider these potential effects for the Proposed Development in-combination with the other UK North Sea wind farms.
Displacement/barrier effects – operation and maintenance
  1. To estimate the breeding season displacement mortality for the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA razorbill population due to the other UK North Sea wind farms, the apportioned breeding season razorbill numbers associated with other offshore wind farms that are in planning, consented, under construction or in operation were first extracted from the cumulative totals collated for the East Anglia TWO and East Anglia ONE North submissions (MacArthur Green and Royal HaskoningDHV 2021, see Offshore EIA Report, annex E of volume 3, appendix 11.6 for more details). No information could be determined on the age distribution of the birds comprising these totals and it was assumed that all were breeding adults from the SPA. Displacement mortality estimates for the breeding season were then calculated by applying the displacement and mortality rates appropriate to the Scoping and Developer Approaches to the apportioned cumulative total number of adults and immatures (see section on Project Alone: Operation and Maintenance – Displacement/Barrier Effects for the SPA population).
  2. For the non-breeding periods, razorbill numbers associated with other offshore wind farms that are in planning, consented, under construction or in operation were extracted for each of the relevant seasonal periods from the cumulative totals collated for the East Anglia TWO and East Anglia ONE North submissions (MacArthur Green and Royal HaskoningDHV 2021, see Offshore EIA Report, annex E of volume 3, appendix 11.6 for more details). The cumulative numbers for each of the non-breeding periods were apportioned to the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA razorbill population according to the BDMPS approach (Furness 2015), with the subsequent displacement mortality calculated according to the displacement and mortality rates appropriate to each of the Scoping and Developer Approaches (Table 5.192)
  3. The predicted displacement mortality derived for the other UK North Sea wind farms was combined with that from the Proposed Development to give the in-combination estimates according to both the Scoping and Developer Approaches (Table 5.194).

 

Table 5.194:
Estimated Annual Mortality of Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA Razorbills as a Result of Displacement from the Proposed Development Array Area and 2 km Buffer as Determined by the Scoping Approach and Developer Approach, In-Combination with the other UK North Sea Wind Farms

Table 5.194: Estimated Annual Mortality of Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA Razorbills as a Result of Displacement from the Proposed Development Array Area and 2 km Buffer as Determined by the Scoping Approach and Developer Approach, In-Combination with the other UK North Sea Wind Farms

 

  1. Incorporating the potential mortality predicted from the displacement effects associated with the other UK North Sea wind farms leads to an 11 to near twentyfold increase in the predicted displacement mortality compared to the Proposed Development alone, with the level of increase least for the Developer Approach and greatest for the lower range of the Scoping Approach (compare Tables 5.194 and 5.192). The breeding period accounts for the majority (i.e. approximately 55 – 70%) of the predicted annual mortality for the Proposed Development in-combination with the other UK North Sea wind farms (with this contribution being highest for the lower range of the Scoping Approach and lowest for the upper range of the Scoping Approach – Table 5.194).

For the Proposed Development in-combination with the other UK North Sea wind farms, the additional annual mortality of adult razorbills from the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA population predicted due to displacement represents between 0.11% of the current adult breeding population at this colony (i.e. 37,476 individuals – Table 2.6 in volume 3, appendix 11.6 of the Offshore EIA Report) as determined by the Developer Approach, and between 0.27 – 0.54% as determined by the lower and upper estimates from the Scoping Approach. In terms of percentage increases in the baseline annual adult mortality of the population (based on applying a mortality rate of 0.090 – see Table 2.19 in volume 3, appendix 11.6 of the Offshore EIA Report), the estimates of adult displacement mortality equate to an increase of 1.2% for the Developer Approach and of 3.0 – 6.0% for the lower and upper estimates from the Scoping Approach.

  1. The potential levels of impact on the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA razorbill population resulting from the predicted mortality from displacement and barrier effects associated with the Proposed Development in-combination with the other wind farms in the UK North Sea during the operation and maintenance phase are considered in more detail below in the Effects In-Combination: Population-Level Impacts section. This presents the outputs from PVAs of the potential effects of predicted displacement mortality on the SPA population.
In-combination: population-level impacts
  1. As for the Proposed Development alone, PVA was undertaken on the mortality to the adult and immature age classes predicted due to the displacement effects associated with the Proposed Development in-combination with the other UK North Sea wind farms. This was on the basis of the potential mortality as determined by both the Scoping and Developer Approaches (see Table 5.194 above).
  2. The approach to the PVA and the metrics used to summarise the PVA outputs are as described for the Proposed Development alone (see Project Alone: Population-Level Impacts section above).

 

Table 5.195:
Projected 35 Year Population Sizes and Associated PVA Metrics for the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA Razorbill Population Under Different Impact Scenarios for the Proposed Development In-Combination with the other UK North Sea Wind Farms

Table 5.195: Projected 35 Year Population Sizes and Associated PVA Metrics for the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA Razorbill Population Under Different Impact Scenarios for the Proposed Development In-Combination with the other UK North Sea Wind Farms

 

  1. Given that the in-combination effects are inevitably greater than those for the Proposed Development alone, the PVA metrics for the Proposed Development in-combination with the other UK North Sea wind farms suggest greater population-level impacts than as predicted for the Proposed Development alone (compare Table 5.195 with Table 5.193).
  2. The CPS value for the Developer Approach indicates that the in-combination displacement effects would result in a reduction of 3% in the size of the SPA population after 35 years, relative to that in the absence of any wind farm effects, whilst for the Scoping Approach the CPS values indicate reductions of 7 – 14% after 35 years, relative to that in the absence of any wind farm effects (Table 5.195). The associated reduction in annual population growth rate (relative to that predicted under baseline conditions) is 0.1% for the Developer Approach and 0.2 – 0.4% for the Scoping Approach. The centile value of 45.7 for the Developer Approach indicates considerable overlap in the distributions of the predicted impacted and un-impacted population sizes and, hence, a high likelihood of the impacted population being of a similar size to the un-impacted population after 35 years, whilst the values of 32.0 – 41.1 for the Scoping Approach indicate at least a moderate overlap in the distributions and, hence, a reasonable likelihood of the impacted population being of a similar size to the un-impacted population after 35 years (Table 5.195).
In-combination: conclusion
  1. On the basis of the Developer Approach, it is considered that the potential effects from the Proposed Development in-combination with the other UK North Sea wind farms are small, with the population-level impacts predicted to arise from these in-combination effects representing a small increase compared to those predicted due to the Proposed Development alone. It is considered that this level of impact would not result in an adverse effect on the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA razorbill population.
  2. As would be expected, the Scoping Approach predicts greater levels of effects and consequent population-level impacts than as predicted by the Developer Approach, with the resultant PVA metrics suggestive of small to (at most) moderate levels of impact. This is within the context of an assessment which incorporates a high degree of precaution and a SPA population which has shown a marked (and consistently) long-term increase in size. Given this, it is considered that the levels of impact predicted by the Scoping Approach would not result in an adverse effect on the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA razorbill population.

Assessment for the puffin population

  1. The Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA puffin population is currently estimated to number 958 individuals, based upon the 2008 count at this colony (Offshore EIA Report, volume 3, appendix 11.5). This represents a substantial decline from earlier counts of 7,000 and 2,615 individuals as recorded in 1987 and 2000, respectively. Subsequent counts from 2017 and 2018 indicate considerably higher numbers of birds attending the colony (approximately 3,000 – 4,000) but these were recorded during the pre-laying period in early April and can only be regarded as providing a broad indication of colony size (Walsh et al. 1995).
The potential for impacts on the puffin population
  1. The Proposed Development and two kilometre buffer around the Proposed Development array area7 do not overlap with the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA, so that potential impacts on its puffin population will only occur as a result of individuals from the colony occurring in the area (or vicinity) of the Proposed Development. Consequently, the main focus of the assessment for this SPA population is concerned with the Conservation Objective of maintaining or restoring the populations of each qualifying feature, because the other conservation objectives either apply to the site itself, and not to areas beyond the boundary, or are encompassed by the assessment of this Conservation Objective (as for maintaining or restoring the structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying features, because habitat structure and function would only be considered significant if it caused an adverse effect on the maintenance or restoration of the population of the qualifying features). In terms of the SACOs, this focus is most closely reflected in the attributes concerned with the abundance and diversity of the species assemblage which have the targets of maintaining; (i) the abundance of the breeding seabird assemblage qualifying feature at a level above 216,730 individuals, whilst avoiding deterioration from its current levels; and (ii) the species diversity of the breeding seabird assemblage qualifying feature.
  2. From published information on puffin foraging ranges (Woodward et al. 2019), puffins from the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA could possibly occur within the area of the Proposed Development and of the two km buffer around the Proposed Development array area during the breeding period. However, the distance from the Proposed Development to the SPA as measured over sea (as opposed to the straight-line distance) is approximately 260 km and, as such, is close to likely limits of the breeding season foraging range of puffin (i.e. 265.4 km based upon the mean maximum foraging range plus 1 SD – Woodward et al. 2019). This is reflected in the findings of the apportioning exercise, which estimates that 0.1% of the puffins occurring on the Proposed Development array area during the breeding season derive from this SPA colony (Offshore EIA Report, volume 3, appendix 11.5). The breeding period for puffin is defined as April to mid-August, following the NatureScot (2020) guidance.
  3. After the breeding season puffin migrate rapidly from their UK breeding areas, leaving the seas immediately adjacent to their colonies by late August and dispersing widely across north-west European seas and the Atlantic (Wernham et al. 2002, Harris and Wanless 2011, Stone et al. 1995, Jessopp et al. 2013). Consequently (and as advised in the NatureScot scoping advice - volume 3, appendix 6.2 of the Offshore EIA Report), no assessment of impacts during the non-breeding period is undertaken for puffin.
Project alone: construction and decommissioning
Disturbance
  1. Direct disturbance to puffins during the construction phase may arise within the Proposed Development array area (and its immediate vicinity) as a result of increased vessel movements and helicopter activity, as well as from other activities directly associated with the installation of the wind turbine foundations and other infrastructure, whilst there will also be increased vessel activity along the Proposed Development export cable corridor due to the cable laying activities. The levels of such activities that could arise are outlined in Table 4.1, with these activities occurring during construction campaigns within a construction period of at most eight years duration.
  2. A total of up to 11,482 vessel round trips may occur over the construction phase, whilst it is estimated that a maximum of 134 vessels could occur within the area of the Proposed Development at any one time (Table 4.1). However, this is within the context of high baseline levels of vessel traffic within this area (e.g. surveys recorded an average of 14 vessels per day within a 10 nm buffer around the Proposed Development over a 14-day period in August 2022, whilst also showing an average of three to four vessels intersecting the Proposed Development array area per day over summer – Offshore EIA Report, volume 2, chapter 13).
  3. When using the marine environment (and not at the breeding colony), puffins are considered to have a relatively low sensitivity to such sources of direct disturbance. Thus, reviews of the sensitivity of different seabird species to disturbance from vessels and helicopter traffic assign puffin as ‘2’ on a five-scale ranking system, where 1 indicates hardly any or limited escape/avoidance behaviour and very short flight distance when approached and 5 indicates strong escape/avoidance behaviour and a large response distance (Garthe and Hüppop 2004, Furness et al. 2013).
  4. The total area to be affected by such disturbance over the full eight years of the construction phase also represents a small proportion of the total area of marine habitat available to puffins from the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA. Thus, the Proposed Development array area encompasses 1,010 km2, whilst the Proposed Development export cable corridor encompasses 168 km2. Together these areas represent approximately 1% of the total breeding season foraging area that is potentially available to the SPA puffin population, as defined by the generic measure of the species’ mean maximum breeding season foraging range plus 1 SD (i.e. 137.1±128.3 km - Woodward et al. 2019) and assuming that this range is represented by a semicircle to the seaward side of the colony. Similarly, the Proposed Development array and export cable corridor represent approximately 4% of the breeding season foraging area if considering the mean maximum foraging range only.
  5. In addition to the above, it is important to consider that the construction activities will not occur simultaneously across the entirety of the Proposed Development array area or the Proposed Development export cable corridor but, rather, will be carried out in different areas at different times. Thus, the activities will be concentrated within discrete (often small) parts of these wider areas, and within such areas they will not extend over the full duration of the construction phase, so further reducing the potential to which birds may be subject to disturbance effects. For example, cable laying for the Proposed Development export cable will occur over a total of two years, whilst within the Proposed Development array area it is likely that construction activities would be confined largely to discrete areas at any one time.
  6. The potential for disturbance effects during decommissioning is assumed to be the same (or less) as for construction, noting that the duration of the decommissioning phase will not exceed that of construction, and may be shorter.
  7. Given the relatively low sensitivity of puffin to disturbance effects, the large distance of the Proposed Development from the SPA (relative to the estimated puffin foraging range), the relatively small areas that will be subject to activities with the potential to result in disturbance at any given time during the construction period and the fact that these potential effects will be temporary, it is considered that there is no potential for construction or decommissioning related disturbance to lead to an adverse effect on the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA puffin population.
Displacement
  1. As detailed above, puffin is considered to have a relatively low sensitivity to disturbance, whilst potential effects of disturbance during the construction and decommissioning phases will (at most) only extend across a small part of the wider foraging areas used by the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA puffin population and be limited to (at most) an eight year period during construction (and a likely similar or shorter period during decommissioning). Furthermore, as detailed above, potential effects of disturbance will not occur simultaneously across the entirety of the Proposed Development array area or Proposed Development export cable corridor but, rather, will be carried out in different areas at different times. Thus, at any given time the potential for disturbance effects that could lead to displacement of puffins from this SPA will be limited to relatively small areas, with the potential effects also being of a temporary nature.
  2. Based upon the above, it is considered that there is relatively little potential for the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA puffin population to be affected by displacement during the construction or decommissioning phases, with any such effects only extending across relatively small areas and tending to be temporary in nature. Consequently, it is considered that there is no potential for construction or decommissioning related displacement to lead to an adverse effect on the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA puffin population.
Changes to prey availability
  1. Sandeels are key prey for puffins, with a range of other species taken including clupeids and gadids (del Hoyo et al., 1996). Indirect effects on puffins may arise as a result of changes in the availability, distribution, or abundance of these species during the construction and decommissioning phases of the Proposed Development. Reduction or disruption to prey availability may cause displacement from foraging grounds or reduced energy intake, affecting survival rates or productivity in the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA puffin population in the short-term.
  2. During construction and decommissioning there are a number of ways in which effects on key prey species of seabirds may occur, which are outlined in the section on Project Alone: Construction and Decommissioning – Changes to Prey Availability for the St Abb’s Head to Fast Castle SPA kittiwake population. The evidence base and context for assessing the potential for such effects to have impacts on the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA puffin population are as for the Forth Islands SPA puffin population (with the exception that tracking data are not available to inform the foraging ranges used by the Flamborough and Filey Coast birds). These details are presented above in equivalent section for the Forth Islands SPA puffin population. Additionally, the relatively large distance of the Proposed Development from the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA is relevant because it reduces the likelihood that puffins from this SPA will use the Proposed Development (volume 3, appendix 11.5).
  3. Given this, it is considered that there is relatively little potential for the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA puffin population to be affected by changes to prey availability during the construction and decommissioning phases, with any such effects being largely intermittent across a relatively small spatial extent, with most effects temporary in nature. Consequently, it is considered that there is no potential for construction or decommissioning related changes in prey availability to lead to an adverse effect on the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA puffin population.