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 puffins from Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA. As described in the section on Project Alone: Construction and Decommissioning – Disturbance for the SPA population, puffins are considered to have a low 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 volume 2, chapter 13 of the Offshore EIA Report, 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 discrete areas relative to the species’ foraging range that will be subject intermittently to potential disturbance from vessel use and maintenance activities (Woodward et al., 2019), 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 puffin population.
Displacement/barrier effects
  1. As outlined above, displacement effects on the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA puffin 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 puffin are estimated for the breeding period only (see above). The displacement and associated mortality rates advised in the Scoping Opinion (subsequently termed the Scoping Approach) for puffin are:
  • Breeding period: 60% displacement with lower and upper mortality rates of 3% and 5%.
    1. As with other species for which displacement effects are assessed (see above), the approach to estimating puffin 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 puffin 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%.
    1. Estimates of puffin 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 puffin population during the breeding season according to the NatureScot (2018) approach (Offshore EIA Report, volume 3, appendix 11.5, Table 5.196). The resulting mortality estimates for the breeding season were apportioned to age classes on the basis of the asymptotic age distribution of the population model used for the Farne Islands SPA puffin PVAs in this assessment (volume 3, appendix 11.6 of the Offshore EIA Report), noting that no population model was produced for the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA puffin population. Based on advice provided by NatureScot and Marine Scotland Science following Roadmap Meeting 4 (G. Holland, email 26/01/2022), it was also assumed that 7% of the breeding adults in the SPA population miss breeding in any given year (i.e. sabbatical birds) so that the number of estimated adult deaths during the breeding season was adjusted accordingly.

 

Table 5.196:
The Mean Peak Abundance Estimates of Puffin in the Proposed Development Array Area and 2 km Buffer During the Breeding Season, 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

Table 5.196: The Mean Peak Abundance Estimates of Puffin in the Proposed Development Array Area and 2 km Buffer During the Breeding Season, 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

 

  1. Based upon the estimates and assumptions detailed above, the potential annual mortality amongst the SPA puffin population as a result of displacement is estimated as fewer than 0.1 adult and 0.1 immature birds for both the Developer and Scoping Approaches (Table 5.197).

 

Table 5.197:
Estimated Potential Annual Mortality of Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA Puffins as a Result of Displacement from the Proposed Development Array Area and 2 km Buffer as Determined by the Scoping Approach and Developer Approach

Table 5.197: Estimated Potential Annual Mortality of Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA Puffins as a Result of Displacement from the Proposed Development Array Area and 2 km Buffer as Determined by the Scoping Approach and Developer Approach

 

  1. The additional annual mortality of adult puffin 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. 958 individuals – Table 3.3 in volume 3, appendix 11.5 of the Offshore EIA Report) as determined by either the Developer or 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 0.099 as derived for the Forth Islands SPA puffin population – see Table 2.17 in volume 3, appendix 11.6 of the Offshore EIA Report), the estimates of adult mortality equate to an increase of less than 0.1% for either the Developer or Scoping Approach.
  2. The predicted additional annual mortality of puffins from the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA population as a result of displacement from the Proposed Development array and two kilometre buffer represents small fractions of an individual bird (by either the Developer or Scoping Approaches). This translates into very small levels of effect which would be highly unlikely to lead to any detectable population-level impacts. Consequently, it is considered that there is no potential for displacement and barrier effects from the Proposed Development alone during operation and maintenance to lead to an adverse effect on the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA puffin population.
Changes to prey availability
  1. Potential impacts on key prey species for puffins 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 puffin 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 puffin population as to the Forth Islands SPA puffin population. This is detailed in the section on Project Alone: Operation and Maintenance – Changes to Prey Availability for the Forth Islands SPA population.
  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 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 puffin population.
Project alone: conclusion
  1. For both the Developer and Scoping Approaches, the potential effects from the Proposed Development alone on the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA puffin population are predicted to be very small and highly unlikely to lead to any detectable to any detectable population-level impacts. Given this, it is concluded that the effects from the Proposed Development alone would not result in an adverse effect on this population (with this conclusion being irrespective of whether these effects are determined by the Scoping or Developer Approach.
Effects In-combination
  1. The effects from the Proposed Development alone on the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA puffin population during the construction, operation and maintenance and decommissioning phases will be, at most, small and highly localised. It is considered highly unlikely that these effects have the potential to lead to any detectable population-level impacts.
  2. Therefore, it is concluded that there is no potential for effects of the Proposed Development in-combination with other plans and projects to lead to an adverse effect on the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA puffin population.

Assessment for the breeding seabird assemblage

  1. The breeding seabird assemblage for the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA is a qualifying feature on the basis of the SPA supporting in excess of 20,000 individual seabirds (with the citation stating that the SPA supports 216,730 individual seabirds). Puffin is amongst the species identified as a named component of the assemblage, whilst gannet, kittiwake, guillemot and razorbill are all qualifying features in their own right.
  2. Potential impacts of the Proposed Development alone and in-combination with the other UK North Sea wind farms on the breeding seabird assemblage for the SPA could arise via effects on the individual species within the assemblage feature, such that the SACOs to (i) maintain 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) maintain the species diversity of the breeding seabird assemblage qualifying feature are not achieved.
  3. The assessments for both the Developer Approach and the Scoping Approach identify the potential for an adverse effect on the SPA kittiwake population in relation to the Proposed Development in-combination with the other UK North Sea wind farms. The potential impact on the SPA kittiwake population is not considered likely to lead to a risk of this population being lost from the breeding seabird assemblage at the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA, on the basis of the large size of this population, the limited scale of the predicted impact (relative to the population size) and the (slightly) increasing trend in population size over the last 15 – 20 years (at least). Also, given the range of species present within the SPA seabird assemblage and their relative abundances, the potential adverse effect on the SPA kittiwake population is not considered to be sufficient to result in an adverse effect on the seabird assemblage via reductions in the overall abundance of this assemblage
  4. No potential for an adverse effect is identified in relation to any of the other SPA qualifying features or named components of the assemblage qualifying feature.
  5. Therefore, it is concluded that there is no potential for an adverse effect on the breeding seabird assemblage feature, irrespective of whether the effects are determined by the Scoping or Developer Approach.

Site conclusion

  1. For both the Developer Approach and Scoping Approach, it is concluded that the possibility of an adverse effect cannot be discounted for the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA breeding kittiwake qualifying feature. The potential for an adverse effect arises from the Proposed Development in-combination with the other UK North Sea wind farms.
  2. Consequently, it is concluded that an Adverse Effects on Integrity of the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA cannot be excluded due to effects of the Proposed Development in-combination with other plans and projects (as determined by both the Developer and Scoping Approaches).

5.7.9.    Coquet Island SPA

European site information and conservation objectives

  1. Coquet Island is located 1 km off the coast of Northumberland in north-east England and approximately 96 km from the Proposed Development. It is a small, flat-topped island with a plateau extent of approximately 7 ha. Coquet Island SPA was first classified in 1985 for its breeding seabirds, with the surrounding marine environment protected by the Northumberland Marine SPA, which was classified in 2017 to protect the foraging areas of these birds.
  2. The site qualifies by regularly supporting four annex I qualifying features, and in excess of 20,000 breeding seabirds. The assemblage comprises six additional named component species ( Table 5.198   Open ▸ ). The potential for LSE has been identified in relation to four of these six qualifying features ( Table 5.198   Open ▸ ), with the effect pathways associated with LSE for each of these detailed in Table 3.1   Open ▸ and set out in the assessment below.
  3. The conservation objectives of this SPA (as determined through Natural England’s Access to Evidence) are to:
  • Ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the Wild Birds Directive, by maintaining or restoring:

–                The extent and distribution of the habitats of the qualifying features;

–                The structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying features;

–                The supporting processes on which the habitats of the qualifying features rely;

–                The populations of each of the qualifying features; and

–                The distribution of qualifying features within the site.

  1. The Proposed Development does not overlap with Coquet Island SPA, so that potential impacts on its qualifying features will only occur as a result of individuals from the colony occurring in the area (or vicinity) of the Proposed Development.
  2. Consequently, the focus of the assessment for this SPA population is concerned with the conservation objective to maintain or restore 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.
  3. Further information on this European site is presented in appendix 3A.

 

Table 5.198:
Details on the Qualifying Features of the Coquet Island SPA

Table 5.198 Details on the Qualifying Features of the Coquet Island SPA

*Named components of the assemblage only.

 

Assessment for the kittiwake population
  1. The Coquet Island SPA kittiwake population is currently estimated to number 466 breeding pairs (Offshore EIA Report, volume 3, appendix 11.5) based on the most recent count in 2021. Kittiwake are listed on the Coquet SPA citation as a named component of the breeding seabird assemblage.
  2. Potential impacts on the Coquet Island SPA kittiwake population screened in for assessment are outlined in section 3 and in the HRA Stage One Screening Report (SSER, 2021b).
The potential for impacts on the kittiwake population
  1. The breeding period for kittiwake is defined as mid-April to August, following the NatureScot (2020) guidance. From published information on kittiwake foraging ranges generally (Woodward et al., 2019) it is apparent that during the breeding period kittiwakes from Coquet Island SPA could occur in the vicinity of the Proposed Development. However, the findings of the apportioning exercise found that no kittiwakes occurring in the Proposed Development array area during the breeding season derived from this SPA (Offshore EIA Report volume 3, appendix 11.5).
  2. In the non-breeding season kittiwakes are largely pelagic (Frederiksen et al., 2011), although most of those which breed on the North Sea coast likely winter in the North Sea and Celtic Sea. Therefore, it is likely that there is the potential for birds from the Coquet Island SPA population to pass through offshore wind farms in the North Sea during the autumn and spring passage periods (defined as September to December and January to mid-April, respectively - Furness 2015; NatureScot 2020; Offshore EIA Report volume 3, appendix 11.5). Given the above, the Proposed Development may have potential effects on the Coquet Island SPA kittiwake population during the non-breeding passage periods only (Offshore EIA Report volume 3, appendix 11.5).
Project alone: construction and decommissioning
Disturbance
  1. Direct disturbance to kittiwakes during the assumed eight-year construction phase may arise within the Proposed Development as a result of increased vessel movements, as well as from other activities associated with the installation of the wind turbine foundations, cables and other infrastructure (see the section on Project Alone: Construction and Decommissioning – Disturbance for St. Abb’s Head to Fast Castle kittiwake population; Table 4.1   Open ▸ ).
  2. 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.
  3. Kittiwakes breeding at the Coquet Island SPA are not predicted to utilise the Proposed Development during the breeding season (Offshore EIA Report volume 3, appendix 11.5). During the non-breeding periods, kittiwake distribution is not constrained by the location of the breeding colonies and birds from the SPA population are likely to occur across large expanses of oceanic and maritime waters (Frederiksen et al., 2012, Furness 2015). The potential for effects of construction- and decommissioning-related disturbance is therefore low.
  4. Furthermore, given the low sensitivity of kittiwake to disturbance effects (Garthe and Hüppop 2004; Furness et al., 2013), and the relatively small areas that will be subject to activities with the potential to result in intermittent, temporary disturbance (see the section on Project Alone: Construction and Decommissioning – Disturbance for St. Abb’s Head to Fast Castle kittiwake population), it is considered that there is no potential for construction or decommissioning related disturbance to lead to an adverse effect on the Coquet Island SPA kittiwake population. This conclusion is consistent with the outcome of the EIA which ‘screened’ out kittiwake as a species for which detailed consideration of the effects of construction disturbance was required (Offshore EIA Report, volume 2, chapter 11).
Displacement
  1. As detailed above, kittiwake is considered to have a low sensitivity to disturbance (Garthe and Hüppop 2004; Furness et al., 2013), and potential effects of disturbance during the construction and decommissioning phases will only extend across a very small part of the wider foraging areas used by the Coquet Island SPA kittiwake population during the non-breeding season. Furthermore, as detailed in see the section on Project Alone: Construction and Decommissioning – Displacement for St. Abb’s Head to Fast Castle kittiwake population, potential effects of disturbance will not occur simultaneously across the entirety of the Proposed Development array area and Proposed Development export cable corridor but will instead 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 kittiwake from this SPA during the non-breeding periods will be limited to relatively small areas, with the potential effects also being of a temporary nature.
  2. Therefore, it is considered that there is no potential for construction or decommissioning related displacement to lead to an adverse effect on the Coquet Island SPA kittiwake population.
Changes to prey availability
  1. 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 same evidence basis and context applies to the Coquet Island SPA kittiwake population as to the St Abb’s Head to Fast Castle SPA population in relation to the potential for such effects to lead to impacts on the population.
  2. Given this, it is considered that there is relatively little potential for the Coquet Island SPA kittiwake 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 Coquet Island SPA kittiwake 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 kittiwakes from Coquet Island SPA during the non-breeding periods, as outlined in the section on Project Alone: Operation and Maintenance – Disturbance for the St. Abb’s Head to Fast Castle SPA kittiwake population. The same evidence base and context applies to the Coquet Island SPA kittiwake population as to the St Abb’s Head to Fast Castle SPA population in relation to the potential for such effects to lead to impacts on the population during the non-breeding periods.
  2. Given the discrete areas relative to the species’ non-breeding season foraging range that will be subject intermittently to potential disturbance from vessel use and maintenance activities, 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 Coquet Island SPA kittiwake population.
Displacement/Barrier effects
  1. The approach used to derive predicted levels of mortality for Coquet Island SPA kittiwakes 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 (and in Offshore EIA Report, volume 3, appendix 11.4)
  2. Estimates of kittiwake mortality for Coquet Island SPA were produced using the SNCB matrix on the basis of both the Scoping Approaches and the Developer Approach (Offshore EIA Report, volume 3, appendix 11.4), with these estimates then apportioned to the Coquet Island SPA kittiwake population as described in Offshore EIA Report, volume 3, appendix 11.5 and in the section on Project Alone: Operation and Maintenance – Displacement/Barrier effects  for the St Abb’s Head to Fast Castle SPA kittiwake population (and according to the apportioning estimates in Table 5.199).

 

Table 5.199:
The Mean Peak Abundance Estimates of Kittiwake in the Proposed Development Array Area and 2 km Buffer for Each Seasonal Period, Together with the Proportion of Birds Estimated to Belong to the Breeding Adult Age Class and to be From the Coquet Island SPA Population in Each Period. The Proportion of Adults Assumed to be Sabbaticals During the Breeding Season is also Presented

Table 5.199: The Mean Peak Abundance Estimates of Kittiwake in the Proposed Development Array Area and 2 km Buffer for Each Seasonal Period, Together with the Proportion of Birds Estimated to Belong to the Breeding Adult Age Class and to be From the Coquet Island SPA Population in Each Period. The Proportion of Adults Assumed to be Sabbaticals During the Breeding Season is also Presented

 

Table 5.200:
Estimated Potential Annual Mortality of Coquet Island SPA Kittiwakes as a Result of Displacement from the Proposed Development Array Area and 2 km Buffer as Determined by the Scoping Approach and Developer Approach

Table 5.200: Estimated Potential Annual Mortality of Coquet Island SPA Kittiwakes as a Result of Displacement from the Proposed Development Array Area and 2 km Buffer as Determined by the Scoping Approach and Developer Approach

 

  1. The potential annual mortality as a result of displacement is estimated as 0.1 adult and 0.0 immature birds based on Scoping Approach A and as 0.2 adult and 0.0 immature birds based Scoping Approach B ( Table 5.200   Open ▸ ). All mortality was attributable to the non-breeding periods.
  2. No mortality from displacement was predicted using the Developer Approach for any age class or season Table 5.200   Open ▸ ).
  3. The additional annual mortality of adult kittiwakes from the Coquet Island SPA population predicted due to displacement from the Proposed Development array area represents 0.01% of the current adult breeding population at this colony (i.e. 932 individuals – Table 3.3 in volume 3, appendix 11.5 of Offshore EIA Report) as determined by Scoping Approach A, and 0.02% as determined by Scoping Approach B. In terms of percentage increases in the baseline annual adult mortality of the population (which is based on applying a mortality rate of 0.145 – see Table 2.13 of Offshore EIA Report, volume 3, appendix 11.6), the estimates of adult mortality equate to an increase of 0.07 – 0.15% for the lower and upper estimates from the Scoping Approach. As outlined above and in Table 5.200   Open ▸ , no mortality was predicted using the Developer Approach.
  4. The potential levels of impact on the Coquet Island SPA kittiwake population resulting from predicted displacement/barrier effects associated with the Proposed Development array area during the operation and maintenance phase are considered further below in the Project Alone: Population-Level Impacts section. This presents the outputs from PVAs of the combined effects of predicted displacement and collision mortality on the SPA population.
Collision risk
  1. The approach used to derive predicted levels of mortality for Coquet Island SPA kittiwakes is as described in the section on Project Alone: Operation and Maintenance – Collision Risk for the St Abb’s Head to Fast Castle SPA kittiwake population (and in the Offshore EIA Report2, volume 3, appendix 11.3)
  2. Based upon option 2 of the deterministic CRM with a 98.9% avoidance rate applied, the annual collision mortality of kittiwakes from the Coquet Island SPA is predicted to be approximately 0.4 adults and 0.0 immatures as determined by the Scoping Approach, and approximately 0.3 adults and 0.0 immatures as determined by the Developer Approach ( Table 5.201   Open ▸ ). All mortality was attributable to the non-breeding periods.

 

Table 5.201:
Predicted Collision Effects from the Proposed Development on the Coquet Island SPA Kittiwake Population, as Determined by the Scoping Approach and Developer Approach. Estimates are for the Maximum Design Scenario and are Based on Option 2 of the Deterministic CRM Using a 98.9% Avoidance Rate

Table 5.201: Predicted Collision Effects from the Proposed Development on the Coquet Island SPA Kittiwake Population, as Determined by the Scoping Approach and Developer Approach. Estimates are for the Maximum Design Scenario and are Based on Option 2 of the Deterministic CRM Using a 98.9% Avoidance Rate

 

  1. The additional annual mortality of adult kittiwakes from the Coquet Island SPA population predicted due to collision represents approximately 0.03% of the number of adults currently estimated to breed at this colony (i.e. 932 individuals – Table 3.3 in volume 3, appendix 11.5 of the Offshore EIA Report) as determined by the Developer Approach and approximately 0.04% 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 0.145 – see Table 2.13 of volume 3, appendix 11.6 of the Offshore EIA Report), the predicted adult collision mortality equates to increases of 0.22% and 0.30% for the Developer and Scoping Approaches, respectively.
  2. As outlined in the Project Alone: Operation and Maintenance - Collision Risk section for the St Abb’s Head to Fast Castle SPA kittiwake population, using the collision estimates derived from the site-specific flight height data or from the stochastic CRM with avoidance rates as calculated for the bird collision-avoidance study (Bowgen and Cook 2018) would result in predicted collision mortalities on the Coquet Island SPA kittiwake population that are at least 50% lower than those presented in Table 5.201   Open ▸ above (and on which the assessment is based).
  3. The potential levels of impact on the Coquet Island SPA kittiwake population resulting from predicted collision mortality associated with the Proposed Development array area during the operation and maintenance phase are considered further below in the Project Alone: Population-Level Impacts section. This presents the outputs from PVAs of the combined effects of predicted displacement and collision mortality on the SPA population
Changes to prey availability
  1. During the operation and maintenance phase there are a number of ways in which effects on key prey species 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 same evidence base and context applies to the Coquet Island SPA kittiwake population as to the St Abb’s Head to Fast Castle SPA population in relation to the potential for such effects to lead to impacts on the population.
  2. Given this, it is considered that there is relatively little potential for the Coquet Island SPA kittiwake 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 operation or maintenance related changes in prey availability to lead to an adverse effect on the Coquet Island SPA kittiwake 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 Coquet Island SPA kittiwake population are displacement (inclusive of barrier effects) and collision mortality during the operation and maintenance phase.
  2. PVA was therefore 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, as determined by both the Scoping and Developer Approaches (see Table 5.200   Open ▸ and Table 5.201   Open ▸ above). The approach and methods to undertaking the PVA are as described in the section on Project Alone: Population-Level Impacts for St Abb’s Head to Fast Castle SPA kittiwake population above and in volume 3, appendix 11.6 of the Offshore EIA Report. The starting population size was the 2021 count for the SPA (Offshore EIA Report, volume 3, appendix 11.5).

 

Table 5.202:
Projected 35 Year Population Sizes and Associated PVA Metrics for the Coquet Island SPA Kittiwake Population Under Different Impact Scenarios for the Proposed Development Alone

Table 5.202: Projected 35 Year Population Sizes and Associated PVA Metrics for the Coquet Island SPA Kittiwake Population Under Different Impact Scenarios for the Proposed Development Alone

 

  1. The PVA predicted a continuing population increase for the Coquet Island SPA kittiwake population, irrespective of the effects from the Proposed Development. Thus, the population is predicted to be twice as large as the current estimate of 932 adult birds under all scenarios, including baseline which assumes no wind farm effects ( Table 5.202   Open ▸ ). Although the predicted increases 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 various impact scenarios are small.
  2. The predicted population-level impacts are small, irrespective of whether these are determined using the Developer or Scoping Approaches. Thus, for Scoping Approach B the CPS value indicates that the combined collision and displacement mortality associated with the Proposed Development alone would result in a reduction of approximately 1.7% in the size of the SPA population after 35 years, relative to that in the absence of any wind farm effects ( Table 5.202   Open ▸ ). The associated reduction in annual population growth rate (relative to that predicted under baseline conditions) is estimated to be zero, whilst the centile value of 47.9 indicates a considerable overlap in the distributions of the predicted impacted and unimpacted population sizes and, hence, a high likelihood of the impacted population being of a similar size to the unimpacted population after 35 years. As would be expected, the metrics for Scoping Approach A and the Developer Approach suggest even smaller levels of impact ( Table 5.202   Open ▸ ).
Project alone: conclusion
  1. For both the Developer and Scoping Approaches, the potential effects from the Proposed Development alone on the Coquet Island SPA kittiwake population are predicted to be small, with the resultant population-level impacts also predicted to be small. The PVA metrics indicate a high chance of the population being of a similar size to that which would occur in the absence of the Proposed Development after 35 years. Given this, it is concluded that the effects from the Proposed Development alone would not result in an adverse effect on this SPA population.
Effects in-combination
Effects of relevance to the in-combination assessment
  1. For the same reasons as described in Effects In-Combination for the St. Abb’s Head to Fast Castle SPA kittiwake population, the potential for effects of the Proposed Development to act on the Coquet Island SPA kittiwake population in-combination with other plans and projects is limited to displacement/barrier effect and collision risk pathways during operation and maintenance.
  2. In-combination totals have been collated for all relevant SPA populations for all UK North Sea and Channel offshore wind farms in operation, construction, consented or planning (Offshore EIA Report, volume 3, appendix 11.6, annex E). Separate in-combination totals for the Forth and Tay projects were not collated for the reasons outlined in Effects In-Combination for the Farne Islands SPA kittiwake population, volume 3, appendix 11.6, annex E and volume 3, appendix 11.8 of the Offshore EIA Report.
Displacement/Barrier effects – operation and maintenance
  1. The approach and methods for estimating in-combination displacement mortality are described in Effects In-combination: Displacement/Barrier Effects – Operation and Maintenance for St Abb’s Head to Fast Castle SPA kittiwake population above and in volume 3, appendix 11.6, annex E of the Offshore EIA Report.
  2. The potential mortality estimates derived for the other projects were combined with those for the Proposed Development to give in-combination estimates for the UK North Sea wind farm scenario, according to both the Scoping Approaches and Developer Approach ( Table 5.203   Open ▸ ).

 

Table 5.203:
Estimated Annual Mortality of Coquet Island SPA Kittiwakes 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 Other UK North Sea Wind Farms

Table 5.203:  Estimated Annual Mortality of Coquet Island SPA Kittiwakes 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 Other UK North Sea Wind Farms

 

  1. For the Proposed Development in-combination with the other UK North Sea wind farms, the additional annual mortality of adult kittiwakes from the Coquet Island SPA population predicted due to displacement represents between approximately 0.03-0.1% of the current adult breeding population at this colony (i.e. 932 individuals – Table 3.3 in volume 3, appendix 11.5 of the Offshore EIA Report), as determined by Scoping Approach A and B. In terms of percentage increases in the baseline annual adult mortality of the population, the estimates of adult displacement mortality equate to an increase of 0.22 – 0.74% for the lower and upper estimates from the Scoping Approach.
  2. The potential levels of impact on the Coquet Island SPA kittiwake population resulting from predicted displacement/barrier effects associated with the Proposed Development array area in-combination with other UK North Sea wind farms during the operation and maintenance phase are considered further below in the Project Alone: Population-Level Impacts section. This presents the outputs from PVAs of the combined in-combination effects of predicted displacement and collision mortality on the SPA population.
Collision risk - operation and maintenance
  1. The approach and methods for estimating in-combination collision mortality are described in Effects In-combination: Collision – Operation and Maintenance for St Abb’s Head to Fast Castle SPA kittiwake population above and in volume 3, appendix 11.6, annex E of the Offshore EIA Report.
  2. The potential mortality estimates derived for the other projects were combined with those for the Proposed Development to give in-combination estimates for the UK North Sea wind farm scenario, according to both the Scoping Approach and Developer Approach ( Table 5.204   Open ▸ ).

 

Table 5.204:
Predicted Collision Effects on the Coquet Island 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 for Consented Designs

Table 5.204: Predicted Collision Effects on the Coquet Island 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 for Consented Designs

 

  1. For the Proposed Development in-combination with the other UK North Sea wind farms, the additional annual mortality of adult kittiwakes from the Coquet Island SPA population predicted due to collisions represents 0.17% of the current adult breeding population at this colony (i.e. 932 individuals – Table 3.3 in Offshore EIA Report, volume 3, appendix 11.5) as determined by the Developer Approach, and 0.19% of this population as determined by the Scoping Approach. In terms of percentage increases in the baseline annual adult mortality of the population, the estimates of adult collision mortality equate to an increase of 1.18% for the Developer Approach and of 1.33% for the Scoping Approach
  2. The potential levels of impact on the Coquet Island SPA kittiwake population resulting from predicted collision mortality associated with the Proposed Development array area in-combination with other UK North Sea wind farms during the operation and maintenance phase are considered further below in the Project Alone: Population-Level Impacts section. This presents the outputs from PVAs of the combined in-combination 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 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 5.203   Open ▸ and Table 5.204   Open ▸ above).
  2. The approach to the PVA and the metrics used to summarise the PVA outputs are as described for In-combination: Population-Level Impacts for St Abb’s Head to Fast Castle SPA kittiwake population above and in volume 3, appendix 11.6 of the Offshore EIA Report.
Table 5.205:
Projected 35 Year Population Sizes and Associated PVA Metrics for the Coquet Island SPA Kittiwake Population Under Different Impact Scenarios for the Proposed Development in-Combination with the Other UK North Sea Wind Farms

Table 5.205: Projected 35 Year Population Sizes and Associated PVA Metrics for the Coquet Island SPA Kittiwake Population Under Different Impact Scenarios for the Proposed Development in-Combination with the Other UK North Sea Wind Farms

 

  1. The predicted in-combination population-level impacts are small, irrespective of whether these are determined using the Developer or Scoping Approaches. For Scoping Approach B the CPS value indicates that the combined collision and displacement mortality associated with the Proposed Development alone would result in a reduction of approximately 8.7% in the size of the SPA population after 35 years, relative to that in the absence of any wind farm effects ( Table 5.205   Open ▸ ). The associated reduction in annual population growth rate (relative to that predicted under baseline conditions) is estimated to be 0.003, whilst the centile value of 40.1 indicates a considerable overlap in the distributions of the predicted impacted and unimpacted population sizes and, hence, a high likelihood of the impacted population being of a similar size to the unimpacted population after 35 years. As would be expected, the metrics for Scoping Approach A and the Developer Approach suggest even smaller levels of impact ( Table 5.205   Open ▸ ).
In-combination: conclusion
  1. On the basis of the Scoping Approach, the potential effects from the Proposed Development in-combination with other UK North Sea wind farms on the Coquet Island SPA kittiwake population are predicted to be small, with the resultant population-level impacts also predicted to be relatively small. In addition, the PVA metrics indicate that it is likely that the population would be of a similar size to that which would occur in the absence of the Proposed Development after 35 years. The metrics for the Developer Approach suggest even smaller levels of impact. Considering this within the context of a highly precautionary assessment, it is concluded that the in-combination scenario for both the Scoping and Developer Approaches would not result in adverse effect on the Coquet Island SPA kittiwake population.

Assessment for the lesser black-backed gull population

  1. The Coquet Island SPA lesser black-backed gull population is currently estimated to number 20 breeding pairs (Offshore EIA Report, volume 3, appendix 11.5) based on the most recent count in 2019. Lesser black-backed gull are listed on the Coquet SPA citation as a named component of the breeding seabird assemblage.
  2. Potential impacts on the Coquet Island SPA lesser black-backed population screened in for assessment are outlined in section 3 and in the HRA Stage One Screening Report (SSER, 2021b).
The potential for impacts on the lesser black-backed gull population
  1. The breeding period for lesser black-backed gull is defined as mid-March to August, following NatureScot (2020). From published information on lesser black-backed gull foraging ranges generally (Woodward et al. 2019), it is possible that during the breeding period lesser black-backed gulls from the Coquet Island SPA occur within the Proposed Development array area and 2 km buffer. This is supported by the findings of the apportioning exercise, which estimates that 0.2% of the lesser black-backed gulls occurring on the Proposed Development array area during the breeding season derive from this SPA colony (Offshore EIA Report, volume 3, appendix 11.5).
  2. In the non-breeding season lesser black-backed gulls from Coquet Island SPA migrate south through the southern North Sea, undertaking the return journey in spring. Therefore, there is the potential for birds from Coquet Island SPA to pass through offshore wind farms in the North Sea during the autumn and spring passage periods (defined as September to October and the first half of March, 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), and to a lesser extent in winter as well (defined as November to February – Furness 2015). Given the above, the Proposed Development may have potential effects on the Forth Islands SPA lesser black-backed gull population during breeding and non-breeding periods.
Project alone: construction and decommissioning
Changes to prey availability
  1. 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 Forth Islands SPA lesser black-backed gull population. The same evidence basis and context applies to the Coquet Island SPA lesser black-backed gull population as to the Forth Islands SPA population in relation to the potential for such effects to lead to impacts on the population.
  2. Given this, it is considered that there is relatively little potential for the Coquet Island SPA lesser black-backed gull 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 Coquet Island SPA lesser black-backed gull population.
Project alone: operation and maintenance
Collision risk
  1. The approach used to derive predicted levels of mortality for Coquet Island SPA lesser black-backed gulls is as described in the section on Project Alone: Operation and Maintenance – Collision Risk for the Forth Islands SPA lesser black-backed gull population (and in Offshore EIA Report, volume 3, appendix 11.3).
  2. Based upon option 2 of the deterministic CRM with a 99.5% avoidance rate applied, the annual collision mortality of lesser black-backed gulls from the Coquet Islands SPA is predicted to be 0.01 adults and zero immatures as determined by both the Scoping Approach and Developer Approach ( Table 5.206   Open ▸ ).

 

Table 5.206:
Predicted Collision Effects from the Proposed Development on the Coquet Island SPA Lesser Black-Backed Gull Population, as Determined by the Scoping Approach and Developer Approach. Estimates are for the Maximum Design Scenario and are Based on Option 2 of the Deterministic CRM Using a 99.5% Avoidance Rate (See Text).

Table 5.206: Predicted Collision Effects from the Proposed Development on the Coquet Island SPA Lesser Black-Backed Gull Population, as Determined by the Scoping Approach and Developer Approach. Estimates are for the Maximum Design Scenario and are Based on Option 2 of the Deterministic CRM Using a 99.5% Avoidance Rate (See Text).

 

  1. Additional annual collision mortality of adult lesser black-backed gulls from the Coquet Island SPA represents approximately 0.03% of the breeding population for both the Scoping and Developer Approaches (i.e. 40 individuals – Table 3.3 in volume 3, appendix 11.5 of the Offshore EIA Report). Predicted adult collision mortality equates to an increase of 0.29% of the baseline annual adult mortality of the population (based on a mortality rate of 0.087 – see Table 2.14 in the volume 3, appendix 11.6 of the Offshore EIA Report)
  2. The potential levels of impact on the Coquet Island SPA lesser black-backed gull population resulting from predicted collision mortality associated with the Proposed Development array area during the operation and maintenance phase are considered further below in the Project Alone: Population-Level Impacts section. This presents the outputs from PVAs of collision mortality on the SPA population
Changes to prey availability
  1. During the operation and maintenance phase there are a number of ways in which effects on key prey species may occur, which are outlined in the section on Project Alone: Construction and Decommissioning – Changes to prey availability for the Forth Islands SPA lesser black-backed gull population. The same evidence base and context applies to the Coquet Island SPA lesser black-backed gull population as to the Forth Islands SPA population in relation to the potential for such effects to lead to impacts on the population.
  2. Given this, it is considered that there is little potential for the Coquet Island SPA lesser black-backed gull 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 operation or maintenance related changes in prey availability to lead to an adverse effect on the Coquet Island SPA lesser black-backed gull population.