Displacement
  1. As detailed above, puffin 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 Hoy SPA puffin population during the breeding season. Furthermore, as detailed in section xxxx, 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 puffin from this SPA during the breeding period 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 Hoy SPA puffin 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 Forth Islands SPA puffin population. The same evidence basis and context applies to the Hoy SPA puffin 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 Hoy 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 Hoy SPA puffin 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 puffins from Hoy SPA during the breeding periods, as outlined in the section on Project Alone: Operation and Maintenance – Disturbance for the Forth Islands SPA puffin population. The same evidence base and context applies to the Hoy SPA puffin population as to the Forth Islands 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’ 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 Hoy SPA puffin population.
Displacement/Barrier effects
  1. The approach used to derive predicted levels of mortality for Hoy SPA puffins is as described in the section on Project Alone: Operation and Maintenance – Displacement/Barrier effects for the Forth Islands SPA puffin population (and in Offshore EIA Report, volume 3, appendix 11.4)
  2. Estimates of puffin mortality for Hoy 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 Hoy SPA puffin population as described in volume 3, appendix 11.5 of the Offshore EIA Report and in the section on Project Alone: Operation and Maintenance – Displacement/Barrier effects for the Forth Islands SPA puffin population (and according to the apportioning estimates in Table 5.228).
  3. The results indicate that no puffins from the Hoy SPA will occur within the Development Area and 2 km buffer, so that there are no resulting displacement effects (see Table 4.3 in volume 3, appendix 11.5 of the Offshore EIA Report).
  4. The potential annual mortality as a result of displacement is estimated as zero adults and zero immatures based on both developer and Scoping Approaches ( Table 5.229   Open ▸ ).

 

Table 5.228:
The Mean Peak Abundance Estimates of Puffin 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 Hoy SPA Population in Each Period. The Proportion of Adults Assumed to be Sabbaticals During the Breeding Season is also Presented

Table 5.228: The Mean Peak Abundance Estimates of Puffin 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 Hoy SPA Population in Each Period. The Proportion of Adults Assumed to be Sabbaticals During the Breeding Season is also Presented

 

Table 5.229:
Estimated Potential Annual Mortality of Hoy 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 5.229: Estimated Potential Annual Mortality of Hoy 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

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 puffin population. The same evidence base and context applies to the Hoy SPA puffin 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 Hoy 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 operation or maintenance related changes in prey availability to lead to an adverse effect on the Hoy SPA puffin population.
Project alone: population-level impacts
  1. As determined above, there are no effects from the Proposed Development alone which could lead to an adverse effect on the Hoy SPA puffin population
Project alone: Conclusion
  1. For both the Developer and Scoping Approaches, no potential effects from the Proposed Development alone on the Hoy SPA puffin population are predicted to occur. 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. As no potential effects of the Proposed Development alone have been identified to act on the Hoy SPA puffin population there will be no in-combination impact with other plans and projects.

Assessment for the breeding seabird assemblage

  1. The breeding seabird assemblage for the Hoy SPA is a qualifying feature on the basis of the SPA supporting in excess of 20,000 individual seabirds.
  2. Potential impacts of the Proposed Development alone and in-combination with other plans and projects on the breeding seabird assemblage for the SPA could arise via effects on the named components of the assemblage feature. For both the Scoping Approach and the Developer Approach, the assessments undertaken above identify no potential for adverse effects on kittiwake, great skua and puffin for the project alone or in-combination with other plans or projects. Likely significant effects on all other named components of the assemblage have been screened out (HRA Stage One Screening Report (SSER, 2021b)). 
  3. Therefore, it is concluded that there is no potential for an adverse effect on the hoy SPA breeding seabird assemblage. This conclusion applies to the assessments undertaken according to both the Developer Approach and the Scoping Approach.

Site conclusion

  1. It is concluded that there is no potential for an Adverse Effect on Integrity on the Hoy SPA from the Proposed Development alone or in-combination with other UK North Sea wind farms. This conclusion applies to the assessments undertaken according to both the Developer Approach and the Scoping Approach.

5.7.12.              Copinsay SPA

European site information and conservation objectives

  1. The Copinsay SPA comprises a group of islands 4 km off the east coast of Orkney Mainland, approximately 307 km from the Proposed Development. The islands have a cliffed rocky coastline and maritime vegetation that support large colonies of breeding seabirds. The boundary of the SPA encompasses Copinsay SSSI, and the seaward extension extends approximately 2 km into the marine environment. The SPA was classified in 1994, with the marine extension classified in 2009.
  2. The site qualifies under Article 4.2 by regularly supporting in excess of 20,000 breeding seabirds ( Table 5.230   Open ▸ ). The potential for LSE has been identified in relation to kittiwake ( Table 5.230   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 from NatureScot’s SiteLink (NatureScot 2022) are:
  • To avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species (listed below) or significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained; and
  • To ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term:

–      Population of the species as a viable component of the site;

–      Distribution of the species within site;

–      Distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species;

–      Structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species; and

–      No significant disturbance of the species.

  1. The Proposed Development does not overlap with the 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 5.230:
Details on the Qualifying Features of Copinsay SPA

Table 5.230: Details on the Qualifying Features of Copinsay SPA

*Named components of the assemblage only.

Assessment for the kittiwake population

  1. The Copinsay SPA kittiwake population is currently estimated to number 955 breeding pairs (Offshore EIA Report, volume 3, appendix 11.5) based on the most recent count in 2021. Kittiwake are listed on the Copinsay SPA citation as a named component of the breeding seabird assemblage.
  2. Potential impacts on the Copinsay 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 Copinsay 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 Copinsay 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; volume 3, appendix 11.5 of the Offshore EIA Report). Given the above, the Proposed Development may have potential effects on the Copinsay 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 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 Copinsay 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 Copinsay 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 Copinsay SPA kittiwake population during the non-breeding season. Furthermore, as detailed in 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 Copinsay 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 Copinsay 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 no potential for the Copinsay 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 Copinsay 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 Copinsay 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 Copinsay 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 Copinsay SPA kittiwake population.
Displacement/Barrier effects
  1. The approach used to derive predicted levels of mortality for Copinsay 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 Copinsay 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 Copinsay 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 5.231).

 

Table 5.231:
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 Copinsay SPA Population in Each Period. The Proportion of Adults Assumed to be Sabbaticals During the Breeding Season is also Presented

Table 5.231: 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 Copinsay SPA Population in Each Period. The Proportion of Adults Assumed to be Sabbaticals During the Breeding Season is also Presented

 

Table 5.232:
Estimated Potential Annual Mortality of Copinsay 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 5.232: Estimated Potential Annual Mortality of Copinsay 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 0.1 immature birds based on Scoping Approach A and as 0.2 adult and 0.2 immature birds based Scoping Approach B ( Table 5.232   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 5.232   Open ▸ ).
  3. The additional annual mortality of adult kittiwakes from the Copinsay SPA population predicted due to displacement from the Proposed Development array area represents 0.005% of the current adult breeding population at this colony (i.e. 1,910 individuals – Offshore EIA Report, Table 3.3 in volume 3, appendix 11.5) as determined by Scoping Approach A, and 0.01% 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 0.188 from West Westray, the closest colony to Copinsay– see Offshore EIA Report, Table 2.13 of volume 3, appendix 11.6), the estimates of adult mortality equate to an increase of 0.03 – 0.06% for the lower and upper estimates from the Scoping Approach. As outlined above and in Table 5.232   Open ▸ , no mortality was predicted using the Developer Approach.
Collision risk
  1. The approach used to derive predicted levels of mortality for Copinsay 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 Offshore EIA Report volume 3, appendix 11.3)
  1. Based upon option 2 of the deterministic CRM with a 98.9% avoidance rate applied, the annual collision mortality of kittiwakes from the Copinsay SPA is predicted to be approximately 0.4 adults and 0.4 immatures as determined by the Scoping Approach, and approximately 0.3 adults and 0.3 immatures as determined by the Developer Approach ( Table 5.233   Open ▸ ). All mortality was attributable to the non-breeding periods.

 

Table 5.233:
Predicted Collision Effects from the Proposed Development on the Copinsay 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 5.233: Predicted Collision Effects from the Proposed Development on the Copinsay 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 Copinsay SPA population predicted due to collision represents approximately 0.01% of the number of adults currently estimated to breed at this colony (i.e. 1910 individuals – Table 3.3 in volume 3, appendix 11.5 of the Offshore EIA Report) as determined by the Developer Approach and approximately 0.02% 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 the West Westray mortality rate of 0.188 – see Table 2.13 of volume 3, appendix 11.6 of the Offshore EIA Report), the predicted adult collision mortality equates to increases of 0.08% and 0.11% 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 Copinsay SPA kittiwake population that are at least 50% lower than those presented in Table 5.233   Open ▸ above (and on which the assessment is based).
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 Copinsay 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 no potential for the Copinsay 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 Copinsay 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 Copinsay SPA kittiwake population are displacement (inclusive of barrier effects) and collision mortality during the operation and maintenance phase.
  2. The predicted population-level impacts are small, irrespective of whether these are determined using the Developer or Scoping Approaches.  The potential increase in annual adult mortality from displacement is between zero and 0.2 birds per year and those from collision impacts from between 0.3 and 0.4 adult birds per year.
Project alone: Conclusion
  1. For both the Developer and Scoping Approaches, the potential effects from the Proposed Development alone on the Copinsay SPA kittiwake population are predicted to be small, with the resultant population-level impacts also predicted to be small. Any impacts are likely to be within the natural variation of the population. 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 Copinsay 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 (volume 3, appendix 11.6, annex E of the Offshore EIA Report). 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 5.234   Open ▸ ).

 

Table 5.234:
Estimated Annual Mortality of Copinsay 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 5.234: Estimated Annual Mortality of Copinsay 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 Copinsay SPA population predicted due to displacement represents between approximately 0.02-0.06% of the current adult breeding population at this colony (i.e. 1,910 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 0.11 – 0.36% for the lower and upper estimates from the Scoping Approach. No mortality of kittiwake from displacement effects is predicted to occur following the Developer Approach.
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 5.235   Open ▸ ).

 

Table 5.235:
Predicted Collision Effects on the Copinsay 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 5.235: Predicted Collision Effects on the Copinsay 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 Copinsay SPA population predicted due to collisions represents 0.11% of the current adult breeding population at this colony (i.e. 1,910 individuals – Table 3.3 in volume 3, appendix 11.5 of the Offshore EIA Report) as determined by the Developer Approach, and 0.12% 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 0.61% for the Developer Approach and of 0.64% for the Scoping Approach.
In-combination: population-level impacts
  1. The combined in-combination impacts arising from both displacement and collision impacts are presented in Table 5.236   Open ▸ .

 

Table 5.236:
Predicted Collision Effects on the Copinsay 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 5.236: Predicted Collision Effects on the Copinsay 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 Copinsay SPA population predicted due to the combined impacts from displacement and collisions represents 0.11% of the current adult breeding population at this colony (i.e. 1,910 individuals – Table 3.3 in volume 3, appendix 11.5 of the Offshore EIA Report) as determined by the Developer Approach, 0.14% of this population as determined by the Scoping Approach A and 0.19% for Scoping Approach B. 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 0.61% for the Developer Approach and of 0.75% for the Scoping Approach B and up to 1.0% based on Scoping Approach B.
  2. The predicted in-combination population-level impacts are small, in particular if the Developer Approach or Scoping Approach A are considered. Although it is recognised that the kittiwake population is declining and identified as being in unfavourable condition, any in-combination impacts are likely to be within the natural variation of the population. Given this, it is concluded that the effects from the Proposed Development alone would not result in an adverse effect on this SPA population.
In-combination: Conclusion
  1. On the basis of the Developer and Scoping Approaches, the potential effects from the Proposed Development in-combination with other UK North Sea wind farms on the Copinsay SPA kittiwake population are predicted to be small, with the resultant population-level impacts also predicted to be relatively small. 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 Copinsay SPA kittiwake population. 

Assessment for the breeding seabird assemblage

  1. The breeding seabird assemblage for the Copinsay SPA is a qualifying feature on the basis of the SPA supporting in excess of 20,000 individual seabirds (with the citation also noting that the SPA regularly supported 70,000 seabirds). Kittiwakes are amongst the species identified in the citation as having nationally important populations which contribute to the Copinsay SPA breeding seabird assemblage. No LSE was determined for the other species in relation to the Proposed Development (HRA Stage One Screening Report; SSER, 2021b).
  2. Potential impacts of the Proposed Development alone and in-combination with 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. For the Developer and Scoping Approach, the assessments undertaken above identify no potential for an adverse effect on the SPA kittiwake population in relation to the Proposed Development alone and in-combination.
  3. Given the above, it is concluded that there is no potential for an adverse effect on the Copinsay SPA breeding seabird assemblage. This conclusion applies to the assessments undertaken according to both the Developer Approach and the Scoping Approach.

Site conclusion

  1. Based on both the Developer Approach and Scoping Approach it is concluded that the possibility of adverse effects can be discounted for the Copinsay SPA population of breeding kittiwake and breeding seabird assemblage qualifying feature.

5.7.13.              Sule Skerry and Sule Stack SPA

European site information and conservation objectives

  1. Sule Skerry and Sule Stack are isolated islets 60 km west of Mainland, Orkney, approximately 391 km from the Proposed Development. Sule Skerry is larger, low-lying and vegetated whereas Sule Stack is a higher, bare rock stack. The boundary of the SPA overlaps with those of Sule Skerry SSSI and Sule Stack SSSI and the seaward extension extends approximately 2 km into the marine environment. The SPA was classified in 1994, with the marine extension classified in 2009.
  2. There are two annex I qualifying features and the site qualifies under Article 4.2 by regularly supporting two migratory seabird species and in excess of 20,000 breeding seabirds ( Table 5.237   Open ▸ ). The potential for LSE has been identified in relation to gannet  ( Table 5.237   Open ▸ ), with the effect pathways associated with LSE detailed in Table 3.1   Open ▸ and set out in the assessment below.
  3. The conservation objectives of this SPA (as determined from NatureScot’s SiteLink (NatureScot 2022) are:
  • To avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species (listed below) or significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained; and
  • To ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term:
  • Population of the species as a viable component of the site;
  • Distribution of the species within site;
  • Distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species;
  • Structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species; and
  • No significant disturbance of the species.
    1. The Proposed Development does not overlap with the 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 5.237:
Details on the Qualifying Features of the Sule Skerry and Sule Stack SPA

Table 5.237: Details on the Qualifying Features of the Sule Skerry and Sule Stack SPA

*Named components of the assemblage only.

 

Assessment for the gannet population

  1. The Sule Skerry and Sule Stack SPA gannet population is currently estimated to number 9,065 breeding pairs (Offshore EIA Report, volume 3, appendix 11.5) based on the most recent count in 2013. Gannet are also listed on the Sule Skerry and Sule Stack SPA citation as a named component of the breeding seabird assemblage.
  2. Potential impacts on the Sule Skerry and Sule Stack SPA gannet 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 gannet population
  1. The Proposed Development and associated buffers (e.g. as used in the estimation of displacement effects from the Proposed Development Array Area) do not overlap with the Sule Skerry and Sule Stack SPA, so that potential impacts on its gannet population will only occur as a result of individuals from the colony occurring in the area (or vicinity) of the Proposed Development.
  2. From published information on gannet foraging ranges it is possible that during the breeding period gannets from this SPA could occur within the area of the proposed development and the 2 km buffer around the Proposed Development Array area (Woodward et al. 2019). However, Sule Skerry and Sule Stack SPA is located 391 km from the Proposed development and therefore the use of the Proposed Development array area by gannet from this SPA during the breeding period is predicted to be relatively low. This is reflected in the findings of the apportioning exercise, which estimates that 0.3% of the adult gannets 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 gannet is defined as mid-March to September, following the NatureScot (2020) guidance
  3. During the non-breeding period gannets move south in autumn to winter at sea from the Bay of Biscay to the seas off west Africa, returning north in the spring (Fort et al. 2012), so that the non-breeding season is divided into autumn and spring passage periods (defined as October to November and December to mid-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)). Given the above, the Proposed Development may have potential effects on the Sule Skerry and Sule Stack SPA gannet population during breeding and non-breeding periods.
Project alone: construction and decommissioning
Disturbance
  1. Direct disturbance to gannet 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 Firth of Forth gannet 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. Gannet breeding at the Sule Skerry and Sule Stack SPA are predicted to utilise the Proposed Development during the breeding season to a relatively low extent (Offshore EIA Report, volume 3, appendix 11.5). During the non-breeding periods, gannet 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). During the autumn and spring passage periods, the potential for effects of construction-related disturbance is lower than during the breeding season because the SPA gannets are essentially transiting through the waters within which the Proposed Development is located. The potential for effects of construction- and decommissioning-related disturbance is therefore low.
  4. Furthermore, given the low sensitivity of gannet 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 Forth Islands SPA gannet population), it is considered that there is no potential for construction or decommissioning related disturbance to lead to an adverse effect on the Sule Skerry and Sule Stack SPA gannet population.
Displacement
  1. Gannet are considered to have a low sensitivity to disturbance, whilst potential effects of disturbance during the construction and decommissioning phases will only extend across a small part of the wider foraging areas used by the Sule Skerry and Sule Stack SPA gannet population and be limited to, at most, an eight year period during construction (and a likely similar or shorter period during decommissioning). Furthermore, potential effects of disturbance will not occur simultaneously across the entirety of the Proposed Development Array Area or Proposed Development export cable corridor but will, rather, 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 gannet from this SPA will be limited to relatively small areas, with the potential effects also being of a temporary nature.
  2. Therefore, based upon the above, it is considered that there is relatively little potential for the Sule Skerry and Sule Stack SPA gannet 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 Sule Skerry and Sule Stack SPA gannet 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 Forth Islands SPA gannet population. The same evidence basis and context applies to the Sule Skerry and Sule Stack SPA gannet 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 Sule Skerry and Sule Stack SPA gannet 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 Sule Skerry and Sule Stack SPA gannet 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 gannets from Sule Skerry and Sule Stack SPA during the breeding and non-breeding periods, as outlined in the section on Project Alone: Operation and Maintenance – Disturbance for the Forth Islands SPA gannet population. The same evidence base and context applies to the Sule Skerry and Sule Stack SPA gannet population as to the Forth Islands SPA population in relation to the potential for such effects to lead to impacts on the population during the breeding and non-breeding periods.
  2. Given the low sensitivity of gannet to disturbance effects at sea, the relatively small areas relative to the species’ foraging range that will be subject intermittently to potentially disturbing 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 Sule Skerry and Sule Stack SPA gannet population. This conclusion is consistent with the outcome of the EIA which ‘screened’ out gannet as a species for which detailed consideration of the effects of construction disturbance was required (volume 2, chapter 11 of the Offshore EIA Report).
Displacement/Barrier effects
  1. The approach used to derive predicted levels of mortality for Sule Skerry and Sule Stack SPA gannets is as described in the section on Project Alone: Operation and Maintenance – Displacement/Barrier effects  for the Forth Islands SPA gannet population (and in the Offshore EIA Report volume 3, appendix 11.4)
  2. Estimates of gannet mortality for Sule Skerry and Sule Stack 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 Sule Skerry and Sule Stack SPA gannet population as described in the Offshore EIA Report, volume 3, appendix 11.5 and in the section on Project Alone: Operation and Maintenance – Displacement/Barrier effects  for the Forth Islands SPA gannet population (and according to the apportioning estimates in Table 5.238).

 

Table 5.238:
The Mean Peak Abundance Estimates of Gannet 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 Sule Skerry and Sule Stack SPA Population in Each Period. The Proportion of Adults Assumed to be Sabbaticals During the Breeding Season is also Presented

Table 5.238: The Mean Peak Abundance Estimates of Gannet 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 Sule Skerry and Sule Stack SPA Population in Each Period. The Proportion of Adults Assumed to be Sabbaticals During the Breeding Season is also Presented

 

Table 5.239:
Estimated Potential Annual Mortality of Sule Skerry and Sule Stack SPA Gannets 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 5.239: Estimated Potential Annual Mortality of Sule Skerry and Sule Stack SPA Gannets 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. Based upon the estimates and assumptions detailed above, the potential annual mortality amongst the SPA gannet population as a result of displacement is estimated as 0.1 adult and no immature birds based on the Developer Approach and the lower mortality rates for the Scoping Approach (i.e. Scoping Approach A) and as 0.4 adult and no immature birds based upon the higher mortality rates for the Scoping Approach (i.e. Scoping Approach B) (Table 5.239).
  2. The additional annual mortality of adult gannets from the Sule Skerry and Sule Stack SPA population predicted due to displacement from the Proposed Development Array represents <0.001% of the current adult breeding population at this colony (i.e. 18,130 individuals – Table 3.3 in volume 3, appendix 11.5 of the Offshore EIA Report) as determined by the Developer Approach, and between approximately <0.001 – 0.002% 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 0.046 – see Table 2. of volume 3, appendix 11.6 of the Offshore EIA Report), the estimates of adult mortality equate to an increase of approximately 0.01% for the Developer Approach and of 0.01 – 0.05% for the lower and upper estimates from the Scoping Approach.
  3. The potential levels of impact on the Sule Skerry and Sule Stack SPA gannet 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 to be relatively very small compared to the breeding population and the loss of up to 0.4 adult gannets per year will not cause a population level effect.