1. In response to the 2020 Berwick Bank Scoping Report (SSER, 2020), NatureScot and MSS advised that assessment of collision risk to migratory species should be undertaken qualitatively with reference to the MSS commissioned strategic level report (WWT Consulting, 2014). NatureScot and MSS noted in their Scoping Opinion representations that MSS were in the process of commissioning a further strategic study of migratory species collision risk and that this should be used if available (MS-LOT, 2021).
  2. Subsequently, it was noted during Roadmap Meeting 4 (Offshore EIA Report, volume 3, appendix 11.8, annex A) that some species that are qualifying features of the designated sites screened in were not included within the MSS strategic level report (WWT Consulting, 2014). NatureScot advised that assessment for these missing species was still required and that this should be done on a qualitative basis (G.Holland, email 14/01/2022). Additional methodological work for these species was, therefore, developed in this assessment to allow similar qualitative summaries to be included for the species noted.
  3. The quantitative results presented within the MSS strategic level report are no longer accurate as a result of design changes for the offshore wind farms considered within that report during their development and consenting processes, along with updates on avoidance rate values for some of the species scoped into this report. Since an update to the MSS strategic level report has not been published to date, these changes are incorporated within the approach outlined in this assessment to ensure that the outcomes presented are more representative of the current scale of offshore wind farms present along the Scottish east coast.
  4. The MSS strategic level report provides estimations of the risk of collision to 38 migratory non-seabird species from 11 Scottish offshore wind farms, where details were available during the report’s commissioning. Using a proportional overlap approach based on the footprint of offshore wind farms and the migratory routes of certain species, the MSS strategic level report provides estimates of annual collisions, allowing for an avoidance rate of 98%, of migratory species within Scotland from the given offshore wind farms. The MSS strategic level report uses total passage population to consider total birds that may be exposed to potential effects from wind farm developments during the spring and autumn migrations. The passage population size is, therefore, not directly attributable to local SPAs, with individuals within the passage populations potentially associating with SPAs within the UK and Ireland, but not screened in for the Proposed Development, or breeding on mainland Europe. The outcomes of the MSS strategic level report were used to calculate the increase above the natural baseline mortality for each migratory population. Increases above baseline mortality were calculated by dividing the number of predicted collisions from the MSS strategic level report by the number of expected natural baseline mortalities, which were calculated using the population size and adult survival rates available within the British Trust for Ornithology’s (BTO) BirdFacts (Robinson, 2005).
  5. Several of the offshore wind farms used in the MSS strategic level report have since changed key design parameters (i.e. number of wind turbine generators (wind turbines) and/or the offshore wind farm footprint), which has direct effects on collision risk mortality estimates. Updated values were, therefore, collated to enable this assessment to qualitatively assess species’ risk within the Proposed Development array area both alone and in the context of potential in-combination effects as described within the MSS strategic level report. Table 5.284   Open ▸ details the changes in wind turbine numbers that were available within the relevant development’s published documents. Increases in baseline mortality and the comparative decreases wind turbine associated with the number of wind turbines used for these estimates are used to determine whether further analysis is required. The details for the Proposed Development are added to the updated values for the wind farms contained within the MSS strategic level report for this report only, the Proposed Development was not included within the MSS strategic level report ( Table 5.284   Open ▸ ).
  6. Due to the substantial decrease in the number of wind turbines and the likely associated decreases in collision risk if the MSS strategic level report was to be fully revised, the increase in baseline mortality values calculated for each species were multiplied by 0.7 to account for the decrease in wind turbines. A threshold of 0.95% adjusted increased baseline mortality was then used as a threshold for species to be assessed further. A value slightly under the 1% additional mortality threshold used within the MSS strategic level report was considered to be suitably precautionary. Details on species-specific survival rates, sourced from BTO online data, can be found in appendix 3A.
  7. Calculating the mortality rates based on the passage population and estimated collision numbers presented within the MSS strategic level report would provide increased mortality rates of significantly lower (approximately half) of the true effect on the population. It is reasonable to assume that the majority of the same individuals migrate through the area twice, and not as a single exposure. Therefore, to ensure that the approach is fully precautionary and to appropriately calculate the increase in baseline mortality, only one seasonal passage population should be used. Here, we used whichever seasonal migration was the largest for the given species.
  8. For species above the 0.95% adjusted threshold, further literature reviews were undertaken to understand the risk posed by the Proposed Development. The literature review focussed on updated avoidance rates for the species of concern as the values used within the MSS strategic level report are now considered overly precautionary (Natural England, 2022) along with available population information. Any potential impacts are considered within the context of consented or proposed developments within the region and the size of the screened in SPA populations within the context of the passage population used within the MSS strategic level report.
  9. There were 17 species screened in for this assessment that were not included within the MSS strategic level report full analysis. As detailed within the MSS strategic level report, this is predominantly due to a lack of data on population numbers in Scotland during spring and autumn passage periods and therefore no collision risk modelling work could be undertaken. For those species, the migratory routes obtained from BTO SOSS 05 (Wright et al., 2012), SPA population size, extent of migratory path and collision risk outputs for proxy species within the MSS strategic level report are considered to inform the risk.
  10. For these species, it was assumed that all colonies received a uniform selection of individuals using the migratory route. This enabled a calculation of the percentage the migratory front overlapped with the Proposed Development (overlap proportion). The most recently available avoidance rates were then considered to assess whether any reductions in the number of annual estimated collisions would be likely if migratory collisions were re-analysed using the most up to date values. The number of birds was then considered against the passage population size used within the MSS strategic level report and the population size of the SPA, along with migratory routes and other offshore wind farms to allow a qualitative analysis to be presented. Further analysis to the collision risk modelling level is not considered due to the advice received (G.Holland, email 14/01/2022) as well as uncertainties in the specific migratory behaviours of the screened in SPA populations.
  11. For species which had no robust estimates of migratory paths (one of the criteria for being dropped from the MSS strategic level report), migratory front information or other missing data were used from a proxy species. Proxies were determined based on species similarity, UK population sizes, and utilisation of the same protected sites. It is emphasised that the outputs of these are qualitative and are constrained by data availability limiting full analysis. For barrier effects, spatial overlaps were reviewed regarding migration direction and the Proposed Development array area used to consider potential increases in migration distance.

 

Table 5.284:
Details on the Offshore Wind Farms Assessed Under the MSS Strategic Level Report. Updated Details are Obtained from the Most Recent Assessment and Consenting Documents Available Online

Table 5.284: Details on the Offshore Wind Farms Assessed Under the MSS Strategic Level Report. Updated Details are Obtained from the Most Recent Assessment and Consenting Documents Available Online

* Moray Firth Round 3 sites as described in MSS strategic level report. Turbine numbers updated with developments that most closely match the area used within the MSS strategic level report analysis.

 

5.8.2.    Barrier Effects for Migratory Non-Seabirds

  1. Barrier effects are not thought likely to cause an Adverse Effect on Integrity with regards to any of the migratory non-seabird species that are features of any of the SPA or Ramsar sites screened in for assessment. The maximum barrier effect of a migratory waterbird following the perimeter of the Proposed Development array area would cause an increase of a maximum of 60 km in migration distance, representing a small percentage (12%) of the migration path from those species crossing the North Sea from Scandinavia (490 km) and to a lesser extent (5%) from the Icelandic (1,125 km) coastlines. In reality, an increase of 60 km is unlikely as birds will most likely take a path of least increase, either by flying higher or navigating around the Proposed Development array area in a more efficient manner. It should also be noted that for the majority of species their migratory start/end points are further than the nearest coastlines of Scandinavia or Iceland (as the distance above are calculated from). For many species they will migrate for over double these distances with birds breeding in Canada to the west and northern Russia to the east, so these values are overestimates of the percentage increase to each species’ overall migratory pathway. At worst, this is a small increase in total flight distance and would be insignificant compared to unsuitable wind conditions or other natural variation (Masden at al., 2010). Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude no Adverse Effect on Integrity of any SPA and Ramsar site features as a result of a barrier effect.

5.8.3.    Firth of Forth SPA and Ramsar Site (Estuarine)

European site information and conservation objectives

  1. The Firth of Forth SPA and Ramsar site consists of numerous disjoint sites around the Firth of Forth in Scotland, UK (in the region of 55.9 – 56.2°N and 2.5 – 3.8°W) and comprising an area of 63.18 km2.
  2. The Firth of Forth SPA qualifies under Article 4.1 by regularly supporting populations of waterbird species as detailed below. The conservation objectives of this SPA (as determined from NatureScot’s SiteLink SPA Citation UK9004411) 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 Firth of Forth SPA and Ramsar site, so potential impacts on its qualifying features will only occur as a result of individuals from the SPA or Ramsar site 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. 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.
  4. The potential for LSE has been identified in relation to 27 of 27 qualifying features for this SPA and Ramsar site for this SPA and Ramsar site.
Project alone and in-combination: operation and maintenance
Collision risk
  1. Of the 27 features screened in, 14 were considered within the MSS strategic level report ( Table 5.285   Open ▸ ). Of these, the adjusted increase in baseline mortality was under the 0.95% threshold for all species except curlew ( Table 5.285   Open ▸ ). Therefore, a conclusion can be made of no Adverse Effect on Integrity with regards to the Firth of Forth SPA and Ramsar site as a result of collision risk from the Proposed Development either alone or in-combination with other plans and projects for bar-tailed godwit, common scoter, dunlin, golden plover, grey plover, long-tailed duck, oystercatcher, pink-footed goose, redshank, scaup, turnstone, velvet scoter and wigeon.
  2. For the remaining 13 species, lengths of migration fronts derived from the BTO SOSS Migration data for each species within the Firth of Forth SPA and Ramsar site are shown in Table 5.286   Open ▸ . The footprint length for species migrating from Scandinavia was 40 km and for Iceland 32 km. Scottish-specific data are missing for these 13 species, with data availability limitations likely to be the reason they were not considered in the MSS strategic level report. Assuming uniform migratory distributions and a 98% avoidance rate (as used within the MSS strategic level report), the proportion of the population considered vulnerable to collision was considered low, with well under 1% of the population of any feature considered vulnerable to collision (maximum 0.26% for great crested grebe). Based on this low proportion being vulnerable to collision, a conclusion can be made of no Adverse Effect on Integrity with regards to the Firth of Forth SPA and Ramsar site as a result of collision risk from the Proposed Development both alone or in-combination with other plans and projects for cormorant, eider, goldeneye, great crested grebe, knot, lapwing, mallard, red-breasted merganser, red throated diver, ringed plover, Sandwich tern, shelduck and Slavonian grebe.
Additional assessment for curlew
  1. For curlew, as shown in Table 5.284   Open ▸ , the Proposed Development is expected to account for 307 out of the total of 748 wind turbines on the Scottish east coast (Robin Rigg being the only west coast offshore wind farm considered in the MSS strategic level report to have been taken forward). Therefore, based on the number of wind turbines, an approximation of 41% of the collisions for this species could be attributed to the Proposed Development. On this basis, the increase in mortality compared to baseline attributed to the Proposed Development alone is 0.69%, which is below the 0.95% threshold considered for further assessment.
  2. Across all offshore wind farms included in the MSS strategic level report and the Proposed Development, after adjusting for the as built/as consented number of wind turbines, the predicted increase in baseline mortality is 1.67% ( Table 5.285   Open ▸ ). This value is based on an estimated avoidance rate of 98% which derived from studies of bird behaviour at onshore wind farms (NatureScot 2018, Natural England 2022b). This is likely to be highly precautionary for a wader during migration, during which time birds are known to fly at high altitudes above the likely rotor swept height (Schwemmer et al., 2021). Furthermore, the broad-front migration pattern assumed by the MSS strategic level report is unlikely to reflect the more complex migratory behaviours undertaken by many bird species; most migratory non-seabirds are likely to choose the shortest distance across open water, which means fewer individuals may interact with offshore wind farms than assumed.
  3. Furthermore, the approach within this report when calculating potential increases in baseline mortality is highly precautionary in comparison to the approach taken within for other consented developments. The MSS strategic level report concluded that only the wintering population is expected to be at risk from offshore wind farms on the east coast of Scotland. In their scoping representations for the revised Forth and Tay developments, NatureScot advice indicates that the approach taken within the MSS strategic level report and its subsequent outcomes can be viewed as sufficient, and therefore curlew in the wintering period would show a maximum of 0.84% increase in baseline mortality when assessed in-combination with all other sites along the Scottish east coast.
  4. Given that the site condition for curlew if favourable, maintained, together with the considerations outlined above, a conclusion of no Adverse Effect on Integrity with regards to the Firth of Forth SPA and Ramsar site as a result of collision risk from the Proposed Development both alone or in-combination with other plans and projects for curlew can be made.

Site conclusion

  1. In summary, with reference to the conservation objectives set for the features screened in for assessment, it can be concluded that there is no potential for an Adverse Effect on Integrity on any of the 27 of the migratory waterbird features of the Firth of Forth SPA and Ramsar site. This finding is in relation to potential impacts associated with the Proposed Development in any or all phases, acting alone and or in-combination with other plans and projects for migratory collision risk and barrier effects.

 

Table 5.285:
Qualifying Features of the Firth of Forth SPA and Ramsar Site, with Calculations of Additional Mortality (MSS Strategic Level Report (MSSLR)) and Corrected Additional Mortality with Updated Wind Turbine Numbers). Population Data as Available in Most Recently Updated in Most Recent Site Data Form

Table 5.285:  Qualifying Features of the Firth of Forth SPA and Ramsar Site, with Calculations of Additional Mortality (MSS Strategic Level Report (MSSLR)) and Corrected Additional Mortality with Updated Wind Turbine Numbers). Population Data as Available in Most Recently Updated in Most Recent Site Data Form

* Separate population sizes for curlew for the Firth of Forth SPA and Ramsar site are not available therefore the SPA population counts are presented. Passage population data is available in appendix 3A.

** Dunlin is presented as a summary of the three subspecies alpina, arctica and schinzii as all three are presented within the MSS strategic level report but seasonal population sizes for dunlin for the Firth of Forth SPA and Ramsar site are not available therefore the SPA population counts are presented. Passage population data is available in appendix 3A.

*** Redshank is presented as separate lines for subspecies as associated seasons (breeding or passage) as presented within the MSS strategic level report. Separate population sizes for redshank for the Firth of Forth SPA and Ramsar site are not available therefore the SPA population counts are presented. Passage population data is available in appendix 3A.

Table 5.286:
Qualifying Features of the Firth of Forth SPA and Ramsar Site not Included in the MSS Strategic Level Report. Population Data as Available in Most Recently Updated in Most Recent Site Data Form

Table 5.286: Qualifying Features of the Firth of Forth SPA and Ramsar Site not Included in the MSS Strategic Level Report. Population Data as Available in Most Recently Updated in Most Recent Site Data Form

 

5.8.4.    Montrose Basin SPA and Ramsar Site (Estuarine)

European site information and conservation objectives

  1. Montrose Basin SPA and Ramsar Site consists of two disjointed areas in Scotland, UK (in the region of 56.71 – 56.73°N and 2.47 – 2.56 °W) and comprises a total area of 9.81 km2. The Montrose Basin qualifies under Article 4.1 by regularly supporting populations of waterbird species as detailed below.
  2. The conservation objectives (as determined from NatureScot’s SiteLink SPA Citation UK9004031) of this SPA 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 Montrose Basin SPA and Ramsar site, so potential impacts on its qualifying features will only occur as a result of individuals from the SPA occurring in the area (or vicinity) of the Proposed Development.
  2. Consequently, the focus of the assessment for this SPA and Ramsar site population is concerned with the conservation objective to maintain or restore the populations of each qualifying feature. 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.
  4. The potential for LSE has been identified in relation to nine of nine qualifying features for this SPA and Ramsar site.
Project alone and in-combination: operation and maintenance
Migratory collision risk
  1. Of the nine features screened in, six were considered within the MSS strategic level report. Of these, the adjusted increase in baseline mortality was under the 0.95% threshold for all species ( Table 5.287   Open ▸ ). Therefore, a conclusion can be made of no Adverse Effect on Integrity of the Montrose Basin SPA and Ramsar site as a result of collision risk from the Proposed Development either alone or in-combination with other plans and projects for dunlin, greylag goose, oystercatcher, pink-footed goose, redshank and wigeon ( Table 5.287   Open ▸ ).
  2. For the remaining three species, lengths of migration fronts derived from the BTO SOSS Migration data for each species within the Montrose Basin SPA and Ramsar site are shown in Table 5.288   Open ▸ . The footprint length for species migrating from Scandinavia was 40 km and for Iceland 32 km. Scottish-specific data are missing for these three species, with data availability limitations likely to be the reason they were not considered in the MSS strategic level report. Assuming uniform migratory distributions and a 98% avoidance rate (as used within the MSS strategic level report), the proportion of the population considered vulnerable to collision was considered low, with well under 1% of the population of any feature considered vulnerable to collision (maximum 0.15% for eider and shelduck). Based on this low proportion being vulnerable to collision, a conclusion can be made of no Adverse Effect on Integrity with regards to the Montrose Basin SPA and Ramsar site as a result of collision risk from the Proposed Development both alone or in-combination with other plans and projects for eider, knot, and shelduck.

Site conclusion

  1. In conclusion, with reference to the conservation objectives set for the features of this site, it can be concluded that there is no potential for an Adverse Effect on Integrity on the Montrose Basin SPA and Ramsar Site. This finding is in relation to potential impacts associated with the Proposed Development in any or all phases, acting alone and or in-combination for migratory collision and barrier effects.

 

Table 5.287:
Qualifying Features of the Montrose Basin and Ramsar Site, With Calculations of Additional Mortality (MSS Strategic Level Report) and Corrected Additional Mortality With Updated Wind Turbine Numbers). Population Data as Available in Most Recently Updated in Most Recent Site Data Form

Table 5.287: Qualifying Features of the Montrose Basin and Ramsar Site, With Calculations of Additional Mortality (MSS Strategic Level Report) and Corrected Additional Mortality With Updated Wind Turbine Numbers). Population Data as Available in Most Recently Updated in Most Recent Site Data Form

* Dunlin is presented as a summary of the three subspecies alpina, arctica and schinzii as all three are presented within the MSS strategic level report but seasonal population sizes for dunlin for the Montrose Basin SPA and Ramsar site are not available therefore the SPA population counts are presented. Passage population data is available in appendix 3A.

** Redshank is presented as separate lines for subspecies as associated seasons (breeding or passage) as presented within the MSS strategic level report. Separate population sizes for redshank for the Montrose Basin SPA and Ramsar site are not available therefore the SPA population counts are presented. Passage population data is available in appendix 3A.

 

Table 5.288:
Qualifying Features of the Montrose Basin and Ramsar Site Not Included in the MSS Strategic Level Report. Population Data as Available in Most Recently Updated in Most Recent Site Data Form

Table 5.288: Qualifying Features of the Montrose Basin and Ramsar Site Not Included in the MSS Strategic Level Report. Population Data as Available in Most Recently Updated in Most Recent Site Data Form

 

5.8.5.    Northumbria Coast SPA and Ramsar Site (Estuarine)

European site information and conservation objectives

  1. Northumbria Coast SPA and Ramsar Site are located within the region of 55.4°N, 1.59°W, and comprises an area of 10.97 km2. The two designations are significantly overlapped and are considered together The Northumbria Coast qualifies under Article 4.1 by regularly supporting populations of waterbird species as detailed below.
  2. The conservation objectives (as determined from NatureScot’s SiteLink SPA Data form UK9006131) of this SPA 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 Northumbria Coast SPA and Ramsar site, so potential impacts on its qualifying features will only occur as a result of individuals from the SPA occurring in the area (or vicinity) of the Proposed Development.
  2. Consequently, the focus of the assessment for this SPA and Ramsar site population is concerned with the conservation objective to maintain or restore the populations of each qualifying feature. 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.
  4. The potential for LSE has been identified in relation to two of four qualifying features for this SPA and Ramsar site.
Project alone and in-combination: operation and maintenance
Migratory collision risk
  1. Of the two features screened in, one species (turnstone) was considered within the MSS strategic level report ( Table 5.289   Open ▸ ). From this, the adjusted increase in baseline mortality was under the 0.95% threshold for turnstone ( Table 5.289   Open ▸ ). Therefore, a conclusion can be made of no Adverse Effect on Integrity with regards to the Northumbria Coast SPA and Ramsar site as a result of collision risk from the Proposed Development either alone or in-combination with other plans and projects for turnstone.
  2. For the remaining species, purple sandpiper, lengths of migration fronts derived from the BTO SOSS Migration data for each species within the Northumbria Coast SPA and Ramsar site are shown in Table 5.290   Open ▸ . The footprint length for species migrating from Scandinavia was 40 km and for Iceland 32 km. Scottish-specific data are missing for purple sandpiper, with data availability limitations likely to be the reason they were not considered in the MSS strategic level report. Assuming uniform migratory distributions and a 98% avoidance rate (as used within the MSS strategic level report), the proportion of the population considered vulnerable to collision was considered low, with well under 1% of the population of this feature considered vulnerable to collision (0.13% for purple sandpiper). Based on this low proportion being vulnerable to collision, a conclusion can be made of no Adverse Effect on Integrity with regards to the Northumbria Coast SPA and Ramsar site as a result of collision risk from the Proposed Development both alone or in-combination with other plans and projects for purple sandpiper.

Site conclusion

  1. In conclusion, with reference to the conservation objectives set for the features of this site, it can be concluded that there is no potential for an Adverse Effect on Integrity on the Northumbria Coast SPA and Ramsar Site. This finding is in relation to potential impacts associated with the Proposed Development in any or all phases, acting alone and or in-combination for migratory collision and barrier effects.

 

Table 5.289:
Qualifying Features of the Northumbria Coast SPA and Ramsar Site, With Calculations of Additional Mortality (From MSS Strategic Level Report) and Corrected Additional Mortality With Updated Turbine Numbers) Population Data as Available in Most Recently Updated in Most Recent Site Data Form

Table 5.289: Qualifying Features of the Northumbria Coast SPA and Ramsar Site, With Calculations of Additional Mortality (From MSS Strategic Level Report) and Corrected Additional Mortality With Updated Turbine Numbers) Population Data as Available in Most Recently Updated in Most Recent Site Data Form

 

Table 5.290:
Qualifying Features of the Northumbria Coast SPA and Ramsar Site Not Included in the MSS Strategic Level Report. Population Data as Available in Most Recently Updated in Most Recent Site Data Form

Table 5.290: Qualifying Features of the Northumbria Coast SPA and Ramsar Site Not Included in the MSS Strategic Level Report. Population Data as Available in Most Recently Updated in Most Recent Site Data Form

 

5.8.6.    Firth of Tay and Eden Estuary SPA and Ramsar Site (Estuarine)

European site information and conservation objectives

  1. Firth of Tay and Eden Estuary SPA and Ramsar site are located in the region of 56.4°N, 3.14°W, and comprises an area of 69.47 km2. The two designations are significantly overlapped and are considered together. The Firth of Tay qualifies under Article 4.1 by regularly supporting populations of waterbird species as detailed below.
  2. The conservation objectives of this SPA (as determined from NatureScot’s SiteLink SPA Citation UK9004121) 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 Firth of Tay and Eden Estuary SPA and Ramsar site, so potential impacts on its qualifying features will only occur as a result of individuals from the SPA occurring in the area (or vicinity) of the Proposed Development.
  2. Consequently, the focus of the assessment for this SPA and Ramsar site population is concerned with the conservation objective to maintain or restore the populations of each qualifying feature. 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.
  4. The potential for LSE has been identified in relation to 17 of 20 qualifying features for this SPA and Ramsar site.
Project alone and in-combination: operation and maintenance
Migratory collision risk
  1. Of the 17 features screeded in, 12 were considered within the MSS strategic level report ( Table 5.291   Open ▸ ). Of these, the adjusted increase in baseline mortality was under the 0.95% threshold for all species ( Table 5.291   Open ▸ ). Therefore, a conclusion can be made of no Adverse Effect on Integrity with regards to the Firth of Tay and Eden Estuary SPA and Ramsar site as a result of collision risk from the Proposed Development either alone or in-combination with other plans and projects for bar-tailed godwit, common scoter, dunlin, grey plover, greylag goose, Icelandic black tailed godwit, long-tailed duck, oystercatcher, pink-footed goose, redshank, sanderling, and velvet scoter.
  2. For the remaining five species (eider, goldeneye, goosander, red-breasted merganser, and shelduck), lengths of migration fronts derived from the BTO SOSS Migration data for each species within the Firth of Tay and Eden Estuary SPA and Ramsar site are shown in Table 5.292. The footprint length for species migrating from Scandinavia was 40 km and for Iceland 32 km. Scottish-specific data are missing for these five species, with data availability limitations likely to be the reason they were not considered in the MSS strategic level report. Assuming uniform migratory distributions and a 98% avoidance rate (as used within the MSS strategic level report), the proportion of the population considered vulnerable to collision was considered low, with well under 1% of the population of any feature considered vulnerable to collision (0.15% for eider, goldeneye, goosander, and shelduck). Based on this low proportion being vulnerable to collision, a conclusion can be made of no Adverse Effect on Integrity with regards to the Firth of Tay and Eden Estuary SPA and Ramsar site as a result of collision risk from the Proposed Development both alone or in-combination with other plans and projects for eider, goldeneye, goosander, red-breasted merganser, and shelduck.

Site conclusion

  1. In conclusion, with reference to the conservation objectives set for the features of this site, it can be concluded that there is no potential for an Adverse Effect on Integrity on the Firth of Tay and Eden Estuary SPA and Ramsar Site. This finding is in relation to potential impacts associated with the Proposed Development in any or all phases, acting alone and or in-combination for migratory collision and barrier effects.

 

Table 5.291:
Qualifying Features of the Firth of Tay and Eden Estuary SPA and Ramsar Site, With Calculations of Additional Mortality (From MSS Strategic Level Report) and Corrected Additional Mortality With Updated Turbine Numbers). Population Data as Available in Most Recently Updated in Most Recent Site Data Form

Table 5.291: Qualifying Features of the Firth of Tay and Eden Estuary SPA and Ramsar Site, With Calculations of Additional Mortality (From MSS Strategic Level Report) and Corrected Additional Mortality With Updated Turbine Numbers). Population Data as Available in Most Recently Updated in Most Recent Site Data Form

* Dunlin is presented as a summary of the three subspecies alpina, arctica and schinzii as all three are presented within the MSS strategic level report but seasonal population sizes for Dunlin for the Firth of Tay and Eden Estuary SPA and Ramsar site are not available therefore the SPA population counts are presented. Passage population data is available in appendix 3A.

** Redshank is presented as separate lines for subspecies as associated seasons (breeding or passage) as presented within the MSS strategic level report. Separate population sizes for redshank for the Firth of Tay and Eden Estuary SPA and Ramsar site are not available therefore the SPA population counts are presented. Passage population data is available in appendix 3A.

 

Table 5.292:
Qualifying Features of the Firth of Tay and Eden Estuary SPA and Ramsar Site Not Included in the MSS Strategic Level Report. Information for Goldeneye was Used for Goosander (See Appendix B). Population Data as Available in Most Recently Updated in Most Recent Site Data Form

Table 5.292: Qualifying Features of the Firth of Tay and Eden Estuary SPA and Ramsar Site Not Included in the MSS Strategic Level Report. Information for Goldeneye was Used for Goosander (See Appendix B). Population Data as Available in Most Recently Updated in Most Recent Site Data Form

5.8.7.    Lindisfarne SPA and Ramsar Site (Estuarine)

European site information and conservation objectives

  1. The Lindisfarne SPA and Ramsar site are located within the region of 55.67°N, 1.84°W and comprises an area of 36.71 km2. The two designations are significantly overlapped and are considered together. The Lindisfarne SPA qualifies under Article 4.1 by regularly supporting populations of waterbird species as detailed below.
  2. The conservation objectives of this SPA (as determined from SPA Data form UK9006011) 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:

–           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 population of each of the qualifying features, and, No significant disturbance of the species; and

–           The distribution of the qualifying features within the site.

  1. The Proposed Development does not overlap with the Lindisfarne SPA and Ramsar site, so potential impacts on its qualifying features will only occur as a result of individuals from the SPA 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. 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.
  4. The potential for LSE has been identified in relation to 16 of these 18 qualifying features for this SPA and Ramsar site.
Project alone and in-combination: operation and maintenance
Migratory collision risk
  1. Of the 16 features screened in, 12 were considered within the MSS strategic level report (Table 5.293). Of these, the adjusted increase in baseline mortality was under the 0.95% threshold for all species ( Table 5.293   Open ▸ ). Therefore, a conclusion can be made of no Adverse Effect on Integrity with regards to the Lindisfarne SPA and Ramsar Site on protected waterbird features during migration with respect to the Proposed Development acting alone or in combination for bar-tailed godwit, common scoter, dunlin, golden plover, grey plover, greylag goose, light-bellied brent goose, long-tailed duck, redshank, sanderling, whooper swan and wigeon ( Table 5.293   Open ▸ ).
  2. For the remaining four species (eider, red-breasted merganser, ringed plover, and shelduck), lengths of migration fronts derived from the BTO SOSS Migration data for each species within the Lindisfarne SPA and Ramsar site are shown in Table 5.294   Open ▸ . The footprint length for species migrating from Scandinavia was 40 km and for Iceland 32 km. Scottish-specific data are missing for these four species, with data availability limitations likely to be the reason they were not considered in the MSS strategic level report. Assuming uniform migratory distributions and a 98% avoidance rate (as used within the MSS strategic level report), the proportion of the population considered vulnerable to collision was considered low, with well under 1% of the population of any feature considered vulnerable to collision (maximum 0.20% for ringed plover). Based on this low proportion being vulnerable to collision, a conclusion can be made of no Adverse Effect on Integrity with regards to the Lindisfarne SPA and Ramsar site as a result of collision risk from the Proposed Development both alone or in-combination with other plans and projects for eider, red-breasted merganser, ringed plover, and shelduck.
Additional assessment of light-bellied brent goose
  1. The MSS strategic level report details two populations for Light-bellied brent goose that are migrate to or transit through Scotland, one larger population from Canada (1,900) and a smaller population from Svalbard (350). The MSS strategic level report notes that the Svalbard population is a “scarce and uncommon winter visitor”, with previous studies recording 60-150 wintering birds (Forrester et al. 2007). These two populations of significantly differing sizes, therefore, require a professional judgement call when viewing the increase in baseline mortality values used as a benchmark for assessments of other species. The outcome of the MSS strategic level report detail <1 annual collision estimates for the Svalbard light-bellied brent goose. Taking a precautionary approach the estimated value of 1 was used in estimating the increase baseline mortality making this value an overestimate due to the level of detail within the MSS strategic level report. The larger Canadian light-bellied brent goose population returned a value of 1 annual collision from the larger population size.
  2. Being assessed as one population, based on the MSS strategic level report, the total migratory population of light-bellied brent goose would be 2,250 with a maximum annual collision estimate of two birds. This returns an increase on baseline mortality of 0.89% based on MSS strategic level report wind turbine parameters, with an adjusted increase in baseline mortality of 0.62% accounting for as built wind turbine parameters.
  3. Considering that the presence of the birds from within the Svalbard population is likely to limited due to them being scarce and data quality constraints being known regarding the movements of that population, it is more reasonable to combine the two populations to assess the risk to all light-bellied brent geese. Therefore, when assessing the risk from collision mortality against the total population of light-bellied brent geese it results in an increase in baseline mortality of below the 0.95% threshold ( Table 5.293   Open ▸ ).

 

Additional assessment of whooper swan

 

  1. As in the MSS strategic level report, the total migratory population of whooper swan assessed is 22,000 birds in both the spring and autumn migration periods. From this the MSS strategic report estimated 83 collisions, which after adjustment for updated number of wind turbines as presented in this report resulted in a calculation of increased baseline mortality of 1.33%. However, the MSS strategic report used a precautionary avoidance rate of 98%. Recently published guidance recommends using an avoidance rate of 99.5% for swan species (Nature Scot 2018), which would theoretically result in approximately a 75% reduction in collisions. This would subsequently reduce whooper swan increased baseline mortality to less than the 0.95% threshold presented here. Whooper swan is therefore scoped out of further analysis as it is thought unlikely for there to be Adverse Effect on Integrity on this species for Proposed Development alone or in-combination.

Site conclusion

  1. In summary, with reference to the conservation objectives set for the features screened in for assessment, it can be concluded that there is no potential for an Adverse Effect on Integrity on the migratory waterbird features of the Lindisfarne SPA and Ramsar site. This finding is in relation to potential impacts associated with the Proposed Development in any or all phases, acting alone and or in-combination with other plans and projects for migratory collision risk and barrier effects.

 

Table 5.293:
Qualifying Features of the Lindisfarne SPA and Ramsar Site, With Calculations of Additional Mortality (From MSS Strategic Level Report) and Corrected Additional Mortality With Updated Turbine Numbers). * See Additional Assessment of Light Bellied Brent Goose. Population Data as Available in Most Recently Updated in Most Recent Site Data Form

Table 5.293: Qualifying Features of the Lindisfarne SPA and Ramsar Site, With Calculations of Additional Mortality (From MSS Strategic Level Report) and Corrected Additional Mortality With Updated Turbine Numbers). * See Additional Assessment of Light Bellied Brent Goose. Population Data as Available in Most Recently Updated in Most Recent Site Data Form

* Dunlin is presented as a summary of the three subspecies alpina, arctica and schinzii as all three are presented within the MSS strategic level report but seasonal population sizes for dunlin for the Lindisfarne SPA and Ramsar site are not available therefore the SPA population counts are presented. Passage population data is available in appendix 3A.

** Redshank is presented as separate lines for subspecies as associated seasons (breeding or passage) as presented within the MSS strategic level report. Separate population sizes for redshank for the Lindisfarne SPA and Ramsar site are not available therefore the SPA population counts are presented. Passage population data is available in appendix 3A.

 

Table 5.294:
Qualifying Features of the Lindisfarne SPA and Ramsar Site Not Included in the MSS Strategic Level Report. Population Data as Available in Most Recently Updated in Most Recent Site Data Form.

Table 5.294: Qualifying Features of the Lindisfarne SPA and Ramsar Site Not Included in the MSS Strategic Level Report. Population Data as Available in Most Recently Updated in Most Recent Site Data Form.

 

5.8.8.    Ythan Estuary, Sands of Forvie and Meikle Loch SPA, Ythan Estuary and Meikle Loch Ramsar Site (Estuarine)

European site information and conservation objectives

  1. Ythan Estuary, Sand of Forvie and Meikle Loch SPA and the Ythan Estuary and Meikle Loch Ramsar site are located in the region of 57.32°N, 1.94°W and comprises an area of 70.62 km2. The two designations are significantly overlapped and are considered together. The area qualifies under Article 4.1 by regularly supporting populations of waterbird species as detailed below.
  2. The conservation objectives of this SPA (as determined from NatureScot’s SiteLink SPA Citation UK9002221) 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 Ythan Estuary, Sands of Forvie and Meikle Loch  SPA and Ramsar site, so potential impacts on its qualifying features will only occur as a result of individuals from the SPA occurring in the area (or vicinity) of the Proposed Development.
  2. Consequently, the focus of the assessment for this SPA and Ramsar site population is concerned with the conservation objective to maintain or restore the populations of each qualifying feature. 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.
  4. The potential for LSE has been identified in relation to four of seven qualifying features for this SPA and Ramsar site.
Project alone and in-combination: operation and maintenance
Migratory collision risk