11.5. Consultation

  1. Table 11.3   Open ▸ presents a summary of the key issues raised during consultation activities undertaken to date specific to offshore ornithology for the Array and in the Ossian Array Scoping Opinion (MD-LOT, 2023) along with how these have these have been considered in the development of this offshore ornithology Array EIA Report chapter. Further detail is presented within volume 1, chapter 5. Note that consultation activities/topics that related solely to HRA matters are presented in the Array RIAA (Ossian OWFL, 2024).

Table 11.3:
Summary of Issues Raised During Consultation and Scoping Opinion Representations Relevant to Offshore Ornithology

Table 11.3: Summary of Issues Raised During Consultation and Scoping Opinion Representations Relevant to Offshore Ornithology

11.6. Methodology to Inform Baseline

  1. Information on offshore ornithology has been reviewed and analysed to inform this offshore ornithology baseline. In addition, consultation has been carried out to aid the collection of baseline information.

11.6.1. Desktop Study

  1. Information on offshore ornithology within the offshore ornithology study area and ZoI was collected through a detailed desktop review of existing studies and datasets which are summarised in Table 11.4   Open ▸ .
  2. Both the literature review of the reports and numerical modelling using the datasets were used to characterise the baseline. The offshore ornithology technical report (volume 3, appendix 11.1) includes full details of the analysis undertaken to develop the offshore ornithology baseline.

 

Table 11.4:
Summary of Key Desktop Reports

Table 11.4: Summary of Key Desktop Reports

 

11.6.2. Identification of Designated Sites

  1. All designated sites within the offshore ornithology study area and ZoI that could be affected by the construction, operation and maintenance, and decommissioning phases of the Array were identified. The criteria for identification are described below:
  • all designated sites of international, national, and local importance that directly overlap with the offshore ornithology study area or have connectivity/are within the offshore ornithology ZoI (as set out in section 11.3) were identified using a number of sources (including the JNCC’s online resource on the SPAs network, the Ramsar Sites Information Service, and NatureScot’s SiteLink page);
  • connectivity was established during the breeding season if a site (for which a species is a qualifying feature) is within foraging range of the Array (using species specific mean maximum foraging range + 1 SD (Woodward et al., 2019) as recommended by NatureScot (2023d)).
  • impacts are greatest on the sites with connectivity during the breeding season and therefore for the purpose of this report, only sites with connectivity during the breeding season are considered. During the non-breeding season, species are not as spatially constrained as in the breeding season and can therefore exploit much larger areas (Furness, 2015); and
  • where a site has multiple designations, to avoid repetition only the highest designation is listed.

11.6.3. Site-Specific Surveys

  1. Site-specific surveys were undertaken, as agreed with NatureScot (refer to Table 11.3   Open ▸ for further details), to inform this offshore ornithology EIA Report chapter for the Array. A summary of the surveys undertaken used to inform the offshore ornithology assessment of effects is outlined in Table 11.5   Open ▸ .

 

Table 11.5:
Summary of Site-Specific Survey Data

Table 11.5: Summary of Site-Specific Survey Data

 

11.7. Baseline Environment

11.7.1. Overview of Baseline Environment

  1. The following sections provide a summary of the offshore ornithology baseline environment. The offshore ornithology technical report, volume 3, appendix 11.1, includes full details of the analysis undertaken to develop the offshore ornithology baseline.

11.7.2. Designated Sites

  1. Designated sites and relevant qualifying interest features identified for this offshore ornithology Array EIA Report chapter are described in Table 11.6   Open ▸ and presented in Figure 11.2   Open ▸ ( Figure 11.3   Open ▸ for zoomed in illustration). As set out in paragraph 15, the foraging ranges of the qualifying features determined the sites that were identified. Species listed include those named as main components of an assemblage feature, as well as individual qualifying features. Species listed are limited to those identified as VORs in volume 3, appendix 11.1. Within this Array EIA Report chapter, assessment is carried out for VORs in line with the methodology set out in section 11.9. An assessment of the impact of the Array on other designated features and the conservation objectives of protected sites it carried out in the Array RIAA (Ossian OWFL, 2024).
  2. Where locally designated sites and national designations (other than European sites) fall within the boundaries of a European site (e.g. SSSIs which have not been assessed within the Array RIAA) and where qualifying interest features are the same, only the European site has been taken forward for assessment. Potential impacts on the integrity and conservation status of the offshore ornithology features of a locally or nationally designated site are assumed to be inherent within the assessment of the European site, so a separate assessment for the local or national site has not been undertaken.
  3. It should be noted that distances given in Table 11.6   Open ▸ are measured as the shortest distance between the edge of the Array and the designated site boundary. The distance may therefore differ from measurements calculated using a different approach. In particular, for the apportionment of impacts to breeding colonies carried out as part of the Array RIAA (Ossian OWFL, 2024), following the relevant guidance (NatureScot, 2018), distances are measured from the geometric centre of the Array to the centre of the specific breeding colony location.

 

Table 11.6:
Designated Sites and Relevant Qualifying Interest Features for the Offshore Ornithology Array EIA Report Chapter

Table 11.6: Designated Sites and Relevant Qualifying Interest Features for the Offshore Ornithology Array EIA Report Chapter

Figure 11.2:
Offshore Ornithology Designated Sites

Figure 11.2: Offshore Ornithology Designated Sites


Figure 11.3:
Offshore Ornithology Designated Sites (zoomed in)

Figure 11.3: Offshore Ornithology Designated Sites (zoomed in)


11.7.3. Important Ecological Features

  1. With regards to offshore ornithology, the important ecological features are VORs. VORs have been selected based on the conservation status of the ornithological receptor, their vulnerability to impact (for each impact which has been scoped in for the assessment) and known abundance from site-specific surveys and desktop studies. This is further detailed in volume 3, appendix 11.1.
  2. Table 11.7   Open ▸ lists all of the VORs identified for offshore ornithology and their population importance (as set out in volume 3, appendix 11.1).
  3. The approach to seasonal definitions and regional populations is further detailed in volume 3, appendix 11.1 but for clarity, the defined seasons and population sizes are included in this report in Table 11.8   Open ▸ and Table 11.9   Open ▸ .
  4. The impact of additional mortality due to offshore wind farm effects is assessed in terms of the change in the baseline mortality rate. As detailed within volume 3, appendix 11.1, it has been assumed that all age classes are equally at risk of effects, with each age class affected in proportion to its presence in the population. The average mortality rates used within the assessment are provided in Table 11.10   Open ▸ .
Table 11.7:
Offshore Ornithology VORs[3]

Table 11.7: Offshore Ornithology VORs[3]

Table 11.8:
Seasonal Definitions for Species Considered in this Report[4]

Table 11.8: Seasonal Definitions for Species Considered in this Report[4]

 

Table 11.9:
Regional Population Sizes for Species Included in this Report (All Population Estimates are for Individual Birds)[6].

Table 11.9: Regional Population Sizes for Species Included in this Report (All Population Estimates are for Individual Birds)[6].

 

Table 11.10:
Demographic rates for key species. Derived from Horswill & Robinson (2015)[8]

Table 11.10: Demographic rates for key species. Derived from Horswill & Robinson (2015)[8]

 


11.7.5. Future Baseline Scenario

  1. The EIA Regulations require that “a description of the relevant aspects of the current state of the environment (the “baseline scenario”) and an outline of the likely evolution thereof without implementation of the project as far as natural changes from the baseline scenario can be assessed with reasonable effort, on the basis of the availability of environmental information and scientific knowledge” is included within the Array EIA Report.
  2. If the Array does not come forward, the ‘without development’ future baseline conditions are described within this section.
  3. The UK holds internationally important populations of seabirds (Mitchell et al., 2004). UK seabird populations have shown a marked decline over the last two decades (JNCC, 2020; Mitchell et al., 2020), with over a third of species experiencing declines in breeding abundance of up to 30% or more since the early 1990s (Mitchell et al., 2020; Burnell et al., 2023).
  4. A recent study suggests that in terms of number of species affected and the average impact, the three key threats to seabird populations globally are invasive species (165 species affected, across all the most threatened groups), bycatch in fisheries (100 species affected, but with the greatest average impact) and climate change (96 species affected) (Dias et al., 2019; Mitchell et al., 2020).
  5. Most seabird species in the UK are at the southern limit of their range in the north-east Atlantic and therefore an increase in global temperatures could result in a northward shift in species’ range with the potential for overall declines in population size (Frederiksen et al., 2007, 2013 and Mitchell et al., 2020). In the UK and Ireland, climate change is considered to be the likely primary cause of decline in seabird populations in the future, with anticipated depletion of breeding conditions for most species either indirectly, through changes in prey abundance, or directly during extreme weather events (Mitchell et al., 2020).
  6. Fisheries management will also likely impact on future seabird populations in the UK and Ireland. For many years, seabird species have benefitted from fisheries discards; for scavenging species such as herring gull, kittiwake, great skua and fulmar, population levels may already be above those that naturally occurring food sources would sustain (Votier et al., 2004 and Frederiksen et al., 2013). However, the introduction between 2015 and 2019 of the Common Fisheries Policy Landings Obligation (‘discard ban’) will likely reduce the discard available and ultimately put more pressure on scavenging species.
  7. On the other hand, the UK and Scottish Governments recently announced their intention to close the sandeel fisheries in all Scottish waters and the English North Sea (DEFRA, 2024; Scottish Government, 2024a). The intention of this action is to improve the sandeel population, and therefore also benefit predators including seabirds such as kittiwake, puffin and guillemot which feed upon sandeels. This closure may therefore reduce the pressure on those species.
  8. Therefore, without the Array, seabird populations would be expected to continue to follow their current population trends, which in many cases is a continuation of declining populations. Climate change is considered to be the likely primary cause of decline in seabird populations in the future. It is believed that the absence of the Array would further delay the transition of the UK from reliance on fossil fuels and therefore further contribute towards climate change impacts and declining seabird populations.

11.7.6. Data Limitations and Assumptions

  1. Baseline characterisation of the offshore ornithology study area and resulting assessments of significance use site-specific data (DAS) conducted over a period of 24 months (March 2021 to February 2023). As sampling is undertaken once a month for a period of 24 months, it may be considered to represent a snapshot of each month. Indeed, seabird numbers may fluctuate both spatially and temporally in response to environmental conditions. However, the sampling regime adopted is identical to other baseline characterisation surveys at offshore wind farms projects which have been previously agreed by SNCBs as suitable for baseline characterisation.
  2. The population estimates for seabird SPA colonies used to inform the assessments in sections 11.11 and 11.12 are taken from the most recent colony count data (Seabirds Count; Burnell et al., 2023), which is based on census surveys undertaken between 2015 and 2021.
  3. The current H5N1 strain of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI) was first recorded in the UK in summer 2021 (Falchieri et al. 2022). Although existing systematic reviews indicate that diseases are seldom a key factor leading to the extinction of vertebrates, diseases can cause population crashes, leading to measurable declines in populations (Young and VanderWerf, 2023).
  4. Thousands of seabird mortalities attributed to HPAI were reported across the UK in 2022, with minimum losses of almost 20,000 individuals in Scotland alone (NatureScot, 2023l) and by the end of 2022, 17 of the 25 UK breeding seabird species had tested positive for HPAI (APHA, 2023).
  5. In response to the outbreak of HPAI, the RSPB established the HPAI Seabird Surveys Project (Tremlett et al., 2024). This involved a mixture of existing planned surveys, additional volunteer-led surveys and RSPB-led surveys of a number of SPA colonies for 14 priority seabird species, and was undertaken between May and July 2023. The survey method followed standard methods outlined in the Seabird Monitoring Handbook (Walsh et al. 1995), enabling comparisons in population changes with the Seabirds Count estimates, which are based on census surveys undertaken between 2015 to 2021 (Burnell et al., 2023).
  6. The HPAI surveys were not intended to fully update the Seabirds Count data (for example, there were gaps in coverage of some sites, some counts lacked key information such as survey time, and some survey counts were estimates rather than accurate counts). However, the RSPB HPAI report (Tremlett et al., 2024) is a useful indicator of how certain species are faring in light of the recent HPAI outbreak.
  7. The RSPB HPAI report (Tremlett et al., 2024) showed large declines in gannet of 25% across eight SPAs when compared against the Burnell et al. (2023) pre-HPAI baseline, whereas kittiwake increased by 10% across 21 SPAs and guillemot declined by 6% across 21 SPAs. The RSPB HPAI report (Tremlett et al., 2024) concludes that changes in species such as guillemot may be partially due to other factors as they were already in decline, whereas the decline in gannet is almost certainly attributable to HPAI due to the species showing recent population increases.
  8. The baseline DAS data was collected between March 2021 and February 2023 and therefore overlaps with the HPAI outbreak. However, the data presented in volume 3, appendix 11.1 does not demonstrate any clear evidence of impact from HPAI when comparing between years.
  9. Overall, the impact of the short, medium and long-term effects of the 2022 HPAI outbreak on seabird colony abundance and vital rates (productivity and survival) on UK breeding colonies is unclear. It is also unclear currently how the distribution and abundance of seabirds at sea has been affected as a result of the 2022 HPAI outbreak. The disease has affected over 60 bird species in the UK, including species such as gannet, razorbill, guillemot, puffin, Manx shearwater, fulmar and small and large gull species (Pearce-Higgins et al., 2023). HPAI has affected gannet and great skua colonies profoundly, with both species now facing increased risk of global extinction (Pearce-Higgins et al., 2023) (the UK supports 55.6% of the global gannet population and 60% of the global great skua population; JNCC, 2021).
  10. In the absence of updated SNCB guidance, the assessment approach with regards to HPAI aligns as closely as possible to Natural England’s interim guidance that was submitted as part of Natural England’s Representation in response to the Array EIA Scoping Report (Ossian OWFL, 2023), in the Scoping Opinion (MD-LOT, 2023). Therefore, all quantitative assessment has been carried out without any adjustments in respect to HPAI. This reflects an assumption that reductions in population or colony sizes would translate to proportional reductions in at-sea densities and hence predicted mortalities from the Array.