1. Introduction

1.1. The purpose of this report to inform appropriate assessment

This Report to Inform Appropriate Assessment (RIAA) has been prepared by RPS and NIRAS Group (United Kingdom (UK)) Ltd on behalf of the Ossian Offshore Wind Limited (Ossian OWFL) (hereafter referred to as the ‘Applicant’). The purpose of this RIAA is to support the Habitats Regulations Appraisal (HRA) of the Array in the determination of the implications for European sites. This RIAA builds upon the Array HRA Stage One Likely Significant Effects (LSE2) Screening Report (Part 1. appendix 1A, Ossian OWFL, 2023) and the subsequent joint Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Scoping and LSE2 Screening advice received in the Ossian Array Scoping Opinion (Marine Directorate – Licensing Operations Team (MD-LOT) (2023)). This RIAA assesses whether the Array could have an adverse effect, either alone, or in-combination with other plans or projects, on the integrity of any European site. This RIAA has been carried out with regards to NatureScot's Guidance Notes 1 to 11 (NatureScot, 2023a-k). This report will provide the Competent Authority with the information required to undertake an HRA Stage Two Appropriate Assessment.
The scope of this RIAA Part Three SPA and Ramsar Site Assessments covers all relevant SPAs and Ramsar Sites and their qualifying interest features where a LSE2 has been identified in the HRA Stage One Screening Report (Part 1, appendix 1A), due to the potential impacts arising from the Array. This includes both ‘offshore’ European sites and features (seaward of Mean High Water Springs (MHWS)) and ‘onshore’ European sites (landward of Mean Low Water Springs (MLWS) where appropriate.

1.2. Structure of the RIAA

As detailed in section 1.5 of Part 1 – Introduction, for clarity and ease of navigation, the RIAA is structured and reported in the below ‘Parts’, as follows:

Executive Summary and Conclusion
Part 1: Introduction;
Part 2: Special Area of Conservation (SAC) Assessments; and
Part 3: Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar Site Assessments.

1.3. Structure of this Document

As stated in paragraph 3, this document constitutes Part 3 of the RIAA, and presents the assessment of the implications of the Array on SPAs and Ramsar sites,
This document is structured as follows:

Section 1: Introduction, which details the purpose and structure of the RIAA and this Part 3 document;
Section 2: Consultation, which provides a summary of relevant consultation undertaken to date, the responses provided and how these have been addressed within this Part of the RIAA;
Section 3: Summary of the Array HRA Stage One LSE2 Screening conclusions for SPAs and Ramsar sites;
Section 4: Information to inform the Appropriate Assessment – which includes the Maximum Design Scenario (MDS), information on designed in measures, and an outline of the baseline data on the SPAs and Ramsar sites;
Section 5: Assessment of Adverse Effects on Integrity on European sites designated for ornithological features, alone and in-combination with other plans and projects;
Section 6: Overall summary of this Part of the RIAA; and
Section 7: References.

This Part of the RIAA will also contain the following appendices:

Appendix 3A – Offshore Ornithology SPA Apportioning Technical Report; and
Appendix 3B – Offshore Ornithology SPA Population Viability Analysis (PVA) Technical Report.

2. Consultation

Consultation has been undertaken with statutory stakeholders with regards to the ornithological features of SPAs. A summary of all relevant consultation undertaken to date is presented in Table 2.1 Open ▸ .

Table 2.1: Summary of Key Consultations on Relevant to Part 3 of the RIAA

Date	Consultee	Type of Consultation	Summary of Consultation	Where Addressed in this Document
June 2023	NatureScot	HRA Screening consultation response	Wet storage could represent a very significant impact pathway with respect to floating wind. It is unclear from the scoping report if there are any plans for wet storage of assembled and/or component parts of floating wind turbines in the construction, and operation and maintenance phases, and what this would entail or potential locations identified. Consideration of wet storage, including potential impacts on receptors, needs to be addressed with the forthcoming EIA Report and HRA.	The location of the final integration and marshalling port is currently unknown. The Applicant is currently developing a fabrication, delivery and integration strategy and engaging with a number of port and harbour operators to identify an optimised approach. In the absence of an integration and marshalling yard it is not possible, at this stage, to consider the potential site-specific impacts on relevant receptors. Enabling works, including integration, and marshalling activities, required within the final integration port to cover turbine pre-commissioning, testing and storage (if required) will be covered by the consenting requirements applying to them (including any requirements for environmental assessment) and will be managed by the port or harbour authority with support where appropriate from the Applicant. The Ossian construction programme will be managed to reduce the requirement for storage of integrated precommissioned turbines within port. A stock of floating foundations will be accumulated, and mooring lines and cables would be installed within the array in advance of turbine integration. The Applicant aims to minimise any wet storage requirements by towing integrated turbines to their final location within the array as soon as they are ready. Temporary offshore wet storage has been included in the MDS for applicable impacts ( Table 5.31 Open ▸ ) and assessed where relevant. There is uncertainty over the location of the final integration port which makes meaningful assessment difficult.
			We welcome the identification of ‘Designed In Measures’ described in each of the relevant sections of the EIA Scoping Report (for example section 2.7) and summarised in Appendix 2. The EIA Report must clearly articulate those mitigation measures that are informed by the EIA (or HRA) and are necessary to avoid or reduce predicted significant adverse environmental effects of the proposed development. We advise that the full range of mitigation and monitoring measures, and published guidance, are considered and discussed in the EIA Report.	Designed in measures and mitigation are set out in this RIAA (section 4.3).
			The HRA Stage 1 LSE Screening Report states that the mean maximum plus 1 Standar Deviation (SD). foraging ranges from Woodward et al (2019) were used to calculate connectivity, which is correct for most species however there are exceptions. As highlighted in our Guidance Note 3 we advise on these exceptions for northern gannet Morus bassanus (hereafter referred to as “gannet”), common guillemot Uria aalge (hereafter referred to as “guillemot”) and razorbill Alca torda. In reviewing Table 4.3 (Mean Maximum Foraging Ranges of Breeding Seabirds (from Woodward et al., 2019)) we have noticed several discrepancies that deviate from our guidance. These relate to: common tern, guillemot and razorbill. The common tern figure may be an error, and the figures for guillemot and razorbill will differ depending on whether Fair Isle data is included or not.	The list of European Sites, and relevant features for each, has been amended in light of this comment as detailed in section 3.1, including removal of sites that are not deemed to have connectivity when applying the foraging ranges recommended in NatureScot (2023c). The final list of European sites and features screened in the assessment are presented in Table 3.1 Open ▸ .
			In light of these discrepancies, Table 4.4 (European Sites Designated for Marine Ornithological Features with Potential Connectivity to the Array) should also be reviewed to ensure that all connectivity distances are correct. From our own review of Table 4.4 we note that qualifying features are missing for St Abb’s Head to Fast Castle SPA, North Rona and Sula Sgeir SPA, Ythan Estuary, Sands of Forvie and Meikle Loch SPA, Firth of Tay and Eden Estuary SPA as well as Firth of Forth SPA.	The SPAs and Ramsar sites, and their relevant ornithological features, which are assessed in this RIAA are based on both the LSE2 findings and these stakeholder scoping opinions, with the revisions following stakeholder comments and further refinements detailed in section 3.1. All the listed SPAs where it has been identified qualifying features are missing, have been checked and amended accordingly. Section 3.1 provides details on these discrepancies and provides a list of all the sites and features taken forward to the RIAA. The final list of European sites and features screened in the assessment are presented in Table 3.1 Open ▸ .
			The approach undertaken in the HRA Stage 1 LSE Screening Report seems appropriate for LSE screening, however, no conclusions on LSE should be made until the second year of data is available so that a full picture of how birds are interacting with the array footprint is understood. For example, we do not agree that great skua Stercorarius skua should be screened out at this stage without consideration of the second year of data.	The conclusions presented in this RIAA are based on the full two years of Digital Aerial Survey (DAS) data, as presented in volume 3, appendix 11.1 of the Array EIA Report (Ossian OWFL, 2024). The second year of data confirms that it is appropriate to screen out sites for which great skua is a qualifying feature, with only a single bird observed (leading to an estimated abundance of 10 individuals) within the offshore ornithology study area in the entire second year of DAS (volume 3, appendix 11.1 of the Array EIA Report).
			Consideration also needs to be given to associated works, such as construction and/or operation and maintenance vessel traffic before LSE can be ruled out. For example the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex SPA has been screened out in section 4 based on its location, approximately 80 km from the array area. However, depending on the location of construction/assembly ports and or the operation and maintenance base, which are unknown at this stage, there is potential for disturbance impacts from vessels transiting through this European site during the construction and/or operation and maintenance phases of this wind farm project. We therefore recommend that this marine SPA is kept in until such times that these elements of the project development are better understood.	The potential impacts on the qualifying features of Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex SPA as a result of disturbance and displacement from vessel movements through the SPA has been assessed in section 5.4.1.
			Table 4.7 (The SPAs and Ramsar Sites Taken Forward for Determination of LSE, with Details of the Associated Qualifying Features) and each of the associated LSE matrix tables (Table 5.4: LSE Matrix – Table 5.49: LSE Matrix) should be reviewed by the applicant to ensure consistency from Table 4.4 (as per advice above) so that no qualifying features have been missed. Please note there are colour coding mistakes in LSE Tables 5.11 and 5.12. Table 6.1 (Summary of European Sites and Relevant Qualifying Features for which Potential LSEs have Been Identified and Screened in for Further Assessment in the RIAA) will also require revision.	European sites and species taken forward to the RIAA have been carefully reviewed, with the revisions following stakeholder comments detailed in section 3.1. As set out in section 3.1, a number of sites and species were ruled out for LSE2 due to their at- sea distance from the Array being greater than their species- and site-specific foraging range. The final list of European sites and features screened in the assessment are presented in Table 3.1 Open ▸ .
			No species should be scoped out of assessment at this stage as the second year of baseline data has not been included in the conclusions presented.	All screening conclusions have been reviewed following completion of two years of DAS data collection (see section 3).
			It is important that all aspects of the development are considered, including associated works and activities, e.g. wet storage locations or vessel movements associated with construction. We therefore require assessment of any associated vessel movements, taking account of proximity and timing of any disturbing activities. Noting that vessel routes may go through or be in close proximity to designated sites. We expect explicit consideration of reducing disturbance to marine birds. Mitigation methods may help to reduce these impacts; for example, avoiding sensitive times of the annual cycle, avoiding any aggregations of birds on the water and following good practice using principles from the Scottish Marine Wildlife Watching Code.	An assessment of the impact from disturbance and displacement resulting from vessel movement to/from the Array is presented in section 5.4.1. Approach for consideration of wet storage as detailed above.
			If the assessment concludes that LSE arise on a species via disturbance and displacement, then that species should be assessed across both breeding and non-breeding periods, as opposed to a single period.	The impact of disturbance and displacement has been assessed across both the breeding and non-breeding seasons (see section 5.4.1).
			Offshore wind developments may have indirect impacts on marine birds by affecting prey availability. Impacts to key prey species and their habitats within the wind farm are to be considered across all development phases, alone and in combination with other wind farms in the development area, particularly in areas of importance for foraging seabirds (Wakefield et al. 2017). Breeding density, fine-scale tracking, and large-scale modelling can reveal the regional distribution of our seabird species which is likely to provide useful context.	Impacts as a result of changes to prey availability are considered in section 5.4.2. These take into account and reference benthic and fish and shellfish Array EIA Report chapters, along with additional relevant information.
			Consideration across key trophic levels will enable better understanding of the consequences (beneficial or adverse) of any potential changes in prey distribution and abundance on ornithological interests, and how this may influence population level impacts. Drivers of change could include habitat loss and potential changes to trophic interactions and community structure and function, including prey species compositional changes e.g. changing from those dependant on sandy substrates to those species favouring rocky substrates. Consideration of these issues can be included in chapters assessing impacts on benthic interests and fish/shellfish, however we advise that a summary of this is included within the ornithology chapter and that clear links and references be made between the receptor chapters. We also strongly recommend the use of hyperlinks to connect associated assessments for ease of navigating.	Impacts as a result of changes to prey availability are considered in section 5.4.2. These take into account and reference benthic and fish and shellfish Array EIA Report chapters.
			The impact of lighting fitted to the array needs to be considered, particularly in respect to nocturnal species, this could be done in a qualitative manner but it needs to be addressed.	Impacts as a result of artificial lighting, including with respect to nocturnal species, are considered in section 5.4.3.
			As per our advice on the construction phase it is important that all aspects of the development are considered, including associated works and activities, e.g. wet storage locations or vessel movements associated with construction.	An assessment of the impact from disturbance and displacement resulting from vessel movement to/from the Array is presented in section 5.4.1. Approach for consideration of wet storage as detailed above.
			Within each of the migratory LSE tables for geese and migratory water bird qualifying features, collision and barrier to movement has been screened in for the operation and maintenance phase only. We note that in-combination effects have also been screened out for the construction and decommissioning phases and request further explanation as to the reasoning for this.	The potential collision and barrier effects of the Array on migratory birds are considered to be restricted to the operational wind turbines within the Array. During construction and decommissioning, the number of wind turbines will be fewer, and the potential for collision or barrier effects will be reduced. Collision impacts on migratory birds during operation and maintenance is assessed in section 5.4.4 and barrier to movement impacts on migratory birds during operation and maintenance is assessed section 5.4.6. As per those sections, it is demonstrated beyond reasonable scientific doubt that there will be no AEOI to any of the features assessed. As no adverse effect is predicted for the operation and maintenance phase, it follows that no adverse effect would occur during the construction or decommissioning phases, when impacts are lower, and therefore impacts from collision and barrier effects to migratory birds (including geese) remains screened out.
			We recently concluded that the Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm application would have an adverse effect on site integrity on multiple seabird species within The UK European Site Network, some of which overlap with the species and sites likely to require assessment for this application. Due to this conclusion and the unknown outcome of the Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm application at present, we anticipate that multiple PVA models should be run, with and without Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm.	The in-combination assessment (section 5.5) presents numbers and PVA results including and excluding the impacts from Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm.
June 2023	Marine Directorate - Licensing Operations Team (MD-LOT)	HRA Screening consultation response	In regards to the HRA Screening Report, the Scottish Ministers advise that in relation to connectivity and identification of key sites for breeding seabirds, the discrepancies identified by NatureScot in relation to Tables 4.3 and 4.4 of the Scoping Report must be fully addressed and the likely significant effect (“LSE”) matrix tables and lists of sites and qualifying features to be taken forward for determination of LSE and further assessment must be updated accordingly. The Scottish Ministers further advise that guillemot from the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA is screened in for further assessment for impacts during the non-breeding season – the Scottish Ministers advise that this is assessed both using NatureScot’s recommended approach and also using the traditional approach of apportioning birds as described in the April NE representation.	European sites and species taken forward to the RIAA have been carefully reviewed and updated where applicable, with the revisions following stakeholder comments detailed in section 3.1. The 41 SPAs (and 16 Ramsar sites) and relevant ornithological features, which are assessed in the RIAA are based on both the LSE2 findings and these stakeholder scoping opinions. These European sites and features are presented in Table 3.1 Open ▸ . As requested, guillemot at the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA has been taken forward for further consideration and apportionment carried out following NatureScot Guidance and also using the Furness (2015) method. It should be noted that following NatureScot’s guidance for apportioning impacts (NatureScot, 2023d), zero impact on guillemot is apportioned to the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA, and it is this approach that is relied upon for assessment, with the apportionment following the Furness (2015) approach provided only as supplementary information.
			The Scottish Ministers advise that no species are screened out of the HRA for any phase of the Proposed Development until second year flight data is considered, in line with the NatureScot representation.	All screening conclusions have been reviewed following completion of two years of DAS data collection (see section 3) and updated where applicable.
			Further consideration of associated works during all phases of the Proposed Development also needs to be given before LSE can be ruled out, including wet storage and vessel movements, as identified by NatureScot. The Scottish Ministers direct the Developer to NatureScot’s assessment requirements in relation to associated vessel movements and advise that these must be fully implemented. In this regard, the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex SPA should not be screened out until further details relating to the construction and operation and maintenance ports are known due the risk of disturbance from vessels transiting the SPA.	The potential impacts on the qualifying features of Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex SPA as a result of disturbance and displacement from vessel movements through the SPA has been assessed in section 5.4.1.
			In regards to the operation and maintenance phase of the Proposed Development, Scottish Ministers, in line with NatureScot representation, advise that the fitting of lighting to the array needs to be assessed in respect to nocturnal species through HRA. Furthermore, if assessment concludes LSE by means of disturbance and displacement, this species should be assessed across both breeding and non-breeding periods, rather than a single period. The Scottish Ministers also highlight NatureScot’s representation regarding predator/prey interactions and advise that full consideration must be given to associated impacts in accordance with NatureScot advice.	Impacts as a result of lighting are considered in section 5.4.3. Disturbance and displacement is assessed in section 5.4.1, and covers breeding and non-breeding seasons. Impacts as a result of changes to prey availability are considered in section 5.4.2. These take into account and reference benthic and fish and shellfish EIA Report chapters.
			In regards to the HRA in-combination assessment, Scottish Ministers, in line with NatureScot advice, request the Developer provides clarity as to why in-combination effects for geese and migratory water bird qualifying features have been screened out for the construction and decommissioning phases of the Proposed Development in relation to collision and barrier to movement impacts and advise that this should remain screened in unless confirmed by NatureScot.	The potential collision and barrier effects of the Array on migratory birds are considered to be restricted to the operational wind turbines within the Array. During construction and decommissioning, the number of wind turbines will be fewer, and the potential for collision or barrier effects will be reduced. Collision impacts on migratory birds during operation and maintenance is assessed in section 5.4.4 and barrier to movement impacts on migratory birds during operation and maintenance is assessed section 5.4.6. As no adverse effect is predicted for the operation and maintenance phase, it follows that no adverse effect would occur during the construction or decommissioning phases, when impacts are lower, and therefore impacts from collision and barrier effects to migratory birds (including geese) remains screened out.
June 2023	Natural England (also representing Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC))	HRA Screening consultation response	Natural England advise that guillemot from the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA should be screened in for potential impacts during the non-breeding season. Whilst Furness (2015) indicates that non-breeding individuals are likely to stay relatively close to their breeding colony in the non-breeding season, there is limited empirical evidence currently exists to support this, to quantify the extent over which this operates, and whether it applies to the same extent for all colonies. Natural England requests that to assess the potential impacts on Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA guillemot in the non-breeding season, the traditional approach of apportioning birds to the relevant SPA using the Biologically Defined Minimum Population Scales (BDMPS) populations as prescribed by Furness (2015). We recognise that this advice differs from that provided by NatureScot/Marine Scotland, who advise that the breeding season mean/max, +1SD foraging ranges should also be used in the non-breeding season for this species, which we do not wish to contradict. However, we consider a specific exception to this advice should be made when considering impacts on Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA, due to the potential for the Ossian to contribute to the in-combination impacts that multiple North Sea developments are already exerting on this SPA feature. We note that other Scottish projects already appear in the English in-combination assessments for this species, so this exception would facilitate the inclusion of Ossian in future assessments.	The SPAs and Ramsar sites and relevant ornithological features, which are assessed in the RIAA are based on both the LSE2 findings and these stakeholder screening opinions. These European sites and features are presented in Table 3.1 Open ▸ . As requested, guillemot at the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA has been taken forward for further consideration and apportionment carried out following NatureScot Guidance and also using the Furness (2015) method. It should be noted that following NatureScot’s guidance for apportioning impacts (NatureScot, 2023d), zero impact on guillemot is apportioned to the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA, and it is this approach that is relied upon for assessment, with the apportionment following the Furness (2015) approach provided only as supplementary information.
			If the applicant and Marine Scotland agree that the applicant should follow the NatureScot advice, it would nevertheless be useful if Ossian’s Environmental Statement could include the impact values for non-breeding Guillemot from Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA based on the BDMPS apportioning approach. Alternatively, you could provide this separately to Natural England. This would avoid the need for offshore wind farm developers in the English North Sea and/or Natural England to carry out separate apportioning work for inclusion in relevant in-combination assessments.	As requested, guillemot at the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA has been taken forward for further consideration and apportionment carried out using the Furness (2015) method. This has been undertaken as part of this RIAA, rather than as part of the Environmental Impact Assessment. NE It should be noted that following NatureScot’s guidance for apportioning impacts (NatureScot, 2023d), zero impact on guillemot is apportioned to the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA, and it is this approach that is relied upon for assessment, with the apportionment following the Furness (2015) approach provided only as supplementary information (refer to section 5.4.1).
			Natural England advise that, where possible, site-specific ageing data (e.g. from DAS) be used to age-apportion birds. Where this data is not available, Natural England advise that all ‘adult-type’ birds are apportioned as adults. Natural England does not support the use of the stable age structure approach for age apportioning, due to: a) uncertainty regarding survival rates – in particular for immature age classes, b) lack of information about non-breeding adult components of populations, and c) the underlying assumption that populations are stable (which is not the case for many populations.	Where site-specific ageing data from DAS is available, this is used for age apportioning as set out in appendix 3A. However, for species that cannot be reliably aged from DAS, a stable age structure approach has been used. Assuming all birds are adult birds would be overly precautionary, as it is well established that a significant proportion of seabirds are expected to be juvenile/immature and therefore not part of the breeding population (e.g. Furness, 2015; Horswill and Robinson, 2015). In the absence of accurate age data from DAS surveys, the stable age structure approach is a widely accepted approach used in the offshore wind industry and is considered to be the best available option in estimating the numbers of breeding-age birds recorded during the DAS (Furness, 2015).
			If there is clear evidence relating to the proportion of adults within the population likely to be taking a sabbatical in any given year, then this can be considered at the population modelling stage. The weight of evidence is on demonstrating: a) the proportion of breeding adults in the population likely to be taking a sabbatical in any given year, b) whether the SPA population estimates include or exclude sabbatical birds, and c) whether or not sabbatical birds are likely to use the area of sea around the SPA colony. This evidence can be used to inform whether and how sabbaticals are best incorporated in a PVA. In the absence of such evidence, Natural England’s standard advise is to assume no sabbaticals, i.e. to assume all adult birds are breeding birds. Natural England advise that we do not agree with the use of sabbatical rates to exclude sabbatical birds from impact assessment, nor do we consider the inclusion of sabbatical rates to be appropriate within the apportioning process.	A proportion of sabbaticals has been included in the apportionment process, as set out in appendix 3A. This is in line with the advice given by Scottish Ministers to other projects (Marine Scotland, 2017a,b,c) on the basis of robust evidence that this is appropriate, which is also provided in appendix 3A.
February 2024	NatureScot	Email	NatureScot agree that the SeabORD tool is currently unavailable, and therefore using the matrix approach for quantifying displacement impacts is acceptable.	The matrix approach has been used for assessing displacement effects (see section 5.2.1).
March 2024	NatureScot	Email	Confirmation from NatureScot that the use of the migration collision risk modelling (mCRM) tool is not appropriate for Ossian.	Assessment of collision risk for migratory birds has been undertaken using a qualitative approach (see section 5.4.4). This has been supplemented by a quantitative estimate of collision risk using the Strategic Ornithological Support Services Migration Assessment Tool (SOSSMAT) (Wright et al., 2012).

3. Summary of HRA Screening Conclusions

This section summarises all pathways for potential LSE2 on ornithological features identified for SPAs and Ramsar sites (arising alone or in-combination with other plans and projects).

3.1. Screening Outcomes for the Array Alone

A total of 41 SPAs (of which, 16 are also Ramsar sites) designated for ornithological features were identified in the Array HRA Stage One LSE2 Screening Report (Part 1, appendix 1A; Ossian OWFL, 2023) as having potential LSE2 and therefore requiring assessment. These are as follows:

Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast SPA;
Calf of Eday SPA;
Cameron Reservoir SPA and Ramsar site;
Copinsay SPA;
Coquet Island SPA;
Din Moss - Hoselaw Loch SPA and Ramsar site;
East Caithness Cliffs SPA;
Fair Isle SPA;
Fala Flow SPA and Ramsar site;
Farne Islands SPA;
Firth of Forth SPA and Ramsar site;
Firth of Tay and Eden Estuary SPA and Ramsar site;
Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA;
Forth Islands SPA;
Fowlsheugh SPA;
Gladhouse Reservoir SPA and Ramsar site;
Greenlaw Moor SPA and Ramsar site;
Hermaness, Saxa Vord and Valla Field SPA;
Holburn Lake and Moss SPA and Ramsar site;
Hoy SPA;
Lindisfarne SPA and Ramsar site;
Loch Leven SPA and Ramsar site;
Loch of Kinnordy SPA and Ramsar site;
Marwick Head SPA;
Mingulay to Berneray SPA;
Montrose Basin SPA and Ramsar site;
North Caithness Cliffs SPA;
North Rona and Sula Sgeir SPA;
Northumbria Coast SPA and Ramsar site;
Noss SPA;
Rathlin Island SPA;
Rousay SPA;
Slamannan Platea SPA;
South Tayside Goose Roosts SPA and Ramsar site;
St Abb’s Head to Fast Castle SPA;
St Kilda SPA;
Sule Skerry and Sule Stack SPA;
Troup, Pennan and Lion’s Heads SPA;
West Westray SPA;
Westwater SPA and Ramsar site; and
Ythan Estuary, Sands of Forvie and Meikle Loch SPA/Ythan Estuary and Meikle Loch Ramsar site.

The Ossian Array Scoping Opinion ( Table 2.1 Open ▸ ) identified the following discrepancies with the Array HRA LSE2 Screening Report, which have been amended to provide the final list of SPAs (and Ramsar sites) and relevant ornithological features to be taken forward to the RIAA:

NatureScot noted that qualifying features were missing for St Abb’s Head to Fast Castle SPA, North Rona and Sula Sgeir SPA, Ythan Estuary, Sands of Forvie and Meikle Loch SPA, Firth of Tay and Eden Estuary SPA as well as Firth of Forth SPA. These sites were all revisited and reassessed. However, in all cases no new features with LSE2 were identified, and in the case of Firth of Tay and Eden Estuary SPA and Firth of Forth SPA it was determined that additional qualifying features had been included in the Array HRA Screening Report rather than missing features (refer to paragraph 15 for a list of differences between the LSE2s identified in the Array HRA Stage One LSE2 Screening Report (Ossian OWFL, 2023) and the LSE2s taken forward in this RIAA);
NatureScot noted that the Array HRA Stage One LSE2 Screening Report states that the mean maximum plus 1 SD foraging ranges from Woodward et al. (2019) were used to calculate connectivity, which is correct for most species however there are exceptions. As highlighted in NatureScot Guidance Note 3 (NatureScot, 2023c), there are exceptions for gannet, guillemot and razorbill;
NatureScot and MD-LOT requested that the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex SPA be included due to the potential for disturbance from vessel movements passing through the SPA; and
Natural England advised that guillemot from the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA should be screened in for potential impacts during the non-breeding season.

Following this advice, Rathlin Island SPA and Mingulay to Berneray SPA were removed from the list of LSE2s to take forward to RIAA, as the Array is beyond the recommended foraging range of all features of those sites. The list of qualifying features for each site has been reviewed and updated (see Table 3.1 Open ▸ ).
For this RIAA, connectivity with breeding seabird colonies has been refined using a Geographic Information System (GIS) tool that measures at-sea distances from the geometric centre of the Array to individual breeding colonies (based on colony coordinates provided in Burnell et al., 2023), as required for apportioning following NatureScot (2018). This refinement has led to the following additional sites and species being ruled out for appropriate assessment, due to their at-sea distance being greater than their species- and site-specific foraging range, as recommended in NatureScot (2023d):

Guillemot at Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast SPA, Farne Islands SPA, Forth Islands SPA, Fowlsheugh SPA, St Abb’s Head to Fast Castle SPA and Troup, Pennan and Lion’s Heads SPA;
Herring gull at Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast SPA and Fowlsheugh SPA;
Kittiwake at Calf of Eday, Hoy SPA, Fair Isle SPA, Marwick Head SPA, Rousay SPA and West Westray SPA; and
Razorbill at East Caithness Cliffs SPA, Forth Islands SPA, North Caithness Cliffs SPA, St Abb’s Head to Fast Castle SPA and Troup, Pennan and Lion’s Heads SPA.

In addition, the full two years of DAS data was reviewed to confirm the screening conclusions drawn in Ossian OWFL (2023). Following this review, it was concluded that the number of both lesser black-backed gull and of great black-backed gull using the Array is negligible. Lesser black-backed gull were recorded in only one out of all 24 DAS, with an estimated abundance of 11 birds in the Array offshore ornithology study area in April 2021. Great black-backed gull were recorded in nine of the 24 DAS, of which only a single record (estimated abundance 11 birds in the Array offshore ornithology study area) occurred during the breeding season (volume 3, appendix 11.1 of the Array EIA Report) therefore, there is no potential LSE2 to:

the great black-backed gull feature of the following sites:

- Calf of Eday SPA;

- Copinsay SPA; and

- East Caithness Cliffs SPA.

the lesser black-backed gull feature of the following sites:

- Forth Islands SPA.

This has led to a revised list of 35 SPAs (of which 16 are also Ramsar sites) and their relevant ornithological features, which have been assessed in this RIAA, based on the LSE2 findings, stakeholder scoping opinions, and further refinements as described above. A summary of the sites with potential LSE2, all of the qualifying features for each site, and qualifying features with potential LSE2 (and therefore undergoing appropriate assessment) is presented in Table 3.1 Open ▸ .
The bullet points below set out the differences between the LSE2s identified in the Array HRA Stage One LSE2 Screening Report (Part 1, appendix 1A; Ossian OWFL, 2023) and the LSE2s taken forward in this RIAA:

Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast SPA: The Stage One Offshore HRA Screening Report identified guillemot and herring gull as LSE2s, but these were not taken forward to the RIAA;
Calf of Eday SPA: The Array HRA Stage One LSE2 Screening Report identified kittiwake, great black-backed gull and seabird assemblage as LSE2s, but no qualifying features for this SPA were taken forward to the RIAA;
Copinsay SPA: The Array HRA Stage One LSE2 Screening Report identified great black-backed gull as an LSE2, but this was not taken forward to the RIAA;
Coquet Island SPA: The Array HRA Stage One LSE2 Screening Report identified kittiwake as an LSE2. However, this is not a qualifying feature of Coquet Island SPA and was not taken forward to the RIAA;
East Caithness Cliffs SPA: The Array HRA Stage One LSE2 Screening Report identified great black-backed gull and razorbill as LSE2s, but these were not taken forward to the RIAA;
Fair Isle SPA: The Array HRA Stage One LSE2 Screening Report identified kittiwake as an LSE2, but this was not taken forward to the RIAA;
Farne Islands SPA: The Array HRA Stage One LSE2 Screening Report identified guillemot as an LSE2, but this was not taken forward to the RIAA;
Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA: The Array HRA Stage One LSE2 Screening Report identified razorbill and puffin as an LSE2. However, puffin is not a qualifying feature of Coquet Island SPA and razorbill was not taken forward to the RIAA. The RIAA also includes guillemot;
Forth Islands SPA: The Array HRA Stage One LSE2 Screening Report identified guillemot and razorbill as LSE2s, but these were not taken forward to the RIAA;
Fowlsheugh SPA: The Array HRA Stage One LSE2 Screening Report identified guillemot and herring gull as LSE2s, but these were not taken forward to the RIAA;
Hoy SPA: The Array HRA Stage One LSE2 Screening Report identified kittiwake and seabird assemblage as LSE2s, but no qualifying features for this SPA were taken forward to the RIAA;
Marwick Head SPA: The Array HRA Stage One LSE2 Screening Report identified kittiwake and seabird assemblage as LSE2s, but no qualifying features for this SPA were taken forward to the RIAA;
Mingulay and Berneray SPA: The Array HRA Stage One LSE2 Screening Report identified razorbill and seabird assemblage as LSE2s, but no qualifying features for this SPA were taken forward to the RIAA;
North Caithness Cliffs SPA: The Array HRA Stage One LSE2 Screening Report identified razorbill as an LSE2, but this was not taken forward to the RIAA;
Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex SPA: The Array HRA Stage One LSE2 Screening Report did not include the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex SPA. This SPA has been included in the RIAA;
Rathlin SPA: The Array HRA Stage One LSE2 Screening Report identified razorbill and seabird assemblage as LSE2s, but no qualifying features for this SPA were taken forward to the RIAA;
Rousay SPA: The Array HRA Stage One LSE2 Screening Report identified kittiwake and seabird assemblage as LSE2s, but no qualifying features for this SPA were taken forward to the RIAA;
St Abb’s Head to Fast Castle SPA: The Array HRA Stage One LSE2 Screening Report identified guillemot, herring gull and razorbill as LSE2s, but these were not taken forward to the RIAA;
St Kilda SPA: The RIAA includes Manx shearwater, which was not identified as an LSE2 in the Array HRA Stage One LSE2 Screening Report;
Troup, Pennan and Lion’s Heads SPA: The Array HRA Stage One LSE2 Screening Report identified guillemot and razorbill as LSE2s, but these were not taken forward to the RIAA; and
West Westray SPA: The Array HRA Stage One LSE2 Screening Report identified kittiwake and seabird assemblage as LSE2s, but no qualifying features for this SPA were taken forward to the RIAA.

3.1.1. Breeding Seabird Assemblages and Non-breeding Waterbird Assemblages

Table 3.1 Open ▸ includes the breeding seabird assemblages and non-breeding waterbird assemblages that form part of the citation for each SPA or Ramsar site. The component species of these assemblages were considered during the HRA screening process as features for that particular site, and the resulting components with a potentially significant impact have been identified (as shown in Table 3.1 Open ▸ ). It follows that all other named components of the assemblage can be considered “screened out” as having no potential for a significant impact. Therefore, when considering these assemblages in this RIAA, the potential for an adverse effect to the assemblage can be inferred from the results obtained for the named components for which an assessment is provided.

Table 3.1: Summary of all SPAs (and Ramsar Sites) for Which the Potential for LSE2 Could not be Discounted, and for Which an Appropriate Assessment is Required

Site ID	Site Name	Qualifying Features (Features with LSE2 in Bold)	Project Phase	Potential Impacts	Features with Potential LSE2
Seabirds
UK9002491	Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast SPA	 breeding seabird assemblage, including the following named components: – herring gull Larus argentatus; – kittiwake Rissa tridactyla; – guillemot; – shag Gulosus aristotelis; and – northern fulmar Fulmarius glacialis (hereafter referred to as “fulmar”).	Construction	Disturbance and displacement	 breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on kittiwake).
			Construction	Changes to prey availability	 breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on kittiwake).
			Operation and maintenance	Disturbance and displacement	 breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on kittiwake).
				Collision risk	 breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on kittiwake).
				Barrier to movement	 breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on kittiwake).
			Decommissioning	Disturbance and displacement	 breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on kittiwake).
			Decommissioning	Changes to prey availability	 breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on kittiwake).
UK9002151	Copinsay SPA	 breeding seabird assemblage, including the following named components: – fulmar; – great black-backed gull; – guillemot; and – kittiwake.	Construction	Disturbance and displacement	 breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on kittiwake).
			Construction	Changes to prey availability	 breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on kittiwake).
			Operation and maintenance	Disturbance and displacement	 breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on kittiwake).
				Collision risk	 breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on kittiwake).
				Barrier to movement	 breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on kittiwake).
			Decommissioning	Disturbance and displacement	 breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on kittiwake).
			Decommissioning	Changes to prey availability	 breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on kittiwake).
UK9006031	Coquet Island SPA	 Arctic tern Sterna paradisaea (breeding);  common tern Sterna hirundo (breeding);  roseate tern Sterna dougallii (breeding);  Sandwich tern Sterna sandvicensis (breeding); and  breeding seabird assemblage, including the above species and the following named components: - puffin; and - black-heading gull.	Construction	Disturbance and displacement	 breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on puffin).
			Construction	Changes to prey availability	 breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on puffin).
			Operation and maintenance	Disturbance and displacement	 breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on puffin).
				Barrier to movement	 breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on puffin).
				Entanglement	 breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on puffin).
			Decommissioning	Disturbance and displacement	 breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on puffin).
			Decommissioning	Changes to prey availability	 breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on puffin).
UK9001182	East Caithness Cliffs SPA	 guillemot (breeding);  herring gull (breeding);  kittiwake (breeding);  peregrine Falco peregrinus (breeding);  razorbill (breeding);  shag (breeding); and  breeding seabird assemblage, including the above species (with the exception of peregrine) and the following named components: - great black-backed gull; - cormorant; and - fulmar.	Construction	Disturbance and displacement	 breeding kittiwake; and  breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species).
			Construction	Changes to prey availability	 breeding kittiwake; and  breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species).
			Operation and maintenance	Disturbance and displacement	 breeding kittiwake; and  breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species).
				Collision risk	 breeding kittiwake; and  breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species).
				Barrier to movement	 breeding kittiwake; and  breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species).
			Decommissioning	Disturbance and displacement	 breeding kittiwake; and  breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species).
			Decommissioning	Changes to prey availability	 breeding kittiwake; and  breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species).
UK9002091	Fair Isle SPA	 Arctic tern (breeding);  Fair Isle wren (breeding);  guillemot (breeding); and  breeding seabird assemblage, including the above species (with the exception of Fair Isle wren) and the following named components: - Arctic skua Stercorarius parasiticus; - fulmar; - gannet; – great skua Stercorarius skua; – kittiwake; – puffin; – razorbill; and – shag.	Construction	Disturbance and displacement	 breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on gannet).
			Construction	Changes to prey availability	 breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on gannet).
			Operation and maintenance	Disturbance and displacement	 breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on gannet).
				Collision risk	 breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on gannet).
				Barrier to movement	 breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on gannet).
				Entanglement	 breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on gannet).
			Decommissioning	Disturbance and displacement	 breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on gannet).
			Decommissioning	Changes to prey availability	 breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on gannet).
UK9006021	Farne Islands SPA	 sandwich tern (breeding);  roseate tern (breeding);  common tern (breeding);  Arctic tern (breeding);  guillemot (breeding); and  breeding seabird assemblage including the above species and the named components: – puffin; – cormorant; – shag; and – kittiwake.	Construction	Disturbance and displacement	 breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on puffin and kittiwake).
			Construction	Changes to prey availability	 breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on puffin and kittiwake).
			Operation and maintenance	Disturbance and displacement	 breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on puffin and kittiwake).
				Collision risk	 breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on kittiwake).
				Barrier to movement	 breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on puffin and kittiwake).
				Entanglement	 breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on puffin).
			Decommissioning	Disturbance and displacement	 breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on puffin and kittiwake).
			Decommissioning	Changes to prey availability	 breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on puffin and kittiwake).
UK9006101	Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA	 gannet (breeding);  guillemot (breeding);  kittiwake (breeding);  razorbill (breeding); and  breeding seabird assemblage including the above species and the named components: - fulmar.	Construction	Disturbance and displacement	 breeding gannet;  breeding guillemot;  breeding kittiwake; and  breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species).
			Construction	Changes to prey availability	 breeding gannet;  breeding guillemot;  breeding kittiwake; and  breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species).
			Operation and maintenance	Disturbance and displacement	 breeding gannet;  breeding guillemot;  breeding kittiwake; and  breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species).
				Collision risk	 breeding gannet;  breeding kittiwake; and  breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species).
				Barrier to movement	 breeding gannet;  breeding guillemot;  breeding kittiwake; and  breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species).
				Entanglement	 breeding gannet;  breeding guillemot; and  breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species).
			Decommissioning	Disturbance and displacement	 breeding gannet;  breeding guillemot;  breeding kittiwake; and  breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species).
			Decommissioning	Changes to prey availability	 breeding gannet;  breeding guillemot;  breeding kittiwake; and  breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species).
UK9004171	Forth Islands SPA	 Arctic tern (breeding);  common tern (breeding);  gannet (breeding);  lesser black-backed gull (breeding);  puffin (breeding);  roseate tern;  sandwich tern;  shag; and  breeding seabird assemblage including the above species and the named components: - cormorant; - guillemot; - herring gull; - kittiwake; and - razorbill.	Construction	Disturbance and displacement	 breeding gannet;  breeding puffin; and  breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species and kittiwake).
			Construction	Changes to prey availability	 breeding gannet;  breeding puffin; and  breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species and kittiwake).
			Operation and maintenance	Disturbance and displacement	 breeding gannet;  breeding puffin; and  breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species and kittiwake).
				Collision risk	 breeding gannet; and  breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species and kittiwake).
				Barrier to movement	 breeding gannet;  breeding puffin; and  breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species and kittiwake).
				Entanglement	 breeding gannet;  breeding puffin; and  breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species).
			Decommissioning	Disturbance and displacement	 breeding gannet;  breeding puffin; and  breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species and kittiwake).
			Decommissioning	Changes to prey availability	 breeding gannet;  breeding puffin; and  breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species and kittiwake).
UK9002271	Fowlsheugh SPA	 Guillemot;  kittiwake; and  Breeding seabird assemblage including the above species and the named components: - fulmar; - herring gull; and - razorbill.	Construction	Disturbance and displacement	 breeding kittiwake; and  breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species and razorbill).
			Construction	Changes to prey availability	 breeding kittiwake; and  breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species and razorbill).
			Operation and maintenance	Disturbance and displacement	 breeding kittiwake; and  breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species and razorbill).
				Collision risk	 breeding kittiwake; and  breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species).
				Barrier to movement	 breeding kittiwake; and  breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species and razorbill).
				Entanglement	 breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on razorbill).
			Decommissioning	Disturbance and displacement	 breeding kittiwake; and  breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species and razorbill).
			Decommissioning	Changes to prey availability	 breeding kittiwake; and  breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species and razorbill).
UK9002011	Hermaness, Saxa Vord and Valla Field SPA	 gannet (breeding);  great skua (breeding);  puffin (breeding);  red-throated diver (breeding); and  breeding seabird assemblage including the above species and the named components: - fulmar; - guillemot; - kittiwake; and - shag.	Construction	Disturbance and displacement	 breeding gannet; and  breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species).
			Construction	Changes to prey availability	 breeding gannet; and  breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species).
			Operation and maintenance	Disturbance and displacement	 breeding gannet; and  breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species).
				Collision risk	 breeding gannet; and  breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species).
				Barrier to movement	 breeding gannet; and  breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species).
				Entanglement	 breeding gannet; and  breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species).
			Decommissioning	Disturbance and displacement	 breeding gannet; and  breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species).
			Decommissioning	Changes to prey availability	 breeding gannet; and  breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).
UK9001181	North Caithness Cliffs SPA	 guillemot (breeding);  peregrine (breeding); and  breeding seabird assemblage including guillemot and the named components: - fulmar; - kittiwake; - puffin; and - razorbill.	Construction	Disturbance and displacement	 breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on breeding kittiwake).
			Construction	Changes to prey availability	 breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on kittiwake).
			Operation and maintenance	Disturbance and displacement	 breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on kittiwake).
				Collision risk	 breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on kittiwake).
				Barrier to movement	 breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on kittiwake).
			Decommissioning	Disturbance and displacement	 breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on kittiwake).
			Decommissioning	Changes to prey availability	 breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on kittiwake).
UK9001011	North Rona and Sula Sgeir SPA	 gannet (breeding);  guillemot (breeding);  Leach’s petrel Oceanodroma leucorhoa (breeding);  storm petrel Hydrobates pelagicus (breeding); and  breeding seabird assemblage including the above species and the named components: - fulmar; - great black-backed gull; - kittiwake; - razorbill; and - puffin.	Construction	Disturbance and displacement	 breeding gannet; and  breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species).
			Construction	Changes to prey availability	 breeding gannet; and  breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species).
			Operation and maintenance	Disturbance and displacement	 breeding gannet; and  breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species).
				Collision risk	 breeding gannet; and  breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species).
				Barrier to movement	 breeding gannet; and  breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species).
				Entanglement	 breeding gannet; and  breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species).
			Decommissioning	Disturbance and displacement	 breeding gannet; and  breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species).
			Decommissioning	Changes to prey availability	 breeding gannet; and  breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species).
UK9002081	Noss SPA	 gannet (breeding);  great skua (breeding);  guillemot (breeding); and  breeding seabird assemblage including the above species and the named components: - fulmar; - kittiwake; and - puffin.	Construction	Disturbance and displacement	 breeding gannet; and  breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species).
			Construction	Changes to prey availability	 breeding gannet; and  breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species).
			Operation and maintenance	Disturbance and displacement	 breeding gannet; and  breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species).
				Collision risk	 breeding gannet; and  breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species).
				Barrier to movement	 breeding gannet; and  breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species).
				Entanglement	 breeding gannet; and  breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species).
			Decommissioning	Disturbance and displacement	 breeding gannet; and  breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species).
			Decommissioning	Changes to prey availability	 breeding gannet; and  breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species).
UK9020316	Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex SPA	 red-throated diver Gavia stellata (non-breeding);  Slavonian grebe Podiceps auritis (non-breeding);  little gull Larus minutus (non-breeding);  eider Somateria mollissima (non-breeding);  shag (non-breeding);  gannet (non- breeding);  common tern (breeding):  Arctic tern (breeding);  migratory waterbird assemblage including the named components: - long-tailed duck Clangula hyemalis; - common scoter Melanitta nigra; - velvet scoter Melanitta fusca; - goldeneye Bucephala clangula; and - red-breasted merganser mergus serrator.  non-breeding seabird assemblage including the named components: - black-headed gull Chroicocephalus ridibundus; - common gull Larus canus; - herring gull; - guillemot; - shag; - kittiwake; and - razorbill.  breeding seabird assemblage including the named components: - puffin; - kittiwake; - Manx shearwater Puffinus puffinus; - guillemot; and  herring gull.	Construction	Disturbance and displacement	 non-breeding red-throated diver;  non-breeding Slavonian grebe;  non-breeding eider;  non-breeding shag;  migratory waterbird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on long-tailed duck, common scoter, velvet scoter, goldeneye and red-breasted merganser);  non-breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on guillemot, shag and razorbill); and  breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on puffin and guillemot).
			Operation and maintenance	Disturbance and displacement	 non-breeding red-throated diver;  non-breeding Slavonian grebe;  non-breeding eider;  non-breeding shag;  migratory waterbird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on long-tailed duck, common scoter, velvet scoter, goldeneye and red-breasted merganser);  non-breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on guillemot, shag and razorbill); and  breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on puffin, kittiwake and guillemot).
			Decommissioning	Disturbance and displacement	 non-breeding red-throated diver;  non-breeding Slavonian grebe;  non-breeding eider;  non-breeding shag;  migratory waterbird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on long-tailed duck, common scoter, velvet scoter, goldeneye and red-breasted merganser);  non-breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on guillemot, shag and razorbill); and  breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on puffin and guillemot).
UK9004271	St Abb’s Head to Fast Castle SPA	 breeding seabird assemblage including the named components: - herring gull; - kittiwake; - guillemot; - razorbill; and - shag.	Construction	Disturbance and displacement	 breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on kittiwake).
			Construction	Changes to prey availability	 breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on kittiwake).
			Operation and maintenance	Disturbance and displacement	 breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on kittiwake).
				Collision risk	 breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on kittiwake).
				Barrier to movement	 breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on kittiwake).
			Decommissioning	Disturbance and displacement	 breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on kittiwake).
			Decommissioning	Changes to prey availability	 breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on kittiwake).
UK9001031	St Kilda SPA	 gannet (breeding);  great skua (breeding);  Leach’s petrel (breeding);  puffin (breeding);  storm petrel (breeding); and  breeding seabird assemblage including the above species and the named components: - fulmar; - guillemot; - kittiwake; - Manx shearwater; and - razorbill.	Construction	Disturbance and displacement	 breeding gannet;  breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species).
				Changes to prey availability	 breeding gannet;  breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species).
				Artificial light	 breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on Manx shearwater).
			Operation and maintenance	Disturbance and displacement	 breeding gannet;  breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species).
				Collision risk	 breeding gannet;  breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species).
				Barrier to movement	 breeding gannet;  breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species).
				Entanglement	 breeding gannet;  breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species).
				Artificial light	 breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on Manx shearwater).
			Decommissioning	Disturbance and displacement	 breeding gannet;  breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species).
				Changes to prey availability	 breeding gannet;  breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species).
				Artificial light	 breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on Manx shearwater).
UK9002181	Sule Skerry and Sule Stack SPA	 gannet (breeding);  Leach’s petrel (breeding);  puffin (breeding);  storm petrel (breeding); and  breeding seabird assemblage including the above species and the named components: - guillemot; and - shag.	Construction	Disturbance and displacement	 breeding gannet; and  breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species).
			Construction	Changes to prey availability	 breeding gannet; and  breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species).
			Operation and maintenance	Disturbance and displacement	 breeding gannet; and  breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species).
				Collision risk	 breeding gannet; and  breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species).
				Barrier to movement	 breeding gannet; and  breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species).
				Entanglement	 breeding gannet; and  breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species).
			Decommissioning	Disturbance and displacement	 breeding gannet; and  breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species).
			Decommissioning	Changes to prey availability	 breeding gannet; and  breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species).
UK9002471	Troup, Pennan and Lion’s Heads SPA	 guillemot (breeding);  kittiwake (breeding); and  breeding seabird assemblage including the above species and the named components: - fulmar; - herring gull; and - razorbill.	Construction	Disturbance and displacement	 breeding kittiwake; and  breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species).
			Construction	Changes to prey availability	 breeding kittiwake; and  breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species).
			Operation and maintenance	Disturbance and displacement	 breeding kittiwake; and  breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species).
				Collision risk	 breeding kittiwake; and  breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species).
				Barrier to movement	 breeding kittiwake; and  breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species).
			Decommissioning	Disturbance and displacement	 breeding kittiwake; and  breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species).
			Decommissioning	Changes to prey availability	 breeding kittiwake; and  breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species).
Migratory Waterbirds
UK9004131 UK13005	Cameron Reservoir SPA and Ramsar site	 non-breeding pink-footed goose Anser brachyrhynchus.	Operation and maintenance	Collision risk	 non-breeding pink-footed goose.
UK9004131 UK13005	Cameron Reservoir SPA and Ramsar site	 non-breeding pink-footed goose Anser brachyrhynchus.	Operation and maintenance	Barrier to movement	 non-breeding pink-footed goose.
UK9004291 UK13010	Din Moss - Hoselaw Loch SPA and Ramsar site	 non-breeding greylag goose Anser anser; and  non-breeding pink-footed goose.	Operation and maintenance	Collision risk	 non-breeding greylag goose; and  non-breeding pink-footed goose.
UK9004291 UK13010	Din Moss - Hoselaw Loch SPA and Ramsar site		Operation and maintenance	Barrier to movement	 non-breeding greylag goose; and  non-breeding pink-footed goose.
UK9004241 UK13015	Fala Flow SPA and Ramsar site	 non-breeding pink-footed goose.	Operation and maintenance	Collision risk	 non-breeding pink-footed goose.
UK9004241 UK13015	Fala Flow SPA and Ramsar site	 non-breeding pink-footed goose.	Operation and maintenance	Barrier to movement	 non-breeding pink-footed goose.
UK9004411 UK13017	Firth of Forth SPA and Ramsar site	 non-breeding bar-tailed godwit Limosa lapponica;  non-breeding golden plover Pluvialis apricaria;  non-breeding knot Calidris canutus;  non-breeding pink-footed goose;  non-breeding red-throated diver Gavia stellata;  non-breeding redshank Tringa totanus;  non-breeding (passage) Sandwich tern;  non-breeding Slavonian grebe;  non-breeding turnstone Arenaria interpres; and  non-breeding waterbird assemblage including the above species (except Sandwich tern) and the named components: - common scoter; - cormorant; - curlew Numenius arquata; - dunlin Calidris alpina; - eider; - goldeneye; - great crested grebe Podiceps cristatus; - grey plover Pluvialis squatarola; - lapwing Vanellus vanellus; - long-tailed duck; - mallard Anas platyrhynchos; - oystercatcher Haematopus ostralegus; - red-breasted merganser; - ringed plover Charadrius hiaticula; - scaup Aythya marila; - shelduck Tadorna tadorna; - velvet scoter; and - wigeon Mareca penelope.	Operation and maintenance	Collision risk	 non-breeding bar-tailed godwit;  non-breeding golden plover;  non-breeding knot;  non-breeding pink-footed goose;  non-breeding red-throated diver;  non-breeding redshank;  non-breeding ringed plover;  non-breeding (passage) Sandwich tern;  non-breeding Slavonian grebe;  non-breeding turnstone; and  non-breeding waterbird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species (except Sandwich tern) and common scoter, cormorant, curlew, dunlin, eider, goldeneye, great crested grebe, grey plover, lapwing, long-tailed duck, mallard, oystercatcher, red-breasted merganser, ringed plover, scaup, shelduck, velvet scoter and wigeon).
UK9004411 UK13017	Firth of Forth SPA and Ramsar site		Operation and maintenance	Barrier to movement	 non-breeding bar-tailed godwit;  non-breeding golden plover;  non-breeding knot;  non-breeding pink-footed goose;  non-breeding red-throated diver;  non-breeding redshank;  non-breeding ringed plover;  non-breeding (passage) Sandwich tern;  non-breeding Slavonian grebe;  non-breeding turnstone; and  non-breeding waterbird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species (except Sandwich tern) and common scoter, cormorant, curlew, dunlin, eider, goldeneye, great crested grebe, grey plover, lapwing, long-tailed duck, mallard, oystercatcher, red-breasted merganser, ringed plover, scaup, shelduck, velvet scoter and wigeon).
UK9004121 UK13018	Firth of Tay and Eden Estuary SPA and Ramsar site	 breeding marsh harrier Circus aeroginosus;  breeding little tern;  non-breeding bar-tailed godwit;  non-breeding greylag goose;  non-breeding pink-footed goose;  non-breeding redshank; and  non-breeding waterbird assemblage including the above species (except marsh harrier and little tern) and the following named components: - common scoter; - cormorant; - dunlin; - eider; - goldeneye; - goosander; - grey plover; - Icelandic black-tailed godwit Limosa limosa islandica; - oystercatcher; - long-tailed duck; - red-breasted merganser; - sanderling Calidris alba; - shelduck; and - velvet scoter.	Operation and maintenance	Collision risk	 non-breeding bar-tailed godwit;  non-breeding greylag goose;  non-breeding pink-footed goose;  non-breeding redshank; and  non-breeding waterbird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species and common scoter, cormorant, dunlin, eider, goldeneye, goosander, grey plover, Icelandic black-tailed godwit, oystercatcher, long-tailed duck, red-breasted merganser, sanderling, shelduck and velvet scoter).
UK9004121 UK13018	Firth of Tay and Eden Estuary SPA and Ramsar site		Operation and maintenance	Barrier to movement	 non-breeding bar-tailed godwit;  non-breeding greylag goose;  non-breeding pink-footed goose;  non-breeding redshank; and  non-breeding waterbird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species and common scoter, cormorant, dunlin, eider, goldeneye, goosander, grey plover, Icelandic black-tailed godwit, oystercatcher, long-tailed duck, red-breasted merganser, sanderling, shelduck and velvet scoter).
UK9004231 UK13021	Gladhouse Reservoir SPA and Ramsar site	 non-breeding pink-footed goose.	Operation and maintenance	Collision risk	 non-breeding pink-footed goose.
UK9004231 UK13021	Gladhouse Reservoir SPA and Ramsar site	 non-breeding pink-footed goose.	Operation and maintenance	Barrier to movement	 non-breeding pink-footed goose
UK9004281 UK13022	Greenlaw Moor SPA and Ramsar site	 non-breeding pink-footed goose.	Operation and maintenance	Collision risk	 non-breeding pink-footed goose.
UK9004281 UK13022	Greenlaw Moor SPA and Ramsar site	 non-breeding pink-footed goose.	Operation and maintenance	Barrier to movement	 non-breeding pink-footed goose.
UK9006041 UK11030	Holburn Lake and Moss SPA and Ramsar site	 non-breeding greylag goose.	Operation and maintenance	Collision risk	 non-breeding greylag goose.
UK9006041 UK11030	Holburn Lake and Moss SPA and Ramsar site	 non-breeding greylag goose.	Operation and maintenance	Barrier to movement	 non-breeding greylag goose.
UK9006011 UK11036	Lindisfarne SPA and Ramsar site	 non-breeding bar-tailed godwit;  non-breeding common scoter Melanitta nigra;  non-breeding dunlin;  non-breeding eider;  non-breeding golden plover Pluvialis apricaria;  non-breeding grey plover;  non-breeding greylag goose;  non-breeding light-bellied brent goose Branta bernicla hrota;  non-breeding long-tailed duck;  non-breeding red-breasted merganser;  non-breeding redshank;  non-breeding ringed plover Charadrius hiaticula;  non-breeding sanderling;  non-breeding shelduck;  non-breeding whooper swan Cygnus cygnus;  non-breeding wigeon; and  non-breeding waterbird assemblage, including the above species.	Operation and maintenance	Collision risk	 non-breeding bar-tailed godwit;  non-breeding common scoter;  non-breeding dunlin;  non-breeding eider;  non-breeding golden plover;  non-breeding grey plover;  non-breeding greylag goose;  non-breeding light-bellied brent goose;  non-breeding long-tailed duck;  non-breeding red-breasted merganser;  non-breeding redshank;  non-breeding ringed plover;  non-breeding sanderling;  non-breeding shelduck;  non-breeding whooper swan;  non-breeding wigeon; and  non-breeding waterbird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species).
UK9006011 UK11036	Lindisfarne SPA and Ramsar site		Operation and maintenance	Barrier to movement	 non-breeding bar-tailed godwit;  non-breeding common scoter;  non-breeding dunlin;  non-breeding eider;  non-breeding golden plover;  non-breeding grey plover;  non-breeding greylag goose;  non-breeding light-bellied brent goose;  non-breeding long-tailed duck;  non-breeding red-breasted merganser;  non-breeding redshank;  non-breeding ringed plover;  non-breeding sanderling;  non-breeding shelduck;  non-breeding whooper swan;  non-breeding wigeon; and  non-breeding waterbird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species).
UK9004051 UK13038	Loch of Kinnordy SPA and Ramsar site	 non-breeding pink-footed goose; and  non-breeding greylag goose.	Operation and maintenance	Collision risk	 non-breeding pink-footed goose; and  non-breeding greylag goose.
UK9004051 UK13038	Loch of Kinnordy SPA and Ramsar site		Operation and maintenance	Barrier to movement	 non-breeding pink-footed goose; and  non-breeding greylag goose.
UK9004111 UK13033	Loch Leven SPA and Ramsar site	 non-breeding pink-footed goose;  non-breeding shoveler Anas clypeata;  non-breeding whooper swan; and  non-breeding waterbird assemblage including the above species and the named components: - cormorant; - gadwall Mareca strepera; - goldeneye; - pochard Aythya farina; - teal Anas crecca; and - tufted duck Aythya fuligula.	Operation and maintenance	Collision risk	 non-breeding pink-footed goose;  non-breeding shoveler;  non-breeding whooper swan; and  non-breeding waterbird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species and cormorant, gadwall, goldeneye, pochard, teal and tufted duck).
UK9004111 UK13033	Loch Leven SPA and Ramsar site		Operation and maintenance	Barrier to movement	 non-breeding cormorant;  non-breeding gadwall;  non-breeding goldeneye;  non-breeding pink-footed goose;  non-breeding pochard;  non-breeding shoveler;  non-breeding teal;  non-breeding tufted duck;  non-breeding whooper swan; and  non-breeding waterbird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species).
UK9004031 UK13046	Montrose Basin SPA and Ramsar site	 non-breeding pink-footed goose;  non-breeding greylag goose;  non-breeding redshank; and  non-breeding waterbird assemblage including the above species and the named components: - oystercatcher; - eider; - wigeon; - knot; - dunlin; and - shelduck.	Operation and maintenance	Collision risk	 non-breeding greylag goose;  non-breeding pink-footed goose;  non-breeding redshank; and  non-breeding waterbird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species and oystercatcher, eider, wigeon, knot, dunlin and shelduck).
UK9004031 UK13046	Montrose Basin SPA and Ramsar site		Operation and maintenance	Barrier to movement	 non-breeding greylag goose;  non-breeding pink-footed goose;  non-breeding redshank; and  non-breeding waterbird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species and oystercatcher, eider, wigeon, knot, dunlin and shelduck).
UK9006131 UK11048	Northumbria Coast SPA and Ramsar site	 breeding Arctic tern;  breeding little tern;  non-breeding purple sandpiper Calidris maritima; and  non-breeding turnstone.	Operation and maintenance	Collision risk	 non-breeding purple sandpiper; and  non-breeding turnstone.
UK9006131 UK11048	Northumbria Coast SPA and Ramsar site		Operation and maintenance	Barrier to movement	 non-breeding purple sandpiper; and  non-breeding turnstone.
UK9004441	Slamannan Plateau SPA	 non-breeding taiga bean goose Anser fabalis fabalis.	Operation and maintenance	Collision risk	 non-breeding taiga bean goose.
UK9004441	Slamannan Plateau SPA	 non-breeding taiga bean goose Anser fabalis fabalis.	Operation and maintenance	Barrier to movement	 non-breeding taiga bean goose.
UK9004401 UK13057	South Tayside Goose Roosts SPA and Ramsar site	 non-breeding greylag goose;  non-breeding pink-footed goose;  non-breeding wigeon; and  non-breeding waterbird assemblage including the species listed above.	Operation and maintenance	Collision risk	 non-breeding greylag goose;  non-breeding pink-footed goose;  non-breeding wigeon; and  non-breeding waterbird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species).
UK9004401 UK13057	South Tayside Goose Roosts SPA and Ramsar site		Operation and maintenance	Barrier to movement	 non-breeding greylag goose;  non-breeding pink-footed goose;  non-breeding wigeon; and  non-breeding waterbird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species).
UK9004251 UK13060	Westwater SPA and Ramsar site	 non-breeding pink-footed goose; and  non-breeding waterbird assemblage including the species listed above.	Operation and maintenance	Collision risk	 non-breeding pink-footed goose; and  non-breeding waterbird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species).
UK9004251 UK13060	Westwater SPA and Ramsar site		Operation and maintenance	Barrier to movement	 non-breeding pink-footed goose; and  non-breeding waterbird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species).
UK9002221	Ythan Estuary, Sands of Forvie and Meikle Loch SPA, Ythan Estuary and Meikle Loch Ramsar site	 breeding common tern;  breeding little tern;  breeding sandwich tern;  non-breeding pink-footed goose; and  non-breeding waterbird assemblage including the named components: - pink-footed goose; - eider; - lapwing; and - redshank.	Operation and maintenance	Collision risk	 non-breeding pink-footed goose; and  non-breeding waterbird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species and eider, lapwing and redshank).
UK9002221			Operation and maintenance	Barrier to movement	 non-breeding pink-footed goose; and  non-breeding waterbird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species and eider, lapwing and redshank).

4. Information to Inform the Appropriate Assessment

4.1. Introduction

As described in section 2 of Part 1 of the RIAA, a European site is progressed to the Appropriate Assessment stage (Stage Two of the HRA process) where it is not possible to exclude a LSE2 on one or more of its qualifying interest features in view of the site’s conservation objectives. European sites, features and potential impacts requiring an Appropriate Assessment for the Array are therefore those for which LSE2 could not be ruled out during the Screening exercise and following consultation.
Information to help inform the Appropriate Assessment for SPAs (and Ramsar sites) is provided in sections 4.2 to 4.6. The information provided includes a description of the SPAs (and Ramsar sites) under consideration, their qualifying interest features, and an assessment of the implications of the Array for the site in view of the conservation objectives of each site and considering any adverse effect on site integrity. A cross-referencing approach has been adopted to aide readability and reduce repetition where relevant, but this has been carefully carried out to ensure that all information required for a robust HRA of each site is presented.
In addition, two appendices have been produced to aid with Stage Two of the HRA process, these reports are:

Appendix 3A - Offshore Ornithology Apportioning Technical Report.
Appendix 3B - Offshore Ornithology PVA Technical Report.

4.2. Maximum Design Scenarios

All SPAs (and Ramsar sites) assessment presented in this part of the RIAA have been based on a realistic Maximum Design Scenario (MDS), which was derived from the Project Description (as described in Part 1). The final design will be no greater than the parameters set out in the MDS, and in some instances may be less. An overview of the MDS considered for the assessment of potential impacts on ornithological features is presented per potential impact (see sections 5.4 and 5.5). This MDS is consistent with that used for the ornithology assessment in the Array EIA Report (Ossian OWFL, 2024).

4.3. Designed in Measures

As part of the project design process, a number of designed in measures have been included in the Array and are committed to be delivered by the Applicant as part of the Array. These designed in measures are integrated into the project description for the Array and are not considered as mitigation measures intended to specifically avoid or reduce effects on European sites.
Measures intended specifically to avoid or reduce effects on European sites were not considered during the Array HRA Stage One LSE2 Screening but are included within the HRA Stage Two Appropriate Assessment for determination of Adverse Effects on Integrity. Where relevant, this Part of the RIAA indicates whether adverse impacts on European sites are likely and if so, whether those effects can be avoided through the introduction of mitigation measures that avoid or reduce the impact. These measures are referred to as secondary mitigation and may be taken from the relevant chapters of the Array EIA Report (Ossian OWFL, 2024) or, where necessary, may have been developed specifically to comply with HRA requirements. Where the latter is the case, this has been made clear throughout.

4.4. Baseline Information

Baseline information on the European sites (i.e. SPAs for this Part of the RIAA) identified for further assessment within HRA Stage Two Appropriate Assessment has been collated through site-specific surveys, in addition to a desktop study of existing studies and datasets. Baseline information is presented in detail in volume 2, chapter 11 of the Array EIA Report (Ossian OWFL, 2024) and associated technical reports which are derived from analyses of the baseline survey data. These technical reports include:

volume 3, appendix 11.1: Offshore Ornithology Baseline Characterisation Technical Report.
volume 3, appendix 11.2: Offshore Ornithology Collision Risk Modelling (CRM) Technical Report.
volume 3, appendix 11.2, annex B: Offshore Ornithology Migratory CRM Technical Report.
volume 3, appendix 11.3: Offshore Ornithology Displacement Technical Report.
volume 3, appendix 11.4: Offshore Ornithology MRSea Technical Report.

Any additional sources of information used in the HRA Stage Two Appropriate Assessment are summarised within the main body of this Part of the RIAA.

4.5. Conservation Objectives and Conservation Advice

Conservation objectives set the framework for establishing appropriate conservation measures for each feature of a site and provide a framework against which the impacts associated with plans or projects can be assessed. Within this part of the RIAA, the most up-to-date conservation objectives and conservation advice has been referenced. The statutory nature conservation bodies (SNCBs) have produced conservation advice for European sites under their statutory remit. This conservation advice provides supplementary information on sites and features, and although the content provided is similar, the format of the advice provided varies between the different SNCBs.
For European sites under the statutory remit of NatureScot, Conservation and Management Advice documents (CMAs) have been produced for all marine SPAs. These documents contain revised and updated conservation objectives for the features of each site, site-specific clarifications and advice in order for the conservation objectives to be achieved, and advice on management required to achieve the conservation objectives. Each objective includes site-specific supplementary advice.
For European sites under the statutory remit of Natural England, Supplementary Advice to the conservation objectives has been produced for some SPAs, which provide site-specific attributes and targets specific to the features of the site.
Where Ramsar interests coincide with qualifying features within an SPA, the advice for overlapping designations is considered to be sufficient to support the management of the Ramsar interests. Therefore, the conservation objectives are referenced for both designations.
Information on the designated sites mentioned within this RIAA are provided in section 5.3.

4.6. Approach to the In-Combination Assessment

The Habitats Regulations require the consideration of the potential effects of a project on European sites both alone and in-combination with other plans or projects.
When undertaking an in-combination assessment projects, plans or activities with which the Array alone may interact to produce an in-combination effect must be identified. These interactions may arise within the construction, operations and maintenance or decommissioning phases. The approach taken for the assessment of in-combination impacts in this Part of the RIAA has been informed by the cumulative effects assessment (CEA) carried out in volume 2, chapter 11 of the Array EIA Report.
The process of identifying those projects, plans or activities for which there is the potential for an interaction to occur is referred to as ‘screening’. A specialised process has been developed to methodically and transparently screen the large number of projects, plans and activities that may be considered cumulatively alongside the Array alone. This involves a staged process that considers the level of detail available for projects, plans and activities, as well as the potential for interactions on a conceptual, physical and temporal basis. Screening for the Array alone is summarised in section 3, with screening for the project in-combination being provided here. For in-combination screening, there is a presumption that where potential for LSE2 has been identified for the Array alone, then potential LSE2 in-combination applies.
For the Array in-combination assessment a tiered approach has been adopted. This approach provides a framework for placing relative weight on the potential for each project/plan to be included in the in-combination assessment to ultimately be realised, based upon the project/plan’s current stage of maturity and certainty in the project’s parameters. The allocation of each project, plan and activity into tiers is not affected by the screening process but is merely a categorisation applied to all projects, plans and activities that have been screened in for assessment.
The tiered approach which has been utilised within the in-combination assessment employs the following tiers:

Tier 1 assessment – Array with Proposed offshore export cable corridor(s) and Proposed onshore transmission infrastructure and all plans/projects which became operational since baseline characterisation, those under construction, and those with consent and submitted but not yet determined;
Tier 2 assessment – All plans/projects assessed under Tier 1, plus projects with a Scoping Report; and
Tier 3 assessment – All plans/projects assessed under Tier 2, which are reasonably foreseeable, plus those projects likely to come forward when an Agreement for Lease (AfL) has been granted.

An overview of the projects or activities considered for each receptor group are tabulated separately in each of the receptor chapters according to the effect-pathway under consideration. A summary of all projects considered are presented in Table 4.1 Open ▸ . Note that due to uncertainty around Tier 3 and a lack of quantitative information regarding most Tier 2 projects, these projects are not considered quantitatively within the in-combination assessment, although they are considered qualitatively. Final compilation of in-combination impacts was carried out in March 2024, and any subsequently published information has not been considered.
Impacts from plans and projects that are not offshore wind farms were initially considered, as detailed in volume 3, appendix 6.4 of the Array EIA Report (Ossian OWFL, 2024). However, no plans or projects other than offshore windfarms have been taken forward for quantitative in-combination assessment.
For tidal farms, the effects of displacement are still relatively unknown (Isaksson et al., 2020) due to the limited number and small spatial footprint of operational devices currently deployed in a few tidal lease sites (Fox et al., 2018). However, as the majority of infrastructure associated with tidal farms is underwater, there is likely to be a negligible impact from disturbance and displacement. Long (2017) stated that some displacement was detected during construction, but that numbers returned to previous levels once the tidal turbines were installed and operational.
Additionally, assessing collision using collision risk models for tidal stream energy developments have limitations (Horne, 2021; Horne et al., 2023). Traditional models, such as the Encounter Rate and Band Models, do not fully account for animals’ ability to change direction, detect and avoid underwater structures, or evade structures at close range (Horne et al., 2023). These models may also struggle to estimate risk for novel device designs. A review by Isaksson et al. (2020) highlighted that while studies investigating the interaction between seabirds and tidal stream environments exist, there is little synthesis of what the results mean for collision risk and displacement due to tidal energy devices. Horne et al. (2023) stated that improved understanding and application of collision risk models are needed to ensure accurate risk evaluations for the sustainable development of the tidal energy industry. Consequently, collision impacts from tidal farms are considered to have significant uncertainty. However, given tidal stream turbine technology is still at an early stage of deployment with only a small number of turbines at a small number of lease sites, it can be concluded the risk of collision from tidal turbines is negligible and makes no material contribution to any in-combination effect.
Regarding impacts from oil and gas activities, aggregate extraction, disposal sites, coastal protection, infrastructure, subsea cables and transmission assets, there will be limited spatial and temporal overlap, and limited overlap in terms of impact pathways. Any impacts which could overlap with impacts from the Array would be negligible. For example, disturbance and displacement related to maintenance of existing subsea cables will be restricted to routine monitoring or damage repair, both of which would be highly spatially and temporally restricted and so have a negligible impact on seabirds. Therefore, all projects within these activity sectors were screened out as having no potential to contribute to an in-combination effect. These details are within volume 3, appendix 6.4 of the Array EIA Report. For other elements of Ossian, including the Proposed offshore export cable corridor(s) and Proposed onshore transmission infrastructure, information is currently limited and therefore could not be included in this assessment. Those other elements will be subject to a separate application in which in-combination assessment of impacts will be carried out.
It should be noted that the Culzean Floating Offshore Wind Turbine Pilot Project, Greater Gabbard, Gunfleet Sands 1 and 2, Inner Dowsing, Lynn, Methil Demo and Scroby Sands are currently operational. However, the operational consents for these projects expires before the Array becomes operational. These projects are therefore discounted from the in-combination assessment as there is no temporal overlap between the operational phases of these projects and the Array.
Table 4.1 Open ▸ sets out the Tier 1 and Tier 2 projects that are included in the in-combination assessment. Data from the recent Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm has been used to provide the most up-to-date mortality figures for a number of the Tier 1 offshore wind farms. These offshore wind farms have been grouped by Berwick Bank and are referred to collectively in this RIAA as “UK North Sea Projects”.

Table 4.1: Summary of Tier 1 and 2 Projects Considered Within the In-Combination Assessment

Project	Notes	Tier
Beatrice Offshore Wind Farm	Referred to collectively as “UK North Sea Projects”	1
Blyth Demo Phase 1		1
Blyth Demo Phase 2		1
Dogger Bank (Creyke Beck) A		1
Dogger Bank (Creyke Beck) B		1
Dogger Bank C (Teesside A)		1
Sofia Offshore Wind Farm (Teesside B)		1
Dudgeon		1
East Anglia One		1
East Anglia One North		1
East Anglia Two		1
East Anglia Three		1
European Offshore Wind Deployment Centre (EOWDC)		1
Galloper		1
Hornsea One		1
Hornsea Project Two		1
Hornsea Project Three (HOW03)		1
Hornsea Project Four (HOW04)		1
Humber Gateway		1
Hywind		1
Inch Cape Offshore Wind Farm		1
Kentish Flats		1
Kentish Flats Extension		1
Kincardine Offshore Wind farm		1
Levenmouth Demonstration Turbine		1
Lincs		1
London Array		1
Moray Offshore Windfarm (East)		1
Moray Offshore Windfarm (West)		1
Neart na Gaoithe Offshore Wind Farm		1
Norfolk Boreas offshore wind farm		1
Norfolk Vanguard Offshore Windfarm		1
Race Bank		1
Sheringham Shoal		1
Seagreen 1		1
Seagreen 1A Project		1
Teesside		1
Triton Knoll		1
Westermost Rough		1
Wind T and D Site (Dounreay Tri Ltd)		1
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	Apportioned impacts presented	1
West of Orkney Wind Farm	Apportioned impacts presented	1
Pentland Floating Offshore Wind	Apportioned impacts presented	1
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm [1]	Apportioned impacts presented	1
Broadshore Offshore Wind Farm	No apportioned data available	2
Buchan Offshore Wind Farm	No apportioned data available	2
Caledonia Offshore Wind Farm	No apportioned data available	2
Cenos Offshore Wind Farm	No apportioned data available	2
Five Estuaries	Apportioned impacts presented	2
Dogger Bank D	No apportioned data available	2
Dogger Bank South	No apportioned data available	2
Dogger Bank South East - RWE Renewables	No apportioned data available	2
Dogger Bank South West - RWE Renewables	No apportioned data available	2
Morven BP - EnBW	No apportioned data available	2
Marram	No apportioned data available	2
Muir Mhor	No apportioned data available	2
North Falls	Limited apportioned data available	2
Outer Dowsing	Apportioned impacts presented	2
Salamander Offshore Wind Farm	No apportioned data available	2
Sheringham and Dudgeon Extension Projects	Apportioned impacts presented	2
Stromar Offshore Wind Farm	No apportioned data available	2

Potential impacts from the Array alone assessment are taken forward to the in-combination assessment where they have the potential to overlap with the same impact from other plans and projects. Where the impact is associated with a specific project phase of development (e.g. construction, operations and maintenance or decommissioning), phases which do not have the potential for in-combination effects have been omitted from further consideration in the in-combination assessment. Additionally, some of the potential impacts considered within the alone assessment are not considered in the in-combination assessment due to:

the highly localised nature of the impacts; and
where potential significance of the impact from the Array alone has been assessed as negligible and considered not to contribute in any meaningful way to an existing potential in-combination impact.

Further details on the criteria used to determine which sites and features were taken forward to the in-combination assessment are provided in section 5.5.
In addition, the in-combination projects considered for each relevant SPA was based upon species’ by sea foraging range from the SPAs, where there is the potential for individuals to have connectivity to the Array and the other plans/projects. Foraging ranges presented in volume 3, appendix 11.1 of the Array EIA Report were used (Woodward et al. 2019). Projects considered for each species during each season are presented within the in-combination assessments within section 5.5.

5. Assessment of Potential Adverse Effects on Integrity

5.1. Introduction

This section provides background information and explanation for the approach taken to assess the potential impacts of the Array on SPAs designated for marine ornithological features, and presents the Stage Two assessments for the site features for which LSE2 was identified (section 3.1). These features and sites are listed in Table 5.1 Open ▸ and shown in Figure 5.1 Open ▸ .

Table 5.1: European Sites Designated for Marine Ornithological Features for Which an Appropriate Assessment is Required

Site	Marine Ornithological Feature and Period of Impact [2]
Seabirds
Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast SPA	 breeding seabird assemblage (breeding season and migration): consisting of kittiwake only.
Copinsay SPA	 breeding seabird assemblage (breeding season and migration): consisting of kittiwake only.
Coquet Island SPA	 seabird assemblage (breeding season): consisting of puffin only.
East Caithness Cliffs SPA	 kittiwake (breeding season and migration);  razorbill (year-round); and  breeding seabird assemblage (year-round): consisting of the above species only.
Fair Isle SPA	 breeding seabird assemblage (breeding season and migration): consisting of gannet only.
Farne Islands SPA	 breeding seabird assemblage (breeding season and migration): consisting of kittiwake and puffin.
Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA	 gannet (breeding season and migration);  guillemot (year-round);  kittiwake (breeding season and migration); and  breeding seabird assemblage (year-round): consisting of the above species only.
Forth Islands SPA	 gannet (breeding season and migration);  puffin (breeding season); and  breeding seabird assemblage (breeding season and migration): consisting of the above species and kittiwake.
Fowlsheugh SPA	 kittiwake (breeding season and migration); and  breeding seabird assemblage (year-round): consisting of the above species and razorbill.
Hermaness, Saxa Vord and Valla Field SPA	 gannet (breeding season and migration); and  breeding seabird assemblage (breeding season and migration): consisting of the above species only.
North Caithness Cliffs SPA	 breeding seabird assemblage (breeding season and migration): consisting of kittiwake only.
North Rona and Sula Sgeir SPA	 gannet (breeding season and migration); and  breeding seabird assemblage (breeding season and migration): consisting of the above species only.
Noss SPA	 gannet (breeding season and migration); and  breeding seabird assemblage (breeding season and migration): consisting of the above species only.
St Abb’s Head to Fast Castle SPA	 breeding seabird assemblage (breeding season and migration): consisting of kittiwake only.
St Kilda SPA	 gannet (breeding season and migration); and  breeding seabird assemblage (breeding season and migration): consisting of the above species and Manx shearwater.
Sule Skerry and Sule Stack SPA	 gannet (breeding season and migration); and  breeding seabird assemblage (breeding season and migration): consisting of the above species only.
Troup, Pennan and Lion’s Heads SPA	 kittiwake (breeding season and migration); and  breeding seabird assemblage (breeding season and migration): consisting of the above species only.
Migratory Waterbirds
Cameron Reservoir SPA and Ramsar site	 pink-footed goose (migration).
Din Moss - Hoselaw Loch SPA and Ramsar site	 greylag goose (migration); and  pink-footed goose (migration).
Fala Flow SPA and Ramsar site	 pink-footed goose (migration).
Firth of Forth SPA and Ramsar site	 bar-tailed godwit (migration);  golden plover (migration);  knot (migration);  pink-footed goose (migration);  red-throated diver (migration);  redshank (migration);  ringed plover (migration);  Sandwich tern (migration);  Slavonian grebe (migration);  turnstone (migration); and  non-breeding waterbird assemblage (migration): consisting of the above species (except Sandwich tern) and common scoter, cormorant, curlew, dunlin, eider, goldeneye, great crested grebe, grey plover, lapwing, long-tailed duck, mallard, oystercatcher, red-breasted merganser, ringed plover, scaup, shelduck, velvet scoter and wigeon).
Firth of Tay and Eden Estuary SPA and Ramsar site	 bar-tailed godwit (migration);  greylag goose (migration);  pink-footed goose (migration);  redshank (migration); and  Non-breeding waterbird assemblage (migration); consisting of the above species and common scoter, cormorant, dunlin, eider, goldeneye, goosander, grey plover, Icelandic black-tailed godwit, oystercatcher, long-tailed duck, red-breasted merganser, sanderling, shelduck and velvet scoter).
Gladhouse Reservoir SPA and Ramsar site	 pink-footed goose (migration).
Greenlaw Moor SPA and Ramsar site	 pink-footed goose (migration).
Holburn Lake and Moss SPA and Ramsar site	 greylag goose (migration).
Lindisfarne SPA and Ramsar site	 bar-tailed godwit (migration);  common scoter (migration);  dunlin (migration);  eider (migration);  golden plover (migration);  grey plover (migration);  greylag goose (migration);  light-bellied brent goose (migration);  long-tailed duck (migration);  red-breasted merganser (migration);  redshank (migration);  ringed plover (migration);  sanderling (migration);  shelduck (migration);  whooper swan (migration); and  wigeon (migration).
Loch of Kinnordy SPA and Ramsar site	 pink-footed goose (migration); and  greylag goose (migration).
Loch Leven SPA and Ramsar site	 pink-footed goose (migration);  shoveler (migration);  whooper swan (migration); and  non-breeding waterbird assemblage (migration): consisting of the above species and cormorant, gadwall, goldeneye, pochard, teal and tufted duck.
Montrose Basin SPA and Ramsar site	 greylag goose (migration);  pink-footed goose (migration);  redshank (migration); and  non-breeding waterbird assemblage (migration): consisting of the above species and oystercatcher, eider, wigeon, knot, dunlin and shelduck.
Northumbria Coast SPA and Ramsar site	 purple sandpiper (migration); and  turnstone (migration).
Slamannan Plateau SPA	 taiga bean goose (migration).
South Tayside Goose Roosts SPA and Ramsar site	 greylag goose (migration);  pink-footed goose (migration);  wigeon (migration); and  non-breeding waterbird assemblage (migration): consisting of the species listed above.
Westwater SPA and Ramsar site	 pink-footed goose (migration); and  non-breeding waterbird assemblage (migration) : consisting of the species listed above.
Ythan Estuary, Sands of Forvie and Meikle Loch SPA, Ythan Estuary and Meikle Loch Ramsar site	 pink-footed goose (migration); and  non-breeding waterbird assemblage (migration): consisting of the species listed above and eider, lapwing and redshank.

Figure 5.1: Location of European Sites Designated for Marine Ornithological Features for Which an Appropriate Assessment is Required

LSE2s on the SPAs presented in Table 5.1 Open ▸ were identified for construction, operation and maintenance, and decommissioning phases of the Array. The potential impacts are outlined below in Table 5.2 Open ▸ .

Table 5.2: Potential Impacts to Marine Ornithological Features of the European Sites Identified for Appropriate Assessment

Project Phase	Potential Impact
Construction	 disturbance and displacement;  changes to prey availability; and  artificial light.
Operation and Maintenance	 disturbance and displacement;  collision risk;  barrier to movement;  entanglement; and  artificial light.
Decommissioning	 disturbance and displacement;  changes to prey availability; and  artificial light.

Project Phase

Potential Impact

Construction

 disturbance and displacement;

 changes to prey availability; and

 artificial light.

Operation and Maintenance

 disturbance and displacement;

 collision risk;

 barrier to movement;

 entanglement; and

 artificial light.

Decommissioning

 disturbance and displacement;

 changes to prey availability; and

 artificial light.

5.2. Potential Impacts and Method of Assessment

5.2.1. Introduction to the Applicant’s Approach

As described in sections 1 and 2, the assessments within this RIAA have been carried out with regards to NatureScot’s Guidance Notes (NatureScot, 2023a-k) along with advice received through the consultation process. However, the Habitats Regulations requires HRA to be based on the best available scientific information and, in some instances, the Applicant considers the advice and guidance provided to be overly precautionary based on a review of the available scientific literature. Therefore, for some assessments, this RIAA presents a separate NatureScot Approach and Applicant’s Approach. The NatureScot approach follows NatureScot’s guidance and advice received from NatureScot through the consultation process. The Applicant’s Approach follows the Applicant’s interpretation of the best available scientific information to present an approach that the Applicant feels better reflects the best available evidence, whilst still being sufficiently precautionary to account for the uncertainty in the scientific information available.

5.2.2. Disturbance and displacement

This pressure relates to the physical disturbance of birds and the displacement that could occur if birds avoid the area occupied by the Array during operation and/or the vessels and activities involved during construction, operation and maintenance, and/or decommissioning.
It should be noted that for breeding seabirds, it can be difficult to distinguish between displacement and barrier effects for breeding seabirds (JNCC et al., 2022). JNCC et al. (2022) defines barrier effects as “a physical factor that limits the migration, or free movement of individuals or populations, thus requiring them to divert from their intended path in order to reach their original destination”. For any individual seabird, whether the Array creates a displacement effect, a barrier effect, both, or neither would depend on where that individual would have foraged in the absence of the Array, where it chooses to forage instead, and the route it takes to get there.
The current guidance from NatureScot (2023h) therefore recommends treating both displacement and barrier effects together as “distributional responses” and, for breeding seabirds, recommends assessing these distributional responses together. Therefore, for breeding seabirds, the approach to “disturbance and displacement” assessment covers both disturbance and barrier effects, whilst the assessment of “barrier to movement” (see below) only considers the barrier effect to migratory birds.
Disturbance and displacement has been screened in for a number of sites and species, including within the Array during construction and decommissioning, from activities such as vessel movements, seabed preparation and cable laying. Disturbance and displacement has also been screened in for a number of sites and species during operation and maintenance, as a result of a direct response to operational wind turbines, as well as maintenance activities, such as vessel movements.
Disturbance and displacement as a result of vessel movements has also been screened in for a number of qualifying species at Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex SPA, as requested by NatureScot and MD-LOT (refer to Table 2.1 Open ▸ ),
Disturbance and displacement can be temporary and short term (for example relating to construction activities or vessel movements associated with maintenance) or for the duration of the Array (for example the physical presence of the wind turbines).
A distributional response may impact bird populations by affecting site usage which may be for foraging, resting or moulting purposes. As a result of a disturbance and displacement, an individual bird may experience a decrease in fitness, due to the effect of re-locating to alternative foraging grounds and or changes to energy budgets due to the increased energy expenditure when avoiding a wind farm. These impacts, in turn, may have indirect effects on birds in areas that may be some distance from the wind farm, including reduced energy acquisition as a result of increased competition at other foraging sites which can result in further reductions in fitness affecting reproductive success.
Vulnerability to these pressures is species-specific; pressure vulnerability has been determined using the evidence provided in the relevant literature including Wade et al. (2016) and Bradbury et al. (2014).
The assessment has drawn on the conclusions of the relevant Technical Reports in the Array EIA Report, specifically the following:

volume 3, appendix 11.1: Offshore Ornithology Baseline Characterisation Technical Report; and
volume 3, appendix 11.3: Offshore Ornithology Displacement Technical Report.

The impact of disturbance and displacement has been assessed qualitatively in the construction and decommissioning phases. Construction activity is expected to be intermittent and spatially limited at any given time, and therefore a qualitative assessment is considered to be proportional to the magnitude of the anticipated impacts.
The impact of disturbance and displacement during the operation and maintenance phase has been assessed quantitatively. This quantitative assessment relies on the “matrix approach”, as described in SNCBs (2022) and volume 3, appendix 11.3 of the Array EIA Report. The SeabORD tool (Searle et al., 2018) was not available to use for this project and has not been run, in agreement with NatureScot ( Table 2.1 Open ▸ ).
Note that, as detailed in volume 3, appendix 11.3 of the Array EIA Report, abundance estimates derived from MRSea modelling were used where available, and supplemented with design-based abundance estimates for months when MRSea estimates were unavailable.
It should be noted that a recent study (Dunn et al., 2024) indicates there is significant temporal and spatial variation in the diving behaviour of auks, with generally a much smaller proportion of time spent diving during the non-breeding season. The correction factors applied (based on studies carried out during the breeding season) are therefore likely to lead to overestimates of the total abundance of auks, especially in the non-breeding season.
Seabirds may not be displaced solely from the Array itself, but also a Zone of Influence (ZoI) around the array. This ZoI is defined as the Array plus a 2km buffer in all directions, in line with the recommended approach (NatureScot 2023h; SNCBs 2022). Therefore, all species, seasonal mean peak abundances used for displacement analysis are based on the abundance within the Array plus 2 km buffer.
The effect of distributional responses on puffin during the non-breeding season are not included. Puffin are known to disperse rapidly and widely post-breeding and are therefore considered unlikely to be affected by the presence of the Array outside the breeding season.
The consequences of a distributional response can include displacement and potentially mortality, with percentage values applied for these. These are presented in Table 5.3 Open ▸ in terms of the values defined in NatureScot (2023h) alongside values that represent the Applicant’s approach. Note that the non-breeding season rate presented in Table 5.3 Open ▸ applies to all seasons other than the breeding season, such as post-breeding and pre-breeding seasons, where relevant. Both sets of values are provided to enable a comparison to be made.

Table 5.3: Displacement and Mortality Rates Included for Consideration in Assessment

Species	Displacement and Mortality Rates as Defined in NatureScot (2023h)			The Applicant’s Approach
Species	% of Birds Displaced	Breeding Season Mortality	Non-breeding Season(s) Mortality	% of Birds Displaced	Breeding Season Mortality	Non-breeding Season(s) Mortality
Gannet	70%	1% and 3%	1% and 3%	70%	1%	1%
Kittiwake	30%	1% and 3%	1% and 3%	30%	1%	1%
Guillemot	60%	3% and 5%	1% and 3%	50%	1%	1%
Razorbill	60%	3% and 5%	1% and 3%	50%	1%	1%
Puffin	60%	3% and 5%	N/A	50%	1%	N/A

The displacement report (volume 3, appendix 11.3 of the Array EIA Report) provides information on total impacts for the Array, for all birds regardless of their age or origin. For a HRA, it is necessary to ‘apportion’ the total impact to estimate the impact on breeding adults from specific SPAs. Full details of the approach to apportionment are presented in appendix 3A. The approach taken follows NatureScot’s guidance (NatureScot 2023c-d). During the breeding season, a theoretical approach (developed by NatureScot (NatureScot, 2018)) has been applied to determine the proportion of birds from SPA sites which use proposed development areas in the breeding season. In the non-breeding period, the “BDMPS approach” to apportioning that utilises the information presented in Furness (2015), is adopted for most species. For guillemot, NatureScot (2023d) recommend an approach based on evidence that they largely remain in the broad vicinity of their breeding colonies, and this approach has been adopted. In addition, apportionment of guillemot to Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA has been carried out using the BDMPS approach, as requested by Natural England and the Scottish Ministers (see Table 2.1 Open ▸ ).
It is noted that in the breeding season an alternative apportioning tool can be applied for kittiwake, guillemot, razorbill and shag, referred to as the Butler Tool (Butler et al. 2020). However, the Butler Tool requires an update (which is understood to be pending at the time of writing this RIAA) before it can be applied with the recently updated colony count data (Seabirds Count; Burnell et al., 2023) which itself is an update on the Seabird 2000 data. Utilizing outdated population information such as Seabird 2000 data (which is based on data from 1998 to 2002) not only inaccurately represents todays populations (as data is at least 22 years old) but due to the counts age, there is a lack of compatibility with the baseline characterisation surveys undertaken for the Array. Therefore, the incompatibility between the two datasets suggests that using them simultaneously would not be appropriate. The apportioning undertaken here therefore applies the theoretical approach excluding the Butler Tool but inclusive of the updated colony count data and therefore provides the most up to date apportioning results for the Array.
Following apportioning, there is the potential requirement to undertake PVA. This requirement follows where the potential for impact could exceed a 0.02 percentage point increase to the baseline mortality (following NatureScot 2023k). That guidance states that the use of the Natural England PVA tool (Searle et al., 2019) is required over three time periods (25 years, anticipated operational period of 35 years and 50 years) (NatureScot, 2023k). Given the anticipated operational period of 35 years, the conclusions after 35 years are used as the basis for this assessment, but the 25 year and 50 year results are presented in full in appendix 3B.
If the increase in baseline mortality is below the threshold of 0.02 percentage points, then it can be concluded that there is no possibility for the additional mortality caused by disturbance and displacement to have any discernible impact on the relevant population. Seabird survival and productivity is influenced by environmental stochasticity, leading to natural variation in survival and productivity rates. This natural variation far exceeds a 0.02 percentage point increase in mortality (Horswill & Robinson, 2015) and therefore it can be concluded that the additional mortality would not have an impact on the population size that is detectable within the operational lifespan of the Array.

Auks

A 50% displacement and 1% mortality has been applied for auks in the Applicant’s approach. The Applicant’s approach is in line with that advocated by the developer in many previous offshore wind farm applications as the approach supported by the best available science (e.g. the recent Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm project). The values are considered precautionary, especially in light of the recent publication of the Beatrice Year Two monitoring (Macarthur Green, 2023; Trinder et al., 2024). Since the UK SNCBs published guidance on defining displacement and mortality rates for auks in 2017 (SNCBs, 2022), a number of studies have been undertaken.
For displacement rates, NatureScot recommends that a 60% displacement rate is applied to auks in both the breeding and non-breeding season (NatureScot, 2023h). Real-world displacement rates are variable (APEM, 2022), for example, 44% to 63% was recorded at sites in the German North Sea (Peschko et al., 2020). Following review of data collected from 21 developments, APEM (2022) suggest that a 50% displacement rate is more appropriate for auks. Although greater than 50% displacement was observed at five developments in the APEM (2022) study, all had very low abundance of auks within the study area. Where auk abundance was greater, <50% displacement was recorded. Therefore, considering the abundance of auks within the Array plus 2 km buffer, a 50% displacement rate is considered appropriate (and given the findings at Beatrice noted above) precautionary for the Array.
For mortality rates of displaced birds, work by van Kooten et al. (2019) and APEM (2022) suggest that the recommended mortality rates are overly precautionary. Van Kooten et al. (2019) used individual based models and prey distributions to assess the effects of displacement on auks. The results indicate that breeding season mortality rates in displaced birds are likely to be in the region of 1.0% (van Kooten et al., 2019). APEM (2022) reviewed available literature and concluded that the available evidence is “incompatible” with a 10% mortality rate and the most likely mortality rate is considered to be “negligible or undetectable”. APEM (2022) therefore suggest that a mortality rate of 1% would be more consistent with the available evidence, whilst still being precautionary. Outside the breeding season, auks are typically more widely dispersed and are not tied to a specific coastal site or colony (Camphuysen, 2002; Christie, 2021). With wider dispersal, pressure on individuals to forage in specific areas is lower, and thus displacement is likely to result in lesser effects. This is particularly relevant in the post breeding period, when peaks in auk density were observed at the Array footprint, and when parents with chicks are moving rapidly offshore. A 1% mortality rate for guillemot and razorbill is also in line with advice from the Scottish Ministers to other projects (e.g. Marine Scotland, 2017a,b). Therefore, a 1% mortality rate is applied for the assessment.

Gannet

A 70% displacement and 1% mortality has been applied for gannets in the Applicant’s approach, a change in mortality rate only compared to NatureScot (2023h). Masden et al. (2010) assessed the energetic costs of displacement in seabirds. Results suggest that increasing gannet flight distance by 2 km increases energetic cost by 1.25%. A 10 km increase may result in a 4.50% increase in energy expenditure. However, this is based on a foraging range of 160 km, where 10 km represents a 6.25% increase in distance flown. Scaling this to the mean maximum plus 1 SD foraging range of 509 km (Woodward et al., 2019), an additional flight distance of 10 km represents a scaled 1.02% increase in expenditure. This minimal increase in energy expenditure is unlikely to result in notable mortalities. Therefore, also considering the small spatial extent of The Array, the lower end of the recommended mortality rate (1%) is considered appropriate. It has also previously been advised by NatureScot (and Marine Scotland Science) that the assessment of displacement impacts on gannet is not required based on work undertaken by Searle et al. (2014) that although showing gannet were displaced by offshore wind farms this did not lead to population-level effects.

Kittiwake

A 30% displacement and 1% mortality has been applied for kittiwake in the Applicant’s approach, a change in mortality rate only compared to NatureScot (2023h). Prior to the current ScotWind Licensing Round, Scottish Minister advice on EIA ornithological assessments for kittiwake displacement (e.g. Marine Scotland, 2017a) was for a displacement rate of 30%, a mortality rate of 2% in the breeding season and a qualitative assessment only in the non-breeding season (in contrast to the advice in the same document from NatureScot (at that time Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH)), which for kittiwake displacement was ‘that there was no need to include kittiwake, the data available from post construction monitoring indicates no significant avoidance behaviour by this species’). In the joint SNCBs (2022) updated and interim advice note on displacement, kittiwake is not included in the ‘more sensitive’ category, scoring too low. In recent consented offshore wind farm projects in England, kittiwake are not typically included within an assessment of displacement as a result of the low sensitivity of the species to the pressure (e.g. for Hornsea Four, kittiwake at Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA was assessed for collision only and not displacement (DESNZ, 2023)).
The low sensitivity of kittiwake to displacement is supported by a number of post-construction studies of seabirds at offshore wind farms, which have concluded that kittiwake was one of the species hardly affected by displacement (Dierschke et al., 2016). Most recently, the Beatrice Year Two monitoring report found there was an overall increase in kittiwake abundance between 2015 and 2021, although this was not significant, with some areas of increase and some of decrease (MacArthur Green, 2023). In relation to wind turbine locations, kittiwake densities were variable in both survey years and overall slightly higher in 2021, but there was no indication of any significant responses, either avoidance or attraction in either year. For kittiwake, the report concluded ‘neither of the pre vs post comparisons indicated any decreases across the wind farm’. A 30% displacement is therefore considered highly precautionary.
Ruffino et al. (2023) reviewed information available on kittiwake foraging behaviour, and from that study it is apparent that kittiwake forage widely across the region, with the Array itself representing a fraction of the total available foraging habitat. Therefore, any kittiwakes that are displaced from the Array will have access to an extensive alternative foraging area. The potential for a displacement mortality to result in the non-breeding season, when kittiwake are not associated with a breeding colony, is even less. A mortality rate of 1% is therefore considered precautionary.

5.2.3. Changes to prey availability

Changes to prey availability may occur as a result of construction and decommissioning activities, especially those that disturb the seabed. During the operational phase, changes to prey availability are expected to be minimal and therefore this impact has been screened out during the operational phase. The ZoI has been defined as 100km, as considered in the Array EIA Report volume 2, chapter 9 for potential noise impacts on fish.
Changes to prey availability in the construction and decommissioning phases are assessed using a qualitative approach, considering the expected impacts on potential prey species (i.e. fish and benthic invertebrates) and the potential for those to lead to indirect impacts on seabirds that may feed on them.

5.2.4. Artificial light

This pressure relates to the potential for light pollution to affect the behaviour of birds. Lighting will be used on the Array infrastructure and on vessels throughout all phases. Several types of lighting may be used, including navigational lights, safety lighting, and for illumination if works are conducted between dusk and dawn. The ZoI for artificial light is defined as the zone in which lights may be visible and sufficiently bright to be stimulate a biological response This zone is therefore not a static distance but will vary depending on weather conditions and other factors, along with the species being considered.
The response of birds to nocturnal lighting is complex and the disturbance effects of lighting may derive from changes in disorientation and attraction (phototaxis) or repulsion from the altered light environment, which in turn may affect foraging, migration and communication (Longcore and Rich, 2004). Birds may collide with each other or a structure, or become exhausted as a result. Conversely, for unlit structures at night or during foggy conditions, it is possible that the risk of collision may be greater because moving rotors may not be detectable (Trapp, 1998). Migrating birds are likely to be particularly susceptible to any adverse effects of lighting. Around two thirds of all bird species migrate during darkness, when collision risk is expected to be higher than during daylight (Hüppop et al., 2006). The evidence for this impact mixed. International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) (2011) state that birds are somewhat less inclined to avoid wind turbines at night, but in contrast, extended periods of infra-red monitoring at night using a Thermal Animal Detection System (TADS) at Nysted provided unexpected evidence that no movements of birds were detected below 120 m during the hours of darkness, even during periods of heavy seabird migration (Desholm, 2005). Welcker et al. (2017) found nocturnal migrants do not have a higher risk of collision with wind energy facilities than diurnally active species, but rather appear to circumvent collision more effectively.
Lights on wind turbines would need to meet the minimum regulatory requirements as set out in the International Association of Marine Aids to Navigation and Lighthouse (IALA) Recommendation O117 on ‘The Marking of Offshore Wind Farms’ for navigation lighting and by the Civil Aviation Authority in the Air Navigation Orders (Civil Aviation Publication (CAP) 393 and guidance in CAP 764). Whilst subject to these minimum requirements, the Array will not have any additional or unnecessary lighting, which will minimise the risks of migrating birds becoming attracted to, or disorientated by, wind turbines at night or in poor weather.
The recently published review by Deakin et al. (2022) highlighted that likely seabird species susceptible to disorientation and attraction are Manx shearwater, Leach’s petrel and storm petrel. As discussed within volume 3, appendix 11.11 of the Array EIA Report, Leach’s petrel and storm petrel were not recorded during the aerial surveys. Only Manx shearwater was recorded therefore it has been screened in and assessed for lighting impacts. This species is active nocturnally, and there is evidence to suggest they are sensitive to light attraction which could render them especially vulnerable to adverse impacts from offshore wind farms, for example, if attracted to the rotor-swept area by lights on the wind turbines that are required for navigation purposes. The review however identifies critical knowledge gaps relating to light attraction and disorientation. Specific aspects include: the range over which light attraction of nocturnal species may occur (and therefore the size of the light catch basin for wind farms and related activities or infrastructure); the extent to which light attraction is exacerbated by particular meteorological conditions (e.g. fog, rain); the influence of wavelength and pattern of illumination (flashing/steady); the extent to which light attraction differentially affects adults and juveniles, and for how long after fledging juveniles may remain particularly susceptible to light attraction.
Given the current uncertainties surrounding light impacts on Manx shearwater, this species and impact has been screened in for further assessment in the RIAA on a precautionary basis. This is assessed using a qualitative approach.

5.2.5. Collision risk

This pressure relates to the potential for mortality arising from birds colliding with turbine structures, which will only occur within the Array once operational. Therefore, the ZoI defined for collision risk is the Array only.
Operational wind turbines and associated infrastructure present a collision risk for seabirds flying within the Array. This includes birds commuting between breeding and foraging sites, migrating birds, and those foraging for food within the Array. Direct collision with infrastructure may result in injury or death, however, it is assumed that all collisions with operational wind turbines result in mortality.
For regularly occurring seabirds, CRM was undertaken to produce mathematical based quantitative estimates of the number of collisions per species per season for each year of operation. The input parameters are presented in full in volume 3, appendix 11.2 of the Array EIA Report, with the analysis performed using the StochLab R package (v0.1.1) produced by Caneco et al. (2022), with stochastic and deterministic results presented, as per NatureScot advice on the Array EIA Scoping Report and requested by MD-LOT in the Ossian Array Scoping Opinion (MD-LOT, 2023).
Collision estimates are based on seabird flight heights, with generic Flight Height Distribution (FHD) data (Johnston et al., 2014) used to determine the proportion of flights at Collision Risk Height (CRH) per species. Density estimates are also incorporated into the model, used to determine flux, or the rate at which each species is likely to fly through the wind farm.
Flight height and density information, along with the wind turbine specifications, number of wind turbines, and other seabird parameters (e.g. size, flight type and nocturnal activity), are used to estimate the number of collisions. Initially, the model assumes that birds within the wind farm do not avoid individual wind turbines, swept areas, or blades, nor do they avoid the whole wind farm (macro-avoidance). Avoidance rates are then applied to adjust collision estimates. It is noted that advice in the Ossian Array Scoping Opinion (MD-LOT, 2023) referred to the SNCB (2014) rates (as provided in JNCC et al., 2014); revised avoidance rates are now available (Ozsanlav-Harris et al., 2023) which are now recommended by NatureScot (2023g).
For HRA purposes, as for the displacement assessment (section 5.4.1), it is then necessary to ‘apportion’ the impact to multiple SPAs. For the Array, the apportioning values applied are presented in appendix 3A. During the breeding season, a theoretical approach (developed by NatureScot (NatureScot, 2018)) has been applied to determine the proportion of birds from SPA sites which use proposed development areas in the breeding season. In the non-breeding period, the standard approach to apportioning that utilises the information presented in Furness (2015), is adopted. As outlined in the displacement section above (section 5.4.1), an alternative apportioning tool could be applied for certain species (Butler et al. 2020), however due to the reasons provided the tool was not used for collision risk apportionment with the NatureScot method again used.
Following apportioning, there is the potential requirement to undertake PVA. This requirement follows where the potential for impact could exceed a 0.02 percentage point increase to the baseline mortality (following NatureScot 2023k). That guidance states that the use of the Natural England PVA tool (Searle et al., 2019) is required over three time periods (25 years, 35 years (the lease period) and 50 years) (NatureScot (2023k). Given that the lease period is 35 years, the conclusions after 35 years are used as the basis for this assessment, but the 25 year and 50 year results are presented in full in appendix 3B.
If the increase in baseline mortality is below the threshold of 0.02 percentage points, then it can be concluded that there is no possibility for the additional mortality caused by collision to have any discernible impact on the relevant population. Seabird survival and productivity is influenced by environmental stochasticity, leading to natural variation in survival and productivity rates. This natural variation far exceeds a 0.02 percentage point increase in mortality (Horswill and Robinson, 2015) and therefore it can be concluded that the additional mortality would not have an impact on the population size that is detectable within the operational lifespan of the Array.
Note that the potential for impact made here then differs from the Array EIA Report, for which the impact is determined at population level. At population level, the significance of impact resulting from collision risk was determined to be negligible for all species.
It is recognised that the approach to assessing collision risk for regularly occurring seabirds may not adequately capture the risk to migratory birds. Therefore, a different approach is used for migratory birds that aims to overcome that limitation. For migratory birds, the assessment has been carried out qualitatively by reviewing available information, most significantly Woodward et al. (2023). This has been supplemented by a quantitative estimate of collision risk using the SOSSMAT (Wright et al., 2012). It is noted that a revised mCRM tool is currently being developed; however, at the time of writing this mCRM tool was still undergoing testing and not approved for use in assessment (as agreed with NatureScot, refer to Table 2.1 Open ▸ ). Therefore, the approach used for migratory birds is considered to represent the best currently available scientific approach.

5.2.6. Barrier to movement

As discussed in section 5.2.1, JNCC et al. (2022) defines barrier effects as “a physical factor that limits the migration, or free movement of individuals or populations, thus requiring them to divert from their intended path in order to reach their original destination. This effect is expected to increase the energy expenditure of birds if they have to fly around the area in question in order to reach their goal”.
Once the Array is operational, the presence of wind turbines could create a barrier to the movements of flying birds. This could lead to permanent changes in the flight routes of birds, which in turn would lead to an increase in energy demands, and could result in reduced breeding success and/or reduced survival rates. The ZoI for barrier to movement is defined as the Array only, as there is no impact on birds which would not fly through the Array anyway.
Barriers to movement could affect birds that would pass through the Array on their annual migrations, and also birds that would pass through the Array during their daily movements between their roosting/breeding area and foraging sites. The latter of these scenarios may impose an additional energetic cost to movements at a key period in the annual cycle when seabirds are making daily commutes between foraging grounds at sea and breeding sites. Additional energetic costs could have long term implications for individuals, impacting bird fitness (breeding productivity and survival) and for populations. Barrier effects are considered to be less impactful when affecting migratory flights as avoidance of a single wind farm may be trivial relative to the total length and cost of the journey (Masden et al., 2010; 2012).
As discussed in section 5.2.1, for breeding seabirds, NatureScot (2023h) consider barrier effects alongside displacement as “distributional responses”. This is because it can be difficult to distinguish barrier effects from the effects of displacement, for breeding seabirds foraging in the region. NatureScot (2023h) advise that distributional responses are assessed using the displacement matrix approach, and therefore for breeding seabirds, no separate assessment of barrier to movement is carried out, with impacts considered to be included in the assessments carried out under Disturbance and Displacement (section 5.4.1).

5.2.7. Entanglement

This pressure relates to the potential for diving seabirds to become entangled as a consequence of the Array. The pressure is screened in for the Array during the operation and maintenance phase only. The ZoI for entanglement is defined as the Array only.
There is a potential risk that diving seabirds could become entangled in mooring lines associated with wind turbine infrastructure (primary entanglement) or in marine debris that itself becomes entangled in mooring lines (secondary entanglement). Primary entanglement is considered unlikely due to mooring lines consisting of thick components meaning small animals, such as birds, cannot physically become entangled (Benjamins et al., 2014). Natural Resources Wales (NRW) have also previously stated that interactions between seabirds and the cables and mooring lines associated with floating offshore wind farms are of negligible importance (Aquaterra and MarineSpace, 2022). There is a greater risk of secondary entanglement with marine debris (such as netting or free-floating fishing line).
There is currently no clear guidance on how to assess the risk of seabird entanglement or how to monitor for an occurrence with respect to floating offshore wind. Due to the physical characteristics of the cables and mooring lines, in the context of the size of diving birds and the lack of evidence for any such entanglement elsewhere, it is considered extremely unlikely that direct entanglement of seabirds will occur with respect to the Array.
Therefore, entanglement, with reference to seabirds, refers solely to secondary entanglement. Depending on the number of new mooring lines and the length of dynamic cable present in the water column, the risks of derelict fishing gear being caught within marine renewable energy structures can increase. Derelict fishing gear is a well-known cause of mortality in marine life, including in seabirds (e.g. Hyrenbach et al., 2020; Berón and Seco Pon, 2021); however, the degree of impact is dependent on the size and location of the gear. As the location of lost gear and the likelihood of it entering the Array at any point in time is difficult to determine, a worst-case scenario for this impact is difficult to establish. Mooring lines and dynamic inter-array cables in the water column will undergo regular inspections during the operation and maintenance phase with inspection frequency more frequent initially for the first two years and then decreasing to an annual schedule. The removal of marine debris from mooring lines and inter-array cables will be undertaken as necessary following monitoring and further relevant action taken if required, based on findings from the inspections. The removal of debris from mooring lines and cables further reduces the likelihood of secondary entanglement.
The Array EIA Report concluded the magnitude of secondary entanglement for seabirds to be negligible, with a sensitivity of low to medium (medium related to diving seabirds, such as auks, which spend the greatest amount of time underwater), with an overall significance of negligible to minor adverse significance.
For this RIAA, the Stage One Screening Report (Ossian OWFL, 2023) identified a potential LSE2 from entanglement to four diving seabirds: guillemot, razorbill, puffin and gannet, based on vulnerability and connectivity to the Array. This list has been refined for this RIAA (see section 3.1 and Table 3.1 Open ▸ ) and a potential LSE2 has been identified only for razorbill, puffin and gannet (including where those species are named components of a seabird assemblage). The impact on these species is assessed using a qualitative approach.

5.3. Baseline

The population estimates for seabird SPA colonies used to inform the assessments in sections 5.4 and paragraph 349 are taken from the most recent colony count data (Seabirds Count; Burnell et al., 2023), which is based on census surveys undertaken between 2015 – 2021. All counts have been expressed as number of breeding individuals, using the following approaches:

Where the count unit is Apparently Occupied Nests (AON), Apparently Occupied Territories (AOT), Apparently Occupied Burrows (AOB) or Apparently Occupied Sites (AOS), the number of breeding individuals is calculated as AON/AOT/AOB/AOS * 2.
Where the count unit is individuals counted at the colony (IND) for guillemot or razorbill, the number of breeding individuals is calculated as IND * 0.67 * 2, following Walsh et al. (1995).

5.3.1. Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI)

The current H5N1 strain of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI) was first recorded in the country 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 population crashes (Young and VanderWerf, 2023).
Thousands of seabird mortalities attributed to HPAI were reported across the UK in 2022, with minimum losses of almost 20,000 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).
In response to the outbreak of HPAI, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (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 [3], 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 (Burnell et al., 2023).
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, some survey counts were estimates rather than accurate counts) and therefore it is still appropriate to apply the Burnell et al., (2023) Seabirds Count data to the assessments in sections 5.4 and 5.5. 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.
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. As set out in volume 3, appendix 11.1, 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 of the Array EIA Report does not demonstrate any clear evidence of impact from HPAI when comparing between years.
It is acknowledged that, in the short term at least, HPAI is likely to have an effect on changes in seabird populations. However, it is considered that the most appropriate information to use in sections 5.4 and 5.5 is the baseline DAS data, and the Burnell et al. (2023) population count and population change data to inform the impact assessments. Where information regarding impacts from HPAI is available (primarily from Tremlett et al., 2024) this is discussed in the assessment of a feature in order to inform the conclusion reached alongside those primary data sources.
A summary of the relevant designated sites and their conservation objectives are given below in sections 5.3.2 and 5.3.3. Designated sites with breeding seabird features are discussed first, with sites designated for migratory waterbirds discussed after.

5.3.2. Seabirds

Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast SPA

Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast SPA is a stretch of south-east facing cliff in Aberdeenshire, located approximately 82.7 km from the Array. The boundary of the SPA follows the boundaries of Bullers of Buchan Coast Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and Collieston to Whinnyfold Coast SSSI, and the seaward extension extends approximately 2 km into the marine environment. The SPA was classified in 1998, with the marine extension classified in 2009 (NatureScot, ND).
The site qualifies under Article 4.2 by regularly supporting in excess of 20,000 breeding seabirds, including five named component species: fulmar, guillemot, herring gull, kittiwake and shag. The potential for LSE2 has been identified in relation to one of the five qualifying features of the breeding seabird assemblage; kittiwake ( Table 5.1 Open ▸ ).
The conservation objectives of this SPA (as determined from NatureScot’s SiteLink (NatureScot, ND)) are:

to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species 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.

Copinsay SPA

The Copinsay SPA comprises a group of islands 4 km off the east coast of Orkney Mainland, approximately 245.4 km from the Array. 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.
The site qualifies under Article 4.2 by regularly supporting in excess of 20,000 breeding seabirds, such as kittiwake, great black-backed gull, guillemot and fulmar. The potential for LSE2 has been identified in relation to one of the four qualifying features of the breeding seabird assemblage; kittiwake ( Table 5.1 Open ▸ ).
The Conservation Objectives of this SPA (as determined from NatureScot’s SiteLink (NatureScot, ND)) are:

to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species 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.

Coquet Island SPA

Coquet Island is located 1 km off the coast of Northumberland in north-east England and approximately 147.6 km from the Array. It is a small, flat-topped island with a plateau extent of approximately 7 ha. Coquet Island SPA was first classified in 1985 for its breeding seabirds, with the surrounding marine environment protected by the Northumberland Marine SPA, which was classified in 2017 to protect the foraging areas of these birds.
The site qualifies by regularly supporting four Annex I qualifying features; Arctic tern, roseate tern, common tern and Sandwich tern, and in excess of 20,000 breeding seabirds. The assemblage comprises two additional named component species; black-headed gull and puffin. The potential for LSE2 has been identified in relation to one of the five qualifying features of the breeding seabird assemblage; puffin ( Table 5.1 Open ▸ ).
The conservation objectives of this SPA (as determined through Natural England’s Access to Evidence) are to:

ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the Wild Birds Directive, by maintaining or restoring:

- the extent and distribution of the habitats of the qualifying features;

- the structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying features;

- the supporting processes on which the habitats of the qualifying features rely;

- the populations of each of the qualifying features; and

- the distribution of qualifying features within the site.

East Caithness Cliffs SPA

East Caithness Cliffs SPA includes most of the sea-cliff areas between Wick and Helmsdale on the north-east coast of the Scottish mainland. The SPA is located approximately 211.8 km from the Array. The boundary of the SPA overlaps either partly or wholly with Castle of Old Wick to Craig Hammel SSSI, Craig Hammel to Sgaps Geo SSSI, Dunbeath to Sgaps Geo SSSI, Berriedale Cliffs SSSI, Ousdale Burn SSSI and Helmsdale Coast SSSI. The SPA was classified in 1996, with a marine extension classified in 2009. The seaward extension extends approximately 2 km into the marine environment (NatureScot, ND).
The site qualifies under Article 4.1 for its peregrine population, and under Article 4.2 for supporting breeding populations of guillemot, herring gull, kittiwake, razorbill and shag, as well as regularly supporting in excess of 20,000 breeding seabirds, including nine named component species: cormorant, fulmar, great-blacked backed gull, guillemot, herring gull, kittiwake, razorbill and shag. The potential for LSE2 has been identified in relation to the breeding seabird assemblage and two of the nine qualifying features; kittiwake and razorbill ( Table 5.1 Open ▸ ).
The Conservation Objectives of this SPA (as determined from NatureScot’s SiteLink (NatureScot, ND)) are:

to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species 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.

Fair Isle SPA

The island of Fair Isle is the most southerly of the Shetland group, lying halfway between Mainland Shetland and Orkney, approximately 291.1 km from the Array. The boundary of Fair Isle SPA is coincident with Fair Isle 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 (NatureScot, ND).
There is one Annex I qualifying seabird feature, Arctic tern, and the site qualifies under Article 4.2 by regularly supporting one migratory seabird species, guillemot and in excess of 20,000 breeding seabirds, including eight additional component species; razorbill, puffin, fulmar, gannet, shag, Arctic skua, great skua and kittiwake. The potential for LSE2 has been identified in relation to one of the ten qualifying features of the breeding seabird assemblage; gannet ( Table 5.1 Open ▸ ).
The Conservation Objectives of this SPA (as determined from NatureScot’s SiteLink (NatureScot, ND)) are:

to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species 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.

Farne Islands SPA

The Farne Islands SPA are a group of low-lying islands located 2 km to 8 km off the coast of Northumberland in north-east England, approximately 120.9 km from the Array. The Farne Islands was first classified as an SPA in 1985, with the surrounding marine environment protected by the Northumberland Marine SPA, which was classified in 2017 to protect the foraging areas of breeding seabirds (Natural England, ND).
The site qualifies under Article 4.2 by regularly supporting in excess of 20,000 breeding seabirds. The site regularly supports more than 1% of the Great Britian populations of four species listed in Annex I of the EC Birds Directive: common tern, Arctic tern, roseate tern and Sandwich tern, and regularly supports more than 1% of the biogeographical population of one regularly occurring migratory species: guillemot. During the breeding season, the site also supports key assemblage components such as puffin, cormorant, shag and kittiwake. The potential for LSE2 has been identified in relation to two of the nine qualifying features of the breeding seabird assemblage; kittiwake and puffin ( Table 5.1 Open ▸ ).
The conservation objectives of this SPA (as determined through Natural England’s Access to Evidence) are to:

ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the Wild Birds Directive, by maintaining or restoring:

- the extent and distribution of the habitats of the qualifying features;

- the structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying features;

- the supporting processes on which the habitats of the qualifying features rely;

- the populations of each of the qualifying features; and

- the distribution of qualifying features within the site.

Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA

The coastal section of the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA covers a slender strip of cliffs and hinterland along the coastline of the counties of North Yorkshire and the East Riding of Yorkshire, located approximately 248.5 km from the Array.
The SPA is in two sections: the southern section extends north from South Landing around Flamborough Head to Speeton; the northern section covers the peninsula of Filey Brigg before extending north-west to Cunstone Nab. The seaward boundary extends 2 km into the marine environment throughout the two sections of the site. Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs was classified as an SPA in 1993, with the site extended and renamed as the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA in 2018 (Natural England, ND).
The site qualifies under Article 4.2 by supporting over 1% of the biogeographical populations of four regularly occurring migratory species; kittiwake, gannet, guillemot and razorbill, and a breeding seabird assemblage of European importance, including these four species and also fulmar. The potential for LSE2 has been identified in relation to of the breeding seabird assemblage and three of the five qualifying features; gannet, guillemot and kittiwake ( Table 5.1 Open ▸ ).
The conservation objectives of this SPA (as determined through Natural England Access to Evidence) are to:

ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the Wild Birds Directive, by maintaining or restoring:

- the extent and distribution of the habitats of the qualifying features;

- the structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying features;

- the supporting processes on which the habitats of the qualifying features rely;

- the populations of each of the qualifying features; and

- the distribution of qualifying features within the site.

Supplementary advice on the Conservation Objectives is provided for this SPA, prompted by the notable decline observed in one of the regularly occurring species; kittiwake. Site-specific monitoring targets for species populations state “where the limits of natural fluctuations are not known, maintain the population above 75% of that at designation–- loss of 25% or more unacceptable”. At designation, population count was 89,040 breeding adults. Therefore, a population of 66,789 individuals or above should be maintained.

Forth Islands SPA

The Forth Islands SPA comprises seabird colonies on multiple islands in the Firth of Forth, south-east Scotland. The SPA is approximately 126.3 km from the Array. The SPA encompasses the islands of the Isle of May, Inchmickery, Fidra, The Lamb, Craigleith, Bass Rock (all of which were classified in April 1990) and Long Craig (which was an extension to the site and was classified in February 2004). The SPA is underpinned by the following SSSIs: Long Craig, Inchmickery, Forth Islands, Bass Rock and the Isle of May. There is a seaward extension from each island of the SPA extending approximately 2 km into the marine environment (NatureScot, ND).
There are four Annex I qualifying features: Arctic tern, roseate tern, common tern and Sandwich tern, and the site qualifies under Article 4.2 by regularly supporting four migratory seabird species: lesser black-backed gull, puffin, gannet and shag and in excess of 20,000 breeding seabirds. The site supports five named components kittiwake, herring gull, guillemot, razorbill and cormorant. The potential for LSE2 has been identified in relation to the breeding seabird assemblage and three of the 13 species; gannet, kittiwake and puffin (Table 5 1).
The Conservation Objectives of this SPA (as determined from NatureScot’s SiteLink (NatureScot, ND)) are:

to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species 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.

Fowlsheugh SPA

The Fowlsheugh SPA is a mainland seabird colony on the coast of Aberdeenshire, north-east Scotland. The SPA is approximately 81.3 km from the Array. The site was classified in August 1992, with an additional 2 km marine extension to the site classified in September 2009. The SPA is underpinned by the Fowlsheugh SSSI (NatureScot, ND).
There are no Annex I qualifying features and the site qualifies under Article 4.2 by regularly supporting populations of European importance of guillemot and kittiwake, as well as supporting a breeding seabird assemblage of in excess of 20,000 individual seabirds, including guillemot and kittiwake, as well as three other named species: herring gull, razorbill and fulmar. The potential for LSE2 has been identified in relation to the breeding seabird assemblage and two of the five species; kittiwake and razorbill ( Table 5.1 Open ▸ ).
The Conservation Objectives of this SPA (as determined from NatureScot’s SiteLink (NatureScot, ND)) are:

to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species 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.

Hermaness, Saxa Vord and Valla Field SPA

Hermaness, Saxa Vord and Valla Field SPA lies in the north-west corner of the island of Unst, Shetland, at the northernmost tip of Britain and approximately 424.9 km from the Array. The boundary of the SPA is coincident with that of the Hermaness SSSI, Saxa Vord SSSI, and Valla Field SSSI and the seaward extension extends approximately 2 km into the marine environment. The SPA was classified in 2001, with the marine extension classified in 2009 (NatureScot, ND).
There is one Annex I qualifying seabird feature (red-throated diver) and the site qualifies under Article 4.2 by regularly supporting three migratory seabird species: great skua, puffin and gannet, and in excess of 20,000 breeding seabirds including kittiwake, guillemot, fulmar and shag. The potential for LSE2 has been identified for the breeding seabird assemblage and gannet ( Table 5.1 Open ▸ ).
The Conservation Objectives of this SPA (as determined from NatureScot’s SiteLink (NatureScot, ND)) are:

to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species 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.

North Caithness Cliffs SPA

North Caithness Cliffs SPA includes sea-cliff areas between Freswick Bay and Strathy Point on the north coast of the Scottish mainland, in addition to the island of Stroma. The site is located approximately 229.1 km from the Array. The boundary of the SPA overlaps either partly or wholly with Duncansby Head Site of SSSI, Stroma SSSI, Dunnet Head SSSI, Holborn Head SSSI, and Red Point Coast SSSI. The seaward extension extends approximately 2 km into the marine environment. The SPA was classified in 1996, with the marine extension classified in 2009 (NatureScot, ND).
The site qualifies under Article 4.1 by regularly supporting breeding peregrine falcon. The site qualifies under Article 4.2 by regularly supporting one migratory seabird species; guillemot, and in excess of 20,000 breeding seabirds. The assemblage includes four additional named species; fulmar, razorbill, puffin and kittiwake. The potential for LSE2 has been identified in relation to the seabird assemblage feature, due to the potential impact on one of these five named species: kittiwake ( Table 5.1 Open ▸ ).
The Conservation Objectives of this SPA (as determined from NatureScot’s SiteLink (NatureScot, ND)) are:

to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species 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.

North Rona and Sula Sgeir SPA

The uninhabited islands of North Rona and Sula Sgeir SPA, together with several outlying rocky islets and adjacent waters, lie 65 km north of Lewis and approximately 383.4 km from the Array. The coastlines of both islands consist mainly of cliffs except for two low-lying peninsulas on North Rona. Sula Sgeir lies about 15 km west of North Rona. The boundary of the SPA overlaps with the boundary of North Rona and Sula Sgeir SSSI, and the seaward extension extends approximately 2 km into the marine environment. The SPA was classified in 2001, with the marine extension classified in 2009 (NatureScot, ND).
There are two Annex I qualifying features (Leach’s petrel and storm petrel) and the site qualifies under Article 4.2 by regularly supporting two migratory seabird species (gannet and guillemot) and in excess of 20,000 breeding seabirds, with the breeding seabird assemblage feature including five named species: kittiwake, great black-backed gull, puffin, razorbill and fulmar. The potential for LSE2 has been identified in relation to the breeding seabird assemblage and one of these species; gannet ( Table 5.1 Open ▸ ).
The Conservation Objectives of this SPA (as determined from NatureScot’s SiteLink (NatureScot, ND)) are:

to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species 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.

Noss SPA

Noss is an offshore island lying 5 km east of Lerwick, Shetland, approximately 357.5 km from the Array. The boundary of the SPA overlaps that of the Noss SSSI and NNR and the seaward extension extends approximately 2 km into the marine environment. The SPA was classified in 1996, with the marine extension classified in 2009 (NatureScot, ND).
The site qualifies under Article 4.2 by regularly supporting three migratory seabird species; gannet, great skua and guillemot, and in excess of 20,000 breeding seabirds comprising of the additional species; kittiwake, puffin and fulmar. The potential for LSE2 has been identified for the breeding seabird assemblage and gannet ( Table 5.1 Open ▸ ).
The Conservation Objectives of this SPA (as determined from NatureScot’s SiteLink (NatureScot, ND)) are:

to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species 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.

Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex SPA

The Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex is an extensive SPA off the south-east coast of Scotland. It stretches from Arbroath in the North to St Abb’'s Head in the South and encompasses the Firth of Forth, the outer Firth of Tay and St Andrews Bay. The waters in this SPA attract one of the largest and most diverse marine bird concentrations in Scotland and the site is classified for the protection of 21 seabird and waterbird species. It covers an area of c. 2,721 km2 and complements adjacent SPAs, such as the Firth of Forth SPA, the Forth Islands SPA, the Imperial Dock, Leith SPA and the Firth of Tay and Eden Estuary SPA (NatureScot, ND).
During the breeding season, the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex SPA provides feeding grounds for a large assemblage of over 100,000 seabirds, including common terns, Arctic terns, shags, gannets, puffins, kittiwakes, Manx shearwaters, guillemots and herring gulls (NatureScot, ND).
With regards to breeding seabirds, the JNCC and NatureScot (2022) Conservation and Management Advice lists the following SPA colonies as using the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex SPA for foraging:

Arctic tern:

- Forth Islands SPA

Common tern:

- Imperial Dock Lock SPA;

- Forth Islands SPA

Kittiwake:

- Forth Islands SPA

- St Abb’s Head to Fast Castle SPA

- Fowlsheugh SPA

- Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast SPA

- Troup, Pennan and Lion’s Head SPA

Gannet:

- Forth Islands SPA

Guillemot:

- Forth Islands SPA

- St Abb’s Head to Fast Castle SPA

- Fowlsheugh SPA

- Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast SPA

Herring gull:

- Forth Islands SPA

- St Abb’s Head to Fast Castle SPA

- Fowlsheugh SPA

Puffin:

- Forth Islands SPA

Shag:

- Forth Islands SPA

During winter, the site protects important feeding, moulting and roosting grounds of inshore waterbirds, such as red-throated divers, Slavonian grebes, eiders, long-tailed ducks, common scoters, velvet scoters, goldeneyes and red-breasted mergansers. Many of these birds migrate to Scotland every year to overwinter or use the site as a staging post while on migration.
Outside of the breeding season, the site is also notable for its assemblage of over 40,000 overwintering seabirds, consisting of guillemots, shags and kittiwakes, but also razorbills, little gulls, black-headed gulls, common gulls and herring gulls.
The Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex SPA is located approximately 90 km to the southwest of the Array (at the closest point). As set out above, the SPA supports foraging seabirds from a range of SPA breeding colonies. However, this RIAA already assesses the impacts of the Array on each of these SPA colonies where an LSE2 occurs, and therefore the impacts on the breeding seabird qualifying features of the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex SPA focuses on impacts occurring on birds whilst they are within the SPA itself, rather than impacts from the Array on the colonies of seabirds that forage within the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex SPA.
Therefore, the Array itself will not lead to any impacts on the SPA or it’s qualifying species during any phases of the project. Instead, impacts will be confined to disturbance and displacement impacts resulting directly from vessel movements through the SPA itself.
The potential for LSE2 has been identified for qualifying species, or named species of a qualifying assemblage of the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex SPA, with a sensitivity to disturbance associated vessels of moderate or greater (i.e. levels 3 “moderate” to 5 “very high”) according to Wade et al. (2016). Therefore, potential LSE2 has been identified for non-breeding red-throated diver, Slavonian grebe, eider, shag, five species from the migratory waterbird assemblage (long-tailed duck, common scoter, velvet scoter, goldeneye and red-breasted merganser), three species from the non-breeding seabird assemblage (guillemot, razorbill and shag (which are already listed)) and two species from the breeding seabird assemblage (puffin and guillemot (which are already listed)) ( Table 5.1 Open ▸ ).
The Conservation Objectives of this SPA (as determined from NatureScot’s SiteLink (NatureScot, ND)) are:

To ensure that the qualifying features of the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex SPA are in favourable condition and make an appropriate contribution to achieving Favourable Conservation Status; and
To ensure that the integrity of the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex SPA is restored in the context of environmental changes by meeting objectives 2a, 2b and 2c for each qualifying feature:

- 2a The populations of the qualifying features are viable components of the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex SPA;

- 2b. The distribution of the qualifying features is maintained throughout the site by avoiding significant disturbance of the species; and

- 2c. The supporting habitats and processes relevant to qualifying features and their prey resources are maintained, or where appropriate restored, at the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex SPA.

St Abb’s Head to Fast Castle SPA

The St Abb’s Head to Fast Castle SPA is located on the Berwickshire coast in south-east Scotland, at approximately 125.5 km from the Array. The SPA was designated in 1997 and comprises an area of sea cliffs and coastal strip along which there are multiple seabird colonies, with a seaward extension which extends approximately 1 km into the marine environment (NatureScot, ND).
There are no Annex I qualifying features and the site qualifies under Article 4.2 by regularly supporting in excess of 20,000 individual seabirds, with the breeding seabird assemblage feature including five named component species; kittiwake, herring gull, guillemot, razorbill and shag. The potential for LSE2 has been identified in relation to one of the five species of the breeding seabird assemblage; kittiwake ( Table 5.1 Open ▸ ).
The Conservation Objectives of this SPA (as determined from NatureScot’s SiteLink (NatureScot, ND)) are:

to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species 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.

St Kilda SPA

St Kilda is a group of remote Scottish islands lying in the North Atlantic about 70 km west of North Uist in the Outer Hebrides and is approximately 468.4 km from the Array. The SPA was designated in 1992, with marine extension classified on 25 September 2009. The boundary of the SPA overlaps with the boundary of St. Kilda SSSI, and the seaward extension extends approximately 4 km into the marine environment to include the seabed, water column and surface (NatureScot, ND).
The site qualifies by regularly supporting two Annex I species; Leach’s petrel and storm petrel, and the site qualifies under Article 4.2 for its breeding populations of gannet, great skua and puffin, as well as by regularly supporting in excess of 20,000 individual seabirds. Additional named components of the seabird assemblage are kittiwake, guillemot, razorbill, fulmar and Manx shearwater. The potential for LSE2 has been identified for the breeding seabird assemblage, gannet and Manx shearwater ( Table 5.1 Open ▸ ).
The draft conservation objectives (NatureScot, ND) of the St Kilda SPA are to:

To ensure that the qualifying features of St Kilda SPA and the Seas off St Kilda SPA are in favourable condition and make an appropriate contribution to achieving Favourable Conservation Status.
To ensure that the integrity of St Kilda SPA and the Seas off St Kilda SPA is restored in the context of environmental changes by meeting objectives 2a, 2b and 2c for each qualifying feature:

- The populations of qualifying features are viable components of St Kilda SPA and Seas off St Kilda SPA.

- The distributions of the qualifying features throughout St Kilda SPA and Seas off St Kilda SPA are maintained by avoiding significant disturbance of the species.

- The supporting habitats and processes relevant to qualifying features and their prey/food resources are maintained, or where appropriate restored, at St Kilda SPA and/or Seas off St Kilda SPA.

Sule Skerry and Sule Stack SPA

Sule Skerry and Sule Stack are isolated islets 60 km west of Mainland, Orkney, approximately 320.4 km from the Array. 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 (NatureScot, ND).
There are two Annex I qualifying features (Leach’s petrel and storm petrel) and the site qualifies under Article 4.2 by regularly supporting two migratory seabird species (breeding gannet and puffin) and in excess of 20,000 breeding seabirds, including guillemot and shag. The potential for LSE2 has been identified in relation to the breeding seabird assemblage and one of these species; gannet ( Table 5.1 Open ▸ ).
The Conservation Objectives of this SPA (as determined from NatureScot’s SiteLink (NatureScot, ND)) are:

to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species 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.

Troup, Pennan and Lion’s Head SPA

The Troup, Pennan and Lion’s Heads SPA is a 9 km stretch of sea cliffs along the Aberdeenshire coast, situated approximately 120.6 km from the Array. The boundary of the SPA overlaps with the boundary of Gamrie and Pennan coast SSSI and the seaward extension extends approximately 2 km into the marine environment. The SPA was classified in 1997, with the marine extension classified in 2009 (NatureScot, ND).
The site qualifies under Article 4.2 by regularly supporting two migratory seabird species; guillemot and kittiwake, and in excess of 20,000 breeding seabirds, including three named component species; herring gull, razorbill and fulmar. The potential for LSE2 has been identified for the breeding seabird assemblage and kittiwake ( Table 5.1 Open ▸ ).
The Conservation Objectives of this SPA (as determined from NatureScot’s SiteLink (NatureScot, ND)) are:

to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species 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.

5.3.3. Migratory Waterbirds

Information on migratory waterbirds and SPAs designated for them comes from the SPA Citation and JNCC Data Form (JNCC, 2022) and Ramsar Information Sheet (RSIS, ND) for each site, supplemented with additional information where noted.

Cameron Reservoir SPA and Ramsar site

Cameron Reservoir SPA and Ramsar site has a total area of 68.71 ha. It contains an artificial loch with beds of aquatic and marginal vegetation. The open water is used as a roost by an internationally important wintering population of pink-footed geese, that feed on the surrounding farmland. The boundary of the SPA is coincident with that of Cameron Reservoir SSSI (JNCC, 2022).
The site is designated for pink-footed goose (non-breeding), and a potential LSE2 has been identified for this species.
The conservation objectives for the site (JNCC, 2022) are:

to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species 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.

Din Moss – Hoselaw Loch SPA and Ramsar site

Din Moss – Hoselaw Loch SPA and Ramsar site is located on the northern slopes of the Cheviot Hills in southern Scotland. Hoselaw Loch is a mid-attitude loch that is surrounded by Din Moss, an area of raised bog with associated lagg fens. Din Moss – Hoselaw Loch SPA and Ramsar site has a total area of 50.58 ha. It contains a small freshwater lake with associated fen and raised mire that provides a roosting site for internationally important numbers of wintering geese (JNCC, 2022).
The site is designated for greylag goose (non-breeding) and pink-footed goose (non-breeding), and a potential LSE2 has been identified for these species.
The conservation objectives for the site (JNCC, 2022) are:

to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species 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.

Fala Flow SPA and Ramsar site

Fala Flow SPA and Ramsar site is situated within the Lammermuir Hills in the Scottish Southern Uplands. Fala Flow SPA and Ramsar site has an area of 317.75 ha. The site consists of a blanket mire, with some pools which support an internationally important goose roost (JNCC, 2022).
The site is designated for pink-footed goose (non-breeding), and a potential LSE2 has been identified for this species.
The conservation objectives for the site (JNCC, 2022) are:

to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species 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.

Firth of Forth SPA and Ramsar site

The Firth of Forth SPA consists of estuarine and coastal habitats in south-east Scotland stretching from Alloa to the coasts of Fife and East Lothian. The boundary of the SPA mostly follows that of the Firth of Forth SSSI and slightly overlaps with Forth Islands SPA. The Firth of Forth SPA and Ramsar site is a large coastal area comprising a complex of estuaries, mudflats, rocky shorelines, beaches and saltmarshes, including many fragmentary bits of shoreline considered to act as a single ecological unit. Several large urban areas, including Edinburgh, are adjacent to the site and include areas of heavy industry and well-used maritime shipping lanes. The site provides habitat for large numbers of wintering waders and wildfowl, many in nationally and internationally important numbers (JNCC, 2022).
The site is designated for bar-tailed godwit (non-breeding), golden plover (non-breeding), knot (non-breeding), pink-footed goose (non-breeding), red-throated diver (non-breeding), redshank (non-breeding), Sandwich tern (passage), shelduck (non-breeding), Slavonian grebe (non-breeding), turnstone (non-breeding) and non-breeding waterbird assemblage including the following additional named components; scaup, great crested grebe, cormorant, curlew, eider, long-tailed duck, common scoter, velvet scoter, goldeneye, red-breasted merganser, oystercatcher, ringed plover, grey plover, dunlin, mallard, lapwing and wigeon. A potential LSE2 has been identified for all of these species and the non-breeding waterbird assemblage.
The conservation objectives for the site (JNCC, 2022) are:

to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species 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.

Firth of Tay and Eden Estuary SPA and Ramsar site

The Firth of Tay and Eden Estuary SPA is a complex of estuarine and coastal habitats in eastern Scotland from the mouth of the River Earn in the inner Firth of Tay, east to Barry Sands on the Angus coast and St Andrews on the Fife coast. For much of its length the main channel of the estuary lies close to the southern shore and the most extensive intertidal flats are on the north side, west of Dundee. In Monifieth Bay, to the east of Dundee, the substrate becomes sandier and there are also mussel beds. The south shore consists of fairly steeply shelving mud and shingle. The Inner Tay Estuary is particularly noted for the continuous dense stands of common reed along its northern shore. These reedbeds, inundated during high tides, are amongst the largest in Britain. Eastwards, as conditions become more saline, there are areas of saltmarsh, a relatively scarce habitat in eastern Scotland. The boundary of the SPA is contained within the following Sites of Special Scientific Interest: Inner Tay Estuary, Monifieth Bay, Barry Links, Tayport -Tentsmuir Coast and Eden Estuary (JNCC, 2022).
At least four species of wintering waterbird are present above the 1% threshold of international importance, and on average some 48,000 waterbirds are supported there in winter, including 14 species in nationally important numbers.
The site is designated for little tern (breeding), bar-tailed godwit (non-breeding), greylag goose (non-breeding), pink-footed goose (non-breeding), redshank (non-breeding) and non-breeding waterbird assemblage including the following additional named components; cormorant, velvet scoter, shelduck, eider, common scoter, Icelandic black-tailed godwit, goldeneye, red-breasted merganser, goosander, oystercatcher, grey plover, sanderling, dunlin and long-tailed duck. A potential LSE2 has been identified for all of these species, with the exception of little tern, and the non-breeding waterbird assemblage.
The conservation objectives for the site (JNCC, 2022) are:

to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species 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.

Gladhouse Reservoir SPA and Ramsar site

Gladhouse Reservoir SPA lies in the Moorfoot Hills of the Southern Uplands of Scotland, about 20 km south of Edinburgh. The boundary of the SPA is coincident with the Gladhouse Reservoir SSSI and has a total area of 186.58 ha (JNCC, 2022).
The site is designated for pink-footed goose (non-breeding), and a potential LSE2 has been identified for this species.
The conservation objectives for the site (JNCC, 2022) are:

to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species 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.

Greenlaw Moor SPA and Ramsar site

The Greenlaw Moor SPA is located in the southern Lammermuir Hills. The site includes two pools surrounded by an area of moorland. Greenlaw Moor SPA and Ramsar site has a total area of 245.81 ha. The site consists of an important heather moorland and includes raised mire and two pools. The area of raised moss is well developed and supports a typical flora, including regionally uncommon mosses. Internationally important numbers of pink-footed geese winter at the site (JNCC, 2022).
The site is designated for pink-footed goose (non-breeding), and a potential LSE2 has been identified for this species.
The conservation objectives for the site (JNCC, 2022) are:

to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species 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.

Holburn Lake and Moss SPA and Ramsar site

Holburn Lake and Moss is located about 5 km inland from the coast of Northumberland in north-east England. The site comprises part of a lowland raised mire and parts of the adjacent slopes that form its catchment area. Holburn Lake and Moss SPA and Ramsar site has a total area of 27.96 ha. It contains an artificial lake and island supporting reedbeds and adjacent mire areas supporting various species of typical mire vegetation. The lake is a roosting site for internationally important numbers of geese (JNCC, 2022).
The site is designated for greylag goose (non-breeding), and a potential LSE2 has been identified for this species.
The conservation objectives for the site (JNCC, 2022) are to ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the Wild Birds Directive, by maintaining or restoring;

the extent and distribution of the habitats of the qualifying features;
the structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying features;
the supporting processes on which the habitats of the qualifying features rely;
the population of each of the qualifying features; and
the distribution of the qualifying features within the site.

Lindisfarne SPA and Ramsar site

Lindisfarne, or Holy Island, is a large island off the north-east coast of Northumberland. The SPA, designated in 1990, is also a Ramsar site and a National Nature Reserve, managed by Natural England. The site consists of extensive intertidal flats, with a large area of saltmarsh, a major sand dune system which supports beds of Zostera. The slacks provide food for an internationally important flock of wintering light-bellied brent geese. Various species of ducks and geese winter in internationally important numbers regularly exceeding 20,000 individuals. The site is of national importance for breeding terns. The dune systems support a rich flora and diverse invertebrate fauna (JNCC, 2022).
The site is designated for, bar-tailed godwit (non-breeding), common scoter (non-breeding), dunlin (non-breeding), eider (non-breeding), golden plover (non-breeding), grey plover (non-breeding), greylag goose (non-breeding), light-bellied brent goose (non-breeding), long-tailed duck (non-breeding), red-breasted merganser (non-breeding), redshank (non-breeding), ringed plover (non-breeding), sanderling (non-breeding), shelduck (non-breeding) and whooper swan (non-breeding) and wigeon (non-breeding). A potential LSE2 has been identified for all of these species.
The conservation objectives for the site (JNCC, 2022) are to:

ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the Wild Birds Directive, by maintaining or restoring;

- the extent and distribution of the habitats of the qualifying features;

- the structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying features;

- the supporting processes on which the habitats of the qualifying features rely;

- the population of each of the qualifying features, and; and

- the distribution of the qualifying features within the site.

Loch of Kinnordy SPA and Ramsar site

The Loch of Kinnordy SPA is a eutrophic loch with associated wet meadows and marshes in Angus, Scotland. The site is of international importance for its wintering and breeding birds. Loch of Kinnordy SPA and Ramsar site has a total area of 86 ha. It contains a nutrient-rich loch and associated wetland communities consisting of basin mire, swamp, and fen. The boundary of the SPA is coincident with that of the Loch of Kinnordy Site of Special Scientific Interest (JNCC, 2022).
The site is designated for greylag goose (non-breeding) and pink-footed goose (non-breeding), and a potential LSE2 has been identified for these species.
The conservation objectives for the site (JNCC, 2022) are:

to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species 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.

Loch Leven SPA and Ramsar site

Loch Leven in central Scotland is the largest natural eutrophic lake in Britain. It is a relatively shallow loch, surrounded by farmland, with a diverse aquatic flora and shoreline vegetation. The boundary of the Loch Leven SPA follows that of the Loch Leven SSSI except for the exclusion of 4 ha of SSSI towards the northern end of the loch (JNCC, 2022).
The site is designated for whooper swan (non-breeding), pink-footed goose (non-breeding), shoveler (non-breeding) and non-breeding waterbird assemblage including the following additional named components; cormorant, gadwall, teal, pochard, tufted duck and goldeneye. A potential LSE2 has been identified for all of these species and the non-breeding waterbird assemblage.
The conservation objectives for the site (JNCC, 2022) are:

to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species 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.

Montrose Basin SPA and Ramsar site

The Montrose Basin SPA contains the enclosed estuary of the River South Esk on the east coast of Scotland, and Dun's Dish, a small eutrophic loch 4 km north-west of the Basin. It contains areas of mudflat, marsh and agricultural land and supports a diverse assemblage of wintering waterbird of outstanding nature conservation and scientific importance. The boundaries of Montrose Basin SPA follow those of Montrose Basin SSSI and Dun's Dish SSSI (JNCC, 2022).
Montrose Basin SPA and Ramsar site is located on the east coast of Scotland north of Dundee. It has a total area of 981.19 ha. The site, relatively unimpacted by development, consists of an enclosed estuary, mudflats, marsh, and a small nutrient-rich loch. Due to its unusual hydrology, there is a high species diversity in the intertidal zone. Internationally important numbers of pink-footed geese, greylag geese, and redshank winter at the site. Human activities include recreation, agriculture, and livestock grazing.
The site is designated for greylag goose (non-breeding), pink-footed goose (non-breeding), redshank (non-breeding) and non-breeding waterbird assemblage including the following additional named components; oystercatcher, eider, wigeon, knot, dunlin and shelduck. A potential LSE2 has been identified for all of these species and the non-breeding waterbird assemblage.

The conservation objectives for the site (JNCC, 2022) are:

to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species 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.

Northumbria Coast SPA and Ramsar site

The Northumbria Coast SPA is located in north-east England and includes much of the coastline between the Tees and Tweed Estuaries. The site consists of mainly discrete sections of rocky shore with associated boulder and cobble beaches. The SPA also includes parts of three artificial pier structures and a small section of sandy beach. In summer, the site supports an internationally important population of breeding little tern and Arctic tern, and two species of wintering waders occur in internationally important numbers, turnstone and purple sandpiper. The Northumbria Coast SPA was classified in 2000, and qualifies under Article 4.1 of the due to supporting breeding Arctic tern and little tern, and under Article 4.2 due to supporting two migratory species; turnstone and purple sandpiper. A potential LSE2 has been identified for turnstone and purple sandpiper (JNCC, 2022).
The conservation objectives for the site (JNCC, 2022) are to ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the Wild Birds Directive, by maintaining or restoring:

the extent and distribution of the habitats of the qualifying features;
the structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying features;
the supporting processes on which the habitats of the qualifying features rely;
the population of each of the qualifying features; and
the distribution of the qualifying features within the site.

Slamannan Platea SPA

Slamannan Plateau lies just east of Cumbernauld, in the headwaters of the River Avon. It consists of two small lochs and their surrounding peatlands and associated areas of rough and improved grassland. These habitats support roosting and feeding Taiga bean geese during periods in winter. It has a total area of 590.91 ha (JNCC, 2022).
The site is designated for Taiga bean goose (non-breeding), and a potential LSE2 has been identified for this species.
The conservation objectives for the site (JNCC, 2022) are:

to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species 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.

South Tayside Goose Roosts SPA and Ramsar site

South Tayside Goose Roosts SPA and Ramsar site comprises seven lochs, a number of smaller water bodies and other wetland habitats in Strathearn and Strathallan to the west of Perth. The site is overlapped completely by parts of three SSSI: Carsebreck and Rhynd Lochs SSSI, Drummond Lochs SSSI, and Dupplin Lakes SSSI. South Tayside Goose Roosts SPA and Ramsar site has a total area of 332.17 ha. The lochs provide roost sites for internationally important numbers of wintering geese and for nationally important numbers of nesting ducks (JNCC, 2022).
The site is designated for greylag goose (non-breeding), pink-footed goose (non-breeding), wigeon (non-breeding) and non-breeding waterbird assemblage including these same species as the main named components. A potential LSE2 has been identified for all of these species and the non-breeding waterbird assemblage.
The conservation objectives for the site (JNCC, 2022) are:

to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species 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.

Westwater SPA and Ramsar site

Westwater SPA and Ramsar site is located 320 m above sea level in the Pentland Hills. The boundary of the SPA is coincident with Westwater Reservoir SSSI and has a total area of 49.8 ha. The site supports internationally important numbers of wintering pink-footed geese, among various other wintering waterbirds (JNCC, 2022).
The site is designated for pink-footed goose (non-breeding) and non-breeding waterbird assemblage including pink-footed goose as the main named component. A potential LSE2 has been identified for this species and the non-breeding waterbird assemblage.
The conservation objectives for the site (JNCC, 2022) are:

to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species 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.

Ythan Estuary, Sands of Forvie and Meikle Loch SPA/Ythan Estuary and Meikle Loch Ramsar site

Ythan Estuary, Sands of Forvie and Meikle Loch SPA covers a complex area in the north-east of Scotland that contains the long, narrow estuary of the River Ythan, the Sands of Forvie on the east bank of the estuary; the eutrophic Meikle Loch and a marine component covering the area between Aberdeen and Cruden Bay to the north. The boundaries of the SPA follow those of Sands of Forvie and Ythan Estuary SSSI and the shore of Meikle Loch and Little Loch within Meikle Loch and Kippet Hills SSSI (JNCC, 2022).
Ythan Estuary, Sands of Forvie and Meikle Loch SPA has a total area of 7062.03 ha. The site is a combination of inland wetlands and marine and coastal wetlands. The area is a waterbird wintering ground and supports well over 20,000 waterbirds. The main activities in the area include nature conservation, recreation, fishing, rough or shifting grazing.
The site is designated for common tern (breeding), little tern (breeding), Sandwich tern (breeding), pink-footed goose (non-breeding) and non-breeding waterbird assemblage including the following additional named components; eider, lapwing and redshank. A potential LSE2 has been identified for pink-footed goose and the non-breeding waterbird assemblage.
The conservation objectives for the site (JNCC, 2022) are:

To ensure that the qualifying features of Ythan Estuary, Sands of Forvie and Meikle Loch SPA are in favourable condition and make an appropriate contribution to achieving Favourable Conservation Status.
To ensure that the integrity of Ythan Estuary, Sands of Forvie and Meikle Loch SPA is restored in the context of environmental changes by meeting the following objectives for each qualifying feature:

- The populations of the qualifying features are viable components of the site.

- The distributions of the qualifying features throughout the site are maintained by avoiding significant disturbance of the species.

- The supporting habitats and processes relevant to the qualifying features and their prey/food resources are maintained, or where appropriate, restored.

5.4. Assessment of the Adverse Effects Alone

5.4.1. Disturbance and Displacement

The LSE2 assessment during the HRA screening process identified that during construction, operation and maintenance and decommissioning phases, LSE2 could not be ruled out for disturbance and displacement. This relates to the following European sites and relevant marine ornithological features:

Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast SPA

- breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on breeding kittiwake).

Copinsay SPA

- breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on breeding kittiwake).

Coquet Island SPA

- breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on breeding puffin).

East Caithness Cliffs SPA

- kittiwake (breeding); and

- breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).

Fair Isle SPA

- breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on breeding gannet).

Farne Islands SPA

- breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on breeding puffin and breeding kittiwake).

Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA

- gannet (breeding);

- guillemot (breeding);

- kittiwake (breeding); and

- breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).

Forth Islands SPA

- gannet (breeding);

- puffin (breeding); and

- breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species and breeding kittiwake).

Fowlsheugh SPA

- kittiwake (breeding); and

- breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species and breeding razorbill).

Hermaness, Saxa Vord and Valla Field SPA

- gannet (breeding); and

- breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).

North Caithness Cliffs SPA

- breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on breeding kittiwake).

North Rona and Sula Sgeir SPA

- gannet (breeding); and

- breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).

Noss SPA

- gannet (breeding); and

- breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).

Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex SPA

- non-breeding red-throated diver;

- non-breeding Slavonian grebe;

- non-breeding eider;

- non-breeding shag;

- migratory waterbird assemblage (due to potential impact on non-breeding long-tailed duck, common scoter, velvet scoter, goldeneye and red-breasted merganser);

- non-breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on non-breeding guillemot, shag and razorbill); and

- breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on breeding puffin and guillemot).

St Abb’s Head to Fast Castle SPA

- breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on breeding kittiwake).

St Kilda SPA

- gannet (breeding); and

- breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).

Sule Skerry and Sule Stack SPA

- gannet (breeding); and

- breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).

Troup, Pennan and Lion’s Heads SPA

- kittiwake (breeding); and

- breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).

The MDS considered within the assessment of disturbance and displacement is shown in Table 5.4 Open ▸ .

Table 5.4: MDS Considered for the Assessment of Potential Impacts to Marine Ornithological Features due to Disturbance and Displacement During the Construction, Operation and Maintenance, and Decommissioning Phases

Project Phase	MDS	Justification
Construction	Site Preparation and Construction Phases Up to 15 Unexploded Ordnance (UXOs) to be cleared, totalling 8 days of clearance activities, with a maximum of 2 detonations in a 24 hour period. A total of up to 49,948,548 m2 (49.95 km2) of temporary habitat loss and/or disturbance due to:  a footprint area of 14,723,348 m2 due to boulder and sand wave clearance;  a footprint area of 9,540,000 m2 due to disturbance due to Drag Embedment Anchor (DEA) installation;  a footprint area of 25,392,000 m2 due to disturbance caused by the installation of inter-array and interconnector cables; and  a footprint area of 43,200 m2 due to jack up vessel use for Offshore Substation Platform (OSP) installation. This represents 5.82% of the total site boundary. Wind turbine foundations:  up to 265 wind turbine foundations;  up to 6 piles per foundation;  up to 8 hours maximum piling per pile, therefore 3 piles installed over 24 hour period. Up to 2 concurrent piling events;  minimum distance between piling events 950 m, maximum distance 41 km. Piling may occur up to 795 days over construction phase. Drilling of piles for wind turbine foundations is not anticipated, however, drilling at 10% of pile locations is being considered as contingency in the event that challenging ground conditions are identified. Maximum of 200 hrs drilling per pile. Maximum of 1 drilling event at any one time. OSPs  up to 6 large OSPs;  each OSP with 12 legs per foundation and 24 piles per foundation (144 piles in total), pile diameter 4.5 m, 70 m penetration depth;  The MDS assumes that all OSP piles require drilling. Maximum of 425 hours per pile, maximum drilling duration 2,550 days. Maximum of 1 drilling event at any one time. Vessels Maximum of 97 vessels on site at any one time during site preparation and construction, comprising a range of vessel types including main installation vessels, Crew Transfer Vessels (CTVs), tug vessels and others. Totalling 7,902 return vessel trips during construction. Maximum of 7 helicopters on site at any one time, totalling 3,942 return trips during construction. Wind Turbine Towing Up to 3 wind turbines will be towed at one time. 160 hours of towing to site, at a speed of 2.5 knots.	Construction noise activities including installation of wind turbine and OSP foundations and UXO clearance activities. Represents the maximum number of UXO clearances and piling events for the relevant infrastructure foundation options.
Operation and maintenance	Wind turbines up to 265 wind turbines; maximum rotor diameter 236 m, hub height 148 m above Lowest Astronomical Tide (LAT), minimum blade clearance 36 m above LAT, upper blade tip height 266 m above LAT; and wind turbine spacing minimum 1,000 m, maximum 2,832 m. Operation and maintenance vessels Maximum of 31 vessels on site at any one time, comprising a range of vessel types including CTVs, tug vessels and others. Totalling 508 return vessel trips per year. Maximum of 3 helicopters on site at any one time, totalling 216 return trips per year.	Represents the maximum number of vessel and helicopter movements that would cause greatest visual and noise disturbance and displacement to birds from the Array during operation and maintenance activities. Represents the maximum number of wind turbines that would cause disturbance and displacement to birds from the Array during operation.
Decommissioning	At the end of the operational lifetime of the Array, it is anticipated that all floating structures will be completely removed. The decommissioning sequence will generally be the reverse of the construction sequence and involve similar types and numbers of vessels and equipment. The decommissioning plan and programme will be updated during the project lifespan to take account of changing best practice and new technologies. It may be decided, closer to the time of decommissioning, that removal will result in greater environmental impacts than leaving components in situ. For the purposes of the MDS, it is assumed that decommissioning will be the same as construction.	Decommissioning impacts assumed to be lesser than construction impacts, with no UXO clearance works.

Project Phase

MDS

Justification

Construction

Site Preparation and Construction Phases

Up to 15 Unexploded Ordnance (UXOs) to be cleared, totalling 8 days of clearance activities, with a maximum of 2 detonations in a 24 hour period.

A total of up to 49,948,548 m2 (49.95 km2) of temporary habitat loss and/or disturbance due to:

 a footprint area of 14,723,348 m2 due to boulder and sand wave clearance;

 a footprint area of 9,540,000 m2 due to disturbance due to Drag Embedment Anchor (DEA) installation;

 a footprint area of 25,392,000 m2 due to disturbance caused by the installation of inter-array and interconnector cables; and

 a footprint area of 43,200 m2 due to jack up vessel use for Offshore Substation Platform (OSP) installation.

This represents 5.82% of the total site boundary.

Wind turbine foundations:

 up to 265 wind turbine foundations;

 up to 6 piles per foundation;

 up to 8 hours maximum piling per pile, therefore 3 piles installed over 24 hour period. Up to 2 concurrent piling events;

 minimum distance between piling events 950 m, maximum distance 41 km. Piling may occur up to 795 days over construction phase.

Drilling of piles for wind turbine foundations is not anticipated, however, drilling at 10% of pile locations is being considered as contingency in the event that challenging ground conditions are identified. Maximum of 200 hrs drilling per pile. Maximum of 1 drilling event at any one time.

OSPs

 up to 6 large OSPs;

 each OSP with 12 legs per foundation and 24 piles per foundation (144 piles in total), pile diameter 4.5 m, 70 m penetration depth;

 The MDS assumes that all OSP piles require drilling. Maximum of 425 hours per pile, maximum drilling duration 2,550 days. Maximum of 1 drilling event at any one time.

Vessels

Maximum of 97 vessels on site at any one time during site preparation and construction, comprising a range of vessel types including main installation vessels, Crew Transfer Vessels (CTVs), tug vessels and others.

Totalling 7,902 return vessel trips during construction.

Maximum of 7 helicopters on site at any one time, totalling 3,942 return trips during construction.

Wind Turbine Towing

Up to 3 wind turbines will be towed at one time. 160 hours of towing to site, at a speed of 2.5 knots.

Construction noise activities including installation of wind turbine and OSP foundations and UXO clearance activities. Represents the maximum number of UXO clearances and piling events for the relevant infrastructure foundation options.

Operation and maintenance

Wind turbines

up to 265 wind turbines;
maximum rotor diameter 236 m, hub height 148 m above Lowest Astronomical Tide (LAT), minimum blade clearance 36 m above LAT, upper blade tip height 266 m above LAT; and
wind turbine spacing minimum 1,000 m, maximum 2,832 m.

Operation and maintenance vessels

Maximum of 31 vessels on site at any one time, comprising a range of vessel types including CTVs, tug vessels and others.

Totalling 508 return vessel trips per year.

Maximum of 3 helicopters on site at any one time, totalling 216 return trips per year.

Represents the maximum number of vessel and helicopter movements that would cause greatest visual and noise disturbance and displacement to birds from the Array during operation and maintenance activities.

Represents the maximum number of wind turbines that would cause disturbance and displacement to birds from the Array during operation.

Decommissioning

At the end of the operational lifetime of the Array, it is anticipated that all floating structures will be completely removed. The decommissioning sequence will generally be the reverse of the construction sequence and involve similar types and numbers of vessels and equipment. The decommissioning plan and programme will be updated during the project lifespan to take account of changing best practice and new technologies. It may be decided, closer to the time of decommissioning, that removal will result in greater environmental impacts than leaving components in situ.

For the purposes of the MDS, it is assumed that decommissioning will be the same as construction.

Decommissioning impacts assumed to be lesser than construction impacts, with no UXO clearance works.

Table 5.5: Designed In Measures Considered for the Assessment of Potential Impacts to Marine Ornithological Features due to Disturbance and Displacement During the Construction Phase

Designed In Measures	Justification	How the Designed In Measure will be Secured
UXO clearance using low order disposal techniques where technically feasible.	Low order techniques will be adopted wherever practicable (e.g. deflagration and clearance shots) as mitigation to reduce noise levels and thereby injury and disturbance to sound-sensitive receptors during UXO clearance. There is a small risk that low order disposal could unintentionally arise in a high order detonation and therefore this scenario has also been considered in the assessment of likely significant effects.	UXO clearance will be subject to a separate Marine Licence application and EPS Licence as appropriate. Mitigation, including, implementation of low order disposal will be secured through the relevant Marine Licence and EPS licence.

Construction phase

Breeding Seabirds

Direct disturbance to breeding seabird populations during the construction phase may arise within the Array (and its immediate vicinity) as a result of increased vessel movements and helicopter activity, as well as from other activities directly associated with the installation of the wind turbine foundations and other infrastructure, whilst there will also be increased vessel activity along the Proposed offshore export cable corridor(s) due to the cable laying activities.
Few studies have directly considered displacement rates during the construction phase of an offshore wind farm. Most studies have compared pre-construction to post-construction. It is expected that the amount of displacement during the construction phase of the Array would be significantly less than that during the operational phase due to there being a smaller footprint whilst the Array is being constructed the number of wind turbines present at the Array will vary from none at the start of the construction phase through to the maximum number as defined in the MDS ( Table 5.4 Open ▸ ).
The total area to be affected by such disturbance over the period of construction also represents a small proportion of the total area of marine habitat available to seabirds. Within the breeding season, the Array will only occupy a small portion of the total foraging habitat available. The total footprint of the Array is 858 km2, and in order for the entire array to be within foraging range from a colony, a seabird’s range would need to be at least 140 km. With a foraging range of exactly 140 km (which is therefore the worst case), and assuming available foraging habitat occupies a semi-circle from the colony (a reasonable estimate for mainland colonies; for island colonies the available foraging habitat will be even greater), the total foraging habitat available would be 30,792 km2. The Array therefore occupies, as a worst case, 2.8% of the available foraging habitat within the breeding season. Outside the breeding season, seabirds are not constrained to foraging within range of a colony and therefore the proportion of habitat occupied by the Array is lower still.
Any impacts resulting from disturbance and displacement during the construction phase, if experienced at all, are considered to be less impactful than those felt during operation and maintenance. Any impacts would be temporary and reversible in nature, lasting only for the duration of construction activities.
Therefore, it is expected that the impact of disturbance and displacement during the construction phase for the Array alone will be negligible. Therefore, it can be concluded, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, that there will be no Adverse Effect On Integrity (AEOI) on any breeding seabird feature of any site during the construction phase.

Non-breeding Seabirds in the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex SPA

An additional assessment has been carried out to assess the potential impact on non-breeding seabird features of the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex SPA. This is the only site screened in which has non-breeding seabird features.
The location of ports for the construction of the Array has not been determined prior to application. However, the use of a port or ports located within the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex SPA cannot be ruled out. Therefore, as a worst-case scenario the MDS assumes that all vessel movements required for all phases of the project will pass through the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex SPA. This equates to up to 7,902 return vessel trips during construction.
Construction will take up to eight years. Therefore, 7,902 return vessel trips averages out at 988 return vessel trips per year or 2.7 return trips a day. Based on this, it is assumed that there will be, on average, 2.7 return trips a day throughout construction.
As shown in Figure 5.2 Open ▸ there are numerous existing vessel routes through the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex SPA, and the greatest concentration of these is in the coastal waters, close to the coastline (data taken from Marine Scotland, 2024). This is also where the greatest numbers of the waterbirds and seabirds occur within the SPA.
Non-breeding red-throated diver within the Outer Firth of Forth and St. Andrew’s Bay Complex SPA have the highest concentrations recorded in coastal areas off St Andrews Bay and the Firth of Tay, with lower numbers in the Firth of Forth between Edinburgh and North Berwick ( Figure 5.3 Open ▸ , data taken from Marine Scotland, 2024). As can be seen in Figure 5.2 Open ▸ these areas of highest concentrations overlap with areas of existing high levels of vessel movements.
Non-breeding Slavonian grebes are typically restricted to the coastline of the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex SPA, particularly the Firth of Forth bay, as shown in Figure 5.4 Open ▸ (data taken from Marine Scotland, 2024).
Non-breeding eider within the Outer Firth of Forth and St. Andrew’s Bay Complex SPA have the highest concentrations recorded in coastal areas off St Andrews Bay and the Firth of Tay, as well as the Firth of Forth ( Figure 5.5 Open ▸ , data taken from Marine Scotland, 2024). As can be seen in Figure 5.2 Open ▸ these areas of highest concentrations overlap with areas of existing high levels of vessel movements.
Non-breeding long-tailed duck within the Outer Firth of Forth and St. Andrew’s Bay Complex SPA have the highest concentrations recorded in coastal areas off the Firth of Tay and the Firth of Forth ( Figure 5.6 Open ▸ , data taken from Marine Scotland, 2024). As can be seen in Figure 5.2 Open ▸ these areas of highest concentrations overlap with areas of existing high levels of vessel movements.
Non-breeding common scoter within the Outer Firth of Forth and St. Andrew’s Bay Complex SPA have the highest concentrations recorded off the Forth of Tay and the Firth of Forth, between Kirkcaldy and Kilconquhar, and between Musselburgh and North Berwick ( Figure 5.7 Open ▸ , data taken from Marine Scotland, 2024). As can be seen in Figure 5.2 Open ▸ these areas of highest concentrations overlap with areas of existing high levels of vessel movements.
Non-breeding velvet scoter within the Outer Firth of Forth and St. Andrew’s Bay Complex SPA have the highest concentrations recorded off the Forth of Tay, with birds also along the coastline of the Firth of Forth, between Kirkcaldy and Kilconquhar, and between Edinburgh and North Berwick ( Figure 5.8 Open ▸ , data taken from Marine Scotland, 2024). As can be seen in Figure 5.2 Open ▸ these areas of highest concentrations overlap with areas of existing high levels of vessel movements.
Non-breeding goldeneye are typically restricted to the coastline of the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex SPA, particularly the Firth of Forth bay, as shown in Figure 5.9 Open ▸ (data taken from Marine Scotland, 2024).
Non-breeding red-breasted merganser within the Outer Firth of Forth and St. Andrew’s Bay Complex SPA have the highest concentrations recorded off the Forth of Tay and St Andrews Bay, with birds also along the coastline of the Firth of Forth, between Edinburgh and Kilconquhar, and also between Edinburgh and North Berwick ( Figure 5.10 Open ▸ , data taken from Marine Scotland, 2024). As can be seen in Figure 5.2 Open ▸ these areas of highest concentrations overlap with areas of existing high levels of vessel movements.

Figure 5.2: Annual averages of vessel movement throughout Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex SPA

Figure 5.3: Red-throated diver non-breeding distribution in Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex SPA

Figure 5.4: Slavonian grebe non-breeding distribution in Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex SPA

Figure 5.5: Eider non-breeding distribution in Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex SPA

Figure 5.6: Long-tailed duck non-breeding distribution in Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex SPA

Figure 5.7: Common scoter non-breeding distribution in Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex SPA

Figure 5.8: Velvet scoter non-breeding distribution in Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex SPA

Figure 5.9: Goldeneye non-breeding distribution in Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex SPA

Figure 5.10: Red-breasted merganser non-breeding distribution in Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex SPA

Figure 5.11: Guillemot non-breeding distribution in Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex SPA

The distribution of razorbill is not presented in Marine Scotland (2024). However, it is assumed to have a distribution similar to that of guillemot as a proxy species, as these auks have similar foraging requirements.
Non-breeding guillemot are less associated with the coastline than other species, with concentrations in the mouth of the Forth Estuary and the outer Firth of Forth between North Berwick and Anstruther ( Figure 5.11 Open ▸ , data taken from Marine Scotland, 2024). As can be seen in Figure 5.2 Open ▸ these areas of highest concentrations overlap with areas of existing high levels of vessel movements.
Due to the existing high levels of vessel traffic, and the apparent habituation or resilience to existing vessel movements shown by the waterbirds and seabirds (due to highest concentrations occurring in areas of high vessel activity), then it can be assumed that the impact of disturbance and displacement resulting from an additional 2.7 return trips per day (on average), adhering to existing shipping routes where possible during the construction phase for the Array alone will be negligible. This is further supported by the JNCC and NatureScot (2022) Conservation and Management Advice, which states that with regards to activities with the potential to affect waterbirds and seabirds, no additional management is required for commercial shipping along established routes.
Therefore, it can be concluded, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, that there is expected to be no AEOI on any feature of the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex SPA during the construction phase.

Operation and maintenance phase

During the operational and maintenance phase, seabirds may be impacted by a disturbance and/or displacement due to the physical presence of wind turbines, vessel traffic and helicopter activity. Disturbance and/or displacement may have consequent impacts on the survival or fitness of birds. If displacement limits seabird access to foraging areas, it can result in reduced energy intake and reduced foraging success. Displacement effects can also cause increased inter- and intra-specific competition for alternative foraging areas and prey resources. The assessment in the operational phase also incorporates the impact of barrier effects on regularly occurring seabirds, which are considered together as “distributional responses” by NatureScot (2023h) and also in line with JNCC (2022) advice.
The quantification of displacement-induced mortality provides an estimate of the total number of birds subject to mortality. For the purposes of this RIAA, it is necessary to estimate which of those birds may be associated with specific SPAs or Ramsar sites, in order to calculate the impact on the population for which each site is designated. This is done through the process of apportionment. Full details of the apportionment process and the resulting proportion of birds associated with each SPA or Ramsar are given in appendix 3A.
Following NatureScot (2023k), where the apportioned impact is estimated to increase baseline mortality to the population of a SPA or Ramsar by greater than 0.02 percentage points, PVA is subsequently carried out to further investigate the potential effect on the population.
Given this approach, for greater clarity, displacement results (and PVAs, where relevant) are presented by species, rather than by SPA/Ramsar. The conclusions for each SPA/Ramsar are summarised in Table 5.30 Open ▸ , based on the results for each feature being assessed.

Kittiwake

The impact of displacement on kittiwake is summarised in Table 5.6 Open ▸ to Table 5.10 Open ▸ .

Table 5.6: Kittiwake Displacement Mortality Calculations

Approach	Breeding Season			Post-Breeding Season			Pre-Breeding Season
Approach	Abundance	Displacement/ Mortality Rate	Seasonal Mortality	Abundance	Displacement/ Mortality Rate	Seasonal Mortality	Abundance	Displacement/ Mortality Rate	Seasonal Mortality
SNCB	3,183	30% / 1% to 3%	9.5 to 28.6	566	30% / 1% to 3%	1.7 to 5.1	581	30% / 1% to 3%	1.7 to 5.2
Applicant	3,183	30% / 1%	9.5	566	30% / 1%	1.7	581	30% / 1%	1.7

Table 5.7: Kittiwake Displacement Mortality Apportioned to Each SPA or Ramsar (SNCB Approach)

SPA / Ramsar	Breeding Season				Post-Breeding Season		Pre-Breeding Season		Annual Adult Mortality
SPA / Ramsar	Apportioning Value	Proportion Adult	Proportion Sabbaticals	Apportioned Adult Mortality	Apportioning Value	Apportioned Adult Mortality	Apportioning Value	Apportioned Adult Mortality	Annual Adult Mortality
Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast SPA	0.142	0.84	0.10	1 to 3.1	0.018	0 to 0.1	0.024	0 to 0.1	1.1 to 3.3
Copinsay SPA	0.002	0.84	0.10	0 to 0	0.001	0 to 0	0.001	0 to 0	0 to 0.1
East Caithness Cliffs SPA	0.064	0.84	0.10	0.5 to 1.4	0.058	0.1 to 0.3	0.077	0.1 to 0.4	0.7 to 2.1
Farne Islands SPA	0.049	0.84	0.10	0.4 to 1.1	0.005	0 to 0	0.007	0 to 0	0.4 to 1.1
Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA	0.124	0.84	0.10	0.9 to 2.7	0.054	0.1 to 0.3	0.072	0.1 to 0.4	1.1 to 3.3
Forth Islands SPA	0.045	0.84	0.10	0.3 to 1	0.004	0 to 0	0.006	0 to 0	0.3 to 1
Fowlsheugh SPA	0.219	0.84	0.10	1.6 to 4.8	0.013	0 to 0.1	0.018	0 to 0.1	1.6 to 4.9
North Caithness Cliffs SPA	0.002	0.84	0.10	0 to 0	0.015	0 to 0.1	0.019	0 to 0.1	0.1 to 0.2
St Abb's Head to Fast Castle SPA	0.059	0.84	0.10	0.4 to 1.3	0.005	0 to 0	0.007	0 to 0	0.4 to 1.3
Troup, Pennan and Lion's Heads SPA	0.064	0.84	0.10	0.5 to 1.4	0.022	0 to 0.1	0.028	0 to 0.1	0.5 to 1.6

Table 5.8: Kittiwake Displacement Mortality Apportioned to Each SPA or Ramsar (Applicant’s Approach)

SPA / Ramsar	Breeding Season				Post-Breeding Season		Pre-Breeding Season		Annual Adult Mortality
SPA / Ramsar	Apportioning Value	Proportion Adult	Proportion Sabbaticals	Apportioned Adult Mortality	Apportioning Value	Apportioned Adult Mortality	Apportioning Value	Apportioned Adult Mortality	Annual Adult Mortality
Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast SPA	0.142	0.84	0.10	1.0	0.018	0.0	0.024	0.0	1.1
Copinsay SPA	0.002	0.84	0.10	0.0	0.001	0.0	0.001	0.0	0.0
East Caithness Cliffs SPA	0.064	0.84	0.10	0.5	0.058	0.1	0.077	0.1	0.7
Farne Islands SPA	0.049	0.84	0.10	0.4	0.005	0.0	0.007	0.0	0.4
Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA	0.124	0.84	0.10	0.9	0.054	0.1	0.072	0.1	1.1
Forth Islands SPA	0.045	0.84	0.10	0.3	0.004	0.0	0.006	0.0	0.3
Fowlsheugh SPA	0.219	0.84	0.10	1.6	0.013	0.0	0.018	0.0	1.6
North Caithness Cliffs SPA	0.002	0.84	0.10	0.0	0.015	0.0	0.019	0.0	0.1
St Abb's Head to Fast Castle SPA	0.059	0.84	0.10	0.4	0.005	0.0	0.007	0.0	0.4
Troup, Pennan and Lion's Heads SPA	0.064	0.84	0.10	0.5	0.022	0.0	0.028	0.0	0.5

Table 5.9: Kittiwake Increase in Mortality at Each SPA or Ramsar (SNCB Approach)

SPA / Ramsar	Annual Adult Mortality	SPA Population (Breeding Individuals) (Burnell et al., 2023)	Increase in Mortality Rate (Percentage Points)	Conclusion
Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast SPA	1.1 to 3.3	22,590	0.005 to 0.015	No AEOI (assemblage feature only)
Copinsay SPA	0 to 0.1	1,910	0.001 to 0.003	No AEOI (assemblage feature only)
East Caithness Cliffs SPA	0.7 to 2.1	48,958	0.001 to 0.004	No AEOI
Farne Islands SPA	0.4 to 1.1	8,804	0.004 to 0.013	No AEOI (assemblage feature only)
Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA	1.1 to 3.3	91,008	0.001 to 0.004	No AEOI
Forth Islands SPA	0.3 to 1	9,084	0.004 to 0.011	No AEOI (assemblage feature only)
Fowlsheugh SPA	1.6 to 4.9	28,078	0.006 to 0.018	No AEOI
North Caithness Cliffs SPA	0.1 to 0.2	26,200	0.000 to 0.001	No AEOI (assemblage feature only)
St Abb's Head to Fast Castle SPA	0.4 to 1.3	10,300	0.004 to 0.013	No AEOI (assemblage feature only)
Troup, Pennan and Lion's Heads SPA	0.5 to 1.6	21,232	0.003 to 0.008	No AEOI

Table 5.10: Kittiwake Increase in Mortality at Each SPA or Ramsar (Applicant’s Approach)

SPA / Ramsar	Annual Adult Mortality	SPA Population (Breeding Individuals) (Burnell et al., 2023)	Increase in Mortality Rate (Percentage Points)	Conclusion
Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast SPA	1.1	22,590	0.005	No AEOI (assemblage feature only)
Copinsay SPA	0.0	1,910	0.001	No AEOI (assemblage feature only)
East Caithness Cliffs SPA	0.7	48,958	0.001	No AEOI
Farne Islands SPA	0.4	8,804	0.004	No AEOI (assemblage feature only)
Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA	1.1	91,008	0.001	No AEOI
Forth Islands SPA	0.3	9,084	0.004	No AEOI (assemblage feature only)
Fowlsheugh SPA	1.6	28,078	0.006	No AEOI
North Caithness Cliffs SPA	0.1	26,200	0.000	No AEOI (assemblage feature only)
St Abb's Head to Fast Castle SPA	0.4	10,300	0.004	No AEOI (assemblage feature only)
Troup, Pennan and Lion's Heads SPA	0.5	21,232	0.003	No AEOI

The increase in mortality rate does not exceed the 0.02 percentage point threshold advised by NatureScot (2023k) for any site and therefore it can be concluded, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, that there is no adverse effect to the integrity of the kittiwake feature of any site as a result of displacement impacts from the Array alone. The impact of combined displacement and collision impacts is considered separately, below (section 5.4.5).

Guillemot

Following NatureScot’s guidance on apportioning impacts (NatureScot 2023j), guillemot are taken to largely remain in the broad vicinity of their breeding colonies during the non-breeding season, with impacts apportioned to colonies within mean-max + 1SD foraging range. As no breeding colonies are within mean-max + 1SD foraging range from the Array, none of the impacts from The Array would be apportioned to any SPA guillemot colony in either the breeding season or the non-breeding season. All individuals impacted are considered to be non-breeding individuals. Therefore, it can be concluded, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, that there is no adverse effect on the integrity of the guillemot feature of any site.
However, the Scottish Ministers advised in Ossian Array Scoping Opinion (MD-LOT, 2023) that, in addition to the NatureScot approach, apportioning is carried out with regards to the guillemot feature of the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA, following the BDMPS approach as requested by Natural England. This assessment is presented in Table 5.11 Open ▸ to Table 5.13 Open ▸ . The approach to apportionment recommended by Natural England is to use the information provided in the Furness (2015), as detailed in appendix 3A.

Table 5.11: Guillemot Displacement Mortality Calculations

Approach	Breeding Season			Non-breeding Season
Approach	Abundance	Displacement/Mortality Rate	Seasonal Mortality	Abundance	Displacement/Mortality Rate	Seasonal Mortality
SNCB	27,247	60% / 3% to 5%	490.4 to 817.4	48,340	60% / 1% to 3%	290.0 to 870.1
Applicant	27,247	50% / 1%	136.2	48,340	50% / 1%	241.7

Table 5.12: Guillemot Apportionment Calculations

SPA	Approach	Breeding Season				Non-Breeding Season		Annual Total Mortality
SPA	Approach	Apportioning Value	Proportion Adult	Proportion Sabbaticals	Apportioned Mortality	Apportioning Value	Apportioned Mortality	Annual Total Mortality
Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA	SNCB	0.000	0.587	0.07	0.000	0.0441	12.8 to 38.4	12.8 to 38.4
Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA	Applicant	0.000	0.587	0.07	0.000	0.0441	10.7	10.7

Table 5.13: Guillemot Increase in Mortality (Natural England Approach) at Each SPA or Ramsar

SPA / Ramsar	Approach	Annual Adult Mortality	SPA Population (Breeding Individuals) (Burnell et al., 2023)	Baseline Mortality Rate	Increase in Baseline Mortality (%)	Conclusion
Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA	SNCB	12.8 to 38.4	113,427	0.061	0.18 to 0.55	No AEOI
Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA	Applicant	10.7	113,427	0.061	0.15	No AEOI

In order to provide a full assessment for the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA (rather than just apportioning as per Natural England’s advice), the increase in baseline mortality has been calculated using Natural England’s preferred method (Parker et al., 2022), and using an adult baseline mortality rate of 6.1% (as per volume 3, appendix 11.1 of the Array EIA Report). Following this approach, the increase in baseline mortality is below the 1% threshold advised by Natural England as requiring further consideration (Parker et al., 2022), and therefore it can be concluded, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, that there is no adverse effect to the integrity of the guillemot feature of the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA as a result of displacement impacts from the Array alone.
Note that for the purposes of the in-combination assessment (section 5), the approach to apportionment advised by NatureScot for guillemot (NatureScot, 2023d) has been used to determine whether an in-combination assessment is required, rather than the BDMPS approach, in order to provide a consistent assessment in line with the most relevant advice for Scottish projects.

Razorbill

The impact of displacement on razorbill is summarised in Table 5.14 Open ▸ to Table 5.18 Open ▸ .

Table 5.14: Razorbill Displacement Mortality Calculations

Approach	Breeding Season			Post-breeding Season			Non-breeding Season			Pre-breeding Season
Approach	Abundance	Displacement/Mortality Rate	Seasonal Mortality	Abundance	Displacement/Mortality Rate	Seasonal Mortality	Abundance	Displacement/Mortality Rate	Seasonal Mortality	Abundance	Displacement/Mortality Rate	Seasonal Mortality
SNCB	2,608	60% / 3% to 5%	46.9 to 78.2	1,493	60% / 1% to 3%	9.0 to 26.9	138	60% / 1% to 3%	0.8 to 2.5	224	60% / 1% to 3%	1.3 to 4.0
Applicant	2,608	50% / 1%	13.0	1,493	50% / 1%	7.5	138	50% / 1%	0.7	224	50% / 1%	1.1

Table 5.15: Razorbill Displacement Mortality Apportioned to Each SPA or Ramsar (SNCB Approach)

SPA / Ramsar	Breeding Season				Post-Breeding Season		Non-Breeding Season		Pre-Breeding Season		Annual Adult Mortality
SPA / Ramsar	Apportioning Value	Proportion Adult	Proportion Sabbaticals	Apportioned Adult Mortality	Apportioning Value	Apportioned Adult Mortality	Apportioning Value	Apportioned Adult Mortality	Apportioning Value	Apportioned Adult Mortality	Annual Adult Mortality
Fowlsheugh SPA	0.617	0.623	0.07	16.8 to 28.0	0.012	0.1 to 0.3	0.010	0.0 to 0.0	0.012	0.0 to 0.0	16.9 to 28.4

Table 5.16: Razorbill Displacement Mortality Apportioned to Each SPA or Ramsar (Applicant’s Approach)

SPA / Ramsar	Breeding Season				Post-Breeding Season		Non-Breeding Season		Pre-Breeding Season		Annual Adult Mortality
SPA / Ramsar	Apportioning Value	Proportion Adult	Proportion Sabbaticals	Apportioned Adult Mortality	Apportioning Value	Apportioned Adult Mortality	Apportioning Value	Apportioned Adult Mortality	Apportioning Value	Apportioned Adult Mortality	Annual Adult Mortality
Fowlsheugh SPA	0.617	0.623	0.07	4.7	0.012	0.1	0.010	0.0	0.012	0.0	4.8

Table 5.17: Razorbill Increase in Mortality at Each SPA or Ramsar (SNCB Approach)

SPA / Ramsar	Annual Adult Mortality	SPA Population (Breeding Individuals) (Burnell et al., 2023)	Increase in Mortality Rate (Percentage Points)	Conclusion
Fowlsheugh SPA	16.9 to 28.4	18,844	0.090 to 0.151	PVA Required

Table 5.18: Razorbill Increase in Mortality at Each SPA or Ramsar (Applicant’s Approach)

SPA / Ramsar	Annual Adult Mortality	SPA Population (Breeding Individuals) (Burnell et al., 2023)	Increase in Mortality Rate (Percentage Points)	Conclusion
Fowlsheugh SPA	4.8	18,844	0.025	PVA Required

The increase in mortality rate exceeds 0.02 percentage points at Fowlsheugh SPA and therefore PVA has been undertaken to further assess the impacts on the population at that site.
The PVA results are summarised in Table 5.19 Open ▸ , with further details presented in the appendix 3B.

Table 5.19: Razorbill PVA Results for Displacement Impacts from the Array Alone

SPA or Ramsar	Annual Adult Mortality	Population Size After 35 Years (Median)	CGR (Median)	CPS (Median)
Fowlsheugh SPA	Counterfactual	4,445	N/A	N/A
4.8	4,387	1.000	0.988
16.9	4,275	0.999	0.962
28.4	4,175	0.998	0.938

The PVA results for both sites show that the population growth rate is 0.1% to 0.2% lower than the counterfactual, leading to a population size that, after 35 years, is 1.2% to 6.2% smaller than the counterfactual population size at Fowlsheugh SPA.
The PVA model predicts significant population declines from the current population of 18,844 individuals (Burnell et al., 2023) even under the counterfactual (no impact) scenario. This is contrary to the trend observed at Fowlsheugh SPA, which has grown consistently from its citation population of 5,800 individuals, with an average annual growth rate of 4.3% between 1999 and 2018 (JNCC, 2021). It is routinely advised that the Counterfactual of Growth Rate (CGR) and Counterfactual of Population Size (CPS) metrics are more useful than the absolute predicted population size, as the absolute predicted population size is sensitive to the demographic rates used as model inputs, and also because the PVA is advised to be run without density dependence (Searle et al., 2019; NatureScot, 2023k; Parker et al., 2022).
Taking that into account, it appears unlikely that even the upper end of impacts modelled using NatureScot advocated rates would be sufficient to cause a decline in the population or significantly prevent future growth, and therefore will not adversely affect the conservation objectives of the site. It should further be noted that the upper end of impacts modelled is considered unduly precautionary (see section 5.2.2), and under the Applicant’s preferred evidence-led approach, the impact is not of a level that could be said to have any discernible impact on the population.
Therefore, it can be concluded, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, that there is no potential for an AEOI to the razorbill feature of any SPA as a result of the Array alone.

Puffin

The impact of displacement on puffin is summarised in Table 5.20 Open ▸ to Table 5.24 Open ▸ . Note that the effect of distributional responses on puffin during the non-breeding season are not included. Puffin are known to disperse rapidly and widely post-breeding to areas outside of UK waters and are therefore considered to be unlikely to be affected by the presence of the Array outside the breeding season.

Table 5.20: Puffin Displacement Mortality Calculations

Approach	Breeding Season
SNCB	1,928	60% / 3% to 5%	34.7 to 57.8
Applicant	1,928	50% / 1%	9.6

Table 5.21: Puffin Displacement Mortality Apportioned to Each SPA or Ramsar (SNCB Approach)

SPA / Ramsar	Breeding Season				Annual Adult Mortality
SPA / Ramsar	Apportioning Value	Proportion Adult	Proportion Sabbaticals	Apportioned Adult Mortality	Annual Adult Mortality
Coquet Island SPA	0.171	0.54	0.07	3.0 to 5.0	3.0 to 5.0
Farne Islands SPA	0.415	0.54	0.07	7.3 to 12.1	7.3 to 12.1
Forth Islands SPA	0.393	0.54	0.07	6.9 to 11.5	6.9 to 11.5

Table 5.22: Puffin Displacement Mortality Apportioned to Each SPA or Ramsar (Applicant’s Approach)

SPA / Ramsar	Breeding Season				Annual Adult Mortality
SPA / Ramsar	Apportioning Value	Proportion Adult	Proportion Sabbaticals	Apportioned Adult Mortality	Annual Adult Mortality
Coquet Island SPA	0.171	0.54	0.07	0.8	0.8
Farne Islands SPA	0.415	0.54	0.07	2.0	2.0
Forth Islands SPA	0.393	0.54	0.07	1.9	1.9

Table 5.23: Puffin Increase in Mortality at Each SPA or Ramsar (SNCB Approach)

SPA / Ramsar	Annual Adult Mortality	SPA Population (Breeding Individuals) (Burnell et al., 2023)	Increase in Mortality Rate (Percentage Points)	Conclusion
Coquet Island SPA	3.0 to 5.0	50,058	0.006 to 0.010	No AEOI (assemblage feature only)
Farne Islands	7.3 to 12.1	87,504	0.008 to 0.014	No AEOI (assemblage feature only)
Forth Islands SPA	6.9 to 11.5	85,846	0.008 to 0.013	No AEOI

Table 5.24: Puffin Increase in Mortality at Each SPA or Ramsar (Applicant’s Approach)

SPA / Ramsar	Annual Adult Mortality	SPA Population (Breeding Individuals) (Burnell et al., 2023)	Increase in Mortality Rate (Percentage Points)	Conclusion
Coquet Island SPA	0.8	50,058	0.002	No AEOI (assemblage feature only)
Farne Islands	2.0	87,504	0.002	No AEOI (assemblage feature only)
Forth Islands SPA	1.9	85,846	0.002	No AEOI

The increase in mortality rate does not exceed the 0.02 percentage point threshold advised by NatureScot (2023k) for any site and therefore it can be concluded, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, that there is no potential for an AEOI to the puffin feature of any SPA as a result of displacement from the Array alone.

Gannet

The impact of displacement on gannet is summarised in Table 5.25 Open ▸ to Table 5.29 Open ▸ .

Table 5.25: Gannet Displacement Mortality Calculations

Approach	Breeding Season			Post-breeding Season			Pre-breeding Season
Approach	Abundance	Displacement/Mortality Rate	Seasonal Mortality	Abundance	Displacement/Mortality Rate	Seasonal Mortality	Abundance	Displacement/Mortality Rate	Seasonal Mortality
SNCB	1,393	70% / 1% to 3%	9.7 to 29.2	775	70% / 1% to 3%	5.4 to 16.3	42	70% / 1% to 3%	0.3 to 0.9
Applicant	1,393	70% / 1%	9.7	775	70% / 1%	5.4	42	70% / 1%	0.3

Table 5.26: Gannet Displacement Mortality Apportioned to Each SPA or Ramsar (SNCB Approach)

SPA / Ramsar	Breeding Season				Post-Breeding Season		Pre-Breeding Season		Annual Adult Mortality
SPA / Ramsar	Apportioning Value	Proportion Adults	Proportion Sabbaticals	Apportioned Adult Mortality	Apportioning Value	Apportioned Adult Mortality	Apportioning Value	Apportioned Adult Mortality	Annual Adult Mortality
Fair Isle SPA	0.010	0.98	0.10	0.1 to 0.3	0.014	0.1 to 0.2	0.022	0.0 to 0.0	0.2 to 0.5
Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA	0.050	0.98	0.10	0.4 to 1.3	0.048	0.3 to 0.8	0.062	0.0 to 0.1	0.7 to 2.1
Forth Islands SPA	0.797	0.98	0.10	6.9 to 20.6	0.243	1.3 to 4	0.313	0.1 to 0.3	8.3 to 24.8
Hermaness, Saxa Vord and Valla Field SPA	0.027	0.98	0.10	0.2 to 0.7	0.085	0.5 to 1.4	0.137	0.0 to 0.1	0.7 to 2.2
North Rona and Sula Sgeir SPA	0.011	0.98	0.10	0.1 to 0.3	0.004	0.0 to 0.1	0.000	0.0 to 0.0	0.1 to 0.3
Noss SPA	0.020	0.98	0.10	0.2 to 0.5	0.034	0.2 to 0.6	0.055	0.0 to 0.0	0.4 to 1.1
St Kilda SPA	0.031	0.98	0.10	0.3 to 0.8	0.026	0.1 to 0.4	0.000	0.0 to 0.0	0.4 to 1.2
Sule Skerry and Sule Stack SPA	0.013	0.98	0.10	0.1 to 0.3	0.002	0.0 to 0.0	0.000	0.0 to 0.0	0.1 to 0.4

Table 5.27: Gannet Displacement Mortality Apportioned to Each SPA or Ramsar (Applicant’s Approach)

SPA / Ramsar	Breeding Season				Post-Breeding Season		Pre-Breeding Season		Annual adult mortality
SPA / Ramsar	Apportioning Value	Proportion Adults	Proportion Sabbaticals	Apportioned Adult Mortality	Apportioning Value	Apportioned Adult Mortality	Apportioning Value	Apportioned Adult Mortality	Annual adult mortality
Fair Isle SPA	0.010	0.98	0.10	0.1	0.014	0.1	0.022	0.0	0.2
Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA	0.050	0.98	0.10	0.4	0.048	0.3	0.062	0.0	0.7
Forth Islands SPA	0.797	0.98	0.10	6.9	0.243	1.3	0.313	0.1	8.3
Hermaness, Saxa Vord and Valla Field SPA	0.027	0.98	0.10	0.2	0.085	0.5	0.137	0.0	0.7
North Rona and Sula Sgeir SPA	0.011	0.98	0.10	0.1	0.004	0.0	0.000	0.0	0.1
Noss SPA	0.020	0.98	0.10	0.2	0.034	0.2	0.055	0.0	0.4
St Kilda SPA	0.031	0.98	0.10	0.3	0.026	0.1	0.000	0.0	0.4
Sule Skerry and Sule Stack SPA	0.013	0.98	0.10	0.1	0.002	0.0	0.000	0.0	0.1

Table 5.28: Gannet Increase in Mortality at Each SPA or Ramsar (SNCB Approach)

SPA / Ramsar	Annual Adult Mortality	SPA Population (Breeding Individuals) (Burnell et al., 2023)	Increase in Mortality Rate (Percentage Points)	Conclusion
Fair Isle SPA	0.2 to 0.5	9,942	0.002 to 0.005	No AEOI (assemblage feature only)
Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA	0.7 to 2.1	26,784	0.003 to 0.008	No AEOI
Forth Islands SPA	8.3 to 24.8	150,518	0.005 to 0.016	No AEOI
Hermaness, Saxa Vord and Valla Field SPA	0.7 to 2.2	59,124	0.001 to 0.004	No AEOI
North Rona and Sula Sgeir SPA	0.1 to 0.3	24,542	0.000 to 0.001	No AEOI
Noss SPA	0.4 to 1.1	27,530	0.001 to 0.004	No AEOI
St Kilda SPA	0.4 to 1.2	120,580	0.000 to 0.001	No AEOI
Sule Skerry and Sule Stack SPA	0.1 to 0.4	18,130	0.001 to 0.002	No AEOI

Table 5.29: Gannet Increase in Mortality at Each SPA or Ramsar (Applicant’s Approach)

SPA / Ramsar	Annual Adult Mortality	SPA Population (Breeding Individuals) (Burnell et al., 2023)	Increase in Mortality Rate (Percentage Points)	Conclusion
Fair Isle SPA	0.2	9,942	0.002	No AEOI (assemblage feature only)
Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA	0.7	26,784	0.003	No AEOI
Forth Islands SPA	8.3	150,518	0.005	No AEOI
Hermaness, Saxa Vord and Valla Field SPA	0.7	59,124	0.001	No AEOI
North Rona and Sula Sgeir SPA	0.1	24,542	0.000	No AEOI
Noss SPA	0.4	27,530	0.001	No AEOI
St Kilda SPA	0.4	120,580	0.000	No AEOI
Sule Skerry and Sule Stack SPA	0.1	18,130	0.001	No AEOI

The increase in mortality rate does not exceed the 0.02 percentage point threshold advised by NatureScot (2023k) for any site and therefore it can be concluded, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, that there is no potential for an AEOI to the gannet feature of any site as a result of displacement impacts from the Array alone. The impact of combined displacement and collision impacts is considered separately, below (section 5.4.5).

Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex SPA

The location of ports for the operation and maintenance of the Array has not been determined prior to application. However, the use of a port or ports that are which will be located within the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex SPA cannot be ruled out. Therefore, as a worst-case scenario the MDS assumes that all vessel movements required for all phases of the project will pass through the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex SPA. This equates to up to up to 508 return vessel trips per year during operation and maintenance.
During operation and maintenance there will be 508 return vessel trips per year, which averages out at 1.4 return vessel trips per day.
As shown in Figure 5.1 there are numerous existing vessel routes through the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex SPA, and the greatest concentration of these is in the coastal waters, close to the coastline. This is also where the greatest numbers of the waterbirds and seabirds occur within the SPA (as set out in the construction section above, and shown in Figures 5.2 to 5.10).
Due to the existing high levels of vessel traffic, and the apparent habituation shown by the waterbirds and seabirds (due to highest concentrations occurring in areas of high vessel activity), it can be concluded that the impact of disturbance and displacement resulting from an additional 1.4 return trips (on average), adhering to existing shipping routes where possible during the operation and maintenance phase for the Array alone will be negligible. Therefore, it can be concluded, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, that there is no Adverse Effect on Integrity on any feature of the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex SPA during the operation and maintenance phase.

Decommissioning phase

The MDS for the decommissioning phase is assumed to be equal to or lower than the construction phase ( Table 5.4 Open ▸ ). As such, the assessment of the impacts is the same and is not repeated here. Therefore, as concluded, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, in the construction phase, the impact of disturbance and displacement in the decommissioning phase will be negligible, with any effect experienced not expected to cause an AEOI on any feature of any SPA.

Conclusion

It is concluded, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, that no adverse effects on the qualifying interest features which could undermine the conservation objectives of the SPAs listed in Table 5.30 Open ▸ , will occur as a result of disturbance and displacement impacts during the construction, operation, maintenance, and/or decommissioning phases for the Array. An assessment of the impact of disturbance and displacement against each relevant conservation objective is presented in Table 5.30 Open ▸ . Where the justifications and supporting evidence are the same for more than one conservation objective, the assessments have been grouped.

Table 5.30: Conclusions Against the Conservation Objectives of the Qualifying Features from Disturbance and Displacement during Construction, Operation and Maintenance, and Decommissioning

SPA	Assessed Features	Conservation Objectives	Justification	Conclusion
Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast SPA	 breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on breeding kittiwake).	 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;  to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term: – distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and – structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.	As the Array and associated ZoI falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for disturbance and displacement during all phases of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species. Therefore, disturbance and displacement associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.	 seabird assemblage = No AEOI
 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;  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; and – no significant disturbance of the species.	The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance on the named seabird assemblage component, kittiwake, at Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast SPA remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) when considering both the SNCB ( Table 5.9 Open ▸ ) and Applicant’s approach ( Table 5.10 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population. Impacts predicted during the construction and decommissioning phases were deemed insignificant, resulting in no detrimental loss to populations. Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during all phases, of disturbance and displacement significantly disrupting the named seabird assemblage component, kittiwake, populations as a qualifying species of the Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast SPA. Therefore, disturbance and displacement during construction, operation and maintenance and decommissioning will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site. Furthermore, the impact from disturbance and displacement during all phases will not influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.	 seabird assemblage = No AEOI
Copinsay SPA	 breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on breeding kittiwake).	 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;  to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term: – distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and – structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.	As the Array and associated ZoI falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for disturbance and displacement during all phases of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species. Therefore, disturbance and displacement associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.	 seabird assemblage = No AEOI
 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;  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; and – no significant disturbance of the species.	The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance on the named seabird assemblage component, kittiwake, at Copinsay SPA remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) when considering both the SNCB ( Table 5.9 Open ▸ ) and Applicant’s approach ( Table 5.10 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population. Impacts predicted during the construction and decommissioning phases were deemed insignificant, resulting in no detrimental loss to populations. Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during all phases, of disturbance and displacement significantly disrupting the named seabird assemblage component, kittiwake, populations as a qualifying species of the Copinsay SPA. Therefore, disturbance and displacement during construction, operation and maintenance and decommissioning will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site. Furthermore, the impact from disturbance and displacement during all phases will not influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.	 seabird assemblage = No AEOI
Coquet Island SPA	 breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on breeding puffin).	 ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the Wild Birds Directive, by maintaining or restoring: – the extent and distribution of the habitats of the qualifying features; – the structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying features; and – the supporting processes on which the habitats of the qualifying features rely.	As the Array and associated ZoI falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for disturbance and displacement during all phases of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species. Therefore, disturbance and displacement associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.	 seabird assemblage = No AEOI
 ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the Wild Birds Directive, by maintaining or restoring: – the populations of each of the qualifying features; and – the distribution of qualifying features within the site.	The only named component of the Seabird Assemblage for which a potential impact has been identified is puffin. The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance on the named seabird component, puffin, at Coquet Island SPA remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) when considering both the SNCB ( Table 5.23 Open ▸ ) and Applicant’s approach ( Table 5.24 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population. Impacts predicted during the construction and decommissioning phases were deemed insignificant, resulting in no detrimental loss to populations. Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during all phases, that disturbance and displacement will significantly disrupt the named seabird assemblage component, puffin, populations of the Coquet Island SPA. Therefore, disturbance and displacement during construction, operation and maintenance and decommissioning will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site. Furthermore, the impact from disturbance and displacement during all phases will not influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.	 seabird assemblage = No AEOI
East Caithness Cliffs SPA	 kittiwake (breeding); and  breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).	 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;  to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term: – distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and – structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.	As the Array and associated ZoI falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for disturbance and displacement during all phases of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species. Therefore, disturbance and displacement associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.	 kittiwake = No AEOI  seabird assemblage = No AEOI
 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;  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; and – no significant disturbance of the species.	The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on kittiwake at East Caithness Cliffs SPA remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) when considering both the SNCB ( Table 5.9 Open ▸ ) and Applicant’s approach ( Table 5.10 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population. Impacts predicted during the construction and decommissioning phases were deemed insignificant, resulting in no detrimental loss to populations. Impacts predicted during the construction and decommissioning phases were deemed insignificant, resulting in no detrimental loss to populations. Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during all phases, of disturbance and displacement significantly disrupting kittiwake populations as a qualifying species of the East Caithness Cliffs SPA. In addition, as kittiwake is the only named component of the seabird assemblage for which a potential impact has been identified, the risk to the seabird assemblage has also been deemed negligible for all phases. Therefore, disturbance and displacement during construction, operation and maintenance and decommissioning will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site. Furthermore, the impact from disturbance and displacement during all phases will not influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.	 kittiwake = No AEOI  seabird assemblage = No AEOI
Fair Isle SPA	 breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on breeding gannet).	 To avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;  To ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term: – Distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and – Structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.	As the Array and associated ZoI falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for disturbance and displacement during all phases of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species. Therefore, disturbance and displacement associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.	 seabird assemblage = No AEOI
 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;  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; and – no significant disturbance of the species.	The only named component of the Seabird Assemblage for which a potential impact has been identified is gannet. The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on the named seabird assemblage component, gannet, at Fair Isle SPA remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) when considering both the SNCB ( Table 5.28 Open ▸ ) and Applicant’s approach ( Table 5.29 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population. Impacts predicted during the construction and decommissioning phases were deemed insignificant, resulting in no detrimental loss to populations. Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during all phases, of disturbance and displacement significantly disrupting the named seabird assemblage component, gannet, populations of the Fair Isle SPA. Therefore, disturbance and displacement during construction, operation and maintenance and decommissioning will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site. Furthermore, the impact from disturbance and displacement during all phases will not influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.	 seabird assemblage = No AEOI
Farne Islands SPA	 breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on breeding puffin and breeding kittiwake).	 ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the Wild Birds Directive, by maintaining or restoring: – the extent and distribution of the habitats of the qualifying features; – the structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying features; and – the supporting processes on which the habitats of the qualifying features rely.	As the Array and associated ZoI falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for disturbance and displacement during all phases of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species. Therefore, disturbance and displacement associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.	 seabird assemblage = No AEOI
 ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the Wild Birds Directive, by maintaining or restoring: – the populations of each of the qualifying features; and – the distribution of qualifying features within the site.	The only named components of the Seabird Assemblage for which a potential impact has been identified are kittiwake and puffin. The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on the named seabird components, kittiwake and puffin, at Farne Islands SPA remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) when considering both the SNCB ( Table 5.9 Open ▸ and Table 5.23 Open ▸ ) and Applicant’s approach ( Table 5.10 Open ▸ and Table 5.24 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population. Impacts predicted during the construction and decommissioning phases were deemed insignificant, resulting in no detrimental loss to populations. IImpacts predicted during the construction and decommissioning phases were deemed insignificant, resulting in no detrimental loss to populations. Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during all phases, that disturbance and displacement will significantly disrupt the named seabird assemblage components kittiwake and puffin as a qualifying species of the Farne Islands SPA. Therefore, disturbance displacement during construction, operation and maintenance and decommissioning will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of each of the qualifying features of the site. Furthermore, the impact from disturbance and displacement during all phases will not influence the maintenance of the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.	 seabird assemblage = No AEOI
Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA	 gannet (breeding);  guillemot (breeding);  kittiwake (breeding); and  breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).	 ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the Wild Birds Directive, by maintaining or restoring: – the extent and distribution of the habitats of the qualifying features; – the structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying features; and – the supporting processes on which the habitats of the qualifying features rely.	As the Array and associated ZoI falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for disturbance and displacement during all phases of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species. Therefore, disturbance and displacement associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.	 kittiwake = No AEOI  guillemot = No AEOI  gannet = No AEOI  seabird assemblage = No AEOI
 ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the Wild Birds Directive, by maintaining or restoring: – the populations of each of the qualifying features; and – the distribution of qualifying features within the site.	The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on kittiwake at Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) when considering both the SNCB ( Table 5.9 Open ▸ ) and Applicant’s approach ( Table 5.10 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population. Impacts predicted during the construction and decommissioning phases were deemed insignificant, resulting in no detrimental loss to populations. Similarly, the impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on guillemot at Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA also remains below the Natural England advised threshold of 1% increase in baseline mortality when considering both the SNCB and Applicant’s approach ( Table 5.13 Open ▸ ). Impacts predicted during the construction and decommissioning phases were deemed insignificant, resulting in no detrimental loss to populations. In addition, the impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on gannet at Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality when considering both the SNCB ( Table 5.28 Open ▸ ) and Applicant’s approach ( Table 5.29 Open ▸ ). Impacts predicted during the construction and decommissioning phases were deemed insignificant, resulting in no detrimental loss to populations. Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during all phases, that disturbance and displacement will significantly disrupt kittiwake, guillemot and gannet as qualifying species of the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA. In addition, as the impact from disturbance and on gannet, guillemot and kittiwake populations was assessed as negligible across all phases, the risk to the seabird assemblage has been deemed negligible for all phases. Therefore, disturbance and displacement during construction, operation and maintenance and decommissioning will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of each of the qualifying features of the site. Furthermore, the impact from disturbance and displacement during all phases will not influence the maintenance of the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.	 kittiwake = No AEOI  guillemot = No AEOI  gannet = No AEOI  seabird assemblage = No AEOI
Forth Islands SPA	 gannet (breeding);  puffin (breeding); and  breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species and breeding kittiwake).	 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;  to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term: – distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and – structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.	As the Array and associated ZoI falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for disturbance and displacement during all phases of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species. Therefore, disturbance and displacement associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.	 puffin = No AEOI  gannet = No AEOI  seabird assemblage = No AEOI
 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;  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; and – no significant disturbance of the species.	The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on gannet at Forth Islands SPA remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) when considering both the SNCB ( Table 5.28 Open ▸ ) and Applicant’s approach ( Table 5.29 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population. Impacts predicted during the construction and decommissioning phases were deemed insignificant, resulting in no detrimental loss to populations. The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on puffin at Forth Islands SPA remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) when considering both the SNCB ( Table 5.23 Open ▸ ) and Applicant’s approach ( Table 5.24 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population. Impacts predicted during the construction and decommissioning phases were deemed insignificant, resulting in no detrimental loss to populations. Similarly, the impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on the named seabird assemblage component, kittiwake, at Forth Islands SPA also remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality when considering both the SNCB ( Table 5.9 Open ▸ ) and Applicant’s approach ( Table 5.10 Open ▸ ). Impacts predicted during the construction and decommissioning phases were deemed insignificant, resulting in no detrimental loss to populations. Impacts predicted during the construction and decommissioning phases were deemed insignificant, resulting in no detrimental loss to populations. Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during all phases, that disturbance and displacement will significantly disrupt gannet and puffin as qualifying species of Forth Islands SPA. Additionally, the quantitative assessment carried out on the named seabird assemblage feature kittiwake of the Forth Islands SPA concluded that the impact from disturbance and displacement were deemed to be negligible during all phases. Therefore, disturbance and displacement during construction, operation and maintenance and decommissioning, will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site. Furthermore, the impact from disturbance and displacement during all phases will not influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.	 puffin = No AEOI  gannet = No AEOI  seabird assemblage = No AEOI
Fowlsheugh SPA	 kittiwake (breeding); and  breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species and breeding razorbill).	 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;  to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term: – distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and – structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.	As the Array and associated ZoI falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for disturbance and displacement during all phases of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species. Therefore, disturbance and displacement associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.	 kittiwake = No AEOI  seabird assemblage = No AEOI
 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;  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; and – no significant disturbance of the species.	The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on kittiwake, at Fowlsheugh SPA remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) when considering both the SNCB ( Table 5.9 Open ▸ ) and Applicant’s approach ( Table 5.10 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population. Impacts predicted during the construction and decommissioning phases were deemed insignificant, resulting in no detrimental loss to populations. The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on the named seabird assemblage component, razorbill, at Fowlsheugh SPA was estimated to be above the NatureScot 0.02 threshold when considering both the SNCB ( Table 5.17 Open ▸ ) and Applicant’s approach ( Table 5.18 Open ▸ ) and therefore a PVA was required to understand if the impact experienced would have detrimental effects on the population. The PVA results concluded that the population growth rate would be 0.1% to 0.3% lower than the unimpacted population, leading to a population size that, after 35 years, would be 1.8% to 10.3% smaller than the counterfactual population size at Fowlsheugh SPA. As outlined within appendix 3B, the counterfactual of population growth rate is considered a more robust metric compared to the counterfactual of population size due to the models being conducted with density independence, in line with NatureScot guidance (2023k). The counterfactual of population growth rate results indicate that the impact levels experienced during operation and maintenance would not adversely affect the razorbill feature of Fowlsheugh SPA, as the maximum estimated change was a reduction in growth rate by 0.3%. Such a decrease indicates that this level of impact would not adversely affect the population and would likely remain undetectable against natural population fluctuations. Furthermore, it is not expected to significantly alter the background mortality rate. Impacts predicted during the construction and decommissioning phases were deemed insignificant, resulting in no detrimental loss to populations. Consequently, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during all phases, that disturbance and displacement will significantly disrupt kittiwake and the named component, razorbill populations of the Fowlsheugh SPA. Therefore, disturbance and displacement during construction, operation and maintenance and decommissioning, will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the populations of the species as viable components of the site. Furthermore, the impact from disturbance and displacement during all phases will not influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed qualifying features within the site.	 kittiwake = No AEOI  seabird assemblage = No AEOI
Hermaness, Saxa Vord and Valla Field SPA	 gannet (breeding); and  breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).	 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;  to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term: – distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and – structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.	As the Array and associated ZoI falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for disturbance and displacement during all phases of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species. Therefore, disturbance and displacement associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.	 gannet = No AEOI  seabird assemblage = No AEOI
 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;  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; and – no significant disturbance of the species.	The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on gannet at Hermaness, Saxa Vord and Valla Field SPA remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) when considering both the SNCB ( Table 5.28 Open ▸ ) and Applicant’s approach ( Table 5.29 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population. Impacts predicted during the construction and decommissioning phases were deemed insignificant, resulting in no detrimental loss to populations. Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during all phases, of disturbance and displacement significantly disrupting gannet populations as a qualifying species of the Hermaness, Saxa Vord and Valla Field SPA. In addition, as gannet is the only named component of the seabird assemblage for which a potential impact has been identified, and the impact from disturbance and on gannet populations was assessed as negligible across all phases, the risk to the seabird assemblage has been deemed negligible for all phases. Therefore, disturbance and displacement during construction, operation and maintenance and decommissioning, will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site. Furthermore, the impact from disturbance and displacement during all phases will not influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.	 gannet = No AEOI  seabird assemblage = No AEOI
North Caithness Cliffs SPA	 breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on breeding kittiwake).	 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;  to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term: – distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and – structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.	There is no pathway for disturbance and displacement during all phases of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species. Therefore, disturbance and displacement associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.	 seabird assemblage = No AEOI
 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;  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; and – no significant disturbance of the species.	The only named component of the seabird assemblage for which a potential impact has been identified is kittiwake. The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on the named seabird assemblage component, kittiwake, at North Caithness Cliffs SPA remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) when considering both the SNCB ( Table 5.9 Open ▸ ) and Applicant’s approach ( Table 5.10 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population. Impacts predicted during the construction and decommissioning phases were deemed insignificant, resulting in no detrimental loss to populations. Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during all phases, of disturbance and displacement significantly disrupting the kittiwake populations of the North Caithness Cliffs SPA. Therefore, disturbance and displacement during construction, operation and maintenance and decommissioning will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site. Furthermore, the impact from disturbance and displacement during all phases will not influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.	 seabird assemblage = No AEOI
North Rona and Sula Sgeir SPA	 gannet (breeding); and  breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).	 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;  to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term: – distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and – structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.	As the Array and associated ZoI falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for disturbance and displacement during all phases of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species. Therefore, disturbance and displacement associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.	 gannet = No AEOI  seabird assemblage = No AEOI
 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;  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; and – no significant disturbance of the species.	The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on gannet at North Rona and Sula Sgeir SPA remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) when considering both the SNCB ( Table 5.28 Open ▸ ) and Applicant’s approach ( Table 5.29 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population. Impacts predicted during the construction and decommissioning phases were deemed insignificant, resulting in no detrimental loss to populations. Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during all phases, of disturbance and displacement significantly disrupting gannet populations as a qualifying species of the North Rona and Sula Sgeir SPA. In addition, as gannet is the only named component of the seabird assemblage for which a potential impact has been identified, and the impact from disturbance and on gannet populations was assessed as negligible across all phases, the risk to the seabird assemblage has been deemed negligible for all phases. Therefore, disturbance and displacement during construction, operation and maintenance and decommissioning, will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site. Furthermore, the impact from disturbance and displacement during all phases will not influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.	 gannet = No AEOI  seabird assemblage = No AEOI
Noss SPA	 gannet (breeding); and  breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).	 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;  to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term: – distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and – structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.	There is no pathway for disturbance and displacement during all phases of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species. Therefore, disturbance and displacement associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.	 gannet = No AEOI  seabird assemblage = No AEOI
 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;  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; and – no significant disturbance of the species.	The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on gannet at Noss SPA remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) when considering both the SNCB ( Table 5.28 Open ▸ ) and Applicant’s approach ( Table 5.29 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population. Impacts predicted during the construction and decommissioning phases were deemed insignificant, resulting in no detrimental loss to populations. Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during all phases, of disturbance and displacement significantly disrupting gannet populations as a qualifying species of the Noss SPA. In addition, as gannet is the only named component of the seabird assemblage for which a potential impact has been identified, and the impact from disturbance and on gannet populations was assessed as negligible across all phases, the risk to the seabird assemblage has been deemed negligible for all phases. Therefore, disturbance and displacement during construction, operation and maintenance and decommissioning, will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site. Furthermore, the impact from disturbance and displacement during all phases will not influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.	 gannet = No AEOI  seabird assemblage = No AEOI
Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex SPA	 non-breeding red-throated diver;  non-breeding Slavonian grebe;  non-breeding eider;  non-breeding shag;  migratory waterbird assemblage (due to potential impact on non-breeding long-tailed duck, common scoter, velvet scoter, goldeneye and red-breasted merganser);  non-breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on non-breeding guillemot, shag and razorbill); and  breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on breeding puffin and guillemot).	 To ensure that the qualifying features of the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex SPA are in favourable condition and make an appropriate contribution to achieving Favourable Conservation Status; and  To ensure that the integrity of the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex SPA is restored in the context of environmental changes by meeting objectives 2a, 2b and 2c for each qualifying feature: – 2a The populations of the qualifying features are viable components of the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex SPA; – 2b. The distribution of the qualifying features is maintained throughout the site by avoiding significant disturbance of the species; and – 2c. The supporting habitats and processes relevant to qualifying features and their prey resources are maintained, or where appropriate restored, at the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex SPA.	As the Array and associated ZoI falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for disturbance and displacement during all phases of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species. The location of ports for all phases of the Array has not been determined prior to application. However, the use of a port or ports located within the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex SPA cannot be ruled out. Therefore, as a worst-case scenario the MDS assumes that all vessel movements required for all phases of the project will pass through the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex SPA. Due to the existing high levels of vessel traffic, and the apparent habituation or resilience to existing vessel movements shown by the waterbirds and seabirds (due to highest concentrations occurring in areas of high vessel activity), then it can be assumed that the impact of disturbance and displacement resulting from an additional 2.7 return trips per day (on average) during construction and decommissioning, and 1.4 return trips per day (on average) during the operation and maintenance phase for the Array alone will be negligible.	 red-throated diver = No AEOI  Slavonian grebe = No AEOI  Eider = No AEOI  Shag = No AEOI  migratory waterbird assemblage= No AEOI  non-breeding seabird assemblage= No AEOI  breeding seabird assemblage = No AEOI
St Abb's Head to Fast Castle SPA	 breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on breeding kittiwake).	 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;  to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term: – distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and – structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.	There is no pathway for disturbance and displacement during all phases of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species. Therefore, disturbance and displacement associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.	 seabird assemblage = No AEOI
 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;  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; and – no significant disturbance of the species.	The only named component of the seabird assemblage for which a potential impact has been identified is kittiwake. The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on the named seabird assemblage component, kittiwake at St Abb's Head to Fast Castle SPA remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) when considering both the SNCB ( Table 5.9 Open ▸ ) and Applicant’s approach ( Table 5.10 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population. Impacts predicted during the construction and decommissioning phases were deemed insignificant, resulting in no detrimental loss to populations. Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during all phases, of disturbance and displacement significantly disrupting the kittiwake, populations of ’he St Abb's Head to Fast Castle SPA. Therefore, disturbance and displacement during construction, operation and maintenance and decommissioning will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site. Furthermore, the impact from disturbance and displacement during all phases will not influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.	 seabird assemblage = No AEOI
St Kilda SPA	 gannet (breeding); and  breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).	 to ensure that the qualifying features of St Kilda SPA and the Seas off St Kilda SPA are in favourable condition and make an appropriate contribution to achieving Favourable Conservation Status.  to ensure that the integrity of St Kilda SPA and the Seas off St Kilda SPA is restored in the context of environmental changes by meeting objectives 2a, 2b and 2c for each qualifying feature: – the supporting habitats and processes relevant to qualifying features and their prey/food resources are maintained, or where appropriate restored, at St Kilda SPA and/or Seas off St Kilda SPA.	As the Array and associated ZoI falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for disturbance and displacement during all phases of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species. Therefore, disturbance and displacement associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.	 gannet = No AEOI  seabird assemblage = No AEOI
 to ensure that the qualifying features of St Kilda SPA and the Seas off St Kilda SPA are in favourable condition and make an appropriate contribution to achieving Favourable Conservation Status.  to ensure that the integrity of St Kilda SPA and the Seas off St Kilda SPA is restored in the context of environmental changes by meeting objectives 2a, 2b and 2c for each qualifying feature: – the populations of qualifying features are viable components of St Kilda SPA and Seas off St Kilda SPA; and – the distributions of the qualifying features throughout St Kilda SPA and Seas off St Kilda SPA are maintained by avoiding significant disturbance of the species.	The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on gannet at St Kilda SPA remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) when considering both the SNCB ( Table 5.28 Open ▸ ) and Applicant’s approach ( Table 5.29 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population. Impacts predicted during the construction and decommissioning phases were deemed insignificant, resulting in no detrimental loss to populations. Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during all phases, of disturbance and displacement significantly disrupting gannet populations as a qualifying species of the St Kilda SPA. In addition, as gannet is the only named component of the seabird assemblage for which a potential impact has been identified, and the impact from disturbance and on gannet populations was assessed as negligible across all phases, the risk to the seabird assemblage has been deemed negligible for all phases. Therefore, disturbance and displacement during construction, operation and maintenance and decommissioning, will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site. Furthermore, the impact from disturbance and displacement during all phases will not significantly influence the distribution of the assessed qualifying species throughout St Kilda SPA.	 gannet = No AEOI  seabird assemblage = No AEOI
Sule Skerry and Sule Stack SPA	 gannet (breeding); and  breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).	 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;  to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term: – distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and – structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.	As the Array and associated ZoI falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for disturbance and displacement during all phases of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species. Therefore, disturbance and displacement associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.	 gannet = No AEOI  seabird assemblage = No AEOI
 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;  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; and – no significant disturbance of the species.	The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on gannet at Sule Skerry and Sule Stack SPA remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) when considering both the SNCB ( Table 5.28 Open ▸ ) and Applicant’s approach ( Table 5.29 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population. Impacts predicted during the construction and decommissioning phases were deemed insignificant, resulting in no detrimental loss to populations. Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during all phases, of disturbance and displacement significantly disrupting gannet populations as a qualifying species of the Sule Skerry and Sule Stack SPA. In addition, as gannet is the only named component of the seabird assemblage for which a potential impact has been identified, and the impact from disturbance and on gannet populations was assessed as negligible across all phases, the risk to the seabird assemblage has been deemed negligible for all phases. Therefore, disturbance and displacement during construction, operation and maintenance and decommissioning, will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site. Furthermore, the impact from disturbance and displacement during all phases will not influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.	 gannet = No AEOI  seabird assemblage = No AEOI
Troup, Pennan and Lion's Heads SPA	 kittiwake (breeding); and  breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).	 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;  to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term: – distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and – structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.	As the Array and associated ZoI falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for disturbance and displacement during all phases of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species. Therefore, disturbance and displacement associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.	 kittiwake = No AEOI  seabird assemblage = No AEOI
 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;  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; and - no significant disturbance of the species.	The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on kittiwake at Troup, Pennan and Lion's Heads Cliffs SPA remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) when considering both the SNCB ( Table 5.9 Open ▸ ) and Applicant’s approach ( Table 5.10 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population. Impacts predicted during the construction and decommissioning phases were deemed insignificant, resulting in no detrimental loss to populations. Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during all phases, of disturbance and displacement significantly disrupting kittiwake populations as a qualifying species of the Troup, Penna’ and Lion's Heads SPA. In addition, as kittiwake is the only named component of the seabird assemblage for which a potential impact has been identified, and the impact from disturbance and on kittiwake populations was assessed as negligible across all phases, the risk to the seabird assemblage has been deemed negligible for all phases. Therefore, disturbance and displacement during construction, operation and maintenance and decommissioning will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site. Furthermore, the impact from disturbance and displacement during all phases will not influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.	 kittiwake = No AEOI  seabird assemblage = No AEOI

SPA

Assessed Features

Conservation Objectives

Justification

Conclusion

Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast SPA

 breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on breeding kittiwake).

 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term:

– distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and

– structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.

As the Array and associated ZoI falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for disturbance and displacement during all phases of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, disturbance and displacement associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 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; and

– no significant disturbance of the species.

The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance on the named seabird assemblage component, kittiwake, at Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast SPA remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) when considering both the SNCB ( Table 5.9 Open ▸ ) and Applicant’s approach ( Table 5.10 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population. Impacts predicted during the construction and decommissioning phases were deemed insignificant, resulting in no detrimental loss to populations.

Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during all phases, of disturbance and displacement significantly disrupting the named seabird assemblage component, kittiwake, populations as a qualifying species of the Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast SPA.

Therefore, disturbance and displacement during construction, operation and maintenance and decommissioning will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site.

Furthermore, the impact from disturbance and displacement during all phases will not influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

Copinsay SPA

 breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on breeding kittiwake).

 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term:

– distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and

– structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.

As the Array and associated ZoI falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for disturbance and displacement during all phases of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, disturbance and displacement associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 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; and

– no significant disturbance of the species.

The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance on the named seabird assemblage component, kittiwake, at Copinsay SPA remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) when considering both the SNCB ( Table 5.9 Open ▸ ) and Applicant’s approach ( Table 5.10 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population. Impacts predicted during the construction and decommissioning phases were deemed insignificant, resulting in no detrimental loss to populations.

Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during all phases, of disturbance and displacement significantly disrupting the named seabird assemblage component, kittiwake, populations as a qualifying species of the Copinsay SPA.

Therefore, disturbance and displacement during construction, operation and maintenance and decommissioning will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site.

Furthermore, the impact from disturbance and displacement during all phases will not influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

Coquet Island SPA

 breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on breeding puffin).

 ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the Wild Birds Directive, by maintaining or restoring:

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

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

– the supporting processes on which the habitats of the qualifying features rely.

As the Array and associated ZoI falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for disturbance and displacement during all phases of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, disturbance and displacement associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

 ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the Wild Birds Directive, by maintaining or restoring:

– the populations of each of the qualifying features; and

– the distribution of qualifying features within the site.

The only named component of the Seabird Assemblage for which a potential impact has been identified is puffin.

The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance on the named seabird component, puffin, at Coquet Island SPA remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) when considering both the SNCB ( Table 5.23 Open ▸ ) and Applicant’s approach ( Table 5.24 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population. Impacts predicted during the construction and decommissioning phases were deemed insignificant, resulting in no detrimental loss to populations.

Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during all phases, that disturbance and displacement will significantly disrupt the named seabird assemblage component, puffin, populations of the Coquet Island SPA.

Therefore, disturbance and displacement during construction, operation and maintenance and decommissioning will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site.

Furthermore, the impact from disturbance and displacement during all phases will not influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

East Caithness Cliffs SPA

 kittiwake (breeding); and

 breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).

 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term:

– distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and

– structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.

As the Array and associated ZoI falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for disturbance and displacement during all phases of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, disturbance and displacement associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 kittiwake = No AEOI

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 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; and

– no significant disturbance of the species.

The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on kittiwake at East Caithness Cliffs SPA remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) when considering both the SNCB ( Table 5.9 Open ▸ ) and Applicant’s approach ( Table 5.10 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population. Impacts predicted during the construction and decommissioning phases were deemed insignificant, resulting in no detrimental loss to populations. Impacts predicted during the construction and decommissioning phases were deemed insignificant, resulting in no detrimental loss to populations.

Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during all phases, of disturbance and displacement significantly disrupting kittiwake populations as a qualifying species of the East Caithness Cliffs SPA.

In addition, as kittiwake is the only named component of the seabird assemblage for which a potential impact has been identified, the risk to the seabird assemblage has also been deemed negligible for all phases.

Therefore, disturbance and displacement during construction, operation and maintenance and decommissioning will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site.

Furthermore, the impact from disturbance and displacement during all phases will not influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.

 kittiwake = No AEOI

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

Fair Isle SPA

 breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on breeding gannet).

 To avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 To ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term:

– Distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and

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

As the Array and associated ZoI falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for disturbance and displacement during all phases of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, disturbance and displacement associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 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; and

– no significant disturbance of the species.

The only named component of the Seabird Assemblage for which a potential impact has been identified is gannet.

The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on the named seabird assemblage component, gannet, at Fair Isle SPA remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) when considering both the SNCB ( Table 5.28 Open ▸ ) and Applicant’s approach ( Table 5.29 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population. Impacts predicted during the construction and decommissioning phases were deemed insignificant, resulting in no detrimental loss to populations.

Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during all phases, of disturbance and displacement significantly disrupting the named seabird assemblage component, gannet, populations of the Fair Isle SPA.

Therefore, disturbance and displacement during construction, operation and maintenance and decommissioning will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site.

Furthermore, the impact from disturbance and displacement during all phases will not influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

Farne Islands SPA

 breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on breeding puffin and breeding kittiwake).

 ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the Wild Birds Directive, by maintaining or restoring:

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

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

– the supporting processes on which the habitats of the qualifying features rely.

As the Array and associated ZoI falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for disturbance and displacement during all phases of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, disturbance and displacement associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

 ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the Wild Birds Directive, by maintaining or restoring:

– the populations of each of the qualifying features; and

– the distribution of qualifying features within the site.

The only named components of the Seabird Assemblage for which a potential impact has been identified are kittiwake and puffin.

The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on the named seabird components, kittiwake and puffin, at Farne Islands SPA remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) when considering both the SNCB ( Table 5.9 Open ▸ and Table 5.23 Open ▸ ) and Applicant’s approach ( Table 5.10 Open ▸ and Table 5.24 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population. Impacts predicted during the construction and decommissioning phases were deemed insignificant, resulting in no detrimental loss to populations. IImpacts predicted during the construction and decommissioning phases were deemed insignificant, resulting in no detrimental loss to populations.

Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during all phases, that disturbance and displacement will significantly disrupt the named seabird assemblage components kittiwake and puffin as a qualifying species of the Farne Islands SPA.

Therefore, disturbance displacement during construction, operation and maintenance and decommissioning will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of each of the qualifying features of the site.

Furthermore, the impact from disturbance and displacement during all phases will not influence the maintenance of the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA

 gannet (breeding);

 guillemot (breeding);

 kittiwake (breeding); and

 breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).

 ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the Wild Birds Directive, by maintaining or restoring:

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

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

– the supporting processes on which the habitats of the qualifying features rely.

As the Array and associated ZoI falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for disturbance and displacement during all phases of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, disturbance and displacement associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 kittiwake = No AEOI

 guillemot = No AEOI

 gannet = No AEOI

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

 ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the Wild Birds Directive, by maintaining or restoring:

– the populations of each of the qualifying features; and

– the distribution of qualifying features within the site.

The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on kittiwake at Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) when considering both the SNCB ( Table 5.9 Open ▸ ) and Applicant’s approach ( Table 5.10 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population. Impacts predicted during the construction and decommissioning phases were deemed insignificant, resulting in no detrimental loss to populations.

Similarly, the impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on guillemot at Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA also remains below the Natural England advised threshold of 1% increase in baseline mortality when considering both the SNCB and Applicant’s approach ( Table 5.13 Open ▸ ). Impacts predicted during the construction and decommissioning phases were deemed insignificant, resulting in no detrimental loss to populations.

In addition, the impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on gannet at Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality when considering both the SNCB ( Table 5.28 Open ▸ ) and Applicant’s approach ( Table 5.29 Open ▸ ). Impacts predicted during the construction and decommissioning phases were deemed insignificant, resulting in no detrimental loss to populations.

Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during all phases, that disturbance and displacement will significantly disrupt kittiwake, guillemot and gannet as qualifying species of the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA.

In addition, as the impact from disturbance and on gannet, guillemot and kittiwake populations was assessed as negligible across all phases, the risk to the seabird assemblage has been deemed negligible for all phases.

Therefore, disturbance and displacement during construction, operation and maintenance and decommissioning will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of each of the qualifying features of the site.

Furthermore, the impact from disturbance and displacement during all phases will not influence the maintenance of the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.

 kittiwake = No AEOI

 guillemot = No AEOI

 gannet = No AEOI

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

Forth Islands SPA

 gannet (breeding);

 puffin (breeding); and

 breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species and breeding kittiwake).

 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term:

– distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and

– structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.

As the Array and associated ZoI falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for disturbance and displacement during all phases of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, disturbance and displacement associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 puffin = No AEOI

 gannet = No AEOI

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 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; and

– no significant disturbance of the species.

The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on gannet at Forth Islands SPA remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) when considering both the SNCB ( Table 5.28 Open ▸ ) and Applicant’s approach ( Table 5.29 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population. Impacts predicted during the construction and decommissioning phases were deemed insignificant, resulting in no detrimental loss to populations.

The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on puffin at Forth Islands SPA remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) when considering both the SNCB ( Table 5.23 Open ▸ ) and Applicant’s approach ( Table 5.24 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population. Impacts predicted during the construction and decommissioning phases were deemed insignificant, resulting in no detrimental loss to populations.

Similarly, the impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on the named seabird assemblage component, kittiwake, at Forth Islands SPA also remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality when considering both the SNCB ( Table 5.9 Open ▸ ) and Applicant’s approach ( Table 5.10 Open ▸ ). Impacts predicted during the construction and decommissioning phases were deemed insignificant, resulting in no detrimental loss to populations. Impacts predicted during the construction and decommissioning phases were deemed insignificant, resulting in no detrimental loss to populations.

Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during all phases, that disturbance and displacement will significantly disrupt gannet and puffin as qualifying species of Forth Islands SPA.

Additionally, the quantitative assessment carried out on the named seabird assemblage feature kittiwake of the Forth Islands SPA concluded that the impact from disturbance and displacement were deemed to be negligible during all phases.

Therefore, disturbance and displacement during construction, operation and maintenance and decommissioning, will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site.

Furthermore, the impact from disturbance and displacement during all phases will not influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.

 puffin = No AEOI

 gannet = No AEOI

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

Fowlsheugh SPA

 kittiwake (breeding); and

 breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species and breeding razorbill).

 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term:

– distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and

– structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.

As the Array and associated ZoI falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for disturbance and displacement during all phases of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, disturbance and displacement associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 kittiwake = No AEOI

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 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; and

– no significant disturbance of the species.

The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on kittiwake, at Fowlsheugh SPA remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) when considering both the SNCB ( Table 5.9 Open ▸ ) and Applicant’s approach ( Table 5.10 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population. Impacts predicted during the construction and decommissioning phases were deemed insignificant, resulting in no detrimental loss to populations.

The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on the named seabird assemblage component, razorbill, at Fowlsheugh SPA was estimated to be above the NatureScot 0.02 threshold when considering both the SNCB ( Table 5.17 Open ▸ ) and Applicant’s approach ( Table 5.18 Open ▸ ) and therefore a PVA was required to understand if the impact experienced would have detrimental effects on the population.

The PVA results concluded that the population growth rate would be 0.1% to 0.3% lower than the unimpacted population, leading to a population size that, after 35 years, would be 1.8% to 10.3% smaller than the counterfactual population size at Fowlsheugh SPA. As outlined within appendix 3B, the counterfactual of population growth rate is considered a more robust metric compared to the counterfactual of population size due to the models being conducted with density independence, in line with NatureScot guidance (2023k). The counterfactual of population growth rate results indicate that the impact levels experienced during operation and maintenance would not adversely affect the razorbill feature of Fowlsheugh SPA, as the maximum estimated change was a reduction in growth rate by 0.3%. Such a decrease indicates that this level of impact would not adversely affect the population and would likely remain undetectable against natural population fluctuations. Furthermore, it is not expected to significantly alter the background mortality rate.

Impacts predicted during the construction and decommissioning phases were deemed insignificant, resulting in no detrimental loss to populations.

Consequently, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during all phases, that disturbance and displacement will significantly disrupt kittiwake and the named component, razorbill populations of the Fowlsheugh SPA.

Therefore, disturbance and displacement during construction, operation and maintenance and decommissioning, will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the populations of the species as viable components of the site.

Furthermore, the impact from disturbance and displacement during all phases will not influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed qualifying features within the site.

 kittiwake = No AEOI

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

Hermaness, Saxa Vord and Valla Field SPA

 gannet (breeding); and

 breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).

 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term:

– distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and

– structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.

As the Array and associated ZoI falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for disturbance and displacement during all phases of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, disturbance and displacement associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 gannet = No AEOI

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 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; and

– no significant disturbance of the species.

The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on gannet at Hermaness, Saxa Vord and Valla Field SPA remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) when considering both the SNCB ( Table 5.28 Open ▸ ) and Applicant’s approach ( Table 5.29 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population. Impacts predicted during the construction and decommissioning phases were deemed insignificant, resulting in no detrimental loss to populations.

Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during all phases, of disturbance and displacement significantly disrupting gannet populations as a qualifying species of the Hermaness, Saxa Vord and Valla Field SPA.

In addition, as gannet is the only named component of the seabird assemblage for which a potential impact has been identified, and the impact from disturbance and on gannet populations was assessed as negligible across all phases, the risk to the seabird assemblage has been deemed negligible for all phases.

Therefore, disturbance and displacement during construction, operation and maintenance and decommissioning, will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site.

Furthermore, the impact from disturbance and displacement during all phases will not influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.

 gannet = No AEOI

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

North Caithness Cliffs SPA

 breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on breeding kittiwake).

 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term:

– distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and

– structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.

There is no pathway for disturbance and displacement during all phases of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, disturbance and displacement associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 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; and

– no significant disturbance of the species.

The only named component of the seabird assemblage for which a potential impact has been identified is kittiwake.

The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on the named seabird assemblage component, kittiwake, at North Caithness Cliffs SPA remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) when considering both the SNCB ( Table 5.9 Open ▸ ) and Applicant’s approach ( Table 5.10 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population. Impacts predicted during the construction and decommissioning phases were deemed insignificant, resulting in no detrimental loss to populations.

Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during all phases, of disturbance and displacement significantly disrupting the kittiwake populations of the North Caithness Cliffs SPA.

Therefore, disturbance and displacement during construction, operation and maintenance and decommissioning will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site.

Furthermore, the impact from disturbance and displacement during all phases will not influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

North Rona and Sula Sgeir SPA

 gannet (breeding); and

 breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).

 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term:

– distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and

– structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.

As the Array and associated ZoI falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for disturbance and displacement during all phases of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, disturbance and displacement associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 gannet = No AEOI

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 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; and

– no significant disturbance of the species.

The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on gannet at North Rona and Sula Sgeir SPA remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) when considering both the SNCB ( Table 5.28 Open ▸ ) and Applicant’s approach ( Table 5.29 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population. Impacts predicted during the construction and decommissioning phases were deemed insignificant, resulting in no detrimental loss to populations.

Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during all phases, of disturbance and displacement significantly disrupting gannet populations as a qualifying species of the North Rona and Sula Sgeir SPA.

In addition, as gannet is the only named component of the seabird assemblage for which a potential impact has been identified, and the impact from disturbance and on gannet populations was assessed as negligible across all phases, the risk to the seabird assemblage has been deemed negligible for all phases.

Therefore, disturbance and displacement during construction, operation and maintenance and decommissioning, will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site.

Furthermore, the impact from disturbance and displacement during all phases will not influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.

 gannet = No AEOI

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

Noss SPA

 gannet (breeding); and

 breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).

 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term:

– distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and

– structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.

There is no pathway for disturbance and displacement during all phases of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, disturbance and displacement associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 gannet = No AEOI

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 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; and

– no significant disturbance of the species.

The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on gannet at Noss SPA remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) when considering both the SNCB ( Table 5.28 Open ▸ ) and Applicant’s approach ( Table 5.29 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population. Impacts predicted during the construction and decommissioning phases were deemed insignificant, resulting in no detrimental loss to populations.

Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during all phases, of disturbance and displacement significantly disrupting gannet populations as a qualifying species of the Noss SPA.

In addition, as gannet is the only named component of the seabird assemblage for which a potential impact has been identified, and the impact from disturbance and on gannet populations was assessed as negligible across all phases, the risk to the seabird assemblage has been deemed negligible for all phases.

Therefore, disturbance and displacement during construction, operation and maintenance and decommissioning, will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site.

Furthermore, the impact from disturbance and displacement during all phases will not influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.

 gannet = No AEOI

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex SPA

 non-breeding red-throated diver;

 non-breeding Slavonian grebe;

 non-breeding eider;

 non-breeding shag;

 migratory waterbird assemblage (due to potential impact on non-breeding long-tailed duck, common scoter, velvet scoter, goldeneye and red-breasted merganser);

 non-breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on non-breeding guillemot, shag and razorbill); and

 breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on breeding puffin and guillemot).

 To ensure that the qualifying features of the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex SPA are in favourable condition and make an appropriate contribution to achieving Favourable Conservation Status; and

 To ensure that the integrity of the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex SPA is restored in the context of environmental changes by meeting objectives 2a, 2b and 2c for each qualifying feature:

– 2a The populations of the qualifying features are viable components of the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex SPA;

– 2b. The distribution of the qualifying features is maintained throughout the site by avoiding significant disturbance of the species; and

– 2c. The supporting habitats and processes relevant to qualifying features and their prey resources are maintained, or where appropriate restored, at the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex SPA.

As the Array and associated ZoI falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for disturbance and displacement during all phases of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

The location of ports for all phases of the Array has not been determined prior to application. However, the use of a port or ports located within the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex SPA cannot be ruled out. Therefore, as a worst-case scenario the MDS assumes that all vessel movements required for all phases of the project will pass through the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex SPA.

Due to the existing high levels of vessel traffic, and the apparent habituation or resilience to existing vessel movements shown by the waterbirds and seabirds (due to highest concentrations occurring in areas of high vessel activity), then it can be assumed that the impact of disturbance and displacement resulting from an additional 2.7 return trips per day (on average) during construction and decommissioning, and 1.4 return trips per day (on average) during the operation and maintenance phase for the Array alone will be negligible.

 red-throated diver = No AEOI

 Slavonian grebe = No AEOI

 Eider = No AEOI

 Shag = No AEOI

 migratory waterbird assemblage= No AEOI

 non-breeding seabird assemblage= No AEOI

 breeding seabird assemblage = No AEOI

St Abb's Head to Fast Castle SPA

 breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on breeding kittiwake).

 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term:

– distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and

– structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.

There is no pathway for disturbance and displacement during all phases of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, disturbance and displacement associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 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; and

– no significant disturbance of the species.

The only named component of the seabird assemblage for which a potential impact has been identified is kittiwake.

The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on the named seabird assemblage component, kittiwake at St Abb's Head to Fast Castle SPA remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) when considering both the SNCB ( Table 5.9 Open ▸ ) and Applicant’s approach ( Table 5.10 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population. Impacts predicted during the construction and decommissioning phases were deemed insignificant, resulting in no detrimental loss to populations.

Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during all phases, of disturbance and displacement significantly disrupting the kittiwake, populations of ’he St Abb's Head to Fast Castle SPA.

Therefore, disturbance and displacement during construction, operation and maintenance and decommissioning will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site.

Furthermore, the impact from disturbance and displacement during all phases will not influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

St Kilda SPA

 gannet (breeding); and

 breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).

 to ensure that the qualifying features of St Kilda SPA and the Seas off St Kilda SPA are in favourable condition and make an appropriate contribution to achieving Favourable Conservation Status.

 to ensure that the integrity of St Kilda SPA and the Seas off St Kilda SPA is restored in the context of environmental changes by meeting objectives 2a, 2b and 2c for each qualifying feature:

– the supporting habitats and processes relevant to qualifying features and their prey/food resources are maintained, or where appropriate restored, at St Kilda SPA and/or Seas off St Kilda SPA.

As the Array and associated ZoI falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for disturbance and displacement during all phases of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, disturbance and displacement associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 gannet = No AEOI

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

 to ensure that the qualifying features of St Kilda SPA and the Seas off St Kilda SPA are in favourable condition and make an appropriate contribution to achieving Favourable Conservation Status.

 to ensure that the integrity of St Kilda SPA and the Seas off St Kilda SPA is restored in the context of environmental changes by meeting objectives 2a, 2b and 2c for each qualifying feature:

– the populations of qualifying features are viable components of St Kilda SPA and Seas off St Kilda SPA; and

– the distributions of the qualifying features throughout St Kilda SPA and Seas off St Kilda SPA are maintained by avoiding significant disturbance of the species.

The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on gannet at St Kilda SPA remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) when considering both the SNCB ( Table 5.28 Open ▸ ) and Applicant’s approach ( Table 5.29 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population. Impacts predicted during the construction and decommissioning phases were deemed insignificant, resulting in no detrimental loss to populations.

Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during all phases, of disturbance and displacement significantly disrupting gannet populations as a qualifying species of the St Kilda SPA.

In addition, as gannet is the only named component of the seabird assemblage for which a potential impact has been identified, and the impact from disturbance and on gannet populations was assessed as negligible across all phases, the risk to the seabird assemblage has been deemed negligible for all phases.

Therefore, disturbance and displacement during construction, operation and maintenance and decommissioning, will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site.

Furthermore, the impact from disturbance and displacement during all phases will not significantly influence the distribution of the assessed qualifying species throughout St Kilda SPA.

 gannet = No AEOI

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

Sule Skerry and Sule Stack SPA

 gannet (breeding); and

 breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).

 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term:

– distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and

– structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.

As the Array and associated ZoI falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for disturbance and displacement during all phases of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, disturbance and displacement associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 gannet = No AEOI

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 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; and

– no significant disturbance of the species.

The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on gannet at Sule Skerry and Sule Stack SPA remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) when considering both the SNCB ( Table 5.28 Open ▸ ) and Applicant’s approach ( Table 5.29 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population. Impacts predicted during the construction and decommissioning phases were deemed insignificant, resulting in no detrimental loss to populations.

Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during all phases, of disturbance and displacement significantly disrupting gannet populations as a qualifying species of the Sule Skerry and Sule Stack SPA.

In addition, as gannet is the only named component of the seabird assemblage for which a potential impact has been identified, and the impact from disturbance and on gannet populations was assessed as negligible across all phases, the risk to the seabird assemblage has been deemed negligible for all phases.

Therefore, disturbance and displacement during construction, operation and maintenance and decommissioning, will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site.

Furthermore, the impact from disturbance and displacement during all phases will not influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.

 gannet = No AEOI

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

Troup, Pennan and Lion's Heads SPA

 kittiwake (breeding); and

 breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).

 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term:

– distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and

– structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.

As the Array and associated ZoI falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for disturbance and displacement during all phases of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, disturbance and displacement associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 kittiwake = No AEOI

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 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; and

- no significant disturbance of the species.

The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on kittiwake at Troup, Pennan and Lion's Heads Cliffs SPA remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) when considering both the SNCB ( Table 5.9 Open ▸ ) and Applicant’s approach ( Table 5.10 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population. Impacts predicted during the construction and decommissioning phases were deemed insignificant, resulting in no detrimental loss to populations.

Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during all phases, of disturbance and displacement significantly disrupting kittiwake populations as a qualifying species of the Troup, Penna’ and Lion's Heads SPA.

In addition, as kittiwake is the only named component of the seabird assemblage for which a potential impact has been identified, and the impact from disturbance and on kittiwake populations was assessed as negligible across all phases, the risk to the seabird assemblage has been deemed negligible for all phases.

Therefore, disturbance and displacement during construction, operation and maintenance and decommissioning will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site.

Furthermore, the impact from disturbance and displacement during all phases will not influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.

 kittiwake = No AEOI

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

As detailed in Table 5.30 Open ▸ , it can be concluded, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, that there is no risk of an adverse effect on the integrity of any of the SPAs listed in Table 5.30 Open ▸ or their qualifying features due to disturbance and displacement resulting from the construction, operation, maintenance, and/or decommissioning of the Array alone. There is no risk of undermining the Conservation Objectives of the sites considered due to the following:

given the Array and associated ZoI falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no potential for the Array during all phases to impact on the distribution and extent of habitats within the SPA;
given the Array and associated ZoI falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no potential for the Array during all phases to influence the distribution of birds within the SPA;
given the Array and associated ZoI falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no potential for the Array during all phases to influence the structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species;
given the level of impact arising from disturbance and displacement from the Array area, there is no potential for the Array during all phases to influence the population of the species as a viable component of the site; and
given the level of impact arising from disturbance and displacement from the Array area, there is no potential for the Array during all phases to influence the disturbance of the species within the SPA

5.4.2. Changes to Prey Availability

The LSE2 assessment during the HRA screening process identified that during construction and decommissioning phases, LSE2 could not be ruled out for changes to prey availability. This relates to the following European sites and relevant marine ornithological features:

Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast SPA

- breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on breeding kittiwake).

Copinsay SPA

- breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on breeding kittiwake).

Coquet Island SPA

- breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on breeding puffin).

East Caithness Cliffs SPA

- kittiwake (breeding); and

- breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).

Fair Isle SPA

- breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on breeding gannet).

Farne Islands SPA

- breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on breeding puffin and breeding kittiwake).

Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA

- gannet (breeding);

- guillemot (breeding);

- kittiwake (breeding); and

- breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).

Forth Islands SPA

- gannet (breeding);

- puffin (breeding); and

- breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species and breeding kittiwake).

Fowlsheugh SPA

- kittiwake (breeding); and

- breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species and breeding razorbill).

Hermaness, Saxa Vord and Valla Field SPA

- gannet (breeding); and

- breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).

North Caithness Cliffs SPA

- breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on breeding kittiwake).

North Rona and Sula Sgeir SPA

- gannet (breeding); and

- seabird assemblage (breeding).

Noss SPA

- gannet (breeding); and

- breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).

St Abb’s Head to Fast Castle SPA

- breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on breeding kittiwake).

St Kilda SPA

- gannet (breeding); and

- breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).

Sule Skerry and Sule Stack SPA

- gannet (breeding); and

- breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).

Troup, Pennan and Lion’s Heads SPA

- kittiwake (breeding); and

- breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).

The MDS considered within the assessment of changes to prey availability is shown in Table 5.31 Open ▸ .

Table 5.31: MDS Considered for the Assessment of Potential Impacts to Marine Ornithological Features due to Changes to Prey Availability during the Construction and Decommissioning Phases

Project Phase	MDS	Justification
Construction	A total of up to 49,948,548 m2 (49.95 km2) of temporary habitat loss and/or disturbance due to: a footprint area of 14,723,348 m2 due to boulder and sand wave clearance; a footpring area of 9,540,000 m2 due to disturbance due to Drag Embedment Anchor (DEA) installation; a footprint area of 25,392,000 m2 due to disturbance caused by the installation of inter-array and interconnector cables; a footprint area of up to 250,000 m2 for temporary offshore wet storage; and a footprint area of 43,200 m2 due to jack up vessel use for OSP installation. This represents 5.82% of the total site boundary. Vessels: Maximum of 97 vessels on site at any one time during site preparation and construction totalling 7,902 return vessel trips during the total construction period of 8 years. Maximum of seven helicopters on site at any one time, totalling 3,942 return trips during construction. Wind Turbine Towing: Up to three wind turbines will be towed at one time. 160 hours of towing to site, at a speed of 2.5 knots. UXOs: up to 15 UXOs to be cleared, totalling eight days of clearance activities, with a maximum of two detonations in a 24 hour period. Wind turbine foundations: up to 265 wind turbine foundations; up to six piles per foundation; up to 8 hours maximum piling per pile, therefore 3 piles installed over 24 hours. Up to two concurrent piling events; and minimum distance between piling events 950 m, maximum distance 41 km. Piling may occur up to 795 days over construction phase. Drilling of piles for wind turbine foundations is not anticipated, however, drilling at 10% of pile locations is being considered as contingency in the event that challenging ground conditions are identified. Maximum of 200 hrs drilling per pile. Maximum of one drilling event at any one time. OSPs: up to six large OSPs, each OSP with 12 legs per foundation and 24 piles per foundation (144 piles in total), pile diameter 4.5 m, 70 m penetration depth; and The MDS assumes that all OSP piles require drilling. Maximum of 425 hours per pile, maximum drilling duration 850 days. Maximum of one drilling event at any one time.	Habitat loss activities, including boulder and sand wave clearance, foundation installation and cable installation. Disturbance construction activities including boulder and sand wave clearance, foundation installation and cable installation, and vessel movements.
Decommissioning	At the end of the operational lifetime of the Array, it is anticipated that all floating structures will be completely removed. The decommissioning sequence will generally be the reverse of the construction sequence and involve similar types and numbers of vessels and equipment. The decommissioning plan and programme will be updated during the project lifespan to take account of changing industry practice and new technologies. It may be decided, closer to the time of decommissioning, that removal will result in greater environmental impacts than leaving components in situ.	Decommissioning impacts assumed to be equal to or lower than construction impacts.

Project Phase

MDS

Justification

Construction

A total of up to 49,948,548 m2 (49.95 km2) of temporary habitat loss and/or disturbance due to:

a footprint area of 14,723,348 m2 due to boulder and sand wave clearance;
a footpring area of 9,540,000 m2 due to disturbance due to Drag Embedment Anchor (DEA) installation;
a footprint area of 25,392,000 m2 due to disturbance caused by the installation of inter-array and interconnector cables;
a footprint area of up to 250,000 m2 for temporary offshore wet storage; and
a footprint area of 43,200 m2 due to jack up vessel use for OSP installation.

This represents 5.82% of the total site boundary.

Vessels:

Maximum of 97 vessels on site at any one time during site preparation and construction totalling 7,902 return vessel trips during the total construction period of 8 years.
Maximum of seven helicopters on site at any one time, totalling 3,942 return trips during construction.

Wind Turbine Towing:

Up to three wind turbines will be towed at one time. 160 hours of towing to site, at a speed of 2.5 knots.

UXOs:

up to 15 UXOs to be cleared, totalling eight days of clearance activities, with a maximum of two detonations in a 24 hour period.

Wind turbine foundations:

up to 265 wind turbine foundations;
up to six piles per foundation;
up to 8 hours maximum piling per pile, therefore 3 piles installed over 24 hours. Up to two concurrent piling events; and
minimum distance between piling events 950 m, maximum distance 41 km. Piling may occur up to 795 days over construction phase.
Drilling of piles for wind turbine foundations is not anticipated, however, drilling at 10% of pile locations is being considered as contingency in the event that challenging ground conditions are identified. Maximum of 200 hrs drilling per pile. Maximum of one drilling event at any one time.

OSPs:

up to six large OSPs,
each OSP with 12 legs per foundation and 24 piles per foundation (144 piles in total), pile diameter 4.5 m, 70 m penetration depth; and
The MDS assumes that all OSP piles require drilling. Maximum of 425 hours per pile, maximum drilling duration 850 days. Maximum of one drilling event at any one time.

Habitat loss activities, including boulder and sand wave clearance, foundation installation and cable installation.

Disturbance construction activities including boulder and sand wave clearance, foundation installation and cable installation, and vessel movements.

Decommissioning

At the end of the operational lifetime of the Array, it is anticipated that all floating structures will be completely removed. The decommissioning sequence will generally be the reverse of the construction sequence and involve similar types and numbers of vessels and equipment. The decommissioning plan and programme will be updated during the project lifespan to take account of changing industry practice and new technologies. It may be decided, closer to the time of decommissioning, that removal will result in greater environmental impacts than leaving components in situ.

Decommissioning impacts assumed to be equal to or lower than construction impacts.

Table 5.32: Designed In Measures Considered for the Assessment of Potential Impacts to Marine Ornithological Features due to Changes to Prey Availability during the Construction and Decommissioning Phases

Designed In Measures	Justification	How the Designed In Measure will be Secured
The development of, and adherence to a Piling Strategy (PS) (or equivalent) which will set out the following measures: Implementation of initiation stage and soft start during piling. This will involve the use of a low hammer energy with a low number of strikes used initially, followed by lower hammer energies at a higher strike rate at the beginning of the piling sequence before energy input is ‘ramped up’ (increased) over time to required higher levels.	These measures will reduce the likelihood of injury from elevated underwater noise to marine life in the immediate vicinity of piling operations as far as practicable, allowing individuals to move away from the area before sound levels reach a level at which injury may occur.	Secured in the Section 36 Consent and/or Marine Licence via the requirement for a PS which will be submitted to MD-LOT for approval. The PS (or equivalent) will be submitted post-consent in collaboration with stakeholders, including but not limited to, MD-LOT and NatureScot, following collation of additional data and final design parameters (e.g. piling locations, hammer energies). Noise modelling will be reviewed with the additional information and inform the final PS, which will be submitted to MD-LOT, following consultation with stakeholders.
Undertake Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) clearance using low order disposal techniques where technically feasible.	Low order techniques will be adopted wherever practicable (e.g. deflagration and clearance shots) as mitigation to reduce noise levels and thereby injury and disturbance to sound-sensitive receptors during UXO clearance. There is a small risk that low order disposal could unintentionally result in a high order detonation and therefore this scenario has also been considered in the assessment of likely significant effects.	UXO clearance will be subject to a separate Marine Licence application and European Protected Species (EPS) Licence as appropriate. Mitigation, including, implementation of low order disposal will be secured through the relevant Marine Licence and EPS licence.
Development of, and adherence to, an Environmental Management Plan (EMP).	To ensure adequate environmental controls are in place across the project to manage and mitigate any potential risk to the environment. Measures will cover all aspects of environmental management including environmental awareness training, auditing, environmental reporting and waste management. It is anticipated that the MPCP and INNSMP will be appendices to the overarching EMP.	Secured in the Section 36 Consent and/or Marine Licence via the requirement for an EMP to be submitted to MD-LOT for approval.
Development of, and adherence to a Marine Pollution Contingency Plan (MPCP).	To reduce the potential for release of pollutants from construction, operation and maintenance and decommissioning plant is reduced so far as reasonably practicable. These will likely include designated areas for refuelling where spillages can be easily contained, storage of chemicals in secure designated areas in line with appropriate regulations and guidelines, double skinning of pipes containing hazardous substances, and storage of these substances in impenetrable bunds. All vessels associated with the Array will be required to comply with the standards set out by MARPOL.	Secured in the Section 36 Consent and/or Marine Licence via the requirement for an outline EMP, including an outline MPCP to be submitted to MD-LOT for approval.
Development of, and adherence to an Invasive Non-Native Species Management Plan (INNSMP).	To reduce the risk of introduction and spread of INNS during all phase of the Array as far as reasonably possible.	Secured in the Section 36 Consent and/or Marine Licence via the requirement for an INNSMP to be submitted to MD-LOT for approval.
Construction Method Statement (CMS)	The CMS will confirm certain construction activities and how these will be managed. This will include plans on wet storage within the Array.	Secured in the Section 36 Consent and/or Marine Licence via the requirement for the submission of a CMS.
Development of, and adherence to, a Decommissioning Programme (DP2)	The aim of this plan is to adhere to the existing UK and international legislation and guidance (at the time of writing) during the decommissioning phase. This will reduce the amount of long term disturbance to the environment as far as reasonably practicable.	Secured in the Section 36 Consent and/or Marine Licence via the requirement for a Decommissioning Programme. It is expected the Decommissioning Programme will be submitted to Scottish Ministers and approved prior to construction.
Development of, and adherence to, a Scour Protection Management Plan (SPMP)	To set out the approach to scour protection installation and monitoring to ensure asset integrity is not compromised whilst reducing scour requirements as far as practicable during the project lifecycle.	Secured in the Section 36 Consent and/or Marine Licence, via the requirement for an SPMP which will be submitted for MD-LOT for approval.
Development of, and adherence to a Cable Burial Risk Assessment (CBRA).	The CBRA will consider relevant activities in the vicinity of inter-array and interconnector cables and confirm appropriate means of protection taking account of the final inter-array and interconnector cable. The CBRA will identify the appropriate target burial depth to ensure the cable remain buried, or appropriately protected, where target burial depths cannot be achieved, for the duration of the Array, to minimise the risk of interaction with other sea users or cable exposure.	Secured in the Section 36 Consent and/or Marine Licence via the requirement for a Cable Plan (CaP) and associated CBRA, which will be submitted post-consent.

Construction phase

Underwater sound produced during construction activities and UXO clearance may impact upon the availability of prey items, for example by causing fish and mobile invertebrates to avoid the Array during construction and decommissioning. Underwater sound may also affect the physiology and behaviour of fish and mobile invertebrates. The reduction or disruption of prey availability due to underwater sound may cause reduced energy intake affecting productivity or survival of offshore ornithology receptors.
A number of potential impacts on benthic subtidal ecology (including benthic invertebrates) associated with the Array were identified in the Array EIA Report, volume 2, chapter 8, including disturbance during construction. The assessment identified an effect of minor adverse significance as a result of disturbance during construction, which is not significant in EIA terms.
With regards to fish and shellfish prey, the Array EIA Report volume 2, chapter 9 considered the potential impacts of disturbance during construction on marine species (including shellfish), sandeel Hyperoplus lanceolatus, herring Clupea harengus and diadromous fish. The assessment identified an effect of minor adverse significance on all fish and shellfish receptors as a result of disturbance during construction, which is not significant in EIA terms.
In the absence of any environmentally significant impact on prey species, it can be concluded that there will be no discernible effect on any seabird species as a result of this impact. Therefore, it can be concluded, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, that there is no potential for an AEOI to any of the features of any SPA considered for this impact during the construction phase.

Decommissioning phase

Underwater sound produced during decommissioning activities may impact upon the availability of prey items, for example by causing fish and mobile invertebrates to avoid the Array during construction and decommissioning. Underwater sound may also affect the physiology and behaviour of fish and mobile invertebrates. The reduction or disruption of prey availability due to underwater sound may cause reduced energy intake affecting productivity or survival of offshore ornithology receptors.
The MDS in the decommissioning phase states that any impacts will be similar or less than the impacts in the construction phase. Therefore, as concluded for the construction phase, it can be concluded, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, that there is no potential for an AEOI to any of the features of any SPA considered for this impact during the decommissioning phase.

Conclusion

Adverse effects which undermine the conservation objectives of the qualifying seabird features of the SPAs will not occur as a result of changes to prey availability during construction and/or decommissioning activities. Potential effects from this activity on the relevant conservation objectives are discussed in turn below in Table 5.33 Open ▸ .

Table 5.33: Conclusions Against the Conservation Objectives of the Qualifying Features from Changes to Prey Availability during the Construction and Decommissioning Phases

SPA	Feature	Conservation Objectives	Justification	Conclusion
Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast SPA	Breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on breeding kittiwake).	 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species 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.	The Array EIA considered impacts on prey species (i.e. fish and marine invertebrates) in Array EIA Report volume 2, chapters 8 and 9. The Array EIA Report concluded no environmentally significant impacts to any prey species. In the absence of environmentally significant impacts to prey species, it can be concluded there is no pathway for an AEOI to the conservation objectives of any feature of any site.	 Seabird assemblage = No AEOI
Copinsay SPA	Breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on breeding kittiwake).	 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species 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.	The Array EIA considered impacts on prey species (i.e. fish and marine invertebrates) in Array EIA Report volume 2, chapters 8 and 9. The Array EIA Report concluded no environmentally significant impacts to any prey species. In the absence of environmentally significant impacts to prey species, it can be concluded there is no pathway for an AEOI to the conservation objectives of any feature of any site.	 Seabird assemblage = No AEOI
Coquet Island SPA	Breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on breeding puffin).	 ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the Wild Birds Directive, by maintaining or restoring: – the extent and distribution of the habitats of the qualifying features; – the structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying features; – the supporting processes on which the habitats of the qualifying features rely; – the populations of each of the qualifying features; and – the distribution of qualifying features within the site.	The Array EIA considered impacts on prey species (i.e. fish and marine invertebrates) in Array EIA Report volume 2, chapters 8 and 9. The Array EIA Report concluded no environmentally significant impacts to any prey species. In the absence of environmentally significant impacts to prey species, it can be concluded there is no pathway for an AEOI to the conservation objectives of any feature of any site.	 Seabird assemblage = No AEOI
East Caithness Cliffs SPA	Kittiwake (breeding).	 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species 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.	The Array EIA considered impacts on prey species (i.e. fish and marine invertebrates) in Array EIA Report volume 2, chapters 8 and 9. The Array EIA Report concluded no environmentally significant impacts to any prey species. In the absence of environmentally significant impacts to prey species, it can be concluded there is no pathway for an AEOI to the conservation objectives of any feature of any site.	 Kittiwake = No AEOI
East Caithness Cliffs SPA	Breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).			 Seabird assemblage = No AEOI
Fair Isle SPA	Breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on breeding gannet).	 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species 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.	The Array EIA considered impacts on prey species (i.e. fish and marine invertebrates) in Array EIA Report volume 2, chapters 8 and 9. The Array EIA Report concluded no environmentally significant impacts to any prey species. In the absence of environmentally significant impacts to prey species, it can be concluded there is no pathway for an AEOI to the conservation objectives of any feature of any site.	 Seabird assemblage = No AEOI
Farne Islands SPA	Breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on breeding puffin and breeding kittiwake).	 ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the Wild Birds Directive, by maintaining or restoring: – the extent and distribution of the habitats of the qualifying features; – the structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying features; – the supporting processes on which the habitats of the qualifying features rely; – the populations of each of the qualifying features; and – the distribution of qualifying features within the site.	The Array EIA considered impacts on prey species (i.e. fish and marine invertebrates) in Array EIA Report volume 2, chapters 8 and 9. The Array EIA Report concluded no environmentally significant impacts to any prey species. In the absence of environmentally significant impacts to prey species, it can be concluded there is no pathway for an AEOI to the conservation objectives of any feature of any site.	 Seabird assemblage = No AEOI
Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA	Gannet (breeding).	 ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the Wild Birds Directive, by maintaining or restoring: – the extent and distribution of the habitats of the qualifying features; – the structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying features; – the supporting processes on which the habitats of the qualifying features rely; – the populations of each of the qualifying features; and – the distribution of qualifying features within the site.	The Array EIA considered impacts on prey species (i.e. fish and marine invertebrates) in Array EIA Report volume 2, chapters 8 and 9. The Array EIA Report concluded no environmentally significant impacts to any prey species. In the absence of environmentally significant impacts to prey species, it can be concluded there is no pathway for an AEOI to the conservation objectives of any feature of any site.	 Gannet = No AEOI
	Guillemot (breeding).			 Guillemot = No AEOI
	Kittiwake (breeding).			 Kittiwake = No AEOI
	Breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).			 Seabird assemblage = No AEOI
Forth Islands SPA	Gannet (breeding).	 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species 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.	The Array EIA considered impacts on prey species (i.e. fish and marine invertebrates) in Array EIA Report volume 2, chapters 8 and 9. The Array EIA Report concluded no environmentally significant impacts to any prey species. In the absence of environmentally significant impacts to prey species, it can be concluded there is no pathway for an AEOI to the conservation objectives of any feature of any site.	 Gannet = No AEOI
	Puffin (breeding).			 Puffin = No AEOI
	Breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species and breeding kittiwake).			 Seabird assemblage = No AEOI
Fowlsheugh SPA	Kittiwake (breeding).	 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species 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.	The Array EIA considered impacts on prey species (i.e. fish and marine invertebrates) in Array EIA Report volume 2, chapters 8 and 9. The Array EIA Report concluded no environmentally significant impacts to any prey species. In the absence of environmentally significant impacts to prey species, it can be concluded there is no pathway for an AEOI to the conservation objectives of any feature of any site.	 Kittiwake = No AEOI
Fowlsheugh SPA	Breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species and breeding razorbill).			 Seabird assemblage = No AEOI
Hermaness, Saxa Vord and Valla Field SPA	Gannet (breeding).	 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species 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.	The Array EIA considered impacts on prey species (i.e. fish and marine invertebrates) in Array EIA Report volume 2, chapters 8 and 9. The Array EIA Report concluded no environmentally significant impacts to any prey species. In the absence of environmentally significant impacts to prey species, it can be concluded there is no pathway for an AEOI to the conservation objectives of any feature of any site.	 Gannet = No AEOI
Hermaness, Saxa Vord and Valla Field SPA	Breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).			 Seabird assemblage = No AEOI
North Caithness Cliffs SPA	Breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on breeding kittiwake).	 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species 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.	The Array EIA considered impacts on prey species (i.e. fish and marine invertebrates) in Array EIA Report volume 2, chapters 8 and 9. The Array EIA Report concluded no environmentally significant impacts to any prey species. In the absence of environmentally significant impacts to prey species, it can be concluded there is no pathway for an AEOI to the conservation objectives of any feature of any site.	 Seabird assemblage = No AEOI
North Rona and Sula Sgeir SPA	Gannet (breeding).	 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species 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.	The Array EIA considered impacts on prey species (i.e. fish and marine invertebrates) in Array EIA Report volume 2, chapters 8 and 9. The Array EIA Report concluded no environmentally significant impacts to any prey species. In the absence of environmentally significant impacts to prey species, it can be concluded there is no pathway for an AEOI to the conservation objectives of any feature of any site.	 Gannet = No AEOI
North Rona and Sula Sgeir SPA	Breeding seabird assemblage.			 Seabird assemblage = No AEOI
Noss SPA	Gannet (breeding)	 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species 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.	The Array EIA considered impacts on prey species (i.e. fish and marine invertebrates) in Array EIA Report volume 2, chapters 8 and 9. The Array EIA Report concluded no environmentally significant impacts to any prey species. In the absence of environmentally significant impacts to prey species, it can be concluded there is no pathway for an AEOI to the conservation objectives of any feature of any site.	 Gannet = No AEOI
Noss SPA	Breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).			 Seabird assemblage = No AEOI
St Abb’s Head to Fast Castle SPA	Breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on breeding kittiwake).	 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species 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.	The Array EIA considered impacts on prey species (i.e. fish and marine invertebrates) in Array EIA Report volume 2, chapters 8 and 9. The Array EIA Report concluded no environmentally significant impacts to any prey species. In the absence of environmentally significant impacts to prey species, it can be concluded there is no pathway for an AEOI to the conservation objectives of any feature of any site.	 Seabird assemblage = No AEOI
St Kilda SPA	Gannet (breeding).	 to ensure that the qualifying features of St Kilda SPA and the Seas off St Kilda SPA are in favourable condition and make an appropriate contribution to achieving Favourable Conservation Status.  to ensure that the integrity of St Kilda SPA and the Seas off St Kilda SPA is restored in the context of environmental changes by meeting objectives 2a, 2b and 2c for each qualifying feature: - the populations of qualifying features are viable components of St Kilda SPA and Seas off St Kilda SPA; - the distributions of the qualifying features throughout St Kilda SPA and Seas off St Kilda SPA are maintained by avoiding significant disturbance of the species; and - the supporting habitats and processes relevant to qualifying features and their prey/food resources are maintained, or where appropriate restored, at St Kilda SPA and/or Seas off St Kilda SPA. 	The Array EIA considered impacts on prey species (i.e. fish and marine invertebrates) in Array EIA Report volume 2, chapters 8 and 9. The Array EIA Report concluded no environmentally significant impacts to any prey species. In the absence of environmentally significant impacts to prey species, it can be concluded there is no pathway for an AEOI to the conservation objectives of any feature of any site.	 Gannet = No AEOI
St Kilda SPA	Breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).			 Seabird assemblage = No AEOI
Sule Skerry and Sule Stack SPA	Gannet (breeding).	 To avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species 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.	The Array EIA considered impacts on prey species (i.e. fish and marine invertebrates) in Array EIA Report volume 2, chapters 8 and 9. The Array EIA Report concluded no environmentally significant impacts to any prey species. In the absence of environmentally significant impacts to prey species, it can be concluded there is no pathway for an AEOI to the conservation objectives of any feature of any site.	 Gannet = No AEOI
Sule Skerry and Sule Stack SPA	Breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).			 Seabird assemblage = No AEOI
Troup, Pennan and Lion’s Heads SPA	Kittiwake (breeding).	 To avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species 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.	The Array EIA considered impacts on prey species (i.e. fish and marine invertebrates) in Array EIA Report volume 2, chapters 8 and 9. The Array EIA Report concluded no environmentally significant impacts to any prey species. In the absence of environmentally significant impacts to prey species, it can be concluded there is no pathway for an AEOI to the conservation objectives of any feature of any site.	 Kittiwake = No AEOI
Troup, Pennan and Lion’s Heads SPA	Breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).			 Seabird assemblage = No AEOI

It can be concluded, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, that there is no risk of an adverse effect on the integrity of the SPAs and their qualifying features as a result of changes to prey availability with respect to the construction and/or decommissioning of the Array alone.

5.4.3. Artificial light

The HRA Screening identified St Kilda SPA and the qualifying feature of Manx shearwater (as a named component of the breeding seabird assemblage) to have a potential LSE2 from light. The MDS considered within the assessment of light is shown in Table 5.34 Open ▸ .

Table 5.34: MDS Considered for the Assessment of Potential Impacts to Marine Ornithological Features with Respect to Light during the Construction, Decommissioning and Operation Phases

Project Phase	MDS	Justification
Construction	Maximum of 97 vessels on site at any one time during site preparation and construction, comprising a range of vessel types including main installation vessels, Crew Transfer Vessels (CTVs), tug vessels and others. Totalling 7,902 return vessel trips during construction. Maximum of 7 helicopters on site at any one time, totalling 3,942 return trips during construction.	Lighting associated with construction vessels and associated activities and infrastructure can cause disorientation that can increase risk of mortality due to prolonged periods of flight leading to dehydration or exhaustion.
Operation and maintenance	Aviation lighting in accordance with Marine Guidance Note (MGN) 654, Annex 5 and CAP 764. Winching lights as per CAP 437. Periphery wind turbines: Red 2000 cd dimmable to 200 cd if visibility is greater than 5 km. All structures (including internal wind turbines and OSPs) will be fitted with dual purpose 200 cd red Search and Rescue (SAR) light and/or green helihoist status light. Maximum of 31 vessels on site at any one time, comprising a range of vessel types including CTVs, tug vessels and others. Totalling 508 return vessel trips per year. Maximum of 3 helicopters on site at any one time, totalling 216 return trips per year.	Lighting associated with turbines and other infrastructure, and with maintenance vessels and associated activities can cause disorientation that can increase risk of mortality due to prolonged periods of flight leading to dehydration or exhaustion. Lighting may also increase risk of collision due to attraction and/or disorientation.
Decommissioning	At the end of the operational lifetime of the Array, it is anticipated that all floating structures will be completely removed. The decommissioning sequence will generally be the reverse of the construction sequence and involve similar types and numbers of vessels and equipment. The decommissioning plan and programme will be updated during the project lifespan to take account of changing good practice and new technologies. It may be decided, closer to the time of decommissioning, that removal will result in greater environmental impacts than leaving components in situ.	Decommissioning impacts assumed to be lesser than construction impacts

Project Phase

MDS

Justification

Construction

Maximum of 97 vessels on site at any one time during site preparation and construction, comprising a range of vessel types including main installation vessels, Crew Transfer Vessels (CTVs), tug vessels and others.

Totalling 7,902 return vessel trips during construction.

Maximum of 7 helicopters on site at any one time, totalling 3,942 return trips during construction.

Lighting associated with construction vessels and associated activities and infrastructure can cause disorientation that can increase risk of mortality due to prolonged periods of flight leading to dehydration or exhaustion.

Operation and maintenance

Aviation lighting in accordance with Marine Guidance Note (MGN) 654, Annex 5 and CAP 764. Winching lights as per CAP 437.

Periphery wind turbines: Red 2000 cd dimmable to 200 cd if visibility is greater than 5 km.

All structures (including internal wind turbines and OSPs) will be fitted with dual purpose 200 cd red Search and Rescue (SAR) light and/or green helihoist status light.

Maximum of 31 vessels on site at any one time, comprising a range of vessel types including CTVs, tug vessels and others.

Totalling 508 return vessel trips per year.

Maximum of 3 helicopters on site at any one time, totalling 216 return trips per year.

Lighting associated with turbines and other infrastructure, and with maintenance vessels and associated activities can cause disorientation that can increase risk of mortality due to prolonged periods of flight leading to dehydration or exhaustion. Lighting may also increase risk of collision due to attraction and/or disorientation.

Decommissioning

At the end of the operational lifetime of the Array, it is anticipated that all floating structures will be completely removed. The decommissioning sequence will generally be the reverse of the construction sequence and involve similar types and numbers of vessels and equipment. The decommissioning plan and programme will be updated during the project lifespan to take account of changing good practice and new technologies. It may be decided, closer to the time of decommissioning, that removal will result in greater environmental impacts than leaving components in situ.

Decommissioning impacts assumed to be lesser than construction impacts

Construction phase

Lighting on construction vessels can lead to seabird grounding due to disorientation and in-turn can lead to artificial light-influenced mortality. Once grounded they are vulnerable to threats of automobile collisions, physical injury, predation, dehydration, hypothermia, and starvation, and are often unable to take flight again depending on location and weather (Ainley et al., 2001; Baccetti et al., 2005; Deppe et al., 2017; Rodríguez et al., 2014; Smith et al., 2002). In addition to disorientation, vessel lighting can cause collision with the vessel (i.e. deck strikes) (Fischer et al. 2021).

Manx shearwater

Appropriate marking, lighting and aids to navigation will be employed during the construction, operation and maintenance, and decommissioning phases, as appropriate to ensure the safety of all parties. Lighting of construction sites, vessels and other structures at night may potentially be a source of attraction as opposed to displacement, for birds; however, the areas affected would be very small. Phototaxis of nocturnal migrating birds can problematic, although this is generally seen where birds are exposed to intense white lighting such as from lighthouses (MacArthur Green, 2018). Light from offshore wind farms construction sites is typically less powerful than that from lighthouses and, therefore, it is unlikely to cause the same issue and have negligible impact to populations (MacArthur Green, 2018). Due to the limited period over which construction activities take place, any impact from artificial lighting will be negligible and short-lived.

Operation and maintenance phase

In addition to the impacts of the presence of vessels and artificial light, in the context of infrastructure, the presence of light can cause collision with turbine blades due to disorientation. Once disorientated a bird may experience prolonged flight with the potential to cause a bird to pass through the rotor swept area many times, resulting in an increase in collision risk.
Deakin et al. (2022) discusses the risks to shearwaters from lighting attraction and disorientation and identifies that such effects come with fatal consequences. However, the examples provided discuss light sources (e.g. bonfires, cities and gas flares from hydrocarbon platforms) that are unlikely to be comparable to lighting associated with the offshore infrastructure and represent a much larger mortality risk either through direct (gas flares or hunting) or indirect (collision with large high-rise buildings) causes. Despite Deakin et al. (2022) being focussed on potential impacts on these specie groups as a result of offshore wind developments, no information is provided on the likely characteristics of light from offshore wind developments.

Manx shearwater

Whilst Deakin et al. (2022) reported that Manx shearwater have been known to show phototaxis and disorientation in relation to artificial light sources and therefore there is a potential risk, Deakin et al. only considered artificial light relatively briefly among other potential impacts. A review by MacArthur Green (2018) focused much more closely on the potential of artificial lighting to impact seabirds. In the review by MacArthur Green (2018), it was found that lighting on wind turbines is in orders of magnitude lower than light intensities produced by ports, towns, lighthouses, oil and gas platforms or ships. Therefore, phototaxis effects on Manx shearwaters, including the qualifying features of the St Kilda SPA, are highly unlikely to occur. MacArthur Green (2018) found that phototaxis of seabirds only occurs over short distances (hundreds of metres) in response to bright white light close to colonies of these species. It is not seen over large distances or with the moderate light levels used in obstruction or navigation lighting. In addition, no evidence was found to suggest that obstruction or navigation lights affect ability of marine birds to feed at night, or attract marine prey animals to aggregate, or that they could affect predation risk for nocturnal migrant birds. There might be a slight reduction in collision risk for birds where wind turbines are illuminated, but the evidence suggests that any such effect is likely to be very small. There is no evidence to suggest that obstruction or navigation lights cause displacement of marine birds due to avoidance of light. It was therefore concluded, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, that the evidence indicates that obstruction or navigation lights on wind turbines will have no significant effects on marine birds or on migrant terrestrial birds passing nearby.

Decommissioning phase

The MDS for the decommissioning phase is assumed to be equal to the construction phase ( Table 5.34 Open ▸ ). As such, the assessment of the impacts is the same and is not repeated here.

Conclusion

It is concluded, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, that no adverse effects on the qualifying interest features which could undermine the conservation objectives of the SPAs listed in Table 5.35 Open ▸ , will occur as a result of artificial light impacts during the construction, operation, maintenance, and/or decommissioning phases for the Array. An assessment of the impact of artificial light against each relevant conservation objective is presented in Table 5.35 Open ▸ . Where the justifications and supporting evidence are the same for more than one conservation objective, the assessments have been grouped.

Table 5.35: Conclusions Against the Conservation Objectives of the Qualifying Features from Artificial Light from Construction, Operation and Maintenance, and Decommissioning

SPA

Assessed Features

Conservation Objectives

Justification

Conclusion

St Kilda SPA

seabird assemblage (Manx shearwater)

 to ensure that the qualifying features of St Kilda SPA and the Seas off St Kilda SPA are in favourable condition and make an appropriate contribution to achieving Favourable Conservation Status.

 to ensure that the integrity of St Kilda SPA and the Seas off St Kilda SPA is restored in the context of environmental changes by meeting objectives 2a, 2b and 2c for each qualifying feature:

– the populations of qualifying features are viable components of St Kilda SPA and Seas off St Kilda SPA;

– the distributions of the qualifying features throughout St Kilda SPA and Seas off St Kilda SPA are maintained by avoiding significant disturbance of the species; and

– the supporting habitats and processes relevant to qualifying features and their prey/food resources are maintained, or where appropriate restored, at St Kilda SPA and/or Seas off St Kilda SPA.

The only named component of the seabird assemblage for which a potential impact has been identified is Manx shearwater.

The impact level experienced by the named seabird assemblage component, Manx shearwater, during operations and maintenance at St Kilda SPA was qualitatively assessed. The outcome of the assessment deemed the impact from artificial light to be negligible on the species .5.355.3. Impacts assessed as negligible are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population. Impacts predicted during the construction and decommissioning phases were deemed insignificant, resulting in no detrimental loss to populations.

Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during all phases, of artificial light significantly disrupting the named seabird assemblage component, Manx shearwater populations as a qualifying species of the St Kilda SPA.

Therefore, artificial light during construction, operation and maintenance and decommissioning, will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site.

Furthermore, the impact from disturbance and displacement during all phases will not significantly influence the distribution of the assessed qualifying species throughout St Kilda SPA.

 Seabird assemblage = No AEOI

As detailed in Table 5.35 Open ▸ , it can be concluded, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, that there is no risk of an adverse effect on the integrity of any of the SPAs listed in Table 5.35 Open ▸ or their qualifying features due to artificial light resulting from the construction, operation, maintenance, and/or decommissioning of the Array alone. There is no risk of undermining the Conservation Objectives of the sites considered due to the following:

Given the Array and associated ZoI falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no potential for the Array to impact on the supporting habitats and processes relevant to qualifying features within the SPA;
Given the level of impact arising from artificial light from the Array area, there is no potential for the Array to influence the populations of qualifying features are viable component of the site; and
Given the level of impact arising from artificial light from the Array area, there is no potential for the Array to influence the distributions of the qualifying features throughout the SPA.
Given the level of impact arising from artificial light from the Array area, there is no potential for the Array to influence the condition of the qualifying features throughout the SPA or the achievement of Favourable Conservation Status.

5.4.4. Collision Risk

The LSE2 assessment during the HRA screening process identified that during the operation and maintenance phase, LSE2 could not be ruled out for collision risk. An appropriate assessment is required for the following European sites and relevant marine ornithological features:

Seabirds

Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast SPA

- breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on breeding kittiwake).

Copinsay SPA

- breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on breeding kittiwake).

East Caithness Cliffs SPA

- kittiwake (breeding); and

- breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).

Fair Isle SPA

- breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on breeding gannet).

Farne Islands SPA

- breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on breeding kittiwake).

Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA

- gannet (breeding);

- kittiwake (breeding); and

- breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).

Forth Islands SPA

- gannet (breeding);

- breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species and breeding kittiwake).

Fowlsheugh SPA

- kittiwake (breeding); and

- breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).

Hermaness, Saxa Vord and Valla Field SPA

- gannet (breeding); and

- breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).

North Caithness Cliffs SPA

- breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on breeding kittiwake).

North Rona and Sula Sgeir SPA

- gannet (breeding); and

- breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).

Noss SPA

- gannet (breeding); and

- breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).

St Abb’s Head to Fast Castle SPA

- breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on breeding kittiwake).

St Kilda SPA

- gannet (breeding); and

- breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).

Sule Skerry and Sule Stack SPA

- gannet (breeding); and

- breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).

Troup, Pennan and Lion’s Heads SPA

- kittiwake (breeding); and

- breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).

Migratory waterbirds

Cameron Reservoir SPA and Ramsar site
pink-footed goose (non-breeding).–Din Moss - Hoselaw Loch SPA and Ramsar site

- pink-footed goose (non-breeding); and

- greylag goose (non-breeding).

Fala Flow SPA and Ramsar site

- pink-footed goose (non-breeding).

Firth of Forth SPA and Ramsar site

- bar-tailed godwit (non-breeding);

- golden plover (non-breeding);

- knot (non-breeding);

- pink-footed goose (non-breeding);

- red-throated diver (non-breeding);

- redshank (non-breeding);

- ringed plover (non-breeding);

- sandwich tern (non-b1lavonian

- slavonian grebe (non-breeding);

- turnstone (non-breeding) and

- non-breeding waterbird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species (except Sandwich tern) and common scoter, cormorant, curlew, dunlin, eider, goldeneye, great crested grebe, grey plover, lapwing, long-tailed duck, mallard, oystercatcher, red-breasted merganser, ringed plover, scaup, shelduck, velvet scoter and wigeon).

Firth of Tay and Eden Estuary SPA and Ramsar site

- bar-tailed godwit (non-breeding);

- non-breeding greylag goose;

- non-breeding pink-footed goose;

- non-breeding redshank; and

- non-breeding waterbird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species and common scoter, cormorant, dunlin, eider, goldeneye, goosander, grey plover, Icelandic black-tailed godwit, oystercatcher, long-tailed duck, red-breasted merganser, sanderling, shelduck and velvet scoter).

Gladhouse Reservoir SPA and Ramsar site

- pink-footed goose (non-breeding).

Greenlaw Moor SPA and Ramsar site

- pink-footed goose (non-breeding).

Holburn Lake and Moss SPA and Ramsar site

- greylag goose (non-breeding).

Lindisfarne SPA and Ramsar site

- bar-tailed godwit (non-breeding);

- common scoter (non-breeding);

- dunlin (non-breeding);

- eider (non-breeding);

- golden plover (non-breeding);

- grey plover(non-breeding);

- greylag goose (non-breeding);

- light-bellied brent goose (non-breeding);

- long-tailed duck (non-breeding);

- red-breasted merganser (non-breeding);

- redshank (non-breeding);

- ringed plover (non-breeding);

- sanderling (non-breeding);

- shelduck (non-breeding);

- whooper swan (non-breeding);

- wigeon (non-breeding); and

- waterbird assemblage (non-breeding).

Loch of Kinnordy SPA and Ramsar site

- pink-footed goose (non-breeding); and

- greylag goose (non-breeding).

Loch Leven SPA and Ramsar site

- pink-footed goose (non-breeding);

- shoveler (non-breeding);

- whooper swan (non-breeding); and

- non-breeding waterbird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species and cormorant, gadwall, goldeneye, pochard, teal and tufted duck).

Montrose Basin SPA and Ramsar site

- greylag goose (non-breeding);

- pink-footed goose (non-breeding);

- redshank (non-breeding); and

- non-breeding waterbird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species and oystercatcher, eider, wigeon, knot, dunlin and shelduck).

Northumbria Coast SPA and Ramsar site

- purple sandpiper (non-breeding); and

- turnstone (non-breeding).

Slamannan Platea SPA

- taiga bean goose (non-breeding).

South Tayside Goose Roosts SPA and Ramsar site

- pink-footed goose (non-breeding);

- greylag goose (non-breeding);

- wigeon (non-breeding); and

- non-breeding waterbird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).

Westwater SPA and Ramsar site

- pink-footed goose (non-breeding); and

- non-breeding waterbird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).

Ythan Estuary, Sands of Forvie and Meikle Loch SPA / Ythan Estuary and Meikle Loch Ramsar site

- pink-footed goose (non-breeding); and

- non-breeding waterbird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species and eider, lapwing and redshank).

The MDS considered within the assessment of collision risk is shown in Table 5.36 Open ▸ It should be noted that the MDS has been updated following mitigation measures undertaken, as detailed in Table 5.37 Open ▸ .

Table 5.36: MDS Considered for the Assessment of Potential Impacts to Marine Ornithological Features due to Collision Risk during the Operation and Maintenance Phase

Project Phase

MDS

Justification

Operation and maintenance

 up to 265 wind turbines;

 maximum rotor diameter 236 m, chord width 6.7 m, hub height 148 m above LAT, minimum blade clearance 36 m above LAT, upper blade tip height 266 m above LAT;

 wind turbine spacing minimum 1,000 m, maximum 2,832 m; and

 rotor speed of 8.4 rpm.

 Aviation lighting in accordance with MGN 654, Annex 5 and CAP 764. Winching lights as per CAP 437.

The potential for collision risk is derived from wind turbines parameters including rotor diameter, chord width, rotor speed and minimum blade clearance above LAT. The parameters associated with the most numerous wind turbine parameters (265 wind turbines) represents the MDS because it will result in the greatest potential for collision risk.

Table 5.37: Designed In Measures Considered for the Assessment of Potential Impacts to Marine Ornithological Features due to Collision Risk during the Operation and Maintenance Phase

Designed In Measures

Justification

How the Designed In Measure will be Secured

The blade clearance was proposed to be 30 m above LAT in the MDS at HRA Screening stage. However, this has since been increased to 36 m LAT.

An increase in blade clearance height from 30 m LAT to 36 m LAT has led to reductions in predicted collision mortalities.

This exceeds the minimum height of 22m above MHWS, as required by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency Offshore Renewable Energy Installations Marine Guidance Note (MCA, 2008) in order to allow enough space for vessel movements.

The updated design includes a blade clearance height of 36 m LAT.

Operation and maintenance phase

Operational wind turbines and associated infrastructure present a collision risk for seabirds flying within the array. This includes birds commuting between breeding and foraging sites, migrating birds, and those foraging for food within the array. Direct collision with infrastructure may result in injury or death, however, it is assumed that all collisions with operational wind turbines result in mortality.
CRM for regularly occurring species was undertaken using the Stochastic Collision Risk Model (sCRM) developed by Marine Scotland (McGregor et al., 2018). The User Guide for the sCRM Shiny App provided by Marine Scotland (Donovan, 2017) has been followed for the modelling of collision impacts predicted for the Array. The full methodology is provided in volume 3, appendix 11.2 of the Array EIA Report.
Input densities for CRM were based on MRSea modelling where available, with design-based estimates used for instances in which MRSea estimates were unavailable (volume 3, appendix 11.2 of the Array EIA Report).
For all regularly occurring species, the assessment has been carried out on the basis of the input parameters recommended by NatureScot (2023g). However, it should be noted that there is considerable uncertainty around several of the key input parameters, including flight speed and avoidance rates. Therefore, in addition to the assessment value, a range of other input parameters has also been considered, as detailed in volume 3, appendix 11.2 of the Array EIA Report. The minimum and maximum collision estimates from this range are also presented. Further discussion of the range considered is provided in volume 3, appendix 11.2 and volume 2, chapter 11 of the Array EIA Report.
It is acknowledged that migratory passage movements may not be adequately captured by traditional survey methods. Therefore, the British Trust for Ornithology (BTO) SOSSMAT was used to assess the population size of migratory bird species designated as features of the UK SPA network that may cross the Array; instructions are given in Wright et al. (2012). Further details are provided in volume 3, appendix 11.2, annex B of the Array EIA Report.
The quantification of collision mortality provides an estimate of the total number of birds subject to mortality. For the purposes of this RIAA, it is necessary to estimate which of those birds may be associated with specific SPAs or Ramsar sites, in order to calculate the impact on the population for which each site is designated. This is done through the process of apportionment. Full details of the apportionment process and the resulting proportion of birds associated with each SPA or Ramsar are given in volume 3, appendix 11.4 of the Array EIA Report.
Where the apportioned impact is estimated to increase baseline mortality to the population of a SPA or Ramsar by greater than 0.02 percentage points, PVA is subsequently carried out to further investigate the potential effect on the population. Details of the PVA methodology are presented in appendix 3B. For greater clarity, collision results (and PVAs, where relevant) are presented by species, rather than by SPA/Ramsar.
The conclusions for each SPA/Ramsar are summarised in Table 5.46 Open ▸ , based on the results for each feature being assessed.

Kittiwake

The impact of collision on kittiwake is summarised in Table 5.38 Open ▸ to Table 5.40 Open ▸ .

Table 5.38: Kittiwake Seasonal Collision Mortality (Total)

Approach	Breeding Season	Post-Breeding Season	Pre-Breeding Season
SNCB	28.5	5.3	5.9
Range	3.9 to 28.5	0.7 to 5.3	0.8 to 5.9

Table 5.39: Kittiwake Collision Mortality (Individuals) Apportioned to Each SPA or Ramsar – SNCB Approach (Range in Parenthesis)

SPA / Ramsar					Post-Breeding Season		Pre-Breeding Season		Annual adult mortality
SPA / Ramsar	Apportioning Value	Proportion Adults	Proportion Sabbaticals	Apportioned Adult Mortality	Apportioning Value	Apportioned Adult Mortality	Apportioning Value	Apportioned Adult Mortality	Annual adult mortality
Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast SPA	0.142	0.84	0.10	3.1 (0.4 to 3.1)	0.018	0.1 (0.0 to 0.1)	0.024	0.1 (0.0 to 0.1)	3.3 (0.5 to 3.3)
Copinsay SPA	0.002	0.84	0.10	0.0 (0.0 to 0.0)	0.001	0.0 (0.0 to 0.0)	0.001	0.0 (0.0 to 0.0)	0.1 (0.0 to 0.1)
East Caithness Cliffs SPA	0.064	0.84	0.10	1.4 (0.2 to 1.4)	0.058	0.3 (0 to 0.3)	0.077	0.5 (0.1 to 0.5)	2.1 (0.3 to 2.1)
Farne Islands SPA	0.049	0.84	0.10	1.1 (0.1 to 1.1)	0.005	0.0 (0.0 to 0.0)	0.007	0.0 (0.0 to 0.0)	1.1 (0.2 to 1.1)
Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA	0.124	0.84	0.10	2.7 (0.4 to 2.7)	0.054	0.3 (0.0 to 0.3)	0.072	0.4 (0.1 to 0.4)	3.4 (0.5 to 3.4)
Forth Islands SPA	0.045	0.84	0.10	1.0 (0.1 to 1)	0.004	0.0 (0.0 to 0.0)	0.006	0.0 (0.0 to 0.0)	1.0 (0.1 to 1.0)
Fowlsheugh SPA	0.219	0.84	0.10	4.7 (0.6 to 4.7)	0.013	0.1 (0.0 to 0.1)	0.018	0.1 (0.0 to 0.1)	4.9 (0.7 to 4.9)
North Caithness Cliffs SPA	0.002	0.84	0.10	0.0 (0.0 to 0.0)	0.015	0.1 (0.0 to 0.1)	0.019	0.1 (0 to 0.1)	0.2 (0.0 to 0.2)
St Abb's Head to Fast Castle SPA	0.059	0.84	0.10	1.3 (0.2 to 1.3)	0.005	0.0 (0.0 to 0.0)	0.007	0.0 (0.0 to 0.0)	1.3 (0.2 to 1.3)
Troup, Pennan and Lion's Heads SPA	0.064	0.84	0.10	1.4 (0.2 to 1.4)	0.022	0.1 (0.0 to 0.1)	0.028	0.2 (0.0 to 0.2)	1.7 (0.2 to 1.7)

Table 5.40: Kittiwake Increase in Annual Mortality (Individuals) at Each SPA or Ramsar

SPA / Ramsar	Annual Adult Collision Mortality (Range)	SPA Population (Breeding Individuals) (Burnell et al., 2023)	Increase In Mortality Rate (Percentage Points)	Conclusion
Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast SPA	3.3 (0.5 to 3.3)	22,590	0.015 (0.002 to 0.015)	No AEOI (assemblage feature only)
Copinsay SPA	0.1 (0.0 to 0.1)	1,910	0.003 (0.000 to 0.003)	No AEOI (assemblage feature only)
East Caithness Cliffs SPA	2.1 (0.3 to 2.1)	48,958	0.004 (0.001 to 0.004)	No AEOI
Farne Islands SPA	1.1 (0.2 to 1.1)	8,804	0.013 (0.002 to 0.013)	No AEOI (assemblage feature only)
Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA	3.4 (0.5 to 3.4)	91008	0.004 (0.001 to 0.004)	No AEOI
Forth Islands SPA	1.0 (0.1 to 1.0)	9,084	0.011 (0.002 to 0.011)	No AEOI (assemblage feature only)
Fowlsheugh SPA	4.9 (0.7 to 4.9)	28,078	0.017 (0.002 to 0.017)	No AEOI
North Caithness Cliffs SPA	0.2 (0.0 to 0.2)	26,200	0.001 (0.000 to 0.001)	No AEOI (assemblage feature only)
St Abb's Head to Fast Castle SPA	1.3 (0.2 to 1.3)	10,300	0.013 (0.002 to 0.013)	No AEOI (assemblage feature only)
Troup, Pennan and Lion's Heads SPA	1.7 (0.2 to 1.7)	21,232	0.008 (0.001 to 0.008)	No AEOI

The increase in mortality rate does not exceed the 0.02 percentage point threshold advised by NatureScot (2023k) for any site and therefore it can be concluded, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, that there is no adverse effect to the integrity of the kittiwake feature of any site as a result of collision impacts from the Array alone. The impact of combined displacement and collision impacts is considered separately, below (section 5.4.5).

Gannet

The impact of collision on gannet is summarised in Table 5.41 Open ▸ to Table 5.43 Open ▸ .

Table 5.41: Gannet Seasonal Collision Mortality (Total)

Approach	Breeding Season	Post-Breeding Season	Pre-Breeding Season
SNCB	28.3	3.8	0.1
Range	25.1 to 45.0	3.6 to 6.0	0.1 to 0.2

Table 5.42: Gannet Collision Mortality (Individuals) Apportioned to Each SPA or Ramsar – SNCB Approach (Range in Parenthesis)

SPA / Ramsar					Post-Breeding Season		Pre-Breeding Season		Annual Adult Mortality
SPA / Ramsar	Apportioning Value	Proportion Adults	Proportion Sabbaticals	Apportioned Adult Mortality	Apportioning Value	Apportioned Adult Mortality	Apportioning Value	Apportioned Adult Mortality	Annual Adult Mortality
Fair Isle SPA	0.010	0.98	0.10	0.3 (0.2 to 0.4)	0.014	0.1 (0.0 to 0.1)	0.022	0.0 (0.0 to 0.0)	0.3 (0.3 to 0.5)
Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA	0.050	0.98	0.10	1.2 (1.1 to 2.0)	0.048	0.2 (0.2 to 0.3)	0.062	0.0 (0.0 to 0.0)	1.4 (1.3 to 2.3)
Forth Islands SPA	0.797	0.98	0.10	19.9 (17.6 to 31.6)	0.243	0.9 (0.9 to 1.5)	0.313	0.0 (0.0 to 0.1)	20.9 (18.6 to 33.1)
Hermaness, Saxa Vord and Valla Field SPA	0.027	0.98	0.10	0.7 (0.6 to 1.1)	0.085	0.3 (0.3 to 0.5)	0.137	0.0 (0.0 to 0.0)	1.0 (0.9 to 1.6)
North Rona and Sula Sgeir SPA	0.011	0.98	0.10	0.3 (0.2 to 0.4)	0.004	0.0 (0.0 to 0.0)	0.000	0.0 (0.0 to 0.0)	0.3 (0.3 to 0.4)
Noss SPA	0.020	0.98	0.10	0.5 (0.4 to 0.8)	0.034	0.1 (0.1 to 0.2)	0.055	0.0 (0.0 to 0.0)	0.6 (0.6 to 1.0)
St Kilda SPA	0.031	0.98	0.10	0.8 (0.7 to 1.2)	0.026	0.1 (0.1 to 0.2)	0.000	0.0 (0.0 to 0.0)	0.9 (0.8 to 1.4)
Sule Skerry and Sule Stack SPA	0.013	0.98	0.10	0.3 (0.3 to 0.5)	0.002	0.0 (0.0 to 0.0)	0.000	0.0 (0.0 to 0.0)	0.3 (0.3 to 0.5)

Table 5.43: Gannet Increase in Annual Mortality (Individuals) at Each SPA or Ramsar

SPA / Ramsar	Annual Adult Collision Mortality (Range)	SPA Population (Breeding Individuals) (Burnell et al., 2023)	Increase in Mortality Rate (Percentage Points)	Conclusion
Fair Isle SPA	0.3 (0.3 to 0.5)	9,942	0.003 (0.003 to 0.005)	No AEOI (assemblage feature only)
Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA	1.4 (1.3 to 2.3)	26,784	0.005 (0.005 to 0.008)	No AEOI
Forth Islands SPA	20.9 (18.6 to 33.1)	150,518	0.014 (0.012 to 0.022)	No AEOI
Hermaness, Saxa Vord and Valla Field SPA	1.0 (0.9 to 1.6)	59,124	0.002 (0.002 to 0.003)	No AEOI
North Rona and Sula Sgeir SPA	0.3 (0.3 to 0.4)	24,542	0.001 (0.001 to 0.002)	No AEOI
Noss SPA	0.6 (0.6 to 1.0)	27,530	0.002 (0.002 to 0.004)	No AEOI
St Kilda SPA	0.9 (0.8 to 1.4)	120580	0.001 (0.001 to 0.001)	No AEOI
Sule Skerry and Sule Stack SPA	0.3 (0.3 to 0.5)	18,130	0.002 (0.002 to 0.003)	No AEOI

The increase in mortality rate does not exceed the 0.02 percentage point threshold advised by NatureScot (2023k) for any site and therefore it can be concluded, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, that there is no adverse effect to the integrity of the gannet feature of any site as a result of collision impacts from the Array alone. The impact of combined displacement and collision impacts is considered separately, below (section 5.4.5).

Migratory birds

It is recognised that migratory birds may not be adequately characterised by the site-specific DAS carried out at the Array. Migratory birds may fly at night (when no DAS are carried out) or in pulse movements which could easily be missed by DAS, as they are conducted on a monthly basis. Therefore, the risk to migratory birds cannot be assessed using the same methodology as has been applied for regularly occurring seabirds (above). Instead, the potential impact on migratory birds has been assessed using a qualitative approach drawing on available resources (principally Woodward et al., 2023), as well as a quantitative approach, using the SOSSMAT (Wright et al., 2012).
Woodward et al. (2023) provide a review of available information regarding to migratory birds in Scottish waters and the potential for collision risk. Key information compiled includes population estimates, migratory routes, timing of migration, migratory flight heights, migratory flight speeds, and migratory avoidance rates and behaviour. Woodward et al. (2023) compile this information for 69 species or sub-species, which are non-seabird features of relevant SPA including swans, geese, ducks, waders, raptors and other non-passerines. A summary of the key information for each species considered is given in Table 5.44 Open ▸ .

Table 5.44: Assessment of Collision Risk to Migratory Species Based on Woodward et al. (2023)

Species	Migratory Route	Migratory Flight Height	Migratory Avoidance	Summary and Conclusion
'East Atlantic' Light-bellied Brent Goose	Main route has connectivity to the Array.	Recommend assuming 50% at potential collision risk height.	Recommend avoidance rate of 0.9998 ± 0.00001.	Migratory route and flight heights indicate potential risk, but very high avoidance rate. Therefore magnitude of impact considered to be negligible.
'Nearctic' Light–bellied Brent Goose	No connectivity to the Array.	Recommend assuming 50% at potential collision risk height.	Recommend avoidance rate of 0.9998 ± 0.00001.	No connectivity and therefore no impact.
Dark-bellied Brent Goose	No connectivity to the Array.	Recommend assuming 50% at potential collision risk height.	Recommend avoidance rate of 0.9998 ± 0.00001.	No connectivity and therefore no impact.
'Svalbard' Barnacle Goose	Main route has connectivity to the Array.	Recommend assuming 100% at potential collision risk height.	Recommend avoidance rate of 0.9998 ± 0.00001.	Migratory route and flight heights indicate potential risk, but very high avoidance rate. Therefore magnitude of impact considered to be negligible.
'Greenland' Barnacle Goose	No connectivity to the Array.	Recommend assuming 100% at potential collision risk height.	Recommend avoidance rate of 0.9998 ± 0.00001.	No connectivity and therefore no impact.
'Icelandic' Greylag Goose	No connectivity to the Array.	Recommend assuming 50% at potential collision risk height.	Recommend avoidance rate of 0.9996 ± 0.00001.	No connectivity and therefore no impact.
Taiga Bean Goose	Main route has connectivity to the Array.	Recommend assuming 100% at potential collision risk height.	Recommend avoidance rate of 0.9998 ± 0.00001.	Migratory route and flight heights indicate potential risk, but very high avoidance rate. Therefore magnitude of impact considered to be negligible.
Pink-footed Goose	Main route has connectivity to the Array.	Recommend assuming 50% at potential collision risk height.	Recommend avoidance rate of 0.9999 ± 0.00002.	Migratory route and flight heights indicate potential risk, but very high avoidance rate. Therefore magnitude of impact considered to be negligible.
'Greenland' White-fronted Goose	No connectivity to the Array.	Recommend assuming 100% at potential collision risk height.	Recommend avoidance rate of 0.9998 ± 0.00001.	No connectivity and therefore no impact.
'European' White-fronted Goose	No connectivity to the Array.	Recommend assuming 100% at potential collision risk height.	Recommend avoidance rate of 0.9998 ± 0.00001.	No connectivity and therefore no impact.
Bewick's Swan	No connectivity to the Array.	Recommend assuming 50% at potential collision risk height.	Recommend avoidance rate of 0.9885 ± 0.00091.	No connectivity and therefore no impact.
Whooper Swan	Main route has connectivity to the Array.	Recommend assuming 50% at potential collision risk height.	Recommend avoidance rate of 0.9874 ± 0.00138.	Migratory route and flight heights indicate potential risk, but high avoidance rate. Therefore magnitude of impact considered to be low.
Shelduck	Main route has connectivity to the Array.	Recommend assuming 50% at potential collision risk height.	Recommend avoidance rate of 0.9851 ± 0.00088.	Migratory route and flight heights indicate potential risk, but high avoidance rate. Therefore magnitude of impact considered to be low.
Shoveler	Main route has connectivity to the Array.	Recommend assuming 100% at potential collision risk height.	Recommend avoidance rate of 0.9851 ± 0.00088.	Migratory route and flight heights indicate potential risk, but high avoidance rate. Therefore magnitude of impact considered to be low.
Gadwall	No connectivity to the Array.	Recommend assuming 100% at potential collision risk height.	Recommend avoidance rate of 0.9851 ± 0.00088.	No connectivity and therefore no impact.
Wigeon	Main route has connectivity to the Array.	Recommend assuming 100% at potential collision risk height.	Recommend avoidance rate of 0.9851 ± 0.00088.	Migratory route and flight heights indicate potential risk, but high avoidance rate. Therefore magnitude of impact considered to be low.
Mallard	Main route has connectivity to the Array.	Recommend assuming 100% at potential collision risk height.	Recommend avoidance rate of 0.9851 ± 0.00088.	Migratory route and flight heights indicate potential risk, but high avoidance rate. Therefore magnitude of impact considered to be low.
Pintail	Main route has connectivity to the Array.	Recommend assuming 100% at potential collision risk height.	Recommend avoidance rate of 0.9851 ± 0.00088.	Migratory route and flight heights indicate potential risk, but high avoidance rate. Therefore magnitude of impact considered to be low.
Teal	Main route has connectivity to the Array (wintering population only).	Recommend assuming 100% at potential collision risk height.	Recommend avoidance rate of 0.9851 ± 0.00088.	Migratory route and flight heights indicate potential risk, but high avoidance rate. Therefore magnitude of impact considered to be low.
Pochard	Main route has connectivity to the Array (wintering population only).	Recommend assuming 100% at potential collision risk height.	Recommend avoidance rate of 0.9851 ± 0.00088.	Migratory route and flight heights indicate potential risk, but high avoidance rate. Therefore magnitude of impact considered to be low.
Tufted Duck	Main route has connectivity to the Array.	Recommend assuming 100% at potential collision risk height.	Recommend avoidance rate of 0.9851 ± 0.00088.	Migratory route and flight heights indicate potential risk, but high avoidance rate. Therefore magnitude of impact considered to be low.
Scaup	Main route has connectivity to the Array.	Recommend assuming 100% at potential collision risk height.	Recommend avoidance rate of 0.9851 ± 0.00088.	Migratory route and flight heights indicate potential risk, but high avoidance rate. Therefore magnitude of impact considered to be low.
Eider	Main route has connectivity to the Array.	Recommend assuming 25% at potential collision risk height.	Recommend avoidance rate of 0.9851 ± 0.00088.	Migratory route and flight heights indicate potential risk, but high avoidance rate. Therefore magnitude of impact considered to be low.
Velvet Scoter	Main route has connectivity to the Array.	Recommend assuming 100% at potential collision risk height.	Recommend avoidance rate of 0.9851 ± 0.00088.	Migratory route and flight heights indicate potential risk, but high avoidance rate. Therefore magnitude of impact considered to be low.
Common Scoter	Main route has connectivity to the Array (breeding and wintering populations).	Recommend assuming 100% at potential collision risk height.	Recommend avoidance rate of 0.9851 ± 0.00088.	Migratory route and flight heights indicate potential risk, but high avoidance rate. Therefore magnitude of impact considered to be low.
Long-tailed Duck	Main route has connectivity to the Array.	Recommend assuming 100% at potential collision risk height.	Recommend avoidance rate of 0.9851 ± 0.00088.	Migratory route and flight heights indicate potential risk, but high avoidance rate. Therefore magnitude of impact considered to be low.
Goldeneye	Main route has connectivity to the Array.	Recommend assuming 100% at potential collision risk height.	Recommend avoidance rate of 0.9851 ± 0.00088.	Migratory route and flight heights indicate potential risk, but high avoidance rate. Therefore magnitude of impact considered to be low.
Goosander	Main route has connectivity to the Array.	Recommend assuming 100% at potential collision risk height.	Recommend avoidance rate of 0.9851 ± 0.00088.	Migratory route and flight heights indicate potential risk, but high avoidance rate. Therefore magnitude of impact considered to be low.
Red-breasted Merganser	Main route has connectivity to the Array.	Recommend assuming 100% at potential collision risk height.	Recommend avoidance rate of 0.9851 ± 0.00088.	Migratory route and flight heights indicate potential risk, but high avoidance rate. Therefore magnitude of impact considered to be low.
Nightjar	Main route has connectivity to the Array (non-UK breeding population only).	Recommend assuming 100% at potential collision risk height.	Recommend avoidance rate of 0.9954 ± 0.00002.	Migratory route and flight heights indicate potential risk, but very high avoidance rate. Therefore magnitude of impact considered to be negligible.
Corncrake	Main route has connectivity to the Array.	Recommend assuming 100% at potential collision risk height.	Recommend avoidance rate of 0.9875 ± 0.00174.	Migratory route and flight heights indicate potential risk, but high avoidance rate. Therefore magnitude of impact considered to be low.
Spotted Crake	Main route has connectivity to the Array (non-UK breeding population only).	Recommend assuming 100% at potential collision risk height.	Recommend avoidance rate of 0.9875 ± 0.00174.	Migratory route and flight heights indicate potential risk, but high avoidance rate. Therefore magnitude of impact considered to be low.
Great Crested Grebe	Main route has connectivity to the Array.	Recommend assuming 100% at potential collision risk height.	Recommend avoidance rate of 0.9954 ± 0.00002.	Migratory route and flight heights indicate potential risk, but high avoidance rate. Therefore magnitude of impact considered to be low.
Slavonian Grebe	Main route has connectivity to the Array.	Recommend assuming 100% at potential collision risk height.	Recommend avoidance rate of 0.9954 ± 0.00002.	Migratory route and flight heights indicate potential risk, but high avoidance rate. Therefore magnitude of impact considered to be low.
Stone-curlew	No connectivity to the Array.	Recommend assuming 100% at potential collision risk height.	Recommend avoidance rate of 0.9996 ± 0.00002.	No connectivity and therefore no impact.
Oystercatcher	Main route has connectivity to the Array (breeding and wintering populations).	Recommend assuming 100% at potential collision risk height.	Recommend avoidance rate of 0.9996 ± 0.00002.	Migratory route and flight heights indicate potential risk, but very high avoidance rate. Therefore magnitude of impact considered to be negligible.
Avocet	No connectivity to the Array.	Recommend assuming 100% at potential collision risk height.	Recommend avoidance rate of 0.9996 ± 0.00002.	No connectivity and therefore no impact.
Lapwing	Main route has connectivity to the Array.	Recommend assuming 100% at potential collision risk height.	Recommend avoidance rate of 0.9996 ± 0.00002.	Migratory route and flight heights indicate potential risk, but very high avoidance rate. Therefore magnitude of impact considered to be negligible.
Golden Plover	Main route has connectivity to the Array (non-UK breeding population, and UK and non-UK wintering populations).	Recommend assuming 100% at potential collision risk height.	Recommend avoidance rate of 0.9996 ± 0.00002.	Migratory route and flight heights indicate potential risk, but very high avoidance rate. Therefore magnitude of impact considered to be negligible.
Grey Plover	Main route has connectivity to the Array.	Recommend assuming 100% at potential collision risk height.	Recommend avoidance rate of 0.9996 ± 0.00002.	Migratory route and flight heights indicate potential risk, but very high avoidance rate. Therefore magnitude of impact considered to be negligible.
Ringed Plover	Main route has connectivity to the Array (breeding and wintering populations).	Recommend assuming 100% at potential collision risk height.	Recommend avoidance rate of 0.9996 ± 0.00002.	Migratory route and flight heights indicate potential risk, but very high avoidance rate. Therefore magnitude of impact considered to be negligible.
Dotterel	Main route has connectivity to the Array.	Recommend assuming 100% at potential collision risk height.	Recommend avoidance rate of 0.9996 ± 0.00002.	Migratory route and flight heights indicate potential risk, but very high avoidance rate. Therefore magnitude of impact considered to be negligible.
Whimbrel	Main route has connectivity to the Array.	Recommend assuming 100% at potential collision risk height.	Recommend avoidance rate of 0.9996 ± 0.00002.	Migratory route and flight heights indicate potential risk, but very high avoidance rate. Therefore magnitude of impact considered to be negligible.
Curlew	Main route has connectivity to the Array.	Recommend assuming 100% at potential collision risk height.	Recommend avoidance rate of 0.9996 ± 0.00002.	Migratory route and flight heights indicate potential risk, but very high avoidance rate. Therefore magnitude of impact considered to be negligible.
Bar-tailed Godwit	Main route has connectivity to the Array.	Recommend assuming 100% at potential collision risk height.	Recommend avoidance rate of 0.9996 ± 0.00002.	Migratory route and flight heights indicate potential risk, but very high avoidance rate. Therefore magnitude of impact considered to be negligible.
Black-tailed Godwit	No connectivity to the Array (UK and non-UK breeding limosa population). Route has connectivity to the Array (non-UK wintering islandica population).	Recommend assuming 100% at potential collision risk height.	Recommend avoidance rate of 0.9996 ± 0.00002.	For the limosa population, there is no connectivity and therefore no impact. For the islandica population, mgratory route and flight heights indicate potential risk, but very high avoidance rate. Therefore magnitude of impact considered to be negligible.
Turnstone	Main route has connectivity to the Array.	Recommend assuming 100% at potential collision risk height.	Recommend avoidance rate of 0.9996 ± 0.00002.	Migratory route and flight heights indicate potential risk, but very high avoidance rate. Therefore magnitude of impact considered to be negligible.
Knot	Main route has connectivity to the Array.	Recommend assuming 100% at potential collision risk height.	Recommend avoidance rate of 0.9996 ± 0.00002.	Migratory route and flight heights indicate potential risk, but very high avoidance rate. Therefore magnitude of impact considered to be negligible.
Ruff	Main route has connectivity to the Array.	Recommend assuming 100% at potential collision risk height.	Recommend avoidance rate of 0.9996 ± 0.00002.	Migratory route and flight heights indicate potential risk, but very high avoidance rate. Therefore magnitude of impact considered to be negligible.
Sanderling	Main route has connectivity to the Array.	Recommend assuming 100% at potential collision risk height.	Recommend avoidance rate of 0.9996 ± 0.00002.	Migratory route and flight heights indicate potential risk, but very high avoidance rate. Therefore magnitude of impact considered to be negligible.
Dunlin	Main route has connectivity to the Array.	Recommend assuming 100% at potential collision risk height.	Recommend avoidance rate of 0.9996 ± 0.00002.	Migratory route and flight heights indicate potential risk, but very high avoidance rate. Therefore magnitude of impact considered to be negligible.
Purple sandpiper	Main route has connectivity to the Array.	Recommend assuming 100% at potential collision risk height.	Recommend avoidance rate of 0.999 ± 0.00003.	Migratory route and flight heights indicate potential risk, but very high avoidance rate. Therefore magnitude of impact considered to be negligible.
Snipe	Main route has connectivity to the Array (non-UK breeding population, and UK and non-UK wintering populations).	Recommend assuming 100% at potential collision risk height.	Recommend avoidance rate of 0.9996 ± 0.00002.	Migratory route and flight heights indicate potential risk, but very high avoidance rate. Therefore magnitude of impact considered to be negligible.
Red-necked Phalarope	No connectivity to the Array.	Recommend assuming 100% at potential collision risk height.	Recommend avoidance rate of 0.9996 ± 0.00002.	No connectivity and therefore no impact.
Redshank	Main route has connectivity to the Array (breeding and wintering populations).	Recommend assuming 100% at potential collision risk height.	Recommend avoidance rate of 0.9996 ± 0.00002.	Migratory route and flight heights indicate potential risk, but very high avoidance rate. Therefore magnitude of impact considered to be negligible.
Wood Sandpiper	Main route has connectivity to the Array (non-UK breeding population only).	Recommend assuming 100% at potential collision risk height.	Recommend avoidance rate of 0.9996 ± 0.00002.	Migratory route and flight heights indicate potential risk, but very high avoidance rate. Therefore magnitude of impact considered to be negligible.
Greenshank	Main route has connectivity to the Array.	Recommend assuming 100% at potential collision risk height.	Recommend avoidance rate of 0.9996 ± 0.00002.	Migratory route and flight heights indicate potential risk, but very high avoidance rate. Therefore magnitude of impact considered to be negligible.
Red-throated Diver	Main route has connectivity to the Array (breeding and wintering populations).	Recommend assuming 25% at potential collision risk height.	Recommend avoidance rate of 0.9954 ± 0.00002.	Migratory route and flight heights indicate potential risk, but very high avoidance rate. Therefore magnitude of impact considered to be negligible.
Black-throated Diver	Main route has connectivity to the Array (non-UK breeding population, and UK and non-UK wintering populations).	Recommend assuming 25% at potential collision risk height.	Recommend avoidance rate of 0.9954 ± 0.00002.	Migratory route and flight heights indicate potential risk, but very high avoidance rate. Therefore magnitude of impact considered to be negligible.
Great Northern Diver	Main route has connectivity to the Array.	Recommend assuming 25% at potential collision risk height.	Recommend avoidance rate of 0.9954 ± 0.00002.	Migratory route and flight heights indicate potential risk, but very high avoidance rate. Therefore magnitude of impact considered to be negligible.
Bittern	Main route has connectivity to the Array.	Recommend assuming 100% at potential collision risk height.	Recommend avoidance rate of 0.9928 ± 0.00092.	Migratory route and flight heights indicate potential risk, but very high avoidance rate. Therefore magnitude of impact considered to be negligible.
Osprey	Main route has connectivity to the Array.	Recommend assuming 50% at potential collision risk height.	Recommend avoidance rate of 0.9957 ± 0.00006.	Migratory route and flight heights indicate potential risk, but very high avoidance rate. Therefore magnitude of impact considered to be negligible.
Honey-buzzard	No connectivity to the Array.	Recommend assuming 50% at potential collision risk height.	Recommend avoidance rate of 0.9957 ± 0.00006.	No connectivity and therefore no impact.
Marsh Harrier	Main route has connectivity to the Array.	Recommend assuming 50% at potential collision risk height.	Recommend avoidance rate of 0.9957 ± 0.00006.	Migratory route and flight heights indicate potential risk, but very high avoidance rate. Therefore magnitude of impact considered to be negligible.
Hen Harrier	Main route has connectivity to the Array (non-UK breeding population, and UK and non-UK wintering populations).	Recommend assuming 100% at potential collision risk height.	Recommend avoidance rate of 0.9957 ± 0.00006.	Migratory route and flight heights indicate potential risk, but very high avoidance rate. Therefore magnitude of impact considered to be negligible.
Montagu's Harrier	No connectivity to the Array.	Recommend assuming 100% at potential collision risk height.	Recommend avoidance rate of 0.9957 ± 0.00006.	No connectivity and therefore no impact.
White-tailed Eagle	No connectivity to the Array.	Recommend assuming 100% at potential collision risk height.	Recommend avoidance rate of 0.9872 ± 0.00192.	No connectivity and therefore no impact.
Short-eared Owl	Main route has connectivity to the Array.	Recommend assuming 100% at potential collision risk height.	Recommend avoidance rate of 0.9957 ± 0.00006.	Migratory route and flight heights indicate potential risk, but very high avoidance rate. Therefore magnitude of impact considered to be negligible.
Merlin	Main route has connectivity to the Array.	Recommend assuming 100% at potential collision risk height.	Recommend avoidance rate of 0.9891 ± 0.00033.	Migratory route and flight heights indicate potential risk, but high avoidance rate. Therefore magnitude of impact considered to be low.

In addition, a quantitative assessment of collision risk to migratory birds has been carried out using SOSSMAT (Wright et al. 2012). The Applicant is aware that a new quantitative mCRM is under development, but this model is currently undergoing testing and seeking approval, and therefore not yet ready to be used for assessment (mCRM Authors, 2021) at the time of writing this chapter (April, 2024). The SOSSMAT therefore represents the best available tool currently available to provide quantitative estimates of the collision risk to migratory birds. Full details are presented in volume 3, appendix 11.2, annex B of the Array EIA Report. The results are presented in Table 5.45 Open ▸ .

Table 5.45: Estimates of Collision Risk to Migratory Waterbirds

Species	Scientific Name	UK Population Size	Number of individuals Crossing the Array per Annum	Estimated Collision Mortality per Annum (98% Avoidance)	Increase in Mortality Rate (Percentage Points)
Whooper Swan	Cygnus cygnus	19,500	642	0	0.000
Bean Goose	Anser fabalis	230	18	0	0.000
Pink-footed Goose	Anser brachyrhynchus	510,000	19,354	3	0.001
Shelduck	Tadorna tadorna	51,000	2,290	0	0.000
Wigeon	Mareca penelope	450,000	6,544	0	0.000
Teal	Anas crecca	435,000	6,292	0	0.000
Mallard	Anas platyrhynchos	675,000	12,120	1	0.000
Shoveler	Anas clypeata	19,500	256	0	0.000
Pochard	Aythya ferina	29,000	380	0	0.000
Tufted Duck	Aythya fuligula	140,000	1,972	0	0.000
Scaup	Aythya marila	6,400	28	0	0.000
Eider	Somateria mollissima	49,000	14,550	3	0.006
Long-tailed Duck	Clangula hyemalis	13,500	606	0	0.000
Common Scoter	Melanitta nigra	135,000	2,930	0	0.000
Velvet Scoter	Melanitta fusca	3,350	236	0	0.000
Goldeneye	Bucephala clangula	21,000	378	0	0.000
Red-breasted Merganser	Mergus serrator	11,000	78	0	0.000
Goosander (non-breeding)	Mergus merganser	14,500	424	0	0.000
Goosander (Breeding Male moult migration)	Mergus mergus	4,800	660	0	0.000
Red-throated Diver (breeding)	Gavia stellata	2,500	54	0	0.000
Red-throated Diver (non-breeding)	Gavia stellata	21,500	456	0	0.000
Cormorant	Phalacrocorax carbo	64,500	572	0	0.000
Great Crested Grebe	Podiceps cristatus	18,000	44	0	0.000
Slavonian Grebe	Podiceps auritus	995	14	0	0.000
Oystercatcher (breeding)	Haematopus ostralegus	191,000	6,000	1	0.001
Oystercatcher (non-breeding)	Haematopus ostralegus	305,000	4,412	1	0.000
Ringed Plover (breeding)	Charadrius hiaticula	10,900	232	0	0.000
Ringed Plover (non-breeding)	Charadrius hiaticula	42,500	686	0	0.000
Golden Plover (breeding)	Pluvialis apricaria	101,000	2142	0	0.000
Golden Plover (non-breeding)	Pluvialis apricaria	410,000	6,546	1	0.000
Grey Plover	Pluvialis squatarola	33,500	604	0	0.000
Lapwing	Vanellus vanellus	635,000	11,438	1	0.000
Knot	Calidris canutus	265,000	3,830	0	0.000
Sanderling	Calidris alba	20,500	296	0	0.000
Purple Sandpiper	Calidris maritima	9,900	100	0	0.000
Dunlin (passage)	Calidris alpina schinzii and C.a.arctica	979,000	14,238	2	0.000
Dunlin (passage and winter)	Calidris alpina alpina	350,000	3,724	0	0.000
Black-tailed Godwit	Limosa limosa islandica	41,000	608	0	0.000
Bar-tailed Godwit	Limosa lapponica	53,500	1,052	0	0.000
Curlew (breeding)	Numenius arquata	117,000	2,516	0	0.000
Curlew (non-breeding)	Numenius arquata	125,000	2,274	0	0.000
Redshank (breeding)	Tringa totanus britannica	44,000	1,308	0	0.000
Redshank (Icelandic population) (non-breeding)	Tringa totanus robusta	100,000	1,486	0	0.000
Turnstone	Arenaria interpres	43,000	622	0	0.000

The number of birds expected to be subject to collision mortality on migration is small, being zero or one bird annually for most species, and a maximum of three for pink-footed goose and eider, and well below a 0.02 percentage point increase in mortality rate. These numbers are the total number of collisions expected for the entire UK population. Therefore, the number of birds which are considered to be individuals associated with individual SPAs is expected to be negligible for all species, and not at a level that could be considered to have any potential of contributing materially to an AEOI for any of the species listed or the sites for which they are features.

Conclusion

It is concluded, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, that no adverse effects on the qualifying interest features which could undermine the conservation objectives of the SPAs listed in Table 5.46 Open ▸ , will occur as a result of collision risk impacts during the operation and maintenance phase for the Array. An assessment of the impact of collision risk against each relevant conservation objective is presented in Table 5.46 Open ▸ . Where the justifications and supporting evidence are the same for more than one conservation objective, the assessments have been grouped.

Table 5.46: Conclusions Against the Conservation Objectives of SPAs and their Qualifying Features from Collision during Operation and Maintenance

SPA	Assessed Features	Conservation Objectives	Justification	Conclusion
Seabirds
Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast SPA	 breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on breeding kittiwake).	 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;  to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term: – distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and – structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.	As the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for collision risk during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species. Therefore, collision risk associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.	 seabird assemblage = No AEOI
 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained  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; and – no significant disturbance of the species.	The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance on the named seabird assemblage component, kittiwake, at Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast SPA remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) ( Table 5.40 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population. Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during the operational and maintenance phase, of collision significantly disrupting the named seabird assemblage component, kittiwake, populations as a qualifying species of the Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast SPA. Therefore, collision risk during operation and maintenance will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site. Furthermore, the impact collision during operation and maintenance will not influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.	 seabird assemblage = No AEOI
Copinsay SPA	 breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on breeding kittiwake).	 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained; – to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term: – distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and – structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.	As the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for collision risk during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species. Therefore, collision risk associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.	 seabird assemblage = No AEOI
 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained  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; and – no significant disturbance of the species.	The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance on the named seabird assemblage component, kittiwake, at Copinsay SPA remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) ( Table 5.40 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population. Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during the operational and maintenance phase, of collision significantly disrupting the named seabird assemblage component, kittiwake, populations as a qualifying species of the Copinsay SPA. Therefore, collision risk during operation and maintenance will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site. Furthermore, the impact collision during operation and maintenance will not influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.	 seabird assemblage = No AEOI
East Caithness Cliffs SPA	 kittiwake (breeding); and  breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).	 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained; – to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term: – distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and – structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.	As the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for collision risk during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species. Therefore, collision risk associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.	 kittiwake = No AEOI  seabird assemblage = No AEOI
 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained  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; and – no significant disturbance of the species.	The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance on kittiwake at East Caithness Cliffs SPA remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) ( Table 5.40 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population. Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during the operational and maintenance phase, of collision significantly disrupting kittiwake populations as a qualifying species of the East Caithness Cliffs SPA. In addition, as the impact from collision on kittiwake populations was assessed as negligible across the operational and maintenance phase, the risk to the seabird assemblage has been deemed negligible. Therefore, collision risk during operation and maintenance will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site. Furthermore, the impact collision during operation and maintenance will not influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.	 kittiwake = No AEOI  seabird assemblage = No AEOI
Fair Isle SPA	 breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on breeding gannet).	 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained; – to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term: – distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and – structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.	As the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for collision risk during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species. Therefore, collision risk associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.	 seabird assemblage = No AEOI
 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained  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; and – no significant disturbance of the species.	The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance on the named seabird assemblage component, gannet, at Fair Isle SPA remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) ( Table 5.43 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population. Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during the operational and maintenance phase, of collision significantly disrupting the named seabird assemblage component, gannet, populations as a qualifying species of the Fair Isle SPA. Therefore, collision risk during operation and maintenance will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site. Furthermore, the impact collision during operation and maintenance will not influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.	 seabird assemblage = No AEOI
Farne Islands SPA	 breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on breeding kittiwake).	 ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the Wild Birds Directive, by maintaining or restoring: – the extent and distribution of the habitats of the qualifying features; – the structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying features; and – the supporting processes on which the habitats of the qualifying features rely.	As the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for collision risk during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species. Therefore, collision risk associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.	 seabird assemblage = No AEOI
 ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the Wild Birds Directive, by maintaining or restoring: – the populations of each of the qualifying features; and – the distribution of qualifying features within the site.	The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance on the named seabird assemblage component, kittiwake, at Farne Islands SPA remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) ( Table 5.40 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population. Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during the operational and maintenance phase, of collision significantly disrupting the named seabird assemblage component, kittiwake, populations as a qualifying species of the Farne Islands SPA. Therefore, collision risk during operation and maintenance will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site. Furthermore, the impact collision during operation and maintenance will not influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.	 seabird assemblage = No AEOI
Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA	 gannet (breeding);  kittiwake (breeding); and  breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).	 ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the Wild Birds Directive, by maintaining or restoring: – the extent and distribution of the habitats of the qualifying features; – the structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying features; and – the supporting processes on which the habitats of the qualifying features rely.	As the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for collision risk during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species. Therefore, collision risk associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.	 kittiwake = No AEOI  gannet = No AEOI  seabird assemblage = No AEOI
 ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the Wild Birds Directive, by maintaining or restoring: – the populations of each of the qualifying features; and – the distribution of qualifying features within the site.	The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on kittiwake at Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) ( Table 5.40 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population. In addition, the impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on gannet at Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality ( Table 5.43 Open ▸ ). Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during all phases, that collision risk will significantly disrupt kittiwake and gannet as qualifying species of the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA. In addition, as the impact from collision risk on gannet and kittiwake populations was assessed as negligible across all phases, the risk to the seabird assemblage has been deemed negligible for all phases. Therefore, collision risk during operation and maintenance will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of each of the qualifying features of the site. Furthermore, the impact from collision during operation and maintenance will not influence the maintenance of the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.	 kittiwake = No AEOI  gannet = No AEOI  seabird assemblage = No AEOI
Forth Islands SPA	 gannet (breeding);  breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species and breeding kittiwake).	 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained; – to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term: – distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and – structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.	As the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for collision risk during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species. Therefore, collision risk associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.	 gannet = No AEOI  seabird assemblage = No AEOI
 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained  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; and – no significant disturbance of the species.	The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on gannet at Forth Islands SPA remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) ( Table 5.43 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population. Similarly, the impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on the named seabird assemblage component, kittiwake, at Forth Islands SPA also remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality when considering both the SNCB ( Table 5.40 Open ▸ ). Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during operations and maintenance that collision will significantly disrupt gannet as qualifying species of Forth Islands SPA. Additionally, the quantitative assessment carried out on the named seabird assemblage feature kittiwake of the Forth Islands SPA concluded there to be a negligible risk from collision during operations and maintenance. Therefore, collision operation and maintenance will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site. Furthermore, the impact from collision during operation and maintenance will not influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.	 gannet = No AEOI  seabird assemblage = No AEOI
Fowlsheugh SPA	 kittiwake (breeding); and  breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).	 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained; – to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term: – distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and – structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.	As the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for collision risk during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species. Therefore, collision risk associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.	 kittiwake = No AEOI  seabird assemblage = No AEOI
 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained  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; and – no significant disturbance of the species.	The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on kittiwake, at Fowlsheugh SPA remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) ( Table 5.40 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population. Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during operations and maintenance that collision will significantly disrupt kittiwake qualifying species of the Fowlsheugh SPA. In addition, as the impact from collision on kittiwake populations was assessed as negligible across the operational and maintenance phase, the risk to the seabird assemblage has been deemed negligible. Therefore, collision during operation and maintenance, will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site. Furthermore, the impact from collision during operations and maintenance will not influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.	 kittiwake = No AEOI  seabird assemblage = No AEOI
Hermaness, Saxa Vord and Valla Field SPA	 gannet (breeding); and  breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).	 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained; – to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term: – distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and – structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.	As the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for collision risk during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species. Therefore, collision risk associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.	 gannet = No AEOI  seabird assemblage = No AEOI
 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained  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; and – no significant disturbance of the species.	The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on gannet at Hermaness, Saxa Vord and Valla Field SPA remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) ( Table 5.43 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population. Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during the operation and maintenance phase, of collision significantly disrupting gannet populations as a qualifying species of the Hermaness, Saxa Vord and Valla Field SPA. In addition, as the impact from collision on gannet populations was assessed as negligible across operations and maintenance, the risk to the seabird assemblage has been deemed negligible. Therefore, collision operation and maintenance will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site. Furthermore, the impact from collision risk during operations and maintenance will not influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.	 gannet = No AEOI  seabird assemblage = No AEOI
North Caithness Cliffs SPA	 breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on breeding kittiwake).	 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained; – to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term: – distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and – structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.	As the Array outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for collision risk during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species. Therefore, collision risk associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.	 seabird assemblage = No AEOI
 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained  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; and – no significant disturbance of the species.	The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on the named seabird assemblage component, kittiwake, at North Caithness Cliffs SPA remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) ( Table 5.40 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population. Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during operations and maintenance of collision significantly disrupting the named seabird assemblage component, kittiwake, populations as a qualifying species of the North Caithness Cliffs SPA. Therefore, collision risk during operation and maintenance will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site. Furthermore, the impact from collision during operations and maintenance will not influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.	 seabird assemblage = No AEOI
North Rona and Sula Sgeir SPA	 gannet (breeding); and  breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).	 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained; – to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term: – distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and – structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.	As the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for collision risk during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species. Therefore, collision risk associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.	 gannet = No AEOI  seabird assemblage = No AEOI
 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained  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; and – no significant disturbance of the species.	The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on gannet at North Rona and Sula Sgeir SPA remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) ( Table 5.43 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population. Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during operations and maintenance, of collision risk significantly disrupting gannet populations as a qualifying species of the North Rona and Sula Sgeir SPA. In addition, as the impact from collision risk on gannet populations was assessed as negligible across operations and maintenance, the risk to the seabird assemblage has been deemed negligible. Therefore, collision risk during operation and maintenance, will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site. Furthermore, the impact from collision during all operations and maintenance will not influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.	 gannet = No AEOI  seabird assemblage = No AEOI
Noss SPA	 gannet (breeding); and  breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).	 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained; – to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term: – distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and – structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.	As the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for collision risk during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species. Therefore, collision risk associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.	 gannet = No AEOI  seabird assemblage = No AEOI
 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained  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; and – no significant disturbance of the species.	The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on gannet at Noss SPA remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) ( Table 5.43 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population. Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during operations and maintenance, of collision significantly disrupting gannet populations as a qualifying species of the Noss SPA. In addition, as the impact from collision on gannet populations was assessed as negligible across operations and maintenance, the risk to the seabird assemblage has been deemed negligible. Therefore, collision during operation and maintenance, will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site. Furthermore, the impact from collision risk during operation and maintenance will not influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.	 gannet = No AEOI  seabird assemblage = No AEOI
St Abb's Head to Fast Castle SPA	 breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on breeding kittiwake).	 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained; – to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term: – distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and – structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.	As the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for collision risk during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species. Therefore, collision risk associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.	 seabird assemblage = No AEOI
 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained  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; and – no significant disturbance of the species.	The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on the named seabird assemblage component, kittiwake, at St Abb's Head to Fast Castle SPA remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) ( Table 5.40 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population. Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during all phases, of collision risk significantly disrupting the named seabird assemblage component, kittiwake, populations as a qualifying species of the St Abb's Head to Fast Castle SPA. Therefore, collision risk during operation and maintenance will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site. Furthermore, the impact from collision risk during operations and maintenance will not influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.	 seabird assemblage = No AEOI
St Kilda SPA	 gannet (breeding); and  breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).	 to ensure that the qualifying features of St Kilda SPA and the Seas off St Kilda SPA are in favourable condition and make an appropriate contribution to achieving Favourable Conservation Status.  to ensure that the integrity of St Kilda SPA and the Seas off St Kilda SPA is restored in the context of environmental changes by meeting objectives 2a, 2b and 2c for each qualifying feature: – the supporting habitats and processes relevant to qualifying features and their prey/food resources are maintained, or where appropriate restored, at St Kilda SPA and/or Seas off St Kilda SPA.	As the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for collision risk during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species. Therefore, collision risk associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.	 gannet = No AEOI  seabird assemblage = No AEOI
 to ensure that the qualifying features of St Kilda SPA and the Seas off St Kilda SPA are in favourable condition and make an appropriate contribution to achieving Favourable Conservation Status.  to ensure that the integrity of St Kilda SPA and the Seas off St Kilda SPA is restored in the context of environmental changes by meeting objectives 2a, 2b and 2c for each qualifying feature: – the populations of qualifying features are viable components of St Kilda SPA and Seas off St Kilda SPA; and – the distributions of the qualifying features throughout St Kilda SPA and Seas off St Kilda SPA are maintained by avoiding significant disturbance of the species.	The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on gannet at St Kilda SPA remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) ( Table 5.43 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population. Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during operations and maintenance, of collision risk significantly disrupting gannet populations as a qualifying species of the St Kilda SPA. In addition, as the impact from collision on gannet populations was assessed as negligible across operations and maintenance, the risk to the seabird assemblage has been deemed negligible. Therefore, collision risk during operation and maintenance, will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site. Furthermore, the impact from collision during operations and maintenance will not significantly influence the distribution of the assessed qualifying species throughout St Kilda SPA.	 gannet = No AEOI  seabird assemblage = No AEOI
Sule Skerry and Sule Stack SPA	 gannet (breeding); and  breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).	 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained; – to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term: – distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and – structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.	As the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for collision risk during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species. Therefore, collision risk associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.	 gannet = No AEOI  seabird assemblage = No AEOI
 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained  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; and – no significant disturbance of the species.	The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on gannet at Sule Skerry and Sule Stack SPA remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) ( Table 5.43 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population. Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during operations and maintenance, of collision risk significantly disrupting gannet populations as a qualifying species of the Sule Skerry and Sule Stack SPA. In addition, as the impact from disturbance and on gannet populations was assessed as negligible across operations and maintenance, the risk to the seabird assemblage has been deemed negligible. Therefore, collision risk during operation and maintenance will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site. Furthermore, the impact from collision risk during operation and maintenance will not influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.	 gannet = No AEOI  seabird assemblage = No AEOI
Troup, Pennan and Lion's Heads SPA	 kittiwake (breeding); and  breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).	 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained; – to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term: – distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and – structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.	As the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for collision risk during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species. Therefore, collision risk associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.	 kittiwake = No AEOI  seabird assemblage = No AEOI
 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained  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; and – no significant disturbance of the species.	The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on kittiwake at Troup, Pennan and Lion's Heads Cliffs SPA remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) ( Table 5.40 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population. Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during operations and maintenance, of collision risk significantly disrupting kittiwake populations as a qualifying species of the Troup, Pennan and Lion's Heads SPA. In addition, as the impact from collision on kittiwake populations was assessed as negligible across operation and maintenance, the risk to the seabird assemblage has been deemed negligible. Therefore, collision risk during operation and maintenance will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site. Furthermore, the impact from collision risk during operations and maintenance will not influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.	 kittiwake = No AEOI  seabird assemblage = No AEOI
Migratory waterbirds
Cameron Reservoir SPA and Ramsar site	 pink-footed goose (non-breeding).	 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained; – to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term: – distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and – structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.	As the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for collision risk during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species. Therefore, collision risk associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.	 pink-footed goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI
 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained  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; and – no significant disturbance of the species.	The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on pink-footed goose at Cameron Reservoir SPA and Ramsar site remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) ( Table 5.45 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population. Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during operations and maintenance, of collision risk significantly disrupting pink-footed goose populations as a qualifying species at Cameron Reservoir SPA and Ramsar site. Therefore, collision risk during operation and maintenance, will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site. Furthermore, the impact from collision during operations and maintenance will not significantly influence the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.	 pink-footed goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI
Din Moss – Hoselaw Loch SPA and Ramsar site	 pink-footed goose (non-breeding); and  greylag goose (non-breeding).	 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained; – to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term: – distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and – structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.	As the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for collision risk during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species. Therefore, collision risk associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.	 pink-footed goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI  greylag goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI
 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained  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; and – no significant disturbance of the species.	The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on pink-footed goose and greylag goose at Din Moss - Hoselaw Loch SPA and Ramsar site remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) ( Table 5.45 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population. Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during operations and maintenance, of collision risk significantly disrupting pink-footed goose and greylag goose populations as a qualifying species of Din Moss - Hoselaw Loch SPA and Ramsar site. Therefore, collision risk during operation and maintenance, will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site. Furthermore, the impact from collision during operations and maintenance will not significantly influence the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.	 pink-footed goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI  greylag goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI
Fala Flow SPA and Ramsar site	 pink-footed goose (non-breeding).	 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained; – to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term: – distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and – structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.	As the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for collision risk during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species. Therefore, collision risk associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.	 pink-footed goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI
 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained  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; and – no significant disturbance of the species.	The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on pink-footed goose at Fala Flow SPA and Ramsar site remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) ( Table 5.45 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population. Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during operations and maintenance, of collision risk significantly disrupting pink-footed goose populations as a qualifying species of Fala Flow SPA and Ramsar site. Therefore, collision risk during operation and maintenance, will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site. Furthermore, the impact from collision during operations and maintenance will not significantly influence the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.	 pink-footed goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI
Firth of Forth SPA and Ramsar site	 bar-tailed godwit (non-breeding)  golden plover (non-breeding)  knot (non-breeding)  pink-footed goose (non-breeding)  red-throated diver (non-breeding)  redshank (non-breeding)  ringed plover (non-breeding)  sandwich tern (non-breeding)  slavonian grebe (non-breeding)  turnstone (non-breeding); and  non-breeding waterbird assemblage (consisting of the above species (except Sandwich tern) and common scoter, cormorant, curlew, dunlin, eider, goldeneye, great crested grebe, grey plover, lapwing, long-tailed duck, mallard, oystercatcher, red-breasted merganser, ringed plover, scaup, shelduck, velvet scoter and wigeon).	 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained; – to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term: – distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and – structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.	As the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for collision risk during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species. Therefore, collision risk associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.	 bar-tailed godwit (non-breeding) = No AEOI  golden plover (non-breeding) = No AEOI  knot (non-breeding) = No AEOI  pink-footed goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI  red-throated diver (non-breeding) = No AEOI  redshank (non-breeding) = No AEOI  ringed plover (non-breeding) = No AEOI  sandwich tern (non-breeding) = No AEOI  slavonian grebe (non-breeding) = No AEOI  turnstone (non-breeding) = No AEOI  non-breeding waterbird assemblage = No AEOI
 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained  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; and – no significant disturbance of the species.	The impact level experienced during the operations and maintenance phase on bar-tailed godwit, golden plover, knot, pink-footed goose, red-throated diver, redshank, ringed plover, sandwich tern, 1lavonian grebe and turnstone at Firth of Forth SPA and Ramsar site remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) ( Table 5.45 Open ▸ ). This also includes the non-breeding waterbird assemblage consisting of common scoter, cormorant, curlew, dunlin, eider, goldeneye, great crested grebe, grey plover, lapwing, long-tailed duck, mallard, oystercatcher, red-breasted merganser, scaup, shelduck, velvet scoter, and wigeon. Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population. Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during operations and maintenance of collision risk significantly disrupting the populations of bar-tailed godwit, golden plover, knot, pink-footed goose, red-throated diver, redshank, ringed plover, Sandwich tern, Slavonian grebe, and turnstone, as well as the non-breeding waterbird assemblage consisting of common scoter, cormorant, curlew, dunlin, eider, goldeneye, great crested grebe, grey plover, lapwing, long-tailed duck, mallard, oystercatcher, red-breasted merganser, scaup, shelduck, velvet scoter, and wigeon, as qualifying species of Firth of Forth SPA and Ramsar site. In addition, as impacts from collision risk were deemed negligible, impacts to waterbird assemblage is also deemed negligible. Therefore, collision risk during operation and maintenance, will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site. Furthermore, the impact from collision during operations and maintenance will not significantly influence the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.	 bar-tailed godwit (non-breeding) = No AEOI  golden plover (non-breeding) = No AEOI  knot (non-breeding) = No AEOI  pink-footed goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI  red-throated diver (non-breeding) = No AEOI  redshank (non-breeding) = No AEOI  ringed plover (non-breeding) = No AEOI  sandwich tern (non-breeding) = No AEOI  slavonian grebe (non-breeding) = No AEOI  turnstone (non-breeding) = No AEOI  waterbird assemblage (non-breeding)= No AEOI
Firth of Tay and Eden Estuary SPA and Ramsar site	 bar-tailed godwit (non-breeding);  non-breeding greylag goose;  non-breeding pink-footed goose;  non-breeding redshank; and  waterbird assemblage (non-breeding) consisting of the above species and eider, goldeneye, goosander, grey plover, Icelandic black-tailed godwit, oystercatcher, long-tailed duck, red-breasted merganser, sanderling, shelduck and velvet scoter).	 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained; – to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term: – distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and – structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.	As the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for collision risk during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species. Therefore, collision risk associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.	 bar-tailed godwit (non-breeding) = No AEOI  non-breeding greylag goose = No AEOI  non-breeding pink-footed goose = No AEOI  non-breeding redshank = No AEOI  waterbird assemblage (non-breeding) = No AEOI
 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained  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; and – no significant disturbance of the species.	The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on bar-tailed godwit as well as the named waterbird assemblage consisting of common scoter, cormorant, dunlin, eider, goldeneye, goosander, grey plover, greylag goose, Icelandic black-tailed godwit, long-tailed duck, oystercatcher, pink-footed goose, red-breasted merganser, redshank, sanderling, shelduck and velvet scoter at Firth of Tay and Eden Estuary SPA and Ramsar site remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) ( Table 5.45 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population. Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during operations and maintenance of collision risk significantly disrupting bar-tailed godwit populations, as well as the non-breeding waterbird assemblage consisting of eider, goldeneye, goosander, grey plover, greylag goose, Icelandic black-tailed godwit, long-tailed duck, oystercatcher, pink-footed goose, red-breasted merganser, redshank, sanderling, shelduck, and velvet scoter, as qualifying species at Firth of Tay and Eden Estuary SPA and Ramsar site. In addition, as impacts from collision risk were deemed negligible, impacts to the waterbird assemblage are also deemed negligible. Therefore, collision risk during operation and maintenance will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site. Furthermore, the impact from collision during operations and maintenance will not significantly influence the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.	 bar-tailed godwit (non-breeding) = No AEOI  non-breeding greylag goose = No AEOI  non-breeding pink-footed goose = No AEOI  non-breeding redshank = No AEOI  waterbird assemblage (non-breeding) = No AEOI
Gladhouse Reservoir SPA and Ramsar site	 pink-footed goose (non-breeding).	 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained; – to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term: – distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and – structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.	As the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for collision risk during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species. Therefore, collision risk associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.	 pink-footed goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI
 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained  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; and – no significant disturbance of the species.	The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on pink-footed goose at Gladhouse Reservoir SPA and Ramsar site remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) ( Table 5.45 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population. Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during operations and maintenance, of collision risk significantly disrupting pink-footed goose populations as a qualifying species of Gladhouse Reservoir SPA and Ramsar site. Therefore, collision risk during operation and maintenance, will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site. Furthermore, the impact from collision during operations and maintenance will not significantly influence the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.	 pink-footed goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI
Greenlaw Moor SPA and Ramsar site	 pink-footed goose (non-breeding).	 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;  to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term: – distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and – structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.	As the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for collision risk during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species. Therefore, collision risk associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.	 pink-footed goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI
 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained  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; and – no significant disturbance of the species.	The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on pink-footed goose at Greenlaw Moor SPA and Ramsar site remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) ( Table 5.45 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population. Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during operations and maintenance, of collision risk significantly disrupting pink-footed goose populations as a qualifying species of Greenlaw Moor SPA and Ramsar site. Therefore, collision risk during operation and maintenance, will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site. Furthermore, the impact from collision during operations and maintenance will not significantly influence the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.	 pink-footed goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI
Holburn Lake and Moss SPA and Ramsar site	 greylag goose (non-breeding).	 ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the Wild Birds Directive, by maintaining or restoring: – the extent and distribution of the habitats of the qualifying features; – the structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying features; and – the supporting processes on which the habitats of the qualifying features rely.	As the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for collision risk during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species. Therefore, collision risk associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.	 greylag goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI
 ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the Wild Birds Directive, by maintaining or restoring: – the populations of each of the qualifying features; and – the distribution of qualifying features within the site.	The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on greylag goose at Holburn Lake and Moss SPA and Ramsar site remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) ( Table 5.45 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population. Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during operations and maintenance, of collision risk significantly disrupting greylag goose populations as a qualifying species of Holburn Lake and Moss SPA and Ramsar site. Therefore, collision risk during operation and maintenance, will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site. Furthermore, the impact from collision during operations and maintenance will not significantly influence the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site	 greylag goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI
Lindisfarne SPA and Ramsar site	 bar-tailed godwit (non-breeding)  common scoter (non-breeding)  dunlin (non-breeding)  eider (non-breeding)  golden plover (non-breeding)  grey plover(non-breeding)  greylag goose (non-breeding)  light-bellied brent goose (non-breeding)  long-tailed duck (non-breeding)  red-breasted merganser (non-breeding)  redshank (non-breeding)  ringed plover (non-breeding)  sanderling (non-breeding)  shelduck (non-breeding)  whooper swan (non-breeding)  wigeon (non-breeding); and  waterbird assemblage (non-breeding).	 ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the Wild Birds Directive, by maintaining or restoring: – the extent and distribution of the habitats of the qualifying features; – the structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying features; and – the supporting processes on which the habitats of the qualifying features rely.	As the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for collision risk during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species. Therefore, collision risk associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.	 bar-tailed godwit (non-breeding) = No AEOI  common scoter (non-breeding) = No AEOI  dunlin (non-breeding) = No AEOI  eider (non-breeding) = No AEOI  golden plover (non-breeding) = No AEOI  grey plover(non-breeding) = No AEOI  greylag goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI  light-bellied brent goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI  long-tailed duck (non-breeding) = No AEOI  red-breasted merganser (non-breeding) = No AEOI  redshank (non-breeding) = No AEOI  ringed plover (non-breeding) = No AEOI  sanderling (non-breeding) = No AEOI  shelduck (non-breeding) = No AEOI  whooper swan (non-breeding) = No AEOI  wigeon (non-breeding) = No AEOI  waterbird assemblage (non-breeding) = No AEOI
 ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the Wild Birds Directive, by maintaining or restoring: – the populations of each of the qualifying features; and – the distribution of qualifying features within the site.	The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on bar-tailed godwit, common scoter, dunlin, eider, golden plover, grey plover, greylag goose, light-bellied brent goose, long-tailed duck, red-breasted merganser, redshank, ringed plover, sanderling, shelduck and whooper swan and wigeon at Lindisfarne SPA and Ramsar site remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) ( Table 5.45 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population. Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during operations and maintenance, of collision risk significantly disrupting bar-tailed godwit, common scoter, dunlin, eider, golden plover, grey plover, greylag goose, light-bellied brent goose, long-tailed duck, red-breasted merganser, redshank, ringed plover, sanderling, shelduck and whooper swan and wigeon populations as a qualifying species at Lindisfarne SPA and Ramsar site. In addition, as impacts from collision risk were deemed negligible, impacts to waterbird assemblage is also deemed negligible. Therefore, collision risk during operation and maintenance, will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site. Furthermore, the impact from collision during operations and maintenance will not significantly influence the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.	 bar-tailed godwit (non-breeding) = No AEOI  common scoter (non-breeding) = No AEOI  dunlin (non-breeding) = No AEOI  eider (non-breeding) = No AEOI  golden plover (non-breeding) = No AEOI  grey plover(non-breeding) = No AEOI  greylag goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI  light-bellied brent goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI  long-tailed duck (non-breeding) = No AEOI  red-breasted merganser (non-breeding) = No AEOI  redshank (non-breeding) = No AEOI  ringed plover (non-breeding) = No AEOI  sanderling (non-breeding) = No AEOI  shelduck (non-breeding) = No AEOI  whooper swan (non-breeding) = No AEOI  wigeon (non-breeding) = No AEOI  waterbird assemblage (non-breeding) = No AEOI
Loch of Kinnordy SPA and Ramsar site	 pink-footed goose (non-breeding); and  greylag goose (non-breeding).	 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained; – to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term: – distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and – structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.	As the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for collision risk during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species. Therefore, collision risk associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.	 pink-footed goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI  greylag goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI
 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained  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; and – no significant disturbance of the species.	The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on pink-footed goose and greylag goose at Loch of Kinnordy SPA and Ramsar site remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) ( Table 5.45 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population. Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during operations and maintenance, of collision risk significantly disrupting pink-footed goose and greylag goose populations as a qualifying species of Loch of Kinnordy SPA and Ramsar site. Therefore, collision risk during operation and maintenance, will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site. Furthermore, the impact from collision during operations and maintenance will not significantly influence the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.	 pink-footed goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI  greylag goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI
Loch Leven SPA and Ramsar site	 pink-footed goose (non-breeding)  shoveler (non-breeding)  whooper swan (non-breeding); and  waterbird assemblage (non-breeding) consisting of the above species and cormorant, gadwall, goldeneye, pochard, teal and tufted duck.	 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained; – to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term: – distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and – structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.	As the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for collision risk during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species. Therefore, collision risk associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.	 pink-footed goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI  shoveler (non-breeding) = No AEOI  whooper swan (non-breeding) = No AEOI  waterbird assemblage (non-breeding) = No AEOI
 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained  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; and – no significant disturbance of the species.	The impact level experienced during the operations and maintenance phase on pink-footed goose, shoveler, whooper swan and the waterbird assemblage consisting of cormorant, gadwall, goldeneye, pochard, teal, and tufted duck at Loch Leven SPA and Ramsar site remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) ( Table 5.45 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population. Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during operations and maintenance of collision risk significantly disrupting the populations of pink-footed goose, shoveler, whooper swan, as well as the non-breeding waterbird assemblage consisting of cormorant, gadwall, goldeneye, pochard, teal, and tufted duck, as qualifying species of Loch Leven SPA and Ramsar site. In addition, as impacts from collision risk were deemed negligible, impacts to waterbird assemblage is also deemed negligible. Therefore, collision risk during operation and maintenance, will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site. Furthermore, the impact from collision during operations and maintenance will not significantly influence the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.	 pink-footed goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI  shoveler (non-breeding) = No AEOI  whooper swan (non-breeding) = No AEOI  waterbird assemblage (non-breeding) = No AEOI
Montrose Basin SPA and Ramsar site	 greylag goose (non-breeding)  pink-footed goose (non-breeding)  redshank (non-breeding); and  waterbird assemblage (non-breeding) consisting of the above species and oystercatcher, eider, wigeon, knot, dunlin and shelduck.	 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained; – to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term: – distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and – structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.	As the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for collision risk during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species. Therefore, collision risk associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.	 greylag goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI  pink-footed goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI  redshank (non-breeding) = No AEOI  waterbird assemblage (non-breeding) = No AEOI
 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained  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; and – no significant disturbance of the species.	The impact level experienced during the operations and maintenance phase on greylag goose, pink-footed goose, redshank, as well as the non-breeding waterbird assemblage consisting of oystercatcher, eider, wigeon, knot, dunlin, and shelduck, at Montrose Basin SPA and Ramsar site remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by ( Table 5.45 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population. Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during operations and maintenance of collision risk significantly disrupting the populations of greylag goose, pink-footed goose, redshank, as well as the non-breeding waterbird assemblage consisting of oystercatcher, eider, wigeon, knot, dunlin, and shelduck, as qualifying species of Loch Leven SPA and Ramsar site. In addition, as impacts from collision risk were deemed negligible, impacts to waterbird assemblage is also deemed negligible. Therefore, collision risk during operation and maintenance, will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site. Furthermore, the impact from collision during operations and maintenance will not significantly influence the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.	 greylag goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI  pink-footed goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI  redshank (non-breeding) = No AEOI  waterbird assemblage (non-breeding) = No AEOI
Northumbria Coast SPA and Ramsar site	 purple sandpiper (non-breeding); and  turnstone (non-breeding).	 ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the Wild Birds Directive, by maintaining or restoring: – the extent and distribution of the habitats of the qualifying features; – the structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying features; and – The supporting processes on which the habitats of the qualifying features rely.	As the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for collision risk during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species. Therefore, collision risk associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.	 purple sandpiper (non-breeding) = No AEOI  turnstone (non-breeding) = No AEOI
 ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the Wild Birds Directive, by maintaining or restoring: – the populations of each of the qualifying features; and – the distribution of qualifying features within the site.	The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on purple sandpiper and turnstone at Northumbria Coast SPA and Ramsar site remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) ( Table 5.45 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population. Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during operations and maintenance, of collision risk significantly disrupting purple sandpiper and turnstone populations as a qualifying species of Northumbria Coast SPA and Ramsar site. Therefore, collision risk during operation and maintenance, will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site. Furthermore, the impact from collision during operations and maintenance will not significantly influence the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.	 purple sandpiper (non-breeding) = No AEOI  turnstone (non-breeding) = No AEOI
Slamannan Platea SPA	 taiga bean goose (non-breeding).	 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained; – to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term: – distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and – structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.	As the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for collision risk during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species. Therefore, collision risk associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.	 taiga bean goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI
 To avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained  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; and – No significant disturbance of the species.	The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on taiga bean goose at Slamannan Platea SPA remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) ( Table 5.45 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population. Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during operations and maintenance, of collision risk significantly disrupting taiga bean goose populations as a qualifying species of Slamannan Platea SPA. Therefore, collision risk during operation and maintenance, will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site. Furthermore, the impact from collision during operations and maintenance will not significantly influence the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.	 taiga bean goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI
South Tayside Goose Roosts SPA and Ramsar site	 pink-footed goose (non-breeding)  greylag goose (non-breeding)  wigeon (non-breeding); and  waterbird assemblage (non-breeding) consisting of the species listed above.	 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained; – to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term: – distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and – structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.	As the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for collision risk during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species. Therefore, collision risk associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.	 pink-footed goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI  greylag goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI  wigeon (non-breeding) = No AEOI  waterbird assemblage (non-breeding) = No AEOI
 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained  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; and – no significant disturbance of the species.	The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on pink-footed goose, greylag goose and wigeon at South Tayside Goose Roosts SPA and Ramsar site below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) ( Table 5.45 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population. Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during operations and maintenance, of collision risk significantly disrupting on pink-footed goose, greylag goose and wigeon populations as a qualifying species of South Tayside Goose Roosts SPA and Ramsar site. In addition, as impacts from collision risk were deemed negligible, impacts to waterbird assemblage is also deemed negligible. Therefore, collision risk during operation and maintenance, will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site. Furthermore, the impact from collision during operations and maintenance will not significantly influence the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.	 pink-footed goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI  greylag goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI  wigeon (non-breeding) = No AEOI  waterbird assemblage (non-breeding) = No AEOI
Westwater SPA and Ramsar site	 pink-footed goose (non-breeding); and  waterbird assemblage (non-breeding) consisting of the species listed above.	 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained; – to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term: – distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and – structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.	As the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for collision risk during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species. Therefore, collision risk associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.	 pink-footed goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI  waterbird assemblage (non-breeding) = No AEOI
 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained  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; and – no significant disturbance of the species.	The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on pink-footed goose at Westwater SPA and Ramsar site below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) ( Table 5.45 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population. Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during operations and maintenance, of collision risk significantly disrupting on pink-footed goose as a qualifying species of Westwater SPA and Ramsar site. In addition, as impacts from collision risk were deemed negligible, impacts to waterbird assemblage is also deemed negligible. Therefore, collision risk during operation and maintenance, will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site. Furthermore, the impact from collision during operations and maintenance will not significantly influence the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.	 pink-footed goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI  waterbird assemblage (non-breeding) = No AEOI
Ythan Estuary, Sands of Forvie and Meikle Loch SPA/Ythan Estuary and Meikle Loch Ramsar site	 pink-footed goose (non-breeding); and  waterbird assemblage (non-breeding) consisting of the species listed above and eider, lapwing and redshank.	 ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the Wild Birds Directive, by maintaining or restoring: – the extent and distribution of the habitats of the qualifying features; – the structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying features; and – the supporting processes on which the habitats of the qualifying features rely.	As the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for collision risk during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species. Therefore, collision risk associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.	 pink-footed goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI  waterbird assemblage (non-breeding) = No AEOI
 ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the Wild Birds Directive, by maintaining or restoring: – the populations of each of the qualifying features; and – the distribution of qualifying features within the site.	The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on eider, lapwing, pink-footed goose and redshank at Ythan Estuary, Sands of Forvie and Meikle Loch SPA/Ythan Estuary and Meikle Loch Ramsar site below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) ( Table 5.45 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population. Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during operations and maintenance, of collision risk significantly disrupting on eider, lapwing, pink-footed goose and redshank as a qualifying species of Ythan Estuary, Sands of Forvie and Meikle Loch SPA/Ythan Estuary and Meikle Loch Ramsar site In addition, as impacts from collision risk were deemed negligible, impacts to waterbird assemblage is also deemed negligible. Therefore, collision risk during operation and maintenance, will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site. Furthermore, the impact from collision during operations and maintenance will not significantly influence the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.	 pink-footed goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI  waterbird assemblage (non-breeding) = No AEOI

SPA

Assessed Features

Conservation Objectives

Justification

Conclusion

Seabirds

Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast SPA

 breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on breeding kittiwake).

 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term:

– distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and

– structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.

As the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for collision risk during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, collision risk associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained

 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; and

– no significant disturbance of the species.

The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance on the named seabird assemblage component, kittiwake, at Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast SPA remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) ( Table 5.40 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population.

Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during the operational and maintenance phase, of collision significantly disrupting the named seabird assemblage component, kittiwake, populations as a qualifying species of the Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast SPA.

Therefore, collision risk during operation and maintenance will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site.

Furthermore, the impact collision during operation and maintenance will not influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

Copinsay SPA

 breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on breeding kittiwake).

 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

– to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term:

– distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and

– structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.

As the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for collision risk during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, collision risk associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained

 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; and

– no significant disturbance of the species.

The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance on the named seabird assemblage component, kittiwake, at Copinsay SPA remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) ( Table 5.40 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population.

Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during the operational and maintenance phase, of collision significantly disrupting the named seabird assemblage component, kittiwake, populations as a qualifying species of the Copinsay SPA.

Therefore, collision risk during operation and maintenance will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site.

Furthermore, the impact collision during operation and maintenance will not influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

East Caithness Cliffs SPA

 kittiwake (breeding); and

 breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).

 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

– to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term:

– distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and

– structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.

As the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for collision risk during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, collision risk associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 kittiwake = No AEOI

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained

 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; and

– no significant disturbance of the species.

The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance on kittiwake at East Caithness Cliffs SPA remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) ( Table 5.40 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population.

Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during the operational and maintenance phase, of collision significantly disrupting kittiwake populations as a qualifying species of the East Caithness Cliffs SPA.

In addition, as the impact from collision on kittiwake populations was assessed as negligible across the operational and maintenance phase, the risk to the seabird assemblage has been deemed negligible.

Therefore, collision risk during operation and maintenance will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site.

Furthermore, the impact collision during operation and maintenance will not influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.

 kittiwake = No AEOI

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

Fair Isle SPA

 breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on breeding gannet).

 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

– to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term:

– distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and

– structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.

As the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for collision risk during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, collision risk associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained

 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; and

– no significant disturbance of the species.

The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance on the named seabird assemblage component, gannet, at Fair Isle SPA remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) ( Table 5.43 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population.

Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during the operational and maintenance phase, of collision significantly disrupting the named seabird assemblage component, gannet, populations as a qualifying species of the Fair Isle SPA.

Therefore, collision risk during operation and maintenance will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site.

Furthermore, the impact collision during operation and maintenance will not influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

Farne Islands SPA

 breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on breeding kittiwake).

 ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the Wild Birds Directive, by maintaining or restoring:

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

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

– the supporting processes on which the habitats of the qualifying features rely.

As the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for collision risk during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, collision risk associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

 ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the Wild Birds Directive, by maintaining or restoring:

– the populations of each of the qualifying features; and

– the distribution of qualifying features within the site.

The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance on the named seabird assemblage component, kittiwake, at Farne Islands SPA remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) ( Table 5.40 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population.

Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during the operational and maintenance phase, of collision significantly disrupting the named seabird assemblage component, kittiwake, populations as a qualifying species of the Farne Islands SPA.

Therefore, collision risk during operation and maintenance will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site.

Furthermore, the impact collision during operation and maintenance will not influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA

 gannet (breeding);

 kittiwake (breeding); and

 breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).

 ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the Wild Birds Directive, by maintaining or restoring:

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

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

– the supporting processes on which the habitats of the qualifying features rely.

As the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for collision risk during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, collision risk associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 kittiwake = No AEOI

 gannet = No AEOI

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

 ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the Wild Birds Directive, by maintaining or restoring:

– the populations of each of the qualifying features; and

– the distribution of qualifying features within the site.

The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on kittiwake at Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) ( Table 5.40 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population. In addition, the impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on gannet at Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality ( Table 5.43 Open ▸ ).

Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during all phases, that collision risk will significantly disrupt kittiwake and gannet as qualifying species of the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA.

In addition, as the impact from collision risk on gannet and kittiwake populations was assessed as negligible across all phases, the risk to the seabird assemblage has been deemed negligible for all phases.

Therefore, collision risk during operation and maintenance will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of each of the qualifying features of the site.

Furthermore, the impact from collision during operation and maintenance will not influence the maintenance of the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.

 kittiwake = No AEOI

 gannet = No AEOI

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

Forth Islands SPA

 gannet (breeding);

 breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species and breeding kittiwake).

 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

– to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term:

– distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and

– structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.

As the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for collision risk during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, collision risk associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 gannet = No AEOI

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained

 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; and

– no significant disturbance of the species.

The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on gannet at Forth Islands SPA remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) ( Table 5.43 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population.

Similarly, the impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on the named seabird assemblage component, kittiwake, at Forth Islands SPA also remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality when considering both the SNCB ( Table 5.40 Open ▸ ).

Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during operations and maintenance that collision will significantly disrupt gannet as qualifying species of Forth Islands SPA.

Additionally, the quantitative assessment carried out on the named seabird assemblage feature kittiwake of the Forth Islands SPA concluded there to be a negligible risk from collision during operations and maintenance.

Therefore, collision operation and maintenance will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site.

Furthermore, the impact from collision during operation and maintenance will not influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.

 gannet = No AEOI

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

Fowlsheugh SPA

 kittiwake (breeding); and

 breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).

 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

– to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term:

– distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and

– structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.

As the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for collision risk during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, collision risk associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 kittiwake = No AEOI

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained

 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; and

– no significant disturbance of the species.

The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on kittiwake, at Fowlsheugh SPA remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) ( Table 5.40 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population.

Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during operations and maintenance that collision will significantly disrupt kittiwake qualifying species of the Fowlsheugh SPA.

In addition, as the impact from collision on kittiwake populations was assessed as negligible across the operational and maintenance phase, the risk to the seabird assemblage has been deemed negligible.

Therefore, collision during operation and maintenance, will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site.

Furthermore, the impact from collision during operations and maintenance will not influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.

 kittiwake = No AEOI

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

Hermaness, Saxa Vord and Valla Field SPA

 gannet (breeding); and

 breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).

 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

– to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term:

– distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and

– structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.

As the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for collision risk during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, collision risk associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 gannet = No AEOI

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained

 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; and

– no significant disturbance of the species.

The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on gannet at Hermaness, Saxa Vord and Valla Field SPA remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) ( Table 5.43 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population.

Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during the operation and maintenance phase, of collision significantly disrupting gannet populations as a qualifying species of the Hermaness, Saxa Vord and Valla Field SPA.

In addition, as the impact from collision on gannet populations was assessed as negligible across operations and maintenance, the risk to the seabird assemblage has been deemed negligible.

Therefore, collision operation and maintenance will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site.

Furthermore, the impact from collision risk during operations and maintenance will not influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.

 gannet = No AEOI

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

North Caithness Cliffs SPA

 breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on breeding kittiwake).

 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

– to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term:

– distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and

– structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.

As the Array outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for collision risk during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, collision risk associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained

 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; and

– no significant disturbance of the species.

The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on the named seabird assemblage component, kittiwake, at North Caithness Cliffs SPA remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) ( Table 5.40 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population.

Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during operations and maintenance of collision significantly disrupting the named seabird assemblage component, kittiwake, populations as a qualifying species of the North Caithness Cliffs SPA.

Therefore, collision risk during operation and maintenance will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site.

Furthermore, the impact from collision during operations and maintenance will not influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

North Rona and Sula Sgeir SPA

 gannet (breeding); and

 breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).

 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

– to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term:

– distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and

– structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.

As the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for collision risk during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, collision risk associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 gannet = No AEOI

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained

 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; and

– no significant disturbance of the species.

The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on gannet at North Rona and Sula Sgeir SPA remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) ( Table 5.43 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population.

Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during operations and maintenance, of collision risk significantly disrupting gannet populations as a qualifying species of the North Rona and Sula Sgeir SPA.

In addition, as the impact from collision risk on gannet populations was assessed as negligible across operations and maintenance, the risk to the seabird assemblage has been deemed negligible.

Therefore, collision risk during operation and maintenance, will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site.

Furthermore, the impact from collision during all operations and maintenance will not influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.

 gannet = No AEOI

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

Noss SPA

 gannet (breeding); and

 breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).

 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

– to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term:

– distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and

– structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.

As the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for collision risk during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, collision risk associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 gannet = No AEOI

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained

 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; and

– no significant disturbance of the species.

The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on gannet at Noss SPA remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) ( Table 5.43 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population.

Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during operations and maintenance, of collision significantly disrupting gannet populations as a qualifying species of the Noss SPA.

In addition, as the impact from collision on gannet populations was assessed as negligible across operations and maintenance, the risk to the seabird assemblage has been deemed negligible.

Therefore, collision during operation and maintenance, will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site.

Furthermore, the impact from collision risk during operation and maintenance will not influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.

 gannet = No AEOI

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

St Abb's Head to Fast Castle SPA

 breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on breeding kittiwake).

 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

– to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term:

– distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and

– structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.

As the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for collision risk during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, collision risk associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained

 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; and

– no significant disturbance of the species.

The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on the named seabird assemblage component, kittiwake, at St Abb's Head to Fast Castle SPA remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) ( Table 5.40 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population.

Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during all phases, of collision risk significantly disrupting the named seabird assemblage component, kittiwake, populations as a qualifying species of the St Abb's Head to Fast Castle SPA.

Therefore, collision risk during operation and maintenance will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site.

Furthermore, the impact from collision risk during operations and maintenance will not influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

St Kilda SPA

 gannet (breeding); and

 breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).

 to ensure that the qualifying features of St Kilda SPA and the Seas off St Kilda SPA are in favourable condition and make an appropriate contribution to achieving Favourable Conservation Status.

 to ensure that the integrity of St Kilda SPA and the Seas off St Kilda SPA is restored in the context of environmental changes by meeting objectives 2a, 2b and 2c for each qualifying feature:

– the supporting habitats and processes relevant to qualifying features and their prey/food resources are maintained, or where appropriate restored, at St Kilda SPA and/or Seas off St Kilda SPA.

As the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for collision risk during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, collision risk associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 gannet = No AEOI

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

 to ensure that the qualifying features of St Kilda SPA and the Seas off St Kilda SPA are in favourable condition and make an appropriate contribution to achieving Favourable Conservation Status.

 to ensure that the integrity of St Kilda SPA and the Seas off St Kilda SPA is restored in the context of environmental changes by meeting objectives 2a, 2b and 2c for each qualifying feature:

– the populations of qualifying features are viable components of St Kilda SPA and Seas off St Kilda SPA; and

– the distributions of the qualifying features throughout St Kilda SPA and Seas off St Kilda SPA are maintained by avoiding significant disturbance of the species.

The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on gannet at St Kilda SPA remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) ( Table 5.43 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population.

Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during operations and maintenance, of collision risk significantly disrupting gannet populations as a qualifying species of the St Kilda SPA.

In addition, as the impact from collision on gannet populations was assessed as negligible across operations and maintenance, the risk to the seabird assemblage has been deemed negligible.

Therefore, collision risk during operation and maintenance, will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site.

Furthermore, the impact from collision during operations and maintenance will not significantly influence the distribution of the assessed qualifying species throughout St Kilda SPA.

 gannet = No AEOI

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

Sule Skerry and Sule Stack SPA

 gannet (breeding); and

 breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).

 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

– to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term:

– distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and

– structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.

As the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for collision risk during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, collision risk associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 gannet = No AEOI

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained

 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; and

– no significant disturbance of the species.

The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on gannet at Sule Skerry and Sule Stack SPA remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) ( Table 5.43 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population.

Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during operations and maintenance, of collision risk significantly disrupting gannet populations as a qualifying species of the Sule Skerry and Sule Stack SPA.

In addition, as the impact from disturbance and on gannet populations was assessed as negligible across operations and maintenance, the risk to the seabird assemblage has been deemed negligible.

Therefore, collision risk during operation and maintenance will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site.

Furthermore, the impact from collision risk during operation and maintenance will not influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.

 gannet = No AEOI

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

Troup, Pennan and Lion's Heads SPA

 kittiwake (breeding); and

 breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).

 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

– to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term:

– distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and

– structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.

As the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for collision risk during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, collision risk associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 kittiwake = No AEOI

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained

 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; and

– no significant disturbance of the species.

The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on kittiwake at Troup, Pennan and Lion's Heads Cliffs SPA remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) ( Table 5.40 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population.

Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during operations and maintenance, of collision risk significantly disrupting kittiwake populations as a qualifying species of the Troup, Pennan and Lion's Heads SPA.

In addition, as the impact from collision on kittiwake populations was assessed as negligible across operation and maintenance, the risk to the seabird assemblage has been deemed negligible.

Therefore, collision risk during operation and maintenance will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site.

Furthermore, the impact from collision risk during operations and maintenance will not influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.

 kittiwake = No AEOI

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

Migratory waterbirds

Cameron Reservoir SPA and Ramsar site

 pink-footed goose (non-breeding).

 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

– to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term:

– distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and

– structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.

As the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for collision risk during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, collision risk associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 pink-footed goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained

 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; and

– no significant disturbance of the species.

The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on pink-footed goose at Cameron Reservoir SPA and Ramsar site remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) ( Table 5.45 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population.

Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during operations and maintenance, of collision risk significantly disrupting pink-footed goose populations as a qualifying species at Cameron Reservoir SPA and Ramsar site.

Therefore, collision risk during operation and maintenance, will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site.

Furthermore, the impact from collision during operations and maintenance will not significantly influence the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.

 pink-footed goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI

Din Moss – Hoselaw Loch SPA and Ramsar site

 pink-footed goose (non-breeding); and

 greylag goose (non-breeding).

 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

– to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term:

– distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and

– structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.

As the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for collision risk during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, collision risk associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 pink-footed goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 greylag goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained

 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; and

– no significant disturbance of the species.

The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on pink-footed goose and greylag goose at Din Moss - Hoselaw Loch SPA and Ramsar site remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) ( Table 5.45 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population.

Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during operations and maintenance, of collision risk significantly disrupting pink-footed goose and greylag goose populations as a qualifying species of Din Moss - Hoselaw Loch SPA and Ramsar site.

Therefore, collision risk during operation and maintenance, will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site.

Furthermore, the impact from collision during operations and maintenance will not significantly influence the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.

 pink-footed goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 greylag goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI

Fala Flow SPA and Ramsar site

 pink-footed goose (non-breeding).

 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

– to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term:

– distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and

– structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.

As the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for collision risk during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, collision risk associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 pink-footed goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained

 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; and

– no significant disturbance of the species.

The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on pink-footed goose at Fala Flow SPA and Ramsar site remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) ( Table 5.45 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population.

Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during operations and maintenance, of collision risk significantly disrupting pink-footed goose populations as a qualifying species of Fala Flow SPA and Ramsar site.

Therefore, collision risk during operation and maintenance, will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site.

Furthermore, the impact from collision during operations and maintenance will not significantly influence the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.

 pink-footed goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI

Firth of Forth SPA and Ramsar site

 bar-tailed godwit (non-breeding)

 golden plover (non-breeding)

 knot (non-breeding)

 pink-footed goose (non-breeding)

 red-throated diver (non-breeding)

 redshank (non-breeding)

 ringed plover (non-breeding)

 sandwich tern (non-breeding)

 slavonian grebe (non-breeding)

 turnstone (non-breeding); and

 non-breeding waterbird assemblage (consisting of the above species (except Sandwich tern) and common scoter, cormorant, curlew, dunlin, eider, goldeneye, great crested grebe, grey plover, lapwing, long-tailed duck, mallard, oystercatcher, red-breasted merganser, ringed plover, scaup, shelduck, velvet scoter and wigeon).

 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

– to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term:

– distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and

– structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.

As the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for collision risk during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, collision risk associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 bar-tailed godwit (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 golden plover (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 knot (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 pink-footed goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 red-throated diver (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 redshank (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 ringed plover (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 sandwich tern (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 slavonian grebe (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 turnstone (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 non-breeding waterbird assemblage = No AEOI

 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained

 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; and

– no significant disturbance of the species.

The impact level experienced during the operations and maintenance phase on bar-tailed godwit, golden plover, knot, pink-footed goose, red-throated diver, redshank, ringed plover, sandwich tern, 1lavonian grebe and turnstone at Firth of Forth SPA and Ramsar site remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) ( Table 5.45 Open ▸ ). This also includes the non-breeding waterbird assemblage consisting of common scoter, cormorant, curlew, dunlin, eider, goldeneye, great crested grebe, grey plover, lapwing, long-tailed duck, mallard, oystercatcher, red-breasted merganser, scaup, shelduck, velvet scoter, and wigeon. Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population.

Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during operations and maintenance of collision risk significantly disrupting the populations of bar-tailed godwit, golden plover, knot, pink-footed goose, red-throated diver, redshank, ringed plover, Sandwich tern, Slavonian grebe, and turnstone, as well as the non-breeding waterbird assemblage consisting of common scoter, cormorant, curlew, dunlin, eider, goldeneye, great crested grebe, grey plover, lapwing, long-tailed duck, mallard, oystercatcher, red-breasted merganser, scaup, shelduck, velvet scoter, and wigeon, as qualifying species of Firth of Forth SPA and Ramsar site. In addition, as impacts from collision risk were deemed negligible, impacts to waterbird assemblage is also deemed negligible.

Therefore, collision risk during operation and maintenance, will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site. Furthermore, the impact from collision during operations and maintenance will not significantly influence the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.

 bar-tailed godwit (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 golden plover (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 knot (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 pink-footed goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 red-throated diver (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 redshank (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 ringed plover (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 sandwich tern (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 slavonian grebe (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 turnstone (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 waterbird assemblage (non-breeding)= No AEOI

Firth of Tay and Eden Estuary SPA and Ramsar site

 bar-tailed godwit (non-breeding);

 non-breeding greylag goose;

 non-breeding pink-footed goose;

 non-breeding redshank; and

 waterbird assemblage (non-breeding) consisting of the above species and eider, goldeneye, goosander, grey plover, Icelandic black-tailed godwit, oystercatcher, long-tailed duck, red-breasted merganser, sanderling, shelduck and velvet scoter).

 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

– to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term:

– distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and

– structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.

As the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for collision risk during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, collision risk associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 bar-tailed godwit (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 non-breeding greylag goose = No AEOI

 non-breeding pink-footed goose = No AEOI

 non-breeding redshank = No AEOI

 waterbird assemblage (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained

 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; and

– no significant disturbance of the species.

The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on bar-tailed godwit as well as the named waterbird assemblage consisting of common scoter, cormorant, dunlin, eider, goldeneye, goosander, grey plover, greylag goose, Icelandic black-tailed godwit, long-tailed duck, oystercatcher, pink-footed goose, red-breasted merganser, redshank, sanderling, shelduck and velvet scoter at Firth of Tay and Eden Estuary SPA and Ramsar site remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) ( Table 5.45 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population.

Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during operations and maintenance of collision risk significantly disrupting bar-tailed godwit populations, as well as the non-breeding waterbird assemblage consisting of eider, goldeneye, goosander, grey plover, greylag goose, Icelandic black-tailed godwit, long-tailed duck, oystercatcher, pink-footed goose, red-breasted merganser, redshank, sanderling, shelduck, and velvet scoter, as qualifying species at Firth of Tay and Eden Estuary SPA and Ramsar site. In addition, as impacts from collision risk were deemed negligible, impacts to the waterbird assemblage are also deemed negligible.

Therefore, collision risk during operation and maintenance will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site. Furthermore, the impact from collision during operations and maintenance will not significantly influence the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.

 bar-tailed godwit (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 non-breeding greylag goose = No AEOI

 non-breeding pink-footed goose = No AEOI

 non-breeding redshank = No AEOI

 waterbird assemblage (non-breeding) = No AEOI

Gladhouse Reservoir SPA and Ramsar site

 pink-footed goose (non-breeding).

 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

– to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term:

– distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and

– structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.

As the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for collision risk during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, collision risk associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 pink-footed goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained

 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; and

– no significant disturbance of the species.

The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on pink-footed goose at Gladhouse Reservoir SPA and Ramsar site remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) ( Table 5.45 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population.

Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during operations and maintenance, of collision risk significantly disrupting pink-footed goose populations as a qualifying species of Gladhouse Reservoir SPA and Ramsar site.

Therefore, collision risk during operation and maintenance, will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site.

Furthermore, the impact from collision during operations and maintenance will not significantly influence the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.

 pink-footed goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI

Greenlaw Moor SPA and Ramsar site

 pink-footed goose (non-breeding).

 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term:

– distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and

– structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.

As the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for collision risk during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, collision risk associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 pink-footed goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained

 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; and

– no significant disturbance of the species.

The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on pink-footed goose at Greenlaw Moor SPA and Ramsar site remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) ( Table 5.45 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population.

Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during operations and maintenance, of collision risk significantly disrupting pink-footed goose populations as a qualifying species of Greenlaw Moor SPA and Ramsar site.

Therefore, collision risk during operation and maintenance, will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site.

Furthermore, the impact from collision during operations and maintenance will not significantly influence the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.

 pink-footed goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI

Holburn Lake and Moss SPA and Ramsar site

 greylag goose (non-breeding).

 ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the Wild Birds Directive, by maintaining or restoring:

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

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

– the supporting processes on which the habitats of the qualifying features rely.

As the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for collision risk during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, collision risk associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 greylag goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the Wild Birds Directive, by maintaining or restoring:

– the populations of each of the qualifying features; and

– the distribution of qualifying features within the site.

The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on greylag goose at Holburn Lake and Moss SPA and Ramsar site remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) ( Table 5.45 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population.

Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during operations and maintenance, of collision risk significantly disrupting greylag goose populations as a qualifying species of Holburn Lake and Moss SPA and Ramsar site.

Therefore, collision risk during operation and maintenance, will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site.

Furthermore, the impact from collision during operations and maintenance will not significantly influence the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site

 greylag goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI

Lindisfarne SPA and Ramsar site

 bar-tailed godwit (non-breeding)

 common scoter (non-breeding)

 dunlin (non-breeding)

 eider (non-breeding)

 golden plover (non-breeding)

 grey plover(non-breeding)

 greylag goose (non-breeding)

 light-bellied brent goose (non-breeding)

 long-tailed duck (non-breeding)

 red-breasted merganser (non-breeding)

 redshank (non-breeding)

 ringed plover (non-breeding)

 sanderling (non-breeding)

 shelduck (non-breeding)

 whooper swan (non-breeding)

 wigeon (non-breeding); and

 waterbird assemblage (non-breeding).

 ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the Wild Birds Directive, by maintaining or restoring:

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

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

– the supporting processes on which the habitats of the qualifying features rely.

As the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for collision risk during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, collision risk associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 bar-tailed godwit (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 common scoter (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 dunlin (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 eider (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 golden plover (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 grey plover(non-breeding) = No AEOI

 greylag goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 light-bellied brent goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 long-tailed duck (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 red-breasted merganser (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 redshank (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 ringed plover (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 sanderling (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 shelduck (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 whooper swan (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 wigeon (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 waterbird assemblage (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the Wild Birds Directive, by maintaining or restoring:

– the populations of each of the qualifying features; and

– the distribution of qualifying features within the site.

The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on bar-tailed godwit, common scoter, dunlin, eider, golden plover, grey plover, greylag goose, light-bellied brent goose, long-tailed duck, red-breasted merganser, redshank, ringed plover, sanderling, shelduck and whooper swan and wigeon at Lindisfarne SPA and Ramsar site remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) ( Table 5.45 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population.

Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during operations and maintenance, of collision risk significantly disrupting bar-tailed godwit, common scoter, dunlin, eider, golden plover, grey plover, greylag goose, light-bellied brent goose, long-tailed duck, red-breasted merganser, redshank, ringed plover, sanderling, shelduck and whooper swan and wigeon populations as a qualifying species at Lindisfarne SPA and Ramsar site.

In addition, as impacts from collision risk were deemed negligible, impacts to waterbird assemblage is also deemed negligible.

Therefore, collision risk during operation and maintenance, will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site.

Furthermore, the impact from collision during operations and maintenance will not significantly influence the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.

 bar-tailed godwit (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 common scoter (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 dunlin (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 eider (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 golden plover (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 grey plover(non-breeding) = No AEOI

 greylag goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 light-bellied brent goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 long-tailed duck (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 red-breasted merganser (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 redshank (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 ringed plover (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 sanderling (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 shelduck (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 whooper swan (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 wigeon (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 waterbird assemblage (non-breeding) = No AEOI

Loch of Kinnordy SPA and Ramsar site

 pink-footed goose (non-breeding); and

 greylag goose (non-breeding).

 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

– to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term:

– distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and

– structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.

As the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for collision risk during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, collision risk associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 pink-footed goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 greylag goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained

 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; and

– no significant disturbance of the species.

The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on pink-footed goose and greylag goose at Loch of Kinnordy SPA and Ramsar site remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) ( Table 5.45 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population.

Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during operations and maintenance, of collision risk significantly disrupting pink-footed goose and greylag goose populations as a qualifying species of Loch of Kinnordy SPA and Ramsar site.

Therefore, collision risk during operation and maintenance, will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site.

Furthermore, the impact from collision during operations and maintenance will not significantly influence the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.

 pink-footed goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 greylag goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI

Loch Leven SPA and Ramsar site

 pink-footed goose (non-breeding)

 shoveler (non-breeding)

 whooper swan (non-breeding); and

 waterbird assemblage (non-breeding) consisting of the above species and cormorant, gadwall, goldeneye, pochard, teal and tufted duck.

 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

– to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term:

– distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and

– structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.

As the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for collision risk during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, collision risk associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 pink-footed goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 shoveler (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 whooper swan (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 waterbird assemblage (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained

 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; and

– no significant disturbance of the species.

The impact level experienced during the operations and maintenance phase on pink-footed goose, shoveler, whooper swan and the waterbird assemblage consisting of cormorant, gadwall, goldeneye, pochard, teal, and tufted duck at Loch Leven SPA and Ramsar site remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) ( Table 5.45 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population.

Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during operations and maintenance of collision risk significantly disrupting the populations of pink-footed goose, shoveler, whooper swan, as well as the non-breeding waterbird assemblage consisting of cormorant, gadwall, goldeneye, pochard, teal, and tufted duck, as qualifying species of Loch Leven SPA and Ramsar site.

In addition, as impacts from collision risk were deemed negligible, impacts to waterbird assemblage is also deemed negligible.

Therefore, collision risk during operation and maintenance, will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site.

Furthermore, the impact from collision during operations and maintenance will not significantly influence the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.

 pink-footed goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 shoveler (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 whooper swan (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 waterbird assemblage (non-breeding) = No AEOI

Montrose Basin SPA and Ramsar site

 greylag goose (non-breeding)

 pink-footed goose (non-breeding)

 redshank (non-breeding); and

 waterbird assemblage (non-breeding) consisting of the above species and oystercatcher, eider, wigeon, knot, dunlin and shelduck.

 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

– to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term:

– distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and

– structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.

As the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for collision risk during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, collision risk associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 greylag goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 pink-footed goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 redshank (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 waterbird assemblage (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained

 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; and

– no significant disturbance of the species.

The impact level experienced during the operations and maintenance phase on greylag goose, pink-footed goose, redshank, as well as the non-breeding waterbird assemblage consisting of oystercatcher, eider, wigeon, knot, dunlin, and shelduck, at Montrose Basin SPA and Ramsar site remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by ( Table 5.45 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population.

Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during operations and maintenance of collision risk significantly disrupting the populations of greylag goose, pink-footed goose, redshank, as well as the non-breeding waterbird assemblage consisting of oystercatcher, eider, wigeon, knot, dunlin, and shelduck, as qualifying species of Loch Leven SPA and Ramsar site.

In addition, as impacts from collision risk were deemed negligible, impacts to waterbird assemblage is also deemed negligible.

Therefore, collision risk during operation and maintenance, will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site.

Furthermore, the impact from collision during operations and maintenance will not significantly influence the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.

 greylag goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 pink-footed goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 redshank (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 waterbird assemblage (non-breeding) = No AEOI

Northumbria Coast SPA and Ramsar site

 purple sandpiper (non-breeding); and

 turnstone (non-breeding).

 ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the Wild Birds Directive, by maintaining or restoring:

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

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

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

As the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for collision risk during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, collision risk associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 purple sandpiper (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 turnstone (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the Wild Birds Directive, by maintaining or restoring:

– the populations of each of the qualifying features; and

– the distribution of qualifying features within the site.

The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on purple sandpiper and turnstone at Northumbria Coast SPA and Ramsar site remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) ( Table 5.45 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population.

Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during operations and maintenance, of collision risk significantly disrupting purple sandpiper and turnstone populations as a qualifying species of Northumbria Coast SPA and Ramsar site.

Therefore, collision risk during operation and maintenance, will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site.

Furthermore, the impact from collision during operations and maintenance will not significantly influence the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.

 purple sandpiper (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 turnstone (non-breeding) = No AEOI

Slamannan Platea SPA

 taiga bean goose (non-breeding).

 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

– to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term:

– distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and

– structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.

As the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for collision risk during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, collision risk associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 taiga bean goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 To avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained

 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; and

– No significant disturbance of the species.

The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on taiga bean goose at Slamannan Platea SPA remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) ( Table 5.45 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population.

Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during operations and maintenance, of collision risk significantly disrupting taiga bean goose populations as a qualifying species of Slamannan Platea SPA.

Therefore, collision risk during operation and maintenance, will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site.

Furthermore, the impact from collision during operations and maintenance will not significantly influence the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.

 taiga bean goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI

South Tayside Goose Roosts SPA and Ramsar site

 pink-footed goose (non-breeding)

 greylag goose (non-breeding)

 wigeon (non-breeding); and

 waterbird assemblage (non-breeding) consisting of the species listed above.

 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

– to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term:

– distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and

– structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.

As the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for collision risk during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, collision risk associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 pink-footed goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 greylag goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 wigeon (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 waterbird assemblage (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained

 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; and

– no significant disturbance of the species.

The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on pink-footed goose, greylag goose and wigeon at South Tayside Goose Roosts SPA and Ramsar site below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) ( Table 5.45 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population.

Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during operations and maintenance, of collision risk significantly disrupting on pink-footed goose, greylag goose and wigeon populations as a qualifying species of South Tayside Goose Roosts SPA and Ramsar site.

In addition, as impacts from collision risk were deemed negligible, impacts to waterbird assemblage is also deemed negligible.

Therefore, collision risk during operation and maintenance, will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site.

Furthermore, the impact from collision during operations and maintenance will not significantly influence the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.

 pink-footed goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 greylag goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 wigeon (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 waterbird assemblage (non-breeding) = No AEOI

Westwater SPA and Ramsar site

 pink-footed goose (non-breeding); and

 waterbird assemblage (non-breeding) consisting of the species listed above.

 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

– to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term:

– distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and

– structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.

As the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for collision risk during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, collision risk associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 pink-footed goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 waterbird assemblage (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained

 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; and

– no significant disturbance of the species.

The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on pink-footed goose at Westwater SPA and Ramsar site below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) ( Table 5.45 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population.

Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during operations and maintenance, of collision risk significantly disrupting on pink-footed goose as a qualifying species of Westwater SPA and Ramsar site.

In addition, as impacts from collision risk were deemed negligible, impacts to waterbird assemblage is also deemed negligible.

Therefore, collision risk during operation and maintenance, will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site.

Furthermore, the impact from collision during operations and maintenance will not significantly influence the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.

 pink-footed goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 waterbird assemblage (non-breeding) = No AEOI

Ythan Estuary, Sands of Forvie and Meikle Loch SPA/Ythan Estuary and Meikle Loch Ramsar site

 pink-footed goose (non-breeding); and

 waterbird assemblage (non-breeding) consisting of the species listed above and eider, lapwing and redshank.

 ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the Wild Birds Directive, by maintaining or restoring:

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

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

– the supporting processes on which the habitats of the qualifying features rely.

As the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for collision risk during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, collision risk associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 pink-footed goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 waterbird assemblage (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the Wild Birds Directive, by maintaining or restoring:

– the populations of each of the qualifying features; and

– the distribution of qualifying features within the site.

The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on eider, lapwing, pink-footed goose and redshank at Ythan Estuary, Sands of Forvie and Meikle Loch SPA/Ythan Estuary and Meikle Loch Ramsar site below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) ( Table 5.45 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population.

Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during operations and maintenance, of collision risk significantly disrupting on eider, lapwing, pink-footed goose and redshank as a qualifying species of Ythan Estuary, Sands of Forvie and Meikle Loch SPA/Ythan Estuary and Meikle Loch Ramsar site In addition, as impacts from collision risk were deemed negligible, impacts to waterbird assemblage is also deemed negligible.

Therefore, collision risk during operation and maintenance, will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site.

Furthermore, the impact from collision during operations and maintenance will not significantly influence the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.

 pink-footed goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 waterbird assemblage (non-breeding) = No AEOI

As detailed in Table 5.46 Open ▸ , it can be concluded, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, that there is no risk of an adverse effect on the integrity of any of the SPAs listed in Table 5.46 Open ▸ or their qualifying features due to collision risk resulting from the operation and maintenance of the Array alone. There is no risk of undermining the Conservation Objectives of the sites considered due to the following:

given the Array and associated ZoI falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no potential for the Array to impact on the distribution and extent of supporting habitats and process within the SPA;
given the Array and associated ZoI falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no potential for the Array to influence the distribution of birds within the SPA;
given the Array and associated ZoI falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no potential for the Array to influence the structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species;
given the level of impact arising from collision from the Array area, there is no potential for the Array to influence the population of the species as a viable component of the site; and
given the level of impact arising from collision from the Array area, there is no potential for the Array to influence the disturbance of the species within the SPA.

5.4.5. Displacement and Collision Combined

Certain seabird species may be impacted by both displacement and barrier effects (distributional responses) and collision risk and therefore an assessment of the impact of both pressures acting together is required. It is recognised that assessing these two potential impacts together could amount to double counting, as birds that are subject to distributional response could not be subject to potential collision risk as they are already assumed to have not entered the Array. Equally, birds estimated to be subject to collision risk mortality would not be subjected to mortality associated with displacement and barrier effects (distributional responses) as well. The results presented in this section are therefore considered highly precautionary, especially for species with high displacement and barrier effects (distributional response) rates (i.e. gannet). Specifically related to gannet, a recent Natural England report (Natural England, 2023) had the aim of delivering an evidence-based method to ensure macro-avoidance behaviour is appropriately accounted for in collision risk models of gannet at offshore wind farms. Macro-avoidance is defined as ‘the fraction of birds in flight that are unlikely to enter the wind turbine array following construction, where there is a risk of collision with rotating blades’. The report recommended a correction to be applied in project level CRM to account for this. The CRM undertaken for the Array has not applied macro avoidance following the current published NatureScot guidance (NatureScot, 2023g) (it is noted that updates to this guidance note is imminent. Updates to the note may recommend factoring in macro-avoidance. However as updates to the note are not yet known, collision risk modelling has been undertaken as set out in their current guidance) and therefore the results are viewed as precautionary (and likely to include some ‘double counting’).
Of the seabird species considered in this RIAA, the species that have been identified as requiring assessment for both displacement and collision effects are kittiwake and gannet. As a potential LSE2 for collision risk was only identified in the Operation and Maintenance phase, only the Operation and Maintenance phase is considered within this combined assessment. The apportioned annual mortality rates for distributional responses and collision are extracted from the relevant supporting information within sections 5.4.1 and 5.4.4, respectively.

Kittiwake

For kittiwake, the Applicant’s preferred displacement and mortality rates equal the lower end of the range suggested by NatureScot (2023h), i.e. 30% displacement and 1% mortality. Of the range of collision modelling parameters considered, the upper end is equal to the parameters advised by NatureScot (2023g). Therefore, for this combined assessment a “low” ( Table 5.47 Open ▸ ), “medium” ( Table 5.48 Open ▸ ) and “high” ( Table 5.49 Open ▸ ) value has been presented. The “low” value combines the lowest values for both displacement and collision; the “medium” consists of the Applicant’s preferred displacement and mortality rates and the NatureScot’s approach to CRM; the “high” approach is the upper end of NatureScot’s advised displacement and mortality rates and NatureScot’s preferred CRM parameters.

Table 5.47: Kittiwake Combined Impact from Distributional Responses and Collision Risk (Low Approach)

SPA / Ramsar	Annual Adult Distributional Response Mortality	Annual Adult Collision Mortality	Annual Adult Combined Mortality	SPA Population (Breeding Individuals) (Burnell et al., 2023)	Increase in Mortality Rate (Percentage Points)	Conclusion
Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast SPA	1.1	0.5	1.6	22,590	0.007	No AEOI (assemblage feature only)
Copinsay SPA	0.0	0.0	0.0	1,910	0.001	No AEOI (assemblage feature only)
East Caithness Cliffs SPA	0.7	0.3	1.0	48,958	0.002	No AEOI
Farne Islands SPA	0.4	0.2	0.5	8,804	0.006	No AEOI (assemblage feature only)
Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA	1.1	0.5	1.6	91,008	0.002	No AEOI
Forth Islands SPA	0.3	0.1	0.5	9,084	0.005	No AEOI (assemblage feature only)
Fowlsheugh SPA	1.6	0.7	2.3	28,078	0.008	No AEOI
North Caithness Cliffs SPA	0.1	0.0	0.1	26,200	0.000	No AEOI (assemblage feature only)
St Abb's Head to Fast Castle SPA	0.4	0.2	0.6	10,300	0.006	No AEOI (assemblage feature only)
Troup, Pennan and Lion's Heads SPA	0.5	0.2	0.8	21,232	0.004	No AEOI

Table 5.48: Kittiwake Combined Impact from Distributional Responses and Collision Risk (Medium Approach)

SPA / Ramsar	Annual Adult Distributional Response Mortality	Annual Adult Collision Mortality	Annual Adult Combined Mortality	SPA Population (Breeding Individuals) (Burnell et al., 2023)	Increase in Mortality Rate (Percentage Points)	Conclusion
Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast SPA	1.1	3.3	4.4	22,590	0.0196	No AEOI (assemblage feature only)
Copinsay SPA	0.0	0.1	0.1	1,910	0.004	No AEOI (assemblage feature only)
East Caithness Cliffs SPA	0.7	2.1	2.8	48,958	0.006	No AEOI
Farne Islands SPA	0.4	1.1	1.5	8,804	0.017	No AEOI (assemblage feature only)
Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA	1.1	3.4	4.5	91,008	0.005	No AEOI
Forth Islands SPA	0.3	1.0	1.4	9,084	0.015	No AEOI (assemblage feature only)
Fowlsheugh SPA	1.6	4.9	6.6	28,078	0.023	PVA Required
North Caithness Cliffs SPA	0.1	0.2	0.3	26,200	0.001	No AEOI (assemblage feature only)
St Abb's Head to Fast Castle SPA	0.4	1.3	1.8	10,300	0.017	No AEOI (assemblage feature only)
Troup, Pennan and Lion's Heads SPA	0.5	1.7	2.2	21,232	0.010	No AEOI

Table 5.49: Kittiwake Combined Impact from Distributional Responses and Collision Risk (High Approach)

SPA / Ramsar	Annual Adult Distributional Response Mortality	Annual Adult Collision Mortality	Annual Adult Combined Mortality	SPA Population (Breeding Individuals) (Burnell et al., 2023)	Increase in Mortality Rate (Percentage Points)	Conclusion
Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast SPA	3.3	3.3	6.6	22,590	0.029	PVA required (assemblage feature only)
Copinsay SPA	0.1	0.1	0.1	1,910	0.006	No AEOI (assemblage feature only)
East Caithness Cliffs SPA	2.1	2.1	4.2	48,958	0.009	No AEOI
Farne Islands SPA	1.1	1.1	2.2	8,804	0.025	PVA required (assemblage feature only)
Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA	3.3	3.4	6.7	91,008	0.007	No AEOI
Forth Islands SPA	1.0	1.0	2.0	9,084	0.023	PVA required (assemblage feature only)
Fowlsheugh SPA	4.9	4.9	9.8	28,078	0.035	PVA required
North Caithness Cliffs SPA	0.2	0.2	0.4	26,200	0.002	No AEOI (assemblage feature only)
St Abb's Head to Fast Castle SPA	1.3	1.3	2.7	10,300	0.026	PVA required (assemblage feature only)
Troup, Pennan and Lion's Heads SPA	1.6	1.7	3.3	21,232	0.016	No AEOI

These results indicate that at the “high” approach, PVA is required to further assess the impacts on the kittiwake feature of Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast SPA, Farne Islands SPA, Forth Islands SPA, Fowlsheugh SPA and St Abb's Head to Fast Castle SPA. PVA is also required for Fowlsheugh SPA under the “medium” approach. Under all other approaches, the increase in mortality rate is below 0.02 percentage points and therefore there is no potential for an AEOI.
The PVA results are summarised in Table 5.50 Open ▸ , with further details presented in appendix 3B.

Table 5.50: Kittiwake PVA Results for Combined Displacement and Collision Impacts from the Array Alone

SPA or Ramsar	Annual Adult Mortality	Population Size After 35 Years (Median)	CGR (Median)	CPS (Median)
Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast SPA	Counterfactual	20,415	N/A	N/A
Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast SPA	6.6 (high approach)	20,160	1.000	0.988
Farne Islands SPA	Counterfactual	8,324	N/A	N/A
Farne Islands SPA	2.2 (high approach)	8,233	1.000	0.991
Forth Islands SPA	Counterfactual	8,566	N/A	N/A
Forth Islands SPA	2.0 (high approach)	8,486	1.000	0.991
Fowlsheugh SPA	Counterfactual	26,567	N/A	N/A
	6.6 (medium approach)	26,320	1.000	0.990
	9.8 (high approach)	26,169	1.000	0.985
St Abb's Head to Fast Castle SPA	Counterfactual	9,725	N/A	N/A
St Abb's Head to Fast Castle SPA	2.7 (high approach)	9,625	1.000	0.989

The PVA results for all sites show that the population growth rate is less than 0.1% lower than the counterfactual, leading to a population size that, after 35 years, is 1.2% smaller than the counterfactual population size at Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast SPA, 0.9% smaller than the counterfactual population size at Farne Islands SPA, 0.9% smaller than the counterfactual population size at Forth Islands SPA, a maximum of 1.5% smaller than the counterfactual population size at Fowlsheugh SPA and 1.1% smaller than the counterfactual population size at St Abb’s Head to Fast Castle SPA. Overall, therefore, it is clear that the PVA results indicate that the impact levels modelled are indistinguishable from natural variation and would not adversely affect the kittiwake feature of Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast SPA, Farne Islands SPA, Forth Islands SPA, Fowlsheugh SPA or St Abb's Head to Fast Castle SPA. It should be further noted that this is the most precautionary approach to assessment – under the Applicant’s preferred approach or the lower end of the range of mortality rates recommended by NatureScot, the impact did not reach the threshold for running PVA.
Therefore, it can be concluded, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, that there is no risk of an AEOI to the kittiwake feature of any SPA as a result of combined displacement and collision from the Array alone.

Gannet

For gannet, the Applicant’s preferred displacement and mortality rates equal the lower end of the range suggested by NatureScot (2023h), i.e. 70% displacement and 1% mortality. Therefore, for this combined assessment a “low”, “medium” and “high” value has been presented. The “low” value combines the lowest values for both displacement and collision; the “medium” consists of the Applicant’s preferred displacement and mortality rates and the NatureScot’s approach to CRM; the “high” approach is the upper end of NatureScot’s advised displacement and mortality rates and the upper end of the range of CRM results. The combined impact of displacement and collision for gannet is presented in Table 5.51 Open ▸ to Table 5.53 Open ▸ .

Table 5.51: Gannet Combined Impact from Distributional Responses and Collision Risk (Low approach)

SPA / Ramsar	Annual Adult Distributional Response Mortality	Annual Adult Collision Mortality	Annual Adult Combined Mortality	SPA Population (Breeding Individuals) (Burnell et al., 2023)	Increase in Mortality Rate (Percentage Points)	Conclusion
Fair Isle SPA	0.2	0.3	0.4	9,942	0.005	No AEOI (assemblage feature only)
Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA	0.7	1.3	2.0	26,784	0.007	No AEOI
Forth Islands SPA	8.3	18.6	26.8	150,518	0.018	No AEOI
Hermaness, Saxa Vord and Valla Field SPA	0.7	0.9	1.6	59,124	0.003	No AEOI
North Rona and Sula Sgeir SPA	0.1	0.3	0.4	24,542	0.001	No AEOI
Noss SPA	0.4	0.6	1.0	27,530	0.003	No AEOI
St Kilda SPA	0.4	0.8	1.2	120,580	0.001	No AEOI
Sule Skerry and Sule Stack SPA	0.1	0.3	0.4	18,130	0.002	No AEOI

Table 5.52: Gannet Combined Impact from Distributional Responses and Collision Risk (Medium Approach)

SPA / Ramsar	Annual Adult Distributional Response Mortality	Annual Adult Collision Mortality	Annual Adult Combined Mortality	SPA Population (Breeding Individuals) (Burnell et al., 2023)	Increase in Mortality Rate (Percentage Points)	Conclusion
Fair Isle SPA	0.2	0.3	0.5	9,942	0.005	No AEOI (assemblage feature only)
Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA	0.7	1.4	2.1	26,784	0.008	No AEOI
Forth Islands SPA	8.3	20.9	29.1	150,518	0.019	No AEOI
Hermaness, Saxa Vord and Valla Field SPA	0.7	1.0	1.7	59,124	0.003	No AEOI
North Rona and Sula Sgeir SPA	0.1	0.3	0.4	24,542	0.002	No AEOI
Noss SPA	0.4	0.6	1.0	27,530	0.004	No AEOI
St Kilda SPA	0.4	0.9	1.3	120,580	0.001	No AEOI
Sule Skerry and Sule Stack SPA	0.1	0.3	0.5	18,130	0.002	No AEOI

Table 5.53: Gannet Combined Impact from Distributional Responses and Collision Risk (High Approach)

SPA / Ramsar	Annual Adult Distributional Response Mortality	Annual Adult Collision Mortality	Annual Adult Combined Mortality	SPA Population (Breeding Individuals) (Burnell et al., 2023)	Increase in Mortality Rate (Percentage Points)	Conclusion
Fair Isle SPA	0.5	0.5	1.0	9,942	0.010	No AEOI (assemblage feature only)
Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA	2.1	2.3	4.4	26,784	0.016	No AEOI
Forth Islands SPA	24.8	33.1	58.0	150,518	0.039	PVA Required
Hermaness, Saxa Vord and Valla Field SPA	2.2	1.6	3.8	59,124	0.006	No AEOI
North Rona and Sula Sgeir SPA	0.3	0.4	0.8	24,542	0.003	No AEOI
Noss SPA	1.1	1.0	2.1	27,530	0.008	No AEOI
St Kilda SPA	1.2	1.4	2.6	120,580	0.002	No AEOI
Sule Skerry and Sule Stack SPA	0.4	0.5	0.9	18,130	0.005	No AEOI

These results indicate that at the “high” approach, PVA is required to further assess the impacts on the gannet feature of the Forth Islands SPA.
The PVA results are summarised in Table 5.54 Open ▸ , with further details presented in appendix 3B.

Table 5.54: Gannet PVA Results for Combined Displacement and Collision Impacts from the Array Alone

The PVA for the Forth Islands SPA results show that, under the “high” approach, the population growth rate is less than 0.1% lower than the counterfactual, leading to a population size that, after 35 years, is 1.6% smaller than the counterfactual population size. Overall, therefore, it is clear that the PVA results indicate that the impact levels modelled are negligible and would not adversely affect the gannet feature of the Forth Islands SPA. It should be further noted that this is the most precautionary approach to assessment – under the Applicant’s preferred approach or the lower end of the range of mortality rates recommended by NatureScot, the impact did not reach the threshold for running PVA.
Therefore, it can be concluded, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, that there is no risk of an AEOI to the gannet feature of any SPA as a result of displacement from the Array alone.

Conclusion

It is concluded, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, that no adverse effects on the qualifying interest features which could undermine the conservation objectives of the SPAs listed in Table 5.55 Open ▸ , will occur as a result of combined collision and displacement impacts during the operation and maintenance phase for the Array. An assessment of the impact of combined collision and displacement against each relevant conservation objective is presented in Table 5.55 Open ▸ . Where the justifications and supporting evidence are the same for more than one conservation objective, the assessments have been grouped.

Table 5.55: Conclusions Against the Conservation Objectives of the Qualifying Features from Distributional Responses and Collision during Operation and Maintenance

	Feature	Conservation Objectives	Justification	Conclusion
Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast SPA	 kittiwake	 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained: – to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term: – distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and – structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.	As the Array and associated ZoI falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for combined collision and displacement during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species. Therefore, combined collision and displacement associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.	 kittiwake = No AEOI
Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast SPA	 kittiwake	 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;  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; and – no significant disturbance of the species.	The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance on kittiwake at Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast SPA remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) when considering the low and medium approach ( Table 5.47 Open ▸ to Table 5.48 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population. When considering the high approach, the threshold was exceeded ( Table 5.49 Open ▸ ). A PVA was therefore carried out to understand the impacts to the populations. The PVA results showed that the population growth rate would be impacted by less than 0.1% leading to a population size that, after 35 years, is 1.2% smaller than the counterfactual population size at Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast SPA. As outlined within appendix 3B, the counterfactual of population growth rate is considered a more robust metric compared to the counterfactual of population size due to the models being conducted with density independence, in line with NatureScot guidance (2023k). The counterfactual of population growth rate results indicate that the impact levels experienced during operation and maintenance would not adversely affect the kittiwake feature of Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast SPA, as the maximum estimated change was a reduction in growth rate by less than 0.1%. Such a decrease indicates that this level of impact would not adversely affect the population and would likely remain undetectable against natural population fluctuations. Furthermore, it is not expected to significantly alter the background mortality rate. Therefore, it is clear that the PVA results indicate that the impact levels modelled are negligible and would not adversely affect the kittiwake feature of Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast SPA. Consequently, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during operations and maintenance, of combined collision and disturbance and displacement significantly disrupting the kittiwake populations as a qualifying species of the Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast SPA. Therefore, combined impact of collision and displacement operation and maintenance will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site. Furthermore, the impact from combined collision and disturbance and displacement during all phases will not influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.	 kittiwake = No AEOI
Copinsay SPA	 kittiwake	 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained: – to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term: – distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and – structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.	As the Array and associated ZoI falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for combined collision and displacement during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species. Therefore, combined collision and displacement associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.	 kittiwake = No AEOI
Copinsay SPA	 kittiwake	 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;  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; and - no significant disturbance of the species.	The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance on kittiwake at Copinsay SPA remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) when considering all approaches ( Table 5.47 Open ▸ to Table 5.49 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population. Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during operations and maintenance, of combined collision and disturbance and displacement significantly disrupting the kittiwake populations as a qualifying species of the Copinsay SPA. Therefore, combined impact of collision and displacement operation and maintenance will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site. Furthermore, the impact from combined collision and disturbance and displacement during all phases will not influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.	 kittiwake = No AEOI
East Caithness Cliffs SPA	 kittiwake	 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained: – to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term: – distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and – structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.	As the Array and associated ZoI falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for combined collision and displacement during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species. Therefore, combined collision and displacement associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.	 kittiwake = No AEOI
East Caithness Cliffs SPA	 kittiwake	 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;  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; and – no significant disturbance of the species.	The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance on kittiwake at East Caithness Cliffs SPA remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) when considering all approaches ( Table 5.47 Open ▸ to Table 5.49 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population. Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during operations and maintenance, of combined collision and disturbance and displacement significantly disrupting the kittiwake populations as a qualifying species of the East Caithness Cliffs SPA. Therefore, combined impact of collision and displacement operation and maintenance will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site. Furthermore, the impact from combined collision and disturbance and displacement during all phases will not influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.	 kittiwake = No AEOI
Fair Isle SPA	 gannet	 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained; – to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term: – distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and – structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.	As the Array and associated ZoI falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for combined collision and displacement during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species. Therefore, combined collision and displacement associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.	 gannet = No AEOI
Fair Isle SPA	 gannet	 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;  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; and – no significant disturbance of the species.	The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance on gannet, at Fair Isle remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) when considering all approaches ( Table 5.51 Open ▸ to Table 5.53 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population. Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during operations and maintenance, of combined collision and disturbance and displacement significantly disrupting the gannet populations as a qualifying species of the Fair Isle SPA. Therefore, combined impact of collision and displacement operation and maintenance will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site. Furthermore, the impact from combined collision and disturbance and displacement during all phases will not influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.	 gannet = No AEOI
Farne Islands SPA	 seabird assemblage (kittiwake)	 ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the Wild Birds Directive, by maintaining or restoring: – the extent and distribution of the habitats of the qualifying features; – the structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying features; and – the supporting processes on which the habitats of the qualifying features rely.	As the Array and associated ZoI falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for combined collision and displacement during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species. Therefore, combined collision and displacement associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.	 seabird assemblage = No AEOI
Farne Islands SPA	 seabird assemblage (kittiwake)	 ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the Wild Birds Directive, by maintaining or restoring: – the populations of each of the qualifying features; and – the distribution of qualifying features within the site.	The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance on kittiwake at Farne Islands SPA remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) when considering all approaches ( Table 5.47 Open ▸ to Table 5.49 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population. Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during operations and maintenance, of combined collision and disturbance and displacement significantly disrupting the kittiwake populations as a qualifying species of the Farne Islands SPA. Therefore, combined impact of collision and displacement operation and maintenance will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site. Furthermore, the impact from combined collision and disturbance and displacement during all phases will not influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.	 seabird assemblage = No AEOI
Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA	 gannet  kittiwake	 ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the Wild Birds Directive, by maintaining or restoring: – the extent and distribution of the habitats of the qualifying features; – the structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying features; and – the supporting processes on which the habitats of the qualifying features rely.	As the Array and associated ZoI falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for combined collision and displacement during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species. Therefore, combined collision and displacement associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.	 gannet = No AEOI  kittiwake = No AEOI
Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA	 gannet  kittiwake	 ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the Wild Birds Directive, by maintaining or restoring: – the populations of each of the qualifying features; and – the distribution of qualifying features within the site.	The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance on gannet, at Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) when considering all approaches ( Table 5.51 Open ▸ to Table 5.53 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population. The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance on kittiwake, at Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) when considering all approaches ( Table 5.47 Open ▸ to Table 5.49 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population. Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during operations and maintenance, of combined collision and disturbance and displacement significantly disrupting the gannet and kittiwake populations as a qualifying species of the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA. Therefore, combined impact of collision and displacement operation and maintenance will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site. Furthermore, the impact from combined collision and disturbance and displacement during all phases will not influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.	 gannet = No AEOI  kittiwake = No AEOI
Forth Islands SPA	 gannet  kittiwake	 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;  to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term: – distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and – structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.	As the Array and associated ZoI falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for combined collision and displacement during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species. Therefore, combined collision and displacement associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.	 gannet = No AEOI  kittiwake = No AEOI
Forth Islands SPA	 gannet  kittiwake	 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;  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; and – no significant disturbance of the species.	The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance on gannet, at Forth Islands SPA remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) when considering the low and medium approaches ( Table 5.51 Open ▸ and Table 5.52 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population. However, under the high approach, the threshold was exceeded ( Table 5.53 Open ▸ ). A PVA was therefore carried out to understand the impacts to the populations. The PVA results showed that the population growth rate would be impacted by less than 0.1% leading to a population size that, after 35 years, is 1.6% smaller than the counterfactual population size at the Forth Islands SPA. As outlined within appendix 3B, the counterfactual of population growth rate is considered a more robust metric compared to the counterfactual of population size due to the models being conducted with density independence, in line with NatureScot guidance (2023k). The counterfactual of population growth rate results indicate that the impact levels experienced during operation and maintenance would not adversely affect the gannet feature of Forth Islands SPA, as the maximum estimated change was a reduction in growth rate by less than 0.1%. Such a decrease indicates that this level of impact would not adversely affect the population and would likely remain undetectable against natural population fluctuations. Furthermore, it is not expected to significantly alter the background mortality rate. Therefore, it is clear that the PVA results indicate that the impact levels modelled are negligible and would not adversely affect the gannet feature of the Forth Islands SPA. The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance on kittiwake, at Forth Islands SPA remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) when considering the low and medium approaches ( Table 5.47 Open ▸ and Table 5.48 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population. However, under the high approach, the threshold was exceeded ( Table 5.49 Open ▸ ). A PVA was therefore carried out to understand the impacts to the populations. The PVA results showed that the population growth rate would be impacted by less than 0.1% leading to a population size that, after 35 years, is 0.9% smaller than the counterfactual population size at the Forth Islands SPA. The counterfactual of population growth rate results indicate that the impact levels experienced during operation and maintenance would not adversely affect the kittiwake feature of Forth Islands SPA, as the maximum estimated change was a reduction in growth rate by less than 0.1%. Such a decrease indicates that this level of impact would not adversely affect the population and would likely remain undetectable against natural population fluctuations. Furthermore, it is not expected to significantly alter the background mortality rate. Therefore, it is clear that the PVA results indicate that the impact levels modelled are negligible and would not adversely affect the kittiwake feature of the Forth Islands SPA. Consequently, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during operations and maintenance, of combined collision and disturbance and displacement significantly disrupting the gannet and kittiwake populations as a qualifying species of the Forth Islands SPA. Therefore, combined impact of collision and displacement operation and maintenance will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site. Furthermore, the impact from combined collision and disturbance and displacement during all phases will not influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.	 gannet = No AEOI  kittiwake = No AEOI
Fowlsheugh SPA	 kittiwake	 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained: – to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term: – distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and – structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.	As the Array and associated ZoI falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for combined collision and displacement during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species. Therefore, combined collision and displacement associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.	 kittiwake = No AEOI
Fowlsheugh SPA	 kittiwake	 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;  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; and – no significant disturbance of the species.	The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance on kittiwake at Fowlsheugh SPA remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) when considering the low approach ( Table 5.47 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population. When considering the medium and high approach, the threshold was exceeded ( Table 5.48 Open ▸ to Table 5.49 Open ▸ ). A PVA was therefore carried out to understand the impacts to the populations. The PVA results showed that the population growth rate would be impacted by less than 0.1% leading to a population size that, after 35 years, is 1.0% to 1.5% smaller than the counterfactual population size at Fowlsheugh SPA. As outlined within appendix 3B, the counterfactual of population growth rate is considered a more robust metric compared to the counterfactual of population size due to the models being conducted with density independence, in line with NatureScot guidance (2023k). The counterfactual of population growth rate results indicate that the impact levels experienced during operation and maintenance would not adversely affect the kittiwake feature of Fowlsheugh SPA, as the maximum estimated change was a reduction in growth rate by less than 0.1%. Such a decrease indicates that this level of impact would not adversely affect the population and would likely remain undetectable against natural population fluctuations. Furthermore, it is not expected to significantly alter the background mortality rate. Therefore, it is clear that the PVA results indicate that the impact levels modelled are negligible and would not adversely affect the kittiwake feature of Fowlsheugh SPA. Consequently, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during operations and maintenance, of combined collision and disturbance and displacement significantly disrupting the kittiwake populations as a qualifying species of the Fowlsheugh SPA. Therefore, combined impact of collision and displacement operation and maintenance will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site. Furthermore, the impact from combined collision and disturbance and displacement during all phases will not influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.	 kittiwake = No AEOI
Hermaness, Saxa Vord and Valla Field SPA	 gannet	 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained: – to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term: – distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and – structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.	As the Array and associated ZoI falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for combined collision and displacement during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species. Therefore, combined collision and displacement associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.	 gannet = No AEOI
Hermaness, Saxa Vord and Valla Field SPA	 gannet	 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;  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; and – no significant disturbance of the species.	The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance on gannet, at Hermaness, Saxa Vord and Valla Field SPA remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) when considering all approaches ( Table 5.51 Open ▸ to Table 5.53 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population. Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during operations and maintenance, of combined collision and disturbance and displacement significantly disrupting the gannet populations as a qualifying species of the Hermaness, Saxa Vord and Valla Field SPA. Therefore, combined impact of collision and displacement operation and maintenance will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site. Furthermore, the impact from combined collision and disturbance and displacement during all phases will not influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.	 gannet = No AEOI
North Caithness Cliffs SPA	 kittiwake	 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained: – to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term: – distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and – structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.	As the Array and associated ZoI falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for combined collision and displacement during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species. Therefore, combined collision and displacement associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.	 kittiwake = No AEOI
North Caithness Cliffs SPA	 kittiwake	 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;  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; and – no significant disturbance of the species.	The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance on kittiwake at North Caithness Cliffs SPA remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) when considering all approaches ( Table 5.47 Open ▸ to Table 5.49 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population. Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during operations and maintenance, of combined collision and disturbance and displacement significantly disrupting the kittiwake populations as a qualifying species of the North Caithness Cliffs SPA. Therefore, combined impact of collision and displacement operation and maintenance will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site. Furthermore, the impact from combined collision and disturbance and displacement during all phases will not influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.	 kittiwake = No AEOI
North Rona and Sula Sgeir SPA	 gannet	 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained: – to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term: – distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and – structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.	As the Array and associated ZoI falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for combined collision and displacement during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species. Therefore, combined collision and displacement associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.	 gannet = No AEOI
North Rona and Sula Sgeir SPA	 gannet	 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;  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; and – no significant disturbance of the species.	The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance on gannet, at North Rona and Sula Sgeir SPA remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) when considering all approaches ( Table 5.51 Open ▸ to Table 5.53 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population. Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during operations and maintenance, of combined collision and disturbance and displacement significantly disrupting the gannet populations as a qualifying species of the North Rona and Sula Sgeir SPA. Therefore, combined impact of collision and displacement operation and maintenance will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site. Furthermore, the impact from combined collision and disturbance and displacement during all phases will not influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.	 gannet = No AEOI
Noss SPA	 gannet	 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained: – to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term: – distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and – structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.	As the Array and associated ZoI falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for combined collision and displacement during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species. Therefore, combined collision and displacement associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.	 gannet = No AEOI
Noss SPA	 gannet	 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;  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; and – no significant disturbance of the species.	The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance on gannet, at Noss SPA remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) when considering all approaches ( Table 5.51 Open ▸ to Table 5.53 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population. Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during operations and maintenance, of combined collision and disturbance and displacement significantly disrupting the gannet populations as a qualifying species of the Noss SPA. Therefore, combined impact of collision and displacement operation and maintenance will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site. Furthermore, the impact from combined collision and disturbance and displacement during all phases will not influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.	 gannet = No AEOI
St Abb's Head to Fast Castle SPA	 kittiwake	 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained: – to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term: – distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and – structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.	As the Array and associated ZoI falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for combined collision and displacement during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species. Therefore, combined collision and displacement associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.	 kittiwake = No AEOI
St Abb's Head to Fast Castle SPA	 kittiwake	 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;  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; and – no significant disturbance of the species.	The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance on kittiwake at St Abb's Head to Fast Castle SPA remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) when considering the low and medium approaches ( Table 5.47 Open ▸ to Table 5.48 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population. However, under the high approach, the threshold was exceeded ( Table 5.49 Open ▸ ). A PVA was therefore carried out to understand the impacts to the populations. The PVA results showed that the population growth rate would be impacted by less than 0.1% leading to a population size that, after 35 years, is 1.1% smaller than the counterfactual population size at the St Abb's Head to Fast Castle SPA. As outlined within appendix 3B, the counterfactual of population growth rate is considered a more robust metric compared to the counterfactual of population size due to the models being conducted with density independence, in line with NatureScot guidance (2023k). The counterfactual of population growth rate results indicate that the impact levels experienced during operation and maintenance would not adversely affect the kittiwake feature of the St Abb's Head to Fast Castle, as the maximum estimated change was a reduction in growth rate by less than 0.2%. Such a decrease indicates that this level of impact would not adversely affect the population and would likely remain undetectable against natural population fluctuations. Furthermore, it is not expected to significantly alter the background mortality rate. Therefore, it is clear that the PVA results indicate that the impact levels modelled are negligible and would not adversely affect the kittiwake feature of the St Abb's Head to Fast Castle SPA. Consequently, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during operations and maintenance, of combined collision and disturbance and displacement significantly disrupting the kittiwake populations as a qualifying species of the St Abb's Head to Fast Castle SPA. Therefore, combined impact of collision and displacement operation and maintenance will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site. Furthermore, the impact from combined collision and disturbance and displacement during all phases will not influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.	 kittiwake = No AEOI
St Kilda SPA	 gannet	 to ensure that the qualifying features of St Kilda SPA and the Seas off St Kilda SPA are in favourable condition and make an appropriate contribution to achieving Favourable Conservation Status  to ensure that the integrity of St Kilda SPA and the Seas off St Kilda SPA is restored in the context of environmental changes by meeting objectives 2a, 2b and 2c for each qualifying feature: – the supporting habitats and processes relevant to qualifying features and their prey/food resources are maintained, or where appropriate restored, at St Kilda SPA and/or Seas off St Kilda SPA.	As the Array and associated ZoI falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for combined collision and displacement during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species. Therefore, combined collision and displacement associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.	 gannet = No AEOI
St Kilda SPA	 gannet	 to ensure that the qualifying features of St Kilda SPA and the Seas off St Kilda SPA are in favourable condition and make an appropriate contribution to achieving Favourable Conservation Status  to ensure that the integrity of St Kilda SPA and the Seas off St Kilda SPA is restored in the context of environmental changes by meeting objectives 2a, 2b and 2c for each qualifying feature: – the populations of qualifying features are viable components of St Kilda SPA and Seas off St Kilda SPA; and – the distributions of the qualifying features throughout St Kilda SPA and Seas off St Kilda SPA are maintained by avoiding significant disturbance of the species.	The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance on gannet, at St Kilda SPA remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) when considering all approaches ( Table 5.51 Open ▸ to Table 5.53 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population. Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during operations and maintenance, of combined collision and disturbance and displacement significantly disrupting the gannet populations as a qualifying species of the St Kilda SPA. Therefore, combined impact of collision and displacement operation and maintenance will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site. Furthermore, the impact from combined collision and disturbance and displacement during all phases will not influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.	 gannet = No AEOI
Sule Skerry and Sule Stack SPA	 gannet	 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained: – to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term: – distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and – structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.	As the Array and associated ZoI falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for combined collision and displacement during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species. Therefore, combined collision and displacement associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.	 gannet = No AEOI
Sule Skerry and Sule Stack SPA	 gannet	 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;  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; and - no significant disturbance of the species.	The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance on gannet, at Sule Skerry and Sule Stack SPA remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) when considering all approaches ( Table 5.51 Open ▸ to Table 5.53 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population. Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during operations and maintenance, of combined collision and disturbance and displacement significantly disrupting the gannet populations as a qualifying species of the Sule Skerry and Sule Stack SPA. Therefore, combined impact of collision and displacement operation and maintenance will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site. Furthermore, the impact from combined collision and disturbance and displacement during all phases will not influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.	 gannet = No AEOI
Troup, Pennan and Lion's Heads SPA	 kittiwake	 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained: – to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term: – distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and – structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.	As the Array and associated ZoI falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for combined collision and displacement during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species. Therefore, combined collision and displacement associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.	 kittiwake = No AEOI
Troup, Pennan and Lion's Heads SPA	 kittiwake	 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;  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; and – no significant disturbance of the species.	The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance on kittiwake at Troup, Pennan and Lion's Heads SPA remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) when considering all approaches ( Table 5.47 Open ▸ to Table 5.49 Open ▸ ). Impacts below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population. Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during operations and maintenance, of combined collision and disturbance and displacement significantly disrupting the kittiwake populations as a qualifying species of the Troup, Pennan and Lion's Heads SPA. Therefore, combined impact of collision and displacement operation and maintenance will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site. Furthermore, the impact from combined collision and disturbance and displacement during all phases will not influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.	 kittiwake = No AEOI

As detailed in Table 5.55 Open ▸ , it can be concluded, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, that there is no risk of an adverse effect on the integrity of any of the SPAs listed in Table 5.55 Open ▸ or their qualifying features due to combined collision and disturbance and displacement resulting from the operation and maintenance of the Array alone. There is no risk of undermining the Conservation Objectives of the sites considered due to the following:

given the Array and associated ZoI falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no potential for the Array to impact on the distribution and extent of supporting habitats and process within the SPA;
given the Array and associated ZoI falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no potential for the Array to influence the distribution of birds within the SPA;
given the Array and associated ZoI falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no potential for the Array to influence the structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species;
given the level of impact arising from combined collision and disturbance and displacement from the Array area, there is no potential for the Array to influence the population of the species as a viable component of the site; and
given the level of impact arising from combined collision and disturbance and displacement from the Array area, there is no potential for the Array to influence the disturbance of the species within the SPA.

5.4.6. Barrier to Movement

As previously stated within section 5.4.1, the current guidance from NatureScot (2023h) recommends treating both displacement and barrier effects together as “distributional responses” and, for breeding seabirds, recommends assessing these distributional responses together. For breeding seabirds, the approach to “disturbance and displacement” assessment covers both disturbance and barrier effects, whilst the assessment of “barrier to movement” only considers the barrier effect to migratory birds. Therefore, only migratory waterbirds are discussed and assessed separately within this section.
The LSE2 assessment during the HRA screening process identified that during operation and maintenance phases, LSE2 could not be ruled out for barrier to movement. This relates to the following site(s) and relevant marine ornithological features:

Cameron Reservoir SPA and Ramsar site

- pink-footed goose (non-breeding).

Din Moss – Hoselaw Loch SPA and Ramsar site

- pink-footed goose (non-breeding); and

- greylag goose (non-breeding).

Fala Flow SPA and Ramsar site

- pink-footed goose (non-breeding).

Firth of Forth SPA and Ramsar site

- bar-tailed godwit (non-breeding);

- golden plover (non-breeding);

- knot (non-breeding);

- pink-footed goose (non-breeding);

- red-throated diver (non-breeding);

- redshank (non-breeding);

- ringed plover (non-breeding);

- sandwich tern (non-breeding);

- 1lavonian grebe (non-breeding)

- turnstone (non-breeding); and

- non-breeding waterbird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species (except Sandwich tern) and common scoter, cormorant, curlew, dunlin, eider, goldeneye, great crested grebe, grey plover, lapwing, long-tailed duck, mallard, oystercatcher, red-breasted merganser, ringed plover, scaup, shelduck, velvet scoter and wigeon).

Firth of Tay and Eden Estuary SPA and Ramsar site

- bar-tailed godwit (non-breeding);

- non-breeding greylag goose;

- non-breeding pink-footed goose;

- non-breeding redshank; and

- non-breeding waterbird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species and common scoter, cormorant, dunlin, eider, goldeneye, goosander, grey plover, Icelandic black-tailed godwit, oystercatcher, long-tailed duck, red-breasted merganser, sanderling, shelduck and velvet scoter).

Gladhouse Reservoir SPA and Ramsar site

- pink-footed goose (non-breeding).

Greenlaw Moor SPA and Ramsar site

- pink-footed goose (non-breeding).

Holburn Lake and Moss SPA and Ramsar site

- greylag goose (non-breeding).

Lindisfarne SPA and Ramsar site

- bar-tailed godwit (non-breeding);

- common scoter (non-breeding);

- dunlin (non-breeding);

- eider (non-breeding);

- golden plover (non-breeding);

- grey plover(non-breeding);

- greylag goose (non-breeding);

- light-bellied brent goose (non-breeding);

- long-tailed duck (non-breeding);

- red-breasted merganser (non-breeding);

- redshank (non-breeding);

- ringed plover (non-breeding);

- sanderling (non-breeding);

- shelduck (non-breeding);

- whooper swan (non-breeding);

- wigeon (non-breeding); and

- waterbird assemblage (non-breeding).

Loch of Kinnordy SPA and Ramsar site

- pink-footed goose (non-breeding); and

- greylag goose (non-breeding).

Loch Leven SPA and Ramsar site

- pink-footed goose (non-breeding);

- shoveler (non-breeding);

- whooper swan (non-breeding); and

- non-breeding waterbird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species and cormorant, gadwall, goldeneye, pochard, teal and tufted duck).

Montrose Basin SPA and Ramsar site

- greylag goose (non-breeding);

- pink-footed goose (non-breeding);

- redshank (non-breeding); and

- non-breeding waterbird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species and oystercatcher, eider, wigeon, knot, dunlin and shelduck).

Northumbria Coast SPA and Ramsar site

- purple sandpiper (non-breeding); and

- turnstone (non-breeding).

Slamannan Platea SPA

- taiga bean goose (non-breeding).

South Tayside Goose Roosts SPA and Ramsar site

- pink-footed goose (non-breeding);

- greylag goose (non-breeding);

- wigeon (non-breeding); and

- non-breeding waterbird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).

Westwater SPA and Ramsar site

- pink-footed goose (non-breeding); and

- non-breeding waterbird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).

Ythan Estuary, Sands of Forvie and Meikle Loch SPA / Ythan Estuary and Meikle Loch Ramsar site

- pink-footed goose (non-breeding); and

- non-breeding waterbird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species and eider, lapwing and redshank).

The MDS considered within the assessment of barrier to movement is shown in Table 5.56 Open ▸ .

Table 5.56: MDS Considered for the Assessment of Potential Impacts to Marine Ornithological Features due to Barrier to Movement during the Operation and Maintenance Phase

Project Phase

MDS

Justification

Operation and maintenance

Wind turbines

 up to 265 wind turbines;

 maximum rotor diameter 236 m, hub height 148 m above LAT, minimum blade clearance 30 m above LAT, upper blade tip height 266 m above LAT; and

 wind turbine spacing minimum 1,000 m, maximum 2,832 m. 6 OSPs, main structure 93 m above LAT in height (tallest point 104 m above LAT). Topside 121 m long x 89 m wide.

Total Array area 858 km2.

Represents the maximum number and density of wind turbines and structures across the Array, which maximises the potential barrier to foraging grounds and migration routes for bird species.

Operation and maintenance phase

JNCC et al. (2022) defines barrier effects as “A barrier is a physical factor that limits the migration, or free movement of individuals or populations, thus requiring them to divert from their intended path in order to reach their original destination. This effect is expected to increase the energy expenditure of birds if they have to fly around the area in question in order to reach their goal”. It is typically considered to affect birds in flight only, either whilst they are on migration between breeding and wintering areas (for example) or between a breeding colony and a foraging area. The latter of these scenarios may impose an additional energetic cost to movements at a key period in the annual cycle when seabirds are making daily commutes between foraging grounds at sea and breeding sites. Additional energetic costs could have long term implications for individuals, impacting bird fitness (breeding productivity and survival) and for populations. Barrier effects are considered to be less impactful when affecting migratory flights as avoidance of a single wind farm may be trivial relative to the total length and cost of the journey (Masden et al., 2010; 2012).
For breeding seabirds, NatureScot (2023h) consider barrier effects alongside displacement as “distributional responses”. This is because it can be difficult to distinguish barrier effects from the effects of displacement, for breeding seabirds foraging in the region. NatureScot (2023h) advise that distributional responses are assessed using the matrix approach, and therefore for breeding seabirds, no separate assessment of barrier to movement is carried out, with impacts considered to be included in the assessments carried out under the impact Disturbance and Displacement.
This section therefore only considers the impact of the barrier to movement on migratory receptors. In the absence of quantitative information available for individual species, the magnitude is considered qualitatively for all receptors.
The diversion of flight lines as a result of a barrier effect created by the presence of the Array for migratory birds is considered less of an impact than for those barrier effects to daily foraging flights. Speakman et al. (2009) and Masden et al. (2010; 2012) calculated that the costs of one-off avoidances during migration were small, accounting for less than 2% of available fat reserves.
A bird reaching the Array and following the perimeter around to resume the same flight path on the other side would fly a maximum of approximately 80 km to resume the flight path, compared to the approximately 20 km straight line across the middle of the array area, i.e. a 60 km increase in flight path. The shortest flight path from the east coast of Scotland to the west coast of Scandinavia that would pass through the Array is approximately 565 km. Therefore, the maximum impact would be an increase in migration route of 10.6%. In reality, this level of impact is unrealistic, as most birds will deviate by less, either by altering their flight path in a more efficient manner or by increasing their altitude to fly above the wind farm without any change in direction. It should also be noted that the shortest potential flightlines between the UK and Scandinavia would not pass through the Array at all, with the shortest mainland route being from south-west Norway to the north-east Aberdeenshire coast, or else “island hopping” through Shetland, Fair Isle and Orkney.
This impact would have a negligible impact on the survival of any bird, and therefore there is no potential for an AEOI to any site.

Conclusion

It is concluded, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, that no adverse effects on the qualifying interest features which could undermine the conservation objectives of the SPAs listed in Table 5.57 Open ▸ , will occur as a result of barrier to movement impacts during the operation and maintenance phase for the Array. An assessment of the impact of barrier to movement against each relevant conservation objective is presented in Table 5.57 Open ▸ . Where the justifications and supporting evidence are the same for more than one conservation objective, the assessments have been grouped.

Table 5.57: Conclusions Against the Conservation Objectives of SPAs and their Qualifying Features from Barrier to Movement during the Operation and Maintenance Phase

SPA

Assessed Features

Conservation Objectives

Justification

Conclusion

Cameron Reservoir SPA and Ramsar site

 pink-footed goose (non-breeding)

 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained:

– to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term:

– distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and

– structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.

As the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for barrier to movement during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, barrier to movement associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 pink-footed goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 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; and

– no significant disturbance of the species.

The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on pink-footed goose at Cameron Reservoir SPA and Ramsar site was qualitatively assessed. The outcome of the assessment deemed the impact from barrier to movement to be negligible on the species as the impacts are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population.

Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during operations and maintenance, of barrier to movement significantly disrupting pink-footed goose populations as a qualifying species at Cameron Reservoir SPA and Ramsar site.

Therefore, collision risk during operation and maintenance, will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site.

Furthermore, the impact from barrier to movement during operations and maintenance will not significantly influence the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.

 pink-footed goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI

Din M–ss - Hoselaw Loch SPA and Ramsar site

 pink-footed goose (non-breeding)

 greylag goose (non-breeding)

 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

– to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term:

– distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and

– structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.

As the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for barrier to movement during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, barrier to movement associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 pink-footed goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 greylag goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 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; and

– no significant disturbance of the species.

The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on pink-footed goose and greylag goose at Din Moss – Hoselaw Loch SPA and Ramsar site was qualitatively assessed. The outcome of the assessment deemed the impact from barrier to movement to be negligible for all species as the impacts are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population.

Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during operations and maintenance, of barrier to movement significantly disrupting pink-footed goose and greylag goose populations as a qualifying species of Din M–ss - Hoselaw Loch SPA and Ramsar site.

Therefore, barrier to movement during operation and maintenance, will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site.

Furthermore, the impact from barrier to movement during operations and maintenance will not significantly influence the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.

 pink-footed goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 greylag goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI

Fala Flow SPA and Ramsar site

 pink-footed goose (non-breeding)

 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained:

– to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term:

– distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and

– structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.

As the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for barrier to movement during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, barrier to movement associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 pink-footed goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 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; and

– no significant disturbance of the species.

The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on pink-footed goose at Fala Flow SPA and Ramsar site was qualitatively assessed. The outcome of the assessment deemed the impact from barrier to movement to be negligible on the species as the impacts are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population.

Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during operations and maintenance, of barrier to movement significantly disrupting pink-footed goose populations as a qualifying species of Fala Flow SPA and Ramsar site.

Therefore, barrier to movement during operation and maintenance, will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site.

Furthermore, the impact from barrier to movement during operations and maintenance will not significantly influence the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.

 pink-footed goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI

Firth of Forth SPA and Ramsar site

 bar-tailed godwit (non-breeding)

 golden plover (non-breeding)

 knot (non-breeding)

 pink-footed goose (non-breeding)

 red-throated diver (non-breeding)

 redshank (non-breeding)

 ringed plover (non-breeding)

 sandwich tern (non-breedi1lavoniannian grebe (non-breeding)

 turnstone (non-breeding)

 non-breeding waterbird assemblage (consisting of the above species (except sandwich tern) and common scoter, cormorant, curlew, dunlin, eider, goldeneye, great crested grebe, grey plover, lapwing, long-tailed duck, mallard, oystercatcher, red-breasted merganser, ringed plover, scaup, shelduck, velvet scoter and wigeon)

 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained:

– to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term:

– distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and

– structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.

As the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for barrier to movement during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, barrier to movement associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 bar-tailed godwit (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 golden plover (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 knot (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 pink-footed goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 red-throated diver (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 redshank (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 ringed plover (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 sandwich tern (non-breeding) = No A1lavoniannian grebe (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 turnstone (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 non-breeding waterbird assemblage = No AEOI

 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 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; and

– no significant disturbance of the species.

The impact level experienced during the operations and maintenance phase on bar-tailed godwit, golden plover, knot, pink-footed goose, red-throated diver, redshank, ringed plover, Sandwich tern, Slavonian grebe, turnstone, as well as the non-breeding waterbird assemblage consisting of common scoter, cormorant, curlew, dunlin, eider, goldeneye, great crested grebe, grey plover, lapwing, long-tailed duck, mallard, oystercatcher, red-breasted merganser, scaup, shelduck, velvet scoter, and wigeon, at Firth of Forth SPA and Ramsar site was qualitatively assessed. The outcome of the assessment deemed the impact from barrier to movement to be negligible for all species. The impacts are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population.

Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during operations and maintenance of barrier to movement significantly disrupting the populations of bar-tailed godwit, golden plover, knot, pink-footed goose, red-throated diver, redshank, ringed plover, Sandwich tern, Slavonian grebe, and turnstone, as well as the non-breeding waterbird assemblage consisting of common scoter, cormorant, curlew, dunlin, eider, goldeneye, great crested grebe, grey plover, lapwing, long-tailed duck, mallard, oystercatcher, red-breasted merganser, scaup, shelduck, velvet scoter, and wigeon, as qualifying species of Firth of Forth SPA and Ramsar site.

In addition, as impacts from barrier to movement were deemed negligible, impacts to waterbird assemblage is also deemed negligible.

Therefore, barrier to movement during operation and maintenance, will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site.

Furthermore, the impact from barrier to movement during operations and maintenance will not significantly influence the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.

 bar-tailed godwit (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 golden plover (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 knot (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 pink-footed goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 red-throated diver (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 redshank (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 ringed plover (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 sandwich tern (non-breeding) = No A1lavoniannian grebe (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 turnstone (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 non-breeding waterbird assemblage = No AEOI

Firth of Tay and Eden Estuary SPA and Ramsar site

 bar-tailed godwit (non-breeding)

 greylag goose (non-breeding)

 pink-footed goose (non-breeding)

 redshank (non-breeding)

 waterbird assemblage (non-breeding) consisting of the above species and common scoter, cormorant, dunlin, eider, goldeneye, goosander, grey plover, icelandic black-tailed godwit, oystercatcher, long-tailed duck, red-breasted merganser, sanderling, shelduck and velvet scoter)

 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained:

– to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term:

– distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and

– structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.

As the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for barrier to movement during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, barrier to movement associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 bar-tailed godwit (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 non-breeding greylag goose = No AEOI

 non-breeding pink-footed goose = No AEOI

 non-breeding redshank = No AEOI

 waterbird assemblage (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 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; and

– no significant disturbance of the species.

The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on bar-tailed godwit, as well as the as well as the non-breeding waterbird assemblage consisting of common scoter, cormorant, dunlin, eider, goldeneye, goosander, grey plover, greylag goose, Icelandic black-tailed godwit, long-tailed duck, oystercatcher, pink-footed goose, red-breasted merganser, redshank, sanderling, shelduck and velvet scoter at Firth of Tay and Eden Estuary SPA and Ramsar site was qualitatively assessed. The outcome of the assessment deemed the impact from barrier to movement to be negligible for all species as the impacts are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population.

Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during operations and maintenance, of barrier to movement significantly disrupting bar-tailed godwit, as well as the non-breeding waterbird assemblage consisting of common scoter, cormorant, dunlin, eider, goldeneye, goosander, grey plover, greylag goose, Icelandic black-tailed godwit, long-tailed duck, oystercatcher, pink-footed goose, red-breasted merganser, redshank, sanderling, shelduck and velvet scoter populations as a qualifying species at Firth of Tay and Eden Estuary SPA and Ramsar site.

In addition, as impacts from barrier to movement were deemed negligible, impacts to waterbird assemblage is also deemed negligible.

Therefore, barrier to movement during operation and maintenance, will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site.

Furthermore, the impact from barrier to movement during operations and maintenance will not significantly influence the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.

 bar-tailed godwit (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 non-breeding greylag goose = No AEOI

 non-breeding pink-footed goose = No AEOI

 non-breeding redshank = No AEOI

 waterbird assemblage (non-breeding) = No AEOI

Gladhouse Reservoir SPA and Ramsar site

 pink-footed goose (non-breeding)

 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained:

– to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term:

– distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and

– structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.

As the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for barrier to movement during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, barrier to movement associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 pink-footed goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 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; and

– no significant disturbance of the species.

The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on pink-footed goose at Gladhouse Reservoir SPA and Ramsar site was qualitatively assessed. The outcome of the assessment deemed the impact from barrier to movement to be negligible on the species as the impacts are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population.

Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during operations and maintenance, of barrier to movement significantly disrupting pink-footed goose populations as a qualifying species of Gladhouse Reservoir SPA and Ramsar site.

Therefore, barrier to movement during operation and maintenance, will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site.

Furthermore, the impact from barrier to movement during operations and maintenance will not significantly influence the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.

 pink-footed goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI

Greenlaw Moor SPA and Ramsar site

 pink-footed goose (non-breeding)

 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained:

– to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term:

– distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and

– structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.

As the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for barrier to movement during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, barrier to movement associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 pink-footed goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 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; and

– no significant disturbance of the species.

The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on pink-footed goose at Greenlaw Moor SPA and Ramsar site was qualitatively assessed. The outcome of the assessment deemed the impact from barrier to movement to be negligible on the species as the impacts are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population.

Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during operations and maintenance, of barrier to movement significantly disrupting pink-footed goose populations as a qualifying species of Greenlaw Moor SPA and Ramsar site.

Therefore, barrier to movement during operation and maintenance, will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site.

Furthermore, the impact from barrier to movement during operations and maintenance will not significantly influence the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.

 pink-footed goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI

Holburn Lake and Moss SPA and Ramsar site

 greylag goose (non-breeding)

 ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the Wild Birds Directive, by maintaining or restoring:

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

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

– the supporting processes on which the habitats of the qualifying features rely.

As the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for barrier to movement during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, barrier to movement associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 greylag goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the Wild Birds Directive, by maintaining or restoring:

– the populations of each of the qualifying features; and

– the distribution of qualifying features within the site.

The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on greylag goose at Holburn Lake and Moss SPA and Ramsar site was qualitatively assessed. The outcome of the assessment deemed the impact from barrier to movement to be negligible on the species as the impacts are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population.

Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during operations and maintenance, of barrier to movement significantly disrupting greylag goose populations as a qualifying species of Holburn Lake and Moss SPA and Ramsar site.

Therefore, barrier to movement during operation and maintenance, will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site.

Furthermore, the impact from barrier to movement during operations and maintenance will not significantly influence the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.

 greylag goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI

Lindisfarne SPA and Ramsar site

 bar-tailed godwit (non-breeding)

 common scoter (non-breeding)

 dunlin (non-breeding)

 eider (non-breeding)

 golden plover (non-breeding)

 grey plover(non-breeding)

 greylag goose (non-breeding)

 light-bellied brent goose (non-breeding)

 long-tailed duck (non-breeding)

 red-breasted merganser (non-breeding)

 redshank (non-breeding)

 ringed plover (non-breeding)

 sanderling (non-breeding)

 shelduck (non-breeding)

 whooper swan (non-breeding)

 wigeon (non-breeding)

 waterbird assemblage (non-breeding)

 ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the Wild Birds Directive, by maintaining or restoring:

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

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

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

As the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for a barrier to movement during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, collision risk associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 bar-tailed godwit (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 common scoter (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 dunlin (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 eider (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 golden plover (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 grey plover(non-breeding) = No AEOI

 greylag goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 light-bellied brent goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 long-tailed duck (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 red-breasted merganser (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 redshank (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 ringed plover (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 sanderling (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 shelduck (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 whooper swan (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 wigeon (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 waterbird assemblage (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the Wild Birds Directive, by maintaining or restoring:

– the populations of each of the qualifying features; and

– the distribution of qualifying features within the site.

The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on bar-tailed godwit, common scoter, dunlin, eider, golden plover, grey plover, greylag goose, light-bellied brent goose, long-tailed duck, red-breasted merganser, redshank, ringed plover, sanderling, shelduck and whooper swan and wigeon at Lindisfarne SPA and Ramsar site was qualitatively assessed. The outcome of the assessment deemed the impact from barrier to movement to be negligible for all species as the impacts are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population.

Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during operations and maintenance, of barrier to movement significantly disrupting bar-tailed godwit, common scoter, dunlin, eider, golden plover, grey plover, greylag goose, light-bellied brent goose, long-tailed duck, red-breasted merganser, redshank, ringed plover, sanderling, shelduck and whooper swan and wigeon populations as a qualifying species at Lindisfarne SPA and Ramsar site.

In addition, as impacts from barrier to movement were deemed negligible, impacts to waterbird assemblage is also deemed negligible.

Therefore, barrier to movement during operation and maintenance, will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site.

Furthermore, the impact from barrier to movement during operations and maintenance will not significantly influence the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.

 bar-tailed godwit (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 common scoter (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 dunlin (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 eider (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 golden plover (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 grey plover(non-breeding) = No AEOI

 greylag goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 light-bellied brent goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 long-tailed duck (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 red-breasted merganser (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 redshank (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 ringed plover (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 sanderling (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 shelduck (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 whooper swan (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 wigeon (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 waterbird assemblage (non-breeding) = No AEOI

Loch of Kinnordy SPA and Ramsar site

 pink-footed goose (non-breeding)

 greylag goose (non-breeding)

 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained:

– to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term:

– distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and

– structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.

As the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for barrier to movement during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, barrier to movement associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 pink-footed goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 greylag goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 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; and

– no significant disturbance of the species.

The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on pink-footed goose and greylag goose at Loch of Kinnordy SPA and Ramsar site was qualitatively assessed. The outcome of the assessment deemed the impact from barrier to movement to be negligible for all species as the impacts are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population.

Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during operations and maintenance, of barrier to movement significantly disrupting pink-footed goose and greylag goose populations as a qualifying species of Loch of Kinnordy SPA and Ramsar site.

Therefore, barrier to movement during operation and maintenance, will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site.

Furthermore, the impact from barrier to movement during operations and maintenance will not significantly influence the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.

 pink-footed goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 greylag goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI

Loch Leven SPA and Ramsar site

 pink-footed goose (non-breeding)

 shoveler (non-breeding)

 whooper swan (non-breeding)

 waterbird assemblage (non-breeding) consisting of the above species and cormorant, gadwall, goldeneye, pochard, teal and tufted duck

 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained:

– to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term:

– distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and

– structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.

As the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for barrier to movement during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, barrier to movement associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 pink-footed goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 shoveler (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 whooper swan (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 waterbird assemblage (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 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; and

– no significant disturbance of the species.

The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on cormorant, gadwall, goldeneye, pink-footed goose, pochard, shoveler, teal, tufted duck and whooper swan at Loch Leven SPA and Ramsar site was qualitatively assessed. The outcome of the assessment deemed the impact from barrier to movement to be negligible for all species as the impacts are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population.

Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during operations and maintenance, of barrier to movement significantly disrupting cormorant, gadwall, goldeneye, pink-footed goose, pochard, shoveler, teal, tufted duck and whooper swan populations as a qualifying species of Loch Leven SPA and Ramsar site.

In addition, as impacts from barrier to movement were deemed negligible, impacts to waterbird assemblage is also deemed negligible.

Therefore, barrier to movement during operation and maintenance, will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site.

Furthermore, the impact from barrier to movement during operations and maintenance will not significantly influence the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.

 pink-footed goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 shoveler (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 whooper swan (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 waterbird assemblage (non-breeding) = No AEOI

Montrose Basin SPA and Ramsar site

 greylag goose (non-breeding)

 pink-footed goose (non-breeding)

 redshank (non-breeding)

 waterbird assemblage (non-breeding) consisting of the above species and oystercatcher, eider, wigeon, knot, dunlin and shelduck

 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained:

– to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term:

- distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and

- structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.

As the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for barrier to movement during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, barrier to movement associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 greylag goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 pink-footed goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 redshank (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 waterbird assemblage (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 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; and

– no significant disturbance of the species.

The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on dunlin, eider, greylag goose, knot, oystercatcher, pink-footed goose, redshank, shelduck and wigeon at Montrose Basin SPA and Ramsar site was qualitatively assessed. The outcome of the assessment deemed the impact from barrier to movement to be negligible for all species as the impacts are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population.

Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during operations and maintenance, of barrier to movement significantly disrupting dunlin, eider, greylag goose, knot, oystercatcher, pink-footed goose, redshank, shelduck and wigeon populations as a qualifying species of Montrose Basin SPA and Ramsar site.

In addition, as impacts from barrier to movement were deemed negligible, impacts to waterbird assemblage is also deemed negligible.

Therefore, barrier to movement during operation and maintenance, will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site.

Furthermore, the impact from barrier to movement during operations and maintenance will not significantly influence the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.

 greylag goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 pink-footed goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 redshank (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 waterbird assemblage (non-breeding) = No AEOI

Northumbria Coast SPA and Ramsar site

 purple sandpiper (non-breeding)

 turnstone (non-breeding)

 ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the Wild Birds Directive, by maintaining or restoring:

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

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

– the supporting processes on which the habitats of the qualifying features rely.

As the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for barrier to movement during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, barrier to movement associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 purple sandpiper (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 turnstone (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the Wild Birds Directive, by maintaining or restoring:

– the populations of each of the qualifying features; and

– the distribution of qualifying features within the site.

The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on purple sandpiper and turnstone at Northumbria Coast SPA and Ramsar site was qualitatively assessed. The outcome of the assessment deemed the impact from barrier to movement to be negligible for all species as the impacts are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population.

Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during operations and maintenance, of barrier to movement significantly disrupting purple sandpiper and turnstone populations as a qualifying species of Northumbria Coast SPA and Ramsar site.

Therefore, barrier to movement during operation and maintenance, will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site.

Furthermore, the impact from barrier to movement during operations and maintenance will not significantly influence the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.

 purple sandpiper (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 turnstone (non-breeding) = No AEOI

Slamannan Plateau SPA

 taiga bean goose (non-breeding)

 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained:

– to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term:

– distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and

– structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.

As the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for barrier to movement during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, barrier to movement associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 taiga bean goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 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; and

– no significant disturbance of the species.

The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on taiga bean goose at Slamannan Platea SPA was qualitatively assessed. The outcome of the assessment deemed the impact from barrier to movement to be negligible on the species as the impacts are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population.

Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during operations and maintenance, of barrier to movement significantly disrupting taiga bean goose populations as a qualifying species of Slamannan Platea SPA.

Therefore, barrier to movement during operation and maintenance, will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site.

Furthermore, the impact from barrier to movement during operations and maintenance will not significantly influence the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.

 taiga bean goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI

South Tayside Goose Roosts SPA and Ramsar site

 pink-footed goose (non-breeding)

 greylag goose (non-breeding)

 wigeon (non-breeding)

 waterbird assemblage (non-breeding) consisting of the species listed above

 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained:

– to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term:

– distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and

– structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.

As the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for barrier to movement during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, barrier to movement associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 pink-footed goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 greylag goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 wigeon (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 waterbird assemblage (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 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; and

– no significant disturbance of the species.

The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on pink-footed goose, greylag goose and wigeon at South Tayside Goose Roosts SPA and Ramsar site was qualitatively assessed. The outcome of the assessment deemed the impact from barrier to movement to be negligible for all species as the impacts are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population.

Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during operations and maintenance, of barrier to movement significantly disrupting on pink-footed goose, greylag goose and wigeon populations as a qualifying species of South Tayside Goose Roosts SPA and Ramsar site.

In addition, as impacts from barrier to movement were deemed negligible, impacts to waterbird assemblage is also deemed negligible.

Therefore, collision risk during operation and maintenance, will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site.

Furthermore, the impact from barrier to movement during operations and maintenance will not significantly influence the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.

 pink-footed goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 greylag goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 wigeon (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 waterbird assemblage (non-breeding) = No AEOI

Westwater SPA and Ramsar site

 pink-footed goose (non-breeding)

 waterbird assemblage (non-breeding) consisting of the species listed above

 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained:

– to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term:

– distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and

– structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.

As the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for barrier to movement during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, barrier to movement associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 pink-footed goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 waterbird assemblage (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 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; and

– no significant disturbance of the species.

The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on pink-footed goose at Westwater SPA and Ramsar site was qualitatively assessed. The outcome of the assessment deemed the impact from barrier to movement to be negligible for all species as the impacts are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population.

Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during operations and maintenance, of barrier to movement significantly disrupting on pink-footed goose as a qualifying species of Westwater SPA and Ramsar site.

In addition, as impacts from barrier to movement were deemed negligible, impacts to waterbird assemblage is also deemed negligible.

Therefore, barrier to movement during operation and maintenance, will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site.

Furthermore, the impact from barrier to movement during operations and maintenance will not significantly influence the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.

 pink-footed goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 waterbird assemblage (non-breeding) = No AEOI

Ythan Estuary, Sands of Forvie and Meikle Loch SPA/Ythan Estuary and Meikle Loch Ramsar site

 pink-footed goose (non-breeding)

 waterbird assemblage (non-breeding) consisting of the species listed above and eider, lapwing and redshank

 ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the Wild Birds Directive, by maintaining or restoring:

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

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

– the supporting processes on which the habitats of the qualifying features rely.

As the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for barrier to movement during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, barrier to movement associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 pink-footed goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 waterbird assemblage (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the Wild Birds Directive, by maintaining or restoring:

– the populations of each of the qualifying features; and

– the distribution of qualifying features within the site.

The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance phase on eider, lapwing, pink-footed goose and redshank at Ythan Estuary, Sands of Forvie and Meikle Loch SPA/Ythan Estuary and Meikle Loch Ramsar site was qualitatively assessed. The outcome of the assessment deemed the impact from barrier to movement to be negligible for all species as the impacts are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population.

Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during operations and maintenance, of barrier to movement significantly disrupting on eider, lapwing, pink-footed goose and redshank as a qualifying species of Ythan Estuary, Sands of Forvie and Meikle Loch SPA/Ythan Estuary and Meikle Loch Ramsar site.

In addition, as impacts from barrier to movement were deemed negligible, impacts to waterbird assemblage is also deemed negligible.

Therefore, barrier to movement during operation and maintenance, will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site.

Furthermore, the impact from barrier to movement during operations and maintenance will not significantly influence the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.

 pink-footed goose (non-breeding) = No AEOI

 waterbird assemblage (non-breeding) = No AEOI

As detailed in Table 5.57 Open ▸ , it can be concluded, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, that there is no risk of an adverse effect on the integrity of any of the SPAs listed in Table 5.57 Open ▸ or their qualifying features due to barrier to movement resulting from the operation and maintenance of the Array alone. There is no risk of undermining the Conservation Objectives of the sites considered due to the following:

given the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no potential for the Array to impact on the distribution and extent of habitats within the SPA;
given the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no potential for the Array to influence the distribution of birds within the SPA;
given the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no potential for the Array to influence the structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species;
given the level of impact arising from barrier to movement from the Array area, there is no potential for the Array to influence the population of the species as a viable component of the site; and
given the level of impact arising from barrier to movement from the Array area, there is no potential for the Array to influence the disturbance of the species within the SPA.

5.4.7. Entanglement

The LSE2 assessment during the HRA screening process identified that during the operation and maintenance phase, LSE2 could not be ruled out for entanglement as an impact on diving birds. This relates to the following sites and relevant marine ornithological features:

Coquet Island SPA

- breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on breeding puffin).

Fair Isle SPA

- breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on breeding gannet).

Farne Islands SPA

- breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on breeding puffin).

Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA

- gannet (breeding);

- guillemot (breeding);

- breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).

Forth Islands SPA

- gannet (breeding);

- puffin (breeding); and

- breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).

Fowlsheugh SPA

- breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on breeding razorbill).

Hermaness, Saxa Vord and Valla Field SPA

- gannet (breeding); and

- breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).

North Rona and Sula Sgeir SPA

- gannet (breeding); and

- breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).

Noss SPA

- gannet (breeding); and

- breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).

St Kilda SPA

- gannet (breeding); and

- breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).

Sule Skerry and Sule Stack SPA

- gannet (breeding); and

- breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).

It should be noted that there is no pathway for an impact on non-diving birds (e.g. kittiwake) and therefore non-diving birds have been screened out for this impact due to no potential for a LSE2.
The MDS considered within the assessment of entanglement is shown in Table 5.58 Open ▸ .

Table 5.58: MDS Considered for the Assessment of Potential Impacts to Marine Ornithological Features due to Entanglement during the Operation and Maintenance Phases

Project Phase

MDS

Justification

Operation and maintenance

 Up to 265 floating wind turbine foundations;

 Up to 6 mooring lines per foundation, each 750 m length, of which 200 m will fall within the water column during operation (increasing to 700 m during 50-year storm conditions). Mooring touchdown will be 25 m to 150 m from the foundation; and

 Up to 1,261 km of inter-array cable, of which the length in the water column is to be determined as a result of detailed engineering design.

Represents the greatest mooring line and inter-array cable length, based on the deepest water depth with tides (95 m) and the connection at the top of the column.

Table 5.59: Designed In Measures Considered for the Assessment of Potential Impacts to Marine Ornithological Features due to Entanglement during the Operation and Maintenance Phase

Designed In Measures

Justification

How the Designed In Measure will be Secured

Mooring lines and dynamic inter-array cables in the water column will undergo regular inspections during the operation and maintenance phase with inspection frequency more frequent initially for the first two years and then decreasing to an annual schedule. The removal of marine debris from mooring lines and inter-array cables will be undertaken as necessary following monitoring and further relevant action taken if required, based on findings from the inspections. The removal of debris from mooring lines and cables further reduces the likelihood of secondary entanglement.

Primary entanglement is considered extremely unlikely due to the physical characteristics of cables and mooring lines (Benjamins et al., 2014) and therefore will not affect the population of any of the bird species screened in.

There is a greater risk of secondary entanglement with ghost fishing gear. However, the measures in place will reduce the potential likelihood of any entanglement, making it of negligible consequence and insufficient to result in significant disturbance or a population level effect

Inspections will be secured as a result of their inclusion in the Operation and Maintenance Programme.

Operation and maintenance phase

The HRA screening process (Ossian OWFL, 2023, along with revisions in section 3.1 of this RIAA) identified that during the operation and maintenance phase, LSE2 could not be ruled out for entanglement at 12 European sites for three breeding seabird species (gannet, razorbill and puffin) and their associated breeding seabird assemblages, as listed above and in Table 3.1 Open ▸ .
A maintenance plan will be put in place during operation and maintenance ( Table 5.59 Open ▸ ). This maintenance plan will ensure that mooring lines and floating inter-array cables will be inspected frequently to confirm the structural integrity of the cable systems, using a risk-based adaptive management approach. During these inspections, the presence of discarded fishing gear will be evaluated for seabird entanglement risk and appropriate actions will be taken to remove if deemed necessary.
With the measures in place, the potential likelihood of any entanglement will be further reduced, making it of negligible consequence and insufficient to result in significant disturbance or a population level effect.
Therefore, it is concluded, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, that there is no potential for an adverse effect with respect to entanglement in mooring lines for any of the European sites and/or their qualifying ornithology features screened in for assessment and no measurable impact to carry forward for in-combination assessment.

Conclusion

It is concluded, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, that no adverse effects on the qualifying interest features which could undermine the conservation objectives of the SPAs listed in Table 5.60 Open ▸ , will occur as a result of entanglement during the operation and maintenance phase for the Array. An assessment of the impact of entanglement against each relevant conservation objective is presented in Table 5.60 Open ▸ . Where the justifications and supporting evidence are the same for more than one conservation objective, the assessments have been grouped.

Table 5.60: Conclusions Against the Conservation Objectives of SPAs and their Qualifying Features from Entanglement during the Operation and Maintenance Phase

SPA

Feature

Conservation Objectives

Justification

Conclusion

Coquet Island SPA

 breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on breeding puffin).

 ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the Wild Birds Directive, by maintaining or restoring:

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

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

– the supporting processes on which the habitats of the qualifying features rely.

As the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for entanglement during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, entanglement associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

 ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the Wild Birds Directive, by maintaining or restoring:

– the populations of each of the qualifying features; and

– the distribution of qualifying features within the site.

The impact level experienced by the named seabird assemblage component, puffin, during operations and maintenance at Coquet Island SPA was qualitatively assessed. The outcome of the assessment deemed the impact from entanglement to be negligible on the species as the impacts are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population.

Consequently, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during operations and maintenance, of entanglement significantly disrupting the named seabird assemblage component, puffin populations as a qualifying species of the Coquet Island SPA.

Therefore, entanglement during operation and maintenance will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site. Furthermore, the impact from entanglement during all phases will not significantly influence the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the SPA.

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

Fair Isle SPA

 breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on breeding gannet).

 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term:

– distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and

– structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species’

As the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for entanglement during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, entanglement associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 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; and

– no significant disturbance of the species.

The impact level experienced by the named seabird assemblage component, gannet, during operations and maintenance at Fair Isle SPA was qualitatively assessed. The outcome of the assessment deemed the impact from entanglement to be negligible on the species as the impacts are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population.

Consequently, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during operations and maintenance, of entanglement significantly disrupting the named seabird assemblage component, gannet populations as a qualifying species of the Fair Isle SPA.

Therefore, entanglement during operation and maintenance will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site.

Furthermore, the impact from entanglement during all phases will not significantly influence the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the SPA.

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

Farne Islands SPA

 breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on breeding puffin).

 ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the Wild Birds Directive, by maintaining or restoring:

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

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

– the supporting processes on which the habitats of the qualifying features rely.

As the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for entanglement during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, entanglement associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

 ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the Wild Birds Directive, by maintaining or restoring:

– the populations of each of the qualifying features; and

– the distribution of qualifying features within the site.

The impact level experienced by the named seabird assemblage component, puffin, during operations and maintenance at Farne Islands SPA was qualitatively assessed. The outcome of the assessment deemed the impact from entanglement to be negligible on the species as the impacts are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population.

Consequently, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during operations and maintenance, of entanglement significantly disrupting the named seabird assemblage component, puffin populations as a qualifying species of the Farne Islands SPA.

Therefore, entanglement during operation and maintenance will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site.

Furthermore, the impact from entanglement during all phases will not significantly influence the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the SPA.

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA

 gannet (breeding);

 guillemot (breeding);

 breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).

 ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the Wild Birds Directive, by maintaining or restoring:

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

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

– the supporting processes on which the habitats of the qualifying features rely.

As the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for entanglement during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, entanglement associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 gannet = No AEOI

 guillemot = No AEOI

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

 ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the Wild Birds Directive, by maintaining or restoring:

– the populations of each of the qualifying features; and

– the distribution of qualifying features within the site.

The impact level experienced by the gannet and guillemot during operations and maintenance at Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA was qualitatively assessed. The outcome of the assessment deemed the impact from entanglement to be negligible on the species as the impacts are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population.

In addition, as the impact from entanglement on gannet and guillemot populations was assessed as negligible across operation and maintenance, the risk to the seabird assemblage has been deemed negligible.

Consequently, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during operations and maintenance, of entanglement significantly disrupting the named seabird assemblage component, gannet and guillemot populations as a qualifying species of the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA.

Therefore, entanglement during operation and maintenance will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site.

Furthermore, the impact from entanglement during all phases will not significantly influence the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the SPA.

 gannet = No AEOI

 guillemot = No AEOI

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

Forth Islands SPA

 gannet (breeding);

 puffin (breeding); and

 breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).

 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term:

– distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and

– structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.

As the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for entanglement during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, entanglement associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 gannet = No AEOI

 puffin = No AEOI

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 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; and

– no significant disturbance of the species.

The impact level experienced by the gannet and puffin during operations and maintenance at Forth Islands SPA was qualitatively assessed. The outcome of the assessment deemed the impact from entanglement to be negligible on the species as the impacts are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population.

In addition, as the impact from entanglement on gannet and puffin populations was assessed as negligible across operation and maintenance, the risk to the seabird assemblage has been deemed negligible.

Consequently, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during operations and maintenance, of entanglement significantly disrupting the named seabird assemblage component, gannet and puffin populations as a qualifying species of the Forth Islands SPA.

Therefore, entanglement during operation and maintenance will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site.

Furthermore, the impact from entanglement during all phases will not significantly influence the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the SPA.

 gannet = No AEOI

 puffin = No AEOI

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

Fowlsheugh SPA

 breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on breeding razorbill).

 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term:

– distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and

– structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.

As the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for entanglement during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, entanglement associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 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; and

– no significant disturbance of the species.

The impact level experienced by the named seabird assemblage component, razorbill, during operations and maintenance at Fowlsheugh SPA was qualitatively assessed. The outcome of the assessment deemed the impact from entanglement to be negligible on the species as the impacts are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population.

Consequently, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during operations and maintenance, of entanglement significantly disrupting the named seabird assemblage component, razorbill populations as a qualifying species of the Fowlsheugh SPA.

Therefore, entanglement during operation and maintenance will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site.

Furthermore, the impact from entanglement during all phases will not significantly influence the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the SPA.

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

Hermaness, Saxa Vord and Valla Field SPA

 gannet (breeding); and

 breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).

 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term:

– distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and

– structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.

As the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for entanglement during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, entanglement associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 gannet = No AEOI

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 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; and

– no significant disturbance of the species.

The impact level experienced by the gannet during operations and maintenance at Hermaness, Saxa Vord and Valla Field SPA was qualitatively assessed. The outcome of the assessment deemed the impact from entanglement to be negligible on the species as the impacts are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population.

In addition, as the impact from entanglement on gannet populations was assessed as negligible across operation and maintenance, the risk to the seabird assemblage has been deemed negligible.

Consequently, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during operations and maintenance, of entanglement significantly disrupting the named seabird assemblage component, gannet, populations as a qualifying species of the Hermaness, Saxa Vord and Valla Field SPA.

Therefore, entanglement during operation and maintenance will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site.

Furthermore, the impact from entanglement during all phases will not significantly influence the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the SPA.

 gannet = No AEOI

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

North Rona and Sula Sgeir SPA

 gannet (breeding); and

 breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).

 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term:

– distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and

– structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.

As the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for entanglement during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, entanglement associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 gannet = No AEOI

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 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; and

– no significant disturbance of the species.

The impact level experienced by the gannet during operations and maintenance at North Rona and Sula Sgeir SPA was qualitatively assessed. The outcome of the assessment deemed the impact from entanglement to be negligible on the species as the impacts are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population.

In addition, as the impact from entanglement on gannet populations was assessed as negligible across operation and maintenance, the risk to the seabird assemblage has been deemed negligible.

Consequently, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during operations and maintenance, of entanglement significantly disrupting the named seabird assemblage component, gannet populations as a qualifying species of the North Rona and Sula Sgeir SPA.

Therefore, entanglement during operation and maintenance will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site.

Furthermore, the impact from entanglement during all phases will not significantly influence the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the SPA.

 gannet = No AEOI

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

Noss SPA

 gannet (breeding); and

 breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).

 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term:

– distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and

– structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.

As the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for entanglement during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, entanglement associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 gannet = No AEOI

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 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; and

– no significant disturbance of the species.

The impact level experienced by the gannet during operations and maintenance at Noss SPA was qualitatively assessed. The outcome of the assessment deemed the impact from entanglement to be negligible on the species as the impacts are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population.

In addition, as the impact from entanglement on gannet populations was assessed as negligible across operation and maintenance, the risk to the seabird assemblage has been deemed negligible.

Consequently, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during operations and maintenance, of entanglement significantly disrupting the named seabird assemblage component, gannet populations as a qualifying species of the Noss SPA.

Therefore, entanglement during operation and maintenance will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site.

Furthermore, the impact from entanglement during all phases will not significantly influence the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the SPA.

 gannet = No AEOI

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

St Kilda SPA

 gannet (breeding); and

 breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).

 to ensure that the qualifying features of St Kilda SPA and the seas off St Kilda SPA are in favourable condition and make an appropriate contribution to achieving favourable conservation status.

 to ensure that the integrity of St Kilda SPA and the seas off St Kilda SPA is restored in the context of environmental changes by meeting objectives 2a, 2b and 2c for each qualifying feature:

 the supporting habitats and processes relevant to qualifying features and their prey/food resources are maintained, or where appropriate restored, at St Kilda SPA and/or seas off St Kilda SPA

As the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for entanglement during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, entanglement associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 gannet = No AEOI

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

 to ensure that the qualifying features of St Kilda SPA and the seas off St Kilda SPA are in favourable condition and make an appropriate contribution to achieving favourable conservation status.

 to ensure that the integrity of St Kilda SPA and the seas off St Kilda SPA is restored in the context of environmental changes by meeting objectives 2a, 2b and 2c for each qualifying feature:

– the populations of qualifying features are viable components of St Kilda SPA and seas off St Kilda SPA; and

– the distributions of the qualifying features throughout St Kilda SPA and seas off St Kilda SPA are maintained by avoiding significant disturbance of the species.

The impact level experienced by the gannet during operations and maintenance at St Kilda SPA was qualitatively assessed. The outcome of the assessment deemed the impact from entanglement to be negligible on the species as the impacts are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population.

In addition, as the impact from entanglement on gannet populations was assessed as negligible across operation and maintenance, the risk to the seabird assemblage has been deemed negligible.

Consequently, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during operations and maintenance, of entanglement significantly disrupting the named seabird assemblage component, gannet populations as a qualifying species of the St Kilda SPA.

Therefore, entanglement during operation and maintenance will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site.

Furthermore, the impact from entanglement during all phases will not significantly influence the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the SPA.

 gannet = No AEOI

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

Sule Skerry and Sule Stack SPA

 gannet (breeding); and

 breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).

 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term:

– distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and

– structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.

As the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for entanglement during all operations and maintenance of the Array to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, entanglement associated with the Array will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 gannet = No AEOI

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 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; and

– no significant disturbance of the species.

The impact level experienced by the gannet during operations and maintenance at Sule Skerry and Sule Stack SPA was qualitatively assessed. The outcome of the assessment deemed the impact from entanglement to be negligible on the species as the impacts are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population.

In addition, as the impact from entanglement on gannet populations was assessed as negligible across operation and maintenance, the risk to the seabird assemblage has been deemed negligible.

Consequently, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during operations and maintenance, of entanglement significantly disrupting the named seabird assemblage component, gannet populations as a qualifying species of the Sule Skerry and Sule Stack SPA.

Therefore, entanglement during operation and maintenance will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site.

Furthermore, the impact from entanglement during all phases will not significantly influence the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the SPA.

 gannet = No AEOI

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

As detailed in Table 5.60 Open ▸ , the conclusion remains consistent across all instances: there is no discernible risk of adverse effects on the integrity of the SPAs, or their qualifying features due to entanglement resulting from the operation and maintenance of the Array alone. Additionally, there is no risk of undermining the Conservation Objectives of the sites considered due to the following:

given the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no potential for the Array to impact on the distribution and extent of habitats within the SPA;
given the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no potential for the Array to influence the distribution of birds within the SPA;
given the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no potential for the Array to influence the structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species;
given the level of impact arising from entanglement from the Array area, there is no potential for the Array to influence the population of the species as a viable component of the site; and
given the level of impact arising from entanglement from the Array area, there is no potential for the Array to influence the disturbance of the species within the SPA.

5.5. Assessment of Adverse Effects in-Combination with other Plans and Projects

As detailed in section 4.6, certain impacts were excluded from further consideration if their assessment at the project level indicated negligible effects, deeming them inconsequential to any meaningful contribution to an existing cumulative impact. Following the alone assessment, the following effect pathways were excluded from the in-combination assessment:

factors such as changes to prey availability, entanglement, migratory collision risk, migratory barrier effect and artificial lighting, though acknowledged for their potential cumulative effects, are deemed insignificantly impactful at a population level for offshore ornithology receptors;
displacement of seabirds during the construction phase due to the potential impacts and effects predicted for the Array being negligible/ minor at most and are spatially and temporally restricted; and
all impacts during decommissioning, as potential impacts are predicted to be negligible, and there is limited data or low confidence in data regarding other plans and projects related to this potential impact source.

Sites and features were included within the in-combination assessment if any of the following criteria were met during the alone assessment:

the Array alone impact from displacement and/or collision at the Array is greater than or equal to one individual per year (following the most precautionary approach to assessment); and/or
the Array alone impact at the Array results in an increase in mortality rate of greater than or equal to 0.02 percentage points; and/or
an Appropriate Assessment for one or more of the other considered plans has identified a potential AEOI to the feature.

If none of the above criteria are met, it was concluded, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, that the Array, in combination with other plans or projects, does not pose any potential for an AEOI.
Based on the evaluation of the Array alone (section 5.4) and the above criteria, it was concluded that the only impact pathways for which there is the potential for an in-combination effect are disturbance and displacement, and collision risk. A potential in-combination effect has only been identified during the operation and maintenance phase.
The sites, features and impacts that require an in-combination assessment are presented in Table 5.61 Open ▸ .

Table 5.61: Assessment of Features of SPA or Ramsar sites Requiring In-Combination Assessment

SPA or Ramsar	Features (Impacts)	Reason for Inclusion
Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast SPA	Kittiwake (assemblage component only) (displacement and collision)	Greater than one mortality. Greater than 0.02 percentage point increase in mortality rate. Potential AEOI identified by another project.
Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast SPA	Breeding seabird assemblage	Assemblage included due to impacts on one or more named component meeting criteria for inclusion.
Coquet Island SPA	Puffin (assemblage component only) (displacement)	Greater than one mortality.
Coquet Island SPA	Breeding seabird assemblage	Assemblage included due to impacts on one or more named component meeting criteria for inclusion.
East Caithness Cliffs SPA	Kittiwake (displacement and collision)	Greater than one mortality. Potential AEOI identified by another project.
East Caithness Cliffs SPA	Breeding seabird assemblage	Assemblage included due to impacts on one or more named component meeting criteria for inclusion.
Farne Islands SPA	Kittiwake (assemblage component only) (displacement and collision)	Potential AEOI identified by another project.
	Puffin (assemblage component only) (displacement)	Greater than one mortality. Greater than 0.02 percentage point increase in mortality rate.
	Breeding seabird assemblage	Assemblage included due to impacts on one or more named component meeting criteria for inclusion.
Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA	Kittiwake (displacement and collision)	Greater than one mortality.
	Gannet (displacement and collision)	Greater than one mortality.
	Breeding seabird assemblage	Assemblage included due to impacts on one or more named component meeting criteria for inclusion.
Forth Islands SPA	Kittiwake (assemblage component only) (displacement and collision)	Greater than one mortality. Potential AEOI identified by another project.
	Gannet (displacement and collision)	Greater than one mortality.
	Puffin (displacement)	Greater than one mortality. Greater than 0.02 percentage point increase in mortality rate.
	Breeding seabird assemblage	Assemblage included due to impacts on one or more named component meeting criteria for inclusion.
Fowlsheugh SPA	Kittiwake (displacement and collision)	Greater than one mortality. Greater than 0.02 percentage point increase in mortality rate. Potential AEOI identified by another project.
	Razorbill (assemblage component only) (displacement)	Greater than one mortality. Greater than 0.02 percentage point increase in mortality rate.
	Breeding seabird assemblage	Assemblage included due to impacts on one or more named component meeting criteria for inclusion.
Hermaness, Saxa Vord and Valla Field SPA	Gannet (displacement and collision)	Greater than one mortality.
Hermaness, Saxa Vord and Valla Field SPA	Breeding seabird assemblage	Assemblage included due to impacts on one or more named component meeting criteria for inclusion.
North Caithness Cliffs SPA	Kittiwake (assemblage component only) (displacement and collision)	Potential AEOI identified by another project.
North Caithness Cliffs SPA	Breeding seabird assemblage	Assemblage included due to impacts on one or more named component meeting criteria for inclusion.
Noss SPA	Gannet (displacement and collision)	Greater than one mortality.
Noss SPA	Breeding seabird assemblage	Assemblage included due to impacts on one or more named component meeting criteria for inclusion.
St. Abb's Head to Fast Castle SPA	Kittiwake (assemblage component only) (displacement and collision)	Greater than one mortality. Potential AEOI identified by another project.
St. Abb's Head to Fast Castle SPA	Breeding seabird assemblage	Assemblage included due to impacts on one or more named component meeting criteria for inclusion.
St Kilda SPA	Gannet (displacement and collision)	Greater than one mortality.
St Kilda SPA	Breeding seabird assemblage	Assemblage included due to impacts on one or more named component meeting criteria for inclusion.
Troup, Pennan and Lion's Head SPA	Kittiwake (displacement and collision)	Greater than one mortality. Potential AEOI identified by another project.
Troup, Pennan and Lion's Head SPA	Breeding seabird assemblage	Assemblage included due to impacts on one or more named component meeting criteria for inclusion.

The sites that do not meet any of the criteria set out in paragraph 351 are:

Copinsay SPA;
Fair Isle SPA;
North Rona and Sula Sgeir SPA;
Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrew’s Bay Complex SPA;
Sule Skerry and Sule Stack SPA;
Cameron Reservoir SPA and Ramsar site;
Din Moss - Hoselaw Loch SPA and Ramsar site;
Fala Flow SPA and Ramsar site;
Firth of Forth SPA and Ramsar site;
Firth of Tay and Eden Estuary SPA and Ramsar site;
Gladhouse Reservoir SPA and Ramsar site;
Greenlaw Moor SPA and Ramsar site;
Holburn Lake and Moss SPA and Ramsar site;
Lindisfarne SPA and Ramsar site;
Loch of Kinnordy SPA and Ramsar site;
Loch Leven SPA and Ramsar site;
Montrose Basin SPA and Ramsar site;
Northumbria Coast SPA and Ramsar site;
Slamannan Plateau SPA;
South Tayside Goose Roosts SPA and Ramsar site;
Westwater SPA and Ramsar site; and
Ythan Estuary, Sands of Forvie and Meikle Loch SPA, Ythan Estuary and Meikle Loch Ramsar site.

For all these sites, as set out above, it has been demonstrated that that Array will not make a meaningful contribution to any cumulative impact, and therefore it is concluded beyond reasonable scientific doubt that the Array will not cause an AEOI to any of those sites.

5.5.1. In-combination data sources

The in-combination assessment for ornithology requires the mortality from each other relevant project apportioned to the SPA or Ramsar site being assessed. Primarily, this has been drawn from the recent Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm RIAA (SSE Renewables, 2022) as the most comprehensive recent compilation. It should be noted that Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm do not provide in-combination values for individual projects but totalled for the UK North Sea region. Where values were not available from Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm, other data sources were used as necessary.
In addition, project-alone values for more recent applications have been added to the Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm totals, specifically Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm (Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm, 2023), West of Orkney Wind Farm (Offshore Wind Power Limited, 2023), Pentland Floating Offshore Wind (Xodus Group Ltd, 2022), Five Estuaries Offshore Windfarm (Five Estuaries Wind Farm Ltd, 2023), Outer Dowsing Offshore Wind (Outer Dowsing Offshore Wind, 2023) and Sheringham Shoal and Dudgeon Offshore Wind Farm Extension Projects (hereafter SEP & DEP) (Equinor, 2022, 2023). As quantitative information for these projects was not available at the time Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm was compiling its assessment, values for these projects are not included in the UK North Sea totals presented by Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm.
The number of mortalities for other projects is dependent on the approach used for assessment. There is scope for this to vary, for example using different displacement rate/mortality rates to assess distributional responses, or different avoidance rates to assess collision mortality. Typically, more than one approach is presented to give a range of plausible impact mortalities. In particular, Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm followed a “dual approach” to assessment, presenting both a “Scoping Approach” (following advice from SNCBs, as presented in the NatureScot guidance notes) and a “Developer Approach” (the preferred approach of that project’s developer). Where the Scoping Approach is used to assess a range of impacts, the lower and upper end of that range are distinguished as “Scoping A” and “Scoping B” respectively. For more details on the approaches to assessment used in previous assessments, refer to the source document referenced (SSE Renewables, 2022).
This in-combination assessment presents the full range of impact mortalities, as presented in the source material, and from that range considers the lowest value and the highest value presented for each other project (identified here as the approach applied by each project), in order to create a “low” approach total (which is typically either the project applicant’s preferred approach or the lower end of the SNCB approach) and a ”high” approach total (typically the more precautionary end of the SNCB approach).
Where quantitative assessment is not available in the source data for a project for a feature/site, this is shown as “N/A” in the tables in each assessment. If no quantitative information is available, this is indicative that the source assessment concluded, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, that the project had either no connectivity or a negligible impact on the feature/site.
In line with NatureScot’s comments on the Offshore HRA Screening Report (Ossian OWFL, 2023) ( Table 2.1 Open ▸ ), the assessment has been carried out both including impacts from Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm and excluding those impacts. Where the in-combination totals are sources from the Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm RIAA (SSE Renewables, 2022), Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm’s own impact is included in the UK North Sea regional totals (with the contribution from each project drawing on public domain information). Therefore, the scenario excluding impacts from Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm is calculated by simply subtracting the Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm alone impacts from the UK North Sea regional total (with results presented as low and high, based in the Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm Developer and Scoping B approaches).

Addendum: Green Volt Decision

It is noted that towards the finalisation of this RIAA, a decision on the Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm application was published, with consent granted by the Scottish Ministers (Scottish Government, 2024). Before reaching this decision, the Scottish Ministers carried out an Appropriate Assessment (Appendix B of Scottish Government, 2024) and concluded that an AEOI in-combination is either expected or cannot be ruled out for the following SPA and feature combinations that are relevant for the Array assessment:

Kittiwake at Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast SPA;
Kittiwake, guillemot and razorbill at East Caithness Cliffs SPA;
Gannet and puffin at Forth Islands SPA;
Kittiwake at Fowlsheugh SPA; and
Kittiwake at Troup, Pennan and Lion’s Head SPA.

Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm will be required to carry out compensation to mitigate its impact for all sites and features where an AEOI was not ruled out in the Appropriate Assessment (Appendix B of Scottish Government, 2024). Therefore, for those features, the net impact from Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm following compensation may be deemed to be zero. However, as this decision was published during the time that the in-combination assessments for the Array were undertaken in this RIAA, the in-combination totals for Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm have not been amended to reflect this requirement for compensation, and the predicted impact from Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm prior to compensation (as per Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm, 2023) have been included in the calculation of in-combination total impact values. Therefore, the totals presented in this RIAA for those features listed in paragraph 363 must be considered to have an extra element of precaution, as a result of the inclusion of impacts which will be compensated for. It is noted that the impacts from Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm alone tend to be a small proportion of the in-combination totals and therefore it is not anticipated that this degree of precaution would influence the conclusions and the determination of AEOI or no AEOI.

5.5.2. Disturbance and Displacement

Operation and Maintenance Phase

During the operational phase, seabirds may be impacted by a disturbance and/or displacement due to the physical presence of wind turbines, vessel traffic and helicopter activity. Disturbance and/or displacement may have consequent impacts on the survival or fitness of birds. If displacement limits seabird access to foraging areas, it can result in reduced energy intake and reduced foraging success. Displacement effects can also cause increased inter- and intra-specific competition for alternative foraging areas and prey resources.
The displacement and subsequent mortality rates used for the Array are given in Table 5.3 Open ▸ , although for this in-combination assessment, only the lowest and highest approach are taken through to assess the total range of impacts. For other developments, the displacement and mortality rates are as described in the data source referenced in each case.

Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast SPA

Kittiwake (seabird assemblage component only)

The source information regarding kittiwake disturbance mortality from other relevant projects is given in Table 5.62 Open ▸ .

Table 5.62: Kittiwake Displacement Mortalities Apportioned to the Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast SPA from Other Relevant Projects

Project(s)	Data Source	Approach	Adult Mortalities
Project(s)	Data Source	Approach	Pre-breeding Season	Breeding Season	Post-breeding	Annual Total
UK North Sea projects	SSE Renewables (2022)	Scoping A (30% disp 1% mort)	5	0.7	3.2	8.9
UK North Sea projects	SSE Renewables (2022)	Scoping B (30% disp 3% mort)	5	2	9.7	16.7
UK North Sea projects	SSE Renewables (2022)	Developer (30% disp 2% mort)	N/A	1.3	N/A	1.3
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm (2023)	30% disp 1% mort	0	0.1	0	0.1
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm (2023)	30% disp 3% mort	0	0.3	0	0.3
West of Orkney Wind Farm	Offshore Wind Power Limited (2023)	Already combined with collision	N/A	N/A	N/A	0.0
Pentland Floating Offshore Wind	Xodus Group Ltd (2022)	N/A	0	0	0	0.0
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm alone	SSE Renewables (2022)	Scoping A (30% disp 1% mort)	1	0.7	0.6	2.3
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm alone	SSE Renewables (2022)	Scoping B (30% disp 3% mort)	3	2	1.8	6.8
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm alone	SSE Renewables (2022)	Developer (30% disp 2% mort)	N/A	1.3	N/A	1.3

From this information, the various approaches have been consolidated into a “low” and a “high” estimate for the total in-combination impact. This is presented in Table 5.63 Open ▸ .

Table 5.63: Kittiwake Displacement Mortalities Apportioned to the Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast SPA In-Combination Totals

Project(s)	Adult mortalities
	Pre-Breeding Season		Breeding Season		Post-Breeding Season		Annual Total
	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High
UK North Sea projects	5.0	5.0	0.7	2.0	3.2	9.7	8.9	16.7
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	0.0	0.0	0.1	0.3	0.0	0.0	0.1	0.3
West of Orkney Wind Farm	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Pentland Floating Offshore Wind	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	1.0	3.0	0.7	2.0	0.6	1.8	2.3	6.8
Ossian	0.0	0.1	1.0	3.1	0.0	0.1	1.1	3.3
Total (including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm)	5.0	5.1	1.8	5.4	3.2	9.8	10.1	20.3
Total (excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm)	4.0	2.1	1.1	3.4	2.6	8.0	7.8	13.5

With a population of 22,590 breeding adults (Burnell et al., 2023), 7.8 to 20.3 additional mortalities represents a 0.035 to 0.090 percentage point increase in mortality rates. Therefore, PVA has been carried out both with and without Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm and for the high and low scenarios, to further assess the total in-combination impact.
The PVA results are summarised in Table 5.64 Open ▸ . Full details are available in appendix 3B.

Table 5.64: Summary of PVA Results for In-Combination Displacement Impacts on Kittiwake at the Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast SPA

Scenario	Approach	Adult Mortality	Citation Population (Breeding Adults)	Recent Population (Burnell et al., 2023) (breeding adults)	Median Unimpacted Population After 35 Years	Median Impacted Population After 35 Years	Median CGR	Median CPS
Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	Low	10.1	60,904	22,590	21,365	20,983	0.999	0.982
Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	High	20.3				20,601	0.999	0.963
Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	Low	7.8				21,034	1.000	0.986
Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	High	13.5				20,820	0.999	0.976

The kittiwake population of the Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast SPA has declined significantly between its citation level of 60,904 breeding adults and Seabird Census counts of 22,590 breeding adults (Burnell et al., 2023), and is assessed as being in “Unfavourable No Change” condition (NatureScot, ND). There have however been recent signs of slight recovery, with 13,547 AONs (27,094 individuals) recorded in 2023 (Tremlett et al, 2024).
The PVA results show that the kittiwake population is expected to remain relatively stable under the counterfactual (no impact) scenario and also under all impact scenarios considered. The median Counterfactual of Growth Rate (CGR) is, for all scenarios, at least 0.999 which indicates the population growth rate declines no more than 0.1%. After 35 years (the expected lifespan of the Array), the Counterfactual of Population Size (CPS) ranges from 0.963 (with Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm; High approach to assessment) to 0.986 (without Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm; Low approach to assessment).
Overall, therefore, the impact of displacement from the Array in combination with other projects is not of a magnitude that can be said to adversely affect the likelihood of the kittiwake population being maintained as a viable component of the site.

Breeding Seabird Assemblage

Of the components of the seabird assemblage, kittiwake was the only species for which a potential LSE2 was identified. As detailed above, there is expected to be no significant impact on the kittiwake population. Therefore, it can also be concluded, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, that there is no potential for an AEOI to the seabird assemblage feature of the Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast SPA as a result of displacement from the Array in combination with other developments.

Coquet Island SPA

Puffin (seabird assemblage component only)

The source information regarding puffin disturbance mortality from other relevant projects is given in Table 5.65 Open ▸ .

Table 5.65: Puffin Disturbance Mortalities Apportioned to the Coquet Island SPA From Other Relevant Projects

Project(s)	Data Source	Approach	Adult Mortalities
Project(s)	Data Source	Approach	Breeding Season	Non-breeding Season	Annual Total
UK North Sea projects	SSE Renewables (2022)	Scoping A	3.6	N/A	3.6
UK North Sea projects	SSE Renewables (2022)	Scoping B	6.0	N/A	6.0
UK North Sea projects	SSE Renewables (2022)	Developer	1.0	N/A	1.0
Pentland Floating Offshore Wind	Xodus Group Ltd (2022)	N/A	0.0	0.0	0.0
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm (2023)	SNCB Low (60% disp 3% mort)	0.0	0.0	0.0
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm (2023)	SNCB High (60% disp 5% mort)	0.0	0.0	0.0
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm (2023)	Developer (50% disp 1% mort)	N/A	0.0	0.0
West of Orkney Wind Farm	Offshore Wind Power Limited (2023)	Low	0.0	0.5	0.5
West of Orkney Wind Farm	Offshore Wind Power Limited (2023)	Mid	0.0	1.1	1.1
West of Orkney Wind Farm	Offshore Wind Power Limited (2023)	High	0.0	1.6	1.6
Outer Dowsing	Outer Dowsing Offshore Wind (2023)	30% disp & 1% mort	0.7	0.4	1.1
Outer Dowsing	Outer Dowsing Offshore Wind (2023)	70% disp & 10% mort	15.9	8.7	24.6
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm alone	SSE Renewables (2022)	Scoping A (60% disp 3% mort)	3.6	N/A	3.6
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm alone	SSE Renewables (2022)	Scoping B (60% disp 5% mort)	6.0	N/A	6.0
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm alone	SSE Renewables (2022)	Developer (50% disp 1% mort)	1.0	N/A	1.0

From this information, the various approaches have been consolidated into a “low” and a “high” estimate for the total in-combination impact. This is presented in Table 5.66 Open ▸ .

Table 5.66: Puffin Displacement Mortalities Apportioned to the Coquet Island SPA In-Combination Totals

Project(s)	Adult Mortalities
	Breeding Season		Non-Breeding Season		Annual Total
	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High
UK North Sea projects	1.0	6.0	0.0	0.0	1.0	6.0
Moray West	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
West of Orkney Wind Farm	0.0	0.0	0.5	1.6	0.5	1.6
Pentland Floating Offshore Wind	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Outer Dowsing	0.7	15.9	0.4	8.7	1.1	24.6
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	1.0	6.0	0.0	0.0	1.0	6.0
Ossian	1.6	9.9	N/A	N/A	1.6	9.9
Total (including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm)	3.3	31.8	0.9	10.3	4.3	42.1
Total (excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm)	2.3	25.8	0.9	10.3	3.3	36.1

With a population of 50,058 breeding adults (Burnell et al., 2023), 3.3 to 42.1 additional mortalities represents a 0.007 to 0.084 percentage point increase in mortality rates. Therefore, PVA has been carried out to further assess the total in-combination impact.
The PVA results are summarised in Table 5.67 Open ▸ . Full details are available in appendix 3B.

Table 5.67: Summary of PVA Results for In-Combination Displacement Impacts on Puffin at the Coquet Island SPA

Scenario	Approach	Adult Mortality	Citation Population (Breeding Adults)	Recent Population (Burnell et al., 2023) (Breeding Adults)	Median Unimpacted Population After 35 Years	Median Impacted Population After 35 Years	Median CGR	Median CPS
Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	Low	4.3	31,686	50,058	12,621	12,605	1.000	0.996
Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	High	42.1				12,258	0.999	0.965
Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	Low	3.3				12,694	1.000	0.997
Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	High	36.1				12,330	0.999	0.970

The puffin population of the Coquet Island SPA has increased significantly between its citation level of 31,686 breeding adults and recent counts of 50,058 breeding adults (Burnell et al., 2023).
Whilst the PVA results indicate a significant population decline from the current level even under the counterfactual scenario, given the positive growth observed at this site in recent years, that outcome is considered implausible for this site and so the assessment relies on the CPS and CGR. The limitations of the PVA model and available demographic parameters to specify as inputs mean that CPS and CGR are considered the most reliable metrics, as further detailed in appendix 3B. The median CGR is, for all scenarios and approaches, 0.999 to 1.000 which indicates the population growth rate declines by 0.1% or less. After 35 years (the expected lifespan of the Array), the CPS ranges from 0.965 to 0.997. Overall, therefore, the impact of displacement from the Array in combination with other projects is predicted to make no material impact on the puffin population compared to the counterfactual scenario.

Breeding Seabird Assemblage

Of the components of the seabird assemblage, puffin was the only species for which a potential LSE2 was identified. As detailed above, there is expected to be no significant impact on the puffin population. Therefore, it can also be concluded, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, that there is no potential for an AEOI to the seabird assemblage feature of the Coquet Island SPA as a result of displacement from the Array in combination with other developments.

East Caithness Cliffs SPA

Kittiwake

The source information regarding kittiwake disturbance mortality from other relevant projects is given in Table 5.68 Open ▸ .

Table 5.68: Kittiwake Displacement Mortalities Apportioned to the East Caithness Cliffs SPA from Other Relevant Projects

Project(s)	Data source	Approach	Adult Mortalities
Project(s)	Data source	Approach	Pre-breeding Season	Breeding Season	Post-breeding	Annual Total
UK North Sea projects	SSE Renewables (2022)	Scoping A	16	32.6	10.5	59.1
UK North Sea projects	SSE Renewables (2022)	Scoping B	48	97.7	31.4	177.1
UK North Sea projects	SSE Renewables (2022)	Developer	N/A	65.1	N/A	65.1
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm (2023)	30% disp 1% mort	0	0.1	0	0.1
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm (2023)	30% disp 3% mort	0.1	0.2	0.1	0.4
West of Orkney Wind Farm	Offshore Wind Power Limited (2023)	Already combined with collision	N/A	N/A	N/A	0.0
Pentland Floating Offshore Wind	Xodus Group Ltd (2022)	N/A	0	0.16	0	0.2
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm alone	SSE Renewables (2022)	Scoping A (30% disp 1% mort)	3.1	0	2	5.1
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm alone	SSE Renewables (2022)	Scoping B (30% disp 3% mort)	9.5	0.1	5.9	15.5
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm alone	SSE Renewables (2022)	Developer (30% disp 2% mort)	N/A	0.1	N/A	0.1

From this information, the various approaches have been consolidated into a “low” and a “high” estimate for the total in-combination impact. This is presented in Table 5.69 Open ▸ .

Table 5.69: Kittiwake Displacement Mortalities Apportioned to the East Caithness Cliffs SPA In-Combination Totals

Project(s)	Adult Mortalities
	Pre-Breeding Season		Breeding Season		Post-Breeding Season		Annual Total
	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High
UK North Sea projects	16.0	48.0	32.6	97.7	10.5	31.4	59.1	177.1
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	0.0	0.1	0.1	0.2	0.0	0.1	0.1	0.4
West of Orkney Wind Farm	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Pentland Floating Offshore Wind	0.0	0.0	0.2	0.2	0.0	0.0	0.2	0.2
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	3.1	9.5	0.0	0.1	2.0	5.9	5.1	15.5
Ossian	0.1	0.4	0.5	1.4	0.1	0.3	0.7	2.1
Total (Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm)	16.1	48.5	33.3	99.4	10.6	31.8	60.1	179.7
Total (Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm)	13.0	39.0	33.3	99.3	8.6	25.9	55.0	164.2

With a population of 48,958 breeding adults (Burnell et al, 2023), 55.0 to 179.7 additional mortalities represent a 0.112 to 0.367 percentage point increase in mortality rates. Therefore, PVA has been carried out both with and without Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm and for the high and low scenarios, to further assess the total in-combination impact.
The PVA results are summarised in Table 5.70 Open ▸ . Full details are available in appendix 3B.

Table 5.70: Summary of PVA results for In-Combination Displacement Impacts on Kittiwake at the East Caithness Cliffs SPA

Scenario	Approach	Adult Mortality	Citation Population (Breeding Adults)	Recent Population (Burnell et al., 2023) (Breeding Adults)	Median Unimpacted Population After 35 Years	Median Impacted Population After 35 Years	Median CGR	Median CPS
Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	Low	60.1	65,000	48,958	46,244	43,859	0.999	0.949
Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	High	179.7				39,446	0.996	0.855
Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	Low	55.0				44,109	0.999	0.954
Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	High	164.2				40,063	0.996	0.866

The kittiwake population of the East Caithness Cliffs SPA has declined slightly from its citation level of 65,000 breeding adults, with recent counts of 48,958 breeding adults (Burnell et al., 2023), although it is assessed as being in “Favourable Maintained” condition (NatureScot, ND).
The PVA results show that the kittiwake population is expected to remain relatively stable under the counterfactual (no impact) scenario. Under the impacted scenarios, the CGR is 0.999 under the “low” approach (whether including or excluding the impact of Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm) and 0.996 under the “high” approach (whether including or excluding the impact of Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm). This leads to a CPS after 35 years of 0.855 to 0.954 – i.e. the population size would be 4.6% to 14.5% smaller than the counterfactual population size.
Whilst this level of impact is small, it is not negligible and in the context of a population that is already declining, the additional mortality from the Array in combination with other projects and plans would appear to have the potential to adversely affect the likelihood of the site meeting its conservation objectives for all assessment scenarios and both with and without Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm. Therefore, it is concluded that there is a potential AEOI to the kittiwake feature of the East Caithness Cliffs SPA as a result of displacement impacts from the Array in-combination with other developments.

Breeding Seabird Assemblage

Of the components of the breeding seabird assemblage at the East Caithness Cliffs, only kittiwake was deemed to have any potential LSE2 ( Table 3.1 Open ▸ ). It is concluded (above) that there is a potential for an AEOI on the kittiwake feature as a result of the Array in-combination with other developments.
However, whilst there might be a negative effect on the kittiwake population, the magnitude of that effect is small. It is not considered a sufficiently large effect that it could be said to adversely affect the probability of kittiwake being maintained as a viable component of the seabird assemblage. Furthermore, as kittiwake is the only species being significantly impacted, it could not be said to adversely affect the probability of the total seabird assemblage being maintained. Therefore, it is concluded, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, that there is no potential for an AEOI to the seabird assemblage feature of the East Caithness Cliffs SPA resulting from the impact of displacement from the Array in-combination with other developments.

Farne Islands SPA

Kittiwake (seabird assemblage component only)

The source information regarding kittiwake disturbance mortality from other relevant projects is given in Table 5.71 Open ▸ .

Table 5.71: Kittiwake Displacement Mortalities Apportioned to the Farne Islands SPA from Other Relevant Projects

Project(s)	Data source	Approach	Adult Mortalities
Project(s)	Data source	Approach	Pre-breeding Season	Breeding Season	Post-breeding	Annual Total
UK North Sea projects	SSE Renewables (2022)	Scoping A	1.4	2.5	0.9	4.8
UK North Sea projects	SSE Renewables (2022)	Scoping B	4.1	7.5	2.7	14.3
UK North Sea projects	SSE Renewables (2022)	Developer	N/A	5.0	N/A	5.0
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm (2023)	30% disp 1% mort	0	0	0	0.0
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm (2023)	30% disp 3% mort	0	0	0	0.0
West of Orkney Wind Farm	Offshore Wind Power Limited (2023)	Already combined with collision	N/A	N/A	N/A	0.0
Pentland Floating Offshore Wind	Xodus Group Ltd (2022)	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	0.0
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm alone	SSE Renewables (2022)	Scoping A (30% disp 1% mort)	0.3	2.5	0.2	3.0
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm alone	SSE Renewables (2022)	Scoping B (30% disp 3% mort)	0.9	7.5	0.5	8.9
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm alone	SSE Renewables (2022)	Developer (30% disp 2% mort)	N/A	5.0	N/A	5.0

From this information, the various approaches have been consolidated into a “low” and a “high” estimate for the total in-combination impact. This is presented in Table 5.72 Open ▸ .

Table 5.72: Kittiwake Displacement Mortalities Apportioned to the Farne Islands SPA In-Combination Totals

Project(s)	Adult Mortalities
	Pre-Breeding Season		Breeding Season		Post-Breeding Season		Annual Total
	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High
UK North Sea projects	1.4	4.1	2.5	7.5	0.9	2.7	4.8	14.3
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
West of Orkney Wind Farm	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Pentland Floating Offshore Wind	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	0.0	0.0
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	0.3	0.9	2.5	7.5	0.2	0.5	3.0	8.9
Ossian	0.0	0.0	0.4	1.1	0.0	0.0	0.4	1.1
Total (including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm)	1.4	4.1	2.9	8.6	0.9	2.7	5.2	15.4
Total (excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm)	1.1	3.2	0.4	1.1	0.7	2.2	2.2	6.5

With a population of 8,804 breeding adults (Burnell et al, 2023), 2.2 to 15.4 additional mortalities represents a 0.025 to 0.175 percentage point increase in mortality rates. Therefore, PVA has been carried out both with and without Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm and for the high and low scenarios, to further assess the total in-combination impact.
The PVA results are summarised in Table 5.73 Open ▸ . Full details are available in appendix 3B.

Table 5.73: Summary of PVA Results for In-Combination Displacement Impacts on Kittiwake at the Farne Islands SPA

Scenario	Approach	Adult Mortality	Citation Population (Breeding Adults)	Recent Population (Burnell et al., 2023) (Breeding Adults)	Median Unimpacted Population After 35 Years	Median Impacted Population After 35 Years	Median CGR	Median CPS
Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	Low	5.2	8,241	8,804	8,312	8,128	0.999	0.976
Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	High	15.4				7,715	0.998	0.928
Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	Low	2.2				8,234	1.000	0.989
Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	High	6.5				8,016	0.999	0.968

The kittiwake population of the Farne Islands SPA has increased slightly from its citation level of 8,241 breeding adults to recent counts of 8,804 breeding adults (Burnell et al., 2023).
The PVA results show that the kittiwake population is expected to remain relatively stable under the counterfactual (no impact) scenario. Under the impacted scenarios, the CGR is 0.998 to 1.000. This leads to a CPS after 35 years of 0.928 to 0.989 – i.e. the population size would be 1.1% to 7.2% smaller than the counterfactual population size.
Overall, therefore, the impact of displacement from the Array in combination with other projects is predicted to make no material impact on the kittiwake population compared to the counterfactual scenario.

Puffin (seabird assemblage component only)

The source information regarding puffin disturbance mortality from other relevant projects is given in Table 5.74 Open ▸ .

Table 5.74: Puffin Disturbance Mortalities Apportioned to the Farne Islands SPA from Other Relevant Projects

Project(s)	Data Source	Approach	Adult Mortalities
Project(s)	Data Source	Approach	Breeding Season	Non-breeding Season	Annual Total
UK North Sea projects	SSE Renewables (2022)	Scoping A	17.3	N/A	17.3
UK North Sea projects	SSE Renewables (2022)	Scoping B	28.8	N/A	28.8
UK North Sea projects	SSE Renewables (2022)	Developer	4.9	N/A	4.9
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm (2023)	SNCB Low (60% disp 3% mort)	0	0.0	0.0
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm (2023)	SNCB High (60% disp 5% mort)	0	0.1	0.1
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm (2023)	Developer (50% disp 1% mort)	0	0.0	0.0
West of Orkney Wind Farm	Offshore Wind Power Limited (2023)	Low	0	1.7	1.7
West of Orkney Wind Farm	Offshore Wind Power Limited (2023)	Mid	0	3.4	3.4
West of Orkney Wind Farm	Offshore Wind Power Limited (2023)	High	0	5.2	5.2
Pentland Floating Offshore Wind	Xodus Group Ltd (2022)	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Outer Dowsing	Outer Dowsing Offshore Wind (2023)	30% disp & 1% mort	0	1.2	1.2
Outer Dowsing	Outer Dowsing Offshore Wind (2023)	70% disp & 10% mort	0	28.2	28.2
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm alone	SSE Renewables (2022)	Scoping A (60% disp 3% mort)	12.9	N/A	12.9
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm alone	SSE Renewables (2022)	Scoping B (60% disp 5% mort)	21.4	N/A	21.4
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm alone	SSE Renewables (2022)	Developer (50% disp 1% mort)	3.6	N/A	3.6

From this information, the various approaches have been consolidated into a “low” and a “high” estimate for the total in-combination impact. This is presented in Table 5.75 Open ▸ .

Table 5.75: Puffin Displacement Mortalities Apportioned to the Farne Islands SPA In-Combination Totals

Project(s)	Adult Mortalities
	Breeding Season		Non-Breeding Season		Annual Total
	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High
UK North Sea projects	4.9	28.8	0.0	0.0	4.9	28.8
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.1	0.0	0.1
West of Orkney Wind Farm	0.0	0.0	1.7	5.2	1.7	5.2
Pentland Floating Offshore Wind	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Outer Dowsing	0.0	0.0	1.2	28.2	1.2	28.2
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	3.6	21.4	0.0	0.0	3.6	21.4
Ossian	2.0	12.1	N/A	N/A	2.0	12.1
Total (Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm)	6.9	40.9	2.9	33.5	9.8	74.4
Total (Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm)	3.3	19.5	2.9	33.5	6.2	53.0

With a population of 87,504 breeding adults (Burnell et al., 2023), 6.2 to 74.4 additional mortalities represents a 0.007 to 0.085 percentage point increase in mortality rates. Therefore, PVA has been carried out to further assess the total in-combination impact.
The PVA results are summarised in Table 5.76 Open ▸ . Full details are available in appendix 3B.

Table 5.76: Summary of PVA Results for In-Combination Displacement Impacts on Puffin at the Farne Islands SPA

Scenario	Approach	Adult Mortality	Citation Population (Breeding Adults)	Recent Population (Burnell et al., 2023) (Breeding Adults)	Median Unimpacted Population After 35 Years	Median Impacted Population After 35 Years	Median CGR	Median CPS
Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	Low	9.8	76,798	87,504	22,153	22,088	1.000	0.996
Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	High	74.4				21,349	0.999	0.965
Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	Low	6.2				22,040	1.000	0.997
Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	High	53.0				21,567	0.999	0.975

The puffin population of the Farne Islands SPA has increased between its citation level of 76,798 breeding adults and recent counts of 87,504 breeding adults (Burnell et al., 2023).
Whilst the PVA results indicate a substantial population decline from the current level, given the growth observed at this site in recent years, that outcome is considered implausible for this site and so the assessment relies on the CPS and CGR. The limitations of the PVA model and available demographic parameters to specify as inputs mean that CPS and CGR are considered the most reliable metrics, as further detailed in appendix 3B. The median CGR is, for all scenarios and approaches, 0.999 to 1.000 which indicates the population growth rate declines no more than 0.1%. After 35 years (the expected lifespan of the Array), the CPS ranges from 0.965 to 0.997. Overall, therefore, the impact of displacement from the Array in combination with other projects is predicted to make no material impact on the puffin population compared to the counterfactual scenario.

Breeding Seabird Assemblage

The assessments carried out above conclude that there is no material impact resulting from displacement on the puffin or kittiwake components of the breeding seabird assemblage at the Farne Islands SPA. No other component was found to have any potential for a LSE2. Therefore, it can be concluded, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, that there is no potential for an AEOI to the seabird assemblage feature of the Farne Islands SPA as a result of displacement impacts from the Array in-combination with other developments.

Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA

Kittiwake

The source information regarding kittiwake disturbance mortality from other relevant projects is given in Table 5.77 Open ▸ .

Table 5.77: Kittiwake Displacement Mortalities Apportioned to the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA from Other Relevant Projects

Project(s)	Data Source	Approach	Adult Mortalities
Project(s)	Data Source	Approach	Pre-breeding Season	Breeding Season	Post-breeding	Annual Total
UK North Sea projects	SSE Renewables (2022)	Scoping A	14.9	3.8	3.9	22.6
UK North Sea projects	SSE Renewables (2022)	Scoping B	44.7	11.3	11.6	67.6
UK North Sea projects	SSE Renewables (2022)	Developer	N/A	7.6	N/A	7.6
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm (2023)	30% disp 1% mort	0	0.1	0	0.1
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm (2023)	30% disp 3% mort	0.1	0.2	0	0.3
West of Orkney Wind Farm	Offshore Wind Power Limited (2023)	Already combined with collision	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Pentland Floating Offshore Wind	Xodus Group Ltd (2022)	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm alone	SSE Renewables (2022)	Scoping A (30% disp 1% mort)	3	0	1.8	4.8
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm alone	SSE Renewables (2022)	Scoping B (30% disp 3% mort)	8.9	0.1	5.5	14.5
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm alone	SSE Renewables (2022)	Developer (30% disp 2% mort)	N/A	0.1	N/A	0.1

From this information, the various approaches have been consolidated into a “low” and a “high” estimate for the total in-combination impact. This is presented in Table 5.78 Open ▸ .

Table 5.78: Kittiwake Displacement Mortalities Apportioned to the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA In-Combination Totals

Project(s)	Adult Mortalities
	Pre-Breeding Season		Breeding Season		Post-Breeding Season		Annual Total
	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High
UK North Sea projects	14.9	44.7	3.8	11.3	3.9	11.6	22.6	67.6
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	0.0	0.1	0.1	0.2	0.0	0.0	0.1	0.3
West of Orkney Wind Farm	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Pentland Floating Offshore Wind	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	3.0	8.9	0.0	0.1	1.8	5.5	4.8	14.5
Ossian	0.1	0.4	0.9	2.7	0.1	0.3	1.1	3.3
Total (Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm)	15.0	45.2	4.8	14.2	4.0	11.9	23.8	71.2
Total (Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm)	12.0	36.3	4.8	14.1	2.2	6.4	19.0	56.7

With a population of 91,008 breeding adults (Burnell et al, 2023), 19.0 to 71.2 additional mortalities represents a 0.021 to 0.078 percentage point increase in mortality rates. Therefore, PVA has been carried out both with and without Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm and for the high and low scenarios, to further assess the total in-combination impact.
The PVA results are summarised in Table 5.79 Open ▸ . Full details are available in appendix 3B.

Table 5.79: Summary of PVA Results for In-Combination Displacement Impacts on Kittiwake at the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA

Scenario	Approach	Adult Mortality	Citation Population (Breeding Adults)	Recent Population (Burnell et al., 2023) (Breeding Adults)	Median Unimpacted Population After 35 Years	Median Impacted Population After 35 Years	Median CGR	Median CPS
Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	Low	23.8	89,040	91,008	86,128	85,096	1.000	0.989
Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	High	71.2				83,076	0.999	0.967
Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	Low	19.0				85,365	1.000	0.991
Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	High	56.7				83,772	0.999	0.974

The kittiwake population of the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA has increased slightly from its citation level of 89,040 breeding adults to recent counts of 91,008 breeding adults (Burnell et al., 2023).
The PVA results show that the kittiwake population is expected to remain relatively stable under the counterfactual (no impact) scenario. Under the impacted scenarios, the CGR is 0.999 to 1.000. This leads to a CPS after 35 years of 0.967 to 0.991 – i.e. the population size would be 0.9% to 3.3% smaller than the counterfactual population size.
Overall, therefore, the impact of displacement from the Array in combination with other projects is predicted to make no material impact on the kittiwake population compared to the counterfactual scenario, and it can be concluded, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, that there is no potential for an AEOI on the kittiwake feature of the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA as a result of displacement from the Array in-combination with other developments.

Gannet

The source information regarding gannet disturbance mortality from other relevant projects is given in Table 5.80 Open ▸ .

Table 5.80: Gannet Displacement Mortalities Apportioned to the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA from Other Relevant Projects

Project(s)	Data Source	Approach	Adult Mortalities
Project(s)	Data Source	Approach	Pre-breeding Season	Breeding Season	Post-breeding	Annual Total
UK North Sea projects	SSE Renewables (2022)	Scoping A	2.2	60	5.8	68.0
UK North Sea projects	SSE Renewables (2022)	Scoping B	6.5	180.1	17.3	203.9
UK North Sea projects	SSE Renewables (2022)	Developer	2.2	60	5.8	68.0
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm (2023)	SNCB Low	0	0	0	0.0
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm (2023)	SNCB High	0.1	0.1	0	0.2
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm (2023)	Developer Low	0	0	0	0.0
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm (2023)	Developer High	0	0	0	0.0
West of Orkney Wind Farm	Offshore Wind Power Limited (2023)	Already combined with collision	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Pentland Floating Offshore Wind	Xodus Group Ltd (2022)	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
SEP & DEP	Equinor (2023)	60% disp & 1% mort	0.024	2.022	0.186	2.2
SEP & DEP	Equinor (2023)	70% disp & 1% mort	0.028	2.359	0.217	2.6
SEP & DEP	Equinor (2023)	80% disp & 1% mort	0.032	2.696	0.248	3.0
Five Estuaries	Five Estuaries Wind Farm Ltd (2023)	60% disp & 1% mort	0	0.4	0.2	0.6
Five Estuaries	Five Estuaries Wind Farm Ltd (2023)	80% disp & 1% mort	0	0.5	0.2	0.7
Outer Dowsing	Outer Dowsing Offshore Wind (2023)	60% disp & 1% mort	0	2.5	0	2.5
Outer Dowsing	Outer Dowsing Offshore Wind (2023)	80% disp & 1% mort	0.1	3.4	0.1	3.6
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm alone	SSE Renewables (2022)	Scoping A (70% disp 1% mort)	0.1	0.4	0.2	0.7
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm alone	SSE Renewables (2022)	Scoping B (70% disp 3% mort)	0.2	1.2	0.7	2.1
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm alone	SSE Renewables (2022)	Developer (70% disp 1% mort)	0.1	0.4	0.2	0.7

From this information, the various approaches have been consolidated into a “low” and a “high” estimate for the total in-combination impact. This is presented in Table 5.81 Open ▸ .

Table 5.81: Gannet Displacement Mortalities Apportioned to the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA In-Combination Totals

Project(s)	Adult Mortalities
	Pre-Breeding Season		Breeding Season		Post-Breeding Season		Annual Total
	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High
UK North Sea projects	2.2	6.5	60.0	180.1	5.8	17.3	68.0	203.9
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	0.0	0.1	0.0	0.1	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.2
West of Orkney Wind Farm	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Pentland Floating Offshore Wind	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
SEP & DEP	0.0	0.0	2.0	2.7	0.2	0.2	2.2	3.0
Five Estuaries	0.0	0.0	0.4	0.5	0.2	0.2	0.6	0.7
Outer Dowsing	0.0	0.1	2.5	3.4	0.0	0.1	2.5	3.6
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	0.1	0.2	0.4	1.2	0.2	0.7	0.7	2.1
Ossian	0.0	0.1	0.4	1.3	0.3	0.8	0.7	2.1
Total (Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm)	2.2	6.8	65.3	188.1	6.4	18.6	74.0	213.5
Total (Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm)	2.1	6.6	64.9	186.9	6.2	17.9	73.3	211.4

With a population of 26,784 breeding adults (Burnell et al, 2023), 73.3 to 213.5 additional mortalities represents a 0.274 to 0.797 percentage point increase in mortality rates. Therefore, PVA has been carried out both with and without Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm and for the high and low scenarios, to further assess the total in-combination impact.
The PVA results are summarised in Table 5.82 Open ▸ . Full details are available in appendix 3B.

Table 5.82: Summary of PVA Results for In-Combination Displacement Impacts on Gannet at the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA

Scenario	Approach	Adult Mortality	Citation Population (Breeding Adults)	Recent Population (Burnell et al., 2023) (Breeding Adults)	Median Unimpacted Population After 35 Years	Median Impacted Population After 35 Years	Median CGR	Median CPS
Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	Low	74.0	16,938	26,784	36,005	31,997	0.997	0.889
Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	High	213.5				25,673	0.991	0.713
Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	Low	73.3				32,018	0.997	0.890
Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	High	211.4				25,716	0.991	0.715

The gannet population of the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA has increased between its citation level of 16,938 breeding adults and recent counts of 26,784 breeding adults (Burnell et al., 2023).
Under the “low” approach, the median CGR is 0.997 (whether including or excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm) which indicates the population growth rate declines no more than 0.3%. After 35 years (the expected lifespan of the Array), the CPS ranges from 0.889 to 0.890.
Under the “high” approach, the median CGR is 0.991 (whether including or excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm) which indicates the population growth rate declines by 0.9% compared to the counterfactual. After 35 years (the expected lifespan of the Array), the CPS ranges from 0.713 to 0.715.
Under either approach, the level of impact is small, but considered of sufficient magnitude to be distinguishable from natural fluctuations. However, given that the gannet population of the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA has increased from its citation level, the magnitude of impact is insufficient to create an impact that could be said to have an adverse effect on the population continuing to meet the site’s conservation objectives relating to maintaining the species’ population abundance.
Therefore, it is concluded, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, that there is no potential for an AEOI to the gannet feature of the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA as a result of displacement from the Array in combination with other assessments.

Breeding Seabird Assemblage

Of the components of the breeding seabird assemblage, only kittiwake and gannet were found to have any potential LSE2. Guillemot was also screened in at the request of Natural England, but following the advice in NatureScot (2023d), no impact from the Array is apportioned to guillemots breeding at Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA. The assessments carried out for kittiwake and gannet (above) conclude there is no adverse effect on those features resulting from the displacement impact of the Array in-combination with other developments.
Therefore, it is also concluded, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, that there is no potential for an AEOI to the breeding seabird assemblage feature of the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA as a result of displacement from the Array in combination with other assessments.

Forth Islands SPA

Kittiwake (seabird assemblage component only)

The source information regarding kittiwake disturbance mortality from other relevant projects is given in Table 5.83 Open ▸ .

Table 5.83: Kittiwake Displacement Mortalities Apportioned to the Forth Islands SPA from Other Relevant Projects

Project(s)	Data Source	Approach	Adult Mortalities
Project(s)	Data Source	Approach	Pre-breeding Season	Breeding Season	Post-breeding	Annual Total
UK North Sea projects	SSE Renewables (2022)	Scoping A	1.2	8.9	0.8	10.9
UK North Sea projects	SSE Renewables (2022)	Scoping B	3.7	26.6	2.4	32.7
UK North Sea projects	SSE Renewables (2022)	Developer	N/A	17.7	N/A	17.7
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm (2023)	30% disp 1% mort	0	0	0	0.0
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm (2023)	30% disp 3% mort	0	0	0	0.0
West of Orkney Wind Farm	Offshore Wind Power Limited (2023)	Already combined with collision	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Pentland Floating Offshore Wind	Xodus Group Ltd (2022)	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm alone	SSE Renewables (2022)	Scoping A (30% disp 1% mort)	0.2	3.2	0.1	3.5
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm alone	SSE Renewables (2022)	Scoping B (30% disp 3% mort)	0.7	9.5	0.4	10.6
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm alone	SSE Renewables (2022)	Developer (30% disp 2% mort)	N/A	6.3	N/A	6.3

From this information, the various approaches have been consolidated into a “low” and a “high” estimate for the total in-combination impact. This is presented in Table 5.84 Open ▸ .

Table 5.84: Kittiwake Displacement Mortalities Apportioned to the Forth Islands SPA In-Combination Totals

Project(s)	Adult Mortalities
	Pre-Breeding Season		Breeding Season		Post-Breeding Season		Annual Total
	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High
UK North Sea projects	1.2	3.7	8.9	26.6	0.8	2.4	10.9	32.7
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
West of Orkney Wind Farm	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Pentland Floating Offshore Wind	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	0.0	0.0
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	0.2	0.7	3.2	9.5	0.1	0.4	3.5	10.6
Ossian	0.0	0.0	0.3	1.0	0.0	0.0	0.3	1.0
Total (Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm)	1.2	3.7	9.2	27.6	0.8	2.4	11.2	33.7
Total (Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm)	1.0	3.0	6.0	18.1	0.7	2.0	7.7	23.1

With a population of 9,084 breeding adults (Burnell et al, 2023), 7.7 to 33.7 additional mortalities represents a 0.085 to 0.371 percentage point increase in mortality rates. Therefore, PVA has been carried out both with and without Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm and for the high and low scenarios, to further assess the total in-combination impact.
The PVA results are summarised in Table 5.85 Open ▸ . Full details are available in appendix 3B.

Table 5.85: Summary of PVA Results for In-Combination Displacement Impacts on Kittiwake at the Forth Islands SPA

Scenario	Approach	Adult Mortality	Citation Population (Breeding Adults)	Recent Population (Burnell et al., 2023) (breeding adults)	Median Unimpacted Population After 35 Years	Median Impacted Population After 35 Years	Median CGR	Median CPS
Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	Low	11.2	16,800	9,084	8,571	8,141	0.999	0.948
Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	High	33.7				7,320	0.996	0.853
Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	Low	7.7				8,240	0.999	0.964
Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	High	23.1				7,693	0.997	0.897

The kittiwake population of the Forth Islands SPA has decreased between its citation level of 16,800 breeding adults and recent counts of 9,084 breeding adults (Burnell et al., 2023).
The PVA results show that the kittiwake population is expected to remain relatively stable under the counterfactual (no impact) scenario. Under the impacted scenarios, the CGR is 0.996 to 0.999. This leads to a CPS after 35 years of 0.853 to 0.964 – i.e. the population size would be 3.6% to 14.7% smaller than the counterfactual population size.
Under the “low” approach, whether or not Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm is included, the magnitude of the impact is considered to be negligible. However, under the “high” approach, the impact, whilst small, is of a magnitude that cannot be considered negligible. Given the population has already declined from its citation level, even this small impact has the potential to adversely affect the kittiwake population. However, kittiwake is not a qualifying feature it its own right, and instead only qualifies as a named component of the breeding seabird assemblage.

Puffin

The source information regarding puffin disturbance mortality from other relevant projects is given in Table 5.86 Open ▸ .

Table 5.86: Puffin Disturbance Mortalities Apportioned to the Forth Islands SPA from Other Relevant Projects

Project(s)	Data Source	Approach	Adult Mortalities
Project(s)	Data Source	Approach	Breeding Season	Non-breeding Season	Annual Total
UK North Sea projects	SSE Renewables (2022)	Scoping A	159.4	N/A	159.4
UK North Sea projects	SSE Renewables (2022)	Scoping B	265.5	N/A	265.5
UK North Sea projects	SSE Renewables (2022)	Developer	44.3	N/A	44.3
Pentland Floating Offshore Wind	Xodus Group Ltd (2022)	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm (2023)	SNCB Low	0.4	0.0	0.4
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm (2023)	SNCB High	0.6	0.0	0.6
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm (2023)	Developer 50% disp 1% mort	0.1	0.0	0.1
West of Orkney Wind Farm	Offshore Wind Power Limited (2023)	Low	0	0.5	0.5
West of Orkney Wind Farm	Offshore Wind Power Limited (2023)	Mid	0	1.1	1.1
West of Orkney Wind Farm	Offshore Wind Power Limited (2023)	High	0	1.6	1.6
SEP & DEP	Equinor (2022)	30% disp & 1% mort	0	0.0	0.0
SEP & DEP	Equinor (2022)	70% disp & 10% mort	0	0.6	0.6
Outer Dowsing	Outer Dowsing Offshore Wind (2023)	50% disp & 1% mort	N/A	N/A	3.1*
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm alone	SSE Renewables (2022)	Scoping B (60% disp 3% mort)	18.2	N/A	18.2
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm alone	SSE Renewables (2022)	Scoping B (60% disp 5% mort)	30.2	N/A	30.2
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm alone	SSE Renewables (2022)	Developer (50% disp 1% mort)	5.1	N/A	5.1

*Apportioned impacts only presented on an annual basis in source document.

From this information, the various approaches have been consolidated into a “low” and a “high” estimate for the total in-combination impact. This is presented in Table 5.87 Open ▸ .

Table 5.87: Puffin Displacement Mortalities Apportioned to the Forth Islands SPA In-Combination Totals

Project(s)	Adult Mortalities
	Breeding Season		Non-Breeding Season		Annual Total
	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High
UK North Sea projects	44.3	265.5	0.0	0.0	44.3	265.5
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	0.1	0.6	0.0	0.0	0.1	0.6
West of Orkney Wind Farm	0.0	0.0	0.5	1.6	0.5	1.6
Pentland Floating Offshore Wind	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	0.0	0.0
SEP & DEP	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.6	0.0	0.6
Outer Dowsing	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	3.1	3.1
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	5.1	30.2	0.0	0.0	5.1	30.2
Ossian	3.8	22.8	N/A	N/A	3.8	22.8
Total (Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm)	48.2	288.9	0.6	2.2	51.8	294.2
Total (Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm)	43.1	258.7	0.6	2.2	46.7	264.0

With a population of 85,846 breeding adults (Burnell et al., 2023), 46.7 to 294.2 additional mortalities represents a 0.054 to 0.343 percentage point increase in mortality rates. Therefore, PVA has been carried out to further assess the total in-combination impact.
The PVA results are summarised in Table 5.88 Open ▸ . Full details are available in appendix 3B.

Table 5.88: Summary of PVA Results for In-Combination Displacement Impacts on Puffin at the Forth Islands SPA

Scenario	Approach	Adult Mortality	Citation Population (Breeding Adults)	Recent Population (Burnell et al., 2023) (Breeding Adults)	Median Unimpacted Population After 35 Years	Median Impacted Population After 35 Years	Median CGR	Median CPS
Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	Low	51.8	28,000	85,846	21,784	21,191	0.999	0.975
Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	High	294.2				18,787	0.996	0.865
Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	Low	46.7				21,200	0.999	0.977
Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	High	264.0				19,064	0.996	0.878

The puffin population of the Forth Islands SPA has increased between its citation level of 28,000 breeding adults and recent counts of 87,504 breeding adults (Burnell et al., 2023).
Whilst the PVA results indicate a significant population decline from the current level, given the beneficial growth observed at this site in recent years, that outcome is considered implausible for this site and so the assessment relies on the CPS and CGR, as explained in appendix 3B.
Under the “low” approach, the median CGR is 0.999 (whether including or excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm) which indicates the population growth rate declines no more than 0.1%. After 35 years (the expected lifespan of the Array), the CPS ranges from 0.975 to 0.977. Overall, therefore, the impact of displacement from the Array in combination with other projects is predicted to make no material impact on the puffin population compared to the counterfactual scenario.
Under the “high” approach, the median CGR is 0.996 (whether including or excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm) which indicates the population growth rate declines by 0.4% compared to the counterfactual. After 35 years (the expected lifespan of the Array), the CPS ranges from 0.865 to 0.878. This level of impact is small, but considered of sufficient magnitude to be distinguishable from natural fluctuations. However, given that the puffin population of the Forth Islands SPA has increased dramatically, the magnitude of impact is insufficient to create an impact that could be said to have an adverse effect on the population continuing to meet the site’s conservation objectives.
Therefore, it is concluded, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, that there is no potential for an AEOI to the puffin feature of the Forth Islands SPA as a result of displacement from the Array in combination with other developments.
It is noted that the Scottish Ministers were unable to conclude no AEOI for the puffin feature of Forth Islands SPA from the Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm in-combination with other North Sea wind farms (Scottish Government, 2024). However, that conclusion was based on Green Volt’s PVA result indicating a CPS of 0.372 and CGR of 0.973, which represents a level of impact substantially higher than the predicted PVA impact demonstrated in this RIAA in Table 5.88 Open ▸ (CGR ranging from 0.999 to 0.996). Therefore, the conclusion drawn by the Scottish Ministers for the puffin feature of the Forth Islands in the Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm Appropriate Assessment (Appendix B of Scottish Government, 2024) does not affect the conclusion of no potential for AEOI drawn for this RIAA.

Gannet

The source information regarding gannet disturbance mortality from other relevant projects is given in Table 5.89 Open ▸ .

Table 5.89: Gannet Displacement Mortalities Apportioned to the Forth Islands SPA from Other Relevant Projects

Project(s)	Data Source	Approach	Adult Mortalities
Project(s)	Data Source	Approach	Pre-breeding Season	Breeding Season	Post-breeding	Annual Total
UK North Sea projects	SSE Renewables (2022)	Scoping A	7.4	102.5	33.9	143.8
UK North Sea projects	SSE Renewables (2022)	Scoping B	22.3	305.6	101.4	429.3
UK North Sea projects	SSE Renewables (2022)	Developer	7.4	102.5	33.9	143.8
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm (2023)	SNCB Low	0.2	0.3	0	0.5
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm (2023)	SNCB High	0.5	0.9	0.1	1.5
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm (2023)	Developer Low	0.1	0.2	0	0.3
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm (2023)	Developer High	0.2	0.2	0	0.4
West of Orkney Wind Farm	Offshore Wind Power Limited (2023)	Already combined with collision	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Pentland Floating Offshore Wind	Xodus Group Ltd (2022)	N/A	0	0.11	0	0.1
SEP & DEP	Equinor (2022)	60% disp & 1% mort	0.102	0	0.87	1.0
SEP & DEP	Equinor (2022)	70% disp & 1% mort	0.119	0	1.015	1.1
SEP & DEP	Equinor (2022)	80% disp & 1% mort	0.136	0	1.16	1.3
Outer Dowsing	Outer Dowsing Offshore Wind (2023)	70% disp & 1% mort	N/A	N/A	N/A	0.5*
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm alone	SSE Renewables (2022)	Scoping A (70% disp 1% mort)	0.7	29.4	2	32.1
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm alone	SSE Renewables (2022)	Scoping B (70% disp 3% mort)	2	86.5	5.7	94.2
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm alone	SSE Renewables (2022)	Developer (70% disp 1% mort)	0.7	29.4	2	32.1

*Apportioned impacts only presented on an annual basis in source document.

From this information, the various approaches have been consolidated into a “low” and a “high” estimate for the total in-combination impact. This is presented in Table 5.90 Open ▸ .

Table 5.90: Gannet Displacement Mortalities Apportioned to the Forth Islands SPA In-Combination Totals

Project(s)	Adult Mortalities
	Pre-Breeding Season		Breeding Season		Post-Breeding Season		Annual Total
	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High
UK North Sea projects	7.4	22.3	102.5	305.6	33.9	101.4	143.8	429.3
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	0.1	0.5	0.2	0.9	0.0	0.1	0.3	1.5
West of Orkney Wind Farm	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Pentland Floating Offshore Wind	0.0	0.0	0.1	0.1	0.0	0.0	0.1	0.1
SEP & DEP	0.1	0.1	0.0	0.0	0.9	1.2	1.0	1.3
Outer Dowsing	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	0.5	0.5
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	0.7	2.0	29.4	86.5	2.0	5.7	32.1	94.2
Ossian	0.1	0.3	6.9	20.6	1.3	4.0	8.3	24.8
Total (Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm)	7.7	23.2	109.7	327.2	36.1	106.6	154.0	457.5
Total (Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm)	7.0	21.2	80.3	240.7	34.1	100.9	121.9	363.3

With a population of 150,518 breeding adults (Burnell et al., 2023), 121.9 to 457.5 additional mortalities represents a 0.081 to 0.304 percentage point increase in mortality rates. Therefore, PVA has been carried out both with and without Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm and for the high and low scenarios, to further assess the total in-combination impact.
The PVA results are summarised in Table 5.91 Open ▸ . Full details are available in appendix 3B.

Table 5.91: Summary of PVA Results for In-Combination Displacement Impacts on Gannet at the Forth Islands SPA

Scenario	Approach	Adult Mortality	Citation Population (Breeding Adults)	Recent Population (Burnell et al., 2023) (Breeding Adults)	Median Unimpacted Population After 35 Years	Median Impacted Population After 35 Years	Median CGR	Median CPS
Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	Low	154.0	43,200	150,518	202,303	194,059	0.999	0.958
Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	High	457.5				178,041	0.996	0.879
Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	Low	121.9				195,553	0.999	0.966
Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	High	363.3				182,895	0.997	0.903

The gannet population of the Forth Islands SPA increased significantly from its citation level of 43,200 breeding adults to counts of 150,518 breeding adults from the census conducted in 2014 as part of the gannet census (Burnell et al., 2023). However, that data pre-dates the HPAI outbreak. Counts conducted in 2023 estimate the gannet population of Bass Rock to be 51,844 AOS (103,688 breeding adults), representing a significant decline (Harris et al., 2023). Whilst this decline is dramatic, the population remains above its citation level, and the available evidence suggests that the population is already showing signs of recovery (Tyndall et al., 2024). It is evident from the prior growth that there are ample suitable nesting sites on Bass Rock, and sufficient prey within foraging range to support a larger population. Therefore, it would be expected that the population will be able to rapidly recover.
The CGR ranges from 0.996 to 0.999. The CPS ranges from 0.879 to 0.966. Given the significant growth of the gannet population prior to the HPAI outbreak, and given recent evidence that the population size is growing again, this level of impact is not of a magnitude that is expected to adversely affect the population from meeting its conservation objectives.
Therefore, it is concluded, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, that there is no potential for an AEOI to the gannet feature of the Forth Islands SPA as a result of displacement from the Array in combination with other developments.

Breeding Seabird Assemblage

Of the components of the breeding assemblage, a potential LSE2 was identified for kittiwake, puffin and gannet. For each of those species, an assessment of the impact of displacement from the Array in-combination with other developments is provided above. It is concluded, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, that there is no potential for an AEOI to the gannet feature nor to the puffin feature. Kittiwake is not a feature of the site in its own right and is only included as a component of the assemblage. It was concluded that there is a potential for an adverse effect on the population size of the kittiwake feature under the High approach to assessment.
However, whilst, under the most precautionary approach to assessment, there might be a negative effect on the kittiwake population, the magnitude of that effect is small.Under the high approach to assessment including Berwick Bank, the CPS is 0.853, which indicates a population size 14.7% smaller than the counterfactual. Whilst such a decline may be distinguishable from natural variation, it is not considered a sufficiently large effect that it could be said to adversely affect the probability of kittiwake being maintained as a viable component of the seabird assemblage. Even if slightly lower in abundance, kittiwake would still be present as a functional breeding component of the site. Furthermore, as kittiwake is the only species being significantly impacted, the impact on the overall seabird assemblage size would be negligible, and not of a magnitude that would be detectable compared to natural variation, when considering the amount of variation that could arise across all component species (as noted above, both gannet and puffin have shown substantial population growth compared to their citation abundances). It should also be reiterated that the displacement and mortality rates applied under the “High” approach to assessment are not considered compatible with the best available science (see section 5.2.2). Therefore, it is concluded, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, that there is no potential for an AEOI to the seabird assemblage feature of the Forth Islands SPA.

Fowlsheugh SPA

Kittiwake

The source information regarding kittiwake disturbance mortality from other relevant projects is given in Table 5.92 Open ▸ .

Table 5.92: Kittiwake Displacement Mortalities Apportioned to the Fowlsheugh SPA from Other Relevant Projects

Project(s)	Data Source	Approach	Adult Mortalities
Project(s)	Data Source	Approach	Pre-Breeding Season	Breeding Season	Post-Breeding	Annual Total
UK North Sea projects	SSE Renewables (2022)	Scoping A	3.7	20	2.4	26.1
UK North Sea projects	SSE Renewables (2022)	Scoping B	11.1	59.8	7.2	78.1
UK North Sea projects	SSE Renewables (2022)	Developer	N/A	39.8	N/A	39.8
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm (2023)	30% disp 1% mort	0	0.1	0	0.1
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm (2023)	30% disp 3% mort	0	0.2	0	0.2
West of Orkney Wind Farm	Offshore Wind Power Limited (2023)	Already combined with collision	N/A	N/A	N/A	0.0
Pentland Floating Offshore Wind	Xodus Group Ltd (2022)	N/A	0	0	0	0.0
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm alone	SSE Renewables (2022)	Scoping A (30% disp 1% mort)	0.7	9.6	0.4	10.7
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm alone	SSE Renewables (2022)	Scoping B (30% disp 3% mort)	2.2	28.6	1.3	32.1
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm alone	SSE Renewables (2022)	Developer (30% disp 2% mort)	N/A	19	N/A	19.0

From this information, the various approaches have been consolidated into a “low” and a “high” estimate for the total in-combination impact. This is presented in Table 5.93 Open ▸ .

Table 5.93: Kittiwake Displacement Mortalities Apportioned to the Fowlsheugh SPA In-Combination Totals

Project(s)	Adult Mortalities
	Pre-Breeding Season		Breeding Season		Post-Breeding Season		Annual Total
	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High
UK North Sea projects	3.7	11.1	20.0	59.8	2.4	7.2	26.1	78.1
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	0.0	0.0	0.1	0.2	0.0	0.0	0.1	0.2
West of Orkney Wind Farm	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Pentland Floating Offshore Wind	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	0.7	2.2	9.6	28.6	0.4	1.3	10.7	32.1
Ossian	0.0	0.1	1.6	4.8	0.0	0.1	1.6	4.9
Total (Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm)	3.7	11.2	21.7	64.8	2.4	7.3	27.8	83.2
Total (Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm)	3.0	9.0	12.1	36.2	2.0	6.0	17.1	51.1

With a population of 28,078 breeding adults (Burnell et al, 2023), 17.1 to 83.2 additional mortalities represents a 0.061 to 0.296 percentage point increase in mortality rates. Therefore, PVA has been carried out both with and without Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm and for the high and low scenarios, to further assess the total in-combination impact.
The PVA results are summarised in Table 5.94 Open ▸ . Full details are available in appendix 3B.

Table 5.94: Summary of PVA Results for In-Combination Displacement Impacts on Kittiwake at the Fowlsheugh SPA

Scenario	Approach	Adult Mortality	Citation Population (Breeding Adults)	Recent Population (Burnell et al., 2023) (Breeding Adults)	Median Unimpacted Population After 35 Years	Median Impacted Population After 35 Years	Median CGR	Median CPS
Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	Low	27.8	73,300	28,078	26,557	25,427	0.999	0.958
Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	High	83.2				23,332	0.997	0.882
Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	Low	17.1				25,893	0.999	0.974
Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	High	51.1				24,566	0.998	0.925

The kittiwake population of the Fowlsheugh SPA has decreased between its citation level of 73,300 breeding adults and Seabird Census counts of 28,078 breeding adults (Burnell et al., 2023). However, more recent counts, that were conducted following the HPAI outbreak, indicate the population may be increasing again, with 15,443 AON (30,966 breeding adults) recorded in 2023 (Tremlett et al., 2024).
Under the “low” approach, the median CGR is 0.999 (whether including or excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm) which indicates the population growth rate declines no more than 0.1%. After 35 years (the expected lifespan of the Array), the CPS ranges from 0.958 to 0.974. Overall, under this approach, the impact of displacement from the Array in combination with other projects is predicted to make no material impact on the kittiwake population compared to the counterfactual scenario.
However, under the “high” approach, the median CGR is 0.997 (including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm) to 0.998 (excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm) which indicates the population growth rate declines by 0.2% to 0.3% compared to the counterfactual. After 35 years (the expected lifespan of the Array), the CPS ranges from 0.882 to 0.925. This level of impact is small, but considered of sufficient magnitude to be distinguishable from natural fluctuations. Given that the kittiwake population of the Fowlsheugh SPA has decreased significantly from its citation level, the magnitude of impact is sufficient to create an impact that could be said to have an adverse effect on the population. Therefore, it is concluded that there is a potential AEOI to the kittiwake feature of the Fowlsheugh SPA as a result of displacement impacts from the Array in-combination with other developments.

Razorbill (seabird assemblage component only)

The source information regarding razorbill disturbance mortality from other relevant projects is given in Table 5.95 Open ▸ .

Table 5.95: Razorbill Displacement Mortalities Apportioned to the Fowlsheugh SPA from Other Relevant Projects

Project(s)	Data Source	Approach	Adult Mortalities
Project(s)	Data Source	Approach	Pre-Breeding Season	Breeding Season	Post-Breeding	Non-Breeding season	Annual Total
UK North Sea projects	SSE Renewables (2022)	Scoping A	3.0	48.8	3.9	1.6	55.7
UK North Sea projects	SSE Renewables (2022)	Scoping B	9.0	81.4	11.6	4.8	102.0
UK North Sea projects	SSE Renewables (2022)	Developer	2.5	13.7	3.2	1.3	19.4
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm (2023)	SNCB Low	0.0	N/A	0.0	0.0	0.0
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm (2023)	SNCB High	0.0	N/A	0.0	0.0	0.0
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm (2023)	Developer 50% 1%	0.0	N/A	0.0	0.0	0.0
West of Orkney Wind Farm	Offshore Wind Power Limited (2023)	Low	0.0	0.0	0.0	N/A	0.0
West of Orkney Wind Farm	Offshore Wind Power Limited (2023)	Mid	0.0	0.0	0.0	N/A	0.0
West of Orkney Wind Farm	Offshore Wind Power Limited (2023)	High	0.0	0.0	0.0	N/A	0.1
Pentland Floating Offshore Wind	Xodus Group Ltd (2022)		N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	0.0
Outer Dowsing	Outer Dowsing Offshore Wind (2023)	50% disp & 1% mort	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	0.2*
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm alone	SSE Renewables (2022)	Scoping A (60% disp 3% breed mort 1% non-breed mort)	0.5	11.5	0.6	0.1	12.6
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm alone	SSE Renewables (2022)	Scoping B (60% disp 5% breed mort 3% non-breed mort)	1.6	19.2	1.9	0.3	22.7
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm alone	SSE Renewables (2022)	Developer (50% disp 1% mort)	0.4	3.3	0.5	0.0	4.2

*Apportioned impacts only presented on an annual basis in source document.

From this information, the various approaches have been consolidated into a “low” and a “high” estimate for the total in-combination impact. This is presented in Table 5.96 Open ▸ .

Table 5.96: Razorbill Displacement Mortalities Apportioned to the Fowlsheugh SPA In-Combination Totals

Project(s)	Adult Mortalities
	Pre-Breeding Season		Breeding Season		Post-Breeding Season		Non-Breeding Season		Annual Total
	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High
UK North Sea projects	2.5	9.0	13.7	81.4	3.2	11.6	1.3	4.8	20.7	106.8
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
West of Orkney Wind Farm	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.1
Pentland Floating Offshore Wind	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	0.0	0.0
Outer Dowsing	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	0.2	0.2
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	0.4	1.6	3.3	19.2	0.5	1.9	0.0	0.3	4.2	23.0
Ossian	0.0	0.0	4.7	28.0	0.1	0.3	0.0	0.0	4.8	28.4
Total (Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm)	2.5	9.1	18.4	109.4	3.3	12.0	1.3	4.8	24.4	130.6
Total (Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm)	2.1	7.5	15.1	90.2	2.8	10.1	1.3	4.5	20.2	107.9

With a population of 18,844 breeding adults (Burnell et al, 2023), 20.2 to 130.6 additional mortalities represents a 0.107 to 0.693 percentage point increase in mortality rates. Therefore, PVA has been carried out both with and without Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm and for the high and low scenarios, to further assess the total in-combination impact.
The PVA results are summarised in Table 5.97 Open ▸ . Full details are available in appendix 3B.

Table 5.97: Summary of PVA Results for In-Combination Displacement Impacts on Razorbill at the Fowlsheugh SPA

Scenario	Approach	Adult Mortality	Citation Population (Breeding Adults)	Recent Population (Burnell et al., 2023) (Breeding Adults)	Median Unimpacted Population After 35 Years	Median Impacted Population After 35 Years	Median CGR	Median CPS
Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	Low	24.4	5,800	18,844	4,454	4,219	0.998	0.946
Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	High	130.6				3,319	0.992	0.746
Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	Low	20.2				4,264	0.999	0.956
Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	High	107.9				3,482	0.993	0.785

The razorbill population of the Fowlsheugh SPA has increased between its citation level of 5,800 breeding adults and recent counts of 18,844 breeding adults (Burnell et al., 2023).
Whilst the PVA results indicate a significant population decline from the current level, given the positive growth observed to date, that outcome is considered implausible for this site and so the assessment relies on the CPS and CGR.
Under the “low” approach, the median CGR is 0.998 (including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm) to 0.999 (excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm) which indicates the population growth rate declines 0.1% to 0.2%. After 35 years (the expected lifespan of the Array), the CPS ranges from 0.946 to 0.956. Overall, under this approach, the impact of displacement from the Array in combination with other projects is predicted to make no material impact on the razorbill population compared to the counterfactual scenario.
However, under the “high” approach, the median CGR is 0.992 (including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm) to 0.993 (excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm) which indicates the population growth rate declines by 0.7% to 0.8% compared to the counterfactual. After 35 years (the expected lifespan of the Array), the CPS ranges from 0.746 to 0.785. This level of impact is moderate, and despite the population growth observed to date, the magnitude of impact is sufficient to create an impact that could be said to have an adverse effect on the population. However, razorbill is not a qualifying feature it its own right, and instead only qualifies as a named component of the breeding seabird assemblage.

Breeding Seabird Assemblage

Of the components of the seabird assemblage at Fowlsheugh SPA, a potential LSE2 was identified only for kittiwake and razorbill. Assessments of the impact of displacement from the Array in-combination with other developments for those components are presented above.
Under the low approach to assessment, the impact for both species is deemed to be negligible, and so it can be concluded, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, that there is no potential for an AEOI of the seabird assemblage feature.
However, under the high approach to assessment, it was found that the population of both kittiwake and razorbill components could be expected to decline significantly. Given this impact on two of the five named components of the assemblage, it is concluded that, under the high approach to assessment, there is a potential for an AEOI on the seabird assemblage feature of the Fowlsheugh SPA.

Hermaness, Saxa Vord and Valla Field SPA

Gannet

The source information regarding gannet disturbance mortality from other relevant projects is given in Table 5.98 Open ▸ .

Table 5.98: Gannet Displacement Mortalities Apportioned to the Hermaness, Saxa Vord and Valla Field SPA from Other Relevant Projects

Project(s)	Data Source	Approach	Adult Mortalities
Project(s)	Data Source	Approach	Pre-Breeding Season	Breeding Season	Post-Breeding	Annual Total
UK North Sea projects	SSE Renewables (2022)	Scoping A	4.8	0.2	9.3	14.3
UK North Sea projects	SSE Renewables (2022)	Scoping B	14.4	0.4	27.9	42.7
UK North Sea projects	SSE Renewables (2022)	Developer	4.8	0.2	9.3	14.3
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm (2023)	SNCB Low	0.1	0	0	0.1
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm (2023)	SNCB High	0.2	0.1	0	0.3
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm (2023)	Developer Low	0.1	0	0	0.1
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm (2023)	Developer High	0.1	0	0	0.1
West of Orkney Wind Farm	Offshore Wind Power Limited (2023)	Already combined with collision	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Pentland Floating Offshore Wind	Xodus Group Ltd (2022)	N/A	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
SEP & DEP	Equinor (2022)	60% disp & 1% mort	0.0	0.0	0.3	0.3
SEP & DEP	Equinor (2022)	70% disp & 1% mort	0.0	0.0	0.4	0.4
SEP & DEP	Equinor (2022)	80% disp & 1% mort	0.1	0.0	0.4	0.5
Outer Dowsing	Outer Dowsing Offshore Wind (2023)	70% disp & 1% mort	N/A	N/A	N/A	0.2*
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm alone	SSE Renewables (2022)	Scoping A (70% disp 1% mort)	0.1	0.2	0.5	0.8
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm alone	SSE Renewables (2022)	Scoping B (70% disp 3% mort)	0.3	0.4	1.6	2.3
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm alone	SSE Renewables (2022)	Developer (70% disp 1% mort)	0.1	0.2	0.5	0.8

*Apportioned impacts only presented on an annual basis in source document.

From this information, the various approaches have been consolidated into a “low” and a “high” estimate for the total in-combination impact. This is presented in Table 5.99 Open ▸ .

Table 5.99: Gannet Displacement Mortalities Apportioned to the Hermaness, Saxa Vord and Valla Field SPA In-Combination Totals

Project(s)	Adult Mortalities
	Pre-Breeding Season		Breeding Season		Post-Breeding Season		Annual Total
	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High
UK North Sea projects	4.8	14.4	0.2	0.4	9.3	27.9	14.3	42.7
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	0.1	0.2	0.0	0.1	0.0	0.0	0.1	0.3
West of Orkney Wind Farm	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Pentland Floating Offshore Wind	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
SEP & DEP	0.0	0.1	0.0	0.0	0.3	0.4	0.3	0.5
Outer Dowsing							0.2	0.2
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	0.1	0.3	0.2	0.4	0.5	1.6	0.8	2.3
Ossian	0.0	0.1	0.2	0.7	0.5	1.4	0.7	2.2
Total (Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm)	5.0	14.8	0.5	1.2	10.1	29.7	15.7	45.9
Total (Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm)	4.9	14.5	0.3	0.8	9.6	28.1	14.9	43.6

With a population of 59,124 breeding adults (Burnell et al, 2023), 14.9 to 45.9 additional mortalities represents a 0.025 to 0.078 percentage point increase in mortality rates. Therefore, PVA has been carried out both with and without Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm and for the high and low scenarios, to further assess the total in-combination impact.
The PVA results are summarised in Table 5.100 Open ▸ . Full details are available in appendix 3B.

Table 5.100: Summary of PVA Results for In-Combination Displacement Impacts on Gannet at the Hermaness, Saxa Vord and Valla Field SPA

Scenario	Approach	Adult Mortality	Citation Population (Breeding Adults)	Recent Population (Burnell et al., 2023) (Breeding Adults)	Median Unimpacted Population After 35 Years	Median Impacted Population After 35 Years	Median CGR	Median CPS
Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	Low	15.7	32,800	59,124	79,619	78,668	1.000	0.989
Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	High	45.9				76,883	0.999	0.968
Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	Low	14.9				78,755	1.000	0.990
Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	High	43.6				77,031	0.999	0.969

The gannet population of the Hermaness, Saxa Vord and Valla Field SPA has increased between its citation level of 32,800 breeding adults to recent counts of 59,124 breeding adults (Burnell et al., 2023).
The CGR ranges from 0.999 to 1.000. The CPS ranges from 0.968 to 0.990. When considering the growth of the gannet population within the Hermaness, Saxa Vord and Valla Field SPA, this level of impact is not of a magnitude that is expected to adversely affect the population from meeting its conservation objectives.
Therefore, it is concluded that there is no potential for an AEOI to the gannet feature of the Hermaness, Saxa Vord and Valla Field SPA as a result of displacement from the Array in combination with other developments.

Breeding Seabird Assemblage

Of the components of the seabird assemblage, gannet was the only species for which a potential LSE2 was identified. As detailed above, there is expected to be no AEOI on the gannet feature. Therefore, it can also be concluded, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, that there is no potential for an AEOI to the seabird assemblage feature of the Hermaness, Saxa Vord and Valla Field SPA as a result of displacement from the Array in combination with other developments.

North Caithness Cliffs SPA

Kittiwake (seabird assemblage component only)

The source information regarding kittiwake disturbance mortality from other relevant projects is given in Table 5.101 Open ▸ .

Table 5.101: Kittiwake Displacement Mortalities Apportioned to the North Caithness Cliffs SPA from Other Relevant Projects

Project(s)	Data Source	Approach	Adult Mortalities
Project(s)	Data Source	Approach	Pre-Breeding Season	Breeding Season	Post-Breeding	Annual Total
UK North Sea projects	SSE Renewables (2022)	Scoping A	4.0	1.0	2.6	7.6
UK North Sea projects	SSE Renewables (2022)	Scoping B	12.0	3.0	7.9	22.9
UK North Sea projects	SSE Renewables (2022)	Developer	N/A	2.0	N/A	2.0
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm (2023)	30% disp 1% mort	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm (2023)	30% disp 3% mort	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
West of Orkney Wind Farm	Offshore Wind Power Limited (2023)	Already combined with collision	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Pentland Floating Offshore Wind	Xodus Group Ltd (2022)	N/A	0.0	2.6	0.0	2.6
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm alone	SSE Renewables (2022)	Scoping A (30% disp 1% mort)	0.8	0.0	0.5	1.3
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm alone	SSE Renewables (2022)	Scoping B (30% disp 3% mort)	2.4	0.0	1.5	3.9
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm alone	SSE Renewables (2022)	Developer (30% disp 2% mort)	N/A	0.0	N/A	0.0

From this information, the various approaches have been consolidated into a “low” and a “high” estimate for the total in-combination impact. This is presented in Table 5.102 Open ▸ .

Table 5.102: Kittiwake Displacement Mortalities Apportioned to the North Caithness Cliffs SPA In-Combination Totals

Project(s)	Adult Mortalities
	Pre-Breeding Season		Breeding Season		Post-Breeding Season		Annual Total
	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High
UK North Sea projects	4.0	12.0	1.0	3.0	2.6	7.9	7.6	22.9
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
West of Orkney Wind Farm	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Pentland Floating Offshore Wind	0.0	0.0	2.6	2.6	0.0	0.0	2.6	2.6
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	0.8	2.4	0.0	0.0	0.5	1.5	1.3	3.9
Ossian	0.0	0.1	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.1	0.1	0.2
Total (Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm)	4.0	12.1	3.6	5.6	2.6	8.0	10.3	25.7
Total (Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm)	3.2	9.7	3.6	5.6	2.1	6.5	9.0	21.8

With a population of 11,142 breeding adults (Burnell et al, 2023), 9.0 to 25.7 additional mortalities represents a 0.080 to 0.231 percentage point increase in mortality rates. Therefore, PVA has been carried out both with and without Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm and for the high and low scenarios, to further assess the total in-combination impact.
The PVA results are summarised in Table 5.103 Open ▸ . Full details are available in appendix 3B.

Table 5.103: Summary of PVA Results for In-Combination Displacement Impacts on Kittiwake at the North Caithness Cliffs SPA

Scenario	Approach	Adult Mortality	Citation Population (Breeding Adults)	Recent Population (Burnell et al., 2023) (Breeding Adults)	Median Unimpacted Population After 35 Years	Median Impacted Population After 35 Years	Median CGR	Median CPS
Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	Low	10.3	26,200	11,142	10,778	10,376	0.999	0.961
Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	High	25.7				9,757	0.997	0.906
Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	Low	9.0				10,414	0.999	0.966
Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	High	21.8				9,886	0.998	0.919

The kittiwake population of the North Caithness Cliffs SPA has decreased between its citation level of 26,200 breeding adults to recent counts of 11,142 breeding adults (Burnell et al., 2023).
Under the “low” approach, the median CGR is 0.999 (whether including or excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm) which indicates the population growth rate declines no more than 0.1%. After 35 years (the expected lifespan of the Array), the CPS ranges from 0.961 to 0.906. Overall, under this approach, the impact of displacement from the Array in combination with other projects is predicted to make no material impact on the kittiwake population compared to the counterfactual scenario.
However, under the “high” approach, the median CGR is 0.997 (including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm) to 0.998 (excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm) which indicates the population growth rate declines by 0.2% to 0.3% compared to the counterfactual. After 35 years (the expected lifespan of the Array), the CPS ranges from 0.906 to 0.919. This level of impact is small, but considered of sufficient magnitude to be distinguishable from natural fluctuations. Given that the kittiwake population of the North Caithness Cliffs SPA has decreased significantly from its citation level, the magnitude of impact is sufficient to create an impact that could be said to have an adverse effect on the population. However, kittiwake is not a qualifying feature it its own right, and instead only qualifies as a named component of the breeding seabird assemblage.
Recent surveys indicate that kittiwake at the North Caithness Cliffs SPA have not been harmed by HPAI, and indeed the population appears to be growing. Considering matched sites within the North Caithness Cliffs SPA, the population of kittiwakes has increased from 5,299 AON in the Seabird Count data collection period to 7,481 AON in 2023, a 40% increase (Tremlett et al., 2024). (Note that not all sites were surveyed in 2023, and therefore these figures do not represent the full SPA population).

Breeding Seabird Assemblage

Of the components of the breeding seabird assemblage at the North Caithness Cliffs SPA, a potential LSE2 was identified only for kittiwake, for which an assessment has been provided above.
Under the low approach to assessment, the impact of displacement from the Array in-combination with other developments was found to make no material impact, and therefore it can be concluded, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, there is no AEOI to the seabird assemblage feature of the North Caithness Cliffs SPA.
Under the high approach to assessment, it was concluded that the kittiwake population might be adversely affected. However, whilst there might be a negative effect on the kittiwake population, the magnitude of that effect is small. It is not considered a sufficiently large effect that it could be said to adversely affect the probability of kittiwake being maintained as a viable component of the seabird assemblage. Furthermore, as kittiwake is the only species being significantly impacted, it could not be said to adversely affect the probability of the total seabird assemblage being maintained. Therefore, it is concluded, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, that there is no potential for an AEOI to the seabird assemblage feature of the North Caithness Cliffs SPA as a result of displacement impacts from the Array in-combination with other developments.

Noss SPA

Gannet

The source information regarding gannet disturbance mortality from other relevant projects is given in Table 5.104 Open ▸ .

Table 5.104: Gannet Displacement Mortalities Apportioned to the Noss SPA from Other Relevant Projects

Project(s)	Data Source	Approach	Adult Mortalities
Project(s)	Data Source	Approach	Pre-Breeding Season	Breeding Season	Post-Breeding	Annual Total
UK North Sea projects	SSE Renewables (2022)	Scoping A	2.2	0.1	4.3	6.6
UK North Sea projects	SSE Renewables (2022)	Scoping B	6.7	0.4	13	20.1
UK North Sea projects	SSE Renewables (2022)	Developer	2.2	0.1	4.3	6.6
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm (2023)	SNCB Low	0	0	0	0.0
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm (2023)	SNCB High	0.1	0.1	0	0.2
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm (2023)	Developer Low	0	0	0	0.0
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm (2023)	Developer High	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
West of Orkney Wind Farm	Offshore Wind Power Limited (2023)	Already combined with collision	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Pentland Floating Offshore Wind	Xodus Group Ltd (2022)	N/A	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
SEP & DEP	Equinor (2022)	60% disp & 1% mort	0.0	0.0	0.1	0.1
SEP & DEP	Equinor (2022)	70% disp & 1% mort	0.0	0.0	0.1	0.2
SEP & DEP	Equinor (2022)	80% disp & 1% mort	0.0	0.0	0.2	0.2
Outer Dowsing	Outer Dowsing Offshore Wind (2023)	70% disp & 1% mort				0.1*
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm alone	SSE Renewables (2022)	Scoping A (70% disp 1% mort)	0.1	0.1	0.3	0.5
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm alone	SSE Renewables (2022)	Scoping B (70% disp 3% mort)	0.2	0.4	0.9	1.5
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm alone	SSE Renewables (2022)	Developer (70% disp 1% mort)	0.1	0.1	0.3	0.5

*Apportioned impacts only presented on an annual basis in source document.

From this information, the various approaches have been consolidated into a “low” and a “high” estimate for the total in-combination impact. This is presented in Table 5.105 Open ▸ .

Table 5.105: Gannet Displacement Mortalities Apportioned to the Noss SPA In-Combination Totals

Project(s)	Adult Mortalities
	Pre-Breeding Season		Breeding Season		Post-Breeding Season		Annual Total
	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High
UK North Sea projects	2.2	6.7	0.1	0.4	4.3	13.0	6.6	20.1
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	0.0	0.1	0.0	0.1	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.2
West of Orkney Wind Farm	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Pentland Floating Offshore Wind	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
SEP & DEP	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.1	0.2	0.1	0.2
Outer Dowsing							0.1	0.1
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	0.1	0.2	0.1	0.4	0.3	0.9	0.5	1.5
Ossian	0.0	0.0	0.2	0.5	0.2	0.6	0.4	1.1
Total (including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm)	2.2	6.9	0.3	1.1	4.6	13.7	7.2	21.7
Total (excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm)	2.1	6.7	0.2	0.7	4.3	12.8	6.7	20.2

With a population of 27,530 breeding adults (Burnell et al, 2023), 6.7 to 21.7 additional mortalities represents a 0.025 to 0.079 percentage point increase in mortality rates. Therefore, PVA has been carried out both with and without Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm and for the high and low scenarios, to further assess the total in-combination impact.
The PVA results are summarised in Table 5.106 Open ▸ . Full details are available in appendix 3B.

Table 5.106: Summary of PVA Results for In-Combination Displacement Impacts on Gannet at the Noss SPA

Scenario	Approach	Adult Mortality	Citation Population (Breeding Adults)	Recent Population (Burnell et al., 2023) (Breeding Adults)	Median Unimpacted Population After 35 Years	Median Impacted Population After 35 Years	Median CGR	Median CPS
Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	Low	7.2	13,720	27,530	36,997	36,614	1.000	0.989
Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	High	21.7				35,834	0.999	0.967
Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	Low	6.7				36,608	1.000	0.990
Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	High	20.2				35,915	0.999	0.969

The gannet population of the Noss SPA has increased from its citation level of 13,720 breeding adults to recent counts of 27,530 breeding adults (Burnell et al., 2023).
The CGR ranges from 0.999 to 1.000. The CPS ranges from 0.967 to 0.990. When considering the growth of the gannet population within the Noss SPA, this level of impact is not of a magnitude that is expected to adversely affect the population from meeting its conservation objectives.
Therefore, it is concluded, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, that there is no potential for an AEOI to the gannet feature of the Noss SPA as a result of displacement from the Array in combination with other developments.

Breeding Seabird Assemblage

Of the components of the seabird assemblage, gannet was the only species for which a potential LSE2 was identified. As detailed above, there is expected to be no AEOI on the gannet feature. Therefore, it can also be concluded, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, that there is no potential for an AEOI to the seabird assemblage feature of the Noss SPA as a result of displacement from the Array in combination with other developments.

St Abb’s Head to Fast Castle SPA

Kittiwake (seabird assemblage component only)

The source information regarding kittiwake disturbance mortality from other relevant projects is given in Table 5.107 Open ▸ .

Table 5.107: Kittiwake Displacement Mortalities Apportioned to the St Abb’s Head to Fast Castle SPA from Other Relevant Projects

Project(s)	Data Source	Approach	Adult Mortalities
Project(s)	Data Source	Approach	Pre-Breeding Season	Breeding Season	Post-Breeding	Annual Total
UK North Sea projects	SSE Renewables (2022)	Scoping A	1.4	32.2	0.9	34.5
UK North Sea projects	SSE Renewables (2022)	Scoping B	4.1	96.2	2.7	103.0
UK North Sea projects	SSE Renewables (2022)	Developer	N/A	64.0	N/A	64.0
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm (2023)	30% disp 1% mort	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm (2023)	30% disp 3% mort	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
West of Orkney Wind Farm	Offshore Wind Power Limited (2023)	Already combined with collision	N/A	N/A	N/A	0.0
Pentland Floating Offshore Wind	Xodus Group Ltd (2022)	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	0.0
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm alone	SSE Renewables (2022)	Scoping A (30% disp 1% mort)	0.3	29.1	0.2	29.6
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm alone	SSE Renewables (2022)	Scoping B (30% disp 3% mort)	0.9	87.0	0.5	88.4
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm alone	SSE Renewables (2022)	Developer (30% disp 2% mort)	N/A	57.8	N/A	57.8

From this information, the various approaches have been consolidated into a “low” and a “high” estimate for the total in-combination impact. This is presented in Table 5.108 Open ▸ .

Table 5.108: Kittiwake Displacement Mortalities Apportioned to the St Abb’s Head to Fast Castle SPA In-Combination Totals

Project(s)	Adult Mortalities
	Pre-Breeding Season		Breeding Season		Post-Breeding Season		Annual Total
	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High
UK North Sea projects	1.4	4.1	32.2	96.2	0.9	2.7	34.5	103.0
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
West of Orkney Wind Farm	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Pentland Floating Offshore Wind	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	0.3	0.9	29.1	87.0	0.2	0.5	29.6	88.4
Ossian	0.0	0.0	0.4	1.3	0.0	0.0	0.4	1.3
Total (Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm)	1.4	4.1	32.6	97.5	0.9	2.7	34.9	104.3
Total (Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm)	1.1	3.2	3.5	10.5	0.7	2.2	5.3	15.9

With a population of 10,300 breeding adults (Burnell et al, 2023), 5.3 to 104.3 additional mortalities represents a 0.052 to 1.013 percentage point increase in mortality rates. Therefore, PVA has been carried out both with and without Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm and for the high and low scenarios, to further assess the total in-combination impact.
The PVA results are summarised in Table 5.109 Open ▸ . Full details are available in appendix 3B.

Table 5.109: Summary of PVA Results for In-Combination Displacement Impacts on Kittiwake at the St Abb’s Head to Fast Castle SPA

Scenario	Approach	Adult Mortality	Citation Population (Breeding Adults)	Recent Population (Burnell et al., 2023) (Breeding Adults)	Median Unimpacted Population After 35 Years	Median Impacted Population After 35 Years	Median CGR	Median CPS
Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	Low	34.9	42,340	10,300	9,735	8,412	0.996	0.865
Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	High	104.3				6,309	0.988	0.648
Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	Low	5.3				9,521	0.999	0.979
Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	High	15.9				9,104	0.998	0.937

The kittiwake population of the St Abb’s Head to Fast Castle SPA has decreased between its citation level of 42,340 breeding adults and recent counts of 10,300 breeding adults (Burnell et al., 2023).
If Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm is excluded, the median CGR is 0.999 to 0.998 which indicates the population growth rate declines 0.1% to 0.2%. After 35 years (the expected lifespan of the Array), the CPS ranges from 0.979 to 0.937. Overall, under this scenario, the impact of displacement from the Array in combination with other projects is predicted to make no material impact on the kittiwake population compared to the counterfactual scenario.
However, if Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm is included, the median CGR is 0.996 (under the “low” approach) to 0.988 (under the “high” approach) which indicates the population growth rate declines by 0.4% to 1.2% compared to the counterfactual. After 35 years (the expected lifespan of the Array), the CPS ranges from 0.865 to 0.648. This level of impact is small, but considered of sufficient magnitude to be distinguishable from natural fluctuations. Given that the kittiwake population of the St Abb’s Head to Fast Castle SPA has decreased significantly from its citation level, the magnitude of impact is sufficient to create an impact that could be said to have an adverse effect on the population.

Breeding Seabird Assemblage

Of the components of the seabird assemblage, kittiwake was the only species for which a potential LSE2 was identified. An assessment of the impact on kittiwake is provided above.
If Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm is excluded it was found there will be no material impact to kittiwake, and therefore no potential impact on the seabird assemblage. However, if Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm is included, then it is likely that the kittiwake population will decline. Kittiwake were a significant portion of the assemblage at designation, consisting 21,170 pairs. As of the Seabirds Count census, this had declined to 5,150 pairs. It is concluded that the magnitude of decline if Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm is included is sufficient that it could adversely affect kittiwake being maintained as a viable component of the assemblage. It is also concluded that it could negatively affect the total size of the breeding seabird assemblage population.
Therefore, it is concluded, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, that there is no potential for an AEOI to the seabird assemblage feature of the St Abb’s Head to Fast Castle SPA if Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm is excluded, but there is a potential AEOI to the seabird assemblage feature of the St Abb’s Head to Fast Castle SPA from the in-combination displacement impact of the Array and other developments including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm.

St Kilda SPA

Gannet

The source information regarding gannet disturbance mortality from other relevant projects is given in Table 5.110 Open ▸ .

Table 5.110: Gannet Displacement Mortalities Apportioned to the St Kilda SPA from Other Relevant Projects

Project(s)	Data Source	Approach	Adult Mortalities
Project(s)	Data Source	Approach	Pre-breeding Season	Breeding Season	Post-breeding	Annual Total
UK North Sea projects	SSE Renewables (2022)	Scoping A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
UK North Sea projects	SSE Renewables (2022)	Scoping B	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
UK North Sea projects	SSE Renewables (2022)	Developer	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm (2023)	SNCB Low	0	0	0	0.0
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm (2023)	SNCB High	0.1	0.1	0	0.2
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm (2023)	Developer Low	0	0	0	0.0
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm (2023)	Developer High	0	0	0	0.0
West of Orkney Wind Farm	Offshore Wind Power Limited (2023)	Already combined with collision	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Pentland Floating Offshore Wind	Xodus Group Ltd (2022)	N/A	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm alone	SSE Renewables (2022)	Scoping A (70% disp 1% mort)	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm alone	SSE Renewables (2022)	Scoping B (70% disp 3% mort)	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm alone	SSE Renewables (2022)	Developer (70% disp 1% mort)	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A

From this information, the various approaches have been consolidated into a “low” and a “high” estimate for the total in-combination impact. This is presented in Table 5.111 Open ▸ .

Table 5.111: Gannet Displacement Mortalities Apportioned to the St Kilda SPA In-Combination Totals

Project(s)	Adult Mortalities
	Pre-Breeding Season		Breeding Season		Post-Breeding Season		Annual Total
	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High
UK North Sea projects	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	0.0	0.1	0.0	0.1	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.2
West of Orkney Wind Farm	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Pentland Floating Offshore Wind	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Ossian	0.0	0.0	0.3	0.8	0.1	0.4	0.4	1.2
Total	0.0	0.1	0.3	0.9	0.1	0.4	0.4	1.4

With a population of 120,580 breeding adults (Burnell et al, 2023), 0.4 to 1.4 additional mortalities represents a 0.000 to 0.001 percentage point increase in mortality rates. Therefore, it can be concluded, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, that there is no risk of an AEOI to the gannet feature of St Kilda SPA resulting from displacement impact from the Array in-combination with other developments.

Breeding Seabird Assemblage

Of the components of the seabird assemblage, gannet was the only species for which a potential LSE2 was identified for displacement. As detailed above, there is expected to be no AEOI on the gannet feature. Therefore, it can also be concluded, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, that there is no potential for an AEOI to the seabird assemblage feature of the St Kilda SPA as a result of displacement from the Array in combination with other developments.

Troup, Pennan and Lion’s Head SPA

Kittiwake

The source information regarding kittiwake disturbance mortality from other relevant projects is given in Table 5.112 Open ▸ .

Table 5.112: Kittiwake Displacement Mortalities Apportioned to the Troup, Pennan and Lion’s Head SPA from Other Relevant Projects

Project(s)	Data Source	Approach	Adult Mortalities
Project(s)	Data Source	Approach	Pre-Breeding Season	Breeding Season	Post-Breeding	Annual Total
UK North Sea projects	SSE Renewables (2022)	Scoping A	5.9	3.8	3.9	13.6
UK North Sea projects	SSE Renewables (2022)	Scoping B	17.6	11.3	11.6	40.5
UK North Sea projects	SSE Renewables (2022)	Developer	N/A	7.6	N/A	7.6
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm (2023)	30% (disp 1% mort)	0	0.1	0	0.1
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm (2023)	30% (disp 3% mort)	0	0.2	0	0.2
West of Orkney Wind Farm	Offshore Wind Power Limited (2023)	Already combined with collision	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Pentland Floating Offshore Wind	Xodus Group Ltd (2022)	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm alone	SSE Renewables (2022)	Scoping A (30% disp 1% mort)	1.1	0.3	0.7	2.1
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm alone	SSE Renewables (2022)	Scoping B (30% disp 3% mort)	3.5	0.8	2.2	6.5
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm alone	SSE Renewables (2022)	Developer (30% disp 2% mort)	N/A	0.5	N/A	0.5

From this information, the various approaches have been consolidated into a “low” and a “high” estimate for the total in-combination impact. This is presented in Table 5.113 Open ▸ .

Table 5.113: Kittiwake Displacement Mortalities Apportioned to the Troup, Pennan and Lion’s Head SPA In-Combination Totals

Project(s)	Adult Mortalities
	Pre-Breeding Season		Breeding Season		Post-Breeding Season		Annual Total
	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High
UK North Sea projects	5.9	17.6	3.8	11.3	3.9	11.6	13.6	40.5
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	0.0	0.0	0.1	0.2	0.0	0.0	0.1	0.2
West of Orkney Wind Farm	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Pentland Floating Offshore Wind	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	1.1	3.5	0.3	0.8	0.7	2.2	2.1	6.5
Ossian	0.0	0.1	0.5	1.4	0.0	0.1	0.5	1.6
Total (Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm)	5.9	17.7	4.4	12.9	3.9	11.7	14.2	42.3
Total (Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm)	4.8	14.2	4.1	12.1	3.2	9.5	12.1	35.8

With a population of 21,232 breeding adults (Burnell et al, 2023), 12.1 to 42.3 additional mortalities represents a 0.057 to 0.199 percentage point increase in mortality rates. Therefore, PVA has been carried out both with and without Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm and for the high and low scenarios, to further assess the total in-combination impact.
The PVA results are summarised in Table 5.114 Open ▸ . Full details are available in appendix 3B.

Table 5.114: Summary of PVA Results for In-Combination Displacement Impacts on Kittiwake at the Troup, Pennan and Lion’s Head SPA

Scenario	Approach	Adult Mortality	Citation Population (Breeding Adults)	Recent Population (Burnell et al., 2023) (Breeding Adults)	Median Unimpacted Population After 35 Years	Median Impacted Population After 35 Years	Median CGR	Median CPS
Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	Low	14.2	63,200	21,232	20,017	19,437	0.999	0.972
Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	High	42.3				18,390	0.998	0.918
Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	Low	12.1				19,592	0.999	0.976
Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	High	35.8				18,675	0.998	0.930

The kittiwake population of the Troup, Pennan and Lion’s Head SPA has decreased between its citation level of 63,200 breeding adults and recent counts of 21,232 breeding adults (Burnell et al., 2023).
The median CGR is 0.998 to 0.999 which indicates the population growth rate declines no more than 0.2%. After 35 years (the expected lifespan of the Array), the CPS ranges from 0.918 to 0.976. Overall, under this approach, the impact of displacement from the Array in combination with other projects is predicted to make no material impact on the kittiwake population compared to the counterfactual scenario.
Therefore, it can be concluded, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, that there is no risk of an AEOI to the kittiwake feature of the Troup, Pennan and Lion’s Head SPA resulting from displacement impact from the Array in-combination with other developments.

Breeding Seabird Assemblage

Of the components of the seabird assemblage, kittiwake was the only species for which a potential LSE2 was identified for displacement. As detailed above, there is expected to be no AEOI on the kittiwake feature. Therefore, it can also be concluded, beyond reasonable scientific doubt,that there is no potential for an AEOI to the seabird assemblage feature of the Troup, Pennan and Lion’s Head SPA as a result of displacement from the Array in combination with other developments.

Conclusion

It is concluded, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, that the Array area in-combination with other plans and projects would have an adverse effects on certain qualifying features for several sites, as a result of disturbance and displacement impacts during the construction, operation, maintenance, and/or decommissioning phases, which could therefore undermine the conservation objectives of the SPAs listed in Table 5.115 Open ▸ . An assessment of the impact of disturbance and displacement against each relevant conservation objective is presented in Table 5.115 Open ▸ , where the justifications and supporting evidence are the same for more than one conservation objective, the assessments have been grouped.

Table 5.115: Conclusions Against the Conservation Objectives of SPAs for In-Combination Disturbance and Displacement during the Operation and Maintenance Phase

SPA

Feature

Target/Conservation Objectives

Justification

Conclusion

Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast SPA

 breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on breeding kittiwake).

 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term:

– distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and

– structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.

As the Array and associated ZoI falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for disturbance and displacement during all phases of the Array in-combination with other plans and projects to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, disturbance and displacement associated with the Array in-combination with other plans and projects will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 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; and

– no significant disturbance of the species.

The in-combination impact level experienced during operations and maintenance on the named seabird assemblage component, kittiwake, at Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast SPA surpassed the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k). A PVA was therefore required to understand if the impact experienced would have detrimental effects on the populations.

The PVA results ( Table 5.64 Open ▸ ) concluded that the in-combination impact from disturbance and displacement during the operational and maintenance phase would result in the population growth rate decline of less than 0.1%. After 35 years (the expected lifespan of the Array), the CPS ranged from 0.963 (with Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm; High approach to assessment) to 0.986 (without Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm; Low approach to assessment). The impacted population therefore would be between 1.4% to 3.7% smaller than the unimpacted population. As outlined within appendix 3B, the counterfactual of population growth rate is considered a more robust metric compared to the counterfactual of population size due to the models being conducted with density independence, in line with NatureScot guidance (2023k). The counterfactual of population growth rate results indicate that the impact levels experienced during operation and maintenance would not adversely affect the kittiwake feature of Buchan Ness to Coillieston Coast SPA, as the maximum estimated change was a reduction in growth rate by less than 0.1%. Such a decrease indicates that this level of impact would not adversely affect the population and would likely remain undetectable against natural population fluctuations. Furthermore, it is not expected to significantly alter the background mortality rate.

These results indicate that the impact of displacement from the Array in combination with other projects is not of a magnitude that can be said to adversely affect the likelihood of the kittiwake population being maintained as a viable component of the Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast SPA. Impacts predicted during the construction and decommissioning phases were deemed insignificant, resulting in no detrimental loss to populations.

Consequently, it can be concluded that there is a low risk during all phases, of disturbance and displacement significantly affecting the kittiwake population of the Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast SPA and/or the seabird assemblage of which kittiwake is a named component.

Therefore, disturbance and displacement during construction, operation and maintenance and decommissioning will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site.

Furthermore, the impact from disturbance and displacement during all phases will not influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

Coquet Island SPA

 breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on breeding puffin).

 ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the Wild Birds Directive, by maintaining or restoring:

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

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

– the supporting processes on which the habitats of the qualifying features rely.

As the Array and associated ZoI falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for disturbance and displacement during all phases of the Array in-combination with other plans and projects to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, disturbance and displacement associated with the Array in-combination with other plans and projects will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

 ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the Wild Birds Directive, by maintaining or restoring:

– the populations of each of the qualifying features; and

– the distribution of qualifying features within the site.

The in-combination impact level experienced during operations and maintenance on the named seabird assemblage component, puffin, at Coquet Island SPA surpassed the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k). A PVA was therefore required to understand if the impact experienced would have detrimental effects on the populations.

The PVA results ( Table 5.67 Open ▸ ) concluded that the in-combination impact from disturbance and displacement during the operational and maintenance phase would result in the population growth rate decline of less than 0.1%. After 35 years (the expected lifespan of the Array), the CPS ranged from 0.965 to 0.997. The impacted population therefore would be between 0.3% to 3.5% smaller than the unimpacted population. The counterfactual of population growth rate results indicate that the impact levels experienced during operation and maintenance would not adversely affect the puffin populations at Coquet Island SPA, as the maximum estimated change was a reduction in growth rate by less than 0.1%. Such a decrease indicates that this level of impact would not adversely affect the population and would likely remain undetectable against natural population fluctuations. Furthermore, it is not expected to significantly alter the background mortality rate.

These results indicate that the impact of displacement from the Array in combination with other projects is not of a magnitude that can be said to adversely affect the likelihood of the puffin population being maintained as a viable component of the Coquet Island SPA. Impacts predicted during the construction and decommissioning phases were deemed insignificant, resulting in no detrimental loss to populations.

Consequently, it can be concluded that there is a low risk during all phases, of disturbance and displacement significantly affecting the puffin population of the Coquet Island SPA and/or the seabird assemblage of which puffin is a named component.

Therefore, disturbance and displacement during construction, operation and maintenance and decommissioning will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site.

Furthermore, the impact from disturbance and displacement during all phases will not influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

East Caithness Cliffs SPA

 kittiwake (breeding); and

 breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).

 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term:

– distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and

– structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.

As the Array and associated ZoI falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for disturbance and displacement during all phases of the Array in-combination with other plans and projects to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, disturbance and displacement associated with the Array in-combination with other plans and projects will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 kittiwake = No AEOI

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 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; and

– no significant disturbance of the species.

The in-combination impact level experienced during operations and maintenance on kittiwake at East Caithness Cliffs SPA surpassed the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k). A PVA was therefore required to understand if the impact experienced would have detrimental effects on the populations.

The PVA results ( Table 5.70 Open ▸ ) concluded that the in-combination impact from disturbance and displacement during the operational and maintenance phase would result in the population growth rate decline of no more than 0.4%. After 35 years (the expected lifespan of the Array), the CPS ranged from 0.855 (with Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm; High approach to assessment) to 0.954 (without Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm; Low approach to assessment). The impacted population therefore would be between 4.6% to 14.5% smaller than the unimpacted population. The counterfactual of population growth rate results indicate that the impact levels experienced during operation and maintenance would could adversely affect the kittiwke feature of East Caithness Cliffs SPA, as the estimated change was a reduction in growth rate by more than 0.4%.

These results indicate that, under the high approach to assessment, the impact of disturbance and displacement from the Array in combination with other projects during operation and maintenance would be of a magnitude that can be said to adversely affect the likelihood of the kittiwake population being maintained as a viable component of the East Caithness Cliffs SPA. Impacts predicted during the construction and decommissioning phases were deemed insignificant, resulting in no detrimental loss to populations.

The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance to the seabird assemblage feature was deemed to be negligible. Only kittiwake was deemed to have any potential LSE2 ( Table 3.1 Open ▸ ). Whilst a negative effect on the kittiwake population is present, it is not considered a sufficiently large effect that it could be said to adversely affect the probability of kittiwake being maintained as a viable component of the seabird assemblage.

Furthermore, as kittiwake is the only species being impacted, it would not adversely affect the population size of the total seabird assemblage being maintained.

Consequently, it can be concluded beyond reasonable scientific doubt that there will be no AEOI to the seabird assemblage feature of the East Caithness Cliffs SPA.

 kittiwake = AEOI cannot be ruled out

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

Farne Islands SPA

 breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on breeding kittiwake and breeding puffin).

 ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the Wild Birds Directive, by maintaining or restoring:

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

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

– the supporting processes on which the habitats of the qualifying features rely.

As the Array and associated ZoI falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for disturbance and displacement during all phases of the Array in-combination with other plans and projects to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, disturbance and displacement associated with the Array in-combination with other plans and projects will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure, and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

 ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the Wild Birds Directive, by maintaining or restoring:

– the populations of each of the qualifying features; and

– the distribution of qualifying features within the site.

The in-combination impact level experienced during operations and maintenance on the named seabird assemblage component, kittiwake, at Farne Island SPA surpassed the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k). A PVA was therefore required to understand if the impact experienced would have detrimental effects on the populations.

The PVA results for kittiwake ( Table 5.73 Open ▸ ) concluded that the in-combination impact from disturbance and displacement during the operational and maintenance phase would result in the population growth rate decline of less than 0.2%. After 35 years (the expected lifespan of the Array), the CPS ranged from 0.928 (with Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm; High approach to assessment) to 0.989 (without Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm; Low approach to assessment). The impacted population therefore would be between 1.1% to 7.2% smaller than the unimpacted population. The counterfactual of population growth rate results indicate that the impact levels experienced during operation and maintenance would not adversely affect kittiwake at Farne Island SPA, as the maximum estimated change was a reduction in growth rate by less than 0.1%. Such a decrease indicates that this level of impact would not adversely affect the population and would likely remain undetectable against natural population fluctuations. Furthermore, it is not expected to significantly alter the background mortality rate.

Similarly, the in-combination impact level experienced during operations and maintenance on the named seabird assemblage component, puffin, at Farne Island SPA surpassed the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k). A PVA was therefore required to understand if the impact experienced would have detrimental effects on the populations.

The PVA results for puffin ( Table 5.76 Open ▸ ) concluded that the in-combination impact from disturbance and displacement during the operational and maintenance phase would result in the population growth rate decline of 0.1% or less. After 35 years (the expected lifespan of the Array), the CPS ranged from 0.965 (with Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm; High approach to assessment) to 0.997 (without Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm; Low approach to assessment). The impacted population therefore would be between 0.3% to 3.5% smaller than the unimpacted population. The counterfactual of population growth rate results indicate that the impact levels experienced during operation and maintenance would not adversely affect puffin at Farne Island SPA, as the maximum estimated change was a reduction in growth rate by 0.1% or less. Such a decrease indicates that this level of impact would not adversely affect the population and would likely remain undetectable against natural population fluctuations. Furthermore, it is not expected to significantly alter the background mortality rate.

These results indicate that the impact of disturbance and displacement from the Array in combination with other projects during operations and maintenance is not of a magnitude that can be said to adversely affect the likelihood of the kittiwake and puffin populations being maintained as a viable components of the seabird assemblage feature of the Farne Islands SPA, and also not of a magnitude that adversely affects the overall population size of the seabird assemblage feature of the Farne Islands SPA.

Impacts predicted during the construction and decommissioning phases were deemed insignificant, resulting in no detrimental loss to populations.

Therefore, disturbance and displacement during construction, operation and maintenance and decommissioning will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site.

Furthermore, the impact from disturbance and displacement during all phases will not influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA

 kittiwake (breeding);

 gannet (breeding); and

 breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).

 ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the Wild Birds Directive, by maintaining or restoring:

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

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

– the supporting processes on which the habitats of the qualifying features rely.

As the Array and associated ZoI falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for disturbance and displacement during all phases of the Array in-combination with other plans and projects to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, disturbance and displacement associated with the Array in-combination with other plans and projects will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 kittiwake = No AEOI

 gannet = No AEOI

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

 ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the Wild Birds Directive, by maintaining or restoring:

– the populations of each of the qualifying features; and

– the distribution of qualifying features within the site.

The in-combination impact level experienced during operations and maintenance on kittiwake at Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA surpassed the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k). A PVA was therefore required to understand if the impact experienced would have detrimental effects on the populations.

The PVA results for kittiwake ( Table 5.79 Open ▸ ) concluded that the in-combination impact from disturbance and displacement during the operational and maintenance phase would result in the population growth rate decline of less than 0.1%. After 35 years (the expected lifespan of the Array), the CPS ranged from 0.967 (with Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm; High approach to assessment) to 0.991 (without Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm; Low approach to assessment). The impacted population therefore would be between 0.9% to 3.3% smaller than the unimpacted population. The counterfactual of population growth rate results indicate that the impact levels experienced during operation and maintenance would not adversely affect kittiwake at Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA, as the maximum estimated change was a reduction in growth rate by less than 0.1%. Such a decrease indicates that this level of impact would not adversely affect the population and would likely remain undetectable against natural population fluctuations. Furthermore, it is not expected to significantly alter the background mortality rate.

Similarly, the in-combination impact level experienced during operations and maintenance on gannet, at Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA surpassed the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k). A PVA was therefore required to understand if the impact experienced would have detrimental effects on the populations.

The PVA results for gannet ( Table 5.82 Open ▸ ) concluded that the in-combination impact from disturbance and displacement during the operational and maintenance phase would result in the population growth rate decline of less than 0.9%. After 35 years (the expected lifespan of the Array), the CPS ranged from 0.713 (with Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm; High approach to assessment) to 0.890 (without Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm; Low approach to assessment). The impacted population therefore would be between 11.0% to 29.7% smaller than the unimpacted population. Given that the gannet population of the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA has increased from its citation level, the magnitude of impact is insufficient to create an impact that could be said to have an adverse effect on the population continuing to meet the site’s conservation objectives.

These results indicate that the impact of displacement from the Array in combination with other projects during operations and maintenance is not of a magnitude that can be said to adversely affect the likelihood of kittiwake and gannet populations being maintained as a viable component of the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA. Impacts predicted during the construction and decommissioning phases were deemed insignificant, resulting in no detrimental loss to populations.

In addition, as the impact from disturbance and displacement on kittiwake and gannet populations was assessed as not adverse across all phases, the risk to the seabird assemblage has been deemed not adverse for all phases.

Therefore, disturbance and displacement during construction, operation and maintenance and decommissioning will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site.

Furthermore, the impact from disturbance and displacement during all phases will not influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.

 kittiwake = No AEOI

 gannet = No AEOI

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

Forth Islands SPA

 gannet (breeding);

 puffin (breeding); and

 breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species and breeding kittiwake).

 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term:

– distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and

– structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.

As the Array and associated ZoI falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for disturbance and displacement during all phases of the Array in-combination with other plans and projects to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, disturbance and displacement associated with the Array in-combination with other plans and projects will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 gannet = No AEOI

 puffin = No AEOI

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 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; and

– no significant disturbance of the species.

The in-combination impact level experienced during operations and maintenance on puffin at Forth Islands SPA surpassed the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k). A PVA was therefore required to understand if the impact experienced would have detrimental effects on the populations.

The PVA results for puffin ( Table 5.88 Open ▸ ) concluded that the in-combination impact from disturbance and displacement during the operational and maintenance phase would result in the population growth rate decline of no more than 0.4%. After 35 years (the expected lifespan of the Array), the CPS ranged from 0.977 to 0.865. The impacted population therefore would be between 2.3% to 13.5% smaller than the unimpacted population depending on the scenario. Given that the puffin population of the Forth Islands SPA has increased dramatically, the magnitude of impact is insufficient to create an impact that could be said to have an adverse effect on the population continuing to meet the site’s conservation objectives.

Similarly, the in-combination impact level experienced during operations and maintenance on gannet, at Forth Islands SPA surpassed the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k). A PVA was therefore required to understand if the impact experienced would have detrimental effects on the populations.

The PVA results for gannet ( Table 5.91 Open ▸ ) concluded that the in-combination impact from disturbance and displacement during the operational and maintenance phase would result in the population growth rate decline of less than 0.3%. After 35 years (the expected lifespan of the Array), the CPS ranged from 0.880 (with Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm; High approach to assessment) to 0.967 (without Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm; Low approach to assessment). The impacted population therefore would be between 3.3% to 12.0% smaller than the unimpacted population. Given the sustained growth of gannet populations at the Forth Islands SPA, the magnitude of impact is insufficient to create an impact that could be said to have an adverse effect on the population continuing to meet the site’s conservation objectives.

These results indicate that the impact of displacement from the Array in combination with other projects during operations and maintenance is not of a magnitude that can be said to adversely affect the likelihood of puffin and gannet populations being maintained as a viable component of the Forth Islands SPA. Impacts predicted during the construction and decommissioning phases were deemed insignificant, resulting in no detrimental loss to populations.

In addition to the named qualifying features, kittiwake was assessed due to being a named seabird assemblage component of the site. Like puffin and gannet, impacts surpassed the 0.02 threshold and so a PVA was carried out ( Table 5.85 Open ▸ ). Results showed that the population would be 3.6% to 14.7% smaller than the unimpacted population. However, kittiwake is not a qualifying feature it its own right, and instead only qualifies as a named component of the breeding seabird assemblage. As the impact from disturbance and displacement on puffin and gannet populations was assessed as not adverse across all phases, despite the effect on kittiwake populations, as the impact is small the overall risk to the seabird assemblage has been deemed not adverse for all phases.

Therefore, disturbance and displacement during construction, operation and maintenance and decommissioning will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site.

Furthermore, the impact from disturbance and displacement during all phases will not influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.

 gannet = No AEOI

 puffin = No AEOI

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

Fowlsheugh SPA

 kittiwake (breeding); and

 breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species and breeding razorbill).

 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term:

– distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and

– structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.

As the Array and associated ZoI falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for disturbance and displacement during all phases of the Array in-combination with other plans and projects to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, disturbance and displacement associated with the Array in-combination with other plans and projects will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 kittiwake = No AEOI

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 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; and

– no significant disturbance of the species.

The in-combination impact level experienced during operations and maintenance on kittiwake at Fowlsheugh SPA surpassed the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k). A PVA was therefore required to understand if the impact experienced would have detrimental effects on the populations.

The PVA results for kittiwake ( Table 5.94 Open ▸ ) concluded that the in-combination impact from disturbance and displacement during the operational and maintenance phase would result in the population growth rate decline of no more than 0.3%. After 35 years (the expected lifespan of the Array), the CPS ranged from 0.974 to 0.882 depending on the scenario considered (with or without Berwick and “Low” and “High Approach”). The impacted population therefore would be between 2.6% to 11.8% smaller than the unimpacted population. The counterfactual of population growth rate results indicate that the impact levels experienced during operation and maintenance would not adversely affect kittiwake at Fowlsheugh SPA, as the maximum estimated change was a reduction in growth rate by less than 0.1%. Such a decrease indicates that this level of impact would not adversely affect the population and would likely remain undetectable against natural population fluctuations. Furthermore, it is not expected to significantly alter the background mortality rate.

These results indicate that the impact of displacement from the Array in combination with other projects during operation and maintenance would be of a magnitude that can be said to adversely affect the likelihood of the kittiwake population being maintained as a viable component of the Fowlsheugh SPA.

In addition to the named qualifying feature, razorbill was assessed due to being a named seabird assemblage component of the site. Impacts surpassed the 0.02 percentage point threshold and so a PVA was carried out ( Table 5.97 Open ▸ ). Results showed that the population would be 4.4% to 25.4% smaller than the unimpacted population. This level of impact is moderate, and despite the population growth observed to date, the magnitude of impact is sufficient to create an impact that could be said to have an adverse effect on the population. Given this impact on two of the five named components of the assemblage, it is concluded that, under the high approach to assessment, there is a potential for an AEOI on the seabird assemblage feature of the Fowlsheugh SPA.

Disturbance and displacement during construction and decommissioning will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site. Disturbance and displacement during operation and maintenance may prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the kittiwake and seabird assemblage as viable components of the site.

Furthermore, the impact from disturbance and displacement during operation and maintenance may therefore influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.

 kittiwake = No AEOI

 seabird assemblage = AEOI cannot be ruled out

Hermaness, Saxa Vord and Valla Field SPA

 gannet (breeding); and

 breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).

 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term:

– distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and

– structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.

As the Array and associated ZoI falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for disturbance and displacement during all phases of the Array in-combination with other plans and projects to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, disturbance and displacement associated with the Array in-combination with other plans and projects will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 gannet = No AEOI

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 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; and

– no significant disturbance of the species.

The in-combination impact level experienced during operations and maintenance on gannet at Hermaness, Saxa Vord and Valla Field SPA surpassed the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k). A PVA was therefore required to understand if the impact experienced would have detrimental effects on the populations.

The PVA results for gannet ( Table 5.100 Open ▸ ) concluded that the in-combination impact from disturbance and displacement during the operational and maintenance phase would result in the population growth rate decline of no more than 0.1%. After 35 years (the expected lifespan of the Array), the CPS ranged from 0.968 to 0.990 depending on the scenario considered. The impacted population therefore would be between 1.0% to 3.2% smaller than the unimpacted population. The counterfactual of population growth rate results indicate that the impact levels experienced during operation and maintenance would not adversely affect on gannet at Hermaness, Saxa Vord and Valla Field SPA, as the maximum estimated change was a reduction in growth rate by less than 0.1%. Such a decrease indicates that this level of impact would not adversely affect the population and would likely remain undetectable against natural population fluctuations. Furthermore, it is not expected to significantly alter the background mortality rate.

These results indicate that the impact of displacement from the Array in combination with other projects during operation and maintenance would not be of magnitude that can be said to adversely affect the likelihood of the gannet population being maintained as a viable component of the Hermaness, Saxa Vord and Valla Field SPA. Impacts predicted during the construction and decommissioning phases were deemed insignificant, resulting in no detrimental loss to populations. The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance to seabird assemblage was deemed to be of negligible impact; only gannet was deemed to have any potential LSE2 ( Table 3.1 Open ▸ ).

As the impact from disturbance and displacement on gannet populations was assessed as not adverse across all phases, the risk to the seabird assemblage has been deemed not adverse for all phases. Disturbance and displacement during construction and decommissioning will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site.

Therefore, the impact from disturbance and displacement during all phases will not influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed gannet and seabird assemblage within the site.

 gannet = No AEOI

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

North Caithness Cliffs SPA

 breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on breeding kittiwake).

 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term:

– distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and

– structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.

As the Array and associated ZoI falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for disturbance and displacement during all phases of the Array in-combination with other plans and projects to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, disturbance and displacement associated with the Array in-combination with other plans and projects will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 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; and

– no significant disturbance of the species.

The in-combination impact level experienced during operations and maintenance on the named seabird assemblage component, kittiwake, at North Caithness Cliffs SPA surpassed the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k). A PVA was therefore required to understand if the impact experienced would have detrimental effects on the populations.

The PVA results ( Table 5.103 Open ▸ ) concluded that the in-combination impact from disturbance and displacement during the operational and maintenance phase would result in the population growth rate decline of no more than 0.3%. After 35 years (the expected lifespan of the Array), the CPS ranged from 0.906 to 0.966 depending on the scenario considered. The impacted population therefore would be between 3.4% to 9.4% smaller than the unimpacted population. However, kittiwake is not a qualifying feature it its own right, and instead only qualifies as a named component of the breeding seabird assemblage. Whilst there might be a negative effect on the kittiwake population, the magnitude of that effect is small. It is not considered a sufficiently large effect that it could be said to adversely affect the probability of kittiwake being maintained as a viable component of the seabird assemblage.

Furthermore, as kittiwake is the only species being significantly impacted, it could not be said to adversely affect the probability of the total seabird assemblage being maintained.

Impacts predicted during the construction and decommissioning phases were deemed insignificant, resulting in no detrimental loss to populations. The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance to seabird assemblage was deemed to be not adverse. Disturbance and displacement during construction, operation and maintenance and decommissioning will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site.

Therefore, the impact from disturbance and displacement during all phases will not influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed seabird assemblage within the site.

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

Noss SPA

 gannet (breeding); and

 breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).

 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term:

– distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and

– structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.

As the Array and associated ZoI falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for disturbance and displacement during all phases of the Array in-combination with other plans and projects to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, disturbance and displacement associated with the Array in-combination with other plans and projects will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 gannet = No AEOI

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 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; and

– no significant disturbance of the species.

The in-combination impact level experienced during operations and maintenance on gannet at Noss surpassed the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k). A PVA was therefore required to understand if the impact experienced would have detrimental effects on the populations.

The PVA results for gannet ( Table 5.106 Open ▸ ) concluded that the in-combination impact from disturbance and displacement during the operational and maintenance phase would result in the population growth rate decline of no more than 0.1%. After 35 years (the expected lifespan of the Array), the CPS ranged from 0.967 to 0.990 depending on the scenario considered. The impacted population therefore would be between 1.0% to 3.3% smaller than the unimpacted population. As outlined within appendix 3B, the counterfactual of population growth rate is considered a more robust metric compared to the counterfactual of population size due to the models being conducted with density independence, in line with NatureScot guidance (2023k). The counterfactual of population growth rate results indicate that the impact levels experienced during operation and maintenance would not adversely affect gannet at Noss SPA as the maximum estimated change was a reduction in growth rate by 0.1%. Such a decrease indicates that this level of impact would not adversely affect the population and would likely remain undetectable against natural population fluctuations. Furthermore, it is not expected to significantly alter the background mortality rate.

These results indicate that the impact of displacement from the Array in combination with other projects during operation and maintenance would not be of magnitude that can be said to adversely affect the likelihood of the gannet population being maintained as a viable component of the Noss SPA. Impacts predicted during the construction and decommissioning phases were deemed insignificant, resulting in no detrimental loss to populations. The impact level predicted during operations and maintenance to seabird assemblage is deemed to be of negligible impact; only gannet was deemed to have any potential LSE2 ( Table 3.1 Open ▸ ).

As the impact from disturbance and displacement on gannet populations was assessed as not adverse across all phases, the risk to the seabird assemblage has been deemed not adverse for all phases. Disturbance and displacement during all phases will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site.

Therefore, the impact from disturbance and displacement during all phases will not influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed gannet and seabird assemblage within the site.

 gannet = No AEOI

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

St Abb's Head to Fast Castle SPA

 breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on breeding kittiwake).

 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term:

– distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and

– structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.

As the Array and associated ZoI falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for disturbance and displacement during all phases of the Array in-combination with other plans and projects to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, disturbance and displacement associated with the Array in-combination with other plans and projects will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 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; and

– no significant disturbance of the species.

The in-combination impact level experienced during operations and maintenance on the named seabird assemblage component, kittiwake, at St Abb's Head to Fast Castle SPA surpassed the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k). A PVA was therefore required to understand if the impact experienced would have detrimental effects on the populations.

The PVA results ( Table 5.109 Open ▸ ) concluded that the in-combination impact (excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm) from disturbance and displacement during the operational and maintenance phase would result in the population growth rate decline of no more than 0.2%. After 35 years (the expected lifespan of the Array), the CPS ranged from 0.979 to 0.937 depending on the scenario considered. The impacted population therefore would be between 2.1% to 6.3% smaller than the unimpacted population.

However, the PVA results ( Table 5.109 Open ▸ ) concluded that the in-combination impact (including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm) from disturbance and displacement during the operational and maintenance phase would result in the population growth rate decline of 0.4% to 1.2%. After 35 years (the expected lifespan of the Array), the CPS ranged from 0.865 to 0.648 depending on the scenario considered. The impacted population therefore would be between 13.5% to 35.2% smaller than the unimpacted population. Given that the kittiwake population of the St Abb’s Head to Fast Castle SPA has decreased significantly from its citation level, the magnitude of impact is sufficient to create an impact that could be said to have an adverse effect on the population.

The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance to seabird assemblage was deemed to be adverse if Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm impacts are included. Disturbance and displacement during operation and maintenance if Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm is included, may prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site.

If Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm impacts are included, the impact from disturbance and displacement during operation and maintenance may influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed seabird assemblage within the site.

For this assessment, it is determined that the impact from Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm should be excluded when considering AEOI. This is because Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm identified an AEOI ‘alone’ for the kittiwake feature of the St Abb’s Head to Fast Castle SPA (SSE Renewables, 2022). Therefore, should Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm proceed, then its impact on the kittiwake feature of the St Abb’s Head to Fast Castle SPA will be required to be fully compensated and should not be included in the Array ‘in-combination’ assessment.

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI (including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm)

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI (excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm)

St Kilda SPA

 gannet (breeding); and

 breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impacts on above species).

 to ensure that the qualifying features of St Kilda SPA and the seas off St Kilda SPA are in favourable condition and make an appropriate contribution to achieving favourable conservation status;

 to ensure that the integrity of St Kilda SPA and the seas off St Kilda SPA is restored in the context of environmental changes by meeting objectives 2a, 2b and 2c for each qualifying feature:

– the supporting habitats and processes relevant to qualifying features and their prey/food resources are maintained, or where appropriate restored, at St Kilda SPA and/or seas off St Kilda SPA.

As the associated ZoI falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for disturbance and displacement during all phases of the Array in-combination with other plans and projects to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, disturbance and displacement associated with the Array in-combination with other plans and projects will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 gannet = No AEOI

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

 to ensure that the qualifying features of St Kilda SPA and the seas off St Kilda SPA are in favourable condition and make an appropriate contribution to achieving favourable conservation status;

 to ensure that the integrity of St Kilda SPA and the seas off St Kilda SPA is restored in the context of environmental changes by meeting objectives 2a, 2b and 2c for each qualifying feature:

– the populations of qualifying features are viable components of St Kilda SPA and seas off St Kilda SPA; and

– the distributions of the qualifying features throughout St Kilda SPA and seas off St Kilda SPA are maintained by avoiding significant disturbance of the species.

The in-combination impact level experienced during operations and maintenance on gannet at St Kilda SPA remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) ( Table 5.111 Open ▸ ). Values below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population. Impacts predicted during the construction and decommissioning phases were deemed insignificant, resulting in no detrimental loss to populations.

Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during all phases, of disturbance and displacement from the Array in-combination with other plans and projects from significantly disrupting gannet populations as a qualifying species of the St Kilda SPA.

In addition, as the impact from disturbance and displacement on gannet populations was assessed as negligible across all phases, the risk to the seabird assemblage has been deemed negligible for all phases.

Therefore, disturbance and displacement during construction, operation and maintenance and decommissioning, will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site.

Furthermore, the impact from disturbance and displacement during all phases will not significantly influence the distribution of the assessed qualifying species throughout St Kilda SPA.

 gannet = No AEOI

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

Troup, Pennan and Lion's Heads SPA

 kittiwake (breeding); and

 breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).

 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term:

– distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and

– structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.

As the associated ZoI falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for disturbance and displacement during all phases of the Array in-combination with other plans and projects to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, disturbance and displacement associated with the Array in-combination with other plans and projects will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 kittiwake = No AEOI

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 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; and

– no significant disturbance of the species.

The in-combination impact level experienced during operations and maintenance on kittiwake at Troup, Pennan and Lion's Heads SPA surpassed the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k). A PVA was therefore required to understand if the impact experienced would have detrimental effects on the populations.

The PVA results for kittiwake ( Table 5.114 Open ▸ ) concluded that the in-combination impact from disturbance and displacement during the operational and maintenance phase would result in the population growth rate decline of no more than 0.2%. After 35 years (the expected lifespan of the Array), the CPS ranged from 0.918 to 0.976 depending on the scenario considered. The impacted population therefore would be between 2.4% to 8.2% smaller than the unimpacted population. The counterfactual of population growth rate results indicate that the impact levels experienced during operation and maintenance would not adversely affect kittiwake at Troup, Pennan and Lion's Heads SPA, as the maximum estimated change was a reduction in growth rate by 0.2%. Such a decrease indicates that this level of impact would not adversely affect the population and would likely remain undetectable against natural population fluctuations. Furthermore, it is not expected to significantly alter the background mortality rate.

These results indicate that the impact of displacement from the Array in combination with other projects during operation and maintenance would not be of magnitude that can be said to adversely affect the likelihood of the kittiwake population being maintained as a viable component of the Troup, Pennan and Lion's Heads SPA. Impacts predicted during the construction and decommissioning phases were deemed insignificant, resulting in no detrimental loss to populations.

The impact level predicted during operations and maintenance to seabird assemblage was deemed to be of negligible impact; only kittiwake was deemed to have any potential LSE2 ( Table 3.1 Open ▸ ).

As the impact from disturbance and displacement on kittiwake populations was assessed as not adverse across all phases, the risk to the seabird assemblage has been deemed not adverse for all phases. Disturbance and displacement during construction and decommissioning will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site.

Therefore, the impact from disturbance and displacement during all phases will not influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed kittiwake and seabird assemblage within the site.

 kittiwake = No AEOI

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

As detailed in Table 5.115 Open ▸ , adverse effects on the qualifying seabird features of three SPAs were identified, which could undermine the conservation objectives of the SPA as a result of disturbance and displacement associated with activities during operation and maintenance phase of the Array in-combination with other plans and projects. There is risk therefore of undermining the following Conservation Objectives of the sites:

Maintain the long term distribution of the species within site and avoid significant disturbance of the species: Given the level of impact arising from disturbance and displacement from the Array area, there is potential for the Array to influence the population of designated features as viable components of:

- East Caithness Cliffs SPA (kittiwake);

- Fowlsheugh SPA (kittiwake and seabird assemblage with regards to kittiwake and razorbill), and

- St Abb's Head to Fast Castle SPA (seabird assemblage).

- given the level of impact arising from disturbance and displacement from the Array area, there is potential for the Array to disturb the distribution of features within the following SPAs:

- East Caithness Cliffs SPA (kittiwake);

- Fowlsheugh SPA (kittiwake and seabird assemblage with regards to kittiwake and razorbill), and

- St Abb's Head to Fast Castle SPA (seabird assemblage).

For all sites considered, there is no risk to undermining the following Conservation Objectives:

as the Array and associated ZoI falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no potential for the Array to impact on the distribution and extent of habitats within the SPA; and
as the Array and associated ZoI falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no potential for the Array to influence the structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.

5.5.3. Collision

Operational wind turbines and associated infrastructure present a collision risk for seabirds flying within the array. Direct collision with infrastructure may result in injury or death; however, it is assumed that all collisions with operational wind turbines result in mortality.
For the Array’s impacts, CRM for regularly occurring species was undertaken using the sCRM developed by Marine Scotland (McGregor et al., 2018). The User Guide for the sCRM Shiny App provided by Marine Scotland (Donovan, 2017) has been followed for the modelling of collision impacts predicted for the Array. The full methodology and input parameters is provided in volume 3, appendix 11.2 of the Array EIA Report.
For other developments considered, the approach to quantifying collision risk is as detailed in the data sources listed in the tables below. This will not necessarily be identical to the approach undertaken by Ossian, given developments of new CRM software and/or changing evidence and advice regarding appropriate input parameters to use for modelling.

Operation and maintenance phase

Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast SPA

Kittiwake (seabird assemblage component only)

The source information regarding kittiwake collision mortality from other relevant projects is given in Table 5.116 Open ▸ .

Table 5.116: Kittiwake Collision Mortalities Apportioned to the Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast SPA from Other Relevant Projects

Project(s)	Data Source	Approach	Adult Mortalities
Project(s)	Data Source	Approach	Pre-Breeding Season	Breeding Season	Post-Breeding	Annual Total
UK North Sea projects	SSE Renewables (2022)	Scoping	25.2	27.0	19.1	71.3
UK North Sea projects	SSE Renewables (2022)	Developer	24.4	25.0	17.7	67.1
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm (2023)	N/A	0.1	1.2	0.1	1.4
West of Orkney Wind Farm	Offshore Wind Power Limited (2023)	Low	1.0	0.2	0.8	1.9
West of Orkney Wind Farm	Offshore Wind Power Limited (2023)	Mid	1.1	0.2	0.8	2.1
West of Orkney Wind Farm	Offshore Wind Power Limited (2023)	High	1.2	0.3	0.9	2.3
Pentland Floating Offshore Wind	Xodus Group Ltd (2022)	N/A	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Outer Dowsing	Outer Dowsing Offshore Wind (2023)	Developer	N/A	N/A	N/A	1.5*
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm alone	SSE Renewables (2022)	Scoping	4.6	6.5	3.2	14.3
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm alone	SSE Renewables (2022)	Developer	3.7	4.5	1.9	10.1

*Apportioned impacts only presented on an annual basis in source document.

From this information, the various approaches have been consolidated into a “low” and a “high” estimate for the total in-combination impact. This is presented in Table 5.117 Open ▸ .

Table 5.117: Kittiwake Collision Mortalities Apportioned to the Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast SPA In-Combination Totals

Project(s)	Adult Mortalities
	Pre-Breeding Season		Breeding Season		Post-Breeding Season		Annual Total
	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High
UK North Sea projects	24.4	25.2	25.0	27.0	17.7	19.1	67.1	71.3
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	0.1	0.1	1.2	1.2	0.1	0.1	1.4	1.4
West of Orkney Wind Farm	1.0	1.2	0.2	0.3	0.8	0.9	1.9	2.3
Pentland Floating Offshore Wind	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Outer Dowsing	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	1.5	1.5
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	3.7	4.6	4.5	6.5	1.9	3.2	10.1	14.3
Ossian	0.0	0.1	0.4	3.1	0.0	0.1	0.5	3.3
Total (Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm)	25.5	26.6	26.8	31.6	18.6	20.2	72.4	79.9
Total (Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm)	21.8	22.0	22.3	25.1	16.7	17.0	62.3	65.6

With a population of 22,590 breeding adults (Burnell et al., 2023), 62,3 to 79.9 additional mortalities represents a 0.276 to 0.354 percentage point increase in mortality rates. Therefore, PVA has been carried out both with and without Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm and for the high and low scenarios, to further assess the total in-combination impact.
The PVA results are summarised in Table 5.118 Open ▸ . Full details are available in appendix 3B.

Table 5.118: Summary of PVA Results for In-Combination Collision Impacts on Kittiwake at the Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast SPA

Scenario	Approach	Adult Mortality	Citation Population (Breeding Adults)	Recent Population (Burnell et al., 2023) (Breeding Adults)	Median Unimpacted Population After 35 Years	Median Impacted Population After 35 Years	Median CGR	Median CPS
Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	Low	72.4	60,904	22,590	21,365	18,610	0.996	0.872
Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	High	79.9				18,370	0.996	0.860
Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	Low	62.3				18,948	0.997	0.889
Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	High	65.6				18,844	0.997	0.884

The kittiwake population of the Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast SPA has declined significantly between its citation level of 60,904 breeding adults and Seabird Census counts of 22,590 breeding adults (Burnell et al., 2023), and is assessed as being in “Unfavourable No Change” condition (NatureScot, ND). There have however been recent signs of slight recovery, with 13,547 AONs (27,094 individuals) recorded in 2023 (Tremlett et al, 2024).
The PVA results show that the kittiwake population is expected to remain relatively stable under the counterfactual (no impact) scenario. Under the impacted scenarios, the CGR ranges is 0.996 under both the high and low approach if Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm’s impacts are included, or 0.997 if Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm’s impacts are excluded. This leads to a CPS after 35 years of 0.860 to 0.889 – i.e. the population size would be 11.1% to 14.0% smaller than the counterfactual population size.
Whilst this level of impact is small, it is not negligible and in the context of a population that is already declining, the additional mortality from the Array in combination with other projects and plans would appear to have the potential to adversely affect the kittiwake population, for all assessment scenarios and both with and without Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm.

Breeding Seabird Assemblage

Of the components of the seabird assemblage, kittiwake was the only species for which a potential LSE2 was identified. As detailed above, it is expected that there would be a small but detectable negative impact on the kittiwake population. The seabird assemblage citation level is 95,000 individual seabirds, of which 60,904 were kittiwake. The decline in the kittiwake population between the citation level and Seabirds Count (Burnell et al., 2023) is therefore sufficient to adversely affect the overall population of the seabird assemblage. Whilst other components of the assemblage have increased in population, for example the guillemot population has increased from 17,280 breeding adults to 39,440 breeding adults (Burnell et al., 2023), this is unlikely to be sufficient to offset the decline in the kittiwake population. Therefore, whilst the magnitude of the impact would not be deemed sufficient to risk entirely losing kittiwake as a viable component of the assemblage, the decline is sufficient to adversely affect the total population size of the overall assemblage.
Therefore, it is concluded that there is a potential AEOI to the seabird assemblage feature of the Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast SPA as a result of the impact of collision from the Array in-combination with other developments.

East Caithness Cliffs SPA

Kittiwake

The source information regarding kittiwake collision mortality from other relevant projects is given in Table 5.119 Open ▸ .

Table 5.119: Kittiwake Collision Mortalities Apportioned to the East Caithness Cliffs SPA from Other Relevant Projects

Project(s)	Data Source	Approach	Adult Mortalities
Project(s)	Data Source	Approach	Pre-Breeding Season	Breeding Season	Post-Breeding	Annual Total
UK North Sea projects	SSE Renewables (2022)	Scoping	81.2	91.5	61.4	234.1
UK North Sea projects	SSE Renewables (2022)	Developer	78.5	91.3	57.1	226.9
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm (2023)	N/A	0.3	0.8	0.4	1.5
West of Orkney Wind Farm	Offshore Wind Power Limited (2023)	Low	3.1	2.9	2.5	8.5
West of Orkney Wind Farm	Offshore Wind Power Limited (2023)	Mid	3.4	3.4	2.7	9.5
West of Orkney Wind Farm	Offshore Wind Power Limited (2023)	High	3.7	3.8	2.9	10.5
Pentland Floating Offshore Wind	Xodus Group Ltd (2022)	N/A	0.0	0.6	0.0	0.6
SEP & DEP	Equinor (2022)	Developer	0.1	0.0	0.3	0.4
Outer Dowsing	Outer Dowsing Offshore Wind (2023)	Developer	N/A	N/A	N/A	4.9*
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm alone	SSE Renewables (2022)	Scoping	14.6	0.5	10.4	25.5
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm alone	SSE Renewables (2022)	Developer	11.9	0.4	6.1	18.4

*Apportioned impacts only presented on an annual basis in source document.

From this information, the various approaches have been consolidated into a “low” and a “high” estimate for the total in-combination impact. This is presented in Table 5.120 Open ▸ .

Table 5.120: Kittiwake Collision Mortalities Apportioned to the East Caithness Cliffs SPA In-Combination Totals

Project(s)	Adult Mortalities
	Pre-Breeding Season		Breeding Season		Post-Breeding Season		Annual Total
	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High
UK North Sea projects	78.5	81.2	91.3	91.5	57.1	61.4	226.9	234.1
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	0.3	0.3	0.8	0.8	0.4	0.4	1.5	1.5
West of Orkney Wind Farm	3.1	3.7	2.9	3.8	2.5	2.9	8.5	10.5
Pentland Floating Offshore Wind	0.0	0.0	0.6	0.6	0.0	0.0	0.6	0.6
SEP & DEP	0.1	0.1	0.0	0.0	0.3	0.3	0.4	0.4
Outer Dowsing	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	4.9	4.9
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	11.9	14.6	0.4	0.5	6.1	10.4	18.4	25.5
Ossian	0.1	0.5	0.2	1.4	0.0	0.3	0.3	2.1
Total (Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm)	82.1	85.8	95.7	98.1	60.3	65.3	243.0	254.1
Total (Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm)	70.2	71.2	95.3	97.6	54.2	54.9	224.6	228.6

With a population of 48,958 breeding adults (Burnell et al., 2023), 224.6 to 254.1 additional mortalities represents a 0.459 to 0.519 percentage point increase in mortality rates. Therefore, PVA has been carried out both with and without Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm and for the high and low scenarios, to further assess the total in-combination impact.
The PVA results are summarised in Table 5.121 Open ▸ . Full details are available in appendix 3B.

Table 5.121: Summary of PVA Results for In-Combination Collision Impacts on Kittiwake at the East Caithness Cliffs SPA

Scenario	Approach	Adult Mortality	Citation Population (Breeding Adults)	Recent Population (Burnell et al., 2023) (Breeding Adults)	Median Unimpacted Population After 35 Years	Median Impacted Population After 35 Years	Median CGR	Median CPS
Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	Low	243.0	65,000	48,958	46,244	37,441	0.994	0.809
Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	High	254.1				37,076	0.994	0.801
Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	Low	224.6				37,951	0.995	0.822
Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	High	228.6				37,818	0.994	0.819

The kittiwake population of the East Caithness Cliffs SPA has declined slightly from its citation level of 65,000 breeding adults and recent counts of 48,958 breeding adults (Burnell et al., 2023), although it is assessed as being in “Favourable Maintained” condition (NatureScot, ND).
The PVA results show that the kittiwake population is expected to remain relatively stable under the counterfactual (no impact) scenario. Under the impacted scenarios, the CGR is 0.994 under both the high and low approach if Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm’s impacts are included, or 0.994 to 0.995 if Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm’s impacts are excluded. This leads to a CPS after 35 years of 0.801 to 0.822 – i.e. the population size would be 17.8% to 19.9% smaller than the counterfactual population size.
Whilst this level of impact is small, it is not negligible and in the context of a population that is already declining, the additional mortality from the Array in combination with other projects and plans would appear to have the potential to adversely affect the likelihood of the site meeting its conservation objectives for all assessment scenarios and both with and without Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm. Therefore, it is concluded that there is a potential AEOI to the kittiwake feature of the East Caithness Cliffs SPA as a result of collision impacts from the Array in-combination with other developments.

Breeding Seabird Assemblage

Of the components of the seabird assemblage, kittiwake was the only species for which a potential LSE2 was identified for collision risk. As detailed above, there is expected to be a significant impact on the kittiwake population. The kittiwake population at citation was significantly higher than the current population (Burnell et al., 2023). Whilst the magnitude of the impact would not be deemed sufficient to risk entirely losing kittiwake as a viable component of the assemblage, the decline is sufficient to adversely affect the total population size of the overall assemblage.
Therefore, it is concluded that there is a potential AEOI to the seabird assemblage feature of the East Caithness Cliffs SPA as a result of the impact of collision from the Array in-combination with other developments.

Farne Islands SPA

Kittiwake (seabird assemblage component only)

The source information regarding kittiwake collision mortality from other relevant projects is given in Table 5.122 Open ▸ .

Table 5.122: Kittiwake Collision Mortalities Apportioned to the Farne Islands SPA from Other Relevant Projects

Project(s)	Data Source	Approach	Adult Mortalities
Project(s)	Data Source	Approach	Pre-Breeding Season	Breeding Season	Post-Breeding	Annual Total
UK North Sea projects	SSE Renewables (2022)	Scoping	7.0	24.2	5.2	36.4
UK North Sea projects	SSE Renewables (2022)	Developer	6.8	16.7	4.9	28.4
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm (2023)	Developer	0.0	0.1	0.0	0.1
West of Orkney Wind Farm	Offshore Wind Power Limited (2023)	Low	0.3	0.0	0.2	0.5
West of Orkney Wind Farm	Offshore Wind Power Limited (2023)	Mid	0.3	0.0	0.2	0.5
West of Orkney Wind Farm	Offshore Wind Power Limited (2023)	High	0.3	0.0	0.2	0.6
Pentland Floating Offshore Wind	Xodus Group Ltd (2022)	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Outer Dowsing	Outer Dowsing Offshore Wind (2023)	Developer	0.3	0.2	0.1	0.6
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm alone	SSE Renewables (2022)	Scoping	1.3	24.2	0.9	26.4
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm alone	SSE Renewables (2022)	Developer	1.1	16.7	0.5	18.3

From this information, the various approaches have been consolidated into a “low” and a “high” estimate for the total in-combination impact. This is presented in Table 5.123 Open ▸ .

Table 5.123: Kittiwake Collision Mortalities Apportioned to the Farne Islands SPA In-Combination Totals

Project(s)	Adult Mortalities
	Pre-Breeding Season		Breeding Season		Post-Breeding Season		Annual Total
	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High
UK North Sea projects	6.8	7.0	16.7	24.2	4.9	5.2	28.4	36.4
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	0.0	0.0	0.1	0.1	0.0	0.0	0.1	0.1
West of Orkney Wind Farm	0.3	0.3	0.0	0.0	0.2	0.2	0.5	0.6
Pentland Floating Offshore Wind	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Outer Dowsing	0.3	0.3	0.2	0.2	0.1	0.1	0.6	0.6
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	1.1	1.3	16.7	24.2	0.5	0.9	18.3	26.4
Ossian	0.0	0.0	0.1	1.1	0.0	0.0	0.2	1.1
Total (Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm)	7.4	7.7	17.1	25.6	5.2	5.6	29.7	38.8
Total (Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm)	6.3	6.4	0.4	1.4	4.7	4.7	11.4	12.4

With a population of 8,804 breeding adults (Burnell et al., 2023), 11.4 to 38.8 additional mortalities represents a 0.130 to 0.441 percentage point increase in mortality rates. Therefore, PVA has been carried out both with and without Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm and for the high and low scenarios, to further assess the total in-combination impact.
The PVA results are summarised in Table 5.124 Open ▸ . Full details are available in appendix 3B.

Table 5.124: Summary of PVA Results for In-Combination Collision Impacts on Kittiwake at the Farne Islands SPA

Scenario	Approach	Adult Mortality	Citation Population (Breeding Adults)	Recent Population (Burnell et al., 2023) (Breeding Adults)	Median Unimpacted Population After 35 Years	Median Impacted Population After 35 Years	Median CGR	Median CPS
Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	Low	29.7	8,241	8,804	8,312	7,197	0.996	0.865
Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	High	38.8				6,895	0.995	0.827
Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	Low	11.4				7,835	0.998	0.946
Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	High	12.4				7,835	0.998	0.941

The kittiwake population of the Farne Islands SPA has increased slightly from its citation level of 8,241 breeding adults to recent counts of 8,804 breeding adults (Burnell et al., 2023).
The PVA results show that the kittiwake population is expected to remain relatively stable under the counterfactual (no impact) scenario. Under the impacted scenarios, the CGR is 0.995 to 0.998. This leads to a CPS after 35 years of 0.827 to 0.946 – i.e. the population size would be 5.4% to 17.3% smaller than the counterfactual population size.
If Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm is excluded, the impact of displacement from the Array in combination with other projects is predicted to make no material impact on the kittiwake population compared to the counterfactual scenario, and it can be concluded, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, that there is no potential for an adverse effect on the kittiwake population of the Farne Islands SPA as a result of displacement from the Array in-combination with other developments.
However, if Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm is included, whilst the level of impact is still small, it is no longer considered immaterial and the additional mortality from the Array in-combination with other projects and plans would appear to have the potential to adversely affect the kittiwake population.

Breeding Seabird Assemblage

Of the components of the seabird assemblage, kittiwake was the only species for which a potential LSE2 was identified for collision. As detailed above, there is expected to be a significant adverse impact on the size of the kittiwake population if Berwick Bank is included.
However, whilst there might be a negative effect on the kittiwake population, the magnitude of that effect is small. It is not considered a sufficiently large impact that it could be said to adversely affect the probability of kittiwake being maintained as a viable component of the seabird assemblage. Furthermore, kittiwake is the only component of the assemblage for which a potential LSE2 has been identified from collision risk. Kittiwake are a minor component of the assemblage, with a citation population of 8,241 breeding adults out of the total assemblage citation population of 163,819 individuals. Other components of the assemblage have increased in population, for example the guillemot population at citation was 65,750 breeding adults; the recent Seabirds Count estimated the population size to be 85,816 breeding adults (Burnell et al., 2023). Therefore, the overall population of the assemblage will be maintained. Therefore, it is concluded, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, that there is no AEOI to the seabird assemblage feature of the Farne Islands SPA as a result of collision.

Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA

Kittiwake

The source information regarding kittiwake collision mortality from other relevant projects is given in Table 5.125 Open ▸ .

Table 5.125: Kittiwake Collision Mortalities Apportioned to the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA from Other Relevant Projects

Project(s)	Data Source	Approach	Adult Mortalities
Project(s)	Data Source	Approach	Pre-Breeding Season	Breeding Season	Post-Breeding	Annual Total
UK North Sea projects	SSE Renewables (2022)	Scoping	69.6	306.6	76.2	452.4
UK North Sea projects	SSE Renewables (2022)	Developer	67.0	306.5	72.1	445.6
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm (2023)	Developer	0.2	N/A	0.3	0.5
West of Orkney Wind Farm	Offshore Wind Power Limited (2023)	Low	2.9	0.0	2.3	5.2
West of Orkney Wind Farm	Offshore Wind Power Limited (2023)	Mid	3.2	0.0	2.5	5.7
West of Orkney Wind Farm	Offshore Wind Power Limited (2023)	High	3.5	0.0	2.7	6.2
Pentland Floating Offshore Wind	Xodus Group Ltd (2022)	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
North Falls	North Falls Offshore Wind Farm Limited (2023)	WTG 1a; NAF 0.25	0.9	6.0	0.4	7.3
North Falls	North Falls Offshore Wind Farm Limited (2023)	WTG 1a; NAF 0.5	1.1	7.0	0.5	8.6
North Falls	North Falls Offshore Wind Farm Limited (2023)	WTG 1b; NAF 0.25	1.1	7.5	0.5	9.1
North Falls	North Falls Offshore Wind Farm Limited (2023)	WTG 1b; NAF 0.5	1.4	8.7	0.7	10.7
North Falls	North Falls Offshore Wind Farm Limited (2023)	WTG 2; NAF 0.25	0.7	5.0	0.3	6.1
North Falls	North Falls Offshore Wind Farm Limited (2023)	WTG 2; NAF 0.5	1.0	5.8	0.4	7.2
SEP & DEP	Equinor (2023)	Developer	N/A	N/A	N/A	6.4*
Five Estuaries	Five Estuaries Wind Farm Ltd (2023)	Developer	0.5	0.0	0.6	1.1
Outer Dowsing	Outer Dowsing Offshore Wind (2023)	Developer	3.6	12.5	1.0	17.1
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm alone	SSE Renewables (2022)	Scoping	13.7	0.5	9.7	23.9
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm alone	SSE Renewables (2022)	Developer	11.1	0.4	5.6	17.1

*Apportioned impacts only presented on an annual basis in source document.

From this information, the various approaches have been consolidated into a “low” and a “high” estimate for the total in-combination impact. This is presented in Table 5.126 Open ▸ .

Table 5.126: Kittiwake Collision Mortalities Apportioned to the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA In-Combination Totals

Project(s)	Adult Mortalities
	Pre-Breeding Season		Breeding Season		Post-Breeding Season		Annual Total
	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High
UK North Sea projects	67.0	69.6	306.5	306.6	72.1	76.2	445.6	452.4
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	0.2	0.2	N/A	N/A	0.3	0.3	0.5	0.5
West of Orkney Wind Farm	2.9	3.5	0.0	0.0	2.3	2.7	5.2	6.2
Pentland Floating Offshore Wind	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	0.0	0.0
North Falls	0.7	1.4	5.0	8.7	0.3	0.7	6.1	10.7
SEP & DEP	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	6.4	6.4
Five Estuaries	0.5	0.5	0.0	0.0	0.6	0.6	1.1	1.1
Outer Dowsing	3.6	3.6	12.5	12.5	1.0	1.0	17.1	17.1
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	11.1	13.7	0.4	0.5	5.6	9.7	17.1	23.9
Ossian	0.1	0.4	0.4	2.7	0.0	0.3	0.5	3.4
Total (Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm)	75.1	79.2	324.3	330.4	76.7	81.8	482.4	497.7
Total (Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm)	64.0	65.5	323.9	329.9	71.1	72.1	465.3	473.8

With a population of 91,008 breeding adults (Burnell et al., 2023), 465.3 to 497.7 additional mortalities represents a 0.511 to 0.547 percentage point increase in mortality rates. Therefore, PVA has been carried out both with and without Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm and for the high and low scenarios, to further assess the total in-combination impact.
The PVA results are summarised in Table 5.127 Open ▸ . Full details are available in appendix 3B.

Table 5.127: Summary of PVA Results for In-Combination Collision Impacts on Kittiwake at the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA

Scenario	Approach	Adult Mortality	Citation Population (Breeding Adults)	Recent Population (Burnell et al., 2023) (Breeding Adults)	Median Unimpacted Population After 35 Years	Median Impacted Population After 35 Years	Median CGR	Median CPS
Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	Low	482.4	89,040	91,008	86,128	68,303	0.994	0.797
Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	High	497.7				68,254	0.994	0.791
Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	Low	465.3				69,056	0.994	0.804
Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	High	473.8				68,691	0.994	0.800

The kittiwake population of the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA has increased slightly from its citation level of 89,040 breeding adults to recent counts of 91,008 breeding adults (Burnell et al., 2023).
The PVA results show that the kittiwake population is expected to remain relatively stable under the counterfactual (no impact) scenario. Under the impacted scenarios, the CGR is 0.994. This leads to a CPS after 35 years of 0.791 to 0.804 – i.e. the population size would be 19.6% to 20.9% smaller than the counterfactual population size.
Whilst the population has grown slightly from the citation level, the magnitude of the impact is sufficient that it has the potential to adversely affect the population. Therefore, it is concluded that there is a potential AEOI to the kittiwake feature of the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA as a result of the in-combination collision impact.

Gannet

The source information regarding gannet collision mortality from other relevant projects is given in Table 5.128 Open ▸ .

Table 5.128: Gannet Collision Mortalities Apportioned to the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA from Other Relevant Projects

Project(s)	Data Source	Approach	Adult Mortalities
Project(s)	Data Source	Approach	Pre-breeding Season	Breeding Season	Post-breeding	Annual Total
UK North Sea projects	SSE Renewables (2022)	Scoping	12.3	247.4	24.3	284.0
UK North Sea projects	SSE Renewables (2022)	Developer	12.3	247.0	24.2	283.5
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm (2023)	Developer	0.2	0.4	0.0	0.6
West of Orkney Wind Farm	Offshore Wind Power Limited (2023)	Low	1.5	0.0	1.0	2.5
West of Orkney Wind Farm	Offshore Wind Power Limited (2023)	Mid	0.5	0.0	1.5	2.0
West of Orkney Wind Farm	Offshore Wind Power Limited (2023)	High	2.2	0.0	1.9	4.1
Pentland Floating Offshore Wind	Xodus Group Ltd (2022)	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
SEP & DEP	Equinor (2023)	Developer	N/A	N/A	N/A	0.3*
Five Estuaries	Five Estuaries Wind Farm Ltd (2023)	Developer	0.0	0.4	0.1	0.5
Outer Dowsing	Outer Dowsing Offshore Wind (2023)	Developer	0.0	1.4	0.0	1.4
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm alone	SSE Renewables (2022)	Scoping	0.1	2.0	0.4	2.5
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm alone	SSE Renewables (2022)	Developer	0.1	1.6	0.3	2.0

*Apportioned impacts only presented on an annual basis in source document.

From this information, the various approaches have been consolidated into a “low” and a “high” estimate for the total in-combination impact. This is presented in Table 5.129 Open ▸ .

Table 5.129: Gannet Collision Mortalities Apportioned to the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA In-Combination Totals

Project(s)	Adult Mortalities
	Pre-Breeding Season		Breeding Season		Post-Breeding Season		Annual Total
	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High
UK North Sea projects	12.3	12.3	247.0	247.4	24.2	24.3	283.5	284.0
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	0.2	0.2	0.4	0.4	0.0	0.0	0.6	0.6
West of Orkney Wind Farm	0.5	2.2	0.0	0.0	1.0	1.9	1.5	4.1
Pentland Floating Offshore Wind	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	0.0	0.0
SEP & DEP	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	0.3	0.3
Five Estuaries	0.0	0.0	0.4	0.4	0.1	0.1	0.5	0.5
Outer Dowsing	0.0	0.0	1.4	1.4	0.0	0.0	1.4	1.4
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	0.1	0.1	1.6	2.0	0.3	0.4	2.0	2.5
Ossian	0.0	0.0	0.7	2.0	0.2	0.3	0.8	2.3
Total (Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm)	13.0	14.7	249.9	251.6	25.5	26.6	288.7	293.2
Total (Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm)	12.9	14.6	248.3	249.6	25.2	26.2	286.7	290.7

With a population of 26,784 breeding adults (Burnell et al., 2023), 286.7 to 293.2 additional mortalities represents a 1.0671 to 1.095 percentage point increase in mortality rates. Therefore, PVA has been carried out both with and without Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm and for the high and low scenarios, to further assess the total in-combination impact.
The PVA results are summarised in Table 5.130 Open ▸ . Full details are available in appendix 3B.

Table 5.130: Summary of PVA Results for In-Combination Collision Impacts on Gannet at the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA

Scenario	Approach	Adult Mortality	Citation Population (Breeding Adults)	Recent Population (Burnell et al., 2023) (Breeding Adults)	Median Unimpacted Population After 35 Years	Median Impacted Population After 35 Years	Median CGR	Median CPS
Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	Low	288.7	16,938	26,784	36,005	22,769	0.987	0.632
Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	High	293.2				22,584	0.987	0.627
Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	Low	286.7				22,810	0.987	0.634
Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	High	290.7				22,655	0.987	0.630

The gannet population of the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA has increased between its citation level of 16,938 breeding adults and recent counts of 26,784 breeding adults (Burnell et al., 2023).
Under all scenarios and approaches, the CGR is 0.987, and the CPS ranges from 0.627 to 0.634. Whilst the gannet population of the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA has been growing, this is a magnitude of impact that could lead to a population decline, contrary to the conservation objectives of the site.
Therefore, it is concluded that there is a potential AEOI to the gannet feature of the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA as a result of collision impacts from the Array in combination with other developments.
It should, however, be noted that The Array’s contribution to the in-combination collision impact is small, being 0.8 to 2.3 birds per year, or approximately 0.3 to 0.8% of the total impact.
It should further be noted that the approach to collision risk modelling used by both the Array and many other developments considered in the in-combination totals do not incorporate a macro-avoidance factor, in line with the current guidance from NatureScot. Natural England advise to apply a 65-85% macro avoidance rate when modelling gannet collisions (MD-LOT, 2023), which would reduce the collision mortality by the same amount. NatureScot have indicated they are reviewing their position on this matter (MD-LOT, 2023). If a 65-85% macro avoidance rate was applied, the overall impact would most likely no longer be a magnitude that could be considered to cause an AEOI, and moreover the Array’s contribution to the total impact would be imperceptible.
Therefore, under the current approach to assessment, it must be concluded that the in-combination total collision risk reaches a magnitude that would be an AEOI to the gannet feature of the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA.
However, this approach is considered highly over-precautionary, and under a more realistic approach, no AEOI would be expected to occur, and The Array could not be stated to be making a material contribution to any in-combination impact.

Breeding Seabird Assemblage

Of the components of the breeding seabird assemblage, only kittiwake and gannet were found to have any potential LSE2 for collision risk. The assessments for these species are presented above. The assessments found both species are expected to have an AEOI. In this instance, the magnitude of those impacts is sufficient to indicate that the overall seabird assemblage could, under the most precautionary (“high”) approach to assessment, be adversely affected.
Therefore, it is concluded that there is a potential AEOI to the seabird assemblage feature of the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA as a result of collision impacts from the Array in combination with other developments.

Forth Islands SPA

Kittiwake (seabird assemblage component only)

The source information regarding kittiwake collision mortality from other relevant projects is given in Table 5.131 Open ▸ .

Table 5.131: Kittiwake Collision Mortalities Apportioned to the Forth Islands SPA from Other Relevant Projects

Project(s)	Data Source	Approach	Adult Mortalities
Project(s)	Data Source	Approach	Pre-breeding Season	Breeding Season	Post-breeding	Annual Total
UK North Sea projects	SSE Renewables (2022)	Scoping	6.3	46.3	4.6	57.2
UK North Sea projects	SSE Renewables (2022)	Developer	6.0	36.8	4.3	47.1
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm (2023)	Developer	0.0	0.1	0.0	0.1
West of Orkney Wind Farm	Offshore Wind Power Limited (2023)	Low	0.2	0.0	0.2	0.4
West of Orkney Wind Farm	Offshore Wind Power Limited (2023)	Mid	0.3	0.0	0.2	0.5
West of Orkney Wind Farm	Offshore Wind Power Limited (2023)	High	0.3	0.0	0.2	0.5
Pentland Floating Offshore Wind	Xodus Group Ltd (2022)	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Outer Dowsing	Outer Dowsing Offshore Wind (2023)	Developer	N/A	N/A	N/A	0.4*
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm alone	SSE Renewables (2022)	Scoping	1.1	30.7	0.7	32.5
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm alone	SSE Renewables (2022)	Developer	0.9	21.2	0.4	22.5

*Apportioned impacts only presented on an annual basis in source document.

From this information, the various approaches have been consolidated into a “low” and a “high” estimate for the total in-combination impact. This is presented in Table 5.132 Open ▸ .

Table 5.132: Kittiwake Collision Mortalities Apportioned to the Forth Islands SPA In-Combination Totals

Project(s)	Adult Mortalities
	Pre-Breeding Season		Breeding Season		Post-Breeding Season		Annual Total
	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High
UK North Sea projects	6.0	6.3	36.8	46.3	4.3	4.6	47.1	57.2
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	0.0	0.0	0.1	0.1	0.0	0.0	0.1	0.1
West of Orkney Wind Farm	0.2	0.3	0.0	0.0	0.2	0.2	0.4	0.5
Pentland Floating Offshore Wind	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	0.0	0.0
Outer Dowsing	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	0.4	0.4
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	0.9	1.1	21.2	30.7	0.4	0.7	22.5	32.5
Ossian	0.0	0.0	0.1	1.0	0.0	0.0	0.1	1.0
Total (Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm)	6.2	6.6	37.0	47.4	4.5	4.8	48.2	59.2
Total (Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm)	5.3	5.5	15.8	16.7	4.1	4.1	25.7	26.7

With a population of 9,084 breeding adults (Burnell et al., 2023), 25.7 to 59.2 additional mortalities represents a 0.283 to 0.652 percentage point increase in mortality rates. Therefore, PVA has been carried out both with and without Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm and for the high and low scenarios, to further assess the total in-combination impact.
The PVA results are summarised in Table 5.133 Open ▸ . Full details are available in appendix 3B.

Table 5.133: Summary of PVA Results for In-Combination Collision Impacts on Kittiwake at the Forth Islands SPA

Scenario	Approach	Adult Mortality	Citation Population (Breeding Adults)	Recent Population (Burnell et al., 2023) (Breeding Adults)	Median Unimpacted Population After 35 Years	Median Impacted Population After 35 Years	Median CGR	Median CPS
Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	Low	48.2	16,800	9,084	8,571	6,866	0.994	0.797
Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	High	59.2				6,504	0.992	0.757
Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	Low	25.7				7,614	0.997	0.887
Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	High	26.7				7,565	0.997	0.882

The kittiwake population of the Forth Islands SPA has decreased between its citation level of 16,800 breeding adults and recent counts of 9,084 breeding adults (Burnell et al., 2023).
The PVA results show that the kittiwake population is expected to remain relatively stable under the counterfactual (no impact) scenario. Under the impacted scenarios, the CGR is 0.992 to 0.997. This leads to a CPS after 35 years of 0.757 to 0.887 – i.e. the population size would be 11.3% to 24.3% smaller than the counterfactual population size.
Whilst this level of impact is small, it is not negligible and in the context of a population that is already declining, the additional mortality from the Array in combination with other projects and plans would appear to have the potential to adversely affect the kittiwake population.

Gannet

The source information regarding gannet collision mortality from other relevant projects is given in Table 5.134 Open ▸ .

Table 5.134: Gannet Collision Mortalities Apportioned to the Forth Islands SPA from Other Relevant Projects

Project(s)	Data Source	Approach	Adult Mortalities
Project(s)	Data Source	Approach	Pre-Breeding Season	Breeding Season	Post-Breeding	Annual Total
UK North Sea projects	SSE Renewables (2022)	Scoping	54.7	508.8	122.0	685.5
UK North Sea projects	SSE Renewables (2022)	Developer	54.4	481.8	121.1	657.3
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm (2023)	Developer	1.2	6.4	0.1	7.7
West of Orkney Wind Farm	Offshore Wind Power Limited (2023)	Low	7.6	0.0	5.1	12.7
West of Orkney Wind Farm	Offshore Wind Power Limited (2023)	Mid	7.6	0.0	7.3	14.9
West of Orkney Wind Farm	Offshore Wind Power Limited (2023)	High	10.2	0.0	9.5	19.7
Pentland Floating Offshore Wind	Xodus Group Ltd (2022)	Developer	0.0	0.2	0.0	0.2
SEP & DEP	Equinor (2022)	Developer	N/A	N/A	N/A	0.9*
Outer Dowsing	Outer Dowsing Offshore Wind (2023)	Developer	N/A	N/A	N/A	0.1*
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm alone	SSE Renewables (2022)	Scoping	1.0	146.8	3.2	151.0
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm alone	SSE Renewables (2022)	Developer	0.8	119.7	2.3	122.8

*Apportioned impacts only presented on an annual basis in source document.

From this information, the various approaches have been consolidated into a “low” and a “high” estimate for the total in-combination impact. This is presented in Table 5.135 Open ▸ .

Table 5.135: Gannet Collision Mortalities Apportioned to the Forth Islands SPA In-Combination Totals

Project(s)	Adult Mortalities
	Pre-Breeding Season		Breeding Season		Post-Breeding Season		Annual Total
	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High
UK North Sea projects	54.4	54.7	481.8	508.8	121.1	122.0	657.3	685.5
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	1.2	1.2	6.4	6.4	0.1	0.1	7.7	7.7
West of Orkney Wind Farm	7.6	10.2	0.0	0.0	5.1	9.5	12.7	19.7
Pentland Floating Offshore Wind	0.0	0.0	0.2	0.2	0.0	0.0	0.2	0.2
SEP & DEP	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	0.9	0.9
Outer Dowsing	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	0.1	0.1
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	0.8	1.0	119.7	146.8	2.3	3.2	122.8	151.0
Ossian	0.0	0.1	17.6	31.6	0.9	1.5	18.6	33.1
Total (Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm)	63.2	66.1	506.1	547.1	127.2	133.0	697.5	747.2
Total (Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm)	62.4	65.1	386.4	400.3	124.9	129.8	574.7	596.2

With a population of 150,518 breeding adults (Burnell et al., 2023), 574.7 to 747.2 additional mortalities represents a 0.382 to 0.496 percentage point increase in mortality rates. Therefore, PVA has been carried out both with and without Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm and for the high and low scenarios, to further assess the total in-combination impact.
The PVA results are summarised in Table 5.136 Open ▸ . Full details are available in appendix 3B.

Table 5.136: Summary of PVA Results for In-Combination Collision Impacts on Gannet at the Forth Islands SPA

Scenario	Approach	Adult Mortality	Citation Population (Breeding Adults)	Recent Population (Burnell et al., 2023) (Breeding Adults)	Median Unimpacted Population After 35 Years	Median Impacted Population After 35 Years	Median CGR	Median CPS
Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	Low	697.5	43,200	150,518	202,303	166,408	0.995	0.822
Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	High	747.2				163,995	0.994	0.810
Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	Low	574.7				172,229	0.996	0.851
Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	High	596.2				171,209	0.995	0.845

The gannet population of the Forth Islands SPA increased significantly from its citation level of 43,200 breeding adults to counts of 150,518 breeding adults from the census conducted in 2014 as part of the gannet census (Burnell et al., 2023). However, that data pre-dates the HPAI outbreak. Counts conducted in 2023 estimate the gannet population of Bass Rock to be 103,688 breeding adults, representing a significant decline (Harris et al., 2023). Whilst this decline is substantial, the population remains above its citation level, and the available evidence suggests that the population is already showing signs of recovery (Tyndall et al., 2024). It is evident from the prior growth that there are ample suitable nesting sites on Bass Rock, and sufficient prey within foraging range to support a larger population. Therefore, it would be expected that the population will be able to rapidly recover.
The CGR ranges from 0.994 to 0.996. The CPS ranges from 0.810 to 0.851. When considering the dramatic and sustained growth of the gannet population within the Forth Islands SPA prior to the HPAI outbreak and the anticipated recovery, this level of impact is not of a magnitude that is expected to adversely affect the population from meeting its conservation objectives.
Therefore, it is concluded, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, that there is no potential for an AEOI to the gannet feature of the Forth Islands SPA as a result of displacement from the Array in combination with other developments.

Breeding Seabird Assemblage

Of the components of the breeding seabird assemblage, only kittiwake and gannet were found to have any potential LSE2 for collision risk. The assessments for these species are presented above. The gannet population is expected to grow, whilst the kittiwake population is expected to decline. However, whilst there might be a negative effect on the kittiwake population, the magnitude of that effect is small. It is not considered a sufficiently large effect that it could be said to adversely affect the probability of kittiwake being maintained as a viable component of the seabird assemblage. Furthermore, as kittiwake is the only species being significantly impacted, it could not be said to adversely affect the probability of the total seabird assemblage being maintained. Therefore, it is concluded, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, that there is no potential for an AEOI to the seabird assemblage feature of the Forth Islands SPA as a result of collision risk from the Array in-combination with other developments.

Fowlsheugh SPA

Kittiwake

The source information regarding kittiwake collision mortality from other relevant projects is given in Table 5.137 Open ▸ .

Table 5.137: Kittiwake Collision Mortalities Apportioned to the Fowlsheugh SPA from Other Relevant Projects

Project(s)	Data Source	Approach	Adult Mortalities
Project(s)	Data Source	Approach	Pre-Breeding Season	Breeding Season	Post-Breeding	Annual Total
UK North Sea projects	SSE Renewables (2022)	Scoping	18.8	141.4	14.1	174.3
UK North Sea projects	SSE Renewables (2022)	Developer	18.2	112.7	13.1	144.0
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm (2023)	N/A	0.1	0.7	0.1	0.9
West of Orkney Wind Farm	Offshore Wind Power Limited (2023)	Low	0.7	0.4	0.6	1.7
West of Orkney Wind Farm	Offshore Wind Power Limited (2023)	Mid	0.8	0.4	0.6	1.8
West of Orkney Wind Farm	Offshore Wind Power Limited (2023)	High	0.9	0.5	0.7	2.0
Pentland Floating Offshore Wind	Xodus Group Ltd (2022)	N/A	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
SEP & DEP	Equinor (2022)	Developer	0.0	0.0	0.1	0.1
Outer Dowsing	Outer Dowsing Offshore Wind (2023)	Developer	N/A	N/A	N/A	1.1*
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm alone	SSE Renewables (2022)	Scoping	3.4	92.6	2.3	98.3
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm alone	SSE Renewables (2022)	Developer	2.8	63.9	1.4	68.1

*Apportioned impacts only presented on an annual basis in source document.

From this information, the various approaches have been consolidated into a “low” and a “high” estimate for the total in-combination impact. This is presented in Table 5.138 Open ▸ .

Table 5.138: Kittiwake Collision Mortalities Apportioned to the Fowlsheugh SPA In-Combination Totals

Project(s)	Adult Mortalities
	Pre-Breeding Season		Breeding Season		Post-Breeding Season		Annual Total
	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High
UK North Sea projects	18.2	18.8	112.7	141.4	13.1	14.1	144.0	174.3
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	0.1	0.1	0.7	0.7	0.1	0.1	0.9	0.9
West of Orkney Wind Farm	0.7	0.9	0.4	0.5	0.6	0.7	1.7	2.0
Pentland Floating Offshore Wind	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
SEP & DEP	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1
Outer Dowsing	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	1.1	1.1
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	2.8	3.4	63.9	92.6	1.4	2.3	68.1	98.3
Ossian	0.0	0.1	0.6	4.7	0.0	0.1	0.7	4.9
Total (Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm)	19.1	19.9	114.4	147.3	13.8	15.0	148.4	183.3
Total (Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm)	16.3	16.5	50.5	54.7	12.4	12.7	80.3	85.0

With a population of 28,078 breeding adults (Burnell et al., 2023), 80.3 to 183.3 additional mortalities represents a 0.286 to 0.653 percentage point increase in mortality rates. Therefore, PVA has been carried out both with and without Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm and for the high and low scenarios, to further assess the total in-combination impact.
The PVA results are summarised in Table 5.139 Open ▸ . Full details are available in appendix 3B.

Table 5.139: Summary of PVA Results for In-Combination Collision Impacts on Kittiwake at the Fowlsheugh SPA

Scenario	Approach	Adult Mortality	Citation Population (Breeding Adults)	Recent Population (Burnell et al., 2023) (Breeding Adults)	Median Unimpacted Population After 35 Years	Median Impacted Population After 35 Years	Median CGR	Median CPS
Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	Low	148.4	73,300	28,078	26,557	21,143	0.994	0.798
Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	High	183.3				20,053	0.992	0.756
Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	Low	80.3				23,428	0.997	0.884
Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	High	85.0				23,256	0.996	0.878

The kittiwake population of the Fowlsheugh SPA has decreased between its citation level of 73,300 breeding adults and Seabird Census counts of 28,078 breeding adults (Burnell et al., 2023). However, more recent counts, that were conducted following the HPAI outbreak, indicate the population may be increasing again, with 15,443 AON (30,966 breeding adults) recorded in 2023 (Tremlett et al., 2024).
The PVA results show that the kittiwake population is expected to remain relatively stable under the counterfactual (no impact) scenario. Under the impacted scenarios, the CGR is 0.992 to 0.997. This leads to a CPS after 35 years of 0.756 to 0.884 – i.e. the population size would be 11.6% to 24.4% smaller than the counterfactual population size.
Whilst this level of impact is small, it is not negligible and in the context of a population that is already declining, the additional mortality from the Array in combination with other projects and plans would appear to have the potential to adversely affect the likelihood of the site meeting its conservation objectives for all assessment scenarios and both with and without Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm. Therefore, it is concluded that there is a potential AEOI to the kittiwake feature of the Fowlsheugh SPA as a result of collision impacts from the Array in-combination with other developments.

Breeding Seabird Assemblage

Of the components of the seabird assemblage, kittiwake was the only species for which a potential LSE2 was identified for collision risk. As detailed above, there is expected to be a significant impact on the kittiwake population. The kittiwake population at citation was significantly higher than the current population. Whilst the magnitude of the impact would not be deemed sufficient to risk entirely losing kittiwake as a viable component of the assemblage, the decline is sufficient to adversely affect the total population size of the seabird assemblage.
Therefore, it is concluded that there is a potential AEOI to the seabird assemblage feature of the Fowlsheugh SPA as a result of the impact of collision from the Array in-combination with other developments.

Hermaness, Saxa Vord and Valla Field SPA

Gannet

The source information regarding gannet collision mortality from other relevant projects is given in Table 5.140 Open ▸ .

Table 5.140: Gannet Collision Mortalities Apportioned to the Hermaness, Saxa Vord and Valla Field SPA from Other Relevant Projects

Project(s)	Data Source	Approach	Adult Mortalities
Project(s)	Data Source	Approach	Pre-Breeding Season	Breeding Season	Post-Breeding	Annual Total
UK North Sea projects	SSE Renewables (2022)	Scoping	25.6	0.8	35.2	61.6
UK North Sea projects	SSE Renewables (2022)	Developer	25.5	0.6	34.9	61.0
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm (2023)	N/A	1.2	6.4	0.1	7.7
West of Orkney Wind Farm	Offshore Wind Power Limited (2023)	Low	3.3	0.0	1.8	5.1
West of Orkney Wind Farm	Offshore Wind Power Limited (2023)	Mid	3.3	0.0	2.6	5.9
West of Orkney Wind Farm	Offshore Wind Power Limited (2023)	High	4.5	0.0	3.3	7.8
Pentland Floating Offshore Wind	Xodus Group Ltd (2022)	N/A	0.0	0.1	0.0	0.1
SEP & DEP	Equinor (2022)	Developer	0.0	0.0	0.3	0.3
Outer Dowsing	Outer Dowsing Offshore Wind (2023)	Developer	N/A	N/A	N/A	0.0*
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm alone	SSE Renewables (2022)	Scoping	0.1	0.8	0.9	1.8
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm alone	SSE Renewables (2022)	Developer	0.1	0.6	0.6	1.3

*Apportioned impacts only presented on an annual basis in source document.

From this information, the various approaches have been consolidated into a “low” and a “high” estimate for the total in-combination impact. This is presented in Table 5.141 Open ▸ .

Table 5.141: Gannet Collision Mortalities Apportioned to the Hermaness, Saxa Vord and Valla Field SPA In-Combination Totals

Project(s)	Adult Mortalities
	Pre-Breeding Season		Breeding Season		Post-Breeding Season		Annual Total
	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High
UK North Sea projects	25.5	25.6	0.6	0.8	34.9	35.2	61.0	61.6
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	1.2	1.2	6.4	6.4	0.1	0.1	7.7	7.7
West of Orkney Wind Farm	3.3	4.5	0.0	0.0	1.8	3.3	5.1	7.8
Pentland Floating Offshore Wind	0.0	0.0	0.1	0.1	0.0	0.0	0.1	0.1
SEP & DEP	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.3	0.3	0.3	0.3
Outer Dowsing	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	0.0	0.0
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	0.1	0.1	0.6	0.8	0.6	0.9	1.3	1.8
Ossian	0.0	0.0	0.6	1.1	0.3	0.5	0.9	1.6
Total (Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm)	30.1	31.3	7.7	8.3	37.4	39.4	75.1	79.1
Total (Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm)	30.0	31.2	7.1	7.5	36.8	38.5	73.8	77.3

With a population of 59,124 breeding adults (Burnell et al., 2023), 73.8 to 79.1 additional mortalities represents a 0.125 to 0.134 percentage point increase in mortality rates. Therefore, PVA has been carried out both with and without Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm and for the high and low scenarios, to further assess the total in-combination impact.
The PVA results are summarised in Table 5.142 Open ▸ . Full details are available in appendix 3B.

Table 5.142: Summary of PVA Results for In-Combination Collision Impacts on Gannet at the Hermaness, Saxa Vord and Valla Field SPA

Scenario	Approach	Adult Mortality	Citation Population (Breeding Adults)	Recent Population (Burnell et al., 2023) (Breeding Adults)	Median Unimpacted Population After 35 Years	Median Impacted Population After 35 Years	Median CGR	Median CPS
Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	Low	75.1	32,800	59,124	79,619	75,454	0.999	0.948
Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	High	79.1				75,102	0.998	0.945
Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	Low	73.8				75,512	0.999	0.949
Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	High	77.3				75,324	0.998	0.946

The gannet population of the Hermaness, Saxa Vord and Valla Field SPA has increased between its citation level of 32,800 breeding adults and recent counts of 59,124 breeding adults (Burnell et al., 2023).
The CGR ranges from 0.998 to 0.999. The CPS ranges from 0.945 to 0.949. When considering the growth of the gannet population within the Hermaness, Saxa Vord and Valla Field SPA, this level of impact is not of a magnitude that is expected to adversely affect the population from meeting its conservation objectives. This is concluded due to both the impacted and unimpacted scenarios predicting the population to be be far greater than the citation population.
Therefore, there is no potential for an AEOI to the gannet feature of the Hermaness, Saxa Vord and Valla Field SPA as a result of collision from the Array in combination with other developments.

Breeding Seabird Assemblage

Of the components of the seabird assemblage, gannet was the only species for which a potential LSE2 was identified. As detailed above, there is expected to be no AEOI on the gannet feature. Therefore, it can also be concluded, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, that there is no AEOI to the seabird assemblage feature of the Hermaness, Saxa Vord and Valla Field SPA as a result of collision from the Array in combination with other developments.

North Caithness Cliffs SPA

Kittiwake (seabird assemblage component only)

The source information regarding kittiwake collision mortality from other relevant projects is given in Table 5.143 Open ▸ .

Table 5.143: Kittiwake Collision Mortalities Apportioned to the North Caithness Cliffs SPA from Other Relevant Projects

Project(s)	Data Source	Approach	Adult Mortalities
Project(s)	Data Source	Approach	Pre-Breeding Season	Breeding Season	Post-Breeding	Annual Total
UK North Sea projects	SSE Renewables (2022)	Scoping	20.3	3.7	15.5	39.5
UK North Sea projects	SSE Renewables (2022)	Developer	19.7	3.7	14.4	37.8
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm (2023)	N/A	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.3
West of Orkney Wind Farm	Offshore Wind Power Limited (2023)	Low	0.8	3.6	0.6	5.0
West of Orkney Wind Farm	Offshore Wind Power Limited (2023)	Mid	0.9	4.2	0.7	5.8
West of Orkney Wind Farm	Offshore Wind Power Limited (2023)	High	0.9	4.9	0.7	6.5
Pentland Floating Offshore Wind	Xodus Group Ltd (2022)	N/A	N/A	5.0	0.0	5.0
Outer Dowsing	Outer Dowsing Offshore Wind (2023)	Developer	N/A	N/A	N/A	1.2*
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm alone	SSE Renewables (2022)	Scoping	3.6	0.0	2.7	6.3
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm alone	SSE Renewables (2022)	Developer	2.9	0.0	1.6	4.5

*Apportioned impacts only presented on an annual basis in source document.

From this information, the various approaches have been consolidated into a “low” and a “high” estimate for the total in-combination impact. This is presented in Table 5.144 Open ▸ .

Table 5.144: Kittiwake Collision Mortalities Apportioned to the North Caithness Cliffs SPA In-Combination Totals

Project(s)	Adult Mortalities
	Pre-Breeding Season		Breeding Season		Post-Breeding Season		Annual Total
	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High
UK North Sea projects	19.7	20.3	3.7	3.7	14.4	15.5	37.8	39.5
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.3	0.3
West of Orkney Wind Farm	0.8	0.9	3.6	4.9	0.6	0.7	5.0	6.5
Pentland Floating Offshore Wind	N/A	N/A	5.0	5.0	0.0	0.0	5.0	5.0
Outer Dowsing	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	1.2	1.2
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	2.9	3.6	0.0	0.0	1.6	2.7	4.5	6.3
Ossian	0.0	0.1	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.1	0.0	0.2
Total (Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm)	20.6	21.5	12.5	13.7	15.1	16.4	49.4	52.8
Total (Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm)	17.7	17.9	12.5	13.7	13.5	13.7	44.9	46.5

With a population of 11,142 breeding adults (Burnell et al., 2023), 44.9 to 52.8 additional mortalities represents a 0.403 to 0.474 percentage point increase in mortality rates. Therefore, PVA has been carried out both with and without Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm and for the high and low scenarios, to further assess the total in-combination impact.
The PVA results are summarised in Table 5.145 Open ▸ . Full details are available in appendix 3B.

Table 5.145: Summary of PVA Results for In-Combination Displacement Impacts on Kittiwake at the North Caithness Cliffs SPA

Scenario	Approach	Adult Mortality	Citation Population (Breeding Adults)	Recent Population (Burnell et al., 2023) (Breeding Adults)	Median Unimpacted Population After 35 Years	Median Impacted Population After 35 Years	Median CGR	Median CPS
Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	Low	49.4	26,200	11,142	10,778	8,704	0.995	0.827
Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	High	52.8				8,583	0.994	0.816
Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	Low	44.9				8,849	0.995	0.842
Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	High	46.5				8,805	0.995	0.836

The kittiwake population of the North Caithness Cliffs SPA has decreased between its citation level of 26,200 breeding adults and recent counts of 11,142 breeding adults (Burnell et al., 2023).
The median CGR is 0.994 to 0.995 (under all scenarios and approaches) which indicates the population growth rate declines by 0.5% to 0.6% compared to the counterfactual. After 35 years (the expected lifespan of the Array), the CPS ranges from 0.816 to 0.842. This level of impact is small, but considered of sufficient magnitude to be distinguishable from natural fluctuations. Given that the kittiwake population of the North Caithness Cliffs SPA has decreased significantly from its citation level, the magnitude of impact is sufficient to create an impact that could be said to have an adverse effect on the population.

Breeding Seabird Assemblage

Of the components of the seabird assemblage, kittiwake was the only species for which a potential LSE2 was identified for collision risk. As detailed above, there is expected to be a significant impact on the kittiwake population. The kittiwake population at citation was significantly higher than the current population (Burnell et al., 2023). Whilst the magnitude of the impact would not be deemed sufficient to risk entirely losing kittiwake as a viable component of the assemblage, the decline is sufficient to adversely affect the total population size of the overall assemblage.
Therefore, it is concluded that there is a potential AEOI to the seabird assemblage feature of the North Caithness Cliffs SPA as a result of the impact of collision from the Array in-combination with other developments.

Noss SPA

Gannet

The source information regarding gannet collision mortality from other relevant projects is given in Table 5.146 Open ▸ .

Table 5.146: Gannet Collision Mortalities Apportioned to the Noss SPA from Other Relevant Projects

Project(s)	Data Source	Approach	Adult Mortalities
Project(s)	Data Source	Approach	Pre-Breeding Season	Breeding Season	Post-Breeding	Annual Total
UK North Sea projects	SSE Renewables (2022)	Scoping	11.8	0.6	16.3	28.7
UK North Sea projects	SSE Renewables (2022)	Developer	11.8	0.5	16.1	28.4
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm (2023)	N/A	0.2	0.6	0.0	0.8
West of Orkney Wind Farm	Offshore Wind Power Limited (2023)	Low	1.3	0.0	0.7	2.1
West of Orkney Wind Farm	Offshore Wind Power Limited (2023)	Mid	1.3	0.0	1.0	2.4
West of Orkney Wind Farm	Offshore Wind Power Limited (2023)	High	1.8	0.0	1.3	3.1
Pentland Floating Offshore Wind	Xodus Group Ltd (2022)	N/A	N/A	0.1	N/A	0.1
SEP & DEP	Equinor (2022)	Developer	0.01	0.0	0.11	0.1
Outer Dowsing	Outer Dowsing Offshore Wind (2023)	Developer	N/A	N/A	N/A	0.0*
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm alone	SSE Renewables (2022)	Scoping	0.1	0.6	0.5	1.2
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm alone	SSE Renewables (2022)	Developer	0.1	0.5	0.4	1.0

*Apportioned impacts only presented on an annual basis in source document.

From this information, the various approaches have been consolidated into a “low” and a “high” estimate for the total in-combination impact. This is presented in Table 5.147 Open ▸ .

Table 5.147: Gannet Collision Mortalities Apportioned to the Noss SPA In-Combination Totals

Project(s)	Adult Mortalities
	Pre-Breeding Season		Breeding Season		Post-Breeding Season		Annual Total
	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High
UK North Sea projects	11.8	11.8	0.5	0.6	16.1	16.3	28.4	28.7
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	0.2	0.2	0.6	0.6	0.0	0.0	0.8	0.8
West of Orkney Wind Farm	1.3	1.8	0.0	0.0	0.7	1.3	2.1	3.1
Pentland Floating Offshore Wind	N/A	N/A	0.1	0.1	N/A	N/A	0.1	0.1
SEP & DEP	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1
Outer Dowsing	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	0.0	0.0
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	0.1	0.1	0.5	0.6	0.4	0.5	1.0	1.2
Ossian	0.0	0.0	0.4	0.8	0.1	0.2	0.6	1.0
Total (Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm)	13.3	13.8	1.6	2.1	17.1	17.9	32.0	33.8
Total (Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm)	13.2	13.7	1.1	1.5	16.7	17.4	31.0	32.6

With a population of 27,530 breeding adults (Burnell et al., 2023), 31.0 to 33.8 additional mortalities represents a 0.113 to 0.123 percentage point increase in mortality rates. Therefore, PVA has been carried out both with and without Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm and for the high and low scenarios, to further assess the total in-combination impact.
The PVA results are summarised in Table 5.148 Open ▸ . Full details are available in appendix 3B.

Table 5.148: Summary of PVA Results for In-Combination Collision Impacts on Gannet at the Noss SPA

Scenario	Approach	Adult Mortality	Citation Population (Breeding Adults)	Recent Population (Burnell et al., 2023) (Breeding Adults)	Median Unimpacted Population After 35 Years	Median Impacted Population After 35 Years	Median CGR	Median CPS
Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	Low	32.0	13,720	27,530	36,997	35,243	0.999	0.952
Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	High	33.8				35,100	0.999	0.949
Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	Low	31.0				35,327	0.999	0.953
Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	High	32.6				35,190	0.999	0.951

The gannet population of the Noss SPA has increased between its citation level of 13,720 breeding adults and recent counts of 27,530 breeding adults (Burnell et al., 2023).
The CGR is 0.999 under all scenarios and approaches. The CPS ranges from 0.949 to 0.953. When considering the growth of the gannet population within the Noss SPA, this level of impact is not of a magnitude that is expected to adversely affect the population from meeting its conservation objectives. This is concluded due to both the impacted and unimpacted scenarios predicting the population to be far greater than the citation population.
Therefore, there is no potential for an AEOI to the gannet feature of the Noss SPA as a result of collision from the Array in combination with other developments.

Breeding Seabird Assemblage

Of the components of the seabird assemblage, gannet was the only species for which a potential LSE2 was identified. As detailed above, there is expected to be no AEOI on the gannet feature. Therefore, it can also be concluded, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, that there is no potential for an AEOI to the seabird assemblage feature of the Noss SPA as a result of collision from the Array in combination with other developments.

St Abb’s Head to Fast Castle SPA

Kittiwake (seabird assemblage component only)

The source information regarding kittiwake collision mortality from other relevant projects is given in Table 5.149 Open ▸ .

Table 5.149: Kittiwake Collision Mortalities Apportioned to the St Abb’s Head to Fast Castle SPA from Other Relevant Projects

Project(s)	Data Source	Approach	Adult Mortalities
Project(s)	Data Source	Approach	Pre-Breeding Season	Breeding Season	Post-Breeding	Annual Total
UK North Sea projects	SSE Renewables (2022)	Scoping	6.9	287.3	5.2	299.4
UK North Sea projects	SSE Renewables (2022)	Developer	6.7	200.3	4.8	211.8
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm (2023)	N/A	0.0	0.1	0.0	0.1
West of Orkney Wind Farm	Offshore Wind Power Limited (2023)	Low	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
West of Orkney Wind Farm	Offshore Wind Power Limited (2023)	Mid	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
West of Orkney Wind Farm	Offshore Wind Power Limited (2023)	High	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Pentland Floating Offshore Wind	Xodus Group Ltd (2022)	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Outer Dowsing	Outer Dowsing Offshore Wind (2023)	Developer	N/A	N/A	N/A	0.4*
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm alone	SSE Renewables (2022)	Scoping	1.3	280.9	0.9	283.1
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm alone	SSE Renewables (2022)	Developer	1.1	193.9	0.5	195.5

*Apportioned impacts only presented on an annual basis in source document.

From this information, the various approaches have been consolidated into a “low” and a “high” estimate for the total in-combination impact. This is presented in Table 5.150 Open ▸ .

Table 5.150: Kittiwake Collision Mortalities Apportioned to the St Abb’s Head to Fast Castle SPA In-Combination Totals

Project(s)	Adult Mortalities
	Pre-Breeding Season		Breeding Season		Post-Breeding Season		Annual Total
	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High
UK North Sea projects	6.7	6.9	200.3	287.3	4.8	5.2	211.8	299.4
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	0.0	0.0	0.1	0.1	0.0	0.0	0.1	0.1
West of Orkney Wind Farm	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Pentland Floating Offshore Wind	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Outer Dowsing							0.4	0.4
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	1.1	1.3	193.9	280.9	0.5	0.9	195.5	283.1
Ossian	0.0	0.0	0.2	1.3	0.0	0.0	0.2	1.3
Total (Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm)	6.7	6.9	200.6	288.7	4.8	5.2	212.5	301.3
Total (Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm)	5.6	5.6	6.7	7.8	4.3	4.3	17.0	18.2

With a population of 10,300 breeding adults (Burnell et al., 2023), 17.0 to 301.3 additional mortalities represents a 0.165 to 2.925 percentage point increase in mortality rates. Therefore, PVA has been carried out both with and without Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm and for the high and low scenarios, to further assess the total in-combination impact.
The PVA results are summarised in Table 5.151 Open ▸ . Full details are available in appendix 3B.

Table 5.151: Summary of PVA Results for In-Combination Collision Impacts on Kittiwake at the St Abb’s Head to Fast Castle SPA

Scenario	Approach	Adult Mortality	Citation Population (Breeding Adults)	Recent Population (Burnell et al., 2023) (Breeding Adults)	Median Unimpacted Population After 35 Years	Median Impacted Population After 35 Years	Median CGR	Median CPS
Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	Low	212.5	42,340	10,300	9,735	3,992	0.976	0.411
Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	High	301.3				2,718	0.965	0.281
Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	Low	17.0				9,108	0.998	0.933
Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	High	18.2				9,031	0.998	0.927

The kittiwake population of the St Abb’s Head to Fast Castle SPA has decreased between its citation level of 42,340 breeding adults and recent counts of 10,300 breeding adults (Burnell et al., 2023).
If Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm is excluded, the median CGR is 0.998 which indicates the population growth rate declines by 0.2%. After 35 years (the expected lifespan of the Array), the CPS ranges from 0.927 to 0.933. Overall, under this scenario, the impact of displacement from the Array in combination with other projects is predicted to make no material impact on the kittiwake population compared to the counterfactual scenario.
However, if Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm is included, the median CGR is 0.976 (under the “low” approach) to 0.965 (under the “high” approach) which indicates the population growth rate declines by 2.4% to 3.5% compared to the counterfactual. After 35 years (the expected lifespan of the Array), the CPS ranges from 0.411 to 0.281. This level of impact is considered to be high.

Breeding Seabird Assemblage

Of the components of the seabird assemblage, kittiwake was the only species for which a potential LSE2 was identified. An assessment of the impact on kittiwake is provided above.
If Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm is excluded it was found there will be no discernible impact to kittiwake, and therefore no potential impact on the seabird assemblage.
However, if Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm is included, then it is likely that the kittiwake population will decline. Kittiwake were a significant portion of the assemblage at designation, consisting 21,170 pairs. As of the Seabirds Count census, this had declined to 5,150 pairs. It is concluded that the magnitude of decline if Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm is included is sufficient that it could adversely affect kittiwake being maintained as a viable component of the assemblage. It is also concluded that it could negatively affect the total size of the breeding seabird assemblage population.
Therefore, it is concluded, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, that there is no potential for an AEOI to the seabird assemblage feature of the St Abb’s Head to Fast Castle SPA if Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm is excluded, but there is a potential AEOI to the seabird assemblage feature of the St Abb’s Head to Fast Castle SPA from the in-combination displacement impact of the Array and other developments including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm.
However, it should be noted that Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm identified an AEOI ‘alone’ for the kittiwake feature of the St Abb’s Head to Fast Castle SPA (SSE Renewables, 2022). Therefore, should Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm proceed, then its impact on the kittiwake feature of the St Abb’s Head to Fast Castle SPA will be fully mitigated and should not be included in the Array ‘in-combination’ assessment.
On this basis, it is appropriate to not include Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm in the in-combination assessment for this particular site and feature, in which case there is no AEOI alone or in-combination for the seabird assemblage feature of the St Abb’s Head to Fast Castle SPA.

St Kilda SPA

Gannet

The source information regarding gannet collision mortality from other relevant projects is given in Table 5.152 Open ▸ .

Table 5.152: Gannet Collision Mortalities Apportioned to the St Kilda SPA from Other Relevant Projects

Project(s)	Data Source	Approach	Adult Mortalities
Project(s)	Data Source	Approach	Pre-Breeding Season	Breeding Season	Post-Breeding	Annual Total
UK North Sea projects	SSE Renewables (2022)	Scoping	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
UK North Sea projects	SSE Renewables (2022)	Developer	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm (2023)	N/A	0.1	0.7	0.0	0.8
West of Orkney Wind Farm	Offshore Wind Power Limited (2023)	Low	0.0	0.0	0.5	0.6
West of Orkney Wind Farm	Offshore Wind Power Limited (2023)	Mid	0.0	0.0	0.8	0.8
West of Orkney Wind Farm	Offshore Wind Power Limited (2023)	High	0.0	0.0	1.0	1.0
Pentland Floating Offshore Wind	Xodus Group Ltd (2022)	N/A	N/A	0.2	N/A	0.2
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm alone	SSE Renewables (2022)	Scoping	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm alone	SSE Renewables (2022)	Developer	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A

From this information, the various approaches have been consolidated into a “low” and a “high” estimate for the total in-combination impact. This is presented in Table 5.153 Open ▸ .

Table 5.153: Gannet Collision Mortalities Apportioned to the St Kilda SPA In-Combination Totals

Project(s)	Adult Mortalities
	Pre-Breeding Season		Breeding Season		Post-Breeding Season		Annual Total
	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High
UK North Sea projects	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	0.1	0.1	0.7	0.7	0.0	0.0	0.8	0.8
West of Orkney Wind Farm	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.5	1.0	0.6	1.0
Pentland Floating Offshore Wind	N/A	N/A	0.2	0.2	N/A	N/A	0.2	0.2
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Ossian	0.0	0.0	0.7	1.2	0.1	0.2	0.8	1.4
Total	0.1	0.1	1.6	2.1	0.6	1.2	2.3	3.4

With a population of 120,580 breeding adults (Burnell et al., 2023), 2.3 to 3.4 additional mortalities represents a 0.002 to 0.003 percentage point increase in mortality rates. Therefore, it can be concluded, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, that there is no risk of an AEOI to the gannet feature of St Kilda SPA resulting from collision impacts from the Array in-combination with other developments.

Breeding Seabird Assemblage

Of the components of the seabird assemblage, gannet was the only species for which a potential LSE2 was identified for collision. As detailed above, there is expected to be no AEOI on the gannet feature. Therefore, it can also be concluded, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, that there is no AEOI to the seabird assemblage feature of the St Kilda SPA as a result of collision from the Array in combination with other developments.

Troup, Pennan and Lion’s Head SPA

Kittiwake

The source information regarding kittiwake collision mortality from other relevant projects is given in Table 5.154 Open ▸ .

Table 5.154: Kittiwake Collision Mortalities Apportioned to the Troup, Pennan and Lion’s Head SPA from Other Relevant Projects

Project(s)	Data Source	Approach	Adult Mortalities
Project(s)	Data Source	Approach	Pre-Breeding Season	Breeding Season	Post-Breeding	Annual Total
UK North Sea projects	SSE Renewables (2022)	Scoping	29.9	9.4	22.7	62.0
UK North Sea projects	SSE Renewables (2022)	Developer	28.9	8.5	21.1	58.5
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm (2023)	N/A	0.1	0.9	0.2	1.2
West of Orkney Wind Farm	Offshore Wind Power Limited (2023)	Low	1.2	0.5	0.9	2.6
West of Orkney Wind Farm	Offshore Wind Power Limited (2023)	Mid	1.3	0.6	1.0	2.8
West of Orkney Wind Farm	Offshore Wind Power Limited (2023)	High	1.4	0.6	1.1	3.1
Pentland Floating Offshore Wind	Xodus Group Ltd (2022)	N/A	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
SEP & DEP	Equinor (2022)	Developer	0.0	0.0	0.1	0.1
Outer Dowsing	Outer Dowsing Offshore Wind (2023)	Developer	N/A	N/A	N/A	1.8*
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm alone	SSE Renewables (2022)	Scoping	5.3	2.7	3.9	11.9
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm alone	SSE Renewables (2022)	Developer	4.3	1.9	2.3	8.5

*Apportioned impacts only presented on an annual basis in source document.

From this information, the various approaches have been consolidated into a “low” and a “high” estimate for the total in-combination impact. This is presented in Table 5.155 Open ▸ .

Table 5.155: Kittiwake Collision Mortalities Apportioned to the Troup, Pennan and Lion’s Head SPA In-Combination Totals

Project(s)	Adult Mortalities
	Pre-Breeding Season		Breeding Season		Post-Breeding Season		Annual Total
	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High
UK North Sea projects	28.9	29.9	8.5	9.4	21.1	22.7	58.5	62.0
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	0.1	0.1	0.9	0.9	0.2	0.2	1.2	1.2
West of Orkney Wind Farm	1.2	1.4	0.5	0.6	0.9	1.1	2.6	3.1
Pentland Floating Offshore Wind	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
SEP & DEP	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1
Outer Dowsing							1.8	1.8
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	4.3	5.3	1.9	2.7	2.3	3.9	8.5	11.9
Ossian	0.0	0.2	0.2	1.4	0.0	0.1	0.2	1.7
Total (Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm)	30.2	31.6	10.1	12.3	22.3	24.2	64.4	69.9
Total (Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm)	25.9	26.3	8.2	9.6	20.0	20.3	55.9	58.0

With a population of 21,232 breeding adults (Burnell et al., 2023), 55.9 to 69.9 additional mortalities represents a 0.263 to 0.329 percentage point increase in mortality rates. Therefore, PVA has been carried out both with and without Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm and for the high and low scenarios, to further assess the total in-combination impact.
The PVA results are summarised in Table 5.156 Open ▸ . Full details are available in appendix 3B.

Table 5.156: Summary of PVA Results for In-Combination Collision Impacts on Kittiwake at the Troup, Pennan and Lion’s Head SPA

Scenario	Approach	Adult Mortality	Citation Population (Breeding Adults)	Recent Population (Burnell et al., 2023) (Breeding Adults)	Median Unimpacted Population After 35 Years	Median Impacted Population After 35 Years	Median CGR	Median CPS
Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	Low	64.4	63,200	21,232	20,017	17,608	0.996	0.879
Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	High	69.9				17,419	0.996	0.869
Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	Low	55.9				17,892	0.997	0.894
Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	High	58.0				17,833	0.997	0.890

The kittiwake population of the Troup, Pennan and Lion’s Head SPA has decreased between its citation level of 63,200 breeding adults and recent counts of 21,232 breeding adults (Burnell et al., 2023).
The median CGR is 0.996 to 0.997 which indicates the population growth rate declines by 0.3% to 0.4% compared to the counterfactual. After 35 years (the expected lifespan of the Array), the CPS ranges from 0.869 to 0.894. Whilst this level of impact is small, it is not negligible and in the context of a population that is already declining, the additional mortality from the Array in combination with other projects and plans would appear to have the potential to adversely affect the likelihood of the site meeting its conservation objectives for all assessment scenarios and both with and without Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm.
Therefore, it is concluded that there is a potential AEOI to the kittiwake feature of the Troup, Pennan and Lion’s Head SPA as a result of collision impacts from the Array in-combination with other developments.

Breeding Seabird Assemblage

Of the components of the seabird assemblage, kittiwake was the only species for which a potential LSE2 was identified for collision risk. As detailed above, there is expected to be a significant impact on the kittiwake population. The kittiwake population at citation was significantly higher than the current population (Burnell et al., 2023). Whilst the magnitude of the impact would not be deemed sufficient to risk entirely losing kittiwake as a viable component of the assemblage, the decline is sufficient to adversely affect the total population size of the overall assemblage.
Therefore, it is concluded that there is a potential AEOI to the seabird assemblage feature of the Troup, Pennan and Lion’s Head SPA as a result of the impact of collision from the Array in-combination with other developments.

Conclusion

It is concluded that the Array area in-combination with other plans and projects would have an adverse effects on certain qualifying features for several sites, as a result of collision risk impacts during the operation and maintenance phase, which could therefore undermine the conservation objectives of the SPAs listed in Table 5.157 Open ▸ . An assessment of the impact of collision risk against each relevant conservation objective is presentedTable 5‑156, where the justifications and supporting evidence are the same for more than one conservation objective, the assessments have been grouped.

Table 5.157: Conclusions Against the Conservation Objectives of SPAs for In-Combination Collision during the Operation and Maintenance Phase

SPA

Feature

Target/Conservation Objectives

Justification

Conclusion

Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast SPA

 breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on breeding kittiwake).

 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term:

– distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and

– structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.

As the Array and its associated ZoI falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for collision risk during operations and maintenance of the Array in-combination with other plans and projects to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, collision risk associated with the Array in-combination with other plans and projects will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 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; and

– no significant disturbance of the species.

The in-combination impact level experienced during operations and maintenance on the named seabird assemblage component, kittiwake, at Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast SPA surpassed the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k). A PVA was therefore required to understand if the impact experienced would have detrimental effects on the populations.

The PVA results for kittiwake ( Table 5.118 Open ▸ ) concluded that the in-combination impact from collision during the operational and maintenance phase would result in the population growth rate decline of less than 0.4%. After 35 years (the expected lifespan of the Array), the CPS ranged from 0.860 to 0.889 depending on if Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm was included or excluded. The impacted population therefore would be between 11.1% to 14.0% smaller than the unimpacted population.

These results indicate that the impact of collision from the Array in combination with other projects is of a magnitude that can be said to adversely affect the likelihood of the kittiwake population being maintained as a viable component of the Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast SPA.

Consequently, it can be concluded that there is a risk during operation and maintenance, of collision risk significantly disrupting the named seabird assemblage component, kittiwake, populations as a qualifying species of the Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast SPA.

Therefore, collision risk during operation and maintenance may prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site.

Furthermore, the impact from collision risk may influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.

 seabird assemblage = AEOI cannot be ruled out

East Caithness Cliffs SPA

 kittiwake (breeding); and

 breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).

 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term:

– distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and

– structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.

As the associated ZoI falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for collision risk during operations and maintenance of the Array in-combination with other plans and projects to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, collision risk associated with the Array in-combination with other plans and projects will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 kittiwake = No AEOI

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 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; and

– no significant disturbance of the species.

The in-combination impact level experienced during operations and maintenance on kittiwake at East Caithness Cliffs SPA surpassed the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k). A PVA was therefore required to understand if the impact experienced would have detrimental effects on the populations.

The PVA results for kittiwake ( Table 5.121 Open ▸ ) concluded that the in-combination impact from collision risk during the operational and maintenance phase would result in the population growth rate decline of no more than 0.6%. After 35 years (the expected lifespan of the Array), the CPS ranged from 0.801 to 0.822 depending on if Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm with included or excluded. The impacted population therefore would be between 17.8% to 19.9% smaller than the unimpacted population.

These results indicate that the impact of collision risk from the Array in combination with other projects during operation and maintenance would be of a magnitude that can be said to adversely affect the likelihood of the kittiwake population being maintained as a viable component of the East Caithness Cliffs SPA. The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance to seabird assemblage was deemed to be of significant impact due to the large decline of kittiwake populations.

Consequently, it can be concluded that there is a risk during operations and maintenance of collision risk significantly disrupting kittiwake populations as a qualifying species of the East Caithness Cliffs SPA. The impact from collision during operation and maintenance may also influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed qualifying features within the site.

 kittiwake = AEOI

 seabird assemblage = AEOI cannot be ruled out

Farne Islands SPA

 kittiwake (breeding); and

 breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).

 ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the Wild Birds Directive, by maintaining or restoring:

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

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

– the supporting processes on which the habitats of the qualifying features rely.

As the associated ZoI falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for collision risk during operations and maintenance of the Array in-combination with other plans and projects to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, collision risk associated with the Array in-combination with other plans and projects will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

 ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the Wild Birds Directive, by maintaining or restoring:

– the populations of each of the qualifying features; and

– the distribution of qualifying features within the site.

The in-combination impact level experienced during operations and maintenance on the named seabird assemblage component, kittiwake, at Farne Island SPA surpassed the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k). A PVA was therefore required to understand if the impact experienced would have detrimental effects on the populations.

The PVA results for kittiwake ( Table 5.124 Open ▸ ) concluded that the in-combination impact from collision during the operational and maintenance phase would result in the population growth rate decline of less than 0.5%. After 35 years (the expected lifespan of the Array), the CPS ranged from 0.827 to 0.946 depending on if Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm with included or excluded. The impacted population therefore would be between 5.4% to 17.3% smaller than the unimpacted population. Whilst there might be a negative effect on the kittiwake population, the magnitude of that effect is small. It is not considered a sufficiently large affect that it could be said to adversely affect the probability of kittiwake being maintained as a viable component of the seabird assemblage.

Furthermore, as kittiwake is the only species being significantly impacted, it could not be said to adversely affect the probability of the total seabird assemblage being maintained.

Therefore, collision risk during operation and maintenance will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site.

Furthermore, the impact from collision risk during operation and maintenance will not influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA

 kittiwake (breeding);

 gannet (breeding); and

 breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).

 ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the Wild Birds Directive, by maintaining or restoring:

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

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

– the supporting processes on which the habitats of the qualifying features rely.

As the associated ZoI falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for collision risk during operations and maintenance of the Array in-combination with other plans and projects to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, collision risk associated with the Array in-combination with other plans and projects will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 kittiwake = No AEOI

 gannet = No AEOI

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

 ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the Wild Birds Directive, by maintaining or restoring:

– the populations of each of the qualifying features; and

– the distribution of qualifying features within the site.

The in-combination impact level experienced during operations and maintenance on kittiwake at Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA surpassed the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k). A PVA was therefore required to understand if the impact experienced would have detrimental effects on the populations.

The PVA results for kittiwake ( Table 5.127 Open ▸ ) concluded that the in-combination impact from collision risk during the operational and maintenance phase would result in the population growth rate decline of less than 0.6%. After 35 years (the expected lifespan of the Array), the CPS ranged from 0.791 to 0.804 depending on if Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm with included or excluded. The impacted population therefore would be between 19.6% to 20.9% smaller than the unimpacted population.

Similarly, the in-combination impact level experienced during operations and maintenance on gannet, at Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA surpassed the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k). A PVA was therefore required to understand if the impact experienced would have detrimental effects on the populations.

The PVA results for gannet ( Table 5.130 Open ▸ ) concluded that the in-combination impact from collision risk during the operational and maintenance phase would result in the population growth rate decline of no more than 1.3%. After 35 years (the expected lifespan of the Array), the CPS ranged from 0.627 to 0.634. The impacted population therefore would be between 36.6% to 37.3% smaller than the unimpacted population. This result does not take into account macro avoidance rates and so if applied, the impact would be significantly less.

These results indicate that the impact of collision from the Array in combination with other projects during operations and maintenance is of a magnitude that can be said to adversely affect the likelihood of kittiwake and gannet populations being maintained as a viable component of the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA.

In addition, as the impact from collision on kittiwake and gannet populations was assessed as adverse, the risk to the seabird assemblage has been deemed adverse during operation and maintenance.

Therefore, collision risk during operation and maintenance may prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site.

Furthermore, the impact from collision risk during operation and maintenance may influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.

 kittiwake = AEOI

 gannet = AEOI

 seabird assemblage = AEOI cannot be ruled out

Forth Islands SPA

 gannet (breeding); and

 breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species and breeding kittiwake).

 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term:

– distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and

– structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.

As the associated ZoI falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for collision risk during operations and maintenance of the Array in-combination with other plans and projects to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, collision risk associated with the Array in-combination with other plans and projects will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 gannet = No AEOI

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 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; and

– no significant disturbance of the species.

The in-combination impact level experienced during operations and maintenance on gannet, at Forth Islands SPA surpassed the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k). A PVA was therefore required to understand if the impact experienced would have detrimental effects on the populations.

The PVA results for gannet ( Table 5.136 Open ▸ ) concluded that the in-combination impact from collision risk during the operational and maintenance phase would result in the population growth rate decline of less than 0.6%. After 35 years (the expected lifespan of the Array), the CPS ranged from 0.810 to 0.851 depending on if Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm was included or excluded. The impacted population therefore would be between 14.9% to 19.0% smaller than the unimpacted population. Given that the sustained growth of gannet populations at the Forth Islands SPA, the magnitude of impact is insufficient to create an impact that could be said to have an adverse effect on the population continuing to meet the site’s conservation objectives.

These results indicate that the impact of displacement from the Array in combination with other projects during operations and maintenance is not of a magnitude that can be said to adversely affect the likelihood of gannet populations being maintained as a viable component of the Forth Islands SPA.

In addition to the named qualifying feature, kittiwake was assessed due to being a named seabird assemblage component of the site. Like gannet, impacts surpassed the 0.02 threshold and so a PVA was carried out ( Table 5.133 Open ▸ ).

Results showed that the population would be 11.3% to 24.32% smaller than the unimpacted population. However, kittiwake is not a qualifying feature it its own right, and instead only qualifies as a named component of the breeding seabird assemblage. As the impact from collision on gannet populations was assessed as not adverse, despite the effect on kittiwake populations, as the impact is small the overall risk to the seabird assemblage has been deemed not adverse during operation and maintenance.

Therefore, collision risk during operation and maintenance will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site.

Furthermore, the impact from collision risk will not influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.

 gannet = No AEOI

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

Fowlsheugh SPA

 kittiwake (breeding); and

 breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).

 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term:

– distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and

– structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.

As the associated ZoI falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for collision risk during operations and maintenance of the Array in-combination with other plans and projects to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, collision risk associated with the Array in-combination with other plans and projects will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 kittiwake = No AEOI

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 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; and

– no significant disturbance of the species.

The in-combination impact level experienced during operations and maintenance on kittiwake at Fowlsheugh SPA surpassed the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k). A PVA was therefore required to understand if the impact experienced would have detrimental effects on the populations.

The PVA results for kittiwake ( Table 5.139 Open ▸ ) concluded that the in-combination impact from collision during the operational and maintenance phase would result in the population growth rate decline of no more than 0.8%. After 35 years (the expected lifespan of the Array), the CPS ranged from 0.756 to 0.884 depending on if Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm was included or excluded. The impacted population therefore would be between 11.6% to 24.4% smaller than the unimpacted population.

These results indicate that the impact of collision risk from the Array in combination with other projects during operation and maintenance would be of a magnitude that can be said to adversely affect the likelihood of the kittiwake population being maintained as a viable component of the Fowlsheugh SPA.

In addition, as the impact from collision on kittiwake populations was assessed as adverse, the risk to the seabird assemblage has been deemed adverse during operation and maintenance due to the significant decrease.

Therefore, collision risk during operation and maintenance may prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the kittiwake and seabird assemblage as viable components of the site.

Furthermore, the impact from collision risk during operation and maintenance may therefore influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.

 kittiwake = AEOI

 seabird assemblage = AEOI cannot be ruled out

Hermaness, Saxa Vord and Valla Field SPA

 gannet (breeding); and

 breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).

 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term:

– distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and

– structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.

As the associated ZoI falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for collision risk during operations and maintenance of the Array in-combination with other plans and projects to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, collision risk associated with the Array in-combination with other plans and projects will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 gannet = No AEOI

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 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; and

– no significant disturbance of the species.

The in-combination impact level experienced during operations and maintenance on gannet at Hermaness, Saxa Vord and Valla Field SPA surpassed the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k). A PVA was therefore required to understand if the impact experienced would have detrimental effects on the populations.

The PVA results ( Table 5.142 Open ▸ ) concluded that the in-combination impact from collision risk during the operational and maintenance phase would result in the population growth rate decline of no more than 0.2%. After 35 years (the expected lifespan of the Array), the CPS ranged from 0.945 to 0.949 depending on if Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm was included or excluded. The impacted population therefore would be between 5.1% to 5.5% smaller than the unimpacted population. The counterfactual of population growth rate results indicate that the impact levels experienced during operation and maintenance would not adversely affect gannet at Hermaness, Saxa Vord and Valla Field SPA, as the maximum estimated change was a reduction in growth rate by 0.2%. Such a decrease indicates that this level of impact would not adversely affect the population and would likely remain undetectable against natural population fluctuations. Furthermore, it is not expected to significantly alter the background mortality rate.

These results indicate that the impact of collision risk from the Array in combination with other projects during operation and maintenance would not be of magnitude that can be said to adversely affect the likelihood of the gannet population being maintained as a viable component of the Hermaness, Saxa Vord and Valla Field SPA. The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance to seabird assemblage was deemed to be of negligible impact; only gannet was deemed to have any potential LSE2 ( Table 3.1 Open ▸ ). As the impact from collision risk on gannet populations was assessed as not adverse, the risk to the seabird assemblage has been deemed not adverse.

Therefore, the impact from collision risk during operation and maintenance will not influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed gannet and seabird assemblage within the site.

 gannet = No AEOI

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

North Caithness Cliffs SPA

 breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on breeding kittiwake).

 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term:

– distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and

– structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.

As the associated ZoI falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for collision risk during operations and maintenance of the Array in-combination with other plans and projects to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, collision risk associated with the Array in-combination with other plans and projects will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 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; and

– no significant disturbance of the species.

The in-combination impact level experienced during operations and maintenance on the named seabird assemblage component, kittiwake, at North Caithness Cliffs SPA surpassed the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k). A PVA was therefore required to understand if the impact experienced would have detrimental effects on the populations.

The PVA results ( Table 5.145 Open ▸ ) concluded that the in-combination impact from collision risk during the operational and maintenance phase would result in the population growth rate decline of no more than 0.6%. After 35 years (the expected lifespan of the Array), the CPS ranged from 0.816 to 0.842 depending on if Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm was included or excluded. The impacted population therefore would be between 15.8% to 18.4% smaller than the unimpacted population.

The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance to seabird assemblage was therefore deemed to be adverse due to the significant decline experienced by kittiwake populations.

Therefore, the impact from collision risk during operation and maintenance may influence the population as a viable component of the site and may influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed seabird assemblage within the site.

 seabird assemblage = AEOI cannot be ruled out

Noss SPA

 gannet (breeding); and

 breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).

 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term:

– distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and

– structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.

As the associated ZoI falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for collision risk during operations and maintenance of the Array in-combination with other plans and projects to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, collision risk associated with the Array in-combination with other plans and projects will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 gannet = No AEOI

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 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; and

– no significant disturbance of the species.

The in-combination impact level experienced during operations and maintenance on gannet at Noss surpassed the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k). A PVA was therefore required to understand if the impact experienced would have detrimental effects on the populations.

The PVA results ( Table 5.148 Open ▸ ) concluded that the in-combination impact from collision during the operational and maintenance phase would result in the population growth rate decline of no more than 0.1%. After 35 years (the expected lifespan of the Array), the CPS ranged from 0.949 to 0.953 depending on if Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm was included or excluded. The impacted population therefore would be between 4.7% to 5.1% smaller than the unimpacted population. The counterfactual of population growth rate results indicate that the impact levels experienced during operation and maintenance would not adversely affect gannet at Noss SPA, as the maximum estimated change was a reduction in growth rate by less than 0.1%. Such a decrease indicates that this level of impact would not adversely affect the population and would likely remain undetectable against natural population fluctuations. Furthermore, it is not expected to significantly alter the background mortality rate.

These results indicate that the impact of collision risk from the Array in combination with other projects during operation and maintenance would not be of magnitude that can be said to adversely affect the likelihood of the gannet population being maintained as a viable component of the Noss SPA. The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance to seabird assemblage was deemed to be of negligible impact; only gannet was deemed to have any potential LSE2 ( Table 3.1 Open ▸ ).

As the impact from collision risk on gannet populations was assessed as not adverse, the risk to the seabird assemblage has been deemed not adverse for operation and maintenance.

Therefore, collision risk during operation and maintenance will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site. The impact from collision risk during operation and maintenance will not influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed gannet and seabird assemblage within the site.

 gannet = No AEOI

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

St Abb's Head to Fast Castle SPA

 breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on breeding kittiwake).

 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term:

– distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and

– structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.

As the associated ZoI falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for collision risk during operations and maintenance of the Array in-combination with other plans and projects to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, collision risk associated with the Array in-combination with other plans and projects will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 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; and

– no significant disturbance of the species.

The in-combination impact level experienced during operations and maintenance on the named seabird assemblage component, kittiwake, at St Abb's Head to Fast Castle SPA surpassed the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k). A PVA was therefore required to understand if the impact experienced would have detrimental effects on the populations.

The PVA results ( Table 5.151 Open ▸ ) concluded that the in-combination impact (excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm) from collision risk during the operational and maintenance phase would result in the population growth rate decline of no more than 0.2%. After 35 years (the expected lifespan of the Array), the CPS excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm ranged from 0.927 to 0.933 depending on the approach considered. The impacted population therefore would be between 6.7% to 7.3% smaller than the unimpacted population.

However, the PVA results ( Table 5.151 Open ▸ .) concluded that the in-combination impact (including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm) from collision risk during the operational and maintenance phase would result in the population growth rate decline of up to 3.4%. After 35 years (the expected lifespan of the Array), the CPS including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm ranged from 0.411 to 0.281 depending on the approach considered. The impacted population therefore would be between 58.9 to 71.9% smaller than the unimpacted population.

Given that the kittiwake population of the St Abb’s Head to Fast Castle SPA has decreased significantly from its citation level, the magnitude of impact is sufficient to create an impact that could be said to have an adverse effect on the population. The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance to seabird assemblage was deemed to be adverse if Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm impacts are included.

Collision risk during operation and maintenance if Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm is included, may prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site.

If Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm impacts are included, the impact from collision risk during operation and maintenance may influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed seabird assemblage within the site.

For this assessment, it is determined that the impact from Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm should be excluded when considering AEOI. This is because Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm identified an AEOI ‘alone’ for the kittiwake feature of the St Abb’s Head to Fast Castle SPA (SSE Renewables, 2022). Therefore, should Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm proceed, then its impact on the kittiwake feature of the St Abb’s Head to Fast Castle SPA will be required to be fully compensated and should not be included in the Array ‘in-combination’ assessment.



St Kilda SPA

 gannet (breeding); and

 breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).

 to ensure that the qualifying features of St Kilda SPA and the seas off St Kilda SPA are in favourable condition and make an appropriate contribution to achieving favourable conservation status;

 to ensure that the integrity of St Kilda SPA and the seas off St Kilda SPA is restored in the context of environmental changes by meeting objectives 2a, 2b and 2c for each qualifying feature:

– the supporting habitats and processes relevant to qualifying features and their prey/food resources are maintained, or where appropriate restored, at St Kilda SPA and/or seas off St Kilda SPA.

As the associated ZoI falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for collision risk during operations and maintenance of the Array in-combination with other plans and projects to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, collision risk associated with the Array in-combination with other plans and projects will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 gannet = No AEOI

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

 to ensure that the qualifying features of St Kilda SPA and the seas off St Kilda SPA are in favourable condition and make an appropriate contribution to achieving favourable conservation status;

 to ensure that the integrity of St Kilda SPA and the seas off St Kilda SPA is restored in the context of environmental changes by meeting objectives 2a, 2b and 2c for each qualifying feature:

– the populations of qualifying features are viable components of St Kilda SPA and seas off St Kilda SPA; and

– the distributions of the qualifying features throughout St Kilda SPA and seas off St Kilda SPA are maintained by avoiding significant disturbance of the species.

The in-combination impact level experienced during operations and maintenance on gannet at St Kilda SPA remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) ( Table 5.153 Open ▸ ). Below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population.

Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during operation and maintenance, of collision risk from the Array in-combination with other plans and projects from significantly disrupting gannet populations as a qualifying species of the St Kilda SPA.

In addition, as the impact from collision risk on gannet populations was assessed as negligible, the risk to the seabird assemblage has been deemed negligible.

Therefore, collision risk during, operation and maintenance, will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site.

Furthermore, the impact from collision risk operation and maintenance will not significantly influence the distribution of the assessed qualifying species throughout St Kilda SPA.

 gannet = No AEOI

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

Troup, Pennan and Lion's Heads SPA

 kittiwake (breeding); and

 breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).

 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term:

– distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and

– structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.

As the associated ZoI falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for collision risk during operations and maintenance of the Array in-combination with other plans and projects to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, collision risk associated with the Array in-combination with other plans and projects will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 kittiwake = No AEOI

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 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; and

– no significant disturbance of the species.

The in-combination impact level experienced during operations and maintenance on kittiwake at Troup, Pennan and Lion's Heads SPA surpassed the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k). A PVA was therefore required to understand if the impact experienced would have detrimental effects on the populations.

The PVA results ( Table 5.156 Open ▸ ) concluded that the in-combination impact from collision risk during the operational and maintenance phase would result in the population growth rate decline of no more than 0.4%. After 35 years (the expected lifespan of the Array), the CPS ranged from 0.869 to 0.874 depending on if Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm was included or excluded. The impacted population therefore would be between 12.6% and 13.1% smaller than the unimpacted population.

These results indicate that the impact of collision risk from the Array in combination with other projects during operation and maintenance would be of magnitude that can be said to adversely affect the likelihood of the kittiwake population being maintained as a viable component of the Troup, Pennan and Lion's Heads SPA.

The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance to seabird assemblage was deemed to be of adverse due to the significant decline estimated; only kittiwake was deemed to have any potential LSE2 ( Table 3.1 Open ▸ ). As the impact from collision risk on kittiwake populations was assessed as adverse, the risk to the seabird assemblage has been deemed adverse for operation and maintenance.

Therefore, the impact from collision risk during operation and maintenance will have an adverse effect on the population as a viable component of the site and will influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed kittiwake and seabird assemblage within the site.

 kittiwake = AEOI

 seabird assemblage = AEOI cannot be ruled out

As detailed in Table 5.157 Open ▸ , adverse effects on the qualifying seabird features of seven SPAs were identified. This is the result of impacts which would undermine the conservation objective to maintain or restore the populations of the features of the SPA as a result of in-combination collision during operation and maintenance phase activities.
There is risk therefore of undermining the following Conservation Objectives of the sites:

Maintain the long term population of the species as a viable component of the site: Given the level of impact arising from collision risk from the Array area, there is potential for the Array to influence the population of designated features as viable components of:

- Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast SPA (seabird assemblage with regards to kittiwake);

- East Caithness Cliffs SPA (kittiwake and seabird assemblage with regards to kittiwake);

- Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA (gannet, kittiwake and seabird assemblage with regards to gannet kittiwake);

- Fowlsheugh SPA (kittiwake and seabird assemblage with regards to kittiwake);

- North Caithness Cliffs SPA (seabird assemblage with regards to kittiwake);

- St Abb’s Head to Fast castle SPA (seabird assemblage with regards to kittiwake); and

- Troup, Pennan and Lion’s Heads SPA (kittiwake and seabird assemblage with regards to kittiwake).

Maintain the long term distribution of the species within site and avoid significant disturbance of the species: Given the level of impact arising from collision risk from the Array area, there is potential for the Array to disturb the distribution of features within the following SPAs:

- Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast SPA (seabird assemblage with regards to kittiwake);

- East Caithness Cliffs SPA (kittiwake and seabird assemblage with regards to kittiwake);

- Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA (gannet, kittiwake and seabird assemblage with regards to gannet and kittiwake);

- Fowlsheugh SPA (kittiwake and seabird assemblage with regards to kittiwake);

- North Caithness Cliffs SPA (seabird assemblage with regards to kittiwake);

- St Abb’s Head to Fast castle SPA (seabird assemblage with regards to kittiwake); and

- Troup, Pennan and Lion’s Heads SPA (kittiwake and seabird assemblage with regards to kittiwake).

For all sites considered, there is no risk to undermining the following Conservation Objectives:

Maintain the long term distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species: As the Array and associated ZoI falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no potential for the Array to impact on the distribution and extent of habitats within the SPA; and
Maintain the long term structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species: As the Array and associated ZoI falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no potential for the Array to influence the structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.

5.5.4. Displacement and Collision Combined

The apportioned annual mortality rates for displacement and collision are extracted from the relevant information within sections 5.5.2 and 5.5.3, respectively.

Operation and maintenance phase

Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast SPA

Kittiwake (seabird assemblage feature only)

The combined mortality from displacement and collision (using a simple additive approach of the values in Table 5.63 Open ▸ and Table 5.117 Open ▸ ) is presented in Table 5.158 Open ▸ . The approach sums the collision and disturbance impacts, with potential for double counting inherent in that approach.

Table 5.158: Kittiwake Combined Displacement and Collision Mortalities Apportioned To the Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast SPA In-Combination Totals

Project(s)	Adult Mortalities
	Pre-Breeding Season		Breeding Season		Post-Breeding Season		Annual Total
	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High
UK North Sea projects	29.4	30.2	25.7	29.0	20.9	28.8	76.0	88.0
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	0.1	0.1	1.3	1.5	0.1	0.1	1.5	1.7
West of Orkney Wind Farm	1.0	1.2	0.2	0.3	0.8	0.9	1.9	2.3
Pentland Floating Offshore Wind	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Outer Dowsing	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	1.5	1.5
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	4.7	7.6	5.2	8.5	2.5	5.0	12.4	21.1
Ossian	0.1	0.3	1.4	6.2	0.0	0.2	1.6	6.6
Total (Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm)	30.5	31.7	28.7	37.0	21.8	30.0	82.5	100.2
Total (Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm)	25.8	24.1	23.5	28.5	19.3	25.0	70.1	79.1

With a population of 22,590 breeding adults (Burnell et al., 2023), 70.1 to 100.2 additional mortalities represents a 0.310 to 0.443 percentage point increase in mortality rates. Therefore, PVA has been carried out both with and without Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm and for the high and low scenarios, to further assess the total in-combination impact.
The PVA results are summarised in Table 5.159 Open ▸ . Full details are available in appendix 3B.

Table 5.159: Summary of PVA Results for In-Combination Combined Displacement and Collision Impacts on Kittiwake at the Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast SPA

Scenario	Approach	Adult Mortality	Citation Population (Breeding Adults)	Recent Population (Burnell et al., 2023) (Breeding Adults)	Median Unimpacted Population After 35 Years	Median Impacted Population After 35 Years	Median CGR	Median CPS
Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	Low	82.5	60,904	22,590	21,365	18,214	0.996	0.856
Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	High	100.2				17,624	0.995	0.828
Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	Low	70.1				18,676	0.996	0.876
Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	High	79.1				18,404	0.996	0.861

The kittiwake population of the Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast SPA has declined significantly between its citation level of 60,904 breeding adults and Seabird Census counts of 22,590 breeding adults (Burnell et al., 2023), and is assessed as being in “Unfavourable No Change” condition (NatureScot, ND). There have however been recent signs of slight recovery, with 13,547 AONs (27,094 individuals) recorded in 2023 (Tremlett et al, 2024).
The PVA results show that the kittiwake population is expected to remain relatively stable under the counterfactual (no impact) scenario. Under the impacted scenarios, the CGR is 0.995 to 0.996 under both the high and low approach if Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm’s impacts are included, or 0.996 if Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm’s impacts are excluded. This leads to a CPS after 35 years of 0.828 to 0.876 – i.e. the population size would be 12.4% to 17.2% smaller than the counterfactual population size.
Whilst this level of impact is small, it is not negligible and in the context of a population that is already declining, the additional mortality from the Array in combination with other projects and plans would appear to have the potential to adversely affect the likelihood of the site meeting its conservation objectives for all assessment scenarios and both with and without Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm. Therefore, it is concluded that there is a potential AEOI to the kittiwake feature of the Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast SPA as a result of combined displacement and collision impacts from the Array in-combination with other developments. However, kittiwake is not a qualifying feature it its own right, and instead only qualifies as a named component of the breeding seabird assemblage.

Breeding Seabird Assemblage

Of the components of the seabird assemblage, kittiwake was the only species for which a potential LSE2 was identified. As detailed above, there is expected to be a significant impact on the kittiwake population. The kittiwake population at citation was significantly higher than the current population, and at citation kittiwake was the most numerous breeding species at this site, whilst based on Seabirds Count (Burnell et al., 2023) guillemot are now more numerous. Whilst the magnitude of the impact would not be deemed sufficient to risk entirely losing kittiwake as a viable component of the assemblage, the decline is sufficient to adversely affect the total population size of the overall assemblage.
Therefore, it is concluded that there is a potential AEOI to the seabird assemblage feature of the Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast SPA as a result of the impact of collision from the Array in-combination with other developments.

East Caithness Cliffs SPA

Kittiwake

The combined mortality from displacement and collision (using a simple additive approach of the values in Table 5.69 Open ▸ and Table 5.120 Open ▸ ) is presented in Table 5.160 Open ▸ . The approach sums the collision and disturbance impacts, with potential for double counting inherent in that approach.

Table 5.160: Kittiwake Combined Displacement and Collision Mortalities Apportioned to the East Caithness Cliffs SPA In-Combination Totals

Project(s)	Adult Mortalities
	Pre-Breeding Season		Breeding Season		Post-Breeding Season		Annual Total
	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High
UK North Sea projects	94.5	129.2	123.9	189.2	67.6	92.8	286.0	411.2
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	0.3	0.4	0.9	1.0	0.4	0.5	1.6	1.9
West of Orkney Wind Farm	3.1	3.7	2.9	3.8	2.5	2.9	8.5	10.5
Pentland Floating Offshore Wind	0.0	0.0	0.7	0.7	0.0	0.0	0.7	0.7
SEP & DEP	0.1	0.1	0.0	0.0	0.3	0.3	0.4	0.4
Outer Dowsing	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	4.9	4.9
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	15.0	24.1	0.4	0.6	8.1	16.3	23.5	41.0
Ossian	0.2	0.9	0.7	2.8	0.1	0.6	1.0	4.2
Total (Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm)	98.2	134.3	129.0	197.5	70.9	97.1	303.1	433.8
Total (Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm)	83.2	110.2	128.6	196.9	62.8	80.8	279.6	392.8

With a population of 48,958 breeding adults (Burnell et al., 2023), 279.6 to 433.8 additional mortalities represents a 0.571 to 0.886 percentage point increase in mortality rates. Therefore, PVA has been carried out both with and without Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm and for the high and low scenarios, to further assess the total in-combination impact.
The PVA results are summarised in Table 5.161 Open ▸ . Full details are available in appendix 3B.

Table 5.161: Summary of PVA Results for In-Combination Combined Displacement and Collision Impacts on Kittiwake at the East Caithness Cliffs SPA

Scenario	Approach	Adult Mortality	Citation Population (Breeding Adults)	Recent Population (Burnell et al., 2023) (Breeding Adults)	Median Unimpacted Population After 35 Years	Median Impacted Population After 35 Years	Median CGR	Median CPS
Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	Low	303.1	65,000	48,958	46,244	35,624	0.993	0.771
Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	High	433.8				31,707	0.990	0.687
Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	Low	279.6				36,174	0.993	0.784
Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	High	392.8				32,720	0.991	0.710

The kittiwake population of the East Caithness Cliffs SPA has declined slightly between its citation level of 65,000 breeding adults and recent counts of 48,958 breeding adults (Burnell et al., 2023), although it is assessed as being in “Favourable Maintained” condition (NatureScot, ND).
The PVA results show that the kittiwake population is expected to remain relatively stable under the counterfactual (no impact) scenario. Under the impacted scenarios, the CGR ranges from 0.990 to 0.993. This leads to a CPS after 35 years of 0.687 to 0.784 – i.e. the population size would be 22.6% to 31.3% smaller than the counterfactual population size.
In the context of a population that is already declining, the additional mortality from the Array in combination with other projects and plans would appear to have the potential to adversely affect the likelihood of the site meeting its conservation objectives for all assessment scenarios and both with and without Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm. Therefore, it is concluded that there is a potential AEOI to the kittiwake feature of the East Caithness Cliffs SPA as a result of combined displacement and collision impacts from the Array in-combination with other developments.

Breeding Seabird Assemblage

Of the components of the seabird assemblage, kittiwake was the only species for which a potential LSE2 was identified for combined displacement and collision risk. As detailed above, there is expected to be a significant impact on the kittiwake population. The kittiwake population at citation was significantly higher than the current population (Burnell et al., 2023). Whilst the magnitude of the impact would not be deemed sufficient to risk entirely losing kittiwake as a viable component of the assemblage, the decline is sufficient to adversely affect the total population size of the overall assemblage.
Therefore, it is concluded that there is a potential AEOI to the seabird assemblage feature of the East Caithness Cliffs SPA as a result of the impact of combined displacement and collision from the Array in-combination with other developments.

Farne Islands SPA

Kittiwake (seabird assemblage component only)

The combined mortality from displacement and collision (using a simple additive approach of the values in Table 5.72 Open ▸ and Table 5.123 Open ▸ ) is presented in Table 5.162 Open ▸ . The approach sums the collision and disturbance impacts, with potential for double counting inherent in that approach.

Table 5.162: Kittiwake Combined Displacement and Collision Mortalities Apportioned to the Farne Islands SPA In-Combination Totals

Project(s)	Adult Mortalities
	Pre-Breeding Season		Breeding Season		Post-Breeding Season		Annual Total
	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High
UK North Sea projects	8.2	11.1	19.2	31.7	5.8	7.9	33.2	50.7
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	0.0	0.0	0.1	0.1	0.0	0.0	0.1	0.1
West of Orkney Wind Farm	0.3	0.3	0.0	0.0	0.2	0.2	0.5	0.6
Pentland Floating Offshore Wind	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Outer Dowsing	0.3	0.3	0.2	0.2	0.1	0.1	0.6	0.6
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	1.4	2.2	19.2	31.7	0.7	1.4	21.3	35.3
Ossian	0.0	0.1	0.5	2.1	0.0	0.1	0.5	2.2
Total (Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm)	8.8	11.8	20.0	34.1	6.1	8.3	34.9	54.2
Total (Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm)	7.4	9.6	0.8	2.4	5.4	6.9	13.6	18.9

With a population of 8,804 breeding adults (Burnell et al., 2023), 13.6 to 54.2 additional mortalities represents a 0.155 to 0.616 percentage point increase in mortality rates. Therefore, PVA has been carried out both with and without Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm and for the high and low scenarios, to further assess the total in-combination impact.
The PVA results are summarised in Table 5.163 Open ▸ . Full details are available in appendix 3B.

Table 5.163: Summary of PVA Results for Combined Displacement and Collision Impacts In-Combination on Kittiwake at the Farne Islands SPA

Scenario	Approach	Adult Mortality	Citation Population (Breeding Adults)	Recent Population (Burnell et al., 2023) (Breeding Adults)	Median Unimpacted Population After 35 Years	Median Impacted Population After 35 Years	Median CGR	Median CPS
Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	Low	34.9	8,241	8,804	8,312	7,018	0.995	0.844
Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	High	54.2				6,376	0.993	0.768
Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	Low	13.6				7,771	0.998	0.936
Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	High	18.9				7,609	0.997	0.912

The kittiwake population of the Farne Islands SPA has increased slightly from its citation level of 8,241 breeding adults to recent counts of 8,804 breeding adults (Burnell et al., 2023).
The PVA results show that the kittiwake population is expected to remain relatively stable under the counterfactual (no impact) scenario. Under the impacted scenarios, the CGR is 0.993 to 0.998. This leads to a CPS after 35 years of 0.768 to 0.936 – i.e. the population size would be 23.2% to 6.4% smaller than the counterfactual population size.
It should be noted that the approach to assessment of combined displacement and collision impacts is considered highly precautionary, as the simple additive approach has the potential to double count impacts.
If Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm is excluded, the impact of displacement from the Array in combination with other projects is predicted to make no material impact on the kittiwake population compared to the counterfactual scenario, and it can be concluded, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, that there is no potential for an AEOI on the kittiwake feature of the Farne SPA as a result of displacement and collision from the Array in-combination with other developments.
However, if Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm is included, whilst the level of impact is still small, it is no longer considered negligible and the additional mortality from the Array in-combination with other projects and plans would appear to have the potential to adversely affect the size of the kittiwake population. However, kittiwake is not a qualifying feature it its own right, and instead only qualifies as a named component of the breeding seabird assemblage.

Breeding Seabird Assemblage

Of the components of the seabird assemblage, kittiwake was the only species for which a potential LSE2 was identified for combined displacement and collision. As detailed above, there is expected to be a significant impact on the kittiwake population.
However, whilst there might be a perceptible negative effect on the kittiwake population, the magnitude of that effect is small. It is not considered a sufficiently large impact that it could be said to adversely affect the probability of kittiwake being maintained as a viable component of the seabird assemblage. Kittiwake are a minor component of the assemblage, with a citation population of 8,241 breeding adults out of the total assemblage citation population of 163,819 individuals. Other components of the assemblage have increased in population, for example the guillemot population at citation was 65,750 breeding adults; the recent Seabirds Count estimated the population size to be 85,816 breeding adults (Burnell et al., 2023).
Puffin are not considered vulnerable to collision risk and therefore no assessment is presented in this section for combined collision and displacement. However, when assessing the overall impact on the seabird assemblage, consideration also needs to be given to the impact of displacement on puffin, which is presented in section 5.5.2. Those results concluded only a negligible impact to the puffin population as a component of the seabird assemblage.
Therefore, it is concluded, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, that there is no potential for an AEOI to the seabird assemblage feature of the Farne Islands SPA.

Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA

Kittiwake

The combined mortality from displacement and collision (using a simple additive approach of the values in Table 5.78 Open ▸ and Table 5.126 Open ▸ ) is presented in Table 5.164 Open ▸ . The approach sums the collision and disturbance impacts, with potential for double counting inherent in that approach.

Table 5.164: Kittiwake Combined Displacement and Collision Mortalities Apportioned to the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA In-Combination Totals

Project(s)	Adult Mortalities
	Pre-Breeding Season		Breeding Season		Post-Breeding Season		Annual Total
	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High
UK North Sea projects	81.9	114.3	310.3	317.9	76.0	87.8	468.2	520.0
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	0.2	0.3	0.1	0.2	0.3	0.3	0.6	0.8
West of Orkney Wind Farm	2.9	3.5	0.0	0.0	2.3	2.7	5.2	6.2
Pentland Floating Offshore Wind	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
North Falls	0.7	1.4	5.0	8.7	0.3	0.7	6.1	10.7
SEP & DEP	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	6.4	6.4
Five Estuaries	0.5	0.5	0.0	0.0	0.6	0.6	1.1	1.1
Outer Dowsing	3.6	3.6	12.5	12.5	1.0	1.0	17.1	17.1
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	14.1	22.6	0.4	0.6	7.4	15.2	21.9	38.4
Ossian	0.2	0.8	1.3	5.4	0.1	0.6	1.6	6.7
Total (Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm)	90.1	124.4	329.1	344.6	80.7	93.6	506.3	569.0
Total (Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm)	76.0	101.8	328.7	344.0	73.3	78.4	484.4	530.6

With a population of 91,008 breeding adults (Burnell et al., 2023), 484.4 to 569.0 additional mortalities represents a 0.532 to 0.625 percentage point increase in mortality rates. Therefore, PVA has been carried out both with and without Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm and for the high and low scenarios, to further assess the total in-combination impact.
The PVA results are summarised in Table 5.165 Open ▸ . Full details are available in appendix 3B.

Table 5.165: Summary of PVA Results for In-Combination Displacement and Collision Impacts Combined on Kittiwake at the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA

Scenario	Approach	Adult Mortality	Citation Population (Breeding Adults)	Recent Population (Burnell et al., 2023) (Breeding Adults)	Median Unimpacted Population After 35 Years	Median Impacted Population After 35 Years	Median CGR	Median CPS
Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	Low	506.3	89,040	91,008	86,128	67,833	0.993	0.788
Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	High	569.0				65,853	0.993	0.765
Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	Low	484.4				68,515	0.994	0.797
Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	High	530.6				67,002	0.993	0.779

The kittiwake population of the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA has increased slightly from its citation level of 89,040 breeding adults to recent counts of 91,008 breeding adults (Burnell et al., 2023).
The PVA results show that the kittiwake population is expected to remain relatively stable under the counterfactual (no impact) scenario. Under the impacted scenarios, the CGR is 0.993 to 0.994. This leads to a CPS after 35 years of 0.765 to 0.797 – i.e. the population size would be 20.3% to 23.5% smaller than the counterfactual population size.
Whilst the population has grown slightly from the citation level, the magnitude of the impact is sufficient that it has the potential to adversely affect the population. Therefore, it is concluded that there is a potential AEOI to the kittiwake feature of the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA as a result of the combined displacement and collision impact of the Array in combination with other developments.
It should be noted that the approach to assessment of combined displacement and collision impacts is considered highly precautionary, as the simple additive approach has the potential to double count impacts.

Gannet

The combined mortality from displacement and collision (using a simple additive approach of the values in Table 5.81 Open ▸ and Table 5.129 Open ▸ ) is presented in Table 5.166 Open ▸ . The approach sums the collision and disturbance impacts, with potential for double counting inherent in that approach.

Table 5.166: Gannet Combined Displacement and Collision Mortalities Apportioned to the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA In-Combination Totals

Project(s)	Adult Mortalities
	Pre-Breeding Season		Breeding Season		Post-Breeding Season		Annual Total
	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High
UK North Sea projects	14.5	18.8	307.0	427.5	30.0	41.6	351.5	487.9
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	0.2	0.3	0.4	0.5	0.0	0.0	0.6	0.8
West of Orkney Wind Farm	0.5	2.2	0.0	0.0	1.0	1.9	1.5	4.1
Pentland Floating Offshore Wind	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
SEP & DEP	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	2.6	3.3
Five Estuaries	0.0	0.0	0.8	0.9	0.3	0.3	1.1	1.2
Outer Dowsing	0.0	0.1	3.9	4.8	0.0	0.1	3.9	5.0
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	0.2	0.3	2.0	3.2	0.5	1.1	2.7	4.6
Ossian	0.0	0.1	1.1	3.3	0.4	1.1	1.6	4.4
Total (Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm)	15.3	21.5	313.2	437.0	31.8	45.0	362.8	506.7
Total (Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm)	15.1	21.2	311.2	433.8	31.3	43.9	360.1	502.1

With a population of 26,784 breeding adults (Burnell et al., 2023), 360.1 to 506.7 additional mortalities represents a 1.344 to 1.892 percentage point increase in mortality rates. Therefore, PVA has been carried out both with and without Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm and for the high and low scenarios, to further assess the total in-combination impact.
The PVA results are summarised in Table 5.167 Open ▸ . Full details are available in appendix 3B.

Table 5.167: Summary of PVA Results for Combined Displacement and Collision Impacts In-Combination on Gannet at the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA

Scenario	Approach	Adult Mortality	Citation Population (Breeding Adults)	Recent Population (Burnell et al., 2023) (Breeding Adults)	Median Unimpacted Population After 35 Years	Median Impacted Population After 35 Years	Median CGR	Median CPS
Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	Low	362.8	16,938	26,784	36,005	20,231	0.984	0.561
Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	High	506.7				16,027	0.978	0.445
Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	Low	360.1				20,292	0.984	0.564
Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	High	502.1				16,128	0.978	0.449

The gannet population of the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA has increased between its citation level of 16,938 breeding adults and recent counts of 26,784 breeding adults (Burnell et al., 2023).
Under all scenarios and approaches, the CGR ranges from 0.978 to 0.984, and the CPS ranges from 0.445 to 0.564. Whilst the gannet population of the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA has been growing, this is a magnitude of impact that could lead to a population decline, contrary to the conservation objectives of the site.
Therefore, it is concluded that there is a potential AEOI to the gannet feature of the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA as a result of combined collision and displacement impacts from the Array in combination with other developments.
It should, however, be noted that The Array’s contribution to the in-combination collision impact is small, being 1.6 to 4.4 birds per year, or approximately 0.3% to 1.2% of the total impact.
It should further be noted that the approach to collision risk modelling used by both the Array and many other developments considered in the in-combination totals do not incorporate a macro-avoidance factor, in line with the current guidance from NatureScot. Natural England advise to apply a 65-85% macro avoidance rate when modelling gannet collisions (MD-LOT, 2023), which would reduce the collision mortality by the same amount. NatureScot have indicated they are reviewing their position on this matter (MD-LOT, 2023). If a 65-85% macro avoidance rate was applied, the overall impact would most likely no longer be a magnitude that could be considered to cause an AEOI, and moreover The Array’s contribution to the total impact would be imperceptible.
Similarly, the displacement impact will be overestimated, as any birds that suffer mortality as a result of collision could not also be subject to displacement impacts.
Therefore, under the current approach to assessment, it must be concluded that the in-combination total displacement and collision risk reaches a magnitude that would be an AEOI to the gannet feature of the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA.
However, this approach is considered highly over-precautionary, and under a more realistic approach, no AEOI would be expected to occur, and the Array could not be stated to be making a material contribution to any in-combination impact.

Breeding Seabird Assemblage

Of the components of the breeding seabird assemblage, only kittiwake and gannet were found to have any potential LSE2 for collision risk. The assessments for these species are presented above. The assessments found both species are expected to have an AEOI. In this instance, the magnitude of those impacts is sufficient to indicate that the overall seabird assemblage could be adversely affected.
Therefore, it is concluded that there is a potential AEOI to the seabird assemblage feature of the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA as a result of collision impacts from the Array in combination with other developments.

Forth Islands SPA

Kittiwake (seabird assemblage component only)

The combined mortality from displacement and collision (using a simple additive approach of the values in Table 5.84 Open ▸ and Table 5.132 Open ▸ ) is presented in Table 5.168 Open ▸ . The approach sums the collision and disturbance impacts, with potential for double counting inherent in that approach.

Table 5.168: Kittiwake Combined Displacement and Collision Mortalities Apportioned to the Forth Islands SPA In-Combination Totals

Project(s)	Adult Mortalities
	Pre-Breeding Season		Breeding Season		Post-Breeding Season		Annual Total
	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High
UK North Sea projects	7.2	10.0	45.7	72.9	5.1	7.0	58.0	89.9
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	0.0	0.0	0.1	0.1	0.0	0.0	0.1	0.1
West of Orkney Wind Farm	0.2	0.3	0.0	0.0	0.2	0.2	0.4	0.5
Pentland Floating Offshore Wind	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Outer Dowsing	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	0.4	0.4
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	1.1	1.8	24.4	40.2	0.5	1.1	26.0	43.1
Ossian	0.0	0.1	0.5	1.9	0.0	0.0	0.5	2.0
Total (including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm)	7.5	10.4	46.3	74.9	5.3	7.3	59.4	93.0
Total (excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm)	6.4	8.6	21.9	34.7	4.8	6.2	33.4	49.9

With a population of 9,084 breeding adults (Burnell et al., 2023), 33.4 to 93.0 additional mortalities represents a 0.368 to 1.023 percentage point increase in mortality rates. Therefore, PVA has been carried out both with and without Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm and for the high and low scenarios, to further assess the total in-combination impact.
The PVA results are summarised in Table 5.169 Open ▸ . Full details are available in appendix 3B.

Table 5.169: Summary of PVA Results for In-Combination Displacement and Collision Impacts on Kittiwake at the Forth Islands SPA

Scenario	Approach	Adult Mortality	Citation Population (Breeding Adults)	Recent Population (Burnell et al., 2023) (Breeding Adults)	Median Unimpacted Population After 35 Years	Median Impacted Population After 35 Years	Median CGR	Median CPS
Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	Low	59.4	16,800	9,084	8,571	6,484	0.992	0.757
Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	High	93.0				5,529	0.988	0.645
Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	Low	33.4				7,295	0.996	0.854
Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	High	49.9				6,778	0.994	0.790

The kittiwake population of the Forth Islands SPA has decreased between its citation level of 16,800 breeding adults and recent counts of 9,084 breeding adults (Burnell et al., 2023).
The PVA results show that the kittiwake population is expected to remain relatively stable under the counterfactual (no impact) scenario. Under the impacted scenarios, the CGR is 0.988 to 0.996. This leads to a CPS after 35 years of 0.645 to 0.854 – i.e. the population size would be 14.6% to 35.5% smaller than the counterfactual population size.
Whilst this level of impact is small, it is not negligible and in the context of a population that is already declining, the additional mortality from the Array in combination with other projects and plans would appear to have the potential to adversely affect the kittiwake population.

Gannet

The combined mortality from displacement and collision (using a simple additive approach of the values in Table 5.90 Open ▸ and Table 5.135 Open ▸ ) is presented in Table 5.170 Open ▸ . The approach sums the collision and disturbance impacts, with potential for double counting inherent in that approach.

Table 5.170: Gannet Combined Displacement and Collision Mortalities Apportioned to the Forth Islands SPA In-Combination Totals

Project(s)	Adult Mortalities
	Pre-Breeding Season		Breeding Season		Post-Breeding Season		Annual Total
	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High
UK North Sea projects	61.8	77.0	584.3	814.4	155.0	223.4	801.1	1,114.8
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	1.3	1.7	6.6	7.3	0.1	0.2	8.0	9.2
West of Orkney Wind Farm	7.6	10.2	0.0	0.0	5.1	9.5	12.7	19.7
Pentland Floating Offshore Wind	0.0	0.0	0.3	0.3	0.0	0.0	0.3	0.3
SEP & DEP	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	1.9	2.2
Outer Dowsing	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	0.6	0.6
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	1.5	3.0	149.1	233.3	4.3	8.9	154.9	245.2
Ossian	0.1	0.3	24.5	52.2	2.2	5.4	26.8	58.0
Total (Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm)	70.8	89.2	615.8	874.3	162.4	238.5	851.4	1,204.8
Total (Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm)	69.3	86.2	466.7	641.0	158.1	229.6	696.5	959.6

With a population of 150,518 breeding adults (Burnell et al., 2023), 696.5 to 1,204.8 additional mortalities represents a 0.463 to 0.800 percentage point increase in mortality rates. Therefore, PVA has been carried out both with and without Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm and for the high and low scenarios, to further assess the total in-combination impact.
The PVA results are summarised in Table 5.171 Open ▸ . Full details are available in appendix 3B.

Table 5.171: Summary of PVA Results for In-Combination Displacement and Collision Impacts on Gannet at the Forth Islands SPA

Scenario	Approach	Adult Mortality	Citation Population (breeding adults)	Recent Population (Burnell et al., 2023) (Breeding Adults)	Median Unimpacted Population After 35 Years	Median Impacted population After 35 years	Median CGR	Median CPS
Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	Low	851.4	43,200	150,518	202,303	159,343	0.993	0.787
Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	High	1,204.8				144,145	0.991	0.712
Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	Low	696.5				166,336	0.995	0.822
Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	High	959.6				154,238	0.993	0.763

The gannet population of the Forth Islands SPA increased significantly from its citation level of 43,200 breeding adults to counts of 150,518 breeding adults from the census conducted in 2014 as part of the gannet census (Burnell et al., 2023). However, that data pre-dates the HPAI outbreak. Counts conducted in 2023 estimate the gannet population of Bass Rock to be 51,844 AOS (103,688 breeding adults), representing a significant decline (Harris et al., 2023). Whilst this decline is dramatic, the population remains above its citation level, and the available evidence suggests that the population is already showing signs of recovery (Tyndall et al., 2024). It is evident from the prior growth that there are ample suitable nesting sites on Bass Rock, and sufficient prey within foraging range to support a larger population. Therefore, it would be expected that the population will be able to rapidly recover.
The CGR ranges from 0.991 to 0.995. The CPS ranges from 0.712 to 0.822. Whilst the gannet population of the Forth Islands SPA had been growing prior to HPAI, this is a magnitude of impact that could lead to a population decline, which, combined with the impact of HPAI, would be contrary to the conservation objectives of the site.
Therefore, it is concluded that there is a potential AEOI to the gannet feature of the Forth Islands SPA as a result of combined collision and displacement impacts from the Array in combination with other developments.
It should, however, be noted that the approach to collision risk modelling used by both the Array and many other developments considered in the in-combination totals do not incorporate a macro-avoidance factor, in line with the current guidance from NatureScot. Natural England advise to apply a 65-85% macro avoidance rate when modelling gannet collisions (MD-LOT, 2023) which would reduce the collision mortality by the same amount. NatureScot have indicated they are reviewing their position on this matter (MD-LOT, 2023). If a 65-85% macro avoidance rate was applied, the overall impact would most likely no longer be a magnitude that could be considered to cause an AEOI.
Similarly, the displacement impact will be overestimated, as any birds that suffer mortality as a result of collision could not also be subject to displacement impacts.
Therefore, under the current approach to assessment, it must be concluded that the in-combination total displacement and collision risk reaches a magnitude that would be an AEOI to the gannet feature of the Forth Islands SPA.
However, this approach is considered highly over-precautionary, and under a more realistic approach an AEOI would not be expected to occur.

Breeding Seabird Assemblage

Of the components of the breeding seabird assemblage, only kittiwake and gannet were found to have any potential LSE2 for collision risk. The assessments for these species are presented above. The gannet population is expected to grow, whilst the kittiwake population is expected to decline. Given the kittiwake population has already declined significantly from its population size at the time the site was designated, this further decline is of a level that has the potential to result in the loss of kittiwake as a viable component of the assemblage.
Therefore, it is concluded that there is a potential AEOI to the seabird assemblage feature of the Forth Islands SPA, resulting from the combined displacement and collision risk, from the Array in combination with other developments.

Fowlsheugh SPA

Kittiwake

The combined mortality from displacement and collision (using a simple additive approach of the values in Table 5.93 Open ▸ and Table 5.138 Open ▸ ) is presented in Table 5.172 Open ▸ . The approach sums the collision and disturbance impacts, with potential for double counting inherent in that approach.

Table 5.172: Kittiwake Combined Displacement and Collision Mortalities Apportioned to the Fowlsheugh SPA In-Combination Totals

Project(s)	Adult Mortalities
	Pre-Breeding Season		Breeding Season		Post-Breeding Season		Annual Total
	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High
UK North Sea projects	21.9	29.9	132.7	201.2	15.5	21.3	170.1	252.4
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	0.1	0.1	0.8	0.9	0.1	0.1	1.0	1.1
West of Orkney Wind Farm	0.7	0.9	0.4	0.5	0.6	0.7	1.7	2.0
Pentland Floating Offshore Wind	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
SEP & DEP	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1
Outer Dowsing	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	1.1	1.1
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	3.5	5.6	73.5	121.2	1.8	3.6	78.8	130.4
Ossian	0.0	0.2	2.2	9.5	0.0	0.1	2.3	9.8
Total (Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm)	22.8	31.1	136.1	212.1	16.3	22.3	176.3	266.5
Total (Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm)	19.3	25.5	62.6	90.9	14.5	18.7	97.5	136.1

With a population of 28,078 breeding adults (Burnell et al., 2023), 97.5 to 266.5 additional mortalities represents a 0.347 to 0.949 percentage point increase in mortality rates. Therefore, PVA has been carried out both with and without Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm and for the high and low scenarios, to further assess the total in-combination impact.
The PVA results are summarised in Table 5.173 Open ▸ . Full details are available in appendix 3B.

Table 5.173: Summary of PVA Results for In-Combination Displacement and Collision Impacts on Kittiwake at the Fowlsheugh SPA

Scenario	Approach	Adult Mortality	Citation Population (Breeding Adults)	Recent Population (Burnell et al., 2023) (Breeding Adults)	Median Unimpacted Population After 35 Years	Median Impacted Population After 35 Years	Median CGR	Median CPS
Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	Low	176.3	73,300	28,078	26,557	21,122	0.994	0.797
Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	High	266.5				17,691	0.989	0.666
Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	Low	97.5				22,836	0.996	0.862
Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	High	136.1				21,528	0.994	0.813

The kittiwake population of the Fowlsheugh SPA has decreased between its citation level of 73,300 breeding adults and Seabird Census counts of 28,078 breeding adults (Burnell et al., 2023). However, more recent counts, that were conducted following the HPAI outbreak, indicate the population may be increasing again, with 15,443 AON (30,966 breeding adults) recorded in 2023 (Tremlett et al., 2024).
The PVA results show that the kittiwake population is expected to remain relatively stable under the counterfactual (no impact) scenario. Under the impacted scenarios, the CGR is 0.989 to 0.996. This leads to a CPS after 35 years of 0.666 to 0.862 – i.e. the population size would be 13.8% to 33.4% smaller than the counterfactual population size.
This level of impact is considered small to moderate (depending on the scenario and the approach), and in the context of a population that is already declining, the additional mortality from the Array in combination with other projects and plans would appear to have the potential to adversely affect the likelihood of the site meeting its conservation objectives. Therefore, it is concluded that there is a potential AEOI to the kittiwake feature of the Fowlsheugh SPA as a result of combined displacement and collision impacts from the Array in-combination with other developments.

Breeding Seabird Assemblage

Of the components of the seabird assemblage, kittiwake was the only species for which a potential LSE2 was identified for combined displacement and collision risk. As detailed above, there is expected to be a significant impact on the kittiwake population. The kittiwake population at citation was significantly higher than the current population. Whilst the magnitude of the impact would not be deemed sufficient to risk entirely losing kittiwake as a viable component of the assemblage, the decline is sufficient to adversely affect the total population size of the seabird assemblage.
Razorbill are not considered vulnerable to collision risk and therefore no assessment is presented in this section for combined collision and displacement. However, when assessing the overall impact on the seabird assemblage, consideration also needs to be given to the impact of displacement on razorbill, which is presented in section 5.5.2. Those results concluded a negligible impact to the razorbill population as a component of the seabird assemblage under the low approach to assessment, or a small impact under the high approach to assessment.
Therefore, it is concluded that there is a potential AEOI to the seabird assemblage feature of the Fowlsheugh SPA as a result of the impact of combined displacement and collision from the Array in-combination with other developments.

Hermaness, Saxa Vord and Valla Field SPA

Gannet

The combined mortality from displacement and collision (using a simple additive approach of the values in Table 5.99 Open ▸ and Table 5.141 Open ▸ ) is presented in Table 5.174 Open ▸ . The approach sums the collision and disturbance impacts, with potential for double counting inherent in that approach.

Table 5.174: Gannet Combined Displacement and Collision Mortalities Apportioned to the Hermaness, Saxa Vord and Valla Field SPA In-Combination Totals

Project(s)	Adult Mortalities
	Pre-Breeding Season		Breeding Season		Post-Breeding Season		Annual Total
	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High
UK North Sea projects	30.3	40.0	0.8	1.2	44.2	63.1	75.3	104.3
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	1.3	1.4	6.4	6.5	0.1	0.1	7.8	8.0
West of Orkney Wind Farm	3.3	4.5	0.0	0.0	1.8	3.3	5.1	7.8
Pentland Floating Offshore Wind	0.0	0.0	0.1	0.1	0.0	0.0	0.1	0.1
SEP & DEP	0.1	0.1	0.0	0.0	0.6	0.7	0.7	0.8
Outer Dowsing	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	0.2	0.2
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	0.2	0.4	0.8	1.2	1.1	2.5	2.1	4.1
Ossian	0.1	0.1	0.8	1.7	0.8	1.9	1.6	3.8
Total (Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm)	35.0	46.1	8.1	9.6	47.5	69.1	90.8	125.0
Total (Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm)	34.8	45.7	7.3	8.4	46.4	66.6	88.7	120.9

With a population of 59,124 breeding adults (Burnell et al., 2023), 88.7 to 125.0 additional mortalities represents a 0.150 to 0.211 percentage point increase in mortality rates. Therefore, PVA has been carried out both with and without Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm and for the high and low scenarios, to further assess the total in-combination impact.
The PVA results are summarised in Table 5.175 Open ▸ . Full details are available in appendix 3B.

Table 5.175: Summary of PVA Results for In-Combination Displacement and Collision Impacts on Gannet at the Hermaness, Saxa Vord and Valla Field SPA

Scenario	Approach	Adult Mortality	Citation Population (Breeding Adults)	Recent Population (Burnell et al., 2023) (Breeding Adults)	Median Unimpacted Population After 35 Years	Median Impacted Population After 35 Years	Median CGR	Median CPS
Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	Low	90.8	32,800	59,124	79,619	74,462	0.998	0.937
Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	High	125.0				72,710	0.998	0.915
Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	Low	88.7				74,708	0.998	0.939
Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	High	120.9				72,922	0.998	0.917

The gannet population of the Hermaness, Saxa Vord and Valla Field SPA has increased between its citation level of 32,800 breeding adults to recent counts of 59,124 breeding adults (Burnell et al., 2023).
The CGR is 0.998. The CPS ranges from 0.915 to 0.939. When considering the growth of the gannet population within the Hermaness, Saxa Vord and Valla Field SPA, this level of impact is not of a magnitude that is expected to adversely affect the population from meeting its conservation objectives.
It should be noted that even this level of impact is considered overly precautionary. The approach to collision risk modelling used by both the Array and many other developments considered in the in-combination totals do not incorporate a macro-avoidance factor, in line with the current guidance from NatureScot. Natural England advise to apply a 65-85% macro avoidance rate when modelling gannet collisions (MD-LOT, 2023), which would reduce the collision mortality by the same amount. NatureScot have indicated they are reviewing their position on this matter (MD-LOT, 2023).
Similarly, the displacement impact will be overestimated, as any birds that suffer mortality as a result of collision could not also be subject to displacement impacts.
Therefore, it is concluded, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, that there is no potential for an AEOI to the gannet feature of the Hermaness, Saxa Vord and Valla Field SPA as a result of displacement and collision from the Array in combination with other developments.

Breeding Seabird Assemblage

Of the components of the seabird assemblage, gannet was the only species for which a potential LSE2 was identified. As detailed above, there is expected to be no AEOI on the gannet feature. Therefore, it can also be concluded, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, that there is no AEOI to the seabird assemblage feature of the Hermaness, Saxa Vord and Valla Field SPA as a result of collision from the Array in combination with other developments.

North Caithness Cliffs SPA

Kittiwake (seabird assemblage component only)

The combined mortality from displacement and collision (using a simple additive approach of the values in Table 5.102 Open ▸ and Table 5.144 Open ▸ ) is presented in Table 5.176 Open ▸ . The approach sums the collision and disturbance impacts, with potential for double counting inherent in that approach.

Table 5.176: Kittiwake Combined Displacement and Collision Mortalities Apportioned to the North Caithness Cliffs SPA In-Combination Totals

Project(s)	Adult Mortalities
	Pre-Breeding Season		Breeding Season		Post-Breeding Season		Annual Total
	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High
UK North Sea projects	23.7	32.3	4.7	6.7	17.0	23.4	45.4	62.4
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.3	0.3
West of Orkney Wind Farm	0.8	0.9	3.6	4.9	0.6	0.7	5.0	6.5
Pentland Floating Offshore Wind	0.0	0.0	7.6	7.6	0.0	0.0	7.6	7.6
Outer Dowsing	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	1.2	1.2
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	3.7	6.0	0.0	0.0	2.1	4.2	5.8	10.2
Ossian	0.1	0.2	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.2	0.1	0.4
Total (Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm)	24.6	33.6	16.1	19.3	17.8	24.4	59.7	78.5
Total (Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm)	20.9	27.6	16.1	19.3	15.7	20.2	53.9	68.3

With a population of 11,142 breeding adults (Burnell et al., 2023), 53.9 to 78.5 additional mortalities represents a 0.484 to 0.705 percentage point increase in mortality rates. Therefore, PVA has been carried out both with and without Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm and for the high and low scenarios, to further assess the total in-combination impact.
The PVA results are summarised in Table 5.177 Open ▸ . Full details are available in appendix 3B.

Table 5.177: Summary of PVA Results for In-Combination Displacement and Collision Impacts on Kittiwake at the North Caithness Cliffs SPA

Scenario	Approach	Adult Mortality	Citation Population (Breeding Adults)	Recent Population (Burnell et al., 2023) (Breeding Adults)	Median Unimpacted Population After 35 Years	Median Impacted Population After 35 Years	Median CGR	Median CPS
Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	Low	59.7	26,200	11,142	10,778	8,364	0.994	0.795
Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	High	78.5				7,811	0.992	0.740
Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	Low	53.9				8,564	0.994	0.813
Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	High	68.3				8,082	0.993	0.771

The kittiwake population of the North Caithness Cliffs SPA has decreased between its citation level of 26,200 breeding adults to recent counts of 11,142 breeding adults (Burnell et al., 2023).
The median CGR is 0.992 to 0.994 which indicates the population growth rate declines by 0.6% to 0.8% compared to the counterfactual. After 35 years (the expected lifespan of the Array), the CPS ranges from 0.740 to 0.813. This level of impact is small, but considered of sufficient magnitude to be distinguishable from natural fluctuations. Given that the kittiwake population of the North Caithness Cliffs SPA has already decreased significantly from its citation level, the magnitude of impact is sufficient to create an impact that could be said to have an adverse effect on the population.

Breeding Seabird Assemblage

Of the components of the seabird assemblage, kittiwake was the only species for which a potential LSE2 was identified for collision risk. As detailed above, there is expected to be a significant impact on the kittiwake population. The kittiwake population at citation was significantly higher than the current population (Burnell et al., 2023). Whilst the magnitude of the impact would not be deemed sufficient to risk entirely losing kittiwake as a viable component of the assemblage, the decline is sufficient to adversely affect the total population size of the overall assemblage.
Therefore, it is concluded that there is a potential AEOI to the seabird assemblage feature of the North Caithness Cliffs SPA as a result of the impact of combined displacement and collision from the Array in-combination with other developments.

Noss SPA

Gannet

The combined mortality from displacement and collision (using a simple additive approach of the values in Table 5.105 Open ▸ and Table 5.147 Open ▸ ) is presented in Table 5.178 Open ▸ . The approach sums the collision and disturbance impacts, with potential for double counting inherent in that approach.

Table 5.178: Gannet Combined Displacement and Collision Mortalities Apportioned to the Noss SPA In-Combination Totals

Project(S)	Adult Mortalities
	Pre-Breeding Season		Breeding Season		Post-Breeding Season		Annual Total
	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High
UK North Sea projects	14.0	18.5	0.6	1.0	20.4	29.3	35.0	48.8
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	0.2	0.3	0.6	0.7	0.0	0.0	0.8	1.0
West of Orkney Wind Farm	1.3	1.8	0.0	0.0	0.7	1.3	2.1	3.1
Pentland Floating Offshore Wind	0.0	0.0	0.1	0.1	0.0	0.0	0.1	0.1
SEP & DEP	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.2	0.3	0.3	0.3
Outer Dowsing	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	0.1	0.1
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	0.2	0.3	0.6	1.0	0.7	1.4	1.5	2.7
Ossian	0.0	0.1	0.6	1.3	0.3	0.8	1.0	2.1
Total (Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm)	15.6	20.7	1.9	3.1	21.7	31.7	39.3	55.6
Total (Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm)	15.4	20.4	1.3	2.1	21.0	30.3	37.8	52.9

With a population of 27,530 breeding adults (Burnell et al., 2023), 37.8 to 55.6 additional mortalities represents a 0.137 to 0.202 percentage point increase in mortality rates. Therefore, PVA has been carried out both with and without Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm and for the high and low scenarios, to further assess the total in-combination impact.
The PVA results are summarised in Table 5.179 Open ▸ . Full details are available in appendix 3B.

Table 5.179: Summary of PVA Results for In-Combination Displacement and Collision Impacts on Gannet at the Noss SPA

Scenario	Approach	Adult Mortality	Citation Population (Breeding Adults)	Recent Population (Burnell et al., 2023) (Breeding Adults)	Median Unimpacted Population After 35 Years	Median Impacted Population After 35 Years	Median CGR	Median CPS
Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	Low	39.3	13,720	27,530	36,997	34,873	0.998	0.941
Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	High	55.6				33,959	0.998	0.918
Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	Low	37.8				34,911	0.998	0.944
Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	High	52.9				34,159	0.998	0.922

The gannet population of the Noss SPA has increased between its citation level of 13,720 breeding adults to recent counts of 27,530 breeding adults (Burnell et al., 2023).
The CGR is 0.998. The CPS ranges from 0.918 to 0.944. When considering the growth of the gannet population within the Noss SPA, this level of impact is not of a magnitude that is expected to adversely affect the population from meeting its conservation objectives.
It should be noted that even this level of impact is considered overly precautionary. The approach to collision risk modelling used by both the Array and many other developments considered in the in-combination totals do not incorporate a macro-avoidance factor, in line with the current guidance from NatureScot. Natural England advise to apply a 65-85% macro avoidance rate when modelling gannet collisions (MD-LOT, 2023), which would reduce the collision mortality by the same amount. NatureScot have indicated they are reviewing their position on this matter (MD-LOT, 2023).
Similarly, the displacement impact will be overestimated, as any birds that suffer mortality as a result of collision could not also be subject to displacement impacts.
Therefore, it is concluded, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, that there is no AEOI to the gannet feature of the Noss SPA as a result of combined displacement and collision from the Array in combination with other developments.

Breeding Seabird Assemblage

Of the components of the seabird assemblage, gannet was the only species for which a potential LSE2 was identified. As detailed above, there is expected to be no AEOI on the gannet feature. Therefore, it can also be concluded, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, that there is no AEOI to the seabird assemblage feature of the Noss SPA as a result of combined displacement and collision from the Array in combination with other developments.

St Abb’s Head to Fast Castle SPA

Kittiwake (seabird assemblage component only)

The combined mortality from displacement and collision (using a simple additive approach of the values in Table 5.108 Open ▸ and Table 5.150 Open ▸ ) is presented in Table 5.180 Open ▸ . The approach sums the collision and disturbance impacts, with potential for double counting inherent in that approach.

Table 5.180: Kittiwake Combined Displacement and Collision Mortalities Apportioned to the St Abb’s Head to Fast Castle SPA In-Combination Totals

Project(s)	Adult mortalities
	Pre-breeding season		Breeding season		Post-breeding season		Annual total
	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High
UK North Sea projects	8.1	11.0	232.5	383.5	5.7	7.9	246.3	402.4
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	0.0	0.0	0.1	0.1	0.0	0.0	0.1	0.1
West of Orkney Wind Farm	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Pentland Floating Offshore Wind	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Outer Dowsing	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	0.4	0.4
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	1.4	2.2	223.0	367.9	0.7	1.4	225.1	371.5
Ossian	0.0	0.1	0.6	2.6	0.0	0.1	0.6	2.7
Total (Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm)	8.1	11.1	233.2	386.2	5.7	8.0	247.5	405.6
Total (Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm)	6.7	8.9	10.2	18.3	5.0	6.6	22.4	34.1

With a population of 10,300 breeding adults (Burnell et al., 2023), 22.4 to 405.6 additional mortalities represents a 0.217 to 3.938 percentage point increase in mortality rates. Therefore, PVA has been carried out both with and without Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm and for the high and low scenarios, to further assess the total in-combination impact.
The PVA results are summarised in Table 5.181 Open ▸ . Full details are available in appendix 3B.

Table 5.181: Summary of PVA Results for In-Combination Displacement and Collision Impacts on Kittiwake at the St Abb’s Head to Fast Castle SPA

Scenario	Approach	Adult Mortality	Citation Population (Breeding Adults)	Recent Population (Burnell et al., 2023) (Breeding Adults)	Median Unimpacted Population After 35 Years	Median Impacted Population After 35 Years	Median CGR	Median CPS
Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	Low	247.5	42,340	10,300	9,735	3,446	0.972	0.354
Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	High	405.6				1,744	0.953	0.180
Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	Low	22.4				8,850	0.997	0.911
Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	High	34.1				8,449	0.996	0.869

The kittiwake population of the St Abb’s Head to Fast Castle SPA has decreased between its citation level of 42,340 breeding adults to recent counts of 10,300 breeding adults (Burnell et al., 2023).
If Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm is excluded, the median CGR is 0.996 to 0.997 which indicates the population growth rate declines 0.3% to 0.4%. After 35 years (the expected lifespan of the Array), the CPS ranges from 0.869 to 0.911. Although small, the upper end of the range is a magnitude that may be considered to have a discernible impact on the population. Given the significant decline in the population size from its citation level, even this small impact may be considered to adversely affect the probability of the kittiwake feature meeting the conservation objectives for this site.
However, it should be noted the high level of precaution built into this approach, including the potential double counting as a result of the simple additive approach to combining displacement and collision mortality. Birds that are displaced from the site cannot be subject to collision risk. If a macro avoidance factor of 30% was applied to the collision rates for all projects, then the total impact is likely to drop sufficiently that the impact would be considered negligible. Moreover, the impact from The Array, which is already small, would be further reduced to a level that could be considered imperceptible.
If Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm is included, the median CGR is 0.972 (under the “low” approach) to 0.953 (under the “high” approach) which indicates the population growth rate declines by 2.8% to 4.6% compared to the counterfactual. After 35 years (the expected lifespan of the Array), the CPS ranges from 0.354 to 0.180. This level of impact is high. Given that the kittiwake population of the St Abb’s Head to Fast Castle SPA has decreased significantly from its citation level, the magnitude of impact is sufficient to create an impact that is likely to have an adverse effect on the population continuing to meet the site’s conservation objectives. Whilst there is a high degree of precaution built into the approach, if Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm is included, even accounting for that precaution an adverse effect remains likely.
Therefore, it is concluded that if Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm is excluded, there would be no significant impact to the kittiwake population (seabird assemblage component only) at the St Abb’s Head to Fast Castle SPA from combined displacement and collision impacts from the Array in combination with other developments.
If Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm is included then there is a significant impact to the kittiwake population (seabird assemblage component only) of the St Abb’s Head to Fast Castle SPA from combined displacement and collision impacts from the Array in combination with other developments.

Breeding Seabird Assemblage

Of the components of the seabird assemblage, kittiwake was the only species for which a potential LSE2 was identified. An assessment of the impact on kittiwake is provided above.
If Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm is excluded it was found there will be an adverse impact to kittiwake. Whilst there might be a negative effect on the kittiwake population, the magnitude of that effect is small. It is not considered a sufficiently large affect that it could be said to adversely affect the probability of kittiwake being maintained as a viable component of the seabird assemblage. Furthermore, as kittiwake is the only species being significantly impacted, it could not be said to adversely affect the probability of the total seabird assemblage being maintained.
However, if Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm is included, then it is likely that the kittiwake population will decline more significantly. Kittiwake were a significant portion of the assemblage at designation, consisting 21,170 pairs. As of the Seabirds Count census, this had declined to 5,150 pairs (Burnell et al., 2023). It is concluded that the magnitude of decline if Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm is included is sufficient that it could adversely affect kittiwake being maintained as a viable component of the assemblage. It is also concluded that it could negatively affect the total size of the breeding seabird assemblage population.
Therefore, it is concluded, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, that there is no AEOI to the seabird assemblage feature of the St Abb’s Head to Fast Castle SPA if Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm is excluded, but there is a potential AEOI to the seabird assemblage feature of the St Abb’s Head to Fast Castle SPA from the in-combination displacement impact of the Array and other developments including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm.
However, it should be noted that Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm identified an AEOI ‘alone’ for the kittiwake feature of the St Abb’s Head to Fast Castle SPA (SSE Renewables, 2022). Therefore, should Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm proceed, then its impact on the kittiwake feature of the St Abb’s Head to Fast Castle SPA will be fully mitigated and should not be included in the Array ‘in-combination’ assessment.
On this basis, it is appropriate to not include Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm in the in-combination assessment for this particular site and feature, in which case there is no AEOI alone or in-combination for the seabird assemblage feature of the St Abb’s Head to Fast Castle SPA.

St Kilda SPA

Gannet

The combined mortality from displacement and collision (using a simple additive approach of the values in Table 5.111 Open ▸ and Table 5.153 Open ▸ ) is presented in Table 5.182 Open ▸ . The approach sums the collision and disturbance impacts, with potential for double counting inherent in that approach.

Table 5.182: Gannet Combined Displacement and Collision Mortalities Apportioned to the St Kilda SPA In-Combination Totals

Project(s)	Adult Mortalities
	Pre-Breeding Season		Breeding Season		Post-Breeding Season		Annual Total
	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High
UK North Sea projects	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	0.1	0.2	0.7	0.8	0.0	0.0	0.8	1.0
West of Orkney Wind Farm	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.5	1.0	0.6	1.0
Pentland Floating Offshore Wind	0.0	0.0	0.2	0.2	0.0	0.0	0.2	0.2
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Ossian	0.0	0.0	0.9	2.0	0.2	0.6	1.2	2.6
TotalBerwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	0.1	0.2	1.9	3.1	0.8	1.6	2.8	4.9

With a population of 120,580 breeding adults (Burnell et al., 2023), 2.8 to 4.9 additional mortalities represents a 0.002 to 0.004 percentage point increase in mortality rates. Therefore, it can be concluded, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, that there is no risk of an AEOI to the gannet feature of St Kilda SPA resulting from combined displacement and collision impacts from the Array in-combination with other developments.

Breeding Seabird Assemblage

Of the components of the seabird assemblage, gannet was the only species for which a potential LSE2 was identified for combined displacement and collision. As detailed above, there is expected to be no AEOI on the gannet feature. Therefore, it can also be concluded, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, that there is no AEOI to the seabird assemblage feature of the St Kilda SPA as a result of combined displacement and collision from the Array in combination with other developments.

Troup, Pennan and Lion’s Head SPA

Kittiwake

The combined mortality from displacement and collision (using a simple additive approach of the values in Table 5.113 Open ▸ and Table 5.155 Open ▸ ) is presented in Table 5.183 Open ▸ . The approach sums the collision and disturbance impacts, with potential for double counting inherent in that approach.

Table 5.183: Kittiwake Combined Displacement and Collision Mortalities Apportioned to the Troup, Pennan and Lion’s Head SPA In-Combination Totals

Project(s)	Adult Mortalities
	Pre-Breeding Season		Breeding Season		Post-Breeding Season		Annual Total
	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High
UK North Sea projects	34.8	47.5	12.3	20.7	25.0	34.3	72.1	102.5
Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm	0.1	0.1	1.0	1.1	0.2	0.2	1.3	1.4
West of Orkney Wind Farm	1.2	1.4	0.5	0.6	0.9	1.1	2.6	3.1
Pentland Floating Offshore Wind	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
SEP & DEP	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1
Outer Dowsing	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	1.8	1.8
Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	5.4	8.8	2.2	3.5	3.0	6.1	10.6	18.4
Ossian	0.1	0.3	0.7	2.8	0.1	0.2	0.8	3.3
Total (Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm)	36.2	49.3	14.4	25.2	26.3	35.9	78.7	112.3
Total (Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm)	30.8	40.5	12.2	21.7	23.3	29.8	68.1	93.9

With a population of 21,232 breeding adults (Burnell et al., 2023), 68.1 to 112.3 additional mortalities represents a 0.321 to 0.529 percentage point increase in mortality rates. Therefore, PVA has been carried out both with and without Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm and for the high and low scenarios, to further assess the total in-combination impact.
The PVA results are summarised in Table 5.184 Open ▸ . Full details are available in appendix 3B.

Table 5.184: Summary of PVA Results for In-Combination Displacement and Collision Impacts on Kittiwake at the Troup, Pennan and Lion’s Head SPA

Scenario	Approach	Adult Mortality	Citation Population (Breeding Adults)	Recent Population (Burnell et al., 2023) (Breeding Adults)	Median Unimpacted Population After 35 Years	Median Impacted Population After 35 Years	Median CGR	Median CPS
Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	Low	78.7	63,200	21,232	20,017	17,119	0.996	0.854
Including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	High	112.3				16,014	0.994	0.798
Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	Low	68.1				17,495	0.996	0.872
Excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm	High	93.9				16,621	0.995	0.828

The kittiwake population of the Troup, Pennan and Lion’s Head SPA has decreased between its citation level of 63,200 breeding adults to recent counts of 21,232 breeding adults (Burnell et al., 2023).
The median CGR is 0.994 to 0.996 which indicates the population growth rate declines by 0.4% to 0.6% compared to the counterfactual. After 35 years (the expected lifespan of the Array), the CPS ranges from 0.798 to 0.872. Whilst this level of impact is small, it is not negligible and in the context of a population that is already declining, the additional mortality from the Array in combination with other projects and plans would appear to have the potential to adversely affect the likelihood of the site meeting its conservation objectives for all assessment scenarios and both with and without Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm.
Therefore, it is concluded that there is a potential AEOI to the kittiwake feature of the Troup, Pennan and Lion’s Head SPA as a result of displacement and collision impacts from the Array in-combination with other developments.

Breeding Seabird Assemblage

Of the components of the seabird assemblage, kittiwake was the only species for which a potential LSE2 was identified for combined displacement and collision risk. As detailed above, there is expected to be a significant impact on the kittiwake population. The kittiwake population at citation was significantly higher than the current population (Burnell et al., 2023). Whilst the magnitude of the impact would not be deemed sufficient to risk entirely losing kittiwake as a viable component of the assemblage, the decline is sufficient to adversely affect the total population size of the overall assemblage.
Therefore, it is concluded that there is a potential AEOI to the seabird assemblage feature of the Troup, Pennan and Lion’s Head SPA as a result of the impact of combined displacement and collision from the Array in-combination with other developments.

Conclusion

It is concluded that the Array area in-combination with other plans and projects would have an adverse effects on certain qualifying features for several sites, as a result of the combined impact of collision risk and displacement during the operation and maintenance phase, which could therefore undermine the conservation objectives of the SPAs listed in Table 5‑18. An assessment of the impact of collision risk and displacement against each relevant conservation objective is presented in Table 5‑18, where the justifications and supporting evidence are the same for more than one conservation objective, the assessments have been grouped.

Table 5.185: Conclusions Against the Conservation Objectives of SPAs for In-Combination Combined Displacement and Collision During the Operation and Maintenance Phase

SPA

Feature

Target/Conservation Objectives

Justification

Conclusion

Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast SPA

 breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on breeding kittiwake).

 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term:

– distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and

– structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.

As the associated ZoI falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for the combined impact of collision risk and disturbance and displacement during all phases of the Array in-combination with other plans and projects to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, the combined impact of collision risk and disturbance and displacement associated with the Array in-combination with other plans and projects will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 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; and

– no significant disturbance of the species.

The in-combination impact level experienced during operations and maintenance on the named seabird assemblage component, kittiwake, at Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast SPA surpassed the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k). A PVA was therefore required to understand if the impact experienced would have detrimental effects on the populations.

The PVA results for kittiwake ( Table 5.159 Open ▸ ) concluded that the in-combination impact from disturbance and combined collision risk and displacement during the operational and maintenance phase would result in the population growth rate decline of 0.5% or less. After 35 years (the expected lifespan of the Array), the CPS ranged from 0.828 to 0.876 depending on if Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm was included or excluded. The impacted population therefore would be between 12.4% to 17.2% smaller than the unimpacted population.

These results indicate that the combined impact of collision and displacement from the Array in combination with other projects is of a magnitude that can be said to adversely affect the likelihood of the kittiwake population being maintained as a viable component of the Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast SPA.

Consequently, it can be concluded that there is a risk during operation and maintenance, of the combined impact of collision and displacement significantly disrupting the named seabird assemblage component, kittiwake, populations as a qualifying species of the Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast SPA.

Therefore, the combined impact of collision and displacement during operation and maintenance may prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site.

Furthermore, the combined impact from collision and displacement during operation and maintenance may influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.

 seabird assemblage = AEOI cannot be ruled out

East Caithness Cliffs SPA

 kittiwake (breeding); and

 breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).

 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term:

– distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and

– structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.

As the associated ZoI falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for the combined impact of collision risk and disturbance and displacement during all phases of the Array in-combination with other plans and projects to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, the combined impact of collision risk and disturbance and displacement associated with the Array in-combination with other plans and projects will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 kittiwake = No AEOI

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 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; and

– no significant disturbance of the species.

The in-combination impact level experienced during operations and maintenance on kittiwake at East Caithness Cliffs SPA surpassed the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k). A PVA was therefore required to understand if the impact experienced would have detrimental effects on the populations.

The PVA results ( Table 5.161 Open ▸ ) concluded that the in-combination impact from the combined impact of collision risk and displacement during the operational and maintenance phase would result in the population growth rate decline of no more than 1%. After 35 years (the expected lifespan of the Array), the CPS ranged from 0.687 to 0.784 depending on if Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm with included or excluded. The impacted population therefore would be between 21.6% to 31.3% smaller than the unimpacted population.

These results indicate that the combined impact of collision risk and displacement from the Array in combination with other projects during operation and maintenance would be of a magnitude that can be said to adversely affect the likelihood of the kittiwake population being maintained as a viable component of the East Caithness Cliffs SPA.

The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance to seabird assemblage was deemed to be of significant impact due to the large decline of kittiwake populations.

Consequently, it can be concluded that there is a risk during operations and maintenance of the combined impact of collision risk and displacement significantly disrupting kittiwake, populations as a qualifying species of the East Caithness Cliffs SPA. The impact from collision and displacement during operation and maintenance may also influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed qualifying features within the site.

 kittiwake = AEOI

 seabird assemblage = AEOI cannot be ruled out

Farne Islands SPA

 breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on breeding kittiwake).

 ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the Wild Birds Directive, by maintaining or restoring:

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

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

– the supporting processes on which the habitats of the qualifying features rely.

As the associated ZoI falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for the combined impact of collision risk and disturbance and displacement during all phases of the Array in-combination with other plans and projects to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, the combined impact of collision risk and disturbance and displacement associated with the Array in-combination with other plans and projects will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

 ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the Wild Birds Directive, by maintaining or restoring:

– the populations of each of the qualifying features; and

– the distribution of qualifying features within the site.

The in-combination impact level experienced during operations and maintenance on the named seabird assemblage component, kittiwake, at Farne Island SPA surpassed the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k). A PVA was therefore required to understand if the impact experienced would have detrimental effects on the populations.

The PVA results for kittiwake ( Table 5.163 Open ▸ ) concluded that the in-combination impact from the combined impact of collision and displacement during the operational and maintenance phase would result in the population growth rate decline of less than 0.7%. After 35 years (the expected lifespan of the Array), the CPS ranged from 0.768 to 0.936 depending on if Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm with included or excluded. The impacted population therefore would be between 6.40% to 23.2% smaller than the unimpacted population. Whilst there might be a negative effect on the kittiwake population, the magnitude of that effect is small. It is not considered a sufficiently large affect that it could be said to adversely affect the probability of kittiwake being maintained as a viable component of the seabird assemblage.

Furthermore, as kittiwake is the only species being significantly impacted, it could not be said to adversely affect the probability of the total seabird assemblage being maintained.

Therefore, the combined impact of collision risk and displacement during operation and maintenance will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site.

Furthermore, the combined impact from collision risk and displacement during operation and maintenance will not influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA

 kittiwake (breeding);

 gannet (breeding); and

 breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).

 ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the Wild Birds Directive, by maintaining or restoring:

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

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

– the supporting processes on which the habitats of the qualifying features rely.

As the associated ZoI falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for the combined impact of collision risk and disturbance and displacement during all phases of the Array in-combination with other plans and projects to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, the combined impact of collision risk and disturbance and displacement associated with the Array in-combination with other plans and projects will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 kittiwake = No AEOI

 gannet = No AEOI

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

 ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the Wild Birds Directive, by maintaining or restoring:

– the populations of each of the qualifying features; and

– the distribution of qualifying features within the site.

The in-combination impact level experienced during operations and maintenance on kittiwake at Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA surpassed the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k). A PVA was therefore required to understand if the impact experienced would have detrimental effects on the populations.

The PVA results for kittiwake ( Table 5.165 Open ▸ .) concluded that the in-combination impact from the combined impact of collision risk and displacement during the operational and maintenance phase would result in the population growth rate decline of less than 0.7%. After 35 years (the expected lifespan of the Array), the CPS ranged from 0.765 to 0.797 depending on if Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm with included or excluded. The impacted population therefore would be between 20.3% to 23.5% smaller than the unimpacted population.

Similarly, the in-combination impact level experienced during operations and maintenance on gannet, at Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA surpassed the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k). A PVA was therefore required to understand if the impact experienced would have detrimental effects on the populations.

The PVA results for gannet ( Table 5.167 Open ▸ ) concluded that the in-combination impact from the combined impact of collision risk and displacement during the operational and maintenance phase would result in the population growth rate decline of no more than 2.2%. After 35 years (the expected lifespan of the Array), the CPS ranged from 0.445 to 0.564. The impacted population therefore would be 43.6% to 55.5% smaller than the unimpacted population. This result does not take into account macro avoidance rates and so if applied, the impact would be sufficiently less.

These results indicate that the impact of combined collision and displacement from the Array in combination with other projects during operations and maintenance is of a magnitude that can be said to adversely affect the likelihood of kittiwake and gannet populations being maintained as a viable component of the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA.

In addition, as the combined impact from collision and displacement on kittiwake and gannet populations was assessed as adverse, the risk to the seabird assemblage has been deemed adverse during operation and maintenance.

Therefore, the combined impact of collision risk and displacement during operation and maintenance may prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site.

Furthermore, the combined impact from collision risk and displacement during operation and maintenance may influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.

 kittiwake = AEOI

 gannet = AEOI

 seabird assemblage = AEOI cannot be ruled out

Forth Islands SPA

 gannet (breeding); and

 breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species and breeding kittiwake).

 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term:

– distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and

– structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.

As the associated ZoI falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for the combined impact of collision risk and disturbance and displacement during all phases of the Array in-combination with other plans and projects to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, the combined impact of collision risk and disturbance and displacement associated with the Array in-combination with other plans and projects will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 gannet = No AEOI

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 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; and

– no significant disturbance of the species.

The in-combination impact level experienced during operations and maintenance on gannet at Forth Islands SPA surpassed the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k). A PVA was therefore required to understand if the impact experienced would have detrimental effects on the populations.

The PVA results for gannet ( Table 5.171 Open ▸ ) concluded that the in-combination impact from combined collision risk and displacement during the operational and maintenance phase would result in the population growth rate decline of less than 0.9%. After 35 years (the expected lifespan of the Array), the CPS ranged from 0.712 to 0.822 depending on if Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm was included or excluded. The impacted population therefore would be between 17.8% to 28.8% smaller than the unimpacted population. The magnitude of impact is considered sufficient to create an impact that could be said to have an adverse effect on the population continuing to meet the site’s conservation objectives.

These results indicate that the combined impact of collision and displacement from the Array in combination with other projects during operations and maintenance is of a magnitude that can be said to adversely affect the likelihood of gannet populations being maintained as a viable component of the Forth Islands SPA.

In addition to the named qualifying feature, kittiwake was assessed due to being a named seabird assemblage component of the site. Like gannet, impacts surpassed the 0.02 threshold and so a PVA was carried out.

PVA Results for kittiwake ( Table 5.169 Open ▸ .) showed that the population would be 14.6% to 35.5% smaller than the unimpacted population. As the impact from combined collision and displacement on gannet populations was assessed as adverse, with impacts to kittiwake populations seen as of a magnitude to cause decline, the overall risk to seabird assemblage has been deemed as adverse during operation and maintenance.

Therefore, the combined impact from collision risk and displacement during operation and maintenance may prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site.

Furthermore, the combined impact from collision risk and displacement during operation and maintenance may influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.

 gannet = AEOI cannot be ruled out

 seabird assemblage = AEOI cannot be ruled out

Fowlsheugh SPA

 kittiwake (breeding); and

 breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).

 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term:

– distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and

– structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.

As the associated ZoI falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for the combined impact of collision risk and disturbance and displacement during all phases of the Array in-combination with other plans and projects to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, the combined impact of collision risk and disturbance and displacement associated with the Array in-combination with other plans and projects will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 kittiwake = No AEOI

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 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; and

– no significant disturbance of the species.

The in-combination impact level experienced during operations and maintenance on kittiwake at Fowlsheugh SPA surpassed the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k). A PVA was therefore required to understand if the impact experienced would have detrimental effects on the populations.

The PVA results for kittiwake ( Table 5.173 Open ▸ .) concluded that the in-combination impact from combined collision and displacement during the operational and maintenance phase would result in the population growth rate decline of no more than 1.1%. After 35 years (the expected lifespan of the Array), the CPS ranged from 0.666 to 0.862 depending on if Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm was included or excluded. The impacted population therefore would be between 13.8% to 33.4% smaller than the unimpacted population.

These results indicate that the combined impact of collision risk and displacement from the Array in combination with other projects during operation and maintenance would be of a magnitude that can be said to adversely affect the likelihood of the kittiwake population being maintained as a viable component of the Fowlsheugh SPA.

In addition, as the impact from collision and displacement on kittiwake populations was assessed as adverse, the risk to the seabird assemblage has been deemed adverse during operation and maintenance due to the significant decrease.

Therefore, the combined impact of collision risk and displacement during operation and maintenance may prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the kittiwake and seabird assemblage as viable components of the site.

Furthermore, the impact from collision risk and displacement during operation and maintenance may therefore influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed qualifying species within the site.

As set out in Table 5.115 Open ▸ , razorbill was also identified as a named feature of the Fowlsheugh SPA seabird assemblage, and had potential AEOI for in-combination disturbance and displacement.

 kittiwake = AEOI

 seabird assemblage = AEOI cannot be ruled out

Hermaness, Saxa Vord and Valla Field SPA

 gannet (breeding); and

 breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).

 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term:

– distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and

– structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.

As the associated ZoI falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for the combined impact of collision risk and disturbance and displacement during all phases of the Array in-combination with other plans and projects to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, the combined impact of collision risk and disturbance and displacement associated with the Array in-combination with other plans and projects will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 gannet = No AEOI

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 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; and

– no significant disturbance of the species.

The in-combination impact level experienced during operations and maintenance on gannet at Hermaness, Saxa Vord and Valla Field SPA surpassed the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k). A PVA was therefore required to understand if the impact experienced would have detrimental effects on the populations.

The PVA results for gaennet ( Table 5.175 Open ▸ ) concluded that the in-combination impact from combined collision risk and displacement during the operational and maintenance phase would result in the population growth rate decline of no more than 0.2%. After 35 years (the expected lifespan of the Array), the CPS ranged from 0.915 to 0.939 depending on if Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm was included or excluded. The impacted population therefore would be between 6.1% to 8.5% smaller than the unimpacted population. The counterfactual of population growth rate results indicate that the impact levels experienced during operation and maintenance would not adversely affect gannet at Hermaness, Saxa Vord and Valla Field SPA, as the maximum estimated change was a reduction in growth rate by less than 0.2%. Such a decrease indicates that this level of impact would not adversely affect the population and would likely remain undetectable against natural population fluctuations. Furthermore, it is not expected to significantly alter the background mortality rate.

These results indicate that the impact of collision risk and displacement from the Array in combination with other projects during operation and maintenance would not be of magnitude that can be said to adversely affect the likelihood of the gannet population being maintained as a viable component of the Hermaness, Saxa Vord and Valla Field SPA. The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance to seabird assemblage was deemed to be of negligible impact; only gannet was deemed to have any potential LSE2 ( Table 3.1 Open ▸ ).

As the impact from collision risk and displacement on gannet populations was assessed as not adverse, the risk to the seabird assemblage has been deemed not adverse.

Therefore, the combined impact from collision risk and displacement during operation and maintenance will not influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed gannet and seabird assemblage within the site.

 gannet = No AEOI

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

North Caithness Cliffs SPA

 breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on breeding kittiwake).

 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term:

– distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and

– structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.

As the associated ZoI falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for the combined impact of collision risk and disturbance and displacement during all phases of the Array in-combination with other plans and projects to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, the combined impact of collision risk and disturbance and displacement associated with the Array in-combination with other plans and projects will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 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; and

– no significant disturbance of the species.

The in-combination impact level experienced during operations and maintenance on the named seabird assemblage component, kittiwake, at North Caithness Cliffs SPA surpassed the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k). A PVA was therefore required to understand if the impact experienced would have detrimental effects on the populations.

The PVA results ( Table 5.177 Open ▸ ) concluded that the in-combination impact from collision risk and displacement during the operational and maintenance phase would result in the population growth rate decline of no more than 0.8%. After 35 years (the expected lifespan of the Array), the CPS ranged from 0.740 to 0.813 depending on if Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm was included or excluded. The impacted population therefore would be between 18.7% to 26.0% smaller than the unimpacted population. The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance to seabird assemblage was therefore deemed to be adverse due to the significant decline experienced by kittiwake populations.

Therefore, the combined impact from collision risk and displacement during operation and maintenance may influence the population as a viable component of the site and may influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed seabird assemblage within the site.

 seabird assemblage = AEOI cannot be ruled out

Noss SPA

 gannet (breeding); and

 breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).

 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term:

– distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and

– structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.

As the associated ZoI falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for the combined impact of collision risk and disturbance and displacement during all phases of the Array in-combination with other plans and projects to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, the combined impact of collision risk and disturbance and displacement associated with the Array in-combination with other plans and projects will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 gannet = No AEOI

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 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; and

– no significant disturbance of the species.

The in-combination impact level experienced during operations and maintenance on gannet at Noss surpassed the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k). A PVA was therefore required to understand if the impact experienced would have detrimental effects on the populations.

The PVA results for gannet ( Table 5.179 Open ▸ ) concluded that the in-combination impact from collision and displacement during the operational and maintenance phase would result in the population growth rate decline of no more than 0.2%. After 35 years (the expected lifespan of the Array), the CPS ranged from 0.918 to 0.944 depending on if Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm was included or excluded. The impacted population therefore would be between 5.6% to 8.2% smaller than the unimpacted population. The counterfactual of population growth rate results indicate that the impact levels experienced during operation and maintenance would not adversely affect gannet at Noss SPA, as the maximum estimated change was a reduction in growth rate by less than 0.2%. Such a decrease indicates that this level of impact would not adversely affect the population and would likely remain undetectable against natural population fluctuations. Furthermore, it is not expected to significantly alter the background mortality rate.

These results indicate that the impact of collision risk and displacement from the Array in combination with other projects during operation and maintenance would not be of magnitude that can be said to adversely affect the likelihood of the gannet population being maintained as a viable component of the Noss SPA. The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance to seabird assemblage was deemed to be of negligible impact; only gannet was deemed to have any potential LSE2 ( Table 3.1 Open ▸ ).

As the impact from collision risk and displacement on gannet populations was assessed as not adverse, the risk to the seabird assemblage has been deemed not adverse for operation and maintenance.

Therefore, the combined impact of collision risk and displacement during operation and maintenance will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site. The impact from collision risk and displacement during operation and maintenance will not influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed gannet and seabird assemblage within the site.

 gannet = No AEOI

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

St Abb's Head to Fast Castle SPA

 breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on breeding kittiwake).

 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term:

– distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and

– structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.

As the associated ZoI falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for the combined impact of collision risk and disturbance and displacement during all phases of the Array in-combination with other plans and projects to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, the combined impact of collision risk and disturbance and displacement associated with the Array in-combination with other plans and projects will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 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; and

– no significant disturbance of the species.

The in-combination impact level experienced during operations and maintenance on the named seabird assemblage component, kittiwake, at St Abb's Head to Fast Castle SPA surpassed the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k). A PVA was therefore required to understand if the impact experienced would have detrimental effects on the populations.

The PVA results for kittiwake excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm ( Table 5.181 Open ▸ .) concluded that the in-combination impact from collision risk and displacement during the operational and maintenance phase would result in the population growth rate decline of no more than 0.4%. After 35 years (the expected lifespan of the Array), the CPS excluding Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm ranged from 0.869 to 0.911 depending on the approach considered. The impacted population therefore would be between 8.9% to 13.1% smaller than the unimpacted population.

However, the PVA results for kittiwake including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm ( Table 5.181 Open ▸ ) concluded that the in-combination impact from collision risk and displacement during the operational and maintenance phase would result in the population growth rate decline of up to 4.6%. After 35 years (the expected lifespan of the Array), the CPS including Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm ranged from 0.354 to 0.180 depending on the approach considered. The impacted population therefore would be between 64.6% to 82.0% smaller than the unimpacted population.

Given that the kittiwake population of the St Abb’s Head to Fast Castle SPA has decreased significantly from its citation level, the magnitude of impact is sufficient to create an impact that could be said to have an adverse effect on the population.

The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance to seabird assemblage was deemed to be adverse if Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm impacts are included.

Collision risk and displacement during operation and maintenance if Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm is included, may prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site.

If Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm impacts are included, the impact from collision risk and displacement during operation and maintenance may influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed seabird assemblage within the site.

For this assessment, it is determined that the impact from Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm should be excluded when considering AEOI. This is because Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm identified an AEOI ‘alone’ for the kittiwake feature of the St Abb’s Head to Fast Castle SPA (SSE Renewables, 2022). Therefore, should Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm proceed, then its impact on the kittiwake feature of the St Abb’s Head to Fast Castle SPA will be required to be fully compensated and should not be included in the Array ‘in-combination’ assessment.

St Kilda SPA

 gannet (breeding); and

 breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).

 to ensure that the qualifying features of St Kilda SPA and the seas off St Kilda SPA are in favourable condition and make an appropriate contribution to achieving favourable conservation status;

 to ensure that the integrity of St Kilda SPA and the seas off St Kilda SPA is restored in the context of environmental changes by meeting objectives 2a, 2b and 2c for each qualifying feature:

– the supporting habitats and processes relevant to qualifying features and their prey/food resources are maintained, or where appropriate restored, at St Kilda SPA and/or seas off St Kilda SPA.

As the associated ZoI falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for the combined impact of collision risk and disturbance and displacement during all phases of the Array in-combination with other plans and projects to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, the combined impact of collision risk and disturbance and displacement associated with the Array in-combination with other plans and projects will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 gannet = No AEOI

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

 to ensure that the qualifying features of St Kilda SPA and the seas off St Kilda SPA are in favourable condition and make an appropriate contribution to achieving favourable conservation status;

 to ensure that the integrity of St Kilda SPA and the seas off St Kilda SPA is restored in the context of environmental changes by meeting objectives 2a, 2b and 2c for each qualifying feature:

– the populations of qualifying features are viable components of St Kilda SPA and seas off St Kilda SPA; and

– the distributions of the qualifying features throughout St Kilda SPA and seas off St Kilda SPA are maintained by avoiding significant disturbance of the species.

The in-combination impact level experienced during operations and maintenance on gannet at St Kilda SPA remains below the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k) ( Table 5.182 Open ▸ ). Below this threshold are considered non-material, falling within the natural fluctuations of the population.

Consequently, as the impact on mortality rate falls within the natural fluctuations of background mortality for the populations, it can be concluded that there is a negligible risk during operation and maintenance, of the combined impact of collision risk and displacement from the Array in-combination with other plans and projects from significantly disrupting gannet populations as a qualifying species of the St Kilda SPA.

In addition, as the impact from collision risk and displacement on gannet populations was assessed as negligible, the risk to the seabird assemblage has been deemed negligible.

Therefore, collision risk and displacement during, operation and maintenance, will not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved for the assessed qualifying features and the population of the species as viable components of the site.

Furthermore, the combined impact from collision risk and displacement operation and maintenance will not significantly influence the distribution of the assessed qualifying species throughout St Kilda SPA.

 gannet = No AEOI

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

Troup, Pennan and Lion's Heads SPA

 kittiwake (breeding); and

 breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).

 to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term:

– distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; and

– structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.

As the associated ZoI falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no pathway for the combined impact of collision risk and disturbance and displacement during all phases of the Array in-combination with other plans and projects to result in adverse effects on the habitats of the qualifying species.

Therefore, the combined impact of collision risk and disturbance and displacement associated with the Array in-combination with other plans and projects will not prevent the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying species or the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely from being maintained or restored.

 kittiwake = No AEOI

 seabird assemblage = No AEOI

 to avoid significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

 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; and

– no significant disturbance of the species.

The in-combination impact level experienced during operations and maintenance on kittiwake at Troup, Pennan and Lion's Heads SPA surpassed the advised threshold of 0.02 percentage points for increased mortality, as recommended by NatureScot (2023k). A PVA was therefore required to understand if the impact experienced would have detrimental effects on the populations.

The PVA results ( Table 5.184 Open ▸ .) concluded that the in-combination impact from collision risk and displacement during the operational and maintenance phase would result in the population growth rate decline of no more than 0.6%. After 35 years (the expected lifespan of the Array), the CPS ranged from 0.798 to 0.872 depending on if Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm was included or excluded. The impacted population therefore would be between 12.8% to 20.2% smaller than the unimpacted population.

These results indicate that the impact of collision risk and displacement from the Array in combination with other projects during operation and maintenance would be of magnitude that can be said to adversely affect the likelihood of the kittiwake population being maintained as a viable component of the Troup, Pennan and Lion's Heads SPA.

The impact level experienced during operations and maintenance to seabird assemblage was deemed to be of adverse due to the significant decline estimated; only kittiwake was deemed to have any potential LSE2 ( Table 3.1 Open ▸ ).

As the impact from collision risk and displacement on kittiwake populations was assessed as adverse, the risk to the seabird assemblage has been deemed adverse for operation and maintenance.

Therefore, the impact from collision risk and displacement during operation and maintenance will have an adverse effect on the population as a viable component of the site and will influence the long-term maintenance of the distribution of the assessed kittiwake and seabird assemblage within the site.

 kittiwake = AEOI

 seabird assemblage = AEOI cannot be ruled out

As detailed in Table 5.185 Open ▸ , adverse effects on the qualifying seabird features of seven SPAs were identified. This is the result of impacts which would undermine the conservation objective to maintain or restore the populations of the features of the SPA as a result of in-combination combined collision and displacement during operation and maintenance phase activities.
There is risk therefore of undermining the following Conservation Objectives of the sites:

Maintain the long term population of the species as a viable component of the site: Given the level of impact arising from collision and disturbance and displacement from the Array area, there is potential for the Array to influence the population of designated features as viable components of:

- Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast SPA (seabird assemblage with regards to kittiwake);

- East Caithness Cliffs SPA (kittiwake and seabird assemblage with regards to kittiwake);

- Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA (gannet, kittiwake and seabird assemblage with regards to gannet and kittiwake);

- Forth Islands SPA (gannet and seabird assemblage with regards to gannet and kittiwake);

- Fowlsheugh SPA (kittiwake and seabird assemblage with regards to kittiwake and razorbill);

- North Caithness Cliffs SPA (seabird assemblage with regards to kittiwake); and

- Troup, Pennan and Lion’s Heads SPA (kittiwake and seabird assemblage with regards to kittiwake).

Maintain the long term distribution of the species within site and avoid significant disturbance of the species: Given the level of impact arising from collision and disturbance and displacement from the Array area, there is potential for the Array to disturb the distribution of features within the following SPAs:

- Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast SPA (seabird assemblage with regards to kittiwake);

- East Caithness Cliffs SPA (kittiwake and seabird assemblage with regards to kittiwake);

- Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA (gannet, kittiwake and seabird assemblage with regards to gannet and kittiwake);

- Forth Islands SPA (gannet and seabird assemblage with regards to gannet and kittiwake);

- Fowlsheugh SPA (kittiwake and seabird assemblage with regards to kittiwake and razorbill);

- North Caithness Cliffs SPA (seabird assemblage with regards to kittiwake); and

- Troup, Pennan and Lion’s Heads SPA (kittiwake and seabird assemblage with regards to kittiwake).

For all sites considered, there is no risk to undermining the following Conservation Objectives:

Maintain the long term distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species: As the Array and associated ZoI falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no potential for the Array to impact on the distribution and extent of habitats within the SPA; and
Maintain the long term structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species: As the Array and associated ZoI falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no potential for the Array to influence the structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.

6. Summary

A summary of the assessments presented in this RIAA, considering the relevant SPAs, is provided in the table below ( Table 6.1 Open ▸ ). Table 6.1 Open ▸ presents the conclusions of whether there is an AEOI in relation to the Array alone and in-combination with other plans and projects for each European site and qualifying species being assessed.

Table 6.1: Summary of Conclusions

Site ID	Site Name	Relevant Qualifying Features	Project Phase	Potential Impacts	Conclusion for the Assessment on the Array Alone	Conclusion for the Assessment on the Array In-Combination with other Plans and Projects
Seabirds
UK9002491	Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast SPA	 breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on kittiwake).	Construction	 disturbance and displacement  changes to prey availability	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site
			Operation and maintenance	 disturbance and displacement;  collision risk; and  barrier to movement.	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site	Potential adverse effect on the integrity of the site for seabird assemblage, with regards to kittiwake (collision alone and displacement and collision combined).
			Decommissioning	 disturbance and displacement; and  changes to prey availability.	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site
UK9002151	Copinsay SPA	 breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on kittiwake).	Construction	 disturbance and displacement; and  changes to prey availability.	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site
			Operation and maintenance	 disturbance and displacement;  collision risk; and  barrier to movement.	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site
			Decommissioning	 disturbance and displacement; and  changes to prey availability.	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site
UK9006031	Coquet Island SPA	 breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on puffin).	Construction	 disturbance and displacement; and  changes to prey availability.	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site
			Operation and maintenance	 disturbance and displacement;  collision risk;  barrier to movement; and  entanglement.	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site
			Decommissioning	 disturbance and displacement; and  changes to prey availability.	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site
UK9001182	East Caithness Cliffs SPA	 breeding kittiwake; and  breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species).	Construction	 disturbance and displacement; and  changes to prey availability.	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site
			Operation and maintenance	 disturbance and displacement;  collision risk; and  barrier to movement.	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site	Potential adverse effect on the integrity of the site for kittiwake (disturbance and displacement alone, collision alone and displacement and collision combined). Potential adverse effect on the integrity of the site for seabird assemblage, with regards to kittiwake (collision alone and displacement and collision combined).
			Decommissioning	 disturbance and displacement; and  changes to prey availability.	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site
UK9002091	Fair Isle SPA	 breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on gannet).	Construction	 disturbance and displacement; and  changes to prey availability.	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site
			Operation and maintenance	 disturbance and displacement;  collision risk;  barrier to movement; and  entanglement.	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site
			Decommissioning	 disturbance and displacement; and  changes to prey availability.	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site
UK9006021	Farne Islands SPA	 breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on puffin and kittiwake).	Construction	 disturbance and displacement; and  changes to prey availability.	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site
			Operation and maintenance	 disturbance and displacement;  collision risk;  barrier to movement; and  entanglement.	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site.
			Decommissioning	 disturbance and displacement; and  changes to prey availability.	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site
UK9006101	Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA	 breeding gannet;  breeding guillemot;  breeding kittiwake; and  breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species).	Construction	 disturbance and displacement; and  changes to prey availability.	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site
			Operation and maintenance	 disturbance and displacement;  collision risk;  barrier to movement; and  entanglement.	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site for guillemot. Potential adverse effect on the integrity of the site for kittiwake (collision alone and displacement and collision combined). Potential adverse effect on the integrity of the site for gannet (collision alone and displacement and collision combined). Potential adverse effect on the integrity of the site for seabird assemblage, with regards to gannet and kittiwake (collision alone and displacement and collision combined).
			Decommissioning	 disturbance and displacement; and  changes to prey availability.	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site
UK9004171	Forth Islands SPA	 breeding gannet;  breeding puffin; and  breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species and kittiwake).	Construction	 disturbance and displacement; and  changes to prey availability.	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site
			Operation and maintenance	 disturbance and displacement;  collision risk;  barrier to movement; and  entanglement.	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site for puffin Potential adverse effect on the integrity of the site for gannet (displacement and collision combined). Potential adverse effect on the integrity of the site for seabird assemblage, with regards to gannet and kittiwake (displacement and collision combined).
			Decommissioning	 disturbance and displacement; and  changes to prey availability.	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site
UK9002271	Fowlsheugh SPA	 breeding kittiwake; and  breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species and razorbill).	Construction	 disturbance and displacement; and  changes to prey availability.	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site
			Operation and maintenance	 disturbance and displacement;  collision risk;  barrier to movement; and  entanglement.	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site	Potential adverse effect on the integrity of the site for kittiwake (disturbance and displacement, and collision alone and displacement and collision combined). Potential adverse effect on the integrity of the site for seabird assemblage, with regards to kittiwake and razorbill (displacement and collision alone, and displacement and collision combined).
			Decommissioning	 disturbance and displacement; and  changes to prey availability.	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site
UK9002011	Hermaness, Saxa Vord and Valla Field SPA	 breeding gannet; and  breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species).	Construction	 disturbance and displacement; and  changes to prey availability.	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site
			Operation and maintenance	 disturbance and displacement;  collision risk;  barrier to movement; and  entanglement.	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site
			Decommissioning	 disturbance and displacement; and  changes to prey availability.	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site
UK9001181	North Caithness Cliffs SPA	 breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on breeding kittiwake).	Construction	 disturbance and displacement; and  changes to prey availability.	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site
			Operation and maintenance	 disturbance and displacement;  collision risk; and  barrier to movement.	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site	Potential adverse effect on the integrity of the site for seabird assemblage, with regards to kittiwake (collision alone and displacement and collision combined).
			Decommissioning	 disturbance and displacement; and  changes to prey availability.	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site
UK9001011	North Rona and Sula Sgeir SPA	 breeding gannet; and  breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species).	Construction	 disturbance and displacement; and  changes to prey availability.	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site
			Operation and maintenance	 disturbance and displacement;  collision risk;  barrier to movement; and  entanglement.	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site
			Decommissioning	 disturbance and displacement; and  changes to prey availability.	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site
UK9002081	Noss SPA	 breeding gannet; and  breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species).	Construction	 disturbance and displacement; and  changes to prey availability.	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site
			Operation and maintenance	 disturbance and displacement;  collision risk;  barrier to movement; and  entanglement.	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site
			Decommissioning	 disturbance and displacement; and  changes to prey availability.	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site
UK9020316	Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex SPA	 non-breeding red-throated diver;  non-breeding Slavonian grebe;  non-breeding eider;  non-breeding shag;  migratory waterbird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on long-tailed duck, common scoter, velvet scoter, goldeneye and red-breasted merganser);  non-breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on guillemot, shag and razorbill); and  breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on puffin, kittiwake and guillemot).	Construction	 disturbance and displacement.	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site
			Operation and maintenance	 disturbance and displacement.	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site
			Decommissioning	 disturbance and displacement.	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site
UK9004271	St Abb’s Head to Fast Castle SPA	 breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on kittiwake).	Construction	 disturbance and displacement; and  changes to prey availability.	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site
			Operation and maintenance	 disturbance and displacement;  collision risk; and  barrier to movement.	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site for seabird assemblage, with regards to kittiwake (displacement, and collision alone, and displacement and collision combined) due to Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm identifying an AEOI because its impact on the kittiwake features will be fully compensated.
			Decommissioning	 disturbance and displacement; and  changes to prey availability.	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site
UK9001031	St Kilda SPA	 breeding gannet;  breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species).	Construction	 disturbance and displacement;  changes to prey availability; and  artificial light.	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site
			Operation and maintenance	 disturbance and displacement;  collision risk;  barrier to movement;  artificial light; and  entanglement.	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site
			Decommissioning	 disturbance and displacement;  changes to prey availability; and  artificial light.	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site
UK9002181	Sule Skerry and Sule Stack SPA	 breeding gannet; and  breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species).	Construction	 disturbance and displacement; and  changes to prey availability.	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site
			Operation and maintenance	 disturbance and displacement;  collision risk;  barrier to movement; and  entanglement.	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site
			Decommissioning	 disturbance and displacement; and  changes to prey availability.	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site
UK9002471	Troup, Pennan and Lion’s Heads SPA	 breeding kittiwake; and  breeding seabird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species).	Construction	 disturbance and displacement; and  changes to prey availability.	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site
			Operation and maintenance	 disturbance and displacement;  collision risk; and  barrier to movement.	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site	Potential adverse effect on the integrity of the site for kittiwake (collision alone and displacement and collision combined). Potential adverse effect on the integrity of the site for seabird assemblage, with regards to kittiwake (collision alone and displacement and collision combined).
			Decommissioning	 disturbance and displacement; and  changes to prey availability.	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site
 Migratory Waterbirds
UK9004131 UK13005	Cameron Reservoir SPA and Ramsar site	 non-breeding pink-footed goose.	Operation and maintenance	 collision risk; and  barrier to movement.	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site
UK9004291 UK13010	Din Moss - Hoselaw Loch SPA and Ramsar site	 non-breeding greylag goose; and  non-breeding pink-footed goose.	Operation and maintenance	 collision risk; and  barrier to movement.	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site
UK9004241 UK13015	Fala Flow SPA and Ramsar site	 non-breeding pink-footed goose.	Operation and maintenance	 collision risk; and  barrier to movement.	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site
UK9004411 UK13017	Firth of Forth SPA and Ramsar site	 non-breeding bar-tailed godwit;  non-breeding golden plover;  non-breeding knot;  non-breeding pink-footed goose;  non-breeding red-throated diver;  non-breeding redshank;  non-breeding ringed plover;  non-breeding (passage) Sandwich tern;  non-breeding Slavonian grebe;  non-breeding turnstone; and  non-breeding waterbird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species (except Sandwich tern) and common scoter, cormorant, curlew, dunlin, eider, goldeneye, great crested grebe, grey plover, lapwing, long-tailed duck, mallard, oystercatcher, red-breasted merganser, ringed plover, scaup, shelduck, velvet scoter and wigeon).	Operation and maintenance	 collision risk; and  barrier to movement.	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site
UK9004121 UK13018	Firth of Tay and Eden Estuary SPA and Ramsar site	 non-breeding bar-tailed godwit;  non-breeding greylag goose;  non-breeding pink-footed goose;  non-breeding redshank; and  non-breeding waterbird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species and common scoter, cormorant, dunlin, eider, goldeneye, goosander, grey plover, Icelandic black-tailed godwit, oystercatcher, long-tailed duck, red-breasted merganser, sanderling, shelduck and velvet scoter).	Operation and maintenance	 collision risk; and  barrier to movement.	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site
UK9004231 UK13021	Gladhouse Reservoir SPA and Ramsar site	 non-breeding pink-footed goose.	Operation and maintenance	 collision risk; and  barrier to movement.	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site
UK9004281 UK13022	Greenlaw Moor SPA and Ramsar site	 non-breeding pink-footed goose.	Operation and maintenance	 collision risk; and  barrier to movement.	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site
UK9006041 UK11030	Holburn Lake and Moss SPA and Ramsar site	 non-breeding greylag goose.	Operation and maintenance	 collision risk; and  barrier to movement.	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site
UK9006011 UK11036	Lindisfarne SPA and Ramsar site	 non-breeding bar-tailed godwit;  non-breeding common scoter;  non-breeding dunlin;  non-breeding eider;  non-breeding golden plover;  non-breeding grey plover;  non-breeding greylag goose;  non-breeding light-bellied brent goose;  non-breeding long-tailed duck;  non-breeding red-breasted merganser;  non-breeding redshank;  non-breeding ringed plover;  non-breeding sanderling;  non-breeding shelduck;  non-breeding whooper swan;  non-breeding wigeon; and  non-breeding waterbird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species).	Operation and maintenance	 collision risk; and  barrier to movement.	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site
UK9004051 UK13038	Loch of Kinnordy SPA and Ramsar site	 non-breeding pink-footed goose; and  non-breeding greylag goose.	Operation and maintenance	 collision risk; and  barrier to movement.	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site
UK9004111 UK13033	Loch Leven SPA and Ramsar site	 non-breeding cormorant;  non-breeding gadwall;  non-breeding goldeneye;  non-breeding pink-footed goose;  non-breeding pochard;  non-breeding shoveler;  non-breeding teal;  non-breeding tufted duck;  non-breeding whooper swan; and  non-breeding waterbird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species).	Operation and maintenance	 collision risk; and  barrier to movement.	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site
UK9004031 UK13046	Montrose Basin SPA and Ramsar site	 non-breeding greylag goose;  non-breeding pink-footed goose;  non-breeding redshank; and  non-breeding waterbird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species and oystercatcher, eider, wigeon, knot, dunlin and shelduck).	Operation and maintenance	 collision risk; and  barrier to movement.	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site
UK9006131 UK11048	Northumbria Coast SPA and Ramsar site	 non-breeding purple sandpiper; and  non-breeding turnstone.	Operation and maintenance	 collision risk; and  barrier to movement.	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site
UK9004441	Slamannan Plateau SPA	 non-breeding taiga bean goose.	Operation and maintenance	 collision risk  Barrier to movement	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site
UK9004401 UK13057	South Tayside Goose Roosts SPA and Ramsar site	 non-breeding greylag goose;  non-breeding pink-footed goose;  non-breeding wigeon; and  non-breeding waterbird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species).	Operation and maintenance	 collision risk; and  barrier to movement.	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site
UK9004251 UK13060	Westwater SPA and Ramsar site	 non-breeding pink-footed goose; and  non-breeding waterbird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species).	Operation and maintenance	 collision risk; and  barrier to movement.	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site
UK9002221	Ythan Estuary, Sands of Forvie and Meikle Loch SPA, Ythan Estuary and Meikle Loch Ramsar site	 non-breeding pink-footed goose; and  non-breeding waterbird assemblage (potential LSE2 due to impacts on the above species and eider, lapwing and redshank).	Operation and maintenance	 collision risk; and  barrier to movement.	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site	No adverse effect on the integrity of the site

7. References

Ainley, D. G., Podolsky, R., Deforest, L., Spencer, G., & Nur, N. (2001). The status and population trends of the Newell’s shearwater on Kauai: Insights from modelling. Studies in Avian Biology, 22, 108–123.

APEM (2022). Review of Evidence to Support Auk Displacement and Mortality Rates in Relation to Offshore Wind Farms. APEM Scientific Report P00007416. Ørsted, January 2022, Final, 49 pp.

APHA, (2023). Confirmed cases of wild birds with highly pathogenic avian influenza (bird flu) in Great Britain. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/avianinfluenza-in-wild-birds. Accessed on: 11 March 2024.

Aquaterra Ltd and MarineSpace Ltd (2022). Information Note: Encounters of Marine Animals with Mooring Systems and Subsea Cables. ORJIP Ocean Energy Report to Welsh Government. P983. Available at: https://www.gov.wales/sites/default/files/publications/2022-06/information-note-encounters-of-marine-animals-with-mooring-systems-and-subsea-cables.pdf. Accessed on: 02 February 2024.

Baccetti, N., Sposimo, P., and Giannini, F. (2005). Artificial lights and mortality of Cory’s shearwater Calonectris 1iomedea on a Mediterranean Island. AVOCETTA-PARMA, 29(2), 89.

Benjamins, S., V. Harnois, H. Smith, L. Johanning, L. Greenhill, C. Carter, Wilson, and B. Wilson. (2014). Understanding the potential for marine megafauna entanglement risk from marine renewable energy developments. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report 791.

Berón, M.P. and Seco Pon, J.P. (2021). Fishing gear-related injuries and mortality of seabirds in coastal northern Argentina. Marine Ornithology, 49: 321-327.

Bradbury, G., Trinder M, Furness B, Banks AN, Caldow RWG and Hume, D (2014) Mapping Seabird Sensitivity to Offshore Wind Farms. PloS ONE 9(9): e106366. Doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0106366.

Butler, A., Carroll, M., Searle, K., Bolton, M., Waggitt, J., Evans, P., Rehfisch, M., Goddard, B., et al. (2020). Attributing seabirds at sea to appropriate breeding colonies. Scottish Marine and Freshwater Science 11(8). Marine Scotland Science.

Burnell, D., Perkins, A. J., Newton, S. F., Bolton, M., Tierney, T. D., Dunn, T. E. and Vaughan, R. (2023). Seabirds Count A Census of Breeding Seabirds in Britain and Ireland (2015–2021).

Camphuysen, C.J. (2002). Post-fledging dispersal of Common Guillemots Uria aalge guarding chicks in the North Sea: the effect of predator presence and prey availability at sea. Ardea, 90(1): 103-119.

Caneco, B., Humphries, G., Cook, A. and Masden E. (2022). Estimating bird collisions at Offshore windfarms with stochLAB. R package. Available at: https://hidef-aerial-surveying.github.io/stochLAB/. Accessed on: 11 March 2024.

Christie, A.P. (2021). Investigating post-breeding moult locations and diets of Common Guillemots (Uria aalge) in the North Sea using stable isotope analysis. bioRxiv: 2020-09.

Deakin, Z., Cook., A., Daunt., F., McCluskie, A., Morley, N., Witcutt, E., Wright. L. and Bolton, M. (2022). A review to inform the assessment of the risk of collision and displacement in petrels and shearwaters from offshore wind developments in Scotland. Report prepared for the Scottish Government.

Department for Energy Security & Net Zero (2023). Habitats Regulations Assessment for an Application Under the Planning Act 2008. Hornsea Project Four Offshore Windfarm. Available at: https://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/wp-content/ipc/uploads/projects/EN010098/EN010098-002331-DESNZ%20HRA%20-%20Hornsea%20Four_Final.pdf. Accessed on: 11 March 2024.

Desholm, M. (2005). Wind farm related mortality among avian migrants: a remote sensing study and model analysis. National Environmental Research Institute Ministry of the Environment. Denmark. Available at: https://www.osti.gov/etdeweb/servlets/purl/20833734. Accessed on: 11 March 2024.

Dierschke, V., Furness R.W. and Garthe, S. (2016). Seabirds and offshore wind farms in European waters: Avoidance and attraction. Biological Conservation 202: 59-68.

Donovan, C. (2017) Stochastic Band CRM – GUI User manual. Marine Scotland. Available at: https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/factsheet/2021/02/stochastic-collision-risk-model-for-seabirds-in-flight/documents/user-guide/user-guide/govscot%3Adocument/user%2Bguide.pdf. Accessed on: 11 December 2023.

Dunn, R. E., Duckworth, J., O’Brien, S., Furness, R. W., Buckingham, L., Daunt, F., Bogdanova, M., & Green, J. A. (2024). Temporal and spatial variability in availability bias has consequences for marine bird abundance estimates during the non-breeding season. bioRxiv 2024.03.13.584773. https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.03.13.584773

Equinor (2022). Sheringham Shoal and Dudgeon Offshore Wind Farm Extension Projects Apportioning and HRA Updates Technical Note (Revision E) (Clean). Available at https://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/wp-content/ipc/uploads/projects/EN010109/EN010109-002168-13.3%20Apportioning%20and%20Habitats%20Regulations%20Assessment%20Updates%20Technical%20Note%20(Revision%20E)%20(Clean).pdf [Accessed June 2024].

Equinor (2023). Sheringham Shoal and Dudgeon Offshore Wind Farm Extension Projects Report to Inform Appropriate Assessment (RIAA). Available at https://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/wp-content/ipc/uploads/projects/EN010109/EN010109-000432-5.4%20Report%20to%20Inform%20Appropriate%20Assessment.pdf [Accessed June 2024].

Falchieri, M., Reid, S.M., Ross, C.S., James, J., Byrne, A.M., Zamfir, M., Brown, I.H., Banyard, A.C., Tyler, G., Philip, E. and Miles, W. (2022). Shift in HPAI infection dynamics causes significant losses in seabird populations across Great Britain. Veterinary Record, 191(7), pp.294-296.

Fischer, J. H., Debski, I., Taylor, G. A., and Wittmer, H. U. (2021). Consistent offshore artificial light at night near the last breeding colony of a critically endangered seabird. Conservation Science and Practice, 3(9), e481.

Five Estuaries Wind Farm Ltd (2023). Five Estuaries Offshore Wind Farm Preliminary Environmental Information Report: Draft Report to Inform Appropriate Assessment. Available at https://fiveestuaries.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/0144_VE_Draft_RIAA_Final.pdf [Accessed June 2024]

Fox, C.J., Benjamins, S., Masden, E.A. and Miller, R. (2018). Challenges and opportunities in monitoring the impacts of tidal-stream energy devices on marine vertebrates. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 81, 1926–1938. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.06.004

Furness, R.W. (2015). Non-breeding season populations of seabirds in UK waters: Population sizes for Biologically Defined Minimum Population Scales (BDMPS). Natural England Commissioned Reports, No.164.

Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm (2023). Green Volt Offshore Wind Farm Offshore Windfarm. Report to Inform Appropriate Assessment. Available at: https://marine.gov.scot/data/offshore-environmental-impact-assessment-report-report-inform-appropriate-assessment-green-volt. Accessed on: 11 March 2024.

Harris, M. P., Burton, E., Lewis, S., Tyndall, A., Nichol, C. J., Wade, T. and Wanless, S. 2023. Count of Northern Gannets on the Bass Rock in June 2023. Scottish Seabird Centre Report.

Horne, N. (2021). Developing a simulation-based approach to collision risk of tidal energy converters and marine wildlife. Student thesis: Doctoral Thesis

Horne, N., Schmitt, P., Culloch, R., Wilson, B., Houghton, J. D. R., Dale, A., & Kregting, L. (2023). Comparability of Outputs between Traditional and Simulation-Based Approaches to Collision Risk Modelling. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 11(12), Article 2359.

Hüppop, O., Dierschke, J., Exo, K.M., Friedrich, E. & Hill, R. (2006). Bird migration studies and potential collision risk with Offshore wind turbines. Ibis 148: 90-109. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/bird-migration-studies-potential-collision-risk-Offshore-wind-turbines.

Hyrenbach, D., Elliott, L., Cabrera, C., Dauterman, K., Gelman, J. & Siddiqi, A. (2020). Seabird Entanglement in Marine Debris and Fishing Gear in the Main Hawaiian Islands (2012 – 2020). Journal of the Hawaii Audubon Society, 80(6): 41-46.

ICES (2011). Effects of offshore wind farms on seabirds. In: Report of the Working Group on Seabird Ecology (WGSE) 1-4 November 2011. Madeira, Portugal. P. 73. CM2011/SSGEF:07. ICES, Copenhagen.

Isaksson, N., Masden, E., Williamson, B., Costagliola-Ray, M., Slingsby, J., Houghton, J. and Wilson, J. (2020). Assessing the effects of tidal stream marine renewable energy on seabirds: A conceptual framework. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 157. 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.111314

Johnston, A., Cook, A.S.C.P., Wright, L.J., Humphreys, E.M. & Burton, N.H.K. (2014). Modelling flight heights of marine birds to more accurately assess collision risk with Offshore wind turbines. Journal of Applied Ecology, 51(1): 31-41.

JNCC, NRW, Northern Ireland Environment Agency, Natural England and Scottish Natural Heritage. (2014). Joint Response from the Statutory Nature Conservation Bodies to the Marine Scotland Science Avoidance Rate Review. 25th November 2014.

JNCC (2021). Seabird Population Trends and Causes of Change: 1986–2019 Report. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough. Available at: https://jncc.gov.uk/our-work/smp-report-1986-2019. Accessed on: 14 November 2023.

JNCC (2022). Special Protection Areas (SPAs): List of sites. Available at: https://jncc.gov.uk/our-work/list-of-spas/. Accessed on 16th January 2024.

JNCC and NatureScot (2022) Conservation and Management Advice: Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex SPA. Available at: https://sitelink.nature.scot/site/10478. Accessed on: 22 April 2024.

JNCC et al. (2022). Joint SNCB Interim Displacement Advice Note. [Online]. JNCC, Natural Resources Wales, Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs/Northern Ireland Environment Agency, Natural England and Scottish Natural Heritage. Available at: https://data.jncc.gov.uk/data/9aecb87c-80c5-4cfb-9102-39f0228dcc9a/joint-sncb-interim-displacement-advice-note-2022.pdf. Accessed on: 11 March 2024.

Longcore, T. and Rich, C. (2004). Ecological light pollution. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment/Ecological Society of America, 2 (4), 191-198.

Long, C. (2017). Analysis of the possible displacement of bird and marine mammal species related to the installation and operation of marine energy conversion systems. Scottish Nat. Herit. Comm. Rep. No. 947.

MacArthur Green (2018) Dogger Bank South Offshore Wind Farms Preliminary Environmental Information Report: Appendix 12.8 Consequences for Birds of Obstruction Lighting on Offshore Wind Turbines. Available at https://rwe-dogger-bank.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/PEIR/DBS+PEIR+TA12.8+Review+of+turbine+lighting+-+Furness+2018.pdf. Accessed March 2024.

Macarthur Green (2023). Beatrice Offshore Wind Farm. Year 2 Post-construction Ornithological Monitoring Report.

Marine Scotland (2017a). Scoping Opinion for the proposed Section 36 Consent and Associated Marine Licence Application for the Revised NnG Offshore Wind Farm and Revised NnG Offshore Transmission Works. Available at: http://www.gov.scot/Topics/marine/Licensing/marine/scoping/NnGRev2017/SO-092017. Accessed on: 11 March 2024.

Marine Scotland (2017b). Marine Scotland – Licensing Operations Team Scoping Opinion. Addendum: Ornithology. Scoping Opinion for Inch Cape Offshore Windfarm – Revised Design Parameters – Ornithology. 10 August 2017.

Marine Scotland (2024) National Marine Plan Interactive (Version 1.6.8.125). Available at: https://marinescotland.atkinsgeospatial.com/nmpi/. Accessed on: 23 April 2024.

Masden, E.A., Haydon, D.T., Fox, A.D. and Furness, R.W. (2010). Barriers to species movement: Modelling energetic costs of avoiding marine wind farms amongst breeding seabirds. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 60: 1085-1091.

Masden, E. A., Reeve, R., Desholm, M., Fox, A. D., Furness, R. W. and Haydon, D. T. (2012). Assessing the impact of marine wind farms on birds through movement modelling. Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 9(74), 2120-2130.

MCA (2008) Offshore Renewable Energy Installations (OREIs): Guidance to Mariners Operating in the Vicinity of UK OREIs. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5fc6505fd3bf7f7f575b4365/MGN_372.pdf. Accessed: March 2024.

McGregor, R.M., King, S., Donovan, C.R., Caneco, B. and Webb, A. (2018). A Stochastic Collision Risk Model for Seabirds in Flight.

MD-LOT (2023). Scoping Opinion for Ossian Array. Marine Directorate – Licensing Operations Team. Edinburgh.

Moray West (2018). Moray West Offshore Habitats Regulations Appraisal. Report to Inform Appropriate Assessment. June 2018. Available at: https://marine.gov.scot/sites/default/files/riaa_report_with_appendices.pdf. Accessed on: 11 March 2024.

Natural England (ND). Designated Sites View. Available at https://designatedsites.naturalengland.org.uk/. Accessed on: 16th January 2024.

Natural England (2023). Consideration of avoidance behaviour of northern gannet (Morus bassanus) in collision risk modelling for offshore wind farm impact assessments. September 2023. Natural England Commissioned Report NERC512.

NatureScot (ND). NatureScot Site Link. Available at: https://sitelink.nature.scot/home. Accessed on: 16 January 2024.

NatureScot (2018). Interim Guidance on apportioning impacts from marine renewable developments to breeding seabird populations in SPAs.

NatureScot (2023a). Guidance Note 1: Guidance to support Offshore Wind Applications: Marine Ornithology – Overview. Available at: https://www.nature.scot/doc/guidance-note-1-guidance-support-offshore-wind-applications-marine-ornithology-overview. Accessed on: 16 March 2024.

NatureScot (2023b). Guidance Note 2: Guidance to support Offshore Wind Applications: Advice for Marine Ornithology Baseline Characterisation Surveys and Reporting. Available at: https://www.nature.scot/doc/guidance-note-2-guidance-support-offshore-wind-applications-advice-marine-ornithology-baseline. Accessed on: 16 March 2024.

NatureScot (2023c). Guidance Note 3: Guidance to support Offshore Wind applications: Marine Birds – Identifying theoretical connectivity with breeding site Special Protection Areas using breeding season foraging ranges. Available at: https://www.nature.scot/doc/guidance-note-3-guidance-support-offshore-wind-applications-marine-birds-identifying-theoretical. Accessed on: 16 March 2024.

NatureScot (2023d). Guidance Note 4: Guidance to Support Offshore Wind Applications: Ornithology – Determining Connectivity of Marine Birds with Marine Special Protection Areas and Breeding Seabirds from Colony SPAs in the Non Breeding Season. Available at: https://www.nature.scot/doc/guidance-note-4-guidance-support-offshore-wind-applications-ornithology-determining-connectivity. Accessed on: 16 March 2024.

NatureScot (2023e). Guidance Note 5: Guidance to support Offshore Wind Applications: Recommendations for marine bird population estimates. Available at: https://www.nature.scot/doc/guidance-note-5-guidance-support-offshore-wind-applications-recommendations-marine-bird-population. Accessed on: 16 March 2024.

NatureScot (2023f). Guidance Note 6: Guidance to support Offshore Wind Applications – Marine Ornithology Impact Pathways for Offshore Wind Developments. Available at: https://www.nature.scot/doc/guidance-note-6-guidance-support-offshore-wind-applications-marine-ornithology-impact-pathways. Accessed on: 17 March 2024.

NatureScot (2023g). Guidance Note 7: Guidance to support Offshore Wind Applications: Marine Ornithology – Advice for assessing collision risk of marine birds. Available at: https://www.nature.scot/doc/guidance-note-7-guidance-support-offshore-wind-applications-marine-ornithology-advice-assessing. Accessed on: 17 March 2024.

NatureScot (2023h). Guidance Note 8: Guidance to support Offshore Wind applications: Marine Ornithology Advice for assessing the distributional responses, displacement and barrier effects of Marine birds. Available at: https://www.nature.scot/doc/guidance-note-8-guidance-support-offshore-wind-applications-marine-ornithology-advice-assessing. Accessed on: 17 March 2024.

NatureScot (2023i). Guidance Note 9: Guidance to support Offshore Wind applications: Marine Ornithology Advice for Seasonal Definitions for Birds in the Scottish Marine Environment. Available at: https://www.nature.scot/doc/guidance-note-9-guidance-support-offshore-wind-applications-seasonal-periods-birds-scottish-marine. Accessed on: 17 March 2024.

NatureScot (2023j). Guidance Note 10: Guidance to support Offshore Wind applications: Marine Ornithology Advice for apportioning impacts to breeding colonies. Available at: https://www.nature.scot/doc/guidance-note-10-guidance-support-offshore-wind-applications-marine-ornithology-advice-apportioning. Accessed on: 17 March 2024.

NatureScot (2023k). Guidance Note 11: Guidance to support Offshore Wind Applications: Marine Ornithology – Recommendations for Seabird Population Viability Analysis (PVA). Available at: https://www.nature.scot/doc/guidance-note-11-guidance-support-offshore-wind-applications-marine-ornithology-recommendations. Accessed on: 17 March 2024.

NatureScot (2023l). NatureScot Scientific Advisory Committee Sub-Group on Avian Influenza Report on the H5N1 outbreak in wild birds 2020-2023. Available at: https://www.nature.scot/doc/naturescot-scientific-advisory-committee-sub-group-avian-influenza-report-h5n1-outbreak-wild-birds. Accessed on: 18 March 2024.North Falls Offshore Wind Farm Limited (2023). Habitats Regulations Assessment Draft Report to Inform Appropriate Assessment. Available at https://www.northfallsoffshore.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/004447089-03-North-Falls-RIAA.pdf. Accessed March 2024.

Offshore Wind Power Limited (2023). West of Orkney Windfarm Offshore EIA Report Volume 1, Chapter 13 – Offshore and Intertidal Ornithology. Available at https://www.westoforkney.com/application/files/1316/9573/0283/West_of_Orkney_Windfarm_Offshore_EIA_Report_-_Chapter_13_-_Offshore_and_intertidal_ornithology.pdf. Accessed on: 14 December 2023.

Ossian OWFL (2023). HRA Screening Report – Ossian Offshore Wind Farm. Available at: HRA Screening Report – Ossian Offshore Wind Farm | Marine Scotland Information. Accessed on: 17 March 2024.

Outer Dowsing Offshore Wind (2023). Outer Dowsing Offshore Wind Habitat Regulations Assessment –Report to Inform Appropriate Assessment. Available at https://www.outerdowsing.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/7.1_Draft-RIAA-Redacted.pdf [Accessed June 2024]

Ozsanlav-Harris, L., Inger, R. and Sherley, R. 2023. Review of data used to calculate avoidance rates for collision risk modelling of seabirds. JNCC Report 732, JNCC, Peterborough, ISSN 0963-8091.

Parker, J., Fawcett, A., Banks, A., Rowson, T., Allen, S., Rowell, H., Harwood, A., Ludgate, C., Humphrey, O., Axelsson, M., Baker, A. & Copley, V. (2022). Offshore Wind Marine Environmental Assessments: Best Practice Advice for Evidence and Data Standards. Phase III: Expectations for data analysis and presentation at examination for offshore wind applications. Natural England. Version 1.2. 140 pp.

Peschko, V., Mendel, B., Müller, S., Markones, N., Mercker, M., and Garthe, S. (2020). Effects of offshore wind farms on seabird abundance: Strong effects in spring and in the breeding season. Marine Environmental Research, 162: p. 105157.

RSIS (ND). Ramsar Sites Information Service. Available at: https://rsis.ramsar.org/. Accessed 16th January 2024.

Ruffino, L., Arjona Y., Clear, N. and Martin, E. 2023. Towards better understanding black-legged kittiwake and fish prey interactions. An assessment of scientific evidence to inform future research needs in the North Sea. Report to Ørsted. JNCC Report 733, JNCC, Peterborough, ISSN 0963—8091.

Scottish Government (2024). Environmental Impact Assessment Decision Notice - Green Volt Offshore Windfarm - East of Aberdeenshire Coast. Available at: https://marine.gov.scot/sites/default/files/240419_-_green_volt_-_eia_application_-_annex_c_-_section_36_decision_notice_0.pdf. Accessed on: 29 May 2024.

Searle, K., Mobbs, D., Butler, A., Bogdanova, M., Freeman, S., Wanless, S. and Daunt, F., (2014). Population consequences of displacement from proposed offshore wind energy developments for seabirds breeding at Scottish SPAs (CR/2012/03). Final Report to Marine Scotland. Marine Scotland, Edinburgh.

Searle, K.R., Mobbs, D.C., Butler, A., Furness, R.W., Trinder, M.N. and Daunt, F. (2018). Finding out the Fate of Displaced Birds. Scottish Marine and Freshwater Science, 9(8): 149.

Searle, K.R., Mobbs, D.C., Daunt, F. and Butler, A. (2019). A Population Viability Analysis Modelling Tool for Seabird Species. Natural England Commission Report No. 27.

SNCB (2022). Joint SNCB Interim Displacement Advice Note. Available at: https://data.jncc.gov.uk/data/9aecb87c-80c5-4cfb-9102-39f0228dcc9a/joint-sncb-interim-displacement-advice-note-2022.pdf. Accessed on: 11 March 2024.

Smith, D. G., Polhemus, J. T., and VanderWerf, E. A. (2002). Comparison of managed and unmanaged wedge-tailed shearwater colonies on O’ahu: Effects of predation. Pacific Science, 56(4), 451–457.

Speakman, J., Gray, H., and Furness, L (2009). University of Aberdeen report on effects of offshore wind farms on the energy demands on seabirds . Department of Energy & Climate Change. URN 09D/800.

SSE Renewables (2022). HABITAT REGULATIONS APPRAISAL, Report to Inform Appropriate Assessment Part Three. Available at: https://berwickbank-eia.com/supporting-documents/riaa-3/ Accessed on: 08 December 2023.

Trapp, J. L. (1998). Bird kills at towers and other man-made structures: an annotated partial bibliography (1960-1998). USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D. C., USA.

Tremlett, C.J, Morely, N. and Wilson, L.J. (2024). UK seabird colony counts in 2023 following the 2021-22 outbreak of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza. RSPB Research Report 76.

Trinder, M., O’Brien, S. and Danial, J. (2024) A new method for quantifying redistribution of seabirds within operational offshore wind farms finds no evidence of within-wind farm displacement. Frontiers in Marine Science Volume 11 – 2024.

Tyndall A.A., Nichol C.J., Wade T., Pirrie S., Harris M.P., Wanless S., Burton E. (2024). Quantifying the Impact of Avian Influenza on the Northern Gannet Colony of Bass Rock Using Ultra-High-Resolution Drone Imagery and Deep Learning. Drones. 8(2):40. https://doi.org/10.3390/drones8020040

Van Kooten, T., Soudijn, F., Tuilp I., Chen, C., Benden, D., and Leopold, M. (2019). The consequences of seabird habitat loss from offshore wind turbines, version 2: Displacement and population level effects in 5 selected species. Wageningen University & Research Report C063/19.

Wade, H. M., Masden, E. A., Jackson, A. C. and Furness, R. W. (2016). Incorporating data uncertainty when estimating potential vulnerability of Scottish seabirds to marine renewable energy developments. Marine Policy, 70: 108-113.

Wakefield, E. D., Owen, E., Baer, J., Carroll, M. J., Daunt, F., Dodd, S. G., Green, J. A., Guilford, T., Mavor, R. A., Miller, P. I., Newell, M. A., Newton, S. F., Robertson, G. S., Shoji, A., Soanes, L. M., Votier, S. C., Wanless, S. and Bolton, M. (2017) Breeding density, fine-scale tracking, and large-scale modelling reveal the regional distribution of four seabird species. Ecological Applications, 27, 2074–2091.

Walsh, P.M., Halley, D.J., Harris, M.P., del Nevo, A., Sim, I.M.W. and Tasker, M.L. (1995) Seabird monitoring handbook. JNCC / RSPB / ITE / Seabird Group, Peterborough.

For Britain and Ireland1995) Welcker, J., Liesenjohann, M., Blew, J., Nehls, G. and Grünkorn, T. (2017). Nocturnal migrants do not incur higher collision risk at wind turbines than diurnally active species. Ibis 159/2, S: 366– 373.

Woodward, I., Thaxter, C.B., Owen, E. and Cook, A.S.C.P. (2019). Desk-based revision of seabird foraging ranges used for HRA screening. BTO Report No. 724.

Wright, L. J., Ross-Smith, V. H., Austin, G. E., Massimino, D., Dadam, D., Cook, A. S. C. P. and Burton, N. H. K. (2012). Assessing the risk of Offshore wind farm development to migratory birds designated as features of UK Special Protection Areas (and other Annex 1 species). BTO Research Report No. 592.

Xodus Group Ltd (2022) Pentland Floating Offshore Wind Farm Habitats Regulations Appraisal: Offshore Report To Inform Appropriate Assessment. Available at : https://pentlandfloatingwind.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/habitat_regulation_assessment_report_redacted.pdf. Accessed on: 08 December 2023.

Young, L and VanderWerf, E (2023). Conservation of Marine Birds. London: Academic Press.

Appendix 3A: Apportioning for RIAA

Please find appendix 3A attached to this document separately.

Appendix 3B: PVA for RIAA

Please find appendix 3B attached to this document separately.

[1] In line with the Ossian Array Scoping Opinion requests from NatureScot and the Scottish Ministers (see Table 2.1 Open ▸ ), all assessments within this RIAA have been carried out presenting both a “with Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm” and “without Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm” scenario.

[2] The seasons that a species is present and impacts are being considered is given in brackets.

[3] Leach’s petrel, gannet, Arctic skua, great skua, black-headed gull, lesser black-backed gull, herring gull, great black-backed gull, kittiwake, Sandwich tern, roseate tern, common tern, Arctic tern and guillemot.

SPA or Ramsar	Annual Adult Mortality	Population Size After 35 Years (Median)	CGR (Median)	CPS (Median)
Forth Islands SPA	Counterfactual	202,643	N/A	N/A
Forth Islands SPA	58.0	199,298	1.000	0.984