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