Westwater SPA and Ramsar site

  1. 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).
  2. 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.
  3. 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

  1. 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).
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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

  1. 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).

  1. 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

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

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

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

 

                        Construction phase

                        Breeding Seabirds
  1. 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.
  2. 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 ▸ ).
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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).
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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).
  12. 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 5.2: 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 5.3: 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 5.4: 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 5.5: 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 5.6: 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 5.7: 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 5.8: 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 5.9: 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 5.10: 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

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

 

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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
  1. 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

Table 5.6: Kittiwake Displacement Mortality Calculations

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

  1. 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
  1. 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.
  2. 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

Table 5.11: Guillemot Displacement Mortality Calculations

 

Table 5.12:
Guillemot Apportionment Calculations

Table 5.12: Guillemot Apportionment Calculations

 

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

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

 

  1. 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.
  2. 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
  1. 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

Table 5.14: Razorbill Displacement Mortality Calculations

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

  1. 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.
  2. 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

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

 

  1. 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.
  2. 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).
  3. 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.
  4. 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
  1. 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

Table 5.20: Puffin Displacement Mortality Calculations

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

  1. 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.