Gannet
  1. 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

Table 5.25: Gannet Displacement Mortality Calculations

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

Table 5.29: Gannet 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 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
  1. 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.
  2. During operation and maintenance there will be 508 return vessel trips per year, which averages out at 1.4 return vessel trips per day.
  3. 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).
  4. 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

  1. 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

  1. 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

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

 

  1. 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

  1. 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).

-        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).

  1. 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

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

 

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

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

 

                        Construction phase

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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

  1. 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.
  2. 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

  1. 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

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

  1. 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

  1. 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

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

                        Construction phase

  1. 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
  1. 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

  1. 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.
  2. 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
  1. 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

  1. 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

  1. 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

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

 

  1. 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

  1. 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).

  1. 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

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

 

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

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