Deadline III Appendix 25 Flamborough Head and Filey Coast ...... · the FFC pSPA, and this is the...

April 2014

Deadline III Appendix 25 – Flamborough Head and Filey Coast pSPA apportioning review – gannet and kittiwake Tuesday 15th April 2014

DOGGER BANK CREYKE BECK

Deadline III Appendix 25 © 2014 Forewind

Document Title Dogger Bank Creyke Beck

Deadline III Appendix 25

Forewind Document Reference F-EXC-RW-029

Issue Number 1.0

Date 15 April 2014

Drafted by MacArthur Green

Approved by Sophie Barrell

Date / initials check SB 15th April 2014

Apportioning of the

Flamborough Head and Filey Coast pSPA

Kittiwake Population

among North Sea Wind Farms

Prepared by: Mark Trinder

Reviewed by: Bob Furness

Date: 03/04/2014

Tel: 0141 342 5404

Email: [email protected]

Web: www.macarthurgreen.com

Address: 95 South Woodside Road | Glasgow | G20 6NT

http://www.macarthurgreen.com/

Document Quality Record.

Version Status Authorised by Date

1.0 DRAFT Mark Trinder 15/03/2014

1.1 Draft Final Mark Trinder 17/03/2014

1.2 Final Mark Trinder 03/04/2014

FFC pSPA Kittiwake Apportioning Among North Sea Wind Farms

MGL/MT/03-04-2014/1.2

CONTENTS

1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1

2. Review of approaches used by East Anglia One Limited and Natural England .............................. 1

Breeding season .................................................................................................................................. 1

Non-breeding season .......................................................................................................................... 1

Autumn/Spring passage ...................................................................................................................... 1

3. Estimation of North Sea kittiwake BDMPS and FFC pSPA proportion ............................................ 2

Non-breeding season and migration periods ..................................................................................... 2

Breeding season .................................................................................................................................. 5

4. Estimation of the percentage of the FFC pSPA kittiwake population at risk of collision effects

in North Sea offshore wind farms ....................................................................................................... 7

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................ 9

Appendix 1 ............................................................................................................................................ 11


1 | P a g e

1. Introduction

This report provides:

A brief review of previous apportioning of kittiwakes from the Flamborough and Filey Coast

(FFC) pSPA among North Sea offshore wind farms during the breeding, migration and

wintering periods;

Estimation of the Biologically Defined Minimum Population Sizes (BDMPS) for kittiwakes in

the North Sea during each phase of the year and estimation of the proportion of this

population which originates from the FFC pSPA; and,

Estimation of the percentage of the FFC pSPA kittiwake population at risk of collision effects

in North Sea offshore wind farms.

2. Review of approaches used by East Anglia One Limited and Natural England

Breeding season

East Anglia One Limited (EAOL) calculated the FFC pSPA proportion of the population present in the

breeding season on the basis of colony size relative to all North Sea colonies. The FFC percentage

estimated in the breeding season for EAONE was 12.08%, although as a precaution this value was

increased to 25% for offshore wind farms within foraging range of the FFC pSPA (Table 3.7, APEM

Scientific Report 512547-13/2). In their response, Natural England (NE; Written summary of Oral

Case 131018_EN010025) accepted these values, on the basis that EAONE is beyond the foraging

range of breeding birds from all potential contributory colonies and therefore birds seen would likely

be non or failed breeders and even mixing is a reasonable assumption. However, NE also suggested

that a precautionary approach would be to assume that all birds seen on EAONE in the breeding

season are from the FFC pSPA colony.

Non-breeding season

EAOL estimated that 3.37% of kittiwakes which remain in the North Sea during the winter originate

from the FFC population, based on Frederiksen et al. (2012). NE did not agree with this estimate and

proposed a value of 6.7% (NE considered this to be precautionary), also derived from Frederiksen et

al. (2012) (Richard Caldow Expert Opinion 30/07/2013).

Autumn/Spring passage

EAOL estimated that 10.27% of the kittiwakes which migrate through the North Sea originate from

the FFC population, based on Frederiksen et al. (2012). NE did not agree with this estimate and

proposed a value of 12.08%, also derived from Frederiksen et al. 2012 (Richard Caldow Expert

Opinion 30/07/2013). It is also important to remember that the estimates in Frederiksen et al.

(2012) were based on relatively small numbers of birds equipped with geolocators, and were derived

from data collected in only one particular winter.


2 | P a g e

3. Estimation of North Sea kittiwake BDMPS and FFC pSPA proportion

Due to variations in the timing of migration among individuals both within and between colonies and

also between different age classes there is considerable overlap in the kittiwake seasons for the UK

(MacArthur Green 2014, in prep.; Table 1).

Table 1. Kittiwake seasons in UK waters from MacArthur Green (2014, in prep.).

Season J F M A M J J A S O N D

Non-breeding (core)

Non-breeding (full)

Spring migration (UK waters)

UK Breeding season (full)

UK Breeding season (core)

Autumn migration (UK waters)

For the following descriptions the non-overlapping seasons (bold rows in the Table 1) are considered

to be appropriate seasonal definitions:

Non-breeding (December – January)

Spring migration (February - April)

UK breeding (May - July)

Autumn migration (August - November)

Non-breeding season and migration periods

During the migration and wintering period kittiwakes from different breeding colonies mix together

to varying extents. Table 2 presents the population size for all British kittiwake SPA colonies plus

those populations further north which are thought to contribute to the North Sea passage and

wintering populations. It should be noted that only approximately half of the British kittiwake

population breeds at British SPAs for this species. The proportions of each of the populations

considered which is predicted to pass through the North Sea have been derived from MacArthur

Green (2014 in prep.).


3 | P a g e

Table 2. Total population estimates for major breeding populations (using adult percentage of 53.3 from MacArthur Green 2014 (in prep.)) and proportion and number estimated to pass through or remain in, the south west North Sea and English Channel region (see text for description of region extent). The proportion of the total in each period associated with the FFC SPA is included. Colonies have been ordered with those contributing to North Sea passage and wintering populations first.

Breeding colony (year of count) AON No. adults All ages

Autumn migration

via English Channel

Spring migration

via English Channel Winter

Yes No Yes No

Prop. No. Prop. No. Prop. No. Prop. No. Prop. No.

Barents Sea colonies (c. 2000) 539900 1079800 2025891 0.25 506473 0.75 1519418 0.25 506473 0.75 1519418 0.10 202463

Norwegian Sea colonies (c. 2000) 80000 160000 300188 0.1 30019 0.90 270169 0.1 30019 0.9 270169 0.04 12000

Fair Isle (2013) 771 1542 2893 0.25 723 0.75 2170 0.25 723 0.75 2170 0.10 289

Foula (2013) 327 654 1227 0.25 307 0.75 920 0.25 307 0.75 920 0.10 123

Noss (2010) 507 1014 1902 0.25 476 0.75 1427 0.25 476 0.75 1427 0.10 190

Sumburgh Head (2013) 210 420 788 0.25 197 0.75 591 0.25 197 0.75 591 0.10 79

Hermaness, Saxavord & Valla (2009) 391 782 1467 0.25 367 0.75 1100 0.25 367 0.75 1100 0.10 147

Calf of Eday (2006) 747 1494 2803 0.25 701 0.75 2102 0.25 701 0.75 2102 0.10 280

Copinsay (2012) 666 1332 2499 0.25 625 0.75 1874 0.25 625 0.75 1874 0.10 250

Hoy (2007) 397 794 1490 0.25 372 0.75 1117 0.25 372 0.75 1117 0.10 149

Marwick Head (2013) 526 1052 1974 0.25 493 0.75 1480 0.25 493 0.75 1480 0.10 197

Rousay (2009) 1764 3528 6619 0.25 1655 0.75 4964 0.25 1655 0.75 4964 0.10 662

West Westray (2007) 12055 24110 45235 0.25 11309 0.75 33926 0.25 11309 0.75 33926 0.10 4521

North Caithness Cliffs (2000) 10150 20300 38086 0.25 9522 0.75 28565 0.25 9522 0.75 28565 0.10 3806

East Caithness Cliffs (1999) 40410 80820 151632 0.25 37908 0.75 113724 0.25 37908 0.75 113724 0.10 15154

Troup, Pennan and Lion’s Heads (2007)

14896 29792 55895 0.25 13974 0.75 41921 0.25 13974 0.75 41921 0.10 5586

Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast (2007)

12542 25084 47062 0.75 35296 0.25 11765 0.75 35296 0.25 11765 0.30 14110

Fowlsheugh (2012) 9337 18674 35036 0.75 26277 0.25 8759 0.75 26277 0.25 8759 0.30 10504

Forth Islands (2013) 3100 6200 11632 0.75 8724 0.25 2908 0.75 8724 0.25 2908 0.30 3488

St Abb’s Head to Fast Castle (2013) 3403 6806 12769 0.75 9577 0.25 3192 0.75 9577 0.25 3192 0.30 3828

Farne Islands (2013) 3443 6886 12919 0.75 9689 0.25 3230 0.75 9689 0.25 3230 0.30 3873


4 | P a g e

Breeding colony (year of count) AON No. adults All ages

Autumn migration

via English Channel

Spring migration


Yes No Yes No


Flamborough and Filey Coast (2008) 37617 75234 141152 0.75 105864 0.25 35288 0.75 105864 0.25 35288 0.30 42319

Ailsa Craig (2013) 489 978 1835 0 0 1.00 1835 0 0 1 1835 0 0

Canna and Sanday (2013) 820 1640 3077 0 0 1.00 3077 0 0 1 3077 0.00 0

Cape Wrath (2000) 10344 20688 38814 0 0 1.00 38814 0 0 1 38814 0.00 0

Flannan Isles (1998) 1392 2784 5223 0 0 1.00 5223 0 0 1 5223 0.00 0

Handa (2013) 1872 3744 7024 0 0 1.00 7024 0 0 1 7024 0.00 0

Mingulay and Berneray (2009) 2228 4456 8360 0 0 1.00 8360 0 0 1 8360 0.00 0

North Colonsay & Western Cliffs (2000)

5563 11126 20874 0 0 1.00 20874 0 0 1 20874 0.00 0

North Rona and Sula Sgeir (2012) 1253 2506 4702 0 0 1.00 4702 0 0 1 4702 0.00 0

Rathlin Island (2011) 7922 15844 29726 0 0 1.00 29726 0 0 1 29726 0.00 0

Rum (2000) 788 1576 2957 0 0 1.00 2957 0 0 1 2957 0.00 0

Shiant Isles (2008) 549 1098 2060 0 0 1.00 2060 0 0 1 2060 0.00 0

Skomer and Skokholm (2013) 1045 2090 3921 0 0 1.00 3921 0 0 1 3921 0.00 0

St Kilda (2008) 957 1914 3591 0 0 1.00 3591 0 0 1 3591 0.00 0

Total 808,381 1,616,762 3,033,325 810548 2222774 810548 2222774 513,945


5 | P a g e

Breeding season

The mean maximum foraging range estimate for kittiwake is 60km and the maximum range is

estimated to be 120km (Thaxter et al. 2012). Creyke Beck A and B are located at least 130km from

the FFC pSPA, and this is the closest kittiwake breeding colony. Furthermore, kittiwake breeding

success at FFC pSPA is consistently higher than at kittiwake colonies in the north of the UK, implying

a good food supply. That would be likely to result in a relatively short foraging range by breeding

adults at this colony. Consequently there are not expected to be any breeding adults present on the

wind farms during the breeding season. Birds recorded at this time are therefore assumed to be

failed or non-breeders (including immature birds). Determination of the colonies to which these

birds are associated can only be undertaken on the basis of assumptions about the movements of

non-breeding birds. If it is assumed that these birds are derived equally from all North Sea SPAs

(listed in table 2) and non-SPA colonies (which represent approximately 50% of the British

population, Stroud et al. in prep.) and that these birds mix uniformly throughout the North Sea, this

gives a percentage attributable to the FFC pSPA of 12.3%: 75234/ (2 x 306,518). However, this list

does not include immature birds from breeding populations farther north (Norwegian Sea and

Barents Sea): immature birds spend several years moving gradually closer to their natal breeding

colonies (Wernham et al. 2002, Coulson 2011). Thus, immature birds from north Atlantic populations

are likely to be present in the North Sea as a component of the overall population. On this basis, the

value of 12.3% attributable to the FFC pSPA population, derived solely from UK breeding

populations, can be considered highly likely to be an overestimate. Given the large size of the

Norwegian and Barents Sea kittiwake populations, including these in the estimate generates an FFC

pSPA percentage of 4.1%. This is likely to overestimate the presence of immature north Atlantic

birds in the North Sea, but does provide a lower limit to bracket the range of likely percentages:

4.1% – 12.3%.

Recent tracking studies have recorded kittiwakes undertaking foraging trips to distances of up to

231km (FAME study). If breeding birds regularly undertake foraging trips of this length this would

imply that breeding adults from the FFC pSPA could be at risk of effects on the Creyke Beck A & B

wind farms. However, this is based on tracking of birds from colonies which typically have much

poorer breeding success (e.g. Fair Isle) than that recorded at FFC pSPA; between 1986 and 2005

productivity at Shetland colonies was less than half that at north-east England colonies. It is

therefore highly likely that the large recorded foraging distances and the poor reproductive success

are connected. On this basis it seems likely that birds from the FFC pSPA do not forage over such

large distances and that application of such a distance to establish SPA connectivity is overly

precautionary (see Appendix 1 for additional discussion). Nonetheless, on the basis of a foraging

range of 231km an estimate of the potential contribution of FFC pSPA birds to those present on

Creyke Beck A and B during the breeding season has been derived (Table 3).


6 | P a g e

Table 3. Estimated breeding season contribution of FFC pSPA birds to total predicted to be present on the Creyke Beck A and B wind farms.

Category Origin of birds Count type Number Note

Estimated no. of immature birds

SPAs bordering North Sea

AON 306,518 Derived from Table 2 Individuals 613,036 Row above x 2 Individual immatures

288,127 Row above x 0.47 (prop. immatures)

SPAs and non-SPAs bordering North Sea

Individual immatures

576,254 Row above x 2

Norway and Barents Sea

AON 619,900 Derived from Table 2

Individuals 1,239,800 Row above x 2

Individual immatures

582,706 Row above x 0.47 (prop. immatures)

Estimated no. of breeding birds within extended foraging range not from the FFC pSPA

Berwickshire

AON

18,739

Seabird 2000 Northumberland 8,621 Tyne and Wear 2,628 Cleveland 7,101 North Yorkshire 8,616

Total 45,705 Sum of 5 rows above

Individuals 91,410 Row above x 2

Total birds available in North Sea during breeding season

North Sea All age classes, individuals

742,898 Sum of: 576,254, 91,410, 75,234

North Sea, plus 25% of immatures Norway and Barents Sea

All age classes, individuals

888,574 Sum of: 576,254, 91,410, 75,234, (582,706 x 0.25)

All age class birds FFC pSPA Adults 75,234

Proportion of birds on Creyke Beck A & B (exc. far north immatures)

FFC pSPA Adults

0.101 75,234 / 742,898

Proportion of birds on Creyke Beck A & B (inc. far north immatures)

0.085 75,234 / 888,574

Thus, on the basis of highly precautionary assumptions about the potential extended foraging range

of breeding adults from the Northern English colonies, and taking account of immature birds, the

maximum percentage of the birds on the Creyke Beck A and B wind farm sites estimated to originate

from the FFC pSPA during the breeding season would be 10.1%. This value takes no account of the

potential presence of immature birds from Norwegian and Russian colonies. Inclusion of 25% of

these birds reduces the FFC pSPA percentage to 8.5%. These percentages fall within the range

estimated using the smaller foraging range which is considered to be more realistic for FFC.

Therefore, the estimated breeding season percentage is not very sensitive to the foraging range

value used. The higher value (12.3%) has been adopted for subsequent assessment.


7 | P a g e

4. Estimation of the percentage of the FFC pSPA kittiwake population at risk of collision effects in North Sea offshore wind farms On the basis of the estimated distribution of kittiwakes through UK waters, seasonal definitions and

regional definitions (MacArthur Green 2014, in prep.), the percentage of kittiwakes within named

North Sea offshore wind farms which originate from the FFC pSPA colony has been calculated (Table

4). For wind farms located within 60km of the FFC pSPA colony it has been assumed that all birds

seen on site during the breeding season originate from this population.

During migration the number of British SPA birds travelling north and south through the North Sea

has been summed from the values in Table 2, doubled to account for non-SPA birds and then this

number added to the number estimated to pass through from Russian and Norwegian colonies. The

FFC pSPA percentage of this has then been calculated (Table 4). For example, for the Beatrice wind

farm, the total number of birds estimated to pass through on autumn migration was calculated as:

Barents Sea (506473) + Norwegian Sea (30019) + sum(British SPAs north of Beatrice) x 2

The number of FFC pSPA birds estimated to pass through Beatrice (35,288) was then divided by the

total to generate the percentage of these which originate from FFC. For wind farms in the Moray

Firth this generates an FFC pSPA percentage of 4.0%, while wind farms to the south of FFC a value

off 9.8% was obtained. This reflects the greater proportion of this population which is expected to

travel south (75%) in autumn.

Table 4. Percentage of kittiwakes in offshore wind farms during the breeding season (BS), autumn migration (Aut.), non-breeding season (NBS) and spring migration (Spr.) periods which are estimated to originate from the FFC pSPA population. Percentages include an adjustment to reflect fact that 50% of British breeding population is located outside SPA network.

Project UK Round Status Period

BS Aut. NBS Spr.

Beatrice Scottish Consent Application Submitted

12.3 4.0 8.2 4.0

Blyth Demonstration Site - Consent Application Submitted

12.3 3.7 8.2 3.7

Breeveertien II Consent Authorised 12.3 9.8 8.2 9.8

Dogger Bank Teesside A & B

3 Concept / Early Planning 12.3 4.8 8.2 4.8

Dudgeon 2 Consent Authorised 12.3 9.8 8.2 9.8

East Anglia ONE 3 Consent Application Submitted

12.3 9.8 8.2 9.8

European Offshore Wind Development Centre

Consent Authorised 12.3 4.0 8.2 4.0

Firth of Forth Alpha and Bravo (Seagreen)

Scottish Consent Application Submitted

12.3 3.8 8.2 3.8

Galloper 2 -

extension Consent Authorised 12.3 9.8 8.2 9.8

Greater Gabbard 2 Fully Commissioned 12.3 9.8 8.2 9.8

Hornsea Project One 3 Consent Application Submitted

12.3 9.8 8.2 9.8


8 | P a g e


BS Aut. NBS Spr.

Humber Gateway 2 Consent Authorised 100 3.7 8.2 3.7

Inch Cape Scottish Consent Application Submitted

12.3 3.9 8.2 3.9

Lincs 2 Partial Generation / Construction

12.3 9.8 8.2 9.8

London Array 2 Fully Commissioned 12.3 9.8 8.2 9.8

Moray Scottish Consent Application Submitted

12.3 4.0 8.2 4.0

Neart na Gaoithe Scottish Consent Application Submitted

12.3 3.8 8.2 3.8

Race Bank 2 Consent Authorised 12.3 9.8 8.2 9.8

Sheringham Shoal 2 Fully Commissioned 12.3 9.8 8.2 9.8

Teesside 1 Partial Generation / Construction

12.3 3.7 8.2 3.7

Thanet 2 Fully Commissioned 12.3 9.8 8.2 9.8

Triton Knoll 2 Consent Authorised 12.3 9.8 8.2 9.8

Westermost Rough 2 Consent Authorised 100 9.8 8.2 9.8


9 | P a g e

REFERENCES

Ainley, D.G., Ford, R.G., Brown, E.D., Suryan, R.M. and Irons, D.B. (2003). Prey resources, competition, and geographic structure of kittiwake colonies in Prince William Sound. Ecology 84: 709−723. APEM (2013). East Anglia ONE Offshore Windfarm. Update at the Interested Parties Deadline II stage of the assessment of potential impacts on gannet: Technical Note relating to the NE and JNCC Written Representation. APEM Scientific Report 512547 – 12/2

Brown, A. and Grice, P. (2005). Birds in England. T & AD Poyser, London.

Chivers, L.S., Lundy, M.G., Colhoun, K., Newton, S.F., Houghton, J.D.R. and Reid, N. (2012). Foraging

trip time-activity budgets and reproductive success in the black-legged kittiwake. Marine Ecology

Progress Series 456: 269-277.

Cook, A.S.C.P., Dadam, D., Mitchell, I., Ross-Smith, V.H. and Robinson, R.A. (2014). Indicators of

seabird reproductive performance demonstrate the impact of commercial fisheries on seabird

populations in the North Sea. Ecological Indicators 38: 1-11.

Coulson, J.C. (2011). The Kittiwake. T. & A.D. Poyser, London.

Davies, R.D., Wanless, S., Lewis, S. and Hamer, K.C. (2013). Density-dependent foraging and colony

growth in a pelagic seabird species under varying environmental conditions. Marine Ecology

Progress Series 485: 287-294.

Daunt, F., Benvenuti, S., Harris, M.P., Dall’Antonia, L., Elston, D.A. and Wanless, S. (2002). Foraging

strategies of the black-legged kittiwake Rissa tridactyla at a North Sea colony: evidence for a

maximum foraging range. Marine Ecology Progress Series 245: 239-247.

Forero, M., Tella, J., Hobson, K., Bertellotti, M. and Blanco, G. (2002). Conspecific food competition explains variability in colony size: a test in magellanic penguins. Ecology 83: 3466−3475. Frederiksen, M., Moe, B., Daunt, F., Phillips, R.A., Barrett, R.T., Bogdanova, M.I., Boulinier, T. Chardine, J.W., Chastel, O., Chivers, L.S., Christensen-Dalsgaard, S., Clément-Chastel, C., Colhoun, K., Freeman, R., Gaston, A.J., González-Solís, J., Goutte, A., Grémillet, D., Guilford, T., Jensen, G.H., Krasnov, Y., Lorentsen, S.-H., Mallory, M.L., Newell, M., Olsen, B., Shaw, D., Steen, H., Strøm, H., Systad, G.H., Thórarinsson, T.L. and Anker-Nilssen, T. (2012). Multi-colony tracking reveals the winter distribution of a pelagic seabird on an ocean basin scale. Diversity & Distribution, 18: 530-542

Hamer, K.C., Monaghan, P., Uttley, J.D., Walton, P. and Burns, M.D. (1993). The influence of food

supply on the breeding ecology of kittiwakes Rissa tridactyla in Shetland. Ibis 135: 255-263.

Heubeck, M. and Parnaby, D. (2012). Shetland’s breeding seabirds in 2011. Pp. 114-125 in Shetland

Bird Report 2011. Shetland Bird Club, Lerwick.

Kotzerka, J., Garthe, S. and Hatch, S.A. (2010). GPS tracking devices reveal foraging strategies of

black-legged kittiwakes. Journal of Ornithology 151: 495-467.


10 | P a g e

Langton, R., Davies, I.M. and Scott, B.E. (2014). A simulation model coupling the behaviour and

energetics of a breeding central place forager to assess the impact of environmental changes.

Ecological Modelling 273: 31-43.

Lewis, S., Sherratt, T.N., Hamer, K.C. and Wanless, S. (2001). Evidence of intra-specific competition for food in a pelagic seabird. Nature 412: 816−819. Lewis, S., Grémillet, D., Daunt, F., Ryan, P.G., Crawford, R.J. and Wanless, S. (2006). Using behavioural and state variables to identify proximate causes of population change in a seabird. Oecologia 147: 606−614. Natural England (2013) 131018_EN010025: East Anglia One Wind Farm Order Application Written Summary Of The Oral Case Put By Natural England During the issues specific hearing 18 October 2013

Natural England / JNCC joint comments on Application by East Anglia One Ltd for East Anglia ONE Offshore Windfarm (the application) –Interested Parties Deadline IV (email dated 25/11/2013)

MacArthur Green (2014) Biologically appropriate, species-specific, geographic non-breeding season population estimates for seabirds. Draft Report for Natural England and Marine Scotland.

Piatt, J.F., Harding, A.M.A., Shultz, M., Speckman, S.G., van Pelt, T.I., Drew, G.S. and Kettle, A.B.

(2007). Seabirds as indicators of marine food supplies: Cairns revisited. Marine Ecology Progress

Series 352: 221-234.

Riou, S., Gray, C.M., Brooke, M.D., Quillfeldt, P., Masello, J.F., Perrins, C. and Hamer, K.C. (2011). Recent impacts of anthropogenic climate change on a higher marine predator in western Britain. Marine Ecology Progress Series 422: 105−112. Thaxter, C. B., Lascelles, B., Sugar, K., Cook, A. S. C. P., Roos, S., Bolton, M., Langston, R. H. W. and Burton, N.H.K. (2012). Seabird foraging ranges as a preliminary tool for identifying candidate Marine Protected Areas. Biological Conservation 156: 53-61.

Wade, H.M., Masden, E.A., Jackson, A.C., Thaxter, C.B., Burton, N.H.K., Bouten, W. and Furness, R.W.

in review. Great skua (Stercorarius skua) movements at sea in relation to marine renewable energy

developments.

Wakefield, E.D., Bodey, T.W., Bearhop, S., Blackburn, J., Colhoun, K., Davies, R., Dwyer, R.G., Green,

J.A., Gremillet, D., Jackson, A.L., Jessopp, M.J., Kane, A., Langston, R.H.W., Lescroel, A., Murray, S., Le

Nuz, M., Patrick, S.C., Peron, C., Soanes, L.M., Wanless, S., Votier, S.C., Hamer, K.C., (2013). Space

Partitioning Without Territoriality in Gannets. Science 341: 68–70.

Wernham, C.V., Toms, M.P., Marchant, J.H., Clark, J.A., Siriwardena, G.M. and Baillie, S.R. (2002). The Migration Atlas: movements of the birds of Britain and Ireland. T. & A.D. Poyser, London.

WWT (2012). SOSS-04 Gannet Population Viability Analysis. Slimbridge.


11 | P a g e

Appendix 1

Factors affecting seabird foraging ranges from breeding colonies

Foraging trip durations and maximum foraging ranges of many species are longer when prey abundance is reduced (Hamer et al. 1993, Lewis et al. 2006, Riou et al. 2011, Thaxter et al. 2012). In addition to that effect, they also tend to increase as a function of colony size, presumably due to intra-specific competition for prey resources at sea (Lewis et al. 2001, Forero et al. 2002, Ainley et al. 2003, Wakefield et al. 2013). Davies et al. (2013) showed that gannet foraging trips increased in duration and distance with colony size, but were considerably higher in a year when food abundance was thought to be lower than they were in a year of high food abundance. Furthermore, the slope of the relationship between colony size and foraging range was much higher in the year of lower food availability, suggesting a much stronger density-dependent effect when food resources are reduced. These results support the idea that foraging range relates to density-dependent competition, with larger ranges around colonies where per capita food resource is lower. The data also suggest that, over the experienced range of values experienced, the effect of food abundance is greater than the effect of colony size, and that colony size effects may not be evident if food abundance is high. These results predict that foraging range will be small at colonies where food abundance allows high breeding success, but will be greater at colonies where breeding success is reduced by low food abundance. This suggests that long foraging ranges observed in kittiwakes and auks at some colonies in northern Scotland where breeding success is consistently poor due to lack of forage fish (in that example, sandeels), are not applicable to colonies in east England, where such shortages and poor breeding success have not normally been recorded during the JNCC monitoring period of 1986 to 2013 (see summary in Table A1). Table A1. Productivity (mean number of chicks per nest) for seabirds at colonies monitored in the JNCC Seabird Monitoring Programme in eastern England and in eastern Scotland (Shetland to Berwickshire) as reported in Annual Reports published by JNCC for the years 1986 to 2006.

Species

Productivity (data from JNCC Annual Reports 1986-2006)

Excess in productivity in E England compared to E

Scotland (mean chicks per pair)

Excess in E England productivity as %

of E Scotland baseline

E England Mean (n)

E Scotland Mean (n)

Gannet 0.77 (8) 0.66 (60) +0.11 17% Kittiwake 0.95 (21) 0.67 (84) +0.28 42% Common guillemot

0.74 (5) 0.65 (123) +0.09 14%

Razorbill 0.69 (11) 0.64 (52) +0.05 8% Puffin 0.76 (17) 0.62 (49) +0.14 23%

Daunt et al. (2002) point out that seabirds, as central place foragers, will have an upper limit set to their potential foraging range from the colony that is set by time constraints; they assess this to be a limit of 73 km for the kittiwake based on foraging flight speed and time required to catch food as observed for birds from the Isle of May. Hamer et al. (1993) recorded a foraging range exceeding 40 km in 1990 when sandeel stock biomass was very low and breeding success at the study colony in Shetland was 0.0 chicks per nest, but <5 km in 98% of trips in 1991 when sandeel abundance was higher and breeding success was 0.98 chicks per nest. Kotzerka et al. (2010) reported a maximum foraging range of 59 km, with a mean range of around 25 km for a kittiwake colony in Alaska. RSPB’s FAME studies have shown some extremely long foraging ranges for seabirds, but those extreme values tend to occur at colonies where food supply is extremely poor and breeding success is low (for example Orkney and Shetland). Data for some seabirds in Shetland show that foraging ranges


12 | P a g e

are now much greater (Wade et al. in review) than they were in the decades when the sandeel stock at Shetland was large (1970s, early 1980s), and that breeding seabirds make fewer but longer foraging trips and fail to keep chicks alive as a consequence (Heubeck and Parnaby 2012), further indicating the importance of food abundance in determining foraging ranges of breeding seabirds. Chivers et al. (2012) found this same relationship between foraging range from the colony, food abundance and breeding success in kittiwakes at colonies in Northern Ireland. Brown and Grice (2005) report that few common guillemots from the Flamborough colony bring fish back from more than 30 km distant from the colony, consistent with the high breeding success and growing breeding numbers at that colony.

Apportioning of the

Flamborough Head and Filey Coast pSPA

Gannet Population

among North Sea Wind Farms

Prepared by: Mark Trinder

Reviewed by: Bob Furness

Date: 28/03/2014

Tel: 0141 342 5404

Email: [email protected]

Web: www.macarthurgreen.com

Address: 95 South Woodside Road | Glasgow | G20 6NT

http://www.macarthurgreen.com/

Document Quality Record.

Version Status Authorised by Date



1.1 Draft Final Mark Trinder 17/03/2014

1.2 Final Mark Trinder 28/03/2014

FFC pSPA Gannet Apportioning Among North Sea Wind Farms

MGL/MT/28-03-2014/1.2

CONTENTS

1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1

2. Review of approaches used by East Anglia One Limited and Natural England .............................. 1

Breeding season .................................................................................................................................. 1

Non-breeding season .......................................................................................................................... 1

Autumn/Spring passage ...................................................................................................................... 1

3. Estimation of North Sea gannet BDMPS and FFC pSPA proportion ................................................ 2

Non-breeding season and migration periods ..................................................................................... 2

Breeding season .................................................................................................................................. 4

4. Estimation of the percentage of the FFC pSPA gannet population at risk of collision effects in

North Sea offshore wind farms ........................................................................................................... 6

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................ 8


1 | P a g e

1. Introduction

This report provides:

A brief review of previous apportioning of gannets from the Flamborough and Filey Coast

(FFC) pSPA among North Sea offshore wind farms during the breeding, migration and

wintering periods;

Estimation of the Biologically Defined Minimum Population Sizes (BDMPS) for gannets in the

North Sea during each phase of the year and estimation of the proportion of this population

which originates from the FFC pSPA; and,

Estimation of the percentage of the FFC pSPA gannet population at risk of collision effects in

North Sea offshore wind farms.

2. Review of approaches used by East Anglia One Limited and Natural England

Breeding season

East Anglia One Limited (EAOL) calculated the FFC pSPA proportion of the population present in the

breeding season using a distance and colony size weighting method. The FFC percentage calculated

in the breeding season on this basis was 53.2% (Table 2.8, APEM Scientific Report 512547-12/2). The

values for distance used in this calculation were not supplied. In their response, Natural England (NE;

Written summary of Oral Case 131018_EN010025) accepted this value, although it was reported

that NE had undertaken their own assessment with the FFC proportion raised to 100% (i.e. all

gannets in breeding season derive from FFC). NE’s collision numbers attributed to FFC were

therefore reported to be higher, ‘but not significantly’ so.

Non-breeding season

EAOL proposed that 5% of UK east coast breeding gannets (i.e. including FFC birds), 25% of Russian

and Norwegian gannets and 5% of German gannets wintered in the North Sea, and on this basis

calculated that the FFC wintering contribution was 8.6% of the total. No information was supplied in

support of the percentages on which this figure was based (i.e. how the value of 5% for UK east

coast gannets wintering in the North Sea was estimated) although it appears to be derived from

geolocator data presented in Fort et al. (2012). No comments on the reliability of this figure were

provided by NE in their initial response (Written summary of Oral Case 131018_EN010025), however

in a subsequent written response (NE/JNCC joint comments on DCO, 25/11/2013), NE/JNCC present

a table of in-combination collision estimates which used this (8.6%) value. It thus appears that

NE/JNCC were satisfied this figure was reasonable.

Autumn/Spring passage

EAOL combined the wintering numbers (as derived above) with percentages from each UK east coast

colony estimated to pass through the English Channel on migration to various wintering locations to

calculate that 9.97% of FFC birds pass through EAONE on migration in spring and autumn. No

information was supplied in support of the percentages on which this figure was based. No

comments on the reliability of this figure were provided by NE in their initial response (Written

summary of Oral Case 131018_EN010025), however in a subsequent written response (NE JNCC joint


2 | P a g e

comments on DCO, 25/11/2013), NE/JNCC present a table of in-combination collision estimates

which used this (9.97%) value. It thus appears that NE/JNCC were satisfied this figure was

reasonable.

3. Estimation of North Sea gannet BDMPS and FFC pSPA proportion

Due to variations in the timing of migration among individuals both within and between colonies and

also between different age classes there is considerable overlap in the gannet seasons for the UK

(MacArthur Green 2014, in prep.; Table 1).

Table 1. Gannet seasons in UK waters from MacArthur Green (2014, in prep.).

Season J F M A M J J A S O N D

Non-breeding (core)

Non-breeding (full)

Spring migration (UK waters)

UK Breeding season (full)

UK Breeding season (core)

Autumn migration (UK waters)

For the following descriptions the non-overlapping seasons (bold rows in the Table 1) are considered

to be appropriate seasonal definitions:

Non-breeding (November – December)

Spring migration (January – March)

UK breeding (April – August)

Autumn migration (September – October)

Non-breeding season and migration periods

During the migration and wintering period gannets from different breeding colonies mix together to

varying extents. No birds tracked from the Bass Rock population have spent the winter in the North

Sea, and passage routes have shown that approximately 63% fly south through the North Sea and

English Channel in autumn, while 27% follow the same route north in spring (WWT 2012). On the

basis of these data (for the largest single breeding colony considered here) and observations made

at coastal observatories (summarised in MacArthur Green 2014 in prep.), the proportions of the FFC

population expected to be present in the south west North Sea and English Channel (defined as area

extending offshore from the Farne Islands to Land’s End) during autumn passage, winter and spring

passage periods are provided in Table 2. The population sizes used here include all age classes,

estimated by dividing the breeding population by the adult proportion (0.586) obtained from the

stable age distribution (WWT 2012).


3 | P a g e

Table 2. Total population estimates for gannet breeding populations with connectivity to the North Sea (using adult percentage of 58.6 from MacArthur Green 2014 (in prep.)) and proportion and number estimated to pass through or remain in, the south west North Sea and English Channel region (see text for description of region extent).

Breeding colony (year of count) AON No.

adults All ages

Autumn migration

via English Channel

Spring migration


Yes No Yes No


Norway and Russia (2002) 4000 8000 13652 0.5 6826 1 6826 0.5 6826 0.5 6826 0.2 273

Iceland (1999) 28536 57072 97392 0.42 40905 1 56488 0 0 1 0 0.2 1948

Faeroes (1995) 2340 4680 7986 0.42 3354 1 4632 1 7986 0 0 0.2 160

Hermaness (2008) 24353 48706 83116 0.5 41558 1 41558 0.1 8312 0.9 74804 0 0

Noss (2008) 9767 19534 33334 0.5 16667 1 16667 0.1 3333 0.9 30001 0 0

Foula (2007) 1370 2740 4676 0.5 2338 1 2338 0.1 468 0.9 4208 0 0

Fair Isle (2013) 4085 8170 13942 0.5 6971 1 6971 0.1 1394 0.9 12548 0 0

West Westray (2012) 623 1246 2126 0.5 1063 1 1063 0.1 213 0.9 1914 0 0

Troup Head (2010) 2787 5574 9512 0.63 5993 0.37 3519 0.27 2568 0.73 6944 0 0

Bass Rock (2009) 55482 110964 189358 0.63 119296 0.37 70063 0.27 51127 0.73 138232 0.01 1894

Flamborough Head and Filey Coast

(2012) 11061 22122 37751 0.75 28313 0.25 9438 0.5 18875 0.5 18875 0.01 378

Helgoland (2004) 200 400 683 1 683 0.00 0 1 683 0 0 0.1 68

Total 109728 219456 374498

986493 323575

329933 627559

4720


4 | P a g e

Breeding season

During the core breeding season, some unknown but possibly high proportion of gannets at Creyke

Beck A & B are likely to be immatures and nonbreeders from a variety of UK colonies that are not

attending the colony in summer, and perhaps including some birds from Norway, Faroe and Iceland.

There are two candidate colonies from which breeding adult gannets seen on Creyke Beck A & B

(hereafter CB A & B) could originate: FFC and the Bass Rock (BR).

The FFC SPA is approximately 130km from CB A & B, while the BR is approximately 284km away. The

mean maximum foraging range for gannet has been estimated as 229km (Thaxter et al. 2011). Taken

at face value, this implies that all breeding adult gannets on CB A & B during the breeding season will

originate from the FFC SPA. However, Wakefield et al. (2013) present analysis of foraging data for

gannets tagged at several SPAs, including both of the ones of current interest. Their results indicate

substantial (and significant) differences in foraging range between colonies which they consider is

most likely due to density dependent competition; the greater competition for food in areas

adjacent to larger colonies leads to individuals undertaking longer foraging trips in order to find

sufficient food to raise their young. Wakefield et al. (2013) provide parameter values for the

relationship between colony size and foraging range (note the analysis used the maximum recorded

distance made by each individual’s first trip post-tagging; see Wakefield et al. 2013 for details):

Using this equation the equivalent foraging ranges for birds from the BR and the FFC SPA are 163km

and 94km respectively. It is of note that on the basis of these figures it could be argued that no

breeding birds from either colony will forage as far as the OWF. However, treating these distances as

representative of the relative foraging ranges of individuals from each colony rather than the upper

limits, it is evident that birds from the BR undertake trips around 1.7 times as long as those from the

FFC SPA (Figures 1 and 2 in Wakefield et al. 2013 illustrate this; a simplification is provided in Figure

1). Thus, despite its greater distance from CB A & B, there would seem to be a high probability that

birds from the BR would form a significant component of the birds present on CB A & B during the

breeding season.

A simple apportioning of birds from each colony on the basis of distance, available foraging area (i.e.

area of sea) and population size lends further support to the probability that breeding adult birds

recorded on CB A & B are likely to have derived more or less equally from both colonies (Table 3).

This suggests that 59% of the birds seen on the OWF during the breeding season could originate

from the BR with the remaining 41% from the FFC SPA.

In the impact assessment for CB A & B a similar apportioning approach was adopted for dividing

impacts between the FFC SPA and the BR. In this approach the foraging area parameter was omitted,

which reduces the difference in the relative contributions: the percentages from each colony (BR

and FFC) become 51% and 49% respectively.


5 | P a g e

Thus, on the basis of direct tracking observations and modelling based on simple assumptions, there

is good support that breeding adult gannets recorded on CB A & B during the breeding season are

derived at least equally from the BR and the FFC SPA, and potentially weighted more towards the BR

colony. A 50:50 split has been assumed for this assessment. To be precautionary, this analysis also

assumes that all birds recorded in summer are breeding adults rather than nonbreeders and

immatures.

Figure 1. 95% utilisation distribution buffers for breeding gannets from the FFC SPA and the BR (from Wakefield et al. 2013).

Table 3. Proportions of OWF population derived from candidate SPAs using simple apportioning rules.

Individual SPA weight (column 5) is calculated as: AON/(distance2 x sea area proportion). Individual SPA

proportions calculated as: individual SPA weight/sum(SPA weights).

SPA AON Approx. shortest

distance to CB A & B

Proportion of area within

285km which is sea

(North Sea only)

SPA

weight

Proportion of OWF

population derived

from each SPA

BR 55482 284 428 1.61 0.59

FFC 11061 130 0.591 1.11 0.41

Total

2.71


6 | P a g e

4. Estimation of the percentage of the FFC pSPA gannet population at risk of collision effects in North Sea offshore wind farms Using the estimated movement patterns of gannets through UK waters, seasonal definitions and

regional definitions the percentage of gannets within North Sea offshore wind farms originating

from the FFC pSPA colony is provided in Table 4. At wind farms within foraging range of the FFC pSPA

(but beyond foraging range of all other colonies) all the gannets seen during the breeding season

have been assumed to originate from FFC. These values reflect estimates for all age classes

combined. To estimate the number of breeding adults from the FFC pSPA at risk, the breeding

season percentages provided in Table 4 need to be adjusted by the estimated proportion of this age

class present (for Creyke Beck A & B a value of 0.628 has been assumed for this metric).

During migration the total number of birds travelling in each direction through each wind farm has

been summed from the values in Table 2 and the FFC pSPA percentage of this has then been

calculated. For example for the Beatrice wind farm, the total number of birds estimated to pass

through on autumn migration is the sum of all the populations to the north which have a proportion

predicted to pass through the North Sea (i.e. Norway and Russia: 6,826, plus Hermaness: 41,558,

plus Noss: 16,667, etc.). The number of FFC pSPA birds estimated to pass through Beatrice (9,438) is

then divided by the total to generate the percentage of these which originate from FFC. For wind

farms in the Moray Firth this generates an FFC pSPA autumn percentage of 6.0%, while wind farms

to the south of FFC a value off 12.4% is obtained. This reflects the greater proportion of this

population which is expected to travel south (75%) in autumn. The smaller proportions of birds

which pass through the North Sea in spring en route to colonies results in higher percentages of FFC

birds passing through wind farms on spring migration.


7 | P a g e

Table 4. Percentage of gannets in offshore wind farms during the breeding season (BS), autumn migration

(Aut.), non-breeding season (NBS) and spring migration (Spr.) periods which are estimated to originate from

the FFC pSPA population.


BS Aut. NBS Spr.

Beatrice Scottish Consent Application

Submitted 0 4.7 0 9.8

Blyth Demonstration Site - Consent Application

Submitted 50 3.7 8 18.7

Breeveertien II Consent Authorised 0 10.4 8 18.7

Dogger Bank Teesside A

& B 3 Concept / Early Planning 50 10.4 8 18.7

Dudgeon 2 Consent Authorised 100 10.4 8 18.7

East Anglia ONE 3 Consent Application

Submitted 100 10.4 8 18.7

European Offshore Wind

Development Centre Consent Authorised 0 4.7 0 9.8

Firth of Forth Alpha and

Bravo (Seagreen) Scottish

Consent Application


Galloper 2 -

extension Consent Authorised 0 10.4 8 18.7

Greater Gabbard 2 Fully Commissioned 0 10.4 8 18.7

Hornsea Project One 3 Consent Application

Submitted 100 10.4 8 18.7

Humber Gateway 2 Consent Authorised 100 10.4 8 18.7

Inch Cape Scottish Consent Application


Lincs 2 Partial Generation /

Construction 100 10.4 8 18.7

London Array 2 Fully Commissioned 0 10.4 8 18.7

Moray Scottish Consent Application


Neart na Gaoithe Scottish Consent Application


Race Bank 2 Consent Authorised 100 10.4 8 18.7

Sheringham Shoal 2 Fully Commissioned 100 10.4 8 18.7

Teesside 1 Partial Generation /

Construction 50 3.7 8 18.7

Thanet 2 Fully Commissioned 0 10.4 8 18.7

Triton Knoll 2 Consent Authorised 100 10.4 8 18.7

Westermost Rough 2 Consent Authorised 100 10.4 8 18.7


8 | P a g e

REFERENCES

APEM (2013). East Anglia ONE Offshore Windfarm. Update at the Interested Parties Deadline II

stage of the assessment of potential impacts on gannet: Technical Note relating to the NE and JNCC

Written Representation. APEM Scientific Report 512547 – 12/2

Fort, J., Pettex, E., Tremblay, Y., Lorentsen, S-H., Garthe, S., Votier, S., Pons, J.B., Siorat, F., Furness,

R.W., Grecian, W.J., Bearhop, S., Montevecchi, W.A. and Gremillet, D. (2012) Meta-population

evidence of oriented chain migration in northern gannets (Morus bassanus). Frontiers in Ecology and

the Environment 10: 237-242.

Natural England (2013) 131018_EN010025: East Anglia One Wind Farm Order Application Written

Summary Of The Oral Case Put By Natural England During the issues specific hearing 18 October

2013

Natural England / JNCC joint comments on Application by East Anglia One Ltd for East Anglia ONE

Offshore Windfarm (the application) –Interested Parties Deadline IV (email dated 25/11/2013)

MacArthur Green (2014) Biologically appropriate, species-specific, geographic non-breeding season

population estimates for seabirds. Draft Report for Natural England and Marine Scotland.

WWT (2012). SOSS-04 Gannet Population Viability Analysis. Slimbridge.

Thaxter, C.B., Lascelles, B., Sugar, K., Cook, A.S.C.P., Roos, S., Bolton, M., Langston, R.H.W. and

Burton, N.H.K. (2012a). Seabird foraging ranges as a preliminary tool for identifying candidate

Marine Protected Areas. Biological Conservation 156: 53-61.

Wakefield, E.D., Bodey, T.W., Bearhop, S., Blackburn, J., Colhoun, K., Davies, R., Dwyer, R.F., Green,

J.A. Gremillet, D., Jackson, A.L., Jessopp, M.J., Kane, A., Langston, R.H.W., Lescroel, A., Murray, S., Le

Nuz, M., Patrick, S.C., Peron, C., Soanes, L.M., Wanless, S., Votier, S.C. and Hamer, K.C. 2013. Space

partitioning without territoriality in gannets. Science 341: 68-70.

Deadline III Appendix 25 Flamborough Head and Filey Coast ...... · the FFC pSPA, and this is the...

Documents

Transcript of Deadline III Appendix 25 Flamborough Head and Filey Coast ...... · the FFC pSPA, and this is the...