Annex ATesting sensitivity of metrics of seabird population

response to offshore wind farm impacts

To find out more about JNCC visit http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-1729

Annex A

Title of project: Testing sensitivity of metrics of seabird population response to offshore wind farm impacts

Date and time for return of tenders:

31 October 2014 @16:00 hours

Contract Reference No: C14-0252-0881

Address for tender submission:

1 electronic copy to be sent to TenderResponse@jncc.gov.uk

PLEASE DO NOT SEND TENDERS DIRECTLY TO SUE O’BRIEN, DORA IANTOSCA OR GORDON GREEN VIA THEIR PERSONAL EMAIL ADDRESSES, AS THIS WILL INVALIDATE YOUR TENDER

Tender responses must be less than 10 MB in size.

On receipt of your tender, you will receive an automated e-mail to confirm receipt by JNCC Support Co. If you do not receive this automated email, please contact, in the following order:

Sue Wenlock (00 44 1733 866880)

Chris Downes (00 44 1733 866877)

Contacts for technical information relating to this project specification: Sue O’Brien, Senior Seabird Ecologist,

Joint Nature Conservation Committee

Email: sue.obrien@jncc.gov.uk Tel: 01224 266573

Contact for any queries regarding the tendering procedure:

Dora Iantosca or Gordon GreenFinance TeamJoint Nature Conservation CommitteeEmail: Dora.Iantosca@jncc.gov.uk or Gordon.green@jncc.gov.uk

Tel: 01733 866894 or 01733 866806

Proposed start-date: W/C 3 November 2014

2

Proposed end-date: 6 March 2015

Contents

1. Joint Nature Conservation Committee..........................................................................3

2. Project Aim....................................................................................................................3

3. Project Background.......................................................................................................3

4. Project Objectives.........................................................................................................7

5. Project Objectives: Detailed tasks.................................................................................7

6. References..................................................................................................................11

7. Outputs........................................................................................................................12

8. Dissemination..............................................................................................................12

9. Timescale....................................................................................................................13

10. Health and safety.....................................................................................................14

11. Product specification................................................................................................14

12. Project management................................................................................................14

13. Instructions for tender submission and costings......................................................14

14. Evaluation Criteria...................................................................................................16

15. Payment...................................................................................................................18

16. Additional Contractor requirements.........................................................................18

3

1. Joint Nature Conservation Committee

The Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) is the statutory adviser to the UK Government and devolved administrations on UK and international nature conservation. Its work contributes to maintaining and enriching biological diversity, conserving geological features and sustaining natural systems.

Our role is to provide evidence, information and advice so that decisions are made that protect natural resources and systems. Our specific role is to work on nature conservation issues that affect the UK as a whole and internationally:

advising Government  on the development and implementation of policies for, or affecting, nature conservation in the UK and internationally;

providing advice and disseminating knowledge on nature conservation issues affecting the UK and internationally;

establishing common standards throughout the UK for nature conservation, including monitoring, research, and the analysis of results; and

commissioning or supporting research which it deems relevant to these functions.

Further information on JNCC can be found at http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/.

2. Project Aim

Aim: To quantify how sensitive various metrics of population response to wind farm impacts are to uncertainty in population dynamics of seabird populations.

3. Project Background

Seabirds are known to interact with offshore wind farms (OWF), mostly with negative consequences. Birds may collide with turbines, be displaced from their feeding grounds or wind farms may act as barriers to seabird movement (Drewitt & Langston, 2006; Everaert & Stienen, 2007; Johnston et al., 2014; Krijgsveld et al., 2011; Leopold et al., 2011; Petersen & Fox, 2007; Vanermen et al., 2013). JNCC, Scottish Natural Heritage, Natural England, Natural Resources Wales and the Northern Ireland Environment Agency, as statutory nature conservation advisors, provide advice to Government regulators on whether a proposed OWF development is likely to have an adverse impact on seabird populations. To date, several different approaches have been used to assess the possible consequences of proposed developments on protected populations. The approaches aim to identify a threshold of ‘acceptable’ additional mortality to each protected seabird population, i.e. that which can be considered sustainable and, in the case of Special Protection Areas, compatible with the Conservation Objectives for the population (which typically are to see it maintained at or above the size at which the protected site was designated). The premise on which advice is then given is that, provided that predicted mortality remains less than the threshold, the project is deemed to have no adverse impact on the seabird population. The approaches utilised to identify thresholds of additional mortality (as distinct from thresholds

4

relating to population decline arising from that additional mortality) include Potential Biological Removal (Wade, 1998; Dillingham & Fletcher, 2008), Acceptable Biological Change (Bennet, 2013), reduced uncertainty Acceptable Biological Change (JNCC & SNH, 2014) and risk-based approaches (e.g. JNCC & NE 2011).

This contract involves testing sensitivity of the risk-based approaches and so these are explained in more detail. There are broadly three types of risk-based approach to consider:

1. Risk of population decline relative to starting population size counterfactuals 1 at any stage over a period of future projection

These counterfactuals compare the probability of the population falling (by a specified amount (%)) below the initial population size with OWF mortality with the probability of that happening with no additional mortality. The idea is to capture information about the change in the likelihood that a population will at some stage in the future fall a certain amount below the starting population size and to construct a counterfactual that compares the probability of this happening with and without the OWF mortality.

The metric described as CPD25,x (Counterfactual of the probability of Population Decline at the end of 25 years) is a probabilistic metric, which equals the difference between the impacted and unimpacted population scenarios. This is for a given y% increase in the probability of an x% decline (e.g. 10% increase of a 10% decline), where the level of additional mortality has the probability that at some point within the simulated 25 year period of the impacted scenario the population reaches a level that is at least x% lower than the starting population size.

There are variants to this method which would involve assessment of change over different periods of simulated time, all of which should be explored by the contractor (see below). For example, the probability that the population under either the unimpacted or impacted scenarios will fall by at least x% below its starting point can be based on the number of simulations in which that occurs in any year through the course of the entire 25 years of impact or by looking only at a selected range of time intervals (e.g. up to 5, 10, 15 or 20 years into the future). Which cut off point is chosen depends upon a trade-off between increasing uncertainty under both unimpacted and impacted scenarios as the length of the projection period expands and the risk of drawing false conclusions on the final magnitudes of change by looking only within windows well short of the consented duration of OWF operation, which is typically 25 years.

A CPD25,x value at a given level of additional mortality is the increase in the probability (y) of the population at some point over a projected 25 year period of impact falling x% or more below its starting point under the impacted scenario compared to the probability of it doing so in the absence of that impact. For example, where x is set to 10%, this can be expressed as

CPD25,10 = P10i - P10u

where P10u is the proportion of simulation runs with no OWF mortality and the population at some point within 25 years falls 10% or more below initial population size; P10i is the proportion of simulation runs with additional OWF mortality and at some point within 25 years of the impact being applied the population falls 10% or more below the initial population size.

In terms of setting threshold levels of additional mortality, these could include the amount of additional deaths at which:

1 The term counterfactual refers to the measurement of the expected outcome for the population of interest with the intervention (e.g. offshore wind farm present) relative to the expected outcome for the population in the absence of the intervention.

5

additional annual mortality results in no more than a 10% increase in the probability of the population falling by 10% or more below its starting size at some point during 25 years of impact, i.e. CPD25,10 ≤ 0.1.

additional annual mortality results in no more than a 5% increase in the probability of the population falling by 20% or more below its starting size at some point during 25 years of impact, i.e. CPD25,20 ≤ 0.05.

additional annual mortality results in no more than a 2% increase in the probability of the population falling by 50% or more below its starting size at some point during 25 years of impact, i.e. CPD25,50 ≤ 0.02.

2. Risk of population decline relative to starting population size counterfactuals at a fixed point in the future

A parallel but similar set of counterfactuals would be based on comparison of the change between impacted and unimpacted scenarios in the probability of the population falling by x% or more below its starting point at a fixed point in time in the future, e.g. at the end of the projection, rather than at any point during the projection as described above. Again that could be after 5, 10, 15, 20 or 25 years (with the same trade-off as described above).

This counterfactual was used in the assessment of the Greater Wash windfarms on the North Norfolk coast SPA sandwich terns. Again as above, one can consider different scales of possible population decline and define acceptable levels of additional mortality as being for example:

additional annual mortality results in no more than a 10% increase in the probability of the population falling by 10% or more below its starting size following 25 years of impact, i.e. CPD25,10 ≤ 0.1.

additional annual mortality results in no more than a 5% increase in the probability of the population falling by 20% or more below its starting size following 25 years of impact, i.e. CPD25,20 ≤ 0.05.

additional annual mortality results in no more than a 2% increase in the probability of the population falling by 50% or more below its starting size following 25 years of impact, i.e. CPD25,50 ≤ 0.02.

additional annual mortality results in less than a 66% probability of the population size being lower than the starting size (or other defined reference level) following 25 years of impact, at which point a decline in the population may be described as “likely”, based on IPCC guidance on dealing with uncertainty (IPCC 2005).

3. Risk of population decline below median future unimpacted population counterfactuals

Another set of counterfactuals would not use the starting population size as the reference point at all but focus on direct comparison of future (final) populations sizes predicted under the impacted and unimpacted scenarios. So, these would be based upon the change in the probability of the population at a fixed point in the future being x% below the median unimpacted population at that point in time. Again that point in time could be after 5, 10, 15, 20 or 25 years (with the same trade-off as described above).

In this case, CPD25,x would compare the proportion of simulations in which the “final” population in year 25 of the simulated impact is x% or more below the median population

6

size predicted in that year in the absence of the impact with the proportion of simulations in which that is the case in the presence of that impact.

Again as above, one can consider different scales of possible population decline relative to the median unimpacted population and define acceptable levels of additional mortality as being for example:

additional annual mortality that results in no more than a 10% increase in the probability of the population 25 years hence falling by 10% or more below its median size in the absence of impact at that point in the future, i.e. CPD25,10 ≤ 0.1.

additional annual mortality that results in no more than a 5% increase in the probability of the population 25 years hence falling by 20% or more below its median size in the absence of impact at that point in the future, i.e. CPD25,20 ≤ 0.05.

additional annual mortality that results in no more than a 2% increase in the probability of the population 25 years hence falling by 50% or more below its median size in the absence of that impact at that point in the future, i.e. CPD25,50 ≤ 0.02.

All these types of methods have been reviewed and criticised by the RSPB (Green 2014). For example, one point raised by the RSPB is that the magnitude of measured change generated by a risk-based approach will be sensitive to error in the population growth rate, i.e. if the population is actually growing more slowly than predicted by population models, the risk-based approach could incorrectly identify an ‘unsafe’ level of mortality as being ‘safe’. However, this is not necessarily the case when the risk-based approach is based upon a comparison of predicted population sizes at a fixed future point under unimpacted and impacted scenarios rather than using the initial population size as a reference point against which to assess the probability of population declines under the two scenarios (i.e. method 3 above). For more information on the RSPB’s criticisms of these methods, see the RSPB’s representation at the Hornsea Hearing (see references below) and the RSPB’s paper to JNCC, SNH and Marine Scotland (Green, 2014).

The RSPB recommended using their ‘counterfactual method’ as an approach for quantifying the impact of a wind farm development on a population (Green, 2014). The counterfactual method, as specified by the RSPB, is the ratio of an impacted metric to an unimpacted metric, e.g. predicted population size at the end of 25 years of OWF impacts, divided by predicted population size after 25 years without OWF impacts, described as CPS25 (Counterfactual of Population Size after 25 years) by the RSPB. This metric gives a relative measure of impacted population size as a proportion of unimpacted population size, e.g. a CPS25 of 0.9 means that the impacted population is predicted to be 10% lower after 25 years of impact than the unimpacted population is predicted to be at that point in the future. The RSPB advise that the counterfactual method overcomes their criticisms of existing methods, e.g. that it is robust to errors in population growth rate and avoids attempting to make a risk-based assessment which is influenced by the range of uncertainty around model predictions (under unimpacted and impacted scenarios) and around the magnitude of the additional mortality under consideration (Green, 2014). Additionally, they claim that stochastic models are not required because a limited number of comparisons between stochastic and deterministic model runs using the same parameter values gave very similar results. However, the SNCBs are cautious about using this metric as it has no measure of uncertainty, e.g. for a CPS25 of 0.9, the impacted population might actually be 9-11% lower or 0-20% lower than the unimpacted population.

When considering the potential impact of an OWF development on a seabird population, it is necessary to model the seabird population. However, most seabird populations are not well studied and there is a lack of good knowledge of colony-specific demographic parameters (survival rates, age at first breeding, productivity, proportion of adults non-breeding each year) and of the existence or strength of any population regulation (whether or not

7

productivity or survival decrease as a function of increasing population size or density). McLean et al (2007) provided a review of the suitability of various seabird species for such population modelling, according to how well each species’ demography was characterised. Uncertainty in demographic rates and population regulation can cause uncertainty in whether a particular predicted level of additional mortality (or reduction in productivity) arising from a development will have an adverse impact on the size of a protected population (Masden et al 2014). According to the RSPB, their counterfactual metric does not vary substantially with errors in demographic rates, assuming no density dependence in demographic rates. This means that the impact of a development can still be reliably assessed, even when demography is poorly understood. However, when there is density dependence, the counterfactual metric is more sensitive to uncertainties in demographic rates and is affected by the parameters that determine the strength and form of the density dependent effects. In the absence of any reliable information on density dependence, the RSPB advocates use of a density-independent approach, which they note will in general lead to a more precautionary assessment of the magnitude of the population level impact (Green 2014).

The aim of this contract is to quantify the sensitivity of metrics of population response to OWF impacts to uncertainty in population model structure and parameterisation.

4. Project Objectives

Objective 1: To advise on the validity of the RSPB challenges to the risk-based metrics;

Objective 2: To establish how sensitive various metrics of population response to wind farm impacts are to uncertainty in population model structure and parameter values;

Objective 3: To explore methods for incorporating a measure of uncertainty around the RSPB’s CPS25 metric.

5. Project Objectives: Detailed tasks

Objective 1: To advise on the validity of the RSPB challenges to the risk-based metrics.

Risk-based metrics make intuitive sense when trying to assess impacts of a wind farm on a population, e.g. a metric that quantifies the increase in likelihood of an unfavourable outcome occurring, such as a large population decline. The RSPB acknowledges that these metrics are desirable but states that they cannot be used in assessments because the full range of uncertainty in the impact scenarios cannot be adequately represented due to uncertainty in values assigned to parameters such as the avoidance rate used in collision risk modelling (Green, 2014; Masden et al 2014). The RSPB also maintains that such an approach must use a “matched runs” approach, in which stochastic annual fluctuations in demographic rates are the same for a pair of runs in which one of the pair has additional mortality imposed and the other does not. The contractor should consider whether a counterfactual metric of probability of a specified outcome can be developed, given the RSPB’s arguments.

8

The contractor will be required to briefly review how risk-based metrics of population response to wind farm impacts have been used by developers and SNCBs in casework. Various metrics have been used, some of which are counterfactual metrics, i.e. a ratio of impacted:unimpacted population. The contractor will also be required to review the RSPB criticisms of the risk-based metrics, as described in Green (2014) and in the RSPB’s representation at the Hornsea Hearing (see references listed below). To assist the contractor with these tasks, relevant documentation will be provided and the contractor will have an opportunity to discuss the methods in more detail at a meeting near the start of the contract. The contractor should be prepared to contact the RSPB for further clarity on their position on risk-based metrics, if required.

In the final contract report (see Outputs below) the contractor should summarise the risk-based metrics used to date and the RSPB’s criticisms of them. Then, present a detailed critique of whether the RSPB criticisms are valid or otherwise, from a technical scientific perspective. Objective 2 requires testing of various risk-based metrics, under the assumption that they are scientifically robust methods for assessing impacts of offshore wind farms on seabird populations. Even if the contractor concludes that the RSPB’s criticisms of these methods are valid, it will still be valuable to have an assessment of sensitivity of these risk-based approaches to uncertainty in seabird demography and the contractor will still be required to carry out Objective 2.

Objective 2: To establish how sensitive various metrics of population response to OWF impacts are to uncertainty in population model structure and parameter values

The contractor will test the sensitivity of metrics of population response to offshore wind farm impacts. The exact metrics to be tested will be agreed with the contractor at the project start-up meeting but are likely to include the metrics listed below.

i. Ratio of impacted to unimpacted population size at 25 years, CPS25;

ii. Ratio of median impacted to unimpacted population growth rate;

iii. The probability of the population growth rate under the impacted scenario being x% below the median unimpacted growth rate;

iv. Absolute probability of the population growth rate under the impacted scenario falling below 1;

v. Change in the probability that the growth rate is less than 1 between impacted and unimpacted population.

vi. The absolute probability of a population decreasing by a given magnitude below its initial size in the presence of an impact, i.e. a 5%, 10%, 66%...100% probability of the population decreasing by: any amount, 5%, 10%...100% below the initial size at any point during a simulated period of wind farm impacts, e.g. over a period of up to 5, 10, 15, 20 and 25 years of operation, i.e. with no reference to the difference between impacted and unimpacted scenarios, in this case. Different scenarios of increasing impacts should be tested, e.g. 50, 100, 150, 200….. birds dying annually;

vii. The absolute probability of a population decreasing by a given magnitude below its initial size in the presence of an impact, i.e. a 5%, 10%, 66%...100% probability of the population decreasing by: any amount, 5%, 10%...100% below the initial size at a fixed point in time during a simulated period of wind farm impacts, e.g. after a

9

period of 5, 10, 15, 20 and 25 years of operation, i.e. with no reference to the difference between impacted and unimpacted scenarios, in this case. Different scenarios of increasing impacts should be tested, e.g. 50, 100, 150, 200….. birds dying annually;

viii. The absolute probability of the impacted population falling by certain amounts (5%, 10%....100%) below the average size predicted to occur in the absence of the impact at a fixed point in future time, e.g. at 5, 10, 15, 20 and 25 years into the future, i.e. with no reference to the difference in the probabilities for impacted and unimpacted scenarios, in this case.

ix. The difference in the probability of a population decreasing by a given magnitude below its initial size in the presence and absence of an impact, i.e. a change of 5%, 10%...100% probability of the population decreasing by 5%, 10%...100% below the initial size at any point during a simulated period of wind farm impacts, e.g. over a period of up to 5, 10, 15, 20 and 25 years of operation, i.e. similar to (vi) above but comparing impacted and unimpacted scenarios, in this case. This is also known as “Counterfactual of probability of population decline” – CPD). Different scenarios of increasing impacts should be tested, e.g. 50, 100, 150, 200… birds dying annually;

x. The difference in the probability of a population decreasing by a given magnitude below its initial size in the presence and absence of an impact, i.e. a change of 5%, 10%...100% probability of the population decreasing by 5%, 10%...100% below the initial size at a fixed point in time during a simulated period of wind farm impacts, e.g. after a period of 5, 10, 15, 20 and 25 years of operation, i.e. similar to (vii) above but comparing impacted and unimpacted scenarios, in this case. This is also a “Counterfactual of probability of population decline” – CPD. Different scenarios of increasing impacts should be tested, e.g. 50, 100, 150, 200 birds dying annually;

xi. The difference in the probability of a population decreasing by a given magnitude below the average size predicted to occur in the absence of the impact i.e. a change of 5%, 10%...100% in the probability of the population decreasing by any amount, 5%, 10%...100% below the average unimpacted size at a fixed point in future time e.g. at 5, 10, 15, 20 and 25 years into the future, i.e. similar to (viii) above but comparing impacted and unimpacted scenarios, in this case.

xii. Any other metrics that the contractor identifies as warranting testing and/or other metrics identified by the JNCC and in agreement with the contractor.

The contractor should test how sensitive the metrics listed above are to changes in the following:

Demographic rates including adult survival, immature survival, juvenile survival, age at first breeding, productivity (clutch size, hatch rate, chick survival, juveniles per female or pair if possible), frequency of non-breeding in adults. The contractor will need to alter each parameter through plausible ranges of parameter values, e.g. 95% confidence intervals;

Density independent vs density dependent population model, including different density dependence functions, in which the density dependence operates on different life stages and the form of the function varies. JNCC is letting a separate contract to review the form density dependence takes in seabird populations. This information may be available to help inform the type of density-dependent functions considered;

10

Stochastic vs deterministic population models, where appropriate, incorporating both demographic and environmental stochasticity through plausible ranges;

Populations that are not closed, i.e. models that allow a particular rate of immigration or emigration;

The value taken by the metric at 5, 10, 15, 20 and 25 years in the presence of wind farm impacts to see how consistent the metric is through time;

The magnitude of the population impact and variance around the population impact.

The contractor will most probably develop a simulation population model (although other ideas will be considered if suggested in a tender document) and run many simulations (ideally 1000, for stochastic models but if this will be too demanding of time/computational power, the quote should describe an alternative realistic number of simulations) of each scenario to evaluate the consequences of changing parameters in a population model. The contractor should present a measure of how sensitive each metric is to uncertainty in each of the parameters listed above.

The contractor should use the sensitivity analysis to identify those metrics which are least sensitive to uncertainty in model structure and parameterisation and time frame over which impacts are considered. We anticipate that no one metric will be less sensitive to all uncertainties, above other metrics, so the contractor should clearly explain which uncertainties each metric is sensitive to and the extent of that sensitivity. The contractor should identify any groups of species for which a particular metric generally works well, e.g. species with a particular life history strategy may be more amenable to assessing their population responses to a wind farm impact using one particular metric. Additionally, the contractor should comment on any other relevant aspects of each metric that would make it preferable to use in ornithological assessments, e.g. how simple the metric is to explain to non-scientists.

The contractor does not need to consider the additional step of interpreting the counterfactual metric and advising on the nature conservation implications of a particular value. This will be considered elsewhere.

Objective 3: To explore methods for incorporating a measure of uncertainty around the RSPB’s CPS25 metric.

The contractor will explore the value and feasibility of incorporating a measure of uncertainty into the CPS25 metric. This metric is chosen as one example of the various deterministic measures to explore this issue. The contractor will need to identify what types of uncertainty will influence the CPS25 metric and then consider how best to incorporate these uncertainties. The contractor should clearly explain any issues with incorporating a measure of uncertainty around the CPS25 metric. The contractor may find it helpful to discuss this with the RSPB beforehand.

6. References

Bennet, F. 2013. Consideration of methods called Acceptable Biological Change and Potential Biological Removal to inform assessment of managed effects upon populations. Unpublished Marine Scotland Science report.

11

Dillingham, P.W. & Fletcher, D. 2008. Estimating the ability of birds to sustain additional human-caused mortalities using a simple decision rule and allometric relationships. Biological Conservation, 141: 1783-1792.

Drewitt, A.L. & Langston, R.H.W. 2006. Assessing the impacts of wind farms on birds. Ibis, 148(S1), 29-42.

Everaert, J. & Stienen, E.W.M. 2007. Impact of wind turbines on birds in Zeebrugge (Belgium): Significant effect on breeding tern colony due to collisions. Biodiversity Conservation, 16, 3345-3359.

Green, R.E. 2014. Misleading use of science in the assessment of probable effects of offshore wind projects on populations of seabirds in Scotland. Unpublished RSPB paper.

IPCC (2005). Guidance Notes for Lead Authors of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report on Addressing Uncertainties. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Geneva, Switzerland.

JNCC & SNH. 2014. Addressing uncertainty in population model outputs when using the ABC method to set thresholds of change. Unpublished joint JNCC and SNH paper.

Johnston et al. 2014. Modelling flight heights of marine birds to more accurately assess collision risk with offshore wind turbines. Journal of Applied Ecology, 51, 31-41.

Krijgsveld et al. 2011. Effect studies Offshore Wind Farm Egmond aan Zee: Final report on fluxes, flight altitudes and behaviour of flying birds. Bureau Waardenburg report nr 10-219.

Leopold, M.F., Dijkman E.M. & Teal L. (2011). Local birds in and around the Offshore Wind Farm Egmond aan Zee (OWEZ) (T-0 & T-1, 2002-2010). NoordzeeWind report

Masden, E.A., McCluskie, A., Owen, E. & Langston, R.H.W. 2014. Renewable energy developments in an uncertain world: The case of offshore wind and birds in the UK. Marine Policy 51: 169-172.

OWEZ_R_221_T1_20110915_localbirds_final. Imares / NoordzeeWind, Wageningen / IJmuiden.

Petersen I.K. & Fox A.D. 2007. Changes in bird habitat utilisation around the Horns Rev 1 offshore wind farm, with particular reference on Common Scoter. NERI Report.

Vanermen N., Steinen E.W.M., Courtens W., Onkelinx T., Van de walle M. & Verstraete H. 2013. Bird monitoring at offshore wind farms in the Belgian part of the North Sea: Assessing seabird displacement effects. Rapporten van het Instituut voor Natuur- en Bosonderzoek 2013 (INBO.R.2013.755887).

Wade, P.R. Calculating limits to the allowable human-caused mortality of cetaceans and pinnipeds. Marine Mammal Science, 14(1): 1-37.

Hornsea Hearing references:

http://infrastructure.planningportal.gov.uk/wp-content/ipc/uploads/projects/EN010033/2. Post-Submission/Representations/Comments/Other Comments/Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.pdf

http://infrastructure.planningportal.gov.uk/wp-content/ipc/uploads/projects/EN010033/2. Post-Submission/Hearings/Issue Specific Hearing - 29-04-2014 - 0930 - Humber Royal, Grimsby/Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.pdf

12

http://infrastructure.planningportal.gov.uk/wp-content/ipc/uploads/projects/EN010033/2. Post-Submission/Representations/ExA Questions/22-04-2014 - Responses to ExA's second round of written questions/Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.pdf

http://infrastructure.planningportal.gov.uk/wp-content/ipc/uploads/projects/EN010033/2. Post-Submission/Representations/Additional Representations/28-05-2014 - Deadline VII/Appendix G - The Applicants comments on RSPBs written representations submitted at Deadlines V and VI.pdf

http://infrastructure.planningportal.gov.uk/wp-content/ipc/uploads/projects/EN010033/2. Post-Submission/Representations/Additional Representations/14-05-2014 - Deadline V/Appendix H. The Applicant's Ornithological Summary.pdf

http://infrastructure.planningportal.gov.uk/wp-content/ipc/uploads/projects/EN010033/2.%20Post-Submission/Hearings/Issue%20Specific%20Hearing%20-%2029-04-2014%20-%200930%20-%20Humber%20Royal,%20Grimsby/Natural%20England.pdf

http://infrastructure.planningportal.gov.uk/wp-content/ipc/uploads/projects/EN010033/2.%20Post-Submission/Representations/ExA%20Questions/Appendix%20X%20-%20PVA%20Note.pdf

7. Outputs

The contractor should produce a final report presenting all work carried out in Objectives 1-3 above, in detail. In the report, the contractor should clearly demonstrate the decision-making processes they have followed to decide which analyses to run and why.

The contractor should also present the results of this work to JNCC and others in a face-to-face meeting near the end of the contract.

The outputs from this contract will be reviewed in order to assess potential use of these metrics in future assessments of the impact of offshore wind farms on seabird populations.

8. Dissemination

The report produced under this contract will be a JNCC product and shall not be published or disseminated without the written permission of JNCC. It may at some point be published on the JNCC website and all material supplied as part of this contract shall remain copyright of JNCC.

Marine Scotland Science may be running a contract to look at a series of questions that are related to those addressed in this contract. To avoid duplication of work, the contractor should be willing to communicate with the MSS contractor, if required, and share information on work they have done to date. The JNCC contractor will not be required to share information on how they have done the work, e.g. any computer code or models, but they should be willing to describe, in detail, the analyses they have undertaken or intend to undertake.

13

9. Timescale

Provisional dates for delivery of the contact outputs are set out below. Exact dates are to be agreed at the start-up meeting. However, in the tender document the potential contractor will need to demonstrate, in a clear timetable, that they can fulfil all contract requirements this financial year.

Contract Component

Milestone Timetable

Start-up meeting

A start up meeting will take place at the start of the contract, at which the contractor can ensure they have fully understood the contract requirements. Details of the work to be carried out will be confirmed and any relevant information will be passed to the contractor

Early November 2014

Interim meeting An interim meeting to discuss progress with the work, discuss any issues and for the contractor to relay any initial findings to JNCC, NE, SNH and others.

Late December 2014

Draft report JNCC, NE, SNH and possibly others will receive the first draft of the report for comment.

Early February 2015

Presentation The Contractor will give a presentation to JNCC, NE and SNH, explaining the key findings.

Early February 2015

Comments on report delivered

Comments on the draft report will be sent to the Contractor. Mid February 2015

Final report JNCC, NE and SNH will receive the final report with all comments addressed.

End February 2015

Invoice to be received by JNCC

JNCC must be invoiced for this work by no later than 6th March 2015

6th March 2015

14

Health and safety

The Contractor is expected to follow appropriate Health & Safety procedures and undertake appropriate risk assessments, evidence of which should be supplied to JNCC. Any incidents occurring within the contract should be immediately reported to JNCC.

10. Product specification

The final report shall adhere to the JNCC report template and house style guidance, both available from JNCC on request. The draft and final reports should be provided electronically via email both as a Microsoft Word document and an Adobe PDF.

In order to meet JNCC’s Evidence Quality Assurance Policy, the contractor should make it clear in the final report how they have assessed the quality of the information they are presenting. The contractor will need to identify margins of error in variables and parameters, as well as any limitations of the methods used.

11. Project management

The Contractor shall nominate a project manager, who shall be responsible for ensuring the project is completed satisfactorily and who shall be the main contact point for JNCC.

JNCC’s main contact point will be: Sue O’Brien, Inverdee House, Baxter Street, Aberdeen, AB11 9QH

Email: sue.obrien@jncc.gov.uk

Tel: +44 (0)1224 266573

12. Instructions for tender submission and costings

The tender submission should include the following:

A brief summary of the potential Contractor’s experience in relation to the requirements of this contract;

A proposed approach for achieving the objectives of the contract. This should be sufficiently detailed allow assessment against the evaluation criteria;

A timetabled project plan, including the proposed work programme and an estimate of time required to achieve each objective. If the tenderer feels the indicative timetable above leaves insufficient time to carry out all of the objectives listed above

15

to the required specification, they should indicate which objectives, or parts of objectives could be achieved within the timetable and which would need to be completed as part of a separate contract;

Details of the Contractor’s own internal Quality Management System, including evidence of accreditation or demonstrate adequate monitoring and auditing practices;

A description of the approach that the Contractor will take to data management and storage and demonstrate that they have the required capability;

A description of the process by which the Contractor will ensure the work carried out is of a high standard and has been thoroughly checked;

Details of the Project Team, including their roles and experience, an estimate of their time input into each task, and CVs of all personnel involved in the contract;

Availability of the Project Team to complete the project within the given timeframe;

Overall quote for the contract, to include:

o Daily/hourly rates for all members of the Project Team;

o Rates for attending meetings and an agreed location and/or via videoconference (costs for travel and accommodation are attached and should be used. These rates are analogous to the civil service rates);

o Costs and time allocation should be clearly allocated to specific tasks within this contract; and

o VAT if applicable. The contractor is to specify whether VAT at the prevailing rate would be applicable to this project and to provide their company’s VAT registration number.

The quote should include costings for individual components of work detailed in Objective 2. The tenderer can break down the work into components as they see it working best, e.g. by grouping certain types of metrics to be tested. Depending on the cost of various components of the work, JNCC, in consultation with other SNCBs, may opt to fund only certain components of this work. Therefore, the tenderer needs to be sure when costing components of the work that they can be completed to the full requirements of this contract, in the absence of other components. Where this is not feasible, e.g. because carrying out one component requires completion of another component first, the tenderer should make this clear in their quote. . However, the tenderer should bear in mind that the tender Evaluaton Criteria listed below include consideration of reasonableness of costs for the work to be done.

16

The following documentation:

o Copies of health and safety policy statements where available or a note regarding such items as lone working, emergency procedures and accident reporting;

o Copies of current public and employer liability insurance certificates; and

o Copies of any appropriate risk assessments.

o Copies of any environmental policies should you have them

13. Evaluation Criteria

JNCC are not bound to accept the lowest priced or any tender. Having the technical expertise and experience to complete the work to a high standard, and being able to complete it within the timescale, are of the essence for this contract.

Tenders will be evaluated using the following criteria:

EVALUATION CRITERIA

Max

Sco

re

Sco

re

1. Quality of proposal, (35% of the total for the three assessment categories)

 

Demonstrating a clear understanding of the requirements of the contract and also demonstrating expertise and ability of team to deliver work on time and to required standard

15  

 Clear proposal, meeting requirements laid out in tender specification 10  

 

Identification and proposed solutions to potential problems/risks

5  

Evidence of quality systems in place and how quality is managed 5

  Sub Totals 35  

17

2. Details of Contractor (30% of the three assessment categories)

 Expertise and capability of team members actively involved in providing the work or service required under this contract 15  

Balance of senior and junior members of team 5

  Provision of details of any work of this type previously undertaken 5  

 Risks to contract delivery if important team members drop out have been fully considered 5  

  Sub Totals 30  

3. Cost (35% of the total for the three assessment categories)

  Transparency and correctness of presentation 5  

 Fairness/reasonableness for the level of work and expertise required 15  

  Clarity of each team member’s contribution and value added 15  

  Sub Totals 35  

Total score 100

14. Payment

Payment will be made on completion of the objectives, following the submission of an invoice and based on satisfactory undertaking of the contractual elements to the agreed standard of the JNCC Project Officer.

18

15. Additional Contractor requirements

All tenderers are requested to carefully read the Terms and Conditions applying to this contract. Payment will only be made upon delivery of key milestones.

It is assumed that all costs associated with the production of figures, reproduction of photographs and the final report are accounted for within the rates and fees given.

The Contractor is expected to supply all necessary equipment, software, licences etc. to carry out the obligations required under the contract.

19