7.9.4.    Determining Sensitivity of Receptors

90. In determining the sensitivity of each ecological feature, the vulnerability, recoverability and value/importance of that ecological feature is taken into consideration. For the purposes of this assessment, the predicted sensitivity of an ecological feature is categorised as ‘negligible’, ‘low’, ‘medium’, ‘high’ and ‘very high’, based on the definitions in Table 7.17.

 Table 7.17: Definitions of Terms Relating to the Sensitivity of the Ecological Feature

7.9.5.    Determining Ecologically Significant Effects

91. The significance of the effect is then calculated using the following matrix (Table 7.18). Where two levels of significance are possible, for example moderate to major; in these situations professional judgement of the author is used.

Table 7.18: Matrix Used for the Assessment of the Significance of the Effect

92. An EcIA is undertaken in relation to the baseline conditions that would be expected to occur in the absence of a Proposed Development and, therefore, may include possible predictions of future changes to the baseline conditions, such as environmental trends and other completed or planned development. Both adverse and beneficial impacts/effects are possible.
93. For the purpose of EcIA, ‘significant effect’ is an effect that either supports or undermines biodiversity conservation objectives for ‘important ecological features’ or for biodiversity in general. Conservation objectives may be specific (e.g. for a designated site) or broad (e.g. national/local nature conservation policy) or more wide-ranging (enhancement of biodiversity). Effects can be considered significant at a wide range of scales from international to local (CIEEM, 2018).
94. In accordance with the CIEEM guidelines, the approach in this chapter aims to determine if the effect of an impact is significant or not based on a discussion of the factors that characterise it (i.e. the ecological significance of an effect is not dependent on the value of the feature in question). Rather, the value of a feature that will be significantly affected is used to determine the geographical scale at which the effect is significant.
95. In accordance with the current CIEEM guidelines, effects of impacts are assessed in the presence of standard (primary and tertiary) mitigation measures. Additional (secondary) mitigation may be identified where it is required to reduce a significant effect.
96. Any significant effect remaining post-mitigation (the residual effect); together with an assessment of the likelihood of success of the mitigation, will be material considerations to be weighed in the balance in determining the application.
97. For the purposes of this assessment:

• A level of residual effect of moderate or more will be considered a ‘significant’ effect in terms of the EIA Regulations; and
• A level of residual effect of minor or less will be considered ‘not significant’ in terms of the EIA Regulations.
  98. In addition to determining the significance of effects on IEFs, this chapter also identifies any legal requirements in relation to wildlife (e.g. protected species licensing).

7.10. Primary & Tertiary Mitigation

99. As part of the project design process, a number of measures have been proposed to reduce the potential for impacts on ecology (see Table 7.19). These include measures which have been incorporated as part of the Proposed Development’s design (referred to as ‘primary mitigation’) and measures which will be implemented regardless of the impact assessment (referred to as ‘tertiary mitigation’). As there is a commitment to implementing these measures, they are considered inherently part of the design of the Proposed Development and have therefore been considered in the assessment presented in Section 7.11 below (i.e. the determination of magnitude and therefore significance assumes implementation of these measures). These measures are considered standard industry practice for this type of development.
100. Primary mitigation includes the following design measures:

• The onshore cabling will be installed alongside tracks and/or field margins wherever possible to minimise habitat loss and/or disturbance;
• Proximity to watercourses has been avoided wherever possible;
• Areas considered to be more sensitive in terms of protected habitats such as semi-natural woodland, wetland habitats, and coastal habitats have been avoided wherever possible;
• Trenchless technology (e.g.HDD) is to be used to install sections of the onshore cable including at the landfall within Barns Ness SSSI. This method is an alternative to open trenching techniques and will minimise habitat loss and/or disturbance; and
• A Habitat Enhancement and Management Plan (HEMP) will be produced for the Site detailing measures to protect existing ecological features, enhance habitats and increase biodiversity within the Site in line with NPF4 Policy 3 (Biodiversity) and LDP Policy NH5 (Biodiversity and Geodiversity Interests, including Nationally Protected Species). Biodiversity enhancement measures are to include the creation of species-rich grassland, hedgerow, and woodland habitats along the margins of the A1 trunk road and surrounding the onshore substation. These measures will benefit protected species such as badger and bats by maintaining and creating linear features used for foraging and commuting. The HEMP will also detail long-term monitoring and management measures to ensure its successful delivery. The HEMP is to be produced post-consent but prior to the construction phase of the Proposed Development commencing, and in consultation with the Planning Authority.
  101. Tertiary mitigation includes the following standard mitigation measures:
• The Applicant will appoint a suitably qualified Ecological Clerk of Works (ECoW) prior to the commencement of any construction activities taking place. Prior to works commencing the ECoW will carry out preconstruction ecological surveys. During construction their role will be to provide ecological support including providing toolbox talks to all site personnel with regards to priority species and habitats, advising on works when working near or adjacent to sensitive habitats (e.g. watercourses) as well as undertaking monitoring works.
• To protect scrub and woodland habitats within and adjacent to the site working methods should proceed in line ‘BS 5837 (2012) – Trees in relation to Design, Demolition and Construction’.
• To protect habitats within Barns Ness SSSI, protective fencing and signage will be installed as necessary, under the supervision of the ECoW, to delineate the edge of the designated site and prevent movement of plant and personnel, or storage of materials, within the SSSI.
• A pre-construction survey for badger and otter will be carried out. This is to include monitoring of the large mammal hole identified by the ECoW during the GI works in July. If evidence of either species is identified, additional mitigation may be identified and implemented to prevent impacts on individuals.
• A pre-construction survey for roosting bats will be carried out. This will be an initial update to the Preliminary Roost Assessment to identify any features with suitability for use by roosting bats within 30 m of the Proposed Development. Where potential is confirmed within the zone of influence, further survey will be carried to verify if roosting bats are present. If this is the case, additional mitigation and/or compensation will be identified and implemented to prevent significant impacts.
• Newt fencing is to be installed to separate the works area from suitable great crested newt habitat to the south of the proposed substation at Branxton. This will protect individual newts by acting as a barrier to movement of newts into the works area. The location, extent and design of newt fencing is detailed within a great crested newt species protection plan (Volume 4, Appendix 7.4).
• The badger and otter survey noted areas of dense vegetation and steep slopes which could not be fully inspected to confirm presence or absence of setts or resting sites (as detailed in Volume 4, Appendix 7.2). If works are required in these areas the vegetation will be cleared under the supervision of the ECoW.
• A sensitive lighting scheme is to be adopted and construction phase lighting will be directed to where it is needed and light spillage (whether direct/or in-direct) avoided, particularly within the vicinity of edge habitat, riparian corridors and other linear features such as pathways, tree lines and hedgerows.
• Himalayan balsam has been identified within the ecology study area and Japanese knotweed was recorded within the wider area. Works will be reviewed and if there is a risk that works are likely to be within 10 m of such stands, an Invasive Non-Native Species (INNS) plan will be produced to prevent the spread of these species within and off the site. The management plan will include suitable precautions to prevent spread of plant fragments/seeds including exclusion zones, biological control, on-site treatment or removal by an approved company that specialises in non-native species disposal.
• The following good practice measures, endorsed by NatureScot, are to be applied during construction activity:

-          Cover/fence-off excavations, or provide escape ramps at the end of the working day to avoid animals becoming trapped (if an animal does become trapped, advice should be sought immediately from the ECoW);

-          Cap any temporarily exposed pipe systems out of work hours;

-          Clean fuel/chemical spillages immediately with spill kits and dispose of waste materials correctly;

-          Avoid unnecessary disturbance to habitats by minimising the extent of ground clearance, as far as possible; and

-          Ecological toolbox talks to be given to all new site personnel as part of the site induction process on the potential presence of protected species including badgers, otters and great crested newts and any measures that need to be undertaken should such species be discovered during construction activities.

102. In order to prevent pollution of watercourses within the site (with particulate matter or other pollutants such as fuel), best practice techniques will be employed. These are outlined in Volume 1, Chapter 11 and the Outline Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) (Volume 4, Appendix 5.1) and will include:

• For water crossings (i.e. those not being negotiated by trenchless technology (e.g. HDD)): buffer strips around sections of workings adjacent to watercourse crossings and bund and embankment features are to be implemented;
• Where necessary CAR licences for works affecting watercourses will be applied for post-consent;
• There will be no storage of material within 10 m of any watercourse in line with SEPA requirements to reduce risk of runoff (SEPA, 2009); and
• General drainage: no direct discharges of water from works areas to existing drainage channels or surface watercourses; drainage will be directed to infiltration trenches, settlement swales or lagoons.
  103. Full details of construction mitigation measures will be provided in a detailed CEMP to be agreed with the Planning Authority, in consultation with NatureScot, post-consent but prior to the construction phase of the Proposed Development commencing.

Table 7.19: Measures Adopted as Part of the Proposed Development (Primary & Tertiary Mitigation)

7.11. Assessment of Significance

104. The potential impacts arising from the construction phase of the Proposed Development on the scoped-in IEF and the likely significance of the effects of the Proposed Development on ecological receptors caused by each identified impact is given below.
105. Impacts on designated sites and habitats may include direct losses e.g. permanent land-take for the onshore substation and other infrastructure, SuDS wetland creation, temporary land-take for access tracks, laydown areas and construction site compounds. Negative impacts on habitats can also be indirect e.g. through habitat fragmentation. It is estimated that of the total habitat loss under the temporary and permanent footprint of works (c. 58.5 ha), 77.9% of this will be temporary such as access tracks and site compounds, and will be restored at the end of the construction period.
106. All habitat loss calculations are presented in Table 7.20   Open ▸ , with habitat IEFs brought forward for assessment shown in bold[2]. As in Table 7.11, the ecology study area is defined as the potential works areas and a 250 m buffer. Note that the figures in the tables have been rounded to the nearest two digits but calculations have been completed using the unrounded figures.

Table 7.20: Estimated Loss of Habitat from Proposed Development Infrastructure

Dunglass Burn LNCS

Nature Conservation Value and Conservation Status

107. Part of the Dunglass Burn LNCS lies under the footprint of the Proposed Development as shown on Volume 2, Figure 7.2   Open ▸ The site is designated for its broadleaved, semi-natural woodland habitat. Approximately c.11.89 ha of broadleaved semi-natural woodland extends along the Thornton Burn and Braidwood Burn corridor within the ecology study area and is comprised of native woodland which is semi-natural in its origins. Native woodlands are defined as those whose tree species arrived naturally in Scotland without any apparent direct human assistance. Most of native tree and shrub species colonised Scotland after the last Ice Age, which ended roughly 9,000 years ago. The cover of native woodlands in Scotland has been calculated to be 311,153 ha, of which 23,189 ha comprises lowland mixed deciduous woodland (Patterson et al., 2014), which is the category of the best fit with the broadleaved semi-natural woodland at this location.
108. This woodland is connected to two areas of AWI which lie within Thornton Glen SWT. These AWI stands are defined as Ancient (of semi-natural origin) 1a and 2b. This indicates that part of this woodland corridor has been continuously wooded since 1750 (1a) and 1860 (2b).

Construction Phase

Impact

109. Impacts on the woodland habitat will include direct loss within the footprint of temporary works to install the cable bridge over the Braidwood Burn, as well as temporary disturbance of vegetation adjacent to works areas.

Magnitude of Impact

110. As shown on Volume 2, Figure 7.3   Open ▸ and 7.4 a cable bridge crossing is proposed across Braidwood Burn that passes through the Dunglass Burn LNCS for approximately 60 m. The footprint of the temporary works areas for the cable bridge is approximately 1,100 m2 and the route has been micro-sited to minimise tree felling requirements. At the location of the cable bridge, the canopy is comprised of a semi-mature, multi-stem, ash trees with no mature tree specimens recorded within the footprint of the works. Understorey vegetation includes ruderal species and scrub. Assuming this could affect a zone of up to 15 m on either side of the footprint of works, up to 2,900 m2 of this habitat may be susceptible to temporary disturbance. The proposed cable bridge is 40 m in length and 10 m in width therefore the footprint of the permanent works is estimated to be 400 m2. In total, permanent and temporary works directly impacts 1.24% the total extent of this habitat within the ecology study area.
111. The impact is predicted to be of local spatial extent, short-term duration, intermittent and medium reversibility. It is predicted that the impact will affect the receptor directly. The magnitude is therefore considered to be low.

Sensitivity of the Receptor

112. The Dunglass Burn LNCS is deemed to be of low vulnerability, medium recoverability and local value. The sensitivity of the receptor is therefore considered to be low.

Significance of the Effect

113. Given the above consideration of sensitivity and magnitude, the effect significance is considered to be negligible to minor adverse and not significant under the EIA Regulations.

Secondary Mitigation and Residual Effect

114. No secondary mitigation is considered necessary because the likely effect in the absence of secondary mitigation is not significant in EIA terms.

Thornton Glen SWT

Nature Conservation Value and Conservation Status

115. Thornton Glen SWT is approximately 6.50 ha in area and lies within 45 m of the footprint of the Proposed Development at its closest point as shown on Volume 2, Figure 7.3   Open ▸ The site is designated for its broadleaved, semi-natural woodland habitat. The SWT includes two areas of AWI. These AWI stands are defined as Ancient (of semi-natural origin) 1a and 2b. This indicates that this area of the woodland corridor has been continuously wooded since 1750 (1a) and 1860 (2b). The Thurston Burn Valley LNCS overlaps the SWT.

Construction Phase

Impact

116. As the Thornton Glen SWT lies over 15 m from the footprint of the Proposed Development no direct impacts are anticipated (e.g. habitat loss). The Proposed Development bisects the wider Thornton Burn and Braidwood Burn corridor at the location of a proposed cable bridge crossing which is to be installed over the Braidwood Burn (as shown on Volume 2, Figure 7.3 and 7.4). These works may impact up to 2,900 m2 of the woodland corridor as discussed under Dunglass Burn LNCS. As these works have been micro-sited to avoid the removal of mature trees it is anticipated that loss of tree canopy will be minimal and therefore the works are unlikely to result in the fragmentation of the woodland corridor.

Magnitude of Impact

117. The cable bridge crossing is proposed across Braidwood Burn that passes through an area of broadleaved, semi-natural woodland that connects to Thornton Glen SWT to the east. The footprint of the temporary works areas for the cable bridge crossing is approximately 1,100 m2 and the route has been micro-sited to minimise tree felling requirements. At the location of the cable bridge crossing the canopy is comprised of a semi-mature, multi-stem, ash trees with no mature tree specimens recorded within the footprint of the works. Understorey vegetation includes ruderal species and scrub. Assuming this could affect a zone of up to 15 m on either side of the footprint of works, up to 2,900 m2 of this habitat may be susceptible to temporary disturbance. The cable bridge crossing is 40 m in length and 10 m in width therefore the footprint of the permanent works is estimated to be 400m2. In total, permanent, and temporary works directly impacts 1.24% the total extent of this habitat within the ecology study area.   
118. The impact is predicted to be of local spatial extent, short-term duration, intermittent and medium reversibility. It is predicted that the impact will affect the receptor indirectly. The magnitude is therefore considered to be low.

Sensitivity of the Receptor

119. The Thornton Glen SWT is deemed to be of medium vulnerability, low recoverability and local value. The sensitivity of the receptor is therefore, considered to be low.

Significance of the Effect

120. Given the above consideration of sensitivity and magnitude, the effect significance is considered to be negligible to minor adverse and not significant under the EIA Regulations.

Secondary Mitigation and Residual Effect

121. No secondary mitigation is considered necessary because the likely effect in the absence of secondary mitigation is not significant in EIA terms.

Dryburn Valley LNCS

Nature Conservation Value and Conservation Status

122. The Dryburn Valley LNCS lies under the footprint of the Proposed Development where a proposed cable bridge crosses the Skateraw Dean near the landfall, as shown on Volume 2, Figure 7.3   Open ▸ The features that this site is designated for include: woodland listed within the Native Woodland Survey Scotland (NWSS), AWI woodland, and grassland. Notable species are ancient woodland flora. The site extends over an area of approximately 115 ha (or 1,150,000 m2), of which 1,650 m2 lies under the footprint of the Proposed Development (or 0.0014 % of the total area).
123. The habitat present within the footprint of the Proposed Development is mixed plantation woodland, with sycamore, Scots pine, silver birch, beech, elder and ash recorded in the stand. This habitat type is not considered to be a designated feature of the LNCS.

Construction phase

Impact

124. Impacts on the woodland habitat will include a direct and permanent loss to the cable bridge crossing over the Skateraw Dean as well as temporary disturbance of vegetation adjacent to works areas.

Magnitude of Impact

125. As shown on Volume 2, Figure 7.4   Open ▸ a cable bridge crossing is proposed across Skateraw Dean. The footprint of the temporary works areas for the cable bridge within the Dryburn Valley LNCS is approximately 25 m long, with an area of approximately 1,650 m2. The route will use an existing culvert which will be widened from 18 m to 30 m to accommodate the cables. This will require felling works either side of the existing culvert. Assuming this could affect a zone of up to 15 m on either side of the footprint of works, up to 2,400 m2 of the LNCS may be susceptible to temporary disturbance. The footprint of the cable bridge crossing is estimated to be 750 m2. In total the footprint of temporary and permanent works is 3150 m2 which represents 0.27% of the total area of the LNCS.  
126. The impact is predicted to be of local spatial extent, short-term duration, intermittent and medium reversibility. It is predicted that the impact will affect the receptor directly. The magnitude is therefore considered to be low.

Sensitivity of the Receptor

127. The Dryburn Valley LNCS is deemed to be of medium vulnerability, medium recoverability and local value. The sensitivity of the receptors is therefore, considered to be low.

Significance of the Effect

128. Given the above consideration of sensitivity and magnitude, the effect significance is considered to be negligible to minor adverse and not significant under the EIA Regulations.

Secondary Mitigation and Residual Effect

129. No secondary mitigation is considered necessary because the likely effect in the absence of secondary mitigation is not significant in EIA terms.

Dense and Scattered Scrub

Nature Conservation Value and Conservation Status

130. Dense and scattered scrub is a priority habitat on the East Lothian LBAP. Within the ecology study area, scrub vegetation is mostly dense and scattered gorse with some blackthorn and hawthorn recorded along the Braidwood Burn corridor. Approximately 16.32 ha of this habitat was recorded within the Proposed Development.

Construction phase

Impact

131. Impacts on the scrub habitat will include a direct loss where it lies under the footprint of temporary works as well as temporary disturbance of vegetation adjacent to works areas.

Magnitude of Impact

132. As shown on Volume 2, Figure 7.4   Open ▸ scrub habitat lies under the footprint of a proposed temporary access road that runs parallel to the northern edge of Braidwood Burn woodland corridor and also under the temporary works area for the proposed cable bridge crossing over the Braidwood Burn. The total temporary footprint for both works is 0.29 ha which represents 1.78 % of the total area of this habitat recorded within the ecology study area.   
133. The impact is predicted to be of local spatial extent, short-term duration, intermittent and medium reversibility. It is predicted that the impact will affect the receptor directly. The magnitude is therefore considered to be low.

Sensitivity of the Receptor

134. The scrub habitat is deemed to be of low vulnerability, medium recoverability and local value. The sensitivity of the receptor is therefore considered to be low.

Significance of the Effect

135. Given the above consideration of sensitivity and magnitude, the effect significance is considered to be negligible to minor adverse and not significant under the EIA Regulations.

Secondary Mitigation and Residual Effect

136. No secondary mitigation is considered necessary because the likely effect in the absence of secondary mitigation is not significant in EIA terms.

Species-poor Hedgerow

Nature Conservation Value and Conservation Status

137. Hedgerow is listed under the East Lothian LBAP as a Priority Habitat. Approximately 7.59 km of species-poor hedgerow lies within the ecology study area.

Construction Phase

Impact

138. Impacts on species-poor hedgerows will include a direct and permanent loss where it lies under the footprint of the permanent works area as well as temporary disturbance of vegetation adjacent to works areas. Approximately 0.63 km of species-poor hedgerow lies under the footprint of permanent works and will be lost as a result of the Proposed Development. This is approximately 0.05% of the total extent of this habitat recorded within the ecology study area.

Magnitude of Impact

139. As shown on Volume 2, Figures 7.4 species-poor, intact hedgerow lies under both temporary and permanent work areas.

Temporary works area: A total of c.309 m of species-poor intact hedgerow lies under the footprint of temporary works areas and 132 m of species-poor intact hedgerow lies immediately adjacent to temporary works areas. Assuming works may impact a zone of up to 10 m either side of a hedgerow, approximately 500 m of hedgerow may be impacted by the temporary works.

Permanent works area: Approximately 320 m of species-poor intact, hedgerow lies under the proposed onshore substation. Assuming works may impact a zone of up to 10 m either side of a hedgerow, it is estimated that approximately 330 m of hedgerow may be impacted by the permanent works.

The total area impacted by temporary and permanent works is approximately 10.94% of the total area of hedgerow habitat recorded within the ecology study area.

140. The planting scheme for the Proposed Development will include replacement hedgerow planting within the temporary works areas, reducing the loss of hedgerows in the long-term to 4.22 % of the habitat recorded within the ecology study area.  
141. The impact is predicted to be of local spatial extent, short-term duration, intermittent and medium reversibility. It is predicted that the impact will affect the receptor directly. The magnitude is therefore considered to be low.

Sensitivity of the Receptor

142. The species-poor hedgerow habitat is deemed to be of low vulnerability, medium recoverability and local value. The sensitivity of the receptor is therefore considered to be low.

Significance of the Effect

143. Given the above consideration of sensitivity and magnitude, the effect significance is considered to be negligible to minor adverse and not significant under the EIA Regulations.

Secondary Mitigation and Residual Effect

144. No secondary mitigation is considered necessary because the likely effect in the absence of secondary mitigation is not significant in EIA terms.

Running Water Habitat

Nature Conservation Value and Conservation Status

145. The Thornton Burn, Thurston Mains, Ogle Burn, Braidwood Burn, Skateraw Dean, Dry Burn and an unnamed watercourse run through the ecology study area. Rivers are a Priority Habitat listed on the SBL and Rivers and Burns are a priority habitat under the East Lothian LBAP. In total approximately 10.64 km of watercourses run through the ecology study area. The Proposed Development crosses the Skateraw Dean at the north and the Braidwood Burn at the south, with cable crossings proposed at each location. It is proposed to temporarily divert, or overpump, the unnamed watercourse to allow for open cut trenching technique and burying of this section of cable. The remaining watercourses lie outwith the footprint of the Proposed Development, however the Braidwood Burn flows into the Thurston Mains and Thornton Burn and Skateraw Dean flows into Dry Burn therefore these watercourses may be indirectly impacted.

Construction phase

Impact

146. Impacts on the running water habitat will include temporary disturbance to the riparian habitat of Skateraw Dean and Braidwood Burn at the proposed cable bridge crossings. The unnamed watercourse will be temporarily diverted.

Magnitude of Impact

147. As shown on Volume 2, Figure 7.4   Open ▸ , cable bridge crossings are proposed across Skateraw Dean and Braidwood Burn. The width of the temporary works areas for the cable bridge crossing at Skateraw Dean is approximately 70 m and works are to include the widening of an existing culvert to cross the burn. At the Braidwood Burn, where the proposed cable bridge crossing is to be constructed, the width of the temporary works area is 45 m. Assuming the works may impact running water habitat 30 m either side of the footprint of works at each site, a combined length of up to 235 m of this habitat may be susceptible to temporary disturbance. This represents 2.21% of the undesignated running water habitat within the ecology study area.  
148. The cable route is then proposed to be installed using open cut trenching underneath the unnamed watercourse to the south of the A1, directly north of the onshore substation, as shown on Volume 2, Figure 7.4   Open ▸ The width of the temporary works area at this location is 100 m and the footprint of the cabling is approximately 30 m. As a worst case scenario it is assumed that 100 m of running water habitat may be impacted at this location, though it is likely to be less as the width of the cable footprint is approximately 30 m. This represents 0.94% of the undesignated running water habitat within the ecology study area.  
149. The impact is predicted to be of local spatial extent, short-term duration, intermittent and high reversibility. It is predicted that the impact will affect the receptor indirectly (Skateraw Dean and Braid Burn) and directly (unnamed watercourse). The magnitude is therefore considered to be negligible.

Sensitivity of the Receptor

150. The running water habitat is deemed to be of medium vulnerability, medium recoverability and local value. The sensitivity of the receptors is therefore, considered to be low.

Significance of the Effect

151. Given the above consideration of sensitivity and magnitude, the effect significance is considered to be negligible to minor adverse and not significant under the EIA Regulations.

Secondary Mitigation and Residual Effect

152. No secondary mitigation is considered necessary because the likely effect in the absence of secondary mitigation is not significant in EIA terms.

7.11.2.              Proposed Monitoring

153. Pre-construction surveys, and monitoring of new habitats created through the planting design scheme, will be completed as part of the ECoW works during the construction phase, as detailed within Section 7.10. Longer term monitoring will secured through an HEMP.

7.12. Cumulative Effects Assessment

7.12.1.              Methodology

154. The Cumulative Effects Assessment (CEA) takes into account the impact associated with the Proposed Development together with other relevant plans, projects and activities. Cumulative effects are therefore the combined effect of the Proposed Development in combination with the effects from a number of different projects, on the same receptor or resource. Please see Volume 1, Chapter 2 of the Onshore EIA Report for detail on CEA methodology.
155. A total of four projects and plans have been selected as relevant to the CEA presented within this chapter based upon the results of a screening exercise (see Volume 4, Appendix 2.4). Each project or plan has been considered on a case-by-case basis for screening in or out of this chapter's assessment based upon data confidence, effect-receptor pathways and the spatial/temporal scales involved.
156. The specific projects scoped into the CEA for ecology, are outlined in Table 7.21.

Developments Scoped into Assessment

157. Crystal Rig IV wind farm (Planning application ref: 18/00004/SGC) lies 7.9 km south-west of the site in upland areas, comprising a combination of moorland and forestry habitats. Though the site is upland areas within significantly different habitats from lowland farmland and there is a significant distance between the two developments, the results of the baseline species and habitat surveys overlap with those of the Proposed Development. Due to the overlap in ecology receptors assessed within the EIA and the Proposed Development, including designated sites, this development is scoped into the CEA.
158. A planning application for a cable route and sub-station which overlaps the site (SPEN Eastern Link- Branxton Grid Substation, 21/01569/PM) is currently withdrawn but expected to be resubmitted in the near future. A Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (including otter and badger survey) and bat surveys were completed in 2021. A similar range of species and habitats were recorded during the ecology surveys and the withdrawn EIA report scoped out all designated sites and species except bats. The predicted impacts on bats were concluded to be minor and not significant during construction, operation and cumulative.
159. The SPEN Eastern Link Project – Converter Station and Cabling (Planning application ref: 22/00852/PPM) is a scheme for a new 525kV electricity converter station, underground cables and associated works and overlaps the current site. Due to the overlap in ecology receptors assessed within the EIA and the Proposed Development, including designated sites, this development is scoped into the CEA.

Offshore Proposed Developments

160. Berwick Bank Offshore

• Up to 307 wind turbines (each comprising a tower section, nacelle and three rotor blades) and associated support structures and foundations;
• Up to ten Offshore Substation Platforms (OSPs) and associated support structures and foundations;
• Estimated scour protection area of up to 2,280 m2 per wind turbine and 11,146 m2 per OSP;
• A network of inter-array cabling linking the individual wind turbines to each other and to the OSPs plus inter-connections between OSPs (approximately 1,225 km of inter-array cabling and 94 km of interconnector cabling); and
• Up to eight offshore export cables connecting the OSPs to Skateraw Landfall. It is possible that either High Voltage Alternating Current (HVAC) or High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) cables will be used at the Proposed Development. The options currently considered include:

-          Up to eight HVAC offshore export cables; or

-          Up to four HVDC offshore export cables.

• Construction to start 2025 with a 8 year build programme.

Table 7.21:  List of Other Projects Considered Within the CEA for Ecology

7.12.2.              Maximum Design Scenario

161. The maximum design scenarios summarised here have been selected as those having the potential to result in the greatest effect on an identified receptor or receptor group. The cumulative effects presented and assessed in this section have been selected from the details provided in Volume 1, Chapter 5 of the Onshore EIA Report as well as the information available on other projects and plans, to inform a ‘maximum design scenario’. Effects of greater adverse significance are not predicted to arise should any other development scenario, based on details within the Project Design Envelope, to that assessed here, be taken forward in the final design scheme.

7.12.3.              Cumulative Effects Assessment

162. An assessment description of the likely significance of the cumulative effects of the Proposed Development upon ecology receptors arising from each identified impact is given below.
163. Table 7.22 provides an overview of residual effects on IEFs from each of the scoped-in developments to allow an assessment of overall cumulative effect.

Table 7.22: Summary of Residual Effects of Scoped in Developments on IEFs

HABITAT LOSS/Disturbance

Tier 1 & Tier 2

Construction phase

Magnitude of impact

Designated Sites

164. As described in Table 7.22, no significant impacts on designated site IEFs considered within this assessment were predicted during the construction of the scoped in developments.
165. The cumulative effect and magnitude are predicted to be as follows for each designated site:

• Dunglass Burn LNCS: local spatial extent, medium term duration, intermittent and medium reversibility. It is predicted that the impact will affect the receptor directly. The magnitude is therefore considered to be medium.
• Thornton Glen SWT: local spatial extent, short term duration, intermittent and medium reversibility. It is predicted that the impact will affect the receptor directly. The magnitude is therefore, considered to be low.
• Dryburn Valley LNCS: local spatial extent, medium term duration, intermittent and medium reversibility. It is predicted that the impact will affect the receptor directly. The magnitude is therefore considered to be medium.

Habitats

166. As described in Table 7.22, no significant impacts on habitat IEFs considered within this assessment were predicted during the construction of the scoped in developments.
167. The cumulative effect and magnitude are predicted to be as follows for each habitat IEF:

• Dense/scattered scrub: local spatial extent, medium term duration, intermittent and medium reversibility. It is predicted that the impact will affect the receptor directly. The magnitude is therefore considered to be medium.
• Species-poor hedgerow: local spatial extent, medium term duration, intermittent and medium reversibility. It is predicted that the impact will affect the receptor directly. The magnitude is therefore considered to be medium.
• Running water: local spatial extent, medium-term duration, intermittent and high reversibility. It is predicted that the impact will affect the receptor indirectly (Skateraw Dean and Braid Burn) and directly (unnamed watercourse). The magnitude is therefore considered to be negligible.

Sensitivity of receptor

Designated Sites

168. The sensitivity of each designated site IEF is as per Section 121, 129, 136 and 144 above.
169. The overall sensitivity of each designated site is:

• Dunglass Burn LNCS: low vulnerability, medium recoverability and local value. The sensitivity of the receptor is therefore considered to be low.
• Thornton Glen SWT: medium vulnerability, low recoverability and local value. The sensitivity of the receptor is therefore considered to be low.
• Dryburn Valley LNCS: medium vulnerability, medium recoverability and local value. The sensitivity of the receptors is therefore considered to be low.

Protected Habitats

170. The sensitivity of each habitat IEF is as per Section 151, 159, 167 above.
171. The overall sensitivity of each habitat IEF is:

• Dense/scattered scrub: low vulnerability, medium recoverability and local value. The sensitivity of the receptor is therefore considered to be low.
• Species-poor hedgerow: low vulnerability, medium recoverability and local value. The sensitivity of the receptor is therefore considered to be low.
• Running water: medium vulnerability, medium recoverability and local value. The sensitivity of the receptor is therefore, considered to be low.

Significance of effect

Designated Sites

172. As summarised in Table 7.22 no significant cumulative effect on the designated site IEFs is considered likely.

• Dunglass Burn LNCS: overall the magnitude of the cumulative effect is deemed to be medium and the sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be low. The cumulative effect will therefore be of minor adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms.
• Thornton Glen SWT: overall the magnitude of the cumulative effect is deemed to be low and the sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be low. The cumulative effect will therefore be negligible to minor adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms.
• Dryburn Valley LNCS: overall the magnitude of the cumulative effect is deemed to be medium and the sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be low. The cumulative effect will therefore be of minor adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms.

Protected Habitats

173. As summarised in Table 7.22 no significant cumulative effect on the habitat IEFs is considered likely.

• Dense/scattered scrub: overall the magnitude of the cumulative effect is deemed to be medium and the sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be low. The cumulative effect will therefore be of minor adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms.
• Species-poor hedgerow: overall the magnitude of the cumulative effect is deemed to be medium and the sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be low. The cumulative effect will therefore be of minor adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms.
• Running water: overall the magnitude of the cumulative effect is deemed to be negligible and the sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be low. The cumulative effect will therefore be negligible to minor adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms.

Secondary mitigation and residual effect

174. No secondary mitigation is considered necessary because the likely effect in the absence of secondary mitigation is not significant in EIA terms.

7.12.4.              Proposed Monitoring

175. No monitoring is considered necessary.

7.13. Inter-Related Effects

176. A description of the likely inter-related effects arising from the Proposed Development on onshore ecology is provided in Volume 4, Appendix 15.1 of the Onshore EIA Report.

7.14. Summary of Impacts, Mitigation Measures, Likely Significant Effects and Monitoring

177. Information on onshore ecology within the ecology study area was collected through a desktop study and site-specific surveys including a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal and targeted surveys for badger, otter, water vole, bats and great crested newts. The scope and area of survey was agreed in consultation with NatureScot. Table 7.23 presents a summary of the potential impacts, mitigation measures and the conclusion of likely significant effects in EIA terms in respect to onshore ecology. The impacts assessed include: habitat loss and disturbance. Overall, it is concluded that there will be no likely significant effects arising from the Proposed Development during the construction, operation and maintenance or decommissioning phases.
178. Table 7.24 presents a summary of the potential cumulative impacts, mitigation measures and the conclusion of likely significant effects. The cumulative effects assessed include: habitat loss and disturbance. Overall, it is concluded that there will be no likely significant cumulative effects from the Proposed Development alongside other projects/plans.

7.14.2.              Intertidal Area

179. Given that the Applicant is committed to using trenchless techniques (e.g. HDD) to cross the intertidal zone, it has been concluded in both this assessment and Volume 2, Chapter 8, Section 8.15 of the Offshore EIA Report that there will be no effects on intertidal habitats from either the OnTW (see Section 7.8 - Table 7.15) or the offshore transmission works (OfTW).  This includes no effects on features of the Barns Ness SSSI.

Table 7.23: Summary of Likely Significant Environmental Effects, Mitigation and Monitoring

Table 7.24: Summary of Likely Significant Cumulative Environment Effects, Mitigation and Monitoring

7.15. References

Literature

CIEEM (2018). Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK and Ireland: Terrestrial, Freshwater, Coastal and Marine. Version 1.1, updated September 2019. Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management, Winchester.

East Lothian Biodiversity Partnership (2008). East Lothian Biodiversity Action Plan 2008-13. August 2008.

East Lothian Council (2018). East Lothian Council Local Development Plan, 2018. Available online at: https://www.eastlothian.gov.uk/info/210547/planning_and_building_standards/12242/local_development_plan/2 (accessed March 2022).

East Lothian Council (2019). East Lothian Council LDP 2018 Supplementary Guidance: Green Network Strategy. Available online at: https://www.eastlothian.gov.uk/downloads/file/30113/green_network_strategy_spg (accessed March 2022).

ITPEnergised (2022a). Berwick Bank EIA, Ecology Chapter, Technical Appendix 7.1, Preliminary Ecological Appraisal including Desk Study. ITPEnergised, Edinburgh.

ITPEnergised (2022b). Berwick Bank EIA, Ecology Chapter, Technical Appendix 7.2, Protected Species Report. ITPEnergised, Edinburgh.

ITPEnergised (2022c). Berwick Bank EIA, Ecology Chapter, Technical Appendix 7.3, Bats. ITPEnergised, Edinburgh.

JNCC (2010). Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey – a technique for environmental audit, revised re-print. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough, UK.

Langton TES, Beckett CL and Foster JP (2001). Great Crested Newt Conservation Handbook, Froglife, Halesworth.

Maddock, A., (2011). UK Biodiversity Action Plan; Priority Habitat Descriptions. BRIG (ed. Ant Maddock) 2008. (Updated Dec 2011). Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough.

Met Office (2022). UK Climate Projections (UKCP). Available at: https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/approach/collaboration/ukcp.

Patterson G, Nelson D, Robertson P and Tullis J (2014). Scotland’s Native Woodlands: Results from the Native Woodland Survey of Scotland. Forestry Commission Scotland, January 2014.

Scottish Government (2013). Scottish Biodiversity List. Available online at: https://www2.gov.scot/Topics/Environment/Wildlife-Habitats/16118/Biodiversitylist/SBL  (accessed March 2022).

Scottish Government (2000). Planning for Natural Heritage: Planning Advice Note 60. Available online at: https://www2.gov.scot/Publications/2000/08/pan60-root/pan60 (accessed February 2022).

Scottish Government (2023). National Planning Framework 4. Available online at:  https://www.gov.scot/publications/national-planning-framework-4/ (accessed February 2023).

SEPA (2009) Temporary Construction Methods. Engineering in the Water Environment Good Practice Guide. https://www.sepa.org.uk/media/150997/wat_sg_29.pdf

SEPA (2017). Guidance on Assessing the Impacts of Development Proposals on Groundwater Abstractions and Groundwater Dependent Terrestrial Ecosystems. Version 3. Land Use Planning System SEPA Guidance Note 31.

Wilkinson, J.W., Arnell, A., Driver, D. & Driver, B. 2014. Elaborating the distribution of the great crested newt in Scotland (2010-2011). Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 793.

[1] Areas where land access was agreed, and land could be safely accessed.

[2] Habitat IEFs not brought forward for assessment detailed in Table 7.15.