8. ORNITHOLOGY

8.1. Introduction

  1. This chapter presents the assessment of the likely significant effects of the Berwick Bank Wind Farm onshore transmission works (OnTW) (the Proposed Development) on ornithology. Specifically, the chapter considers the potential impacts of the Proposed Development which lies landward of Mean Low Water Springs (MLWS) during the construction, operation and maintenance, and decommissioning phases.
  2. The potential effects of the offshore components of the Project (Berwick Bank Wind Farm and associated offshore transmission infrastructure) on intertidal ornithology have been assessed in the offshore EIA Report - Volume 2, Chapter 11, Offshore and Intertidal Ornithology.   The Offshore EIA Report is available online at the Berwick Bank Wind Farm website; www.berwickbank.com.
  3. This assessment is informed by the following chapters:
  • Chapter 5: Proposed Development Description; and
  • Chapter 7: Ecology.
    1. This chapter summarises information contained within:
  • Volume 4, Appendix 7.1: Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) including Desk Study;
  • Volume 4, Appendix 8.1: Breeding Bird Survey (BBS);
  • Volume 4, Appendix 8.2: Wintering Bird Survey (WBS); and
  • Standalone Document: Report to Inform Appropriate Assessment (RIAA).

8.2. Purpose of this Chapter

  1. This chapter:
  • Presents the existing environmental baseline established from desk studies, site-specific surveys and consultation with stakeholders;
  • Identifies any assumptions and limitations encountered in compiling the environmental information;
  • Presents the potential environmental impacts on onshore and intertidal ornithology arising from the Proposed Development, and reaches a conclusion on the likely significant effects on ornithology based on the information gathered and the analysis and assessments undertaken; and
  • Highlights any necessary monitoring and/or mitigation measures recommended to prevent, minimise, reduce or offset the likely significant adverse environmental effects of the Proposed Development on ornithology.

8.3. Study Area

  1. Appropriate study areas for each specific survey were derived from best practice guidance in areas with available access and were agreed with NatureScot (See Table 8.2) in advance of surveys.  The surveys completed are as follows:
  • Breeding bird survey (BBS study area): the red line boundary as June 2020 (slightly larger than the scoping boundary) plus accessible areas up to 500 m;
  • Wintering bird survey (WBS study area): the red line boundary as October 2020 (slightly larger than the scoping boundary) plus accessible areas up to 250 m;
  • Ornithology desk study (ornithology desk study area): the red line boundary and up to 20 km for nature designations and 5 km for species of conservation concern;
  • Intertidal ornithology survey (Intertidal study area) extends approximately 6 km along the coast to cover the two proposed landfall locations that were covered during the surveys and includes nearshore surveys which extend up to 1.5 km seaward from Mean High Water Springs (MHWS).
    1. The BBS study area, WBS study area and ornithology desk study areas are shown in Volume 2, Figure 8.1. and 8.2. The Intertidal study area is shown in Offshore EIA – Volume 2, Chapter 11, Offshore and Intertidal Ornithology.
    2. The planning application boundary for the Application extends to MLWS.  The infrastructure to be located between MHWS and MLWS consists of cables to be installed via trenchless technology (e.g. HDD).  Impacts associated with this infrastructure have been assessed in the Offshore EIA Report (Volume 2, Chapter 11, Offshore and Intertidal Ornithology), although given the commitment to use trenchless technology no likely significant effects have been predicted.
    3. The potential effects of the onshore infrastructure located above MHWS on the intertidal area have been assessed in this chapter.
    4. The first above ground works are located approximately 100 m inland at the landfall location at Skateraw. Given the inland location of the start of proposed onshore works and using a predicted impact on birds due to works being at its maximum 500 m, only registrations from the intertidal ornithology surveys within 500 m of MHWS are considered relevant to this chapter. All results from over 500 m of the MHWS or recorded around the southern proposed landfall are excluded.

8.4. Policy and Legislative context

  1. A summary of the policy provisions relevant to ornithology are provided in Table 8.1 below. A detailed look at all the planning and legislative policy is detailed in Volume 1, Chapter 3 and a summary of the legislative provisions relevant to ornithology are provided in Table 8.2   Open ▸ below.
Table 8.1:
Summary of Relevant Policy and Guidance

Table 8.1: Summary of Relevant Policy and Guidance

Table 8.2:
Summary of Legislation Relevant to Ornithology

Table 8.2: Summary of Legislation Relevant to Ornithology

8.5. Consultation

  1. A summary of the key issues raised during consultation activities undertaken to date specific to ornithology is presented in Table 8.3   Open ▸ below, together with how these issues have been considered in the production of this ornithology chapter. Further detail is presented within Volume 1, Chapter 2 of the Onshore EIA Report and the Pre-Application Consultation (PAC) Report.
Table 8.3:
Summary of Key Consultation Undertaken for the Proposed Development Relevant to Ornithology

Table 8.3: Summary of Key Consultation Undertaken for the Proposed Development Relevant to Ornithology

8.6. Methodology to Inform Baseline

  1. This section identifies the key ornithology and nature conservation issues which have been considered as part of the Ornithological Impact Assessment, describes the methods used to establish baseline conditions.

8.6.1.    Design Iteration

  1. The following assessment is based on the final onshore cable route, which has undergone various iterations over an extended process that has taken into account a variety of potential constraints. Ultimately, the final design (Volume 2, Figure 5.1) is one that has taken into consideration all of these constraints and where reasonably practicable aimed to lessen the potential for any impacts to be experienced by any single receptor across the variety of disciplines that have all provided input into the Proposed Development’s final layout (further details on design iteration are provided in Volume 1, Chapter 4).

8.6.2.    Ornithological Desk Study

  1. International ornithology-related designations, i.e., SPAs and Ramsar sites, were identified within 20 km of the onshore site boundary and national designations with bird interest features, including SSSIs, National Parks, and National Nature Reserves (NNRs), as well as statutory local designations i.e. Local Nature Reserves (LNRs), were identified within 5 km of the onshore site boundary. Non-statutory designations with bird interest features, such as Local Wildlife Sites (LWSs) and Sites of Interest for Nature Conservation (SINCs) were identified within 2 km of the onshore site boundary.
  2. A request for external data was also undertaken that included obtaining data from The Wildlife Information Centre (TWIC). Specific details are presented as part of Volume 4, Appendix 7.1 as well as further consideration in Volume 4, Appendix 8.1 and 8.2. This data was used to confirm the historical presence of any legally protected or otherwise notable species (i.e. Schedule 1, Annex 1, Birds of Conservation Concern (BoCC) Red and Amber listed and Scottish Priority List (SPL) species, either nationally or within the East Lothian Local Biodiversity Action Plan (LBAP)) ranging to within 5km of the onshore site boundary and in line with the current CIEEM guidelines (CIEEM, 2019).
  3. These are summarised in Table 8.4   Open ▸ below.
Table 8.4:
Summary of Key Desktop Studies & Datasets

Table 8.4: Summary of Key Desktop Studies & Datasets

8.6.3.    Site-Specific Surveys

  1. To inform the ornithology chapter, site-specific surveys were undertaken, as agreed with NatureScot (See Table 8.3   Open ▸ ). A summary of the surveys undertaken to inform the ornithological assessment of effects are outlined in Table 8.5   Open ▸ below.

Table 8.5:
Summary of Site-Specific Survey Data

Table 8.5: Summary of Site-Specific Survey Data

8.6.4.    Evaluation Methods for Ornithological Features

Evaluation Methods for Ornithological Features

  1. Table 8.6 lists the criteria used to determine the value of ornithological features in a geographical context.
Table 8.6:
Geographical Evaluation Criteria

Table 8.6: Geographical Evaluation Criteria

  1. Where a feature qualifies under two or more criteria, the higher value is applied to the feature.
  2. The Geographical Evaluation Criteria as displayed in Table 8.6 is applied to all features and species identified as part of the baseline with those considered to be of local or higher value considered to be Important Ornithological Features (IOFs) and carried forward for assessment. The full impact assessment methodology is outlined in Section 8.9 below.

8.7. Baseline Environment

8.7.1.    Overview of Baseline Environment

  1. This section of the chapter details the results of the desk study and field surveys conducted along the onshore cable corridor and respective study areas, providing the baseline conditions from which an impact assessment is based. This includes:
  • Designated sites and desk study/external data; and
  • Protected and notable bird species.
    1. The full list of all bird species (including common and widespread species not considered as part of the assessment) that were recorded during the desk study and both field surveys are listed along with the species scientific names in the relevant Appendix, i.e., Volume 4, Appendices 7.1, 8.1 and 8.2).

8.7.2.    Desk Study

Nature Conservation Designations

  1. As shown on Volume 2, Figure 8.2   Open ▸ and detailed in Table 8.7, there are four nature conservation designations of international importance within 20 km of the Proposed Development and no nature conservation designations of national or local importance designated for ornithological reason within 5 km of the Proposed Development. A detailed description of the designated sites is found in Technical Appendices 8.1 and 8.2 and Standalone Document RIAA.
Table 8.7:
Designated Sites

Table 8.7: Designated Sites

  1. In this assessment, the qualifying species are regarded as features of international importance while qualifying species of assemblages are considered features of national importance and together they form the key part of the ornithological assessment below. Due to the possible connectivity of the site and SPA qualifying bird populations, these species are also discussed in the Standalone Document RIAA.

Species

  1. A total of 128 bird species have been recorded within 5 km of the site in the last ten years. Of these, 31 species are listed on Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), 23 are listed within Annex 1 of the Birds Directive 2009, and 44 are listed on the Scottish Biodiversity List. Thirty are included on the BoCC Red List and a further 51 species are Amber-Listed.
  2. Of the 128 bird species recorded within 5 km of the site, a total of 33 species designated either as designated species or part of an assemblage within the four SPAs outlined above were recorded. Of the 33 species recorded, 31 were recorded at least once within the site in the last ten years (2011-2021). Full details of the SPA qualifying species identified in the desk study are shown in Table 8.8 below and the full list outlined in Volume 4, Appendix 7.1.
Table 8.8:
Desk Study - SPA Qualifying Species

Table 8.8: Desk Study - SPA Qualifying Species

8.7.3.    Field survey

  1. Specific details relating to field survey methodologies and results are included within each of the relevant Volume 4, Appendices 8.1 and 8.2. The following section summarises the baseline conditions with a summary of relevant results used to inform the assessment of likely ornithological impacts provided below.
  2. Details of the numbers, timings, scientific names as well as the locations of breeding and wintering species are presented in full in Volume 4, Appendices 8.1 and 8.2 and shown in Volume 4, Appendix Figure 8.1.4 and Appendix Figures 8.2.3-8.2.5, and Volume 5, Confidential Appendix Figure 8.1.3 and Confidential Appendix Figure 8.2.6 Any species that were not recorded during the breeding bird survey are not considered to be breeding within the site.
  3. Details of the locations and numbers of all intertidal survey results can be found in Tables 2-6 and Figures 5.1-5.57 in Offshore EIA – Volume 3, Appendix 11.2: Ornithology Inter-tidal Survey Report.

SPA Qualifying Species

Pink-footed goose
  1. Pink-footed geese were recorded on all four visits of the wintering bird survey, with 51 registrations of a combined total of 4,139 individuals recorded across the four survey visits. Of those 4,139 individuals, 3,146 were recorded during the first survey visit in October 2020 and included two large groups of 1,250 and 640 birds, respectively (Volume 4, Appendix Figure 8.2.3). A total of 42 individuals were recorded flying over the area during the second of the intertidal surveys in September 2020.
Eider
  1. Eiders were recorded on one occasion, during the fourth survey visit of the wintering bird survey in February 2021, when a group of 36 birds was noted close to the cable landfall along the coastline (Volume 4, Appendix Figure 8.2.3). Eiders were frequently recorded along the shoreline during the intertidal surveys.
Shelduck
  1. A single shelduck was recorded twice, during the first and fourth survey visit of the wintering bird survey in February 2021, in a location north-west of Torness Power Station, within the site boundary approximately 100 m east of the landfall (Volume 4, Appendix Figure 8.2.3). Shelduck were recorded regularly in the intertidal zone in small numbers during intertidal surveys.
Golden plover
  1. Golden plovers were not recorded during the breeding bird surveys but were recorded in all four survey visits of the wintering bird survey. A total of 15 registrations of golden plover, with a combined total of 893 individuals, were made. These included five large flocks of over 100 birds recorded in coastal lowland fields (Volume 4, Appendix Figure 8.2.4). Golden plover were not recorded during intertidal surveys.
Redshank
  1. Redshanks were commonly recorded along the coastal strip during both the breeding and wintering bird surveys, but no evidence of breeding activity was recorded. All of the records were along the coast on either side of the cable landfall location, with a maximum count of 13 individuals on the fourth visit in February 2021(Volume 4, Appendix Figure 8.2.4). Redshank were recorded regularly in the intertidal zone in small numbers during intertidal surveys.
Turnstone
  1. Turnstones were recorded in small numbers along the coastal strip west of Torness Power Station during all four wintering bird survey visits, with a combined total of 20 individuals recorded. Turnstone were not recorded during the breeding bird survey (Volume 4, Appendix Figure 8.2.4). Turnstone were regularly recorded in the intertidal zone during intertidal surveys.
Gannet
  1. Gannets were only recorded once, with a single bird noted on the coast during the second wintering bird survey visit in December 2020 (Volume 4, Appendix Figure 8.2.5). Gannet were recorded regularly during intertidal surveys with the closest record being over 400 m of the landfall.
Sandwich tern
  1. A total of three Sandwich terns were recorded offshore along the coast during the first breeding bird survey visit in June 2020. None were recorded onshore. Sandwich tern were occasionally recorded during intertidal surveys the majority of records over 500 m from the landfall.

SPA Assemblage Qualifying Species

Wigeon
  1. The only record of this species was a single bird recorded during the fourth survey visit of the wintering bird survey in February 2021, in a location north-west of Torness Power Station (Volume 4, Appendix Figure 8.2.3). Wigeon were recorded on five occasions within 500 m of the landfall during intertidal surveys.
Goldeneye
  1. The only records of this species are small numbers (seven birds or less) on four occasions within 500 m of the landfall during intertidal surveys and three records within the site during the desk study.
Red-breasted merganser
  1. The only records of this species are small numbers (five birds or less) on six occasions within 500 m of the landfall during intertidal surveys and two records within the site during the desk study.
Curlew
  1. A total of 40 registrations of curlews, totalling 440 individuals, were made during the wintering bird survey, with numbers spread evenly across the four survey visits. Curlews were also regularly recorded during the breeding bird survey along the coastal strip but no evidence of breeding activity was noted (Volume 4, Appendix Figure 8.2.4). Small numbers of curlew were regularly recorded during the intertidal surveys in all 12 months.
Dunlin
  1. Dunlins were recorded twice, with a group of 2 and a group of 30 recorded along the intertidal area during the first and third survey visits of the wintering bird survey (Volume 4, Appendix Figure 8.2.4). Dunlin were regularly recorded intertidal surveys between August 2020 and June 2021.
Grey plover
  1. Grey plovers were recorded twice, with a group of 22 and a group of two recorded along the intertidal area during third and fourth survey visit of the wintering bird survey (Volume 4, Appendix Figure 8.2.4). Small numbers of grey plover were recorded during intertidal surveys.
Lapwing
  1. Lapwings were recorded occasionally in the breeding bird survey but involved individuals loafing or foraging in coastal field, and no evidence of breeding activity was noted. Occasional large groups, with two comprising over 200 birds, were recorded during the wintering bird surveys, and lapwings were recorded during all four survey visits using coastal farmland field to roost and forage (Volume 4, Appendix Figure 8.2.4). Lapwing were not recorded during intertidal surveys.
Oystercatcher
  1. Oystercatchers were commonly recorded in the breeding bird survey and wintering bird survey. Although no confirmed breeding activity was recorded, it is considered likely they did breed within the study area. The majority of records were made along the coast on either side of the cable landfall location (Volume 4, Appendix Figure 8.2.4). The intertidal surveys recorded oystercatcher in all surveys with birds recorded during each of the monthly surveys and a maximum of 69 birds recorded in October.
Ringed plover
  1. Ringed plovers were occasionally recorded during the breeding bird survey but not during the wintering bird survey, and no confirmed breeding activity was recorded within the study area. The records were along the coast either side of the landfall zone (Volume 4, Appendix Figure 8.2.4). The intertidal surveys recorded ringed plover in small number during all intertidal surveys.
Black-headed gull
  1. Black-headed gulls were widespread and commonly recorded within the study area during both the breeding bird surveys and wintering bird surveys. No records of breeding activity were confirmed during the breeding bird survey (Volume 4, Appendix Figure 8.2.5). The intertidal surveys recorded black-headed gull during each of the monthly surveys.
Common gull
  1. Common gulls were occasionally recorded during the breeding and wintering bird surveys, with a total of 13 registrations made during the second and third wintering bird survey visits and totalling 43 individuals (Volume 4, Appendix Figure 8.2.5). The intertidal surveys recorded common gull during each of the monthly surveys.
Herring gull
  1. Herring gulls were widespread and commonly recorded within the study area during both the breeding bird survey and wintering bird survey. No records of breeding activity were confirmed during the breeding bird survey (Volume 4, Appendix Figure 8.2.5). Herring gulls were recorded during all of the intertidal surveys.
Lesser black-backed gull
  1. Lesser black-backed gulls were widespread and commonly recorded within the study area during the breeding bird survey but no records of breeding activity were confirmed. The species was not recorded in the wintering bird survey. Lesser black-backed gulls were occasionally recorded in low numbers during the intertidal surveys.
Cormorant
  1. Cormorant were only occasionally recorded in winter, with a group of three noted on the coast during the fourth wintering bird survey visit (Volume 4, Appendix Figure 8.2.5). Cormorant were commonly recorded, generally offshore, in small numbers during each of the intertidal surveys.

Schedule 1 Listed Raptors

Peregrine
  1. A pair of peregrines were recorded breeding within the study area, the breeding attempt was successful with two fledglings noted. Peregrine was occasionally recorded during both the breeding bird survey and wintering bird survey both perched and hunting (Volume 5, Confidential Appendix Figure 8.1.3 and Confidential Appendix Figure 8.2.6). Peregrine were not recorded during intertidal surveys.
Merlin
  1. A single record of merlin was noted along the coast during the second wintering bird survey visit (Volume 5, Confidential Appendix Figure 8.2.6). Merlin were not recorded during intertidal surveys.

Other Species

Other Wildfowl
  1. A single record of a bean goose was made during the fourth wintering bird survey visit (Volume 5, Confidential Appendix Figure 8.2.6).
  2. Greylag geese and mallard were commonly recorded in both the breeding bird survey and wintering bird survey. Although neither species were confirmed as breeding, it is considered likely that both species did breed within the study area and so are considered as breeding for the purposes of assessment.
  3. Small numbers of teal and goosander were also recorded in the breeding bird survey but although considered possible they did breed were not confirmed as breeding in the study area. They are considered as breeding for the purposes of assessment.
  4. A single record of brent goose and whooper swan were recorded during intertidal surveys.
Other Waders
  1. Whimbrel were recorded loafing or foraging during the breeding bird survey on the final of the three survey visits and two records were noted during intertidal surveys within 500 m of the landfall. A snipe was recorded during the fourth wintering bird survey visit. Knot, purple sandpiper, and sanderling were recorded occasionally during intertidal surveys.
Other Seabirds
  1. Great black-backed gulls were recorded in small numbers during both breeding and wintering bird survey while a single record of a loafing immature Mediterranean gull was recorded during the second breeding bird survey visit. Intertidal surveys identified a number of seabird species in the open water the only species recorded within 500 m of the proposed landfall being kittiwake, guillemot, and razorbill.
Breeding Bird Assemblage
  1. A total of eight BoCC Red listed, four BoCC Amber listed species and a further fourteen common species were confirmed as breeding with the survey area (Volume 4, Appendix Figure 8.1.4). In addition, and due to the late commencement of the breeding bird survey, a number of the 47 species (See Volume 4: Appendix 8.2) were considered to be likely breeding species and included a further six BoCC Red listed species.
  2. The presence of a broad assemblage of BoCC Red and Amber listed species across the onshore site is typical for lowland and farmland habitats in this part of Scotland.
Wintering Bird Assemblage (Non-SPA Qualifying)
  1. In addition to the species outlined in detail above, a further 25 species of conservation concern were recorded during the four wintering bird survey visits. Of these 25 species, a total of three Schedule 1 listed species were recorded (fieldfare, redwing and snow bunting), 12 were BoCC Red list species, 13 were BoCC Amber list species and 17 are SBL species.
  2. The presence of a broad assemblage of species across the onshore site is to be expected and the assemblage are typical species for lowland, farmland and coastal habitats in this part of Scotland.

Evaluation of Ornithological Features

  1. An evaluation of the baseline ornithological features is presented in Table 8.9 below. Features of local or higher value are considered Important Ornithological Features (IOFs) following CIEEM (2018) and are brought forward to the next stage of the assessment.
Table 8.9:
Summary of Evaluation of Important Ornithological Features (IOF)

Table 8.9: Summary of Evaluation of Important Ornithological Features (IOF)

 

8.7.4.    Future Baseline Scenario

  1. In the event that the onshore site remained undeveloped, aside from slight variations in populations and distribution of the more mobile species, and variations associated with changes to arable cropping and livestock management, it is considered unlikely that there would be any significant change to the baseline conditions within the survey area.
  2. The onshore site is likely to currently support species at or near to its carrying capacity. This means that a net increase in species population numbers would not be expected, should the Proposed Development not proceed.
  3. A summary of the relevant climate change projections using the UK Climate Change Projections (Met Office, 2022) is as follows:
  • Temperatures are projected to increase, particularly in summer;
  • Winter rainfall is projected to increase and summer rainfall is most likely to decrease;
  • Heavy rain days (rainfall greater than 25mm) are projected to increase, particularly in winter;
  • Near surface wind speeds are expected to increase in the second half of the 21st century within winter months experiencing more significant effects of winds; however, the increase is projected to be modest; and
  • There will be an increase in the frequency of winter storms.
    1. Other changes over time may occur as a result of climatic change; although these are difficult to predict they may involve some changes in the vegetation assemblage and the resultant change in habitat may be suitable to differing breeding and wintering bird assemblages.

8.7.5.    Data Assumptions And Limitations

  1. Data limitations include:
  • The desk study provided by TWIC identified species at varying levels of geographical detail. Many of the records were only listed to the nearest 1 km or 2 km national grid square and could therefore only be mapped to this broad scale. Where this was the case, the records were plotted at the south-west corner of the relevant grid square, and the results described using these plotted locations. This approach provides a constant method of displaying the results but it is acknowledged that this may lead to small inaccuracies as a result, e.g. an offshore record could be plotted along the coast or even a small distance inland. Despite these inaccuracies the dataset is expansive and provides a valuable overview of ornithological records across the site and 5 km survey area and is therefore not considered to be a limitation to this assessment. Furthermore, the approach is conservative because the data comprises a number of marine or coastal records and the method may indicate that more such species are present within or close to the site than is actually the case. 
  • Field surveys were delayed due to the Covid-19 pandemic. With the initial lockdown in 2020, and in line with government guidelines, the breeding bird survey commenced later than originally planned. The guidance for lowland breeding bird surveys (Common Bird Census (CBC) – Gilbert et al., 2011) suggests surveys should be spread between April and July, inclusive, whereas the completed survey involved three visits in June and July. The delayed approach was agreed with NatureScot in advance of the first survey visit, and NatureScot agreed that the local breeding bird assemblage was unlikely to be a significant constraint to the proposed works and that the use of an experienced surveyor would provide a comprehensive overview of breeding birds in the survey area. As such the late commencement to surveys is not considered to be significant restriction to the assessment.
  • It should be noted that Version 5 of the BoCC was released in late 2021 but as the surveys pre-dated this they were completed in line with Version 4 classification meaning a small number of species that were on the BoCC green list and have since been reclassified may be under recorded in this assessment.
  • Surveys of the intertidal area in the vicinity of the export cable landfall options were carried out to provide data in relation to potential impacts on estuarine birds in the vicinity. A programme of ‘through the tide’ surveys was designed to capture the numbers and distribution of birds in the intertidal over the full tidal cycle. Surveys were carried out in suitable weather conditions (avoiding times of low visibility and heavy precipitation) and there were no data gaps due to prolonged adverse weather. The intertidal surveys are considered to fulfil the industry standard requirements with no limitations or data gaps in this respect.

8.8. Key Parameters for Assessment

8.8.1.    Maximum Design Scenario

  1. The maximum design scenario(s) involves a 40-month construction period, the only permanent habitat loss is the construction of the onshore substation and watercourse crossings.  Even with a 40-month construction period the works within this time period are temporary and localised within the Proposed Development footprint.
  2. The maximum design scenario(s) are shown in Table 5.1 of Volume 1, Chapter 5 which have been selected as those having the potential to result in the greatest effect on an identified receptor or receptor group. Effects of greater adverse significance are not predicted to arise should any other development scenario, based on details within the Project Design Envelope (e.g. different infrastructure layout), to that assessed here, be taken forward in the final design scheme.
  3. The Proposed Development includes the following works (Table 5.1 of Volume 1, Chapter 5):
  • a new onshore substation;
  • landfall works;

-          up to eight offshore export cables will come to shore and will be connected to the onshore cables via eight buried transition joint bay – this will fall within agricultural land.

  • onshore cables within a cable corridor between the landfall and the new onshore substation, and between the new onshore substation and the SPEN Branxton substation; and
  • associated ancillary infrastructure.
    1. The potential effects that could arise on birds from the maximum design scenario during construction of the Proposed Development are considered to be:

Direct physical damage to nests or nesting birds

  1. The majority of the works including the construction of the substation and the majority of tracks and cabling works will be completed in agricultural fields used for growing cereal crops which is not optimal breeding habitat for the majority of bird species therefore the majority of works will not cause any damage to nests or nesting birds. Any temporary or permanent removal of hedgerows or trees may result in birds losing nesting habitat but given the immediate reinstatement of habitats any losses will be highly localised and will only occur in the breeding season the works are undertaken in.

Disturbance and displacement from foraging, roosting or nesting areas

  1. As discussed above the majority of the will be completed in open agricultural fields, much of which is used to grow crops. These areas are unlikely to contain nests but the fields may be used by foraging or roosting birds. Therefore, the presence of construction activities including the movement of plant vehicles and site personnel, noise and visual disturbance created by works have the potential to disturb roosting and wintering birds during both the breeding and winter seasons, but it is more likely to be significant during the winter months when fields are bare and used by groups of birds species such as waders and geese. The impacts of works on these birds are considered to be limited as there are large areas of similar habitats spreading both north and south of the proposed works and available in the immediate vicinity for any displaced birds to relocate.

Direct temporary or permanent loss of habitat for the construction requirements (such as the substation) and permanent infrastructure

  1. As mentioned above the majority of works including the permanent structures created during the construction works will be located in open areas in agricultural fields. The loss of habitat from these works is considered to have minimal impact on bird species with significant and widespread habitats available in the immediate and wider area. Any loss of higher value habitat for birds such as hedgerow will be replaced, meaning any impact will be short term and not significant.

Indirect effects from pollution such as dust / water run off

  1. There is a risk of accidental pollution from construction activities. Pollution incidents may impact birds through contamination. This could adversely affect breeding behaviour and success, and in some rare cases be fatal. However, with the implementation of a CEMP, pollution events are likely to be rare and the associated effects would be highly localised and small scale and very unlikely to impact nesting birds.
  2. Other indirect impacts include the creation of dust during works which may spread to areas of breeding, foraging and roosting birds. Any such impacts are likely to be highly localised and will quickly disperse across the habitat and is unlikely to cause any significant effects on birds.
  3. The same effects described above are considered to occur during operation and decommissioning of the Proposed Development but are considered to be lower.

8.8.2.    IOFs Scoped out of the Assessment

  1. As noted in Section 8.6, under evaluation methods for IOFs, ornithological features of local and higher value are considered IOFs. Due to a range of factors, some of these IOFs can be scoped-out of further consideration if they are not vulnerable to effects from the Proposed Development.

Construction phase

  1. Following evaluation of the baseline data, including desk study and field survey data, and considering the primary and tertiary mitigation measures described in Section 8.10, some potential effects on IOFs can be scoped out of the assessment, as described in Table 8.10 below. This is based on professional judgement and experience from other relevant projects in the region.
  2. The subsequent assessment of effects will be applied to IOFs considered to be of local, council, national, and international Nature Conservation Value ( Table 8.10   Open ▸ ) that are known to be present within the Study areas (as confirmed through survey results and consultations outlined above).
Table 8.10:
Important Ornithological Features Scoped In or Out of the Assessment

Table 8.10: Important Ornithological Features Scoped In or Out of the Assessment

8.9. Methodology for Assessment of Effects

8.9.1.    Overview

  1. The ornithological assessment of effects has followed the methodology set out Volume 1, Chapter 2 of the Onshore EIA Report. Specific to the assessment of ornithology, the following guidance documents have also been considered:
  • Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK and Ireland (Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM), 2018);
  • Guidelines for Environmental Impact Assessment (Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA), 2005);
  • Survey Methods for Use in Assessing the Impacts of Onshore Wind Farms on Bird Communities (SNH, 2017);
  • Assessing Connectivity with Special Protection Areas (2016); and
  • Assessing the Cumulative Impact of Onshore Wind Energy Developments (SNH, 2012).

8.9.2.    Impact Assessment Criteria

  1. The approach to the Ecological Impact Assessment, including the ornithology impact assessment (EcIA) follows the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management guidelines (CIEEM, 2018), which prescribe an industry-standard method to define, predict and assess potential ecological effects to a given Proposed Development. Although the CIEEM guidelines do differ slightly from those prescribed in the standard EIA methodology (as outlined in Volume 1, Chapter 2), this approach is designed specifically for ecological and ornithological impact assessment.
  2. Starting with establishing the baseline through a mix of desk study and field survey, key ornithological features (the IOFs) are identified and those requiring assessment established through a reasoned process of valuation and consideration of factors, such as statutory requirements, policy objectives for biodiversity, conservation status of the IOF (species), connectivity and spatial separation from the Proposed Development (refer to Table 8.10   Open ▸ ). From this stage, these features are assessed for impacts with the assumption of this being in the presence of construction industry-standard or (tertiary) mitigations to ameliorate impacts as far as reasonably practicable. Additional mitigation strategies can then be determined to further reduce any residual impacts that would otherwise be experienced by the IOF and any opportunities for enhancement identified.
  3. In summary, the impact assessment process (CIEEM, 2018) involves:
  • identifying and characterising impacts and their effects;
  • incorporating measures to avoid and mitigate negative impacts and effects;
  • assessing the significance of any residual effects after mitigation;
  • identifying appropriate compensation measures to offset significant residual effects; and
  • identifying opportunities for ecological enhancement.

Ornithological Zone of Influence

  1. The Ornithological Zone of Influence (OZoI) is defined as the area within which there may be ornithological features subject to effects from the Proposed Development. Such effects could be direct (e.g. habitat loss resulting from works disturbing or destroying a breeding attempt) or indirect (e.g. prey species being caused to move or leave the area thus leading to a species to move out of the OZoI). The OZoI is determined through:
  • Review of the existing baseline conditions based on desk study results, field surveys and information supplied by consultees;
  • Identification of sensitivities of ornithological features, where known;
  • The outline design of the Proposed Development and approach to construction; and
  • Through liaison with other technical specialists involved in the assessment, e.g. hydrologists and noise specialists.

Temporal Scope

  1. Potential impacts on ornithological features have been assessed in the context of how the predicted baseline conditions within the OZoI might change between the surveys and the start of construction. It is anticipated that construction would take approximately 40 months to complete and would be expected to commence in c.2024.

Characterising Ornithological Impacts and Effects

  1. In accordance with the CIEEM guidelines, the following definitions are used for the terms ‘impact’ and ‘effect’:
  • Impact – Actions resulting in changes to an ornithological feature. For example, the construction activities of a development removing a hedgerow; and
  • Effect – Outcome to an ornithological feature from an impact. For example, the effects on a species population from loss of a hedgerow.
    1. In accordance with the CIEEM guidelines, when determining impacts on IOFs, reference is made to the following:
  • Positive or negative – i.e. whether the impact has a positive or negative effect in terms of nature conservation objectives and policy;
  • Magnitude – i.e. the size of an impact, in quantitative terms where possible;
  • Extent – i.e. the area over which an impact occurs;
  • Duration – i.e. the time for which an impact is expected to last;
  • Timing and frequency – i.e. whether impacts occur during critical life stages or seasons; and
  • Reversibility – i.e. a permanent impact is one that is irreversible within a reasonable timescale or for which there is no reasonable chance of action being taken to reverse it. A temporary impact is one from which a spontaneous recovery is possible.
    1. Both direct and indirect impacts are considered: Direct ornithological impacts are changes that are directly attributable to a defined action, e.g. the physical loss of habitat occupied by a species during the construction process. Indirect ornithological impacts are attributable to an action but affect ornithological resources through effects on an intermediary ecosystem, process or feature, e.g. fencing of a development site and subsequent lack of grazing may create suitable grassland for ground nesting birds.
    2. For the purposes of this assessment, the predicted impacts on an ornithological feature are categorised as ‘no impact’, ‘barely perceptible’, ‘low’, ‘medium’ or ‘high’, based on the definitions in Table 8.11   Open ▸ with temporal impacts in Table 8.12.
Table 8.11:
Levels of Spatial Magnitude of Impact

Table 8.11: Levels of Spatial Magnitude of Impact

Table 8.12:
Levels of Temporal Magnitude of Impact

Table 8.12: Levels of Temporal Magnitude of Impact

  1. In terms of ornithology the sensitivity of a species is key to understanding the potential impacts of works and therefore understand the effects on birds. In considering sensitivity, the key impacts due to disturbance of bird species caused by the works at the Site. The impacts will be different in their scale depends on the conservation importance of the species (Outlined in Table 8.6) as well as the behaviour and activities of that bird. The impacts for example on a breeding bird could lead to a failed breeding attempt and significantly impact on that bird at that time, a loafing or foraging bird may be disturbed but in will simply relocate to another location.
  2. NatureScot (2022) has produced a review of disturbance distance on selected both breeding and wintering bird species and will be used as the basis for the sensitivity criteria outlined below. If the bird species being considered in the assessment is not covered by the guidance, a similar species will be used.
  3. Sensitivity is considered to be either high, medium or low and shown in Table 8.13.
Table 8.13:
Levels of Sensitivity of the Receptor

Table 8.13: Levels of Sensitivity of the Receptor