8. ORNITHOLOGY

8.1. Introduction

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.
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.
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

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

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

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 8.2: Summary of Legislation Relevant to Ornithology

8.5. Consultation

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

8.6. Methodology to Inform Baseline

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

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

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.
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).
These are summarised in Table 8.4 Open ▸ below.

Table 8.4: Summary of Key Desktop Studies & Datasets

8.6.3. Site-Specific Surveys

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

8.6.4. Evaluation Methods for Ornithological Features

Evaluation Methods for Ornithological Features

Table 8.6 lists the criteria used to determine the value of ornithological features in a geographical context.

Table 8.6: Geographical Evaluation Criteria

Where a feature qualifies under two or more criteria, the higher value is applied to the feature.
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

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

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

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

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.
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

8.7.3. Field survey

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.
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.
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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A single record of a bean goose was made during the fourth wintering bird survey visit (Volume 5, Confidential Appendix Figure 8.2.6).
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.
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.
A single record of brent goose and whooper swan were recorded during intertidal surveys.

Other Waders

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

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

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.
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)

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.
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

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)

8.7.4. Future Baseline Scenario

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.
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.
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

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

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.
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.
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

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

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

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

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.
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.
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

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

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.
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

8.9. Methodology for Assessment of Effects

8.9.1. Overview

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

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.
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.
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

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

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

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 8.12: Levels of Temporal Magnitude of Impact

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.
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.
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

Determining Ornithologically Significant Effects

The significance of the effect is then calculated using the following matrix (Table 8.14). There is a degree of blurring between different level of significance which are described for example moderate to minor, in these situations professional judgment of the author is used.

Table 8.14: Matrix to Determine Significance of the Effect

For the purposes of this assessment:

a level of effect of moderate or more will be considered a ‘significant’ effect in terms of the EIA Regulations; and
a level of effect of minor or less will be considered ‘not significant’ in terms of the EIA Regulations.
1. A significant effect, in ornithological terms, is defined as an effect (whether adverse or beneficial) on the integrity of a defined site or ecosystem and/or the conservation status of species within a given geographical area, including cumulative and in-combination impacts.
2. In accordance with the CIEEM guidelines, the approach adopted 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 ornithological 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.
3. In accordance with the current CIEEM guidelines, effects of impacts are assessed in the presence of standard (tertiary) mitigation measures. Additional (secondary) mitigation may be identified where it is required to reduce a significant effect.
4. 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.
5. In addition to determining the significance of effects on IOFs, this chapter also identifies any legal requirements in relation to ornithology.

8.10. Primary & Tertiary Mitigation

As part of the project design process, a number of measures have been proposed to reduce the potential for impacts on ornithology (see Table 8.15 Open ▸ ). 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 8.11 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.
Primary mitigation includes the following design measures:

The onshore cabling will be installed alongside tracks and/or field margins wherever reasonably practicable to minimise habitat loss and/or disturbance;
Proximity to watercourses has been avoided wherever reasonably practicable;
Areas considered to be more sensitive in terms of protected habitats were considered during the design process and avoided where reasonably practicable along the entirety of the onshore cable route; and
A proposed planting scheme, as part of a Habitat Enhancement and Management Plan (HEMP) will be implemented on the completion of construction at the site. The (HEMP) will be produced for the Site detailing measures to protect existing features for ornithological interests, 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).The planting will involve the creation of native grassland, hedgerow and woodland habitats and will be used to screen the margins of the A1 trunk road and surround the onshore substation. The proposed mitigation will provide improved habitats such as hedgerow and trees for a wide range of species such as yellowhammer, tree sparrow and dunnock while newly created grassland may be used to forage and also for ground nesting species such as meadow pipit and skylark.
1. 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. The ECoW will be present and oversee all construction activities as well as providing toolbox talks to all site personnel with regards to priority species and habitats, as well as undertaking monitoring works.
Protection of breeding bird nests from damage and/or destruction during the breeding season, in accordance with the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended by the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004). Wherever reasonably practicable, all vegetation clearance will occur outside the bird breeding season (i.e. between September – mid-March, inclusive), to avoid damage to or destruction of active nests by the proposed works. If work is required after the mid (15th) March, the ECoW will search areas of clearance in advance of works and recommend a buffer around active nests as appropriate. This would include any areas of clearance and vegetation removal for access tracks, compounds or onshore substation areas due to the populations of ground nesting birds on and around the site.
1. In order to prevent pollution of watercourses within the site (with particulate matter or other pollutants such as fuel), industry standard 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 to be implemented;
For any temporary tracks, parking areas, compounds and onshore substation areas: camber in track or ground design; drains, e.g. infiltration trenches with check dams; and
General drainage: no direct discharges of water from works areas to existing drainage channels or surface watercourses; drainage is expected to be directed to infiltration trenches, settlement swales or lagoons.
1. 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.
2. If maintenance activities are necessary during the operational phase that require excavations or the clearance of hedgerows, trees and/or areas of scrub, such works will only take place following adequate breeding bird checks to determine whether any mitigation measures are required.

Table 8.15: Measure Adopted as Part of the Proposed Development (Primary & Tertiary Mitigation)

8.10.1. Habitats Regulations Appraisal (HRA)

Given the Proposed Development’s proximity to the four SPAs and a Ramsar site, a HRA will be required to assess the effects of the Proposed Development that the integrity of the National Site Network (formerly ‘Natura sites’). Consideration is needed of whether the Proposed Development is likely to have a significant effect on a site forming part of the National Site Network and the potential for adverse effects on the integrity of the designated site.
A standalone Report to inform Appropriate Assessment (RIAA) has therefore been prepared to support the planning application for the Proposed Development. This document sets out where the Stages of the HRA process are mirrored to help inform the competent authority. These are as follows: Stage 1: screening for Likely Significant Effects (LSE), and Stage 2: Appropriate Assessment (AA) where it is assessed whether there are to be adverse impacts on the integrity of a National Site Network site.

8.11. Assessment of Significance

The potential impacts arising from the construction, operational and maintenance and decommissioning phases of the Proposed Development and an assessment of the likely significance of the effects of the Proposed Development on ornithological receptors caused by each identified impact is given below.

Displacement and habitat loss of Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex SPA Qualifying Species - Gulls

Disturbance and habitat loss during construction may lead to displacement of qualifying gull species of the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex SPA.

Construction phase

Magnitude of impact

Wintering black-headed gull

Black-headed gull is a designating feature of the winter assemblage of the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex SPA and a total of 26,835 individuals are cited as part of the designation (NatureScot, 2020). Black-headed gull were commonly recorded during the wintering bird surveys.
Black-headed gull is a widespread species within Scotland throughout all of the year, with an estimated 43,200 breeding pairs and a wintering population of 155,000. Away from breeding grounds black-headed gulls forage on a wide range of habitats including beaches, estuaries, grassland and freshly tilled ground and are mainly found on agricultural land in the winter (Forester et al., 2012).
The majority of the Proposed Development comprises of arable or heavily grazed fields which along with the coastal strip are used by black-headed gulls to forage and roost. A total of 53 registrations totalling 402 individuals (Volume 4, Appendix 8.2 and Appendix Figure 8.2.5) were recorded during the four wintering bird survey visits and it is considered a possibility that these individuals are part of the SPA assemblage population. Black-headed gulls were commonly recorded along the coast during breeding bird surveys and were frequently recorded in the site and wider survey area in the desk study.
Given a total of 402 individuals across the four survey visits, this averages 101 (100.5) individuals, corresponding to 0.38% of the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex SPA designated population which is not considered to be material.
Given their regular presence throughout the year it is considered likely that black-headed gulls will be subjected to issues of disturbance during construction, this impact is considered to be direct. Black-headed gulls are a highly adaptable species often seen following tractors to forage in freshly tilled areas meaning any impacts from disturbance during construction are considered to be very limited. It is considered that disturbance will not impact breeding activity and the fact that similar habitats suitable for this species are present and widespread within the surrounding area, both to the north and south of the Proposed Development, means that construction impacts are assessed to be of short-term duration, reversible and will affect the receptor directly. The magnitude is therefore considered to be barely perceptible.

Wintering common gull

Common gull is a designating feature of the winter assemblage of the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex SPA and a total of 14,637 individuals cited as part of the designation (NatureScot, 2020). Common gull were recorded in low numbers during the wintering bird surveys.
Common gull is a widespread species within Scotland all year with an estimated 48,100 breeding pairs and a wintering population of 79,700. As with black-headed gulls, wintering common gulls are mainly found on agricultural land in the winter (Forester et al., 2012).
The majority of the Proposed Development comprises of arable or heavily grazed fields which along with the coastal strip are used by common gull to forage and roost. A total of 13 registrations totalling 43 individuals were recorded during the four wintering bird survey visits and it is assumed that these individuals are part of the SPA assemblage population.
Give a total of 43 individuals across the four survey visits, this averages 10.75 individuals which comprises 0.08% of the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex SPA designated population which is not considered to be material.
Given their presence in coastal fields during the winter months it is considered a possibility that common gulls will be subjected to disturbance during construction. As with black-headed gulls and given the adaptability of gull species to human activity, the fact that suitable agricultural habitat is abundant and widespread within the surrounding area both to the north and south of the Proposed Development means it is considered that construction impacts on common gull are assessed to be of short-term duration, reversible and will affect the receptor directly. The magnitude is therefore considered to be barely perceptible.

Breeding and Wintering Herring gull

Herring gull is a designated species as part of a breeding assemblage Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex SPA (3,044 individuals; NatureScot, 2020) and also as part of the wintering assemblage (12,313 individuals; NatureScot, 2020). Herring gulls were common and widespread through the site and were recorded offshore, along the coast and in fields inland during both the breeding bird and wintering bird surveys. Birds were noted as foraging and loafing but no evidence of breeding was recorded. Given their presence along the coast and in coastal fields all year it is considered possible that herring gulls will be subject to disturbance during construction.
Woodward et al. (2019) indicates a breeding season foraging range of 59 km for herring gull. This suggests that the birds foraging or loafing within the site both during the breeding and non-breeding season could belong to the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex SPA.
Herring gull is one of the most adaptable species to human activity and birds are regularly found close to people both in urban and rural environments, living on inhabited buildings and following farm machinery in order to forage in freshly tilled land. Despite regular presence on site, the adaptability of herring gulls means that they are unlikely to be significantly disturbed, with adverse impacts being limited to a temporary loss of foraging and loafing habitat during construction. It is also possible that activities such as soil stripping may provide temporary beneficial effects though foraging opportunities, e.g. freshly exposed soil providing a source of invertebrates, such as worms.
Any loss of habitat is not considered significant because suitable agricultural habitats are abundant and widespread within the surrounding area both to the north and south of the Proposed Development. The fact that there are significant areas of similar habitat available for any displaced birds to relocate to as well as the fact the disturbance of the fields may in fact provide foraging opportunities for gulls mean it is considered that construction impacts on herring gull assessed to be of short-term duration, reversible and will affect the receptor directly. The magnitude is therefore considered to be barely perceptible.

Sensitivity of the receptor

As per Table 8.9 Open ▸ , the qualifying assemblage species of the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex SPA are of International importance. Breeding herring gull were not recorded during breeding bird surveys and therefore birds within the Site during both the breeding and winter season will relate to bird either foraging or loafing. Wintering black-headed gulls are also considered foraging or loafing individuals. As discussed above, gulls are highly adaptable species and away from breeding grounds are highly unlikely to be subject to any significant disturbance due to construction works. With alternative habitat available for roosting and foraging gulls in the local area of the Site means breeding / wintering herring gull and wintering black headed gull are considered to be of low sensitivity.

Significance of the effect

As outlined above the magnitude of the impact on The Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex SPA wintering black-headed gull, wintering common gull and breeding and wintering herring gull, as a result of construction is deemed to be barely perceptible and the sensitivity is considered to be low. The effect (see Table 8.14) therefore is considered to negligible and not significant in the context of the EIA regulations.

Secondary mitigation and residual effect

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

Displacement and habitat loss of Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex SPA Qualifying Species - WILDFOWL

Disturbance and habitat loss during construction may lead to displacement of qualifying wildfowl species (eider, goldeneye and red-breasted merganser) of the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex SPA.

Construction phase

Wintering wildfowl (eider, goldeneye and red-breasted merganser)

Magnitude of impact

The works will be based over 100 m inland or under the seabed and will not result any habitat loss for these three wildfowl species.

Eider

The Firth of Forth Outer and St Andrews Bay Complex SPA is designated for an average of 21,546 wintering individual eider (NatureScot, 2020). A maximum of 36 individuals was recorded during WBS visits and a maximum of 69 individuals was recorded in February 2021 during intertidal surveys. The peak counts recorded during intertidal surveys total 151 individuals between September 2020 and March 2021 (taking highest value in Section A or B – See: Offshore EIA – Volume 3, Appendix 11.2: Ornithology Inter-tidal Survey Report. Table 2) which equates to an average peak count of 22 birds, although not all the intertidal records were recorded within 500 m of the landfall.
Including all of the peak count records creating a worse scenario of 21 individuals that may be disturbed during construction activities this accounts for 0.1 % of the SPA population. Wintering eider will predominantly spend their time on the water and offshore meaning works at the landfall over 100 m inland will have little or no impact on birds on the open sea, with birds if they are disturbed swimming to an area of open sea they feel comfortable in.
With only a worst case scenario of 0.1% of the SPA population that maybe impacted, the fact that there are significant areas of similar habitat available for any displaced birds to relocate mean it is considered that construction impacts on eider, goldeneye and red-breasted merganser assessed to be of short-term duration, reversible and will affect the receptor directly. The magnitude is therefore considered to be barely perceptible.

Goldeneye

The Firth of Forth Outer and St Andrews Bay Complex SPA is designated for an average of 589 wintering individual goldeneye (NatureScot, 2020). Goldeneye were not recorded during WBS visits although a maximum of seven individuals was recorded in February 2021 during intertidal surveys. The peak counts recorded during intertidal surveys total 20 individuals between September 2020 and March 2021 (taking highest value in Section A or B – See: Offshore EIA – Volume 3, Appendix 11.2: Ornithology Inter-tidal Survey Report. Table 2) which equates to an average peak count of 3 birds, although not all the intertidal records were recorded within 500 m of the landfall.
Including all of the peak count records creating a worst-case scenario of 3 individuals that may be disturbed during construction activities this accounts for 0.51 % of the SPA population. Wintering goldeneye will predominantly spend their time on the water and offshore meaning works at the landfall which is over 100 m from the sea will have little significant impact on birds on the open sea, with birds if they are disturbed swimming or flying to an area of open sea they feel comfortable in.
With a worst-case scenario of 0.51% of the SPA population that maybe impacted, the fact that there are significant areas of similar habitat available for any displaced birds to relocate mean it is considered that construction impacts on goldeneye assessed to be of short-term duration, reversible and will affect the receptor directly. The magnitude is therefore considered to be barely perceptible.

Red-breasted merganser

The Firth of Forth Outer and St Andrews Bay Complex SPA is designated for an average of 431 wintering red-breasted merganser (NatureScot, 2020). Red-breasted merganser were not recorded during WBS visits although a maximum of five individuals was recorded in February 2021 during intertidal surveys. The peak counts recorded during intertidal surveys total 23 individuals (taking highest value in Section A or B – See: Offshore EIA – Volume 3, Appendix 11.2: Ornithology Inter-tidal Survey Report. Table 2) between September 2020 and March 2021 which equates to an average peak count of 3.3 birds, although not all the intertidal records were recorded within 500 m of the landfall.
Including all of the peak count records creating a worst-case scenario of three individuals that may be disturbed during construction activities this accounts for 0.76 % of the SPA population. Wintering red-breasted merganser will predominantly spend their time on the water and offshore meaning works at the landfall which is over 100 m from the sea will have little significant impact on birds on the open sea, with birds if they are disturbed swimming or flying to an area of open sea they feel comfortable in.
With a worst-case scenario of just 0.76% of the SPA population that maybe impacted, the fact that there are significant areas of similar habitat available for any displaced birds to relocate mean it is considered that construction impacts on red-breasted merganser assessed to be of short-term duration, reversible and will affect the receptor directly. The magnitude is therefore considered to be barely perceptible.

Sensitivity of the receptor

As per Table 8.9 Open ▸ , the qualifying assemblage species of the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex SPA are of International importance. Wintering eider and goldeneye are considered to have a disturbance distance of 200-500 m and 150-800 m respectively (NatureScot, 2022) and while red-breasted merganser are not considered within the NatureScot guidance a similar figure to these two can be assumed. Even taking a higher figure of between 500 m - 800 m, it is considered that if eider, goldeneye or red-breasted merganser are disturbed by construction works that there is significant alternate habitat north and south up the coastline and east out into the open sea from the proposed works for birds to immediately relocate either swimming or flying meaning despite their international importance both species are considered to be of low sensitivity.

Significance of the effect

As outlined above the magnitude of the impact on The Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex SPA wintering eider, goldeneye, or red-breasted merganser, as a result of construction is deemed to be barely perceptible and the sensitivity is considered to be low. The effect (see Table 8.14) therefore is considered to negligible and not significant in the context of the EIA regulations.

Secondary mitigation and residual effect

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

Disturbance and habitat loss to Firth of Forth SPA and Ramsar Qualifying Species

Disturbance and habitat loss during construction may lead to displacement of wintering foraging and roosting (SPA) pink-footed goose and golden plover.

Construction phase

Magnitude of impact

Wintering pink-footed goose

Pink-footed goose were frequently recorded during wintering bird surveys and a further two records were identified in the site by the desk study. A total of 51 registrations for pink-footed goose were recorded in the WBS study area totalling 4,139 individuals. The majority of these records (31 registrations totalling 3,146 individuals) were recorded on the first visit in October, with much lower counts (total of 20 registrations, 993 individuals across the three subsequent visits in November to February).
High numbers of pink-footed geese are typical for the east of Scotland in October as large numbers of pink-footed geese arrive in the area from breeding grounds in the Arctic before relocating to wintering grounds elsewhere in the UK. Wilson et al. (2015) outline this high seasonal turnover of birds in Scotland, stating that many birds spend the winter in England, only passing through Scotland in transit. Scotland therefore holds more pink-footed geese in the autumn than it does for most of the winter.
The Firth of Forth SPA is designated for an average figure of 10,852 individuals (JNCC, 2018) meaning the average count in the WBS study area during surveys (1035) would comprise 9.5% of the designated population.
The count for Eastern Lowlands (NHZ16) which cover the site have a peak of up to 162,039 birds in October, declining to substantially lower levels by January, and remaining relatively stable until departure in March-May (Wilson et al., 2015). A total of 993 individuals across the final three visits is likely to provide a more accurate figure of over-wintering birds in the WBS study area, giving a total average of 331 birds.
Pink-footed goose is a designated feature of the Firth of Forth SPA/Ramsar which lies almost 6 km to the north-west of the site and will travel distances of up to 25 km from roost sites to forage in fields during the day (SNH, 2018) and it is assumed that birds recorded using the WBS study area during the wintering bird survey may belong to the SPA population.
The Firth of Forth SPA is designated for an average figure of 10,852 individuals (JNCC, 2018) meaning the average count in the WBS study area during surveys (1035) would comprise 9.5% of the designated population. This is considered to be a highly precautionary figure given the fact the majority of the geese in the region likely relocate elsewhere in the UK and are likely not part of the SPA population, using the result from in the WBS study area between November 2020 and February 2021 (331) would comprise a more realistic 3.1% of the designated population.
Pink-footed geese are susceptible to disturbance from human activity and will react to dog walkers, vehicles and are likely to be impacted by construction activities although over the winter birds are often found foraging close to roads as the birds become normalised to vehicular activity. Pink-footed geese will forage on improved grassland fields, newly planted crops or cut grain fields where the grain remains undamaged in post harvesting. The habitats within the site and surrounding area along the coast of East Lothian provide optimal habitat for pink-footed geese, and even if all the present pink-footed geese were disturbed by works at the site, there is widespread and abundant foraging habitat available to the geese both north and south of the site.
Given the potential for disturbance foraging pink-footed geese during the construction period, the impact on wintering pink-footed geese construction impacts are assessed to be of short-term duration, reversible and will affect the receptor directly. The magnitude is therefore considered to be barely perceptible.

Wintering golden plover

A total of 15 records were recorded during the wintering bird survey, totalling 893 individuals. Smit and Visser (1993) undertook a study of disturbance distance on roosting birds including curlew, shelduck, oystercatcher and dunlin in a number of situations, such as dog walkers, agricultural machinery and light aircraft. They concluded that most species remained undisturbed at 300 m although some species, such as curlew, may take flight at longer distances occasionally up to 530 m. Taking a precautionary disturbance zone of 500 m from all proposed works at the site a total of eight registrations were recorded during the surveys. Of the eight records, two large groups of 160 and 130 individuals were recorded and a total of 418 across the four survey visits.
Golden plover is a common species on the coastline around Scotland in the winter months, with an estimated winter population of 25,000-35,000 (Forrester et al., 2015). Golden plover is a designated feature of the Firth of Forth SPA for its wintering population (2,949 individuals, JNCC (2018)). The SPA lies 5.9 km north-west of the site at its nearest point. Golden plovers are known to travel both during the day and at night away between feeding grounds and roost sites often in open fields and, although they are considered to have a core range of 3 km, they do have a maximum range of up to 11 km (SNH, 2016).
Given the presence of 418 individuals within the potential disturbance distance of works across four visits, this leads to an average of 104.5 birds within the zone of influence. A total of 105 individuals comprises 3.5% of Firth of Forth SPA designated population.
Due to their regular presence over the winter months it is considered likely that golden plover will be subjected to disturbance during construction although the impacts of the disturbance are likely to be limited given similar habitats are abundant and widespread within the surrounding area both to the north and south of the Proposed Development.
Given the potential for disturbance to roosting and foraging golden plover during the construction period, given the widespread similar habitats and the impact on wintering golden plover are assessed to be of short-term duration, reversible and will affect the receptor directly. The magnitude is therefore considered to be barely perceptible.

Sensitivity of the receptor

As per Table 8.9, the qualifying species (pink-footed goose and golden plover) of the Firth of Forth SPA and Ramsar are of International importance.
Wintering pink-footed goose and golden plover are considered to have a disturbance distance of 200-600 m and 200-500 m respectively (NatureScot, 2022). Even taking the higher figure of 600 m and 500 m, it is considered that if pink-footed geese or golden plover that are disturbed by construction works that there is significant alternate habitat north and south of the proposed works for birds to immediately relocate meaning despite their international importance both species are considered to be of low sensitivity.

Significance of the effect

As outlined above the magnitude of the impact on the Firth of Forth SPA wintering pink-footed goose and wintering golden plover populations as a result of construction is deemed to be barely perceptible and the sensitivity is considered to be low. The effect (see Table 8.14) therefore is considered to negligible and not significant in the context of the EIA regulations.

Secondary mitigation and residual effect

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

Displacement and habitat loss to St Abb’s Castle to Fast Head SPA: Breeding Herring Gull

Disturbance and habitat loss during construction may lead to displacement of qualifying species of the SPA.

Construction Phase

Magnitude of impact

Breeding herring gull

Herring gull is a designated species as part of a breeding assemblage St Abb’s Head to Fast Castle SPA (1,160 pairs, NatureScot (2020). Herring gulls were common and widespread through the site and were recorded offshore, along the coast and in fields inland during both the breeding bird and wintering bird surveys. Birds were noted as foraging and loafing but no evidence of breeding was recorded. Given their presence along the coast and in coastal fields all year it is considered possible that breeding herring gull will be subject to disturbance during construction.
Woodward et al. (2019) indicate that a breeding season foraging range of 59 km for herring gull. This suggests that the birds foraging or loafing within the site both during the breeding and non-breeding season could belong to St Abb’s Head to Fast Castle SPA. With a total of 710 individuals recorded across three visits this equates to an average of 237 birds (236.67) per visit which equals 10.2 % of the assemblage St Abb’s Head to Fast Castle population. It should be noted this value is highly precautionary given it includes all birds recorded during the survey and also presumes all birds recorded were in fact from the assemblage St Abb’s Head to Fast Castle SPA rather than from the closer Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex SPA.
Herring gull is one of the most adaptable species to human activity and birds are regularly found close to people both in urban and rural environments, living on inhabited buildings and following farm machinery in order to forage in freshly tilled land. Despite regular presence on site, the adaptability of herring gulls means that they are unlikely to be significantly disturbed, with adverse impacts being limited to a temporary loss of foraging and loafing habitat during construction, this impact is considered to be direct. It is also possible that activities such as soil stripping may provide temporary beneficial effects though foraging opportunities, e.g. freshly exposed soil providing a source of invertebrates, such as worms.
Any loss of habitat is not considered significant because suitable agricultural habitats for this species are abundant and widespread within the surrounding area both to the north and south of the proposed works. In terms of disturbance, it is highly precautionary to conclude that all the birds recorded belong to the St Abb’s Head to Fast Castle SPA population, and because there are significant areas of similar habitat available for any displaced birds to relocate to, as well as the fact that disturbance of the fields may provide foraging opportunities for gulls, construction impacts on herring gull are concluded are assessed to be of short-term duration, reversible and will affect the receptor directly. The magnitude is therefore considered to be barely perceptible.

Sensitivity of the receptor

As per Table 8.9 Open ▸ , the qualifying assemblage species of the St Abb’s Head to Fast Castle SPA are of International importance. Breeding herring gull were not recorded during breeding bird surveys and therefore birds within the Site during both the breeding season will relate to bird either foraging or loafing. As discussed above, gulls are highly adaptable species and away from breeding grounds are highly unlikely to be subject to any significant disturbance due to construction works. With alternative habitat available for roosting and foraging gulls in the local area of the Site means breeding herring gull are considered to be of low sensitivity.

Significance of the effect

As outlined above the magnitude of the impact on the St Abb’s Head to Fast Castle SPA herring gull population as a result of construction is deemed to be barely perceptible and the sensitivity is considered to be low. The effect (see Table 8.14) therefore is therefore considered to negligible and not significant in the context of the EIA regulations.

Secondary mitigation and residual effect

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

Displacement and habitat loss to Forth Islands SPA: Breeding herring gull

Disturbance and habitat loss during construction may lead to displacement of qualifying species of the Forth Islands SPA.

Construction Phase

Magnitude of impact

Breeding herring gull

Herring gull is a designated species as part of a breeding assemblage of the Forth Islands SPA (6,600 pairs, NatureScot (2020). Herring gulls were common and widespread through the site and were recorded offshore, along the coast and in fields inland during both the breeding bird and wintering bird surveys. A total of 142 registrations of herring gull were recorded onshore during the breeding bird survey and totalled 710 individuals across the three visits. Birds were noted as foraging and loafing but no evidence of breeding was recorded. Given their presence along the coast and in coastal fields all year it is considered possible that herring gulls will be subject to disturbance during construction.
Woodward et al. (2019) indicate that a breeding season foraging range of 59 km for herring gull. This suggests that the birds foraging or loafing within the site during the breeding season could belong to the Forth Islands SPA. With a total of 710 individuals recorded across three visits this equates to an average of 237 birds per visit which equals just 1.8% of the Forth Island SPA population. It should be noted this value is highly precautionary given it includes all birds recorded during the survey and also presumes all birds recorded were in fact from the Forth Islands SPA rather than from the closer Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex SPA.
Herring gull is one of the most adaptable species to human activity and birds are regularly found close to people both in urban and rural environments, living on inhabited buildings and following farm machinery in order to forage in freshly tilled land. Despite regular presence on site, the adaptability of herring gulls means that they are unlikely to be significantly disturbed, with adverse impacts being limited to a temporary loss of foraging and loafing habitat during construction, this impact is considered to be direct. It is also possible that activities such as soil stripping may provide temporary beneficial effects though foraging opportunities, e.g. freshly exposed soil providing a source of invertebrates, such as worms.
Any loss of habitat is not considered significant because suitable habitats for this species are abundant and widespread within the surrounding area both to the north and south of the proposed works. In terms of disturbance, the fact that an average of only 1.8% of the Forth Islands SPA total designated herring gull population were recorded, combined with there being significant areas of suitable habitat available for any displaced birds to relocate to, as well as the fact the disturbance of the fields may in fact provide foraging opportunities for gulls, it is considered that construction impacts on herring gull are assessed to be of short-term duration, reversible and will affect the receptor directly. The magnitude is therefore considered to be barely perceptible.

Sensitivity of the receptor

As per Table 8.9 Open ▸ , the qualifying assemblage species of the Forth Islands SPA are of International importance. Breeding herring gull were not recorded during breeding bird surveys and therefore birds within the Site during both the breeding season will relate to bird either foraging or loafing. As discussed above, gulls are highly adaptable species and away from breeding grounds are highly unlikely to be subject to any significant disturbance due to construction works. With alternative habitat available for roosting and foraging gulls in the local area of the Site means breeding herring gull are considered to be of low sensitivity.

Significance of the effect

As outlined above the magnitude of the impact on the Forth Islands SPA herring gull population as a result of construction is deemed to be barely perceptible and the sensitivity is considered to be low. The effect (see Table 8.14) therefore is considered to be negligible and not significant in the context of the EIA regulations.

Secondary mitigation and residual effect

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

Displacement and habitat loss of Wintering Curlew

Disturbance and habitat loss during construction may lead to displacement of roosting or foraging wintering curlew.

Construction Phase

Magnitude of impact

Curlew were frequently recorded during wintering bird surveys. Groups of up to 112 curlew were recorded roosting and foraging in fields with a total of 40 registrations totalling a combined 440 individuals recorded over the four wintering bird survey visits. Curlew is a common species around the coastline of Scotland in winter months: Forrester et al. (2012) estimate an approximate 85,700 wintering curlew in Scotland of which an estimated 3,182 birds are present in the Lothians region. Curlew generally forage along the coast and will fly to roost in open fields in winter when feeding grounds are covered by the incoming tide, generally preferring roosting on fields with a short sward, enabling a clear line of sight for potential predators.
Smit and Visser (1993) undertook a study of disturbance distance on roosting birds including curlew, shelduck, oystercatcher and dunlin in a number of situations, such as dog walkers, agricultural machinery and light aircraft. They concluded that most species remained undisturbed at 300 m although some species, such as curlew, may take flight at longer distances occasionally up to 530 m. In their review of disturbances distance, NatureScot (2022) outline a disturbance distance of wintering curlew of between 200-650 m.
Taking a disturbance zone of 500 m from all proposed works at the site, this would include a total of 19 registrations including 182 individuals across the four survey visits. Given this is across four visits it means that an average of 46 (45.5) curlew on average may be disturbed by the Proposed Development. This equates to 1.45% and 0.05% of wintering Lothians and Scottish curlew populations.
Given their regular presence over the winter months it is considered likely that curlew will be subjected to disturbance during construction, this impact is considered to be direct, although with only 1.45% of the Lothians and 0.05% of the Scottish wintering population present the impacts of the disturbance are likely to be limited and impacts reduced further given similar habitats are present and widespread within the surrounding area both to the north and south of the Proposed Development.
Given the potential for disturbance to roosting curlew during the construction period are concluded are assessed to be of short-term duration, reversible and will affect the receptor directly. The magnitude is therefore considered to be barely perceptible.

Sensitivity of the receptor

As per Table 8.9 Open ▸ , wintering curlew are of Local importance. As discussed above, wintering curlew are subject to disturbance at between 200-650 m (NatureScot, 2022). Given significant alternate habitat north and south of the Site, wintering curlew are assessed as being of low sensitivity.

Significance of the effect

As outlined above the magnitude of the impact on the local and Scottish wintering curlew population as a result of construction is deemed to be barely perceptible and the sensitivity is considered to be low. The effect (see Table 8.14) therefore is therefore considered to barely perceptible and not significant in the context of the EIA regulations.

Secondary mitigation and residual effect

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

Displacement and habitat loss of Wintering Lapwing

Roosting or foraging lapwing may be displaced from the site during construction due to disturbance or direct habitat loss.

Construction Phase

Magnitude of impact

Lapwing were frequently recorded during the wintering bird surveys. However, no evidence of breeding activity was confirmed in the breeding bird walkover surveys.
Groups of up to 220 lapwing were recorded roosting and foraging in fields with a total of 11 registrations of a combined 659 individuals recorded over the four wintering bird survey visits. Lapwing roost and forage on open fields in winter, generally preferring either arable or grassland fields which provide the suitable invertebrates for foraging and roosting on fields with a short sward, enabling a clear line of sight for potential predators. Lapwing is a common species around the coastline of Scotland in winter months: Forrester et al. (2012) estimate an approximate 65,000 – 69,000 wintering lapwings in Scotland of which an estimated 2,101 in the Lothians region. Taking an average of 165 individuals across the four wintering bird survey visits this comprises 7.8% of the Lothians winter count and 0.25% of the Scottish wintering population.
Smit and Visser (1993) undertook a study of disturbance distance on roosting birds including curlew, shelduck, oystercatcher and dunlin in a number of situations, such as dog walkers, agricultural machinery and light aircraft. They concluded that most species remained undisturbed at 300 m although some species, such as curlew, may take flight at longer distances occasionally up to 530 m. Taking a precautionary disturbance zone for a similar species (curlew) of 500 m from all proposed works at the site, this would include a total of two registrations including 234 individuals across the four survey visits. Given this is across four visits it means that an average of 58.5 lapwings on average may be disturbed by the Proposed Development, this impact is considered to be direct. This equates to 2.81% and 0.09% of wintering Lothians and Scottish lapwing populations, respectively, and is not considered to be material.
Potential disturbance during construction may result in displacement from the areas of land clearance and an area adjacent to it, as discussed above this can be up to 500m. Any impacts of the disturbance to roosting birds are likely to be limited because similar habitats are abundant and widespread within the surrounding area both to the north and south of the Proposed Development. Given the potential for disturbance to roosting lapwing during the construction period are concluded are assessed to be of short-term duration, reversible and will affect the receptor directly. The magnitude is therefore considered to be barely perceptible.

Sensitivity of the receptor

As per Table 8.9 Open ▸ , wintering lapwing are of Local importance. As discussed above, wintering lapwing are subject to disturbance at between 200-650 m using curlew as a similar species (NatureScot, 2022). Given significant alternate habitat north and south of the Site, wintering lapwing are assessed as being of low sensitivity.

Significance of the effect

As outlined above the magnitude of the impact on the local and Scottish wintering lapwing population as a result of construction is deemed to be barely perceptible and the sensitivity is considered to be low. The effect (see Table 8.14) therefore is therefore considered to barely perceptible and not significant in the context of the EIA regulations.

Secondary mitigation and residual effect

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

Displacement and disturbance of Peregrine

Breeding or foraging peregrine may be displaced from the site during construction due to disturbance or direct habitat loss.

Construction Phase

Magnitude of impact

Breeding surveys in 2020 identified an active nest site located over 1 km from the nearest proposed works (See Volume 5, Confidential Appendix Figure 8.1.3). In order to confirm the presence/ absence of breeding peregrine prior to construction commencing, surveys will be conducted in each breeding season during construction (See Section 8.10). Should the nest site be active, no site works will be allowed within 500-750 m of the breeding location, which is the recommended no-disturbance buffer for heavy construction activities for peregrine (NatureScot, 2022) and if required an agreed working buffer will confirmed by NatureScot. There is not considered to be any suitable breeding habitat within 1 km of the site works and peregrines are generally site faithful (Hardey et al., 2013).
Peregrines were registered occasionally during the desk based and field surveys with birds using the site to hunt and to commute to hunting grounds elsewhere in the local area. Peregrine will generally hunt within 2 km of their nest locations during the breeding season but extend up to 6 km depending on prey availability (Hardey et al., 2013).
Peregrines are highly adaptable and will hunt in almost all habitats for prey including highly urbanised habitats with pigeon species the preferred prey. With a wide range of hunting habitats in the local area, the loss of, or disturbance to, hunting habitat during the construction phase is unlikely to have any impact on foraging peregrine. Given the limited impact on foraging and breeding peregrine during the construction period, the impact on peregrine are concluded are assessed to be of short-term duration, reversible and will affect the receptor directly. The magnitude is therefore considered to be barely perceptible.

Sensitivity of the receptor

As per Table 8.9 Open ▸ , wintering peregrine are of Local importance. As a schedule 1 species, breeding peregrine are assessed to be of high sensitivity.

Significance of the effect

As outlined above the magnitude of the impact on the local and Scottish breeding or foraging peregrine population as a result of construction is deemed to barely perceptible and the sensitivity is considered to be high. The effect (see Table 8.14) therefore is considered to negligible and not significant in the context of the EIA regulations.

Secondary mitigation and residual effect

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

Disturbance and habitat loss to Breeding bird assemblage

Both the permanent and temporary removal of habitats, hedgerow and grassland, some of which are suitable breeding habitats for BoCC red listed species (such as yellowhammer, song thrush and skylark) as well as general works during construction and may lead to some disturbance of breeding birds due to noise disturbance during the works.

Construction Phase

Magnitude of impact

A total of 26 species were recorded as displaying breeding behaviour during the breeding bird survey in addition to peregrine discussed above (none of which are listed under Annex 1 of the Birds Directive) or Schedule 1 of the WCA, the highest level of protection for breeding birds in the UK. Of the 26 species recorded, eight of the recorded species are BoCC Red listed species and a further four are Amber listed species; of these 12, ten are also SBL species.
The Proposed Development requires the temporary removal of habitats, hedgerow and grassland, some of which are suitable breeding habitats for BoCC Red and Amber listed species (such as yellowhammer, song thrush and skylark) and may also lead to some disturbance of breeding birds due to noise disturbance during the works. The area of habitat needing to be removed (permanent habitat loss 12.95 ha, temporary habitat loss 45.57 ha – see Volume 1, Chapter 7, Section 7.11) is only a small percentage of these habitats within the site (2.8%, 9.7% respectively) and insignificant within the wider area and as the cable installation progresses along the onshore cable route the habitats will be reinstated as construction progresses.
Any temporary or permanent loss of hedgerow and grassland habitat will reduce the available nesting and foraging habitat for breeding birds and cause temporary disturbance in the short term with reinstatement meaning these habits are restored less than five years.
There will be a small section of permanent habitat loss for the sub-station, totalling 12 ha almost entirely consisting of arable or improved grassland which is sub-optimal breeding habitat for birds with low densities of ground nesting species utilising improved grassland to nest. In terms of the wider area this permanent habitat loss is insignificant and this combined with the commitment to create new and enhance habits around the area of the onshore substation means the impacts will be significantly reduced.
In addition the commitment to reinstate and enhance habitats along the onshore cable route with an aim to improve overall habitat condition (see Section 89-94 above) by promoting conditions for better foraging resource, shelter and nesting habitat for both the breeding bird assemblage.
Given the commitment to reinstate and enhance habitats, the effects on breeding birds are considered to be highly localised (given the staged approach to progressing construction), short-term temporal and reversible. The magnitude is therefore considered to be barely perceptible.

Sensitivity of the receptor

As per Table 8.9 Open ▸ , breeding bird assemblage are of Local importance. If works are undertaken during the breeding season means potential disturbance to the breeding bird assemblage is considered to be of medium sensitivity.

Significance of the effect

As outlined above the magnitude of the impact on the breeding bird assemblage population as a result of construction is deemed to be barely perceptible and the sensitivity is considered to be medium. The effect (see Table 8.14) is therefore considered to negligible and not significant in the context of the EIA regulations.

Secondary mitigation and residual effect

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

8.11.1. Proposed Monitoring

No ornithology monitoring to test the predictions made within the assessment of likely significant effects on ornithology is considered necessary.

8.12. Cumulative Effects Assessment

8.12.1. Methodology

The Cumulative Effects Assessment (CEA) takes into account the effects 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.
A total of three projects and plans have been selected as relevant to the CEA presented within this chapter are 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.

Developments Scoped Out of Assessment

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. With the site being upland areas with significantly different habitats from the lowland farmland within and surrounding the site, they also support different breeding and wintering bird assemblages. The results of the ornithology surveys at Crystal Rig IV wind farm showed little overlap with surveys at the Proposed Development due to the differing habitats, with only low numbers of herring gull in the winter months being the only overlap, curlew were recorded as a breeding species but not recorded in the non-breeding season (Fred Olsen Renewables, 2018). The fact that there is no significant overlap in habitats and hence species mean that the two locations have different breeding and wintering bird assemblages and the significant distance between the two wind farms and the Proposed Development mean this site is scoped out of the cumulative assessment.

Developments Scoped Into Assessment

A planning application for a cable route and sub-station which overlaps the site (SPEN Eastern Link Project, 22/00852/PPM & 22/00002/SGC) is in ongoing dialogue and breeding bird and wintering bird surveys were completed in 2021. The cable route and proposed sub-station location overlapped with the site which was covered by surveys for the Proposed Development. A similar range of species were recorded during the bird surveys and the EIA report scoped out all designated sites and species bar wintering curlew, breeding peregrine falcon and breeding herring gull. The predicted impacts on all three receptors were concluded to be minor and not significant during construction, operation and cumulative.
Another similar scheme is a (currently withdrawn) application for the construction of a 400 kilovolt (kV) gas insulated switchgear (GIS) substation and associated works (SPEN Branxton Grid Substation, 21/01569/PM). This works area which would overlap the current site but the planning application has not been submitted to date. The withdrawn EIA predicts no significant effects on birds species with basic mitigation outlined to fully off-set both the breeding bird and wintering bird assemblages including herring gull, peregrine and curlew (SP Energy Networks, 2021).
The specific projects scoped into the CEA for ornithology, are outlined in Table 8.16.

Offshore Proposed Developments

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 likely start 2025 with an eight years build programme.

Table 8.16: List of Other Projects Considered Within the CEA for Ornithology

8.12.2. Maximum Design Scenario

The maximum design scenarios assessed here based on the details in Table 8.16 above are 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.
The impacts of the maximum design scenario are outlined in Section 8.8 above and the same impacts considered into cumulative effects assessment.

8.12.3. Cumulative Effects Assessment

The potential cumulative impacts arising from the construction, operational and maintenance phases of the Proposed Development and an assessment of the likely significance of the effects of the Proposed Development on ornithological receptors caused by each identified impact is given below.
The predicted impacts on all receptors during construction due to disturbance and habitat loss or displacement due to habitat loss during operation of the Proposed Development are predicted to be barely perceptible and not significant. The predicted impacts during operation are predicted to be less than during construction and also not significant for all receptors. The predicted impacts on all IOFs for the three schemes included in the cumulative assessment are also predicted to be not significant.

Disturbance or Habitat Loss: All species

Construction & Operational Phase

Cumulative impacts on roosting or foraging bird species during construction and operation activities due to disturbance or direct habitat loss.

Magnitude of impact

No significant impacts were predicted for any species at the scoped in cumulative projects displayed in Table 8.16. The assessment above predicted there would be no significant impacts on any species during construction and operation of the Proposed Development.
It is considered that the cumulative construction and operational are assessed to be of short-term duration, reversible and will affect the receptors directly. The magnitude is therefore considered to be barely perceptible.

Sensitivity of the receptor

Sensitivity of all species is as set out in Table 8.9.

Significance of the effect

The cumulative effect on all species as a result of construction and operation is considered to be negligible and therefore not significant in the context of the EIA regulations.

Secondary mitigation and residual effect

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

8.12.4. Proposed Monitoring

No monitoring to test the predictions made within the assessment of likely significant effects on ornithology is considered necessary.

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

Information on onshore ornithology within the onshore ornithology Survey area was collected through a desktop review and site surveys including breeding bird surveys and wintering bird surveys and consultation on the scope and area of survey with NatureScot. Table 8.17 Open ▸ presents a summary of the potential impacts, mitigation measures and the conclusion of likely significant effects in EIA terms in respect to onshore ornithology. The impacts assessed include: habitat loss, disturbance and displacement. 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.
Table 8.18 Open ▸ presents a summary of the potential cumulative impacts, mitigation measures and the conclusion of likely significant effects on onshore ornithology in EIA terms. The cumulative effects assessed include: habitat loss, disturbance and displacement. Overall, it is concluded that there will be no likely significant cumulative effects from the Proposed Development alongside other projects/plans.

Table 8.17: Summary of Likely Significant Environmental Effects, Mitigation and Monitoring

Table 8.18: Summary of Likely Significant Cumulative Environment Effects, Mitigation and Monitoring

8.15. References

Literature

Bibby C.J., Burgess N.D., Hill D.A. and Mustoe S.H. (2000). Bird Census Techniques, 2nd Edition. Academic Press, London.

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. Available online at: https://cieem.net/resource/guidelines-for-ecological-impact-assessment-ecia/.

East Lothian Council (2017). East Lothian Biodiversity Report. Available at: https://www.eastlothian.gov.uk/downloads/file/23321/biodiversity_report_2017

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

Eaton MA, Aebischer NJ, Brown AF, Hearn RD, Lock L, Musgrove AJ, Noble DG, Stroud DA and Gregory RD (2015) Birds of Conservation Concern 4: the population status of birds in the United Kingdom, Channel Islands and Isle of Man. British Birds 108, 708–746. Available at: britishbirds.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/BoCC4.pdf.

Forester, R.W., Andrews, I.J., McInerny, C.J., Murray, R.D., McGowan, R.Y., Zonfrilla, B., Betts, M,W., Jardine, D.C. & Grundy, D.S. (EDS) 2012. The Digital Birds of Scotland. the Scottish Ornithologists Club, Aberlady.

Fred Olsen Renewables (2018). Environmental Impact assessment Report. Chapter 7: Ornithology.

Gilbert G, Gibbons DW & Evans J (2011). Bird monitoring methods, a manual of techniques for key UK species. RSPB, Sandy, Bedfordshire UK.

Hardey, J., Crick, H., Riley, H., Etheridge, B., and Thompson, D. (2013) Raptors: A field guide to surveys and monitoring. The Stationery Office; 3rd revised edition.

JNCC (2018) SPA Description - Firth of Forth. Available online at http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/default.aspx?page=1979.

MAGIC: Nature on the Map (2020). Interactive Map. Accessed April 2021. Available online at: https://magic.defra.gov.uk/magicmap.aspx.

Merkel F.R., Mosbech A. & Riget F. (2009). Common Eider Somateria mollissima feeding activity and the influence of human disturbances. Ardea, 97(1): 99–107.

Met Office (2022). Effects of climate change: Available at: https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/climate-change/effects-of-climate-change.

NatureScot (2020). SiteLink Map Search. Available online at: https://sitelink.nature.scot/map

NatureScot & JNCC (2021). Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex Special Protection Area (SPA): Draft Conservation Objectives. Joint publication: NatureScot & JNCC, Nov. 2021. Available online at: https://sitelink.nature.scot/site/10478

NatureScot (2022). Disturbance Distances in selected Scottish Bird species. Available online at: https://www.nature.scot/doc/disturbance-distances-selected-scottish-bird-species-naturescot-guidance

National Biodiversity Network (NBN) Atlas (2022). NBN Atlas. Available online at: https://nbnatlas.org/. [Accessed April 2021]..

Ruddock & Whitfield (2007). A review of disturbance distances in selected bird species.

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).

Smit,C .J. & Visser,G .J.M. 1993. Effects of disturbance on shorebirds a: summary from existing knowledge from the Dutch Wadden Sea and Delta area. Wader Study Group Bull. 68: 6-19.

SNH (2016). Assessing Connectivity with Special Protection Areas (SPAs). Scottish Natural heritage. Available online at: https://www.nature.scot/assessing-connectivity-special-protection-areas

SNH (2017). Recommended Bird Survey Methods to inform Impact Assessment of Onshore Wind Farms. SNH Guidance Note Series

SP Energy Networks (2021). Eastern Link 1 Northern point of Construction substation Envornmental Impact Assessment Report. December 2021.

Thaxter CB, Lascelles B, Sugar K, Cook ASCP, Roos S, Bolton M, Langston RHW & Burton NHK (2012). Seabird foraging ranges as a preliminary tool for identifying candidate Marine protected Areas. Biological Conservation 156: 53-61.

Wilson, M. W., Austin, G. E., Gillings S. and Wernham, C. V. (2015). Natural Heritage Zone Bird Population Estimates. SWBSG Commissioned report number SWBSG_1504. pp72. Available from: www.swbsg.org

Woodward I, Thaxter CB, Owen E & Cook ASCP (2019). Desk-based revision of seabird foraging ranges used for HRA screening. Report of work carried out by the British Trust for Ornithology on behalf of NIRAS and The Crown Estate. BTO Research Report No. 724, 139pp.

A close up of a logo

Description automatically generated

Tables ▼