Determining Ornithologically Significant Effects

97. 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

98. 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.
  99. 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.
  100. 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.
  101. 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.
  102. 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.
  103. 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

104. 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.
105. 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.
  106. 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.
  107. 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.
  108. 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.
  109. 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)

110. 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.
111. 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

112. 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

113. 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

114. 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.
115. 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).
116. 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.
117. 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.
118. 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

119. 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.
120. 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).
121. 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.
122. 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.
123. 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

124. 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.
125. 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.
126. 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.
127. 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

128. 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

129. 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

130. 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

131. 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

132. 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

133. 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.
134. 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.
135. 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

136. 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.
137. 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.
138. 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

139. 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.
140. 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.
141. 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

142. 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

143. 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

144. 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

145. 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

146. 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).
147. 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.
148. 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.
149. 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.
150. 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.
151. 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.
152. 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.
153. 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

154. 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.
155. 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).
156. 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.
157. 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.
158. 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

159. 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.
160. 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

161. 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

162. 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

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

Construction Phase

Magnitude of impact

Breeding herring gull

164. 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.
165. 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.
166. 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.
167. 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

168. 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

169. 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

170. 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

171. 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

172. 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.
173. 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.
174. 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.
175. 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

176. 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

177. 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

178. 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

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

Construction Phase

Magnitude of impact

180. 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.
181. 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.
182. 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.
183. 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.
184. 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

185. 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

186. 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

187. 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

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

Construction Phase

Magnitude of impact

189. Lapwing were frequently recorded during the wintering bird surveys. However, no evidence of breeding activity was confirmed in the breeding bird walkover surveys.
190. 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.
191. 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.
192. 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

193. 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

194. 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

195. 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

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

Construction Phase

Magnitude of impact

197. 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).
198. 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).
199. 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

200. 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

201. 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

202. 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

203. 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

204. 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.
205. 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.
206. 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.
207. 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.
208. 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.
209. 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

210. 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

211. 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

212. 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

213. 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

214. 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.
215. 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

216. 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

217. 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.
218. 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).
219. The specific projects scoped into the CEA for ornithology, are outlined in Table 8.16.

Offshore Proposed Developments

220. 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