8.12.2.              Maximum Design Scenario

  1. 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.
  2. 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

  1. 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.
  2. 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

  1. Cumulative impacts on roosting or foraging bird species during construction and operation activities due to disturbance or direct habitat loss.
Magnitude of impact
  1. 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.
  2. 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
  1. Sensitivity of all species is as set out in Table 8.9.
Significance of the effect
  1. 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
  1. 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

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

8.13. Inter-Related Effects

  1. A description of the likely inter-related effects arising from the Proposed Development on ornithology is provided in Volume 4, Appendix 15.2 of the Onshore EIA Report.

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

  1. 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.
  2. 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 8.17:  Summary of Likely Significant Environmental Effects, Mitigation and Monitoring

 

Table 8.18:
Summary of Likely Significant Cumulative Environment 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.