Secondary mitigation and residual effect

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

Impacts on hydrogeology

99. During the construction phase, there is potential for pollution transmittal through the geology into the underlying aquifers as a consequence of runoff from construction areas, chemical / fuel spills and untreated foul water discharge. Provision and implementation of the CEMP including construction drainage measures seeks to put in place appropriate measures to limit the likelihood of any such impact on underlying aquifers and the Skateraw abstraction. In addition, a 250 m buffer around the Skateraw abstraction has been maintained with the exception of some enabling works (down gradient) and a minimal encroachment of the cable route to west that is located on the opposite side of the Innerwick Burn, thus not in hydraulic continuity with the abstraction point. The abstraction source would be included within the WQMP for monitoring before, during and after construction. The clay content observed within the superficial deposits over the geology, hydrology, soils & flood risk study area indicates the likelihood for transmittal of pollutants into the groundwater to be negligible. Ground investigation results and primary mitigation within the onshore substation earthworks design indicate that groundwater will not be encountered during construction and therefore no interaction with the groundwater DWPA is expected.

Construction phase

Magnitude of impact

100. The impact is predicted to be of local spatial extent (within vicinity of Skateraw abstraction), medium term duration, intermittent and medium reversibility (due to the anticipated recharge rates of this local abstraction source). It is predicted that the impact will affect the receptor directly. The magnitude is therefore considered to be low.

Sensitivity of the receptor

101. The Skateraw abstraction is deemed to be of medium vulnerability, medium recoverability and medium value. The abstraction is controlled under a simple licence and therefore less than 2,000m3/day and used for non-domestic purposes. The sensitivity is therefore considered to be medium.

Significance of the effect

102. Overall, the magnitude of the impact is deemed to be low and the sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be medium. The effect will, therefore, be of minor adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms.

Secondary mitigation and residual effect

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

Increase in Flood Risk

104. During the construction phase, the removal of soil may increase runoff and downstream fluvial and surface water flood risk if unmitigated. A CEMP will be in place during construction and will include a detailed drainage strategy outlining temporary drainage measures to control increase in surface runoff. The CEMP will also outline the methodology for the construction of watercourse crossings to avoid an increase in flood risk to downstream receptors.
105. During the operational and maintenance phase, if unmitigated the runoff from the onshore substation has the potential to increase flood risk downstream. The permanent surface water drainage strategy will ensure that the runoff from developed areas will be properly managed and attenuated prior to discharge to the water environment to seek to maintain the pre-development runoff rates / hydrological regime. The proposed drainage strategy has the additional benefit of managing runoff from a catchment area that is partially related to a pre-existing flooding issue. This pre-existing flooding issue will be reduced through the implementation of attenuated runoff from the area and formally discharging to the nearby watercourse. For the duration of the operation of the onshore substation, the maintenance of the drainage strategy will be the responsibility of the substation site owner.

Construction phase

Magnitude of impact

106. The impact is predicted to be of local spatial extent downgradient / downstream of all construction areas, short term duration, intermittent and medium reversibility. It is predicted that the impact will affect the receptor directly. Considering the tertiary measures in place to control drainage during construction within the CEMP, the magnitude is therefore considered to be negligible.

Sensitivity of the receptor

107. Fluvial and surface water flood risks in the area are low and thus the sensitivity of the receptor is low.

Significance of the effect

108. Overall, the magnitude of the impact is deemed to be negligible and the sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be low. The effect will, therefore, be of negligible adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms.

Secondary mitigation and residual effect

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

Operation and maintenance phase

Magnitude of impact

110. The impact is predicted to be of local spatial extent downgradient and downstream of the onshore substation location, long term duration, intermittent and medium reversibility. It is predicted that the impact will affect the receptor directly. Considering the tertiary measures in place to control drainage during the operational and maintenance phase through the implementation of the surface water drainage strategy and the benefit of reducing a localised pre-existing flooding issue, the magnitude is therefore considered to be low.

Sensitivity of the receptor

111. Fluvial and surface water flood risks in the area are low and thus the sensitivity of the receptor is low.

Significance of the effect

112. Overall, the magnitude of the impact is deemed to be low and the sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be low. The effect will, therefore, be of minor beneficial significance.

Secondary mitigation and residual effect

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

Impacts to statutory geologically designated sites

114. During the construction phase, the landfall will be installed in the location of the Barns Ness Coast SSSI and Geological Conservation Review Site. It avoids the ‘crucial areas’ of the SSSI feature. Trenchless technology (e.g., HDD) will be used as opposed to open cut trenching which enables the cable transition pits and trenchless technology construction compound to be located out with (inland of) the SSSI boundary.  The cables will be installed in ducted boreholes that are drilled, at depth to pass underneath the SSSI.  The use of trenchless technology will therefore pose a minimal risk of disturbance to the SSSI.  During the decommissioning stage, the cables will either remain in-situ and be pulled out from the landfall location. Given the works will pass underneath the SSSI at depth, the decommissioning phase will pose a minimal risk of disturbance to the SSSI.

Construction phase

Magnitude of impact

115. The impact is predicted to be of local spatial extent within the geological conservation area, short term duration, continuous and low reversibility. It is predicted that the impact will affect the receptor directly. However, considering the use of trenchless technology (e.g. HDD) and avoidance of damage to the SSSI due to the depth of the cable, the magnitude is therefore considered to be negligible.

Sensitivity of the receptor

116. The Barns Ness Coast SSSI is an area containing geological features considered to be of national interest. Barns Ness Coast Geological Conservation Review site is an area containing features of designated regional importance. Taking the higher sensitivity receptor, the SSSI, the geological site is deemed to be of high national geological value. The sensitivity of the receptor is therefore, considered to be high.

Significance of the effect

117. Overall, the magnitude of the impact is deemed to be negligible and the sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be high. The effect will, therefore, be of minor adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms.

Secondary mitigation and residual effect

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

Decommissioning phase

Magnitude of impact

119. The impact is predicted to be of local spatial extent within the geological conservation area, short term duration, continuous and low reversibility. It is predicted that the impact will affect the receptor directly. However, considering the use of trenchless technology (e.g. HDD) and avoidance of damage to the SSSI due to the depth of the cable, the magnitude is therefore considered to be negligible.

Sensitivity of the receptor

120. The Barns Ness Coast SSSI is an area containing geological features considered to be of national interest. Barns Ness Coast Geological Conservation Review site is an area containing features of designated regional importance. Taking the higher sensitivity receptor, the SSSI, the geological site is deemed to be of high national geological value. The sensitivity of the receptor is therefore, considered to be high.

Significance of the effect

121. Overall, the magnitude of the impact is deemed to be negligible and the sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be high. The effect will, therefore, be of minor adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms.

Secondary mitigation and residual effect

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

Impacts to soils

123. During the construction phase, there is potential for increased compaction, erosion and loss of soils as a consequence of construction traffic, disturbance, creation of construction areas and excavations. Provision and implementation of the CEMP including a Soil Management Plan will ensure standard industry practice measures are followed with respect to stripping of soils, stockpiling, backfilling and reinstatement. Loss of soils from the operational phase will be predominantly from the construction of Proposed Development areas (and thus captured in the construction phase assessment) with potential minor impacts as described above relating to any maintenance works. Any maintenance works will be undertaken following a specific method statement.
124. During the decommissioning phase, there is potential for increased compaction, erosion and loss of soils as a consequence of decommissioning activities (similar to the construction phase but to a lesser degree). Provision and implementation of the Decommissioning Programme will ensure standard industry practice measures are followed with respect to stripping of soils, stockpiling, backfilling and reinstatement.

Construction phase

Magnitude of impact

125. The impact is predicted to be of local spatial extent across all construction areas and immediately downgradient, short term duration, intermittent and high reversibility. It is predicted that the impact will affect the receptor directly. However, considering the tertiary mitigation in place through implementation of the CEMP, the magnitude is considered to be low.

Sensitivity of the receptor

126. Soils within proximity to the Proposed Development are predominantly able to support arable agriculture (Class 1, 2 and 3.1) and are predominantly moderately to highly vulnerable to compaction and erosion. The sensitivity is therefore considered medium.

Significance of the effect

127. Overall, the magnitude of the impact is deemed to be low and the sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be medium. The effect will, therefore, be of minor adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms.

Secondary mitigation and residual effect

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

Operation and maintenance phase

Magnitude of impact

129. The impact is predicted to be of local spatial extent across all Proposed Development areas, short term duration (maintenance works), intermittent and high reversibility. It is predicted that the impact will affect the receptor directly. The magnitude is considered to be low.

Sensitivity of the receptor

130. Soils within proximity to the Proposed Development are predominantly able to support arable agriculture (Class 1, 2 and 3.1) and are predominantly moderately to highly vulnerable to compaction and erosion. The sensitivity is therefore considered medium.

Significance of the effect

131. Overall, the magnitude of the impact is deemed to be low and the sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be medium. The effect will, therefore, be of minor adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms.

Secondary mitigation and residual effect

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

Decommissioning phase

Magnitude of impact

133. The magnitude of impact for the decommissioning phase is assumed to be equivalent to the construction phase due to similar processes of plant use, excavation and stockpiling. Therefore, the magnitude is considered to be low.

Sensitivity of the receptor

134. Soils within proximity to the Proposed Development are predominantly able to support arable agriculture (Class 1, 2 and 3.1) and are predominantly moderately to highly vulnerable to compaction and erosion. The sensitivity is therefore considered medium.

Significance of the effect

135. Overall, the magnitude of the impact is deemed to be low and the sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be medium. The effect will, therefore, be of minor adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms.

Secondary mitigation and residual effect

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

11.11.1.         Proposed Monitoring

137. Proposed monitoring measures are outlined in Table 11.11   Open ▸ below.

Table 11.11:  Monitoring Commitments for Geology, Hydrology, Soils and Flood Risk

138. Water quality monitoring of watercourses within the Proposed Development Area and the Skateraw abstraction source is proposed to monitor the quality of these areas during and after construction. Pre-construction monitoring is proposed to develop a baseline water quality dataset for which the construction and post-construction quality can be compared against to assess any potential impacts. Water quality monitoring allows for ongoing monitoring of water quality and to enable a suitable response to be implemented in the unlikely event that effects on the water environment are observed.  

11.12. Cumulative Effects Assessment

11.12.1.         Methodology

139. The Cumulative Effects Assessment (CEA) takes into account the impact associated with the Proposed Development together with other relevant local 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.
140. The projects and plans 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.
141. The specific projects scoped into the CEA for geology, hydrology, soils and flood risk, are outlined in Table 11.12   Open ▸ .

Table 11.12:  List of Other Projects Considered Within the CEA for Geology, Hydrology, Soils & Flood Risk  

11.12.2.         Maximum Design Scenario

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

11.12.3.         Cumulative Effects Assessment

144. An assessment of the likely significance of the cumulative effects of the Proposed Development upon geology, hydrology, soils and flood risk receptors arising from each identified impact is given below.

Tier 1

145. There are considered to be no likely significant cumulative impacts with the Berwick Bank offshore infrastructure.

Tier 2

Cumulative impact on hydrology

146. There is potential for the construction phase of the Proposed Development to coincide with the construction phase of the cumulative projects stated above. This creates a potential for cumulative water quality impacts to occur.
147. There is potential for the operation and maintenance phase of the Proposed Development to coincide with the operation and maintenance phase of the cumulative projects stated above. The proposed onshore substation is to be located within the surface water catchment of the Innerwick Burn, no above ground development from the cumulative projects stated above is proposed within the Innerwick Burn catchment and thus there is no risk of cumulative impact. However, it is possible that ongoing maintenance works from the Proposed Development and cumulative projects could occur simultaneously and within the same surface water catchment.  
148. There is potential for the decommissioning phase of the Proposed Development to coincide with the decommissioning phase of the cumulative projects stated above. This creates a potential for cumulative water quality impacts to occur.
149. Cumulative projects are assumed to be subject to similar tertiary mitigation as the Proposed Development in that, provision and implementation of the CEMP including construction drainage measures would be required to limit the likelihood of any such impact to the water environment given this is standard practice for projects of this scale. In addition, any maintenance works will be subject to specific method statements for undertaken the proposed works and decommissioning of project will be undertaken in accordance with a Decommissioning Programme.

Construction phase

Magnitude of impact

150. The cumulative impact is predicted to be of local spatial extent within individual surface water catchments, short term duration, intermittent and high reversibility (given the relatively small near coast catchment areas). It is predicted that the impact will affect the receptor directly. The magnitude is therefore considered to be negligible.

Sensitivity of receptor

151. The watercourses within the assessment range from high to negligible sensitivity based on their classification. The Thornton Burn is of high sensitivity (due to Good Status Classification), the Dry Burn of medium sensitivity (due to Moderate Status Classification), other unnamed watercourses of negligible sensitivity (due to being unclassified) and the Barness to Wheat Stack coastal water body is of high sensitivity (due to Good Status Classification. The overall sensitivity is considered to be high.

Significance of effect

152. Overall, the magnitude of the impact is deemed to be negligible and the sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be high. The cumulative effect will, therefore, be of minor adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms.

Secondary mitigation and residual effect

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

Operation and maintenance phase

Magnitude of impact

154. The cumulative impact is predicted to be of local spatial extent within individual surface water catchments, short term duration, intermittent and high reversibility (given the relatively small near coast catchment areas). It is predicted that the impact will affect the receptor directly. The magnitude is therefore considered to be negligible.

Sensitivity of receptor

155. The watercourses within the assessment range from high to negligible sensitivity based on their classification. The Thornton Burn is of high sensitivity (due to Good Status Classification), the Dry Burn of medium sensitivity (due to Moderate Status Classification), other unnamed watercourses of negligible sensitivity (due to being unclassified) and the Barness to Wheat Stack coastal water body is of high sensitivity (due to Good Status Classification. The overall sensitivity is considered to be high.

Significance of effect

156. Overall, the magnitude of the impact is deemed to be negligible and the sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be high. The cumulative effect will, therefore, be of minor adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms.

Secondary mitigation and residual effect

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

Decommissioning phase

Magnitude of impact

158. The cumulative impact is predicted to be of local spatial extent within individual surface water catchments, short term duration, intermittent and high reversibility (given the relatively small near coast catchment areas). It is predicted that the impact will affect the receptor directly. The magnitude is therefore considered to be negligible.

Sensitivity of receptor

159. The watercourses within the assessment range from high to negligible sensitivity based on their classification. The Thornton Burn is of high sensitivity (due to Good Status Classification), the Dry Burn of medium sensitivity (due to Moderate Status Classification), other unnamed watercourses of negligible sensitivity (due to being unclassified) and the Barness to Wheat Stack coastal water body is of high sensitivity (due to Good Status Classification. The overall sensitivity is considered to be high.

Significance of effect

160. Overall, the magnitude of the impact is deemed to be negligible and the sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be high. The cumulative effect will, therefore, be of minor adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms.

Secondary mitigation and residual effect

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

Cumulative impact on hydrogeology

162. There is no potential cumulative impact on hydrogeology as the cumulative projects stated above do not fall within 250 m of the Skateraw abstraction point.

 Cumulative impact on Flood Risk

163. There is potential for the construction phase of the Proposed Development to coincide with the construction phase of the cumulative projects stated above. This creates a potential for cumulative increase of flood risk due to the removal of soils.
164. There is potential for the operation and maintenance phase of the Proposed Development to coincide with the operation and maintenance phase of the cumulative projects stated above. The proposed onshore substation is to be located within the surface water catchment of the Innerwick Burn, no above ground development from the cumulative projects stated above is proposed within the Innerwick Burn catchment and thus there is no risk of cumulative impact.
165. Cumulative projects are assumed to be subject to similar tertiary mitigation as the Proposed Development in that, provision and implementation of the CEMP including construction drainage measures would be required to limit the likelihood of any such impact to the water environment given this is standard practice for projects of this scale.

Construction phase

Magnitude of impact

166. The impact is predicted to be of local spatial extent downgradient / downstream of all construction areas, short term duration, intermittent and medium reversibility. It is predicted that the impact will affect the receptor directly. Considering the tertiary measures in place to control drainage during construction within the CEMP, the magnitude is therefore considered to be negligible.

Sensitivity of receptor

167. Fluvial and surface water flood risks in the area are low and thus the sensitivity of the receptor is low.

Significance of effect

168. Overall, the magnitude of the impact is deemed to be negligible and the sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be low. The effect will, therefore, be of negligible adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms.

Secondary mitigation and residual effect

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

Cumulative impact on statutory geologically designated sites

170. From the cumulative projects stated above, there is potential for cumulative impacts relating to the proposed SPEN Eastern Link Project. The Eastern Link Project details several potential landfall locations, some of which are located within the Barns Ness Coast SSSI. In the event that the project selects a landfall location within the SSSI, there is potential for a cumulative impact on the feature from the construction phases and decommissioning phases.
171. The SPEN Eastern Link Project is assumed to be subject to similar site design, and trenchless technology (e.g. HDD) would be used as opposed to open cut trenching at the statutory site to minimise disturbance of the SSSI. Similarly, a trenchless technology approach will ensure minimal disturbance of the SSSI if the cables are to be pulled out from the landfall location during decommissioning.

Construction phase

Magnitude of impact

172. The impact is predicted to be of local spatial extent within the geologically conservation area, short term duration, continuous and low reversibility. It is predicted that the impact will affect the receptor directly. However, considering the use of trenchless technology (e.g. HDD) and avoidance of damage to the SSSI due to the depth of the cable, the magnitude is therefore considered to be negligible.

Sensitivity of receptor

173. The Barns Ness Coast SSSI is an area containing geological features considered to be of national interest. Barns Ness Coast Geological Conservation Review site is an area containing features of designated regional importance. Taking the higher sensitivity receptor, the SSSI, the geological site is deemed to be of high national geological value. The sensitivity of the receptor is therefore, considered to be high.

Significance of effect

174. Overall, the magnitude of the impact is deemed to be negligible and the sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be high. The effect will, therefore, be of minor adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms.

Secondary mitigation and residual effect

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

Decommissioning phase

Magnitude of impact

176. The impact is predicted to be of local spatial extent within the geological conservation area, short term duration, continuous and low reversibility. It is predicted that the impact will affect the receptor directly. However, considering the use of trenchless technology (e.g. HDD) and avoidance of damage to the SSSI due to the depth of the cable, the magnitude is therefore considered to be negligible.

Sensitivity of receptor

177. The Barns Ness Coast SSSI is an area containing geological features considered to be of national interest. Barns Ness Coast Geological Conservation Review site is an area containing features of designated regional importance. Taking the higher sensitivity receptor, the SSSI, the geological site is deemed to be of high national geological value. The sensitivity of the receptor is therefore, considered to be high.

Significance of effect

178. Overall, the magnitude of the impact is deemed to be negligible and the sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be high. The effect will, therefore, be of minor adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms.

Secondary mitigation and residual effect

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

Cumulative impact on soils

180. There is potential for the construction phase of the Proposed Development to coincide with the construction phase of the cumulative projects stated above. This creates a potential for increased compaction, erosion and loss of soils as a consequence of construction activities in areas where the Proposed Development and cumulative projects are closely located.  
181. There is potential for the operation and maintenance phase of the Proposed Development to coincide with the operation and maintenance phase of the cumulative projects stated above. It is possible that ongoing maintenance works from the Proposed Development and cumulative projects could occur simultaneously and within localised areas that could have a cumulative impact on local soils.  
182. There is potential for the decommissioning phase of the Proposed Development to coincide with the decommissioning phase of the cumulative projects stated above. This creates a potential for cumulative impacts to local soils to occur.  
183. Cumulative projects are assumed to be subject to similar tertiary mitigation as the Proposed Development in that, provision and implementation of the CEMP including a Soil Management Plan. In addition, any maintenance works will be subject to specific method statements for undertaken the proposed works and decommissioning of project will be undertaken in accordance with a Decommissioning Programme.

Construction phase

Magnitude of impact

184. The impact is predicted to be of local spatial extent across all construction areas and immediately downgradient, short term duration, intermittent and high reversibility. It is predicted that the impact will affect the receptor directly. However, considering the tertiary mitigation in place through implementation of the CEMP, the magnitude is considered to be low.

Sensitivity of receptor

185. Soils within proximity to the Proposed Development are predominantly able to support arable agriculture (Class 1, 2 and 3.1) and are predominantly moderately to highly vulnerable to compaction and erosion. The sensitivity is therefore considered medium.

Significance of effect

186. Overall, the magnitude of the impact is deemed to be low and the sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be medium. The effect will, therefore, be of minor adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms.

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.

Operation and maintenance phase

Magnitude of impact

188. The impact is predicted to be of local spatial extent across all construction areas and immediately downgradient, short term duration, intermittent and high reversibility. It is predicted that the impact will affect the receptor directly. However, considering the tertiary mitigation in place through implementation of the CEMP, the magnitude is considered to be low.

Sensitivity of receptor

189. Soils within proximity to the Proposed Development are predominantly able to support arable agriculture (Class 1, 2 and 3.1) and are predominantly moderately to highly vulnerable to compaction and erosion. The sensitivity is therefore considered medium.

Significance of effect

190. Overall, the magnitude of the impact is deemed to be low and the sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be medium. The effect will, therefore, be of minor adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms.

Secondary mitigation and residual effect

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

Decommissioning phase

Magnitude of impact

192. The impact is predicted to be of local spatial extent across all construction areas and immediately downgradient, short term duration, intermittent and high reversibility. It is predicted that the impact will affect the receptor directly. However, considering the tertiary mitigation in place through implementation of the CEMP, the magnitude is considered to be low.

Sensitivity of receptor

193. Soils within proximity to the Proposed Development are predominantly able to support arable agriculture (Class 1, 2 and 3.1) and are predominantly moderately to highly vulnerable to compaction and erosion. The sensitivity is therefore considered medium.

Significance of effect

194. Overall, the magnitude of the impact is deemed to be low and the sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be medium. The effect will, therefore, be of minor adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms.

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.

11.12.4.         Proposed Monitoring

196. No geology, hydrology, soil and flood risk additional monitoring to test the predictions made within the assessment of likely significant cumulative effects is considered necessary.

11.13. Inter-Related Effects

197. A description of the likely inter-related effects arising from the Proposed Development on geology, hydrology, soil and flood risk is provided in Volume 4, Appendix 15.2 of the Onshore EIA Report.

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

198. Information on geology, hydrology, soils and flood risk within the geology, hydrology, soils and flood risk study area was collected through desktop review, site surveys and consultation.
199. Table 11.13   Open ▸ presents a summary of the potential impacts, mitigation measures and the conclusion of likely significant effects in EIA terms in respect to geology, hydrology, soils and flood risk. The impacts assessed include: hydrology, hydrogeology, flood risk, contaminated land, statutory geological designated sites and soils. Overall, it is concluded that there will be no likely significant effects arising from the Proposed Development during the construction, operational and maintenance or decommissioning phases.
200. Table 11.14   Open ▸ presents a summary of the potential cumulative impacts, mitigation measures and the conclusion of likely significant effects on geology, hydrology, soils and flood risk. The cumulative effects assessed include: hydrology, flood risk, geologically designated sites and soils. Overall, it is concluded that there will be no likely significant cumulative effects from the Proposed Development alongside other projects/plans.

Table 11.13:  Summary of Likely Significant Environmental Effects, Mitigation and Monitoring

Table 11.14:  Summary of Likely Significant Cumulative Environment Effects, Mitigation and Monitoring

11.15. References

CIRIA (2001). C532: Control of Water Pollution from Construction Sites - Guidance for Consultants and Contractors

CIRIA (2015). C753: The SuDS Manual.

COPA (1974) The Control of Pollution Act, as amended.

EA, SEPA & EHSNI  (2013). PPG1: General guide to the prevention of pollution.

EA, SEPA & EHSNI (2018). GPP2: Above ground oil storage tanks.

EA, SEPA & EHSNI (2017). GPP5: Works and maintenance in or near water.

EA, SEPA & EHSNI (2012). PPG6: Working at construction and demolition sites.

EA, SEPA & EHSNI (2017). GPP21: Pollution incidence response planning.

EC (2007). Directive 2007/60/EC on the assessment and management of flood risks.

EC (2000). Directive 2000/60/EC: Water Framework Directive.

EC (2006). Directive 2006/118/EC: The EC Groundwater Directive.

Scottish Executive (1997). Flood Prevention and Land Drainage (Scotland) Act

Scottish Government (2009). Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act

Scottish Government (2011). The Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations, as amended.

Scottish Government (2009). The Private Water Supplies (Scotland) Act.

Scottish Government (2017). The Water Intended for Human Consumption (Private Supplies) (Scotland) Regulations.

Scottish Government (2013). The Water Resources (Scotland) Act.

Scottish Government (2015). The Private and Public Water Supplies (Miscellaneous Amendments) (Scotland) Regulations.

Scottish Government (2023). National Planning Framework 4. Available at: https://www.transformingplanning.scot/national-planning-framework/adopted-npf4/

SEPA (2018). Supporting Guidance (SAT-SG-75) – Sector specific guidance: construction sites.

SEPA (2018). Guidance Note 2a: Development Management Guidance on Flood Risk.

SEPA (2017). Guidance Note 31: Guidance on Assessing the Impacts of Development Proposals on Groundwater Abstractions and Groundwater Dependent Terrestrial Ecosystems.

SEPA (2009). Policy 19: Groundwater Protection Policy for Scotland.

SEPA (2016). Policy 41: Planning Authority Protocol - Development at Risk of Flooding: Advice and Consultation.

SEPA (2019). Technical Flood Risk Guidance for Stakeholders - SEPA Requirements for Undertaking a Flood Risk Assessment.

SEPA (2006). Special Requirements for Civil Engineering Contracts for the Prevention of Pollution.

SEPA (2014). Regulatory Method (WAT-RM-08) Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems.

UK Government (1995). Environment Act.

WEWSE (2003). The Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act.

BGS (2020). Online Geology of Britain Viewer. Available at: http://mapapps.bgs.ac.uk/geologyofbritain/home.html

BGS (2020). Online GeoIndex Onshore. Available at:                                            https://www.bgs.ac.uk/map-viewers/geoindex-onshore/

CEH (2022). Flood Estimation Handbook Web Service. Available at:

https://fehweb.ceh.ac.uk/GB/map

SEPA (2022). Scotland’s Environment Web Map. Available at: https://map.environment.gov.scot/sewebmap/

SEPA (2022). SEPA Flood Maps. Available at:

https://map.sepa.org.uk/floodmaps

SEPA (2022). Environnent Data. Available at :

https://www.sepa.org.uk/environment/environmental-data/

SEPA (2022). Water Classification Hub. Available at:

https://www.sepa.org.uk/data-visualisation/water-classification-hub/

SEPA (2017). National Soil Map of Scotland. Available at: https://soils.environment.gov.scot/maps/soil-maps/national-soil-map-of-scotland/

SNH (2011). Geological Conservation Review Dataset. Available at:

https://apps.snh.gov.uk/sitelink-api/v1/sites/153/documents/3

[1] C = Construction, O = Operational and maintenance, D = Decommissioning