Acronyms

1. Introduction

1. Introduction

1.1.        Project Background

1.1. Project Background

1. Berwick Bank Wind Farm Limited (the Applicant) is proposing to develop the Berwick Bank Wind Farm (The Project), in the outer Firth of Forth and Firth of Tay within the former Round 3 Firth of Forth Zone. The Project will include offshore and onshore infrastructure including an offshore generating station (array), offshore export cables to landfall and onshore transmission cables leading to an onshore substation with electrical balancing infrastructure, and connection to the electricity transmission network. The offshore components of the Project seaward of MHWS are referred to as the Proposed Development.
2. The array comprises 307 wind turbines, with an estimated capacity of 4.1 gigawatt (GW). The array will be approximately 47.6 km offshore of the East Lothian coastline and 37.8 km from the Scottish Borders coastline at St, Abbs. It lies to the south of the offshore wind farms known as Seagreen and Seagreen 1A, south-east of Inch Cape and east of Neart Na Goaithe.
3. The most precautionary conclusions of the Report to Inform Appropriate Assessment (RIAA) of the Proposed Development has identified the potential for an adverse effect on the integrity of the following eight SPAs from the impacts of the Proposed Development (alone and/or in-combination):

• Forth Islands SPA
• St Abbs Head to Fast Castle SPA
• Fowlsheugh SPA
• Farne Islands SPA
• East Caithness Cliffs SPA
• Troup, Pennan & Lion's Heads SPA
• Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast SPA
• Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA

4. As such, the Applicant has proposed a derogation case including identifying compensatory measures which could be delivered to secure the overall coherence of the national site network, if necessary.  The compensatory measures selection process, as set out within the Derogation Case, together with stakeholder consultation resulted in one fisheries management measure and two colony measures being selected from a long list. The chosen measures, as illustrated in Figure 1   Open ▸ , comprise of the following:

• Management of SA4 sandeel fishery (either under a “full closure of SA4” or an “ecosystem-based management” option);
• Rat Eradication: Handa; and
• Dunbar Castle Wardening Role.
  5. These measures are substantial, and justification with evidence has been provided within the Derogation Case that provide sufficient information to allow the Scottish Ministers to conclude that the national site network will be maintained and enhanced. This evidence is supported, and should be read alongside the accompanying technical appendices (the Fisheries Compensatory Measures (FCM) Evidence Report and the Colony Compensatory Measures (CCM) Evidence Report).
  6. Information on how each of the measures will be implemented and monitored is provided in the Implementation and Monitoring Plan (IMP). This includes a range of built-in adaptive management measures specific to each measure and a number of secondary measures, that could also be implemented as part of an adaptive management response.  Rat eradication at Inchcolm Island is included as a secondary adaptive management compensatory measure that may be implemented for adaptive management purposes. A complete account of this measure is included within this document however it should be noted that further stakeholder consultation would be required before this specific measure could be secured and the intention is not to take this measure forward as compensation at this stage.

Figure 1: A map of the proposed locations for the proposed compensatory measures including the SA4 fishery, Handa island, Dunbar Castle, and Inchcolm island (included as a secondary measure for adaptive management purposes).

1.2.        Purpose of this Document

1.2. Purpose of this Document

7. This document presents an assessment of the likely significant environmental effects of the compensatory measures being developed as part of the Derogation Case for the Proposed Development. The compensatory measures are being brought forward, as a consequence of the Proposed Development’s potential effects on the national site network. Any effects arising from the compensatory measures are, on a precautionary basis, considered to be indirect or secondary to the effects of the Proposed Development, and for consideration under the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) regulations[1]. The purpose of this document is to assess the likely significant effects of the proposed compensatory measures on the environment. For full context regarding the policy and legislative context for EIA please see Volume 1, Chapter 2: Policy and Legislation of the EIA Report.

1.3.        Structure of this Document

1.3. Structure of this Document

8. This Environmental Impact Assessment Report (EIAR) is set out in a number of stages as follows:

• Consideration of alternative compensatory measures (Section 2);
• Brief description of the proposed compensatory measures for the Proposed Development (Section 3);
• Consultation (Section 4);
• A brief summary of the EIA Methodology used for the assessment (Section 5);
• An EIA section for each compensatory measure (Section 6 to 9), with each section containing the following sections:

–      Baseline – a summary of the baseline environment for each area considered; and

–      Assessment – identification of impacts and associated assessment.

• Conclusions (Section 10); and
• References (Section 11).

2.             Consideration of Alternative Compensatory Measures

2. Consideration of Alternative Compensatory Measures

9. An important part of the development process for the Proposed Development has been the consideration of potential options, selection and the subsequent refinement of compensatory measures and their delivery.  Well informed decisions on the selection and consideration of alternatives are critical and the Applicant recognises the need to ensure consultees and stakeholders understand how such decisions have been made. The process undertaken by the Applicant for selection and consideration of alternative compensatory measures and alternative site/locations for their delivery is detailed within Part D of the Derogation Case. and the CCM Evidence Report and FCM Evidence Report.
10. The Applicant used a five-step process to select the proposed compensatory measures:

• Step 1 - Risk to conservation objectives

–      Quantify the nature and extent of potential adverse effects and the conservation objectives which may be undermined

–      Show how these effects might affect overall network coherence,

• Step 2 – Aims and Objectives

–      Specify the aims and objectives of compensatory measures

• Step 3 - Feasibility of potential compensatory measure options

–      Assessing the feasibility of potential compensatory measure options (technical, legal and financial)

–      Identify a final list of proposed compensatory measures and carry out a detailed feasibility assessment

–      The Applicant’s detailed feasibility assessment has been carried out to ensure each of the measures selected meets the key criteria for compensation. The list of key criteria was developed in view of the suite of guidance documents available on compensation (see section 2.2 of the Derogation Case). The assessment demonstrates to Scottish Ministers that each of the chosen measures is feasible in respect of all criteria assessed. 

• Step 4 - Assess the extent of the proposed compensatory measures and the sufficiency of each measure in ensuring the overall coherence of the National Site Network

• Step 5 - Implementation and monitoring plan

11. To avoid repetition the approach to selection and consideration of alternatives is not discussed further here however, as outlined within the Derogation Case and supporting documents, the Applicant has proposed a suite of compensatory measures which has been selected through a rigorous iterative process involving careful consideration and testing of options, stakeholder consultation and refinement. There is sufficient evidence to support the rationale for the final selection.

3.             Proposed Compensatory Measures

3. Proposed Compensatory Measures

3.1.        Introduction

3.1. Introduction

12. A full description of each proposed compensatory measure can be found within the Implementation and Monitoring Plan (IMP).
13. In order to facilitate an environmental assessment of the measures, a Maximum Design Scenario (MDS) has been defined for each measure, which is presented in Table 1   Open ▸ and Table 2   Open ▸ . The MDS represents the scenario(s) that would have the greatest impact and has been defined so that the “worst case” scenario can be assessed. As a result, the reader can be confident that any other (lesser) scenario(s) will have an impact that is no greater than that assessed.
14. The proposed compensatory measures are categorised into two groups, ‘Fisheries Based’ and ‘Colony Based’ measures as follows:

• Fisheries Based measures:

–      Management of SA4 sandeel fishery (considering two options: closure of SA4 sandeel fishery and ecosystem-based management).

• Colony Based measures:

–      Rat eradication: Handa;

–      Dunbar Castle wardening role; and

–      Rat eradication: Inchcolm (secondary measure)[2].

3.2.        Maximum Design Scenario

3.2. Maximum Design Scenario

15. A Rochdale Envelope approach has been adopted which allows meaningful EIA to take place by defining a ’realistic worst case’ scenario that decision makers can consider in determining the acceptability, or otherwise, of the environmental impacts of a project. As long as a project’s parameters fall within the limits of the envelope and the EIA process has considered the impacts of that envelope and provides robust and justifiable conclusions, then flexibility within those parameters is deemed to be permissible within the terms of any consent granted, i.e., if consent is granted on the assessed maximum parameters of a development, any parameters equal to or less than those assessed is permitted to be constructed. The principle of Rochdale permits the developer or applicant to provide broad or alternative project parameters, of which one or a selection of the scenarios or parameters will ultimately be implemented.
16. The ‘realistic worst case’ scenario assumes that one or other of the parameters will have a more significant adverse effect than the alternative. Where a range is provided, i.e., different fisheries management scenarios, the most detrimental is assessed in each case.
17. The design of the compensatory measure that could result in the most significant effect may be different for each receptor type. Understanding the cause and effect specific to each receptor leads to the definition of the appropriate Rochdale parameter for that receptor and, therefore, identifies the ‘realistic worst case’. Taking the ‘realistic worst case’ scenario, it can be assumed if no significant impact is demonstrated at the ‘realistic worst case’, then no significant impact is likely for any scenario.
18. Table 1   Open ▸ and Table 2   Open ▸ present a summary of the MDS identified for the compensatory measures. Due to the nature of the compensatory measure for sandeel fishing, this measure has been presented with a different MDS per receptor ( Table 1   Open ▸ ).  The MDS’s have been identified by examination of the Implementation and Monitoring Plan combined with knowledge of similar compensation projects, and applying expert judgement on the variables which may result in greater impacts.

Table 1: Maximum design scenario for the management of SA4 sandeel fishery compensatory measure

Table 2: Maximum design scenario for the colony based compensatory measures

3.3.        Compensatory Measures Commitments

3.3. Compensatory Measures Commitments

19. The approach taken to EIAR for the compensatory measures is detailed in section 5. Where there is potential for an adverse effect, the primary measure applied to avoid a significant adverse effect is mitigation. For the Proposed Development, these mitigation measures are identified below in Table 3Table 3.
20. The commitments described in Table 3 are incorporated within the IMP. As part of the process of discharging suspensive requirements of consent conditions, it is anticipated that the Applicant will produce a Colony Measures Implementation Plan and Sandeel Measures Implementation Plan for submission to Scottish Ministers. Each plan will be informed by stakeholder feedback and the commitments made in the IMP. Section 6 of the IMP details the Applicant’s recommendation to Scottish Ministers on how this process should be secured within the consent. 

Table 3: Commitments relating to the proposed compensatory measures

4.             Consultation

4. Consultation

21. The Applicant has undertaken consultation with relevant stakeholders and Statutory Nature Conservation Bodies (SNCBs) as part of the preparation of the Derogation Case (namely, NatureScot, Marine Scotland – Licensing Operations Team (MS-LOT), Historic Environment Scotland (HES), Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), the Scottish Seabird Centre, the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, the National Trust, the National Trust for Scotland, the Scottish Wildlife Trust, Crown Estate Scotland (CES), Royal Society for Protection of Birds (RSPB), Dunbar Harbour Trust (DHT), East Lothian Council (ELC), East Lothian Council Ranger Service (ELCAS), Scottish Fishermen’s Federation (SFF), local ornithological consultants, and local bird ringers) regarding compensation for the Proposed Development. Further detail on this consultation is presented in the Consultation Log which is found in Appendix 1 of the Derogation Case. Engagement will be ongoing with various stakeholders for the proposed compensatory measures at various stages through the process, as detailed in the IMP.
    

5.             EIAR Methodology

5. EIAR Methodology

5.1.        Introduction

5.1. Introduction

22. Volume 1, Chapter 6: Environmental Impact Assessment Methodology of the EIA Report sets out the EIA methodology followed for the offshore stages of the Proposed Development. It describes the approach used to identify, evaluate and mitigate potential likely significant effects in and evaluate whether they are significant in EIA terms. The requirement for EIA and the proposed temporal, spatial and technical scope of the assessments are described with the detail being equally relevant to the derogation case EIA and as such, most of this detail is not repeated within this document. To enhance the readability of this derogation case EIAR, some elements of EIA methodology are repeated below to allow this document to be read and understood without extensive cross-referencing to other documents required.

5.2.        Overview of Process

5.2. Overview of Process

5.2.1.    Overview

23. EIA is a systematic, iterative, and prescribed process framed by statutory requirements as well as the relevant planning and policy context (see Volume 1, Chapter 2: Policy and Legislation). Furthermore, consideration of best, good and advised EIA practice and adoption of a proportionate EIA approach (see Volume 1, Chapter 6: Environmental Impact Assessment Methodology) has guided the specific approach followed by the Applicant in relation to this derogation case EIA.
24. The key elements of the derogation case EIAR process and the identification of significant effects are described in the following sections. While these provide a general framework for identifying impacts and assessing the significance of their effect(s), in practice the approaches and criteria applied across different EIA topics vary.
25. An overview of the approach to assessment of the derogation case EIAR is provided in Figure 2   Open ▸ .

Figure 2: Compensatory measures EIA Process

5.3.        Impacts, Effects Mitigation, and Significance

5.3. Impacts, Effects Mitigation, and Significance

26. ‘Impacts’ are defined as the physical (or chemical) changes that will be caused by the Proposed Development activities. ‘Effects’ are defined as the consequences of these impacts to biological populations, ecosystems, and humans (including their physical and cultural assets). The impacts of the various compensation measures presented in this document have been identified based on knowledge of impact pathways from examining similar projects plus a consideration of the existing baseline environment and subsequent potential for impact. 
27. For many technical topics, the likely significance of an effect is established by combining the magnitude of an impact with the sensitivity of the receptor to that impact (noting that sensitivity is not considered as an inherent characteristic but how something specifically responds to an external factor). The magnitude of an impact is the consideration of the extent, duration, frequency, and reversibility of an impact. In defining the sensitivity for each receptor/receptor group, the vulnerability, recoverability, and value/importance of that receptor will be taken into consideration. The conclusion of significance of effect is determined through a significance matrix as presented in Table 4   Open ▸ .
28. A level of effect of moderate or more will be considered a ‘significant’ effect for the purposes of the EIAR. A level of effect of minor or less will be considered ‘not significant’. Effects of moderate significance or above are therefore considered important in the decision-making process, whilst effects of minor significance are afforded less weight in the decision-making process.

Table 4: Matrix used for the assessment of the significance of the effect

29. For more information on the methodology for assessing the likely significance of effects, including the significance matrix utilised in this assessment, see Volume 1, Chapter 6: Environmental Impact Assessment Methodology.

5.4.        Scoping of impacts

5.4. Scoping of impacts

30. In order to facilitate a proportionate level of environmental assessment, an informal scoping stage was undertaken to identify what potential impacts exist for each of the compensatory measures.  The results of the scoping stage are presented in Table 5   Open ▸ . Scoping was undertaken based on knowledge of the proposed locations of each measure and the baseline environment, and potential impacts of the measures from other similar projects undertaken (such as rat eradication projects already undertaken elsewhere in the UK).Where no pathway for impact exists or all impacts on a particular receptor have been scoped out, that receptor is scoped out and not examined further in this EIAR. Justification for scoping out is presented in Table 5   Open ▸ . 

Table 5: Results of scoping of environmental impacts of the compensatory measures

5.5.        Cumulative, Inter-Relationships and Transboundary Effects

5.5. Cumulative, Inter-Relationships and Transboundary Effects

31. For consideration of cumulative effects, where it is considered that a potential likely significant effect exists cumulatively with other plans and projects this has been assessed within the section for each individual compensation measure.
32. Inter-relationships refer to a situation where several impacts may combine on a particular receptor.  This EIAR has given due consideration using expert judgement to the potential for different residual impacts to have a combined impact on key sensitive receptors, however, within the context of this assessment it has been considered that there is no potential for inter-relationships
33. Transboundary effects (likely significant effects on another country or countries) have been considered during the assessment process where appropriate. The only adverse transboundary impact identified was associated with the management of SA4 sandeel fishery compensatory measure and no transboundary impacts have been identified associated with the other compensatory measures.

6.             EIA – Management of SA4 Sandeel Fishery

6. EIA – Management of SA4 Sandeel Fishery

6.1.        Introduction

6.1. Introduction

34. This section considers the potential impacts arising from the management of SA4 sandeel fishery compensatory measure. A characterisation of the physical, biological and human environmental baseline is presented below (Section 6.2) followed by the results of an assessment of potential likely significant effects arising from the proposed compensatory measure (Section 6.3).
35. The objective of this compensatory measure is to increase productivity and survival of seabirds (namely Kittiwake, Guillemot, Atlantic Puffin and Razorbill) associated with SPA colonies in proximity to the Proposed Development. The Applicant considers there are two options which could be taken to increase sandeel stocks as well as delivering the required level of compensation for the Proposed Development:

• Option 1: Closure of the SA4 sandeel fishery and monitoring of seabirds (at SPAs within SA4 and SPAs impacted by the Proposed Development outside of SA4) and sandeel (through dredge surveys of key sandbanks in SA4); or
• Option 2: Ecosystem based approach for management of SA4 and monitoring of seabirds (at SPAs within SA4 and SPAs impacted by the Proposed Development outside of SA4) and sandeel (through dredge surveys of key sandbanks in SA4).
  36. The SA4 sandeel fishery area is located offshore along the east coast of Scotland as shown in Figure 1 Section 2 of the IMP provides a detailed description of the proposed compensatory measure.

6.2.        Baseline

6.2. Baseline

37. Table 6   Open ▸ provides a description of the baseline environment for each receptor which was identified during the scoping stage as potentially being affected by the proposed compensatory measure ( Table 5   Open ▸ ).

Table 6: The baseline environment for the receptor groups relevant to the management of SA4 sandeel fishery

6.3.        Assessment

6.3. Assessment

6.3.1.    Identification of Impacts and Scope of Assessment

38. Based on the information presented in this document, the IMP and the FCM Evidence Report, all activities associated with the implementation and management of SA4 sandeel fishery compensatory measure were defined and potential impact pathways identified. The potential impact pathways identified were:

• Benthic and intertidal ecology:

–      Beneficial effect on benthic ecology receptors through a reduction in habitat degradation

• Commercial fishing and Socio-economics:

–      Adverse effect on sandeel fishery through restriction of activities

• Fish and shellfish ecology:

–      Beneficial effect on fish and shellfish ecology receptors through a reduction in habitat degradation

• Marine mammals:

–      Beneficial effect on marine mammals through an increase in prey resource

• Offshore and intertidal ornithology:

–      Beneficial effect on seabirds through an increase in prey resource

6.3.2.    Impact Assessment Alone

39. The assessment for the effects of the compensation alone (that is not combined with any other plans or projects) is presented below:

Benthic and intertidal ecology

Beneficial effect on benthic ecology receptors through a reduction in habitat degradation

40. The proposed measure will result in a decrease in fishing effort and therefore a reduction in habitat degradation. This would be beneficial to fish and shellfish ecology receptors. The assessment presented here is based on the MDS presented within Table 1   Open ▸ .
41. The sandeel fishery in the north sea primarily uses extensive otter trawls with mesh sizes ranging from 10-20mm. While the specific area that is trawled by the fishery is unknown at the time of writing, it is understood that the nets are towed along ridges of sandbars or edges of sandbanks forming typical habitats of sandeels throughout spring and (early) summer. Bottom trawling, including otter trawls, are known to cause significant damage to benthic communities and habitats (Engelhard, et al., 2008; Sciberras et al., 2018), meaning that the existing practice of sandeel fishing causes adverse effects to benthic ecology through direct damage to communities and degradation of the habitat. In 2021 approximately 52,000 tonnes of sandeel were caught within SA4 (ICES, 2022), which is a significant increase from the previous 18 years where it was greatly reduced. The management of the sandeel fishery would reduce the level of trawling in SA4 and therefore have a beneficial effect on benthic ecology through reduction in habitat degradation.  Although, the scale of reduction in fishing that will occur is (at the time of writing) somewhat uncertain, whatever level of reduction that will occur have a beneficial effect.  Assuming a worst case scenario of minimal changes to fishing effort, the magnitude of this effect is considered to be low (beneficial). Due to the potential for significant damage and degradation to be alleviated, the sensitivity in this case considered to be between medium and high (beneficial).
42. Following the significance matrix utilised in this assessment (Table 4), a magnitude of low and a sensitivity of medium to high results in a minor or minor to moderate beneficial significance of effect, which is significant (beneficial) in EIA terms.

Commercial fishing and Socio-economics

Adverse effect on sandeel fishery through restriction of activities

43. Under the worst-case scenario for commercial fisheries, the proposed measure will result in a closure of the SA4 sandeel fishery indefinitely. This could have an adverse effect on the commercial fishing industry that currently uses this area. This section examines the potential adverse effect on the UK commercial fishing industry, with transboundary effects on commercial fishers outside of the UK assessed within Section 9.3.4. The assessment presented here is based on the MDS presented within Table 1   Open ▸ . Under this MDS, the fishing industry would not receive financial compensation for the closure and would not be displaced elsewhere.
44. The value of UK sandeel landings within SA4 in 2018 was £150,016 (ABPmer. 2021). However, it is the Scottish government’s policy not to allocate any TAC for UK vessels and sandeel fishing by UK vessels within SA4 will no longer occur. Therefore, under the worst-case scenario with a long-standing closure, there would be no loss of annual income to UK vessels as they would not otherwise be allowed to fish for sandeel within SA4. Furthermore, it has been noted by Natural England that the increase in sandeel populations may result in a benefit to the commercial fishing industry due an increase in more valuable species that prey on sandeel (recent prepublication study for Defra (unpublished). Therefore, with respect to the UK fishery it is anticipated that the magnitude is negligible (adverse) as no TAC is currently allocated to UK vessels and there is no indication that this policy will change. The sensitivity is anticipated to be negligible (adverse) due to the limited potential for loss of income.
45. Following the significance matrix utilised in this assessment ( Table 4   Open ▸ ), a magnitude of low and sensitivity of low results in a negligible adverse significance of effect, which is not significant in EIA terms.

Fish and shellfish ecology

Beneficial effect on fish and shellfish ecology receptors through a reduction in habitat degradation

46. The proposed measure will result in a decrease in fishing effort and therefore a reduction in habitat loss and degradation. This would be beneficial to fish and shellfish ecology receptors. The assessment presented here is based on the MDS presented within Table 1   Open ▸ .
47. The sandeel fishery in the north sea primarily uses extensive otter trawls with mesh sizes ranging from 10-20mm. While the specific area that is trawled by the fishery is unknown at the time of writing, it is understood that the nets are towed along ridges of sandbars or edges of sandbanks forming typical habitats of sandeels throughout spring and (early) summer. Bottom trawling, including otter trawls, are known to cause significant damage to benthic communities and habitats (Engelhard, et al., 2008; Sciberras et al., 2018), meaning that the baseline practice of sandeel fishing causes adverse effects to fish and shellfish ecology receptors through damage to the habitat and direct capture in the nets. In 2021 approximately 52,000 tonnes of sandeel were caught within SA4 (ICES, 2022), which is a significant increase from the previous 18 years where it was greatly reduced. The management of the sandeel fishery would reduce the level of trawling in SA4 and therefore have a beneficial effect on fish and shellfish ecology through reduction in habitat degradation and reduction in capture.  Although the scale of reduction in fishing that will occur is (at the time of writing) somewhat uncertain, whatever level of reduction that will occur will have a beneficial effect.  Assuming a worst case scenario of minimal changes to fishing effort, the magnitude of this effect is considered to be low (beneficial). Due to the potential for significant damage and degradation to be alleviated, the sensitivity in this case considered to be between medium and high (beneficial).
48. Following the significance matrix utilised in this assessment (Table 4), a magnitude of low and a sensitivity of medium to high results in a minor or minor to moderate beneficial significance of effect, which is significant (beneficial) in EIA terms.

Marine mammals

Beneficial effect on marine mammals through an increase in prey resource

49. The proposed measure will result in an increase in sandeel populations, which act as a prey resource for several marine mammal species. This would be beneficial to marine mammal receptors. The assessment presented here is based on the MDS presented within Table 1   Open ▸ .
50. Harbour porpoise, bottlenose dolphin, minke whale, harbour seal, and grey seal are all known to have sandeel as regular parts of their diet, to varying degrees of importance (Pierce et al., 2007; Santos et al., 2001; Pierce et al., 2004, Wilson and Hammond, 2016; SCOS, 2017). It is anticipated that the increase in sandeel as a prey resource would be a significant beneficial effect for marine mammals and therefore the sensitivity is considered to be high (beneficial). Under and ecosystem-based approach to management TAC will always be adjusted to facilitate for a positive response from seabirds populations so the magnitude of an increase in prey (which marine mammals will also benefit from) is considered to be medium and high (beneficial). 
51. Following the significance matrix utilised in this assessment (Table 4), a magnitude of high and sensitivity of high results in a major (beneficial) significance of effect, which is significant in EIA terms.

Offshore and intertidal ornithology

Beneficial effect on seabirds through an increase in prey resource

52. The proposed measure will result in an increase in sandeel populations, which act as a prey resource for several bird species. This would be beneficial to offshore and intertidal ornithology receptors. The assessment presented here is based on the MDS presented within Table 1   Open ▸ .
53. Sandeel make up part of the diet of a wide range of seabird species, with arctic tern (Sterna paradisaea), common tern (Sterna hirundo), kittiwake (Rissa tridactyla), arctic skua (Stercorarius parasiticus), common guillemot (Uria aalge), great skua (Stercorarius skua), puffin (Fratercula arctica), razorbill (Alca torda), and red-throated diver (Gavia stellata) being of notable importance. While there is a potential loss of prey resource with respect to discards from fishing vessels, it is anticipated that the increase in natural sandeel as a prey resource would be a significant benefit (FCM Evidence Report) and have a greater beneficial effect than the adverse effect associated with the loss of discards. Therefore it is considered that the beneficial effect for offshore and intertidal ornithology results in a sensitivity of high (beneficial). Under and ecosystem-based approach to management TAC will always be adjusted to facilitate for a positive response from seabirds populations so the magnitude of this effect is considered to be medium and high (beneficial). 
54. Following the significance matrix utilised in this assessment ( Table 4   Open ▸ ), a magnitude of high and sensitivity of high results in a major (beneficial) significance of effect, which is significant in EIA terms.

6.3.3.    Cumulative Effect Assessment

55. Based on the nature and scale of effects associated with the management of SA4 sandeel fishery compensatory measure, it is considered that the scope of the cumulative effects assessment should consider other plans or projects which have the potential to significantly affect the sandeel fishery or sandeel populations within SA4. 
56. The Applicant has considered the effects of all plans or projects, within or in proximity to SA4, that fall within the following categories:

• Oil and gas;
• Cables and pipelines;
• Offshore wind farms;
• Tidal energy;
• Wave energy; and
• Seismic / geophysical surveys
• Government Policy
  57.  The Applicant has found no other plans/ initiatives to expand the existing ‘sandeel box’ (which is already a closed area) or impose any other restrictions/ closures in the remaining sandeel fishery SA4.  It is therefore considered that there are no other projects which have the potential to interact in a cumulative fashion with the proposed compensatory measure.

6.3.4.    Transboundary Impacts

58. The closure of SA4 will have a transboundary impact by affecting fishers from other countries that currently fish in this area.  The vast majority of fishing vessels that catch sandeels in SA4 are of Danish origin and therefore it is predicted that the effect on fishing vessels described in Section 9 would primarily affect Danish vessels rather than UK vessels. However, only 6% of the total sandeels fished by Danish vessels have historically been from within SA4 and therefore it is considered that there would only be a minor impact on the Danish Fleet under the full closure option for the management of SA4 fishery compensatory measure. It should also be noted that the whole Danish fishery was 952,000 tonnes in 2020 and only 2% of the total fish caught and landed in Denmark was sandeels from SA4 in 2020 (Statistics Denmark, 2022). Therefore it is considered that for this impact the magnitude is medium (adverse) and the sensitivity is low (adverse).
59. Following the significance matrix utilised in this assessment ( Table 4   Open ▸ ), a magnitude of medium and sensitivity of low results in a minor adverse significance of effect, which is not significant in EIA terms.

7.             EIA – Rat Eradication: Handa

7. EIA – Rat Eradication: Handa

7.1.        Introduction

7.1. Introduction

60. This section considers the potential impacts arising from the rat eradication at Handa. A characterisation of the physical, biological and human environmental baseline is presented ( Table 7   Open ▸ ) followed by the results of an assessment of potential likely significant effects arising from the proposed compensatory measure (Section 7.3).
61. This compensatory measure proposes to eradicate the brown rat from Handa, an island off the northwest coast of Scotland, as shown in Figure 1 Following eradication the Applicant will implement biosecurity measures, implement appropriate seabird habitat management, undertake monitoring and address any re-incursions. The objective of this measure is to increase black-legged kittiwake, common guillemot, Atlantic puffin, and razorbill populations on the island through the removal of predation pressure from brown rats.

7.2.        Section 3 of the IMP provides a detailed description of the proposed compensatory measure. Baseline

7.2. Section 3 of the IMP provides a detailed description of the proposed compensatory measure. Baseline

62. Table 7   Open ▸ provides a description of the baseline environment for each receptor which was identified during the scoping stage as potentially being affected by the proposed compensation measure ( Table 5   Open ▸ ).

Table 7: The baseline environment for the receptor groups relevant to the rat eradication at Handa compensatory measure

7.3.        Assessment

7.3. Assessment

7.3.1.    Identification of Impacts and Scope of Assessment

63. Based on the information presented in this document and the IMP and CCM Evidence Report, all activities associated with the rat eradication at Handa compensatory measure were defined and potential impact pathways identified. The potential impact pathways identified are presented here with respect to the relevant receptor groups:

• Infrastructure and other users:

–      Impacts to tourism due to biosecurity measures

• Offshore and intertidal ornithology:

–      Potential for disturbance from human activity due to eradication and immediate monitoring phase of the programme;

–      Potential for disturbance from human activity due to long-term monitoring phase of the programme;

–      Beneficial effect on seabird populations from reduced predation on eggs/juveniles.

• Onshore ecology:

–      Impacts to onshore plants and animals other than the targeted rat species;

–      Habitat disturbance as a result of increased human activity due to implementation of eradication programme e.g. regular setting of baits or traps and monitoring work; and

–      Beneficial effect on onshore ecology from reduced predation from rats

• Shipping and navigation:

–      Potential disturbance to usual operating procedures to factor in biosecurity measures

• Socio-economics:

–      Beneficial effect on local industry resulting from increased birds on site

–      Impacts to tourism operators due to biosecurity measures

7.3.2.    Impact Assessment alone

64. The assessment for the effects of the compensation alone (that is not combined with any other plans or projects) is presented below:

Infrastructure and other users

Impacts to tourism due to biosecurity measures

65. The proposed measure will involve the implementation of a biosecurity plan to ensure that no new rodents are brought onto the island. At the time of writing, details on the biosecurity plan have not yet been established, however it will be compatible with the Biosecurity for LIFE guidance (Biosecurity for Life, 2022). The plan is likely to include measures such as requiring boat operators to regularly check vessels for stowaways, storing waste securely in rodent proof bins, storing personal food in mouse-proof containers, using rat guards on mooring lines and anchor chains, deploying chew cards or wax chew blocks on the vessel, and not landing at the destination if a stowaway is spotted on board. The assessment presented here is based on the MDS presented within Table 1.
66. Given the nature of the anticipated measures, following the IMP and the Biosecurity for Life programme (Biosecurity for Life, 2022), it is anticipated that the disturbance to tourism from these additional measures is likely to be minor as the only vessel going the island is the ferry, therefore the measures will only involve additional management from the ferry operator, or small adjustments from individuals regarding personal food storage. However, the inclusion of the advice to not land at your destination if there is a stowaway on board could result in people’s visits not continuing, having a strong negative impact on the tourism receptor. However, this is considered to be relatively rare as the remainder of the measures as part of the biosecurity plan will aim to prevent stowaways from being on the vessel in the first place. Therefore, this potential effect has a high potential vulnerability but a low likelihood, enabling the magnitude of the proposed compensation measure to be low (adverse). The proposed steps within the biosecurity plan (following the Biosecurity for Life programme (Biosecurity for Life, 2022)) are not novel suggestions for biosecurity, and they are implemented for other projects, with the ferry operator likely to already familiar with them. Therefore, given the low impact of the majority of the measures within the biosecurity plan, the considered rarity of the highest impacts where the trips are completely cancelled, and the adoption of the measures elsewhere in the industry, the sensitivity of receptor is considered to be low (adverse).
67. Following the significance matrix utilised in this assessment (Table 2), a magnitude of low and a sensitivity of low results in a negligible to minor adverse significance of effect, which is not significant in EIA terms.

Offshore and intertidal ornithology

Potential for disturbance from human activity due to eradication and immediate monitoring phase of the programme

68. The proposed measure will involve the placement of approximately 1300 bait stations during the eradication phase, and visits every two days to the stations for maintenance and monitoring purpose for the first four months. There is a potential for disturbance to offshore and intertidal ornithological receptors from these trips, as those undertaking the proposed work may cause disturbance and stress to birds on site. The assessment presented here is based on the MDS presented within Table 2   Open ▸ .
69. The spatial extent of disturbance would be small, with any disturbance from human presence being temporary and short-term. The temporal extent is also anticipated to be small, with any disturbance caused being temporary (typically in terms of hours). When factoring in the small spatial and temporal extent and the comparatively low numbers of birds on the island (Table 10), it is considered that the proposed activities have a magnitude of low (adverse). As the eradication and immediate monitoring phases will be undertaken within the winter period (November to March), it therefore avoids the breeding season for offshore and intertidal ornithological receptors. Additionally, kittiwake are often found in and around human population centres so it is considered that they have a moderate level of resilience to human disturbance, especially on Handa island where there are approximately 9,000 visitors to the site per year. Therefore, it is considered that the receptors have a sensitivity of negligible (adverse).
70. Following the significance matrix utilised in this assessment ( Table 4   Open ▸ ), a magnitude of low and sensitivity of low results in a negligible to minor adverse significance of effect, which is not significant in EIA terms.

Potential for disturbance from human activity due to long-term monitoring phase of the programme

71. The proposed measure will involve the monitoring of the approximate 1300 bait stations every four weeks for two years. There is a potential for disturbance to offshore and intertidal ornithological receptors from these trips, as those undertaking the proposed work may cause disturbance and stress to birds on site. The assessment presented here is based on the MDS presented within Table 2   Open ▸ .
72. The spatial extent of disturbance would be small, with any disturbance from human presence being temporary and short-term. The temporal extent is also anticipated to be small, with any disturbance caused being temporary (typically in terms of hours). When factoring in the small spatial and temporal extent and the comparatively low numbers of birds on the island (Table 7), it is considered that the proposed activities have a magnitude of low (adverse). As the long-term monitoring phase will be undertaken year-round, and it therefore includes the breeding season for offshore and intertidal ornithological receptors, therefore having a greater potential sensitivity than during other times of the year. Additionally, kittiwake are often found in and around human population centres so it is considered that they have a moderate level of resilience to human disturbance, especially on Handa island where there are approximately 9,000 visitors to the site per year Therefore, it is considered that the receptors have a sensitivity of low (adverse).
73. Following the significance matrix utilised in this assessment ( Table 4   Open ▸ ), a magnitude of low and sensitivity of low results in a negligible to minor adverse significance of effect, which is not significant in EIA terms.

Beneficial effect on seabird populations from reduced predation on eggs/juveniles

74. The proposed measure will result in reduced rat populations, and therefore a reduction in the predation on offshore and intertidal ornithological receptors at Handa Island. This would be a beneficial effect to the ornithological receptors. The assessment presented here is based on the MDS presented within Table 2   Open ▸ .
75. The proposed measure is anticipated to result in a significant increase in the population of kittiwakes, puffin, razorbill and guillemot on the island, ( Table 8   Open ▸ – taken from the CCM Evidence Report) and therefore it is considered that the magnitude of activities is high (beneficial). Given the high sensitivity of the receptors to predation of eggs/juveniles from rats on the island, it is also considered that their sensitivity is high (beneficial).

Table 8: Preliminary conservation targets and associated increases for each key species on Handa Island. All numbers are expressed as single birds.

76. Following the significance matrix utilised in this assessment ( Table 4   Open ▸ ), a magnitude of high and sensitivity of high results in a major beneficial significance of effect, which is significant in EIA terms.

Onshore ecology

Impacts to onshore plants and animals other than the targeted rat species

77. The proposed measure will involve the placement of bait stations during the eradication phase, which will remain in place for up to 5 months (November to March inclusive). There is a potential for non-target species (i.e. any species other than rats) to interact with the bait stations and be adversely affected. The assessment presented here is based on the MDS presented within Table 2   Open ▸ .
78. A Non-Target Specia Management Plan (NTSMP) will be developed, which will consider the timing and location of predator eradication programme to ensure that it is undertaken at the optimal time/location and that it will have a minimal effect on non-target species. The inclusion of the NTSMP will follow current good practise design to minimise impact on sensitive habitats, non-target species and disruption to land use. Therefore, due to the implementation of the NTSMP the magnitude of effect is considered to be negligible (adverse). Furthermore it is anticipated that if any non-target species were to ingest bait or secondarily ingest a poisoned rat, only small numbers of animals would be affected and therefore resulting sensitivity is negligible to low (adverse) sensitivity.
79. Following the significance matrix utilised in this assessment ( Table 4   Open ▸ ), a magnitude of negligible and sensitivity of negligible to minor results in a negligible adverse significance of effect, which is not significant in EIA terms.

Habitat disturbance due to increased human activity due to implementation of eradication programme e.g. regular setting of baits or traps and monitoring work

80. The proposed measure will involve the placement of bait stations during the eradication phase, and various visits to the stations for maintenance and monitoring purposes. There is a potential for disturbance to any onshore ecology receptors from these trips, as those undertaking the proposed work may cause disturbance and stress to animals on site. The assessment presented here is based on the MDS presented within Table 2   Open ▸ .
81. The spatial extent of disturbance would be small, with any disturbance from human presence being temporary and short-term. The temporal extent is also anticipated to be small, with any disturbance caused being temporary (typically in terms of hours). Based on the small spatial and temporal extent, it is considered that the proposed activities have a magnitude of low (adverse). As the island regularly has visitors, any onshore animals on the island are likely to be used to human foot traffic and therefore it is anticipated that the receptors have a sensitivity of low (adverse).
82. Following the significance matrix utilised in this assessment ( Table 4   Open ▸ ), a magnitude of low and sensitivity of low results in a negligible to minor adverse significance of effect, which is not significant in EIA terms.

Beneficial effect on onshore ecology from reduced predation from rats

83. The proposed measure will involve the removal of rats from the island of Handa, with the aim of 100% eradication. There is a potential for a beneficial effect to onshore ecology receptors from a reduction in predation caused by rats. The assessment presented here is based on the MDS presented within Table 2   Open ▸ .
84. A wide range of species have benefitted from previous eradications at Handa island, including sea rocket Cakile maritima, various Atriplex species, pygmy shrew Sorex minutus, slow worm Anguis fragilis, common lizard Zootoca vivipara, lesser white-toothed shrew Crocidura suaveolens, bank vole Myodes glareolus, and even moths (Thomas et al. 2017). All these species among others increased significantly following previous rat eradication from Handa, and it is possible that a repeated eradication on Handa could result in the same beneficial effects on these species (CCM Evidence Report). However, it is noted that the beneficial effects to plants from previous eradications was short lived as the increase in other onshore ecology receptors results in increased grazing and a subsequent reduction in growth rates (CCM Evidence Report). Therefore the magnitude is considered to be low (beneficial). Given the previous history of eradications being beneficial, it is anticipated that the sensitivity of receptors to this effect is considered to be medium beneficial.
85. Following the significance matrix utilised in this assessment ( Table 4   Open ▸ ), a magnitude of low and sensitivity of medium results in a minor beneficial significance of effect, which is not significant in EIA terms.

Shipping and navigation

Potential disturbance to usual operating procedures to factor in biosecurity measures

86. The proposed measure will involve the implementation of a biosecurity plan to ensure that no new rodents are brought onto the island. At the time of writing, details of the biosecurity plan have not been established, however following the advice given by the Biosecurity for Life programme (Biosecurity for Life, 2022), measures to be taken may include regularly checking belongings and vessels for stowaways, storing waste securely in rodent proof bins, storing personal food in mouse-proof containers, using rat guards on mooring lines and anchor chains, deploying chew cards or wax chew blocks on the vessel, and not landing at your destination if you see a stowaway on board. The assessment presented here is based on the MDS presented within Table 1.
87. Given the nature of the anticipated measures, following the IMP and the Biosecurity for Life programme (Biosecurity for Life, 2022), it is anticipated that the disturbance to shipping and navigation receptors from these additional measures is likely to be minor, as the measures will only affect those vessels planning to land on the island, which would be limited to the ferry service (see impacts to tourism due to biosecurity measures assessment above). The measures would mainly involve additional management from the ferry operator or small adjustments from individuals regarding personal food storage, each of which are not considered to have any noticeable effect on the receptor as a whole. However, the inclusion of the advice to not land at your destination if there is a stowaway on board could result in strong negative impacts on the individual receptors. However, this is considered to be relatively rare as the remainder of the measures as part of the biosecurity plan will aim to prevent stowaways from being on the vessel in the first place. Therefore, this potential effect has a high potential vulnerability but a low likelihood, enabling the magnitude of the proposed compensation measure to be low (adverse). The proposed steps within the biosecurity plan (following the Biosecurity for Life programme (Biosecurity for Life, 2022) are not novel suggestions for biosecurity, and they are implemented for other projects, with ferry operators likely already familiar with them. Therefore, given the low impact of the majority of the measures within the biosecurity plan, the considered rarity of the highest impacts where the trips are completely cancelled, and the adoption of the measures elsewhere in the industry with no significant effects, the sensitivity of receptor is considered to be low (adverse).
88. Following the significance matrix utilised in this assessment (Table 2), a magnitude of low and a sensitivity of low results in a negligible to minor adverse significance of effect, which is not significant in EIA terms.

Socio-economics

Beneficial effect on local industry resulting from increased birds on site

89. The proposed measure will result in increased bird populations, and therefore there is a potential for increased visits to the island through bird-watching trips. This would be a beneficial effect to local industry and socio-economic receptors, as the main reason visitors go to Handa is for the wildlife. The assessment presented here is based on the MDS presented within Table 2   Open ▸ .
90. The proposed measure is anticipated to result in a significant increase in the population of seabirds on the island. This is anticipated to increase the number of trips a small amount, as many trips will be undertaken regardless of numbers but a few additional trips may be needed for additional numbers of visitors. Therefore, it is considered that the magnitude of activities on socio-economic receptors is low (beneficial). The various companies and receptors involved in this industry are highly sensitive to the amount of tourist activity so it is considered that their sensitivity is medium (beneficial).
91. Following the significance matrix utilised in this assessment ( Table 4   Open ▸ ), a magnitude of medium and sensitivity of high results in a minor beneficial significance of effect, which is not significant in EIA terms.

Impacts to tourism operators due to biosecurity measures

92. The proposed measure will involve the implementation of a biosecurity plan to ensure that no new rodents are brought onto the island. At the time of writing, details of the biosecurity plan have not yet been established, however it will be compatible with the Biosecurity for LIFE guidance (Biosecurity for Life, 2022), and CRRU. The plan would, in the worst case, include measures such as requiring boat operators to regularly check vessels for stowaways, storing waste securely in rodent proof bins, storing personal food in mouse-proof containers, using rat guards on mooring lines and anchor chains, deploying chew cards or wax chew blocks on the vessel, and not landing at the destination if a stowaway is spotted on board. The assessment presented here is based on the MDS presented within Table 1.
93. Given the nature of the anticipated measures, following the IMP and the Biosecurity for Life programme (Biosecurity for Life, 2022) and CRRU, it is anticipated that these measures may cause a minor inconvenience to boat operators and therefore potentially knock-on small scale adverse economic effects. The measures mainly involve minor additional management from the operator regarding personal food storage and waste. However, under a worst-case scenario if a stowaway was spotted on board this could result in the trip not continuing, which may result in a refund for any tourists on the vessel, and a financial loss for the tourism operator.  However, the likelihood of this happening is considered to be relatively rare as the remainder of the measures as part of the biosecurity plan will aim to prevent stowaways from being on the vessel in the first place. Therefore, this potential effect has a high potential vulnerability but a low likelihood, resulting in a magnitude of the effect of low (adverse). The proposed steps within the biosecurity plan (following the Biosecurity for Life programme (Biosecurity for Life, 2022) are standard suggestions for biosecurity, and they are implemented for other projects within Scotland (such as the Isle of May), with tourism vessel operators likely already familiar with them. Therefore, given the low impact of the majority of the measures within the biosecurity plan, the low likelihood of trips being curtailed, and the adoption of the measures elsewhere in the industry, the sensitivity of receptor is considered to be low (adverse).
94. Following the significance matrix utilised in this assessment (Table 2), a magnitude of low and a sensitivity of low results in a negligible to minor adverse significance of effect, which is not significant in EIA terms.

7.3.3.    Cumulative Effect Assessment

95. As the potential adverse effects are small in nature (spatial and temporal) with no significant adverse effects alone, no adverse effects are anticipated further afield than Handa island itself, and therefore the scoping undertaken for projects to be considered cumulatively is limited to those with direct spatial overlap with the proposed compensatory measures.
96. Following on from the above methodology, no projects have been identified for the consideration of cumulative effects. Therefore it can be concluded that there is no potential for any significant cumulative effects between the proposed measure and any other projects.

7.3.4.    Transboundary Impacts

97. No transboundary impacts are predicted due to the localised and small scale nature of this compensatory measure.
    

8.             EIA –Dunbar Castle Wardening Role

8. EIA –Dunbar Castle Wardening Role

8.1.        Introduction

8.1. Introduction

98. This section considers the potential impacts arising from the Dunbar castle wardening role compensatory measure. A characterisation of the physical, biological and human environmental baseline is presented ( Table 9   Open ▸ ) followed by the results of an assessment of potential likely significant effects arising from the proposed compensatory measure (Section 8.3).
99. The third compensatory measure proposed by The Applicant is wardening of kittiwake colonies on the mainland site of Dunbar Castle. The wardening position is provided as an umbrella role to implement a series of sub-measures to reduce human disturbance (through education and liasion, access restrictions and fencing of areas) and improve nesting habitat for Kittiwakes (through reducing fishing litter / debris from nests and adding artificial ledges) in Dunbar Castle.
100. Section 3 of the IMP provides a detailed description of the proposed compensatory measure.

8.2.        Baseline

8.2. Baseline

101. Table 9   Open ▸ provides a description of the baseline environment for each receptor which was identified during the scoping stage as potentially being affected by the proposed compensation measure ( Table 5   Open ▸ ).

Table 9: The baseline environment for the receptor groups relevant to the Dunbar Castle wardening role compensatory measure

8.3.        Assessment

8.3. Assessment

8.3.1.    Identification of Impacts and Scope of Assessment

102. Based on the information presented in this document and the IMP, and CCM Evidence Report, all activities associated with the wardening at Dunbar Castle were defined and potential impact pathways identified. The potential impact pathways identified are presented here with respect to the relevant receptor groups:

• Historic Environment:

–      Adverse effect on historic fabric of listed castle building from improvement of kittiwake nesting habitat

• Noise and Vibration

–      Adverse effect on local residents from increasing noise levels due to kittiwake population growth

• Offshore and Intertidal Ornithology:

–      Temporary disturbance during improvement of kittiwake nesting habitat

–      Beneficial effect on seabird populations from improved nesting habitat

–      Temporary disturbance through access for debris removal activities

–      Beneficial effect on seabird populations from removal of debris activities

–      Temporary disturbance during camera/monitoring equipment installation and removal

• Onshore Ecology:

–      Temporary disturbance during improvement of kittiwake nesting habitat

–      Temporary disturbance through access for debris removal activities

–      Temporary disturbance during camera/monitoring equipment installation and removal

• Socio-economics:

–      Beneficial effect on local economy through the creation of an employed position

8.3.2.    Impact Assessment alone

103. The assessment for the effects of the compensation alone (that is not combined with any other plans or projects) is presented below:

Historic Environment

Adverse effect on historic listed castle building from improvement of kittiwake nesting habitat

104. The proposed measure involves adding artificial ledges and overhangs in certain areas during the winter period. There is a potential for an adverse effect on the castle building from the addition of these ledges which may result in adverse visual effects, or change the historic fabric of the site. Dunbar Castle is a Scheduled Monument.  Therefore, scheduled monument consent may be required for the undertaking works which would be obtained from HES. The purpose of scheduled monument consent is to ensure that any changes to monuments are appropriate and sympathetic to their character.  Therefore, permission of the works would only be granted by HES if they deem that the works are appropriate within the context of Dunbar Castle and its significance.  The assessment presented here is based on the MDS presented within Table 2   Open ▸ .
105. The spatial extent of the impacts would be small, as the ledges themselves will only take up a small proportion of the castle, not the whole structure. The temporal extent is anticipated to be long-term, with the ledges not currently being proposed to be removed once installed. Based on this, any visual impacts associated with the improvement of kittiwake nesting habitat works have a magnitude of medium (adverse). With respect to structural change, the historic value of the site means that further liaison will be undertaken with the local Conservation Officer and HES to agree an acceptable plan for the work to minimise adverse effects, including use of non-invasive techniques for installation. Therefore, it is considered that the magnitude associated with structural change is negligible (adverse).
106. Given the proposed natural colour of the artificial ledges and the swift covering of nesting materials and excrement from the presence of kittiwakes, it is anticipated that the sensitivity of the receptor to visual impacts associated with this measure is negligible (adverse). As Dunbar Castle is a scheduled monument, the sensitivity of this receptor to structural change is considered to be high (adverse).
107. Following the significance matrix utilised in this assessment, a magnitude of medium and sensitivity of negligible results in a negligible to minor adverse significance of effect for visual impacts, which is not significant in EIA terms. A magnitude of negligible and a sensitivity of high results in a minor adverse significance of effect for structural change which is not significant in EIA terms. It should be noted that the works will only go ahead if scheduled monument consent is obtained (if required) and this provides a protective mechanism for the historic value of the site and they would only go ahead if the effects on the historic environment are deemed acceptable by HES.

Noise and Vibration

Adverse effect on local residents from increasing noise levels due to kittiwake population growth

108. The proposed measure will result in increased bird populations, and therefore there is a potential for an adverse effect on local residents due to an increase to the level of noise generated at the site from the increase in the number of birds, especially with an increase in juveniles resulting in increased noise in the breeding season (summer). The assessment presented here is based on the MDS presented within Table 2   Open ▸ .
109. The proposed measure is anticipated to result in a significant increase in the population of kittiwakes at Dunbar, to approximately 400 pairs (800 birds) which could result in additional noise being generated when reaching this population size. However, the population growth will be gradual over a 5-year period. Therefore, given the gradual nature of the change and the timescales associated with it, it is considered that the magnitude of noise generated is low (adverse). As the site is already an established kittiwake colony, noise is already created by the presence of kittiwakes, and it is considered that local residents will be used to noise generated by the colony. Given the existing level of noise that local residents will be adjusted to and the anticipated gradual increase in volume, the sensitivity of this receptor is low (adverse).
110. Following the significance matrix utilised in this assessment ( Table 4   Open ▸ ), a magnitude of low and sensitivity of low results in a negligible to minor adverse significance of effect, which is not significant in EIA terms.

Offshore and intertidal ornithology

Temporary disturbance during improvement of kittiwake nesting habitat

111. The proposed measure involves adding artificial ledges and overhangs in certain areas during the winter period. There is a potential for disturbance to offshore and intertidal ornithological receptors from the required trips for planning / designing the work, and the physical construction of the ledges / platforms, as those undertaking the proposed work may cause disturbance and stress to birds on site. The assessment presented here is based on the MDS presented within Table 2   Open ▸ .
112. The spatial extent of disturbance would be moderate, with any disturbance from human presence being temporary and short-term. The temporal extent is also anticipated to be small, with any disturbance caused being temporary (typically in terms of days). Based on the small spatial and temporal extent, it is considered that the proposed activities have a magnitude of medium (adverse). As the kittiwake nesting habitat improvement will be undertaken within the winter period (November to March), it therefore avoids the breeding season for offshore and intertidal ornithological receptors. Based on the lack of interaction with receptors during the breeding season, it is considered that the receptors have a sensitivity of negligible (adverse).
113. Following the significance matrix utilised in this assessment ( Table 4   Open ▸ ), a magnitude of low and sensitivity of negligible results in a negligible to minor adverse significance of effect, which is not significant in EIA terms.

Beneficial effect on seabird populations from improved nesting habitat

114. The proposed measure involves adding artificial ledges and overhangs in certain areas during the winter period. There is a potential for an increase to kittiwake breeding success and therefore population growth due to the implementation of the improved habitat. The assessment presented here is based on the MDS presented within Table 2   Open ▸ .
115. The proposed measure is anticipated to result in a significant increase in the population of kittiwakes at Dunbar, to approximately 400 pairs (800 birds) as per the conservation targets, and therefore it is considered that the magnitude of activities is high (beneficial). Given the declining population of kittiwakes at the site, it is considered that the measures being taken will be great importance and effectiveness, meaning that it is considered that their sensitivity is high (beneficial).
116. Following the significance matrix utilised in this assessment ( Table 4   Open ▸ ), a magnitude of high and sensitivity of high results in a major beneficial significance of effect, which is significant in EIA terms.

Temporary disturbance through access for debris removal activities

117. The proposed measure involves the removal of debris from nesting sites during the winter period, including clipping any trailing net / rope or small pieces of plastic from nests, noting that complete removal is not possible as nests are reused annually. There is a potential for disturbance to offshore and intertidal ornithological receptors from the required trips for planning the work, and the physical removal of debris, as those undertaking the proposed work may cause disturbance and stress to birds on site. The assessment presented here is based on the MDS presented within Table 2   Open ▸ .
118. The spatial extent of disturbance would be small, with any disturbance from human presence being temporary and short-term. The temporal extent is also anticipated to be small, with any disturbance caused being temporary (typically in terms of hours). Based on the small spatial and temporal extent, it is considered that the proposed activities have a magnitude of low (adverse). As the debris removal activities will be undertaken within the winter period (November to March), it therefore avoids the breeding season for offshore and intertidal ornithological receptors. Based on the lack of interaction with receptors during the breeding season, it is considered that the receptors have a sensitivity of negligible (adverse).
119. Following the significance matrix utilised in this assessment ( Table 4   Open ▸ ), a magnitude of low and sensitivity of negligible results in a negligible to minor adverse significance of effect, which is not significant in EIA terms.

Beneficial effect on seabird populations from removal of debris activities

120. The proposed measure involves the removal of debris from nesting sites during the winter period, including clipping any trailing net / rope or small pieces of plastic from nests, noting that complete removal is not possible as nests are reused annually. There is a potential for an increase to kittiwake breeding success from the removal of this debris as it may lead to more structurally sound nests. The assessment presented here is based on the MDS presented within Table 2   Open ▸ .
121. The proposed measure is anticipated to result in a significant increase in the population of kittiwakes at Dunbar, to approximately 400 pairs (800 birds), and therefore it is considered that the magnitude of activities is high (beneficial). Given the declining population of kittiwakes at the site, it is considered that the measures being taken will be great importance and effectiveness, meaning that it is considered that their sensitivity is high (beneficial).
122. Following the significance matrix utilised in this assessment ( Table 4   Open ▸ ), a magnitude of high and sensitivity of high results in a major beneficial significance of effect, which is significant in EIA terms.

Temporary disturbance during camera/monitoring equipment installation and removal

123. The proposed measure involves setting up cameras/monitoring equipment during the winter season for monitoring purposes. There is a potential for disturbance to offshore and intertidal ornithological receptors from the required trips for planning / designing the work, and the physical installation and removal  of the cameras/monitoring equipment, as those undertaking the proposed work may cause disturbance and stress to birds on site. The assessment presented here is based on the MDS presented within Table 2   Open ▸ .
124. The spatial extent of disturbance would be small, with any disturbance from human presence being temporary and short-term. The temporal extent is anticipated to be small, with any disturbance caused being temporary (typically in terms of hours). Based on the small spatial and temporal extent, it is considered that the proposed activities have a magnitude of low (adverse). As the camera/monitoring equipment installation and removal will be undertaken within the winter period (November to March), it therefore avoids the breeding season for offshore and intertidal ornithological receptors. Based on the lack of interaction with receptors during the breeding season, it is considered that the receptors have a sensitivity of negligible (adverse).
125. Following the significance matrix utilised in this assessment ( Table 4   Open ▸ ), a magnitude of low and sensitivity of negligible results in a negligible to minor adverse significance of effect, which is not significant in EIA terms.