FALKIRK Local Development Plan
DRAFT HABITATS REGULATIONS APPRAISAL RECORD
April 2013 Contents
1. Background and HRA Methodology 1.1 Background 1.2 HRA Methodology 1.3 Stage 1 – Should the Proposed Plan be subject to HRA?
2. Potentially affected European Sites 2.1 Stage 2 - European Sites that should be considered in the appraisal. 2.2 Stage 3 – Background Information about Natura 2000 sites likely to be affected
3. Screening the Plan 3.1 Stage 5 – Screening for likely significant effects on a Natura 2000 Site. 3.2 Stage 6 – Applying screening stage mitigation measures 3.3 Stage 7 – Re-screening the Plan
4. Appropriate Assessment 4.1 Firth of Forth SPA Page 44 - 96 4.2 Slamannan Plateau SPA Page 97 - 119 4.3 Black Loch Moss SAC Page 120 - 123 4.4 River Teith SAC Page 124 - 149
1. Background and HRA Methodology
1.1 Background
1.1.1 This report documents the findings of the Habitats Regulations Appraisal of likely effects of the Falkirk Local Development Plan Proposed Plan (the Proposed Plan) upon the qualifying interest features of the following Natura 2000 sites:
Firth of Forth Special Protection Area (SPA); Slamannan Plateau SPA; Black Loch Moss Special Area of Conservation (SAC); and River Teith SAC.
1.1.2 Habitats Regulations Appraisal (HRA) is the term used to describe the process of considering the effect of a policy, project or plan upon sites of European Importance. It encompasses preliminary “screening” of the plan (i.e. a broad-brush consideration of what aspects of the plan (if any) need to be considered for their effects on a European site), and the “Appropriate Assessment” (AA) which considers in detail the likely consequences of the plan upon the integrity of the qualifying interest features of the European site. A full description of the legislative basis for HRA and the steps required is set out in “Habitats Regulations Appraisal of Plans Guidance for Plan-Making bodies in Scotland” published by SNH (2012).
1.2 HRA Methodology
1.2.1 The approach taken follows best practice advice for plan-making bodies published by Scottish Natural Heritage1 (SNH), hereafter referred to as “SNH Guidance”. It has also been informed by other relevant guidance, including that published by the EC.
1.2.2 Consideration of the likely effects of the Proposed Plan upon European Sites has been integral to its development. The key stages for HRA are set out in Table 1 below, which is based on the best practice advice published by SNH:
Table 1: Key Stages of Habitats Regulations Appraisal Stage of HRA Description of Stage
Stage 1 Decide whether plan is subject to Habitats Regulations Appraisal
Stage 2 If plan is subject to appraisal, identify European sites that should be considered in the appraisal Stage 3 Gather information about the European sites
Stage 4 Discretionary consultation on the method and scope of the appraisal
Stage 5 Screen the plan for likely significant effects on a European site
Stage 6 Apply mitigation measures
Stage 7 Re-screen the plan after mitigation measures applied
Stage 8 Undertake an Appropriate Assessment in view of conservation objectives (if significant effects still likely after mitigation has been applied) Stage 9 Apply mitigation measures until there is no adverse effect on site integrity
Stage 10 Prepare a draft record of the HRA
1 Tyldesley, 2012 for SNH 3 Paragraph 45 European Court of Justice case C-127/02 dated 7th September 2004 1.2.3 A summary of the documents and reports that have been produced to document the process at each state and how these relate to the evolving LDP is set out in Table 2
Table 2: Chronology of documents associated with the Falkirk LDP Date Falkirk LDP Habitats Regulations Appraisal November 2011 Main Issues Report MIR Habitats Regulations Appraisal Compliance Statement September 2012 Screening/ Scoping report in respect of Firth of Forth Special Protection Area issued to SNH for comment December 2012 Proposed Plan Firth of Forth SPA Appropriate Assessment Working Draft V1 issued to SNH for comment December 2012 Proposed Plan Screening report in respect of Slamannan Working Draft V1 Plateau SPA; Black Loch Moss SAC and River Teith SAC issued to SNH for comment February 2013 Proposed Plan Revised Firth of Forth SPA Appropriate Committee Draft Assessment incorporating comments from SNH, issued to Falkirk Council. February 2013 Proposed Plan Appropriate Assessment in respect of Committee Draft Slamannan Plateau SPA; Black Loch Moss SAC and River Teith SAC issued to SNH for comment April 2013 Proposed Plan Draft HRA record submitted to SNH alongside Proposed Plan
1.3 Stage 1 – Should the Proposed Plan be subject to HRA?
1.3.1 Article 6(3) of the EC Habitats Directive, as applied in Scotland through The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 (as amended), requires that any plan (or project), which is not directly connected with or necessary for the management of a European site, but which would be likely to have a significant effect on that site, either on its own or in-combination with other plans or projects, shall be subject to an “Appropriate Assessment” of its implications for the European site in view of the site’s conservation objectives. The plan can only be consented by the plan-making body if it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned, unless exceptional circumstances are met.
1.3.2 The assessment is based on “likely” effects. These are defined as effects that cannot be ruled out on the basis of objective information. Further clarification has been provided by the Waddenzee judgement that a project should be subject to AA: “if it cannot be excluded, on the basis of objective information, that it will have a significant effect on the site, either individually or in combination with other plans and projects.”3 The Wadenzee judgment also provides the most up to date interpretation of the law in several areas of the HRA process.
1.3.3 In October 2005, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled that development plans in the United Kingdom should be subject to assessment, in the same way as projects require assessment, under the provisions of Article 6(3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive 1992. The Proposed Plan is a land use plan, designed to guide development within Falkirk Council Area. It is not connected to or necessary for the management of a European Site, and hence is subject to a Habitats Regulations Appraisal, which may include an “Appropriate Assessment.”
2. Potentially affected European Sites
2.1 Stage 2 - European Sites that should be considered in the appraisal.
2.1.1 The Council acknowledges that if the Proposed Plan is capable of affecting a Natura 2000 site then it must be considered within the HRA. Bearing this in mind, Natura 2000 sites considered for inclusion in the HRA and the reasons for their selection are set out in Table 3 below:
Table 3: Natura Sites Scoped into the HRA Natura 2000 Site Included in Justification HRA Firth of Forth SPA Yes Site is partially within the Council area and it’s qualifying interests could be affected by development proposals both within and adjacent to the SPA boundary and further inland. Slamannan Plateau SPA Yes Site is partially within the Council area and it’s qualifying interests (Taiga Bean Geese) could be affected by development proposals both within and adjacent to the SPA boundary and further afield. Black Loch Moss SAC Yes Site is partially within the Council area and could be affected by development proposals both within and adjacent to the SAC boundary River Teith SAC Yes Site is not within the Council area but it’s qualifying interests (River Lamprey, Sea Lamprey and Salmon) could be affected by development proposals in coastal locations along the Firth of Forth or which affect water quality within the Firth of Forth. Forth Islands SPA No This site is designated for its numbers of breeding birds. There are few threats to the interest of the site as many of the islands are managed for their nature conservation interest.
Disturbance to breeding birds by increased visitor numbers is considered a minor threat.
This site is considered to be too distant from the Plan area and too maritime in its influences to experience any effects from any of the proposals.
2.2 Stage 3 – Background Information about Natura 2000 sites likely to be affected
Firth of Forth SPA
Location
2.2.1 The Firth of Forth SPA and Ramsar site was designated in 2001. The site extends for over 100 km from the River Forth at Stirling eastwards along the coasts of Falkirk, Clackmannan, Fife, Edinburgh and East Lothian to a wide estuary mouth. The SPA boundary does not cover the full length of the shoreline of the Estuary (see Figure 2.1). The site has been designated as of major importance for its assemblage of waterbirds during migration and over winter.
Qualifying Interest Features
2.2.2 The site qualifies under Article 4.1 of the Birds Directive (79/409/EEC) by regularly supporting wintering populations of European importance of four Annex 1 species and by regularly supporting a post-breeding population of European importance of an Annex 1 species (see Table 4). The site also qualifies under Article 4.2 by regularly supporting wintering populations of both European and international importance of five migratory species (see Table 5), and for regularly supporting a wintering waterfowl assemblage of European importance (see Table 6). The wintering waterfowl populations has been estimated as a winter peak mean of 95,000 for the five year period 1992/93- 96.97, comprising 45,000 wildfowl and 50,000 waders .
2.2.3 A smaller sub-set of these species form the qualifying features of the Ramsar site (wintering waterfowl assemblage, wintering populations of Goldeneye*, Knot, Pink-footed Goose, Redshank, Shelduck, Slavonian Grebe, Turnstone, Bar-tailed Godwit and passage Sandwich Tern).
2.2.4 Throughout the rest of this report, species that qualify as part of the assemblage are indicated thus*.
Table 4: Qualification as an SPA under Article 4.1 of the Birds Directive (79/409/EEC) for supporting populations of European importance during winter and passage Common name Scientific Name Qualification features (5 year peak mean 1993/94-1997/98) Bar-tailed Godwit Limosa lapponica 4% of the GB population (wintering) Golden Plover Pluvialis apricaria 1% of the GB population(2,949 birds) (wintering) Red-throated Diver Gavia stellata 2% of the GB population(90 birds) (wintering) Slavonian Grebe Podiceps auritus 21% of the GB population(84 birds) (wintering) Oystercatcher* Haematopa ostralegus 2% of the GB population(1,974 birds) (wintering) Sandwich Tern Sterna sandvicensis 6% of the GB population (1,617 birds) (passage)
Table 5: Qualification as an SPA under Article 4.2 of the Birds Directive (79/409/EEC) by supporting populations of European importance of the following migratory species Common name Scientific Name Qualification feature (5 year peak mean 1993/94 - 1997/98) Pink-footed Goose Anser brachyrhynchus 6% of the Icelandic/Greenland population (10,852 birds) (wintering) Turnstone Arenaria interpres 1% of the European population (860 birds) (wintering) Knot Calidris canutus 3% of the western European/Canadian population (9,258 birds) (wintering) Shelduck Tadorna tadorna 2% of the NW European population (4,509 birds) (moulting) Redshank Tringa totanus 3% of the European/West African population (4,341 birds) (wintering)
Table 6: Qualification as an SPA under Article 4.2 of the Birds Directive (79/409/EEC) by regularly supporting a wintering waterfowl assemblage of European importance. Common name Scientific Name Population estimate (5 year peak mean 1992/93-96/97) Great Crested Grebe* Podiceps cristatus 7% of GB population (720 birds) (wintering) Cormorant* Phalacrocorax carbo 5% of GB population 682 (birds) (wintering) Scaup* Aythya marila 4% of GB population (437 birds) (wintering) Eider* Somateria mollissima 13% of GB population (9,400 birds) (wintering) Long-tailed Duck* Clangula hyemalis 4% of GB population (1,045 birds) (wintering) Common Scotera Melanitta nigra 8% of GB populations (2,880 birds) (wintering) Velvet Scotera M. fusca 21% of GB population (635 birds) (wintering) Goldeneye* Bucephala clangula 18% of GB population (3,004 birds) (wintering) Red-breasted Mergus serrator 7% of GB population (670 birds) (wintering) Merganser* Oystercatcher* Haematopus ostralegus 2% of GB population (7,846 birds) (wintering) Ringed Plover* Charadrius hiaticula 1% of GB population (328 birds) (wintering) Grey Plover* Pluvialis squatarola 2% of GB population (724 birds) (wintering) Dunlin* Calidris alpina 2% of GB population (9,514 birds) (wintering) Curlew* Numenius arquata 2% of GB population (1,928 birds) (wintering) Wigeon* Anas penelope 2,139 birds (1991/2-95/96) Mallard* A. platyrhnchos 2,564 birds (1991/2-95/96) Lapwing* Vanellus vanellus 4,148 birds (1991/2-95/96)
Conservation Objectives
2.2.5 The conservation objectives for the Firth of Forth SPA are: To avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species or significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained; and To ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term: Population of the species as a viable component of the site; Distribution of the species within site; Distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; Structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species; No significant disturbance of the species.
Site Condition
2.2.6 The condition of the qualifying features of SPAs is assessed on a six-yearly cycle, with 2010 being the last date for which information is available . Table 2.4 summarises the condition of the qualifying bird interest features. Eleven species are considered to be in Favourable Maintained condition; nine features are considered to be in Favourable Declining condition; one feature is in Favourable Recovering condition; and seven species are considered to be in Unfavourable Declining condition. There does not appear to be an obvious pattern to explain the observed changes in bird numbers, as species that inhabit similar habitats have shown different trends.
Wetland Bird Surveys (WeBS) Alerts
2.2.7 “Alerts” raised through the WeBS scheme (see paragraph 2.2.19) provide a standardised method of identifying the direction and scale of change in numbers at a variety of spatial and temporal scales for a range of waterbird speciesover four time-periods: short-term (5-year); medium-term (10- year); long-term (25-year or maximum available if less); and since-designation (i.e. since the site was designated). Alerts are notified when species show a decline in numbers. Review of Alert data can be helpful in distinguishing those species that are experiencing declines as a result of factors within the boundary of a site, from those species that are experiencing declines as a result of wider-ranging factors. Table 5 also identifies those species for which Alerts have been issued. The most recent data available are for winters of 2007/08, but these are subject to review in the near future following processing of data for Waterbirds in the UK 2010/11. Red-throated Diver and Slavonian Grebe are not assessed for Alerts because these data are considered unsuitable for assessment of trends because sufficiently high numbers do not occur at the site or do so too infrequently to allow a meaningful interpretation under the WeBS Alerts methodology.Pink-footed Goose is also not assessed, as population estimates are based on goose counts rather than WeBS core count data.
2.2.8 Within the Forth, 23 species have been evaluated and alerts have been triggered for 15 species (10 species at High-Alert). Site-specific pressures are only thought to contribute to declines associated with six of these species.
2.2.9 Wigeon*numbers have increased throughout the period recorded by WeBS. Cormorant* numbers have remained stable within the Forth, although there has been a decline in regional numbers, Redshank numbers are relatively stable, despite declines at the regional and national levels, and the numbers of Curlew* are increasing despite recent regional and national declines.
2.2.10 Shelduck numbers are considered to be stable at the site since the mid-1990s. Two species (Mallard* and Turnstone) have shown a decline in numbers at the site, although these changes have not been sufficient to trigger an Alert. The scale of the decline is consistent with declines at the regional and national levels. A number of species listed in Table 5, which have declined sufficiently to trigger Alerts, are thought to be declining as a result of regional or national pressures
2.2.11 Nine species (Red-breasted Merganser*, Oystercatcher*, Ringed Plover*, Golden Plover, Lapwing*, Knot, Dunlin*, Bar-tailed Godwit, and Grey Plover*) have all experienced declines in numbers sufficient to trigger Alerts. However, the scale of change within the Forth is similar to, or less than, changes observed regionally and/or nationally, suggesting that the reasons for change are not linked specifically to the Forth.
2.2.12 By contrast, several species (Scaup*, Goldeneye*, Eider*, Great Crested Grebe*) have shown a decline in numbers at the site, which is greater than regional and/or national trends in the species. This suggests that there are factors specific to the Forth that could be contributing to the declines in these species, although the identity of these factors is not always known.
2.2.13 Scaup* numbers declined rapidly during the 1970s, which have been attributed to improvements in waste-water discharges at Leith and Seafield. This site was important in hosting a high proportion of the regional and national WeBS totals. Table 5: Condition of qualifying interest features of the Firth of Forth SPA based on data published by SNH4 and Alerts published by BTO. Common name Scientific Name Condition assessed by Alert Status issued by WeBS SNH (2010) Red-throated Diver Gavia stellata Favourable Maintained Not Determined Slavonian Grebe Podiceps auritus Favourable Declining Not Determined Golden Plover Pluvialis apricaria Favourable Maintained Short-term Medium Alert & medium-term & since-designation High Alerts. Declines since the mid-1990s. Rate of decline is consistent with declines at the regional and national levels. Bar-tailed Godwit Limosa lapponica Favourable Declining Medium-term High Alert. Annual fluctuation in numbers, but overall decline in numbers since the mid-1990s consistent with national numbers. Sandwich Tern Sterna sandvicensis Favourable Declining Not Determined Pink-footed Goose Anser brachyrhynchus Favourable Maintained Not Determined Shelduck Tadorna tadorna Favourable Declining Stable numbers since the mid-1990s Knot Calidris canutus Unfavourable Declining Short-term & since-designation Medium Alerts & medium-term High Alert. Numbers fluctuate annually at site but show an underlying decline since the mid- 1990s similar to those experienced at the regional level. Redshank Tringa totanus Favourable Maintained Relatively stable numbers in the Forth despite declines at the regional and national levels. Turnstone Arenaria interpres Favourable Maintained Numbers declined since the mid-1990s, but not to such an extent that an alert has been triggered. Rate of decline consistent with regional and national levels. Great-crested Grebe Podiceps cristatus Unfavourable Declining Medium & long-term High Alerts; short-term & since-designation Medium Alerts. Decline in numbers since late 1990s in the Forth compared to national increase in numbers and smaller regional decrease in numbers. Cormorant* Phalacrocorax carbo Favourable Maintained Numbers remained stable in the Forth despite declines in regional numbers Scaup* Aythya marila Unfavourable Declining Rapid decline in numbers during the 1970s. Eider* Somateria mollissima Favourable Declining Medium-term Medium Alert. Declines in the Forth are set against stable numbers nationally. Long-tailed Duck* Clangula hyemalis Unfavourable Declining Short-, medium-, long- & since designation –term High Alert Common Scotera Melanitta nigra Unfavourable Declining Fluctuation in numbers, particularly during 1990s makes it difficult to identify trends. Velvet Scotera M. fusca Favourable Maintained Not best assessed via WeBS counts, but numbers in Forth are thought to have increased. Goldeneye Bucephala clangula Unfavourable Declining High Alert for all time periods. Decline in numbers since the mid-1990s at a greater rate than regional and national declines.
4 SNH Sitelink website http://gateway.snh.gov.uk/sitelink/index.jsp
Common name Scientific Name Condition assessed by Alert Status issued by WeBS SNH (2010) Red-breasted Merganser* Mergus serrator Favourable Declining Medium-term Medium Alert. Numbers have declines since the mid-1990s. The rate of decline is consistent with regional and national declines in species numbers Oystercatcher* Haematopus ostralegus Favourable Maintained Medium-term Medium Alert. Numbers declined since the mid-1990s, but consistent with annual variation in numbers and the site and declines in numbers regionally. Ringed Plover* Charadrius hiaticula Favourable Maintained Medium-term Medium Alert. Decline in numbers from the later 1990s, although there has been an increase over recent winters. Declines are at a slower rate than declines in regional and national numbers Grey Plover* Pluvialis squatarola Favourable Declining Short-term Medium Alert & short- & Medium-term & since designation High Alert Dunlin* Calidris alpina Favourable Declining Short- & medium-term Medium Alerts & since-designation Medium Alert. Numbers declined since around 2000 at a similar rate to declines at regional and national levels. Curlew* Numenius arquata Favourable Maintained Increase in numbers in the Forth despite declines in regional and national numbers. Wigeon* Anas penelope Favourable Recovered Numbers have increased through period recorded by WeBS Mallard* A. platyrhnchos Unfavourable Declining Numbers declining since late 1990s, but have not, yet triggered an alert. Numbers in the Forth have declined at a slower rate than numbers regionally and nationally. Lapwing* Vanellus vanellus Favourable Maintained Short & medium-term & since-designation Medium-Alerts. Numbers peaked during the mid-1990s then shown a sustained decline consistent with declines at the regional and national level. Waterfowl assemblage Favourable Declining
2.2.14 Numbers of Goldeneye* have declined on the Firth of Forth since the mid-1990s to a lowest ever recorded level, triggering a High-Alert across all time periods. Whilst there have also been regional and national declines in this species, the rate of contraction in the Firth of Forth is greater than the national and regional rates, suggesting that site-specific pressures may contribute to these declines. Improvements in sewage treatment works around the coast have been suggested as a possible cause.
2.2.15 Eider* numbers have declined in recent years, triggering a Medium-term Medium-Alert. As numbers nationally have remained relatively stable, declines in the Forth are thought to be attributable, at least partially, to site-specific pressures.
2.2.16 Wintering Great Crested Grebe* numbers fluctuate annually, but are still thought to be showing a decline since the late 1990s, triggering a medium and long-term High-Alerts as well as short-term and since-designation medium Alerts. This has coincided with an increase in numbers nationally, and a smaller decline in regional numbers, meaning that the Forth now supports a smaller proportion of this species, suggesting that site-specific factors may be contributing to the observed declines.
Pressures on the Firth of Forth SPA
2.2.17 Kinneil mudflats have suffers from pollution, which originates from the River Avon, the sewage works at Kinneil Kerse, and the petro-chemical industries of Grangemouth. Skinflats also suffers pollution from the River Carron, from the Avecia Syngenta outfall at Skinflats and from the Forth Estuary upstream of Kincardine. These factors are thought to be improving.
2.2.18 Additional current factors thought to have potential effects on the Firth of Forth SPA include sea level rise, human disturbance, bait digging and potential pollution events.
Source of WeBS data
2.2.19 Non-breeding waterbirds are monitored as part of the Wetland Birds Survey (WeBS). WeBS data within this report were supplied by the Wetland Bird Survey (WeBS), a partnership between the British Trust for Ornithology, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (the latter on behalf of the Council for Nature Conservation and the Countryside, the Countryside Council for Wales, Natural England and Scottish Natural Heritage) in association with the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust.
2.2.20 WeBS data are the principal information used by the statutory conservation agencies to determine the status of bird populations associated with wetland habitats and are used by them in determining whether designated sites are meeting their Conservation Objectives. Slamannan Plateau SPA
Location
2.2.19 The Slamannan Plateau SPA covering approximately 591ha lies on the border of Falkirk and North Lanarkshire Council areas in central Scotland (see Figure 2.2). 14% of the SPA boundary falls within the Falkirk Council area. The main geographical features of this marginal upland area (c170m above sea level) are the low undulating hills with their mix of agriculture, comprising pasture (cattle and sheep), some cereals, mires and shelterbelts.
Figure 2.2 – Slamannan Plateau SPA
Qualifying Interest Features
2.2.20 The basis for designation of the Slamannan Plateau SPA is the presence of Taiga bean geese, for which the area qualifies under Article 4.2 of the Birds Directive (79/409/EEC) by supporting a nationally important population of this migratory species. Between the winters of 2004/2005 and 2008/09 the average peak number of geese at the site was 276 individuals, representing over 60% of the total number present in UK. It is one of only two main over-wintering locations for the species in UK.
Conservation Objectives
2.2.21 The conservation objectives for the Slamannan Plateau SPA are: to avoid deterioration of the habitats of qualifying species or significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that integrity of the site is maintained; and to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term: o population of the species as a viable component of the site; o distribution of the species within site; o distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; o structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species; and o no significant disturbance of the species.
Site Condition
2.2.22 There are not yet any site condition records for this site. Ongoing monitoring of the bean goose population is conducted by the Bean Goose Action Group, and should help to inform best management practice.
Pressures on the Slamannan Plateau SPA
2.2.23 The SPA is subject to steady development pressure. Recent proposals have included housing, wind turbines, and sewage sludge deposition. Several areas of forestry were planted in the past directly reducing the area available for feeding geese and influencing remaining feeding areas through enclosure and increased risk of predation. Fortunately, in more recent years applications to plant new forests have decreased. Some of the goose resting and roosting areas have been subject to peat milling operations, although these have now stopped. If the production of peat from these areas becomes commercially viable the operations may recommence. An extant planning permission for peat extraction at the main roost site is currently being reviewed by the competent authority, North Lanarkshire Council. The removal of peat is unlikely to be compatible with the Conservation Objectives of the SPA.
2.2.24 Recreational use is not high, nevertheless walking, cycling, horse riding and bird watching take place. If the level of use by these activities was to increase in an unplanned manner, then it may result in disturbance to the geese. To reduce the instances of bird watchers causing disturbance, a website has been developed which gives details of suitable places from which to view the geese.
2.2.25 While damaging changes in land management can be controlled in part through the provisions of The Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004, applying to the Slamannan Plateau and West Fannyside Moss Sites of Special Scientific Interest, they are also addressed through the ‘Slamannan Plateau Bean Goose Management Scheme.’ This scheme was developed by Scottish Natural Heritage to support land managers to maintain suitable habitat conditions for bean geese within the SPA. Black Loch Moss SAC
Location
2.2.26 Black Loch Moss lies to the south Limerigg on the border between the Falkirik and North Lanarkshire Council areas (see figure 2.3) . It covers an area of 108.42 hectares of which only 2.5 hectares are within the Falkirk Council area
Figure 2.3 – Black Loch Moss SAC
Qualifying Interest Features
2.2.27 The primary reason for the selection of the site as an SAC is that Black Loch Moss is one of the least-disturbed Active raised bogs remaining in the central belt of Scotland and consists of a large area of undamaged bog surface that is almost continuously dominated by bog-mosses, including Sphagnum papillosum and occasional S. magellanicum. The site is formed on a distinct slope and also has some characteristics of 7130 Blanket bogs.
2.2.28 The site also has some degraded raised bogs which are capable of natural regeneration.
Conservation Objectives
2.2.29 The conservation objectives for Black Loch Moss SAC are: To avoid deterioration of the qualifying habitats (listed below) thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained and the site makes an appropriate contribution to achieving favourable conservation status for each of the qualifying features; and To ensure for the qualifying habitats that the following are maintained in the long term: o Extent of the habitat on site o Distribution of the habitat within site o Structure and function of the habitat o Processes supporting the habitat o Distribution of typical species of the habitat o Viability of typical species as components of the habitat; and o No significant disturbance of typical species of the habitat
Site Condition
2.2.30 The last site condition survey was undertaken in March 2008 where the status of both active raised bogs and degraded raised bogs which are capable of natural regeneration was unfavourable, no change.
Pressures on the Black Loch Moss SAC
2.2.31 Approximately 50% of the site is subject to a management agreement to conserve and promote the development of the diversity of peatland plant communities. The agreement restricts changes to agricultural practices including drainage and burning. There are measures to adjust grazing levels and if necessary, remove grazing. There is also provision for damming ditches and repairing gully erosion. A hydrological assessment of the bog has been carried out to inform future management proposals. Consideration is being given to a management agreement for the remainder of the site.
River Teith SAC
Location
2.2.32 The River Teith is the most significant tributary of the River Forth, flowing eastward through Central Scotland and discharging into the Firth of Forth west of Stirling. The River Teith SAC (see figure 2.4) includes both the main stem of the river and some important tributaries extending to 143.76km and covers an area of 1312.4ha.
Figure 2.4 – River Teith SAC
Qualifying Interest Features
2.2.33 Atlantic salmon, river lamprey and sea lamprey are qualifying features of the SAC that are at risk of adverse effects from the Proposed Plan by virtue of their annual migration between freshwater and seawater. Brook lamprey, however, are restricted to the freshwater channels of the River Teith and are therefore at no risk from the Proposed Plan. No further assessment of brook lamprey is therefore made.
2.2.34 Lamprey - The River Teith SAC supports a strong population of river and brook lamprey and lesser numbers of sea lamprey. The river provides excellent habitat to support the spawning and juvenile stages of the lamprey life-cycle (extensive gravel beds and marginal silt beds) with usually pristine water quality, well-vegetated banks and a substantially unaltered river channel without any significant artificial barriers to migration. The conservation importance of the River Teith is increased by the fact that, unlike many British rivers, it supports populations of all three lamprey species. Sea Lamprey
2.2.35 Adult sea lamprey, the largest of the three lamprey species, spend some time in the estuary but live mainly in coastal waters as adults where they parasitize a number of marine fish species, including herring (Clupea harengus), Atlantic salmon, sea trout (Salmo trutta), cod (Gadus morhua) and haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) (Smith, 1957; Maitland, 2003).
2.2.36 Migration of adult sea lamprey from the sea to the river occurs mainly between February and May (Maitland, 2003), but information on run timing within the Firth of Forth and to the River Teith is limited (A. Mackenzie, MBEC, pers. comm. 17th December 2008). There is some evidence to suggest that, where adult lamprey migrate upstream against the current, they will do so along shallow river margins where flow would be reduced (Hardisty & Potter, 1971), but it is not known whether this behaviour extends to estuarine passage. This technique is known as selective tidal stream transport (STST) and allows them to ascend through estuaries with strong or variable currents. Sea lamprey are most likely to spawn among areas of clean gravel in the lower reaches of watercourses draining into the River Forth and young sea lamprey (ammocoetes) have been recorded in some parts of the lower reaches of the main river.
2.2.37 The ammocoetes live in marginal riverine silt beds feeding on micro-organisms for several years, after which time, from about September and into the winter, they begin to travel downstream while undergoing metamorphosis to a silvery form, known as a transformer, whose physiology becomes adapted to life in saline conditions.
2.2.38 The River Teith represents part of the east coast range of the sea lamprey in the UK. Sea lamprey have previously been recorded in the River Teith by Maitland et al. (1983) and by Gardiner et al. (1995), who recorded ammocoetes at four, of a possible six, sites demonstrating optimum habitat types. A survey in 2000 (Maitland & Lyle, 2000; 2003) recorded sea lamprey ammocoetes at six sites at and downstream of Callander. They migrate throughout the lower reaches of the main river, with individual sightings near Cambusmore, 8km above Lanrick Weir (Gardiner et al., 1995) and at Blairdrummond, Deanston and Doune Castle (Maitland & Lyle, 2003). Spawning appears restricted to the Callander area and suitable stretches below.
2.2.39 The most recently available data for lamprey (Bull, 2004) suggests that no sea lamprey were recorded in the 2004 study, supporting Maitland & Lyle (2000; 2003) in identifying that this species is less common in comparison to the river and brook species, as is the case in many other Scottish rivers (Maitland et al., 1994).
2.2.40 Adult sea lamprey were found by Maitland (1998) to be impinged occasionally at Longannet Power Station. A study by Greenwood (2008) into impingement rates on Longannet Power Station in 1999 and 2000 did not record any sea lamprey on the screens in those years. SEPA have continued monitoring at Longannet between 2001 and 2006 and recorded three sea lamprey during 2006 (Pearce, 2007).
River Lamprey
2.2.41 River lamprey adults live primarily within estuaries feeding on a number of estuarine fish, but, in the Firth of Forth (Maitland et al., 1984), principally herring, sprat (Sprattus sprattus) and flounder (Platichthys flesus). Both feeding and migrating stages of river lamprey are entrained regularly at Longannet Power Station and many thousands of individuals are killed here each year (Maitland et al., 1984; Maitland, 1998). While no specific data are available for the Firth of Forth as a whole, it is suggested that river lamprey, along with the fish species on which they feed, occupy most parts of the estuary.
2.2.42 Migration of adult river lamprey from the sea to the river occurs mainly from October to December (Maitland, 2003), which has been confirmed in the River Forth system by catches of maturing river lamprey on intake screens at Longannet (Maitland, 1998) and by trapping at various places in the River Teith (Maitland et al., 1983). Migration upstream to spawning grounds generally occurs during the hours of darkness: migrants hiding under stones and vegetation during the day. As with sea lamprey, adult river lamprey are also believed to use the STST technique to avoid strong currents when ascending through estuaries to spawning grounds. River lamprey spawn in many of the main watercourses draining into the Firth of Forth during March and April and river lamprey ammocoetes have been recorded throughout much of the catchment.
2.2.43 The ammocoetes live in marginal riverine silt beds feeding on micro-organisms for three to five years, after which time, between August and November, they undergo metamorphosis to the silvery transformer (Maitland, 1980). This transformation alters the lampreys’ physiology to enable it to adapt to life in saline conditions and permit them to travel downstream to the estuary. These transformers undergo their downstream migration during the hours of darkness.
2.2.44 The Teith supports a strong river lamprey population although the brook lamprey is thought to be the predominant lamprey species in the catchment (Maitland & Lyle 2000, 2003). The river provides excellent habitat for both species with usually pristine water quality, well-vegetated banks, substantially unaltered river channel, lacking significant barriers to migration and offering the necessary habitat types (extensive gravel beds and marginal silt beds) to support the spawning and larval lamprey life-cycle.
2.2.45 The most recently available data for all species of lamprey in the Firth of Forth catchment (Bull, 2004) indicates that river lamprey ammocoetes were observed at 16 of 25 freshwater sites where suitable habitat for lamprey was previously identified. Density of lamprey individuals was shown to vary significantly between site, from 0 to 67.2m-2, although previous studies have demonstrated lamprey densities of 46m-2 (Maitland & Lyle, 2003) and up to 197.5m-2 (Gardiner et al., 1995 from Bull, 2004), where no differentiation was made between brook lamprey and river lamprey ammocoetes.
Atlantic salmon
2.2.46 The River Forth is known to carry a substantial population of salmon that run throughout the year and spawn in the upper reaches and tributaries including the River Teith. Salmon exhibit an early run up the Firth of Forth from early February to March followed by runs through the summer until early autumn, although the end of season run is not as pronounced as on some other east coast river systems (e.g. River Tweed). Salmon smolts run to sea in a relatively narrow window between mid- April and mid-June.
2.2.47 The Firth of Forth has always maintained a viable salmonid fishery. However, the occasional low dissolved oxygen concentrations, which occur during spring tides and summer low flows in the upper estuary, are believed to present a potential barrier to fish migration and can cause occasional fish kills.
2.2.48 Consultation was undertaken with Forth District Salmon Fisheries Board (FDSFB) with a view to obtaining historical data on salmon catches on the River Teith to better understand the nature of the fluctuations of salmon numbers. Information presented in the Environmental Statements for Setting Forth (The Scottish Office Development Department, 1996) and Clackmanannshire Bridge (Scottish Executive, 2003) was also reviewed. FDSFB advised that comprehensive fisheries data do not exist for the River Teith. The first complete set of accessible data comprising collated salmon fisheries returns for the whole river was produced last year (2007-08).
2.2.49 Salmon catch data for the River Teith and other tributary rivers of the Firth of Forth have, however, been collected since 1952 and are held by the Fisheries Research Services (now Marine Scotland) at Montrose. Data are derived from returns made in response to an annual questionnaire sent to the proprietors and occupiers of salmon fisheries under the provisions of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Protection) (Scotland) Act 1951. Data are combined geographically into 62 statistical Districts which are further aggregated into 11 Regions including the Forth Basin (Rivers Leven, Teith, Allan, Forth, Avon, Esk(s) and Tyne) and published in the Scottish Salmon and Sea Trout Catches within the Statistical Bulletin Fisheries Series on an annual basis.
2.2.50 A review of these reports for the Forth Basin over the period 2001-2008 (Table 6) provides a crude assessment of the general trends in fish numbers, but the weather, timing of salmon runs and the amount or quality of fishing effort can all affect the size of salmon catches. As these factors may vary from year to year, a difference in catch between years does not necessarily indicate an increase or decline in the abundance of the stock which provided that catch. Also netting has all but died out on the Firth of Forth while rod and line effort is thought to have declined slightly. SNH has expressed a concern that salmon numbers entering the River Teith system may have declined in recent years. Despite these caveats the data suggest that while salmon catches fluctuate between years there has been no significant decline in numbers since the start of the decade. Detailed data for the Atlantic Salmon in the Forth Basin was not available beyond 2008.
Table 6 – Annual Salmon Catches in the Forth Basin Year Number of Salmon and Number of Salmon and Total number of Salmon and Grilse Retained Grilse Released Grilse retained and released 2000 1647 792 2439 2001 1708 1321 3029 2002 1198 993 2191 2003 992 539 1531 2004 2155 1651 3766 2005 1552 1357 2909 2006 1175 953 2128 2007 1184 1414 2598 2008 1157 1089 2246
2.2.51 It is worth noting that a population of freshwater pearl mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera) has recently been discovered in the headwaters of the River Teith; with surveys establishing their presence in 2006 (JNCC, 2006). The viability of freshwater pearl mussel populations in the River Teith SAC is dependent upon the prevalence of their salmonid hosts in the freshwater catchment. If the Proposed Plan was to affect the prevalence of Atlantic salmon reaching the catchment or the annual recruitment of salmon, an indirect impact upon freshwater pearl mussel could occur.
Conservation Objectives
2.2.52 The conservation objectives for the River Teith SAC are: To avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species (listed above) or significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained and the site makes an appropriate contribution to achieving favourable conservation status for each of the qualifying features; and To ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term: o Population of the species, including range of genetic types for salmon, as a viable component of the site; o Distribution of the species within site; o Distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; o Structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species; and o No significant disturbance of the species.
Site Condition
2.2.53 A site condition assessment has been carried out by SNH with respect to the qualifying interests of the River Teith SAC. In September 2000, the condition of the sea lamprey feature in the River Teith SAC was assessed as favourable maintained and the same assessment was made for river lamprey and brook lamprey in October 2003. The Atlantic salmon feature was shown to be in unfavourable recovering condition in August 2003.
2.2.54 No assessment of the condition of freshwater pearl mussel populations in the River Teith SAC is available, but UK-wide assessment of the feature has been made through Article 17 Habitats Directive reports produced by JNCC based on information to December 2006, which has assessed the freshwater pearl mussel feature as a whole as unfavourable – bad (JNCC, 2007)
Pressures on the River Teith SAC
2.2.55 Water quality within the River Teith SAC is generally good, with modern forestry practices and guidance minimising the disturbance to the river system in the heavily afforested upper catchment of the site. Specific issues affecting habitat quality such as gravel extraction and river engineering are being addressed through developments in understanding following research projects on the Endrick Water SAC. The most likely source of pressure on the qualifying interests of the River Teith SAC is from development within the inner Forth. Development in the inner forth can affect migration routes between fresh and sea water and cause mortality of qualifying interests.
2.2.56 The River Teith Natura 2000 data form (JNCC, 2006 and Appendix A), submitted to Europe to support the identification of the River Teith as an SAC, makes no reference to potential effect pathways that would relate to activities in the Firth of Forth.
3. Screening the Plan
3.1 Stage 5 – Screening for likely significant effects on a Natura 2000 Site.
3.1.1 Policies and proposals were screened using the approach recommended by the SNH guidance. The way in which this was applied to the Falkirk LDP is set out in detail in Section 3 of the previous Screening/Scoping report. Essentially it has three components: firstly the individual effect of each proposal is considered in isolation from all others, before considering the cumulative effects of all the proposals within the LDP and also “in-combination” with other plans and projects proposed for the Firth of Forth.
“Likely Significant” and “Minor Residual” effects
3.1.2 Screening relies on a distinction between “likely significant”, “minor residual” and no effects of proposals. Definitions of these terms are provided in the SNH guidance. Likely significant effects are those that cannot be ruled out on the basis of objective information, and are those effects that may undermine the site’s conservation objectives. By contrast a minor residual effect is one that is not significant but which should be considered within in-combination assessments. Whilst these provide some useful general guidance, assessment of likely significance remains largely one based on expert opinion and judgement. The term “negligible” has also been used in this document. This has been applied when it is not possible to rule out any residual effect, but that it is not anticipated to adversely affect the integrity of the SPA, or contribute to further in combination effects.
Criteria for identification of effects – Firth of Forth SPA
3.1.3 The screening exercise requires a high level consideration as to whether a proposal is likely to have a significant effect upon the qualifying interest features of the European Site (as set out in the Waddenzee judgement from the European Court of Justice) i.e. consideration at the screening stage is not expected to be of the degree of complexity expected of an Appropriate Assessment. This is assessed by reference to the Conservation Objectives of the site (see Section 2.2.5). Whilst the likely effect of each individual policy and spatial proposal has been considered, the strategic nature of the LDP introduces a degree of uncertainty about effects. To ensure that a consistent and transparent approach has been taken to screening, some general criteria have been developed to help identify likely significant effects.
3.1.4 The general criteria which have been developed to help identify likely significant effects on the Firth of Forth SPA have been developed from the conservation objectives of the site and an understanding of the types of activity which are likely to have an impact on the qualifying interests. They are as follows:
• Will the policy/proposal/opportunity lead to direct or indirect habitat loss, deterioration and/or damage to SPA? • Will the policy/proposal/opportunity lead to the loss of roosting, foraging or loafing habitat used by the qualifying interests of the site? and • Will the policy/proposal/opportunity lead to significant disturbance of the qualifying interests of the site whilst roosting, foraging, loafing or flying?
High Tide Roost Sites
3.1.5 In November 2012 SNH published distribution maps for the Firth of Forth SPA for selected bird species (which are known to spend a proportion of their time away from the coast), including inland feeding sites. Of the selected species six of them (Golden Plover, Lapwing*, Curlew*, Redshank, Oystercatcher* and Grey Plover*) rarely fly more than 5km from the coast on a regular basis to feed or roost. Of these species, Grey Plover* are not thought to be present in appreciable numbers along the Falkirk coastline.
3.1.6 To assist with the screening exercise, the spatial proposals for housing, industrial and mixed development were plotted on maps that show the location of potentially suitable habitat and the tetrad or 10 x 10 km bird survey data collected as part of the Bird Atlas 2007 – 11 project. The Atlas data are useful, but are incomplete. For example, there are few data for areas further than 5 km from the coast within Falkirk area. Where data is lacking for a square, a precautionary approach has been taken. If sites are within c. 5 km of the coast and are located in areas of suitable habitat they have been considered as potentially important for all species; if the site is located further than 5 km from the coast and is located in areas of suitable habitat, they have been considered as potentially important for Pink-footed Goose only.
3.1.7 Development sites are identified as potentially having an effect if: they are located in areas that are known to be important high tide roost sites (see list in Section 4.4.2): or the site lies within 5 km of the coast, is located in an area of suitable habitat, and at least one of the qualifying species has been recorded from the tetrad or 10 x 10 km square that includes the development site; or the site lies within 5 km of the coast, is located in an area of suitable habitat, but there have been no assessments for the presence of qualifying species within the tetrad or 10 x 10 km square that includes the development site.
3.1.8 Where sites are located in areas of suitable habitat, but there are 0 counts for qualifying species, these have been screened out. Sites that are only partially covered by suitable habitat have generally been screened out.
3.1.9 In addition, some development sites have been screened in for effects specifically for Pink- footed Goose. These sites have been identified as: the site lies over 5 km from the coast, is located in an area of suitable habitat either in the countryside or located on the edge of settlements, and Pink-footed Goose has been recorded from the 10 x 10 km square that includes the development site; or the site lies over 5 km from the coast, is located in an area of suitable habitat either in the countryside or located on the edge of settlements, and the 10 x 10 km square that includes the development site has not been surveyed for the presence of Pink-footed Goose; or the site lies within the Avon Valley or around the high plateau areas (Pink-footed Goose are known to use this route as a flyway) is located in an area of suitable habitat, but the 10 x 10 km square that includes the development site has not been surveyed for the presence of Pink-footed Goose.
3.1.10 Sites over 5 km of the coast, that support suitable habitat, but which have been surveyed and found not to support Pink-footed Goose have been excluded from the assessment.
3.1.11 Small sites in the middle of urban areas have been excluded, even where they are located in potentially supporting habitats as the qualifying interest species favour wide views in order to scan for predators.
Recreational disturbance
3.1.12 Disturbance, particularly as a consequence of recreational activity, is known to affect the behaviour of birds. The effect of disturbance is to modify bird behaviour so that it spends more time being alert and less time feeding. It can also result in birds leaving preferred feeding areas to utilise less optimal sites elsewhere – effectively creating a temporary loss of habitat for the species. During the winter months when birds may already be stressed by cold and reduced daylight feeding hours, the double effect of reduced calorie intake and increased energy expenditure can cause loss of condition and death. Effects may not be experienced during the winter itself, but can result in reduced breeding condition and egg and chick production the following spring.
3.1.13 Whilst there have been a number of studies investigating the types of recreational activity that disturb birds, there is still inadequate knowledge about the duration of effects and how much disturbance is “too much” i.e. when disturbance will lead to effects upon the population size and status of a species .Quantifying the relationship between the numbers of users and effects upon both individual birds and their populations is problematic and may not be particularly meaningful as regular disturbance by a few people can be as damaging as occasional disturbance by a greater number of people.
3.1.14 As recreational disturbance is mainly linked to opportunities to access the coastline, it was decided to focus the assessment in relation to opportunities for increased access to the coast rather than settlement numbers per se. In addition, there is some evidence to show that most people travel less than 5 miles for recreational activities (see paragraphs 4.1.188 – 4.1.196), which has also been used as a guide to identify possible new sources of recreational disturbance.
Urban disturbance
3.1.15 Other Habitats Regulations Appraisals have identified housing in close proximity to European Sites as a source of increased pressure that can lead to adverse effects upon the integrity of sites.
3.1.16 A buffer distance of 400 m has been used to define zones within which the general effects of urbanisation upon woodland and heathland sites may not be able to be controlled. This includes factors such as predation of birds by cats, fly tipping and dumping of garden waste. This distance has been subject to public scrutiny through the South East Plan Examination in Public and the Thames Basin Heaths. Use of such a buffer distance for coastal sites may not be as appropriate, as access to the coastal zone can be more restricted. To assist with the screening, sites that are within 400 m of the coast, and which are not separated from it by either a major road or railway line have been considered as potentially having effects.
Criteria for identification of effects – Slamannan Plateau SPA
3.1.17 The general criteria which have been developed to help identify likely significant effects on the Slamannan Plateau SPA have been developed from the conservation objectives of the site and are as follows:
Will the policy/proposal/opportunity lead to direct and indirect habitat loss, deterioration and/or damage to SPA? Will the policy/proposal/opportunity lead to the loss of Taiga Bean Geese roosting, foraging or loafing habitat? and Will the policy/proposal/opportunity lead to disturbance of roosting, foraging, loafing and flying Taiga Bean Geese?
Taiga Bean Geese roosting, foraging and loafing habitat
3.1.18 For the purposes of the screening exercise it has been decided that the only potential areas of bean goose roosting, foraging or loafing habitat are within the survey area monitored by the Bean Goose Action Group (BGAG) during their annual surveys of the Bean Goose flock. This covers an area of approximately 33km². If any opportunities or proposals are within this area then they are considered as likely to have a likely significant effect. In addition, development outwith the survey area monitored by BGAG could still have a likely significant effect if it had the potential to affect migration routes used by Bean Geese.
Disturbance
3.1.19 Population growth in the area surrounding the bean goose fields is likely to increase the amount of traffic on local roads and increase the amount of people using the Slamannan Plateau for recreation purposes. For the purposes of the screening exercise any proposals for housing growth in Slamannan and Limerigg have been considered as likely to have a significant effect as they will lead to increased traffic using local roads and increased recreational disturbance.
Criteria for identification of effects – Black Loch Moss SAC
3.1.20 The general criteria which have been developed to help identify likely significant effects on the Black Loch Moss SAC have been developed from the conservation objectives of the site and are as follows: Will the policy/proposal/opportunity lead to direct and indirect loss, deterioration or damage to active raised bog; Will the policy/proposal/opportunity lead to direct and indirect loss, deterioration or damage to degraded raised bog still capable of natural regeneration; Will the policy/proposal/opportunity lead to adverse effects on the hydrological systems which feed bog habitat; and Will the policy/proposal/opportunity lead to adverse effects adverse effect on typical species which are components of the habitat, including their distribution within the site.
Potential deterioration of habitats
3.1.21 Black Loch Moss is a particularly local recreational resource. For the purposes of the screening exercise only new housing development within Limerigg was considered as likely to result in increased recreational pressure which could lead to the deterioration of habitats.
Criteria for identification of effects – River Teith SAC
3.1.22 The general criteria which have been developed to help identify likely significant effects on the River Teith SAC have been developed from the conservation objectives of the site and are as follows:
Will the policy/proposal/opportunity lead to noise and vibration from construction, including pile driving etc? Will the policy/proposal/opportunity lead to noise and vibration from increased levels of commercial boat traffic? Will the policy/proposal/opportunity lead to hydrodynamic alteration including water discharge plumes? Will the policy/proposal/opportunity lead to sediment release? and Will the policy/proposal/opportunity lead to water pollution?
Screening Step 1 – General Policy Statements
3.1.23 Screening step 1 as outlined in the SNH guidance is to identify and screen out general policy statements, including ‘general criteria based policies’, and record that they will not be likely to have a significant effect on a European site. Table 7 below shows those elements of the Proposed Plan which have been screened out under this step:
Table 7 – General Policy Statements Policy Description BUS02 Core Business Areas Safeguards certain urban areas for business development BUS03 Business Areas with Sets out criteria for the types of development that will be Potential for Redevelopment acceptable. BUS04 Business Development Sets out generic criteria for when business developments outwith Designated Business Areas will be allowed within urban & village limits. It is not considered likely that any proposals that arise out of this policy would have a significant effect on the Firth of Forth SPA owing to their possible locations. BUS05 Major Hazards Sets out criteria for assessing development within major hazard consultation zones or development likely to extend major hazard consultation distances CG01 Countryside Provides for the protection of urban limits D05 Advertisements General criteria governing the location and type of public advertising signs TC02 Development and Changes of Provides criteria for changing use of existing buildings and Use in Centres developments in town centres. TC03 Retail and Commercial Leisure Sets out criteria for when this type of development will be Development allowed. Any proposals that come forward outside the urban area under this policy are required to meet all relevant countryside policies – which would include policies that protect features of ecological importance. Proposals within the urban area are not considered likely to have a significant effect on any Natura 2000 site. TC04 Food and Drink Establishes criteria for the location of Food Retailing
Screening Step 2 - Projects referred to in, but not proposed by, the plan
3.1.24 Screening step 2 as outlined in the SNH guidance is to identify and screen out any specific proposals for projects referred to in, but not proposed by, the plan. Table 8 below shows those elements of the Proposed Plan which have been screened out under this step:
Table 8 – Projects referred to in but not proposed by the plan Policy Description INF01 Strategic Infrastructure This policy identifies support for 35 strategic infrastructure (specific projects only) projects. Only the following elements would be likely to proceed irrespective of whether this plan is adopted: Strategic Rail Network: INF08 Edinburgh Glasgow Improvement Project. INF22 Grangemouth Flood Defence Scheme (Part of NPF2 Grangemouth Freight Hub National Development – this will be screened in the in combination assessment with NPF2
Screening Step 3A – Elements of the Plan which are Intended to protect the natural environment
3.1.25 Screening step 3 as outlined in the SNH guidance is to identify and screen out any elements of the plan that could have no likely significant effects on a European site at all. The guidance gives an example of five reasons why this might be concluded, the first being that the element of the plan is intended to protect the natural environment. Table 9 below shows those elements of the Proposed Plan which have been screened out under step 3 for this reason:
Table 9: Elements intended to protect the natural environment Policy Description CG02 Green Belt Defines the Green Belt and defines criteria for when development will be permitted. Any proposals that come forward under this policy are required to meet all relevant countryside policies – which would include policies that protect features of ecological importance. D01 Placemaking Sets out principle of locations to form the focus for defining locations. D07 Antonine Wall Establishes criteria to safeguard the Antonine Wall. D08 Sites of Archaeological Establishes criteria for the protection of features of Interest archaeological importance. D09 Listed Buildings Establishes criteria for the protection of listed buildings. D10 Conservation Areas Establishes criteria for the safeguarding of Conservation Areas. D11 Areas of Townscape Value Establishes criteria for the safeguarding of important townscapes. D12 Historic Gardens and Establishes criteria for the safeguarding of Historic Gardens Designed Landscapes and Designed Landscapes. D13 Battlefield Sites Protects battlefield sites from inappropriate development, but allows for interpretation. GN02 Landscape Identifies measures to be taken to safeguard important landscapes. GN03 Biodiversity and Sets out criteria for the safeguarding of features of biodiversity Geodiversity & geodiversity from development. This policy was re-worded during the screening exercise to ensure no likely significant effects. See section 3.2 for further details. GN04 Trees, Woodland and Sets out criteria for the protection of trees, woodland and Hedgerows hedgerows from development and circumstances under which their removal will be permitted. INF03 Protection of Open Space Sets out criteria for the protection of open space. This policy Policy Description was re-worded during the screening exercise to ensure no likely significant effects. See table 14 for further details. RW06 Flooding Protects areas at risk of flooding from development and sets out criteria for when development in such areas will be allowed. Proposals under this policy will also be required to meet all the Countryside policies and the amended open space policy, which provide an appropriate level of protection for the SPA. RW07 Air Quality Promotes the improvement of air quality in the area.
Screening Step 3B - Elements of the Plan which will not themselves lead to development or other change,
3.1.26 The second reason why an element of the plan might be considered to have no likely significant effects on a European site at all is because it will not itself lead to development or other change. Table 10 below shows those elements of the Proposed Plan which have been screened out under step 3 for this reason:
Table 10: Elements which will not lead to development or other change Policy Description D02 Sustainable Design Principles Sets out general principles of design quality to be applied to all new developments. D03 Urban Design General criteria for the design of new areas. D06 Shopfronts Criteria guiding the design of shopfronts. INF01 Strategic Infrastructure This policy identifies support for 35 strategic infrastructure (Specific projects only): projects. Two of the locations proposed under this policy will not lead to development or change, but act to safeguard sites for the future: INF09– 10 Safeguarding sites for stations at Grangemouth and Bonnybridge INF02 Developer Contributions to Criteria for when developer contributions will be required. Community Infrastructure INF05 Education and New Housing Criteria for when developer contributions will be required. Development INF06 Healthcare and New Sets out principles for when developer contributions will be Housing Development requested to assist with provision of new or additional healthcare. INF10 Transport Assessments This policy sets out the circumstances under which the Council will require transport assessments to be undertaken, and provides guidance on what will be included.
Screening Step 3C - Elements of the Plan which have no link or pathway between them and the qualifying interests of a European Site
3.1.27 The third reason why an element of the plan might be considered to have no likely significant effects on a European site at all is because it makes provision for change but could have no significant effect on a European site because there is no link or pathway between it and the qualifying interests of the European Site. Table 11 below shows those elements of the Proposed Plan which have been screened out under step 3 for this reason:
Table 11: No link or pathway to a European site. Policy Description GN01 Falkirk Green Network Sets out criteria for development of Green Network, including (some spatial proposals only) proposed locations. Some of the locations can be screened out at this stage as presenting no link to the features of the any of the Natura sites. Other proposed locations for the Green Network may have likely significant effects either alone or in-combination & these are outlined in the other tables Policy Description below. Proposals sites where no significant effect is likely are: GN05 Carse Peatland Restoration GN06 Waterslap GN07 Dunmore Wood GN09 Helix GN10 East Falkirk Open Space Corridor GN11 Roughcastle GN12 Rowan Tree/Carmuirs Burn GN13 Lionthorn Policy Bing GN14 Kinneil Estate GN15 Bo’ness Open Space Corridors GN16 Lower Braes Southern Fringe GN17 Lathallan/Avonglen GN18 Polmont Open space Corridor GN22 Torwood GN23 Kinnaird/Carron Policies GN24 Larbert Open Space Corridors GN25 Glenbervie to Denny GN27 Muiravonside GN28 Denny-Falkirk Path GN29 Bonnywood to Denny-Falkirk Path GN30 Bonnyfield Expansion GN31 Portdownie/Falkirk Canal Corridor GN32 Bantaskine HSG01 Housing Growth The following proposed locations for housing growth are not anticipated to affect any of the Natura sites. Any effects arising out of increased recreational use of the council area are assessed as part of recreational proposals. Allocations screened out are: Banknock & Bonnybridge H08 Dennyloanhead H11 Falkirk Road H12 Broomhill Road H13 Seabegs Road Depot M03 Banknock North Denny H14 Former Denny High School H15 Mydub 1 H16 Mydub 2 H17 Carrongrove Mill H18 Fintry Road H19 Stirling Street H20 Duke Street 1 H21 Nethermains Road Falkirk H23 Merchiston Road H24 Gowan Avenue H25 Etna Road 1 H26 Etna Road 2 H27 Cauldhame Farm 1 H28 Cauldhame Farm 2 H29 Blinkbonny Road H30 Carrick Place H31 Glenburn Road, Hallglen H32 Grangemouth Road M06 Portdownie M07 Westburn Avenue Grangemouth H33 Tinto Drive Policy Description H34 Wood Street 3 H35 Oxgang Road Larbert & Stenhousemuir H36 Bellsdyke H38 Lorne Road H39 Larbert House/Stables Polmont H40 Overton H41 Redding House H42 Redding Park H49 Old Redding Road H50 Whyteside Hotel H51 Lathallan House Rural North H56 Former Torwood School H57 McLaren Park Rural South H58 Main Street/Slamannan Road H59 Slamannan Road 1 H60 Slamannan Road 2 H61 Bridgehill H63 Cockmalane H73 Standburn West M13 Stein's Brickworks M14 Whitecross BUS01 Business and Tourism This policy identifies locations for development of business Locations (certain allocations only) and tourism. Many of the locations are unlikely to result in significant impacts: ED01 Bo'mains Industrial Estate ED02 Church Walk ED05 Abbotsford Business Park ED07 Firs Park ED08 Rosebank Distillery ED09 Callendar Business Park ED10 Falkirk Town Centre THI ED11 Redbrae Road ED12 Earlsgate Park ED18 Little Kerse ED19 Glenbervie ED20 Central Business Park ED22 Kinnaird Village Centre ED23 Gilston ED24 Beancross ED25 Union Canal Hub M02 Drum Farm South M05 Broad Street M06 Portdownie M07 Westburn Avenue M13 Stein's Brickworks M14 Whitecross INF01 Strategic Infrastructure This policy sets out locations for strategic infrastructure (some spatial proposals) projects. Some of these are in locations with no link on the qualifying ineterests of any Natura site. INF01 M9 Jcn 6 INF02 M9 Jcn 6A INF03 M9 Jcn 5 INF04 M9 Jcn4 INF05 M9 Jcn 3 INF07 A801 Corridor (Avon Gorge) Policy Description INF11 Falkirk A803 Corridor Improvements INF12 Falkirk A904 Corridor Improvements INF13 Falkirk Bus Station INF14 Denny Eastern Access Road INF16 Torwood WWTW INF17 Whitecross WWTW INF18 Avonbridge WWTW INF20 Denny WWTW INF23 Forth Valley College Campus INF24 Larbert High Capacity Enhancement INF25 Denny High Capacity Enhancement INF26 St Mungo's High Capacity Enhancement INF27 New Whitecross primary school INF28 Bankier Primary Capacity Enhancement INF29 Head of Muir Primary Capacity Enhancement INF30 Denny Primary Capacity Enhancement INF31 Bantaskin Primary Capacity Enhancement INF32 Maddiston Primary Capacity Enhancement INF33 Falkirk Community Hospital TC01 Network of Centres (some ED02 Church Walk proposals only) ED10 Falkirk Town Centre THI ED22 Kinnaird Village Centre M03 Banknock North M04 Bonnybridge Town Centre M08 Grahamston Opportunity Area M09 Falkirk East End Opportunity Area M10 Bank Street M11 Williamson Street M12 Grangemouth Town Centre M14 Whitecross
Screening Step 3D - Elements of the Plan which do not have a likely significant effect, but have a minor residual effect and so need to be considered for cumulative and in-combination effects
3.1.28 The fourth reason why an element of the plan might be considered to have no likely significant effects on a European site at all is because it will only have a minor residual effect on a European site. Table 12 below shows those elements of the Proposed Plan which are considered to have a minor residual effect on a European site and will be further considered for cumulative and in- combination effects:
Table 12: Elements that will have a minor residual effect Policy Natura Site Description Affected BUS01 Business and Firth of Forth SPA ED14 South Bridge Street; Tourism Locations ED21 Hill of Kinnaird (Certain Allocations Only) These proposals are at possible inland high tide roost sites used by waders6 and could lead to the loss of habitat potentially used for feeding/roosting and disturbance of qualifying species whilst using inland feeding/ roosting sites. BUS01 Business and Firth of Forth SPA ED03 Falkirk Gateway, Tourism Locations ED04 Falkirk Stadium; (Certain Allocations ED06 Caledon Business Park; Only) ED13 Glensburgh Road; ED14 South Bridge Street;
6 Potential sites are those which are located in areas of suitable habitat, and which lie within tetrads or 10 x 10 km squares from which a qualifying bird species has been recorded as occurring. Policy Natura Site Description Affected ED15 Grangemouth Docks; ED17 Wholeflats Business Park ED21 Hill of Kinnaird M05 Broad Street M14 Whitecross
These proposals are near inland sites which could be used by Pink-footed Goose and could lead to the loss of habitat potentially used as high tide roosting/feeding habitat by Pink-footed Goose and disturbance of Pink-footed Goose whilst using inland feeding/ roosting sites. BUS01 Business and Firth of Forth SPA ED17 Wholeflats Business Park – proposal for Tourism Locations River Teith SAC chemical/ biochemical/ industrial development (Certain Allocations which could involve water pollution during Only) construction and operation which will feed into the River Avon and onwards to the Firth of Forth.
D14 Canals River Teith SAC Provides support for the canal network, including promotion of their use for recreation. Could involve noise and vibration and water pollution from increased recreational boat traffic using the canal network. D14 Canals Firth of Forth SPA This policy could cause disturbance of qualifying species arising from increased opportunities for access to and recreation along the coastline. GN01 Falkirk Green River Teith SAC GN01 John Muir Trail – Coastal path opportunity, Network (Certain could involve noise and vibration and water opportunities only pollution during construction. GN02 Kinneil Kerse – Coastal landfill restoration opportunity, could involve noise and vibration, sediment release and water pollution during construction. GN03 Bothkennar/Skinflats – Coastal habitat enhancement opportunity, could involve noise and vibration and sediment release during construction. GN04 Kincardine – South Alloa - Coastal path opportunity, could involve noise and vibration and water pollution during construction. GN08 River Carron Corridor Improvements – Coastal Strategic Route/Corridor opportunity could involve noise and vibration, sediment release and water pollution during construction. GN01 Falkirk Green Firth of Forth SPA GN01 John Muir Trail Network (Certain GN02 Kinneil Kerse opportunities only GN08 River Carron Corridor Improvements
These opportunities disturbance of qualifying species arising from increased opportunities for access to and recreation along the coastline. HSG01 Housing Firth of Forth SPA H01 Drum Farm North Growth (Certain H02 Kinglass Farm 1 proposals Only) H03 Kinglass Farm 2 H04 South Street/ Main Street H05 Cadzow Avenue H06 Union Street H52 Castle View Policy Natura Site Description Affected H53 Graham Terrace H54 Airth Castle South H55 The Glebe M02 Drum Farm South
These proposals could cause significant disturbance arising from increased recreational pressure. HSG01 Housing Firth of Forth SPA H52 Castle View; Growth (Certain H54 Airth Castle South; proposals Only) H55 The Glebe; H01 Drum Farm North; H02 Kinglass Farm 1; H03 Kinglass Farm 2; M02 Drum Farm South H37 Hill of Kinnaird; M05 Broad Street;
These proposals are at possible inland high tide roost sites used by waders & Pink-footed Goose7 and could lead to the loss of habitat potentially used for feeding/roosting and disturbance of qualifying species whilst using inland feeding/ roosting sites. HSG01 Housing Firth of Forth SPA H07 Banknock South; Growth (Certain H09 Kilsyth Road 1, Haggs proposals Only) H10 Kilsyth Road 2, Haggs H16 Mydub 2 H22 Rosebank, Dunipace; H28 Cauldhame Farm H37 Hill of Kinnaird H43 Parkhall Farm 1; H44 Parkhall Farm 2; H45 Parkhall Farm 3; H46 Parkhall Farm 4 H47 The Haining; H48 Toravon Farm H52 Castle View H53 Graham Terrace H54 Airth Castle South H55 The Glebe H64 Church Road 1, California; H65 Church Road 2, California; H68 Reddingmuirhead Road; H69 Hillcrest H70 Hillend Farm, Slamannan H71 Avonbridge Road, Slamannan H72 The Rumlie H74 Garngrew Road M03 Banknock North M05 Broad Street; M14 Whitecross M15 East Bonnybridge
These proposals are near inland sites which could
7 Potential sites are those which are located in areas of suitable habitat, and which lie within tetrads or 10 x 10 km squares from which a qualifying bird species has been recorded as occurring. Policy Natura Site Description Affected be used by Pink-footed Goose and could lead to the loss of habitat potentially used as high tide roosting/feeding habitat by Pink-footed Goose and disturbance of Pink-footed Goose whilst using inland feeding/ roosting sites. HSG01 Housing Slamannan Plateau H66 Slamannan Road 1, Limerigg Growth (Certain SPA H67 Slamannan Road 2, Limerigg proposals Only) H71 Avonbridge Road H72 The Rumlie These proposals for housing growth could increase road traffic in the vicinity of roosting, foraging and loafing habitat causing disturbance to bean geese. HSG01 Housing Black Loch Moss H66 Slamannan Road 1, Limerigg Growth (Certain SAC H67 Slamannan Road 2, Limerigg proposals Only) These proposals for housing growth could increase the number of people using the Black Loch Moss SAC for recreation leading to direct damage to active and degraded raised bog still capable of natural regeneration and significant deterioration of habitats
Screening Step 3E - Elements of the Plan which are too general to predict the nature or location of effects
3.1.29 The fifth reason why an element of the plan might be considered to have no likely significant effects on a European site at all is because effects on Natura 2000 sites cannot be identified because the policy is too general to predict the nature or location of effects. Table 13 below shows those elements of the Proposed Plan which have been screened out under step 3 for this reason:
Table 13: Elements which are too general to predict the nature of effects Policy Description
CG03 Housing in the Countryside Sets out criteria for when housing will be allowed outwith village limits. Any proposals that come forward under this policy are required to meet all relevant countryside policies – which would include policies that protect features of ecological importance. CG04 Business Development in the Sets out criteria for when business development will Countryside be allowed D04 Low Carbon Development Sets out general targets for incorporating low carbon designs into existing and new developments. GN05 Outdoor Access Provides criteria for inclusion and safeguarding of outdoor access provision HSG02 Affordable Housing Sets out the amount of affordable housing required in different parts of the Council Area HSG03 Windfall Housing Sets out criteria for when unplanned housing development within urban and village limits will be permitted. Policy includes a provision to comply with all other LDP policies. HSG04 Housing Design Provides guidance on design standards to be applied to new housing developments. HSG05 Infill Development and Defines criteria for when additional housing can be Subdivision of Plots constructed. HSG06 Non-Residential uses in Criteria for the use of buildings in residential areas. Residential Areas HSG07 House Extensions and Alterations Provides criteria for when extensions and alterations Policy Description
will be allowed. HSG08 Gypsy/Travellers’ Sites Sets out criteria for proposals for Gypsy and Traveller sites. HSG09 Residential Care Homes Criteria for the location of Care Homes. INF01 Strategic Infrastructure (single INF35 Sewerage Network Upgrades proposal) This allows for the improvement of the sewerage network if it becomes necessary. INF04 Open Space and New Sets criteria for the inclusion of open space within Development new developments. INF07 Walking and Cycling Promotes the inclusion of opportunities for walking and cycling within developments and sets standards for provision of facilities. INF08 Bus Travel and New Development Sets criteria for incorporation of bus transport within new developments. INF09 Freight Transport Policy to guide the development of freight transport. INF11 Parking Policy to guide the supply of parking INF12 Sewerage Infrastructure Sets out criteria for when new sewerage infrastructure will be allowed. INF13 Telecommunications Development Sets out criteria for when new telecommunications development will be allowed. This policy was re- worded during the screening exercise to ensure no likely significant effects. See section 3.2 for further details. RW01 Renewable Energy Sets out criteria for renewable energy projects RW02 Mineral Resources Sets out criteria for safeguarding and working of mineral resources. RW03 Assessment of Mineral Proposals Defines criteria for applications for mineral workings. RW04 Agricultural land, carbon rich soils Sets out criteria for protection of these features and and rare soils identifies when development will be allowed. RW05 The Water Environment Sets out criteria for the protection of the water environment and also promotes the recreational use of the water environment where this will not conflict with the ecological value of a site. This policy was re- worded during the screening exercise to ensure no likely significant effects. See section 3.2 for further details. RW08 Waste Management Facilities Establishes criteria for the identification of new waste management facilities, and identifies land next to existing sites for future development. RW09 Waste Reduction in New Establishes principles for reducing waste during Development construction and operation of new developments. RW10 Vacant, Derelict and Contaminated Policy to promote the re-use of land. Land
3.2 Stage 6 – Applying screening stage mitigation measures
3.2.1 As alluded to in table 9 above, the wording of a number of proposals included within early working drafts of the Proposed Plan were amended to include mitigation to avoid effects and then re- screened (see Table 14).
Table 14: Policies which have been amended to remove likelihood of significant effects upon the Firth of Forth Policy Mitigation/ Amendment GN03 Biodiversity and Geodiversity This policy was re-drafted in the light of comments from SNH. It provides protection for European Sites, but also clarifies that qualifying species may not be confined to the boundaries of that site, and also Policy Mitigation/ Amendment require consideration. This allowed the policy to be screened out under screening step 3A. INF03 Protection of Open Space Open space, even in urban areas, can be used as high tide roosting and feeding sites by certain qualifying species of the Firth of Forth SPA. The policy was amended to recognise this function and potential effects upon qualifying species of European Sites, allowing it to be screened out. This allowed the policy to be screened out under screening step 3A. RW05 The Water Environment The wording of this policy was amended to promote recreational use of waterbodies that will not conflict with the ecological value of a site. This allowed the policy to be screened out under screening step 3E INF13 Telecommunications Development The proposal was amended to allow consideration of likely effects on qualifying features of the SPA where these occur outwith the boundary of the site. This allowed the policy to be screened out under screening step 3E
3.3 Stage 7 – Re-screening the Plan
Policies, Proposals and Opportunities with Likely Significant Effect in their own right.
3.3.1 After re-screening following the application of screening stage mitigation measures described in section 3.2 above. The policies, proposals and opportunities which were considered as likely to have a significant effect in their own right on Natura 2000 sites are indicated in the table 15 below:
Table 15: Elements with LSE alone Policy Natura Site Description Affected BUS01 Business and River Teith SAC ED15 – Grangemouth Docks – Could involve: Tourism Locations noise and vibration during construction and from (Certain Proposals increased commercial boat traffic during only) operation; sediment release during construction and pollution during construction and from increased commercial boat traffic during operation ED16 Ineos Redevelopment – Chemical/ Biochemical development proposal could involve water pollution during construction and operation. ED17 Wholeflats Business Park – Chemical/ Biochemical development proposal could involve water pollution during construction and operation. BUS01 Business and Firth of Forth SPA ED15 – Grangemouth Docks – Could involve: Tourism Locations direct loss of habitat during construction; pollution (Certain Proposals during construction; disturbance during operation Only) of the site; and alterations in shipping movements. ED16 - Ineos Redevelopment – Could involve: direct habitat loss during construction; pollution during construction; disturbance during construction; pollution during operation of scheme; and disturbance during operation of scheme. HSG01 – Housing River Teith SAC M01 – Bo’ness Foreshore – Could involve noise Growth (Certain and vibration, sediment release and water Proposals only) pollution during construction HSG01 – Housing Firth of Forth SPA M01 – Bo’ness Foreshore – Could involve: direct Growth (Certain loss of inter-tidal habitat used by qualifying Proposals only) species; direct loss of high tide roost habitats used by qualifying species; pollution incidents and release of contaminants from sediments during construction; noise and disturbance during construction; disturbance to qualifying species arising from increased light & noise associated with the development; increase in surface water runoff; and disturbance to qualifying species arising from increased recreation from new housing development. HSG01 – Housing Slamannan Plateau H70 – Hillend Farm – Could involve disturbance to Growth (Certain SPA Bean Geese during construction and operation. Proposals only) INF01 (Certain River Teith SAC INF15 Airth WWTW – Coastal development Proposals Only) proposal, could involve noise and vibration, sediment release and water pollution during construction and water pollution and hydrodynamic alteration during operation. INF19 Bo'ness WWTW – Coastal development proposal, could involve noise and vibration, sediment release and water pollution during construction and water pollution and hydrodynamic alteration during operation. INF21 Dalderse WWTW – Development proposal close to the coast, could involve sediment release during construction and water pollution during operation. INF22 - Grangemouth Flood Defence Scheme – Could involve noise and vibration, sediment release and water pollution during construction and hydrodynamic alteration during operation. INF34 - Avondale Waste Management Site – landfill proposal close to coast, could involve water pollution during construction and operation INF01 (Certain Firth of Forth SPA INF15 - Airth WWTW – Could involve: disturbance Proposals Only) of birds during construction; direct loss of habitat during construction; pollution during construction; and changes to water quality and sediment patterns during operation of the scheme. INF19 - Bo'ness WWTW – Could involve: disturbance of birds during construction; direct loss of habitat during construction; pollution during construction; and changes to water quality and sediment patterns during operation of the scheme. INF22 - Grangemouth Flood Defence Scheme – Could involve: direct disturbance to birds during construction; direct, permanent loss of habitat owing to construction of works; direct, temporary loss of habitat during construction; pollution during construction; indirect loss of habitat arising from coastal squeeze; and changes to sediment patterns and hence quality of feeding habitat. INF34 - Avondale Waste Management Site – Could involve pollution/ changes in water quality of the River Avon leading to changes in the Firth of Forth. GN01 – Falkirk Green Firth of Forth SPA GN03 - Bothkennar/ Skinflats – Could lead to Network (Certain disturbance of qualifying species arising from Opportunities only) increased opportunities for access to and recreation along the coastline. GN04 - Kincardine – South Alloa – Could lead to disturbance of qualifying species arising from increased opportunities for access to and recreation along the coastline. GN01 – Falkirk Green Slamannan Plateau GN19 – Mid Braes Habitat Connectivity - Peatland Network (Certain SPA restoration proposals could involve the loss of Opportunities only) roosting, foraging and loafing habitat for Bean Geese outside the SPA and disturbance to Bean Geese. GN21 - Upper Braes Peatland Restoration - Peatland restoration at Garbethill could involve the direct habitat loss within the SPA and other peatland restoration proposals could involve the loss of roosting, foraging and loafing habitat for Bean Geese outside the SPA and disturbance to Bean Geese. GN26 – River Avon Corridor - Path improvement/creation works could lead to the loss of roosting, foraging and loafing habitat for Bean Geese outside the SPA and disturbance to Bean Geese. GN01 – Falkirk Green Black Loch Moss GN20 – Black Loch Access – New path proposals Network (Certain SAC could involve: direct damage or loss to active Opportunities only) raised bog or degraded raised bog still capable of natural regeneration; and adverse effect or significant disturbance to typical species TC01 – Network of River Teith SAC M01 – Bo’ness Foreshore – Could involve noise Centres (Certain and vibration, sediment release and water Proposals only) pollution during construction TC01 – Network of Firth of Forth SPA M01 – Bo’ness Foreshore – Could involve: direct Centres (Certain loss of inter-tidal habitat used by qualifying Proposals only) species; direct loss of high tide roost habitats used by qualifying species; pollution incidents and release of contaminants from sediments during construction; noise and disturbance during construction; disturbance to qualifying species arising from increased light & noise associated with the development; increase in surface water runoff; and disturbance to qualifying species arising from increased recreation from new housing development.
In-combination effects
3.3.2 Screening step 3D identified those elements of the plan which did not have a likely significant effect but were considered to have a minor residual effects and so needed to be considered for a likely significant effect in-combination.
3.3.3 The paragraphs below consider each combination of minor residual effects identified at screening step 3D and conclude whether or not they will act in combination to have a likely significant effect. Where the conclusion is that they will not have a likely significant effect in combination with other policies or proposals within the proposed plan they have been considered for in combination effects with other plans or proposals outside of the Council area.
River Teith SAC – Noise and Vibration
In Plan in combination effects
3.3.4 The following policies and proposals were identified as having the potential to cause noise and vibration which could affect the qualifying species of the River Teith SAC but were not on their own considered to have a likely significant effect.
Table 16: River Teith SAC – Noise and Vibration PP Ref Name Description of likely effect D14 Canals Could encourage increased recreational boat traffic leading to increased disturbance GN02 Kinneil Kerse Unsure what is required in restoration proposals but it may involve earthworks. GN03 Bothkennar/Skinflats Unsure if managed coastal realignment proposals could involve construction noise
3.3.5 The Forth Replacement Crossing Report to Inform an Appropriate Assessment (November 2009) indicates that: “Lamprey do not possess a swimbladder and are less sensitive to sound pressure than teleost species. The absence of a swimbladder also makes them less susceptible to significant tissue damage in response to rapid pressure changes, such as during underwater blasting or in the zone influenced by piling operations. River lamprey and sea lamprey are therefore not likely to be adversely affected by the noise and vibration generated by construction”
3.3.6 A report by Nedwell & Edwards (2004) summarises measured sound levels produced during impact piling and vibropiling operations in the River Arun (Littlehampton) and Southampton Water (Southampton), England. It concludes that for Atlantic Salmon the extinction point (when sound falls below the hearing threshold) would lie between 534 and 708m, depending on pile size (between 508 and 914mm diameter cylinders in this case) with no background noise present. The report also notes that the noise at 400m range generated through piling operations was not discernible by Atlantic Salmon over the background noise. Southampton Water is a busy shipping channel with constant ferry operations and therefore subject to large background noise levels similar to those experienced in the Firth of Forth. Furthermore the report notes that studies were carried out on the impacts of the piling noise on caged brown trout that had been pre-acclimated to seawater (Nedwell et al., 2003) and that results showed no evidence of auditory injury in any of the fish, even at the closest range of 20m
3.3.7 The Forth Replacement Crossing Report to Inform an Appropriate Assessment (November 2009) indicates that: “Atlantic salmon, by their nature are highly mobile and therefore able to move out of areas where acoustic disturbance is occurring, limiting the likelihood of physical injury from pressure waves. It is assumed that the piling operations could result in a temporary localised barrier, slowing migration in Atlantic salmon.”
3.3.8 The width of the Firth of Forth at Kinneil Kerse is approximately 4km and at Bothkennar/Skinflats ranges from 3km at the mouth of the Carron to approximately 750m at the Kincardine Bridge. As such it is considered that Atlantic Salmon would be able to navigate around areas of acoustic disturbance caused by these two projects and therefore these developments would be unlikely act in combination to have a significant effect on the smolt emigration to coastal waters and the adult salmon immigration to the River Teith SAC
3.3.9 The extent of increased recreational boat traffic created by the implementation of policy D14 would be unlikely to be significant when compared to current background levels of commercial boat traffic using the Firth of Forth to access Grangemouth. This policy would not therefore act in combination to have a likely significant effect.
In combination with other plans or projects.
3.3.10 Given the findings above that Atlantic Salmon would only detect noise from piling above background levels at a range of 400m, it is possible to conclude that the only opportunity for likely significant effects to occur from noise and vibration would be if two projects on opposite banks of the Forth were to undertake piling simultaneously where the width of the Firth of Forth was less than 800m. There are no proposals for development either within the planning application process or as unimplemented parts of an extant plan on the land opposite the Bothkennar/Skinflats opportunity at a point where the width of the Firth of Forth is less than 800m. Therefore the noise and vibration from the policies and proposals in table x above have been scoped out of the appropriate assessment.
River Teith SAC – Sediment Release
In Plan in combination effects
3.3.11 The following policies and proposals were identified as having the potential to cause increased sediment release which could affect the qualifying species of the River Teith SAC (other than brook lamprey) but were not, on their own, considered to have a likely significant effect.
Table 17: River Teith SAC – Sediment Release PP Ref Name Description of likely effect GN02 Kinneil Kerse Could involve sediment release during construction. GN03 Bothkennar/Skinflats Could involve sediment release during construction. GN08 River Carron Corridor Carronhaugh Bridge could release sediment into Improvements the Carron
3.3.12 The Forth Replacement Crossing Report to Inform an Appropriate Assessment (November 2009) indicates that: the release of sediment during access dredging, excavation and the proposed construction of an earth bund on the southern shore has been shown to lead to only localised and temporary elevations in turbidity in the surrounding water; most pronounced during the low water period; and sediment models have shown that levels of turbidity are not sufficiently greater than the background turbidity maximum within the estuary and are not expected to inhibit sea lamprey migration within the estuary. Construction information for the Main Crossing indicates that approximately 120,000m3 (192,000 tonnes) of material will be required to be dredged prior to the commencement of the construction works. Therefore the sediment released from the projects in table 3 above in combination (which will be miniscule in comparison to the scale of that released during construction of the Forth Replacement Crossing) is unlikely to significantly effect river or sea lamprey migration within the estuary. I It is not therefore considered that these minor residual effects will act in combination to have a likely significant effect.
In combination with other plans or projects.
3.3.13 The table below shows other projects which are likely to result in increased sedimentation within the Firth of Forth:
Table 18: Projects which are likely to result in increased sedimentation within the Firth of Forth Plan Name Status Description of likely effect NPF 2 – (h) Proposals not yet Forth Replacement Crossing - Sedimentation will only fully implemented in occur during low water slack and any aggregation of an extant plan sediment arising from the scheme will dissipate with the tides to within tolerance levels of Atlantic salmon, and lamprey within the background range of the Forth Estuary. Grangemouth Freight Hub – Assessed as part of proposal ED15 of the Proposed Plan Additional freight capacity on the Forth - This proposal could alter sedimentation patterns Mid-Fife (h) Proposals not yet BUR04 - Burntisland Docks East; KDY37 - Kirkcaldy Local Plan fully implemented in East Strategic Land Allocation; KDY38 - Kirkcaldy an extant plan South West Strategic Land Allocation; KDY39 – Invertiel; KDY63 – Kirkcaldy Esplanade; MET12 - Methil Power Station; and MET16 – Energy Park Fife: possibility of changes to water quality arising through increased sedimentation during construction Dunfermline (h) Proposals not yet ABD001- School Aberdour; CUL001- Blackadder and West fully implemented in Haven, Culross; DGB006- Hillend/Donibristle Fife Local an extant plan Industrial Estate; INV008- Cruicks Quarry, Plan Inverkeithing; LWD006- Logannet Power Station West; LWD007- Logannet Power Station East; (Part)LWD019-Comrie Colliery, Nr Blairhall; LWD018- Replacement Forth Crossing Landfall and Junction: possibility of changes to water quality arising through increased sedimentation during construction. St Andrews (h) Proposals not yet LW416 – Crail Airfield: possibility of changes to water and East Fife fully implemented in quality arising through increased sedimentation Local Plan an extant plan during construction. East Lothian (h) Proposals not yet ENV14 - West Harbour Areas, Cockenzie; BUS3 - Local Plan fully implemented in Dunbar Harbours; Tour2(P) - Gosford Estate; C8 – an extant plan Musselburgh Lagoons: possibility of changes to water quality arising through increased sedimentation during construction. West Lothian (h) Proposals not yet CDA7 – Armadale; CDA8 - Winchburgh and East Local Plan fully implemented in Broxburn; CDA9 – West Livingston/Mossend and an extant plan Calderwood; and TRAN 29 and 30 – Land safeguarded for strategic road schemes: possibility of changes to water quality arising through increased sedimentation during construction.
3.3.14 Any increased sedimentation caused by the projects in the table above is unlikely to act in- combination with sedimentation caused by the Kinneil Kerse, Bothkennar/Skinflats or River Carron Corridor Improvements as they are located remotely from these projects. Therefore the sedimentation from the opportunities in table x above has been scoped out of the appropriate assessment.
River Teith SAC – Impacts on Water Quality
In Plan in combination effects
3.3.15 The following policies and proposals were identified as having the potential to cause impacts on water quality which could affect the qualifying species of the River Teith SAC but were not, on their own, considered to have a likely significant effect.
Table 19: River Teith – Impacts on Water Quality PP Ref Name Description of likely effect D14 Canals Could encourage increased boat traffic leading to increased pollution - Negligible
GN02 Kinneil Kerse Unsure if restoration proposals could lead to pollution GN08 River Carron Corridor Unsure if corridor improvement proposals could Improvements lead to pollution
3.3.16 These policies and proposals could act in combination to have a likely significant effect on the River Teith SAC by virtue of adverse impact on water quality causing an adverse effect on Salmon, River Lamprey and Sea Lamprey. Therefore they have been scoped into the appropriate assessment.
Slamannan Plateau SPA – Significant Disturbance
In Plan in combination effects
3.3.17 The following policies and proposals were identified as having the potential to cause increased disturbance which could affect the qualifying species of the Slamannan Plateau SPA but were not, on their own, considered to have a likely significant effect.
Table 20: Slamannan Plateau SPA – Disturbance to Bean Geese PP Ref Name Description of likely effect H66 Slamannan Road 1 Increase in vehicular traffic could lead to increased disturbance of bean geese H67 Slamannan Road 2 Increase in vehicular traffic could lead to increased disturbance of bean geese H71 Avonbridge Road Increase in vehicular traffic could lead to increased disturbance of bean geese H72 The Rumlie Increase in vehicular traffic could lead to increased disturbance of bean geese
3.3.18 These policies and proposals could act in combination to have a likely significant effect on the Slamannan Plateau SPA by virtue of increased levels of disturbance to Bean Geese from an increase in vehicular traffic and increased recreational use of the River Avon. Therefore they have been scoped into the appropriate assessment.
Black Loch Moss SAC – Damage to bog surface and typical plant species
In Plan in combination effects
3.3.19 The following policies and proposals were identified as having the potential to damage bog surface and typical plant species of the Black Loch Moss SAC but were not, on their own, considered to have a likely significant effect.
Table 21: Black Loch Moss SAC – Potential deterioration of habitats. PP Ref Name Description of likely effect H66 Slamannan Road 1 Residential development in Limerigg could lead to the increased use of paths around Black Loch and the deterioration of habitats. H67 Slamannan Road 2 Residential development in Limerigg could lead to the increased use of paths around Black Loch and the deterioration of habitats. RW05 The Water Environment Encouraging recreational use of Black Loch could lead to deterioration of habitats
3.3.20 These policies and proposals could act in combination to have a likely significant effect on the Black Loch Moss SAC by virtue of increasing recreational use of the area around Black Loch and causing damage to bog surface and typical plant species. Therefore they have been scoped into the appropriate assessment.
Firth of Forth SPA - loss of habitat potentially used for feeding/roosting by waders and disturbance of waders
In Plan in combination effects
3.3.21 The opportunities in the table below could result in the loss of habitat potentially used for feeding or high tide roosting by waders and disturbance of waders. The reason for this is because they occur in tetrads or 10 x 10 km squares from which one or more of the following qualifying species has been recorded: Golden Plover, Lapwing*, Curlew*, Redshank, Oystercatcher*. Sites in tetrads/10 km squares that support suitable habitat, but which have not been surveyed for qualifying species, have also been included.
Table 22: Habitat potentially used for feeding or high tide roosting by waders PP Ref Name Area of potential supporting habitat (hectares) H01 Drum Farm North 8.5 H02 Kinglass Farm 1 7.9 H03 Kinglass Farm 2 0.7 H37 Hill of Kinnaird 29.2 H52 Castle View 7.0 H54 Airth Castle South 1.0 H55 The Glebe 0.9 M02 Drum Farm South 13.0 ED14 South Bridge Street 1.8 ED21 Hill of Kinnaird 9.4
3.3.22 The degree to which these sites are actually used by qualifying interest species is unknown, however, in combination their development could potentially lead to the loss of 79.4ha of high tide roosting habitat, or disturbance whilst using these areas, so they are considered to act in combination to have a likely significant effect on the Firth of Forth SPA and have been scoped into the appropriate assessment.
Firth of Forth SPA - loss of habitat potentially used for feeding/roosting by Pink Footed Geese and disturbance of Pink Footed Geese
In Plan in combination effects
3.3.23 The opportunities in the table below could result in the loss of habitat potentially used for feeding or high tide roosting by Pink Footed Geese and disturbance of Pink Footed Geese. The reason for this is because Pink-footed Geese are known to travel 15 – 20 km from the coast to use inland roosting and loafing sites, and are also known to be found along the Avon Valley, sometimes in association with Bean Geese. Proposals included in the table below are those which are located in areas of potentially suitable habitat, which lie within 10 x 10 km squares from which Pink-footed Goose have been recorded or sites in tetrads/10 km squares that support suitable habitat, but which have not been surveyed for Pink Footed Goose:
Table 23: Habitat potentially used for feeding, roosting or loafing by Pink Footed Geese PP Ref Name Area of potential supporting habitat (hectares) H07 Banknock South 8.3 H09 Kilsyth Road 1 1.4 H10 Kilsyth Road 2 1.6 H16 Mydub 2 5.0 H22 Rosebank 4.7 H28 Cauldhame Farm 2 3.0 H37 Hill of Kinnaird 29.2 H43 Parkhall Farm 1 13.0 H44 Parkhall Farm 2 4.3 H45 Parkhall Farm 3 4.6 H46 Parkhall Farm 4 1.1 H47 The Haining 1.6 H52 Castle View 7.0 H53 Graham Terrace 0.3 H54 Airth Castle South 1.0 H55 The Glebe 0.9 H64 Church Road 1 2.9 H65 Church Road 2 1.4 H68 Reddingmuirhead Road 0.5 H69 Hillcrest 5.7 H70 Hillend Farm 22 H71 Avonbridge Road 1.9 H72 The Rumlie 1.3 H74 Garngrew Road 3.2 ED03 Falkirk Gateway 23.1 ED04 Falkirk Stadium 8.8 ED06 Caledon Business Park 13.1 ED13 Glensburgh Road 4.5 ED14 South Bridge Street 1.8 ED17 Wholeflats Business Park 1.5 ED21 Hill of Kinnaird 9.4 M03 Banknock North 5.8 M05 Broad Street 14.8 M14 Whitecross 3.7 M15 East Bonnybridge 19.9
3.3.24 The degree to which these sites are actually used by qualifying interest species is unknown, however, in combination their development could potentially lead to the loss of 209.2ha of high tide roosting habitat, or disturbance whilst using these areas, so they are considered to act in combination to have a likely significant effect on the Firth of Forth SPA and have been scoped into the appropriate assessment.
Firth of Forth SPA - Increased opportunities for access to and recreation along the coastline.
Table 24: Elements with MRE due to increased opportunities for access to and recreation along the coastline PP Ref Name Description of likely effect D14 Canals Recreational disturbance - Promotes improving access related to the canals, including emphasis on linkages to and from the wider countryside access network. The Forth & Clyde Canal links to the Firth of Forth near Grangemouth, and access along the towpath provides an additional access point to the coastal area. GN01 John Muir Trail Recreational disturbance - Section of new national long distance route within the Falkirk area with stretched along the coast GN02 Kinneil Kerse Recreational disturbance - Habitat enhancement proposals and improvements, whilst providing improved opportunities for public recreation. GN08 River Carron Corridor Recreational disturbance - Provides for improved Improvements access to the coast for communities along the Carron and the opportunity to link in with coastal footpaths
3.3.25 Whilst disturbance due to increased recreation from any one of these opportunities is unlikely to have a significant effect in its own right, they could act in combination to have a significant effect on the Firth of Forth SPA and have been scoped into the appropriate assessment.
Firth of Forth SPA – Increased Recreational Disturbance
In Plan in combination effects
Table 25: Proposals within 2 miles of the coast PP Ref Name Number of new houses H01 Drum Farm North 183 H02 Kinglass Farm 1 160 H03 Kinglass Farm 2 25 H04 South Street/ Main Street 21 H05 Cadzow Avenue 27 H06 Union Street 12 H26 Etna Road 2 150 H32 Grangemouth Road 150 H33 Tinto Drive 56 H34 Wood Street 3 30 H35 Oxgang Road 20 H52 Castle View 115 H53 Graham Terrace 30 H54 Airth Castle South 15 H55 The Glebe 40 M02 Drum Farm South 120
3.3.26 Table 25 above indicates those proposals within 2 miles of the coast (excluding M01 Bo’ness Foreshore which will be assessed for LSE in its own right) which are considered as most likely to act as a source of additional recreational pressure on the Firth of Forth SPA. In total they could deliver 1154 new homes. It is reasonable to assume that as the sites are within 2 miles of the coast, new residents of the area may decide to use coastal areas for recreation and that this recreation could cause disturbance of SPA qualifying interests. As such they are likely to act in combination to have a significant effect on the Firth of Forth SPA and have been scoped into the appropriate assessment.
Firth of Forth SPA – Disturbance during construction
In Plan in combination effects
Table 26: Elements with MRE due to disturbance during construction PP Ref Name Description of likely effect GN01 John Muir Trail Disturbance during construction - will allow the formation of a coast to coast footpath that will be based on upgrades and extension of existing footpaths, including sections along the shore near Bo’ness GN02 Kinneil Kerse Disturbance during construction - allows for landscape improvement works at Kinneil Kerse.
3.3.27 If these proposals were implemented simultaneously, particularly during the winter months, they could act in combination to have a significant effect on the Firth of Forth SPA and have been scoped into the appropriate assessment.
Firth of Forth SPA – Reduced Water Quality
In Plan in combination effects
3.3.28 The following policies and proposals were identified as having the potential to cause reduced water quality which could affect the qualifying species of the Firth of Forth SPA (through adversely affecting mudflats and salt marsh etc where most of them feed) but were not, on their own, considered to have a likely significant effect.
Table 27: Elements with MRE due to impact on water quality PP Ref Name Description of likely effect D14 Canals Could encourage increased boat traffic leading to reduced water quality however this will have a negligible effect on water quality for Firth of Forth SPA due to the dilution factor.
ED17 Wholeflats Business Park Proposal for chemical/ biochemical/ industrial development which could involve water pollution during construction and operation which will feed into the River Avon and onwards to the Firth of Forth which could affect qualifying species prey abundance.. Nature of discharges unknown at this stage. GN02 Kinneil Kerse Restoration operations could result in an increased risk of pollution events which could affect qualifying species prey abundance. Pollution would potentially run through the mudflats before entering the water, at least at low tide. GN08 River Carron Corridor Construction operations could result in an Improvements increased risk of pollution events which could affect qualifying species prey abundance. Any pollution is likely to have a negligible effect on water quality within the Firth of Forth due to the dilution factors but could be more pronounced at the confluence of the Carron and the Firth of Forth. INF21 Dalderse WWTW Could lead to reduced water quality during operation which could affect qualifying species prey abundance. The main pollutants are likely to be sediments and elevated nutrient levels confined to a relatively small area around the discharge point which is several km upstream of the SPA boundary. Discharge license is controlled by SEPA. Any pollution is likely to have a negligible effect on water quality within the Firth of Forth due to the dilution factors but could be more pronounced at the confluence of the Carron and the Firth of Forth.
In combination with other plans or projects.
3.3.29 The table below shows other projects which are likely to result in reduced water quality within the Firth of Forth:
Table 67: Projects which are likely to result in reduced water quality within the Firth of Forth Plan Name Status Description of likely effect NPF 2 (h) Proposals not yet Forth Replacement Crossing - During the fully implemented in construction of the bridge, there is the potential, in the an extant plan absence of mitigation, for construction activities to result in the accidental release of pollutants and contaminants into the Forth Estuary. There is little potential however for pollution incidents to impact on qualifying bird species. Best practice guidelines are designed to minimise the risk of pollution incidents. Routine run-off from the bridge deck will discharge directly into the Forth Estuary. Calculations of spillage risk from the bridge indicate that the risk is below acceptable limits for sensitive sites such as SPAs.
Grangemouth Freight Hub – Assessed as part of proposal ED15 of the Proposed Plan
Additional freight capacity on the Forth - Rosyth International Container Terminal (RICT); development at the ports of Burntisland, Methil and Leith. No impacts on water quality specifically mentioned as part of NPF2 Strategic Appropriate Assessment Report NRIP (h) Proposals not yet HRA does not appear to indicate that NRIP projects fully implemented in will lead to an impact on water quality which might an extant plan affect feeding areas of qualifying species. Mid-Fife Local (h) Proposals not yet BUR04 - Burntisland Docks East; KDY37 - Kirkcaldy Plan fully implemented in East Strategic Land Allocation; KDY38 - Kirkcaldy an extant plan South West Strategic Land Allocation; KDY39 – Invertiel; KDY63 – Kirkcaldy Esplanade; MET12 - Methil Power Station; and MET16 – Energy Park Fife:
Potential impact on water quality from construction operations and waste water discharges. Construction operations may result in an increased risk of pollution events. The additional development will require waste water discharge management.
Water quality will be controlled through the relevant existing statutory regulations and guidelines. Dunfermline and (h) Proposals not yet CHL003 Charlestown Harbour; INV008- Cruicks West Fife Local fully implemented in Quarry, Inverkeithing; INV010 Caldwell Mill, Plan an extant plan Inverkeithing; INV011 RM Supplies, Inverkeithing; INV012 Prestonhill Quarry, Inverkeithing; ROS012 Rosyth Waterfront 2;
Potential impact on water quality from construction operations and waste water discharges. Construction operations may result in an increased risk of pollution events. The additional development will require waste water discharge management.
Water quality will be controlled through the relevant existing statutory regulations and guidelines.
St Andrews and (h) Proposals not yet LW416 – Crail Airfield East Fife Local fully implemented in Plan an extant plan Potential impact on water quality from construction operations and waste water discharges. Construction operations may result in an increased risk of pollution events. The additional development will require waste water discharge management.
Water quality will be controlled through the relevant existing statutory regulations and guidelines. East Lothian Local (h) Proposals not yet No HRA available Plan 2008 fully implemented in an extant plan West Lothian (h) Proposals not yet No HRA available Local Plan 2009 fully implemented in an extant plan Stirling Local (h) Proposals not yet HRA does not predict any minor residual effects on Development Plan fully implemented in the water quality of the Firth of Forth SPA. an extant plan Stirling Council (h) Proposals not yet No HRA available Local Plan 2nd fully implemented in alteration 2006 an extant plan Clackmannanshire (h) Proposals not yet H4 Health Centre; H6 The Shore; H35 Main Street Council Local Plan fully implemented in Cambus; and Braehead Golf Club 1st alteration 2011 an extant plan Sites are within 1km of SPA boundary No impacts affecting water quality within the SPA are predicted as a result of these developments (provided that the principles of SUDS will be followed). Rural West (h) Proposals not yet No HRA available Edinburgh Local fully implemented in Plan an extant plan Edinburgh City (h) Proposals not yet No HRA available Local Plan fully implemented in an extant plan Grangemouth d) projects that are A report entitled “Information to Inform a Habitats Biomass Plant subject to Regulations Assessment” (SKM Enviros 2012) outstanding appeal identified that cooling water discharge from the plant procedures; could affect qualifying species prey abundance during operation for the wintering population of redknot, common shellduck, common redshank and the wider wildfoul assemblage. No Appropriate Assessment is currently available Rosyth Biomass d) projects that are An appropriate assessment for the project is not Plant subject to publicly available, however, it is possible that the outstanding appeal cooling water discharge from the plant could affect procedures; qualifying species prey abundance during operation. Woodwaste wind c) project that is 87m to tip wind turbine adjacent to Bo’ness Waste turbine subject to application Water Treatment Works. It is assumed that a project for planning consent; level appropriate assessment for the wind turbine will identify mitigation to reduce impacts on water quality during construction, however, the potential for minor residual effects due to construction operations resulting in an increased risk of pollution events remains. 4. Appropriate Assessment – Stages 8 & 9
4.1 Firth of Forth SPA
Appropriate Assessment of Proposals with LSE in their own right
M01 Bo’ness Foreshore
Description of proposal
4.1.1 This proposal was included within the previous Falkirk Local Plan. At that time a preferred Developer had been identified. A masterplan, accompanied by an Environmental Statement and supplementary information relating to likely impacts on the scheme on the Firth of Forth SPA was prepared and issued for comment to SNH and other consultees including SEPA and RSPB. Since that time the preferred developer has withdrawn. Consequently, the precise nature of how development proposals would proceed at the foreshore site is not known. However, the following consideration of likely effects of the proposals draws heavily upon environmental work undertaken for the previous masterplan, as this provides information at a higher level of resolution than that provided by the WeBS data.
4.1.2 The proposed mixed use development is likely to comprise residential properties, combined with some level of leisure provision. The site lies adjacent to the shores of the Firth of Forth, including the disused harbour and partially abuts the boundary of the SPA, although part of the scheme area lies outwith the boundary of the site. Much of the area is reclaimed land, parts of which have a legacy of contamination. The previous proposals included for the restoration of the inner and outer harbours to create a marina.
Qualifying Interest features of the Firth of Forth SPA likely to be affected
4.1.3 The Environmental Statement for the previous masterplan identified low numbers of Shelduck and Redshank using the harbour area. It is also close to the area used by high numbers of moulting Shelduck. Implications of the proposal for qualifying interest features of the Firth of Forth SPA in light of its conservation objectives
4.1.4 The types of effect that may arise from such development are summarised in Table 28.
Table 28: Sources of effects on integrity Aspects of the proposal likely to have Aspect of integrity that may be affected significant effects (defined by Conservation Objectives) Direct Effects during Construction Direct Loss of habitat – including inter-tidal areas Distribution of the species within site. and high tide roosting sites Distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species. Pollution incidents and release of contaminants Structure, function and supporting from sediments processes of habitats supporting the species. Noise and disturbance No significant disturbance of the species. Population of the species as a viable component of the site. Distribution of the species within site. Direct Effects during operation Disturbance from lights, and noise Distribution of the species within site. No significant disturbance of the species. Indirect Effects during operation Disturbance from increased recreational activity Distribution of the species within site. onshore and on the water No significant disturbance of the species. Increase in surface water run-off Structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species. Increase in effluent load at Bo’ness Waste Water Structure, function and supporting Treatment Works processes of habitats supporting the species.
Habitat Loss
4.1.5 The previous masterplan included for re-establishment of access to the inner and outer harbour, including dredging of material and conversion to a marina. This would have resulted in a loss of around 5ha of mudflat. Bird survey work undertaken for the project suggested that the harbour areas were used occasionally by low numbers of Redshank and Shelduck, and that the loss of these areas would not adversely affect the integrity of the SPA – a view that SNH agreed with.
Pollution during construction
4.1.6 All construction projects near water have the potential to create pollution during construction owing to the unregulated release of sediments. Mitigation measures can be applied to avoid these effects. Some of land within the proposed development area has been created by landfill of unknown material and there is a concern that the groundwater may be contaminated. Ways of containing or treating this would need to be included in development proposals.
4.1.7 Dredging of the harbour basins may be required. Work undertaken for the previous masterplan indicated that contaminants were present in the silt, but at lower levels than the deeper muds. Measures to remove and contain contamination, particularly of Mercury were included in the Addendum to the Environmental Statement, which indicated that this could have positive benefits for the Forth in terms of meeting the objective of “Good Ecological Potential” under the Water Framework Directive.
Noise and disturbance during construction
4.1.8 Construction noise can arise from a variety of activities, notably piling (if required). This was considered to be the main source of construction noise associated with the previous masterplan. The addendum to the Environmental Statement concluded that although piling noise would be able to be heard 1 km away from the site, only a small number of birds would be affected and this would not have an adverse effect upon the integrity of the SPA. As the qualifying interest features are wintering bird populations, effects can be reduced or avoided by timing such works for the summer months.
4.1.9 The proposals also allowed for lighting during construction. The need for lighting can be reduced or avoided depending on working hours, and the effects can also be reduced by the choice and location of lamps, although artificial lighting can be used by some species of bird (see next section).
Disturbance including recreational activity during operation of the scheme
4.1.10 There is likely to be an increase in background noise during the operation of the scheme, arising from people, cars and general usage of the area along the coast to the east. Birds appear to become habituated to constant levels of noise, and tend to become startled most by loud, unexpected or unpredictable noises.
4.1.11 Likewise, light levels were anticipated to increase following the development. Given the absence of any high tide roosts in close proximity to the development, and the small number of the qualifying bird features that use the areas closest to the development, it would be possible to implement a scheme that does not adversely affect the integrity of the SPA. Furthermore, there is some evidence from the Forth that some species of bird, notably Redshank, may use artificial light to extend night-time feeding hours8.
4.1.12 Recreational activity arising as a consequence of the proposal falls into two main issues: water-borne recreation associated with any creation of mooring within the harbours; and shore-based recreation, principally walking, walking with dogs, and cycling.
4.1.13 Creation of mooring is likely to significantly increase water-borne recreation. The orientation of the harbour means that the activity will be focussed towards the west, towards the more important areas for birds. The addendum to the Environmental Statement suggested boating activity would not have the potential to affect roosts as the water approaching the shore was too shallow to allow boat access and also the marina would only operate during the summer months.
4.1.14 The masterplan proposals did not allow for the creation of new footpaths, but would result in an increase in recreational use of existing paths. Increased recreational pressure at the coast may result from a number of proposals within the Falkirk LDP, and this aspect is discussed further at paragraphs 4.1.176 – 4.1.208 Increased surface water run-off from paved surfaces
4.1.15 The increase in impermeable surfacing and roofs would lead to an increase in surface water run-off. Methods to mitigate this, including Sustainable Urban Drainage Schemes, are available.
Increases in effluent from housing
4.1.16 Foul water will be collected from the development for treatment at the local Waste Water Treatment works. The effect of any upgrade of Bo’ness Waste Water Treatment Works is discussed in paragraphs 4.1.21 – 4.1.41.
Mitigation
4.1.17 It is clear that the proposed activities do have the potential to have a significant effect upon the qualifying interest features of the Firth of Forth, but that there are ways in which these effects can be mitigated. SNH, in its response to the Addendum to the Environmental Statement included a number of conditions that were necessary, in connection with that specific proposal, to avoid adversely affecting the integrity of the SPA.
4.1.18 To ensure that effects upon the integrity of the SPA are avoided through the implementation of this policy, the following mitigation is proposed:
1. A site-specific Appropriate Assessment will be required of any proposals that are brought forward for the implementation of this policy.
2. This Appropriate Assessment is likely to require a consideration of (but not necessarily be limited to) a consideration of the following issues: Ways of reducing the effects of noise on bird populations during construction (e.g. by timing works to avoid periods when bird populations are present; minimising/avoiding use of lighting). Construction methods that avoid effects upon the qualifying interest features. This is likely to include construction statements, and consideration of timing of works in relation to the qualifying interest features. Harbour – methods for removing contaminated sediment from the harbour during construction; avoidance of pollution events arising from re-suspension of silts within the harbour during operation. Measures for removal/containment of contaminated material and prevention of further pollution of the Forth from contaminated groundwater. How surface water will be collected and treated to avoid pollution of the adjoining waters.
8 Dwyer, 2010 Design of a scheme that reduces the effects of lighting during operation. Recreation (harbour) management plan – that includes details of how the site will be operated to avoid adverse effects upon the qualifying interest features, including providing information for users of the site.
Changes to the Proposed Plan
4.1.19 To avoid adversely affecting the integrity of the SPA(and other European sites) the Proposed Plan includes the following text:
“Proposals must be accompanied by a masterplan and project-specific Appropriate Assessment demonstrating that there will be no adverse effects on the integrity of the Firth of Forth SPA and the River Teith SAC, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects; and The Appropriate Assessment should consider mitigation of disturbance during construction, avoidance of pollution from contaminated harbour sediment, surface water collection and treatment, lighting and harbour recreational management.”
Residual Effects
4.1.20 As this mitigation has been included in the Proposed Plan, it is concluded that there will be negligible residual effects arising from recreational disturbance, and potentially minor residual effects arising from disturbance during construction (depending on the timing of works). These effects in combination with other similar effects will be considered further in paragraphs 4.1.21 – 4.1.41 and 4.1.220 – 4.1.231 of this report.
Bo’ness Waste Water Treatment Works
Description of proposals
4.1.21 Capacity improvements and upgrades to a number of Waste Water Treatments Works (WWTW) are likely to be required to accommodate the development identified in the draft Falkirk LDP Proposed Plan.
4.1.22 The existing works at Bo’ness (Carriden) provide secondary treatment. Water is discharged via a long-sea outfall into the Forth in a roughly north-east direction. At this stage Scottish Water is not clear about the full extent of upgrade works that may be required – this will be dependent on modelling and consideration of discharge consents that would be set by SEPA. However, it is possible to make some general conclusions about the type of work that might be required, the scale and location of these works, and their potential for effects upon the SPA.
4.1.23 The WWTW is located a short distance from the shore at Carriden. The upgrade is likely to include construction of an additional treatment tank and possibly a new filter. It may be possible to accommodate these items within the existing footprint of the site, although any additional works would be undertaken to the south of the site – away from the coast. It may also be necessary, depending on discussions with SEPA, to extend the length of the long sea outfall. If this is the case, it would be extended along the same route as the existing pipeline.
Qualifying Interest features of the Firth of Forth SPA likely to be affected
4.1.24 WeBS data can provide an indication of the birds that are present in the area, although it must be stressed that these represent an agglomeration of data for a much larger length of coastline.
4.1.25 The WWTW is situated in the middle of a WeBS Core Count Section: Carriden to Grangepans and lies close to the division between two Low Tide Count areas (BF020 & BF021). There are only data for BF020 for the time period 2003/2004, which is the length to the west of the WWTW.
4.1.26 The length of coast that includes the WWTW is particularly important for Redshank populations; the five-year mean peak winter numbers contributed 4% towards the totals required for the site to qualify as of International importance (see Table 29). The numbers recorded during the core counts contribute to around 2% of the maximum totals for the site.
4.1.27 Shelduck, Wigeon*, Knot and Dunlin* are all present at numbers that contribute 1% towards the totals required for the site to qualify as of International importance. Based on the low tide count data, the coast to the west of the WWTW is also important for supporting Bar-tailed Godwit and Dunlin*, with peak low tide counts equivalent to 1% of the mean site count for the Forth as a whole.
Implications of the proposal for qualifying interest features of the Firth of Forth SPA in light of its conservation objectives
4.1.28 The types of effect that may arise from such development are summarised in Table 30.
Table 30: Sources of effects on integrity Aspects of the proposal likely to have Aspect of integrity that may be affected significant effects (defined by Conservation Objectives) Direct Effects during Construction Disturbance to birds during construction Distribution of the species within site. Population of the species as a viable component of the site. No significant disturbance of the species. Loss of habitat Distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species. Population of the species as a viable component of the site. Distribution of the species within site. Indirect Effects during Construction Pollution incidents Structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species. Indirect Effects during operation Changes to water quality and sediment patterns Structure, function and supporting with associated effects upon food availability processes of habitats supporting the species. Distribution of the species within site. No significant disturbance of the species.
Disturbance during construction
4.1.29 Disturbance could arise from noise, vibration, human and vehicle movements. These will be short-term in nature and affect a limited area of the shoreline. These impacts can be completely avoided if construction works (or at least the most disruptive parts) are scheduled to take place during the summer months.
4.1.30 The degree of disturbance of any works during the winter months will depend upon the proximity of the disturbance to the birds, and the number and species of birds affected. Birds can become habituated to human activity. The WWTW is situated on the landward side of a public footpath, and hence activity within the site is less likely to disturb birds on the foreshore. There are no known high tide roost sites in the area.
4.1.31 Construction works to construct the outfall pipe in the inter-tidal or sub-tidal zone are most likely to give rise to effects owing to the habitat preferences of the species found in the area. Also, many bird species are more sensitive to disturbance activities within the inter-tidal area.
Table 29: Species present in each WeBS Core Count recording unit within Falkirk Council area (assessed for five-year winter periods 06/07 – 10/11). South Alloa to Kincardine Skinflats Grangepans to Carriden to Blackness to Cambus stretches Bridge to Alloa Grangemouth Grangepans Abercorn Pink-footed Goose Shelduck Wigeon* Mallard* Scaup* Eider Long-tailed Duck* Goldeneye Common scoter* Velvet Scoter* Red-breasted Merganser* Red-throated Diver * Great Crested Grebe* Slavonian Grebe Cormorant* Oystercatcher* Ringed Plover* * Golden Plover Grey Plover* Lapwing* Knot Dunlin* Bar-tailed Godwit Curlew* Redshank Turnstone Key Species present in recording section at levels where the winter five year mean peak count contributes 1% or more of that required for the site to qualify as of international importance Species present in recording section, but at levels where the winter five year mean peak count contributes less than 1% of that required for the site to qualify as of international importance * Single record for a single bird in one winter month over the five year period 4.1.32 Redshank are known to be sensitive to construction disturbance. Juvenile Redshank were noted to be displaced from feeding areas around the Clackmannanshire Bridge during its construction, but effects were only experienced during the winters that construction took place. The birds tend to be displaced to lower quality feeding areas9. Based on available information, there are other areas nearby that support high numbers of prey items (Kennet Pans and Skinflats). In addition to direct effects, in terms of reduced numbers of a species, declines in condition of birds can lead to reduced breeding success. However, there is little information in the literature to demonstrate population effects.
4.1.33 Numbers of Bar-tailed Godwit also declined close to the Bridge site during construction winters, but species such as Dunlin* and Shelduck increased in numbers.
Loss of habitat
4.1.34 There may be a small direct loss of intertidal and sub-tidal habitat associated with the construction of any new long-sea outfall. This can be avoided if the pipeline is buried. If the pipe is buried in a trench this could lead to short-term habitat loss. Directional drilling techniques would avoid the need to dig a trench.
Pollution incidents during construction
4.1.35 The main sources of pollution during construction could arise from releases of unconsolidated sediments from exposed ground, uncontrolled releases of oils, fuels and chemicals, unregulated releases of sewage, and potentially from re-suspension of sediments during construction of the long- sea outfall (depending on the construction method chosen). All these factors are capable of being controlled through careful design, siting and timing of the works, coupled with good construction practice.
Changes to water quality and sediment patterns
4.1.36 Water quality standards for effluent would be set by SEPA. Whilst there may be some changes to water quality at the point of discharge, these effects are likely to be localised. If the pipe is constructed on the surface of the seabed, this could lead to localised effects on sediment patterns.
Mitigation
4.1.37 A project-specific Appropriate Assessment will be required and will need to consider effects upon the qualifying interest features of the Firth of Forth, in particular Shelduck and Redshank.
4.1.38 There are tried and tested ways of avoiding or mitigating the potential adverse effects associated with construction works. These include use of Ecological Clerk of Works, Method Statements, Construction Environment Management Plans, and adherence to codes of practice for construction works (e.g. PPG 5). Timing the works to avoid the winter months will also avoid many of the possible disturbance effects during construction.
4.1.39 The Appropriate Assessment is likely to require a consideration of (but not necessarily be limited to) the following issues: Ways of reducing the effects of noise on bird populations during construction (e.g. by timing works to avoid periods when bird populations are present; cessation of construction during periods of cold weather, minimising/avoiding use of lighting). Construction methods that avoid effects upon the qualifying interest features. This is likely to include construction statements, and consideration of timing of works in relation to the qualifying interest features, construction methods for the scheme and the application of construction conditions.
Changes to the Proposed Plan
9Dwyer, 2010. 4.1.40 The following text forms part of the Site Schedule requirements for the site, which also addresses mitigation for INF15 Airth Waste Water Treatment Works (see next section) and the River Teith SAC (which is subject to HRA in a separate report): “For Bo’ness and Airth proposals must be accompanied by a project-specific Appropriate Assessment demonstrating that there will be no adverse effects on the integrity of the Firth of Forth SPA and the River Teith SAC, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects. For Bo’ness and Airth the Appropriate Assessment should consider mitigation of disturbance during construction, and impact of discharges on the feeding habitat used by qualifying species, as highlighted in the LDP HRA.”
Residual Effects
4.1.41 Assuming that mitigation is included, it is concluded that there would be negligible residual effects upon the qualifying interest species during operation of the scheme. There may be minor residual effects during construction of the scheme, depending on the timing of works. These effects in combination with other similar effects will be considered further in paragraphs 4.1.220 – 4.1.231 of this report.
INF15 Airth Waste Water Treatment Works
Description of proposal
4.1.42 Scottish Water has indicated that current capacity improvement works at Airth WWTW will not be sufficient to accommodate all the development proposed in the draft Falkirk LDP. Additional levels of treatment may be required in the future, which would increase the footprint of the site. It is anticipated that this could be accommodated within the existing land owned by Scottish Water. Any upgrade works may require an increase in the length of the existing long-sea outfall.
Qualifying Interest features of the Firth of Forth SPA likely to be affected
4.1.43 Airth WWTW lies within the Kincardine Bridge to Alloa recording unit for Core Counts of the WeBS and recording unit BF007 of the Low Count scheme.
4.1.44 Nine of the qualifying interest species of the SPA have been recorded during the core counts at levels that contribute at least 1% of the International qualifying levels (see Tables 19 & 31). Two additional species were recorded from the area at low numbers and frequency. Ten species were recorded during the Low Tide Counts.
Table 31: Species recorded close to Airth WWTW Species Species recorded Species recorded during the during Core Counts at Low Tide Counts high numbers Pink-footed Goose Shelduck Wigeon* Mallard* Goldeneye Red-breasted Merganser* Cormorant* Oystercatcher* Dunlin* Curlew* Redshank. Bar-tailed Godwit
4.1.45 Pink-footed Goose have been recorded at particularly high numbers at high tide, although it appears to be absent during low tide counts. The core count unit covers a length of coastline in the order of 5 km long, most of which is bordered by agricultural land, suitable as high tide roost sites for Pink-footed Goose. Two other species (Lapwing* and Grey Plover*) were recorded at low numbers and frequency from the count area.
4.1.46 The main areas of inter-tidal habitat within the count sector occur downstream of the WWTW, close to the Clackmannanshire and Kincardine Bridges and it is likely that the high numbers of inter- tidal species recorded are concentrated in these areas. Implications of the proposal for qualifying interest features of the Firth of Forth SPA in light of its conservation objectives
4.1.47 The likely effects are similar to those previously identified for Bo’ness WWTW (see paragraphs 4.1.28 - 4.1.36), although there are differences in the qualifying species that are present along the Airth coastline.
Mitigation
4.1.48 A project-specific Appropriate Assessment will be required. As the core count and low tide count data cannot be attributed to specific locations within the count sector, site specific bird surveys are likely to be required. As noted for the Bo’ness WWTW, the effects can be mitigated.
4.1.49 The project-specific Appropriate Assessment is likely to require a consideration of (but not necessarily be limited to) a consideration of the following issues: Ways of reducing the effects of noise on bird populations during construction (e.g. by timing works to avoid periods when bird populations are present; ceasing construction operations during periods of cold weather; minimising/avoiding use of lighting). Construction methods that avoid effects upon the qualifying interest features. This is likely to include construction statements, and consideration of timing of works in relation to the qualifying interest features.
Changes to the Proposed Plan
4.1.50 The Site Schedule for the proposal includes text to address these aspects – see paragraph 4.1.40
Residual Effects
4.1.51 As mitigation is included within the Proposed Plan, it is concluded that negligible residual effects upon the qualifying interest features can be avoided during operation of the scheme. There may be minor residual effects during construction of the scheme, depending on timing of works. These effects in combination with other similar effects will be considered further in paragraphs 4.1.220 – 4.1.231 of this report.
INF22 Grangemouth Flood Prevention Scheme
Details of proposal
4.1.52 Much of the area north of the M9 is affected by potential flood risk constraints10.
4.1.53 The National Planning Framework 2 is a statutory Scotland-wide planning policy document published by the Scottish Government. It includes a list of “national developments”, which are projects that Scottish Ministers consider are essential for the development of Scotland. Planning Authorities are required to take this framework into account when preparing development plans. Development of the Grangemouth Freight Hub as Scotland’s largest container port and main freight distribution centre is identified as a national development within NPF2. Elements of the scheme include: Creation of a river berth outside the port lock. Expanded freight storage and handling facilities and other port related development.
10 Roger Tym & Partners. 2011. Improved rail connections. Improved road connections to the M9 and M8. Any measures necessary to protect the area from coastal flooding.
4.1.54 The NPF2 was subject to a HRA, which concluded that it would not result in significant adverse effects upon the Firth of Forth SPA. However, as the LDP includes proposals that will either implement, or enable implementation of a number of the elements, they have been considered for their potential effects upon the Firth of Forth SPA within this HRA. The creation of a river berth outside the port lock is not being taken forward at this stage within the LDP, and hence has been screened out of the HRA. The Flood defence proposals the only element of the NPF proposal that are included in the LDP, which has not been screened out of the HRA.
4.1.55 The Flood Defence Scheme will also be included in the Forth Estuary Flood Risk Management Plan, which will also be subject to HRA. Flood Risk Management Plans consider all forms of flooding including from rivers, groundwater and coastal areas, as well as flash flooding from heavy rainfall and overwhelmed drainage systems in urban areas. The plans will address existing and projected future problems. The production of local plans will be led by local authorities and will be produced by 2015. They will be informed by analysis of areas vulnerable to flooding (prepared by SEPA)11.
4.1.56 So far, very few details about the likely nature and precise location of the scheme have been developed. It is likely to extend from north of the River Carron to Kinneil, and is likely to be implemented in phases owing to funding constraints. An initial review of existing flood protection measures and their condition has been undertaken12.
4.1.57 There are existing sea defences along the coast from Kinneil northwards and along the lower reaches of the Rivers Avon and River Carron. The approximate location, current condition, and options for improvement of these are summarised in Table 32.
11 SEPA et al undated 12 Falkirk Council, 2012a Location Presence & condition of protection Options for Remedial works Works Required on shore? Forth: Kinneil to River Avon Bunds comprising earth, rubble and debris; Removal and reconstruction of existing Works required below level of Reno mats. bund, with protection to estuary facing mean high water spring tides Condition varies from Fair to Very Poor slopes. River Avon from Polmonthill to Just over half the river length has existing earth Replacement of defences to an agreed None, but may be need to dredge Forth Estuary embankments the majority of which are in poor tide level and to provide an acceptable channel of river. condition (70%) level of risk. Mainly replacement with earth bunds, but other solutions may be required where there are pipes and headwalls. River Forth: River Avon to Most of shoreline is protected (82%) by earth Reinforcement of protection of Works required below level of Grange Burn embankments with rock revetment. Around 63% embankment. This may require mean high water spring tides. is in Poor or Very Poor Condition, with the rest replacement fencing. being Fair or Good. Grange Burn from M9 motorway Comprises stretches of earth embankments with Need to be assessed. Works may be required in culvert to Forth Estuary concrete revetments and embankments in Good intertidal zone. or Fair condition. Earth embankments along the burn adjacent to its confluence with the Forth are assessed as Poor and Very Poor. Also undefended stretches. River Forth: Grange Burn to Around 65% of section is undefended. Earth May be improvements to existing Works likely to be required in Dock Entrance embankments with rock/construction rubble protection measures. inter-tidal zone. scour protection are present considered Poor. Some areas of scour protection. Petrochemical installations are set back from shore, with bunding, containment or protection in Poor condition. River Forth: Dock Entrance to Rock groyne along west bank of River Carron at Not specified Works likely to be required in River Carron confluence with the Forth, but unlikely to be inter-tidal zone. included in proposed scheme for Grangemouth. Around 30% has no defences. There is some scour protection, which is showing signs of damage. Earth embankment with rock/building rubble scour protection present along approximately 53% of length of shoreline, most (36%) in Poor condition, 5% Fair; 12% Good. Also present: low wall in Good and Fair condition. River Carron: Carron Works to Earth Embankments for approximately 60% of Reconstruction of defences using earth Works likely to be required close Forth Estuary surveyed length, mainly in Fair or worse bunds with some form of protection. to, or in inter-tidal zone. condition. More complex solutions may be required in some areas. River Forth: North of River Grass covered earth embankment Fair to Poor Not specified. Works likely to be required in Carron condition. inter-tidal zone.
Table 32: Summary of existing sea defences near Grangemouth (including Rivers Avon and Carron) and possibilities for upgrades(Source: Halcrow, Asset Condition Survey for the River Carron, Grange Burn, River Avon & Forth Estuary, March 2012 Report for Falkirk Council) Qualifying Interest features of the Firth of Forth SPA likely to be affected
4.1.58 The proposal spans the Grangepans to Grangemouth and the Skinflats WeBS core count areas, and passes through or near to around 8 WeBS Low Tide recording units. These areas support some of the highest numbers of particular bird species that contribute to the qualifying interest features of the Firth of Forth SPA. Species recorded at levels that contribute at least 1% of the International qualifying levels for the site are listed in see Tables 29 & 33 - 36
Table 33: Importance of different areas of the Firth of Forth in terms of winter mean peak numbers of all species recorded during five-year period 2006/2007 to 2010/2011. (Sites are ranked in terms of decreasing total numbers of birds. Sites shown in bold text are those that lie wholly or partially within Falkirk Council area) Rank WeBS Recording Sector Rank WeBS Recording Sector 1 Aberlady to Gullane 21 East Wemyss to Leven 2 Grangepans to Grangemouth 22 Fallin to Cambus 3 Forth Grangemouth to 23 Leith Docks Kincardine Bridge (Skinflats) 4 Hound Point to Cramond 24 Torry Bay West to Crombie Point 5 North Berwick to Ravensheugh 25 Seafield Castle to Dysart Sands 6 Eastfield to Musselburgh 26 Port Seton to Craigielaw Point 7 Forth Kincardine Bridge to Alloa 27 Kennetpans 8 Longannet to Culross 28 Largo-Bay - West 9 Silverknowes to Wardie 29 Black Rocks to North Berwick 10 South Alloa to Cambus 30 Seafield to Eastfield 11 Blackness to Queensferry 31 Inverkeithing Bays 12 R. Forth – Upper Taylorton to 32 Ironmill Bay to Naval Base West Fallin 113 Crombie Bay 33 Carriden to Grangepans 14 Largo Bay - East 34 Preston Grange to Port Seton 15 Dysart to East Wemyss 35 R. Forth - Stirling 16 Shell Bay to Ruddons Point 36 Braefoot to Hawkcraig Point 17 Burntisland to Kinghorn 37 Hound Point to South Queensferry 18 Dalgety Bay 38 Pettycur to Seafield 19 Blackness to Abercorn 39 Hawkcraig Point to Burntisland 20 Valleyfield Lagoons to Torry Bay 40 Cambus Pool West
Table 34: Importance of Falkirk coastline to qualifying species of the Firth of Forth SPA Species Important Supports Never/rarely comparatively recorded lower numbers or densities of species Red-throated Diver Golden Plover Bar-tailed Godwit Pink-footed Goose Shelduck Knot Redshank Turnstone Great Crested Grebe* Cormorant* Scaup* Eider* Long-tailed Duck* Common Scoter* Goldeneye* Red-breasted Merganser* Oystercatcher* Ringed Plover* Grey Plover* Dunlin* Curlew* Wigeon* Mallard* Lapwing* Velvet Scoter* Slavonian Grebe Sandwich Tern
Table 35: Summary of importance of particular lengths of the Falkirk coastline to selected qualifying interest features of the Firth of Forth SPA. Based on ranking different sections of the Forth coastline for 5-year winter peak mean numbers of each qualifying species Core Count area Qualifying Interest Feature South Alloa to Cambus • Ranked 2nd in the Forth for five year winter mean Stretches (only partly covered peak numbers of Cormorant* by Falkirk Council) Kincardine Bridge to Alloa • Ranked 1st in the Forth for five year winter mean peak numbers of Red-breasted Merganser* • Ranked 2nd in the Forth for five year winter mean peak numbers of Wigeon* &Pink-footed Goose • Ranked 7th in the Forth for five year winter mean peak numbers of wildfowl (2006/07 – 2010/11) Skinflats (Grangemouth to • Ranked 1st in the Forth for five year winter mean Kincardine Bridge) peak numbers of Dunlin*& Redshank • Ranked 2nd in the Forth for five year winter mean peak numbers of Lapwing*, Curlew*, Shelduck &Golden Plover • Ranked 3rd in the Forth for five year winter mean peak numbers of wildfowl (2006/07 – 2010/11)& Cormorant* • Ranked 4th in the Forth for five year winter mean peak numbers of Knot, &Pink-footed Goose Grangepans to Grangemouth • Ranked joint 1st in the Forth for five year winter mean peak numbers of Great Crested Grebe*, Lapwing*, Scaup*,&Shelduck • Ranked 2nd in the Forth for five year winter mean peak numbers of wildfowl (2006/07 – 2010/11), Dunlin*, Redshank, &Knot • Ranked 3rd in the Forth for five year winter mean peak numbers of Mallard*&Golden Plover • Ranked 4th in the Forth for five year winter mean peak numbers of Bar-tailed Godwit Carriden to Grangepans • Ranked 2nd in the Forth for five year winter mean peak numbers of Scaup* Blackness to Abercorn • Not highly ranked
Table 36: Species associated with Core Count and Low Tide Count areas likely to be affected by Grangemouth Flood Defence proposals Species Species recorded during Core Counts at high numbers Skinflats Grangepans to Low Tide Counts Grangemouth Pink-footed Goose (1 recording unit only Shelduck Wigeon* Mallard* Scaup* Eider Long-tailed Duck Goldeneye Red-breasted Merganser* Red-throated Diver Great Crested Grebe Cormorant* Oystercatcher* Ringed Plover* Golden Plover Lapwing* Knot Dunlin* Bar-tailed Godwit Curlew* Redshank Turnstone
Other species recorded at lower numbers were: Common scoter* (recorded from Skinflats only). Grey Plover*.
Implications of the proposal for qualifying interest features of the Firth of Forth SPA in light of its conservation objectives
4.1.59 The types of effect that may arise from such development are listed in Table 37. Table 37: Sources of effects on integrity Aspects of the proposal likely to have Aspect of integrity that may be affected significant effects (defined by Conservation Objectives) Direct Effects during Construction Disturbance of birds Disturbance of the species. Distribution of the species within the site. Permanent Loss of habitat Distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species. Temporary Loss of habitat Distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species. Distribution of the species within site. Indirect effects during Construction Pollution Structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species. Indirect Effects during Operation Habitat loss arising from coastal squeeze Distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species. Structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species. Distribution of the species within site. Changes to sediment patterns affecting Structure, function and supporting availability or quality of feeding habitat processes of habitats supporting the species.
Disturbance to birds during construction
4.1.60 Disturbance could arise from noise, vibration, human and vehicle movements. Such effects were explored within the Forth during construction of the Clackmannanshire Bridge, although the observed responses varied between species. Dunlin*, Curlew* Shelduck, Wigeon*, Red-breasted Merganser* and Goldeneye* numbers increased in the study area; Knot, Oystercatcher*, and Pink-footed Goose showed no significant changes in numbers; and Redshank, Bar-tailed Godwit, Cormorant* and Lapwing* showed a decrease in numbers close to the construction area13. Some of the increase in numbers was attributed to new areas of habitat created as part of mitigation works for the bridge.
4.1.61 Within the Forth, birds in areas affected by construction noise showed increased vigilance – thought to be a response to noise masking detection of predators. This resulted in a 19% reduction in Redshank foraging time at one site. Similar effects were also noted in response to construction work on the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine Railway where reductions in foraging time were noted in response to increase vigilance to workers and vehicles on the railway (from 38% in 2008/09 to 19% in 2007/08)27.
4.1.62 Also, juvenile Redshank numbers fell at high productivity feeding areas subject to disturbance during construction of the Clackmannanshire Bridge, in favour of more distant areas with lower prey availability (e.g. Kinneil Shore)14. These areas, which showed an increase in bird density, have a lower carrying capacity for birds. Kincardine shore is used later in the winter due to low prey and high predation risk, but was used earlier in the season during construction winters28.
4.1.63 The effects appeared to be short-term (i.e. just the duration of the construction) and not operating at the population level; numbers of Redshank in the Forth were considered to have recovered in the first winter following bridge completion.
13 Dwyer, 2010. 14 Dwyer 2010. 4.1.64 Birds can show a variety of other responses to compensate for reduced feeding opportunities in disturbed areas: in the Forth, Redshank and Shelduck have been observed to increase the time that they spent feeding and mid and low tides, and Shelduck also spent more time feeding in the water than on land28. Redshank also appeared to use lighting around Grangemouth docks to extend feeding time.
4.1.65 There is also evidence that in colder weather conditions, birds modify behaviour to disturbance; Redshank and Shelduck allowed a closer approach from humans before flying, whist Oystercatchers* flew shorter distances, with effects being most noticeable in individuals in highly disturbed areas28.
4.1.66 Species that move regularly between dispersed feeding areas e.g. Knot may be able to cope better with the loss of an individual site, compared to more site-faithful species such as Redshank28.
4.1.67 Research at the Clackmannanshire Bridge concluded that although there were some negative effects on a sample of bird species the mitigation measures that were put in place helped to minimise these and allowed populations to recover in the winter following the cessation of works28.
4.1.68 Looking at Table 36 Shelduck and Redshank are the qualifying species potentially at greatest risk from the proposals.
Permanent loss of habitat (including “coastal squeeze”)
4.1.69 Saltmarsh extends in an almost continuous band of between 50-200m width for a distance of nearly 16 km between the River Carron and South Alloa15. This demonstrates successional change through saltmarsh communities from lower marsh to upper marsh, although species variety is depleted as many areas have been affected from past management including turf stripping and grazing. The shoreline supports broad areas of littoral mud16.The salt marsh areas are used as high tide roost sites; the mudflat areas are also raised compared to other similar sites in the Forth and are used on rising tides when these areas are already covered.
4.1.70 Much of the estuarine channel of the Firth of Forth has been modified in the past with artificial barriers and there is concern that rising sea-levels would lead to existing inter-tidal zones being “squeezed” resulting in loss of salt marsh. In response, there have been a number of studies about the potential for “managed retreat” and new areas of inter-tidal land have been created by RSPB near Kincardine Bridge17. Parts of the saltmarsh adjacent to Skinflats have previously been reclaimed, for form low grade agricultural land, and there have been feasibility studies to investigate the possibility of managed set-back to re-establish saltmarsh18.
Direct, temporary loss of habitat
4.1.71 Whilst the details of the scheme are yet to be developed, most flood defence projects require excavation over a wider area than the area finally lost to the scheme. Areas will also be required for storage of materials, temporary office accommodation & parking etc. Also, as noted above, disturbance from construction activity can also result in temporary “loss” of habitat for feeding.
15 Morris, 2005. 16Babtie Group, 2001. 17STEP Forth Review for Forth Valley and Lomond LEADER Local Action Group February 2011 18Babtie Group, 2001.
Pollution during construction
4.1.72 Sources of pollution during construction would arise from re-suspension of sediments, uncontrolled releases of sediments from exposed surfaces, and accidental spillages of fuel, oils, chemicals and construction materials.
Long-term changes to sediment patterns affecting availability of or quality of feeding habitat
4.1.73 Changes to the height, slope, and even material of the existing flood defences may affect movement of currents and hence sediment patterns within the bay. Given the importance of mudflats, and associated invertebrates to the feeding quality of this area, such changes could be significant.
Mitigation
4.1.74 Based on the current state of development of the proposals for the flood defence scheme, it is not possible to be definitive about the nature and scale of all the effects of the proposal; however some assessment of likely effects can be made at this stage, including mitigation.
4.1.75 An Appropriate Assessment will be required for the Flood Risk Management Plan for the Forth Estuary. The Appropriate Assessment of the scheme is likely to require: An investigation of effects of the scheme on sediment movement and deposition and hence qualify of feeding habitat of qualifying species. Demonstration of how habitat loss is minimised by the scheme. Identification of ways in which coastal squeeze can be avoided. Demonstration of how the construction programme will avoid effects arising from temporary habitat loss, disturbance of feeding and roosting birds (e.g. timing the construction programme to avoid the winter, or cold-weather episodes during the winter), pollution incidents during construction.
4.1.76 The Flood Risk Management Plan should also consider the opportunities to create or enhance habitat availability within or adjacent to the SPA through the use of managed set back schemes.
Changes to the Proposed Plan
4.1.77 To address these issues, the Site Schedule within the LDP contains the following requirements (which also apply to other European Sites within the influence of the LDP): “Proposals will be developed within the Local Flood Risk Management Plan (LFRMP) which will be subject to Habitats Regulations Appraisal demonstrating that there will be no adverse effects on the integrity of the Firth of Forth SPA and the River Teith SAC, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects. Detailed proposals must be accompanied by a project-specific Appropriate Assessment.
The Appropriate Assessment should consider mitigation of disturbance during construction, changes in sediment movement and impacts on quality of feeding and high tide roost sites for qualifying species, timing of construction in relation to other adjacent schemes, and opportunities for coastal habitat creation through creation through set-back schemes, as highlighted in the LDP HRA.”
Residual Effects
4.1.78 As mitigation has been included within the Proposed Plan, it is concluded that there may be minor residual effects upon qualifying species that use the upper shoreline, in relation to disturbance during construction. These effects in combination with other similar effects will be considered further in paragraphs 4.1.220 – 4.1.231 of this report. ED15 Grangemouth Docks
Description of proposals
4.1.79 Grangemouth Docks is one of three Strategic Business Locations identified within the LDP. The Grangemouth Freight Hub is highlighted as a National Development in NPF2 and focuses on the development of the port, where sites are available to support port related activities and associated intermodal distribution functions.
4.1.80 The proposals in the LDP permit development within four vacant or underused areas within the Docks for port-related industry, warehousing, storage, logistics, and renewable energy projects. At this stage the precise nature of development at any one location is not known, hence it is difficult to be definitive about the scale and scope of effects upon the integrity of the Firth of Forth SPA. However, the types of effect that may be anticipated can be identified. Some of these areas were included within the previous Falkirk Council Local Plan (although they had different policy numbers) and were subject to Appropriate Assessment at that time19. The conclusions reached during the previous Appropriate Assessment have been reviewed in the light of changes to the spatial proposals.
4.1.81 The proposal site boundary abuts the boundary of the Firth of Forth SPA. Access to proposal site is limited, but there are WeBS count data from areas abutting the site (see Tables 29 & 33-35). The previous AA for the Local Plan identified habitats in the area (based on plans and web-accessed aerial photographs) as a mix of open water habitat, industrial use and areas of regenerating vegetation.
Qualifying Interest features of the Firth of Forth SPA likely to be affected
4.1.82 Part of the site abuts a WeBS low tide recording unit along the River Carron. Species recorded from this unit are: Pink-footed Goose Shelduck Mallard* Oystercatcher* Golden Plover Lapwing* Dunlin* Bar-tailed Godwit Curlew* Redshank
4.1.83 There are no WeBS data for the dock areas; however, SNH does not believe that the open water areas of the docks are used by significant numbers of any of the qualifying species. This is supported by survey work, including vantage point surveys, undertaken in support of the Grangemouth Renewable Energy Plant which revealed that it was within 250m of areas used by significant numbers of qualifying waterfowl of the Firth of Forth SPA. These comprise Shelduck, Knot (up to 830), Redshank, Dunlin* and Curlew*. Whilst a variety of the qualifying species were recorded from the coastal area, few of these species were found to fly over, or were recorded from the docks. Those species recorded at low numbers included Sandwich Tern, Pink-footed Goose, Oystercatcher* and Curlew20.
Implications of the proposal for qualifying interest features of the Firth of Forth SPA in light of its conservation objectives
4.1.84 The types of effect that may arise from such development are listed in Table 38.
19 Falkirk Council, October 2010 20 Forth Energy. 2010.
Table 38: Sources of effects on integrity Aspects of the proposal likely to have Aspect of integrity that may be affected significant effects (defined by Conservation Objectives) Direct Construction impacts Loss of habitat Distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species. Indirect Construction impacts Disturbance Distribution of the species within the site. Significant disturbance of the species. Pollution Structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species. Indirect Operational impacts Disturbance Distribution of the species within the site. Significant disturbance of the species. Pollution Structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species. Alterations in shipping movements Distribution of the species within the site. Significant disturbance of the species.
Loss of habitat
4.1.85 The proposal covers various vacant or underused areas within Grangemouth Docks. These comprise: Land next to Junction Dock and southern end of Carron Dock: Based on Google maps, the area appears to be a mixture of tarred roads, formal landscape plantings comprising grassland, shrubs and scrub and some regenerating vegetation.
Land around Junction Dock, extending to her North-east to abut the SPA boundary along the mud banks of the River Carron: Based on the previous Appropriate Assessment, and a review of aerial photographs available through Google maps, this appears to comprise a large area of hard standing, with some areas of colonising vegetation including scrub and shrub at the northern tip. In the absence of detailed proposals, it is not clear whether this policy would lead to loss of habitat. However, given the area of land available, mitigation could be put in place to retain a “buffer” strip of land to avoid loss of habitat.
Land lying to the north of the Western Channel: This is mainly an area of bare ground/hard standing with some areas of regenerating vegetation including shrubs and scrub at its eastern end. It is separated from the River Carron and SPA boundary by a road.
Land lying to the south of the Western Channel: This area appears to comprise mainly areas of bare ground and regenerating vegetation, with denser growths of shrubs adjacent to the railway line (based on Google maps).
4.1.86 The terrestrial habitats are unlikely to be valuable to the bird species associated with the Firth of Forth SPA. Based on information provided by SNH21, and by review of
21 Letter dated 21 September 2010 in response to Draft HRA appraisal information included in the ES for the Grangemouth Biomass Scheme22, it is not believed that the open dock areas are a significant resource for the SPA bird interests.
Disturbance during construction and operation
4.1.87 Construction works have the potential to disturb birds feeding along the mud flats of the Carron. However, this can be controlled through timing construction works outwith the winter season, and can be addressed through mitigation measures at the project-level Appropriate Assessment.
4.1.88 The existence or scale of disturbance during operation will vary depending upon the use of each site. Some areas are set back by several hundred metres from the water, and hence are unlikely to cause disturbance. The dock areas are not thought to be important in supporting the bird interests of the Firth of Forth SPA. Qualifying species of the SPA are thought to use the River Carron adjacent to the proposed site, but there is evidence that birds can habituate to certain types of activity, especially where these do not intrude into the inter- tidal zone. However, activities along the shoreline could lead to disturbance, unless mitigated.
Pollution during construction and operation
4.1.89 Activities that require the disturbance of the soil surface in close proximity to watercourses could give rise to uncontrolled releases of sediment or release of any contaminants that may be in the soils. Ground-breaking activities are likely to be proceeded by soil analysis.
Alterations in shipping movements
4.1.90 At this stage it is not known what, if any, changes in shipping movements would arise from the proposals.
Mitigation
4.1.91 As there is very little detail about the likely developments that will occur as a result of this proposal, it is difficult to be definitive about the effects. It is, however, possible to include mitigation to address the potential source of impacts that have been identified above. Proposals will only be permitted where there will be no adverse effect on the integrity of the Firth of Forth SPA, either alone or in-combination with other plans or projects.
4.1.92 A masterplan will be required for each of these proposal areas. This must be agreed between Forth Ports, Falkirk Council and SNH prior to any works commencing. The masterplan must be accompanied by a Habitats Regulations Assessment. The masterplan should be designed to avoid habitat loss within the SPA. The HRA should address the risks of pollution during construction and operation, and be informed by contaminated land assessment (where required). For developments within the northern portions of the site it is likely that the masterplan should state the requirement to control activities likely to cause disturbance during September to March to avoid disturbance of birds that are a qualifying feature of the SPA.
Changes to the Proposed Plan
4.1.93 These requirements are incorporated into the Site Schedule for the proposal through the following text (which also provides mitigation for other European Sites within the influence of the Falkirk LDP): “Proposals must be accompanied by a masterplan and project-specific Appropriate Assessment demonstrating that there will be no adverse effects on the integrity of the Firth of Forth SPA and the River Teith SAC either alone or in combination with other plans or projects.
22 Forth Energy, 2010 The Appropriate Assessment should consider mitigation of disturbance during construction.”
Residual Effects
4.1.94 As the type of developments that may be implemented is unknown, the nature of any minor residual effects is unclear. There may be minor effects relating to construction. These effects in combination with other similar effects will be considered further in paragraphs 4.1.220 – 4.1.231 of this report. Other minor residual effects will be identified in more detail as part of the masterplan.
ED16 Ineos Redevelopment Opportunity
Description of proposals
4.1.95 This proposal relates to a collection of discrete sites comprising brownfield land lying within the Ineos complex. It forms part of the Grangemouth Chemical Cluster, which highlights the potential to expand the chemicals sector within Grangemouth.
Qualifying Interest features of the Firth of Forth SPA likely to be affected
4.1.96 The proposed sites are set back from the boundary of the SPA and are separated from it by other development. One of the sites abuts the River Avon, which flows into the SPA. There are no data available for which, if any, of the qualifying bird species may be using the brownfield land available. However, the nature of the habitat means that it is unlikely to be a significant resource for any of the qualifying features. The River may be used by small numbers of species that venture into tidal rivers with a strong freshwater influence. Qualifying species recorded from the WeBS lowtide count unit covering the area are: Mallard*. Curlew*. Redshank.
Implications of the proposal for qualifying interest features of the Firth of Forth SPA in light of its conservation objectives
4.1.97 As this is a general policy, it is difficult at this stage to identify the nature of projects that will come forward and hence the possible significant effects upon the Firth of Forth SPA. It has been identified as likely to have significant effects upon the Firth of Forth SPA as a precaution, owing to the location of the site in close proximity to the River Avon, which discharges into the Firth of Forth. The types of effect that can be anticipated are listed in Table 39.
Table 39: Sources of effects on integrity Aspects of the proposal likely to Aspect of integrity that may be affected (defined by have significant effects Conservation Objectives) Direct Construction Impacts Habitat Loss Distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species Indirect Construction Impacts Pollution Structure, function and supporting processes of habitat supporting the species Disturbance Significant disturbance of the species Distribution of the species within site Indirect Operational Impacts Pollution Structure, function and supporting processes of habitat supporting the species Disturbance Significant disturbance of the species Distribution of the species within site
Habitat Loss
4.1.98 Based on aerial photographs available via Google maps the main habitats appear to be hard standing and buildings, disturbed land, some regenerating vegetation, shrubs and trees, in addition to the River Avon which flows along one side of the site. Although there are no bird data for these areas, it is not anticipated that these sites are likely to be important for the birds that are a qualifying interest feature of the Firth of Forth SPA – the main areas of interest are likely to be at the river and shoreline.
Pollution
4.1.99 The main source of pollution would arise from uncontrolled spillages or discharges into the River Avon. Construction impacts would arise from disturbance of soils, particularly if these are contaminated from previous industrial activity. Operational impacts would arise from routine or accidental discharges from any activity. Discharges would be regulated and consented by SEPA.
Disturbance during construction and operation of proposals
4.1.100 As noted above, the habitats are not anticipated to support high numbers of the birds associated with the Firth of Forth SPA. The site lies at least 0.5 km from the shoreline, and is separated from it by areas of industrial development. Consequently, disturbance both during construction and operation is not considered to be a significant issue.
Mitigation
4.1.111 Few details about the scale and nature of development are known at this stage. However, there is sufficient information on which to base a preliminary assessment.
4.1.112 A masterplan will be required that reviews use of the site and adjoining River Avon by the qualifying species of the Firth of Forth, which demonstrates that these species will not suffer disturbance or pollution.
Changes to the Proposed Plan
4.1.113 These commitments are included in the Proposed Plan Site Schedule:
“Proposals must be accompanied by a masterplan and project-specific Appropriate Assessment demonstrating that there will be no adverse effects on the integrity of the Firth of Forth SPA.
The Appropriate Assessment is likely to require collection of new bird survey data that identifies which of the qualifying species use the River Avon and adjoining land within the site.
The Appropriate Assessment should demonstrate no adverse effects on the integrity of the site arising from disturbance during construction.”
Residual Effects
4.1.114 There may be negligible/minor residual effects on water quality, depending on the nature of any routine discharges, but these will be highly localised owing to the dilution of the River Avon within the Firth of Forth.
INF 34 Avondale Waste Management Site
Description of Proposal
4.1.115 This policy safeguards land adjacent to the existing Waste Management Site to enable its future expansion as a landfill facility in accordance with the Zero Waste Plan and Policy ST18. It is a proposal from the existing Local Plan that is being carried forward.
Qualifying Interest features of the Firth of Forth SPA likely to be affected
4.1.116 The scheme is located some distance from the boundary of the SPA, but has been included because of discharges to the River Avon, which is a tributary of the Forth Estuary. There are no bird survey data specifically available for the landfill site. Effects have been considered for those species identified from WeBS low tide counts to be associated with the mouth of the river i.e. Mallard*; Curlew*; Redshank.
Implications of the proposal for qualifying interest features of the Firth of Forth SPA in light of its conservation objectives
4.1.117 The implications of this proposal upon the Firth of Forth SPA were not considered within the HRA for the previous Local Plan, but have been screened in as a precaution for the current HRA. The precise nature of the scheme proposals are not known at this stage, but are likely to involve treatment and burying of waste. The main potential source of impact is in terms of alterations to water quality in the River Avon, which discharges to the Firth of Forth. The types of effect that may arise from such development are listed in Table 40.
Table 40: Sources of effects on integrity Aspects of the proposal likely to have Aspect of integrity that may be affected significant effects (defined by Conservation Objectives) Indirect Operational Effects Pollution/ changes in water qualify of the Structure, function and supporting River Avon leading to changes in food quality processes of habitats supporting the and abundance on the Forth species
Water Quality
4.1.118 The lower reaches of the River Avon have been assessed as of Moderate Ecological status by SEPA, mainly owing to modifications to the natural morphology, including barriers to fish passage23. Water quality and current discharges from the landfill site do not appear to be an issue, and have not been raised by SEPA as an issue of concern. All point-source discharges from the site require consent from SEPA. Mitigation
4.1.119 Whilst significant effects upon the integrity of the Firth of Forth SPA are not likely, the potential for such effects has been recognised and will be mitigated through wording of the policy. Any proposals to expand waste disposal facilities that are brought forward as a result of this policy will only be allowed if a project-specific AA has been undertaken. Proposals will only be approved where the competent authority has ascertained that they would not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the Firth of Forth SPA.
Changes to the Proposed Plan
This commitment is included in the LDP Site Schedule:
23 SEPA River Avon Catchment Profile. September 2011
“Proposals must be accompanied by a project-specific Appropriate Assessment demonstrating that there will be no adverse impacts on the integrity of the Firth of Forth SPA.”
Residual Effects
4.1.120 With the application of mitigation, effects on water quality in the River Avon are unlikely. Also, given the dilution factor of the River Avon within the River Forth, any changes to water quality would be very localised and would be unlikely to result in residual effects.
GN03 Bothkennar/ Skinflats
Description of proposal
4.1.121 This is one of a number of Green Network proposals included in the Proposed Plan. Details have yet to be developed, but the scheme is likely to include habitat enhancement works, increasing access links with the Helix and providing opportunities for managed access to view birds that are a qualifying interest feature of the Firth of Forth SPA.
Qualifying Interest features of the Firth of Forth SPA likely to be affected
4.1.122 Whilst the precise nature and route have yet to be determined, the proposal would enable more formalised access close to the shoreline around Skinflats, or near to high tide roosts in fields set back from the shore. This is an important area both within Falkirk Council and within the Firth of Forth as a whole for qualifying species. Qualifying species present along the shoreline in this area were indicated in Table 29 and include 19 of the qualifying species at numbers that contribute at least 1 % of the qualifying totals.
Implications of the proposal for qualifying interest features of the Firth of Forth SPA in light of its conservation objectives
4.1.123 The types of effect that may arise are listed in Table 41.
Table 41: Sources of effects on integrity Aspects of the proposal likely to have Aspect of integrity that may be affected significant effects (defined by Conservation Objectives) Direct Effects during Construction Noise and disturbance No significant disturbance of the species Population of the species as a viable component of the site Distribution of the species within site Indirect Effects during operation Disturbance from increased recreational Distribution of the species within the site activity along shore and near high tide roost No significant disturbance of the species sites
4.1.124 In addition, there is the potential to improve habitat quality for qualifying species through creation or enhancement of existing habitats.
Noise and disturbance during construction
4.1.125 Disturbance from people and machines is likely to be the greatest source of effect during construction of the scheme. The degree to which disturbance is an issue will depend upon the proximity of the route to the shoreline and high tide roost sites, the time and methods of construction. Effects can be avoided by timing works to avoid the winter period.
Recreational disturbance during operation
4.1.126 The effects of recreational disturbance on birds were summarised in paragraphs 3.1.12 - 3.1.14.
4.1.127 Walkers, and particularly walkers accompanied by unrestrained dogs, are known to affect the distribution of some species of estuarine birds and cause disturbance. For example, around the Solent, over half of the recorded disturbance was attributed to walkers with one or more dogs off a lead, although these only accounted for a third of all users. By contrast walkers with dogs on leads accounted for 5% of all disturbances. Within the Exe Estuary walkers with unrestrained dogs accounted for 31% of major flight events, compared to walkers without dogs on the intertidal zone (15%) and walking on the shore without a dog (10%). Walkers and walkers with dogs were also identified as the greatest cause of disturbance on the Stour and Orwell estuaries24.
4.1.128 Birds appear to be more sensitive to activities undertaken within the intertidal zone than those on the shore or the sub-tidal zone, and most sensitive to effects if disturbed at roost sites. The Solent study recorded that 26% of activities in the intertidal area caused major flight of birds, compared to 5% for activities on the open water or shore. On the Exe Estuary, 10% of activities in the intertidal zone resulted in major flight of birds compared to only 2% of shore-based activities25.
4.1.129 Researchers estimated that a walker with a dog off a lead in the Exe Estuary might account for a “loss” of around 3ha of feeding habitat to birds, compared to a loss of 0.1 ha of intertidal habitat from someone walking a nearby coastal footpath46.
4.1.130 Whilst Skinflats is an important area for the qualifying species, the coastal areas, comprising mudflats are inhospitable to walkers and dogs, reducing the risks of disturbance to birds in the inter-tidal zone.
Mitigation
4.1.131 Disturbance to qualifying species can be avoided by careful timing of the construction works.
4.1.132 Birds are able to become habituated to walkers and increased levels of recreational use26and this habituation can develop over short time periods. Habituation is usually aided where there is an obstacle such as a fence or a ditch between the birds and the disturbance. Research from America suggests that if adequate cover is present then the distance at which birds are disturbed by walkers is reduced27.
4.1.133 Some researchers have defined “buffer zones” with the aim of protecting birds from disturbance. These distances may be defined based on the largest flush distance or the most sensitive species28. The Environmental Statement accompanying the masterplan for Bo’ness Foreshore, identified birds within 300 m of the shoreline as at potential risk of disturbance. The difficulty with this approach is that many factors can influence the distance at which birds appear to be disturbed. For example, disturbance of Mallard* has been recorded from as little as 25 m to as much as 600 m62. Also, such an approach is based on how quickly a bird responds to disturbance by flying away e.g. how close the disturbance needs to be before the bird leaves the site. However, recent research suggests those individuals that fly at the greatest distance from the disturbance are those in good condition with sufficient energy reserves to compensate for the loss of feeding time. Individuals that continue to feed whilst there is disturbance in close proximity may be those that are already suffering some form of
24 Ravenscroft, 2005. 25Liley, et al2011. 26Nisbet, 2000; Goss-Custard & Verboven, 1993 27Dooley, 2008 28Rodgers and Schwiker, 2002 energy stress. For example, research on Oystercatchers* suggests that the flight response may be related to a trade-off between the risk of predation (as triggered by disturbance) and starvation. Later in the winter, when birds have higher energy requirements they are less likely to fly in response to disturbance and will return more quickly than earlier in the winter29.
4.1.134 The degree to which qualifying bird species are disturbed by recreational users of the access route can be avoided or reduced by careful siting of the path, and by creating barriers, such as screen planting.
Changes to the Proposed Plan
4.1.135 The following wording has been incorporated into the Proposed Plan Site Schedule for this opportunity: “Opportunities to create new supporting habitat for SPA supporting species and new visitor facilities for bird viewing, and to improve access to the area from the Helix.
Creation of new supporting habitat could involve the managed realignment of the coast which would help to reduce overall flood risk in the area.
Any proposals for new access routes must be accompanied by a project-specific Appropriate Assessment which demonstrates that they will not lead to an increase in disturbance of the qualifying interests of the Firth of Forth SPA, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects, so that there would be no adverse effect on the integrity of the site.”
Residual Effects
4.1.136 Assuming that mitigation is included, it is concluded that there may be minor residual effects arising from recreational disturbance. These effects in combination with other similar effects will be considered further in paragraphs 4.1.209 – 4.1.219 of this report.
GNO4 Kincardine – South Alloa
Description of proposal
4.1.137 This Green Network opportunity aims to create a new section of path extending northwards from Kincardine Bridge, to complete the coastal footpath between Airth Sewage Works and Dunmore. Part of the route is close to the shoreline, but there is also a length set inland.
Qualifying Interest features of the Firth of Forth SPA likely to be affected
4.1.138 The qualifying bird species present along the shore between Kincardine Bridge and Alloa are indicated in Table 29. Much of the proposed route extends inland through tetrads and 10 x 10 km squares that have been surveyed for qualifying species. Curlew*, Lapwing*, Oystercatcher*, Redshank and high numbers of Pink-footed Goose have been recorded from these areas.
Implications of the proposal for qualifying interest features of the Firth of Forth SPA in light of its conservation objectives
4.1.139 The types of effect that may arise are broadly similar to those that were described for proposal GN03 Bothkennar/ Skinflats in paragraphs 4.1.123-4.1.130. The main differences are that the shoreline is less important to the qualifying bird species, but is easier to access. Also, much of the route runs inland, through areas that may be close to high tide roosts.
29 Stillman & Goss-Custard, 2002
4.1.140 Disturbance at roost sites may have greatest effects as there tend to be only a limited number of high tide roosts associated with each major feeding area30. If these are regularly disturbed the shorebirds may abandon them and therefore may be forced to fly further to find safe, undisturbed roosts31. RSPB indicated in its response to a previous application for development at Bo’ness Foreshore that disturbance of high tide roost sites might be of greater significance than disturbance during low tide feeding32.
Mitigation
4.1.141 The required mitigation is similar to that described for GN03 Bothkennar/ Skinflats in paragraphs 4.1.131 - 4.1.134. Disturbance during construction can be avoided by careful timing of works.
Changes to the Proposed Plan
4.1.142 To avoid adversely affecting the integrity of the SPA the Site Schedule of the Proposed Plan includes the following text for this opportunity: “Proposals for the route must be accompanied by a project-specific Appropriate Assessment which demonstrates that they will not lead to an increase in disturbance of the qualifying interests of the Firth of Forth SPA, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects, so that there would be no adverse effect on the integrity of the site.” Residual Effects
4.1.143 As mitigation has been included within the Proposed Plan, it is concluded that there may be minor residual effects arising from recreational disturbance. These effects in combination with other similar effects will be considered further in paragraphs 4.1.209 – 4.1.219 of this report.
30 Symonds & Langslow, 1985. 31Wolff, et al 1982. 32Farningham McCreadie & WYG, 2006 In plan LSE in combination effects
4.1.144 This section of the report considers the cumulative effects of those proposals within the Proposed Plan that may result in minor residual effects (even with mitigation), which may, if they act together, result in a likely significant effect. This includes proposals within the plan that have been individually screened out because any effects of change are likely to be minor residual, in addition to those policies where the scale of effect has been reduced through mitigation.
Loss of habitat potentially used for feeding/roosting by waders and disturbance of waders
Description of proposals
4.1.145 The criteria used to identify proposals that may be located on sites of potential value as high tide roost sites to waders were set out in paragraph 3.3.17
4.1.146 Eleven proposals have been identified as in locations that may have potential value as high tide roosting sites to waders. They comprise: four locations in Bo’ness (H01, H02, H03, M02); three locations in Airth (H52, H54, H55); two locations in Grangemouth (ED14 & ED15); and two locations in Larbert & Stenhousemuir (ED21 & H37).
Qualifying interest features of the Firth of Forth SPA likely to be affected
4.1.147 These sites have been screened in as they occur in tetrads or 10 x 10 km squares from which one or more of the following qualifying species has been recorded: Golden Plover, Grey Plover, Lapwing*, Curlew*, Redshank and Oystercatcher*. Sites in tetrads/10 km squares that support suitable habitat, but which have not been surveyed for qualifying species, have also been included.
Implications of the proposals for qualifying interest features of the Firth of Forth SPA in light of its conservation objectives
4.1.148 There is a potential for loss of high tide roosting habitat or disturbance of birds whilst using these inland areas. Table 42 summarises the maximum counts of qualifying interest species recorded from tetrads lying within 5 km of the coast, which support habitat of potential value and are the locations for housing proposals. (The maximum numbers of birds recorded from each tetrad cannot be combined as they represent the maximum counts from two different recording regimes, and individual birds may have been recorded from more than one tetrad on different days).
4.1.149 Qualifying interest species have been recorded from six tetrads. Four of these overlap the coastline, thus the counts may be a representation of coastal high tide roost sites (already considered through the WeBS data), rather than inland sites. For example, tetrad 4008, which lies close to Skinflats, and includes the Skinflats Nature Reserve and part of the mudflats, supports the greatest number of qualifying species. Also, the highest numbers of Redshank recorded during the WeBS core counts were found from the coastline at Skinflats, Grangepans to Grangemouth and Kincardine Bridge to Alloa and the highest density of Redshank recorded from the Falkirk coastline during the low tide counts were recorded between Kinneil Nature Reserve and the River Avon. These areas tally with the tetrads from which the highest numbers of Redshank were recorded. Likewise, for Oystercatcher, the stretch of coastline near Airth supported the highest density of this species within Falkirk Council’s area, which tallies with the tetrads from which the highest numbers of this species were recorded.
Table 42: Proportions of possible inland high tide roost sites and potential supporting habitat to be affected by development proposals Tetrad Housing Proposals Total area (proportion) Maximum count of wader species of potential supporting habitat within tetrad affected by proposal Golden Plover Grey Plover* Lapwing* Curlew* Redshank Oystercatcher* 4464 H01 Drum Farm 30.1 ha (27.9%) 0 0 0 30 180 4 H02 Kinglass Farm 2 H03 Kinglass Farm 3 M02 Drum Farm South 4414 H54 Airth Castle South 1.0 ha (0.3%) 0 0 30 165 50 50 4413 H52 Castle View 7.7 ha (2.6%) 0 0 0 1 0 0 H55 The Glebe (part) 4168 H55 The Glebe (part) 0.3 ha (0.1%) 0 0 90 130 34 20 4312 H37 Hill of Kinnaird 38.6 ha (14.9%) 49 0 20 0 0 0 ED21 Hill of Kinnaird 4008 ED14 South Bridge Street 4.6 ha (7.3%) 0 10 140 200 82 3 ED15 Grangemouth Docks Number of tetrads partially/ wholly within Falkirk from which species 7 3 17 19 16 16 has been recorded
4.1.150 It is estimated that the proposals will involve the loss of up to 82.3 ha of habitat that may be of potential value to qualifying species. This represents 1.5% of the c. 5598 ha of potential habitat within the Falkirk Council area.
4.1.151 Table 42 shows that the developments do not affect all the tetrads from which particular species have been recorded.
4.1.152 Two qualifying species were recorded from tetrad 4312: Lapwing* and Golden Plover. A maximum count of 20 Lapwing* was recorded, which is a fraction of the highest numbers recorded within Falkirk (winter five year mean peak figures of 593 birds and 424 bird from Grangepans to Grangemouth and Skinflats respectively). Lapwing* also appears to be widely distributed throughout the area, as they were recorded from 17 tetrads within Falkirk Council area. By contrast, Golden Plover were recorded from a more restricted number of tetrads (7) in Falkirk. The numbers recorded from tetrad 4312 (49) individuals represents a higher proportion of the numbers of birds recorded from the coast during WeBS core counts (219 and 201 birds from Skinflats and Grangepans to Grangemouth respectively.
Mitigation
4.1.152 Cumulatively, the proposed sites only represent around 1.5% of the potentially supporting habitat present within Falkirk Council area.
4.1.153 Policy GN01 Falkirk Green Network includes a number of proposals for habitat enhancement, some of which are in ideal locations to create and expand habitat suitable for the qualifying species of the SPA. These include: GN02 Kinneil Kerse GN03 Bothkennar/Skinflats.
4.1.154 Policy GN03 also provides protection for sites of importance to qualifying species of the SPA, wherever they occur.
4.1.155 Proposal ED15 includes provisions for the production of a masterplan and accompanying project-specific Appropriate Assessment.
Residual Effects
4.1.156 As the proposals only affect a small proportion of potential habitat available to species within Falkirk, it is considered that there will be minor residual effects arising from loss of habitat or disturbance of qualifying species whilst using these areas. The proposals will not act to have an adverse effect on the integrity of the SPA.
In combination assessment with other plans or proposals outwith the Falkirk area
Plans
4.1.157 There is limited information available to be able to assess whether the implementation of proposals within other plans will lead to loss of habitat potentially used for feeding/roosting by waders and disturbance of waders. Table 43 below shows the provisions of plans that have been reported as likely to result in the loss of habitats which could be used by SPA species:
Table 43: Elements of other plans likely to result in the loss of habitats which could be used by SPA wader species. Plan HRA Provisions causing a minor residual effect Record Available Stirling Local Yes Policy 6.1 Provision and Safeguarding of Waste Development Plan Management Infrastructure Policy 12.1 Wind Turbines H77 – Fallin 400 houses H80 – Throsk / Bandeath 75 houses H81 - Throsk / Bandeath 10 houses B3 – Fallin 0.6ha B15 – 23 - Throsk / Bandeath 100 ha Stirling Council No Local Plan 2nd alteration 2006 Clackmannanshire No Council Local Plan 1st alteration 2011 West Lothian No Local Plan 2009 Rural West No33 HSG 2 - Springfield, South Queensferry 150 units. Edinburgh Local HSG 6 - Port Edgar – Residential part of mixed use scheme Plan HSG 7 - Society Road, South Queensferry - undetermined capacity. ECON10 - Port Edgar – Business and Marina part of mixed use scheme ENV 6 - Springfield, South Queensferry – Environmental improvements to the north of HSG 2
Edinburgh City No Local Plan East Lothian Local No Plan 2008 Dunfermline and Yes INV010 - Caldwell Mill - 7.3ha - Development must include West Fife Local the retention and protection of the existing coastal fringe Plan grassland to ensure that feeding, loafing and roosting habitat used by SPA birds is not lost. With these measures in place it is concluded that there will be no adverse impact from loss of terrestrial habitat used by SPA species from the development uses proposed for this area. INV011 - RM Supplies - 7.0ha - the terrestrial area may support roosting and loafing SPA birds. However, given the existing use of the site with high levels of disturbance and lack of vegetation it is considered most likely that this would be limited to opportunistic use of areas along the sea wall. Therefore, it is concluded that there will be no adverse impact from terrestrial habitat loss from the development uses proposed for this area. ROS011 – Rosyth Europark 2 - 11ha - Potential loss of habitat used by significant numbers of SPA birds has been mitigated through the introduction of specific developer requirements to retain and protect the coastal fringe. CHL003 - Charlestown Harbour - ?? - there will be no loss of terrestrial habitat used by significant numbers of SPA birds from any of the development uses proposed. St Andrews and Yes HRA concludes that there will be no loss of terrestrial habitat East Fife Local used by significant numbers of Firth of SPA birds from any of Plan the development proposals. Mid Fife Local Yes HRA concludes that no mitigation is required for any of the Plan development proposed in the terrestrial areas as current information indicates that these areas are not used by significant numbers of feeding or roosting SPA birds.
33 Analysis undertaken to inform the Appropriate Assessment of the Forth Replacement Crossing identified sites likely to lead to loss of habitats which could be used by SPA species 4.1.158 None of the HRA of the plans above include any analysis of how much potential supporting habitat will be lost within each Council area so it is extremely difficult to carry out any meaningful in-combination assessment.
4.1.159 It is assumed, for the purposes of this assessment, that development sites within other plans will also involve the loss of small amounts of the potential supporting habitat available to waders in inland areas. As the majority of wader species (other than Golden Plover which appear to be concentrated in the East Lothian area) appear to be fairly evenly distributed around the Forth coastline it is considered that the policies and proposals that are not yet fully implemented in these plans will not act in combination with the Falkirk Council Proposed Plan to have an adverse effect on the integrity of the Firth of Forth SPA.
Projects
4.1.160 No other projects outside those included within the suite of development plans analysed in table 43 above were identified which would result in the loss of potential supporting habitat to waders using the Firth of Forth SPA.
Loss of inland habitat potentially used by pink footed geese and disturbance of pink footed geese
Description of proposals
4.1.161 Pink-footed Goose are known to travel 15 – 20 km from the coast to use inland roosting and loafing sites, and are also known to be found along the Avon Valley, sometimes in association with Bean Goose. Twenty-four housing proposals and seven business proposals are located in areas of potentially suitable habitat, which lie within 10 x 10 km squares from which either Pink-footed Goose have been recorded, or have not been counted. They comprise:
Six locations in Bonnybridge and Banknock (H07, H09, H10, H74, M03 & M15); Two locations in Denny (H22 & M05); Three Locations in Falkirk (ED03, ED04 & ED06); Three location in Grangemouth (ED13 & ED14 & ED17); Two locations in Larbert & Stenhousemuir (H37 & ED21); Six locations in Maddiston (H43, H44, H45, H46, H47 & H48); Three locations in Airth (H52, H54 & H55); Two locations in California (H64 & H65); Two locations in Shieldhill (H68 & H69); and Three locations in Slamannan (H70, H71 & H72)
4.1.162 Although the following six sites lie within 10 x 10 km squares from which either Pink-footed Goose have been recorded, or have not been counted, they have been excluded from the analysis for the following reasons:
H 16 Mydub – this site is located on potentially suitable habitat, but spans two recording tetrads. The majority of the site lies within a tetrad which has been counted, but from which Pink-footed Goose has not been recorded. The northern part of the site has not been counted.
H28 Cauldhame Farm - this site is located on potentially suitable habitat, but spans two recording tetrads. The majority of the site lies within a tetrad which has been counted, but from which Pink-footed Goose has not been recorded. The eastern portion of the site has not been counted, but lies on land adjacent to development, which is less likely to be attractive to Pink-footed Goose.
H53 Graham Terrace – only a small portion of this site (0.3 ha) has potentially supporting habitat. Given the small size of the site, it is not considered to be potentially attractive to Pink-footed Goose.
ED15 Grangemout Docks – only a small portion of this site (2.8 ha) has potentially suitable habitat. As this habitat is isolated from other areas of potentially suitable habitat and is subject to disturbance, it is considered to be unattractive to Pink-footed Goose.
M14 Whitecross – only part of this site contains potentially suitable habitat. The site spans two tetrads. The eastern portion of the site, which is the main location for supporting habitat, has been surveyed and no Pink-footed Goose were recorded. The western portion of the site contains 3.7 ha of potentially suitable habitat, but lies in a tetrad that has not been surveyed.
Qualifying interest features of the Firth of Forth SPA likely to be affected
4.1.163 For the purposes of this in-combination assessment only effects on Pink Footed Geese are recorded.
Implications of the proposals for qualifying interest features of the Firth of Forth SPA in light of its conservation objectives
4.1.164 The screening exercise has identified a number of sites that support habitat of potential value to Pink-footed Goose, which occur within tetrads from where Pink-footed Goose have been recorded, or from tetrads which have not been assessed for Pink-footed Goose. Even in tetrads where geese have been recorded, there is no information as to whether any of the proposed development sites are actually used by this species. Geese are known to use a variety of sites, and use of an individual site can be affected by various factors, including the cropping regime. Disturbance appears to be a particularly significant factor for Pink-footed Goose, which have been shown to choose sites based on the level of disturbance. There is also some evidence that the species will only use sites that are at least 6 ha in area34, which may be a response to reduce risk of predation and disturbance.
4.1.165 Pink-footed Goose has been recorded as present in 37 of the 108 tetrads which cover the Falkirk Council area (34.3%). However 44 tetrads (40.75%) have not been surveyed for this species.
4.1.166 Table 44 identifies the area of potential supporting habitat associated with each of the housing proposals identified above. As can be seen, a number of these developments will directly affect areas less than 6 ha in size. Whilst some of these sites adjoin other areas of potentially suitable habitat, others do not, and hence may be of limited potential value to Pink-footed Goose and could be screened out from further consideration.
Table 44: Areas of potentially suitable habitat for Pink-footed Goose to be affected by development proposals Proposal Area of potential Comments supporting habitat (hectares) H07 Banknock South 8.3 H09 Kilsyth Road 1 1.4 As these sites are less than 6 ha in size, and H10 Kilsyth Road 2 1.6 are bordered by roads and access points they are not considered likely to be a Goose roost site. H22 Rosebank 4.7 Although this site is <6 ha in size it is adjacent to other areas of potentially suitable habitat. H37 Hill of Kinnaird 29.2 H43 Parkhall Farm 1 13.0 H44 Parkhall Farm 2 4.3 Although these sites are <6 ha in size they are H45 Parkhall Farm 3 4.6 linked to a larger area of potentially suitable H46 Parkhall Farm 4 1.1 habitat H47 The Haining 1.6 H48 Toravon Farm 6.6 H52 Castle View 7.0 H54 Airth Castle South 1.0 This site is <6 ha, but is linked to other areas of potentially suitable habitat H55 The Glebe 0.9 This site is <6 ha, but is linked to other areas of potentially suitable habitat H64 Church Road 1 2.9 These sites are <6 ha, but are linked to other H65 Church Road 2 1.4 areas of potentially suitable habitat. However, they are close to areas of development, meaning that they may be of poor value to Geese H68 Reddingmuirhead Road 0.5 This site is < 6 ha, but is linked to other areas of potentially suitable habitat H69 Hillcrest 5.7 H70 Hillend Farm 22 H71 Avonbridge Road 1.9 This site is <6 ha in size, but is linked to other areas of potentially suitable habitat
34 Gill, 1996 H72 The Rumlie 1.3 This site is <6 ha in size, but is linked to other areas of potentially suitable habitat H74 Garngrew Road 3.2 This site is <6 ha in size, and has some links to other areas of potentially suitable habitat, but these are fragmented by roads and it may be of lower potential value to Geese. ED03 Falkirk Gateway 23.1 ED04 Falkirk Stadium 8.8 ED06 Caledon Business 13.1 Park ED13 Glensburgh Road 4.5 Site is <6 ha and is not surrounded by other areas of potentially suitable habitat so may be of lower value to Geese. ED14 South Bridge Street 1.8 Site is <6 ha and is not surrounded by other areas of potentially suitable habitat so may be of lower value to Geese ED17 Wholeflats Business 1.5 Site is <6 ha and is not surrounded by other Park areas of potentially suitable habitat so may be of lower value to Geese ED21 Hill of Kinnaird 9.4 M03 Banknock North 5.8 Site supports <6 ha of potentially supporting habitat so likely to be of lower value to Geese. M05 Broad Street 14.8 M15 East Bonnybridge 19.9 Total 226.9
4.1.167 Based on Table 44, a maximum of 226.9 ha of potentially suitable habitat would be affected by the proposals, which represents around 1.4% of the total area of potentially suitable habitat within Falkirk.
4.1.168 This may be an over-estimate of the areas of potential suitable habitat affected as some of the proposed development sites are less than 6 ha in size , and hence of limited value. Also, some of these sites have been included as a precaution as no counts of Pink-footed Goose have been made from those areas. As for the waders, there is no evidence to indicate which areas within a tetrad are used by Pink-footed Goose.
4.1.169 None of the proposals occurs in areas that are known, historically, to support large numbers of feeding and loafing geese.
Mitigation
4.1.170 Policy GN01 Falkirk Green Network includes a number of proposals for habitat enhancement, some of which are in ideal locations to create and expand habitat suitable for the Pink-footed Goose. These include:
GN05 Carse Peatland Restoration GN16 Lathallan/Avonglen GN20 Upper Braes Peatland.
Residual Effects
4.1.171 Although these proposals will not act in combination have an adverse effect on the integrity of the Firth of Forth SPA they will result in minor residual effects arising from loss of potential supporting habitat to Pink Footed Geese.
In combination assessment with other plans or proposals not contained in the Proposed Plan
Plans
4.1.172 Analysis of BTO data on Pink Footed Geese indicates that they have a clustered distribution with large numbers using fields in eastern and northern East Lothian, northern Falkirk, coastal Clackmannanshire and at several sites in Fife. It should be noted, however, that for approximately two fifths of the Falkirk Council area, use by Pink Footed Geese is unknown.
Table 45: Elements of other plans likely to result in the loss of habitats which could be used by pink footed geese. Plan HRA Provisions causing a minor residual effect Record Available Stirling Local Yes Policy 6.1 Provision and Safeguarding of Waste Management Development Plan Infrastructure Policy 12.1 Wind Turbines H77 – Fallin 400 houses H80 – Throsk / Bandeath 75 houses H81 - Throsk / Bandeath 10 houses B3 – Fallin 0.6ha B15 – 23 - Throsk / Bandeath 100 ha Stirling Council No Local Plan 2nd alteration 2006 Clackmannanshire No Council Local Plan 1st alteration 2011 West Lothian No Local Plan 2009 Rural West No35 HSG 2 - Springfield, South Queensferry 150 units. Edinburgh Local HSG 6 - Port Edgar – Residential part of mixed use scheme Plan HSG 7 - Society Road, South Queensferry - undetermined capacity. ECON10 - Port Edgar – Business and Marina part of mixed use scheme ENV 6 - Springfield, South Queensferry – Environmental improvements to the north of HSG 2
Edinburgh City No Local Plan East Lothian Local No Plan 2008 Dunfermline and Yes INV010 - Caldwell Mill - 7.3ha - Development must include the West Fife Local retention and protection of the existing coastal fringe grassland to Plan ensure that feeding, loafing and roosting habitat used by SPA birds is not lost. With these measures in place it is concluded that there will be no adverse impact from loss of terrestrial habitat used by SPA species from the development uses proposed for this area. INV011 - RM Supplies - 7.0ha - the terrestrial area may support roosting and loafing SPA birds. However, given the existing use of the site with high levels of disturbance and lack of vegetation it is considered most likely that this would be limited to opportunistic use of areas along the sea wall. Therefore, it is concluded that there will be no adverse impact from terrestrial habitat loss from the development uses proposed for this area. ROS011 – Rosyth Europark 2 - 11ha - Potential loss of habitat used by significant numbers of SPA birds has been mitigated through the introduction of specific developer requirements to retain and protect the coastal fringe. CHL003 - Charlestown Harbour - ?? - there will be no loss of
35 Analysis undertaken to inform the Appropriate Assessment of the Forth Replacement Crossing identified sites likely to lead to loss of habitats which could be used by SPA species terrestrial habitat used by significant numbers of SPA birds from any of the development uses proposed. St Andrews and Yes HRA concludes that there will be no loss of terrestrial habitat used by East Fife Local significant numbers of Firth of SPA birds from any of the Plan development proposals. Mid Fife Local Yes HRA concludes that no mitigation is required for any of the Plan development proposed in the terrestrial areas as current information indicates that these areas are not used by significant numbers of feeding or roosting SPA birds.
4.1.173 There is limited information available to be able to assess whether the implementation of proposals within other plans will lead to loss of habitat potentially used for feeding/roosting by pink footed geese and disturbance of pink footed geese. Table x above shows the provisions of plans that have been reported as likely to result in the loss of habitats which could be used by SPA species. None of the HRA of those plans include any analysis of how much potential supporting habitat will be lost within each Council area so it is extremely difficult to carry out any meaningful in-combination assessment.
4.1.174 It is assumed, for the purposes of this assessment, that development sites within other plans will also involve the loss of small amounts of the potential supporting habitat available to pink footed geese in inland areas. It is therefore considered that the policies and proposals that are not yet fully implemented in these plans will not act in combination with the Falkirk Council Proposed Plan to have an adverse effect on the integrity of the Firth of Forth SPA.
Projects
4.1.175 No other projects outside those included within the suite of development plans analysed in table 45 above were identified which would result in the loss of potential supporting habitat to Pink Footed Geese using the Firth of Forth SPA.
Increased opportunities for access to and recreation along the coastline.
4.1.176 Several of the proposals have the potential to promote and increase recreational use of the coastline, with likely significant effects upon the qualifying species in terms of disturbance.
Description of proposals
4.1.177 A number of proposals allow for the development or expansion of public access routes either along the shoreline, or to the shoreline: GN01 John Muir Trail GN02 Kinneil Kerse GN03 Bothkennar/Skinflats36 GN04 Kincardine-South Alloa37 GN08 River Carron Corridor Improvements D14 Canals
4.1.178 The John Muir Trail is a proposed coast to coast route that will extend from Dunbar on the North Sea coast to Helensburgh on the Firth of Clyde. It will be approximately 100 miles long, extending the existing John Muir Way and will follow the coast between Blackness to Bo’ness before heading inland to pass the Falkirk Wheel.
4.1.179 The proposals for Kinneil Kerse are to undertake habitat enhancement proposals and improvements, whilst providing improved opportunities for public recreation. The site is a former landfill site which abuts the Firth of Forth SPA. The scheme has the potential to be designed to enhance habitat opportunities for birds that form a qualifying interest feature of the Firth of Forth SPA and provide managed access for the public to watch, enjoy and learn about the wintering bird species supported by the Forth.
4.1.180 Details of the proposals for Bothkennar/Skinflats and Kincardine-South Alloa were provided in paragraphs 4.1.121 and 4.1.137 respectively.
4.1.181 There are also proposals to improve access along the River Carron Corridor. Whilst much of this route would be inland, it would provide for improved access to the coast and the opportunity to link in with coastal footpaths, hence increasing the number of visitors to the shore. A major element of the scheme would be construction of a new bridge across the Carron connecting Carronshore to Abbotshaugh and the Helix.
4.1.182 Policy D14, Canals, promotes the development of the Canal network, including improving access related to the canals, including emphasis on linkages to and from the wider countryside access network. The Forth & Clyde Canal links to the Firth of Forth near Grangemouth, and access along the towpath provides an additional access point to the coastal area.
Qualifying interest features of the Firth of Forth SPA likely to be affected
4.1.183 Given the strategic nature of the route corridors at this stage, it is difficult to be definitive about the species likely to be affected. All the species listed in Table 29 as occurring along the coastline of Falkirk could be affected, although it is most likely that effects would be limited to those species that use the inter-tidal and high tide areas. Species that are limited to the offshore areas or sub-tidal areas are less likely to be affected. Those species for which the five year mean peak count contributes 1% or more of that required for the site to qualify as of international importance, and which are associated with inter-tidal and non-tidal habitats are: Pink-footed Goose (whole coast west of Grangepans); Shelduck (whole length of coast) Wigeon* (whole length of coast) Mallard* (Alloa to Grangepans and Blackness to Abercorn);
36 Minor Residual Effect of opportunity after mitigation described in paragraph 4.1.135 was applied 37 Minor Residual Effect of opportunity after mitigation described in paragraph 4.1.142 was applied Cormorant* (all coast); Oystercatcher* (all coast); Ringed Plover* (Skinflats, Grangepans to Grangemouth and Blackness to Abercorn); Golden Plover (Skinflats, Grangepans to Grangemouth and Blackness to Abercorn); Lapwing* (South Alloa to Cambus, Skinflats and Grangepans to Grangemouth); Knot (whole coast from Skinflats eastwards); Dunlin* (whole coast from Kincardine Bridge eastwards); Bar-tailed Godwit (Grangepans to Grangemouth and Blackness to Abercorn); Curlew*(whole coast); Redshank (whole coast).
4.1.184 Other qualifying species do occur along the coastline, but at lower numbers, or are associated with sub-tidal habitats only.
Implications of the proposals for qualifying interest features of the Firth of Forth SPA in light of its conservation objectives
4.1.185 The key area for cumulative effects on the integrity of the qualifying interest features relate to: increased disturbance of the species; possibly leading to changes to the distribution of the species within the site; and/or the species no longer being a viable component of the site
4.1.186 Disturbance may arise as a short-term temporary consequence of construction activity, or as a long-term response to increases in, or changes to the type, of recreational activity along the shoreline. Issues linked to cumulative effects of construction are considered in paragraphs 4.1.220 – 4.1.239.
4.1.187 The rest of this section considers effects linked to recreational disturbance during operation of the scheme. Aspects of recreational activity that can cause disturbance were discussed previously in paragraphs 4.1.127 – 4.1.129
Levels of recreational activity
4.1.188 There are few quantifiable data about the level and nature of existing recreational activity along the shores of the Falkirk Council area. Figures have been extracted from national statistics collected on behalf of Scottish Natural Heritage38 and assessments of the likely economic effects of the proposed John Muir Coast to Coast footpath39.
4.1.189 The estimated population of Falkirk Council is 154,38040. It has also been estimated that 42% of people living within the Falkirk Council area visited the outdoors for recreation at least once a week in 2011 i.e. around 64,840 visits to the outdoors in a week.
4.1.190 Walking is the most popular activity undertaken, and becomes proportionately more important over the winter months, accounting for around three quarters of all visits to the outdoors over the winter41.
4.1.191 The current numbers of visitors to the Forth coastline is thought to be fewer than at some other coastal SPA sites. For example, It has been projected that in the order of 9,309 people will use the John Muir coastal footpath in the first year, rising to around 47,000 over a five year period. This compares to an estimated 3 million visits per year42 to parts of the Solent coast.
38 TNS Research International, 2012 39The Glamis Consultancy Ltd and Campbell Macrae Associates, 2012. 40 Falkirk Council, 2012b 41 TNS, 2012 42Fearnley et al 2010. 4.1.192 In 2011, nearly half of outdoor recreation visits in Scotland (48%) were accompanied by a dog or dogs, although fewer visits to the seaside, beach or the sea/sealochs were accompanied by dogs (39%, 42% and 30% respectively)43.
4.1.193 Research into travel distances to the coast showed that a substantial number of visits in Scotland (44%) involved a journey of less than 2 miles, with over 75% of journeys involving a distance of less than 5 miles. This is similar to figures for the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast, where coastal visitors were more likely to live at the site or travel between five and ten miles to visit the coast44.
4.1.194 Based on this, the source of greatest increases in recreational numbers will result from new housing developments in Bo’ness and Airth and increased recreational activity is also likely to be focussed around Bo’ness.
4.1.195 The number of visitors per se is not necessarily an indication of the level of disturbance that will occur. Research around the Solent found that there was no significant correlation between the number of people recorded within 200 m of the birds and the amount of disturbance. Equally, there was no significant correlation between the total number of people present at the site or the numbers of groups of people and the level of disturbance45.
4.1.196 Little is known about the duration of disturbance effects. In Colorado, there was no significant difference in the level of use of disturbed areas compared to control areas within 24 hours of the disturbance occurring, although birds that had suffered the disturbance were less likely to be present46.
Population effects
4.1.197 There has been little research into how the effects of disturbance birds operate at a population level, or Some authors have suggested that assessments of changes in behaviour of birds may not be related to the effects on the population, measured in terms of decreased reproduction or increased mortality47,48.For example, the distribution of Oystercatchers* within an estuary changed associated with an increase in disturbance levels arising over a 10-15 year period. However, this was not associated with a detectable change in population numbers49.
4.1.198 For migratory shorebirds and wildfowl during the non-breeding season, this means that the impact of disturbance can be measured in terms of effects on fat reserves needed for successful migration and breeding in the spring and the number of birds that die during the non-breeding season50.
4.1.199 Sensitivity to recreational disturbance varies between species. Quality of habitat, availability of other suitable habitat, weather, flock size and weather are also thought to influence the level of disturbance in particular locations51,52. Oystercatcher*, Curlew* and Redshank were considered to be three of the most sensitive species to disturbance55 and numbers of Shelduck, Knot, Dunlin*, Curlew* and Redshank were significantly lower where a footpath occurred close to areas being counted in the Exe53.In the Moray Firth, Knot and Bar-tailed Godwit were considered to be very sensitive to disturbance, with these species being restricted to roosts located in the least accessible parts of the Moray Firth complex54.
43 TNS, 2012 44 Simpson, 2011 45 Liley, et al 2010. 46 Dooley, 2008 47 Stillman et al 2007. 48 Gill et al,2001. 49Goss-Custard& Verboven, 1993. 50 Goss-Custard et al, 2002. 51 Liley et aln 2011 52 Rees et al, 2005. 53Burton, et al, 2002a. 54Swann,2007. 4.1.200 Some of the species found along the Falkirk coastline are sensitive to disturbance, but the main areas supporting high numbers of qualifying species (the mudflats at Skinflats and Grangemouth to Grangepans), are large and inhospitable to dog walkers, reducing the risks of disturbance to birds in the inter-tidal zone.
Mitigation
4.1.201 Based on the existing information, it is difficult to be clear about the scale of any disturbance effects that may arise from the plan. However, it is possible to identify a series of mitigation measures that will ensure that the cumulative effects will be unlikely to have a significant effect upon the integrity of the Firth of Forth SPA. The focus of the mitigation will be: To locate paths set back from the shore, or separated from it by barriers such as fences, ditches or planting. To maintain and establish refuge areas of coast that remain free from disturbance; to avoid the location of high tide roost sites. To develop a public awareness programme that is aimed at minimising the disturbance of wintering birds, particularly from dog walkers. Incorporating opportunities for habitat enhancement or creation for qualifying species of the SPA as part of the route proposals. Project-specific HRA to ensure that positive opportunities for habitat creation and enhancement are included in scheme designs. Development of the John Muir Trail and coastal routes will require a project-specific HRA. These will need to demonstrate how the scheme can be constructed and maintained without disturbance to the birds that are a qualifying interest feature of the SPA. This may involve seasonal limitations on construction works, modification of construction methods, and use of screens etc.. There will also be a need to prepare a recreational management plan that shows how the route will guide users to avoid disturbance between September and March. This may include, for example, erection of signs to encourage the control of dogs.
4.1.202 Some of the proposals have the potential to create or enhance habitat provision for qualifying features of the SPA. For example,GN02 Kinneil Kerse.
Changes to the Proposed Plan
4.1.203 This mitigation has been incorporated into the Site Schedules for the Green Network proposals using the following text:
GN01 John Muir Trail: “Proposals for the route between Bo’ness and Blackness must be accompanied by a project- specific Appropriate Assessment which demonstrates that they will not lead to an increase in disturbance of the qualifying interests of the Firth of Forth SPA, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects, so that there would be no adverse effect on the integrity of the site.”
GN02 Kinneil Kerse: “Habitat enhancement proposals will focus around landfill restoration and enhancing and creating new supporting habitat for qualifying species of the Firth of Forth SPA. This will include protection of existing high tide roost sites and creation of suitable refuge areas.
Any development of new visitor facilities for bird viewing must be accompanied by a project- specific Appropriate Assessment which demonstrates that they will not lead to an increase in disturbance of the qualifying interests of the Firth of Forth SPA, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects, so that there would be no adverse effect on the integrity of the site.”
GN08 River Carron Corridor Improvements: “New bridge proposals must be designed to avoid adverse impact on the Firth of Forth SPA as identified in a project-specific Appropriate Assessment.”
Wording for GN03 and GN04 was identified in paragraphs 4.1.135 and 4.1.142 respectively.
Policy D14 Canals has been amended to take account of possible effects on the SPA. Clause 3 of the policy reads: “The improvement of access, signage and interpretation associated with the canals, with particular emphasis on linkages to and from adjacent communities, tourist attractions, public transport facilities and the wider countryside access network, whilst generally continuing to restrict access to the off-side bank (except for approved mooring areas, where access already exists and in urban areas) and to the Firth of Forth SPA for nature conservation reasons”.
Residual Effects
4.1.204 As the mitigation measures above have been incorporated into the Proposed Plan is considered that the projects outlined in paragraph 4.1.177 will not act in combination to have an adverse effect on the integrity of the Firth of Forth SPA. The projects will, however have minor residual effects arising from recreational disturbance.
In combination assessment with other plans or proposals not contained in the Proposed Plan
Plans
4.1.205 Birds when they are displaced from one feeding area birds will move to adjacent areas. Therefore the potential for in combination effects due to disturbance from increased recreational access will be restricted to the provisions within plans which are directly adjacent to the Falkirk Council area. Table 46 below shows proposals for the development or expansion of public access routes either along the shoreline, or to the shoreline contained within adjacent plans:
Table 46: Elements of other plans which could lead to increased opportunities for public access along the coastline Plan HRA Provisions causing a minor residual effect Record Available Stirling Council Yes No elements appear to relate to the expansion of public Proposed Plan assess routes along the shoreline or to the shoreline Stirling Council Local No Plan 2nd alteration 2006 Clackmannanshire No Core Path 102 to Kennett Pans (existing) Council Core Path Plan Core Path 101 from Clackmannan to …. (existing) Fife Council Core Path No Core Paths 746, 758, 759, 767, 769, 776, 696 & 700 all run Plan along or very close to the shoreline West Lothian Core Path No Core Path WL34 – The western section of this route needs Plan to be upgraded by improving the estate track through Wester Shore Wood. This will then be of an adequate standard to meet its status as a National Cycleway Clackmannanshire No CE13 - Black Devon Landfill. Environmental enhancement Council Local Plan 1st as part of restoration of Black Devon landfill. (Project alteration 2011 completed) West Lothian Local Plan No No elements appear to relate to the expansion of public 2009 assess routes along the shoreline or to the shoreline Dunfermline and West Yes No projects within this plan have been identified as having Fife Local Plan LSE in their own right or in combination due to increasing public access to the coast.
Potential ongoing disturbance to feeding and roosting SPA birds within the SPA or using areas outwith the SPA has been mitigated through a range of developer requirements specific to each site assessed. These include: • retention and protection of the coastal fringe • design measures to minimise disturbance (including light pollution) • a code of conduct for water based activities within Inverkeithing Bay
4.1.206 It is believed that other than the upgrading of the path through Wester Shore Wood proposed by the West Lothian Core Path Plan there are no core paths which will be subject to significant upgrading or where recreational use is expected to increase markedly as a consequence of the path’s designation as a core path.
4.1.207 The path through Wester Shore Wood forms part of the John Muir Trail and works to upgrade it have recently been completed and are likely to have gone through a process of project specific appropriate assessment. As such it is considered mitigation measures will have been included to ensure that the proposal would not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the Firth of Forth SPA either on its own or in combination with other plans and projects.
Projects
4.1.208 There are no known projects outside those which are provisions of the plans shown in table 46 above which relate to the expansion of public access routes either along the shoreline, or to the shoreline which would act in combination with the provisions of the Proposed Plan detailed in paragraph 4.1.177. Increased Recreational Disturbance Description of proposals 4.1.209 The Proposed Plan makes provision for an increase in population of around 8.8%. Based on these projections, some 13,630 new homes would be needed over the 20 year period 2014-2034. These will be focussed within 11 Strategic Growth Areas, including Bo’ness, Falkirk and Grangemouth, all locations with easy access to the coast. As noted earlier those proposals within 2 miles of the coast are most likely to act as a source of additional recreational pressure, with most visits originating within 5 miles. There are 17 housing proposals within 2 km of the Firth of Forth SPA (H01 – H06, H26, H32-35, H52-55 and M01 – M02). These make provision for the construction of 1904 houses. Qualifying interest features of the Firth of Forth SPA likely to be affected 4.1.210 Species along the coastal strip of Falkirk could be affected, particularly along the coastline between Blackness to Grangemouth and those species associated with the high tide and intertidal areas. The qualifying species recorded from these areas are included in Table 29. Implications of the proposals for qualifying interest features of the Firth of Forth SPA in light of its conservation objectives 4.1.211 The nature and scale of additional pressure on the coast is difficult to determine at this stage. As was highlighted above, numbers alone are not necessarily an indicator of the likelihood of disturbance of an individual bird, and effects on an individual bird may not lead to population effects. Nevertheless, it is possible to incorporate ways of mitigating potential disturbance effects arising from the Proposed Plan. Mitigation 4.1.212 One way of reducing recreational pressure at the coast is to provide suitable alternative natural greenspace which is attractive to users. This has been called “Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace” (SANG) in England. To be effective these areas need to be close to the areas where new development is planned e.g. within 5 miles of the boundary of the SPA. 4.1.213 The Proposed Plan includes policies that promote the creation and enhancement of open space alongside developments. For example: Policy INF04 Open Space and New Residential Development – requires that proposals for residential involving greater than 3 units should contribute to open space and play provision. Criteria for these areas of open space are also defined; Policy INF02 Developer Contributions to Community Infrastructure – enables Falkirk Council to require developers to contribute towards the provision, upgrading and maintenance of community infrastructure where development will create or exacerbate deficiencies in, or impose significantly increased burdens on, existing infrastructure. This includes ecological features. 4.1.214 Where new development is within 5 miles of the coast and hence would be likely to lead to additional recreational pressure on the Firth of Forth SPA green infrastructure provision should be prioritised towards the creation of new, or the improvement of existing, Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG), designed to divert potential users away from protected sites. 4.1.215 Policy GN01 of the Proposed Plan also includes numerous opportunities to increase access routes and recreational opportunities away from the coast.
Residual Effects
4.1.216 It is concluded that with the mitigation outlined above, the seventeen proposals outlined in paragraph 4.1.209 will not act in combination to have an adverse effect on the integrity of the Firth of Forth SPA through increasing recreational disturbance. There will however be minor residual effects due to recreational disturbance caused by these seventeen housing proposals.
In combination assessment with other plans or proposals not contained in the Proposed Plan Plans
4.1.217 Birds when they are displaced from one feeding area birds will move to adjacent areas. Therefore the potential for in combination effects due to disturbance from increased recreational access will be restricted to the provisions within plans which are directly adjacent to the Falkirk Council area. The table below shows the housing proposals within neighbouring plans which are within 2 miles of the Firth of Forth SPA and within 2 miles of the Falkirk Council area:
Table 47: Elements of other plans which could lead to increased recreational use of the coastline. Plan HRA Provisions causing a minor residual effect Record Available Stirling Council Proposed Yes Housing within Fallin (H77, 400 houses), Throsk Plan (H80 & H81, 80 houses) and Cowie (H74-76, 510 houses) – Total 990 houses
The HRA of the Stirling LDP didn’t appear to consider the effect on increased coastal recreation caused by its housing proposals.
The scale of growth within 2miles of the Firth of Forth SPA promoted within this plan is similar to that contained within the Dunfermline and West Fife Local Plan. Given that the HRA of the Dunfermline and West Fife Local Plan did not conclude that the scale of growth within 2miles of the Firth of Forth SPA within it would act in combination to have an adverse effect its integrity, it seems unlikely that these proposals would have acted in combination to have an adverse effect on its integrity either. It is, however, assumed that there will be minor residual effects from increased recreational use of the coast. Clackmannanshire Council No Housing proposals within Clackmannan, Alloa, Local Plan Tullibody, Sauchie & Menstrie – H1-H77 & H80- 88 - Total 2760 houses
West Lothian Local Plan No There are no housing proposals in West Lothian within 2miles of the Firth of Forth SPA Dunfermline and West Fife Yes Housing proposals within Kincardine (KCD001 – Local Plan 005: 686 houses) Culross (CUL001: 3 houses), High Valleyfield (HVF001 – 004: 101 houses) Cairneyhill (CNH001-002: 40 houses), Oakley (OAK001-003, 005 & 007: 249 houses) & Blairhall (BLA001 – 004: 99 houses) - Total 1178 houses
The HRA of the Dunfermline and West Fife Local Plan didn’t appear to consider the effect on increased coastal recreation caused by its housing proposals. As the plan has been adopted it can be concluded that SNH did not feel that the effect of increased coastal recreation from additional housing growth would act in combination to have an adverse effect on the integrity of the Firth of Forth SPA. It is, however, assumed that there will be minor residual effects
4.1.218 In combination with the Proposed Plan, there is the potential for a total of 6832 houses to be built within 2 miles of the coast of the Falkirk Council area. It is assumed that there will be a reasonable level of SANG within neighbouring Local Authority areas and that their plans will also contain opportunities to increase access routes and recreational opportunities away from the coast. It is extremely difficult to predict what level of additional population growth within 2 miles of the SPA will act in combination to create a level of recreational disturbance which is likely to have an adverse effect integrity of the SPA given the incremental rate at which the population growth will occur. It is suggested, however, that the scale of population growth promoted in these plans is minimal in comparison to the amount of people already living within 2 miles of the SPA boundary and that given the incremental rate at which the population growth will occur and the mitigation which is likely to be already built into these plans, birds will become slowly habituated to any increase in recreational disturbance as it occurs. Therefore it is concluded that these plans will not act in combination with the Proposed Plan to have an adverse effect on the integrity of the SPA.
Projects
4.1.219 There are no known projects outside those which are provisions of the plans shown in table 47 above which would increase the population within 2km of the SPA boundary in close proximity to the Falkirk Council area which would act in combination with the provisions of the Proposed Plan detailed in paragraph 4.1.209 Disturbance or other effects during the construction period
Description of proposals
4.1.220 A number of proposals involve some form of construction works adjacent to the coast. If any two of these proposals were implemented simultaneously, particularly during the winter months, they could result in significant cumulative effects, with the scale of possible effects increasing with the number of proposals being implemented at any one time. The proposals are: M01 Bo’ness Foreshore allows for mixed use development including restoration of the harbour at Bo’ness55; INF19 allows for an upgrade to the Bo’ness Waste Water Treatment Works at Carriden56; INF15 Airth Waste Water Treatment works allows for the upgrade of the sewage treatment works;57 INF17 Grangemouth Flood Defence Scheme allows for the upgrading of existing flood defence works58; ED15 Grangemouth Docks allows for the development of port-related industry, warehousing, storage, logistics, and renewable energy projects. This includes a plot adjacent to the River Carron Estuary; GN01 John Muir Trail will allow the formation of a coast to coast footpath that will be based on upgrades and extension of existing footpaths, including sections along the shore near Bo’ness; GN02 allows for landscape improvement works at Kinneil Kerse GN03 and GN04 allow for construction of footpaths, which potentially have sections near to the coast.59
Qualifying interest features of the Firth of Forth SPA likely to be affected
4.1.221 Qualifying bird species that use the shoreline at more than one WeBS recording unit between Blackness and Alloa could be affected (see Table 29).This is because adjacent areas of habitat used by that species could be affected at the same time, reducing the range of alternative habitat to be used.
Implications of the proposal for qualifying interest features of the Firth of Forth SPA in light of its conservation objectives
4.1.222 Each proposal, with mitigation, may give rise to minor residual effects in the form of some localised disturbance of qualifying species if construction works take place during the winter months. Whilst construction during the summer will be the preferred option, it is recognised that for large-scale schemes it may not be possible to accommodate all the works within a single summer season.
4.1.223 Birds, when they are displaced from one feeding area will move to adjacent areas. Research in the Firth of Forth has shown that disturbance (arising from construction of the Clackmannanshire Bridge) resulted in juvenile Redshank being displaced to lower quality feeding areas (assessed in terms of prey availability). If the carrying capacity of these less favoured areas is exceeded it may lead to birds being further displaced to even lower quality feeding areas and even death of some individuals. Such effects have been recorded from the Severn Estuary in Redshank that had been displaced from the mudflats of Cardiff Bay by the creation of the barrage. Around 300 birds were displaced to adjacent habitat. These were found to experience a decline in body mass and survival rates in the three-years that they were monitored following displacement60. The effects on individual fitness can have effects at the population level. Studies of Oystercatcher* populations in the Exe
55 Minor Residual Effect of proposal after mitigation described in paragraph 4.1.19 was applied. 56 Minor Residual Effect of proposal after mitigation described in paragraph 4.1.40 was applied. 57 Minor Residual Effect of proposal after mitigation described in paragraph 4.1.50 was applied. 58 Minor Residual Effect of proposal after mitigation described in paragraph 4.1.77 was applied. 59 Minor Residual Effect of opportunities after mitigation described in paragraphs 4.1.135 and 4.1.142 was applied. 60 Burton et al, 2006b Estuary concluded that disturbance could be more damaging than permanent habitat loss, once the time and energy costs arising from disturbance were assessed. However, preventing disturbance during late winter, when feeding conditions were harder, practically eliminated its predicted population consequences61.
4.1.224 Within the Forth, Redshank displaced from feeding areas near the Clackmannanshire Bridge was found to use areas near Bo’ness. Assessments of the availability of prey showed that fewer prey items were present at Bo’ness than at Skinflats. If several construction schemes are implemented simultaneously, each resulting in some disturbance, this is likely to displace birds to a few undisturbed sites, which may not be able to support the increased numbers of birds.
Mitigation
4.1.225 The likely timescale for the implementation of each policy/proposal is: GN01 John Muir Trail – short term proposal, construction complete by 2015 GN02 Kinneil Kerse – short term proposal, works due to begin in 2013 with completion by 2020 M01 Bo’ness Foreshore – unlikely to commence prior to 2024, but could be brought forward if market conditions improve; INF15 Airth Waste Water Treatment Works – development will be required once the recently consented expansion reaches capacity. Timing will depend on the pace of housing growth within Airth; INF19 Bo’ness Waste Water Treatment Works – not required until Bo’ness Foreshore scheme is substantially complete; INF17 Grangemouth Flood Defences – earliest date 2016. ED15 Grangemouth Docks – there is no date for implementation of the proposal, including production of the masterplan.
4.1.1226 Based on this indicative timescale it is unlikely that two proposals will be implemented at the same time. Each scheme is likely to require its own Appropriate Assessment. If two (or more) schemes are brought forward for implementation simultaneously, then there may be a need for each scheme to include mitigation additional to that which would be required if projects happened individually.
Residual Effects
4.1.227 If the mitigation is included then there will be negligible residual effects arising from construction disturbance of these proposals. The proposals will not act to have an adverse effect on the integrity of the SPA.
In combination assessment with other plans or proposals not contained in the Proposed Plan
Plans
4.1.228 Table 48 below shows the provisions within a suite of plans which could have a minor residual effect due to disturbance or other effects during construction.
Table 48: Elements of other plans which could lead to construction disturbance along the coastline Plan HRA Provisions causing a minor residual effect Record Available NPF2 Yes ND1 - Forth Replacement Crossing - As the scheme is located over 20 km away from the bridge, and the effects of the bridge are anticipated to be localised, there are unlikely to be in combination effects with the Proposed Plan.
61 West et al, 2002. ND5 - Grangemouth Freight Hub - HRA of the Falkirk Council Local Plan considered that with mitigation elements of this development could proceed without an adverse effect on the integrity of the FoF SPA. Grangemouth Docks (ED15) and Grangemouth Flood Defence Scheme (INF17) are elements of this National Development which are included within the Proposed Plan and are assessed earlier in the report
ND6 - Additional Container Freight Capacity on the Forth including: Rosyth International Container Terminal (RICT); development at the ports of Rosyth, Burntisland, Methil and Leith - Babcock has submitted an application for a Harbour Revision Order (HRO) to facilitate the development of an International Container Terminal at Port Babcock Rosyth. This site is located at some distance from the Falkirk area, and likely to be beyond the influence of any disturbance, therefore unlikely to be in combination effects with the Proposed Plan. Burntisland, Methil and Leith are located ever further from the Falkirk Council area.
ND7 – New non-nuclear baseload capacity at other existing power station sites including: Cockenzie Power Station; and Longannet Power Station - In October 2011, Scottish Ministers approved plans to replace the coal fired power station at Cockenzie in East Lothian with a new high efficiency 1,000 MW Combined Cycle Gas Turbine power station. This site is located at some distance from the Falkirk area, and likely to be beyond the influence of any disturbance, therefore unlikely to be in combination effects with the Proposed Plan.
In March 2010, Scottish Ministers granted consent for a development to extend the life of Longannet power station to 2030. It is understood that these works are now complete.
National Renewable Yes NRIP Phase 1 – Leith (Dredging, Piling and Building Infrastructure Plan Construction) & Energy Park Fife ( Piling, Land Reclamation and Building Construction) - Leith - No application for development has been received and no project level appropriate assessment is available. Energy Park Fife - A masterplan is being developed, but is not yet in the public domain. No application for development has been received and no project level appropriate assessment is available. Both of these sites are located at some distance from the Falkirk area, and likely to be beyond the influence of any disturbance, therefore unlikely to be in combination effects with the Proposed Plan.
NRIP Phase 2 – Burntisland (Piling and Building Construction), Rosyth (Piling and Building Construction) & Grangemouth (Dredging, Piling and Building Construction) - No applications for development have been received and no project level appropriate assessments are available. The Burntisland and Rosyth sites are located at some distance from the Falkirk area, and likely to be beyond the influence of any disturbance, therefore unlikely to be in combination effects with the Proposed Plan. The Grangemouth site is likely to be located within proposal ED15 of the Proposed Plan so the effects of disturbance have been considered previously within this report. Stirling Local Yes No provisions are reported as having a minor residual effect Development Plan through disturbance or other effects during the construction period Stirling Council Local No Plan 2nd alteration 2006 Clackmannanshire No CE13 - Black Devon Landfill. Environmental enhancement Council Local Plan 1st as part of restoration of Black Devon landfill. (Project alteration 2011 completed) West Lothian Local Plan No There are no proposals for development at or near to the 2009 Coast contained within this plan Rural West Edinburgh No62 HSG 6 - Port Edgar – Residential part of mixed use scheme Local Plan HSG 7 - Society Road, South Queensferry - undetermined capacity. ECON10 - Port Edgar – Business and Marina part of mixed use scheme
All of these developments involve construction work adjacent to the coast, however, South Queensferry is located over 5.5km from the Falkirk Council boundary and likely to be beyond the influence of any disturbance, therefore unlikely to be in combination effects with the Proposed Plan. Edinburgh City Local No WAC1 – Leith Waterfront Plan WAC2 – Granton Waterfront BUS3 – Leith Eastern Industrial Area
All of these developments involve construction work adjacent to the coast they are located at some distance from the Falkirk area, and likely to be beyond the influence of any disturbance, therefore unlikely to be in combination effects with the Proposed Plan. East Lothian Local Plan No East Lothian is too distantly located from the Falkirk Council 2008 area for projects contained within the East Lothian Local Plan to have an in combination effect due to disturbance or other effects during construction with the Proposed Plan. Dunfermline and West Yes HRA concludes that potential disturbance of birds within the Fife Local Plan SPA and on/along sea walls and boundary grasslands has been mitigated through the programming of construction where applicable. St Andrews and East Yes HRA concludes that there will be no disturbance to SPA Fife Local Plan birds within the SPA or of areas used by significant numbers of SPA birds during construction. Mid Fife Local Plan Yes HRA concludes that potential disturbance to the intertidal area has been mitigated against through the programming of construction. All works will be restricted to avoid the winter period (September – March) when there is potential for SPA birds to use the intertidal area. No minor residual effects predicted West Lothian Core Path Core Path WL34 – The western section of this route needs Plan to be upgraded by improving the estate track through Wester Shore Wood. This will then be of an adequate standard to meet its status as a National Cycleway – Project complete
4.1.229 As outlined in paragraph 4.1.223, when they are displaced from one feeding area, birds will move to adjacent areas. Therefore the potential for in combination effects due to disturbance or other effects during construction will be restricted to projects in areas adjacent to the Falkirk Council area.
62 Analysis undertaken to inform the Appropriate Assessment of the Forth Replacement Crossing identified sites likely to lead to loss of habitats which could be used by SPA species None of the provisions in the plans in the table above are considered to have any potential to act in combination with the Proposed Plan.
Projects
4.1.230 The following projects outside those included within the suite of development plans analysed in table 48 above were identified which would involve construction work adjacent to the coast which could involve disturbance or other effects during the construction period:
Table 49: Other projects which could lead to construction disturbance along the coastline Project Status Comments Grangemouth d) projects that This site is within proposal ED15 of the Proposed Plan so Biomass Plant are subject to the effects of disturbance have been considered outstanding previously within this report. appeal procedures; Rosyth d) projects that This site is located at some distance from the Falkirk Biomass Plant are subject to area, and likely to be beyond the influence of any outstanding disturbance, therefore unlikely to be in combination appeal effects with the Proposed Plan. procedures; Woodwaste c) project that 87m to tip wind turbine adjacent to Bo’ness Waste Water wind turbine is subject to Treatment Works application for planning consent;
4.1.231 In December 2012 an application for a single wind turbine (no greater than 87m to tip) and ancillary infrastructure was submitted for a location in Bo’ness on the edge of Carriden Bay, close to the Bo’ness Waste Water Treatment Works. The application was accompanied by an environmental report, but did not include either an EIA or HRA of the proposals. Given the nature of the development and its proximity to the coastline, in an area that is particularly important for Redshank, it has been considered, for the purposes of this assessment, that the scheme may give rise to Likely Significant Effects in its own right, and hence an Appropriate Assessment may be required. If this is the case, then a full assessment of the implications of that scheme will be undertaken as a separate exercise by the competent Authority, who is currently awaiting advice from SNH. If, however, the scheme is not considered to require an AA in its own right, then it would need to be considered for “in combination” effects with the Falkirk LDP, particularly in relation to effects of disturbance on qualifying species arising from construction of projects at the coastline. At this stage, a watching brief will be maintained and this Assessment will be updated as necessary.
4.2 Slamannan Plateau SPA
Appropriate Assessment of Proposals with LSE alone
H70 – Hillend Farm
Description of proposal
4.2.1 A 22.7 hectare site is proposed for housing development at Hillend Farm Slamannan as part of the Slamannan Strategic Growth Area.
Qualifying Interest features of the Slamannan Plateau SPA likely to be affected
4.2.2 This site was identified as having potential to impact upon the Slamannan Plateau SPA. The Slamannan Plateau SPA supports a nationally important population of the Taiga bean goose (Anser fabalis fabalis) accounting for 100% of the Scottish population and 52% of the UK population. Local surveys have revealed that the fields adjacent to those covered by proposal H70 have been frequented by bean geese in previous years.
Implications of the proposal for qualifying interest features of the Slamannan Plateau SPA in light of its conservation objectives
Disturbance
4.2.3 From previous analyses of the distribution data, a number of factors have been highlighted as being indicative of field selection by bean geese on the Slamannan Plateau (Smith et al. 1995; Spadavecchia 2004). The main factors are: distance from roads and buildings: the average distance from the centre of a field used by bean geese to either a road or a building is significantly further than the average distance to a building or road from a field not used by bean geese; vegetation cover: bean geese show a preference for improved grassland and stubble fields; and, field exposure: bean geese prefer less enclosed fields, particularly fields that are not enclosed by woodland.
4.2.4 The most important factor with regard to the proposed Hillend Farm Development site is the distance between buildings and fields that bean geese will use for foraging. In research by Smith et al. (1995) the mean distance between the centre of fields used by bean geese and the nearest building was found to be 350m. The mean distance between the centre of suitable fields not used by bean geese and the nearest building was 250m. The minimum distance between fields and buildings is therefore likely to be between approximately 250m and 350m. As a precautionary scenario, 350m has been used as the maximum distance from buildings that bean geese may avoid for foraging purposes. Fields which have their centroid within 350m of the site are: 246,250,251,252,253,254,256,257,259,321 & 322.
4.2.5 Disturbance may also occur through day-to-day use of the houses within the Hillend Farm development site once the housing development becomes occupied. The Slamannan Plateau Special Study (RPS 2010) identified that an average 8m high, 2-storey house (the standard type predicted to be constructed as part of the Hillend Farm Development Site) could be seen by a 0.5m-tall goose within 2km of the proposed site. Fields which have their centroid within 2km of the site are: 86, 91, 99-101, 117-147, 150, 166, 219-222, 226-243, 245-268, 270 – 280, 282-285, 288, 289, 308-313, 315- 319, 321 & 322
4.2.6 Using the desk study data from the Bean Goose Action Group (BGAG), Table 50 presents the relationship between:
the annual maximum count of Taiga bean geese for the wintering period 1997 to 2013; the total number of goose days observed on the Slamannan Plateau; the number of goose days recorded on fields with their centroid within 350m and 2km of the Hillend Farm development site; and the percentage of total bean goose days recorded on fields with their centroid within 350m and 2km of the Hillend Farm development site.
4.2.7 These data show substantial overall increases in the annual maximum count (from 127 in 1996/97 to 300 in 2007/08 falling back to 226 in 2012/2013) reflecting the reported growth of the Taiga bean goose population on the Slamannan Plateau.
Table 50: Bean Goose Usage of fields at Hillend Farm Year Total Bean Observed Observed Total Percentage Percentage Goose usage within usage within observed of total of total Population 350m of 2km of usage observed observed Development Development usage within usage within site site 350m of 2km of Development Development site site 96/97 127 1289 2587 7288 17.69% 35.50% 97/98 153 592 3618 8249 7.18% 43.86% 98/99 168 3020 3705 8899 33.94% 41.63% 99/00 188 952 1165 7558 12.60% 15.41% 00/01 183 2182 2420 14180 15.39% 17.07% 01/02 192 168 253 13086 1.28% 1.93% 02/03 231 236 240 21755 1.08% 1.10% 03/04 235 59 108 18986 0.31% 0.57% 04/05 262 4 23 16456 0.02% 0.14% 05/06 300 9 44 23497 0.04% 0.19% 06/07 255 439 1152 12012 3.65% 9.59% 07/08 300 0 0 17137 0% 0% 08/09 265 87 415 13872 0.63% 2.99% 09/10 260 108 795 7886 1.37% 10.08% 10/11 267 59 1253 10903 0.54% 11.49% 11/12 238 1812 5024 11137 16.27% 45.11% 12/13 233 199 2105 5541 3.59% 37.99%
4.2.8 The percentage of the total number of goose days on the Slamannan Plateau spent within 350m of the Hillend Farm development site declines from a peak of 33.94% in 1998/99 to 0% in 2007/08. It has been reported63 that the main reason for the substantial decline in use and relative importance of Hillend Farm for Taiga bean geese is due to changing agricultural practices, with a change from dairy farming and cessation of associated improvement of grassland in 2000/01. As the total bean goose population was also at its highest in 2007/08 it could have been concluded that the fields adjacent to the proposed development area did not support critical foraging or roosting habitat for Taiga bean geese.
4.2.7 It is worth noting, however, that the percentage of total bean goose days on the Slamannan Plateau spent within 350m of the Hillend Farm development site dramatically increased to 16.27% in 2011/12 from 0.54% the previous winter. Although this relatively high level of use did not continue into 2012/13 it does place doubt over any conclusion that the fields within 350m of the Hillend Farm development site are not important feeding habitat which if permanently disturbed by development would not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the SPA.
4.2.8 Bean geese have not been recorded as roosting in fields which have their centroid within 350m of the Hillend Farm Development site since the winter of 1998/99 and the roost is considered to be defunct. From the BGAG desk study data (post-2000) there were no Taiga bean geese roost sites recorded within 1 km of the development boundary, and the nearest recorded roost is at East Fannyside Loch, approximately 3.75km to the west of the proposed development. Therefore, it is not
63 Heritage Environmental Bean Goose Special Study considered that roost disturbance as a result of the development represents a potential adverse effect. Development at Hillend Farm will not therefore cause the disturbance of roosting Bean Geese.
4.2.9 The percentage of the total number of goose days on the Slamannan Plateau spent within the potential zone of disturbance (within 2km) from the Hillend Farm development site declines from a peak of 43.86% in 1997/98 to 0% in 2007/08 with the figure remaining below 2% between 2001/02 and 2007/08 (excluding 2006/07). Recent bean goose activity within the zone of potential disturbance from the Hillend Farm development site has increased dramatically in recent years maintaining levels above 10% for the last 4 seasons and levels above 35% for the last two seasons.
4.2.10 The impact of increasing the potential zone of disturbance is, however, considered likely to be minimal. It is worth noting that only three more fields (86, 91 & 313A) will come within the potential zone of disturbance as a result of new development than those which are currently within the potential zone of disturbance from Slamannan village and neither of these fields have ever been recorded to be used by Bean Geese. If being within the zone of potential disturbance was an important factor influencing bean goose behaviour then one would have expected much lower levels of bean goose activity within 2km of Slamannan over the period covered by the BGAG data.
4.2.11 When considering potential effects of construction disturbance on foraging Taiga bean geese the critical factor is timing of the works; if construction activities are completed within a likely disturbance distance during their wintering occupancy period (i.e. October to March inclusive) displacement of feeding geese (if present) would occur and potentially represent an adverse effect. However, the magnitude of the effect of such disturbance would depend on the numbers of geese affected and if alternative feeding habitat is present on the Slamannan Plateau. Given the relatively high historic use of the fields in close proximity to the Hillend Farm site (by foraging Taiga bean geese) likely to be affected by construction disturbance, it is considered that this could cause an adverse effect on the integrity of the Slamannan Plateau SPA.
Effect on overall Bean Goose Population
4.2.10 Desk study and surveys completed for this Special Study have confirmed that the use of the proposed development site and surrounding area by Taiga bean geese has been subject to a significant decrease since 2000/01. From the BGAG desk study data (post-2000) and results of surveys completed as part of this Special Study, there were no Taiga bean geese roost sites recorded within 1 km of the development boundary, and the nearest recorded roost is at East Fannyside Loch, approximately 3.75km to the west of the proposed development. Therefore, it is not considered that roost loss or disturbance (which could affect population viability) as a result of the development represents a potential adverse effect.
4.2.11 The proposed development area does not support critical foraging habitat for Taiga bean geese. Therefore, it is not considered that loss of foraging habitat would represent an adverse impact on the integrity of the SPA.
Species Distribution
4.2.12 Consideration has been given to any potential effects that could adversely affect the long- term maintenance of the distribution of Taiga bean geese within the Slamannan Plateau SPA site. No direct or indirect impacts would result in adverse effects to the proposed designated site, given that the proposed Hillend Farm development is approximately 2.5km outwith the boundary of the SPA.
4.2.13 Therefore, it has been shown that the proposed Hillend Farm development would not significantly affect the maintenance (in the long-term) of the distribution of Taiga bean geese within the Slamannan Plateau SPA, thus ensuring that the integrity of the SPA is maintained.
Distribution and extent of habitat
4.2.14 The Hillend Farm development site does not support critical habitats for either roosting and/or foraging geese.
4.2.15 Therefore, it has been shown that for the qualifying species (Taiga bean geese) that the distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species are maintained in the long-term, thus ensuring that the integrity of the Slamannan Plateau SPA is maintained.
Structure, Function and Supporting Processes of Habitat
4.2.16 There is the potential for the function of supporting habitats to be affected as a result of the construction and operation of the proposed development project outwith the SPA.
4.2.17 Roosting and foraging habitat within the SPA would not be directly affected by the proposed development.
4.2.18 There is potential, however, for the proposed development to affect the function of feeding or roosting habitat (or commuting routes to and from these) outwith the SPA through displacement or barrier effects. Without mitigation it is considered that the Hillend Farm development site would have an adverse effect on the integrity of the SPA.
Mitigation
4.2.19 It is clear that the proposed activities do have the potential to have a significant effect upon the qualifying interest features of the Slamannan Plateau SPA, but that there are ways in which these effects can be mitigated.
4.2.20 To ensure that effects upon the integrity of the SPA are avoided through the implementation of this policy, the following mitigation is proposed:
1. A site-specific Appropriate Assessment will be required of any proposals that are brought forward for the implementation of this policy.
2. This Appropriate Assessment is likely to require a consideration of (but not necessarily be limited to) a consideration of the following issues: Ways of reducing the effects of noise on bird populations during construction (e.g. by timing works to avoid periods when bird populations are present; minimising/avoiding use of lighting); Construction methods that avoid effects upon the qualifying interest features. This is likely to include construction statements, and consideration of timing of works in relation to the qualifying interest features; The need to manage the fields to the north of the proposed development site for the potential benefit of wintering Taiga bean geese, with the provision of a Management Plan to ensure maximum environmental benefit; The need to introduce measures to restrict the use by the general public (and their dogs) of the fields to the north of the proposed development to prevent recreational disturbance of bean geese; The need to provide an appropriate width of woodland screening between the northern edge of development and the fields used by Bean Geese to the north;
Changes to the Proposed Plan
4.2.21 These requirements are incorporated into the Site Schedule for the proposal through the following text: “Proposals must be accompanied by a masterplan and project-specific Appropriate Assessment demonstrating that there will be no adverse effects on the integrity of the Slamannan Plateau SPA either alone or in combination with other plans or projects. The Appropriate Assessment should consider mitigation of disturbance during construction.” Residual Effects
4.2.22 As this mitigation has been included in the Proposed Plan, it is concluded that there will be minor residual effects arising from: recreational disturbance; disturbance during construction (depending on the timing of works); and disturbance from increases in vehicular traffic. These effects in combination with other similar effects will be considered further in paragraphs: 4.2.72 - 4.2.87; 4.2.88 - 4.2.113 and 4.2.114 - 4.2.127 of this report.
GN19 – Mid Braes Habitat Connectivity
Description of proposal
4.2.23 This green network opportunity to create new bog and wetland habitat to improve habitat connectivity between existing significant bog and wetland habitats in the Mid Braes. Opportunities may extend to peatland restoration schemes in areas such as Gardrum Moss, Darnrigg Moss and Drumbroidier Moss.
Qualifying Interest features of the Slamannan Plateau SPA likely to be affected
4.2.24 This site was identified as having potential to impact upon the Slamannan Plateau SPA. The Slamannan Plateau SPA supports a nationally important population of the Taiga bean goose (Anser fabalis fabalis) accounting for 100% of the Scottish population and 52% of the UK population. Surveys undertaken by the BGAG have revealed that the fields covering the Gardrum Moss, Darnrigg Moss and Drumbroidier Moss areas have been used in the past by Bean Geese.
Implications of the proposal for qualifying interest features of the Slamannan Plateau SPA in light of its conservation objectives
Disturbance
4.2.25 Disturbance could theoretically take place at Darnrigg Moss and Gardrum Moss during habitat enhancement activities. Drumbroidier Moss is outside of the Bean Goose Study area so it is considered that any likely disturbance from habitat enhancement opportunities there would be negligible. The suggested fly up distance for human activity in the Bean Goose Special Study was identified as 400m. Therefore for each of the separate habitat enhancement opportunity data for bean goose usage has been identified both within the site and within 400m of the site.
Darnrigg Moss
4.2.26 Habitat enhancement/ creation could take place at Darnrigg Moss within the boundary of the designated Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) comprising field 117. Fields within 400m of Field 117 are: 106-110, 115-119, 124, 146-149, 154-156, 163-167.
Table 51: Bean Goose usage of fields at Darnrigg Moss
Year Total Bean Observed Observed Total Percentage Percentage Goose usage at usage within observed of total of total Population Darnrigg 400m of field usage observed observed Moss (Field 117 usage at usage within 117) Darnrigg 500m of filed Moss 117 96/97 127 0 0 7288 0% 0% 97/98 153 0 0 8249 0% 0% 98/99 168 0 0 8899 0% 0% 99/00 188 0 0 7558 0% 0% 00/01 183 0 0 14180 0% 0% 01/02 192 0 0 13086 0% 0% 02/03 231 0 0 21755 0% 0% 03/04 235 0 0 18986 0% 0% 04/05 262 0 0 16456 0% 0% 05/06 300 0 0 23497 0% 0% 06/07 255 0 8 12012 0% 0.07% 07/08 300 0 71 17137 0% 0.41% 08/09 265 0 8 13872 0% 0.06% 09/10 260 0 0 7886 0% 0% 10/11 267 0 0 10903 0% 0% 11/12 238 140 660 11137 1.26% 5.93% 12/13 233 51 604 5541 0.92% 10.90%
4.2.27 The data in table 51 above shows that Bean Goose usage of Darnigg Moss and the surrounding area was negligible until the 2011/12 season where usage within 400m of Darnrigg Moss accounted for 5.93% of the total observed Bean Goose usage across the Slamannan Plateau. This figure increased to 10.9% of the total observed Bean Goose usage across the Slamannan Plateau in the 2012/13 season.
4.2.28 Bean Geese were noted as roosting at Darnrigg Moss (field 117) in both the 2011/12 and 2012/13 seasons. The probable reason for this, noted in the BGAG monitoring report of 2011/12 that bean geese had been recorded feeding in nearby fields (field 166) and rather than flying to roost at Fannyside had merely gone to the nearest area suitable for roosting.
4.2.29 Given the availability of alternative feeding, loafing and roosting areas within the Slamannan Plateau and the sporadic historic use of the area surrounding Darnrigg Moss by Bean Geese, it seems unlikely that the level of disturbance caused by peatland restoration/habitat enhancement works would cause an adverse effect on the integrity of the SPA.
Gardrum Moss
4.2.30 abitat enhancement/ creation could take place at Gardrum Moss in the fields surrounding Loch Elrigg (178, 180, 402, 167, 160). Fields within 400m these fields are: 148,149,151-162, 167, 178, 180-193, 195-197,199, 200, 217, 223-225 & 402
Table 52: Bean Goose usage of fields at Gardrum Moss
Year Total Bean Observed Observed Total Percentage Percentage Goose usage at usage within observed of total of total Population Gardrum 400m of usage observed observed Moss Gardrum usage at usage within Moss Gardrum 400m of Moss Gardrum Moss 96/97 127 6 6 7288 0.08% 0.08% 97/98 153 6 6 8249 0.07% 0.07% 98/99 168 247 247 8899 2.78% 2.78% 99/00 188 150 150 7558 1.98% 1.98% 00/01 183 57 57 14180 0.40% 0.40% 01/02 192 12 12 13086 0.09% 0.09% 02/03 231 0 0 21755 0% 0% 03/04 235 0 0 18986 0% 0% 04/05 262 0 0 16456 0% 0% 05/06 300 0 0 23497 0% 0% 06/07 255 0 0 12012 0% 0% 07/08 300 0 0 17137 0% 0% 08/09 265 0 165 13872 1.19% 1.19% 09/10 260 0 0 7886 0% 0% 10/11 267 0 0 10903 0% 0% 11/12 238 0 0 11137 0% 0% 12/13 233 0 0 5541 0% 0%
4.2.31 The data in table 52 above shows that Bean Goose usage of Gardrum Moss and the surrounding area has been almost non existent since the 2001/02 season. In the five years preceding the 2001/02 season usage peaked at 2.78% of the total observed Bean Goose usage across the Slamannan Plateau in the 1998/99 season.
4.2.32 Given that the levels of Bean Goose usage of the areas surrounding Gardrum Moss are minimal it is considered that any disturbance caused by by peatland restoration/habitat enhancement works at Gardrum Moss would not have a significant effect on bean geese using the Slamannan Plateau SPA.
Effect on overall Bean Goose Population – Darnrigg Moss
4.2.33 As noted in paragraph 4.2.28 above Darnrigg Moss (field 117) has been used as a roosting site in recent years. The roost site was noted as being an area of open water north of field 165. It is unlikely that any peatland restoration/habitat enhancement works would damage the roost site or make it any less suitable for roosting purposes. Disturbance of roosting birds could occur during habitat enhancment/peatland restoration however given the availability of alternative roosts at Fannyside Locahs and Fannyside Muir it is not considered that works would have an adverse effect on overall bean goose population.
Effect on overall Bean Goose Population – Gardrum Moss
4.2.34 Given that the levels of Bean Goose usage of the areas surrounding Gardrum Moss are minimal it is considered that any disturbance/ habitat loss caused by peatland restoration/habitat enhancement works at Gardrum Moss would not have an adverse effect on the overall Bean Goose Popualtion.
Species Distribution
4.2.35 No direct or indirect impacts would result in adverse effects to the proposed designated site, given that the proposed Darnrigg Moss and Gardrum Moss are approximately 2km and 5km respectively outwith the boundary of the SPA.
4.2.36 Therefore, it has been shown that the proposed peatland restoration/habitat enhancement works at Darnrigg Moss and Gardrum Moss would not significantly affect the maintenance (in the long-term) of the distribution of Taiga bean geese within the Slamannan Plateau SPA, thus ensuring that the integrity of the SPA is maintained.
Distribution and extent of habitat – Darnrigg Moss
4.2.37 Although Darnrigg Moss and the surrounding area has been used by notable numbers of bean geese in the last two seasons for both roosting and foraging, given the availability of alternative feeding, loafing and roosting areas within the Slamannan Plateau and the sporadic historic use of the area surrounding Darnrigg Moss by Bean Geese, it seems unlikely that impact on the distribution and extent of habitat caused by peatland restoration/habitat enhancement works would cause an adverse effect on the integrity of the SPA.
Distribution and extent of habitat – Gardrum Moss
4.2.38 Gardrum Moss does not support critical habitats for either roosting and/or foraging geese, therefore, it has been shown that for the qualifying species (Taiga bean geese) that the distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species are maintained in the long-term, thus ensuring that the integrity of the Slamannan Plateau SPA is maintained.
Structure, Function and Supporting Processes of Habitat
4.2.39 There is no potential for the function of supporting habitats to be affected as a result of peatland restoration/ habitat enhancement at Darnrigg Moss or Gardrum Moss after initial period of works is complete given that the works are likely to improve the value of the habitat to Bean Geese.
Mitigation
4.2.40 Although it is not considered that peatland restoration/habitat enhancement works at Darnrigg or Gardrum Moss would have an adverse effect on the integrity of the Slamannan Plateau SPA, the following mitigation is proposed to limit impact on Bean Geese:
1. A site-specific Appropriate Assessment will be required of any proposals that are brought forward at Darnrigg Moss or Gardrum Moss.
2. This Appropriate Assessment is likely to require consideration of (but not necessarily limited to) a consideration of the following issues: Ways of reducing the effects of disturbance on bird populations during peatland restoration/ habitat enhancement works (e.g. by timing works to avoid periods when bird populations are present; minimising/avoiding use of lighting); Ways of ensuring that peatland restoration/ habitat enhancement works does not reduce the value of the existing habitat to Bean Geese
Changes to the Proposed Plan
4.2.41 These requirements are incorporated into the Site Schedule for the proposal through the following text: “Proposals must be accompanied by a project-specific Appropriate Assessment demonstrating that there will be no adverse effects on the integrity of the Slamannan Plateau SPA either alone or in combination with other plans or projects.”
Residual Effects
4.2.42 As this mitigation has been included in the Proposed Plan, it is concluded that could be minor residual effects arising from disturbance peatland restoration/ habitat enhancement works (depending on the timing of works). These effects in combination with other similar effects will be considered further in paragraphs 4.2.88 - 4.2.113 of this report.
GN21 - Upper Braes Peatland Restoration
Description of proposal
4.2.43 This green network opportunity is for the restoration/enhancement of peatland habitat at Garbethill, Fannyside and Wester Arnloss.
Qualifying Interest features of the Slamannan Plateau SPA likely to be affected
4.2.44 This site was identified as having potential to impact upon the Slamannan Plateau SPA. The Slamannan Plateau SPA supports a nationally important population of the Taiga bean goose (Anser fabalis fabalis) accounting for 100% of the Scottish population and 52% of the UK population. Surveys undertaken by the BGAG have revealed that the fields covering the Gardrum Moss, Darnrigg Moss and Drumbroidier Moss areas have been used in the past by Bean Geese.
Implications of the proposal for qualifying interest features of the Slamannan Plateau SPA in light of its conservation objectives
Disturbance
4.2.45 Disturbance could theoretically take place at Garbethill and Fannyside during peatland enhancement/ restoration activities. Wester Arnloss is outside of the Bean Goose Study area so it is considered that any likely disturbance from habitat enhancement opportunities there would be negligible. The suggested fly up distance for human activity in the Bean Goose Special Study was identified as 400m. Therefore for each of the separate habitat enhancement opportunity data for bean goose usage has been identified both within the site and within 400m of the site.
Fannyside
4.2.46 Peatland enhancement/ restoration could take place at Fannyside near Grangeneuk and Easter Greenrigg Farms (fields 37, 41, 82, 287, 287A, 290, 290A, 291,292,293,294,294A & 295). Fields within 400m of these fields at Fannyside are: 14, 19, 22-25, 27-29, 31-38, 40,41, 43-45, 79, 81- 87, 89, 266, 283-285, 287, 287A, 288-290, 290A, 291-294, 294A & 295. Year Total Bean Observed Observed Total Percentage Percentage Goose usage at usage within observed of total of total Population Fannyside 400m of usage observed observed Fannyside usage at usage within Fannyside 400m of Fannyside 96/97 127 453 1915 7288 6.22% 26.28% 97/98 153 1 1667 8249 0.01% 20.21% 98/99 168 0 814 8899 0% 9.15% 99/00 188 152 1371 7558 2.01% 18.14% 00/01 183 76 1368 14180 0.54% 9.65% 01/02 192 0 115 13086 0% 0.88% 02/03 231 133 213 21755 0.61% 0.98% 03/04 235 0 252 18986 0% 1.33% 04/05 262 200 396 16456 1.22% 2.41% 05/06 300 110 706 23497 0.47% 3.00% 06/07 255 0 979 12012 0% 8.15% 07/08 300 8 1403 17137 0.05% 8.19% 08/09 265 181 4189 13872 1.30% 30.20% 09/10 260 200 1170 7886 2.54% 14.84% 10/11 267 34 3558 10903 0.31% 32.63% 11/12 238 566 1007 11137 5.08% 9.04% 12/13 233 0 548 5541 0% 9.89%
Table 53: Bean Goose usage of fields at Fannyside
4.2.47 Although observed bean goose usage at Fannyside as a proportion of total observed bean goose usage across the Slamannan Plateau has never exceeded 6.22% in any one season with an average usage of 1.2% per season, Bean Goose usage within 400m of Fannyside is much more significant (12.06% average per season with a peak of 32.63% in 2010/11). There is therefore potential for peatland enhancement/restoration at Fannyside to cause significant disturbance to Bean Geese.
Garbethill
4.2.48 Peatland enhancement/ restoration could take place at Garbethill (fields 48,60,93,170 -173 & 323-326). Fields within 400m of these fields at Garbethill are: 38, 40, 41, 43-45, 47-58, 60-75, 79-87, 89-93, 95, 97-104, 112, 170-173, 279, 285, 287A, 291 & 323-327
Table 54: Bean Goose usage of fields at Garbethill
Year Total Bean Observed Observed Total Percentage Percentage Goose usage at usage within observed of total of total Population Garbethill 400m of usage observed observed Garbethill usage at usage within Garbethill 400m of Garbethill 96/97 127 1883 3426 7288 25.84% 47.01% 97/98 153 2117 5458 8249 25.66% 66.17% 98/99 168 3444 4396 8899 38.70% 49.40% 99/00 188 3091 4310 7558 40.90% 57.03% 00/01 183 3876 5241 14180 27.33% 36.96% 01/02 192 5424 5424 13086 41.45% 41.45% 02/03 231 8705 8999 21755 40.01% 41.37% 03/04 235 3093 3098 18986 16.29% 16.32% 04/05 262 2311 2358 16456 14.04% 14.33% 05/06 300 3422 4839 23497 14.56% 20.59% 06/07 255 1097 1625 12012 9.13% 13.53% 07/08 300 448 766 17137 2.61% 4.47% 08/09 265 0 69 13872 0% 0.50% 09/10 260 143 488 7886 1.81% 6.19% 10/11 267 62 4732 10903 0.57% 43.40% 11/12 238 0 1137 11137 0 10.21% 12/13 233 40 588 5541 0.72% 10.61%
4.2.49 Observed bean goose usage at Garbethill as a proportion of total observed bean goose usage across the Slamannan Plateau peaked at 41.45% in the 2001/02 season but has since reduced to much lower levels (not exceeding 3% since the 2006/07 season). Average usage at Garbethill is much higher however at 12.06% per season due to high levels of observed usage prior to 2007/08. Bean Goose usage within 400m of Garbethill is even more significant (17.63% average per season with a peak of 57.03% in 1999/2000). There is therefore potential for peatland enhancement/restoration at Garbethill to cause significant disturbance to Bean Geese.
Effect on overall Bean Goose Population – Fannyside
4.2.50 Although the area within 400m of Fannyside has historically been used by Bean Geese for a significant proportion of their time on the Slamannan Plateau, disturbance caused by peatland restoration/enhancement works is not considered as likely to have a significant effect on the overall Bean Goose Population. Firstly, disturbance at Fannyside is unlikely to disrupt roosting sites at East Fannyside Loch (Field 401), West Fannyside Loch (Field 400), Fannyside Muir (Field 77) or Darnrigg Moss (Field 117) which are all over 400m from the potential peatland restoration/enhancement works. Secondly, although in certain years Bean Geese have spent a high proportion of their time on the plateau within 400m of Fannyside, in other years 2002/03 – 2005/06 they have spent a much lower proportion of their time within 400m of Fannyside without a corresponding drop in overall population.
Effect on overall Bean Goose Population – Garbethill
4.2.51 The area within 400m of Garbethill has historically been used by Bean Geese for a significant proportion of their time on the Slamannan Plateau. The proportion of use has only dropped below 10% of the entire time spent on the Slamannan Plateau in 3 of the 17 seasons for which records exist 2007/08 – 2009/10. It is therefore considered that disturbance caused by potential peatland restoration/enhancement works could have an adverse effect on the overall Bean Goose population.
Species Distribution
4.2.52 Fannyside is directly adjacent to the boundary of the SPA and Garbethill comprises fields which form part of the SPA. Works at Fannyside have the potential to indirectly impact on the SPA and works at Garbethill have the potential to directly and indirectly impact on the SPA and have an adverse effect on species distibution.
Distribution and extent of habitat – Fannyside
4.2.53 Observed bean goose usage at Fannyside as a proportion of total observed bean goose usage across the Slamannan Plateau has never exceeded 6.22% in any one season with an average usage of 1.2% per season. Any loss of habitat caused by peatland restoration/enhancement works at Fannyside is unlikely to significantly effect the distribution and extent of habitats supporting Bean Geese across the Slamannan Plateau.
Distribution and extent of habitat – Garbethill
4.2.54 Although observed bean goose usage at Garbethill as a proportion of total observed bean goose usage across the Slamannan Plateau has not exceeded 3% since the 2006/07 season levels of usage prior to 2007/08 were much higher and suggest that the area comprises high quality feeding and loafing habitat the loss of which would significantly effect the distribution and extent of habitats supporting Bean Geese across the Slamannan Plateau.
Structure, Function and Supporting Processes of Habitat
4.2.55 There is no potential for the function of supporting habitats to be affected as a result of peatland restoration/ habitat enhancement at Fannyside or Garbethill after initial period of works is complete given that the works are likely to improve the value of the habitat to Bean Geese.
Mitigation
4.2.56 Without mitigation it is considered that peatland restoration/enhancement works at Fannyside and Garbethill would have an adverse effect on the integrity of the Slamannan Plateau SPA. However, the following mitigation is proposed to limit impact on Bean Geese to a level where the proposed works will not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the SPA:
1. A site-specific Appropriate Assessment will be required of any proposals that are brought forward at Fannyside or Garbethill.
2. This Appropriate Assessment is likely to require consideration of (but not necessarily limited to) a consideration of the following issues: Ways of reducing the effects of disturbance on bird populations during peatland restoration/enhancement works (e.g. by timing works to avoid periods when bird populations are present; minimising/avoiding use of lighting); Ways of ensuring that peatland restoration/ habitat enhancement works does not reduce the value of the existing habitat to Bean Geese.
Changes to the Proposed Plan
4.2.57 These requirements are incorporated into the Site Schedule for the proposal through the following text: “Proposals must be accompanied by a project-specific Appropriate Assessment demonstrating that there will be no adverse effects on the integrity of the Slamannan Plateau SPA either alone or in combination with other plans or projects.”
Residual Effects
4.2.58 As this mitigation has been included in the Proposed Plan, it is concluded that could be minor residual effects arising from disturbance peatland restoration/enhancement works (depending on the timing of works). These effects in combination with other similar effects will be considered further in paragraphs 4.2.88 - 4.2.113 of this report.
GN26 – River Avon Corridor
Description of proposal
4.2.59 This green network opportunity it to extend the access network along the River Avon upstream from Avonbridge to Slamannan.
Qualifying Interest features of the Slamannan Plateau SPA likely to be affected
4.2.60 This site was identified as having potential to impact upon the Slamannan Plateau SPA. The Slamannan Plateau SPA supports a nationally important population of the Taiga bean goose (Anser fabalis fabalis) accounting for 100% of the Scottish population and 52% of the UK population. Surveys undertaken by the BGAG have revealed that the fields which the extended access network pass through have been used in the past by Bean Geese.
Implications of the proposal for qualifying interest features of the Slamannan Plateau SPA in light of its conservation objectives
Disturbance
4.2.61 Disturbance could theoretically take place along the River Avon Corridor upstream from Avonbridge to Slamannan during path creation works and through future recreational use of the path. The suggested fly up distance for human activity in the Bean Goose Special Study was identified as 400m. Therefore data for bean goose usage has been identified in both fields which the River Avon Corridor passes through and fileds which have their centroid within 400m of the route.
4.2.62 The River Avon Corridor passed through fields 134A, 201, 203, 204, 206, 213, 216, 217, 218, 226, 228A, 229, 242, 247 & 249.
4.2.63 Fields within 400m of the River Avon Corridor are 132, 132A,133,134,134A,137-139, 143, 150, 153, 191, 201-224, 226-228, 228A, 229, 231, 242, 246, 246A, 247-249, 252, 253, 262, 328, 329 & 331.
Year Total Bean Observed Observed Total Percentage Percentage Goose usage along usage within observed of total of total Population River Avon 400m of the usage observed observed Corridor River Avon usage along usage within Corridor River Avon 400m of the Corridor River Avon Corridor 96/97 127 189 189 7288 2.59% 2.59% 97/98 153 623 623 8249 7.55% 7.55% 98/99 168 76 76 8899 2.11% 2.11% 99/00 188 43 43 7558 0.13% 0.13% 00/01 183 222 222 14180 1.57% 1.57% 01/02 192 19 19 13086 0.15% 0.15% 02/03 231 0 0 21755 0% 0% 03/04 235 0 0 18986 0% 0% 04/05 262 0 0 16456 0% 0% 05/06 300 0 0 23497 0% 0% 06/07 255 0 0 12012 0% 0% 07/08 300 0 0 17137 0% 0% 08/09 265 0 0 13872 0% 0% 09/10 260 0 0 7886 0% 0% 10/11 267 0 0 10903 0% 0% 11/12 238 0 0 11137 0% 0% 12/13 233 0 0 5541 0% 0%
Table 55: Bean Goose usage of fields along the River Avon Corridor
4.2.64 Observed bean goose usage along the line of the River Avon Corridor peaked at 7.55% of the total observed usage across the Slamannan Plateau in the 1997/1998 season. There has been no observed Bean Goose usage within 400m of the River Avon Corridor between Avonbridge and Slamannan since 2001/02. It can be concluded therefore that neither path creation works nor future recreational use of the path are likely to cause significant disturbance to Bean Geese.
Effect on overall Bean Goose Population
4.2.65 Given that the historic use of the fields within 400m of the line of the River Avon Corridor between Avonbridge and Slamannan described in paragraph 4.2.64 above and that the corridor is distant from sites used for roosting at Fannyside Lochs, Fannyside Muir and Darnrigg Moss, it can be concluded that neither path creation works nor future recreational use of the path are likely to cause a significant effect on the overall Bean Goose population.
Species Distribution
4.2.66 The River Avon Corridor between Avonbridge and Slamannan does not comprise part Slamannan Plateau SPA, therefore, it can be concluded that neither path creation works nor future recreational use of the path are likely to cause a significant effect on species distribution.
Distribution and extent of habitat
4.2.67 Given that the historic use of the fields within 400m of the line of the River Avon Corridor between Avonbridge and Slamannan described in paragraph 4.2.64 above, it can be concluded that neither path creation works nor future recreational use of the path are likely to cause a significant effect on distribution and extent of habitat used by Bean Geese across the Slamannan Plateau.
Structure, Function and Supporting Processes of Habitat
4.2.68 Given that the historic use of the fields within 400m of the line of the River Avon Corridor between Avonbridge and Slamannan described in paragraph 4.2.64 above, it can be concluded that neither path creation works nor future recreational use of the path are likely to cause a significant effect on the structure, function or supporting processes of habitat used by Bean Geese across the Slamannan Plateau.
Mitigation
4.2.69 It has been demonstrated that that neither path creation works nor future recreational use of the path between Avonbridge and Slamannan would have an adverse effect on the integrity of the Slamannan Plateau SPA. However, given the dynamic use of the Slamannan Plateau by Bean Geese it cannot be assumed that the area surrounding the River Avon Corridor between Avonbridge and Slamannan, therefore a number of mitigation measures are proposed to ensure that use of the area surrounding the path by Bean Geese in the future is not compromised:
1. A site-specific Appropriate Assessment will be required of any path creation/ upgrading proposals that are brought forward along the River Avon Corridor between Avonbridge and Slamannan.
2. This Appropriate Assessment is likely to require consideration of (but not necessarily limited to) a consideration of the following issues:
Ways of reducing the effects of disturbance on bird populations during path creation and upgrading works (e.g. by timing works to avoid periods when bird populations are present; minimising/avoiding use of lighting); and Ways of reducing the potential disturbance of bird populations by users of the new paths network (e.g. Developing a public awareness programme that is aimed at minimising the disturbance of Bean Geese, particularly from dog walkers.) Ways of ensuring that path creation/upgrading works does not reduce the value of the existing habitat to Bean Geese.
Changes to the Proposed Plan
4.2.70 These requirements are incorporated into the Site Schedule for the proposal through the following text:
“Proposals must be accompanied by a project-specific Appropriate Assessment demonstrating that there will be no adverse effects on the integrity of the Slamannan Plateau SPA either alone or in combination with other plans or projects.”
Residual Effects
4.2.71 As this mitigation has been included in the Proposed Plan, it is concluded that there will be minor residual effects through recreational disturbance of Bean Geese and potentially minor residual effects arising from disturbance during path creation works (depending on the timing of works). These effects in combination with other similar effects will be considered further in paragraphs 4.2.88 - 4.2.113 of this report.
In combination effects
Recreational Disturbance to Bean Geese
Description of proposals
4.2.72 Several of the proposals have the potential to promote and increase recreational use of the Slamannan Plateau. These are principally the proposals for housing growth in Slamannan and also path creation works along the River Avon Corridor between Avonbridge and Slamannan:
H70 Hillend Farm H71 Avonbridge Road H72 The Rumlie GN26 River Avon Corridor
Qualifying Interest features of the Slamannan Plateau SPA likely to be affected
4.2.73 Increased recreational use of the countryside around Slamannan has the potential to cause disturbance to the qualifying interests of the Slamannan Plateau SPA. The Slamannan Plateau SPA supports a nationally important population of the Taiga bean goose (Anser fabalis fabalis) accounting for 100% of the Scottish population and 52% of the UK population. Surveys undertaken by the BGAG have revealed that the fields to the North of Slamannan have been used by Bean Geese.
Implications of the proposal for qualifying interest features of the Slamannan Plateau SPA in light of its conservation objectives
4.2.74 The Core Path Plan indicates that there are four core paths which run through areas potentially used by Bean Geese:
023/1002 River Avon, Slamannan to Redbrae 023/1004 Slamannan to Wester Jaw farm 023/1006 Wester Jaw to Oakerdykes 023/1007 Oakerdykes to Garbethill Burn
4.2.75 Housing proposals H71 & H72 have the potential to increase the population Slamannan by 88 people (assuming 2.2 people per new household). The potential for housing proposal H70 to increase the population of Slamannan is unknown at present as the capacity of the site is not stated within the Proposed Plan. The reason for this is uncertainty over the impact of the various development constraints which affect the site. Assuming a standard density of 25 new houses per hectare the site could yield up to 568 new houses. This considered to be the likely upper limit of new houses which could be provided by the development of the site and would equate to a population increase of 1250. The total maximum population increase caused by these three housing proposals is therefore considered to be 1338 people.
4.2.76 In the latest settlement population estimates undertaken by Falkirk Council (September 2012) the population estimate for Slamannan in 2011 was 1358 people. The scale of growth promoted in the Proposed Plan could therefore amount to an eventual doubling of the population of the village.
4.2.77 The suggested fly up distance for human activity in the Bean Goose Special Study was identified as 400m. The usage of the area within 400m of core path 023/1002 has been discussed previously in paragraphs 4.2.61-4.2.64.
4.2.78 Fields which have their centroid within 400m of core paths 023/1004, 023/1006 & 023/1007 are: 25,27, 28, 29, 32, 37, 41, 82, 122, 126-128, 132, 132A, 249, 252, 253, 260-264, 264A, 265-268, 270-278, 280, 282-285, 287, 287A, 288-290, 290A, 291- 294, 294A & 295
Year Total Bean Goose Observed usage Total observed Percentage of Population within 400m of usage total observed Core Paths usage within 400m 023/1004, of the River Avon 023/1006 & Corridor 023/1007 96/97 127 990 7288 13.58% 97/98 153 391 8249 4.74% 98/99 168 389 8899 4.37% 99/00 188 291 7558 3.85% 00/01 183 92 14180 0.65% 01/02 192 52 13086 0.40% 02/03 231 217 21755 1.00% 03/04 235 49 18986 0.26% 04/05 262 219 16456 1.33% 05/06 300 279 23497 1.19% 06/07 255 803 12012 6.68% 07/08 300 633 17137 3.69% 08/09 265 4128 13872 29.76% 09/10 260 1539 7886 19.52% 10/11 267 3295 10903 30.22% 11/12 238 3629 11137 32.59% 12/13 233 1351 5541 24.38% Table 56: Bean Goose usage of fields surrounding Core Paths within the Slamannan Plateau
4.2.79 Use of the fields within 400m of these core paths by Bean Geese as a proportion of the total time on the Slamannan Plateau has been notably significant since the 2008/09 season with levels of usage not dropping below 19.5% and peaking at 32.59% in the 2011/12 season.
4.2.80 The current levels of usage of core paths 023/1004, 023/1006 & 023/1007 is not known, however, given the significant level of observed use by bean geese within the 400m zone of potential disturbance surrounding them, it is safe to conclude that current levels of usage do not cause significant disturbance of bean geese.
4.2.81 It is extremely difficult to determine whether the level of additional population growth in Slamannan promoted by the Proposed Plan will create a level of recreational disturbance which is likely to have an adverse effect on the integrity of the SPA given the incremental rate at which the population growth will occur (Housing development at proposal H70 is not considered as likely to begin before 2024 and even then will only proceed at a rate of maybe 25 dwellings per year). It is suggested that given the incremental rate at which the population growth will occur, birds may become slowly habituated to any increase in recreational disturbance as it occurs. It is therefore concluded that increased recreational disturbance caused by
Mitigation
4.2.82 Core path 023/1002 is currently un-surfaced. Green Network opportunity GN26 is likely to improve the surface of the path and improve its attractiveness to residents of Slamannan. As the attractiveness of this path improves it could well reduce the amount of people from Slamannan using the already surfaced core paths running towards Garbethill as it provides a suitable alternative route for countryside recreation.
4.2.83 Developing a public awareness programme that is aimed at minimising the disturbance of Bean Geese, particularly from dog walkers, caused by countryside recreation would also help to mitigate the effect of disturbance of Bean Geese.
Residual Effects
4.2.84 Although the three housing proposals and one green network opportunity highlighted at paragraph 4.2.72 will not act in combination to have an adverse effect on the Slamannan Plateau SPA there will be minor residual effects from recreational disturbance.
In combination assessment with other plans or proposals not contained in the Proposed Plan
Plans
4.2.85 The Slamannan Plateau Special Study (RPS 2010) which was undertaken to inform the Habitats Regulations Appraisal of the North Lanarkshire Local Plan noted that:
“In addition to disturbance from the activities within the South Cumbernauld Community Growth Area (CGA) itself, it is also likely that human activity within the woodland (e.g. joggers, dog walkers etc.) will be increased from existing levels (the Abronhill area of Cumbernauld is already connected to the wood) as a result of the new housing development. However, the nearest regularly occupied part of the SPA by bean geese is over 1km from the area of woodland which surrounds the proposed CGA and the main area of public access within the wood (see Figure 4). Therefore, increased human activity is not expected to significantly affect the distribution, occupancy or behaviour of bean geese within the SPA.”
4.2.86 Given the negligible impact that increased recreational disturbance from the South Cumbernauld CGA is predicted to have it is not considered that this will act in combination with the Proposed Plan to have an adverse effect on the integrity of the Slamannan Plateau SPA.
Proposals
4.2.87 There are no proposals other than the South Cumbernauld CGA which have the potential to cause increased recreational disturbance of Bean Geese that could act in combination with the Proposed Plan to have an adverse effect on the integrity of the Slamannan Plateau SPA.
Disturbance to Bean Geese during construction
Description of proposals
4.2.88 Several of the Proposals and opportunities within the Proposed Plan have the potential to cause disturbance to Bean Geese during construction:
H70 Hillend Farm GN19 Mid Braes Habitat Connectivity GN21 Upper Braes Peatland Restoration GN26 River Avon Corridor
Qualifying Interest features of the Slamannan Plateau SPA likely to be affected
4.2.89 The Slamannan Plateau SPA supports a nationally important population of the Taiga bean goose (Anser fabalis fabalis) accounting for 100% of the Scottish population and 52% of the UK population. Surveys undertaken by the BGAG have revealed that the fields to the North of Slamannan have been used by Bean Geese.
Implications of the proposal for qualifying interest features of the Slamannan Plateau SPA in light of its conservation objectives
4.2.90 If implemented at the same time these proposals and opportunities could lead to the disturbance of bean geese at multiple locations across the Slamannan Plateau and could theoretically act in combination to have an adverse effect on the integrity of the SPA.
Mitigation
4.2.91 Mitigation wording has already been incorporated into the proposed plan for all four of the proposals and opportunities highlighted above to ensure that for each project an appropriate assessment is produced to consider ways of reducing disturbance of bean geese during construction.
4.2.92 If two (or more) schemes are brought forward for implementation simultaneously, then there may be a need for each scheme to include mitigation additional to that which would be required if projects happened individually.
4.2.93 The most effective method of mitigating the disturbance of bean geese during construction would be through avoiding construction during the potential wintering season. If considered necessary by the corresponding Appropriate Assessment, this measure would ensure no disturbance of bean geese from an individual project and if applied would ensure that no two schemes would act in combination to have an adverse effect on the integrity of the Slamannan Plateau SPA.
Residual Effects
4.2.94 Depending on the timing of works, minor residual effects arising from construction disturbance could still occur.
In combination assessment with other plans or proposals not contained in the Proposed Plan
Plans
4.2.95 The Slamannan Plateau Special Study (RPS 2010) which was undertaken to inform the Habitats Regulations Appraisal of the North Lanarkshire Local Plan noted that:
“The proposed South Cumbernauld CGA is separated from Slamannan Plateau SPA by the woodland of Forest Wood Nature Reserve… it is likely that the woodland will provide more than adequate screening of visual and auditory stimuli associated with the construction of the housing development from geese using even the nearest fields within the SPA.”
4.2.96 Despite this, it is recognised that patterns of bird use could change and that in the future construction disturbance from the South Cumbernauld CGA could cause significant disturbance to Bean Geese, however, the Special Study goes on to note:
“Although it is considered highly unlikely, if the EIA and AA consider that all manner of construction activities are predicted to have a likely significant effect on the SPA then an absolute restriction on construction activities between mid-March and mid-September (sic) may be recommended in order to avoid disturbance of bean geese.”
4.2.97 As outlined in paragraph 4.2.93 above this measure would ensure no disturbance of bean geese from this project and, if applied, would ensure that the construction of the South Cumbernauld CGA would not act in combination with the Proposed Plan to have an adverse effect on the integrity of the Slamannan Plateau SPA.
Proposals
Peat Extraction at Fannyside Muir
4.2.98 Consent to extract peat at Fannyside Muir was originally granted in 1955 and works have historically taken place at this location. However, works have not been undertaken at this site since before at least 2002. In 1998 an application to renew extraction of peat at this site was submitted and consent was issued by North Lanarkshire Council in 2002, subject to the finalisation of some operational details regarding the works. However, no works have taken place to date.
4.2.99 Since then parts of Fannyside Muir, including the areas identified for the proposed re- commissioned peat extraction works, have been designated as Slamannan Plateau SPA. As such an Appropriate Assessment was undertaken on behalf of North Lanarkshire Council to determine whether the proposed peat extraction works would have an effect on the integrity of the SPA or its qualifying features (Taiga bean geese). The Appropriate Assessment was undertaken by RPS in 2010.
4.2.100 This project-specific Appropriate Assessment identified that the planning consent precludes working of peat during the period when the geese are present at Slamannan Plateau (late- September/early-October to late-February/early-March), when weather conditions are generally unsuitable for peat milling in any case. Therefore, disturbance of bean geese as a result of renewed peat extraction was not considered to have a likely significant effect on the SPA.
Central Scotland Shooting School
4.2.111 The Central Scotland Shooting School is located approximately 500m to the west of the central, Garbethill section of Slamannan Plateau SPA and as such the proposed extension was considered to have a likely significant effect on the SPA and its qualifying interests (Taiga bean geese). Consequently, an Appropriate Assessment was required to investigate whether the development would be likely to affect site integrity in order to determine whether the proposal could be granted or not.
4.2.112 The Appropriate Assessment considered the impacts of the proposed extension against the conservation objectives of the SPA and demonstrated that the shooting school would not have an adverse effect on the integrity of Slamannan Plateau SPA, providing that certain mitigation measures were implemented. These mitigation measures, which were written into the development’s planning conditions, included: restrictions on the number of shooting layouts being used during the months of September to March when the Bean Geese are on the Slamannan Plateau; and clarification of the existing daily time limit on shooting, which prohibits shooting during darkness, such that it is made clear that no shooting can take place during dawn and dusk in the winter months when geese fly between their roosting and feeding grounds.
4.2.113 The Central Scotland Shooting School is located very close to the proposed peatland restoration/ enhancement works at both Garbethill and Fannyside therefore it could act in combination with green network opportunity GN21 to cause disturbance to Bean Geese. However, as detailed above, a project specific appropriate assessment will be required for works at Garbethill and Fannyside and, if necessary, works could be restricted to avoid the period when Bean Geese are present on the Slamannan Plateau so as to avoid any disturbance. Therefore, the Central Scotland Shooting School at Cat Craig will not act in combination with the Proposed Plan to have an adverse effect on the integrity of the Slamannan Plateau SPA.
Disturbance from increased vehicular traffic
Description of proposals
4.2.114 The following proposals within the Proposed Plan are likely to increase the amount of vehicular traffic travelling around the vicinity of Slamannan using roads in close proximity to fields which have been used by Bean Geese:
H66 – Slamannan Road 1, Limerigg H67 – Slamannan Road 2, Limerigg H70 – Hillend Farm, Slamannan H71 – Avonbridge Road, Slamannan H72 – The Rumlie, Slamannan
4.2.115 Proposals H66, 67, 71 & 72 have the capacity to deliver 155 new houses. The capacity of site H70 is not stated within the Proposed Plan. The reason for this is uncertainty over the impact of the various development constraints which affect the site. Assuming a standard density of 25 new houses per hectare the site could yield up to 568 new houses. Therefore in total the proposal above could deliver a maximum of 723 new houses.
Qualifying Interest features of the Slamannan Plateau SPA likely to be affected
4.2.116 The Slamannan Plateau SPA supports a nationally important population of the Taiga bean goose (Anser fabalis fabalis) accounting for 100% of the Scottish population and 52% of the UK population. Surveys undertaken by the BGAG have revealed that the fields adjacent to the roads running to the north east and west of Slamannan have been used in the past by Bean Geese.
Implications of the proposal for qualifying interest features of the Slamannan Plateau SPA in light of its conservation objectives
4.2.117 The Appropriate Assessment of the Falkirk Structure Plan Alteration (Faber Maunsell 2006) attempted to predict the effect of traffic growth within Slamannan village. It modelled two scenarios, one for 400 additional houses and one for 600 additional houses. In the scenario closest in scale to the currently promoted level of growth within the village the traffic modelling predicted that in addition to the current base line traffic figures:
the use of the B803 north of Slamannan would increase by 957 trips per 24hours; the use of the B803 west of Slamannan would increase by 1502 trips per 24 hours; and The use of the B8002 east of Slamannan would increase by 1761 trips per 24 hours.
4.2.118 The increase in traffic caused by the level of housing growth in the Proposed Plan will be higher then that predicted above and, especially a the peak times, will be considerable. The response of Bean Geese to these higher levels of traffic is more difficult to predict.
4.2.119 A detailed study on the effects of disturbance (as part of a wider study on distribution and habitat use by Taiga bean geese) on the Slamannan Plateau in 1993/94 and 1994/95 was prepared by the RSPB on contract for SNH (Smith et al. 1994, 1995). The study noted that where Taiga bean geese were recorded in close proximity to roads, passing traffic on public roads was recorded as generally not disturbing or having negligible effect. Taiga bean geese feeding 400m away from a road subject to heavy trucks passing every 5-10 minutes showed no response. A farmer and tractor loading feed bales in the next field some 600m away resulted in no disturbance to the geese, and public vehicles were reported as having relatively little effect. A record of four single cars passing at a distance of approximately 160m over 31 minutes caused only alert response before the geese flew off at the pass of a fifth vehicle.
4.2.120 The Appropriate Assessment of the Falkirk Structure Plan Alteration (Faber Maunsell 2006) reported that the current response of the bean geese is that traffic movement currently does not disturb the geese unless vehicles stop. In this case the geese show some concern. When passengers exit the vehicle by geese fields, the geese will fly off (A. Maciver, pers. comm.).
4.2.121 The Natura Appraisal of the Proposed Housing Development at Hillend Farm (Slamannan) in Relation to the Taiga Bean Goose Qualifying Interest of the Slamannnan Plateau Potential SPA (Heritage Environmental 2008) suggested that in terms of actual disturbance types it is perhaps important to note that Taiga bean geese on the Slamannan Plateau generally use areas free from concentrated or regular disturbance.
4.2.122 Given that Bean Geese already generally use areas which are free from concentrated or regular disturbance, it can be concluded that their pattern of use of the Slamannan Plateau has already been influenced by the presence of roads which are frequently used by traffic and therefore the potential for them to be significantly disturbed from critical areas of habitat is low.
4.2.123 If it is accepted that traffic movement does not disturb the geese unless vehicles stop and does not cause the geese to flight unless passengers exit the vehicle and it is also accepted that the vast majority of vehicles moving along these roads will not stop, then it can be concluded that the potential for the increase in traffic caused by the scale of housing growth promoted within the Proposed Plan to cause disturbance to Bean Geese is minimal and will not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the Slamannan Plateau SPA.
Mitigation
4.2.124 Although it is not considered necessary to incorporate mitigation into the Proposed Plan to ensure that it does not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the SPA, potential disturbance of Bean Geese could be mitigated by developing a public awareness programme that is aimed at minimising the disturbance of Bean Geese by road users from Slamannan i.e. encouraging them not to stop their car or exit it unnecessarily during the time when the geese are on the Slamannan Plateau.
Residual Effects
4.2.125 The scale of housing growth promoted by the Proposed Plan will have minor residual effects through increased disturbance from vehicular traffic.
In combination assessment with other plans or proposals not contained in the Proposed Plan
Plans
4.2.126 There are no proposals within the plans of neighbouring local authorities (North Lanarkshire and West Lothian) which are predicted to lead to more than a minimal increase in traffic on the B803 to the north and west of Slamannan or the B8002 to the east of Slamannan.
Proposals
4.2.127 There are no proposals other than those contained within the plans of neighbouring local authorities which are predicted to lead to more than a minimal increase in traffic on the B803 to the north and west of Slamannan or the B8002 to the east of Slamannan.
4.3 Black Loch Moss SAC
Appropriate Assessment of Proposals with LSE alone
GN20 – Black Loch Access
Description of proposal
4.3.1 This green network opportunity is for the creation of a new path to the south of Black Loch to enable access around the Loch.
Figure 4.3: Black Loch Access
Qualifying Interest features of the Black Loch Moss SAC likely to be affected
4.3.2 Black Loch Moss is one of the least-disturbed Active raised bogs remaining in the central belt of Scotland and consists of a large area of undamaged bog surface that is almost continuously dominated by bog-mosses, including Sphagnum papillosum and occasional S. magellanicum.
Implications of the proposal for qualifying interest features of the Slamannan Plateau SPA in light of its conservation objectives
Damage to bog surface and typical plant species
4.3.3 The route of the proposed path crosses part of the Black Loch Moss SAC. The area of blanket bog measures which the route crosses measures approximately 1.4 hectares.
4.3.4 The creation of a path across an area of blanket bog could, without mitigation, cause damage to the bog surface and typical plant species (Sphagnum papillosum and occasional S. magellanicum.) and could also cause hydrological damage to the bog.
4.3.5 The creation of a path across an area of blanket bog could also encourage public access into other undisturbed parts of the SAC. Excessive trampling through over-grazing or large numbers of ramblers is a problem, as it affects the growth of fragile Sphagnum mosses and can ultimately alter the species composition or lead to erosion of the peat.
Mitigation
4.3.6 The effect of building a new path across an area of blanket bog within Black Loch Moss SAC on the overall hydrological regime of the SAC is not fully understood, however it is understood that there are mitigation measures which could be employed to ensure that path creation does not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the SAC.
4.3.7 Traditional aggregate path creation over a bog is problematic. When working with deep peat, it is often impractical to dig down to firm ground or haul in enough outside material to create a solid base. Instead of traditional methods trail sometimes borrow a technique from road construction to create a geotextile-lined aggregate path, sometimes called a “raft path” or “floating trail,” that both protects the bog it traverses and distributes a user’s weight so that he or she won’t sink. Using this kind of path construction it should be possible to create a path across the area of blanket bog without adversely affecting the hydrology of the bog.
4.3.8 Developing a public awareness programme that is aimed at discouraging ramblers from the leaving formal paths to access undisturbed parts of Black Loch Moss would mitigate the damage which might be caused by increased public use of the area.
4.3.9 The following mitigation is proposed to limit the adverse effects of path creation works to a level where they will not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the SPA:
1. A site-specific Appropriate Assessment will be required of any path creation/ upgrading proposals that are brought forward at Black Loch.
2. This Appropriate Assessment is likely to require consideration of (but not necessarily limited to) a consideration of the following issues: Ways of reducing the impact of path works on the overall hydrological regime of the SAC (e.g. by undertaking low impact construction methods such as raft paths or floating trails); Ways of reducing the damage caused by ramblers to bog surface or typical plant species (e.g. Developing a public awareness programme that is aimed at discouraging ramblers from the leaving formal paths to access undisturbed parts of Black Loch Moss.)
Changes to the Proposed Plan
4.3.9 These requirements are incorporated into the Site Schedule for the opportunity through the following text:
“Proposals must be accompanied by a project-specific Appropriate Assessment demonstrating that there will be no adverse effects on the integrity of the Black Loch Moss SAC either alone or in combination with other plans or projects.”
Residual Effects
4.3.10 As this mitigation has been included in the Proposed Plan, it is concluded that Green Network opportunity GN20 will not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the Black Loch Moss SAC, there will be minor residual effects through damage to bog surface and typical plant species through increased recreational use of Black Loch Moss SAC. These effects in combination with other similar effects will be considered further in paragraphs 4.3.11 - 4.3.22 of this report.
In combination effects
Damage to bog surface and typical plant species
Description of proposals
4.3.11 The following policies and proposals could act in combination to increase the use of the Black Loch area for outdoor recreation:
GN20 - Black Loch Access; H66 - Slamannan Road 1, Limerigg; H67 - Slamannan Road 2, Limerigg; RW05 - The Water Environment.
4.3.12 In total proposals H66 and H67 could deliver 115 new houses which at a rate of 2.2 people per house could increase the population of Limerigg by 230 people. In the 2011 mid year estimate Limerigg had a population of 229 so the scale of growth promoted in Limerigg could double the population of the village.
4.3.13 Policy RW05 indicates that the water environment will be promoted as a recreational resource, (subject to the requirements of policy GN03 (1) for Natura 2000 Sites), with existing riparian access safeguarded and additional opportunities for ecological enhancement, access and recreation encouraged where compatible with nature conservation objectives.
Qualifying Interest features of the Slamannan Plateau SPA likely to be affected
4.3.14 Black Loch Moss is one of the least-disturbed Active raised bogs remaining in the central belt of Scotland and consists of a large area of undamaged bog surface that is almost continuously dominated by bog-mosses, including Sphagnum papillosum and occasional S. magellanicum.
Implications of the proposal for qualifying interest features of the Slamannan Plateau SPA in light of its conservation objectives
4.3.15 Any proposals which come forward to increase the recreational use of the Black Loch would only be supported by policy RW05 if they first met the requirements of policy GN03 (1) for Natura 2000 sites i.e. they are subject to an appropriate assessment which demonstrates that the proposal can be implemented without having an adverse effect on the integrity of any Natura 2000 site either alone or in combination with other plans or projects. Therefore this policy will not act in combination with the other proposals and opportunities within the Proposed Plan highlighted in paragraph 4.3.11 above to have an adverse effect on the integrity of the Black Loch Moss SAC.
4.3.16 Proposals H66 and H67 could together lead to a doubling of the population of the village of Limerigg, they could therefore act in combination with green network opportunity GN20 to increase the recreational use of the area around Black Loch which could lead to damage to bog surface and typical plant species. However, as explained at paragraph 4.3.9 above mitigation could be introduced to opportunity GN20 through developing a public awareness programme that is aimed at discouraging ramblers from the leaving formal paths to access undisturbed parts of Black Loch Moss. This mitigation would reduce the amount of damage caused to the bog surface and typical plant species to a level where it would not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the Black Loch Moss SAC.
Mitigation
4.3.17 No further mitigation is considered to be necessary.
Residual Effects
4.3.18 There will be minor residual effects through damage to bog surface and typical plant species through increased recreational use of Black Loch Moss SAC.
In combination assessment with other plans or proposals not contained in the Proposed Plan
Plans
4.3.19 The Black Loch is not considered to be any more than a local recreational resource and for the purposes of the Appropriate Assessment only housing proposals within Limerigg were considered as being likely to lead to any increase in the recreational use of the area. Slamannan, which lies approximately 3km from the Black Loch was considered to be too far from the Black Loch for housing proposals there to contribute more than an negligible amount towards increased recreational use of the area surrounding the Loch.
4.3.20 The nearest settlement to the Black Loch in North Lanarkshire is Caldercruix which lies approximately 3.5km from the Black Loch. It is not considered that any proposals for housing growth within Cladercruix would contribute more than a negligible amount towards increased recreational use of the area surrounding the Loch therefore the North Lanarkshire Local Plan will not act in combination with the Proposed Plan to have an adverse effect on the integrity of the Black Loch Moss SAC
4.3.21 The nearest settlement to the Black Loch in West Lothian is Blackridge which lies approximately 9km from the Black Loch. It is not considered that any proposals for housing growth within Blackridge would contribute more than a negligible amount towards increased recreational use of the area surrounding the Loch therefore the West Lothian Local Plan will not act in combination with the Proposed Plan to have an adverse effect on the integrity of the Black Loch Moss SAC
Proposals
4.3.22 There are no proposals outwith those contained within the plans of neighbouring local authorities which are predicted to lead to more than a negligible increase in the recreational use of the Black Loch.
4.4 River Teith SAC
Appropriate Assessment of Proposals with LSE alone
M01 – Bo’ness Foreshore
Description of proposals
4.4.1 This proposal was included within the Falkirk Council Local Plan. An outline planning application was lodged in 2005 with an accompanying masterplan and Environmental Statement. The development was one of the casualties of the recent financial crisis and the planning application was subsequently withdrawn in June 2012. Consequently, the precise nature of how development proposals would proceed at the foreshore site is not known. However, the following consideration of likely effects of the proposals draws heavily upon environmental work undertaken for the previous masterplan.
4.4.2 The proposed mixed use development is likely to comprise residential properties, combined with some level of leisure provision. The site lies adjacent to the shores of the Firth of Forth, including the disused harbour. Much of the area is reclaimed land, parts of which have a legacy of contamination. The previous proposals included for the restoration of the inner and outer harbours to create a marina.
Qualifying Interest features of the River Teith SAC likely to be affected
4.4.3 Atlantic salmon, river lamprey and sea lamprey are qualifying features of the SAC that are at risk of adverse effects from the Bo’ness Foreshore proposal by virtue of their annual migration between freshwater and seawater.
Implications of the proposal for qualifying interest features of the River Teith SAC in light of its conservation objectives
Noise and Vibration
4.4.4 It is anticipated that the Bo’ness Foreshore development will involve piling operations adjacent to the shoreline so there is potential for the proposal to cause noise and vibration which could lead to rapid pressure changes in the zone influenced by piling operations.
4.4.5 As indicated previously at paragraph 3.3.5 Lamprey do not possess a swimbladder, the absence of which makes them less susceptible to significant tissue damage in response to rapid pressure changes in the zone influenced by piling operations , therefore river and sea lamprey are not likely to be adversely affected by the noise and vibration generated by construction.
4.4.6 As indicated previously in paragraph 3.3.7 Atlantic salmon, by their nature are highly mobile and therefore able to move out of areas where acoustic disturbance is occurring, limiting the likelihood of physical injury from pressure waves. It is assumed that the piling operations could therefore result in a temporary localised obstacle to migrating Atlantic Salmon. As indicated previously in paragraph 3.3.6 noise at 400m range generated through piling operations is not likely to be discernible by Atlantic Salmon in the Firth of Forth over the background noise. The width of the Firth of Forth at Bo’ness Foreshore is approximately 2.7km therefore a temporary obstacle of 400m surrounding Bo’ness Foreshore would not impede the migration of Atlantic Salmon.
4.4.7 It is therefore concluded that the Bo’ness Foreshore proposal will not increase levels of noise and vibration to an extent that will adversely impact on the qualifying interest features of the River Teith SAC.
Sediment Release
4.4.8 Paragraph 13.4.4 of the Environmental Statement which accompanied the outline planning application for mixed use development at Bo’ness Foreshore (Royal Haskoning 2005) indicted that:
“as much as 10,100m³ of bed sediment in the Inner Harbour could be re-suspended into the overlying water column, redistributed and allowed to settle on the bed of the Outer Harbour.”
4.4.9 Without mitigation there is the potential for the re-suspended particles to be transported to adjacent aquatic environments i.e. the Firth of Forth and therefore increase turbidity levels.
4.4.10 As reported in the Forth Replacement Crossing, Report to Inform an Appropriate Assessment for the River Teith SAC (Jacobs ARUP 2009), the Firth of Forth has a naturally high suspended solid content and although salmon and lamprey may be at risk from sediment re-suspension from the Bo’ness Foreshore development, they are already adapted to living in this turbid environment, especially so at the freshwater/saltwater interface, therefore temporary increase in sediment loading should not impede their migratory behaviour.
4.4.11 It is therefore concluded that the Bo’ness Foreshore proposal will not increase levels of turbidity in the Firth of Forth (through sediment released as a result of development) to an extent that will adversely impact on the qualifying interest features of the River Teith SAC.
Impacts on Water Quality
4.4.12 Paragraph 13.4.5 of the Environmental Statement which accompanied the outline planning application for mixed use development at Bo’ness Foreshore (Royal Haskoning 2005) indicted that:
“There is concern that the re-suspended bed sediment will introduce chemical contaminants into the water column and adversely affect water quality in the harbour itself and later, in the Firth of Forth, during operation of the harbour. Analyses have identified that the sediments contain elevated concentrations of a range of poly-aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and, to a lesser extent, metals such as mercury and zinc and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)”
4.4.13 Paragraph 13.4.18 of the same report indicates that, of the contaminants contained within the harbour sediments, only mercury is present at levels above relevant environmental quality standards and that once this is diluted by harbour water, it will reduce concentrations to below the level of the environmental quality standard. It goes on to state at paragraph 13.4.19 that the degree of dilution of harbour waters upon discharge to the wider Firth of Forth will massively increase the degree of dilution.
4.4.14 It is therefore concluded that the development of the Bo’ness Foreshore proposal will not affect water quality to an extent that will adversely impact on the qualifying interest features of the River Teith SAC.
Mitigation
4.4.15 Based on the environmental assessment work which was undertaken in relation to the previous outline planning application at Bo’ness Foreshore, it seems unlikely that the development of a similar proposal at Bo’ness Foreshore would have an adverse effect on the integrity of the River Teith SAC. However, given the uncertainty surrounding future proposals that might come forward for the Bo’ness Foreshore area the following measures are proposed to ensure that they do not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the SAC:
1. A site-specific Appropriate Assessment will be required of proposals that are brought forward at Bo’ness Foreshore.
2. This Appropriate Assessment is likely to require consideration of (but not necessarily limited to) a consideration of the following issues: Ways of reducing the release of contaminated sediments from the harbour into the Firth of Forth (e.g. by installing a cofferdam and lock in advance of bed levelling works in the harbour )
Changes to the Plan 4.4.16 These requirements are incorporated into the Site Schedule for the proposal through the following text:
“Proposals must be accompanied by a project-specific Appropriate Assessment demonstrating that there will be no adverse effects on the integrity of the River Teith SAC either alone or in combination with other plans or projects.”
Residual Effects
4.4.17 As this mitigation has been included in the Proposed Plan, it is concluded that there will be minor residual effects through noise and vibration, sediment release and impact on water quality. These effects in combination with other similar effects will be considered further in paragraphs xx – xx of this report.
INF19 Bo'ness WWTW
Description of proposals
4.4.18 Capacity improvements and upgrades to a number of Waste Water Treatments Works (WWTW) are likely to be required to accommodate the development identified in the Proposed Plan.
4.4.19 The existing works at Bo’ness (Carriden) provide secondary treatment. Water is discharged via a long-sea outfall into the Forth in a roughly north-east direction. At this stage Scottish Water is not clear about the full extent of upgrade works that may be required – this will be dependent on modelling and consideration of discharge consents that would be set by SEPA. However, it is possible to make some general conclusions about the type of work that might be required, the scale and location of these works, and their potential for effects upon the SPA.
4.4.20 The WWTW is located a short distance from the shore at Carriden. The upgrade is likely to include construction of an additional treatment tank and possibly a new filter. It may be possible to accommodate these items within the existing footprint of the site, although any additional works would be undertaken to the south of the site – away from the coast. It may also be necessary, depending on discussions with SEPA, to extend the length of the long sea outfall. If this is the case, it would be extended along the same route as the existing pipeline.
Qualifying Interest features of the River Teith SAC likely to be affected
4.4.21 Atlantic salmon, river lamprey and sea lamprey are qualifying features of the SAC that are at risk of adverse effects from the Bo’ness WWTW proposal by virtue of their annual migration between freshwater and seawater.
Implications of the proposal for qualifying interest features of the River Teith SAC in light of its conservation objectives
Noise and Vibration
4.4.22 Any additional works at Bo’ness WWTW would be undertaken to the south of the site but could still involve piling operations close to the coast. As detailed at 4.4.5 and 4.4.6 above increased noise and vibration from coastal piling operations would only cause a temporary localised obstacle to migrating Atlantic Salmon at a distance of up to 400m surrounding the piling works. The width of the Firth of Forth at the Bo’ness WWTW is approximately 2.9km therefore a temporary obstacle of 400m surrounding Bo’ness WWTW would not impede the migration of Atlantic Salmon.
4.4.23 It is not considered likely that any necessary works to extend the long sea outfall would involve piling works. It is therefore concluded that the Bo’ness WWTW proposal will not increase levels of noise and vibration to an extent that will adversely impact on the qualifying interest features of the River Teith SAC.
Sediment Release 4.4.24 The main sources of sediment release during construction would be from unconsolidated sediments from exposed ground and potentially from re-suspension of sediments during construction of the long-sea outfall (depending on the construction method chosen). In addition, if the pipe is constructed on the surface of the seabed, this could lead to localised effects on sediment patterns.
4.4.25 As reported in the Forth Replacement Crossing, Report to Inform an Appropriate Assessment for the River Teith SAC (Jacobs ARUP 2009), the Firth of Forth has a naturally high suspended solid content and although salmon and lamprey may be at risk from sediment re-suspension from the Bo’ness WWTW development, they are already adapted to living in this turbid environment, especially so at the freshwater/saltwater interface, therefore temporary increase in sediment loading should not impede their migratory behaviour.
4.4.26 It is therefore concluded that the Bo’ness WWTW proposal will not increase levels of turbidity in the Firth of Forth (through sediment released as a result of development) to an extent that will adversely impact on the qualifying interest features of the River Teith SAC.
Impacts on Water Quality
4.4.27 Point source discharges of pollutants (such as fuel, construction materials etc) could have significant adverse effects upon salmon and lamprey populations in the estuary, either through direct mortality or indirect mortality of prey species. The scale of impact would depend on the nature of the pollutant (fuel, chemical, silt, and sewage), duration and extent of source and origin (aquatic/terrestrial).
4.4.28 The main sources of pollution during construction could arise from releases of unconsolidated sediments from exposed ground, uncontrolled releases of oils, fuels and chemicals, unregulated releases of sewage, and potentially from re-suspension of sediments during construction of the long- sea outfall (depending on the construction method chosen). All these factors are capable of being controlled through careful design, siting and timing of the works, coupled with good construction practice.
4.4.29 Water quality standards for effluent would be set by SEPA. Whilst there may be some changes to water quality at the point of discharge, these effects are likely to be localised. Effluent currently discharges from Bo’ness WWTW from a point approximately 750m beyond the mean low water spring into salt water. Effluent from Bo’ness will therefore not impact on lamprey spawning areas or smother silt beds. The level of dilution provided by the Firth of Forth would be likely to ensure that impacts on overall water quality would be minimal
4.4.30 It is therefore concluded that the development of the Bo’ness WWTW proposal will not affect water quality to an extent that will adversely impact on the qualifying interest features of the River Teith SAC.
Hydrodynamic Alteration
4.4.31 The localised flow velocity of the River Forth could be altered by the Boness WWTW as a result of the discharge plume emanating from the long sea outfall pipe. The flow velocity emanating from the pipe is currently unknown and it is also not known whether an upgraded WWTW would have an increased flow velocity.
4.4.32 Adult Atlantic salmon can maintain swim speeds in excess of 1ms-1 (Tang and Wardle, 1992). No specific information exists on the swimming speeds of river lamprey, however sea lamprey have been observed to swim at speeds of 0.7ms-1 (Quintella et al., 2009). Similarly, the spawning rivers into which the adult lamprey migrate have been shown to exhibit flows exceeding 1ms-1 (Maitland, 2003).
4.4.33 There is the possibility therefore that an upgraded WWTW could change localised hydrodynamics around the mouth of the long sea outfall pipe and that this could hinder Stlantic Salmon and Lamprey from using the area around the mouth of the pipe. It is suggested however that the effect of any change in flow velocities would be so localised that it would be extremely unlikely to have an adverse effect on migratory routes or feeding areas used by Atlantic Salmon or Lamprey, therefore it is concluded that development of the Bo’ness WWTW proposal will not affect flow velocities within the Firth of Forth to an extent that will adversely impact on the qualifying interest features of the River Teith SAC.
Mitigation
4.4.34 A project-specific Appropriate Assessment will be required and will need to consider effects upon the qualifying interest features of the River Teith SAC, in particular Atlantic Salmon, River Lamprey and Sea Lamprey
4.4.35 There are tried and tested ways of avoiding or mitigating the potential adverse effects on water quality associated with construction works. These include use of Ecological Clerk of Works, Method Statements, Construction Environment Management Plans, and adherence to codes of practice for construction works (e.g. PPG 5).
4.4.36 The Scottish Environmental Protection Agency are responsible for granting discharge licenses to outfalls from WWTW. It is likely that this regulatory process will ensure that the impact of effluent from the WWTW outfall on the marine environment will be minimised to levels which will not cause harm to Atlantic Salmon or Lamprey.
4.4.37 The flow velocity of the long sea outfall pipe from Bo’ness WWTW can be controlled through the installation of a hydrobrake if project level hydrological modelling reveals that this is likely to have an adverse effect on Atlantic Salmon or Lamprey.
4.4.38 The Appropriate Assessment is likely to require a consideration of (but not necessarily be limited to) the following issues: Consideration of construction methods that avoid adverse effects on water quality. Consideration of the necessity to reduce the flow velocity of the long sea outfall pipe and methods to achieve this Consideration of ways to reduce the impact of effluent emanating from the long sea outfall pipe on the marine environment
Changes to the Proposed Plan
4.4.39 The following text forms part of the Site Schedule requirements for the site, which also addresses mitigation for INF15 Airth Waste Water Treatment Works (see next section) and the Firth of Forth SPA (which is subject to HRA in a separate report): • “For Bo’ness and Airth proposals must be accompanied by a project-specific Appropriate Assessment demonstrating that there will be no adverse effects on the integrity of the Firth of Forth SPA and the River Teith SAC, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects.
Residual Effects
4.4.40 As this mitigation has been included in the Proposed Plan, it is concluded that there will be minor residual effects through noise and vibration, sediment release, impact on water quality and hydrodynamic alteration. These effects in combination with other similar effects will be considered further in paragraphs 4.4.119 – 4.4.161 of this report.
INF15 Airth WWTW
Description of proposals
4.4.41 Scottish Water has indicated that current capacity improvement works at Airth WWTW will not be sufficient to accommodate all the development proposed in the draft Falkirk LDP. Additional levels of treatment may be required in the future, which would increase the footprint of the site. It is anticipated that this could be accommodated within the existing land owned by Scottish Water. Any upgrade works may require an increase in the length of the existing long-sea outfall.
Qualifying Interest features of the River Teith SAC likely to be affected
4.4.42 Atlantic salmon, river lamprey and sea lamprey are qualifying features of the SAC that are at risk of adverse effects from the Airth WWTW proposal by virtue of their annual migration between freshwater and seawater.
Implications of the proposal for qualifying interest features of the River Teith SAC in light of its conservation objectives
Noise and Vibration
4.4.43 Airth WWTW is located, at its closest point, approximately 60m from the mean high water spring of the Firth of Forth. Any additional works could therefore involve piling operations close to the coast. As detailed at 4.4.5 and 4.4.6 above increased noise and vibration from coastal piling operations would only cause a temporary localised obstacle to migrating Atlantic Salmon at a distance of up to 400m surrounding the piling works. The width at high tide of the Firth of Forth at the Airth WWTW is approximately 930m however, at low tide it’s width reduces to approximately 280m. However at its closest point Airth WWTW is 180m from the mean low tide spring on the southern bank of the Forth. Therefore, even at low tide, there is a significant width of water (approximately 60m) which would be outside any zone of potential disturbance from potential piling works at Airth WWTW which would mean that the temporary localised obstacle to migrating Atlantic Salmon could be avoided and would not impede the migration of Atlantic Salmon.
4.4.44 It is not considered likely that any necessary works to extend the long sea outfall would involve piling works. It is therefore concluded that the Airth WWTW proposal will not increase levels of noise and vibration to an extent that will adversely impact on the qualifying interest features of the River Teith SAC.
Sediment Release
4.4.45 The main sources of sediment release during construction would be from unconsolidated sediments from exposed ground and potentially from re-suspension of sediments during construction of the long-sea outfall (depending on the construction method chosen). In addition, if the pipe is constructed on the surface of the seabed, this could lead to localised effects on sediment patterns.
4.4.46 As reported in the Forth Replacement Crossing, Report to Inform an Appropriate Assessment for the River Teith SAC (Jacobs ARUP 2009), the Firth of Forth has a naturally high suspended solid content and although salmon and lamprey may be at risk from sediment re-suspension from the Airth WWTW development, they are already adapted to living in this turbid environment, especially so at the freshwater/saltwater interface, therefore temporary increase in sediment loading should not impede their migratory behaviour.
4.4.47 It is therefore concluded that the Airth WWTW proposal will not increase levels of turbidity in the Firth of Forth (through sediment released as a result of development) to an extent that will adversely impact on the qualifying interest features of the River Teith SAC.
Impacts on Water Quality
4.4.48 Point source discharges of pollutants (such as fuel, construction materials etc) could have significant adverse effects upon salmon and lamprey populations in the estuary, either through direct mortality or indirect mortality of prey species. The scale of impact would depend on the nature of the pollutant (fuel, chemical, silt, and sewage), duration and extent of source and origin (aquatic/terrestrial).
4.4.49 The main sources of pollution during construction could arise from releases of unconsolidated sediments from exposed ground, uncontrolled releases of oils, fuels and chemicals, unregulated releases of sewage, and potentially from re-suspension of sediments during construction of the long- sea outfall (depending on the construction method chosen). All these factors are capable of being controlled through careful design, siting and timing of the works, coupled with good construction practice.
4.4.50 Water quality standards for effluent would be set by SEPA. Whilst there may be some changes to water quality at the point of discharge, these effects are likely to be localised. It is not currently known where the long sea outfall pipe from Airth WWTW discharges from but it is safe to assume that it will be beyond the mean low water spring into salt water. Effluent from Airth will therefore not impact on lamprey spawning areas or smother silt beds. The level of dilution provided by the Firth of Forth would be likely to ensure that impacts on overall water quality would be minimal.
4.4.51 It is therefore concluded that the development of the Airth WWTW proposal will not affect water quality to an extent that will adversely impact on the qualifying interest features of the River Teith SAC.
Hydrodynamic Alteration
4.4.52 The localised flow velocity of the River Forth could be altered by the Airth WWTW as a result of the discharge plume emanating from the long sea outfall pipe. The flow velocity emanating from the pipe is currently unknown and it is also not known whether an upgraded WWTW would have an increased flow velocity.
4.4.53 Adult Atlantic salmon can maintain swim speeds in excess of 1ms-1 (Tang and Wardle, 1992). No specific information exists on the swimming speeds of river lamprey, however sea lamprey have been observed to swim at speeds of 0.7ms-1 (Quintella et al., 2009). Similarly, the spawning rivers into which the adult lamprey migrate have been shown to exhibit flows exceeding 1ms-1 (Maitland, 2003).
4.4.54 There is the possibility therefore that an upgraded WWTW could change localised hydrodynamics around the mouth of the long sea outfall pipe and that this could hinder Atlantic Salmon and Lamprey from using the area around the mouth of the pipe. It is suggested however that the effect of any change in flow velocities would be so localised that it would be extremely unlikely to have an adverse effect on migratory routes or feeding areas used by Atlantic Salmon or Lamprey, therefore it is concluded that development of the Airth WWTW proposal will not affect flow velocities within the Firth of Forth to an extent that will adversely impact on the qualifying interest features of the River Teith SAC.
Mitigation
4.4.55 A project-specific Appropriate Assessment will be required and will need to consider effects upon the qualifying interest features of the River Teith SAC, in particular Atlantic Salmon, River Lamprey and Sea Lamprey.
4.4.56 There are tried and tested ways of avoiding or mitigating the potential adverse effects on water quality associated with construction works. These include use of Ecological Clerk of Works, Method Statements, Construction Environment Management Plans, and adherence to codes of practice for construction works (e.g. PPG 5).
4.4.57 The Scottish Environmental Protection Agency are responsible for granting discharge licenses to outfalls from WWTW. It is likely that this regulatory process will ensure that the impact of effluent from the WWTW outfall on the marine environment will be minimised to levels which will not cause harm to Atlantic Salmon or Lamprey.
4.4.58 The flow velocity of the long sea outfall pipe from Airth WWTW can be controlled through the installation of a hydrobrake if project level hydrological modelling reveals that this is likely to have an adverse effect on Atlantic Salmon or Lamprey.
4.4.59 The Appropriate Assessment is likely to require a consideration of (but not necessarily be limited to) the following issues: Consideration of construction methods that avoid adverse effects on water quality. Consideration of the necessity to reduce the flow velocity of the long sea outfall pipe and methods to achieve this Consideration of ways to reduce the impact of effluent emanating from the long sea outfall pipe on the marine environment
Changes to the Proposed Plan
4.4.60 The following text forms part of the Site Schedule requirements for the site, which also addresses mitigation for INF15 Airth Waste Water Treatment Works (see next section) and the Firth of Forth SPA (which is subject to HRA in a separate report): • “For Bo’ness and Airth proposals must be accompanied by a project-specific Appropriate Assessment demonstrating that there will be no adverse effects on the integrity of the Firth of Forth SPA and the River Teith SAC, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects.
Residual Effects
4.4.61 As this mitigation has been included in the Proposed Plan, it is concluded that there will be minor residual effects through noise and vibration, sediment release, impact on water quality and hydrodynamic alteration. These effects in combination with other similar effects will be considered further in paragraphs 4.4.119 – 4.4.161 of this report.
INF21 Dalderse WWTW
Description of proposals
4.4.62 Dalderse WWTW will require to be upgraded to accommodate the scale of growth promoted in the Proposed Plan.
Qualifying Interest features of the River Teith SAC likely to be affected
4.4.63 Atlantic salmon, river lamprey and sea lamprey are qualifying features of the SAC that are at risk of adverse effects from the Dalderse WWTW proposal by virtue of their annual migration between freshwater and seawater.
Implications of the proposal for qualifying interest features of the River Teith SAC in light of its conservation objectives
Impacts on water quality
4.4.64 The River Carron Estuary Tidal Survey (River Carron Fisheries Management Group 2012) notes that on 15/5/12 the river dissolved oxygen concentration (measured by DO analyser) was 5.27ppm on the upstream side of the Kerse Bridge, Grangemouth., and that on 17/5/12 the river dissolved oxygen was 8.35ppm at High Tide, falling to 6.0ppm at Low Tide. The report further notes that migratory salmonids require 6ppm and will not survive at these oxygen levels and require the tides and/or river spate conditions to migrate upstream or downstream of Dalderse Sewage Works at the moment in order to survive. The length of river channel affected is 5.1km long (from Dalderse Sewage Works Effluent Discharge Pipe to the River Carron: River Forth confluence).
4.4.65 Sea Lamprey, River Lamprey and Atlantic Salmon may investigate the River Carron in their migration between the River Teith, Firth of Forth and the sea. However, if the water quality in the River Carron low enough to be a danger to their health then they will not enter the River Carron.
4.4.66 The effluent discharge pipe from Dalderse WWTW is 5.1km upstream of the confluence of the River Forth. If the upgrading of Dalderse WWTW leads to the reduction in water quality of the River Carron then, owing to dilution factors, this is unlikely to have any noticeable adverse impact on the water quality of the Firth of Forth
4.4.67 It is therefore concluded that the development of the Dalderse WWTW proposal will not affect water quality to an extent that will adversely impact on the qualifying interest features of the River Teith SAC.
Mitigation
4.4.68 Policy RW05 “The Water Environment” of the proposed plan at criteria 3 indicates that there will be a general presumption against development which would lead to a deterioration of the ecological status of any element of the water environment. The implementation of this policy will help to ensure that the expansion of Dalderse WWTW will not lead to the deterioration of the ecological status of the River Carron and thereby help to mitigate the potential effect that this project could have on the water quality of the Firth of Forth.
4.4.69 It is not considered necessary to introduce any further mitigating working into the Plan to ensure that the proposal at Dalderse WWTW does not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the River Teith SAC.
Residual Effects
4.4.70 There will be minor residual effects through impact on water quality. These effects in combination with other similar effects will be considered further in paragraphs 4.4.119 – 4.4.131 of this report.
INF22 - Grangemouth Flood Defence Scheme
Description of proposals
4.4.71 Much of the area north of the M9 is affected by potential flood risk constraints64.
4.4.72 The National Planning Framework 2 is a statutory Scotland-wide planning policy document published by the Scottish Government. It includes a list of “national developments”, which are projects that Scottish Ministers consider are essential for the development of Scotland. Planning Authorities are required to take this framework into account when preparing development plans. Development of the Grangemouth Freight Hub as Scotland’s largest container port and main freight distribution centre is identified as a national development within NPF2. Elements of the scheme include: Creation of a river berth outside the port lock. Expanded freight storage and handling facilities and other port related development. Improved rail connections. Improved road connections to the M9 and M8. Any measures necessary to protect the area from coastal flooding.
4.4.73 The NPF2 was subject to a HRA, which concluded that it would not result in significant adverse effects upon the River Teith SAC. However, as the LDP includes proposals that will either implement, or enable implementation of a number of the elements, they have been considered for their potential effects upon the River Teith within this HRA. The creation of a river berth outside the port lock is not being taken forward at this stage within the LDP, and hence has been screened out of the HRA. The Flood defence proposals the only element of the NPF proposal that are included in the LDP, which has not been screened out of the HRA.
4.4.74 The Flood Defence Scheme will also be included in the Forth Estuary Flood Risk Management Plan, which will also be subject to HRA. Flood Risk Management Plans consider all forms of flooding including from rivers, groundwater and coastal areas, as well as flash flooding from heavy rainfall and overwhelmed drainage systems in urban areas. The plans will address existing and projected future problems. The production of local plans will be led by local authorities and will be produced by 2015. They will be informed by analysis of areas vulnerable to flooding (prepared by SEPA)65.
64 Roger Tym & Partners. 2011. 65 SEPA et al undated 4.4.75 So far, very few details about the likely nature and precise location of the scheme have been developed. It is likely to extend from north of the River Carron to Kinneil, and is likely to be implemented in phases owing to funding constraints. An initial review of existing flood protection measures and their condition has been undertaken66.
4.4.76 There are existing sea defences along the coast from Kinneil northwards and along the lower reaches of the Rivers Avon and River Carron. The approximate location, current condition, and options for improvement of these were summarised in Table 32 previously.
66 Falkirk Council, 2012a
Qualifying Interest features of the River Teith SAC likely to be affected
4.4.77 Atlantic salmon, river lamprey and sea lamprey are qualifying features of the SAC that are at risk of adverse effects from the Grangemouth Flood Defence Scheme proposal by virtue of their annual migration between freshwater and seawater and the potential for the Flood Defence scheme to create barriers to fish migrating up the Forth and into the Teith.
Implications of the proposal for qualifying interest features of the River Teith SAC in light of its conservation objectives
Noise and Vibration
4.4.78 Table 6.4 indicates the options for remedial works to improve the existing flood defences at Grangemouth. The table does not rule out the prospect of piling operations to improve existing flood defences. As detailed at 4.4.5 and 4.4.6 above increased noise and vibration from coastal piling operations would only cause a temporary localised obstacle to migrating Atlantic Salmon at a distance of up to 400m surrounding the piling works. The width of the Firth of Forth at the Grangmouth Flood Defence Scheme ranges from between 1.2km at Grangemouth Port dock entrance to approximately 4.5km at the mouth of the River Avon therefore a temporary obstacle of 400m surrounding the proposed Flood Defence Scheme would not impede the migration of Atlantic Salmon.
4.4.79 It is therefore concluded that the Grangemouth Flood Defence Scheme proposal will not increase levels of noise and vibration to an extent that will adversely impact on the qualifying interest features of the River Teith SAC.
Sediment Release
4.4.80 Table 32 indicates that there may be a need to dredge the channel of the River Avon from Polmonthill to its confluence with the Firth of Forth. These dredging works could lead to significant re-suspension of solids and also in increase in turbidity around the location of the discharge site. Little details are known about the likely volume of dredging or the location where this might be disposed of.
Impacts on Water Quality
4.4.81 The main sources of pollution during construction could arise from releases of unconsolidated sediments from exposed ground, uncontrolled releases of oils, fuels and chemicals, unregulated releases of sewage, and potentially from re-suspension of sediments during construction of the long-sea outfall (depending on the construction method chosen). All these factors are capable of being controlled through careful design, siting and timing of the works, coupled with good construction practice.
Hydrodynamic Alteration
4.4.82 Changes to the height, slope, and even material of the existing flood defences may affect movement of currents and hence sediment patterns within the bay. Not enough information currently exists to allow an meaningful assessment of the impact of likely hydrodynamic alteration caused by the Flood Defence Scheme on the qualifying interests of the River Teith SAC.
Mitigation
4.4.83 Based on the current state of development of the proposals for the flood defence scheme, it is not possible to be definitive about the nature and scale of all the effects of the proposal; however some assessment of likely effects can be made at this stage, including mitigation.
4.4.84 An Appropriate Assessment will be required for the Flood Risk Management Plan for the Forth Estuary. The Appropriate Assessment is likely to require a consideration of (but not necessarily be limited to) the following issues: An investigation of effects of the scheme on sediment movement and deposition and hence the turbidity and flow velocity of the Firth of Forth. Demonstration of how the construction programme will avoid effects arising from pollution incidents during construction.
Changes to the Plan
4.4.85 To address these issues, the Site Schedule within the LDP contains the following requirements (which also apply to other European Sites within the influence of the LDP): “Proposals will be developed within the Local Flood Risk Management Plan (LFRMP) which will be subject to Habitats Regulations Appraisal demonstrating that there will be no adverse effects on the integrity of the Firth of Forth SPA and the River Teith SAC, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects. Detailed proposals must be accompanied by a project-specific Appropriate Assessment.”
Residual Effects
4.4.86 As mitigation has been included within the Proposed Plan, it is concluded that there may be minor residual effects in relation to noise and vibration during construction, sediment release and hydrodynamic alteration. These effects in combination with other similar effects will be considered further in paragraphs 4.1.132 – 4.4.161 of this report.
INF34 - Avondale Waste Management Site
Description of proposals
4.4.87 This policy safeguards land adjacent to the existing Waste Management Site to enable its future expansion as a landfill facility in accordance with the Zero Waste Plan and Policy ST18. It is a proposal from the existing Local Plan that is being carried forward.
Qualifying Interest features of the River Teith SAC likely to be affected
4.4.88 Atlantic salmon, river lamprey and sea lamprey are qualifying features of the SAC that are at risk of adverse effects from the Grangemouth Flood Defence Scheme proposal by virtue of their annual migration between freshwater and seawater and the potential for the Avondale Waste Management site to cause pollution/ changes in water quality of the River Avon leading to changes in the Firth of Forth.
Implications of the proposal for qualifying interest features of the River Teith SAC in light of its conservation objectives
Impact on Water Quality
4.4.89 Sea Lamprey, River Lamprey and Atlantic Salmon may investigate the River Avon in their migration between the River Teith, Firth of Forth and the sea. However, if the water quality in the River Avon low enough to be a danger to their health then they will not enter the River Carron.
4.4.90 The lower reaches of the River Avon have been assessed as of Moderate Ecological status by SEPA, mainly owing to modifications to the natural morphology, including barriers to fish passage. Water quality and current discharges from the landfill site do not appear to be an issue, and have not been raised by SEPA as an issue of concern. All point-source discharges from the site require consent from SEPA.
4.4.91 It is therefore concluded that the development of the Avondale Waste Management Site proposal will not affect water quality to an extent that will adversely impact on the qualifying interest features of the River Teith SAC.
Mitigation
4.4.92 Policy RW05 “The Water Environment” of the proposed plan at criteria 3 indicates that there will be a general presumption against development which would lead to a deterioration of the ecological status of any element of the water environment. The implementation of this policy will help to ensure that the expansion of Dalderse WWTW will not lead to the deterioration of the ecological status of the River Carron and thereby help to mitigate the potential effect that this project could have on the water quality of the Firth of Forth.
4.4.93 It is not considered necessary to introduce any further mitigating working into the Plan to ensure that the proposal at Avondale Waste Management Site does not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the River Teith SAC.
Residual Effects
4.4.94 There will be minor residual effects through impact on water quality. These effects in combination with other similar effects will be considered further in paragraphs 4.4.132 – 4.4.141 of this report.
ED15 Grangemouth Docks
Description of proposals
4.4.95 Grangemouth Docks is one of three Strategic Business Locations identified within the LDP. The Grangemouth Freight Hub is highlighted as a National Development in NPF2 and focuses on the development of the port, where sites are available to support port related activities and associated intermodal distribution functions.
4.4.96 The proposals in the LDP permit development within four vacant or underused areas within the Docks for port-related industry, warehousing, storage, logistics, and renewable energy projects. At this stage the precise nature of development at any one location is not known, hence it is difficult to be definitive about the scale and scope of effects upon the integrity of the River Teith SAC. However, the types of effect that may be anticipated can be identified.
4.4.97 This proposal both abuts the Firth of Forth and lies adjacent to water bodies which lead into the Firth of Forth.
Qualifying Interest features of the River Teith SAC likely to be affected
4.4.98 Atlantic salmon, river lamprey and sea lamprey are qualifying features of the SAC that are at risk of adverse effects from the Grangemouth Docks proposal by virtue of their annual migration between freshwater and seawater and the potential for the Grangemouth Docks site to cause pollution/ changes in water quality and noise and vibration during construction.
Implications of the proposal for qualifying interest features of the River Teith SAC in light of its conservation objectives
Noise and Vibration
4.4.99 As detailed at 4.4.5 and 4.4.6 above increased noise and vibration from coastal piling operations would only cause a temporary localised obstacle to migrating Atlantic Salmon at a distance of up to 400m surrounding the piling works. The width of the Firth of Forth at the Grangemouth Dock proposal is approximately 2.9km therefore a temporary obstacle of 400m surrounding the proposed Grangemouth Dock proposal site would not impede the migration of Atlantic Salmon.
4.4.100 At this stage it is not known what, if any, changes in shipping movements would arise from the proposals.
Impact on Water Quality
4.4.101 The main sources of pollution during construction could arise from releases of unconsolidated sediments from exposed ground, uncontrolled releases of oils, fuels and chemicals, unregulated releases of sewage, (depending on the construction method chosen). All these factors are capable of being controlled through careful design, siting and timing of the works, coupled with good construction practice.
4.4.102 Pollution during operation could increase due to uncontrolled releases of oils fuels and chemicals from increased shipping traffic. At this stage it is not known what, if any, changes in shipping movements would arise from the proposals.
Sediment release
4.4.103 At this stage it is not known what, if any, changes in shipping movements would arise from the proposals. However, if they do increase then there is the potential for an increased requirement for dredging in the Firth of Forth. These dredging works could lead to significant re-suspension of solids and also in increase in turbidity around the location of the discharge site. Little details are known about the likely volume of dredging or the location where this might be disposed of.
Mitigation
4.4.104 As there is very little detail about the likely developments that will occur as a result of this proposal, it is difficult to be definitive about the effects. It is, however, possible to include mitigation to address the potential source of impacts that have been identified above. Proposals will only be permitted where there will be no adverse effect on the integrity of the River Teith SAC, either alone or in-combination with other plans or projects.
4.4.105 A masterplan will be required for the proposed development site. This must be agreed between Forth Ports, Falkirk Council and SNH prior to any works commencing. The masterplan must be accompanied by a project level Appropriate Assessment.
4.4.106 The Appropriate Assessment is likely to require a consideration of (but not necessarily be limited to) the following issues: Consideration of construction methods that avoid adverse effects on water quality. Ways of ensuring that sediment release from any necessary increase in dredging activity does not increase turbidity in the Firth of Forth to a level which could cause increased mortality of Atlantic Salmon, Sea Lamprey and River Lamprey. Investigation into the impact of increased levels of shipping movements on the qualifying interest features of the River Teith SAC
Changes to the Plan
4.4.107 These requirements are incorporated into the Site Schedule for the proposal through the following text (which also provides mitigation for other European Sites within the influence of the Falkirk LDP):
“Proposals must be accompanied by a masterplan and project-specific Appropriate Assessment demonstrating that there will be no adverse effects on the integrity of the Firth of Forth SPA and the River Teith SAC either alone or in combination with other plans or projects.”
Residual Effects
4.4.108 As mitigation has been included within the Proposed Plan, it is concluded that there may be minor residual effects in relation to noise and vibration during construction, impact on water quality and sediment release. These effects in combination with other similar effects will be considered further in paragraphs 4.4.119 and 4.4.153 of this report.
ED16 Ineos Redevelopment Opportunity & ED17 Wholeflats Business Park
Description of proposals
4.4.109 The Ineos Redevelopment Opportunity proposal relates to a collection of discrete sites comprising brownfield land lying within the Ineos complex. The Wholeflats Business Park proposal is already partially developed as business park and situated off Inchyra Road. Both these sites form part of the Grangemouth Chemical Cluster, which highlights the potential to expand the chemicals sector within Grangemouth.
Qualifying Interest features of the River Teith SAC likely to be affected
4.4.110 Atlantic salmon, river lamprey and sea lamprey are qualifying features of the SAC that are at risk of adverse effects from the Ineos Redevelopment Opportunity and Wholeflats Business Park proposals by virtue of their annual migration between freshwater and seawater and the potential for the sites to cause pollution/ changes in water quality during construction and operation.
Implications of the proposal for qualifying interest features of the River Teith SAC in light of its conservation objectives
Impacts on Water Quality
4.4.111 The main source of pollution would arise from uncontrolled spillages or discharges into the River Avon. Construction impacts would arise from disturbance of soils, particularly if these are contaminated from previous industrial activity. Operational impacts would arise from routine or accidental discharges from any activity. Discharges would be regulated and consented by SEPA.
4.4.112 The exact nature of chemical/ biochemical/ industrial development that may take place within the Ineos Redevelopment Opportunity or Wholeflats Business Park sites is unknown. Therefore the risk of an accidental spillage causing a pollution incident during construction or operation cannot be reasonably estimated at this stage.
Mitigation
4.4.112 Project-specific Appropriate Assessments will be required and will need to consider effects upon the qualifying interest features of the River Teith SAC, in particular Atlantic Salmon, River Lamprey and Sea Lamprey.
4.4.113 There are tried and tested ways of avoiding or mitigating the potential adverse effects on water quality associated with construction works. These include use of Ecological Clerk of Works, Method Statements, Construction Environment Management Plans, and adherence to codes of practice for construction works (e.g. PPG 5).
4.4.114 The Scottish Environmental Protection Agency are responsible for granting discharge licenses to outfalls from industry into receiving watercourses. It is likely that this regulatory process will ensure that the impact of effluent from new industry developed as part of the Ineos Redevelopment Opportunity outfall on the marine environment will be minimised to levels which will not cause harm to Atlantic Salmon or Lamprey.
4.4.115 The Appropriate Assessment is likely to require a consideration of (but not necessarily be limited to) the following issues: Consideration of construction methods that avoid adverse effects on water quality. Consideration of construction methods and operational practices that reduce the risk of accidental spillage of pollutants. Consideration of pollution control measures to ensure that if any pollutants are released during an accident then they do not enter the River Avon.
Changes to the Plan
4.4.116 These requirements should be incorporated into the Site Schedule for the proposals through the following text (which also provides mitigation for other European Sites within the influence of the Falkirk LDP):
“Proposals must be accompanied by a masterplan and project-specific Appropriate Assessment demonstrating that there will be no adverse effects on the integrity of the Firth of Forth SPA and the River Teith SAC either alone or in combination with other plans or projects.”
Residual Effects
4.4.117 As mitigation has been included within the Proposed Plan, it is concluded that there may be minor residual effects in relation to impact on water quality. These effects in combination with other similar effects will be considered further in paragraphs 4.4.119 - 4.4.131 of this report.
In combination effects
Impacts on Water Quality
Description of proposals
4.4.119 The following policies and proposals have minor residual effects on the River Teith SAC due to adverse impacts on water quality:
D14 – Canals ED15 – Grangemouth Docks ED16 – Ineos Redevelopment Opportunity ED17 – Wholeflats Business Park GN02 – Kinneil Kerse GN08 – River Carron Corridor Improvements INF15 – Airth WWTW INF19 – Bo’ness WWTW INF21 – Dalderse WWTW INF34 – Avondale Waste Management Site M01 – Bo’ness Foreshore RW05 – The Water Environment
Qualifying Interest features of the River Teith SAC likely to be affected
4.4.120 Atlantic salmon, river lamprey and sea lamprey are qualifying features of the SAC that are at risk of adverse effects from these proposals and by virtue of their annual migration between freshwater and seawater and the potential for the sites to adversely impact on water quality in the Firth of Forth, River Carron and River Avon.
Implications of the proposal for qualifying interest features of the River Teith SAC in light of its conservation objectives
Table 57 – Matrix of projects which could act in combination to impact on water quality D14 ED15 ED16 ED17 GN02 GN08 INF15 INF19 INF21 INF34 M01 RW05 D14 ED15 ED16 ED17 GN02 GN08 INF15 INF19 INF21 INF34 M01 RW05
4.4.121 Policies D14 and RW04 and proposals ED15 and M01 have the potential to increase the amount of boat traffic using the Firth of Forth which could act in combination to have an impact on water quality. It is considered however, that the impact on water quality is likely to be negligible due to the dilution factor provided by the Firth of Forth
4.4.122 The nature water quality impacts from sites ED16 and ED17 are unknown at this stage, however as project specific Appropriate Assessment is required of both proposals it is considered that the eventual form of industrial development which does come forward on these site will not impact on water quality to an extent that would have an adverse effect on the integrity of the SAC. Both of these proposals together with proposal INF34 could impact upon the water quality in the River Avon and therefore have the potential to act in combination. However, although Sea Lamprey, River Lamprey and Atlantic Salmon may investigate the River Avon in their migration between the River Teith, Firth of Forth and the sea, if the water quality in the River Avon is low enough to be a danger to their health, then they will not enter the River Avon. Once the River Avon flows into the Firth of Forth any impact on water quality will be greatly reduced due to the dilution factor, therefore they will not act in combination to have an adverse effect on the integrity of the River Teith SAC.
4.4.123 The main impacts on water quality likely to arise from WWTW proposals (INF15,19 & 21) are elevated nutrient levels. The volume of discharge from the WWTW is small compared to the dilution factor of the Forth. Any minor residual effects relating to nutrient enrichment are likely to be confined to a relatively small area around the discharge points. The distance between these discharge points means that there is little scope for in combination effects. In addition, any discharges will be subject to a consenting procedure by SEPA, and may each be required to undertake a project-specific AA.
4.4.124 Mitigation measures have already been introduced to a number of proposals (ED15- 17; INF15, 19, 21& 34; and M01) to ensure that the potential for water pollution during construction has been minimised. Green network opportunities GN02 and GN08 were not considered to have a likely significant effect in their own right due to impacts on water quality. Given the distances between these proposals there is little scope for in combination effects with the exception of proposals GN08 and INF21. Both of these proposals could impact upon the water quality in the River Carron, however, in a similar manner to that explained in paragraph 4.4.122 above, once diluted by the Firth of Forth they will not act in combination to have an adverse effect on the integrity of the River Teith SAC.
4.4.125 It is not therefore considered that these minor residual effects will act in combination to have an adverse effect on the integrity of the River Teith SAC.
Mitigation
4.4.126 No further mitigation is considered to be necessary.
Residual Effects
4.4.127 There will be minor residual effects on the River Teith SAC through impact on water quality.
In combination assessment with other plans or proposals not contained in the Proposed Plan
Plans
4.4.128 Of the Habitats Regulations Appraisals that are available for the development plans of neighbouring Local Authority Areas, neither the Stirling Council Proposed Plan, the Dunfermline and West Fife Local Plan or the Clackmannanshire Local Plan 1st Alteration predicted any minor residual effects on the River Teith SAC. The HRA of the National Renewables Infrastructure Plan predicts minor residual effects on the River Teith but not through impact on water quality. In addition it should be noted that there are no Habitats Regulations Appraisals available for the Stirling Council Local Plan or the West Lothian Local Plan.
4.4.129 The only plan for which an HRA is available which predicts minor residual effects on the River Teith SAC due to impacts on water quality is National Planning Framework 2. The provisions of that plan which have a minor residual effect through impact on water quality and their potential to act in combination with the Proposed Plan is detailed in the table below:
Table 59: Elements of other plans which could impact on the water quality of the Firth of Forth Provisions causing a minor Description of effect Potential for in-combination residual effect effects on the integrity of the River Teith SAC ND1 - Forth Replacement Risk of accidental spillage Given the distance Crossing - causing a pollution incident between the Falkirk is well below the Council area and the Forth acceptable risk target or Replacement Crossing and 0.5% AEP. PPG and the levels of dilution COCP will be adhered to provided in the Firth of and Pollution Incident Forth, no in combination Response Team will effects are predicted. respond to incidents. Therefore pollution is unlikely to impact on the integrity of the River Teith SAC. ND5 - Grangemouth Freight Hub Grangemouth Docks No potential for in (ED15) and Grangemouth combination effects. Flood Defence Scheme (INF17) are elements of this National Development which are included within the Proposed Plan and are assessed earlier in the report. ND6 - Additional Container Port and freight Given the distance Freight Capacity on the Forth development could between the Falkirk including: Rosyth International increase water pollution. Council area and the Forth Container Terminal (RICT); Replacement Crossing and development at the ports of the levels of dilution Burntisland, Methil and Leith provided in the Firth of Forth, no in combination effects are predicted.
Proposals
4.4.130 The following projects outside those included within the suite of development plans analysed in table 59 above were identified which could have an adverse effect on the water quality of the Firth of Forth:
Table 60: Other projects which could have an impact on the water quality of the Firth of Forth Project Status Comments Grangemouth d) projects that A report entitled “Information to Inform a Habitats Biomass Plant are subject to Regulations Assessment” (SKM Enviros 2012) did not outstanding identify any potential impacts upon the River Teith SAC, appeal however it is understood that the conclusions of the report procedures; with regard to the River Teith SAC have been questioned67. As yet an appropriate assessment for the project is not publicly available. Rosyth d) projects that Although an appropriate assessment for the project is not Biomass Plant are subject to publicly available, given the distance between the Falkirk outstanding Council area and the proposed Rosyth Biomass Plant and appeal the levels of dilution provided in the Firth of Forth, no in procedures; combination effects are predicted. Woodwaste c) project that 87m to tip wind turbine adjacent to Bo’ness Waste Water wind turbine is subject to Treatment Works. Potential for impacts on water quality application for during construction to act in combination with the Bo’ness planning WWTW. However, assuming that a project level consent; appropriate assessment for the wind turbine will identify mitigation to reduce impacts on water quality during construction and given the levels of dilution provided in the Firth of Forth it is not predicted that they will act in combination to have an adverse effect on the integrity of the River Teith SAC.
4.4.131 It is therefore concluded that the Proposed Plan will not act in combination with any other plans of projects to have an adverse effect on the integrity of the River Teith SAC through impacts on water quality.
Noise and Vibration
Description of proposals
4.4.132 The following proposals have minor residual effects on the River Teith SAC due to noise and vibration:
D14 Canals GN02 Kinneil Kerse GN03 Bothkennar/Skinflats INF15 Airth WWTW INF19 Bo’ness WWTW INF22 Grangemouth Flood Defence Scheme M01 Bo’ness Foreshore ED15 Grangemouth Docks
Qualifying Interest features of the River Teith SAC likely to be affected
4.4.133 Atlantic salmon, river lamprey and sea lamprey are qualifying features of the SAC that are at risk of adverse effects from these proposals by virtue of the noise and vibration
67 The River Carron Estuary Tidal Survey (River Carron Fisheries Management Group 2012) they cause disrupting the annual migration between freshwater and seawater of Atlantic Salmon, River Lamprey and Sea Lamprey.
Implications of the proposal for qualifying interest features of the River Teith SAC in light of its conservation objectives
Table 61: Matrix of projects which could cause noise and vibration adjacent to the Firth of Forth D14 GN02 GN03 INF15 INF19 INF22 M01 ED15 D14 GN02 GN03 INF15 INF19 INF22 M01 ED15
4.4.134 If developed concurrently, the noise and vibration caused by any piling activity associated with proposals GN02, GN03 and INF22 could act in combination to create an enlarged zone of potential disturbance.
4.4.135 As indicated previously at paragraph 3.3.5 Lamprey do not possess a swimbladder, the absence of which makes them less susceptible to significant tissue damage in response to rapid pressure changes in the zone influenced by piling operations , therefore river and sea lamprey are not likely to be adversely affected by the noise and vibration generated by construction.
4.4.136 As indicated previously in paragraph 3.3.7 Atlantic salmon, by their nature are highly mobile and therefore able to move out of areas where acoustic disturbance is occurring, limiting the likelihood of physical injury from pressure waves. It is assumed that the piling operations could therefore result in a temporary localised obstacle to migrating Atlantic Salmon. Whilst it was indicated previously in paragraph 3.3.6 that noise at 400m range generated through piling operations is not likely to be discernible by Atlantic Salmon in the Firth of Forth over the background noise, it is not known whether noise from two different sources acting together is likely to increase the range above which piling operations will not be discernable.
4.4.137 The width of the Firth of Forth at the Bothkennar/Skinflats Green Network Opportunity is approximately 3km at Skinflats Lagoons and approximately 4km at the Kinneil Kerse Green Network Opportunity. The effect of noise from two different sources acting together will not increase the zone of potential disturbance to a 3km radius so these proposals will not act together to impede the migration of Atlantic Salmon and will therefore not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the River Teith SAC.
Mitigation
4.4.138 No further mitigation is considered to be necessary.
Residual Effects
4.4.139 There will be minor residual effects on the River Teith SAC from these proposals through noise and vibration.
In combination assessment with other plans or proposals not contained in the Proposed Plan
4.4.140 As indicated in paragraphs 3.3.6 and 3.3.7, Atlantic Salmon would only detect noise from piling above background levels at a range of 400m. It can therefore be concluded that the only opportunity for in combination effects to occur from noise and vibration would be if two projects on opposite banks of the Forth were to undertake piling simultaneously where the width of the Firth of Forth was less than 800m.
4.4.141 The only proposal within the Proposed Plan where the width of the Firth of Forth is less than 800m is at opportunity GN03. There are no known projects either consented, subject to applications for consent or within draft or extant plans on the land opposite opportunity GN03 at a point where the width of the Firth of Forth is less than 800m. It is therefore concluded that the Proposed Plan will not act in combination with any other plans or projects to have an adverse effect on the integrity of the River Teith SAC through noise and vibration.
Sediment Release
Description of proposals
4.4.142 The following proposals have minor residual effects on the River Teith SAC due to sediment release:
ED15 – Grangemouth Docks GN02 – Kinneil Kerse GN03 – Bothkennar/Skinflats GN08 – River Carron Corridor Improvements INF15 – Airth WWTW INF19 – Bo’ness WWTW INF22 – Grangemouth Flood Defence Scheme M01 – Bo’ness Foreshore
Qualifying Interest features of the River Teith SAC likely to be affected
4.4.143 Atlantic salmon, river lamprey and sea lamprey are qualifying features of the SAC that are at risk of adverse effects from increased levels of turbidity caused by sediment release from these proposals.
Implications of the proposal for qualifying interest features of the River Teith SAC in light of its conservation objectives
Table 62: Matrix of projects which could release sediment into the Firth of Forth ED15 GN02 GN03 GN08 INF15 INF19 INF22 M01 ED15 GN02 GN03 GN08 INF15 INF19 INF22 M01
Release of sediments during construction
4.4.144 The main sources of sediment release during construction would be from unconsolidated sediments from exposed ground. If any of these proposals come forward at the same time then there is potential for the sediments that they release to act in combination to produce increased levels of turbidity compared to those which would have arisen as a result of a single proposal.
4.4.145 Proposals GN08, INF15, INF19 and M01 are too distant from the other proposals for there to be any prospect of sediments released during construction having any interaction with each other.
4.4.146 If construction of the Grangemouth Flood Defence Scheme occurs at the same time as the green network opportunities at Kinneil Kerse or Bothkennar/ Skinflats or the Grangemouth Docks proposal then there is the potential for the sediments that they release to act in combination to produce increased levels of turbidity.
4.4.147 Little is known about the levels of sediment release which could be released during the construction period as the proposals due are at a very early stage of their development. Proposals for the Grangemouth Flood Defence scheme will be developed further in the Flood Risk Management Plan for the Forth which will itself have to undergo an appropriate assessment. Therefore the issue of in combination effects can be addressed further at that time when more detail about the likely release of sediments from construction is known. This is in accordance with the guidance given at paragraph 5.30 of Habitats Regulations Appraisal of Plans, Guidance for Plan Making Bodies in Scotland Version 2.0 (SNH 2012).
Release of sediments due to dredging
4.4.148 Both the Grangemouth Flood Defence Scheme and the Grangemouth Docks proposals could, in theory, lead to increased dredging activity, however, not enough detail is known about each proposal to be able to meaningfully predict the likely type or volume of dredged material or locations for the deposition of this dredged material.
4.4.149 As mentioned previously, proposals for the Grangemouth Flood Defence scheme will be developed further in the Flood Risk Management Plan for the Forth which will itself have to undergo an appropriate assessment. Therefore the issue of in combination effects can be addressed further at that time when more detail is known about the likely type of dredged material, volume of dredged material and the location for the deposition of this material. This is in accordance with the guidance given at paragraph 5.30 of Habitats Regulations Appraisal of Plans, Guidance for Plan Making Bodies in Scotland Version 2.0 (SNH 2012)
In combination assessment with other plans or proposals not contained in the Proposed Plan
Plans
4.4.150 Of the Habitats Regulations Appraisals that are available for the development plans of neighbouring Local Authority Areas, neither the Stirling Council Proposed Plan, the Dunfermline and West Fife Local Plan or the Clackmannanshire Local Plan 1st Alteration predicted any minor residual effects on the River Teith SAC. The HRA of the National Renewables Infrastructure Plan predicts minor residual effects on the River Teith but not through impacts from sediment release. In addition it should be noted that there are no Habitats Regulations Appraisals available for the Stirling Council Local Plan or the West Lothian Local Plan.
4.4.151 The only plan for which an HRA is available which predicts minor residual effects on the River Teith SAC due to sediment release is National Planning Framework 2. The provisions of that plan which have a minor residual effect through sediment release and their potential to act in combination with the Proposed Plan is detailed in the table below:
Table 63: Elements of other plans which could cause sediment release into the Firth of Forth Provisions causing a minor Description of effect Potential for in-combination residual effect effects on the integrity of the River Teith SAC ND1 - Forth Replacement Sedimentation will only Given the distance Crossing - occur during low water between the Falkirk slack and any aggregation Council area and the Forth of sediment arising from Replacement Crossing no the scheme will dissipate in combination effects are with the tides to within predicted. tolerance levels of Atlantic salmon, and lamprey within the background range of the Forth Estuary. Any dredging material from this project will not be deposited near to the Falkirk Council area due to the unsuitability of the Bo’ness site to receive the type of material likely to be dredged ND5 - Grangemouth Freight Hub Grangemouth Docks No potential for in (ED15) and Grangemouth combination effects. Flood Defence Scheme (INF17) are elements of this National Development which are included within the Proposed Plan and are assessed earlier in the report. ND6 - Additional Container These proposals could Given the distance Freight Capacity on the Forth alter sedimentation between the Falkirk including: Rosyth International patterns within the Firth of Council area and these Container Terminal (RICT); Forth projects, no in combination development at the ports of effects are predicted. Burntisland, Methil and Leith
Projects
4.4.152 The following projects outside those included within the suite of development plans analysed in table 63 above were identified which could have an adverse effect on the water quality of the Firth of Forth:
Table 64: Other projects which could cause sediment release into the Firth of Forth. Project Status Comments Grangemouth d) projects that A report entitled “Information to Inform a Habitats Biomass Plant are subject to Regulations Assessment” (SKM Enviros 2012) did not outstanding identify any potential impacts upon the River Teith SAC, appeal however it is understood that the conclusions of the report procedures; with regard to the River Teith SAC have been questioned68. As yet an appropriate assessment for the project is not publicly available. Rosyth d) projects that Although an appropriate assessment for the project is not Biomass Plant are subject to publicly available, given the distance between the Falkirk outstanding Council area and the proposed Rosyth Biomass Plant, no appeal in combination effects are predicted. procedures; Woodwaste c) project that 87m to tip wind turbine adjacent to Bo’ness Waste Water wind turbine is subject to Treatment Works. Potential for sediment release during application for construction to act in combination with the Bo’ness planning WWTW if both are constructed at the same time. consent; However, assuming that a project level appropriate assessment for the wind turbine will identify mitigation if necessary to reduce levels of sediment released during construction and given that salmon and lamprey are already adapted to living in the Firth of Forth (which has a has a naturally high suspended solid content), a temporary increase in sediment loading should not
68 The River Carron Estuary Tidal Survey (River Carron Fisheries Management Group 2012) impede their migratory behaviour. It is not predicted therefore that this project will act in combination with the Proposed Plan to have an adverse effect on the integrity of the River Teith SAC.
4.4.153 It is therefore concluded that the Proposed Plan will not act in combination with any other plans of projects to have an adverse effect on the integrity of the River Teith SAC through increased levels of turbidity caused by sediment release.
Hydrodynamic Alteration
4.4.154 The following proposals have minor residual effects on the River Teith SAC due to hydrodynamic alteration:
INF15 - Airth WWTW INF19 - Bo’ness WWTW INF22 - Grangemouth Flood Defence Scheme
Qualifying Interest features of the River Teith SAC likely to be affected
4.4.155 Atlantic salmon, river lamprey and sea lamprey are qualifying features of the SAC that are at risk of adverse effects from hydrodynamic alteration causing disruption to their annual migration between freshwater and seawater.
Implications of the proposal for qualifying interest features of the River Teith SAC in light of its conservation objectives
4.4.156 The level of hydrodynamic alteration caused by both Airth and Bo’ness WWTW is minimal as it is confined to the possible changes in flow velocity of water surrounding the long sea sewage outfalls. Given the small scale localised impact of these proposals and their distance from each other there is no potential for them to act in combination with each other.
4.4.157 Not enough detail is currently known about the types of flood defences likely to be promoted as part of the Grangemouth Flood Defence scheme or their hydrodynamic effect to be able to meaningfully predict whether they will act in combination changes to water flow velocity caused by either Airth or Bo’ness WWTW.
4.4.158 As mentioned previously, proposals for the Grangemouth Flood Defence scheme will be developed further in the Flood Risk Management Plan for the Forth which will itself have to undergo an appropriate assessment. Therefore the issue of in combination effects can be addressed further at that time when more detail is known about the types of flood defences likely to be promoted as part of the Grangemouth Flood Defence scheme and their hydrodynamic effect. This is in accordance with the guidance given at paragraph 5.30 of Habitats Regulations Appraisal of Plans, Guidance for Plan Making Bodies in Scotland Version 2.0 (SNH 2012).
In combination assessment with other plans or proposals not contained in the Proposed Plan
Plans
4.4.159 Of the Habitats Regulations Appraisals that are available for the development plans of neighbouring Local Authority Areas, neither the Stirling Council Proposed Plan; the Dunfermline and West Fife Local Plan; or the Clackmannanshire Local Plan 1st Alteration predicted any minor residual effects on the River Teith SAC. The HRA of the National Renewables Infrastructure Plan predicts minor residual effects on the River Teith but not through impacts from hydrodynamic alteration. In addition it should be noted that there are no Habitats Regulations Appraisals available for the Stirling Council Local Plan or the West Lothian Local Plan.
4.4.160 The only plan for which an HRA is available which predicts minor residual effects on the River Teith SAC due to hydrodynamic alteration is National Planning Framework 2. The provisions of that plan which have a minor residual effect through hydrodynamic alteration and their potential to act in combination with the Proposed Plan is detailed in the table below:
Table 65: Elements of other plans which could cause hydrodynamic alteration to the Firth of Forth Provisions causing a minor Description of effect Potential for in-combination residual effect effects on the integrity of the River Teith SAC ND1 - Forth Replacement The three-dimensional No potential for impact with Crossing - hydrodynamic model of the Bo’ness or Airth WWTW construction of the Main due to the small scale Crossing shows that localised impact of these bottom current velocities proposals. within this intertidal area do Unknown potential for not change discernibly impact with the from baseline conditions. Grangemouth Flood This maintains flow Defence Scheme patterns in the area during construction within the swimming capability of adult sea lamprey and river lamprey that may be migrating past the Main Crossing, most likely within the intertidal zone. ND5 - Grangemouth Freight Hub Grangemouth Docks No potential for in (ED15) and Grangemouth combination effects. Flood Defence Scheme (INF17) are elements of this National Development which are included within the Proposed Plan and are assessed earlier in the report. The new in river birth could alter sediment and hydrological regimes in the Firth of Forth and could create barriers to fish migrating up the Forth and into the Teith, however this element of the national development is not being taken forward ND6 - Additional Container Altered sediment and No potential for impact with Freight Capacity on the Forth hydrological regimes in the Bo’ness or Airth WWTW including: Rosyth International Firth of Forth could create due to the small scale Container Terminal (RICT); barriers to fish migrating up localised impact of these development at the ports of the Forth and into the proposals. Burntisland, Methil and Leith Teith. Unknown potential for impact with the Grangemouth Flood Defence Scheme
4.4.161 As mentioned previously, proposals for the Grangemouth Flood Defence scheme will be developed further in the Flood Risk Management Plan for the Forth which will itself have to undergo an appropriate assessment. Therefore the issue of in combination effects with other plans can be addressed further at that time when more detail is known about the types of flood defences likely to be promoted as part of the Grangemouth Flood Defence scheme and their hydrodynamic effect. This is in accordance with the guidance given at paragraph 5.30 of Habitats Regulations Appraisal of Plans, Guidance for Plan Making Bodies in Scotland Version 2.0 (SNH 2012).
Proposals
4.4.162 The following projects outside those included within the suite of development plans analysed above were identified which could have an adverse effect on the water quality of the Firth of Forth:
Table 66: Other projects which could cause hydrodynamic alteration to the Firth of Forth Project Status Comments Grangemouth d) projects that A report entitled “Information to Inform a Habitats Biomass Plant are subject to Regulations Assessment” (SKM Enviros 2012) did not outstanding identify any potential impacts upon the River Teith SAC, appeal however it is understood that the conclusions of the report procedures; with regard to the River Teith SAC have been questioned69. As yet an appropriate assessment for the project is not publicly available. Rosyth d) projects that An appropriate assessment for the project is not publicly Biomass Plant are subject to available, therefore its effects due to hydrodynamic outstanding alteration cannot be meaningfully predicted. appeal procedures;
4.4.161 As mentioned previously, proposals for the Grangemouth Flood Defence scheme will be developed further in the Flood Risk Management Plan for the Forth which will itself have to undergo an appropriate assessment. Therefore the issue of in combination effects with other projects can be addressed further at that time when more detail is known about: the types of flood defences likely to be promoted as part of the Grangemouth Flood Defence scheme and their hydrodynamic effect. This is in accordance with the guidance given at paragraph 5.30 of Habitats Regulations Appraisal of Plans, Guidance for Plan Making Bodies in Scotland Version 2.0 (SNH 2012).
69 The River Carron Estuary Tidal Survey (River Carron Fisheries Management Group 2012) Falkirk Council Development Services Abbotsford House David’s Loan Falkirk FK2 7YZ FALKIRK Local Development Plan
DRAFT HABITATS REGULATIONS APPRAISAL RECORDS
April 2013