FALKIRK Local Development Plan2 Habitats Regulations Appraisal Record Mains Kersie South South Kersie DunmoreAlloa Elphinstone The Pineapple Tower West eld Link eld Pow Burn Letham Moss Higgins’ Neuk Titlandhill Airth Castle

M9 Waterslap Letham Brackenlees Hollings Langdyke M876 Orchardhead Blairs Carron Glen Wells eld Doghillock Drum of Kinnaird

Wallacebank Wood North Inches Dales Wood Kersebrock Kinnaird House Bellsdyke of M9 Broadside Rullie River Carron Hill of Kinnaird Bens eld M80 Hardilands

The Docks Langhill Rosebank Torwood Castle Bowtrees Topps Braes Howkerse Carron Hookney Drumelzier M876 North Broomage Mains of Powfoulis Forth Barnego Forth Valley Skin ats

Denovan Chapel Burn Antonshill Bridge Broch Tappoch Royal Hospital South Broomage Carron River Carron

The Kelpies Zetland Darroch Hill Garvald Crummock Stoneywood DennyHeadswood House LarbertLochlands Langlees Myot Hill Blaefaulds Mydub River Carron GlensburghPark Oil Re nery Faughlin Coneypark Mungal Chace eld Wood M876

Wester Stadium Doups Muir Denny Castlerankine Grahamston Bankside Bo’ness

Middleeld Kinneil Kerse Bonny eld Bonny Water Carmuirs M9 Jupiter Newtown Inchyra Park Champany Drumbowie Bogton Antonine Wall AntonineBirkhill Wall Muirhouses Head of Muir Head West Mains Blackness Castle Roughcastle Kinneil House Stacks Parkfoot Kinglass Beancross Kinneil Arnothill Bog Road Wholeats Rashiehill Wester Thomaston Seabegs Wood Forth & Clyde Canal Borrowstoun Mains Blackness

Longcroft Antonine Wall Bowhouse Bantaskin Old Woolstoun Burnshot Underwood Drum South CallendarWoodend Laurieston Howierig Rousland Mannerston Forth & Clyde Canal Milnquarter Greenrig Princes Park Cauldcoats

Woodlands Park Swordie Mains Grougfoot Lionthorn Polmont Lathallan Westerglen Paddockhall Greenhill Craigieburn Hallglen Overton Redding Gilston M9 Allandale Glenyards River Avon Lochdrum Tappernail

ReddingmuirheadBrightonsThe Haining M80 Bandominie Myrehead Lochgreen Loanfoot Glenavon Forresterquarter Pirleyhill Middlerig Castlecary Auchengean Rumford Whitecross Drum Wood Whiterigg Blackhill Wheel Falkirk Shieldhill Union Canal Manuel Walton Burn Darnrig Moss Burnside Kendieshill Vellore Almond Tippetcraig Beam Greenwells Manuel House Wester Jawcraig Gardrum Moss CaliforniaGardrum Blackbraes

EasterParkhead Jawcraig Craigend Tardu Nappiefaulds The Loan Jawcraig Loch Ellrig Muiravonside Country Park Heathery Knowe Threaprig

Wester Jaw Candie

Grangeneuk Broom Blackrig Windyrigg Melonsplace Dyke The Neuks Greyrigg Drumbroider River Avon Shielknowes JawhillsTodsbughts Shortrig Oakersdykes Hareburn Blackston Strathavon SlamannanBinniehill Bogo Hillend Balquhatstone

Salterhill Loanrigg

BulliondaleStoneridge Middlerigg Craigend Linhouse Loch House Holehousemuir Black Loch Burnhead Wester Whin

Revised June 2020 FALKIRK Local Development Plan2 Habitats Regulations Appraisal Record

Revised June 2020 Mains Kersie South South Kersie DunmoreAlloa Elphinstone The Pineapple Tower West eld Airth Link eld Pow Burn Letham Moss Higgins’ Neuk Titlandhill Titlandhill Airth Castle Airth Castle M9 M9 Waterslap Brackenlees Letham Brackenlees Orchardhead Hollings Langdyke M876 Orchardhead Blairs Firth

TorwoodDoghillock Carron Glen Wells eld TorwoodDoghillock Drum of Kinnaird North Inches Wallacebank Wood North Inches Kersebrock Dales Wood Kersebrock Kinnaird House Bellsdyke of M9 Broadside M9 Broadside Rullie River Carron Hill of Kinnaird Bens eld M80 Hardilands M80 Hardilands Docks The Docks Bowtrees Langhill Rosebank Torwood Castle Bowtrees Topps Braes Stenhousemuir Howkerse Mains of Powfoulis Carron Hookney Drumelzier Dunipace M876 North Broomage Mains of Powfoulis Forth Barnego Barnego Forth Valley Carronshore Skin ats Antonshill Denovan Chapel Burn Antonshill Tappoch Broch Tappoch Bridge Fankerton Broch Tappoch Royal Hospital South Broomage Carron River Carron The Kelpies The Kelpies Zetland Garvald Darroch Hill Garvald Crummock Stoneywood DennyHeadswood Larbert House Lochlands LarbertLochlands Langlees Oil Re nery Myot Hill Blaefaulds Mydub River Carron GlensburghPark Oil Re nery Coneypark Faughlin Coneypark Mungal Chace eld Wood M876 Bainsford Stadium Wester Stadium Denny Muir Denny Doups Muir Denny Castlerankine Grahamston Bankside Grangemouth Bo’ness Middleeld Middleeld Kinneil Kerse Bonny eld Bonny Water Carmuirs M9 Jupiter Newtown Champany Inchyra Park Champany Bogton Birkhill Drumbowie Bogton Antonine Wall AntonineBirkhill Wall Muirhouses Head of Muir Head Head of Muir Head West Mains Blackness Castle Camelon Roughcastle Camelon Kinneil House Stacks Parkfoot Bonnybridge Parkfoot Kinglass Kinneil Dennyloanhead Falkirk Beancross Kinneil Arnothill Bog Road Wholeats Rashiehill Rashiehill Wester Thomaston Seabegs Wood Forth & Clyde Canal Borrowstoun Mains Blackness Bowhouse Longcroft Antonine Wall Bowhouse Braeface Haggs High Bonnybridge Tamfourhill Bantaskin Old Polmont Woolstoun Burnshot South Drum South Woodend Underwood Drum South CallendarWoodend Laurieston Howierig Rousland Mannerston Greenrig Cauldcoats Forth & Clyde Canal Milnquarter Greenrig Princes Park Westquarter Cauldcoats Woodlands Grougfoot Woodlands Park Swordie Mains Grougfoot Lathallan Banknock Lionthorn Polmont Lathallan Westerglen Westerglen Paddockhall Greenhill Craigieburn Hallglen Overton Redding Gilston M9 Allandale Glenyards River Avon Lochdrum Tappernail Lochdrum Tappernail The Haining ReddingmuirheadBrightonsThe Haining M80 M80 Bandominie Myrehead Lochgreen Lochgreen Loanfoot Glenavon Forresterquarter Pirleyhill Middlerig Glen Village Castlecary Auchengean Glen Village Rumford Whitecross Drum Wood Drum Wood Wallacestone Falkirk Wheel Falkirk Whiterigg Whiterigg Blackhill Wheel Falkirk Shieldhill Union Canal Manuel Walton Burn Darnrig Moss Burnside Kendieshill Vellore Almond Tippetcraig Beam Greenwells Manuel House Wester Jawcraig Wester Jawcraig Gardrum Blackbraes Gardrum Moss CaliforniaGardrum Blackbraes Parkhead Tardu Maddiston EasterParkhead Jawcraig Craigend Tardu Maddiston Nappiefaulds Nappiefaulds The Loan Jawcraig Loch Ellrig Muiravonside Country Park Heathery Knowe Threaprig Standburn Candie Wester Jaw Candie Blackrig Grangeneuk Broom Blackrig Windyrigg Melonsplace Greyrigg Dyke The Neuks Greyrigg Drumbroider River Avon Shielknowes Shielknowes Todsbughts JawhillsTodsbughts Shortrig Shortrig Oakersdykes Hareburn Blackston Strathavon Strathavon SlamannanBinniehill Bogo Avonbridge Hillend Balquhatstone Loanrigg Salterhill Loanrigg Stoneridge BulliondaleStoneridge Middlerigg Craigend Linhouse Loch House Holehousemuir Limerigg Limerigg Burnhead Black Loch Burnhead Wester Whin HRA Revised June 2020

Contents

1. Background and HRA Methodology

1.1 Background Page 2 1.2 HRA Methodology Page 2 - 3 1.3 Stage 1 – Should the Proposed Plan be subject to HRA? Page 4

2. Potentially affected European Sites

2.1 Stage 2 - European Sites that should be considered Page 5 in the appraisal 2.2 Stage 3 – Background Information about European sites Page 5 - 25 likely to be affected

3. Screening the Plan

3.1 Stage 5 – Screening for likely significant effects Page 26 - 41 on a European Site 3.2 Stage 6 – Applying screening stage mitigation Page 42 measures 3.3 Stage 7 – Re-screening the Plan Page 42 - 67

4. Appropriate Assessment

4.1 SPA Page 68 - 130 4.2 Plateau SPA Page 131 - 152 4.3 Black Loch Moss SAC Page 153 - 156 4.4 River Teith SAC Page 157 - 172 4.5 Forth Islands SPA Page 173 - 176 4.6 Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrew’s Bay Complex pSPA Page 177 – 178

Appendix 1 Copy of SNH correspondence dated 21 November 2018

Appendix 2 Copy of SNH correspondence dated 5 June 2020

- 1 - HRA Revised June 2020

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 2 - Proposed Plan upon the qualifying interest features of the following European sites:

 Firth of Forth Special Protection Area (SPA);  Forth Islands SPA;  Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrew’s Bay Complex pSPA  Slamannan Plateau SPA;  Black Loch Moss Special Area of Conservation (SAC); and  River Teith SAC.

1.1.2 The Habitats Regulations Appraisal (HRA) describes 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). 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 ” published by SNH (2015).

1.1.3 The HRA was submitted to SNH in September 2018 and then revised in June 2019 having regard to SNH’s comments (see Appendix 1). Falkirk Council submitted the Proposed Plan and associated documents, including the revised HRA, to Scottish Ministers for an examination by appointed Reporters. The examination has been completed, and the Reporters published the Examination Report on 30 March 2020 containing their conclusions and recommendations on each of the 26 unresolved issues raised by representations to the Proposed Plan. In June 2020, the HRA was finalised to account for the relevant post examination modifications made to the plan, and also to incorporate SNH’s suggestions (see Appendix 2) replacing the term ‘Natura 2000 sites’ with European sites. After the UK’s transition period with the European Union ends, designated European sites in Scotland will no longer form part of the formal group of Natural 2000 sites but they will continue to form part of a wider network of European sites.

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. Table 1 provides a summary of the HRA process, which is based upon the stages set out in the SNH Guidance. A recent European Court of Justice Judgement (C-323/17 People over Wind and Sweetman v Coillte Teoranta) has resulted in changes to Stages 6, 7 and 8. The judgement clarified that it is not appropriate, at the screening stage, to take account of measures intended to avoid or reduce intended to avoid or reduce the harmful effects of a plan or project on a European Site. This means that applying mitigation measures at Stage 6 is no longer competent and that any part of a plan or project that requires mitigation measures to avoid or reduce identified effects must be taken forward into Stage 8 of the HRA process. However, the HRA does not need to be amended following the People Over Wind judgement. This is because the HRA does not apply mitigation at Stage 6.

Table 1: Key Stages of Habitats Regulations Appraisal (HRA) Stage of HRA Description of Stage

Stage 1 Decide whether plan is subject to a HRA

1 David Tyldesley & Associates. 2015. Habitats Regulations Appraisal of Plans Guidance for Plan- making bodies in Scotland. Version 3.0

- 2 - HRA Revised June 2020

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

Stage 11 Consult SNH (& other stakeholders and the public if appropriate) on draft HRA Record Stage 12 Screen any amendments for likelihood of significant effects and carry out appropriate assessment if required, re-consult SNH if necessary on amendments Stage 13 Modify HRA Record in light of SNH representations and any amendments to the plan and complete and publish final / revised HRA Record with clear conclusions

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 Falkirk Local Development Plan 2 is set out in Table 2

Table 2: Chronology of documents associated with the Falkirk LDP2 Date Falkirk LDP2 Habitats Regulations Appraisal February 2017 Main Issues Report MIR Habitats Regulations Appraisal Compliance Statement September 2018 Proposed Plan Draft Habitats Regulations Appraisal Record was submitted to SNH alongside Proposed Plan.

July 2019 Proposed Plan - Draft Habitats Regulations Appraisal Record Scottish Ministers’ was revised following SNH’s comments made submission during the Proposed Plan consultation. A copy of the record was submitted to Scottish Ministers’ as part of the plan documentation required for the examination. June 2020 Modified Proposed Habitats Regulations Appraisal Record was Plan – Scottish updated to account for the post examination Ministers’ submission modifications made to the Proposed Plan. SNH was consulted on the updated HRA and further changes were made. Following Council approval, expected June 2020, the Modified Proposed Plan will be submitted to Scottish Ministers with the updated HRA (this document).

- 3 - HRA Revised June 2020

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 EU Court of Justice judgements have clarified the interpretation of the law and the HRA process. The Waddenzee judgement confirmed a project should be subject to an Appropriate Assessment: “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.”2 In October 2005, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled that development plans in the 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 HRA, which may include an “Appropriate Assessment.” Paragraph 1.2.2 briefly explains how the recent People Over Wind judgement has clarified Stages 6, 7 and 8 of HRA process.

2 Paragraph 45 European Court of Justice. 2004. Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 7 September 2004 in Case C-127/02. Official Journal of the European Union C 262 Volume 47. Official Journal of the European Union C 262 Volume 47

- 4 - HRA Revised June 2020

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 European site then it must be considered within the HRA. Bearing this in mind, European sites considered for inclusion in the HRA and the reasons for their selection are set out in Table 3 below:

Table 3: European Sites Scoped into the HRA European Site Included in Justification HRA Firth of Forth SPA Yes Site is partially within the Council area and its 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 its 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 its 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 Yes 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.

Land in the plan area may be used by migratory birds, which also use the Forth Islands SPA, at different times of the year Outer Firth of Forth and Yes Some of the qualifying interest features of this St Andrews Bay pSPA are known to use the Falkirk Council Complex pSPA area. Of those species only two (Black headed gulls and common gulls) are not also qualifying interest features of the Firth of Forth SPA or the Forth Islands SPA

2.2 Stage 3 – Background Information about European 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 at Stirling eastwards along the coasts of Falkirk, Clackmannan, , and 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.

- 5 - HRA Revised June 2020

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)

- 6 - HRA Revised June 2020

(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) * 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;

- 7 - HRA Revised June 2020

 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 7 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 2.2.20) 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 species over 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 7 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.

- 8 - HRA Revised June 2020

Table 7: Condition of qualifying interest features of the Firth of Forth SPA based on data published by SNH3 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.

3 SNH Sitelink website http://gateway.snh.gov.uk/sitelink/index.jsp

- 9 - HRA Revised June 2020

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

- 10 - HRA Revised June 2020

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. 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.

2.2.19 Future coal mining operations within the areas of search identified at Map 5.1 of the LDP are a potential pressure on SPA supporting habitat.

Source of WeBS data

2.2.20 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.

2.2.21 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.

- 11 - HRA Revised June 2020

Slamannan Plateau SPA

Location

2.2.22 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

2.2.23 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

2.2.24 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.

- 12 - HRA Revised June 2020

Site Condition

2.2.25 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

2.2.26 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 and the land has been purchased by Forestry Commission Scotland who have no plans to plant trees on the site or to extract peat.

2.2.27 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.

2.2.28 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.

2.2.29 Future coal mining operations within the areas of search identified at Map 3.8 of the Proposed Plan are a potential pressure on SPA supporting habitat.

- 13 - HRA Revised June 2020

Black Loch Moss SAC

Location

2.2.30 Black Loch Moss lies to the south Limerigg on the border between the Falkirk 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

2.2.31 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.

2.2.32 The site also has some degraded raised bogs which are capable of natural regeneration.

Conservation Objectives

2.2.33 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

- 14 - HRA Revised June 2020

Site Condition

2.2.34 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

2.2.35 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

2.2.36 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

2.2.37 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.

- 15 - HRA Revised June 2020

2.2.38 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

2.2.39 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)4,5.

2.2.40 Migration of adult sea lamprey from the sea to the river occurs mainly between February and May6 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 reduced7, 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.

2.2.41 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.

2.2.42 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 al8 and by Gardiner et al.9 (1995), who recorded ammocoetes at four, of a possible six, sites demonstrating optimum habitat types. A survey in 200010 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 Weir11 and at Blairdrummond, Deanston and Doune Castle12. Spawning appears restricted to the Callander area and suitable stretches below.

4 Smith, I.W. (1957). The occurrence of damaged sea trout on the east coast of Scotland. Salmon and Trout Magazine 1957, 148-150. 5 Maitland PS (2003). Ecology of the River, Brook and Sea Lamprey. Conserving Natura 2000 Rivers Ecology Series No. 5. English Nature, Peterborough. 6 Maitland PS (2003). Ecology of the River, Brook and Sea Lamprey. Conserving Natura 2000 Rivers Ecology Series No. 5. English Nature, Peterborough. 7 Hardisty, M.W. & Potter, I.C. (Eds.) (1971). The Biology of Lampreys. Academic Press, London. 8 Maitland, P.S., East, K. & Morris, K.H. (1983). Lamprey populations in the catchments of the Forth and Clyde estuaries. Annual Report of the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, 1983, 17-18. 9 Gardiner, R., Taylor, R. & Armstrong, J. (1995). Habitat assessment and survey of lamprey populations occurring in areas of conservation interest. Fisheries Research Services Report No 4/95. 10 Maitland, P.S. & Lyle, A.A. (2003). The distribution of lampreys in the River Teith. Forth Naturalist and Historian 26, 71-84. 11 Gardiner, R., Taylor, R. & Armstrong, J. (1995). Habitat assessment and survey of lamprey populations occurring in areas of conservation interest. Fisheries Research Services Report No 4/95. 12 Maitland, P.S. & Lyle, A.A. (2003). The distribution of lampreys in the River Teith. Forth Naturalist and Historian 26, 71-84.

- 16 - HRA Revised June 2020

2.2.43 The most recently available data for lamprey13 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 rivers14

2.2.44 Adult sea lamprey were found by Maitland15 to be impinged occasionally at Longannet Power Station. A study by Greenwood16 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 200617.

River Lamprey

2.2.45 River lamprey adults live primarily within estuaries feeding on a number of estuarine fish, but, in the Firth of Forth18, 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 year19,20. 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.

2.2.46 Migration of adult river lamprey from the sea to the river occurs mainly from October to December21, which has been confirmed in the River Forth system by catches of maturing river lamprey on intake screens at Longannet22 and by trapping at various places in the River Teith23. 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.

2.2.47 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

13 Bull, C. (2004). Electro-fishing survey in selected tributaries of the River Teith candidate Special Area of Conservation. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 055 14 Maitland, P.S., Morris, K.H. & East, K. (1994). The ecology of lampreys (Petromyzonidae) in the Loch Lomond area. Hydrobiologia, 290, 105-120. 15 Maitland, P.S. (1998). Fish entrainment at power stations on the Firth of Forth. Report to Scottish Power, Kincardine on Forth. 16 Greenwood, M.F.D. (2008). Fish mortality by impingement on the cooling-water intake screens of Britain’s largest direct cooled power station. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 56(4), 723-739. 17 Pearce, A. (2007). Fish impingement monitoring at Longannet power station, 2006. Scottish Environment Protection Agency Marine Report MR 01/08. 18 Maitland, P.S., Morris, K.H., East, K., Schoonoord, M.P., Van der Wal, B. & Potter, I.C. (1984). The estuarine biology of the River Lamprey, Lampetra fluviatilis, in the Firth of Forth, Scotland, with particular reference to size composition and feeding. Journal of Zoology, London. 203, 211-225. 19 Maitland, P.S., Morris, K.H., East, K., Schoonoord, M.P., Van der Wal, B. & Potter, I.C. (1984). The estuarine biology of the River Lamprey, Lampetra fluviatilis, in the Firth of Forth, Scotland, with particular reference to size composition and feeding. Journal of Zoology, London. 203, 211-225. 20 Maitland, P.S. (1998). Fish entrainment at power stations on the Firth of Forth. Report to Scottish Power, Kincardine on Forth. 21 Maitland PS (2003). Ecology of the River, Brook and Sea Lamprey. Conserving Natura 2000 Rivers Ecology Series No. 5. English Nature, Peterborough. 22 Maitland, P.S. (1998). Fish entrainment at power stations on the Firth of Forth. Report to Scottish Power, Kincardine on Forth. 23 Maitland, P.S., East, K. & Morris, K.H. (1983). Lamprey populations in the catchments of the Forth and Clyde estuaries. Annual Report of the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, 1983, 17-18.

- 17 - HRA Revised June 2020

metamorphosis to the silvery transformer24. 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.

2.2.48 The Teith supports a strong river lamprey population although the brook lamprey is thought to be the predominant lamprey species in the catchment25. 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.

2.2.49 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-226 and up to 197.5m-227, where no differentiation was made between brook lamprey and river lamprey ammocoetes.

Atlantic salmon

2.2.50 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.

2.2.51 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.

2.2.52 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 Forth28 and Clackmanannshire Bridge29 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).

2.2.53 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

24 Maitland, P.S. (1980). Review of the ecology of lampreys in northern Europe. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 37, 1944-1952. 25 Maitland, P.S. & Lyle, A.A. (2003). The distribution of lampreys in the River Teith. Forth Naturalist and Historian 26, 71-84. 26 Maitland, P.S. & Lyle, A.A. (2003). The distribution of lampreys in the River Teith. Forth Naturalist and Historian 26, 71-84. 27 Bull, C. (2004). Electro-fishing survey in selected tributaries of the River Teith candidate Special Area of Conservation. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 055 28 The Scottish Office Development Department (1996)..A90 Balmedie to Tipperty, Stage 3 Environmental Assessment, Volume Two: Detailed Environmental Statement. Carl Bro Group and Turnbull Jeffrey 29 Scottish Executive (2003). Upper Forth Crossing at Kincardine Environmental Statement (2003), Babtie

- 18 - HRA Revised June 2020

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.

2.2.54 A review of these reports for the Forth Basin over the period 2001-2014 (Table 8) 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. It should also be remembered that low catch numbers do not necessarily mean there are less fish but that less fish have been declared as caught. Detailed data for the Atlantic Salmon in the Forth Basin was not available beyond 2014.

Table 8 – Annual Salmon Catches in the Forth Basin Year Number of Salmon Caught Number of Salmon Caught Total number of Salmon and Retained and Released caught 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 1122 1089 2211 2009 910 1170 2080 2010 1096 2399 3495 2011 837 1783 2620 2012 668 1601 2269 2013 362 1144 1506 2014 138 652 790

2.2.55 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 200630. 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

2.2.56 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.

30 JNCC (2006). River Teith Natura 2000 Data Form, Version 2.1. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough.

- 19 - HRA Revised June 2020

Site Condition

2.2.57 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.

2.2.58 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 – bad31

Pressures on the River Teith SAC

2.2.59 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.

2.2.60 The River Teith Natura 2000 data form32, 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.

Forth Islands SPA

Location

2.2.61 The Firth of Forth Islands are located in or near to the Firth of Forth on the east coast of central Scotland. The SPA comprises a number of separate islands or island groups, Long Craig (under the , just off North Queensferry harbour), Inchmickery (together with the nearby Cow and Calves) off Edinburgh, , and together with the off North Berwick, and the much larger in the outer part of the Firth. The site also includes additional other small islands. The inner islands are very low lying whilst those in the outer Firth are higher, steeper and rockier. This applies especially to the Bass Rock which is a volcanic plug rising to over 100 m, and to the Isle of May, which is surrounded by cliffs up to 50 m. The islands support important numbers of a range of breeding seabirds, in particular terns, auks and gulls. The colony of Gannets Morus bassanus is the largest on the east coast of the UK. The seabirds feed outside the SPA in nearby waters, as well as more distantly in the North Sea.

Qualifying Interest Features

2.2.62 This site qualifies under Article 4.1 of the Directive (79/409/EEC) by supporting populations of European importance of the following species listed on Annex I of the Directive:

 Arctic Tern Sterna paradisaea, 540 pairs representing at least 1.2% of the breeding population in Great Britain (Mean 1992 to 1996);  Common Tern Sterna hirundo, 800 pairs representing at least 6.5% of the breeding population in Great Britain (Seabird Census Register);

31 JNCC (2007). Second report by the UK under Article 17 on the implementation of the Habitats Directive from January 2001 to December 2006. Peterborough: Joint Nature Conservation Committee. 32 JNCC (2006). River Teith Natura 2000 Data Form, Version 2.1. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough.

- 20 - HRA Revised June 2020

 Roseate Tern Sterna dougallii, 9 pairs representing at least 15.0% of the breeding population in Great Britain (5 year mean 1994-1998); and  Sandwich Tern Sterna sandvicensis, 22 pairs representing at least 0.2% of the breeding population in Great Britain (5 year mean, 1993-1997)

2.2.63 This site also qualifies under Article 4.2 of the Directive (79/409/EEC) by supporting populations of European importance of the following migratory species:

 Gannet Morus bassanus, 34,400 pairs representing at least 13.1% of the breeding North Atlantic population (Count, as at 1994)  Lesser Black-backed Gull Larus fuscus, 2,920 pairs representing at least 2.4% of the breeding Western Europe/Mediterranean/Western Africa population (Count, as at 1994)  Puffin Fratercula arctica, 21,000 pairs representing at least 2.3% of the breeding population (Count, as at 1992)  Shag Phalacrocorax aristotelis, 2,887 pairs representing at least 2.3% of the breeding Northern Europe population (Count as at 1987)

2.2.64 The area qualifies under Article 4.2 of the Directive (79/409/EEC) by regularly supporting at least 20,000 seabirds

2.2.65 During the breeding season, the area regularly supports 90,000 individual seabirds (Three year mean, 1986-1988) including: Razorbill Alca torda, Guillemot Uria aalge, Kittiwake Rissa tridactyla, Herring Gull Larus argentatus, Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo, Fulmar Fulmarus glacialis, Puffin Fratercula arctica, Lesser Black-backed Gull Larus fuscus, Shag Phalacrocorax aristotelis, Gannet Morus bassanus, Arctic Tern Sterna paradisaea, Common Tern Sterna hirundo, Roseate Tern Sterna dougallii, Sandwich Tern Sterna sandvicensis.

2.2.66 All of the SPA breeding islands are to the west of the Falkirk Council area - the nearest, Long Craig is 8km away, whilst the furthest, the Isle of May is 64km away.

2.2.67 Gannets, auks (puffins, razorbills and guillemots), kittiwakes and fulmars (with the exception of the occasional individual) do not venture into the inner Forth upstream of the Bridges 8km away from the Council area. Their breeding concentrations and feeding grounds are in the outer Forth well away from the Council area.

2.2.68 Cormorants and shags breed on, and feed around, islands in the outer Forth, the nearest being Inchmickery 16km away. A few venture into the inner Forth and could potentially use the offshore waters adjacent to the Council area.

2.2.69 Terns (common, roseate, arctic and sandwich) are recorded to forage up to 16km from their breeding sites. The small number of common terns and roseate terns nesting on Long Craig Island could therefore potentially be using the offshore waters adjacent to the Council area. Terns at nesting sites further west in the outer Forth do not forage upstream of the Bridges.

2.2.70 Lesser black-backed and herring gulls nest on most of the islands in the outer Forth, the nearest to the Council area being Inchmickery 16km away. These species forage over very wide areas including landfill sites, urban areas, the marine environment and the coast throughout the Firth of Forth and surrounding land area.

Conservation Objectives

2.2.71 To avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species (listed below), 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 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

- 21 - HRA Revised June 2020

• No significant disturbance of the species

2.2.72 Given that the Forth Islands SPA is “off site” the only relevant Conservation Objectives are: • Population of the species as viable component of the site • Distribution of the species within site.

Site Condition

2.2.73 Overall the breeding seabird assemblage was assessed as being in an unfavourable declining condition when assessed in July 2004. The last assessed condition of the component qualifying interest features of the breeding seabird assemblage is shown in table 9 below:

Table 9: Last Assessed Condition of the Forth Islands SPA Qualifying Interest Features. Qualifying Interest Feature Last Assessed Condition Arctic tern (Sterna paradisaea), breeding Favourable Declining Common tern (Sterna hirundo), breeding Favourable Maintained Cormorant (Phalacrocorax carbo), breeding Favourable Declining Fulmar (Fulmarus glacialis), breeding Favourable Maintained Gannet (Morus bassanus), breeding Favourable Maintained Guillemot (Uria aalge), breeding Favourable Maintained Herring gull (Larus argentatus), breeding Favourable Maintained Kittiwake (Rissa tridactyla), breeding Unfavourable Declining Lesser black-backed gull (Larus fuscus), breeding Favourable Maintained Puffin (Fratercula arctica), breeding Favourable Maintained Razorbill (Alca torda), breeding Favourable Maintained Roseate tern (Sterna dougallii), breeding Unfavourable Declining Sandwich tern (Sterna sandvicensis), breeding Unfavourable Declining Shag (Phalacrocorax aristotelis), breeding Unfavourable Recovering

Pressures on the Forth Islands SPA

2.2.74 The main threats to the qualifying species are off-site, i.e. climate change and extreme weather events, decline in stocks of prey fish species (due to climate change or over- fishing), marine pollution, offshore wind turbines, hunting at their wintering sites (terns in West Africa), etc.

2.2.75 The Isle of May is a National Nature Reserve managed for its nature conservation interest by Scottish Natural Heritage. Fidra, The Lamb and Inchmickery are managed for their nature conservation interest by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds while Long Craig Island is managed by the Fife Bird Club and the Scottish Wildlife Trust. The tern population has declined, probably because of the expansion in gull numbers combined with the natural mobility of tern colonies. SNH and RSPB are undertaking management initiatives to encourage a recovery in the tern population. The Scottish Seabird Centre has raised awareness of the colonies on the East Lothian islands. Measures to prevent disturbance to breeding birds by increased visitor numbers have been taken, e.g. remotely-operated cameras give close-up views of birds without causing disturbance.

- 22 - HRA Revised June 2020

Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex pSPA

Location

2.2.76 The Outer Firth or Forth and St Andrews Bay pSPA stretches from just east of the Forth Bridges to St Abbs Head in the south and just north of Arbroath in the south. The pSPA stretches several miles out into the North Sea.

Qualifying Interest Features

Table 10: Annex 1 species: populations of European importance during winter and passage Common Scientific Population % of GB name name size in site Population

Red- Gavia 851 5.0% throated stellata diver

Slavonian Podiceps 30 2.7% grebe auritus Little Gull Larus 126 n/a minutus Common Sterna 892 pairs 8.8% tern hirundo

Arctic tern Sterna 540 pairs 1.0% paradisaea

Table 11: Migratory Species Common name Scientific name Population size in % of GB Population site Wintering Waterfowl Common eider Somateria mollissima 21,546 35.9% Long-tailed duck Clangula hyemalis 1,948 17.7% Common Scoter Melanitta nigra 4,667 4.7% Velvet scoter M. fusca 775 31% Common Goldeneye Bucephala clangula 589 2.9% Red-breasted Mergus serrator 369 4.4% merganser Seabirds Northern gannet Morus bassanus 10,945 2.7%

Manx shearwater Puffinus puffinus 2,885 1% Common guillemot Uria aalge 21, 968 1% (non-breeding) Razorbill Alca torda 5,481 Atlantic puffin Fratercula arctica 61,086 5.3% European shag Phalacrocorax 2,400 (breeding) 3.0% aristotelis 2,426 2.2% (non breeding) Black-legged Rissa tridactyla 12,020 (breeding) 1.6% kittiwake 3,191 (non-breeding) Black-headed gull Chroicocephalus 28,120 (breeding) n/a ridibundus 26,835 1.2% (non breeding)

- 23 - HRA Revised June 2020

Common gull Larus canus canus 14647 2.1% Herring gull Larus argentatus 3,044 (breeding) 1.1% 12,313 1.7% (non-breeding)

Conservation Objectives

2.2.77 The conservation objectives for the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex proposed SPA are: To avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species or significant disturbance to the qualifying species, subject to natural change, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained in the long-term and it continues to make an appropriate contribution to achieving the aims of the Birds Directive for each of the qualifying species.

2.2.78 This contribution will be achieved through delivering the following objectives for each of the site’s qualifying features:

a) Avoid significant mortality, injury and disturbance of the qualifying features, so that the distribution of the species and ability to use the site are maintained in the long- term; b) To maintain the habitats and food resources of the qualifying features in favourable condition.

Site Condition

2.2.79 No assessment of site condition appears to be available.

Pressures on Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex pSPA

2.2.80 Activities considered likely to affect the qualifying features of the pSPA are:

Fishing - mobile gear  Mechanical and hydraulic benthic dredging  Benthic trawls  Pelagic trawls and seines

Fishing – static gear  Drift nets  Bottom set nets (including fyke nets)

Harvesting – intertidal shellfish and bait

Navigational and maintenance dredging  Existing maintenance dredging  Dredge spoil disposal  Capital dredging

Ports and harbours  New development - St Abbs, Cove, Dunbar, North Berwick, Port Seton, Fisherrow, Port of Leith, Newhaven, Granton, Burntisland, Pettycur, Kinghorn, Kirkcaldy, Dysart, West Weymss, Methil, Elie, St Monans, Pittenweem, Anstruther, Crail, St Andrews, Port of Dundee, Arbroath  Ship to ship transfer

Recreational users  Wildfowling  Jet skiing  Wildlife tour operators, surfing,  diving, angling, kayaking, boating

- 24 - HRA Revised June 2020

Renewables  Wind energy development

- 25 - HRA Revised June 2020

3. Screening the Plan

3.1 Stage 5 – Screening for likely significant effects on a European Site.

3.1.1 Policies and proposals were screened using the approach recommended by the SNH guidance. 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 which could affect that European site.

“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.

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 parargraph 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

- 26 - HRA Revised June 2020

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); 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.

- 27 - HRA Revised June 2020

3.1.14 As recreational disturbance is mainly linked to opportunities to access the coastline, it was decided to focus the screening 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 paragraph 4.1.157), 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.

- 28 - HRA Revised June 2020

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?

Criteria for identification of effects – Forth Islands SPA & Outer Firth of Forth and Tay Bay Complex pSPA

3.1.23 The general criteria which have been developed to help identify likely significant effects on the Forth Islands SPA have been developed from the conservation objectives of the site and are as follows:

 Will the policy/proposal/opportunity lead to an adverse impact on the distribution of the species within site?;  Will the policy/proposal/opportunity lead to disturbance of qualifying interest features during offshore feeding which will adversely affect the population of the species as viable component of the site?;  Will the policy/proposal/opportunity lead to disturbance of qualifying interest features during onshore feeding or loafing which will adversely affect the population of the species as viable component of the site?

Screening Step 1 – General Policy Statements

3.1.24 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 12 below shows those elements of the Proposed Plan which have been screened out under this step:

- 29 - HRA Revised June 2020

Table 12 – General Policy Statements Policy Description Vision General statement setting out the Council’s aspirations for thriving communities, a growing economy and a sustainable place LDP2 Objectives: Thriving 3 objectives relating to enabling continued population and Communities household growth; building sustainable attractive communities; and providing infrastructure to meet the needs of an increasing population and further improving the area’s connectivity. Strategic Objective: Growing 3 objectives relating to fostering economic growth, Economy investment and inclusion, making town centres vibrant and viable focal points within our communities and capitalising on the area’s tourism potential. Strategic Objective: Sustainable 3 strategic objectives relating to supporting a low carbon, Place circular economy and building resilience to climate change; extending and improving the green network and protecting the natural enviromnment; and protecting, enhancing and promoting our histroc environment PE14 Countryside Provides for the protection of urban limits PE22 Marine Planning and the General policy statement about assessing proposals Coastal Zone affecting the coastal zone cross referencing to the policies of the National and Regional Marine Plans and other LDP policies. JE02 Core Business Areas Safeguards certain urban areas for business development JE03 Business Areas with Potential Sets out criteria for the types of development that will be for Redevelopment acceptable. JE04 Business Development outwith Sets out generic criteria for when business developments 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 any European site owing to their possible locations. JE05 Major Hazards Sets out criteria for assessing development within major hazard consultation zones or development likely to extend major hazard consultation distances JE08 Commercial Centres General statement that the use of existing units within commenrcial centres will be controlled in accordance with relecant planning permissions and S75 obligations and that applications for new development or to vary the scope of existing planning permissions or discharge S75 oblications will be assessed against policy JE09

Screening Step 2 - Projects referred to in, but not proposed by, the plan

3.1.25 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 13 below shows those elements of the Proposed Plan which should have been screened out under this step:

Table 13 – Projects referred to in but not proposed by the plan Policy Description Spatial Strtaegy - Drainage and  Grangemouth Flood Protection Scheme (Part of Flooding NPF3 Grangemouth Investment Zone National Development). This HRA cannot usefully add any further detail to the assessment carried out in the NPF3 HRA. A project level HRA will be required for the scheme as part of consent process. LSE screening will establish whether or not the scheme requires an appriopriate assessment.

- 30 - HRA Revised June 2020

Spatial Strategy - Energy and  Carbon Capture and Storage Network and Thermal Minerals Generation in Grangemouth is a national development within NPF3. The Proposed Plan shows the general location of this National Development indicatively on Map 3.7 in a location generally to the north east of Grangemouth Docks. Pending any detailed feasibility work to establish a suitable site. This element of the plan has been screened out of appropriate assessment.

IR01 Strategic Infrastructure (specific This policy identifies support for 35 strategic infrastructure projects only) projects. The following elements would be likely to proceed irrespective of whether this plan is adopted:  IN15 Greenhill Junction Rail Improvement. This proposal is part of the Edinburgh Glasgow Improvement Project which is one of the Scottish Government’s priority projects identified in its Strategic Transport Projects Review. This element of the plan has been screened out of appropriate assessment.

Screening Step 3A – Elements of the Plan which are Intended to protect the natural environment including biodiversity, or to conserve or enhance the natural , built or historic environment, where enhancement measures will not be likely to have any negative effect on a European site.

3.1.26 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 14 below shows those elements of the Proposed Plan which have been screened out under step 3 for this reason:

Table 14: Elements intended to protect the environment Policy Description PE01 Placemaking Sets out principles to be addressed by new development to ensure they are promoting the six qualities of successful places. PE02 Placemaking Tools Sets out the range of placemaking tools to be used by different scales of development to embed the six qualities of successful place. PE05 Antonine Wall Establishes criteria to safeguard the Antonine Wall. PE06 Archaeological Sites Establishes criteria for the protection of features of archaeological importance. PE07 Listed Buildings Establishes criteria for the protection of listed buildings. PE08 Conservation Areas Establishes criteria for the safeguarding of Conservation Areas. PE09 Areas of Townscape Value Establishes criteria for the safeguarding of important townscapes. PE10 Historic Gardens and Establishes criteria for the safeguarding of Historic Gardens Designed Landscapes and Designed Landscapes. PE11 Battlefield Sites Protects battlefield sites from inappropriate development, but allows for interpretation. PE15 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.

- 31 - HRA Revised June 2020

Policy Description PE16 Protection of Open Space Sets out criteria for the protection of open space. PE18 Landscape Identifies measures to be taken to safeguard important landscapes. PE19 Biodiversity and Geodiversity Sets out criteria for the safeguarding of features of biodiversity & geodiversity from development. PE20 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. PE22 The Water Environment Sets out criteria for the protection of the water environment and that it will be promoted as a recreational resource

PE24 Flooding management Protects areas at risk of flooding from development and sets out criteria for when development in such areas will be allowed. Presumes against development which would prejudice the implementation of the Local Flood Risk Management Stategies and Plans. PE26 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,

3.1.27 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 15 below shows those elements of the Proposed Plan which have been screened out under step 3 for this reason:

Table 15: Elements which will not lead to development or other change Policy Description PE04 Shopfronts Criteria guiding the design of shopfronts. IR01 Strategic Infrastructure This policy identifies support for 38 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:  IN13 & 14 Safeguarding sites for stations at Grangemouth and Bonnybridge IR02 Developer Contributions Criteria for when developer contributions will be required. IR03 Education and New Housing Criteria for when developer contributions will be required. Development IR05 Travel Hierarchy and This policy sets out the circumstances under which the Transport Assessment Council will require transport assessments to be undertaken, and provides guidance on what will be included.

Screening Step 3C - Elements of the Plan which make provision for change but which could have no conceivable effect on a European site because there is no link or pathway between them and the qualifying interests

3.1.28 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 16 below shows those elements of the Proposed Plan which have been screened out under step 3 for this reason:

Table 16: No link or pathway to a European site. Policy Description PE13 Green and Blue Network Sets out the Council’s aspirations for delivering the Central (some spatial proposals only) Scotland Green Network within our area including a number of opportunities for improvment. Some of the opportunities can be screened out at this stage as presenting no link to the

- 32 - HRA Revised June 2020

Policy Description features of the any of the European sites. Other proposed opportunities for the green and blue network may have likely significant effects either alone or in-combination & these are outlined in the other tables below. Proposals sites where no significant effect is likely are: GN05 Carse Peatland Restoration GN07 Helix GN08 Helix – Falkirk Town Centre Green Corridor GN09 Zetland Park GN10 Lionthorn Policy Bing GN12 Kinneil Estate GN13 Bo’ness Open Space Corridors GN14 Braes Open Space Corridors GN17 Larbert Open Space Corridors GN18 Glenbervie to Denny GN20 Muiravonside GN21 Bonnyfield Expansion GN22 Falkirk Canal Corridor GN23 Bantaskine

HC01 Housing Growth The following proposed locations for housing growth are not (some spatial proposals only) anticipated to affect any of the European sites. Any effects arising out of increased recreational use of the council area are assessed as part of recreational proposals. Allocations screened out are: Bonnybridge & Banknock H10 Broomhill Road 1 H11 Seabegs Road H53 Cumbernauld Road, Longcroft MU05 Bonnybridge Town Centre Braes and Rural South H19 Former Whyteside Hotel H20 Redding Park H22 Bridgend Road H23 Cockmalane H28 Standburn West MU06 Gilston MU08 Stein's Brickworks Denny H30 Former Denny High School H31 Mydub 1 H33 Carrongrove Mill H34 Stirling Street MU10 Church walk Falkirk H36 Gowan Avenue H37 Etna Road 1 H39 Cauldhame Farm H40 Blinkbonny Road H43 Westburn Avenue H44 Firs Park MU11 Portdownie MU12 Grahamston MU13 Callendar Riggs MU14 Bank Street MU15 Williamson Street MU17 Carron Road Larbert & Stenhousemuir H47 Pretoria Road

- 33 - HRA Revised June 2020

Policy Description H60 Stirling Road Rural North H51 Former Torwood School H52 McLaren Park Rural South H58 Slamannan Road 1, Limerigg JE01 Business and Tourism This policy identifies locations for development of business (certain allocations only) and tourism. Many of the locations are unlikely to result in significant impacts: Braes and Rural South BUS03 Beancross BUS04 A801 Union Canal MU06 Gilston BUS23 Grandsable Road MU08 Stein's Brickworks Falkirk BUS06 Abbotsford Business Park BUS08 Rosebank Distillery BUS09 Callendar Business Park BUS10 Wester Carmuirs BUS11 Falkirk Wheel MU11 Portdownie Grangemouth BUS12 Earlsgate Park Larbert and Stenhousemuir BUS19 Glenbervie BUS20 Glenbervie Business Park IR01 Strategic Infrastructure (some This policy sets out locations for strategic infrastructure spatial proposals) projects. Some of these are in locations with no link on the qualifying interests of any European site. IN01 M9 Jcn 3 IN02 M9 Jcn4 IN03 M9 Jcn 5 IN05 A801 Corridor (Avon Gorge) IN06 Falkirk A904 Corridor Improvements IN07 Falkirk A803 Corridor Improvements IN09 Denny Eastern Access Road IN10 A904/A993 Junction Improvement, Bo'ness IN11 C116 Waterslap Road Improvement, Carronshore IN12 Falkirk Bus Station IN20 Torwood WWTW IN21 Whitecross WWTW IN22 Forth Valley College IN24 Denny High School IN26 Bankier Primary School IN27 Denny Primary School IN28 Head of Muir Primary School IN30 Maddiston Primary School IN32 St Margaret’s Primary School IN33 Falkirk Community Hospital IN34 Little Kerse, Grangemouth IN35 Newton Park, Bo’ness IN36 Westfield Park, Denny IN37 Camelon Cemetery Extension IN38 Muiravonside Cemetery Extension JE07 Town and Local Centres MU05 Bonnybridge Town Centre (some proposals only) MU10 Church Walk MU12 Grahamston MU13 Callendar Riggs

- 34 - HRA Revised June 2020

Policy Description MU14 Bank Street MU15 Williamson Street JE07 Town and Local Centres Provides criteria for changing use of existing buildings and developments in town centres.

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

3.1.29 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 17 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 17: Elements that will have a minor residual effect Policy European Site Description Affected JE01 Business and Firth of Forth SPA BUS14 South Bridge Street; Tourism MU18 Hill of Kinnaird 2 (Certain Allocations Only) These proposals are at possible inland high tide roost sites used by waders33 and could lead to the loss of habitat potentially used for feeding/roosting and disturbance of qualifying species whilst using inland feeding/ roosting sites. Firth of Forth SPA BUS02 Manuel Works; BUS05 Falkirk Stadium; BUS07 Caledon Business Park; MU21 ; BUS14 South Bridge Street; MU09 Broad Street; MU16 Falkirk Gateway, MU18 Hill of Kinnaird 2

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. Forth Islands SPA BUS15 Grangemouth Docks West

This proposal could cause noise, vibration and other effects during construction which could lead to the disturbance of qualifying interest features during offshore feeding or onshore feeding and loafing, it could also cause effects as a result of increased shipping and associated dredging activities. Outer Firth of Forth BUS15 Grangemouth Docks West and St Andrews Bay Complex pSPA This proposal could cause noise, vibration and other effects during construction which could lead to the disturbance of qualifying interest features during offshore feeding, they could also cause

33 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.

- 35 - HRA Revised June 2020

Policy European Site Description Affected effects as a result of increased shipping and associated dredging activities.

PE12 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. Firth of Forth SPA This policy could cause disturbance of qualifying species arising from increased opportunities for access to and recreation along the coastline. It could cause water pollution due to increased recreational boat traffic entering the canal system from the River Carron. Forth Islands SPA This policy could cause disturbance of qualifying species of qualifying interest features during offshore feeding or onshore feeding and loafing arising from increased opportunities for access to and recreation along the coastline. It could also cause disturbance from increased shipping movements. Outer Firth of Forth This policy could cause disturbance of qualifying and St Andrews species of qualifying interest features during Bay Complex pSPA offshore feeding or onshore feeding and loafing arising from increased opportunities for access to and recreation along the coastline. It could also cause disturbance from increased shipping movements. PE13 Falkirk Green River Teith SAC GN04 Bothkennar/Skinflats – Habitat Network (Certain Enhancement Area opportunity. Could involve opportunities only) sediment release during construction. Firth of Forth SPA GN02 Antonine Wall Trail - This proposal could cause noise, vibration and other effects during construction which could lead to the disturbance of qualifying interest features during onshore feeding and loafing. GN06 River Carron Corridor Improvements - This opportunity could cause disturbance of qualifying species arising from increased opportunities for access to and recreation along the coastline and an increased risk of water pollution during the construction of a new footbridge over the River Carron. GN12 Kinneil Estate – This opportunity could cause noise, vibration and other effects during construction which could lead to the disturbance of qualifying interest features (waders and Pink footed Geese) during onshore feeding and loafing. GN25 - Opportunities could cause noise, vibration and other effects during construction which could lead to the loss of supporting habitat for waders (at Kinneil Foreshore LNR) and Pink Footed Geese ( at Callendar Park and Wood; the Rumlie; Bellsrigg Woodland)

- 36 - HRA Revised June 2020

Policy European Site Description Affected Outer Firth of Forth GN01 John Muir Way and St Andrews GN03 Kinneil Kerse Bay Complex pSPA GN04 Bothkennar/Skinflats GN06 River Carron Corridor Improvements These opportunities, which all increase recreational opportunity along the coast and could lead to the disturbance of qualifying interest features during offshore feeding or onshore feeding and loafing. Outer Firth of Forth GN01 John Muir Way and St Andrews GN03 Kinneil Kerse Bay Complex pSPA GN04 Bothkennar/Skinflats

These proposals could cause noise, vibration and other effects during construction which could lead to the disturbance of qualifying interest features during offshore feeding or onshore feeding and loafing. HC01 Housing Growth Firth of Forth SPA H01 Drum Farm North (Certain proposals H02 Kinglass Farm 1 Only) H03 Kinglass Farm 2 H04 South Street H05 Main Street H06 Union Street H38 Etna Road 2 H41 Grangemouth Road H45 Avonhall H48 Castle View H49 Airth Castle South H50 The Glebe H55 Crawfield Road H56 North Bank Farm MU01 Links Road MU02 Drum Farm South MU03 Crawfield Lane MU16 Falkirk Gateway MU17 Grangemouth Town Centre

These proposals which are located less than 2 miles from the coast could cumulatively cause significant disturbance arising from increased recreational pressure. Firth of Forth SPA H01 Drum Farm North; H02 Kinglass Farm 1; H03 Kinglass Farm 2; H46 Hill of Kinnaird1; H48 Castle View; H49 Airth Castle South; H50 The Glebe; MU02 Drum Farm South MU18 Hill of Kinnaird 2

These proposals are at possible inland high tide roost sites used by waders34 and could lead to the loss of habitat potentially used for feeding/roosting

34 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.

- 37 - HRA Revised June 2020

Policy European Site Description Affected and disturbance of qualifying species whilst using inland feeding/ roosting sites. The extent of possible inland high tide roost areas across the Council area is very large (c. 5598ha) therefore loss of habitat (outside the SPA boundary) caused by any one of these sites (32.4ha maximum at Hill of Kinnaird 1) is considered to be insignificant given the vast amount of alternative suitable habitat available across the Council area and is considered unlikely to affect the population of any species as a viable component of the site. Firth of Forth SPA H08 Banknock South H12 Garngrew Road H13 Parkhall Farm 1 H14 Parkhall Farm 2 H15 Parkhall Farm 3 H16 Parkhall Farm 4 H17 Toravon Farm H18 Parkhall Farm 5 H21 Hillcrest H24 Church Road H26 Avonbridge Road, Slamannan H27 Main Street, Slamannan H29 Whitecross H32 Mydub 2 H35 Rosebank, DunipaceH39 Cauldhame Farm H46 Hill of Kinnaird 1 H48 Castle View H49 Airth Castle South H50 The Glebe H53 Cumbernauld Road, Longcroft H54 The Haining H57 Maddiston Fire Station H59 Rosebank North, Dunipace MU04 Banknock North MU09 Broad Street MU18 Hill of Kinnaird 2 MU20 East Bonnybridge 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. The extent of possible inland habitat used by Pink Footed Geese areas across the Council area is very large (c. 16207ha) therefore loss of habitat (outside the SPA boundary) caused by any one of these sites (32.4ha maximum at Hill of Kinnaird 1) is considered to be insignificant given the vast amount of alternative suitable habitat available across the Council area and is considered unlikely to affect the population of Pink Footed Geese as a viable component of the site. Slamannan Plateau H25 Slamannan Road, SPA H26 Avonbridge Road H27 Main StreetThese proposals for housing growth could increase road traffic in the vicinity of

- 38 - HRA Revised June 2020

Policy European Site Description Affected roosting, foraging and loafing habitat causing disturbance to bean geese. Black Loch Moss H25 Slamannan Road, SAC This proposal 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 Forth Islands SPA H01 Drum Farm North H02 Kinglass Farm 1 H03 Kinglass Farm 2 H04 South Street H05 Main Street H06 Union Street H38 Etna Road 2 H41 Grangemouth Road H45 Avonhall H48 Castle View H49 Airth Castle South H50 The Glebe H55 Crawfield Road H56 North Bank Farm MU01 Links Road MU02 Drum Farm South MU03 Crawfield Lane MU17 Grangemouth Town Centre

These proposals (which are within 2 miles of the coast) could lead to increased recreational use of the coast and could lead to the disturbance of qualifying interest features during offshore feeding or onshore feeding and loafing. Outer Forth and St H01 Drum Farm North Andrew’s Bay H02 Kinglass Farm 1 Complex pSPA H03 Kinglass Farm 2 H04 South Street H05 Main Street H06 Union Street H38 Etna Road 2 H41 Grangemouth Road H45 Avonhall H48 Castle View H49 Airth Castle South H50 The Glebe H55 Crawfield Road H56 North Bank Farm MU01 Links Road MU02 Drum Farm South MU03 Crawfield Lane MU17 Grangemouth Town Centre

These proposals (which are within 2 miles of the coast) could lead to increased recreational use of the coast and could lead to the disturbance of qualifying interest features during offshore feeding or onshore feeding and loafing. IN01 Strategic Firth of Forth SPA IN19 Dalderse Waste Water Treatment Works

- 39 - HRA Revised June 2020

Policy European Site Description Affected Infrastructure (certain proposals only) This proposal could cause reduced water quality during operation which could affect qualifying species prey abundance.

Firth of Forth SPA IN08 Grangemouth Access Improvements IN17 Bo'ness - Grangemouth Path and A904 Realignment IN18 A88 (Antonshill to A905 Path, Stenhousemuir) IN29 Kinnaird Primary School

These proposals are at possible inland high tide roost sites used by waders35 and could lead to the loss of habitat potentially used for feeding/roosting and disturbance of qualifying species whilst using inland feeding/ roosting sites. Firth of Forth SPA IN04 M80 Junction 7 Improvement IN08 Grangemouth Access Improvements IN15 Greenhill Junction Rail improvement IN17 Bo'ness - Grangemouth Path and A904 Realignment IN18 A88 (Antonshill to A905 Path, Stenhousemuir) IN23 Braes High School IN25 Graeme High School IN29 Kinnaird Primary School IN31 Victoria Primary School IN39 Hills of Dunipace Cemetery Extension IN40 Weedingshall Cemetery Extension

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.

Screening Step 3E - Elements of the Plan which are too general to predict the nature or location of effects

3.1.30 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 European sites cannot be identified because the policy is too general to predict the nature or location of effects. Table 18 below shows those elements of the Proposed Plan which have been screened out under step 3 for this reason:

Table 18: Elements which are too general to predict the nature of effects Policy Description

PE17 Open Space and New Sets criteria for the inclusion of open space within Development new developments.

35 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.

- 40 - HRA Revised June 2020

Policy Description

PE24 Soils and Agricultural Land Sets out criteria for protection of these features and identifies when development will be allowed. PE26 Vacant, Derelict, Unstable and Policy to promote the re-use of land. Contaminated Land HC02 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. HC03 Affordable Housing Sets out the amount of affordable housing required in different parts of the Council Area HC04 Housing Density and Site Capacity Provides guidance on design priciples to be used to inform overall site capacity and density. HC05 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. HC06 Infill Development and Subdivision Defines criteria for when additional housing can be of Plots constructed. HC07 Established Residential Areas Criteria for the use of buildings in residential areas. HC08 Residential Extensions and Provides criteria for when extensions and alterations Alterations will be allowed. HC09 Gypsy/Travellers’ Sites Sets out criteria for proposals for Gypsy and Traveller sites. HC10 Residential Care Homes Criteria for the location of Care Homes. JE05 Business Development in the Sets out criteria for when business development will Countryside be allowed JE07 Town and Local Centres Defines criteria for assessing proposals for new development or changes of use within existing town and local centres JE09 Retail and Commercial Leisure Sets out criteria for when this type of development will Development be 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 European site. JE10 Food and Drink Establishes criteria for the location of Food Retailing IR04 Community Facilities Set of critera for assessing proposals for new community facilities or proposals adversely affecting existing community facilities. IR06 Active Travel Provides criteria for inclusion and safeguarding of active travel provision and promotes the inclusion of opportunities for walking and cycling within developments and sets standards for provision of facilities. IR07 Bus Travel Sets criteria for incorporation of bus transport within new developments. IR08 Freight Transport Policy to guide the development of freight transport. IR09 Parking Policy to guide the supply of parking IR10 Drainage Infrastructure Sets out criteria for when new sewerage infrastructure will be allowed. IR11 Digital Infrastructure Sets out criteria for when new digital infrastructure will be allowed. IR12 Energy Generation Development Sets out criteria for renewable energy projects IR13 Low and Zero Carbon Development Sets out general targets for incorporating low carbon

- 41 - HRA Revised June 2020

Policy Description

designs into existing and new developments. IR14 Heat Networks Encourages the provision of decentralised energy generation with heat recovery and district heating systems within major new developments. IR15 Mineral Resources Sets out criteria for safeguarding and working of mineral resources. There is flexibility within the areas of search for coal mining operations to proceed without having an adverse effect on European Sites. IR16 Assessment of Mineral Proposals Defines criteria for applications for mineral workings. IR17 Waste Management Facilities Establishes criteria for the identification of new waste management facilities, and identifies land next to existing sites for future development. IR18 Waste Management in New Establishes principles for reducing waste during Development construction and operation of new developments.

3.2 Stage 6 – Applying screening stage mitigation measures

3.2.1 No screening stage mitigation measures have been identified.

3.3 Stage 7 – Re-screening the Plan

Policies, Proposals and Opportunities with Likely Significant Effect in their own right.

3.3.1 Paragraph 3.2.1 states no screening stage mitigation measures have been identified. According to page 27 of the SNH Guidance, this means Stage 7 is not required and that all policy and proposals ‘screened in’ at earlier stages should proceed to Stage 8 and appriopriate assessment. Section 3.3 is supplementatry to Stage 5 providing more in depth screening of elements of the plan with likely significant effects. It is not a rescreen of the whole plan.

The policies, proposals and opportunities which were considered as likely to have a significant effect in their own right on European sites are indicated in the table 19 below. It should be noted that this table does not attempt to outline the individual qualifying interest features which may be subject to likely significant effects, this is detailed in full within the respective Appropriate Assessments in section 4 of this report.

- 42 - HRA Revised June 2020

Table 19: Elements with LSE alone Policy European Site Description of Potential Impact Affected JE01 Business and River Teith SAC BUS15 – Grangemouth Docks West – Could Tourism (Certain involve: noise and vibration during construction Proposals only) and from increased commercial boat traffic during operation; sediment release during construction and pollution during construction and from increased commercial boat traffic during operation BUS16 - Bo’ness Road – Chemical sciences development proposal could involve water pollution during construction and operation. BUS17 - Wholeflats Road – Chemical sciences/ business and industry development proposal could involve water pollution during construction and operation. BUS18 - Wholeflats Business Park – Business and industry development proposal could involve water pollution during construction and operation. JE01 Business and Firth of Forth SPA BUS15 – Grangemouth Docks West – Could Tourism Locations involve: direct loss of habitat during construction; (Certain Proposals pollution during construction; disturbance during Only) operation of the site; and alterations in shipping movements. BUS16 - Bo’ness Road – Could involve: direct habitat loss during construction; pollution during construction; disturbance during construction; pollution during operation of scheme; and disturbance during operation of scheme. BUS17 - Wholeflats Road - Could involve: direct habitat loss during construction; pollution during construction; disturbance during construction; pollution during operation of scheme; and disturbance during operation of scheme. BUS18 Wholeflats Business Park –could involve water pollution during construction and operation which will feed into the River Avon and onwards to the Firth of Forth. HSG01 – Housing Slamannan Plateau H27– Main Street – Could involve disturbance to Growth (Certain SPA Bean Geese during construction and operation. Proposals only) IN01 – Strategic River Teith SAC IN19 Dalderse WWTW – Development proposal Infrastructure (Certain close to the coast, could involve sediment release Proposals Only) during construction and water pollution during operation.

- 43 - HRA Revised June 2020

PE13 –Green and Firth of Forth SPA GN01 John Muir Way – Coastal path opportunity, Blue Network (Certain could involve noise and vibration and water Opportunities only) pollution during construction and recreational disturbance during operation. GN03 Kinneil Kerse – Coastal landfill restoration opportunity, could involve noise and vibration, sediment release and water pollution during construction. GN04 - Bothkennar/ Skinflats – Potential for managed realignment of the coast which could cause noise and vibration, sediment release and water pollution during construction. Could also lead to disturbance of qualifying species arising from increased opportunities for access to and recreation along the coastline. GN25 – Outdoor learning site creation at Kinneil Foreshore could cause disturbance of qualifying features during contruction and operation, loss of supporting habitat for waders and increased recreatiponal disturbance at the coast. PE13 – Falkirk Green Slamannan Plateau GN15 – Braes Wetland and Peatland Restoration Network (Certain SPA - Peatland restoration proposals could involve the Opportunities only) loss of roosting, foraging and loafing habitat for Bean Geese outside the SPA and disturbance to Bean Geese. 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. GN19 – 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 GN16 – 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

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 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.

- 44 - HRA Revised June 2020

Firth of Forth SPA - loss of habitat potentially used for feeding/roosting by waders and disturbance of waders

In Plan in combination effects

3.3.4 The opportunities in table 20 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 20: Habitat potentially used for feeding or high tide roosting by waders PP Ref Name Area of potential supporting habitat (hectares) BUS14 South Bridge Street 1.8 H01 Drum Farm North 8.5 H02 Kinglass Farm 1 7.9 H03 Kinglass Farm 2 0.7 H46 Hill of Kinnaird 1 29.2 H48 Castle View 7.0 H49 Airth Castle South 1.0

IN08 Grangemouth Access Improvements ? IN17 Bo'ness - Grangemouth Path and A904 ? Realignment IN18 A88 (Antonshill to A905 Path, ? Stenhousemuir) IN29 Kinnaird Primary School ? MU02 Drum Farm South 13.0 MU18 Hill of Kinnaird 2 9.4 GN02 Antonine Wall Trail An exact location of GN06 River Carron Corridor Improvments works cannot be GN12 Kinneil Estate predicted. Potential GN25 Outdoor Learning Sites – Kinneil habitat loss from minor Foreshore Local Nature Reserve interventions is unlikely to be significant.

3.3.5 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 78.5ha 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

3.3.6 The opportunities in table 21 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:

- 45 - HRA Revised June 2020

Table 21: Habitat potentially used for feeding, roosting or loafing by Pink Footed Geese PP Ref Name Area of potential supporting habitat (hectares) BUS02 Manuel Works 1.2 BUS05 Falkirk Stadium 8.8 BUS07 Caledon Business Park 13.1 MU21 Glensburgh 4.5 BUS14 South Bridge Street 1.8 BUS15 Grangemouth Docks West 2.8 BUS18 Wholeflats Business Park 1.5 H08 Banknock South 8.3 H09 Dennyloanhead 25.2 H12 Garngrew Road 3.2 H13 Parkhall Farm 1 4.3 H14 Parkhall Farm 2 2.1 H15 Parkhall Farm 3 0.7 H16 Parkhall Farm 4 1.1 H17 Toravon Farm 6.6 H18 Parkhall Farm 5 7.6 H21 Hillcrest 4.1 H24 Church Road 1.9 H26 Avonbridge Road 1.9 H27 Main Street 3.5 H29 Whitecross 11.5 H32 Mydub 2 13.6 H35 Rosebank 4.7 H39 Cauldhame Farm 3.0 H42 Woodend Farm 4.4 H46 Hill of Kinnaird 1 13.7 H48 Castle View 7.0 H49 Airth Castle South 1.0 H50 The Glebe 0.9 H53 Cumbernauld Road 0.5 H54 The Haining 1.5 H59 Rosebank North 6.5 IN04 M80 Junction 7 Improvement ? IN08 Grangemouth Access Improvements ? IN15 Greenhill Junction Rail improvement ? IN17 Bo'ness - Grangemouth Path and A904 ? Realignment IN18 A88 (Antonshill to A905 Path, ? Stenhousemuir) IN23 Braes High School ? IN25 Graeme High School ? IN29 Kinnaird Primary School ? IN31 Victoria Primary School ? IN39 Hills of Dunipace Cemetery Extension ? IN40 Weedingshall Cemetery Extension ? MU04 Banknock North 5.8 MU09 Broad Street 11.2 MU16 Falkirk Gateway 23.1 MU18 Hill of Kinnaird 2 9.4 MU20 East Bonnybridge 19.7

- 46 - HRA Revised June 2020

3.3.7 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 242.6 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 the coastline.

In Plan in combination effects

3.3.8 The following opportunities in table 22 below both increase access to the coastline and could lead to increased disturbance of the qualifying interest features of the Firth of Forth SPA. Neither project directly involves a coastal recreational access project so will not have a likely significant effect alone, however both will improve access to coastal areas for recreation.

Table 22: Elements with MRE due to increased opportunities for access to and recreation along the coastline PP Ref Name Description of Potential Impact PE12 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. GN06 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

3.3.9 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

3.3.10 The proposals in table 23 below differ from those in table 22 above because they do not themselves increase access to the coastline but they could result in increased recreation along the coastline.

Table 23: Proposals within 2 miles of the coast PP Ref Name Number of new houses H01 Drum Farm North 180 H02 Kinglass Farm 1 167 H03 Kinglass Farm 2 27 H04 South Street 11 H05 Main Street 30 H06 Union Street 12 H38 Etna Road 2 168 H41 Grangemouth Road 200 H45 Avonhall 11 H48 Castle View 132 H49 Airth Castle South 15 H50 The Glebe 30 H55 Crawfield Road 450

- 47 - HRA Revised June 2020

H56 North Bank Farm? 200 MU01 Links Road ?

MU02 Drum Farm South 220 MU03 Crawfield Lane ? MU16 Falkirk Gateway 100 MU18 Grangemouth Town Centre ?

3.3.11 Table 23 above indicates those proposals within 2 miles of the coast 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 over 2,000 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 – Reduced Water Quality

In Plan in combination effects

3.3.12 The following policies and proposals in table 24 below were identified as having the potential to cause reduced water quality which could affect the qualifying species of the Firth of Forth SPA (through negatively 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 24: Elements with MRE due to impact on water quality PP Ref Name Description of Potential Impact PE12 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.

GN06 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. IN19 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.

3.3.13 The entrance to the canals network is approximately 1.2km downstream of the outfall from Dalderse WWTW which is in turn a minimum of 750m downstream of any new footbridge over the Carron which might be constructed as part of the River Carron Corridor Improvements. Due to the distances between these potential sources of water pollution and

- 48 - HRA Revised June 2020

the level of dilution present in the River Carron they would not act in combination to negatively affect the water quality of the Firth of Forth.

In combination with other plans or projects.

3.3.14 Table 25 below shows other projects which are likely to result in reduced water quality within the Firth of Forth:

Table 25: Projects which are likely to result in reduced water quality within the Firth of Forth Plan/ Project Status Description of Potential Impact Name NPF3 (h) Proposals not yet Carbon Capture and Storage Network and fully implemented in Thermal Generation an extant plan Freight Handling Capacity on the Forth Grangemouth Investment Zone

The HRA of NPF3 indicates that these national developments could cause increases in suspended sediment and turbidity potentially affecting marine habitats and species through land use change; dredging (and disposal of dredgings); increased levels of vessel movement; and piling and could also cause toxic effects on marine species from potential spillages of oil etc from increased levels of vessel movements.

The HRA concludes that with the proposed mitigation in place and the requirement for all proposed developments to undergo project level HRA to ensure no adverse effects on the integrity of the site, only minor residual effects are expected to remain. National (h) Proposals not yet HRA does not appear to indicate that NRIP Renewables fully implemented in projects will lead to an impact on water quality Infrastructure Plan an extant plan which might affect feeding areas of qualifying species. SESplan - SDP (h) Proposals not yet West Lothian, West Edinburgh, East Lothian, fully implemented in North Dunfermline & Ore/Leven Valley SDA are an extant plan noted in the HRA as having potential to cause waste water, sewage, pollutants and sediment to enter into watercourses. The HRA required the further assessment of these SDA at LDP level and identified some broad strategic mitigation measures to aid that lower level assessment. SESplan - (h) Proposals not yet Additional housing allocated within the 5SDA Housing fully implemented in above and within City of Edinburgh, and Fife is Supplementary an extant plan noted in the HRA record as having potential to Guidance cause waste water, sewage, pollutants and sediment to enter into watercourses. The HRA required the further assessment of these SDA at LDP level and identified some broad strategic mitigation measures to aid that lower level assessment. FifePlan (h) Proposals not yet Proposals CHL003; GUA004; INV009; KDY039; fully implemented in BKN003; MET011; ROS009; LWD002 are all an extant plan identified as having a minor residual effect due to potential impact on water quality. City of Edinburgh h) Proposals not yet The HRA does not predict that any impacts on

- 49 - HRA Revised June 2020

Council Local fully implemented in the water quality of the Firth of Forth SPA will be Development Plan an extant plan caused by proposals contained within the LDP despite the findings of the SESplan HRA. (h) Proposals not yet HRA does not identify any proposals which will Council Local fully implemented in have an impact on the water quality of the Firth Development Plan an extant plan of Forth. West Lothian LDP (i) draft plans that The 2014 HRA does not identify projects within are being brought West Lothian LDP that would have a likely forward by other significant effect or minor residual effects on a public bodies and European Site. agencies. East Lothian (i) draft plans that The HRA does not predict that any impacts on LDP2 are being brought the water quality of the Firth of Forth SPA will be forward by other caused by proposals contained within the LDP public bodies and despite the findings of the SESplan HRA agencies. Stirling Local (i) draft plans that Proposals H130; H074; H075; H076; H077; Development Plan are being brought H069; H072; H053; H061; H063; H065; H147; 2 forward by other H066; H067; H131; H055; H057; H028; H054; public bodies and H080; H081; B14; B01; B02; B03; B09; B06; agencies. B07; B10; B11; B12; B33; B13; B29; B30; B31’ B35; B36; B37; B38; B39; B40; B15; B16; B17; B18; B19; B20; B21; R09; R10; R12; R13 identified as having minor residual effects on water quality. Calachem b) projects given No water quality impacts on Firth of Forth SPA Renewable consent but not yet species predicted. Energy Combined started Heat and Power Plant P/16/0321/FUL Calachem Biofuel b) projects given No water quality impacts on Firth of Forth SPA Plant consent but not yet species predicted. P/17/0588FUL started Ineos combined c) Projects that No water quality impacts on Firth of Forth SPA heat and power are subject to species predicted. plant applications for P/18/0003/FUL consent

Grangemouth b) projects given A report entitled “Information to Inform a Habitats Biomass Plant consent but not yet Regulations Assessment” (SKM Enviros 2012) started identified that cooling water discharge from the plant could affect qualifying species prey abundance during operation for the wintering population of redknot, common shellduck, common redshank and the wider wildfoul assemblage. A Habitats Regulations Appraisal of the implications of carrying out this proposal was produced in December 2012, it concluded that the effect of the thermal pollution on the invertebrate fauna along the River Carron is negligible Rosyth Biomass b) projects given An appropriate assessment for the project is not Plant consent but not yet publicly available, however, it is possible that the started cooling water discharge from the plant could affect qualifying species prey abundance during operation.

3.3.15 The Grangemouth biomass plant and Grangemouth carbon capture plant are the only projects which are close enough to proposals GN06 and INF19 to have any conceivable, in

- 50 - HRA Revised June 2020

combination effect on water quality. The cooling water discharge from the Grangemouth Biomass Plant is located approximately 1.5km downstream from the new sea lock entrance to the Forth and Clyde Canal and the Carbon Capture Plant is even further downstream. Given the distance between these two projects and the two proposals in the LDP, the level of dilution present in the River Carron and the predicted negligible effect on the water quality of the Firth of Forth SPA caused by the LDP proposals in table 23 above, it is not considered that they will act in combination to have a likely significant effect on the water quality of the Firth of Forth. As far as policy PE12 is concerned, it is difficult to anticipate how much this policy will act to increase the level of boat traffic using the Forth and Clyde Canal via the River Carron sea lock as any increase in boat traffic could be due to a number of other factors not solely policy PE12.

Slamannan Plateau SPA – Significant Disturbance

In Plan in combination effects

3.3.16 The following policies and proposals in table 26 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 26: Slamannan Plateau SPA – Disturbance to Bean Geese PP Ref Name Description of Potential Impact H25 Slamannan Road Increase in vehicular traffic could lead to increased disturbance of bean geese H26 Avonbridge Road Increase in vehicular traffic could lead to increased disturbance of bean geese H27 Main Street Increase in vehicular traffic could lead to increased disturbance of bean geese

3.3.17 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

3.3.18 The following proposal in table 27 below was identified as having the potential to damage bog surface and typical plant species of the Black Loch Moss SAC but was not, on its own, considered to have a likely significant effect. Opportunity GN16 Black Loch Access has the potential to damage bog surface and typical plant species of the Black Loch Moss SAC, however this project has LSE alone so an assessment of its effects will be undertaken within the Appropriate Assessment in section 4.3 later in this report.

Table 27: Black Loch Moss SAC – Potential deterioration of habitats. PP Ref Name Description of Potential Impact H25 Slamannan Road Residential development in Limerigg could lead to the increased use of paths around Black Loch and the deterioration of habitats.

In combination with other plans or projects.

3.3.19 We are not aware of any other plans or projects which would lead to a potential deterioration of habitats at the Black Loch Moss SAC, as such proposal H25 will not act in combination to have a likely significant effect on the Black Loch Moss SAC.

River Teith SAC – Noise and Vibration

- 51 - HRA Revised June 2020

In Plan in combination effects

3.3.20 Noise and vibration can have an adverse effect on Atlantic Salmon through causing damage to their swimbladder which can lead to mortality. The policy in table 28 below was identified as having the potential to cause noise and vibration which could affect the qualifying species of the River Teith SAC but was not on its own considered to have a likely significant effect.

Table 28: River Teith SAC – Noise and Vibration PP Ref Name Description of Potential Impact PE12 Canals Could encourage increased recreational boat traffic leading to increased disturbance

3.3.21 The extent of increased recreational boat traffic created by the implementation of policy PE12 would be unlikely to be significant when compared to current background levels of commercial boat traffic using the Firth of Forth to access Grangemouth so there is no likely significant effect. There is one other proposals which could lead to increased levels of boat traffic which could cause noise and vibration which could affect the qualifying species of the River Teith SAC i.e. BUS15 Grangemouth Docks West, however both of this project has LSE alone on the River Teith SAC so an assessment of the effects of the noise and vibration it causes will be undertaken within the Appropriate Assessment in section 4.4 later in this report.

- 52 - HRA Revised June 2020

In combination with other plans or projects.

3.3.22 As described above the extent of increased recreational boat traffic created by the implementation of policy PE12 would be unlikely to be significant when compared to current background levels of commercial boat traffic using the Firth of Forth. It can be concluded therefore that policy PE12 cannot act in combination with proposals for development either within the planning application process or as unimplemented parts of an extant plan to cause a likely significant effect on the River Tieth SAC through increased noise and vibration.

River Teith SAC – Sediment Release

In Plan in combination effects

3.3.23 The proposal in table 29 below was 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 was not, on its own, considered to have a likely significant effect. Proposal BUS15 has the potential to cause increased sediment release which could affect the qualifying species of the River Teith SAC, however this projects has LSE alone so an assessment of its effects will be undertaken within the Appropriate Assessment in section 4.x later in this report. There is no potential for in-plan in combination effects at this stage in the assessment process.

Table 29: River Teith SAC – Sediment Release PP Ref Name Description of Potential Impact GN04 Bothkennar/Skinflats Could involve sediment release during construction.

In combination with other plans or projects.

3.3.24 Table 30 below shows other projects which are likely to result in increased sedimentation within the Firth of Forth:

Table 30: Projects which are likely to result in increased sedimentation within the Firth of Forth Plan/ Project Status Description of Potential Impact Name Grangemouth b) projects given The HRA of this proposal does not recognise any Biomass consent but not yet potential for this project to cause increased started sedimatation which would impact on the River Teith SAC. Rosyth Biomass b) projects given The Environmental Statement for this proposal consent but not yet indicates that accidental potential impacts on started aquatic ecology can occur from generation of runoff containing high suspended solids. No HRA appears to be publicly available. NPF 3 – (h) Proposals not Freight Handling Capacity on the Forth - The yet fully HRA of NPF3 indicates that associated dredging, implemented in an disposal of dredgings, piling, increased levels of extant plan vessel movements and land use change could cause increases in suspended sediments and turbidity potentially affecting marine habitats and species and suggests mitigation measures to ensure that effects are limited to a minor residual level.

Grangemouth Investment Zone – The HRA of NPF3 indicates that associated dredging, disposal of dredgings, piling and increased levels of vessel movements could cause increases in suspended sediments and turbidity potentially

- 53 - HRA Revised June 2020

affecting marine habitats and species and suggests mitigation measures to ensure that effects are limited to a minor residual level.

Carbon Capture and Storage Network and Thermal Generation - The HRA of NPF3 recognises the potential of this project to cause an increase in suspended sediments and turbidity potentially affecting marine habitats and species but does not consider the potential impact upon the River Tieth SAC qualifying ineterests within the appropriate assessment. National (h) Proposals not NRIP Phase 1 – Leith (Dredging, Piling and Renewables yet fully Building Construction) & Energy Park Fife ( Infrastructure Plan implemented in an Piling, Land Reclamation and Building extant plan 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 any sedimentation caused will not act in combination with any sediment release caused by LDP proposals.

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 any sediment release from piling operations or building construction will not act in combination with projects within the Proposed Plan. The Grangemouth site is likely to be located within proposal BUS15 of the Proposed Plan so the effects of sediment release will been considered previously within the appropriate assessment of this proposal. SESplan - SDP (h) Proposals not West Lothian and West Edinburgh Strtaegic yet fully Growth Areas (SGA) identified as having implemented in an potential LSE on the River Tieth SAC. extant plan Appropriate Assessment was devolved to the appropriate Local Development Plans. SESplan - (h) Proposals not West Lothian, Ore/Upper Leven Valley, North Housing yet fully Dunfermline and West Edinburgh Strategic Supplementary implemented in an Growth Areas (SGA) and housing growth in City Guidance extant plan of Edinburgh, East Lothian, Fife & West Lothian identified as having potential LSE on the River Tieth SAC. Appropriate Assessment was devolved to the appropriate Local Development Plans. FifePlan – Local (h) Proposals not Despite the findings of the HRA record for Development Plan yet fully SESPlan no proposals causing LSE or MRE on implemented in an the River Tieth SAC were identified.

- 54 - HRA Revised June 2020

extant plan City of Edinburgh h) Proposals not yet Despite the findings of the HRA record for Council Local fully implemented in SESPlan no proposals causing LSE or MRE on Development Plan an extant plan the River Tieth SAC were identified. Clackmannanshire h) Proposals not yet Proposals M02, B02, B12, B13 & B14 are noted LDP fully implemented in in the HRA as having potential to cause changes an extant plan to water quality arising from pollution during construction. It is assumed that this pollution is likely to include increases in suspended sediments and turbidity potentially affecting marine habitats and species and suggests mitigation measures to ensure that effects are limited to a minor residual level.

West Lothian LDP (i) draft plans that The 2014 HRA does not identify projects within are being brought West Lothian LDP that would have a likely forward by other significant effect or minor residual effects on a public bodies and European Site. agencies. East Lothian LDP (i) draft plans that There are no projects within the East Lothian are being brought LDP which would have a likely significant effect forward by other or minor residual effects on the River Teith SAC. public bodies and agencies. Stirling Local (i) draft plans that Proposals H096, H133, H138, B44, B46 have Development Plan are being brought been identified as having minor residual effects 2 forward by other on the River Teith SAC due to potential for public bodies and reduced water quality. agencies.

3.3.25 Any increased sedimentation caused by the projects in the table above is unlikely to act in-combination with sedimentation caused by the Bothkennar/Skinflats as the level of sediment release is relatively small scale and they are located remotely from these projects. Therefore the sedimentation from the opportunity in table 30 above has been screened out of the appropriate assessment.

River Teith SAC – Impacts on Water Quality

In Plan in combination effects

3.3.27 The following policies and proposals in table 31 below 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 31: River Teith – Impacts on Water Quality PP Ref Name Description of Potential Impact PE12 Canals Could encourage increased boat traffic leading to increased pollution - Negligible

GN06 River Carron Corridor Corridor improvement proposals could lead to Improvements pollution

3.3.28 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.

Forth Islands SPA - Gannets, auks, kittiwakes and fulmars

- 55 - HRA Revised June 2020

In plan in combination effects

3.3.29 The breeding concentrations and feeding grounds of gannets, auks (puffins, razorbills and guillemots), kittiwakes and fulmars (with the exception of the occasional individual) are in the outer Forth well away from the Council Area. The projects identified in table 17 as having a minor residual effect on the Forth Islands SPA will therefore have no effect on gannets, auks, kittiwakes and fulmars.

In combination with other plans or projects.

3.3.30 As the projects identified in table 17 will have no effect on gannets, auks, kittiwakes and fulmars therefore no in combination effects with other plans or projects can occur.

Forth Islands SPA - Common and roseate terns

In-plan in combination effects

3.3.31 The small number of common terns and roseate terns nesting on Long Craig Island (8km from the Council boundary) could potentially be using the offshore waters by the Council as terns have been known to forage up to 16km from their nests. Although they can forage up to 16km from their nesting site it is likely that foraging activity will concentrate closer to their nesting site. This would suggest that relatively low level usage of the coast adjacent to the Council area is likely to occur.

3.3.32 Year round survey data is available from the Grangemouth Flood Prevention Scheme Ornotilogical Surveys 2015-2017. This data confirms that roseate terns are not present in the Council area but common terns are present in the area in summer months in sectors 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 12, 13 & 14. However, these individuals are most likely to be predominantly from a population of 58 pairs which breed on mooring dolphins located on the western part of the western channel, rather than from the breeding population on Long Craig Island.

3.3.33 Terns are known to feed offshore. Given the likely low levels of use of the coast adjacent to the Council area by terns from the Forth Islands SPA the impact of increased coastal recreation or construction noise caused by coastal developments is not likely to cause more than minor localised disturbance to foraging terns.

3.3.34 The increase in shipping movements caused by the Canals policy will be insignificant in comparison to the current baseline levels of shipping traffic using the Firth of Forth. The increase in shipping movements caused by the Grangemouth Docks West proposal (BUS15) is likely to lead to an increase in overall shipping movements which will be dictated by the nature of development which comes forward on the site. For example, the recently approved Grangemouth Biomass Plant (which sits within the Grangemouth Docks proposal site) will receive the bulk of its fuel from overseas. This would result in of the order of 80 vessels per annum i.e. one to two vessels per week36. The port of Grangemouth already handles approximately 150,000 containers per year and as such there is already a very significant baseline of shipping movements. There is no evidence to suggest that ships or boats have any effect on terns feeding offshore.

3.3.35 The projects identified in table 17 as having a minor residual effect on the Forth Islands SPA will therefore not act in combination to have a likely significant effect on terns.

In combination with other plans or projects.

NPF3

3.3.36 The HRA of NPF3 indicates that the: Carbon Capture and Storage Network and Thermal Generation; Freight Handling Capacity on the Forth; and Grangemouth Investment Zone national developments have the potential to affect the Forth Islands SPA.

36 Grangemouth Renewable Energy Plant – Environmental Statement. Forth Energy 2010

- 56 - HRA Revised June 2020

3.3.37 For the Carbon Capture and Storage Network and Thermal Generation project the HRA of NPF3 indicates that the project will result in land use change from new development, building construction/ demolition, piling as part of construction, which could cause: direct loss of habitat under the footprint of the development; direct loss of habitat and deterioration of habitat due to changes in sedimentation patterns associated with vibration at coastal locations; direct loss of offsite supporting habitat; noise and vibration that may disturb the species during construction and from operational activity; significant changes to flight routes along the coast; risk of collision with tall structures. reduced availability / displacement of other species (including prey); increases in suspended sediments and turbidity potentially affecting marine habitats and species.

3.3.38 Of all of these identified effects only the noise and vibration that may disturb the species during construction and from operational activity has the potential to act in combination with the LDP projects outlined in table 15. As indicated at paragraph 3.3.31 and 3.3.32 above, given the likely low levels of use of the coast adjacent to the Council area by terns from the Forth Islands SPA the Carbon Capture and Storage Network and Thermal Generation project in combination with the LDP outlined in table 15 is not likely to cause more than minor localised disturbance to foraging terns.

3.3.39 For the Freight Handling Capcity on the Forth project the HRA indicates that potential effects could occur as a result of increased shipping and associated dredging activities which could cause indirect disturbance, increases in suspended sediment and turbidity potentially affecting marine habitats and species and toxic effects on marine species from potential oil spillages etc. The increase in shipping movements associated with the Grangemouth Docks proposal could lead to an increase in dredging activity, however it is not known what level of increased shipping movements would precipitate a need to increase dredging activities. Little is known about the nature of proposals which may come forward at Grangemouth Docks other than the range of uses (Port related industry, storage and distribution, logistics, renewable energy) The recently approved Grangemouth Biomass Plant (which sits within the Grangemouth Docks proposal site) would result an increase in the of the order of 80 vessels per annum i.e. one to two vessels per week37 but would not require an increase of dredging activities. No in combination assessment is therefore possible.

3.3.40 The DPEA report of the The Rosyth International Container Terminal (Harbour Revision) Order at Port Babcock Rosyth indicates that it is anticipated that there would be up to 1100 vessel movements in and out of the RICT per year (an average of between one and three vessels per day). There are approximately 5500 vessel movements per year in the Forth, equating to an average of 15 vessel movements per day. An increase of the magnitude thought likely was assessed as an insignificant impact of negligible magnitude. In combination with the additional freight capacity on the Forth project, disturbance caused by increased shipping movements as a result of the Proposed Plan, (which is likely to produce a small proportional increase in shipping movements on the Firth of Forth) will not adversely affect the population of common or roseate tern as a viable component of the Forth Islands SPA.

3.3.41 The Grangemouth Investment Zone project has been fully integrated within the LDP (Proposal BUS15 is a major component part of this) and therefore in combination assessment has already been carried out as part of the in plan in combination assessment.

NRIP

3.3.42 The HRA of NRIP recognised the potential for the plan to cause the physical loss of habitat used by the qualifying interest features of the Forth Islands SPA, no potential for disturbance of qualifying interest features was recognised. The Proposed Plan will not cause any physical loss of habitat used by common or roseate terns therefore there is no potential to act in combination with NRIP to have a likely significant effect.

Development Plans

37 Grangemouth Renewable Energy Plant – Environmental Statement. Forth Energy 2010

- 57 - HRA Revised June 2020

3.3.43 Of the development plans surrounding the Firth of Forth which have a link to the Forth Islands SPA for which HRA records have been produced (SESPlan, FifePlan, City of Edinburgh Council LDP, East Lothian LDP – Proposed Plan) only SESPlan has identified that proposals within the plan will have LSE or a minor residual effect on common or roseate terns. SESplan recommends further assessment of effects at LDP level, but none of the HRA records for the respective LDP acknowledge any connective pathway between their proposals and the Forth Islands SPA qualifying interest features.

Rosyth Biomass Plant

3.3.44 Forth Energy submitted the Rosyth Renewable Energy Plant application to the Scottish Government for determination under Section 36 of the Electricity Act in November 2011 and it was consented in January 2014. The Environmental Statement submitted to support the application does not identify any potential for the development to impact on common or roseate tern. It indicates that the proposed Biomass Plant would result in an increase in shipping movements in the Firth of Forth in the of the order of 80 vessels per annum i.e. one to two vessels per week and that this does not represent a significant increase relative to current levels. In combination with the Rosyth Biomass Plant project, disturbance caused by increased shipping movements as a result of the Proposed Plan, (which is likely to produce a small proportional increase in shipping movements on the Firth of Forth) will not adversely affect the population of common or roseate tern as a viable component of the Forth Islands SPA.

Grangemouth Biomass Plant

3.3.45 The Grangemouth Renewable Energy Plant Environmental Statement noted that a common tern colony of 54 breeding pairs is present within the Western Channel 50m to the north of the main plant area. This is a separate colony to the common terns using Long Craig Island in the Forth Islands SPA. Despite this, the presence of a breeding colony of terns in the Western Channel is further evidence suggesting that ships or boats have no effect on terns feeding offshore as Grangemouth Port, which already handles approximately 150,000 containers per year, has condiereable levels of existing boat traffic. The proposed Biomass Plant would result in an increase in shipping movements in the Firth of Forth in the of the order of 80 vessels per annum. In combination with the Grangemouth Biomass Plant project, disturbance caused by increased shipping movements as a result of the Proposed Plan, (which is likely to produce a small proportional increase in shipping movements on the Firth of Forth) will not adversely affect the population of common or roseate tern as a viable component of the Forth Islands SPA.

3.3.46 In conclusion therefore the projects identified in table 17 as having a minor residual effect on the Forth Islands SPA will not act in combination with other plans or projects to have a likely significant effect on terns.

Forth Islands SPA - Gulls

In-plan in combination effects

3.3.47 Lesser black-backed and herring gulls nest on most of the SPA islands in the outer Forth, the nearest to the application site being Inchmickery 16km away. They also nest at a variety of sites outwith the SPA, including industrial and urban roofs throughout the areas surrounding the Firth of Forth. These species forage over very wide areas including landfill sites, urban areas, the marine environment and the coast throughout the Firth of Forth and surrounding land area. It is impossible to discern whether gulls encountered across the Falkirk Council area are part of the breeding population from the Forth Islands SPA or part of a population which breeds elsewhere. Despite this uncertainty, it can be concluded that only a tiny fraction of the available feeding and roosting resource for lesser black backed and herring gulls would be affected by disturbance from the proposals in the Proposed Plan.

- 58 - HRA Revised June 2020

3.3.48 The inland urban/ developed part of the Falkirk Council area is likely to be widely used by gulls for foraging, however, as noted above it is not possible to discern whether these gulls are part of the Forth Islands SPA breeding population or are part of a population who breed elsewhere. Given the vast areas of foraging habitat available to gulls across the Firth of Forth and its surrounding inland areas, and the fact the urban development often leads to the creation of new opportunities for foraging, it is considered that the Proposed Plan is unlikely to lead to any more than an insignificant loss of inland habitat outside the SPA.

3.3.49 The increase in shipping movements caused by the Canals policy (which could cause a limited increase in small recreational vessel traffic) will be insignificant in comparison to the current baseline levels of shipping traffic using the Firth of Forth. The increase in shipping movements caused by the Grangemouth Docks West proposal (BUS15) is likely to lead to an increase in overall shipping movements which will be dictated by the nature of development which comes forward on the site. For example, the recently approved Grangemouth Biomass Plant (which sits within the Grangemouth Docks proposal site) will receive the bulk of its fuel from overseas. This would result in of the order of 80 vessels per annum i.e. one to two vessels per week38. The port of Grangemouth already handles approximately 150,000 containers per year and as such there is already a very significant baseline of shipping movements. There is no evidence to suggest that ships or boats have any substantial impacts on feeding or roosting gulls.

3.3.50 The projects identified in table 17 as having a minor residual effect on the Forth Islands SPA will therefore not act in combination to have a likely significant effect on lesser black-backed or herring gulls.

In combination with other plans or projects.

NPF3

3.3.51 The HRA of NPF3 indicates that the: Carbon Capture and Storage Network and Thermal Generation; Freight Handling Capacity on the Forth; Grangemouth Investment Zone; and Strategic Airport Enhancements national developments have the potential to affect the Forth Islands SPA.

3.3.52 For the Carbon Capture and Storage Network and Thermal Generation project the HRA of NPF3 indicates that the project will result in land use change from new development, building construction/ demolition, piling as part of construction, which could cause: direct loss of habitat under the footprint of the development; direct loss of habitat and deterioration of habitat due to changes in sedimentation patterns associated with vibration at coastal locations; direct loss of offsite supporting habitat; noise and vibration that may disturb the species during construction and from operational activity; significant changes to flight routes along the coast; risk of collision with tall structures. reduced availability / displacement of other species (including prey); increases in suspended sediments and turbidity potentially affecting marine habitats and species.

3.3.53 Of all of these identified effects only the noise and vibration that may disturb the species during construction and from operational activity; and direct loss of offsite supporting habitat have the potential to act in combination with the LDP projects outlined in table 15. As indicated at paragraph 3.3.47 above, given the the very wide foraging habitat available to gulls, only a tiny fraction of the available feeding and roosting resource for lesser black backed and herring gulls would be affected by disturbance from the Carbon Capture and Storage Network and Thermal Generation project in combination with the LDP outlined in table 15.

3.3.54 For the Freight Handling Capacity on the Forth project the HRA indicates that potential effects could occur as a result of increased shipping and associated dredging activities. The increase in shipping movements associated with the Grangemouth Docks proposal could lead to an increase in dredging activity, however it is not known what level of

38 Grangemouth Renewable Energy Plant – Environmental Statement. Forth Energy 2010

- 59 - HRA Revised June 2020

increased shipping movements would precipitate a need to increase dredging activities. Little is known about the nature of proposals which may come forward at Grangemouth Docks other than the range of uses (Port related industry, storage and distribution, logistics, renewable energy) The recently approved Grangemouth Biomass Plant (which sits within the Grangemouth Docks proposal site) would result an increase in the of the order of 80 vessels per annum i.e. one to two vessels per week39 but would not require an increase of dredging activities. No in combination assessment is therefore possible.

3.3.55 The DPEA report of the The Rosyth International Container Terminal (Harbour Revision) Order at Port Babcock Rosyth indicates that it is anticipated that there would be up to 1100 vessel movements in and out of the RICT per year (an average of between one and three vessels per day). There are approximately 5500 vessel movements per year in the Forth, equating to an average of 15 vessel movements per day. An increase of the magnitude thought likely was assessed as an insignificant impact of negligible magnitude. In combination with the additional freight capacity on the Forth project, disturbance caused by increased shipping movements as a result of the Proposed Plan, (which is likely to produce a small proportional increase in shipping movements on the Firth of Forth) will not adversely affect the population of lesser black backed or herring gulls as a viable component of the Forth Islands SPA.

3.3.56 The Grangemouth Investment Zone project has been fully integrated within the Proposed Plan (Proposals BUS15 is a major component part of this) and therefore in combination assessment has already been carried out as part of the in plan in combination assessment.

3.3.57 For the strategic enhancement project at Edinburgh International Airport specifically relocation of the national showground to South of the A8 the HRA of NPF3 indicates that building construction and land use change could cause: direct loss of supporting habitat under the footprint of the development; and noise and vibration that may disturb the species. Given the the very wide foraging habitat available to gulls, only a tiny fraction of the available feeding and roosting resource for lesser black backed and herring gulls would be affected by disturbance from the strategic enhancement project at Edinburgh International Airport in combination with the LDP proposals outlined in table 17.

NRIP

3.3.58 The HRA of NRIP recognised the potential for the plan to cause the physical loss of habitat used by the qualifying interest features of the Forth Islands SPA, no potential for disturbance of qualifying interest features was recognised. Given the vast areas of foraging habitat available to gulls across the Firth of Forth and its surrounding inland areas, even when added to the potential physical habitat loss caused by NRIP proposals, it is considered that the projects identified in table 17 will cause no more than an insignificant loss of inland habitat outside the SPA and they will therefore not act in combination with NRIP to have a likely significant effect.

Development Plans

3.3.59 Of the development plans surrounding the Firth of Forth which have a link to the Forth Islands SPA for which HRA records have been produced produced (SESPlan, FifePlan, City of Edinburgh Council LDP, East Lothian LDP – Proposed Plan) only SESPlan has identified that proposals within the plan will have LSE or a minor residual effect on common or gulls. SESplan recommendes further assessment of effects at LDP level, but none of the HRA records for the respective LDP acknowledge any connective pathway between their proposals and the Forth Islands SPA qualifying interest features.

Rosyth Biomass Plant

39 Grangemouth Renewable Energy Plant – Environmental Statement. Forth Energy 2010

- 60 - HRA Revised June 2020

3.3.60 Forth Energy submitted the Rosyth Renewable Energy Plant application to the Scottish Government for determination under Section 36 of the Electricity Act in November 2011 and this was consented in January 2014. The Environmental Statement (ES) submitted to support the application identifies the potential for the development to cause disturbance to both lesser black backed gulls and herring gulls which both use the proposed development site. It is not predicted to be significant in terms of the conservation objectives of the SPA due the potential for this species to range over large areas (50km – 60km from breeding colonies) and therefore exploit alternative habitats within the Forth estuary. This conclusion does not change when assessed in combination with the potential habitat disturbance caused by the Proposed Plan.

3.3.61 The ES goes on to indicates that the proposed Biomass Plant would result in an increase in shipping movements in the Firth of Forth in the of the order of 80 vessels per annum i.e. one to two vessels per week and that this does not represent a significant increase relative to current levels. In combination with the Rosyth Biomass Plant project, disturbance caused by increased shipping movements as a result of the Proposed Plan, (which is likely to produce a small proportional increase in shipping movements on the Firth of Forth) will not adversely affect the population of common or roseate tern as a viable component of the Forth Islands SPA.

Grangemouth Biomass Plant

3.3.62 The Environmental Statement submitted to accompany the Grangemouth Biomass application doesn’t note the presence of gulls in the vicinity of the application site. The Grangemouth Flood Alleviation Scheme Ornithology Survey Report notes the presence of Herring Gull and Lesser Black-Backed Gull within the Grangemouth Port and Grange Burn survey sectors adjacent to the site of the proposed biomass plant but not in significant numbers. As mentioned previously these species forage over very wide areas including landfill sites, urban areas, the marine environment and the coast throughout the Firth of Forth and surrounding land area. It is impossible to discern whether gulls encountered across the Falkirk Council area are part of the breeding population from the Forth Islands SPA or part of a population which breeds elsewhere. Despite this uncertainty, it can be concluded that only a tiny fraction of the available feeding and roosting resource for lesser black backed and herring gulls would be affected by disturbance from the proposals in the Proposed Plan and that in combination with the Grangemouth Biomass Plant, this would not amount to any more than a minor residual effect.

3.3.63 In conclusion, therefore, the projects identified in table 17 as having a minor residual effect on the Forth Islands SPA will not act in combination with other plans or projects to have a likely significant effect on gulls.

- 61 - HRA Revised June 2020

Forth Islands SPA - Cormorants and shags

In-plan in combination effects

3.3.64 The Grangemouth Flood Alleviation Scheme Ornithology Survey report 2015-2017 indicates that significant peak counts of Cormorants (>10% of WeBS 5-year mean peak count) have occurred in the River Carron, Grangepans and Grangemouth Port sectors and less significant counts of Cormorants have occurred in all other sectors. There is likely to be an overlap between the Forth Islands SPA breeding cormorant population and the wintering Firth of Forth SPA cormorant population i.e. some will be the same birds, although wintering cormorants greatly outnumber the breeding population. In the summer months the Grangemouth Flood Alleviation Scheme Ornithology Survey report 2015-2017 notes the presence of low numbers of cormorants >10 in 10 of the16 survey sectors, it can be concluded therefore that the offshore waters adjacent to the Council area are of some importance to cormorants.

3.3.65 The Grangemouth Flood Alleviation Scheme Ornithology Survey report 2015-2017 indicate a peak count of 1 Shag in the Grangemouth Port Locks sector in October 2016 and a peak count of of 60 Shags (>10% of WeBS 5-year mean peak count) in the River Carron sector in January 2016 and a peak count of 1 Shag in the Dunmore sector in January 2016. Breeding shags nest on islands in the outer Forth during the summer months. No shag were recorded in the 3 monthly breeding bird surveys carried out in May, June and July 2016 as part of the The Grangemouth Flood Alleviation Scheme Ornithology Survey. It can be concluded therefore that the offshore waters adjacent to the Council area may be of some importance to shags during the wintering season but of no importance during the summer season.

3.3.66 Cormorants and shags use inshore waters for feeding and are also known to roost on manmade structures in coastal areas (harbours, pier walls etc). They are therefore potentially vulnerable to disturbance from construction noise caused by coastal developments and increased recreational activity at the coast.

3.3.67 Tables 32 – 35 below show the policies and proposals which could cause disturbance due to: noise and vibration during construction; increased recreational opportunity at the coast; increased levels of coastal recreation; and increased shipping movements respectively.

3.3.68 For tables 32-34 below reference to “low levels of winter usage” indicates that the species is present in recording section 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. Reference to “higher levels of winter usage” indicates that the species is 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.

Table 32: Forth Islands cormorants and shags: Disturbance due to noise and vibration during construction PP Ref Name Description of Potential Impact BUS15 Grangemouth Docks West Disturbance in an area where potential roosting structures (piers and harbour walls) are present but summer bird surveys have not noted the presence of shags. GN01 John Muir Way Disturbance in an area where there are no potential roosting structures but in a WeBS sector where there are low levels of winter usage by cormorants. GN03 Kinneil Kerse Disturbance in an area where there are no potential roosting structures but in a WeBS sector where there are higher levels of winter usage by cormorants. GN04 Bothkennar/Skinflats Disturbance in an area where there are no potential roosting structures but in a WeBS sector

- 62 - HRA Revised June 2020

where there are higher levels of winter usage by cormorants.

Table 33: Forth Islands cormorants and shags: Disturbance due to increased recreational opportunity at the coast PP Ref Name Description of Potential Impact PE12 Canals Policy promotes the improvement of access associated with the canal with particular emphasis on linkages to and from the wider countryside access network. Potential for increase recreational opportunity to the north of the River Carron, an area where there are no potential roosting structures but in a WeBS sector where there are higher levels of winter usage by cormorants. GN01 John Muir Way Disturbance in an area where there are no potential roosting structures but in a WeBS sector where there are low levels of winter usage by cormorants. GN03 Kinneil Kerse Disturbance in an area where there are no potential roosting structures but in a WeBS sector where there are higher levels of winter usage by cormorants. GN04 Bothkennar/Skinflats Disturbance in an area where there are no potential roosting structures but in a WeBS sector where there are higher levels of winter usage by cormorants. GN06 River Carron Corridor Disturbance in an area where there are no Improvements potential roosting structures but in a WeBS sector where there are higher levels of winter usage by cormorants. GN25 Outdoor Learning Sites – Disturbance in an area where there are no Kinneil Foreshore potential roosting structures but in a WeBS sector where there are higher levels of winter usage by cormorants.

Table 34: Forth Islands cormorants and shags: Disturbance due to population growth within 2 miles of the coastline leading to increased levels of coastal recreation. PP Ref Name Description of Potential Impact H01 Drum Farm North Increased use of coastal areas could cause H02 Kinglass Farm 1 disturbance in areas where there are potential H03 Kinglass Farm 2 roosting structures but low levels of winter usage H04 South Street by cormorants. H05 Main Street H06 Union Street H55 Crawfield Road H56 North Bank Farm MU01 Links Road MU02 Drum Farm South MU03 Crawfield Lane H38 Etna Road 2 Increased use of coastal areas could cause H41 Grangemouth Road disturbance in areas where there are no potential H45 Avonhall roosting structures but higher levels of winter H48 Castle View usage by cormorants H49 Airth Castle South H50 The Glebe MU17 Grangemouth Town Centre

- 63 - HRA Revised June 2020

Table 35: Forth Islands cormorants and shags: Disturbance due to increase in shipping movements

PP Ref Name Description of Potential Impact BUS15 Grangemouth Docks West This proposal involves the development of Grangemouth Docks for port related industry, storage and distribution, logistics and renewable energy. These uses are likely to lead to an increase in shipping movements in the Firth of Forth. It is difficult to predict the scale of this increase although it is worth noting that as the port already handles approximately 150,000 containers per year, there is already a very significant baseline of shipping movements originating from the Port. PE12 Canals This policy seeks to promote the sustainable development of the Forth and Clyde and Union Canals as a major recreational, tourism and heritage asset and could lead to an increase in recreational boat traffic of the Firth of Forth.

3.3.69 It is considered that the proposals outlined in tables 32 – 35 could act in combination to have a likely significant effect on cormorants and shags and therefore the issue of significant disturbance will be subject to appropriate assessment.

Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrew’s Bay Complex pSPA

3.3.70 Table 36 below is derived from analysis of the Grangemouth Flood Alleviation Scheme Ornithology Survey Report 2015-2017 covering the Falkirk Council area and shows pSPA species which have been recorded using the area; and identifies whether these species are also qualifying interest features of other SPA related to the Firth of Forth:

Table 36: pSPA species recorded in the Falkirk Council area pSPA Species pSpecies recorded in pSpecies recorded in Firth of Forth SPA Forth Islands SPA Arctic tern YES Black-headed gull Black-legged kittiwake Common eider YES Common gull Common scoter YES Common tern YES European shag YES Goldeneye YES Herring gull YES Little gull Northern gannet YES Razorbill Red-breasted merganser YES Red-throated diver YES Slavonian grebe YES

3.3.71 Where species recorded in WeBS sectors covering the Falkirk Council area are qualifyinginterest features of more than 1 SPA, it is challenging to identify which SPA they are related to.

3.3.72 Applying the precautionary principle therefore where an element of the LDP has been identified as having a likely significant effect on qualifying interest features of either the Firth of Forth SPA or the Forth Islands SPA, it will also be considered to have a likely significant

- 64 - HRA Revised June 2020

effect on the qualifying interest features of the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex pSPA. However, the separation between the pSPA to the locations where impacts on qualifying birds might occur means that the impacts to the pSPA are of an even lesser significance.

3.3.73 Proposals and policies with LSE alone on the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrew’s Bay Complex pSPA by virtue of having LSE alone on either the Firth of Forth SPA or the Forth Islands SPA are set out below:

 BUS15 Grangemouth Docks West  BUS16 Bo’ness Road  BUS17 Wholeflats Road  BUS18 Wholeflats Business Park  GN01 John Muir Way  GN03 Kinneil Kerse  GN04 Bothkennar Skinflats  GN06 River Carron Corridor Proposals  GN25 Outdoor Learning Sites – Kinneil Foreshore

3.3.74 Proposals and policies with LSE in combination on the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrew’s Bay Complex pSPA by virtue of having LSE in combination on either the Firth of Forth SPA or the Forth Islands SPA are set out below:

Table 37: LSE in combination Proposals/Policies In combination effect PE12 Canals Disturbance due to increased recreational GN06 River Carron Corridor Improvements opportunity at the coast H01 Drum Farm North Disturbance due to population growth within H02 Kinglass Farm 1 2 miles of the coastline leading to increased H03 Kinglass Farm 2 levels of coastal recreation. H04 South Street H05 Main Street H06 Union Street H38 Etna Road 2 H41 Grangemouth Road H45 Avonhall H48 Castle View H49 Airth Castle South H50 The Glebe H55 Crawfield Road H56 North Bank Farm MU01 Links Road MU02 Drum Farm South MU03 Crawfield Lane MU16 Falkirk Gateway MU17 Grangemouth Town Centre PE12 Canals Reduced water quality GN06 River Carron Corridor Improvements IN19 Dalderse WWTW BUS15 Grangemouth Docks West Disturbance of European shag due to noise GN01 John Muir Way and vibration during construction GN03 Kinneil Kerse GN04 Bothkennar/Skinflats

BUS15 Grangemouth Docks West Disturbance of European shag due to PE12 Canals increase in shipping movements

3.3.75 A detailed in table 37 above black-headed gull, black-legged kittiwake, common gull, little gull and razorbill are the residual species of the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrew’s Bay

- 65 - HRA Revised June 2020

Complex pSPA which have been recorded as being present in the Council area but where in combination effects have not already been considered as part of the in combination assessment of either the Firth of Forth SPA or the Forth Islands SPA.

Razorbills and kittiwakes

3.3.76 The breeding concentrations and feeding grounds of razorbills and black-legged kittiwakes (with the exception of the occasional individual) are in the outer Forth well away from the Council Area. The projects identified in table 15 as having a minor residual effect on the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrew’s Bay Complex pSPA will therefore have no effect on razorbills and kittiwakes.

Gulls

3.3.77 Common gulls, while mainly breeding inland, use both inland and coastal habitats, including farmland and urban habitats. Large night-time roosts form along the coast. Black headed gulls are most common in winter in coastal habitats though generally avoiding rocky coastlines, and occurring inland (where they also generally breed) in many different natural and urban habitats.

3.3.78 Common gulls, black-headed gulls and little gulls are noted as being present in the same survey sectors of the Grangenouth Flood Prevention Scheme Ornitholigy Survey Report 2015-2017 as herring gulls. It is not known if these birds are part of the pSPA population or not. However, in keeping with the precautionary nature of the LSE test it is assumed that the proposals of the LDP which were identified as having a minor residual effect on herring gulls in the Forth Islands SPA will also have a minor residual effect (MRE) on the common gulls, black-headed gulls and little gulls of the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex pSPA.

In plan in combination effects

3.3.79 The separation between the pSPA and the area of potential impacts of the LDP’s policies and allocations, the scale of any impacts to qualifying birds are likely to be more minor than those occurring on the Firth of Forth SPA or Forth Islands SPA.

3.3.80 Loss of supporting habitat - Given the vast areas of foraging habitat available to gulls across the Firth of Forth and its surrounding inland areas, and the fact the urban development often leads to the creation of new opportunities for foraging, it is considered that the Proposed Plan is unlikely to lead to any more than an insignificant loss of inland gull habitat outside the SPA.

3.3.81 Non-physical disturbance - As gulls are widespread throughout the Council area using a variety of natural and urban habitats, it can be concluded that only a tiny fraction of the available feeding and roosting resource for common gulls, black headed gulls and little gulls would be affected by disturbance from the proposals in the Proposed Plan due to noise and vibration during construction or increased recreational activity along the coast.

3.3.82 The limited increase in small recreational vessel traffic caused by the Canals policy will be insignificant in comparison to the current baseline levels of shipping traffic using the Firth of Forth. The increase in shipping movements caused by the Grangemouth Docks West proposal (BUS15) is likely to lead to an increase in overall shipping movements which will be dictated by the nature of development which comes forward on the site. For example, the approved Grangemouth Biomass Plant (which sits within the Grangemouth Docks West proposal site) will receive the bulk of its fuel from overseas. This would result in of the order of 80 vessels per annum i.e. one to two vessels per week. The port of Grangemouth already handles approximately 150,000 containers per year and as such there is already a very significant baseline of shipping movements. There is no evidence to suggest that ships or boats have any substantial impacts on feeding or roosting gulls.

- 66 - HRA Revised June 2020

In combination with other plans and projects

3.3.83 Paragraphs 3.3.53 – 3.3.67 of this draft HRA record assess the effect of the LDP on gulls in combination with other plans and projects and concludes that they will not act in combination to have a likely significant effect. Although this screening assessment was for different species of gull, in a different SPA in practical terms, any such effects on herring gull will be greater than those on the common, black-headed and little gulls due to the separation between the pSPA and the locations of impacts. Because of the even more insignificant effect on the qualifying common, black-headed and little gulls, It is concluded that the policies and proposals shown as having a minor residual effect on common, black headed and little gulls in table 15 will not act in combination with other plans and projects to have a likely significant effect and therefore, appropriate assessment is unnecessary.

- 67 - HRA Revised June 2020

4. Appropriate Assessment – Stages 8 & 9

4.1 Firth of Forth SPA

Appropriate Assessment of Elements of the Proposed Plan with LSE alone

Table 38: Elements of the Proposed Plan with LSE alone for the Firth of Forth SPA Reference Name BUS15 Grangemouth Docks West BUS16 Bo’ness Road BUS17 Wholeflats Road BUS18 Wholeflats Business Park GN01 John Muir Way GN03 Kinneil Kerse GN04 Bothkennar/ Skinflats GN06 River Carron Corridor Improvments GN25 Outdoor Learning Sites – Kinneil Foreshore

BUS15 Grangemouth Docks West

Description of proposals

4.1.1 Grangemouth Docks West is one of three Strategic Business Locations identified within the LDP. The Grangemouth Investment Zone is highlighted as a National Development in NPF3 and focuses on the development of the port and the adjacent chemicals business area.

4.1.2 The proposals in the LDP permit development within four vacant or underused areas within the Docks for port-related industry, storage and distribution, logistics, energy. 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 Local Development Plan and were subject to Appropriate Assessment at that time40. The conclusions reached during the previous Appropriate Assessment have been reviewed in the light of changes to the spatial proposals.

4.1.3 The proposal site boundary abuts the boundary of the Firth of Forth SPA. Access to proposal site is limited, but there is data available from the adjacent sectors 5, 6 & 8 (River Carron, Grangemouth Port and Grangeburn) of the Grangemouth Flood Aleviation Scheme Ornithology report 2015-2017.

Qualifying Interest features of the Firth of Forth SPA likely to be affected

4.1.4 Table 39 below shows the SPA species present within sectors 5,6 & 8 and notes the relative significance of numbers present.

40 Falkirk Council. 2015. Habitats Regulations Appraisal Record. Falkirk Local Development Plan.

- 68 - HRA Revised June 2020

Table 39: SPA species present within sectors 5,6 & 8 SPA Species Present >10% of >10% of cited >10% of Above but not in WeBS 5- SPA population WeBS count WeBS GB significant year mean but not >10% and cited SPA threshold numbers peak count of WeBS count population population and not of for national national importance importance Bar-tailed 8 5,6 Godwit Common 5 Scoter Cormorant 8 5,6 Curlew 6,8 5 Dunlin 8 5 6 Eider 5,6 Goldeneye 5,6 Golden 6 5 Plover Great-crested 5 Grebe Grey Plover 5 Knot 5,6 8 Lapwing 8 5 6 Mallard 5,6,8 Oystercatcher 5,6,8 Pink-footed 6 5 Goose Red-breasted 6,8 5 Merganser Redshank 5,8 6 Red throated 5 Diver Ringed 5,6,8 Plover Sandwich 5 Tern Scaup 5 Shelduck 8 5,6 Turnstone 6 Velvet Scoter Wigeon 5,6,8

4.1.5 There is no survey 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. Survey work, including vantage point surveys, undertaken in support of the Grangemouth Renewable Energy Plant revealed that it was within 250m of areas used by significant numbers qualifying interest feaures (comprising Shelduck, Knot (up to 830), Redshank, Dunlin* and Curlew*). This survey work also revealed that few of these species were found to fly over, or were recorded in the open areas of the dock. Those species recorded at low numbers included Sandwich Tern, Pink-footed Goose, Oystercatcher* and Curlew41.

41 Forth Energy. 2010. Grangemouth Renewable Energy Plan. Environmental Statement. Appendix E. Terrestrial Ecology Supporting Information.

- 69 - HRA Revised June 2020

Implications of the proposal for qualifying interest features of the Firth of Forth SPA in light of its conservation objectives

4.1.6 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) 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

4.1.7 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).

- 70 - HRA Revised June 2020

4.1.8 The terrestrial habitats are unlikely to be valuable to the bird species associated with the Firth of Forth SPA. Based on information provided by SNH42, and by review of information included in the ES for the Grangemouth Biomass Scheme43, it is not believed that the open dock areas are a significant resource for the SPA bird interests.

Disturbance during construction and operation

4.1.9 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.

4.1.10 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

4.1.11 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

4.1.12 The broad range of uses permitted by this economic development allocation (port related industry, storage and distribution, logistics and renewable energy) makes it difficult to predict what impact development would have on shipping movements. Approximately 9 million tonnes of cargo are currently handled through the dock facilities each year and the port handles approximately 150,000 containers per year44. The overall capacity of the port is currently 220,000 containers per year. It would be reasonable to suggest therefore that this allocation is likely to lead to an increase in overall shipping movements but that there is already a very significant baseline of shipping movements.

Mitigation

4.1.13 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.

4.1.14 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 information to inform a Habitats Regulations Appraisal. 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

42 Letter dated 21 September 2010 in response to Draft HRA appraisal of Falkirk Council Local Plan. 43 Forth Energy. 2010a. Grangemouth Renewable Energy Plan. Environmental Statement. Appendix E. Terrestrial Ecology Supporting Information. 44 Forth Ports website: https://forthports.co.uk/grangemouth/

- 71 - HRA Revised June 2020

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

4.1.15 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):  “For permission to be granted, proposals must be accompanied by a masterplan and project-specific information to inform a Habitats Regulations Appraisal. This will allow the competent authority to complete a 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.”

Residual Effects

4.1.16 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 loss of habitat used by waders and pink footed geese, disturbance during construction and due to increased shipping movements and also minor residual effects on water quality due to a potential increase in shipping movements. These effects in combination with other similar effects will be considered further in paragraphs 4.1.111 – 4.1.142; and 4.1.186 – 4.1.219 of this report. Other minor residual effects will be identified in more detail as part of the masterplan.

- 72 - HRA Revised June 2020

BUS16 Bo’ness Road and BUS17 Wholeflats

Description of proposals

4.1.16 These proposals relate 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.

4.1.17 There is data available from the adjacent sectors 9 & 10 (Grangemouth Refinery, and Kinneil Kerse) of the Grangemouth Flood Aleviation Scheme Ornithology report 2015-2017.

Qualifying Interest features of the Firth of Forth SPA likely to be affected

4.1.18 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.

4.1.19 Table 41 below shows the SPA species present within sectors 9 & 10 and notes the relative significance of numbers present.

Table 41: SPA species present within sectors 9 & 10 SPA Species Present >10% of >10% of cited >10% of Above but not in WeBS 5- SPA population WeBS count WeBS GB significant year mean but not >10% and cited SPA threshold numbers peak count of WeBS count population population and not of for national national importance importance Bar-tailed 10 9 Godwit Cormorant 9,10 Curlew 9,10 Dunlin 9,10 Eider 10 Goldeneye 9,10 Golden 10 Plover Great-crested 10 9 Grebe Grey Plover 9,10 Knot 9,10 Lapwing 9 10 Mallard 9 10 Oystercatcher 10 9 Red-breasted 9,10 Merganser Redshank 9 10 Red throated 10 Diver Ringed 9 Plover Sandwich 9 Tern Scaup 10 Shelduck 9,10 Wigeon 9 10

- 73 - HRA Revised June 2020

Implications of the proposal for qualifying interest features of the Firth of Forth SPA in light of its conservation objectives

4.1.20 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 42.

Table 42: 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

4.1.21 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

4.1.22 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

4.1.23 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

4.1.24 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.

4.1.25 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.

- 74 - HRA Revised June 2020

Changes to the Proposed Plan

4.1.26 These commitments are included in the Proposed Plan Site Schedule:

 “Proposals may be subject to requirements under the Habitats Directive in relation to impacts on the Firth of Forth SPA, River Teith SAC and Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrew’s Bay Complex pSPA. Project specific information may be required to inform a Habitats Regulations Appraisal which will allow the competent authority to complete a Habitats Regulations Appraisal demonstrating that there will be no adverse effects on the integrity of the Firth of Forth SPA, River Teith SAC and Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrew’s Bay Complex pSPA.”

Residual Effects

4.1.27 There may be minor residual effects due to: noise and vibration during construction and operation; and reduced 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. These effects in combination with other similar effects will be considered further in paragraphs 4.1.269 – 4.1.301 of this report.

- 75 - HRA Revised June 2020

BUS18 Wholeflats Business Park

Description of proposal

4.1.28 This Council owned site has been partially developed as a business park and is situated off Inchyra Road in Grangemouth. Proposed uses for the site include chemicals/ bio- chemicals and industry. The site sites to the North of the Grange Burn flood relief channel and it is likely that surface water from the site would eventually discharge into the River Avon and from there onwards into the Firth of Forth.

Qualifying Interest features of the Firth of Forth SPA likely to be affected 4.1.29 1.5 hectares of the site is potentially suitable habitat for Pink Footed Geese. 4.1.30 there is data available from the nearby Kinneil Kerse (sector 10) of the Grangemouth Flood Aleviation Scheme Ornithology report 2015-2017. It shows that this area is used by significant numbers of Dunlin, Knot, Redshank and Shelduck, however it is not known whether these species actually use the River Avon. Implications of the proposal for qualifying interest features of the Firth of Forth SPA in light of its conservation objectives

Loss of habitat used by Pink Footed Geese

4.1.31 Areas of less than 6 hectares are of limited value to Pink Footed Geese particularly if they are not surrounded by other areas of potentially suitable habitat. The loss of this area of land to development will have a minimal impact on the amount of feeding and loafing habitat available to Pink Footed Geese across the SPA and surrounding inland areas and will therefore not impact on the population of the species as a viable component of the SPA.

Water Pollution

4.1.32 Chemical/ biochemical/ industrial development could lead to water pollution during construction and operation which will could feed into the River Avon and onwards to the Firth of Forth. Potential contamination of the mudflats and estuary waters of the Firth of Forth could affect the structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.

Mitigation

4.1.33 Accidental discharges from any activity during construction can be mitigated through adoption of appropriate construction working practices. Accidental discharges during operation can be mitigated by designing appropriate pollution control measures and obtaining appropriate building control permits. Planned discharges during operation can be regulated and consented by SEPA.

Changes to the Proposed Plan

4.1.34 This commitment is included in the LDP Site Schedule:

“Proposals must be accompanied by a masterplan and project specific information to inform a Habitats Regulations Appraisal.This will allow the competent authority to complete a Habitats Regulations Appraisal demonstrating that there will be no adverse effects on the integrity of the Firth of Forth SPA, River Teith SAC and Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrew’s Bay Complex pSPA either alone or in combination with other plans or projects.”

Residual Effects

4.1.35 Assuming that mitigation is included, it is concluded that there may be minor residual effects arising from loss of habitat potentially used by Pink Footed Geese and water pollution.

- 76 - HRA Revised June 2020

These are assessed in combination at paragraphs 4.1.207 – 4.1.221 and 4.1.281 – 4.1.301 of this report.

- 77 - HRA Revised June 2020

GN01 John Muir Way

Description of proposal

4.1.36 This is one of a number of Green Network proposals included in the Proposed Plan. It comprises a section of national long distance route within the Council area stretching from Shore Wood, east of Blackness to the Forth and Clyde Canal, west of Banknock. There are opportunities for access and landscape improvements along the entire length of the trail. Of these improvements only the ones along the shoreline between Blackness and Kinneil have the potential to impact on the qualifying interest features of the Firth of Forth SPA.

4.1.37 The John Muir Way, a long distance path, is being developed as a flagship project by Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) on behalf of the Central Scotland Green Network Partnership. The route will be approximately 100 miles (160km) long, and passes through 8 local authority areas across central Scotland, including the Falkirk Council area.

Qualifying Interest features of the Firth of Forth SPA likely to be affected.

4.1.38 There is data available from the adjacent sectors 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 & 16 (Kinneil Reserve, Bo’ness, Grangepans, Carriden, Stacks and Blackness ) of the Grangemouth Flood Aleviation Scheme Ornithology report 2015-2017.

Table 43: SPA species present within sectors 11,12,13,14,15 & 16 SPA Species Present but not in >10% of >10% of >10% of Above significant WeBS 5- cited SPA WeBS count WeBS GB numbers year mean population and cited threshold peak but not >10% SPA population count of WeBS population for national count and importance not of national importance Bar-tailed 13,14,15,16 12 11 Godwit Common 11,14,15,16 Scoter Cormorant 11,12,14,15,16 13 Curlew 12,13,14,16 15 11 Dunlin 12,13,14,15,16 11 Eider 11,12,13,14,15,16 Goldeneye 11,12,13,14,16 Golden 11 Plover Great-crested 12,13,14 11,15,16 Grebe Grey Plover 12 Knot 12,13,14,15,16 11 Lapwing 12 11 Mallard 11,12,13,14,15,16 Oystercatcher 11,12,13,14,15,16 Pink-footed 11,12,14,15,16 Goose Red-breasted 15 14,16 11, 12,13 Merganser Redshank 12,13,14,15,16 11 Red throated 11,13,15 16 Diver Ringed 12,13,14,16 11 Plover

- 78 - HRA Revised June 2020

Sandwich 11, 12,13,15,16 14 Tern Scaup 14,15 11,12,13 Shelduck 12,13,14,15,16 11 Slavonian 13,15 Grebe Turnstone 11,12,13,14,15,16 Wigeon 11,12,15,16 14

Implications of the proposal for qualifying interest features of the Firth of Forth SPA in light of its conservation objectives

4.1.40 The types of effect that may arise are listed in table 44 below:

Table 44: 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

Disturbance of qualifying species during construction

4.1.41 Disturbance from people and machines is likely to be the greatest source of effect during construction of and access or landscape improvements.

4.1.42 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 area45. If these are regularly disturbed the shorebirds may abandon them and therefore may be forced to fly further to find safe, undisturbed roosts46. 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 feeding47.

4.1.43 Given the range of SPA qualifying interest features which may use the intertidal area adjacent to the John Muir Way, in the absence of mitigation, it cannot be ruled out that landscape or access improvments will not cause the significant disturbance of SPA species as it could cause the significant disturbance of SPA qualifying interest features.

Disturbance of qualifying species during operation resulting from the increased recreational use of this section of the coastal footpath

Existing Path Usage

45 Symonds, F.L. & Langslow, D.R. 1985. Shorebirds in the Moray Firth 1981-1985. Unpublished NCC report to Britoil PLC. 46 Wolff, W.J., P.J.H. Reijnders, and C.J. Smit. 1982. The effects of recreation on the Wadden Sea (Denmark, Germany, The Netherlands): recent changes and future projections. Biodiversity, Temperate Ecosystems, and Global Change. NATO ASI Series, Vol I 20. 47 Farningham McCreadie & WYG. 2006. Bo’ness Harbour – Mixed Use Development Wetland Bird Surveys Addendum to the Environmental Statement Technical Appendices. Produced May 2006 on behalf of ING Red UK (Bo’ness) Ltd

- 79 - HRA Revised June 2020

4.1.44 A visitor survey carried out by SNH between November 2015 and October 2015 estimated the annual visits to Bo’ness (19,600 – 24,200) and Blackness (24,800 – 27,100). The survey also notes that of those visits, on average 42% of them were carried out with a dog.

4.1.45 Data from counters on the existing John Muir Way (2008 – 2012) show a peak in user numbers over the summer months of April to September with a marked drop in use in the winter months of October to March.

• 72% of visits in the summer months • 28% of visits in the winter months

4.1.46 Data from counters near Callander in Loch Lomond & The Trossachs National Park mirror this trend.

• 70% of visits in the summer months • 30% of visits in the winter months

4.1.47 It can be predicted, therefore that about 30% of all visits to the foreshore path would take place during the winter months of October to March. Taking the SNH visitor survey estimate of annual users of the Blackness to Bo’ness coastal path as a baseline it can be assumed that usage during the winter months of October to March would be 13,320 – 15,390.

4.1.48 There are 182.2548 days between 1st October and 31st March. This equates to 4374 hours.

4.1.49 Assuming that there are, on average, 9 hours of daylight each day between October and March, then there are 1640.25 hours of daylight between 1st October and 31st March.

4.1.50 The existing rate of usage of the coastal path in winter months is estimated to be approximately 8 - 9 users per hour.

Existing Levels of Disturbance

4.1.51 The Grangemouth Flood Alleviation Scheme Ornithology Survey Report 2015-2017 notes that downstream between Bo’ness and Blackness Castle human activity is frequent and likely to have already influenced bird distribution and behaviour. Birds are present in smaller numbers than further upstream (although gulls and ducks that roost further offshore can be numerous), but are potentially more tolerant of human activities. Disturbance events were still observable towards high tide, when birds were forced closer to the coastal path.

4.1.52 Table 45 below shows the nature of observed disturbance events in sectors adjacent to the John Muir Way between August 2015 and April 2017.

Table 45: Observed disturbance events in sectors adjacent to the John Muir Way 11 12 13 14 15 16 Boat 0 0 1 0 0 0 Dog walker 9 6 3 5 6 14 Helicopter/ 0 0 0 0 1 0 aeroplane Industry 0 2 0 0 0 0 machinery Industry 0 2 0 0 0 1 personel Predator 0 1 0 1 1 1 Surveyor 1 2 1 0 0 1 presence Unknown 0 0 1 0 2 2

48 This figure takes into account leap years

- 80 - HRA Revised June 2020

Walker 1 5 2 1 5 4

4.1.53 By far the most common form of disturbance observed was by walkers and dog walkers, with dog walkers causing significantly more disturbances per hour than walkers without a dog.

Table 46: Distrurbance event statistics 11 12 13 14 15 16 Survey 107 102 108 107.5 107.5 107.5 Hours Walker 0.009 0.049 0.019 0.009 0.047 0.037 disturbances per hour Dog walker 0.084 0.059 0.028 0.047 0.056 0.130 disturbances per hour Estimated 856-963 816-918 864-972 860–967.5 860–967.5 860–967.5 Path Users Estimated 496 - 559 473 - 532 501 - 564 499– 499– 499– Walkers 561.5 561.5 561.5 Distrubances 0.0020 – 0.0106 – 0.0040 – 0.0020 - 0.0100 – 0.0080 – per walker 0.0018 0.0094 0.0035 0.0018 0.0089 0.0071 Estimated 360 - 404 343 - 386 363 - 408 361 - 406 361 - 406 361 - 406 Dog Walkers Disturbances 0.0250 – 0.0175 – 0.0083 – 0.0139 – 0.0166 – 0.0388 – per dog 0.0222 0.0155 0.0053 0.0123 0.0148 0.0345 walker

Predicted Increase in Path Usage and Disturbance

4.1.54 The John Muir Coast to Coast Trail Economic Benefit Study predicts 0.5% growth per year on baseline levels of use. The landscape and access improvments which form part of this green network opportunity are not likely to increase the rate of growth in visitor numbers and are therefore unlikely to increase the levels of disturbance of SPA species.

Mitigation

4.1.55 Any landscape or access improvments planned along the John Muir Way 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. A recreational management plan could also be prepared that shows how the route will guide users to avoid disturbance between October and March (inclusive). This may include, for example, erection of signs to encourage the control of dogs.

4.1.56 With this mitigation applied it can be concluded that this proposal will not cause significant disturbance of birds and therefore it will not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the Firth of Forth SPA.

Changes to the Proposed Plan

4.1.57 This commitment is included in the LDP Site Schedule:

“For permission to be granted, proposals must be accompanied by project-specific information to inform a Habitats Regulations Appraisal. This will allow Falkirk Council to complete a Habitats Regulations Appraisal demonstrating that there will be no adverse effects on the integrity of the Firth of Forth SPA or the Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex pSPA, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects.”

- 81 - HRA Revised June 2020

Residual Effects

4.1.58 The proposal will, however, have minor residual effects in relation to disturbance during construction and increasing opportunities to access the coast for recreation these are assessed in combination later in this report.

- 82 - HRA Revised June 2020

GN03 Kinneil Kerse

Details of proposal

4.1.59 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 so enhancements could take place as part of a wider programme of landfill restoration. 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. Qualifying Interest features of the Firth of Forth SPA likely to be affected

4.1.60 This green network opportunity sits adjacent to sector 11 (Kinneil Reserve) which was surveyed as part of the The Grangemouth Flood Alleviation Scheme Ornithological Survey Report 2015-2017. This report noted the presence of the following species in the area:

Table 47: SPA species present within sector 11 SPA Species Present but not in >10% of >10% of >10% of Above significant WeBS 5- cited SPA WeBS count WeBS GB numbers year mean population and cited threshold peak but not >10% SPA population count of WeBS population for national count and importance not of national importance Bar-tailed 11 Godwit Common 11 Scoter Cormorant 11 Curlew 11 Dunlin 11 Eider 11 Goldeneye 11 Golden 11 Plover Great-crested 11 Grebe Knot 11 Lapwing 11 Mallard 11 Oystercatcher 11 Pink-footed 11 Goose Red-breasted 11 Merganser Redshank 11 Red throated 11 Diver Ringed 11 Plover Sandwich 11 Tern Scaup 11 Shelduck 11 Turnstone 11

- 83 - HRA Revised June 2020

Velvet Scoter Wigeon 11

4.1.61 This sector is of particular importance to Bar-tailed godwit; Dunlin; Knot; Red- breasted Merganser; Redshank and Shelduck

Implications of the proposal for qualifying interest features of the Firth of Forth SPA in light of its conservation objectives

Disturbance or other effects during construction

4.1.62 Noise and visual intrusion during landfill restoration and habitat enhancement works could potentially disturb the qualifying species and distribution of the species within the SPA.

4.1.63 The works will result in increased noise levels and visual intrusion from machinery and personnel. This could undermine the conservation objectives for the qualifying interests: distribution of the species within the site and disturbance to the species. There is also the potential for increased contamination, impacting the feeding resources of the qualifying species.

Recreational Disturbance

4.1.64 Once habitat enhancement works are completed there will be improved opportunities for public recreation in the Kinneil Kerse location. Increased levels of recreational use could cause disturbance of SPA qualifying interest features.

Impact on water quality

4.1.65 Also, potential contamination of the mudflats and estuary waters, which could affect the structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.

Mitigation

4.1.66 It is possible to identify a series of mitigation measures that will ensure that the effects will not have a significant effect upon the integrity of the Firth of Forth SPA. The focus of the mitigation will be:  No landfill restoration/ habitat enhancement work should take place within 50m of the estuary between October and March inclusive.  During this sensitive period for over-wintering birds, operations will be minimised and a 'zoned' approach to the works adopted. This would mean areas near the foreshore would be restored one at time, would limit disturbance to birds and leave disturbance- free areas for feeding and roosting.  Any opportunities for increased public restoration should be sensitively designed to ensure that recreational activities do not cause significant disturbance of qualifying interest features, this may involve the use of screen planting and the set back of facilities from the coastline.  A minimalistic approach should be taken landfill restoration i.e. minimal re-grading etc. to avoid release of contaminants.  The potential for contamination of mudflats, estuary waters and the saline channels within the site can be avoided by ensuring compliance with the Landfill (Scotland) Regulations and the Waste Management Licence.

Changes to the Proposed Plan

4.1.67 The following wording has been incorporated into the Proposed Plan Site Schedule for this opportunity:

“For permission to be granted, proposals must be accompanied by project-specific information to inform a Habitats Regulations Appraisal.This will allow Falkirk Council to

- 84 - HRA Revised June 2020

complete a Habitats Regulations Appraisaldemonstrating that there will be no adverse effects on the integrity of the Firth of Forth SPA, the River Teith SAC or the Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex pSPA, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects.”

Residual Effects

4.1.68 Assuming that mitigation is included, it is concluded that there may be minor residual effects arising from construction disturbance; water pollution during the construction period and increased opportunities for coastal recreation. These are assessed in combination at sections 4.1.222-4.1.256 and 4.1.269 – 4.1.301 of this report.

- 85 - HRA Revised June 2020

GN04 Bothkennar/ Skinflats

Description of proposal

4.1.69 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. It is possible that this opportunity could involve managed realignment of the coast.

Qualifying Interest features of the Firth of Forth SPA likely to be affected

4.1.70 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. This green network opportunity sits adjacent to and is covered by sectors 3, 4 & 5 (RSPB Skinflats, Skinflats Bay and River Carron) which was surveyed as part of the The Grangemouth Flood Alleviation Scheme Ornithological Survey Report 2015-2017. This report noted the presence of the following species in the area:

Table 48: SPA species present within sectors 3,4, & 5 SPA Species Present >10% of >10% of cited >10% of Above but not in WeBS 5- SPA population WeBS count WeBS GB significant year mean but not >10% and cited SPA threshold numbers peak count of WeBS count population population and not of for national national importance importance Bar-tailed 3,4,5 Godwit Common 5 Scoter Cormorant 3,4 5 Curlew 3,4,5 Dunlin 3,5 4 Eider 3,5 Goldeneye 3,5 Golden 3,5 4 Plover Great-crested 3,5 Grebe Grey Plover 3,4 5 Knot 3,4,5 Lapwing 3 4,5 Mallard 3,4,5 Oystercatcher 3,4,5 Pink-footed 4 5 3 Goose Red-breasted 3,4 5 Merganser Redshank 3,4,5 Red throated 3,5 Diver Ringed 3,5 Plover Sandwich 3,4,5 Tern Scaup 5 3,4

- 86 - HRA Revised June 2020

Shelduck 3 4,5 Wigeon 3,4,5

Implications of the proposal for qualifying interest features of the Firth of Forth SPA in light of its conservation objectives

4.1.71 The types of effect that may arise are listed in Table 49.

Table 49: 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 Loss of intertidal habitat  Distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species  Structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species 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

4.1.72 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

4.1.73 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.

Loss of intertidal habitat

4.1.74 Managed realignment projects, although intended to lead to an overall net increase in intertidal habitat, have the potential to result in a temporary loss of intertidal habitat. A proposed managed realignment project at Skinflats Reserve is predicted to result in direct changes from the cutting of a breach channel, which will lead to around 0.09 ha of saltmarsh being lowered to mudflat levels, and some 0.01 ha of mudflat being lowered by around 0.1 m. Indirect changes are anticipated through the establishment of a drainage channel across the fronting intertidal, which is expected to slightly lower 1 to 1.5 ha of mudflat, but not lead to significant change to the habitat extent per se. Deducting the changes due to the breaching works, the net gain of saltmarsh across the estuary would amount to 4.75 ha.

Recreational disturbance during operation

4.1.75 The effects of recreational disturbance on birds were summarised in paragraphs 3.1.12 - 3.1.14.

4.1.76 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

- 87 - HRA Revised June 2020

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 estuaries49.

4.1.77 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 activities50.

4.1.78 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.

4.1.79 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

4.1.80 Disturbance to qualifying species can be avoided by careful timing of the construction works. It can also be mitigated by: locating paths set back from the shore, or separated from it by barriers such as fences, ditches or planting; maintaining and establish refuge areas of coast that remain free from disturbance; avoiding the location of high tide roost sites and developing a public awareness programme that is aimed at minimising the disturbance of wintering birds, particularly from dog walkers.

4.1.81 Birds are able to become habituated to walkers and increased levels of recreational use51and 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 reduced52.

4.1.82 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 species53. 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 energy stress. For example, research on Oystercatchers* suggests that the flight response

49 Ravenscroft, N. 2005. Pilot study into disturbance of waders and wildfowl on the Stour-Orwell SPA: analysis of 2004/05 data. Report to Suffolk Coast & Heaths Project. 50 Liley, D., Cruickshanks, K., Waldon, J. & Fearnley, H. 2011. Exe Estuary Disturbance Study. Footprint Ecology 51Nisbet, I.C.T. 2000. Disturbance, habituation and management of waterbird colonies. Waterbirds 23, 312–332.; Goss-Custard, J, D. & Verboven, N. 1993. Disturbance and feeding shore birds on the Exe Estuary. Wader StudyGroupBull.6 8 Special Issue 52Dooley, J. L. 2008. Mallard Response to experimental human disturbance and non-breeding survival along the South Platte River in Colorado 53Rodgers, J.A. and S.T. Schwiker. 2002. Buffer-zone distances to protect foraging and loafing waterbirds from disturbance by personal watercraft and outboard-powered boats. Conservation Biology 16:216

- 88 - HRA Revised June 2020

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 winter54.

4.1.83 Mitigation for the temporary loss of intertidal habitat caused by managed realignment projects involves ensuring the the project results in a net increase in intertidal habitat.

Changes to the Proposed Plan

4.1.84 The following wording has been incorporated into the Proposed Plan Site Schedule for this opportunity:

 For permission to be granted any proposals must be accompanied by project-specific information to informa Habitats Regulations Appraisal.  . This will allow Falkirk Council to complete an Habitats Regulations Appraisal assessment demonstrating that there will be no adverse effects on the integrity of the Firth of Forth SPA, the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex pSPA or River Teith SAC, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects.”

Residual Effects

4.1.85 Assuming that mitigation is included, it is concluded that there may be minor residual effects arising from increased recreational opportunity; disturbance during construction; temoporary loss of intertidal habitat and water pollution during construction. These effects in combination with other similar effects will be considered further in paragraphs 4.1.222 – 4.1.256 and 4.1.269 – 4.1.301 of this report.

54 Stillman, R. A. & Goss-Custard, J. D. 2002. Seasonal changes in the response of Oystercatchers Haematopus ostralegus to human disturbance. J. of Avian Biology. 33 358-365

- 89 - HRA Revised June 2020

GN06 - River Carron Corridor Improvments

Description of proposal

4.1.86 The River Carron Corridor Improvements green network opportunity provides general support to the Communities Along the Carron Initiative which aims to enhance the River Carron’s function as a recreational resource for riparian communities. Specifically noted opportunities include:

 Opportunity to create River Carron Trail including access improvements at Carrongrove and Denny East to Lochlands.  Opportunity for habitat, landscape and access enhancement as part of the future restoration of West Carron landfill site once existing operations have ceased;  Opportunities for continuing habitat restoration and invasive species clearance projects; and  Opportunities to conserve and enhance the industrial heritage of the Lower Carron Valley as part of the Carron Works project.

4.1.87 Although none of the specifically noted opportunities above are likely to have any likely significant effect on the Firth of Forth SPA, given that the River Carron Drains into the Firth of Forth SPA, it is conceivable that some opportunities could emerge to enhance the River Carron’s function as a recreational resource for riparian communities (as part of the community-led Communities Along the Carron Initiative) which could have an impact on SPA species.

Qualifying Interest features of the Firth of Forth SPA likely to be affected

4.1.88 The River Carron’s confluence with the Firth of Forth is covered by sector 5 of the The Grangemouth Flood Alleviation Scheme Ornithological Survey Report 2015-2017. This report noted the presence of the following species in the area:

Table 50: SPA species present within sector 5 SPA Species Present >10% of >10% of cited >10% of Above but not in WeBS 5- SPA population WeBS count WeBS GB significant year mean but not >10% and cited SPA threshold numbers peak count of WeBS count population population and not of for national national importance importance Bar-tailed 5 Godwit Common 5 Scoter Cormorant 5 Curlew 5 Dunlin 5 Eider 5 Goldeneye 5 Golden 5 Plover Great-crested 5 Grebe Grey Plover 5 Knot 5 Lapwing 5 Mallard 5 Oystercatcher 5 Pink-footed 5 Goose

- 90 - HRA Revised June 2020

Red-breasted 5 Merganser Redshank 5 Red throated 5 Diver Ringed 5 Plover Sandwich 5 Tern Scaup 5 Shelduck 5 Wigeon 5

Implications of the proposal for qualifying interest features of the Firth of Forth SPA in light of its conservation objectives

Table 51: 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

Noise and disturbance during construction

4.1.89 Disturbance from people and machines is likely to be the greatest source of effect during construction of any scheme. The degree to which disturbance is an issue will depend upon the nature of the recreational resourse enhancement activity, it’s proximity to the shoreline and high tide roost sites, the time and methods of construction.

Recreational disturbance during operation

4.1.90 The effects of recreational disturbance on birds were summarised in paragraphs 3.1.12 - 3.1.14.

4.1.91 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 estuaries55.

4.1.92 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

55 Ravenscroft, N. 2005. Pilot study into disturbance of waders and wildfowl on the Stour-Orwell SPA: analysis of 2004/05 data. Report to Suffolk Coast & Heaths Project.

- 91 - HRA Revised June 2020

Estuary, 10% of activities in the intertidal zone resulted in major flight of birds compared to only 2% of shore-based activities56.

4.1.93 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.

4.1.94 The River Carron is an important area for the qualifying species so increased recreational disturbance caused by projects which enhance the recreational value of the River Carron could have some impact on SPA species.

Mitigation

4.1.95 Disturbance to qualifying species can be avoided by careful timing of the construction works. It can also be mitigated by: locating paths set back from the shore, or separated from it by barriers such as fences, ditches or planting; maintaining and establish refuge areas of coast that remain free from disturbance; avoiding the location of high tide roost sites and developing a public awareness programme that is aimed at minimising the disturbance of wintering birds, particularly from dog walkers.

4.1.96 Birds are able to become habituated to walkers and increased levels of recreational use57and 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 reduced58.

4.1.97 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 species59. 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 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 winter60.

Changes to the Proposed Plan

56 Liley, D., Cruickshanks, K., Waldon, J. & Fearnley, H. 2011. Exe Estuary Disturbance Study. Footprint Ecology 57Nisbet, I.C.T. 2000. Disturbance, habituation and management of waterbird colonies. Waterbirds 23, 312–332.; Goss-Custard, J, D. & Verboven, N. 1993. Disturbance and feeding shore birds on the Exe Estuary. Wader StudyGroupBull.6 8 Special Issue 58Dooley, J. L. 2008. Mallard Response to experimental human disturbance and non-breeding survival along the South Platte River in Colorado 59Rodgers, J.A. and S.T. Schwiker. 2002. Buffer-zone distances to protect foraging and loafing waterbirds from disturbance by personal watercraft and outboard-powered boats. Conservation Biology 16:216 60 Stillman, R. A. & Goss-Custard, J. D. 2002. Seasonal changes in the response of Oystercatchers Haematopus ostralegus to human disturbance. J. of Avian Biology. 33 358-365

- 92 - HRA Revised June 2020

4.1.98 The following wording has been incorporated into the Proposed Plan Site Schedule for this opportunity:

For permission to be granted any proposals must be accompanied by project-specific information to inform a Habitats Regulations Appraisal. This will allow Falkirk Council to complete a Habitats Regulations Appraisaldemonstrating that there will be no adverse effects on the integrity of the Firth of Forth SPA or the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex pSPA, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects.

Residual Effects

4.1.99 Assuming that mitigation is included, it is concluded that there may be minor residual effects arising from increased recreational opportunity and disturbance during construction;

- 93 - HRA Revised June 2020

GN25 – Outdoor learning site creation at Kinneil Foreshore

Description of proposal

4.1.100 This green network opportunity is for the creation of an outdoor learning site at Kinneil Foreshore Local Nature Reserve

Qualifying Interest features of the Firth of Forth SPA likely to be affected

4.1.101 Whilst the precise location of the outdoor learning site is yet to be determined, this opportunity will encourage increased use of the wider Kinneil Foreshore Local Nature Reserve. This opportunity sits adjacent to land covered by sectors 11 & 12 (Kinneil Reserve and Bo’ness) which were surveyed as part of the The Grangemouth Flood Alleviation Scheme Ornithological Survey Report 2015-2017. This report noted the presence of the following species in the area.

Table 52: SPA species present within sectors 11 & 12 SPA Species Present >10% of >10% of cited >10% of Above but not in WeBS 5- SPA population WeBS count WeBS GB significant year mean but not >10% and cited SPA threshold numbers peak count of WeBS count population population and not of for national national importance importance Bar-tailed 12 11 Godwit Common 11 Scoter Cormorant 11,12 Curlew 12 11 Dunlin 12 11 Eider 11,12 Goldeneye 11,12 Golden 11 Plover Great-crested 12 11 Grebe Grey Plover 12 Knot 12 11 Lapwing 12 11 Mallard 11,12 Oystercatcher 11,12 Pink-footed 11,12 Goose Red-breasted 11, 12 Merganser Redshank 12 11 Red throated 11 Diver Ringed 12 11 Plover Sandwich 11, 12 Tern Scaup 11,12 Shelduck 12 11 Turnstone 11,12 Wigeon 11,12

- 94 - HRA Revised June 2020

Implications of the proposal for qualifying interest features of the Firth of Forth SPA in light of its conservation objectives

Table 53: 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 Habitat Loss Distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species 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

Loss of supporting habitat used by waders

4.1.102 Land at Kinneil Local Nature Reserve is potentially of use as supporting habitat to waders. Any loss of supporting habitat caused by the construction of the outdoor learning site is likely to be minimal in comparison to the amount of potential supporting habitat available across the estuary.

Noise and disturbance

4.1.103 Noise and visual intrusion during construction of the outdoor learning site could potentially disturb the qualifying species and distribution of the species within the SPA. The sheltered bay adjacent to Kinneil Island has been noted as a key roosting location.

4.1.104 Works to create the outdoor learning site are likely to be of a small scale, but nontetheless will result in increased noise levels and visual intrusion from machinery and personnel. This could undermine the conservation objectives for the qualifying interests: distribution of the species within the site and disturbance to the species.

Increased recreational activity along the shore

4.1.105 The creation of the outdoor learning site is likely to increase the amount of school children using the site throughout the school day. Use of the site during the school day is likely to generate increased interest in using the site outside school hours as the recreational benefits of using the Kinneil Local Nature Reserve become better known. Disturbance caused by walkers and dog walkers has been shown by the activity most likely to cause disturbance to SPA species by the Grangemouth Flood Aleviation Scheme Ornitology Survey Report

Mitigation

4.1.106 Any planning application for an outdoor learning site at Kinneil foreshore will require a project-specific HRA. This 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. A recreational management plan could also be prepared that shows how the route will guide users to avoid disturbance between October and March (inclusive). This may include, for example, erection of signs to encourage the control of dogs.

4.1.107 With this mitigation applied it can be concluded that this proposal will not cause significant disturbance of birds and therefore it will not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the Firth of Forth SPA.

- 95 - HRA Revised June 2020

Changes to the Proposed Plan

4.1.108 The following wording has been incorporated into the Proposed Plan Site Schedule for this opportunity:

For permission to be granted any proposals must be accompanied by project-specific information to inform a Habitats Regulations Appraisal.. This will allow Falkirk Council to complete a Habitats Regulations Appraisal t demonstrating that there will be no adverse effects on the integrity of the Firth of Forth SPA or the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex pSPA, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects.

Residual Effects

4.1.109 Assuming that mitigation is included, it is concluded that there may be minor residual effects arising from construction disturbance; increased opportunities for coastal recreation; and loss of supporting habitat for inland waders.

- 96 - HRA Revised June 2020

Appropriate Assessment of in plan Likely Significant Effects in combination

4.1.110 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

4.1.111 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 3.1.7

4.1.112 Seventeen proposals have been identified as in locations that may have potential value as high tide roosting sites to waders. They comprise:  five locations in Bo’ness (H01, H02, H03, MU02, GN25);  three locations in Airth (H48, H49, H50);  four locations in Grangemouth (BUS14, BUS15, IN08 & IN17); and  four locations in Larbert & Stenhousemuir (H46, IN18, IN29 & MU18).

Qualifying interest features of the Firth of Forth SPA likely to be affected

4.1.113 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

4.1.114 There is a potential for loss of high tide roosting habitat or disturbance of birds whilst using these inland areas. Table 54 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).

4.1.115 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 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.

- 97 - HRA Revised June 2020

Table 54: 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* NT08A H01 Drum Farm North 30.1 ha (14.2%) 0 0 0 30 180 4 H02 Kinglass Farm 1 212.2ha PSH within H03 Kinglass Farm 2MU02 tetrad Drum Farm South

NS98V GN25 Outdoor Learning Not specified 0 0 0 12 180 63 Sites – Kinneil Foreshore 86.2ha PSH within tetrad. NS98D H49 Airth Castle South 1.0 ha (<0.1%) 0 0 30 165 50 50

406ha PSH within tetrad NS88Y H48 Castle View 7.6 ha (1.9%) 0 0 0 1 0 0 H42 The Glebe (part) 410.2ha PSH within tetrad NS88Z H42 The Glebe (part) 0.3 ha (<0.1%) 0 0 90 130 34 20 477.8ha PSH within tetrad NS88S H46 Hill of Kinnaird 1 24.9 ha (7.7%) 49 0 20 0 0 0 MU18 Hill of Kinnaird 2 321.1ha PSH within IN18 - A88 Antonshill to tetrad A905 Path, Stenhousemuir IN29 – Kinnaird Primary School NS98G BUS14 South Bridge 4.6 ha (2.2%) 0 10 140 200 82 3 Street 205.3ha PSH within BUS15 Grangemouth tetrad Docks West

NS97P IN17 Bo’ness - Not specified 0 0 0 0 0 0

- 98 - HRA Revised June 2020

Grangemouth Path and A904 Realignment (part) NS97K IN17 Bo’ness - Not specified 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grangemouth Path and A904 Realignment (part) NS97Q IN17 Bo’ness - Not specified 300 0 500 150 500 150 Grangemouth Path and A904 Realignment (part) Number of tetrads partially/ wholly within Falkirk from which species 7 3 17 19 16 16 has been recorded

- 99 - HRA Revised June 2020

4.1.116 It is estimated that the proposals will involve the loss of up to 68.5 ha of habitat that may be of potential value to qualifying species. This represents 1.2% of the c. 5598 ha of potential habitat within the Falkirk Council area.

4.1.117 Table 54 shows that the developments do not affect all the tetrads from which particular species have been recorded.

4.1.118 Two qualifying species were recorded from tetrad NS88S: 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 NS88S (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

4.1.119 Cumulatively, the proposed sites only represent around 1.2% of the potentially supporting habitat present within Falkirk Council area.

4.1.120 Proposal BUS15 includes provisions for the production of a masterplan and accompanying project-specific Appropriate Assessment.

Residual Effects

4.1.121 As the proposals only affect a small proportion of potential habitat available to species within Falkirk, there will not be any affect on the population of qualifying interest species as a viable component of the site, therefore the proposals will not act to have an adverse effect on the integrity of the SPA. .There will be minor residual effects arising from loss of habitat or disturbance of qualifying species whilst using these areas.

In combination assessment with other plans or proposals outwith the Falkirk area

Plans

4.1.122 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 55 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 55: 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 NPF3 Yes Carbon Capture and Storage Network and Thermal Generation – it is considered that development at Longannet and Cockenzie will be within the existing footprint of the power stations and if projects require additional land requirements this would not be included in the definition of the national development therefore no loss of habitat is predicted.

NPF3 HRA acknowledges the potential for direct loss of offsite supporting habitat at Grangemouth. The site is in a tetrad where the presence of Grey Plover, Lapwing, Curlew, Redshank and Oystercatcher have been recorded. The loss

- 100 - HRA Revised June 2020

of this 45.5ha site of potential supporting habitat would represent 2.5% of the total potential supporting habitat for wetland waders if combined with the 95.9ha of potential supporting habitat which will be lost as a result of the proposals within the LDP. Discussion with SNH has confirmed that the habitat is of poor quality with qualifying features unlikely to use this habitat.

The HRA also acknowledges the potential for noise and vibration that may disturb the species during construction and operation; reduced availability / displacement of other species (including prey); potential developments or structures (tall buildings, cranes) may cause significant changes to flight routes along the coast or risk of collision. The HRA outlines mitigation measures and requires project level HRA to ensure no adverse effect on the Firth of Forth SPA

Grangemouth Investment Zone – Elements of this scheme are already assessed as distinct proposals of the LDP: BUS15

Additional Freight Handling Capacity on the Forth - NPF3 HRA indicates that indirect loss of habitat could occur due to changes in sedimentation patterns caused by land use change, piling and dredging; direct loss of supporting habitat could occur under the footprint of the development, under the footprint of dredge and disposal of dredgings; and physical damage of habitats and species could occur through increased shipping movements. The HRA outlines mitigation measures and requires project level HRA to ensure no adverse effect on the Firth of Forth SPA. – Curlew, Grey Plover, Lapwing, Oystercatcher, Redshank all recorded at the Rosyth site.

Strategic Airport Enhancements – NPF3 HRA indicates that the the relocation of the national showground to the south of the A8 could lead to direct habitat loss of supporting habitat under the footprint of new development. As this site is over 5km from the coast it is not considered likely to be used for feeding/roosting by waders.

National Yes NRIP Phase 1 – Leith: Intertidal habitat important for Renewables foraging birds and their prey may be lost as a result of the Infrastructure Plan construction of the outer tidal berth. No analysis of species affected. Energy Park Fife: Could involve direct loss of SPA habitat. No analysis of species affected

NRIP Phase 2 – Burntisland: No habitat loss predicted Rosyth: No habitat loss predicted Grangemouth: No habitat loss predicted (assessed separately under proposal BUS15) SESplan - SDP Yes West Lothian, West Edinburgh, East Lothian and North Dunfermline SDA identified as having LSE on the First of Forth SPA Specied. Assessment of effects has been deferred to relevant LDP. SESplan - Yes West Lothian, West Edinburgh, East Lothian and North Housing Dunfermline SDA identified as having LSE on the First of Supplementary Forth SPA Specied. Assessment of effects has been Guidance deferred to relevant LDP.

- 101 - HRA Revised June 2020

FifePlan – Local Yes No analysis of the potential amount of supporting habitat for Development Plan waders lost through development has been carried out. Stirling Local Yes No analysis of impact on potential supporting habitat used Development Plan by waders is included within the HRA record Clackmannanshire A total of 34.63 ha of land which is potentially suitable habitat LDP for waders will be lost as a result of proposals within the Clackmannanshire Council Proposed Plan (H07, H08, H12, B11 & B18). The total area of potentially suitable habitat for waders within Clackmannanshire Council area is not known. City of Edinburgh Yes Examination of the data established that the total area of Council (CEC) potential supporting habitat within the City of Edinburgh Local Council area within 5km of the coastline as 4,618ha. 169 ha Development Plan of land within 5km of coastline has been allocated for housing. This represents the loss of 3.7% of the potential supporting habitat used by waders within the CEC area.

West Lothian LDP No The 2014 HRA does not identify projects within West Lothian LDP that would have a likely significant effect or minor residual effects on a European Site. East Lothian LDP Yes HRA includes a general discussion of potential impacts on potential supporting habitat used by waders but does not comment on the total areas potentialaffected. Stirling Local Yes No analysis of impact on potential supporting habitat used Development Plan by waders is included within the HRA record 2

4.1.123 Table 56 below shows the SPA species which may be affected by proposals within the Falkirk LDP and the plans in table 55 above.

Table 56: Habitat loss – SPA Qualifying Interest Features which may be affected by each project/ plan Species Project

GreyPlover Lapwing Curlew Redshank Oystercatcher GoldenPlover

H01; H02; H03 & x x x MU02

H07 x

GN25 x x x

H42 & H48 x x x x

H49 x H46, MU18, IN18 & x x IN29

BUS14 & BUS15 x x x x x IN17 x x x x x NPF3 x x x x x NRIP x x x x x x Stirling LDP2 x x x x x x CEC LDP x x x x x x FifePlan – Proposed x x x x x x Plan

- 102 - HRA Revised June 2020

4.1.124 The HRA of the CEC LDP indicates that it will result in the loss of 169ha of the 4618ha of potential supporting habitat for waders within the Council area (3.7%). Although this is larger than the amount of potential supporting habitat within the Falkirk Council area (1.2%) it was still considered as being a minor residual rather than a likely significant effect as the amount of supporting habitat lost is small in comparison to the potential supporting habitat for the six species identified as being likely to be present in Edinburgh. The percentage of potentially suitable habitat for waders lost to development as a result of the Clackmannanshire Council Proposed Plan is not known.

4.1.125 Other than the CEC LDP, the HRA of the plans in table 55 above do not 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. 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 mostly on a small scale as has been assessed in Edinburgh and Falkirk. 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 reasonable to conclude 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

Grangemouth Biomass

4.1.126 During the breeding bird survey carried out by Atmos Consulting Ltd from April to June 2009 (Appendix E3b) a pair of oystercatchers were found breeding within the application boundary, however the site does not contain any land identified as potential supporting habitat for SPA species and breeding oystercatcher are not listed as a qualifying interest feature of the Firth of Forth SPA. No in cobmbination impact predicted.

Rosyth Biomass

4.1.127 Great crested grebe, cormorant, oystercatcher, red-breasted merganser and redshank were recorded within a 500m buffer of the site in the winter walkover surveys carried out by Atmos Consulting Ltd between October 2009 and March 2010, however none of these species were recorded using the potential development area. No in combination impact predicted. .

- 103 - HRA Revised June 2020

Loss of inland habitat potentially used by pink footed geese and disturbance of pink footed geese

Description of proposals

4.1.128 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:

 6 locations in Bonnybridge and Banknock (H08, H09, H12, H53, MU04 & MU20);  4 locations in Denny (H32, H35, H59 & MU09);  5 locations in Falkirk (BUS05, BUS07, MU16, H39, H42);  4 locations in Grangemouth (MU21, BUS14, BUS15, BUS18);  2 locations in Larbert & Stenhousemuir (MU18, H46);  8locations in Maddiston (H13, H14, H15, H16, H17, H18, H54 & H57);  3 locations in Airth (H48, H49 & H50);  1 location in California (H24);  1 location in (H21); and  2 locations in Slamannan (H26, H27)  2 locations in Whitecross (BUS02 & H29)  11 infrastructure proposals across the district with undefined site boundaries

Qualifying interest features of the Firth of Forth SPA likely to be affected

4.1.129 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

4.1.130 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 area61, which may be a response to reduce risk of predation and disturbance.

4.1.131 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.

4.1.132 Table 57 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 57: Areas of potentially suitable habitat for Pink-footed Goose to be affected by development proposals Proposal Area of potential Comments supporting habitat (hectares) H08 Banknock South 8.3

61 Gill, J.A., Norris, K., & Sutherland, W.J. 2001. Why behavioural responses may not reflect the population consequences of human disturbance. Biological Conservation 97: 265-268. - 104 - HRA Revised June 2020

H09 Dennyloanhead 25.2 H12 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. H13 Parkhall Farm 1 4.3 Although these sites are <6 ha in size they are H14 Parkhall Farm 2 2.1 linked to a larger area of potentially suitable H15 Parkhall Farm 3 0.7 habitat. H16 Parkhall Farm 4 1.1 H17 Toravon Farm 6.6 H18 Parkhall Farm 5 7.6 H21 Hillcrest 4.1 H24 Church Road 1.9 This site sites is <6 ha, but are linked to other areas of potentially suitable habitat. However, they are close to areas of development, meaning that they may be of poor value to Geese. H26 Avonbridge Road 1.9 This site is <6 ha in size, but is linked to other H27 Main Street 3.5 areas of potentially suitable habitat. H29 Whitecross 11.5 H32 Mydub 2 13.6 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. H35 Rosebank 5.1 Although this site is <6 ha in size it is adjacent to other areas of potentially suitable habitat H59 Rosebank North 6.5

H39 Cauldhame Farm 14.4 lies on land adjacent to development, which is less likely to be attractive to Pink-footed Goose. H42 Woodend Farm 4.4 This site is < 6 ha, but is linked to other areas of potentially suitable habitat. H46 Hill of Kinnaird 13.7 H48 Castle View 7.0 H49 Airth Castle South 1.0 These sites are < 6 ha, but they linked to other H50 The Glebe 0.9 areas of potentially suitable habitat. H53 Cumbernauld Road, 0.5 Longcroft H54 The Haining 1.5 MU04 Banknock North 5.8 Site supports <6 ha of potentially supporting habitat so likely to be of lower value to Geese.

M09 Broad Street 11.2 MU16 Falkirk Gateway 23.1 MU19 Hill of Kinnaird 2 9.4 MU20 East Bonnybridge 19.7 BUS02 Manuel Works 1.2 Site is <6 ha and is not surrounded by other areas of potentially suitable habitat so may be of lower value to Geese. BUS05 Falkirk Stadium 8.8 BUS07 Caledon Business 13.1 Park MU21 Glensburgh 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. BUS14 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.

- 105 - HRA Revised June 2020

BUS15 Grangemouth Docks 2.8 As this habitat is isolated from other areas of West potentially suitable habitat and is subject to disturbance, it is considered to be unattractive to Pink-footed Goose. BUS18 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 H57 Maddiston Fire Station 3.8 The site is largely brownfield land < 6 ha,within an existing built up area which is less likely to be attractive to Pink-footed Goose. IN04 M80 Junction 7 ? Site boundaries for these infrastructure Improvement proposals have not yet been defined IN08 Grangemouth Access ? Improvements IN15 Greenhill Junction Rail ? improvement IN17 Bo'ness - ? Grangemouth Path and A904 Realignment IN18 A88 (Antonshill to A905 ? Path, Stenhousemuir) IN23 Braes High School ? IN25 Graeme High School ? IN29 Kinnaird Primary ? School IN31 Victoria Primary School ? IN39 Hills of Dunipace ? Cemetery Extension IN40 Weedingshall ? Cemetery Extension Total 257.3

4.1.133 Based on Table 57, 257.3 ha of potentially suitable habitat could be affected by development proposals.

4.1.134 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.

4.1.135 None of the proposals occurs in areas that are known, historically, to support large numbers of feeding and loafing geese.

Mitigation

4.1.136 No mitigation is considered to be necessary

Residual Effects

4.1.137 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

4.1.138 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

- 106 - HRA Revised June 2020 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 58: Elements of other plans likely to result in the loss of habitats which could be used by pink footed geese. Plan HRA Record Provisions causing a minor residual effect Available NPF3 Yes Carbon Capture and Storage Network and Thermal Generation – it is considered that development at Longannet and Cockenzie will be within the existing footprint of the power stations and if projects require additional land requirements this would not be included in the definition of the national development therefore no loss of habitat is predicted.

NPF3 HRA acknowledges the potential for direct loss of offsite supporting habitat. Bird data collected to inform the EIA of a proposed Biomass plant in Grangemouth included collection on the shoreline next to the proposed development area. This data observed, pink footed geese flying over the proposed development area. Discussion with SNH has confirmed that the habitat is of poor quality with qualifying features unlikely to use this habitat.

Grangemouth Investment Zone – Elements of this scheme are already assessed as distinct proposals of the LDP: BUS15.

Additional freight capacity on the Forth - The national development is open for new and improved harbour facilities on the Forth. It is considered likely that development will be at existing harbours and with minimal requirement for additional land.

Strategic Airport Enhancements - The national development includes potential new National Showground facilities South of the A8 which could result in changes to some agricultural grassland, of which some has the potential to be used as supporting habitat for pink footed geese. Approximately 100ha of land to the south of the A8 is indicated as being within the National Development. No indication is given as to how much of this land has the potential to be used by pink footed geese. National Renewables Yes NRIP Phase 1 – Leith: Intertidal habitat important for Infrastructure Plan foraging birds and their prey may be lost as a result of the construction of the outer tidal berth. No analysis of species affected. Energy Park Fife: Could involve direct loss of SPA habitat. No analysis of species affected

NRIP Phase 2 – Burntisland: No habitat loss predicted Rosyth: No habitat loss predicted Grangemouth: No habitat loss predicted (assessed separately under proposal BUS15) Clackmannanshire LDP Yes A total of 140.64 ha of land which is potentially suitable habitat for pink footed geese will be lost as a result of proposals within the Clackmannanshire Council Proposed Plan (H07, H08, H12, B11 & B18). The total amount of potentially suitable habitat for pink footed geese within the Clackmannanshire Council area is not known. City of Edinburgh Council Yes Examination of the data established that the total area of (CEC) Local Development supporting habitat within the City of Edinburgh Council area Plan is 12,539 ha. 242 ha of the housing allocation occurs on land which is potential supporting habitat. However, of this 242ha - 107 - HRA Revised June 2020

only 2 housing sites (HSG29 & 29) with a combined area of 52ha have been indicated as having a likely presence of pink footed geese. This represents the loss of 0.4% of the potential supporting habitat used by pink footed geese within the CEC area.

FifePlan Yes Development of sites KDY039 & MET010 were identified as having a minor residual effect from potential permanent loss of SPA habitat which is not known to support significant numbers of feeding and roosting SPA qualifying species. No alanysis of the proportion of SPA habitat which this represents was presented West Lothian LDP No The 2014 HRA does not identify projects within West Lothian LDP that would have a likely significant effect or minor residual effects on a European Site. East Lothian LDP Yes There are three proposals within East Lothian, which overlap or lie adjacent to known pink-footed geese feeding areas: NK7 Saltcoats, Gullane: NK8: Fenton Gait East, Gullane NK9: Fenton Gait South, Gullane

The HRA reported there is uncertainty about the level of disturbance that would result cumulatively from the three proposals (NK7, NK8, NK9) and whether this would result in a decline in goose numbers or use of the area leading to an adverse effect upon the integrity of the Firth of Forth SPA. Stirling Local Development Yes The HRA reports that a plan may have minr residual effects Plan 2 on pink footed geese through loss of potential habitat and disturbance. However, it has been demonstrated that with mitigation, the LDP will not adversely effect the integrity of the Firth of Forth SPA.

4.1.139 TheHRA of the CEC LDP indicates that it will result in the loss of 0.4% of the potential supporting habitat for pink footed geese within the Council area. This is a very small proportion of the potential supporting habitat for pink footed geese across the Council area and an even smaller proportion of the potential supporting habitat across the area surrounding the Firth of Forth. This will not adversely affect the integrity of the SPA in combination with the Falkirk LDP.

4.1.140 Other than the CEC LDP and the Clackmannanshire Council LDP Proposed Plan, the HRA of the plans in table 58 above do not include any analysis of how much potential supporting habitat for pink footed geese will be lost within each Council area so it is extremely difficult to carry out any meaningful in- combination assessment. 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 mostly on a small scale as has been assessed in Edinburgh, Clackmannanshire and Falkirk. As pink-footed geese are widely distributed around the Forth it is reasonable to conclude 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

Grangemouth Biomass

4.1.141 This site does not comprise SPA supporting habitat.

Rosyth Biomass

- 108 - HRA Revised June 2020

4.1.142 Pink Footed Geese were not identified as being present on the potential development sites during the winter walkover surveys carried out by Atmos Consulting Ltd between October 2009 and March 2010. No in combination impact predicted.

- 109 - HRA Revised June 2020

Increased opportunities for access to and recreation along the coastline.

4.1.143 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

4.1.144 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 Way  GN03 Kinneil Kerse  GN04 Bothkennar/Skinflats  GN06 River Carron Corridor Improvements  GN25 Outdoor Learning Sites – Kinneil Foreshore LNR  PE12 Canals

4.1.145 Details of the proposals for The John Muir Way, Kinneil Kerse, Bothkennar/Skinflats, River Carron Corridor Improvments and the Outdoor Learning Site at Kinneil Foreshore LNR are provided in the Proposed Plan.

4.1.146 Policy PE12, 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

4.1.147 There is data available from the adjacent sectors, 3, 4, 5, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 & 16 (RSPB Skinflats, Skinflats Bay, River Carron, Kinneil Reserve, Bo’ness, Grangepans, Carriden, Stacks and Blackness ) of the Grangemouth Flood Aleviation Scheme Ornithology report 2015-2017.

Table 59: SPA species present within sectors 3, 4, 5, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 & 16 SPA Species Present but not in >10% of >10% of >10% of Above significant numbers WeBS 5- cited SPA WeBS WeBS GB year mean population count and threshold peak count but not cited SPA population >10% of population for national WeBS importance count and not of national importance Bar-tailed 3,4,5,13,14,15,16 12 11 Godwit Common 5,11,14,15,16 Scoter Cormorant 3,4,11,12,14,15,16 5,13 Curlew 12,13,14,16 15 3,4,5,11 Dunlin 12,13,14,15,16 3,5 4,11 Eider 3,5,11,12,13,14,15,16 Goldeneye 3,5,11,12,13,14,16 Golden 3,5 4 11 Plover Great-crested 3,5,12,13,14 11,15,16 Grebe Grey Plover 3,4,12 5 Knot 3,4,5,12,13,14,15,16 11 Lapwing 3,12 4,5 11 Mallard 3,4,5,11,12,13,14,15,16

- 110 - HRA Revised June 2020

Oystercatcher 11,12,13,14,15,16 Pink-footed 4,11,12,14,15,16 5 3 Goose Red-breasted 3,4,15 5,14,16 11, 12,13 Merganser Redshank 12,13,14,15,16 3,4,5 11 Red throated 3,5,11,13,15 16 Diver Ringed 3,5,12,13,14,16 11 Plover Sandwich 3,4,5,11,12,13,15,16 14 Tern Scaup 5,14,15 3,4,11,12,13 Shelduck 3,12,13,14,15,16 4,5,11 Slavonian 13,15 Grebe Turnstone 11,12,13,14,15,16 Wigeon 3,4,5,11,12,15,16 14

Implications of the proposals for qualifying interest features of the Firth of Forth SPA in light of its conservation objectives

4.1.148 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

4.1.149 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. 4.1.150 The rest of this section considers effects linked to recreational disturbance during operation of the proposals.

Levels of recreational activity

4.1.151 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 Heritage62 and assessments of the likely economic effects of the proposed John Muir Coast to Coast footpath63.

4.1.152 The estimated population of Falkirk Council is 159,38064. It has also been estimated that 50% of people living within the Falkirk Council area visited the outdoors for recreation at least once a week in 2016 i.e. at least 79,690 visits to the outdoors in a week.

4.1.153 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 winter65.

4.1.154 The current numbers of visitors to the Forth coastline is thought to be fewer than at some other coastal SPA sites. A survey of visitors walking the John Muir Way carried out by SNH between November 2015 and October 2015 estimated the annual visits to Bo’ness (19,600 – 24,200) and Blackness (24,800 – 27,100). This compares to an estimated 3 million visits per year66 to parts of the Solent coast.

62 TNS Research International 2012. Scottish Recreation Survey: Annual summary report 2011. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 535. 63The Glamis Consultancy Ltd and Campbell Macrae Associates (2012). John Muir coast to coast trail: Economic benefits study. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No.508. 64 Falkirk Council, 2017. Insight 2016 Mid-year Population Estimates 65 TNS Research International 2012. Scottish Recreation Survey: Annual summary report 2011. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 535. 66Fearnley H, Clarke R & Liley D. 2010. The Solent Disturbance and Mitigation Project, phase II - on-site visitor survey results from the Solent region. - 111 - HRA Revised June 2020

4.1.155 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 disturbance67.

4.1.156 A survey of visitors walking the John Muir Way carried out by SNH between November 2015 and October 2015 estimated that on average 42% of them were accompanied by a dog.

4.1.157 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 coast68.

4.1.158 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.

4.1.159 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 present69.

Population effects

4.1.160 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 mortality70,71.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 numbers72.

4.1.161 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 season73.

4.1.162 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 locations74,75. 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 Exe76.In the Moray Firth,

67 Liley, D., Stillman, R. & Fearnley, H. 2010. The Solent Disturbance and Mitigation Project Phase 2: Results of Bird Disturbance Fieldwork 2009/10. Footprint Ecology / Solent Forum. 68 Simpson, K A. 2011. Study into Recreational Disturbance at the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast European Marine Site 69 Dooley, J. L. 2008. Mallard Response to experimental human disturbance and non-breeding survival along the South Platte River in Colorado 70 Stillman, R. A., West, A. D., Caldow, R. W. G. and Durell, S. E. A. L. V. D. 2007. Predicting the effect of disturbance on coastal birds. Ibis, 149: 73–81. 71 Gill, J.A., Norris, K., & Sutherland, W.J. 2001. Why behavioural responses may not reflect the population consequences of human disturbance. Biological Conservation 97: 265-268. 72Goss-Custard, J, D. & Verboven, N. 1993. Disturbance and feeding shore birds on the Exe Estuary. Wader StudyGroupBull.6 8 Special Issue 73 Goss-Custard, J.D., Stillman, R.A., West, A.D., Caldow, R.W.G. & McGrorty, S. 2002. Carrying capacity in overwintering migratory birds. Biol. Conserv. 105: 27–41. 74 Liley, D., Cruickshanks, K., Waldon, J. & Fearnley, H. 2011. Exe Estuary Disturbance Study. Footprint Ecology 75 Rees, E.C., Bruce, J.H. & White, G.T. 2005. Factors affecting the behavioural responses of whooper swans (Cygnus c. cygnus) to various human activities. Biological Conservation 121: 369-382 76Burton, N.H.K., Armitage, M.J.S., Musgrove, A.J. & Rehfisch, M.M. 2002. Impacts of man-made landscape features on numbers of estuarine waterbirds at low tide. Environ. Manage. 30: 857–864. - 112 - HRA Revised June 2020

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 complex77.

4.1.163 Trying to model or quantify disturbance is incredibly difficult and therefore understanding and deciding where the line between disturbance and significant disturbance is needs to be precautionary.

Mitigation

4.1.164 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 undertake further studies to identify areas of the coast that are of importance to qualifying interest features;  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; and  Development of the John Muir Way 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.

4.1.165 Some of the proposals have the potential to create or enhance habitat provision for qualifying features of the SPA i.e. GN03 Kinneil Kerse and GN04 Bothkennar/Skinflats

Changes to the Proposed Plan

4.1.166 Wording for GN01; GN03; GN04, GN06 and GN25 was identified previously in this HRA.

4.1.167 Policy PE12 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

4.1.168 As the mitigation measures above have been incorporated into the Proposed Plan is considered that the projects outlined in paragraph 4.1.223 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

77Swann, B. 2007. North of Scotland Ornithological Services. Moray Firth Wildfowl & Wader Roosts. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No.252 - 113 - HRA Revised June 2020

Plans

4.1.169 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 60 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 60: Elements of other plans which could lead to increased opportunities for public access along the coastline Plan HRA Record Provisions causing a minor residual effect Available NPF3 Yes The Central Scotland Green Network (CSGN) is identified as a national development. Delivery of the CSGN could lead to increased opportunities for public access along the coastline. Stirling LDP Yes No elements appear to relate to the expansion of public assess routes along the shoreline or to the shoreline Clackmannanshire LDP Yes No proposals or opportunities are identified as leading to increased opportunity for public access along the coastline

Eight of the forty four housing proposals within 5km of the coast include the provision or upgrading of recreational facilities as part of the development, and ten of the proposals require developer contributions to create recreational opportunities East Lothian Local Plan No 2008 West Lothian LDP No The 2014 HRA does not identify projects within West Lothian LDP that would have a likely significant effect or minor residual effects on a European Site. City of Edinburgh Council Yes No proposals identified which act as new opportunities for LDP access to and recreation along the coastline. Clackmannanshire Council No Core Path 102 to Kennett Pans (existing) Core Path Plan Core Path 101 from Clackmannan to …. (existing) Fife Council Core Path Plan No Core Paths 746, 758, 759, 767, 769, 776, 696 & 700 all run 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 FifePlan Yes No proposals were identified as having minor residual effects due to increased opportunity for pblic access along the coastline East Lothian LDP Yes No proposals were identified as having minor residual effects due to increased opportunity for pblic access along the coastline Stirling Local Development Yes No proposals were identified as having minor residual Plan 2 effects due to increased opportunity for pblic access along the coastline

4.1.170 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.

4.1.171 The path through Wester Shore Wood forms part of the John Muir Way, works to upgrade it have been completed for some time 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. - 114 - HRA Revised June 2020

4.1.172 Whilst there are a number of projects within other plans which could increase opportunities for access to and recreation along the coastline, there is no available analysis to suggest which qualifying interest features might be affected. It is not possible therefore to undertake any meaningful in combination assessment with the Falkirk LDP.

Projects

4.1.173 There are no known projects outside those which are provisions of the plans shown in table 60 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 4.1.144.

- 115 - HRA Revised June 2020

Significant Recreational Disturbance Description of proposals 4.1.174 Based on projections predicting continued household and population growth, some 8, 100 new homes would be needed in the Falkirk Council area over the period 2017-2030. Most new homes will be directed toward10 Strategic Growth Areas. 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 pro posals within 2 miles of the Firth of Forth SPA (H01 – H06, H38, H41, H45, H48, H49, H50, H55-56, MU01 – MU03 and MU16-17). These make provision for the construction for over 2,000 new homes. Qualifying interest features of the Firth of Forth SPA likely to be affected

4.1.175 There is data available from the publicly accessible sectors, 1,2,3, 4, 5, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 & 16 (Dunmore, Airth, RSPB Skinflats, Skinflats Bay, River Carron, Kinneil Reserve, Bo’ness, Grangepans, Carriden, Stacks and Blackness ) of the Grangemouth Flood Aleviation Scheme Ornithology report 2015- 2017.

Table 61: SPA species present within sectors 1,2,3, 4, 5, 11, 12 &13 SPA Species Present but not in >10% of >10% of >10% of Above significant numbers WeBS 5- cited SPA WeBS WeBS GB year mean population count and threshold peak count but not cited SPA population >10% of population for national WeBS importance count and not of national importance Bar-tailed 1,2,3,4,5,13,14,15,16 12 11 Godwit Common 5,11,14,15,16 Scoter Cormorant 1,2,3,4,11,12,14,15,16 5,13 Curlew 12,13,14,16 1,2,15 3,4,5,11 Dunlin 1,2,12,13,14,15,16 3,5 4,11 Eider 3,5,11,12,13,14,15,16 Goldeneye 1,2,3,5,11,12,13,14,16 Golden 1,3,5 4 11 Plover Great-crested 3,5,12,13,14 11,15,16 Grebe Grey Plover 1,3,4,12 5 Knot 3,4,5,12,13,14,15,16 11 Lapwing 2,3,12 1,4,5 11 Mallard 2,3,4,5,11,12,13,14,15,16 1 Oystercatcher 1,2,11,12,13,14,15,16 Pink-footed 2,4,11,12,14,15,16 5 1,3 Goose Red-breasted 2,1,3,4,15 5,14,16 11, 12,13 Merganser Redshank 1,2,12,13,14,15,16 3,4,5 11 Red throated 3,5,11,13,15 16 Diver Ringed 1,2,3,5,12,13,14,16 11 Plover Sandwich 1,3,4,5,11,12,13,15,16 14 Tern Scaup 5,14,15 3,4,11,12,13 Shelduck 1,2,3,12,13,14,15,16 4,5,11 Slavonian 13,15 Grebe - 116 - HRA Revised June 2020

Turnstone 11,12,13,14,15,16 Wigeon 2,3,4,5,11,12,15,16 1 14

Implications of the proposals for qualifying interest features of the Firth of Forth SPA in light of its conservation objectives 4.1.176 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 4.1.177 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. 4.1.178 The Proposed Plan includes policies that promote the creation and enhancement of open space alongside developments. For example:  Policy PE17 Open Space and New Residential Development – requires that proposals for new development should contribute positively to the provision of open space in the area;  Policy IR02 Developer Contributions– enables Falkirk Council to require developers to contribute towards the provision, upgrading and maintenance of infrastructure where development will create or exacerbate deficiencies in, or impose significantly increased burdens on, existing infrastructure. This includes green infrastructure. 4.1.179 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. 4.1.180 Policy GN13 Green and Blue Network of the Proposed Plan also includes numerous opportunities to increase access routes and recreational opportunities away from the coast.

Residual Effects

4.1.181 It is concluded that with the mitigation outlined above, the 20 proposals outlined in paragraph 4.1.174 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 housing proposals.

In combination assessment with other plans or proposals not contained in the Proposed Plan Plans

4.1.182 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 62: Elements of other plans adjacent to Falkirk which could lead to increased recreational use of the coastline. Plan HRA Provisions causing a minor residual effect Record Available Clackmannanshire Council Yes A distance of 5 km from the coast was chosen as LDP a broad-brush screening tool for identifying new housing developments that may give rise to increased levels of recreational activity at the coast. Forty four proposals were identified as falling within this 5 km zone. Alloa (H01-H14, M01-02, S04, B01-02 1494 - 117 - HRA Revised June 2020

houses); Sauchie (H15-23 1012 houses); Tulibody, Cambus and Glenochil (H24-26, M04 122 houses); Clackmannan (H27-28 61 houses); Devon Village (H29-31 38 houses); Forth, Rural and Area Wide (H32-33, B12-14 27 houses); Menstrie – (H34-36 97 houses); Alva (H37 – 42, M05 635 houses) Total 3486 houses

The core path network provides relatively few access points to or along the shoreline in Clackmannanshire. These are limited to: access to the shore near Cambus Pools; between the River Devon and Tullibody Inch; and at Kennetpans.

Whilst the housing proposals may cause some changes to the level of recreational use of the core paths, the types of activity are not likely to be affected by the proposal.

As the core paths are already established, and hence birds are likely to be habituated to use of these area, the housing developments are not considered to give rise to “significant disturbance” on the qualifying species outwith the boundary of the SPA to the level where it would have an effect upon the numbers or distribution of the qualifying species within the SPA. FifePlan Yes The HRA of FifePlan doesn’t explicitly consider the effect on increased coastal recreation caused by its housing proposals although SNH have indicated that the issue was considered. The HRA of FifePlan does recognise that no plans are set out to improve or create access/recreational routes from development site to estuary.

Housing proposals within Kincardine (KCD001- 003; 196 houses) Charlestown (CHL002: 5 houses); Culross (CUL001: 3 houses), High Valleyfield (HVF001 – 004: 101 houses) Cairneyhill (CNH001, 002 & 005: 360 houses), Oakley (OAK001-003 & 005 299 houses) & Blairhall (BLA001-004: 100 houses) – Total 1064 houses. West Lothian LDP No The 2014 HRA does not identify projects within West Lothian LDP that would have a likely significant effect or minor residual effects on a European Site. East Lothian LDP Yes Proposed housing sites in Musselburgh, , , Dunbar, North Berwick and the new Blindwells development were identified as potentially contributing to increased recreational use of the coast.

Golden plover, bar-tailed godwit and grey plover were identified as species vulnerable to disturbance from coastal recreation. Mitigation is identified to ensure no adverse impact on site integrity although minor residual effects remain. Stirling Local Development Yes Housing within Fallin (H077, H158, 424 houses), Plan 2 Throsk (H080 & H081, 80 houses) and Cowie (H074-76, H145-146 535 houses) – Total 1039 houses - 118 - HRA Revised June 2020

The HRA of the Stirling LDP2 didn’t appear to consider the effect on increased coastal recreation caused by its housing proposals.

4.1.183 In combination with the Proposed Plan, there is the potential for over 7,000 homes to be built within 2 miles (or 5km in Clackmannanshire) of the coast of the Falkirk Council area. The effect of recreational disturbance in the Falkirk Area has been mitigated to such a low magnitude that it will not act in combination with minor residual effects from adjacent plan areas to cause significant disturbance. 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.

4.1.184 Proposed housing growth in other plans around the Forth which are not adjacent to the Falkirk Council area could still have an impact on the recreational use of the Firth of Forth and the disturbance of qualifying interest features which also use the coastline of the Falkirk Council area. However, the HRA of those plans have not investigated the issue of increased recreational disturbance to a sufficient extent to allow any meaningful consideration of in combination effects.

Projects

4.1.185 There are no known projects outside those which are provisions of the plans shown in table 62 above which would increase the population within 2miles 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 4.1.174.

- 119 - HRA Revised June 2020

Disturbance or other effects during the construction period

Description of proposals

4.1.186 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. These proposals have all previously had mitigation introduced to ensure that they have only minor residual effects alone:  BUS15 Grangemouth Docks West 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;  BUS16 & BUS17 allow for the development of chemical/biochemical industry close to the River Avon where use by qualifying interest features is unknown.  GN01 John Muir Way will allow for access and landscape improvments along the entire length of the trail;  GN03 allows for landscape improvement works at Kinneil Kerse;  GN04 allow for managed realignment realignment of the coast and construction of new visitor facilities for bird viewing, which potentially have sections near to the coast.  GN25 allows for the creation of an outdoor learning site at Kinneil Foreshore

Qualifying interest features of the Firth of Forth SPA likely to be affected

4.1.187 These opportunities sits adjacent to land covered by sectors 3, 4, 5,6,8,9,10,11, 12, 13, 14, 15 & 16 (RSPB Skinflats, Skinflats Bay, River Carron,Grangemouth Port,Grangeburn, Grangemouth Refinery, Kinneil Kerse, Kinneil Reserve,Bo’ness, Grangepans, Carriden, Stacks and Blackness) which were surveyed as part of the The Grangemouth Flood Alleviation Scheme Ornithological Survey Report 2015-2017. This report noted the presence of the following species in the area.

Table 63: SPA species present within sectors 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 & 16 SPA Species Present but not in significant >10% of WeBS >10% of >10% of Above numbers 5-year mean cited SPA WeBS count WeBS GB peak count population and cited threshold but not SPA population >10% of population for national WeBS importance count and not of national importanc e Bar-tailed 3,4,8,13,14,15,16 5,6,12 10 9,11 Godwit Common 5,11,14,15,16 Scoter Cormorant 3,4,8,9,10,11,12,14,15,16 5,6,13 Curlew 6,8,12,13,14,15,16 15 3,4,5,9,10,1 1 Dunlin 8,12,13,14,15,16 3,5 6 4,9,10,11 Eider 3,5,6,10,11,12,13,14,15,16 Goldeneye 3,5,6,9,1011,12,13,14,16 Golden 3,6 4,5,10 11 Plover Great-crested 3,5,10,12,13,14 9,11,15,16 Grebe Grey Plover 3,4,9,10,12 5 Knot 3,4,5,6,12,13,14,15,16 8 9,10,11 Lapwing 3,8,9,12 4,5 6,10,11 Mallard 3,4,5,6,8,9,11,12,13,14,15,16 10 Oystercatche 3,4,5,6,810,11,12,13,14,15,1 9 - 120 - HRA Revised June 2020 r 6 Pink-footed 4,6,11,12,14,15,16 5 3 Goose Red-breasted 3,4,6,8,9,10,15 5,14,16 11, 12,13 Merganser Redshank 12,13,14,15,16 3,4,5,8,9 6,10,11 Red throated 3,11,13,15 5 10 16 Diver Ringed 3,5,6,8,12,13,14,16 11 9 Plover Sandwich 3,4,5,9,11,12,13,15,16 14 Tern Scaup 5,14,15 3,4,10,11,12,1 3 Shelduck 3,8,12,13,14,15,16 4,5,6,9,10,1 1 Slavonian 13,15 Grebe Turnstone 6,11,12,13,14,15,16 Wigeon 3,4,5,6,89,11,12,15,16 10,14

Implications of the proposals for qualifying interest features of the Firth of Forth SPA in light of its conservation objectives

4.1.188 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.

4.1.189 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 displacement78. The effects on individual fitness can have effects at the population level. Studies of Oystercatcher* populations in the Exe 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 consequences79.

4.1.190 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

4.1.191 The likely timescale for the implementation of each policy/proposal is:  BUS15 Grangemouth Docks West – there is no date for implementation of the proposal, including production of the masterplan.  BUS16 & BUS17 – Part of a long term and extensive restructuring of the Ineos site, difficult to predict when impacts might occur.

78 Burton, N.H.K., Rehfisch, M.M., Clark, N.A. & Dodd, S.G. 2006. Impacts of sudden winter habitat loss on the body condition and survival of Redshank Tringa totanus. Journal of Applied Ecology 43: 464-473. 79 West, A.D., Goss-Custard, J.D., Stillman, R.A., Caldow, R.W.G., Durell, S. & McGrorty, S. (2002) Predicting the Impacts of Disturbance on Shorebird Mortality Using a Behaviour-based Model. Biol. Conserv., 106, 319-328 - 121 - HRA Revised June 2020

 GN01 John Muir Way – only minor access and landscape improvement works are likely and it is difficult to predict when these might occur  GN03 Kinneil Kerse – short term proposal which has been delayed until waste management license issues can be resolved. Difficult to predict when this will begin implementation.  GN04 Bothkennar/Skinflats – managed coastal realignment proposal currently under consideration, if approved this is likely to be implemented in 2018.  GN25 Outdoor Learning Site, Kinneil Foreshore – small scale low impact works to create an outdoor classroom to be implemented when resources allow.

4.1.192 Based on this indicative timescale it is possible that two projects could be implemented at the same time. Mitigation previously introduced into the plan requires each application for development to be accompanied by information to inform a project level a Habitats Regulations Appraisal. . 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

4.1.193 If the mitigation is included then there will be minor 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

4.1.194 Table 64 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 64: Elements of other plans which could lead to construction disturbance along the coastline Plan HRA Record Provisions causing a minor residual effect Available NPF3 Yes Carbon Capture and Storage Network and Thermal Generation - activity will involve the construction of a new facility as opposed to upgrades to existing infrastructure. Therefore piling may only be a relevant aspect of construction that would affect European sites connected to Grangemouth. There remains some uncertainty as CCS technology is still emerging and thus its precise requirements for construction at any given location remain uncertain. Mitigation is available as development is planned and constructed that can help to demonstrate no adverse effects on site integrity.

Grangemouth Investment Zone - 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

Additional Container Freight Capacity on the Forth (including: Rosyth International Container Terminal (RICT); development at the ports of Rosyth, Burntisland, Methil and Leith) - Construction activities that might involve piling have been considered to have the potential for adverse effects on site integrity via disturbance to species. However, mitigation is available as development comes forward that can help to demonstrate no adverse effects on site integrity.

ND7 – New non-nuclear baseload capacity at other existing - 122 - HRA Revised June 2020

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 Development Yes No provisions are reported as having a minor residual effect Plan through disturbance or other effects during the construction period Clackmannanshipe LDP – Yes The HRA did not identify any proposals as having a minor Proposed Plan residual effect through causing disturbance along the coastline. West Lothian Local Plan No There are no proposals for development at or near to the 2009 Coast contained within this plan City of Edinburgh Council Yes No proposals identified which will have a minor residual LDP effect due disturbance or other effects during construction.

FifePlan Yes The HRA did not identify any proposals as having a minor residual effect through causing disturbance along the coastline. West Lothian LDP No The 2014 HRA does not identify projects within West Lothian LDP that would have a likely significant effect or minor residual effects on a European Site. 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 East Lothian LDP Yes No proposals identified which will have a minor residual - 123 - HRA Revised June 2020

effect due disturbance or other effects during construction. Stirling Council LDP2 Yes No provisions are reported as having a minor residual effect through disturbance or other effects during the construction period

4.1.195 As outlined in paragraph 4.1.260, 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. 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

4.1.196 The following projects outside those included within the suite of development plans analysed in table 64 above were identified which would involve construction work adjacent to the coast which could involve disturbance or other effects during the construction period:

Table 65: Other projects which could lead to construction disturbance along the coastline Project Status Comments Grangemouth b) projects This site is within proposal BUS15 of the Proposed Plan Biomass Plant given consent so the effects of disturbance have been considered but not yet previously within this report. started; 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; Coal Bed d) projects that The proposed drilling of fourteen wells and laying of the Methane are subject to interconnecting pipelines and the HDD drilling of the Extraction at outstanding water outfall pipeline will be short term and will be Letham Moss appeal discrete, small scale activities spread across the site. procedures; They will lead to small scale disturbance of pink footed geese. In combination

4.1.197 It has therefore been demonstrated that the minor residual effects of the Falkirk LDP Proposed Plan due to disturbance or other effects during construction will not act in combination with the policies and proposals that are not yet fully implemented in the plans shown in table 64 or the projects shown in table 65 above to have an adverse effect on the integrity of the Firth of Forth SPA.

- 124 - HRA Revised June 2020

Water Pollution

Description of proposals

4.1.198 A number of proposals could lead to increased levels of water pollution either during construction or operation. Potential contamination of the mudflats and estuary waters of the Firth of Forth could affect the structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species.

Table 66: Proposals/ Policies which could cause potential water pollution Policy/ Proposal During Construction During Operation Increase in boat traffic BUS15 – Grangemouth x x x Docks West

BUS16 – Bo’ness Road x x BUS17 - Wholeflats x x BUS18 - Wholeflats x x Business Park IN19 - Dalderse WWTW x x

GN01 – John Muir Way x

GN03 – Kinneil Kerse x

GN04 – x Bothkennar/Skinflats GN06 - River Carron x Corridor Improvements PE12 - Canals x

Qualifying interest features of the Firth of Forth SPA likely to be affected

4.1.199 These proposals have the potential to have an impact on the water quality in the Rivers Avon, Carron and Forth. This may have an impact on the quality of feeding habitat used by SPA qualifying interest features.

4.1.200 These opportunities sits adjacent to land covered by sectors 3, 4 & 5,6,7,8,9,10,11, 12, 13, 14, 15 & 16 (RSPB Skinflats, Skinflats Bay, River Carron,Grangemouth Port, Grangemouth Port Locks, Grangeburn, Grangemouth Refinery, Kinneil Kerse, Kinneil Reserve,Bo’ness, Grangepans, Carriden, Stacks and Blackness) which were surveyed as part of the The Grangemouth Flood Alleviation Scheme Ornithological Survey Report 2015-2017. This report noted the presence of the following species in the area.

- 125 - HRA Revised June 2020

Table 67: SPA species present within sectors 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 & 16 SPA Present but not in significant >10% of WeBS >10% of >10% of Above WeBS Species numbers 5-year mean cited SPA WeBS GB threshold peak count population count and population for but not cited SPA national >10% of population importance WeBS count and not of national importanc e Bar-tailed 3,4,7,8,13,14,15,16 5,6,12 10 9,11 Godwit Common 5,11,14,15,16 Scoter Cormorant 3,4,7,8,9,10,11,12,14,15,16 5,6,13 Curlew 6,8,12,13,14,15,16 7,15 3,4,5,9,10,1 1 Dunlin 8,12,13,14,15,16 3,5 6,7 4,9,10,11 Eider 3,5,6,7,10,11,12,13,14,15,16 Goldeneye 3,5,6,7,9,1011,12,13,14,16 Golden 3,6 4,5,10 11 Plover Great- 3,5,10,12,13,14 7,9,11,15,16 crested Grebe Grey Plover 3,4,9,10,12 5 Knot 3,4,5,6,7,12,13,14,15,16 8 9,10,11 Lapwing 3,8,9,12 4,5 6,10,11 Mallard 3,4,5,6,8,9,11,12,13,14,15,16 7,10 Oystercatch 3,4,5,6,7,810,11,12,13,14,15, 9 er 16 Pink-footed 4,6,7,11,12,14,15,16 5 3 Goose Red- 3,4,6,8,9,10,15 5,7,14,16 11, 12,13 breasted Merganser Redshank 12,13,14,15,16 3,4,5,7,8,9 6,10,11 Red throated 3,7,11,13,15 5 10 16 Diver Ringed 3,5,6,7,8,12,13,14,16 11 9 Plover Sandwich 3,4,5,7,9,11,12,13,15,16 14 Tern Scaup 5,14,15 3,4,7,10,11,12,1 3 Shelduck 3,8,12,13,14,15,16 4,5,6,7,9,10,1 1 Slavonian 13,15 Grebe Turnstone 6,7,11,12,13,14,15,16 Wigeon 3,4,5,6,7,8,9,11,12,15,16 10,14

Implications of the proposals for qualifying interest features of the Firth of Forth SPA in light of its conservation objectives

Increase in boat traffic

- 126 - HRA Revised June 2020

4.1.201 Policy PE12 and proposal BUS15 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

Pollution during operation

4.1.202 The nature of water quality impacts from sites BUS16,17 & 18 are unknown at this stage due to the unknown nature of likely industrial development on site. All of these proposals could impact upon the water quality in the River Avon which could eventually contaminate mudflats in that area.

4.1.203 The main impacts on water quality likely to arise from the WWTW proposal (IN19) is elevated nutrient levels. The dilution factor of the River Carron at the discharge outfall of Dalderse WWTW is 3 to 1 and any elevated nutrient levels will be further diluted when they enter the Forth. The potential for nutrient enrichment of mudflats (which could arguably have a positive effect on the quality of the feeding habitat) used by qualifying interest features is limited.

4.1.204 Pollution from accidents during the operation of Grangemouth Docks West would be likely to be contained within the silts of dock area itself. Potential for the release of these contaminants into the wider Firth would largely be dictated by the amount of dredging undertaken within the docks and the location of disposal of that dredged material.

Pollution during construction

4.1.205 Proposals BUS15, GN06 and IN19 have the potential to impact upon qualifying interest features using the River Carron (see 4.1.292) during construction through release of contaminants. Contaminants entering the River Carron would be washed downstream and could affect mudflats used for feeding.

4.1.206 Proposals BUS16-18 have the potential to impact upon qualifying interest features using the River Avon (see 4.1.291) during construction through release of contaminants. Contaminants entering the River Carron would be washed downstream and could affect mudflats used for feeding.

4.1.207 The remaining proposals (GN01,03,04) have the potential to impact upon qualifying interest features using the banks of the Firth of Forth (see table 63 above) during construction through release of contaminants and could affect mudflats used for feeding.

Mitigation

4.1.208 Proposals which could cause water pollution due to planned discharges during operation (BUS16-18 and IN19) can be mitigated through the controlled activities regulations discharge licensing procedure carried out by SEPA. In general, given the distances between these proposals and the levels of dilution afforded by the Firth of Forth there is no opportunity for these proposals to act in combination. The exception to this is for BUS16-18 which would both eventually discharge into the River Avon, however, the discharge licensing procedure could take into account in combination effects and could limit the permitted discharges accordingly to ensure no impact on the integrity of the Firth of Forth SPA.

4.1.209 Mitigation measures have already been introduced to a number of proposals (BUS15-18; GN01,03 & 04) to ensure that the potential for water pollution during construction has been minimised. Green network opportunity GN06 was not considered to have a likely significant effect in its 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 GN06 and IN19 which are adjacent to each other. Both of these proposals could impact upon the water quality in the River Carron, however, once diluted by the Firth of Forth they will not act in combination to adversely affect the water quality of the Firth of Forth to an extent that would adversely affect the qualifying interest features of the Firth of Forth SPA.

4.1.210 It is therefore considered that the impact of these proposals in combination will not result in reduction in water quality in the Firth of Forth which would adversely affect the qualifying interest features of the Firth of Forth SPA and therefore their population viability will be maintained. The proposals within the Proposed Plan will not therefore have an adverse affect on the integrity of the Firth of Forth SPA.

Changes to the Proposed Plan

- 127 - HRA Revised June 2020

4.1.211 No further changes to the Porposed Plan are considered to be necessary.

Residual Effects

4.1.212 The Proposed Plan will have a minor residual effect in relation to increased water pollution in the Firth of Forth.

In combination assessment with other plans or proposals not contained in the Proposed Plan

Plans

4.1.213 Of the Habitats Regulations Appraisals that are available for the development plans of neighbouring Local Authority Areas, neither the Stirling Council LDP, FifePlan Clackmannanshire Council LDP predicted any minor residual effects on the Firth of Forth SPA due to increased water pollution. The HRA of the National Renewables Infrastructure Plan predicts minor residual effects on the Firth of Forth SPA but not through impact on water quality. The 2014 HRA for the West Lothian LDP does not identify projects that would have a likely significant effect or minor residual effects on a European Site.

4.1.214 The only plan for which an HRA is available which predicts minor residual effects on the Firth of Forth SPA due to impacts on water quality is National Planning Framework 3. 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 table 68 below:

Table 68: 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 Firth of Forth SPA Carbon Capture and Storage Grangemouth Carbon HRA of NPF3 concludes Network and Thermal Generation Capture Plant could cause for non-toxic contamination toxic and non toxic that there is potential MRE contamination as well as after mitigation, but with increased thermal the proposed mitigation in contamination. place and the requirement for all proposed developments to undergo project level HRA to ensure no adverse effects on the integrity of the site, only MRE are expected to remain. Grangemouth Investment Zone Grangemouth Docks West No potential for in (BUS15) is an element of combination effects. this National Development which is included within the Proposed Plan and is assessed earlier in the report.

The HRA of NPF3 notes Potential for in combination that the Grangemouth effects, but not enough Flood Defence Scheme detail is available to be could have an effect on able to meaningfully water quality during assess these effects in contruction, but that combination with proposals mitigation will be available in the Proposed Plan. as the development comes forward that can help to demonstrate no adverse effects on site integrity and that this will need to be incorporated into project level HRA - 128 - HRA Revised June 2020

Freight Handling Capacity on the Increased dredging, land HRA of NPF3 concludes Forth at existing and disused use change and piling that for toxic and non-toxic ports and harbours on the Forth causing non-toxic contamination that there is Estuary contamination through potential MRE after increases in suspended mitigation, but with the sediment and turbiditiy proposed mitigation in potentiall affecting marine place and the requirement habitats and species. for all proposed developments to undergo Increased levels of vessel project level HRA to movements causing toxic ensure no adverse effects contamination from on the integrity of the site, potential oil spillages only MRE are expected to remain.

Proposals

4.1.215 The following projects outside those included within the suite of development plans analysed in table 68 above were identified which could have an adverse effect on the water quality of the Firth of Forth:

Table 69: Other projects which could have an impact on the water quality of the Firth of Forth Project Status Comments Grangemouth b) projects The HRA for this proposal indicates that potential for Biomass Plant given consent water pollution through: the effect of cooling waters but not yet discharged into the River Carron and nitrogen; and acid started; and nitrogen deposition from plant emissions.

With the proposed mitigation in place and the requirement for all relevant LDP proposals to undergo project level HRA to ensure no adverse effects on the integrity of the site, only minor residual effects are expected to remain. Rosyth c) projects that Although an appropriate assessment for the project is not Biomass Plant are subject to publicly available, given the distance between the Falkirk applications for Council area and the proposed Rosyth Biomass Plant and consent; the levels of dilution provided in the Firth of Forth, no in combination effects are predicted.

Given the distance between the Falkirk Council area and the Rosyth Biomass Plant and the levels of dilution provided in the Firth of Forth, no in combination effects are predicted.

4.1.216 It is therefore concluded that the impact of these plans and proposals in combination with the Falkirk LDP will not result in reduction in water quality in the Firth of Forth which would adversely affect qualifying interest features of the Firth of Forth SPA. The proposal will therefore not have an adverse affect on the integrity of the Firth of Forth SPA.

Conclusion

4.1.217 In total, 9 proposals within the Proposed Plan were identified as having a likely significant effect on the Firth of Forth SPA in their own right. It has been demonstrated that, with mitigation, these proposals will not adversely affect the integrity of the Firth of Forth SPA.

4.1.218 The minor residual effects of the Proposed Plan in relation to: loss of habitat potentially used for feeding/roosting by waders and disturbance of waders; loss of inland habitat potentially used by pink footed geese and disturbance of pink footed geese; increased opportunities for access to and recreation along the coastline; significant recreational disturbance; disturbance or other effects during the construction period; and water pollution have been assessed in combination with each other and it has been demonstrated that with mitigation, the Proposed Plan will not adversely effect the integrity of the Firth of Forth.

- 129 - HRA Revised June 2020

4.1.219 The minor residual effects of the Proposed Plan have been assessed in combination with the minor residual effects of other plans and projects and it has been demonstrated that they will not act together to adversely effect the integrity of the Firth of Forth SPA.

- 130 - HRA Revised June 2020

4.1 Slamannan Plateau SPA

Appropriate Assessment of Proposals with LSE alone

Table 70: Elements of the Proposed Plan with LSE alone for the Slamannan Plateau SPA Reference Name H27 Main Street, Slamannan GN15 Braes Peatland and Wetland Restoration GN19 River Avon Corridor

H27 – Main Street, Slamannan

Description of proposal

4.2.1 A 4.2 hectare site is proposed for housing development at Main Street, Slamannan.

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 H27 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

Significant 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.

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 Main Street 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: 99,100,101,109,117,118,120- 147, 150, 166, 219-222, 226-233, 235-243, 245-257, 259-262, 264-268, 270-280, 282, 288, 318, 321,322, 132a, 134a, 228a, 231a, 232a, 246a, 264a

4.2.6 Using the desk study data from the Bean Goose Action Group (BGAG), Table 67 presents the relationship between:

 the annual maximum count of Taiga bean geese for the wintering period 1997 to 2014;

- 131 - HRA Revised June 2020

 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 233 in 2012/2013) reflecting the reported growth of the Taiga bean goose population on the Slamannan Plateau.

Table 71: 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

96/97 127 356 2694 7288 4.88% 36.96% 97/98 153 100 3777 8249 1.21% 45.79% 98/99 168 1954 3705 8899 21.96% 41.63% 99/00 188 743 1165 7558 9.83% 15.41% 00/01 183 2182 2420 14180 15.39% 17.07% 01/02 192 146 253 13086 1.12% 1.93% 02/03 231 233 240 21755 1.07% 1.10% 03/04 235 59 108 18986 0.31% 0.57% 04/05 262 0 23 16456 0.00% 0.14% 05/06 300 9 44 23497 0.04% 0.19% 06/07 255 339 1160 12012 2.82% 9.66% 07/08 300 0 71 17137 0.00% 0.41% 08/09 265 0 423 13872 0.00% 3.05% 09/10 260 21 918 7886 0.27% 11.64% 10/11 267 0 1253 10903 0.00% 11.49% 11/12 238 123 5164 11137 1.10% 46.37% 12/13 233 0 2156 5541 0.00% 38.91% 13/14 237 161 2372 9198 1.75% 25.79% 14/15 231 0 1642 4963 0.00% 33.08% 15/16 263 291 1894 6981 4.17% 27.13%

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 21.96% in 1998/99 to 0% in 2004/05 and has not risen above 5% since 2000/2001. It has been reported80 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 much useful foraging or roosting habitat for Taiga bean geese.

4.2.10 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. It is worth emphasising that this now defunked roost is outside the SPA boundary. 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 considered that roost disturbance as a result of the development represents a potential adverse effect. Development at Hillend Farm will not therefore cause the significant disturbance of roosting Bean Geese.

80 Heritage Environmental 2007. Proposed Development at Hillend Farm Slamannan. Slamannan Plateau pSPA – Taiga Bean Goose Special Study. - 132 - HRA Revised June 2020

4.2.11 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 45.79% in 1997/98 to 0.14% in 2004/05 with the figure remaining below 10% between 2000/01 and 2008/09. Recent bean goose activity within the zone of potential disturbance from the Main Street development site has increased dramatically to an all time peak of 46.37% in 2011/12 and maintaining levels above 25% for the last 5 seasons.

4.2.12 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.

4.2.13 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 significant disturbance to Bean Geese outside the SPA boundary which, in turn, could have an adverse effect on the population of the species as a viable component of the site and therefore lead to an adverse effect on the integrity of the Slamannan Plateau SPA

Effect on overall Bean Goose Population Viability

4.2.14 Desk study and surveys completed for the Bean Goose Special Study in 2007 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.

4.2.15 No bean geese have ever ben observaed using the proposed development site, therefore there will be no direct loss of foraging habitat.

Species Distribution within the SPA

4.2.16 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 Main Street development is approximately 2.5km outwith the boundary of the SPA.

4.2.17 Therefore, it has been shown that the proposed Main Street development would not 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

4.2.18 Data has shown that the habitat within the Main Street site has not been favoured or used for either roosting, foraging or loafing by Taiga Bean Geese. Therefore, it has been shown that the distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species outside the SPA are maintained in the long term, thus ensuring that a viable population of taiga bean geese is maintained and that the integrity of the Slamannan Plateau SPA is maintained.

Structure, Function and Supporting Processes of Habitat

4.2.19 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.

4.2.20 Roosting and foraging habitat within the SPA would not be directly affected by the proposed development. - 133 - HRA Revised June 2020

4.2.21 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 and this might effect population viability, therefore, without mitigation it is considered that the Hillend Farm development might have an adverse effect on the integrity of the SPA.

Mitigation

4.2.22 It is clear that the proposed activities are likely 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.

4.2.23 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 Habitats Regulations Appraisal will be required of any proposals that are brought forward for the implementation of this policy.

2. This Habitats Regulations Appraisal 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;

Changes to the Proposed Plan

4.2.24 These requirements are incorporated into the Site Schedule for the proposal through the following text:  “For permission to be granted, proposals must be accompanied by a masterplan and project-specific information to informa Habitats Regulations Appraisal.. This will allow Falkirk Council to complete a Habitats Regulations Appraisal 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

4.2.25 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 operation ; and disturbance from increases in vehicular traffic. These effects in combination with other similar effects will be considered further in paragraphs: 4.2.75 - 4.2.119 of this report.

- 134 - HRA Revised June 2020

GN15 –Braes Peatland and Wetland Restoration

Description of proposal

4.2.26 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, Drumbroidier Moss, Garbethill, Fannyside and Wester Arnloss.

Qualifying Interest features of the Slamannan Plateau SPA likely to be affected

4.2.27 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, Fannyside and Garbethill 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

4.2.28 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

4.2.29 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 72: 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% 11/12 238 140 632 11137 1.26% 5.67% 12/13 233 51 496 5541 0.92% 8.95% - 135 - HRA Revised June 2020

13/14 237 270 443 9198 2.94% 2.94% 14/15 231 52 52 4963 1.05% 1.05% 15/16 263 176 176 6981 2.52% 2.52%

4.2.30 The data in table 68 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 5.67% of the total observed Bean Goose usage across the Slamannan Plateau. This figure increased to 8.95% of the total observed Bean Goose usage across the Slamannan Plateau in the 2012/13 season.

4.2.31 Bean Geese were noted as roosting at Darnrigg Moss (field 117) in the 2011/12, 2012/13, 2013/14 and 2015/16 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.

4.2.32 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, the level of disturbance caused by peatland restoration/habitat enhancement works would not cause an adverse effect on the population viability of Bean Geese and therefore would not adversely affect the integrity of the SPA

Gardrum Moss

4.2.33 Habitat 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

- 136 - HRA Revised June 2020

Table 73: 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% 08/09 265 165 165 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%

13/14 237 0 0 9198 0% 0%

14/15 231 0 0 4963 0% 0%

15/16 263 0 0 6981 0% 0%

4.2.34 The data in table 73 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.

4.2.35 Given that the levels of Bean Goose usage of the areas surrounding Gardrum Moss are minimal it is considered that there would not be any significant disturbance to Bean Geese outside the Slamannan Plateau SPA caused by peatland restoration.

Fannyside

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.

- 137 - HRA Revised June 2020

Table 74: Bean Goose usage of fields at Fannyside

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% 13/14 237 0 268 9198 0% 2.91% 14/15 231 0 0 4963 0% 0% 15/16 263 0 0 6981 0% 0%

4.2.50 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 1.13% per season, Bean Goose usage within 400m of Fannyside is much more significant (11.55% 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

4.2.51 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

- 138 - HRA Revised June 2020

Table 75: 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 3572 7288 25.84% 49.01% 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 5457 14180 27.33% 38.48% 01/02 192 5424 5539 13086 41.45% 42.33% 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%

13/14 237 0 440 9198 0% 4.78%

14/15 231 0 0 4963 0% 0%

15/16 263 0 152 6981 0% 2.18% 4.2.52 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 14.98% per season due to high levels of observed usage prior to 2007/08. Bean Goose usage within 400m of Garbethill is even more significant (24.54% 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 Viability – Darnrigg Moss

4.2.53 As noted in paragraph 4.2.29 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 Viability– Gardrum Moss

4.2.54 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.

Effect on overall Bean Goose Population Viability – Fannyside

4.2.55 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

- 139 - HRA Revised June 2020

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 Viability – Garbethill

4.2.56 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 significant disturbance caused by potential peatland restoration/enhancement works could have an adverse effect on the overall Bean Goose population.

Species Distribution within the SPA

4.2.57 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.

4.2.58 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.

4.2.59 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 distribution.

Distribution and extent of habitat – Darnrigg Moss

4.2.60 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 the impact on the distribution and extent of habitat outside the SPA caused by peatland restoration/habitat enhancement works would not cause an adverse effect on the population viability of Bean Geese and would not therefore adversely affect the integrity of the site.

- 140 - HRA Revised June 2020

Distribution and extent of habitat – Gardrum Moss

4.2.61 Gardrum Moss does not support habitats of much value 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.

Distribution and extent of habitat – Fannyside

4.2.62 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

4.2.63 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

4.2.64 There is no potential for the function of supporting habitats to be affected as a result of peatland restoration/ habitat enhancement at Darnrigg Moss, Gardrum Moss, Fannyside or Garbethill as peatland restoration projects would maintain or enhance the hydrological function of upland areas.

Mitigation

4.2.65 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 a Habitats Regulations Appraisal will be required of any proposals that are brought forward at Darnrigg Moss, Gardrum Moss, Fannyside or Garberthill.

2. This a Habitats Regulations Appraisal 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

4.2.66 These requirements are incorporated into the Site Schedule for the proposal through the following text: “For permission to be granted proposals must be accompanied by project-specific information to inform a Habitats Regulations Appraisal . This will allow Falkirk Council to complete an 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.”

- 141 - HRA Revised June 2020

Residual Effects

4.2.67 As this mitigation has been included in the Proposed Plan, it is concluded that could be minor residual effects arising from disturbance during 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 4.2.91 – 4.2.105 of this report.

- 142 - HRA Revised June 2020

GN19 – River Avon Corridor

Description of proposal

4.2.68 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

4.2.69 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

4.2.70 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 fields which have their centroid within 400m of the route.

4.2.71 The River Avon Corridor passed through fields 134A, 201, 203, 204, 206, 213, 216, 217, 218, 226, 228A, 229, 242, 247 & 249.

4.2.72 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.

- 143 - HRA Revised June 2020

Table 76: Bean Goose usage of fields along the River Avon Corridor

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 76 188 8899 0.85% 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%

13/14 237 0 0 9198 0% 0% 14/15 231 0 0 4963 0% 0% 15/16 263 0 0 6981 0% 0% 4.2.73 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 Viability

4.2.74 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 within the SPA

4.2.75 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 an adverse effect on species distribution.

Distribution and extent of habitat

4.2.76 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 will have an adverse effect on distribution and extent of habitat used by Bean Geese across the Slamannan Plateau.

Structure, Function and Supporting Processes of Habitat

4.2.77 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 - 144 - HRA Revised June 2020 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

4.2.78 Although it has not been used by Bean Geese in a long time, 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 won’t be used in the future by Bean Geese. Therefore, a number of mitigation measures are proposed to ensure that the use of the area surrounding the path by Bean Geese in the future is not compromised.

1. A site specific habitats regulations appraisal will be required of any path creation/ upgrading proposals that are brought forward along the River Avon Corridor between Avonbridge and Slamannan.

2. The HRA may include an Appropriate Assessment which 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

4.2.79 These requirements are incorporated into the Site Schedule for the proposal through the following text:

“For permission to be granted new access proposals must be accompanied by project-specific information to inform a habitats regulations appraisal . This will allow Falkirk Council to complete a habitats regulations appraisal 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

4.2.80 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 4.2.75 - 4.2.105 of this report.

- 145 - HRA Revised June 2020

Appropriate Assessment of in plan Likely Significant Effects in combination

Significant Recreational Disturbance to the Bean Geese Qualifying Interest of the Slamannan Plateau SPA

Description of proposals

4.2.81 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:

 H26 Avonbridge Road  H27 Main Street  GN19 River Avon Corridor

Qualifying Interest features of the Slamannan Plateau SPA likely to be affected

4.2.82 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

4.2.83 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

4.2.84 Housing proposals H26 & H27 have the potential to increase the population Slamannan by 132 people (assuming 2.2 people per new household).

4.2.85 In the latest settlement population estimates undertaken by Falkirk Council (August 2017) the population estimate for Slamannan in 2015 was 1389 people. The scale of growth promoted in the Proposed Plan could therefore amount to approximately a 10% increase in the population if the village

4.2.86 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.

4.2.87 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

Table 77: Bean Goose usage of fields surrounding Core Paths within the Slamannan Plateau

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% - 146 - HRA Revised June 2020

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% 13/14 237 1390 9198 15.11% 14/15 231 1152 4963 23.21% 15/16 263 639 6981 9.15%

4.2.88 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 9.15% and peaking at 32.59% in the 2011/12 season.

4.2.89 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.

4.2.90 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. 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

4.2.91 Core path 023/1002 is currently un-surfaced. Green Network opportunity GN19 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.

4.2.92 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

4.2.93 Although the two housing proposals and one green network opportunity highlighted at paragraph 4.2.75 will not act in combination to have an adverse effect on the integrity of 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

4.2.94 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 - 147 - HRA Revised June 2020 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.”

4.2.95 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

4.2.96 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.

- 148 - HRA Revised June 2020

Significant Disturbance to the Bean Geese Qualifying Interest of the Slamannan Plateau SPA During Construction

Description of proposals

4.2.97 Several of the proposals and opportunities within the Proposed Plan have the potential to cause disturbance to Bean Geese outside the SPA during construction:

 H27 Main Street, Slamannan  GN15 Braes Peatland and Wetland Restoration  GN19 River Avon Corridor

Qualifying Interest features of the Slamannan Plateau SPA likely to be affected

4.2.98 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

4.2.99 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

4.2.100 Mitigation wording has already been incorporated into the proposed plan for all three 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.

4.2.101 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.

4.2.102 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

4.2.103 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

4.2.104 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.”

- 149 - HRA Revised June 2020

4.2.105 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.”

4.2.106 As outlined in paragraph 4.2.96 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

4.2.107 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.

4.2.108 In May 2013 Forestry Commission Scotland 90ha area of land that lies between its 176ha site at Fannyside Muir, near Cumbernauld, and the nearby Fannyside Loch. As the land is now in the ownership of Forestry Commission Scotland there is no potential for peat extraction works at Fannyside Muir to recommence81.

Central Scotland Shooting School

4.2.109 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.

4.2.110 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.

4.2.111 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.

81 http://www.forestry.gov.uk/newsrele.nsf/WebPRByCountryLang/FA38F127ED0DDBC980257B730028804E - 150 - HRA Revised June 2020

Significant Disturbance of the Bean Geese Qualifying Interest of the Slamannan Plateau SPA from Increased Vehicular Traffic

Description of proposals

4.2.112 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:

 H25 – Slamannan Road, Limerigg  H26 – Avonbridge Road, Slamannan  H27 – Main Street, Slamannan

4.2.113 Proposals H25 – 27 have the capacity to deliver 110 new houses.

Qualifying Interest features of the Slamannan Plateau SPA likely to be affected

4.2.114 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

4.2.115 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 318 trips per 24hours;  the use of the B803 west of Slamannan would increase by 532 trips per 24 hours; and  The use of the B8002 east of Slamannan would increase by 585 trips per 24 hours.

4.2.116 The increase in traffic caused by the level of housing growth in the Proposed Plan will be significantly lower than that predicted above.

4.2.117 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.

4.2.118 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.).

4.2.119 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.

4.2.120 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 - 151 - HRA Revised June 2020 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.

4.2.121 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

4.2.122 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

4.2.123 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

4.2.124 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

4.2.125 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.

Conclusion

4.2.126 In total, 3 proposals within the Proposed Plan were identified as having a likely significant effect on the Slamannan Plateau SPA in their own right. It has been demonstrated that, with mitigation, these proposals will not adversely affect the integrity of the Slamannan Plateau SPA.

4.2.127 The minor residual effects of the Proposed Plan in relation to: significant recreational disturbance; significant disturbance during construction and significant disturbance from increased vehicular traffic have been assessed in combination with each other and it has been demonstrated that with mitigation, the Proposed Plan will not adversely effect the integrity of the Slamannan Plateau SPA.

4.2.128 The minor residual effects of the Proposed Plan have been assessed in combination with the minor residual effects of other plans and projects and it has been demonstrated that they will not act together to adversely effect the integrity of the Slamannan Plateau SPA.

- 152 - HRA Revised June 2020

4.3 Black Loch Moss SAC

Appropriate Assessment of Proposals with LSE alone

GN16 – 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. The route of the proposed path crosses part of the Black Loch Moss SAC. The area of blanket bog which the route crosses measures approximately 1.4 hectares. A detailed route of the proposed path has not yet been decided but there are existing farm tracks which currently traverse the SAC and could be upgraded to facilitate the round the Loch path.

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 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.

4.3.4 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

- 153 - HRA Revised June 2020

4.3.5 The path around the Loch could be routed to utilise existing farm tracks which traverse the SAC. This would ensure that no damage was caused to bog surface and typical plant species.

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:

 The feasibility of routing the new path to utilise existing farm tracks which traverse the SAC  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

4.3.10 These requirements are incorporated into the Site Schedule for the opportunity through the following text:

“For permission to be granted any new path proposals must be accompanied by project-specific information to inform an appropriate assessment. This will allow Falkirk Council to complete an 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

4.3.11 As this mitigation has been included in the Proposed Plan, it is concluded that Green Network opportunity GN16 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 below.

Appropriate Assessment of in plan Likely Significant Effects in combination

Damage to bog surface and typical plant species

Description of proposals

4.3.12 The following policies and proposals could act in combination to increase the use of the Black Loch area for outdoor recreation: - 154 - HRA Revised June 2020

 GN16 - Black Loch Access;  H25 - Slamannan Road, Limerigg;

4.3.13 Proposals H25 could deliver 50 new houses which at a rate of 2.2 people per house could increase the population of Limerigg by 110 people. In the 2011 mid year estimate Limerigg had a population of 233 so the scale of growth promoted in Limerigg could population of the village by about 50%.

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 Proposals H25 could increase the population of the village of Limerigg by around 50%, they could therefore act in combination with green network opportunity GN16 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 GN16 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

4.3.16 No further mitigation is considered to be necessary.

Residual Effects

4.3.17 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

4.3.18 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.

4.3.19 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

4.3.20 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 Development 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

4.3.21 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. - 155 - HRA Revised June 2020

Conclusion

4.3.22 1 proposal within the Proposed Plan was identified as having a likely significant effect on the Black Loch Moss SAC in its own right. It has been demonstrated that, with mitigation, this proposal will not adversely affect the integrity of the Black Loch Moss SAC.

4.3.23 The minor residual effects of the Proposed Plan in relation to damage to bog surface and typical plant species have been assessed in combination with each other and it has been demonstrated that with mitigation, the Proposed Plan will not adversely effect the integrity of the Black Loch Moss SAC.

4.3.24 The minor residual effects of the Proposed Plan have been assessed in combination with the minor residual effects of other plans and projects and it has been demonstrated that they will not act together to adversely effect the integrity of the Slamannan Plateau SPA.

- 156 - HRA Revised June 2020

4.4 River Teith SAC

Appropriate Assessment of Proposals with LSE alone

Table 78: Elements of the Proposed Plan with LSE alone for the River Teith SAC Reference Name IN19 Dalderse Waste Water Treatment Works BUS15 Grangemouth Docks West BUS16 Bo’ness Road BUS17 Wholeflats Road BUS18 Wholeflats Business Park

IN19 Dalderse Waste Water Treatment Works

Description of proposals

4.4.1 Dalderse WWTW will require to be upgraded to accommodate the scale of growth promoted in the Proposed Plan. The effluent discharge pipe from Dalderse WWTW is 5.1km upstream of the confluence of the River Carron and the River Forth.

Qualifying Interest features of the River Teith SAC likely to be affected

4.4.2 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

4.4.3 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).

4.4.4 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 is low enough to be a danger to their health then they will not enter the River Carron.

4.4.5 The effluent discharge pipe from Dalderse WWTW is 5.1km upstream of the confluence of the River Forth. SEPA have indicated that the level of dilution provided by the River Carron at the point of discharge from Dalderse WWTW is 3 to 1. 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.

4.4.6 The Dalderse WWTW proposal will not result in reduction of water quality which would adversely affect the migratory routes of Atlantic Salmon, Sea or River Lamprey and therefore their population viability will be maintained. The proposal will therefore not have an adverse affect on the integrity of the River Teith SAC.

Mitigation

4.4.7 Policy PE05 “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 - 157 - HRA Revised June 2020 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.

4.4.8 SEPA are currently required to carry out a separate HRA as part of the discharge licensing regime operated under the Controlled Activities Regulations.

4.4.9 The Dalderse WWTW proposal will not adversely affect the migratory routes of Atlantic Salmon, Sea or River Lamprey and therefore their population viability will be maintained. The proposal will therefore not have an adverse affect on the integrity of the River Teith SAC. It is not considered to be necessary to introduce any further mitigating wording into the Plan.

Residual Effects

4.4.10 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 4.4.125 – 4.4.137 of this report.

- 158 - HRA Revised June 2020

BUS15 Grangemouth Docks West

Description of proposals

4.4.11 Grangemouth Docks West sits within the Grangemouth Investement Zone one of four Strategic Business Locations identified within the LDP. The Grangemouth Investement Zone is highlighted as a National Development in NPF3 and focuses in part on the development of the port, where sites are available to support port related activities and associated intermodal distribution functions.

4.4.12 The proposals in the LDP permit development within three vacant or underused areas within the docks for port-related industry, storage and distribution, logistics, and 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.

4.4.13 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

4.4.14 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 – Piling

4.4.15 Development at Grangemouth Docks could involve coastal piling operations. Coastal piling operations could lead to rapid pressure changes in the zone influenced by piling operations. Rapid pressure changes can cause significant tissue damage to the swimbladder of an Atlantic Salmon which could lead in turn to death.

4.4.16 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 waves82. It is assumed that the piling operations could therefore result in a temporary localised obstacle to migrating Atlantic Salmon and cause their temporary displacement. 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 noise83. The width of the Firth of Forth from edge of the Grangemouth Docks West proposal is approximately 2.7km therefore a temporary obstacle of 400m surrounding Grangemouth Docks West would not impede the migration of Atlantic Salmon.

4.4.17 In the absence of mitigation, Atlantic Salmon in close proximity to piling operations could be killed and this could have an adverse effect on the viability of the population as a component of the River Teith SAC which could in turn have an adverse effect on the integrity of the site. In addition the temporary displacement of salmon is a minor residual effect which will be considered further in combination with other similar effects later in this report.

4.4.18 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

82 The Forth Replacement Crossing Report to Inform an Appropriate Assessment (November 2009) 83 Nedwell & Edwards (2004) - 159 - HRA Revised June 2020 operations84 , therefore river and sea lamprey are not likely to be adversely affected by the noise and vibration generated by construction.

Noise and Vibration – Increased Shipping Movements

4.4.19 The broad range of uses permitted by this economic development allocation (port related industry, storage and distribution, logistics and renewable energy) makes it difficult to predict what impact development would have on shipping movements. Approximately 9 million tonnes of cargo are currently handled through the dock facilities each year and the port handles approximately 150,000 containers per year. It would be reasonable to suggest therefore that this allocation is likely to lead to an increase in overall shipping movements but that there is already a very significant baseline of shipping movements. Atlantic Salmon, Sea and River Lamprey currently manage to migrate successfully along the Firth of Forth to the River Teith despite this significant baseline of shipping movements.

4.4.20 As a comparison, the recently approved Grangemouth Biomass development which involves the importation of 1.35 million tonnes of biomass fuels per annum is predicted to cause an increase of shipping movements of about 120 vessels per annum. The Habitats Regulations Appraisal of this development on the River Teith SAC carried out by the Scottish Government’s Energy & Climate Change Directorate did not identify noise and vibration caused by increased shipping movements associated with the development as a source of likely significant effect on the SAC. If this level of increased shipping movements is not considered to have a likely significant effect on the River Teith SAC, then the increase in shipping movements caused by the Grangemouth Docks West proposal (which is likely to be of a lesser magnitude) will not have a likely significant effect either.

Impact on Water Quality

4.4.21 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.

4.4.22 Pollution during operation could increase due to uncontrolled releases of oils fuels and chemicals from increased shipping traffic. Increased pollution due to increased shipping movements caused by the recently approved Grangemouth Biomass development was not considered likely to have a significant effect on the River Teith SAC. If this level of increased shipping movements is not considered to have a likely significant effect on the River Teith SAC, then the increase in shipping movements caused by the Grangemouth Docks proposal (which is likely to be of a lesser magnitude) will not have a likely significant effect either.

Sediment release

4.4.23 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.

4.4.24 In the absence of mitigation, dredging operations could lead to increased turbidity which could affect the migratory routes of Atlantic Salmon, Sea or River Lamprey and this could have an adverse effect on the viability of the population as a component of the River Teith SAC which could in turn have an adverse effect on the integrity of the site.

Mitigation

4.4.25 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 and ensure through a legally enforceable framework that they do not occur. 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.

84 The Forth Replacement Crossing Report to Inform an Appropriate Assessment (November 2009) - 160 - HRA Revised June 2020

4.4.26 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.

4.4.27 The Appropriate Assessment is likely to require a consideration of (but not necessarily be limited to) the following issues:  Ways of reducing the impact of piling on Atlantic Salmon (e.g. the installation of bubble curtains to prevent Salmon from entering the zone of influence; the use of soft start piling techniques; and conditioning day time working only, with breaks of work at weekends, to allow the fish enough time for safe passage)  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

4.4.28 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):

“For permission to be granted, proposals must be accompanied by a masterplan and project-specific information to inform a Habitats Regulations Appraisal. This will allow the competent authority to complete a 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.”

Residual Effects

4.4.29 As mitigation has been included within the Proposed Plan, it is concluded that the Grangemouth Docks West proposal will not adversely affect the migratory routes of Atlantic Salmon, Sea or River Lamprey and therefore their population viability will be maintained. The proposal will therefore not have an adverse affect on the integrity of the River Teith SAC. There will, however, be minor residual effects in relation to temporary displacement of salmon increased noise and vibration due to increased shipping movements, impact on water quality and increased localised turbidity due to sediment release. These effects in combination with other similar effects will be considered further in paragraphs 4.4.125 - 4.4.162 of this report.

- 161 - HRA Revised June 2020

BUS16 Bo’ness Road, BUS17 Wholeflats Road and BUS18 Wholeflats Business Park

Description of proposals

4.4.30 The Bo’ness Road and Wholeflats Road proposals relate 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 Investment Zone National Development, which highlights the potential to expand the port, logistics, manufacturing, chemicals and energy sectors including extensive opportunities for ‘co-location’ taking advantage of existing petrochemical/chemical cluster within Grangemouth.

Qualifying Interest features of the River Teith SAC likely to be affected

4.4.31 Atlantic salmon, river lamprey and sea lamprey are qualifying features of the SAC that are at risk of adverse effects from the Bo’ness Road, Wholeflats Road 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

4.4.32 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.

4.4.33 The exact nature of chemical/ biochemical/ industrial development that may take place within the Bo’ness Road, Wholeflats Road 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. In a worst case scenario a spillage of chemical/ biochemical/ industrial pollution could enter water courses surrounding the site, make its way into the Firth of Forth and impact on the migratory routes of Atlantic Salmon, Sea and River Lamprey to an extent that affected their population viability as a component of the River Teith SAC.

Mitigation

4.4.34 Project-specific habitats regulations appraisalswill 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 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.

4.4.37 Standard pollution control measures would significantly reduce the likelihood a spillage of chemical/ biochemical/ industrial pollution happening.

4.4.38 The habitats regulations appraisalsis 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. - 162 - HRA Revised June 2020

 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

4.4.39 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):

”For permission to be granted, proposals must be accompanied by a masterplan and project-specific information to inform a Habitats Regulations Appraisal. This will allow the competent authority to complete a 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.”

Residual Effects

4.4.40 As mitigation has been included within the Proposed Plan, it is concluded the Bo’ness Road, Wholeflats Road and Wholeflats Business Park proposals will not adversely affect the migratory routes of Atlantic Salmon, Sea or River Lamprey and therefore their population viability will be maintained. The proposasl will therefore not have an adverse affect on the integrity of the River Teith SAC. There will, however, 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 4.4.125 - 4.4.137 of this report.

- 163 - HRA Revised June 2020

Appropriate Assessment of in plan Likely Significant Effects in combination

Impacts on Water Quality

Description of proposals

4.4.41 The following policies and proposals could have minor residual effects on the River Teith SAC due to their potential to cause adverse impacts on water quality:

 PE12 – Canals  BUS15 – Grangemouth Docks West  BUS16 – Bo’ness Road  BUS17 – Wholeflats Road  BUS18 – Wholeflats Business Park  GN06 – River Carron Corridor Improvements  IN19 – Dalderse WWTW

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 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 79– Matrix of projects which could act in combination to impact on water quality PE12 BUS15 BUS16 BUS17 BUS18 GN06 IN19 PE12 BUS15 BUS16 BUS17 BUS18 GN06 IN19

4.4.43 Policies PE12 and proposals BUS15 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.

4.4.44 The nature of water quality impacts from sites BUS16, BUS17 and BUS18 are unknown at this stage, however as project specific Appropriate Assessment is required of these 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. These proposals 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.

4.4.45 Mitigation measures have already been introduced to a number of proposals (BUS15-18; and IN19) to ensure that the potential for water pollution during construction has been minimised. Green network opportunity GN06 was not considered to have a likely significant effect in its 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 GN06 and INF19 which are adjacent to each other. Both of these proposals could impact upon the water quality in the River Carron, however, 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.

- 164 - HRA Revised June 2020

4.4.46 It is therefore considered that the impact of these proposals in combination will not result in reduction in water quality in the Firth of Forth which would adversely affect the migratory routes of Atlantic Salmon, Sea or River Lamprey and therefore their population viability will be maintained. The proposal will therefore not have an adverse affect on the integrity of the River Teith SAC.

Mitigation

4.4.47 No further mitigation is considered to be necessary.

Residual Effects

4.4.48 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

4.4.49 Of the Habitats Regulations Appraisals that are available for the development plans of neighbouring Local Authority Areas, neither the Stirling Council LDP nor FifePlan predict tany minor residual effects on the River Teith SAC. The HRA of the National Renewables Infrastructure Plan predicts minor residual effects on the River Teith SAC but not through impact on water quality. The 2014 HRA for the West Lothian LDP does not identify projects that would have a likely significant effect or minor residual effects on a European Site .

4.4.50 The only plans for which an HRA is available which predicts minor residual effects on the River Teith SAC due to impacts on water quality are National Planning Framework 3, Clackamannanshire Council LDP and the Stirling LDP proposed plan. The provisions of those plans 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 80: 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 Clackmannanshire Council LDP– Changes to water quality The effects of pollution can Proposals M02, B12 & B14 arising from pollution be avoided via good during construction. construction practice. With this proposed mitigation in place and the requirement for all proposed developments to undergo project level HRA to ensure no adverse effects on the integrity of the site, only MRE are expected to remain. Level of dilution provided by the Firth of Forth means that there is no opportunity to act in combitation of the Proposed Plan Stirling LDP2 Proposed Plan – Water quality MRE due to impacts on Proposals H028, H053, H054 water quality identified. H061, H063, H065-067 H096, Water quality mitigation H131 H133, H138, H147, B06, identified as a key site B14, B44 B46 & City requirement. Development Framework City Development Framework will have to be accompanied by a habitats regs appraisal. Level of dilution provided by the Firth of Forth means - 165 - HRA Revised June 2020

that there is no opportunity to act in combitation of the Proposed Plan NPF3 - Carbon Capture and Non-toxic contamination - With the proposed Storage Network and Thermal increases in suspended mitigation in place and the Generation sediment and turbidity requirement for all potentially affecting marine proposed developments to habitats and species undergo project level HRA to ensure no adverse effects on the integrity of the site, only MRE are expected to remain.

NPF3 - Grangemouth Investment Grangemouth Docks West Piling carried out as part of Zone (BUS15) is an element of the Grangemouth Flood this National Development Defence Scheme could which is included within the cause increases in Proposed Plan and is suspended sediments and assessed earlier in the turbidity potentially report. affecting marine habitats Grangemouth Flood and species. With Defence Scheme is also mitigation these can be an element of this National reduced to minor residual Development. The HRA of effects. This effect in NPF3 devolved combination will be assessment of effects considered as part of the in combination assessment of sediment release later in this report. NPF3 - Freight Handling Capacity Non-toxic contamination - With the proposed on the Forth increases in suspended mitigation in place and the sediment and turbidity requirement for all potentially affecting marine proposed developments to habitats and species undergo project level HRA to ensure no adverse Toxic contamination - toxic effects on the integrity of effects on marine species the site, only MRE are from potential oil spillages expected to remain. etc.

Proposals

4.4.51 The following projects outside those included within the suite of development plans analysed in table 80 above were identified which could have an adverse effect on the water quality of the Firth of Forth:

Table 81: Other projects which could have an impact on the water quality of the Firth of Forth Project Status Comments Grangemouth b) projects A report entitled “Information to Inform a Habitats Biomass Plant given consent Regulations Assessment” (SKM Enviros 2012) did not but not yet identify any potential impacts upon the River Teith SAC, started; however it is understood that the conclusions of the report with regard to the River Teith SAC have been questioned85. An appropriate assessment for the project has been undertaken but is not publicly available. Rosyth c) projects that Although an appropriate assessment for the project is not Biomass Plant are subject to publicly available, given the distance between the Falkirk applications for Council area and the proposed Rosyth Biomass Plant and consent; the levels of dilution provided in the Firth of Forth, no in combination effects are predicted.

85 River Carron Fisheries Management Group 2012. The River Carron Estuary Tidal Survey - 166 - HRA Revised June 2020

4.4.52 It is therefore concluded that the impact of these plans and proposals in combination with the Falkirk LDP will not result in reduction in water quality in the Firth of Forth which would adversely affect the migratory routes of Atlantic Salmon, Sea or River Lamprey and therefore their population viability will be maintained. The proposal will therefore not have an adverse affect on the integrity of the River Teith SAC.

- 167 - HRA Revised June 2020

Noise and Vibration

Description of proposals

4.4.53 The following proposals have minor residual effects on the River Teith SAC due to noise and vibration:

Table 82: Delivery timescales of policies and proposals with MRE due to noise and vibration Reference Name Projected delivery timescale PE12 Canals Long term aspiration to increase recreational and commercial boat use of Canal infrastructure. Any increases are likely to take place once the Carron sea lock extension has been completed in 2014. BUS15 Grangemouth Docks West Construction could be ongoing from 2020 onwards dependant on the plans of the Port operators.

Qualifying Interest features of the River Teith SAC likely to be affected

4.4.54 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 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

Increased boat traffic

4.4.55 There is already a very significant baseline of shipping movements in the upper Forth Estuary caused, in the main by existing operations at Grangemouth Docks. Atlantic Salmon, Sea and River Lamprey currently manage to migrate successfully along the Firth of Forth to the River Teith despite this significant baseline of shipping movements. The Canals policy, and the proposals at Grangemouth Docks West are likely to lead to an increase in boat traffic using the Firth of Forth. The levels of increased boat traffic caused by the Canal’s policy is likely to be minimal compared to that which could be caused by the Grangemouth Docks West proposal. If it is to be consented then the Grangemouth Docks West proposal will have to investigate the impact of increased levels of shipping movements on the qualifying interest features of the River Teith SAC and demonstrate that it will not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the Site. If this has been done successfully then it is unlikely that the small increase in recreational boat traffic using the canals network will cause any significant increase over and above that caused by Grangemouth Docks West.

Mitigation

4.4.56 No further mitigation is considered to be necessary.

Residual Effects

4.4.57 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

Atlantic Salmon

4.4.58 As indicated in paragraph 4.4.5, 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.

4.4.59 The Grangemouth Docks West proposal is not at a point of the River Forth where the width of the river is under 800m. It is therefore concluded that the Proposed Plan will not act in combination with any - 168 - HRA Revised June 2020 other plans or projects to have an adverse effect on the integrity of the River Teith SAC through noise and vibration.

4.4.60 If developed concurrently, the noise and vibration caused by any piling activity associated with proposal BUS15 and the Grangemouth Flood Defence Scheme could act in combination to create an enlarged zone of potential disturbance. 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.

4.4.61 As indicated previously in paragraph 4.4.5 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. Mitigation such as bubble curtaining and soft start piling is likely to be implemented in proposals which involve coastal piling therefore the only minor residual effect of the projects is as a temporary localised obstacle to migrating Atlantic Salmon causing their temporary displacement. It is understood that Salmon prefer to migrate upstream close to the shore where flow velocities are reduced, therefore their temporary displacement into the inner channel of the Forth will use up more of their energy for migration.

4.4.62 An enlarged zone of potential disturbance causing temporary displacement of migrating Salmon is not the only minor residual effect. Multiple disturbances along the route of a Salmon’s migration could act in combination by using up even more of the salmon’s energy.

4.4.63 The potential for multiple disturbances is dictated by the timing of each proposal within the LDP which has the potential to cause noise and vibration. It is difficulat to predict the timing of potential piling operations at Grangemouth Docks West and ask part of the Grangemouth Flood Defence scheme, given the size of each proposal and the length of time it could be implemented over.

4.4.64 Atlantic Salmon will have travelled thousands of miles by the time they reach the Falkirk Council area and will expend much energy as they continue to travel up to the River Teith. Therefore, if they had to expend additional energy avoiding noise in the Firth of Forth then this would not be significant in the overall context of the migration.

Lamprey

4.4.65 As indicated previously at paragraph 4.4.7 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. However, if bubble curtaining is employed as mitigation to avoid adverse impacts on Atlantic Salmon, then Lamprey will also be subject to temporary displacement during coastal piling.

- 169 - HRA Revised June 2020

Sediment Release

Description of proposals

4.4.66 The following proposals have minor residual effects on the River Teith SAC due to sediment release:

Table 83: Delivery timescales of policies and proposals with MRE due to sediment release Reference Name Projected delivery timescale BUS15 Grangemouth Docks West Construction could be ongoing from 2020 onwards dependent on the plans of the Port operators. GN04 Bothkennar/Skinflats 2018-2020

Qualifying Interest features of the River Teith SAC likely to be affected

4.4.67 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

Release of sediments during construction

4.4.68 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.

4.4.69 The proposed management realignment at RSPB Skinflats will cause: “short-term increases in suspended sediment concentrations (SSCs) at the breach site due to the change in density of sediments on the bed (i.e. uncompact material through construction of the breach). However, any elevation in SSC will be localised and negligible compared to natural variation within the wider estuary given the high levels of suspended solids observed in the Forth.”86

4.4.70 Proposals BUS15 and GN04 are too distant from each other for there to be any prospect of sediments released during construction having any interaction with each other.

In combination assessment with other plans or proposals not contained in the Proposed Plan

Plans

4.4.71 Of the Habitats Regulations Appraisals that are available for the development plans of neighbouring Local Authority Areas have 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. The 2014 HRA for the West Lothian LDP does not identify projects that would have a likely significant effect or minor residual effects on a European Site 4.4.72 The only plans for which an HRA is available which predicts minor residual effects on the River Teith SAC due to sediment release are National Planning Framework 3 and the Clackmannanshire LDP – Proposed Plan. The provisions of those plans which have a minor residual effect through sediment release and their potential to act in combination with the Proposed Plan ares detailed in the table below:

Table 84: 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

Clackmannanshire LDP – Releases of soils during The closest of these

86 ABPmer (2018). Skinflats Reserve Managed Realignment Project, Environmental appraisal report, ABPmer Report No. R.2884. A report produced by ABPmer for RSPB Scotland, February 2018. - 170 - HRA Revised June 2020

Proposed Plan – Proposals M02 , construction that could act proposals is proposal B14 B02, B12, B13 & B14 to impair movement of river at the Kennetpans directly lamprey, sea lamprey across the river from Airth and/or Atlantic salmon WWTW (about 1km away). along the River Forth and With the proposed hence affect the mitigation in place and the populations of the requirement for all qualifying species as viable proposed developments to components of the site. undergo project level HRA to ensure no adverse effects on the integrity of the site, only MRE are expected to remain.

NPF3 - Carbon Capture and Non-toxic contamination – With the proposed Storage Network and Thermal increases in suspended mitigation in place and the Generation sediment and turbidity requirement for all potentially affecting marine proposed developments to habitats and species undergo project level HRA caused by land use to ensure no adverse change, piling and building effects on the integrity of construction the site, only MRE are expected to remain.

NPF3 - Grangemouth Investment Grangemouth Docks West Piling carried out as part of Zone (BUS15) is an element of the Grangemouth Flood this National Development Defence Scheme could which is included within the cause increases in Proposed Plan and is suspended sediments and assessed earlier in the turbidity potentially report. affecting marine habitats Grangemouth Flood and species. With Defences are another mitigation these can be element of this National reduced to minor residual Development which has effects.. the potential to cause Potential for in-comination sediment release. effects with the Grangemouth Flood Defence scheme considered in detail in paragraphs 4.4.73 – 4.477 NPF3 - Freight Handling Capacity Non-toxic contamination – With the proposed on the Forth increases in suspended mitigation in place and the sediment and turbidity requirement for all potentially affecting marine proposed developments to habitats and species undergo project level HRA caused by : building to ensure no adverse construction / demolition; effects on the integrity of Increased levels of vessel the site, only MRE are movement; Piling; and expected to remain. Dredging (and disposal of dredgings)

4.4.73 If construction of the Grangemouth Flood Defence Scheme occurs at the same time as the green network opportunity at Bothkennar/ Skinflats or the Grangemouth Docks West proposal then there is the potential for the sediments that they release to act in combination to produce increased levels of turbidity.

4.4.74 As noted previously elevation in suspended solid content caused by the Skinflats managed coastal realignment will be localised and negligible compared to natural variation within the wider estuary, so there is not considered to be any potential to act in combination with the Grangemouth Flood Defence Scheme.

4.4.75 Little is known about the levels of sediment release which could be released during the construction period of the Grangemouth Flood Defence Scheme, The HRA for NPF3 noted the potential for such effects, - 171 - HRA Revised June 2020 but as the proposals are at an early stage of their development, no detail exists to allow a meaningful assessment of in combination effects to be undertaken as part of this appropriate assessment. Proposals for the Grangemouth Flood Defence scheme will have to undergo an appropriate assessment in due course. 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.

Release of sediments due to dredging

4.4.76 Both the Grangemouth Flood Defence Scheme and the Grangemouth Docks West proposal 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.

4.4.77 As mentioned previously, proposals for the Grangemouth Flood Defence scheme will be further developed in advance of their eventual consent (or otherwise) under the the Flood Prevention (Scotland) Act 1961. 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.

Projects

4.4.78 The following projects outside those included within the suite of development plans analysed in table 84 above were identified which could have an adverse effect on the water quality of the Firth of Forth:

Table 85: Other projects which could cause sediment release into the Firth of Forth. Project Status Comments Grangemouth b) projects A report entitled “Information to Inform a Habitats Biomass Plant given consent Regulations Assessment” (SKM Enviros 2012) did not but not yet identify any potential impacts upon the River Teith SAC, started; however it is understood that the conclusions of the report with regard to the River Teith SAC have been questioned87. As yet an appropriate assessment for the project is not publicly available. Rosyth d) project that Although an appropriate assessment for the project is not Biomass Plant is subject to publicly available, given the distance between the Falkirk application for Council area and the proposed Rosyth Biomass Plant, no planning in combination effects are predicted. consent;

4.4.79 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.

Conclusion

4.4.80 In total, 5 proposals within the Proposed Plan were identified as having a likely significant effect on the River Teith SAC in their own right. It has been demonstrated that, with mitigation, these proposals will not adversely affect the integrity of the River Teith SAC.

4.4.81 The minor residual effects of the Proposed Plan in relation to: impacts on water quality; noise and vibration; and sediment release have been assessed in combination with each other and it has been demonstrated that with mitigation, the Proposed Plan will not adversely effect the integrity of the River Teith SAC.

4.4.82 The minor residual effects of the Proposed Plan have been assessed in combination with the minor residual effects of other plans and projects and it has been demonstrated that they will not act together to adversely effect the integrity of the River Teith SAC.

87 River Carron Fisheries Management Group 2012. The River Carron Estuary Tidal Survey - 172 - HRA Revised June 2020

4.5 Forth Islands SPA

Appropriate Assessment of in plan Likely Significant Effects in combination

4.5.1 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.

Significant disturbance of cormorants and shags

Description of proposals

4.5.2 Significant disturbance of cormorants and shags could occur from a number of sources: noise and vibration during construction; increased recreational opportunity at the coast; increased levels of coastal recreation; and increased shipping movements.

4.5.3 9 proposals could cause significant disturbance of cormorants and shags from noise and vibration during construction. If any two of these proposals were implemented simultaneously, particularly during the summer 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’ness;  INF19 allows for an upgrade to the Bo’ness Waste Water Treatment Works at Carriden;  INF15 Airth Waste Water Treatment works allows for the upgrade of the sewage treatment works;  INF22 Grangemouth Flood Defences allows for the upgrading of existing flood defence works;  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.

4.5.4 6 policies and proposals could cause significant disturbance through increasing recreational opportunity at the coast: D14; GN01 – GN04; and GN08

4.5.5 Details of the proposals GN01 – GN04 are provided at 4.5.3 above. There are also proposals to improve access along the River Carron Corridor (GN08). 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.

4.5.6 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.

4.5.7 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 miles 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.

4.5.8 3 policies and proposals could cause significant disturbance through increasing shipping movements within the Firth of Forth: D14, ED15 and M01. Details of the proposals ED15 and M01 are provided at 4.5.3 above. Details of policy D14 are provided at 4.5.6 above.

- 173 - HRA Revised June 2020

Qualifying interest features of the Forth Islands SPA likely to be affected

4.5.9 As discussed previously at paragraphs 3.3.52 – 3.3.54 , the offshore waters adjacent to the Council area may be of some importance to cormorants and shags. Cormorants and shags are also known to use inshore waters for feeding and to roost on manmade structures in coastal areas (harbours, pier walls etc).

Implications of the proposal for qualifying interest features of the Firth of Forth SPA in light of its conservation objectives

Significant disturbance of cormorants and shags from noise and vibration during construction.

Roosting

4.5.10 Proposals ED15; M01; INF19 and INF22 are in areas where potential roosting structures are present, however, bird surveys have been carried out which confirm that neither cormorants nor shags were present near Bo’ness Foreshore (M01); Grangemouth Flood Defence Scheme (INF22) or Grangemouth Docks (ED15) in summer months.

4.5.11 Only winter data is available in relation to the areas surrounding Bo’ness treatment works. These data indicate that the winter five year mean peak count of cormorants contributes less than 1% of that required for the site to qualify as of international importance. Although available data does not demonstrate that the area surrounding Bo’ness waste water treatment works is not an important roosting site for shags or cormorants, the low winter usage by cormorants and lack of any observed winter usage by shags, coupled with the fact that all nesting sites are at a considerable distance away in the outer Forth, suggests that the area surrounding Bo’ness waste water treatment works is of little importance for roosting shags and cormorants.

Feeding

4.5.12 Proposals GN02, GN03, GN04, and INF15 are in areas where the winter five year mean peak count of cormorants contributes 1% or more of that required for the site to qualify as of international importance.

4.5.13 Proposals GN01 and INF19 are in areas where the winter five year mean peak count of cormorants contributes less than 1% of that required for the site to qualify as of international importance.

4.5.14 Shags have not been recorded in any WeBS survey sector along the Falkirk Council coast during the wintering period.

4.5.15 During the breeding season the majority of feeding by cormorants and shags is likely to be closer to their nest sites in the outer Forth, therefore feeding areas along the Falkirk Council coastline are probably of limited importance to cormorants or shags during the breeding period. Additionally, as all cormorant and shag feeding is offshore, any increase in onshore construction disturbance is likely to have a very minimal effect on feeding. Consequently the effect of disturbance from construction along the Falkirk Council coastline during the breeding period will not adversely affect the population of cormorants and shags as a viable component of the Forth Islands SPA.

Significant disturbance of cormorants and shags from increased recreational opportunity at the coast

Roosting

4.5.16 None of the proposals which are likely to result in increased recreational opportunity at the coast are in areas where there are potential roosting structures. Significant disturbance of roosting cormorants or shags is therefore unlikely.

Feeding

4.5.17 Proposals GN02, GN03, GN04 & GN08 are in areas where the winter five year mean peak count of cormorants contributes 1% or more of that required for the site to qualify as of international importance. Policy D14 is also likely to increase recreational opportunity in this area

4.5.18 Proposals GN01 is in an area where the winter five year mean peak count of cormorants contributes less than 1% of that required for the site to qualify as of international importance.

- 174 - HRA Revised June 2020

4.5.19 Shags have not been recorded in any WeBS survey sector along the Falkirk Council coast during the wintering period.

4.5.20 During the breeding season the majority of feeding by cormorants and shags is likely to be closer to their nest sites in the outer Forth, therefore feeding areas along the Falkirk Council coastline are probably of limited importance to cormorants or shags during the breeding period. Additionally, as all feeding is offshore, any increase in people accessing the coast will have a very minimal effect on cormorant or shag feeding, even disturbance by dogs would be extremely localised and of minimal significance. Consequently the effect of disturbance from increased recreational opportunity along the Falkirk Council coastline during the breeding period will not adversely affect the population of cormorants and shags as a viable component of the Forth Islands SPA.

Significant disturbance of cormorants and shags from increased levels of coastal recreation caused by population growth within 2 miles of the coast.

4.5.21 During the breeding season the majority of feeding by cormorants and shags is likely to be closer to their nest sites in the outer Forth, therefore feeding areas along the Falkirk Council coastline are probably of limited importance to cormorants or shags during the breeding period. Additionally, as all feeding is offshore, any increase in people accessing the coast will have a very minimal effect on cormorant or shag feeding, even disturbance by dogs would be extremely localised and of minimal significance. Consequently the effect of disturbance from increased recreational opportunity along the Falkirk Council coastline during the breeding period will not adversely affect the population of cormorants and shags as a viable component of the Forth Islands SPA.

Significant disturbance of cormorants and shags from increased shipping movements

4.5.22 The increase in shipping movements caused by the Canals policy (D14) and the Bo’ness Foreshore proposal (M01) (both of which could cause a limited increase in small recreational vessel traffic) will be insignificant in comparison to the current baseline levels of shipping traffic using the Firth of Forth. The increase in shipping movements caused by the Grangemouth Docks proposal (ED15) is likely to lead to an increase in overall shipping movements but, as the port already handles approximately 150,000 containers per year, there is already a very significant baseline of shipping movements. The small number of breeding cormorants and shags feeding in the inner Forth are unlikely to suffer significant disturbance from existing shipping. Therefore, a small proportional increase in shipping movements will not cause a significant increase in disturbance which would adversely affect the population of cormorants or shags as a viable component of the Firth of Forth SPA and therefore the Forth Islands SPA.

Mitigation

4.5.23 As no adverse effects on the integrity of the Forth Islands SPA have been identified, no mitigation is considered to be necessary.

Residual Effects

4.5.24 It is concluded that with the mitigation outlined above, the proposals outlined in paragraphs 4.5.2 – 4.5.8 will not act in combination to have an adverse effect the population of cormorants as a viable component of the Forth Islands SPA and therefore site integrity will be maintained. There will however be minor residual effects due to disturbance caused by noise and vibration during construction; increased recreational opportunity at the coast; increased levels of coastal recreation; and increased shipping movements.

In combination assessment with other plans or proposals not contained in the Proposed Plan

NPF3

4.5.25 The HRA of NPF3 indicates that the: Strategic Airport Enhancements; Carbon Capture and Storage Network and Thermal Generation; Freight Handling Capacity on the Firth of Forth; and Grangemouth Investment Zone National Developments have the potential to affect the Forth Islands SPA. In all cases the HRA concludes that with the propsed mitigation in place and the requirement for all proposed developments to undergo projct level HRA to ensure no adverse effects on the integrity of the site, only minor residual effects are expected to remain

- 175 - HRA Revised June 2020

NRIP

4.5.26 The HRA of NRIP does not predict any minor residual effects due to disturbance of qualifying interest features of the Forth Islands SPA.

Development Plans

4.5.27 Of the development plans surrounding the Firth of Forth which have a link to the Forth Islands SPA for which HRA records have been produced (Dunfermline and West Fife Local Plan; Mid Fife Local Plan; St Andrews and East Fife Local Plan; and City of Edinburgh Council LDP Proposed Plan) none have recognised that their plans will have even a minor residual effect on cormorants or shags. It is therefore not possible to carry out an in combination assessment with these plans.

Rosyth Biomass Plant

4.5.28 Forth Energy submitted the Rosyth Renewable Energy Plant application to the Scottish Government for determination under Section 36 of the Electricity Act in November 2011 and this was consented in January 2014. The Environmental Statement submitted to support the application does not identify any potential for the development to impact on cormorants or shags. It indicates that the proposed Biomass Plant would result an increase in shipping movements in the Firth of Forth in the of the order of 80 vessels per annum i.e. one to two vessels per week and that this does not represent a significant increase relative to current levels. In combination with the Rosyth Biomass Plant project, disturbance caused by increased shipping movements as a result of the Proposed Plan, (which is likely to produce a small proportional increase in shipping movements on the Firth of Forth) will not adversely affect the population of cormorants or shags as a viable component of the Forth Islands SPA.

Grangemouth Biomass Plant

4.5.29 The HRA of the Grangemouth Biomass Plant did not identify any potential to impact on the Forth Islands SPA, Nonetheless the project documentation indicates that the proposed biomass plant would result an increase in shipping movements in the Firth of Forth in the of the order of 80 vessels per annum i.e. one to two vessels per week and that this does not represent a significant increase relative to current levels. In combination with the Grangemouth Biomass Plant project, disturbance caused by increased shipping movements as a result of the Proposed Plan, (which is likely to produce a small proportional increase in shipping movements on the Firth of Forth) will not adversely affect the population of cormorants or shags as a viable component of the Forth Islands SPA.

Conclusion

4.5.30 It has been demonstrated that the minor residual effects of the Falkirk LDP Proposed Plan on cormorants and shags due to disturbance from noise and vibration during construction; increased recreational opportunity at the coast; increased levels of coastal recreation; and increased shipping movements will not act in combination with other plans or projects to adversely affect the population of cormorants or shags as a viable component of the Forth Islands SPA and will therefore not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the site.

- 176 - HRA Revised June 2020

4.6 Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex pSPA

Appropriate Assessment of in plan Likely Significant Effects in combination

4.6.1 The following proposals are considered to have LSE alone on the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex pSPA

Table 86: Proposals with LSE alone and the survey sectors they impact on. Proposal Appropriate survey sector of the Grangenouth Flood Prevention Scheme Ornitholigy Survey Report 2015-2017 BUS15 Grangemouth Docks West 5,6,8 BUS16 Bo’ness Road 9,10 BUS17 Wholeflats Road 9,10 BUS18 Wholeflats Business Park 10 GN01 John Muir Way 11,12,13,14,15,16 GN03 Kinneil Kerse 11 GN04 Bothkennar Skinflats 3,4,5 GN06 River Carron Corridor Proposals 5 GN25 Outdoor Learning Sites – Kinneil 11,12 Foreshore

4.6.2 These proposals have all previously been through a process of appropriate assessment for their impact on the Firth of Forth SPA, and in all cases, with mitigation, no adverse effect on site integrity was identified.

4.6.3 The Firth of Forth SPA and the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex pSPA both identify: common eider, common scoter, goldeneye, red-breasted merganser, red-throated diver and slavonian grebe amongst their numberous qualifying interest features. This appropriate assessment will therefore not consider any further impacts upon these species.

4.6.4 No policies or proposals in the plan were identified as having LSE alone on the Forth Islands SPA

4.6.5 The Forth Islands SPA and the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex pSPA both identify: arctic tern, common tern, european shag, herring gull and northern gannet amongst their numerous qualifying interest features. This appropriate assessment will therefore not consider any further impacts upon these species.

4.6.6 The only qualifying interest features of the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex pSPA which are not also qualifying interest features of either the Firth of Forth SPA or the Forth Islands SPA are: black-headed gull; black-legged kittiwake; common gull; little gull and razorbill.

Razorbills and kittiwakes

4.6.7 The breeding concentrations and feeding grounds of razorbills and black-legged kittiwakes (with the exception of the occasional individual) are in the outer Forth well away from the Council Area. The projects identified in 4.6.1 as having a likely significant effect on the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrew’s Bay Complex pSPA will therefore have no effect on razorbills and kittiwakes.

Gulls

4.6.8 Table 87 below shows the recorded presence of pSPA species reported within the Grangenouth Flood Prevention Scheme Ornitholigy Survey Report 2015-2017. It is not known if these birds are part of the pSPA population or not.

Table 87: SPA species present within sectors 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 & 16 pSPA Present but >10% of WeBS 5- >10% of cited >10% of Above Species not in year mean peak SPA population WeBS count WeBS GB significant count but not >10% and cited SPA threshold numbers of WeBS count population population

- 177 - HRA Revised June 2020

and not of for national national importance importance Black-headed 3,6,8,12,13,14 4,5,9,10,11,15,16 gull Common gull 3,6,8,12,15 4,5,9,10,11,13,14,16 Little gull 15

4.6.9 The separation between the pSPA and the area of potential impacts of the LDP’s policies and allocations, the scale of any impacts to qualifying birds are likely to be more minor than those occurring on the Firth of Forth SPA or Forth Islands SPA.

4.6.10 Loss of supporting habitat - Given the vast areas of foraging habitat available to gulls across the Firth of Forth and its surrounding inland areas, and the fact the urban development often leads to the creation of new opportunities for foraging, it is considered that the Proposed Plan is unlikely to lead to any more than an insignificant loss of inland gull habitat outside the SPA.

4.6.11 Non-physical disturbance - As gulls are widespread throughout the Council area using a variety of natural and urban habitats, it can be concluded that only a tiny fraction of the available feeding and roosting resource for common gulls, black headed gulls and little gulls would be affected by disturbance from the proposals in the Proposed Plan due to noise and vibration during construction or increased recreational activity along the coast.

4.6.12 The increase in shipping movements caused by the Grangemouth Docks West proposal (BUS15) is likely to lead to an increase in overall shipping movements which will be dictated by the nature of development which comes forward on the site. For example, the approved Grangemouth Biomass Plant (which sits within the Grangemouth Docks West proposal site) will receive the bulk of its fuel from overseas. This would result in of the order of 80 vessels per annum i.e. one to two vessels per week. The port of Grangemouth already handles approximately 150,000 containers per year and as such there is already a very significant baseline of shipping movements. There is no evidence to suggest that ships or boats have any substantial impacts on feeding or roosting gulls.

In combination with other plans and projects

4.6.13 Paragraphs 3.3.53 – 3.3.67 of this draft HRA record assess the effect of the LDP on gulls in combination with other plans and projects and concludes that they will not act in combination to have a likely significant effect. Although this screening assessment was for different species of gull in a different SPA, in practical terms, any such effects on herring gull will be greater than those on the common, black-headed and little gulls due to the separation between the pSPA and the locations of impacts. Because of the even more insignificant effect on the qualifying common, black-headed and little gulls, It is concluded that the proposals shown as having a likely significant effect on the Outer Firth of Forth pSPA in table x above will have only minor residual effects on common, black headed and little gulls and that they will not act in combination with each other or with other plans and projects to have a an adverse effect on gulls as a viable component of the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex pSPA and will therefore not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the site.

Conclusion

4.6.14 It has been demonstrated that the minor residual effects of the Falkirk LDP Proposed Plan on gulls, razorbills and kittiwakes due to loss of supporting habitat; non physical disturbance and increased shipping movements will not act in combination with other plans or projects to adversely affect the population of gulls, razorbills and kittiwakes as a viable component of the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrew’s Bay Complex pSPA.

- 178 - HRA Revised June 2020 Appendix 1 - Copy of SNH correspondence dated 21 November 2018

Andrew McNair Falkirk Council Development Services Abbotsford House David’s Loan Falkirk FK2 7YZ

Sent by email via: [email protected]

Date: 21 November 2018 Our ref: CPP152524 / A2786977

Dear Mr McNair,

Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005 Falkirk Local Development Plan 2 – Proposed Plan

I refer to your consultation, received on 28 September 2018 via the Scottish Government SEA Gateway, in respect of the second Local Development Plan (LDP) for Falkirk. Our advice on the environmental assessment of the LDP is provided in the attached Annexes. Annex 1 sets out our response to the Revised Environmental Report and its appendices. Annex 2 sets out our response to the Habitats Regulations Appraisal (HRA) Record.

We have provided advice that applies to both documents in respect of HRA terminology. There are references throughout the Environmental Report and its Appendices and the HRA Record to “appropriate assessment”. The overall process of assessing impact of policy and proposals on Natura sites is Habitats Regulations Appraisal (HRA). Appropriate assessment is one of the latter stages of the overall process and references only to that stage should be avoided. We have submitted a representation to the Proposed Plan on this matter.

The HRA Record also includes a few references to policy and to status of other plans that are now out of date. We assume that this is largely because the previous HRA Record was used as a starting point. In general, we support using the previous assessment as a starting point but strongly recommend that all such drafting errors arising from reference to and use of the previous HRA Record are addressed in the final HRA Record. The HRA Record that accompanies LDP2 should be clear and easily read against the content of the LDP itself.

If you would like to discuss our response please contact Vivienne Gray on 0131 316 2644 or via [email protected] in the first instance.

Yours sincerely Paul Roberts Operations Manager, Forth Scottish Natural Heritage, Strathallan House, Castle Business Park, Stirling FK9 4TZ Tel: 01786 450 362 www.nature.scot

Dualchas Nàdair na h-Alba, Taigh Shrath Alain, Pàirc Gnothachais a’ Chaisteil, Sruighlea FK9 4TZ Fòn: 01786 450 362 www.nature.scot - 179 - HRA Revised June 2020

Annex 1 – Revised Environmental Report and Appendices

Our comments below are provided under the same headings as those used in the Environmental Report and its Appendices. In addition, we have advice based on an overarching observation regarding references to “appropriate assessment” throughout the Environmental Report and its Appendices. The overall process of assessing impact of policy and proposals on Natura sites is Habitats Regulations Appraisal (HRA). Appropriate assessment is one of the latter stages of the overall process and references only to that stage should be avoided. We have submitted a representation to the Proposed Plan on this matter.

Environmental Report

Section 5.4 – Assessment of Significant Environmental Effects – Vision We agree with the assessment of predicted effects set out under Objective 2 in section 5.4.2 Objectives – Thriving Communities. Predicted effects for Objective 3 note that providing infrastructure to meet increasing population needs will have a range of positive and negative effects. We generally agree but suggest that provision of digital infrastructure could have a positive effect on other issues, such as those outlined in section 5.4.1 through a reduced need to travel to work.

Section 5.5 – Assessment of Significant Environmental Effects – Spatial Strategy Section 5.5.1 Place sets out a predicted environmental effect for the Spatial Strategy that there should be significant positive effects on landscape “through the resulting investment in and improvements to the built and natural environment”. We generally agree with this assessment but consider that the Areas of Major Change could have significant negative effects due to landscape character change if Development Guidance for these is not adhered to. Similarly, we consider that the additional allocation at East Bonnybridge (site MU20) could have a significant negative landscape effect if Development Guidance is not prepared for that site. We have submitted a representation on that matter in response to the Proposed Plan.

Predicted environmental effects for the green and blue network set out at section 5.5.2 include potential disturbance to the qualifying interests of European designated sites. The nature of this potential effect is highly dependent on how the green and blue network is planned. Our advice is that a successful green network should help to reduce pressure on sensitive places as alternatives are created through its design and delivery.

Section 5.5.16 Business – Grangemouth Investment Zone The discussion of enhancement / mitigation in this section includes “Carry out further survey work at the South Bridge Street and Grangemouth Docks West sites to determine whether or not the land acts as supporting habitat to the Firth of Forth SPA and if it does then carry out an appropriate assessment which demonstrates that the sites can be developed without adversely affecting the integrity of the Firth of Forth SPA”. The trigger for further assessment, carried out as part of Habitats Regulations Appraisal, would be a likely significant effect being identified. The land acting as supporting habitat is not in itself a reason to require an appropriate assessment.

Section 5.5.24 Minerals Assessment of the predicted environmental effect at section 5.5.24 includes “Within the areas of search on the Slamannan Plateau, proposals could have a wide range of significant negative effects including on biodiversity…” Cross-referencing to the HRA Record, it appears that this effect includes the Slamannan Plateau Special Protection Area (SPA) and we advise that the SEA should have clearly set that out rather than referring to biodiversity as a catch- all term.

- 180 - HRA Revised June 2020

Section 5.6.4 Place and Environment – Natural Environment Policies

This section includes measures for enhancement / mitigation that “Enhancement will be provided in the form of supplementary guidance relating to green infrastructure, trees and landscape.” The supplementary guidance itself will not enhance place and environment and we assume that the enhancement and mitigation will be provided through setting of more detailed requirements in the supplementary guidance.

Section 6.2 Monitoring Proposals

We agree with the view taken on necessity of a separate, SEA specific Monitoring Register.

Environmental Report Appendix 1: Environmental Baseline Report

Table 1: SEA Objectives and Assessment Questions – Biodiversity

SEA Objective / Assessment Question Our advice Assessment Question: Does the option The aim should also be to maintain the enhance the wider Falkirk Integrated Habitat existing resource. Network? Objective: Prevent the further fragmentation It is not clear whether the 2008 study has of key habitat networks and contribute to been updated. While we support its use we improved habitat connectivity, guided by the note that its relevance, particularly in areas of Falkirk integrated habitat network study. change, will decline over time and recommend that measures are put in place for a review / update of the study. If this is not possible, an alternative should be found for future SEA Objectives. Objective: Avoid adverse effects on the The objective and the assessment question integrity of Natura 2000 sites mix two stages of the Habitats Regulations Appraisal process. Both should consider Assessment Question: Will the option have a whether adverse effects can be avoided or likely significant effect on any Natura 2000 not. site? Objective: Designate any unprotected sites It would have been useful to clarify whether which have particular biodiversity and nature this refers to local designations. SNH has no conservation value. plans to designate further sites in Falkirk Council area.

- 181 - HRA Revised June 2020

Table 2: Existing Environmental Data – Biodiversity

Assessment Our advice Creation of new woodland: The precursor to this conclusion on creation of new woodland in the absence of the LDP “Without the LDP therefore this opportunity is that the Central Scotland Green Network will diminish to the likely detriment of new (CSGN) has ambitious plans to increase woodland planting and other habitat creation woodland planting. While the LDP will play a opportunities.” role in delivery of these plans, we do not agree that the opportunity would diminish in its absence as there are a number of other policy statements and strategies which require planting, for example Scottish Government’s Control of Woodland Removal Policy. Biodiversity and Nature Conservation Value of We are unclear as to how the Open Space Urban Open Space: Audit fits into this assessment as we would “The identification of sites as protected open expect that to have leant rigour and space in the Falkirk Council Local Plan was transparency to the process. not a robust, systematic or transparent process.”

- 182 - HRA Revised June 2020

Map 2.2: Core Path Network

There appears to be an error in the background mapping of Map 2.2.

Table 14: Review of Existing Environmental Data – Material Assets

Assessment Our advice Renewable energy generation: The assessment should be: “…may have a significant impact on the Firth “…may have an adverse effect on site of Forth SPA.” integrity of…” And “…may have a significant impact on the Slamannan Plateau SPA.”

Table 18: Review of Existing Environmental Data – Landscape

Assessment Our advice The extent of land covered by Special Expansion of settlements should be Landscape Areas and the quality or considered in the context of an ‘all amenity value of these designations: landscapes’ approach rather than focussing only on those designated for the character “Further development and the expansion of and value. settlements will have the potential to change landscape character on the boundaries between special landscape areas.”

- 183 - HRA Revised June 2020

Environmental Report Appendix 2: Detailed Environmental Assessment Matrices

Allocation / Proposal Our advice Bo’Ness Proposals H01-H06, MU01-MU03: Species checks (we assume this refers to surveys) will not in themselves mitigate “Protected species checks should be carried significant environmental effects. To secure out at the Drum Farm North (H01) site to adequate mitigation if needed, surveys mitigate significant environmental effects on should inform species protection plans that biodiversity.” are submitted as supporting information to planning applications. This should be included as a requirement in Appendix 1, as needed. Denny and Dunipace Proposals H30-H35, If development at site H33 was likely to MU09: damage the protected natural features of the Carron Glen SSSI, consent would be “Development undertaken at the Carrongrove required from SNH to allow that operation to Mill (H33) site should be undertaken proceed. This requirement should be clearly sensitively to avoid adversely impacting on expressed. the Carron Glen SSSI and mitigate significant environmental effects on biodiversity.” Rural North Proposals H48-H52: The trigger for further assessment, carried out as part of Habitats Regulations Appraisal, “Developments at the Glebe (H50) site would be a likely significant effect being should be accompanied by bird surveys identified. The land acting as supporting which clarify the role of the sites as habitat is not in itself a reason to trigger an supporting habitat to the Firth of Forth SPA to appropriate assessment. mitigate significant negative effects on biodiversity.” Falkirk Investment Zone BUS05-07, MU16: The HRA Record identifies in-combination effects for site MU16 due to increased “Development at the Falkirk Gateway (MU16) recreation. The proposal to enhance the site should investigate opportunities to recreational amenity may therefore require enhance the riparian environment and further consideration. recreational amenity of the Forth and Clyde Canal to ensure positive effects on biodiversity and population and human health.” Grangemouth Investment Zone Proposals The trigger for further assessment, carried BUS12-BUS18: out as part of Habitats Regulations Appraisal, would be a likely significant effect being “Development proposals at the South Bridge identified. The land acting as supporting Street and Grangemouth Docks West habitat is not in itself a reason to trigger an (BUS14, BUS15) sites should be appropriate assessment. accompanied by bird surveys which clarify the role of the sites as supporting habitat to the Firth of Forth SPA to mitigate significant negative effects on biodiversity.”

Appendix 2 provides a detailed and useful assessment of impacts and required enhancement/mitigation. However, we take this opportunity to note that the general presentation of advice in the assessment and enhancement/mitigation columns of the matrices made reading across in relation to individual sites difficult in places.

- 184 - HRA Revised June 2020

Annex 2 – Habitats Regulations Appraisal

Our comments below are provided under the same headings as those used in the Habitats Regulations Appraisal (HRA) Record.

As noted above in relation to the Updated Environmental Report, we advise that references to “appropriate assessment” throughout the HRA Record should be amended. The overall process of assessing impact of policy and proposals on Natura sites is Habitats Regulations Appraisal (HRA). Appropriate assessment is one of the latter stages of the overall process and references only to that stage should be avoided. We have submitted a representation to the Proposed Plan on this matter.

Table 1: Key Stages of Habitats Regulations Appraisal Table 1 includes Stages 6 and 7 and the addendum to Stage 8 of it being required “if likely significant effects still likely after mitigation has been applied”. The recent judgement in the Court of Justice of the EU (C-323/17 People over Wind and Sweetman v Coillte Teoranta) means that there have been changes to these stages.

The ruling in case C-3232/17 was that it is not appropriate, at the screening stage, to take account of measures intended to avoid or reduce the harmful effects of a plan or project on a Natura site. This means that applying mitigation measures at Stage 6 is no longer competent and that any part of a plan or project that requires mitigation measures to avoid or reduce identified effects must be taken forward into appropriate assessment (or Stage 8 of HRA)1.

We provide this advice here in the interests of clarity and note that in the case of the HRA Record for the Proposed Plan, no mitigation was applied at Stage 6 and therefore there are no changes required to the HRA Record in that respect.

1.3 Stage 1 – Should the Proposed Plan be subject to HRA? Paragraph 1.3.2 includes reference to the Waddenzee judgement as providing the most up to date interpretation of the law in respect of the HRA process. As set out in our advice on Table 1 of the HRA Record, the recent People Over Wind judgement should also be regarded as key, up to date interpretation of the law.

Table 13 – Projects referred to in but not proposed by the plan The HRA Record notes that “This HRA cannot usefully add any further detail to the assessment carried out in the NPF3 HRA.” We agree but suggest that it may be useful to clarify that further assessment is deferred to project level.

Table 14 – Elements intended to protect the environment The description against Policy PE21 The Water Environment reads as though there is reliance on a single policy with a Natura caveat. In reference to paragraph 5.25 of our HRA Guidance, it is recommended that plan-making bodies do not rely on a general policy in the plan aimed at protecting Natura sites. There appears to be some difference between the HRA of the Proposed Plan and the Proposed Plan itself as we note that Policy PE22 The Water Environment does include the required caveat.

As a general, overarching comment based on the above, we strongly recommend that all such drafting errors arising from reference to and use of the previous HRA Record are addressed in the final HRA Record. The HRA Record that accompanies LDP2 should be clear and easily read against the content of the LDP itself.

1 https://www.nature.scot/sites/default/files/2018-09/Planning%20and%20Development%20e-bulletin%20- %20September%202018%20-%20People%20over%20Wind%20case%20and%20SG%20Ramsar%20policy_0.pdf

- 185 - HRA Revised June 2020

Table 17 – Elements that will have a minor residual effect The description of potential disturbance for qualifying interests of the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex pSPA is overly cautious. In the case of GN02 Antonine Wall Trail it is unlikely that the proposal would affect feeding as the qualifying interests of this site feed in offshore waters.

The assessment of housing proposals in relation to Forth Islands SPA notes that there could be a minor residual effect as the proposals within 2 miles of the coast could lead to increased recreational use that would lead to disturbance during feeding and loafing. The JNCC data form for the Forth Islands SPA identifies recreation within the SPA as a threat; coastal recreation within the Falkirk Council area is therefore unlikely to undermine the Conservation Objectives of the SPA.

Stage 7 – Re-screening the Plan The HRA Record notes at paragraph 3.2.1 that no screening stage mitigation measures have been identified. In reference to page 27 of our HRA Guidance, this should mean that Stage 7 is not required and that all policy and proposals not screened out in earlier stages would proceed to Stage 8 and appropriate assessment. This therefore means that this section of the HRA Record should either be treated as a more in-depth look at screening or as part of the appropriate assessment.

The first sentence of paragraph 3.3.1 does not make sense as earlier sections have stated that no mitigation was applied at screening stage.

Table 25 – Projects which are likely to result in reduced water quality within the Firth of Forth This table and those following, state that the West Lothian LDP has no HRA available. This is not true as the West Lothian LDP was subject to early screening stages of HRA but, as no connectivity was found, it did not proceed further through the HRA process.

Table 36 – pSPA species recorded in the Falkirk Council area This table requires a key to explain what information shaded vs unshaded cells are showing.

Table 58 – Elements of other plans likely to result in the loss of habitats which could be used by pink footed geese We understand that the plans for West Lothian and East Lothioans are adopted.

Paragraph 4.1.139 This paragraph refers to the draft HRA of the Edinburgh LDP. Edinburgh’s HRA Record was finalised in 2016 and it is too early in the preparation process of their second LDP for there to be a draft HRA.

- 186 - Andrew McNair Appendix 2 - Copy of SNH Falkirk Council correspondence dated 5 June Development Services 2020 Abbotsford House David’s Loan Falkirk FK2 7YZ

Sent by email via:

Date: 05 June 2020 Our ref: A3244328

Dear Andrew,

Falkirk Local Development Plan 2 Revised Habitats Regulations Appraisal Record – May 2020

Thank you for sending us a copy of the revised Habitats Regulations Appraisal (HRA) Record. This has been amended to take account of recommended modifications to the Plan as a result of its Examination.

Having read the amended HRA, we agree with the Council’s conclusion that the various elements of the Plan will either have no likely significant effects on European sites, or will not adversely affect the integrity of European sites, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects.

As we have discussed, we have recommended some minor edits to the text to reflect the UK’s departure from the EU. These changes do not alter the overall outcome of the assessment.

We would like to take this opportunity to thank you for the cooperative approach taken to steering the Local Development Plan through the requirements of the Habitats Regulations.

If we can be of any other assistance, please do not hesitate to get in touch.

Yours sincerely

Vivienne Gray Planning Advisor Supporting Good Development Team

Scottish Natural Heritage, Silvan House, 3rd Floor East, 231 Corstorphine Road, Edinburgh EH12 7AT Tel: 0131 316 2600 www.nature.scot

Dualchas Nàdair na h-Alba, Taigh Silvan, 3mh Làr an Ear, 231 Rathad Chros Thoirphin, Dùn Èideann EH12 7AT Fòn: 0131 316 2600 www.nature.scot