Scottish Natural Heritage Habitats Regulations Appraisal (HRA) on the Firth of Forth A Guide for developers and regulators Contents Section 1 Introduction 1 Introduction 1 Section 2 Potential Pathways of Impact 3 Construction 3 Operation 3 Table 1 Generic impact pathways and mitigation to consider 4 Section 3 Ecological Principles 6 Habitats and physical processes 6 Management of the environment 7 Land claim and physical management of the intertidal 7 Dredging 8 Disturbance – its ecological consequences 9 Types of disturbance 9 Disturbance whilst foraging 10 Disturbance at roosting sites 10 Habituation and prevention 11 Section 4 Habitats Regulations Appraisal (HRA) 12 Natura 2000 12 The HRA procedure 12 HRA in the Firth of Forth area 12 Figure 1 The HRA process up to and including appropriate assessment 14 The information required 15 Determining that there are no adverse effects on site integrity 15 Figure 2 The HRA process where a Competent Authority wishes to consent to a plan or project, but cannot conclude that there is no adverse effect on site integrity 16 Section 5 Species Accounts for Qualifying Interests 17 Birds – an explanation of the account sections 17 Conservation Status 17 Origin 18 Behaviour 18 Diet 18 Habitat 18 Distribution 18 Seasonality 18 Pressures 18 Population trends 19 Marine Mammals and Fish 19 Pink footed goose 20 Shelduck 21 Wigeon 22 Mallard 23 Scaup 24 Eider 25 Long-tailed duck 26 Common scoter 27 Velvet scoter 28 Goldeneye 29 Red-breasted merganser 30 Red-throated diver 31 Fulmar 32 Manx shearwater 33 Gannet 34 Great cormorant 35 Shag 36 Great crested grebe 37 Slavonian grebe 38 Oystercatcher 39 Golden plover 40 Grey plover 41 Lapwing 42 Ringed plover 43 Curlew 44 Bar-tailed godwit 45 Turnstone 46 Knot 47 Dunlin 48 Redshank 49 Puffin 50 Razorbill 51 Guillemot 52 Sandwich tern 53 Common tern 54 Roseate tern 55 Arctic tern 56 Kittiwake 57 Black-headed gull 58 Little gull 59 Common gull 60 Lesser black-backed gull 61 Herring gull 62 Bottlenose dolphin 63 Harbour seal 64 Grey seal 65 Atlantic salmon 66 Sea lamprey 67 River lamprey 68 Introduction The purpose of this guide is to help developers and regulators meet the requirements of the Habitats Regulations on the Forth when first considering proposals. It does this by drawing together and presenting information on qualifying interests, explaining basic principles of ecology and the most important impact pathways. It considers the issues involved in carrying out projects on the Firth of Forth that affect qualifying interests of associated Natura sites, such as the Firth of Forth Special Protection Area (SPA) or the River Teith Special Area of Conservation (SAC). We hope it will help in making decisions about projects, including how to avoid or mitigate impacts on Natura sites before proposals become so defined that solving problems is more expensive and difficult. It is not however, an exhaustive “how to” guide to carrying out Habitats Regulations Appraisal (HRA) or associated Appropriate Assessments (AA). It simply introduces broad principles to consider. Links to formal guidance are provided throughout this document and these should be used when carrying out HRA. The Forth is the most substantial estuary on the east coast of Scotland. It stretches around 55 miles between the flood plain around Stirling and Kincardine to the open sea and cliffs characteristic of the mouth of the Firth. Between these is a mosaic of coastal habitats and settlements that accommodates a wide range of species. It is a complex area with a number of management challenges. It is surrounded by areas of high population and heavy industrial development alongside areas of countryside and farmland. It provides a range of services including provision of resources such as food, flood management, recreation opportunities, energy and trade opportunities. These sometimes competing demands need to be balanced against each other. Under the Habitats Regulations, decision makers (known as competent authorities in the legislation) can only agree to development proposals which are unconnected with the nature conservation management of the site after having confirmed that they will not affect the integrity of the Natura site. The process of coming to this judgement is commonly referred to as Habitats Regulations Appraisal (HRA). If this is not the case and there are no alternative solutions, the proposal can only be allowed to proceed if there are imperative reasons of over-riding public interest (IROPI) - (see pages 15-16 for more detailed explanation). Development around the Firth often has potential to affect Natura qualifying interests and therefore requires HRA. The size and diversity of the Natura sites which could be affected by development on or around the Forth means that assessment of potential impacts can seem complex and daunting. This guide will make HRA simpler by presenting common themes and issues which can help to focus thinking when considering impacts. Recent EC guidance1 2 has highlighted that many of the delays and problems encountered in AAs are caused by incomplete or deficient information gathering and provision, meaning competent authorities cannot confirm that there are no adverse effects on site integrity. 1 Wind Energy Developments and Natura 2000; (EC, Luxembourg; 2011, page 74). http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/Wind_farms.pdf 2 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/Estuaries- EN.pdf 1 This guidance document is intended to help with the collating of information to support HRAs in the area of the Firth of Forth. There are some key things to consider at the earliest opportunity. What is the development in its entirety? Could works involve impact pathways to the qualifying interests of Natura sites? If so can they be modified in location, scale, nature or timing to avoid the impact pathway entirely? To consider these issues, it is helpful to have a basic understanding of the qualifying species’ ecological requirements and how they might be affected by development. Some aspects of ecology are obvious – for instance bottlenose dolphin don’t roost in trees. However many of the qualifying interest bird species of the SPA are also unlikely to be found in trees, being birds of open water, intertidal habitats or grassland. This may also seem obvious to an ecologist but will be less so for developers, regulators and specialist in other fields. We hope that the species accounts in this document will help provide simple information on the ecology of the interests. 2 Potential Pathways of Impact Examples of common ways in which a proposal can have an effect on the qualifying interests in the Forth. Construction Permanent or temporary habitat loss/deterioration. Disturbance (noise and visual) and displacement from people or machinery; Underwater noise and vibration impacts from piling & construction, and traffic movements (including shipping) during construction. Reduced water quality (including increased suspended solids, reduced dissolved oxygen and release of contaminants) from piling, deposition of polluting materials and dredging. Changes to coastal processes, e.g. hydrology and sedimentation. Operation Disturbance (noise and visual) from people, machinery and increased ship traffic and displacement. Lighting. Changes to coastal processes, e.g. hydrology and sedimentation. In many cases these effects do not work independently and the way they interact needs to be considered. For example land-claim and dredging may lead to changes in coastal processes, sediment deposition and water flows. Some may be temporary. Other pathways may be a risk throughout the life of a development from construction onward, such as the risk of introducing damaging invasive non-native species (INNS). The table below identifies generic actions that have the potential to mitigate or avoid some of the commonly occurring potential impacts on the Firth of Forth. This generic mitigation may not be applicable in all cases but will provide a starting point for consideration. Thinking about the ecological principles that cause these pathways to have impacts may also be useful in arriving at solutions. A basic discussion is provided in the next section – we have not tried to discuss every issue but aim to deal with some of the more fundamental ones. The discussion largely focuses on birds but the principles discussed apply to other qualifying interests. More detailed consideration may be needed in practice than set out in the summary table; the specifics of the proposal are important considerations and mitigation needs to be specifically tailored to focus on the relevant impacts. 3 Table 1 Generic impact pathways and mitigation to consider Generic Impact Potential Generic Mitigation Damage to intertidal habitat through run-off or SNH advice, Scottish Government & pollution. SEPA guidance such as SEPA pollution prevention guidance or Scottish Government "Scotland's environment" estuaries page. Direct loss of intertidal habitat within the Natura No generic mitigation. site and supporting qualifying interests. Avoid if at all possible or accept that it is difficult to mitigate without creating alternative compensatory habitat and failing the initial Natura tests. (see figure 2) Indirect loss of intertidal habitat within the Where a proposal would affect Natura site and supporting qualifying interests coastal processes modelling of the (for example as a consequence of changed coastal processes should be used to coastal processes).