6 nature conservation - transport scotland– sg natural environment 1 – protection of nature...

Transport Scotland — A96 Inveramsay Bridge Improvement

ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT

April 2013

Nature Conservation 6-1

6 NATURE CONSERVATION

6.1 Introduction

This Chapter describes and evaluates the impacts of the A96 Inveramsay Bridge Improvement Scheme (“the Scheme”) on ecological receptors. Direct impacts on ecological receptors resulting from activities that are an integral part of the project will be considered in this ecological impact assessment. In addition, the indirect and cumulative effects are examined. The duration of the impact (e.g. permanent or temporary and short, medium or long-term), and sensitivity of receptor are taken into account. The legislative requirements associated with the presence of particular features are also described, as are recommendations for mitigation measures to minimise negative impacts. This chapter should be read in conjunction with Chapter 5 – Landscape, and Chapter 10 – Road Drainage and the Water Environment as some elements of mitigation are integrated within each chapter.

6.2 Approach & Methods

6.2.1 Plans & Policies

Planning policy exists at national, regional and local levels. Current planning policy and guidance relevant to nature conservation and this Development is listed below:

National Planning Framework 2 NPF2 aims to co-ordinate policies of a spatial nature with investment priorities. Biodiversity is stated as one of the factors contributing to the core objective of sustainable economic development. The National Actions include delivery of a Scottish Forest Strategy and development of a National Ecological Network.

Scottish Planning Policy highlights the importance of biodiversity for natural services, sustainability and the Scottish economy. As well as emphasising the biodiversity duty of planning authorities, and covering the protection of designated sites and species, it also makes the following critical points:

– Planning authorities should take a broader approach to landscape and natural heritage than just conserving designated or protected sites and species, taking into account ecosystems and natural processes in development plans and planning decisions.

– Planning authorities should apply the precautionary principle where the impacts of a proposed development are uncertain but there is sound evidence for believing that significant irreversible damage could occur.

– Benefits should be sought for species and habitats from new development including the restoration of degraded habitats.

– Connectivity between habitats should be encouraged, through green networks. Planning authorities should seek to prevent further fragmentation of habitats and restore broken links.

– Woodland and trees of high nature conservation value should be protected and enhanced.

Scotland’s Climate Change Adaptation Framework includes the following relevant actions: restoration of natural processes and promotion of wetland networks; development of habitat networks (including woodland); improvement of habitat condition



April 2013


(including woodland); and promotion of forests for climate change adaptation, flood management and diffuse pollution mitigation.

Aberdeen City & Shire Structure Plan (2009). The 2009 Structure Plan includes the following targets for maintaining and enhancing Aberdeenshire’s environmental quality, biodiversity and habitats: to make sure that development improves and does not lead to the loss of, or damage to, built, natural or cultural heritage assets; and to avoid new development preventing water bodies achieving ‘good ecological status’ under the Water Framework Directive.

Proposed Aberdeen City & Shire Strategic Development Plan (2013). The Proposed SDP recognises that the Aberdeenshire’s “biodiversity, wildlife habitats and landscape can be vulnerable to the effects of new development. As a result, we need to focus on maintaining and improving them, especially where there are plans for development”. Main targets include: to make sure that development improves and does not lead to the loss of, or damage to, built, natural or cultural heritage assets; and to avoid new development preventing water bodies achieving ‘good ecological status’ under the Water Framework Directive.

Aberdeenshire Local Development Plan (2012) Aberdeenshire adopted its new Local Development Plan (LDP) in June 2012. The LDP consists of a main policy document accompanied by proposals maps and is also supported by Supplementary Guidance documents policies. The LDP contains a number of policies that should be considered as part of the EIA process which are outlined below:

– SG Natural Environment 1 – Protection of nature conservation sites

We will not approve new development where it may have an adverse effect on a nature conservation site designated for its biodiversity or geodiversity importance, except in the following circumstances. A. In the case of an internationally important site, where a Habitat Regulations Assessment has concluded that: 1) the development will not adversely affect the integrity of the site; OR 2) it has been demonstrated that: i) there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest for permitting the development, including reasons of a social, environmental or economic nature; AND ii) there is no satisfactory alternative site or solution; AND iii) suitable compensation measures will be implemented. B. In the case of a site of national importance, where a thorough assessment of the site has demonstrated that:- 1) any significant adverse effects on the qualities for which the area has been designated are clearly outweighed by social, environmental or economic benefits of national importance; AND 2) the objectives of the designation and the overall integrity of the area will not be compromised; AND 3) any impact will be suitably mitigated. C. In the case of any other recognised nature conservation site, wetlands or Ancient, Long Established or Semi-Natural Woodlands, where a thorough assessment of the site has demonstrated that: 1) the proposal’s public benefits at a local level clearly outweigh the nature conservation value of the site; AND



April 2013


2) any impact will be suitably mitigated. Where the impacts of a development on an international or national natural heritage resource are uncertain, but there are good scientific grounds that significant irreversible damage could occur, the precautionary principle will apply. The applicant should modify the development to eliminate the risk of irreversible damage.

– SG Natural Environment 2 – Protection of the wider biodiversity and geodiversity

A. We will only approve development, subject to other policies, if the applicant has also: 1) identified measures that will be taken to enhance biodiversity and geodiversity in proportion to the potential opportunities available and the scale of the development in line with good practice (this should include habitat creation and management, and the restoration of habitats and wildlife networks, where possible, incorporating existing habitats); 2) included an ecological management plan, where required; AND 3) demonstrated that due regard has been given to the extent of organic and organic-rich soils on sites, to limit loss of soil carbon and the potential contribution of soil disturbance to greenhouse gas emissions. B. We will not approve development that would be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of a European Protected Species at a favourable conservation status in its natural range. In the case of development that is likely to have an adverse effect on a European Protected Species, we will only approve it, where a thorough assessment of the site has demonstrated that: 1) the development is required for preserving public health or public safety or for other imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature; AND 2) there is no satisfactory alternative site or solution; AND 3) any impact will be suitably mitigated. C. We will not approve development that would be likely to have an adverse effect on a species protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 unless the development is required for preserving public health or public safety. For development affecting a species of bird protected under the 1981 Act there must also be no other satisfactory solution. In the case of development that is likely to have a significant adverse impact on habitats listed in Annex 1 of the Habitats Directive, on semi-natural habitats or species of importance to biodiversity, or on areas of importance to geodiversity, we will only approve it, where a thorough assessment of the site has demonstrated that: 1) its public benefits at a local level clearly outweigh the value of the habitat for biodiversity conservation or of the site for geodiversity; AND 2) the development will be sited and designed to minimise adverse impacts on its environmental quality, ecological status or viability; AND 3) there will be no fragmentation of habitats as a result of the development; AND 4) any impact will be suitably mitigated. Where the impacts of a development on an international or national natural heritage resource are uncertain, but there are good scientific grounds that significant irreversible damage could occur, the precautionary principle will apply. The applicant should modify the development to eliminate the risk of irreversible damage.



April 2013


6.2.2 Desk Study

Baseline information has been collated through desktop research involving a number of sources. Details on statutory site designations and ancient woodland were obtained via the SNH SiteLink and Natural Spaces web pages (http://www.snh.gov.uk/publications-data-and-research/snhi-information-service/) and are provided in Figure 1.2 – General Environmental Constraints. Sites deemed of relevance were those within 2km of the Scheme for statutory designated sites, and within 500m for non-statutory sites and features.

Information regarding relevant protected and notable species was gained via the NBN Gateway (http://data.nbn.org.uk/), North East Scotland Biological Records Centre (http://nesbrec.org.uk/index.php), NE Scotland Biodiversity Action Plan (http://www.nesbiodiversity.org.uk/publications/), UK Biodiversity Action Plan (http://ukbars.defra.gov.uk/plans/national.asp), and the JNCC Taxon Designation spreadsheet (http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-3408).

In addition to the Information provided directly by consultees, or contained within on-line databases (e.g. the National Biodiversity Network Gateway http://data.nbn.org.uk/), further desk-based information on habitats and species of was obtained from data providers (listed in Chapter 3 – Scoping and Consultation Table 3.2.

6.3 Consultation Responses

Consultation responses are summarised in Chapter 3 – Scoping and Consolation and copies of consultation responses can be found in Appendix 3.1 – Consultation Responses.

6.4 Field Surveys

The scope of the fieldwork was informed by desk-based research, consultations with statutory and non-statutory consultees, an initial Extended Phase 1 walkover survey undertaken during the options assessment stage of the project, and the timescale of the study.

Initial scoping consultation was carried out with SNH, to determine the scope of the ecological survey requirements and to highlight the pertinent issues of this Scheme. A response from SNH (Estelle Gill, Area Officer Tayside and Grampian) was received on the 8th July 2011, who advised that survey and assessment should be undertaken for bats, badger, otter, red squirrel, water vole other protected mammals and breeding birds.

A hand-held Global Positioning System (GPS) was used throughout the field survey work, to assist in the accuracy of the mapping, target note location, and all further observations.

6.4.1 Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey

The ‘extended’ Phase 1 Habitat Survey was conducted over the period of two days (21st and 22nd July 2011) using the standard methodology (JNCC 2004).

The aim of the survey was to identify the type, quality and extent of habitats present within the study area, and to identify any habitats or features that might require more detailed field investigations. Notes were also made of invasive species that are listed under Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981), as amended. It is an offence to cause the spread of invasive species listed on this schedule such as Japanese knotweed Fallopia japonica and giant hogweed Heracleum mantegazzianum.

‘Extended’ Phase 1 Habitat Survey provides a rapid assessment of the types and quality of habitat present. Whilst it is focussed upon categorisation of parcels of land based on their



April 2013


vegetation, the potential of the habitats on site to support protected flora and fauna is also considered. Areas of land are assigned to broad habitat categories (e.g. semi-improved grassland, running water), and marked on a map using either standard alphanumeric codes or mapping colour codes. Target notes are used to provide additional description of features of particular ecological interest or value (e.g. field signs of protected species, badger setts, trees or structures that could harbour protected species, notable plants, etc). A Phase 1 Habitat survey is not to be regarded as a definitive representation of the ecological value or interest of any area of land. In addition, it must be noted that plant lists produced from one field survey may not record all species that may occur on a site depending on the time of year that the survey was undertaken.

6.4.2 Lower Plants

During the Extended Phase 1 Habitat survey, an assessment of the bryophyte species present within the study area was made. The plants recorded during the assessment were found to consist of common and wide spread species; subsequently, lower plants will not be considered further in this chapter.

6.4.3 Bats

Bat (Chiroptera) surveys commenced on the evening of 12th June 2012 with targeted surveys continuing through to August 2012. The bat survey comprised three main methods, these being an assessment of potential roost sites, emergence surveys of identified sites with high potential to support bat roosts, and bat activity surveys.

Roost Assessments

During daylight hours all trees within the study area were surveyed from the ground for entrance holes to potential roosts. Potential roost sites in trees include obvious features such as cavities, frost cracks, trunk and branch splits, rot holes where branches have been removed and hollow sections of trunk and branches. Bats can also roost in less obvious places such as under ivy, under loose bark, woodpecker holes or bird boxes.

Given the diverse number and size of tree features in which roosts can occur, in practice it can be very difficult to say categorically whether a tree contains a bat roost or not. In addition, many of these features are not easily detectable from the ground; therefore binoculars were used to ascertain greater detail. In cases where the features identified were within ladder reach, they were inspected using endoscopes, however no aerial climbing was carried out at this stage.

External signs that bats are using a tree as a roost site include:

Suitable entry points in trees etc;

Bat droppings: black droppings, 5-10mm long that crumble to a fine dust when crushed and may be located on the ground or stuck to walls;

Staining: Secretions from bat fur can cause oily brown stains in the vicinity of roost entrances;

Urine stains below the entrance to the roost;

Audible squeaking from within the roost site;

Large roost sites may produce an odour; and

Flies around the entrance attracted by the smell of their droppings.



April 2013


Trees were categorised according to their bat roost potential as shown in Table 6.1.:

Table 6.1 – Bat Roost Potential Categorisation

Roost Potential

Equivalent category within BCT 2012

Description

Confirmed Known Roost A feature / structure within which bats are seen to be present (either live bats, or bat carcasses) will be classified as a confirmed roost. However, if sufficient signs of bats are found a roost can confirmed without seeing a bat. For example, large amounts of bat droppings or feedings remains within a feature or roof space will usually be considered enough to confirm that a roost is present.

High Category 1* A feature / structure which, due to its size, depth, shape, orientation or other physical properties (such as ability to maintain a constant temperature, accessibility for bats) is considered to be ideal for use by bats. Signs of bats such as droppings, feeding remains, urine staining or scratch marks within or around the feature are likely to indicate presence of a bat occupation and therefore suggest high potential that a roost is present. In the absence of such signs, assigning a feature high potential will also be informed by the surveyor’s knowledge of bat ecology and preferred roost types (relative to the feature being assessed). The quality of the surrounding habitat for bats will also be considered.

Moderate Category 1 A feature / structure which would be considered ideal for use by bats, were it not for one or more key factors which limit its potential. For example, an ideal feature in sub-optimal surrounding habitat may be considered to have moderate potential to support roosting bats.

Low Category 2 A feature / structure considered unlikely to be of sufficient size, depth or construction etc to offer a suitable roost site.

Negligible Category 3 A tree / structure which lacks suitable features suitable for bats.

Emergence Surveys

Emergence surveys are often used where roosting sites are suspected but exact locations are unknown, the surveyors position themselves within the general area prior to bats emerging, usually a half hour before sunset.

Once bats emerge the surveyor(s) can record the exact exit from the roost and possibly ID and count the number of bats emerging, if light conditions allow. Ultrasonic detectors (bat detectors) are also employed as a means recording bat echolocation calls (ultra sound) and identifying the species present.

Emergence surveys were undertaken at locations deemed to possess a medium to high bat roost potential, during the roost assessment process, as described above, and relate to trees, that occur within the foot print of the Scheme and subsequently have been identified as potentially requiring to be felled.

Details of the locations and timing of the emergence surveys are contained within the bat survey report (Appendix 6.2 – Bat Survey and Assessment Report).



April 2013


Dawn Surveys

Roosting bats can be very mobile in terms of roost sites and may change them on a daily basis, depending upon the prevailing weather conditions. As such the success rate for emergence surveys can be low, rather than survey prior to sun set, dawn surveys can be more successful as bats returning to their roosts often swarm around them prior to entering, making them visible for longer periods.

Details of the dawn surveys undertaken are provided in Appendix 6.2 – Bat Survey.

Equipment

Bat emergence, dawn and activity surveys were carried out by trained ecologists using specialist bat equipment commencing on the evening of 12th June 2012 and periodically through to August 2012. Equipment used for both transect and emergence surveys included a EM3 ultrasonic detector, recording in Frequency Division mode onto a compact flash card [Wav file], a Petterson D230 ultrasonic detector recording in Frequency Division mode, onto a Edirol R-09 digital recorder [Wav file].

Additionally, an Anabat SD1 ultrasonic detector was utilised for overnight location specific monitoring of bat activities. Emergence times vary between bat species so visits were timed in order to cover emergence of all species and first return to roost site, i.e. 30mins before sunset and up to 2 hours after dusk.

Bat Activity Surveys (Walked Transects)

The Bat Conservation Trust have devised a number of species specific survey methodologies for assessing the presence of bats with the landscape, using predominately hand held heterodyne or frequency division ultra sound detectors. A transect within the survey area is initially walked over during day light hours, in-order to allow the surveyor to become familiar with the area and any hazards that maybe present (health & safety). The route is then walked by the surveyor usually starting just before or after sunset, depending upon the target species. Using a heterodyne detector the route is walked until a predefined listening stop is reached, where the detector is switched on at the prescribed frequency for the target species, all recordings are noted, the process is repeated until the transect is completed.

Surveyors using frequency division detectors do not need to stop and record at listening stations, as this system operates on a broadband basis and will automatically pickup any bat echolocation call within a predetermined range. Digital recorders [Wav file] were connected to the detectors for data storage and later analysis, or recorded directly to a compact flash (EM3 ultrasonic detector).

To enable the identification of bat activity within the study area, in relation to both foraging and commuting routes, it was decided to employ a series of walked transects along sections of the proposed road alignment, where suitable liner habitat features including intact hedgerows and woodland margins were present.

Transect routes were chosen to encompass the maximum area of likely bat habitat including potential roosts sites in areas of woodland and commuting routes along linear features that may be used for commuting.



April 2013


Automated Surveys

Automated surveys were employed as a means of obtaining additional information about bats within their environment, than would be possible using hand held detectors, with no additional man hour input.

An Anabat SD1 remote ultra sound detector, which operates on a broadband frequency [Frequency Division] basis detects and records ultrasound digitally onto a compact flash card. The location for the automated survey was selected because of the presence of previously identified habitat features i.e. mature woodland, which our walkover survey had shown as potentially favourable to a number of bat species. The location of the automatic detector is shown in Figure 6.2 – Bat Survey and in the bat survey report (Appendix 6.2 – Bat Survey and Assessment Report).

All survey data was retrieved from the field and analysed on a location specific basis for the purposes of this report.

6.4.4 Badger

The aim of the badger Meles meles survey was to search for badger setts and other field signs and assess the status of badger on site. Badger surveys were undertaken in April, July and August 2012. The survey methodology followed Harris, Cresswell & Jefferies (1989) with field data recorded onto a standard proforma.

The survey involved searching for the following badger field signs:

Latrines;

Footprints or paths; and

Setts.

6.4.5 Otter

An otter Lutra lutra walkover survey was undertaken on 3rd and 4th April 2012, by experienced URS mammal ecologists, the survey focussed upon the presence of otter within the study corridor, which included the full length of the River Urie parallel to the proposed scheme, plus a 200m corridor both up and downstream of scheme extents.

The surveys were carried out in accordance with the recommendations set out in the following publications, Monitoring the Otter - Conserving Natura 2000 Rivers, Monitoring Series No.10 (EN, CCW, EA, SEPA, SNH & Sniffer, 2003) and (Strachan, 2007) National survey of otter (Lutra lutra) distribution in Scotland 2003-04. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No.211 (ROAME No. F03AC309).

The survey involved searching for the following otter field signs:

Spraints;

Food remains;

Slides down river banks;

Footprints or paths; and

Shelters (either holts or lie-up areas).



April 2013


6.4.6 Breeding birds

The standard Breeding Bird Survey methodology (Gilbert et al 1998) was utilised for the proposed scheme. Each survey was conducted between 05.30 and 09.00 hours over two visits on the 9th May and the 14th June 2012. The surveyor paused at regular intervals to scan with the aid of 10x binoculars and listen for calling and singing birds. When individuals or pairs of birds were encountered, the fieldworker determined whether the bird(s) were different from any previously encountered. This involved careful attention to the whereabouts and movements of birds, together with birds’ sex and plumage characteristics. Surveys were not conducted in winds greater than Beaufort Force 5, in persistent rain or when visibility was poor as bird activity decreases during these conditions.

The location and activities of all bird species from the two visits were recorded on 1:10,000 maps using standard British Trust for Ornithology (BTO) codes (Marchant, 1983). Subsequent map analysis was carried out to assess how many bird species were present and to estimate the number of breeding territories for each species within the study area. Where birds were recorded in the same location on more than one survey visit they were considered to represent the same bird(s). Numbers of breeding birds were those recorded as showing the following breeding bird behaviour:

Displaying or singing;

Territorial dispute;

Occupied nests;

Repeated alarm calling or distraction displays;

Adult(s) carrying food;

Adult(s) carrying nest material; and/or

Newly fledged young with adult(s).

Other records were considered to be of non-breeding birds, failed breeders or birds loafing, feeding or on passage to other areas; however, it is also considered likely that a number of the birds recorded in flight were breeding within the study area.

Data gathered during the surveys is considered useful in providing an index of the species recorded within the survey area, but the breeding territories and breeding density should be treated as an estimate of the numbers of bird territories within the survey area.

6.4.7 Water vole

Water vole Arvicola amphibius survey was undertaken on 3rd and 4th April 2012 and consisted of a detailed search for field signs as outlined in Strachan (2006), in particular mapping of the following;

Faeces: 8-12 mm long and 4-5mm wide, cylindrical with blunt ends. They are odourless, of distinct consistency and often green in colour, although this can vary;

Latrines: Droppings are often deposited at latrine sites as territory markers or at favoured feeding locations. Latrines may consist of a flattened mass of old droppings with a fresh top, although heavy rainfall or high water levels often result in these being washed away. Latrines are typically maintained between February and November;

Feeding stations: Lengths of vegetation are often taken to favoured feeding platforms a the water’s edge, where the distinct remains are left in neat piles;



April 2013


Burrows: Typically wider than they are high, with a diameter of 4-8cm. Burrow entrances may occur above or below the water line;

Lawns: grazed ‘lawns’ are often found around land holes when the female is nursing young;

Nests: May be found where vegetation is dense, often woven into the base of rushes, sedges or reeds;

Footprints: Often found in the soft muddy margins at the water’s edge;

Runways: Low tunnels pushed through vegetation often leading to and from the water’s edge or favoured feeding areas.

The presence or absence of mink Mustela vision field signs were also recorded, noting the relative abundance of footprints and droppings along the watercourse.

6.4.8 Red squirrel

While there is little suitable habitat within the study area, survey for field signs of red squirrel Sciurus vulgaris was conducted in areas of woodland, whilst undertaking the Phase 1 Habitat Survey and subsequent other protected species surveys.

Survey methodology was based on guidance by Gurnell (2001). The only definitive methods of positively identifying red squirrels are through visual surveys and hair tube surveys. Red squirrel is active during the daytime and it is possible to make direct sightings, as well as looking for their nests (dreys). Trees were searched for dreys from ground level. It is not possible to distinguish dreys of grey squirrels from red squirrels without additional supplementary evidence. The presence of squirrels can also be detected by the presence of feeding remains at the base of trees such as cone ‘cores’, split hazel nut shells, shells of acorns or sweet chestnuts, or the wings of ash and maple fruits although this evidence is often inconclusive in telling red and grey squirrels apart. Feeding remains can sometimes be found in small heaps at prominent feeding points such as a stump or a log.

6.4.9 Pine marten

The Scheme lies within the known distribution of pine marten Martes martes (Balharry et al. 1996). The survey techniques followed Balharry et al. (1996) and comprised mainly of looking for pine marten scats. Surveys were ongoing during the period April 2012 and August 2012, usually whilst conducting other protected species surveys.

6.5 Species scoped out of assessment

6.5.1 Fish and fisheries

No direct impacts to the River Urie will occur as a consequence of the Scheme.

6.5.2 Amphibians

No standing water occurs within or adjacent to the study area; whilst the improved grassland, the principal terrestrial habitat present, is considered largely unsuitable to amphibians due to intensive agricultural management practices. A check of the NBN Gateway website yielded one historical record (1960-1983) of a common toad Bufo bufo c.2km to the south of the Scheme.



April 2013


6.5.3 Reptiles

There was little suitable habitat for reptiles within the Scheme footprint, being mostly intensively managed grassland, dense woodland and cool, shady habitat with very few potential basking sites. A check of the NBN Gateway website yielded only one record of common lizard Zootoca vivipara occurring within c.2km of the Scheme boundary from 2007.

6.5.4 Invertebrates

Based on the extended Phase 1 habitat survey, a habitat quality assessment, desk study and consultation, it was determined that specialist invertebrate surveys were not required.

6.6 Level of Impacts

6.6.1 Assessment Methodology

To determine the significance of the proposed development, it is necessary to define a robust assessment methodology. The method used is based upon various protocols for the assessment of significance. The criteria draw on the IEEM guidelines for ecological impact assessment (IEEM, 2006) and also incorporate good practice from other published documents.

The assessment process is summarised below:

Baseline Ecology: Those habitats and species that might be affected by these elements either directly or indirectly are considered and existing conditions are defined. The existing conditions are known as the baseline;

Value: The importance of nature conservation resources present is evaluated to place their relative biodiversity value, social/community value and economic value into a geographic context from “international” to “zone of influence” levels - as advised by IEEM (2006);

Impacts: Likely impacts arising from the development and the effects (beneficial or negative) of these on species and their habitats are predicted, and where possible quantified. The geographic level at which these effects are considered to be significant is determined (i.e. “international” to “zone of influence”). The significance of the effects of developments was until recently determined using a standard matrix approach, however, IEEM (2006) now suggest ecological experience and professional judgement should be integral part of the assessment process and impacts are described simply as “significant” or “not significant” at certain geographical levels, e.g. “significant at a local level” etc.

Avoidance, Mitigation, Compensation: Measures to avoid or reduce any significant effects, if possible, are then developed in conjunction with other elements of the design and mitigation for other environmental disciplines. If necessary, measures to compensate for impacts to features of nature conservation importance are also included;

Residual Impacts: Any remaining (residual) impacts of the development are reported;

Enhancement: Whether there is scope for enhancement is also considered, even if there are no significant negative impacts. Opportunities to benefit nature conservation interests exist without incurring excessive costs on the development are then proposed; and



April 2013


Monitoring: The requirements for post - construction monitoring is considered and proposed where deemed appropriate, e.g. to monitor the success of mitigation proposals.

This assessment approach is fully described below.

6.6.2 Assessing the value of ecological receptors

An ecological receptor is defined as a site, habitat or species of nature conservation value. Each site or area may have more than one receptor of value that it supports (for example different habitats or populations of species). The IEEM guidance assesses value in terms of biodiversity, social, community or economic value including the benefits that such receptors provide to people or society in general, and includes elements such as their contribution to biodiversity. Legal protection is considered separately from value. The values of features are described within a geographical frame of reference (e.g. the feature is of importance at an international level). To attain each level of value and / or importance, an ecological resource or one of the features should meet the criteria set out in Table 6.2 below. In some cases, professional judgement may be required to increase or decrease the allocation of specific value. This judgement is based on consideration of the following additional criteria:

Population trends;

Sustainability of resource;

Representativeness;

Potential for substitution/re-creation;

Position in the ecological unit;

Biodiversity; and/or

Intrinsic value to stakeholders.

The protection of a particular receptor through national or international legislation is not taken into account when assessing ecological value. For example, badger is protected by national legislation for reasons of animal welfare, but its status on site in relation to its status in the local area or region is what is assessed thus if it is common and widespread it may be of only local or regional nature conservation value.

Likewise, certain habitats may be important within a regional context, and may have been identified for priority action within the LBAP if this has been prepared for an area, but are not considered to be of national conservation importance. However, the evaluation should be based upon the amount and quality of that habitat type present on the site itself, rather than its presence per se. This ensures that small areas of poor-quality habitat are not over-valued.

Areas considered to be of national value for nature conservation are designated under statute as Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). There are also international designations including Biosphere Reserves, Ramsar sites, Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) and Special Protection Areas (SPA). Wildlife areas of importance at the local level can be designated statutory Local Nature Reserves (LNR) or non-statutory Sites of Local Nature Conservation Interest (SLNCIs) or equivalent term, in Aberdeenshire these are referred to as Sites of Interest for Natural Science (SINS).

The criteria used to describe the value of ecological receptors for this study are set out in Table 6.2 and are based upon criteria identified in the IEEM guidance. To attain each level of value / sensitivity, an ecological receptor must meet the criteria in at least one of the areas set



April 2013


out in Table 6.2, although as mentioned previously, in some cases, professional judgement may be required to increase or decrease the allocation of specific value.

Table 6.2 - Value of Receptors (IEEM, 2006)

Nature Conservation Value

Examples of Selection Criteria

International

(EU or other)

A site designated, or identified for designation at the international level e.g. World Heritage Sites, Special Protection Area (SPA), Special Area of Conservation (SAC), and / or Ramsar site. Proposed or candidate sites are also given the same consideration as designated sites.

A sustainable area of any habitat listed in Annex I of the Habitats Directive or smaller areas of such habitat that is essential to maintain the viability of a larger whole.

Any regularly occurring population of an internationally important species e.g. UK Red Data Book species, which is listed as occurring in 15 or fewer 10 km squares in the UK, and that is identified as of unfavourable conservation status in Europe or global conservation concern in the UK BAP

UK

(England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland)

A site protected by national designations e.g. Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), National Nature Reserve (NNR), or Marine Protected Area or a site considered worthy or this designation.

A sustainable area of any priority habitat identified in the UK BAP, or smaller areas of such habitat that is essential to maintain the viability of a larger whole.

A feature identified as of critical importance in the UK BAP. Sustainable population of a nationally important species (species

listed on Schedules 1, 5 and 8 of The Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 as amended), which is threatened or rare in the county.

Any regularly occurring population of a nationally important species that is threatened or rare in that region of the Country, and for which the LBAP identifies the need to protect all remaining sites.

National

(Scotland)

Sustainable areas of key habitat identified in the Scottish BAP or smaller areas of such habitat that is essential to maintain the viability of a larger area.

Non-statutory sites that the designating authority has determined meet the published ecological selection criteria for designation, including Local Nature Reserves.

Some non-statutory designated sites (Ancient Woodland, TPOs). Any regularly occurring, locally important population of a species

listed in a Regional Red Data Book or LBAP on account of its regional rarity or localisation.

County/District/Heritage Future

(County Aberdeenshire Local Authority Area Inverurie

Some designated sites (e.g. Local Nature Reserves). Some non-statutory designated sites (including SLNCI/CWS). A viable area of a habitat identified in a county BAP. Sustainable populations of species that is rare or scarce within a

county, or listed in a county BAP. A viable area of a habitat that is uncommon in the county/district

or a degraded example of a habitat identify in a county BAP. Sites or populations that appreciably enrich the county/district

habitat resource.



April 2013


Nature Conservation Value

Examples of Selection Criteria

Local or Parish (within 5km radius of Scheme)

Area of internationally or nationally important habitats, which are degraded and have little potential for restoration.

Areas within the site or locally, or populations, that appreciably enrich the habitat resource within the locality, e.g. species-rich hedgerow.

Within the zone of influence

(Construction footprint and immediate environs)

Common and widespread species. Areas of heavily managed or modified vegetation of low intrinsic

interest and low value to species of nature conservation interest, that do not appreciably enrich the site or locally.

6.6.3 Assessing the magnitude of impacts

Identification of potential impacts of the development has been based on a variety of approaches. The primary source of information has been the review of similar projects and professional experience of the assessment team. The method for assessing the effects follows the Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom (IEEM, 2006). Table 6.3 describes the magnitude of impacts.

Table 6.3 - Magnitude of impacts

Magnitude of Impact

Description

Severe

Total or major loss or major alteration to key elements/features of the baseline (pre-development) conditions such that the post development character/composition/attributes would be fundamentally changed and may be lost from the site altogether. Guide: 20-80% of population/habitat lost

Moderate

Loss or alteration to one or more key elements/features of the baseline conditions such that post development character/ composition/ attributes would be partially changed. Guide: 5-20 % of population/habitat lost

Slight

Minor shift away from baseline conditions. Change arising from the loss/alteration would be discernible but the underlying character/ composition/ attributes would be similar to pre-development circumstances/ patterns. Guide: 1-5 % of population/habitat lost

Negligible

Very slight change from baseline condition. Change barely distinguishable, approximating to the “no change” situation. Guide: < 1% population/habitat lost

The effect of potential impacts depends upon:

Magnitude: ‘size’ or ‘amount’ of impact, determined on a quantitative basis where possible, e.g. the numbers of a species that are influenced;

Extent: The area over which the impact occurs;

Duration: The time over which the impact is expected to last prior to recovery or replacement of the resource or feature;



April 2013


Reversibility: whether recovery is possible within a reasonable timescale; and

Timing and Frequency: Whether impacts coincide with critical life changes or seasons (e.g. breeding bird season) and how frequent the impacts are likely to be.

These factors are further detailed within Table 6.4 below:

Table 6.4 - Other factors that determine effect of impact (IEEM, 2006)

Environmental Parameter

Description

Magnitude The ‘size’ or ‘amount’ of an impact is referred to as the magnitude of the impact, and is determined on a quantitative basis where possible (Table 6.3).

Extent The extent of an impact is the area over which the impact occurs. Habitats could be considered to be an area, therefore the magnitude and extent of an impact may be synonymous.

Duration The duration of an impact is the time over which an impact is expected to last prior to recovery or replacement of the resource or feature. This is considered in terms of life cycles of species and regeneration times of habitats. The duration of an impact may be longer than the duration of an activity. For example, construction activity may cause disturbance over 2 years but the impact from that disturbance may continue for 5 years.

Reversible Reversible (or temporary) impacts are those from which a spontaneous recovery is possible, or for which effective mitigation is possible. Reversible impacts will arise during the construction phase of the development. Irreversible (or permanent) impacts are those from which recovery is not possible within a reasonable timescale, or for which there is no reasonable chance of action being taken to reverse it. The effects of permanent land-take may lead to irreversible fragmentation of habitats. Some indirect effects may also be irreversible or of an unspecified duration (e.g. the effect of noise pollution on breeding and roosting birds).

Timing and Frequency

Some activities or changes may only cause an impact if they coincide with critical life stages or seasons, and therefore timing of the activity or change is important in assessing the impact. Such impacts may be avoided through careful timing of works. The frequency of an activity will influence the resulting impact.

Impacts on the ecology and nature conservation, and its social and economic values relating to the site can be divided into two main types: negative and positive. Negative and positive impacts can be further sub-divided into those impacts that are direct and those that are indirect.

6.6.4 Cumulative Impacts

Impacts acting in combination may have a cumulative impact that is greater than when the same impacts act in isolation. Cumulative impacts may entail the assessment of all the impacts of the Scheme upon a feature (e.g. impacts at the construction and operation stage), or the combined impacts of a number of development schemes in the nearby area.



April 2013


Cumulative and in combination impacts are assessed in Chapter 13 – Cumulative Assessment.

6.6.5 Assessing significance

The magnitude of the impact combined with the sensitivity or ecological value of a receptor is used in this assessment as a guide to assess the level of significance, see Table 6.5 below. Although used here, this approach is considered as rather subjective because it relies on an intuitive understanding of the terms and is therefore open to individual interpretation. This type of matrix also tends to place negative impacts on a feature of local value into a ‘slight or low’ significance category. This can downplay local values for biodiversity. However, every effort has been made to check for special provisions for protecting local biodiversity within local plans. In this chapter assessment of significance places any impact significance equating to ‘negligible’ as not significant.

Table 6.5 - Significance of Environmental Effect Matrix

MAGNITUDE OF IMPACT

SENSITIVITY OF RECEPTOR

International /UK

National Regional / County

Local / Parish Zone of Influence

Very High High Medium Low Negligible

SEVERE Substantial Substantial Moderate Minor Negligible

MODERATE Moderate Moderate Minor Minor Negligible

SLIGHT Moderate Minor Minor Negligible Negligible

NEGLIGIBLE Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible

The significance of the impact on the ecological integrity of the receptor or resource depends upon all of these factors. The accepted definition of integrity is 'the coherence of its ecological structure and function, across its whole area, that enables it to sustain that habitat, complex of habitats and/or the levels of populations of the species for which it was classified' (Scottish Executive, 2000).

The effect on ecological integrity of the receptor or resource is either deemed to be significant or not significant. The terms ‘significant’ and ‘not significant’ are used as described in Table 6.6. Initially, consideration of the impact on ecological integrity does not take account of any recommendations for mitigation that might subsequently be described. Residual impacts and significance takes these mitigation measures into consideration.

Table 6.6 - Description of the terms “significant” and “non-significant

SCALE OF IMPACT DESCRIPTION

Significant The impact is significant if it is assessed to be large in scale or amount, irreversible, have a long-term effect, or coincide with critical life stages. In addition, a combination of any of these parameters will also be assessed as significant.



April 2013


SCALE OF IMPACT DESCRIPTION

Not significant The impact is not significant if it is assessed to be small in scale or amount, reversible within a reasonable timescale and does not coincide with critical life stages.

6.6.6 Confidence in assessment

It is valuable to attribute a level of confidence to the accuracy of a predicted impact. Four levels are used for the purposes of this study, as outlined in IEEM EcIA guidelines (2006):

Certain / near-certain: probability estimated at 95% chance or higher;

Probable: probability estimated above 50% but below 95%;

Unlikely: probability estimated at less than 50%; and

Extremely unlikely: probability estimated at less than 5%.

Certain / near-certain confidence is assigned where the anticipated impact is very likely to occur, based on reliable information (e.g. formal surveys undertaken to a standard methodology) or previous experience. Unlikely level of confidence is assigned where the predicted impact and its level are best estimates, generally derived from first principles of ecological theory and the experience of the assessor. This category has also been used where there is limited information about species occurrence. The reason for including a confidence category of ‘extremely unlikely’ is that though some effects may be very improbable, they would have very serious implications should they occur.

Unless otherwise stated, all impacts are given at certain / near-certain confidence level.

6.7 Baseline Conditions

The baseline conditions have been determined through a desk study and the results of the field surveys, and are presented below.

6.7.1 Statutory Designated Sites

Statutory designated sites within and adjacent to the Scheme are shown in Figure 1.2 - General Environmental Constraints.

6.7.2 International Designations

No internationally designated sites occur within 10km of the proposed Scheme.

6.7.3 National Designations

There is only one statutory designated site within 2km of the Scheme: Pitcaple & Legatsden Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). This consists of two separate parts, both of which are located north of the A96 and River Urie on higher ground. The closest part is just over 500m from the Scheme boundary. This SSSI is designated for geological features, and is also a Geological Conservation Review (GCR) site. The interest is Caledonian igneous petrology including different types of gabbro and a granite-pegmatite sheet, the site does not possess any designated ecological interest. The Scheme will not affect this site.

After which, the closest SSSI is over 7km from the proposed works; no other sites with a national statutory designation occur within in the vicinity of the proposed Scheme.



April 2013


6.7.4 Non-Statutory Designated Sites

There are three ‘Sites of Interest for Natural Science’ (a non-statutory local site designation used by Aberdeenshire Council, soon to be superseded by the term ‘Local Nature Conservation Site’) within 2km of the Scheme, two having geological interest and one entomological:

Pitcaple Quarry – this is in the same location as part of Pitcaple & Legatsden SSSI, but the supplied boundary covers a larger area. The nearest part of the site is about 500m from the Scheme. Quarry activity ended in 1977. For a description of the features of interest see the description of the SSSI above. The value of the site includes a teaching resource; there is no reported ecological interest. The site is too distant from the Scheme for the interest to be threatened.

Govals Quarry – this includes the small rock exposure and adjacent wet hollow found during the Phase 1 habitat survey in the part of the Forestry Commission plantation close to the A96 bridge. The site boundary also encompasses adjacent semi-natural woodland, scrub, a small patch of open grassland and some peripheral plantation. The main interest is the rock exposure which is described as the edge of an igneous intrusion (Insch Basic Intrusion), with significance to north-east Scotland and Scotland as a whole. This has value as a teaching resource. There is also reported ecological interest, namely uncommon bramble and hawkweed species. Additionally the Phase 1 survey found the open grassland to be unimproved and relatively species-rich (MG5), and both the grassland and wet woodland in the old quarry are UK BAP priority habitats. The site is too distant from the Scheme for the interests to be threatened.

Pitscurrie Moss – this site, which has entomological interest, is located just north of Pitcaple SSSI described above. The site is too distant from the Scheme for the interests to be threatened.

The above sites are identified by Aberdeenshire and Aberdeen City Councils on the Study of Environmentally Sensitive Areas (SESA) inventory. The SESA is an Aberdeenshire Council/Aberdeen City Council inventory and recognises areas that are locally important for a particular scientific interest.

6.7.5 Ancient Woodland1

Scottish ancient woodland is defined as land that is currently wooded and has been continually wooded since 1750 or the mid-1800s, depending on the earliest mapping available. The Ancient Woodland Inventory (AWI) is a provisional guide to the location of ancient woodland in Scotland, which has important biodiversity and cultural value by virtue of its antiquity. The AWI uses three classes of woodland, derived from 1750 ‘Roy’ maps and c1860 1st Edition OS maps:

Ancient Woodland. Semi-natural woodland on 1750/c1860 maps and continuously wooded since (if later planted with non-native trees they are called ‘Plantations on Ancient Woodland Sites’).

Long-established Woodland of Plantation Origin. Plantation on 1750/c1860 maps and continuously wooded since. Many have semi-natural characteristics.

Other ‘Roy’ woodland. Unwooded on c1860 maps but wooded on 1750 maps. Such sites have, at most, had only a short break in continuity of woodland cover and may still retain features of Ancient Woodland.

1 The notes on ancient woodland stated here are a summary of guidance given by SNH (http://www.snh.gov.uk/planning-and-development/advice-for-planners-and-developers/woodlands/) and information obtained directly from SNH staff by email on 28/10/2011.



April 2013


The AWI is not definitive and should be used with care. In particular any woodland shown on OS 1st Edition maps or Roy maps (available at www.nls.uk) which is not in the AWI is still likely to be one of the above woodland classes, and should be treated as such unless evidence is available to the contrary. Note also that during capture of the AWI data there was a minimum capture size of two hectares.

Although there is no legislation specifically protecting ancient woodland, Scottish Planning Policy (SPP 2010) identifies it as an important and irreplaceable national resource that should be protected and enhanced, as should other native and long-established woodlands with high nature conservation value.

All woodland in the AWI in the survey area is shown as Long-established Woodland of Plantation Origin, and exists in the following locations:

Majority of Pitcaple Wood, now the property of the Forestry Commission, but not the extension nearest the existing bridge.

Woodlands in the estate grounds of Pitcaple Castle.

Additionally, the following woodlands are absent from the AWI but are still present on 1st Edition OS maps and all maps since:

String of four small broad-leaved plantations in open fields between the railway and River Urie. As beech is prominent and all the trees are certainly planted, these plantations are mostly likely also Long-established Woodland of Plantation Origin, and should be treated as such in accordance with SNH guidance.

The floristic diversity of the above string of small plantations is poor, probably in large part due to access by livestock and fertilisation of the surrounding fields as well as the frequency of beech, but floristic diversity in much of Pitcaple Wood and the estate woodlands of Pitcaple Castle is also low. Nevertheless these woodlands may well have preserved, through continuous tree cover over time, the ‘integrity of soil ecological processes and associated biodiversity’.

Note that the boundaries of woodland in the AWI in the survey area are not exact – in places AWI woodland covers ground which is no longer wooded and has not been for a long time (for example: the railway line and parts of the immediate banks, and the marshy ground on the north side of the River Urie).

6.7.6 Phase 1 Habitat Survey

The Phase 1 habitat maps relating to the proposed Scheme are provided in Figure 6.1 – Phase 1 Habitat Survey and target notes can be found in Appendix 6.1 – Phase 1 Target Notes.

The most extensive habitats within the survey area are, in descending order of abundance, arable fields, improved grassland and plantation woodlands, both coniferous and broad-leaved. Other significant habitats are neutral grasslands (mostly semi-improved), running water (principally the River Urie), tall ruderal vegetation, and marshy grassland. Dense scrub, semi-natural woodland, bracken, acid grassland, rock exposure, heathland and amenity grassland also occurs locally.

Scattered vegetation comprises scattered trees and scattered scrub. Self-sown young scattered trees occur beside the A96 trunk road, railway and River Urie. There are also a number of scattered mature trees within the riparian area of the River Urie, mainly willows.



April 2013


Scattered scrub occurs occasionally on the embankments of the A96 trunk road and railway line.

6.7.7 Non Native Invasive Plants

Within the surveyed area the only invasive species recorded was giant hogweed Heracleum mantegazzianum. This occurs as scattered individuals, and the occasional small stands, along the banks of the River Urie.

6.7.8 Bats

No records were obtained during the desk study relating to the presence of bats, though both soprano pipistrelle and brown long-eared bats have been recorded within adjacent 10km tetrads.

The initial survey involved a walkover investigation of study corridor, commencing on the 13th June 2012 and formed part of a programme of bat surveys employed, along the preferred route for the upgraded road. The surveys were undertaken by experienced and qualified ecologists from URS and took the form of transects, emergence surveys, dawn surveys and remote monitoring with an Anabat SD1 detector. Landscape features with bat roost potential such as buildings and bridges, together with trees that were considered likely to be directly affected by the proposed Scheme, were identified during the course of daytime visual assessments.

The aims of the bat surveys were to record the presence of bats within the study area, where possible identify the species, and to assess any changes within the local landscape associated with the Scheme that would affect local bat populations and to suggest mitigation measures where appropriate.

The results of the bat surveys are contained within Appendix 6.2 – Bat Survey and Assessment Report and shown on Figure 6.2 – Bat Survey, a summary of the findings is given below.

Activity and Remote Monitoring Surveys

Analysis of all the survey data revealed a sustained level of bat foraging and commuting activity within the study area, and also confirmed that three species of bat had been recorded:

Soprano pipistrelle Pipistrellus pygmaeus ;

Common pipistrelle; Pipistrellus pipistrellus; and

Daubenton’s bat Myotis daubentonii.

Additionally, during the automated Anabat survey of an unidentified Myotis species was also recorded, bringing the total number of species recorded within the study area to possibly four.

Soprano pipistrelle

Together with the Common pipistrelle this was the most frequently recorded species, occurring in both riparian and terrestrial habitats, often observed following linear features such as hedgerows and riparian trees.



April 2013


Common pipistrelle

This species was encountered throughout the survey area, most commonly observed flying / foraging along woodland edges and hedgerows.

Daubenton’s bat

This bat was recorded in several locations throughout the survey area, foraging within slow moving sections of the Rivers Urie.

Myotis Species

During the remote monitoring survey within woodland stand 3, a brief recording of a Myotis bat was made; unfortunately, the recording contained insufficient data to allow for an accurate ID; though it is considered likely that the bat encountered was either a Natterer’s bat Myotis nattereri or a Daubenton’s bat foraging within the woodland.

Tree Roost Assessment

Bat roost assessments of trees likely to be lost to the development were undertaken, a total of fifteen trees were initially assessed as possessing either moderate or high bat roost potential (as shown in Table 6.1). Over the 1st and 2nd August 2012, thirteen of the trees were examined with the aid of extendable ladders and a Ridgid Seesnake micro endoscope. Due to the elevated location of four potential roost sites, they could not be investigated. Additionally, during the inspection four other sites were downgraded from moderate to low risk of bat roosts being present.

One roosting pipistrelle bat was recorded within part of an extensive rot hole, located within the main trunk of a mature beech tree (Ref No. 36); refer to the concise bat survey report Appendix 6.2 – Bat Survey and Assessment Report. It is considered possible that other roosting bats went un-observed due to the extent of void and the limitations of the endoscope.

Bat Roosts - Buildings

It is our understanding that no buildings or structures including the existing railway / road bridge will be affected by the planned Scheme.

Buildings (cottages) to the south of the scheme are considered distant enough (on opposite side of railway) from the works to be undisturbed by construction activities.

6.7.9 Badgers

Three records relating to the presence of badger within 2km of the study area, where obtained during the desk study.

The initial field survey involved a walkover investigation of the study corridor, commencing on the 3rd April 2012 and formed part of a programme of badger surveys throughout summer 2012, along the preferred route for the upgraded road. The surveys were undertaken by experienced and qualified ecologists from URS and took the form of walked transects within areas of woodland, scrub, grassland / arable and riparian habitats.

The aims of the surveys were to record the presence of badger within the study area, to assess any changes within the local landscape associated with the Scheme that would affect local populations and to suggest mitigation measures where appropriate.



April 2013


The survey extended along the length of the proposed works, and also included a buffer zone of at least 30m in case of potential disturbance to badgers from noise and vibration during the works.

The detailed results of the badger surveys are contained within a separate confidential report which has only been made available to Transport Scotland and SNH.

6.7.10 Otters

Four records relating to the presence of otter within 2km of the study area, where obtained during the desk study.

The initial field survey involved a walkover investigation of study corridor, commencing on the 3rd April 2012 and formed part of a programme of otter surveys employed, along the proposed route for the upgraded road. The surveys were undertaken by experienced and qualified ecologists from URS and took the form of walked transects within areas of woodland, scrub and riparian habitats adjacent to the River Urie.

The aims of the surveys were to record the presence of otter within the study area, to assess any changes within the local landscape associated with the Scheme that would affect local populations and to suggest mitigation measures where appropriate.

The results of the otter surveys are shown on Figure 6.5 – Otter Survey, a summary of the findings is given below.

Otter Refuges & Field Evidence

A total of four refuges were recorded within the study area, comprising of two holts and two lie-up areas. In-addition to the refuges a total of twenty three spraint sites, were recorded within the riparian habitats associated with the River Urie. The spraints consisted of old, recent and fresh deposits with a number of sites containing multiple accumulations.

6.7.11 Breeding Birds

Records relating to twenty one Schedule 1 (WCA) or red listed (Birds of Conservation Concern) species occurring within 2km of the survey area were collated during the desk study. A number of the observed species can be regarded as being either migrant or over wintering visitors, it is considered highly unlikely all species would be breeding within the area.

The results of the breeding bird surveys are contained within Appendix 6.3 – Bird Survey and shown on Figure 6.3 – Bird Survey, a summary of the findings is given below in Table 6.7.

Table 6.7 – Summary of observed breeding bird species by conservation status recorded within the survey area including the Scheme footprint.

UK Conservation Status No. of Individuals No. of Species

Green 49 14

Amber 16 5

Red 9 4

North East Scotland - Priority Species 9 4

Scottish BAP Species 11 6

UK BAP Species 11 6



April 2013


Table 6.7 summarises the results of the number of individual birds and species numbers recorded during the two surveys, as well as an estimate of the number of breeding bird species occurring within the study area. A total of twenty three species were classified as breeding, including 14 of a green conservation status, 5 amber and 4 red. The nine breeding species of greatest conservation interest consist of song thrush, willow warbler, blackcap, yellowhammer, skylark, reed bunting, barn swallow, dunnock, and tree sparrow. All except willow warbler, blackcap and barn swallow are further classified as priority species either via the North East Scotland priority list, UKBAP or Scottish BAP.

6.7.12 Water Vole

No records relating to the presence of water vole was obtained during the desk study, though one recent dropping was recorded during the field surveys, located on a riparian rock adjacent to the River Urie.

This evidence confirms that water voles are present within the study area, though likely in low numbers.

6.7.13 Red Squirrel

Although twenty four records were obtained of observations relating to red squirrel, within 2km of the planned Scheme during the desk study, no observations or related field evidence was recorded during the field surveys.

It is however considered likely that red squirrels occur within the neighbouring woodland / forestry plantations, with occasional foraging activity occurring with the wooded areas present within the study site.

6.7.14 Pine Marten

No records relating to the presence of pine marten was obtained during the desk study, and no observations or related field evidence was recorded during the field surveys.

Pine martens are considered to be widely distributed in Aberdeenshire, and suitable habitat occurs in close proximity to the Scheme; therefore it is likely that this species will use the site as a commuting / dispersal corridor.

6.7.15 Limitations and Information Gaps

Existing data

The paucity of protected species data available during desk studies has clearly indicated under-recording within the study area, this is often the case when focussing on specific sites, especially a relatively remote location. The limited contextual data hinders comparison and guidance of judgements on local conservation status and ecological value of some species. Where this occurs, reference to other sources of information covering the wider area up to national scale where appropriate (e.g. for red squirrel and pine marten) are used for contextual information.

6.8 Predicted Impacts

6.8.1 Sensitivity / Value of Ecological Receptors

This section evaluates the nature conservation interest of the study area for its habitats and the species it supports in terms of relative importance in geographical context through the



April 2013


framework shown Impact Assessment Methodology section, based on relevant legislation and EcIA guidance (e.g. IEEM, 2006) and by combining this with the terminology given for this ES. The importance of the receptor has been assessed with regard to both the local and wider context, with reference to biodiversity audits and national and regional surveys, where these were available. The evaluation is shown in Table 6.8.

Table 6.8 - Valued Ecological Receptors at A96 Inveramsay Bridge

Ecological receptor (sites/habitat/species)

Status and Rationale

Pitcaple & Legatsden SSSI By default statutory protected sites designated under the WCA 1981 as amended are of Very High / UK Value.

Long-established Woodland of Plantation Origin

There are four areas of woodland classified as Long-established Woodland of Plantation Origin. These sites are considered to be of Medium / Regional Value.

Running Water River Urie is an important tributary of the River Don and provides important habitat and corridor for wildlife. This habitat is considered to be of Medium / Regional Value.

Semi-improved grassland Occurs predominantly in the form of managed pasture with little intrinsic ecological value. This habitat is considered to be of Negligible / Zone of Influence Value.

Scrub Willow and hawthorn scrub occurs to a greater / lesser extent throughout the site. This habitat is considered to be of Negligible / Zone of Influence Value.

Non native invasive species Giant hogweed is present within the riparian area of the River Urie. This non native plant is a nuisance to native flora and fauna and has no conservation value.

Bats Of the 16 species of UK bat, nine regularly occur in Scotland. Three widespread bat species have been recorded within the area surrounding the Scheme, these being common pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle and Daubenton’s bat. Pipistrelle & Daubenton’s bats are UK and Scottish priority species for conservation and they are also listed in the North East Scotland LBAP. Pipistrelle and Daubenton’s bats are regarded as common and widespread throughout most of Scotland. Bats are therefore considered to be of Low / Local value.

Badger A sustained level of badger activity has been recorded within the study area. Badgers are considered to a common and widespread species in Scotland and therefore are considered to be of Low / Local value.

Otter Otter is a priority species under the UKBAP and also the North East Scotland LBAP. It is recognised as a species of principal conservation importance on the Scottish Biodiversity List. A sustained level of otter activity was observed within the study area and a number of refuges recorded within riparian areas of the River Urie. However, otters are considered widespread in most regions of Scotland including Aberdeenshire. Otter is therefore considered to be of Low / Local Value.



April 2013


Ecological receptor (sites/habitat/species)

Status and Rationale

Breeding Birds The breeding bird community in the vicinity of the Scheme is typical of the habitats present and of the wider region of Scotland and comprises of common and widespread species. There are nine UK & Scottish BAP priority species which breed within or adjacent to the Scheme footprint. Breeding birds are considered to be of Low / Local Value.

Water Vole Water vole is listed as a priority species for conservation on the UK and Scottish BAPs as well as the North East Scotland LBAP. The water vole has been the main focus of an ongoing conservation project since 2003, which has demonstrated a number of positive developments in terms of water vole distribution within areas of the upper catchments of the River Don. Although the Scheme occurs within a developing stronghold area for the species, due to the apparent low numbers present on site the species is considered to be of Low / Local Value.

Red squirrel Red squirrel is listed as a priority species for conservation on the UK and Scottish BAPs as well as the North East Scotland LBAP. Recent studies show that the red squirrel in Scotland appears to have variable population trends depending on the region. As the Scheme lies within a stronghold area for the species it is considered to be of Low / Local Value.

Pine marten Pine marten is listed as a priority species for conservation on the UK and Scottish BAPs as well as the North East Scotland LBAP. Recent studies show that the pine marten in Scotland appears to be making a recovery in some areas. As the Scheme lies within a stronghold area for the species it is considered to be of Low / Local Value.

6.8.2 Predicted Trends in the Absence of Development

It is likely that the area would remain largely unchanged in the absence of the proposed Scheme. No rapid changes to any species would be anticipated in the absence of development or changes in agricultural land management. Mature trees and woody vegetation would further mature to provide more suitability for bats and other breeding birds respectively. Climate change may cause a slow change in some flora and some bird populations, but this would be part of a larger scale (international) trend, not just at Inveramsay.

6.9 Predicted Impacts

The Scheme proposals are outlined Chapter 2 – The Proposed Scheme. The described activities might have a range of effects (both positive and negative) upon ecological features during either the construction or operation phases. A distinction is often made between direct and indirect impacts. Direct impacts occur where the changes to an ecological feature are directly attributable to an action associated with the Scheme, such as the loss of woodland for the construction of a new road. Indirect impacts usually arise as a ‘knock-on’ effect of a Scheme, and would include aspects such as disturbance of otter activity as a result of a change in human use of the site.

Direct and indirect effects can be further sub-divided into temporary or permanent impacts. Permanent impacts include loss of habitat to the Scheme. Temporary impacts arise during the construction phase (e.g. temporary use of land for storage materials, noise and lighting), and



April 2013


whilst short in duration may potentially have longer-lasting effects. For example, temporary loss of habitats of high nature conservation value can be as of great a magnitude as the permanent land take of lower value habitats due to the timescales over which recovery occurs (e.g. the time taken to re-establish woodland). Impacts may be cumulative, if, for example, the construction of the Scheme and any adjacent development together cause disturbance to the same ecological receptor.

The impacts of the potential effects arising from the proposed Scheme are outlined below for the operational and construction phases, following consideration of the baseline conditions.

6.9.1 Construction phase impacts

It is estimated that the works will take approximately 12 months. Construction will involve site clearance (also referred to as enablement), physical removal of soils and vegetation, and the introduction of artificial construction materials and active machinery.

The potential negative impacts during the construction phase are:

Habitat loss (land-take), a direct and permanent effect. The severity of this effect is directly related to the amount of habitat lost and the conservation value of that habitat.

Habitat fragmentation, a direct and permanent effect. Severance of habitat and/of the wildlife corridors linking areas between the woodland / hedgerows and the River Urie riparian habitat is also considered a direct impact. Fragmentation can lead to reduced genetic diversity and increase the likelihood of species being lost;

Indirect effects: Can arise from disturbance (visual, lighting, noise or vibration), dust deposition, increased vehicle traffic and changes in hydrology and drainage. Such impacts have the potential to affect habitats outside the boundary of the construction site, though such effects will generally be temporary and are usually linked to construction impacts;

Spread of non native invasive species: Construction traffic could result in fragments of invasive plant species (Japanese knotweed), being spread around the Scheme area or further afield via vehicles or during removal and transportation of soil, and leading to the establishment of new stands of non native species. This would be a permanent impact; and/or

Possible pollution incidents:

Release of oils, fuels, chemicals etc. into the watercourses from construction machinery, stockpiles and apparatus; and/or

Release of soils, sediments etc. from partially constructed embankments, stockpiles or other construction areas.

6.9.2 Statutory designated sites

There are no international designated statutory sites occurring within the footprint of the Scheme or within the zone of influence. One nationally designated statutory site occurs some 2km of the Scheme: Pitcaple & Legatsden (SSSI), and is designated solely for its geological interest. There will not be any direct or indirect impacts upon the SSSI, as there will be no disturbance to the geophysical features of the site. No adverse impacts upon the SSSI or its interest features are anticipated.



April 2013


6.9.3 Non-Statutory Designated Sites

There are three ‘Sites of Interest for Natural Science’ (a non-statutory local site designation used by Aberdeenshire Council) within 2km of the Scheme, two having geological interest and one entomological:

Pitcaple Quarry – geological interest, this site occur approximately 500m from the Scheme boundary. No adverse impacts upon the site of natural interest or its intrinsic features are anticipated;

Govals Quarry – geological & ecological interest, this site occur approximately 100m from the Scheme boundary. No adverse impacts upon the site of natural interest or its intrinsic features are anticipated;

Pitscurrie Moss – entomological interest, this site occurs approximately 2km from the Scheme boundary. No adverse impacts upon the site of natural interest or its intrinsic features are anticipated;

6.9.4 Habitats

The impacts on habitats can be divided into direct and indirect impacts.

Long-established Woodland of Plantation Origin such features often possess semi-natural characteristics and are considered to be of conservation interest. Features present within the Schemes footprint is classified as Regional Value for nature conservation and consist of a group of four small broad-leaved plantations in open fields between the railway line and River Urie.

Direct Impacts

Proposals will necessitate the felling of a significant proportion, if not all of the trees within three of the four woodland stands, allowing for the construction footprint, the majority of the trees are mature / semi-mature specimens.

Such a direct impact upon the woodland will cause fragmentation and affect its wildlife corridor function. It is also considered likely that such impacts will negatively affect European Protected Species, such as bats that are using the woodland for foraging and trees for roosting.

There will be direct and permanent land take, encompassing three of the four of the woodland stands, equating to approximately 6600m2. The impact upon the long-established woodland of plantation origin is considered to be of a severe magnitude / moderate adverse ecological effect at a regional level and certain to happen.

Indirect impacts

Dust deposition will arise from site enablement and construction phases. The impacts are primarily that vegetation, coated with dust, suffers drought stress. The effects of wind can carry the dust over a greater area. Such impact would be temporary and mainly localised and of low magnitude, and it is considered unlikely that levels of dust or its transportation will have a significant affect on adjacent woodland vegetation.

6.9.5 Running Water

Direct impacts



April 2013


One minor watercourse (land drain) occurs within the direct footprint of the Scheme, whilst the River Urie an important tributary of the River Don occurs in close proximity. The River Urie provides important habitat and corridor functions for wildlife.

During construction there is potential for pollution incidents, which may affect ground water sources and neighbouring watercourses. Such incidents may occur through the release of oils, fuels, chemicals etc. into the watercourses from storage tanks and construction machinery or from soil sediments etc. from partially constructed embankments, stockpiles or other construction areas.

Such incidents were they to occur would have a severe impact upon macrophytes, aquatic invertebrates and fish in both watercourses, but particularly the River Urie. The application of appropriate pollution prevention measures, including fuel storage facilities and stock pile areas shall be employed to prevent such occurrences. Subsequently, the impact of such discharges to the aquatic ecology present the watercourses are considered to be of a severe magnitude / moderate adverse ecological effect at a regional level and unlikely to happen.

6.9.6 Semi-improved Grasslands

Occurs predominantly in the form of managed pasture with little intrinsic ecological value, this habitat is considered to be of Zone of Influence Value to nature conservation.

Direct Impacts

Proposals will necessitate direct and permanent land take, which will also cause habitat fragmentation and affect its wildlife corridor function. It is also considered likely that such impacts will negatively affect Protected Species, such as badgers, which use the grassland for both foraging and commuting.

The impact on the semi-improved grasslands is considered to be of a moderate magnitude / negligible adverse ecological effect at a zone of influence level and certain to happen.

6.9.7 Scrub

Willow and hawthorn scrub occurs through out the footprint of the Scheme, either as distinct areas of dense scrub or more open and scattered. This habitat is considered to be of Zone of Influence Value to nature conservation.

Direct Impacts

Proposals will necessitate direct and permanent land take, which will also cause habitat fragmentation and affect its wildlife corridor function. It is also considered likely that such impacts will negatively affect Protected Species, such as nesting birds and bats, which use the scrub habitat for breeding, foraging and commuting.

The impact on the scrub habitat is considered to be of a moderate magnitude / negligible adverse ecological effect at a zone of influence level and certain to happen.

6.9.8 Other Habitats

The design proposals will necessitate direct and permanent land take, affecting other habitat types present within the Scheme footprint, such as tall ruderal vegetation, arable and associated marginal land. It is also considered likely that such impacts will have minor / negligible adverse affects on a number of Protected Species, including nesting and foraging birds.



April 2013


The impact on the other habitats is considered to be of a moderate magnitude / negligible adverse ecological effect at a zone of influence level and certain to happen.

6.9.9 Non native Invasive plants

Indirect Impacts

It is an offence to plant or cause the spread in the wild of plants listed in Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), and further amended by Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Act 2011.

To avoid risk of prosecution, developers and others must follow SEPA good practice guidelines during the removal or management of such species. Removal of these plants, except in private gardens, must be undertaken by qualified and licensed persons. Discarded plant material and contaminated soil is controlled waste under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, and must be transported by a licensed waste carrier and buried at a licensed landfill site.

Scattered stands of giant hogweed occur within the riparian areas of the River Urie. This non native plant is a nuisance to native flora and fauna, as well as possessing human health and safety issues. Although the recorded locations of this plant is considered to be outwith the footprint of the Scheme, should access to such areas be required, without careful removal giant hogweed could be inadvertently spread further afield by transfer of seeds on wheels of vehicles or via soil removal operations. Such an impact would be long-term and of a slight magnitude but could be widespread.

6.9.10 Bats

All bat species are fully protected under the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c) Regulations 1994 (as amended). This legislation provides substantial protection to bats and their roosts. Without a derogation licence (issued by Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) it is an offence to:

Deliberately capture, injure or kill a bat;

Deliberately, intentionally or recklessly disturb a bat in its roost or deliberately disturb a group of bats;

Damage or destroy a bat roosting place (even if bats are not occupying the roost at the time); and

Intentionally or recklessly obstruct access to a bat roost.

For the purposes of bat protection, a bat roost is defined as “any structure or place, which is used (by bats) for shelter or protection”, regardless of whether it is currently in use by bats or not.

Direct Impacts

Direct impacts on bats will relate to removal of a recorded tree roost site and other potential tree roost sites, as well as foraging / commuting habitat.

Although there was only one tree roost confirmed, it is considered likely that other roosts sites are present within the broadleaf woodland stands. Additionally, a sustained level of bat foraging and commuting activity was recorded within the development footprint.



April 2013


Direct impacts to bats will relate to the removal of broadleaf woodland from the site and the subsequent loss of a recorded minor roost site, and the potential loss other minor roost sites within the four broadleaf woodland stands. In the absence of mitigation, the impact is assessed as being of severe magnitude / minor adverse ecological effect at a local level and is certain to happen.

The removal of broadleaf woodland and hedgerow / scrub will result in the loss of foraging habitat and the truncation of bat commuting routes. Pipistrelle bats were recorded foraging extensively along the woodland margins and particularly the areas between the woodland and the River Urie. Although other foraging habitat occurs outwith the immediate study area, the loss / interference to commuting routes is likely to disrupt habitat connectivity for foraging bats. In the absence of mitigation, the impact is assessed as being of severe magnitude / minor adverse ecological effect at a local level and is certain to happen.

Indirect Impacts

Bats may be disturbed by the noise, lighting, vibration and presence of people and machinery during the construction phase. However, the bats in this area will be habituated to traffic on the existing road; rather this is a temporary impact in a largely unlit area. The construction activity will generally be undertaken in daylight hours, which would minimise disturbance to foraging bats. The impact is assessed as being of moderate magnitude / minor adverse ecological effect at a local level and considered probable.

6.9.11 Badger

Badgers and their setts are afforded protection under the Protection of Badgers Act (1992) and the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981). The purpose of the legislation is to protect the animals from deliberate cruelty and the incidental effects of lawful activities. In summary, under this legislation it is an offence to:

Wilfully kill, injure, take, possess or cruelly ill-treat a badger or attempt to do so;

Interfere with a sett by damaging or destroying it;

Obstruct access to, or any entrance of, a badger sett; and

Disturb a badger when it is occupying a sett.

Offences can result from both reckless and deliberate damage, disturbance and destruction. However, experienced individuals, under licence from SNH, can legally carry out some of the above activities. SNH advises that any work that is proposed within 30m of the closest sett entrance may require a licence.

Direct Impacts

Proposals will necessitate direct and permanent land take, which will affect five of the nine recorded setts, these do not include the sett previously used for breeding (S3). Setts (S2, S5, S6, S7 and S8) all occur within the footprint of the Scheme and will be directly impacted upon (destroyed). All the setts were recorded as active at the time of the surveys. In addition to the permanent destruction of the five setts, it is considered likely that the breeding sett (S3) may have to be temporarily closed during construction. The sett would then be re-opened following completion of construction. The decision on whether to temporarily close sett 3 will be taken by the Ecological Clerk of Works in consultation with SNH and the appointed contractor. In the absence of mitigation, the impact is assessed as being of severe magnitude / moderate adverse ecological effect at a local level and is certain to happen.



April 2013


In-addition to the destruction of the setts, habitat fragmentation will occur as a consequence of the new road alignment, which will result in fragmentation of the resident badger’s foraging habitats and commuting routes. In the absence of mitigation, the impact is assessed as being of severe magnitude / moderate adverse ecological effect at a local level and is certain to happen.

As a consequence of permanent land take for the Scheme, loss of foraging habitat will also occur; although the actual area of such habitat lost, is likely to be comparatively small in area compared to foraging resources is still available in adjacent areas and areas not directly impacted by the Scheme. Given the availability of comparable habitat in the wider area the impact is assessed as being of moderate magnitude / minor adverse ecological effect at a local level and is certain to happen.

6.9.12 Otter

Otter is protected by the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations 1994 as amended by the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c) Amendments (Scotland) Regulations 2007. This makes it illegal to:

Intentionally or recklessly kill, injure or take (capture) an otter;

Intentionally or recklessly disturb or harass an otter;

Intentionally or recklessly damage, destroy or obstruct access to a breeding site or resting place of an otter (i.e. an otter shelter).

Otters living within freshwater environments are regarded as being mainly nocturnal, solitary and semi-aquatic, obtaining most of its food from rivers, which usually consists of eels, fish, amphibians, birds and small mammals. In freshwater, otter territories are usually extensive often in excess of 20km, mortalities can occur when crossing roads and other structures.

During the otter surveys four otter refuges (two holts and two lie-ups) and twenty three spraints sites were recorded within the riparian corridor of the River Urie, which occur within the study area. Neither of the two holts were considered to be breeding sites as they are located on a major water course rather than a secluded location normally preferred as breeding sites.

Although the new road layout extends to within 60m of the River Urie at its closest point, no direct impacts upon the recorded otter refuges will occur. Additionally, as the new road Scheme runs parallel to the river, it is considered unlikely that any loss or fragmentation of riparian habitat will occur.

Direct Impacts

There is the potential for disturbance to otters due to construction activity, due to an increase in construction vehicle movements, and via an increase in human activity. There could also be a disturbance effect upon any otters moving throughout the area by noise and lighting from construction compounds etc. In the absence of mitigation, the impact is assessed as being of moderate magnitude / minor adverse ecological effect at a local level and probable.

Indirect Impacts

The construction phase of the Scheme may result in the deterioration of water quality within the River Urie, due to pollution incidents through oil spills and silt laden water entering the river. Such incidents although considered unlikely, with the employment of appropriate



April 2013


pollution prevention measures, could have a direct affect on otters within the River Urie, including prey resources. In the absence of mitigation the impact of water pollution is anticipated to be severe magnitude / moderate adverse ecological effect at a local level and probable.

With the employment best practice construction techniques in and around the river, which will minimise the effect upon water the magnitude will be reduced to slight / minor adverse ecological effect at a local level and unlikely.


In Scotland, wild birds are protected under Section 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, as amended, making it an offence to:

Intentionally or recklessly kill, injure or take any wild bird;

Intentionally or recklessly take, damage or destroy or otherwise interfere with any nest habitually used by any wild bird while it is in use or being built;

Intentionally or recklessly obstruct or prevent any wild bird from using its nest;

Intentionally or recklessly kill take or destroy the egg of any wild bird; and

Intentionally or recklessly disturb any wild bird listed in Schedule 1 while it is nest building or is at or near a nest with eggs or young; or disturb the dependent young of such a bird.

The breeding season for most species in Scotland is generally accepted as being between mid March and mid August inclusive. Potential adverse impacts upon breeding birds as result of the Scheme construction during this period could involve direct damage to nests, or loss of eggs or nestlings. Loss of habitat also reduces local food supplies and fragmented habitat can increase predation risk to adjacent nests. Construction activities are also expected to create noise and visual disturbance to breeding birds in adjacent habitats which may deter birds tending nests or result in nest desertion.

Direct Impacts

The magnitude of impact on breeding birds depends largely on the timing of construction works.

During the breeding season direct impacts of a severe magnitude relate to the removal of foraging habitat in general and potential disturbance to or destruction of active nests and breeding birds. Removal of habitat alters the availability of foraging, roosting and nesting opportunities, potentially creating changes in the population dynamics of an area. The impacts on a particular species can result in a reduction in population, and certainly in the short-term, in the number of breeding pairs that can occupy a site.

Although the proposals will necessitate the likely removal of all (or almost all) the trees within three of the four woodland stands, it is considered that the likely affect upon breeding birds, based upon the results of the breeding bird surveys will not be as great a magnitude; than if areas of woodland outwith of the Scheme were impacted. A greater diversity of species was recorded in neighbouring woodland areas, due largely to the presence enhanced levels of structural diversity, compared with the woodland sites occurring within the Scheme. The impact has been assessed as being of a severe magnitude / minor adverse ecological effect at a local level and is certain to happen.



April 2013


Outwith the breeding season direct impacts would relate to removal of foraging habitat in general and disturbance to birds in the vicinity, although there are no legislative restrictions in this respect. Removal of habitat alters the availability of foraging and roosting sites and may decrease the attractiveness of an area to birds, potentially resulting in changes in some local bird populations. A significant territorial and foraging resource is still available in adjacent areas and areas not directly impacted by the Scheme. Given the availability of comparable habitat in the wider area, the impact has been assessed as being of a slight magnitude / negligible adverse ecological effect at a local level and is certain to happen.

Indirect Impacts

Bird species will be potentially impacted by noise, lighting and visual disturbance of the site during construction. However to a certain extent local birds will be habituated to existing road traffic disturbance levels.

Should works be carried out during the breeding bird season, there is the potential that birds may abandon nests adjacent to construction works, due to levels of disturbance and indirect affects. Disturbance in these circumstances is considered to be a severe magnitude impact / minor adverse ecological effect at a local level and is certain to happen.

Work carried out during the non breeding season may displace some birds to forage/roost further from the construction activity area. Once construction is complete it is likely that local birds will habituate to the new environment. Impacts have been assessed as being of a slight magnitude / negligible adverse ecological effect at a local level and are certain to happen.

6.9.14 Water Vole

Water voles are listed on Schedule 5 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). In Scotland, the legal protection associated with this listing is currently restricted to the water vole's places of shelter or protection and does not extend to the animals themselves. However, full protection covering the animals themselves is proposed.

At present it is an offence to intentionally or recklessly:

Damage, destroy or obstruct access to any structure or place which water voles use for shelter or protection; and

Disturb water voles while they are using such a place.

Limited field evidence relating to the presence of water vole was recorded within the development area; though the species is known to be locally common within other parts of the River Don catchment area. Although most of the potential water vole habitat occurs outwith of the development footprint, should the planned requirements involve works to the minor watercourse (culvert) or the River Urie (outfall) impacts may occur, such impacts have been assessed as being of slight magnitude / negligible adverse ecological effect at a local level and unlikely to happen.

6.9.15 Red squirrel

Red squirrel is listed in schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 as amended making it an offence to:

Intentionally or recklessly kill injure or take red squirrels;

Intentionally disturb a red squirrel in its place of shelter;



April 2013


Intentionally damage, destroy or obstruct red squirrel access to its shelter.

Direct impacts

Although no evidence of red squirrel was found within the Scheme footprint, it is considered likely to be transient through the area. The habitat within the Scheme’s footprint is regarded as suboptimal and unlikely to support a resident population; subsequently, the impact is assessed as being of slight magnitude / negligible adverse ecological effect at a local level and is unlikely to happen.

6.9.16 Pine marten

Pine marten is protected under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 as amended making it an offence to:

Intentionally or recklessly kill, injure or take a pine marten;

Intentionally disturb a pine marten in its place of shelter;

Intentionally damage, destroy or obstruct pine marten access to its shelter.

Direct Impacts

Although no evidence of pine marten was found within the Scheme footprint, it is considered likely to be transient through the area. The habitat within the Scheme’s footprint is regarded as suboptimal and unlikely to support a resident population; subsequently, the impact is assessed as being of slight magnitude / negligible adverse ecological effect at a local level and is unlikely to happen.

6.9.17 Operational Impacts

The potential negative impacts due to operation and maintenance of Scheme are:

Water quality impacts due to contaminated surface water run-off, especially within the River Urie;

Increased risk of road mortality to badger or other mammals due to increased traffic velocity.

6.9.18 Designated Sites

No direct impacts are anticipated for any designated site.

6.9.19 Habitats

No negative impacts acting on terrestrial habitats are anticipated during the operational phase. The landscape planting proposed will mature over time, and will at least partially compensate for woodland and scrub habitat lost. The impact upon the terrestrial habitats during the operational phase of the Scheme is assessed as negligible / negligible adverse ecological effect at all levels and is extremely unlikely to happen.

6.9.20 Running Water

Without mitigation measures being implemented, there would be potential negative impacts during the operational phase on watercourses, due to pollutant-laden surface water run-off. Mitigation measures to prevent this are specified below and within the Chapter 10 – Road Drainage and the Water Environment and have been incorporated into the Scheme design.



April 2013


Such incidents were they to occur would have a severe impact upon macrophytes, aquatic invertebrates and fish in all watercourses, but particularly the River Urie. The application of appropriate pollution prevention measures, such as the provision of a SuDS pond(s) will significantly elevate the risk of such occurrences. Subsequently, the impact of such discharges to the aquatic ecology is considered to be of a severe magnitude / moderate adverse ecological effect at a regional level and unlikely to happen.

6.9.21 Bats

The loss or truncation of traditional flight paths may result in increased levels of road kill, as bats will still try to cross new or widened sections of road at habitual cross over points. In the absence of mitigation, the impact is assessed as being of minor adverse ecological effect at a local level and is probable.

Loss of bat foraging habitat relates mainly to woodland edge, scattered trees and scrub. The extent of lost habitats in the absence of mitigation is certain to have an impact of severe magnitude / minor adverse ecological effect at a local level and is certain to happen.

6.9.22 Badger

As the new road alignment will fragment existing badger foraging and commuting habitat, there is an increased risk of road casualties in the local area, in the absence of mitigation, the impact is assessed as being of severe magnitude / minor adverse ecological effect at a local level and is probable.

6.9.23 Otter

Due to the alignment of the new section of road, no otter habitat will be directly impacted, no truncation will occur; therefore, it is considered unlikely that otters would cross the new road Scheme. Subsequently, no direct operational impacts in relation to otters are anticipated.

During operation, there is likely to be increased levels of road noise which may cause disturbance to otters; however, otters are regarded as resilient animals and are likely to become habituated over a relatively short period of time. Such an impact would be permanent and of slight magnitude / negligible adverse ecological effect at a local level and is certain to happen.


Once construction is complete and the new road becomes operational, it is considered likely that local birds will habituate to the new environment. Lost nesting habitat will be replaced in the long term by the proposed landscape planting and given also that there is alternative suitable breeding and foraging habitat in the wider area, and the bird species encountered are regarded as largely widespread and common species. Such impacts would be of a slight magnitude / negligible adverse ecological effect at a local level and is certain to happen.

6.9.25 Water Vole

No operational impacts in relation to water vole are anticipated.



April 2013


6.9.26 Red Squirrel

There is an increased risk of road casualties due to faster moving traffic in the local area, the impact is assessed as being of slight magnitude / negligible adverse ecological effect at a local level and is unlikely to happen.

6.9.27 Pine marten

There is an increased risk of road casualties due to faster moving traffic in the local area, the impact is assessed as being of slight magnitude / negligible adverse ecological effect at a local level and is unlikely to happen.

6.10 Mitigation

This section describes the mitigation required in order to meet the legal requirements associated with the ecological receptors of the site. It also highlights specific mitigation measures necessary to reduce any negative effects upon sensitive ecological receptors, identified in the previous sections. Species and location specific mitigation measures as described below are detailed within Figure 6.4 – Ecological Mitigation.

6.10.1 Principles of Mitigation

The principles of mitigation in order of priority are as follows:

Avoid any negative impact on the target habitat or species; and

Minimise impacts by input into the Scheme design.

If this is not possible, then:

Minimise the scale and magnitude of the impact; and then

Compensate for the impact through provision of alternatives.

Environmental mitigation has been embedded at the design stage of the Scheme to ensure that:

Sensitive habitats are identified and avoided where possible during development;

Works are designed to avoid harm to protected species, including the choice of construction method;

Works are timed to avoid the periods of maximum sensitivity of receptors; and

Pollution incidents are avoided e.g. follow best practice methods.

In the following sections, the extent of mitigation will be assessed as follows:

Fully – impact fully mitigated, no residual effect predicted;

Substantially mitigated, some residual effect possible; or

Partially – impact partially mitigated, some residual effects predicted.

6.10.2 General Mitigation Measures

The general mitigation measures identified below should be included within the final design and the construction contractor’s employer’s requirements for the Scheme:



April 2013


An Ecological Clerk of Works (ECoW) will be employed during the construction phase to deal with any protected species or other ecological issues that may arise. They would liaise with relevant specialists, such as SNH, to provide mitigation as necessary, and would undertake any specified pre-construction surveys;

The ECoW must hold relevant protected species survey licences or should liaise with specialist licensed consultants to address protected species, such as bats.

The ECoW will be responsible for ‘toolbox talks’, whereby all appropriate workers would be briefed on the ecological sensitivity of the site, and would have clear notification of protected species and restricted areas. Such meetings will be carried out on a regular basis, as they provide a convenient and effective method of communicating and reinforcing the key environmental messages throughout the workforce;

The ECoW will be responsible for ensuring that appropriate ecological and environmental information is included within the site briefing or induction received by all construction or site staff;

The ECoW will also be responsible for the implementation and supervision of mitigation measures, and for any work that would be required under protected species licenses. This individual will also undertake pre-construction checks for protected species.

All relevant SEPA good practice guidelines for working near water must be followed including PPG5 Working in near or liable to affect watercourses, PPG6 Working at Construction and Demolition Sites and PPG2 Above Ground Oil Storage Tanks.

The ECoW must ensure that any deep excavations are covered at night to prevent mammals falling into them and being injured or becoming trapped. If covering is not possible, suitable ramps must be installed to allow animals to climb out.

6.10.3 Legal Requirements

The following text provides a summary of relevant legislation. The relevant Acts should be consulted for precise wording of the legislation.

In addition to the general legal requirements that planners must consider in regard to potential environmental impacts of proposed activities or developments, certain habitats and species are afforded specific protection under European, UK and Scottish legislation.

The Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 as amended in the principal legislation in Scotland for the protection and conservation of wildlife and habitats. It is supplemented by the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) 1994, as amended, implementing the EU Habitats and Birds Directives.

European Directives and conventions have been implemented using the national legislation. European Protected Species are protected solely by the Conservation Regulations. The legislation in combination makes it an offence to intentionally, deliberately or recklessly;

Capture, injure or kill a wild animal of a European Protected Species;

Harass a wild animal while it is occupying a structure or place which it uses for shelter or protection;

Disturb such an animal while it is rearing or otherwise caring for its young;

Obstruct access to a breeding site or resting place of such an animal or otherwise to deny the animal use of the breeding site or resting place;



April 2013


Disturb such an animal in a manner that is, or in circumstances which are, likely to significantly affect the local distribution of abundance of the species to which it belongs;

Disturb such an animal in a manner that is, or in circumstances which are, likely to impair its ability to survive, breed or reproduces, or rear or otherwise care for its young; and

Damage or destroy a breeding site or resting place of such an animal

The legislative requirements associated with the protected habitats and species in the Study Area are fully described in the relevant preceding sections.

6.10.4 Statutory Designated Sites

No specific mitigation is required to safeguard statutory designated sites, as none will be impacted either directly or indirectly by the Scheme.

6.10.5 Habitats

Mitigation and compensation to enhance and protect terrestrial habitats including minor watercourses is:

Direct habitat loss will be minimised where possible within the design of the Scheme. Any impacts upon woodland and scrub habitat will be minimised. This would take the form of minimising direct intervention into woodland areas, minimising any edge disturbance, and retaining mature trees where the Scheme allows. Where tree removal or arboricultural works are to be undertaken, the trees will be subject to assessment with regard particularly to their bat roost potential and nesting bird potential (see below). Once the necessary trees have been felled during enablement, suitable fencing and signage will be required to prevent site creep, and access by staff and machinery;

Compensatory woodland planting areas, the provision of three areas of land currently consisting of species poor semi-improved grassland and arable land, two located between the new road alignment and the River Urie and one between the new road and the railway line (shown on Figure 6.4 – Ecological Mitigation.. The extent of these sites will incorporate approximately 6600m2 of new woodland planting, as means of compensation in the long term for the woodland and scrub lost to the Scheme (the size of compensatory woodland will be no less than the final area of woodland to be lost). The trees specified will be native species and have a local provenance, in accordance with best practice. These should be confirmed with the ECoW as being appropriate to the habitats and species on site;

Replacement planting of trees and shrubs on site through out the Scheme, using native species of local provenance;

Re-create areas of semi-improved grassland within landscaped areas, and improve biodiversity by incorporating wildflower seed mix of local provenance;

The mitigation measures outlined above for trees and woodland will also apply to the other habitats on site, where applicable, e.g. working areas will be clearly defined in order to minimise risk to watercourses, the river and other ecologically sensitive habitats;

Compliance with SEPA Pollution Prevention Guidelines (PPG) and use of SUDS to protect the River Urie; and

An invasive species management plan must be produced and put into operation prior to construction, as a means of avoiding the risk of illegally spreading giant hogweed.



April 2013


These measures will substantially mitigate impacts upon woodland and scrub habitats in the medium to long term, with a potential biodiversity gain.

6.10.6 Bats

Proposed mitigation measures to be employed as a means of reducing impacts to local bat populations include:

The re-design of features with major impacts;

Planting of new woodland and hedgerows to promote habitat connectivity and maintain wherever possible green linkages (see Table 6.8)

Planting of new woodland habitat with open foraging areas, i.e. the proposed compensatory woodland planting area (see Table 6.9)

Provision of new artificial roost sites i.e. bat boxes and houses (see Table 6.10)

Avoid / minimise road side street lighting at bat crossing points, including bridges and green linkages.

Table 6.8 Proposed Landscape [Commuting Routes] mitigation and locations

Location[s] Impacts Mitigation

Old Redundant Railway Embankment

Loss of tree lines / hedgerow & scrub, commuting route.

Tree & shrub planting, with native species and of local provenance [linear feature].

Broadleaf Woodland Stands

Loss of broadleaf woodland stands, including mature trees.

Designated compensation area located between the new section of road and the River Urie. Tree & shrub planting using native species of local provenance. Create open foraging areas.

Location Specific Fragmentation of commuting routes Planting with standard trees on both sides of the road in sections of the Scheme with road cuttings, to facilitate bat crossing points.

Location Specific Fragmentation of commuting routes Maintain habitat connectivity between remaining trees / scrub around the area of the old railway station and the River Urie. Tree & shrub planting, with native species and of local provenance [linear feature].

Table 6.9 Proposed Foraging & Habitat Improvements

Location[s] Impacts Mitigation

Broadleaf Woodland Stands

Loss of foraging area Tree & shrub planting with open foraging areas, refer to Table (6.8)above.

Location Specific Loss of foraging area Tree & shrub planting with open foraging areas



April 2013


Table 6.10 Proposed Roost mitigation and locations

Mitigation Location[s] Narrative

New bat roosting sites [Bat Boxes]

Disused Railway Bridge – River Urie

Bat boxes fixed to bridge abutments as a means of providing new roosting sites.

New bat roosting sites [Bat Boxes]

Nearby woodland / hedgerow trees

Bat boxes fixed to appropriately sited trees as a means of providing new / replacement roosting sites lost to tree removal.

It is considered that the above proposed mitigation measures, will substantially mitigate against the negative impacts, associated with the Scheme in the medium term.

6.10.7 Badger

The ECoW must conduct a pre-construction survey for badger activity within the confines of the original study area, as a means of establishing the current status of badgers. A high level of badger activity was recorded during the original study within the development footprint, with a number of badger setts recorded. Given the mobile nature of these animals it is possible that more setts may arise predevelopment and indeed throughout the development period. Badger setts are protected by law; however, there are provisions in the legislation to allow actions to take place under licence that would otherwise constitute a contravention of the law. Disturbance within 30m of a badger sett (more for piling operations etc.) must be licensed by the SNH prior to any works starting. Licences for sett exclusions (closure) can take up to 8 weeks to be granted by SNH and it is standard for exclusions to be restricted to a period between 1st July and 30th November of each year in order to avoid the badger breeding season.

Artificial Setts

Due to the direct impacts upon several recorded badger setts, it is considered necessary to provide two large artificial badger setts.. The replacement setts will be located at either end of the Scheme, one is located as close as possible to the setts lost to the Scheme (although outwith the floodzone), with the other close to where badgers are known to cross the River Urie on the disused bridge. Both of these sites are within the proposed compensatory planting areas which will provide cover for the setts and are outwith the disturbance zone for construction activity. The exact locations within these zones will be determined by the ECoW in consultation with SNH

Badger Underpasses

To facilitate connectivity due to the fragmentation of both badger foraging and commuting habitats, as a consequence of the proposed realignment, three different mammal passages are being provided: the new bridge over the railway will be wide enough to allow passage of badgers under the road without using the railway line to access the new woodland planting beyond, a purpose built mammal underpass will connect the north end of the woodland between the road and railway with the riparian corridor just north of the retained or re-opened breeding sett and the culvert through which an existing minor watercourse will flow will be adapted to include a dry mammal ledge.

Badger Fencing

Fencing designed to SNH specifications to be provided as a means of preventing road traffic accidents by guiding badgers to the underpass and the railway bridge; fencing will also prevent access to the railway line.



April 2013


Site staff must be made aware of the potential presence of badgers crossing the site within the development area and details must be included in the site induction.

These measures will substantially mitigate/compensate against negative impacts.

6.10.8 Otter

It is considered prudent that the ECoW conduct a pre-construction survey for otter activity along the River Urie, up to c.200m from the development footprint to establish the current status of otter activity, and to inform European Protected Species Licence if required. There is a high level of otter activity currently within the development footprint, with four active otter refuges identified within study area. Given the mobile nature of these animals it is possible that more refuges may arise predevelopment and indeed throughout the development period. Otter refuges are protected by law; however, there are provisions in the legislation to allow actions to take place under licence that would otherwise constitute a contravention of the law. Disturbance to otter holts that occur within 30 m of the development footprint must be licensed by the SNH prior to any works starting, if a breeding holt is suspected this distance increases to 250m. At present the holts are no considered to be used for breeding activity, however the pre-construction survey may alter this opinion, in which case a new mitigation strategy will be agreed with SNH.

It is not considered necessary to provide artificial otter refuges, as none will be impacted by the proposed Scheme, though it is considered likely that otters would utilise the proposed compensatory woodland planting area adjacent to the River Urie, as locations for refuges i.e. lie-up areas.

There are a number of general precautionary measures which must be implemented. Where overnight artificial lighting is used light spill must not be allowed over watercourses and riparian habitat in order to avoid disturbance to otter. Cowling must be used to prevent light spill over adjacent areas of habitat (cf. bat mitigation).

Site staff must be made aware of the potential presence of otters crossing the site within the development area and details must be included in the site induction.

These measures will substantially mitigate/compensate against negative impacts.


Breeding birds are protected by the WCA as amended by the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004, whereby it is illegal to intentionally or recklessly kill, injure or take any wild bird, damage or destroy or obstruct the active nest of any wild bird, and take or destroy an egg of any wild bird. In addition, birds listed on Schedule 1 of the WCA are protected against intentional or reckless disturbance on or near an active nest.

Vegetation and tree removal must be avoided and minimised where possible. Habitat clearance work must be undertaken between September and February to avoid the breeding season. This will substantially mitigate against the potential damage and destruction of active nests and the removal of vegetation providing shelter, protection and foraging habitat for breeding birds and their young.

If clearance work has to be undertaken during the breeding season, an ornithologist (who must be knowledgeable of bird nesting behaviour and experienced at nest finding) must check for active nests, to ensure that these are not destroyed or disturbed, and to advise accordingly.



April 2013


Active nests will need to be left undisturbed until the nesting attempt is complete. This approach will only partially mitigate for potential disturbance, damage or destruction of nests, and removal of foraging or protective cover habitat for breeding birds and fledglings. However, this approach is often unsuccessful because it results in an increased risk of predation or nest desertion, due to excessive disturbance and loss of surrounding habitat and could therefore be viewed as a breach of wildlife legislation.

Landscape planting including the compensatory woodland area, will be undertaken around the proposed Scheme to compensate for the loss of breeding and foraging habitat and further details of planting is provided in Chapter 5 – Landscape. The trees & shrubs used must be locally native and of local provenance. This will largely compensate for habitat loss for breeding birds in the medium to long term.

In order to provide alternative nesting habitat for cavity nesting species, replacing cavities in the trees that will be lost during the construction phase, a variety of woodcrete artificial nest boxes should be provided, accommodating woodland species affected (great spotted woodpecker, blue tit and great tit). The nest boxes must be installed one season in advance of habitat clearance and erected on trees within adjacent areas of retained woodland. The exact trees and location of the nest boxes on trees will be determined by an ornithologist who will also seek permission from relevant landowners. It is recommended that twenty bird nest boxes are erected. The type and number of nest boxes used will be Schwegler woodcrete model 1B (4 boxes with 32 mm hole; 6 boxes with 26 mm hole); model 2H (x5); and model 3SV (x5) or similar. Nest boxes must be located at approximately 3-4 m above ground level to protect against human interference and must face away from the prevailing rain bearing winds.

In combination these measures will partially mitigate or compensate habitat loss.

6.10.10 Water Vole

No specific mitigation measures for water voles are considered necessary, as there will be no direct impacts upon water vole burrows, or habitat; though it would be considered prudent for evidence of water vole activity to be recorded during the required preconstruction otter survey, as a means of assessing their current status.

Compliance with SEPA Pollution Prevention Guidelines and use of SUDS to protect the River Urie will also benefit water voles.

6.10.11 Red Squirrel

No specific mitigation measures for red squirrel are considered necessary, as there will be no direct impacts upon their refuges or optimal habitat.

6.10.12 Pine Marten

No specific mitigation measures for pine marten are considered necessary, as there will be no direct impacts upon their refuges or optimal habitat.

6.11 Disruption due to Construction

Refer to Construction Phase Impacts, as described above.



April 2013


6.12 Residual Impacts

Residual impacts are summarised and placed into context in Table 6.11, which shows the receptor, value, stage of impact (construction or operation), impact significance prior to mitigation, mitigation measures, mitigation extent, and residual impacts after mitigation.

All residual impacts are deemed to be significant at a minor level, based on all mitigation measures being fully implemented. The mitigation measures must be implemented through inclusion within the Employer’s Requirements for the Scheme.

T

rans

port

Sco

tland

— A

96 In

vera

msa

y B

ridge

Impr

ovem

ent

EN

VIR

ON

ME

NT

AL

ST

AT

EM

EN

T

Apr

il 20

13

Nat

ure

Con

serv

atio

n 6-

44 T

able

611

- S

um

mar

y o

f R

esid

ual

Imp

acts

R

ecep

tor

Eco

log

ical

V

alu

e P

rop

ose

d a

ctiv

ity

Ch

ara

cter

of

un

mit

igat

ed im

pac

t o

n r

ecep

tor

Sig

nif

ican

ce

wit

ho

ut

mit

igat

ion

an

d

con

fid

ence

le

vel

Mit

igat

ion

an

d

enh

ance

men

t R

esid

ual

sig

nif

ican

ce a

nd

co

nfi

den

ce le

vel

Lon

g-es

tabl

ish

ed

Woo

dlan

d of

P

lant

atio

n O

rigin

Med

ium

/ R

egio

nal

V

alue

.

Con

stru

ctio

n –

site

cl

eara

nce

T

otal

hab

itat l

oss

S

ever

e m

agn

itude

/ m

oder

ate

adve

rse

ecol

ogic

al

effe

ct a

t a

regi

ona

l lev

el

and

cert

ain

to

hap

pen.

Min

imis

e lo

ss,

pla

ntin

g w

ithin

an

adja

cent

co

mpe

nsat

ion

area

s a

nd

repl

antin

g on

site

.

Cer

tain

lo

calis

ed

loss

of

lo

ng-

esta

blis

hed

w

oo

dla

nd o

f pl

anta

tion

orig

in i

n t

he m

ediu

m

to lo

ng-t

erm

. Li

kely

to

be

com

pens

ate

d in

the

lon

g te

rm

ther

efor

e u

nlik

ely

to b

e si

gnifi

cant

at

Reg

ion

al

leve

l.

Sem

i-im

prov

ed

gras

slan

d

Neg

ligib

le /

Zon

e of

In

fluen

ce

Val

ue.

Con

stru

ctio

n –

site

cl

eara

nce

Lo

ss o

f ha

bita

t typ

e

Mod

erat

e m

agn

itude

/ ne

glig

ible

ad

vers

e ec

olog

ical

ef

fect

at a

zon

e of

influ

enc

e le

vel a

nd

cert

ain

to

hap

pen.

Min

imis

e lo

ss, r

e-cr

eate

are

as o

f se

mi-i

mpr

oved

gr

assl

and

with

in

lan

dsca

ped

are

as,

and

impr

ove

bio

dive

rsity

by

inco

rpor

atin

g w

ildflo

wer

see

d m

ix o

f loc

al

prov

ena

nce.

Cer

tain

lo

calis

ed

loss

of

se

mi-i

mpr

oved

gr

assl

and

in th

e sh

ort t

erm

. Li

kely

to

be c

ompe

nsat

ed

in t

he s

hort

ter

m

ther

efor

e u

nlik

ely

to b

e si

gnifi

cant

at

zon

e of

in

fluen

ce le

vel.

Scr

ub

Neg

ligib

le /

Zon

e of

In

fluen

ce

Val

ue.

Con

stru

ctio

n –

site

cl

eara

nce

Lo

ss o

f ha

bita

t typ

e

Mod

erat

e m

agn

itude

/ ne

glig

ible

ad

vers

e ec

olog

ical

ef

fect

at a

zon

e of

influ

enc

e le

vel a

nd

cert

ain

to

hap

pen.

Min

imis

e lo

ss a

nd

repl

antin

g on

site

.C

erta

in l

oca

lised

los

s of

scr

ub h

abi

tat

in t

he

med

ium

term

. Li

kely

to

be c

om

pens

ated

in t

he m

ediu

m t

erm

th

eref

ore

unl

ikel

y to

be

sign

ifica

nt a

t zo

ne

of

influ

ence

leve

l.

T

rans

port

Sco

tland

— A

96 In

vera

msa

y B

ridge

Impr

ovem

ent

EN

VIR

ON

ME

NT

AL

ST

AT

EM

EN

T

Apr

il 20

13

Nat

ure

Con

serv

atio

n 6-

45 R

ecep

tor

Eco

log

ical

V

alu

e P

rop

ose

d a

ctiv

ity

Ch

ara

cter

of

un

mit

igat

ed im

pac

t o

n r

ecep

tor

Sig

nif

ican

ce

wit

ho

ut

mit

igat

ion

an

d

con

fid

ence

le

vel

Mit

igat

ion

an

d

enh

ance

men

t R

esid

ual

sig

nif

ican

ce a

nd

co

nfi

den

ce le

vel

Bat

s Lo

w /

Loca

l va

lue

C

onst

ruct

ion

– si

te

clea

ranc

e of

tree

s.

Loss

of r

oost

site

s an

d fo

ragi

ng /

com

mut

ing

habi

tat,

and

hab

itat

frag

men

tatio

n;

Sev

ere

mag

nitu

de /

min

or a

dver

se

ecol

ogic

al

effe

ct a

t a

loca

l le

vel a

nd is

ce

rtai

n to

ha

ppe

n.

Art

ifici

al r

oost

pr

ovis

ion:

Bat

bo

xes

on

near

by

tree

s; P

re-

cons

truc

tion

clim

b an

d in

spec

t an

d em

erg

ence

/ re

-en

try

surv

eys

for

tree

s.

Tre

e an

d he

dge

row

pl

ant

ing.

Cer

tain

loca

lised

loss

of

one

nat

ura

l ro

ost

site

an

d po

tent

ial

oth

er s

ites

is n

ot

sign

ifica

nt a

t a

loca

l lev

el.

Cer

tain

loss

of

fora

ging

hab

itat

in t

he m

ediu

m

to l

ong

term

is

seve

re a

t a

loc

al

leve

l, w

ith

repl

antin

g is

like

ly t

o b

e no

t si

gnifi

cant

in lo

ng

te

rm.

Ope

ratio

n

The

loss

or

trun

catio

n of

trad

ition

al fl

ight

pa

ths

ma

y re

sult

in

incr

ease

d le

vels

of

road

kill

, as

bats

will

st

ill tr

y to

cro

ss n

ew

or

wid

ene

d se

ctio

ns

of r

oad

at h

abi

tual

cr

oss

over

po

ints

.

Min

or a

dver

se

ecol

ogic

al

effe

ct a

t a

loca

l le

vel a

nd is

pr

obab

le.

Tre

e pl

antin

g to

fa

cilit

ate

bat

s cr

ossi

ng

the

new

ro

ad a

lignm

ent

Pro

babl

e h

igh

er r

isk

of r

oad

tra

ffic

mor

talit

y fo

r ba

ts

due

to

fa

ster

m

ovin

g tr

affic

is

si

gnifi

cant

at l

oca

l lev

el a

nd

long

term

.

T

rans

port

Sco

tland

— A

96 In

vera

msa

y B

ridge

Impr

ovem

ent

EN

VIR

ON

ME

NT

AL

ST

AT

EM

EN

T

Apr

il 20

13

Nat

ure

Con

serv

atio

n 6-

46 R

ecep

tor

Eco

log

ical

V

alu

e P

rop

ose

d a

ctiv

ity

Ch

ara

cter

of

un

mit

igat

ed im

pac

t o

n r

ecep

tor

Sig

nif

ican

ce

wit

ho

ut

mit

igat

ion

an

d

con

fid

ence

le

vel

Mit

igat

ion

an

d

enh

ance

men

t R

esid

ual

sig

nif

ican

ce a

nd

co

nfi

den

ce le

vel

Bad

ger

Lo

w /

Loca

l va

lue

C

onst

ruct

ion

– si

te

clea

ranc

e

Des

truc

tion

of b

adge

r se

tts.

Fra

gmen

tatio

n of

fo

ragi

ng a

nd

com

mut

ing

habi

tats

Lo

ss o

f for

agin

g ha

bita

t.

Sev

ere

mag

nitu

de /

mod

erat

e ad

vers

e ec

olog

ical

ef

fect

at

a lo

cal

leve

l and

is

cert

ain

to

hap

pen.

S

ever

e m

agn

itude

/ m

oder

ate

adve

rse

ecol

ogic

al

effe

ct a

t a

loca

l le

vel a

nd is

ce

rtai

n to

ha

ppe

n.

Mod

erat

e m

agn

itude

/

Pro

visi

on

of

artif

icia

l bad

ger

setts

. P

rovi

sio

n of

m

amm

al

und

erpa

sses

and

fe

ncin

g.

Re-

crea

te a

rea

s of

se

mi-i

mpr

oved

Cer

tain

loc

alis

ed l

oss

of a

num

ber

of n

atur

al

setts

in

th

e sh

ort

to

med

ium

te

rm

is

not

sign

ifica

nt a

t a lo

cal l

eve

l. C

erta

in

loca

lised

di

sru

ptio

n to

ba

dge

r fo

ragi

ng

and

co

mm

utin

g ha

bita

ts

is

not

si

gnifi

cant

at

a

loca

l le

vel

in

the

shor

t to

m

ediu

m te

rm.

Cer

tain

lo

calis

ed

loss

of

b

adg

er

fora

gin

g

T

rans

port

Sco

tland

— A

96 In

vera

msa

y B

ridge

Impr

ovem

ent

EN

VIR

ON

ME

NT

AL

ST

AT

EM

EN

T

Apr

il 20

13

Nat

ure

Con

serv

atio

n 6-

47 R

ecep

tor

Eco

log

ical

V

alu

e P

rop

ose

d a

ctiv

ity

Ch

ara

cter

of

un

mit

igat

ed im

pac

t o

n r

ecep

tor

Sig

nif

ican

ce

wit

ho

ut

mit

igat

ion

an

d

con

fid

ence

le

vel

Mit

igat

ion

an

d

enh

ance

men

t R

esid

ual

sig

nif

ican

ce a

nd

co

nfi

den

ce le

vel

min

or a

dver

se

ecol

ogic

al

effe

ct a

t a

loca

l le

vel a

nd is

ce

rtai

n to

ha

ppe

n.

gras

slan

d w

ithin

la

nds

cap

ed a

reas

.

hab

itat

in t

he s

hort

ter

m i

s no

t si

gnifi

cant

at

a

loca

l lev

el.

Bre

edin

g B

irds

Lo

w /

Loca

l va

lue

C

onst

ruct

ion

– si

te

clea

ranc

e

Hab

itat l

oss

and

frag

men

tatio

n

Sev

ere

mag

nitu

de /

min

or a

dver

se

ecol

ogic

al

effe

ct a

t a

loca

l le

vel a

nd is

ce

rtai

n to

ha

ppe

n.

Site

cle

aran

ce

Sep

-Feb

incl

usiv

e;co

mpe

nsat

ory

repl

antin

g of

na

tive

tree

s &

sh

rubs

of a

loca

l pr

ove

nanc

e, a

nd

the

prov

isio

n a

nd

ade

quat

e si

ting

of

spec

ified

nes

t bo

xes.

Cer

tain

los

s o

f fo

ragi

ng a

nd

nes

ting

habi

tat

for

all

spec

ies

in m

ediu

m t

erm

but

pro

bab

ly

not s

ign

ifica

nt in

lon

g te

rm.

Cer

tain

los

s of

nes

t si

tes

in s

hrub

s an

d tr

ees

for

non

cavi

ty n

estin

g b

irds

in m

edi

um t

erm

bu

t w

ith

com

pens

atio

n

prob

abl

y no

t si

gnifi

cant

but

per

hap

s sl

ight

pos

itive

im

pact

in

long

term

.



April 2013


6.13 Monitoring

Monitoring of mitigation for protected species and aftercare of compensatory plantings is vital to evaluate the success of mitigation and make adjustments if required. The following features require monitoring annually for 5 years post development:

Bat boxes and bird boxes for signs of use or species and numbers present.

Artificial badger setts and mammal underpasses for signs of use; and

Mammal fencing, check condition and functionality.

6.14 Compliance with Plans & Policies

It is considered that the scheme, on balance, is compliant with the various tiers of the planning policy that have been considered as part of this assessment. The SPP states that ancient woodland is an important national resource to be protected, and whilst this will be partially lost as a result of the scheme, the impact has been minimised as far as possible and compensatory planting is planned as mitigation. The Scheme, which is supported in the development plan, when considered in the context of all development plan policies and the proposed mitigation measures is considered to be compliant with Aberdeenshire’s Structure Plan, Proposed SDP and LDP.

6.15 Summary and Statement of Significance

The A96 Bridge Improvement Scheme at Inveramsay will affect an area which supports fairly typical flora and fauna communities, which are known to occur in Aberdeenshire.

However, the Scheme will result in the loss of a number existing habitats within the Scheme footprint, principally including long-established woodland of plantation origin, including mature trees, scrub and semi-improved grassland.

These habitats support or are likely to support communities of plants and protected fauna such as bats, badger, breeding birds, and other wildlife.

Predicted impacts have been identified and mitigation, compensation and biodiversity enhancement opportunities have been applied where significant effects are anticipated.

There are a number of residual impacts remaining, which at a local scale are all related to the loss of established woodland habitat and the fragmentation of others. The woodland habitat is only replaceable in the long-term, especially the mature trees.

The habitats support roosting bats, breeding badgers and birds, otters and water vole are known to occur within the riparian habitats present on the periphery of the development footprint. Although an attempt to compensate for the loss of some of these features will be undertaken through provision of replanting and artificial sites, the use and therefore the success of artificial roosting, resting or nesting sites by species is not guaranteed. However, overall the impacts attributed to the Scheme are not expected to compromise the favourable conservation status of protected species’ populations, which occur within and adjacent to the Scheme’s footprint, and in the long-term the residual impacts are not considered to be significant.



April 2013


References

Altringham, J.D. (2003) British Bats Harper Collins. London.

Balharry, E.A., McGowan, G.M., Kruuk, H. and Halliwell, E. (1996). Distribution of pine martens in Scotland as determined by field survey and questionnaire. Scottish Natural Heritage Research, Survey and Monitoring Report. No. 48.

Bat Conservation Trust (2012) Bat Surveys: Good Practice Guidelines. Bat Conservation Trust, London.

Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Volume 10, Highways Agency / Scottish Executive Development Department, 2001.

Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Volume 11, Highways Agency / Scottish Executive Development Department, 2009 and update.

Environment Agency (1997). River Habitat Survey: FieFld Guidance Manual.

Mark A. Eaton, Andy F. Brown, David G. Noble, Andy J. Musgrove, Richard D. Hearn, Nicholas J. Aebischer, David W. Gibbons, Andy Evans and Richard D. Gregory (2009). Birds of Conservation Concern 3: The population status of birds in the United Kingdom, Channel Islands and Isle of Man. British Birds 102: 296-341.

Gurnell, J., Lurz, P.W.W., McDonald, R., Cartmel, S., Rushton, S.P., Tosh, D., Sweeney, O. & Shirley, M.D.F. (2007) Developing a monitoring strategy for red squirrels across the UK.

Harris, Cresswell and Jefferies (1989). Surveying for badgers. Occasional publication of the Mammal Society No.9, Mammal Society, Bristol.

Information and Advisory Note Number 4 (undated) Botanical survey of Scottish freshwater lochs. http://www.snh.org.uk/publications/on-line/advisorynotes/index.htm

Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (2006) Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment IEEM

Joint Nature Conservation Committee (2004) Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey, JNCC, Peterborough.

Kruuk, H. (2006). Otters: ecology, behaviour and conservation. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Limpens, H.J.G.A. Twisk, P. & Veenbaas, G. (2005) Bats and Road Construction. Delft. Rijkswaterstaat.

Mammal Society (2012) UK BAP Mammals: Intreim Guidance for Survey Methodologies, Impact Assessment and Mitigation, Mammal Society, Southampton

Marchant, J (1983) BTO Common Bird Census Instructions. British Trust for Ornithology. Tring.

Preston, C.D., Pearman, D.A., & Dines, T.D. (2002). New Atlas of the British and Irish Flora. OUP.

Strachan, R., Moorhouse, T. & Gelling. M. (2011) Water vole Conservation Handbook (3rd Edition). Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, University of Oxford.

Scottish Executive (2000). Habitats and Birds Directives: June 2000 Guidance Notes. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library3/nature/habd-01.asp

Scottish Government (2004). Scottish Biodiversity Strategy. Scottish Government, Edinburgh. (http://www.biodiversityscotland.gov.uk/doing/framework/strategy/)

Scottish Government (2009a). National Planning Framework for Scotland 2. Scottish Government, Edinburgh. (http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2009/07/02105627/0)



April 2013


Scottish Government (2009b). Scotland’s Climate Change Adaptation Framework 2009. Scottish Government, Edinburgh. (http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Environment/climatechange/scotlands-action/adaptation/AdaptationFramework/TheFramework)

Scottish Government (2010). Scottish Planning Policy. Scottish Government, Edinburgh. (http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2010/02/03132605/0)

Scottish Natural Heritage (http://www.snh.gov.uk/planning-and-development/advice-for-planners-and-developers/woodlands/) and information obtained directly from SNH staff by email on 28/10/2011.

Walsh, A. L. and Harris, S. (1996a) Foraging habitat preferences of vespertilionid bats in Britain. Journal of Applied Ecology 33: 508-518.

H

H

HH

H

HH

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

HH

H

HH H

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

HH

Psyl

Hl

Psit

Psit

Lx

Fs Til Ap

At Hm

Fs Til

Psyl

Fu

Pmen

Pabi

Pmen

Dc

Bet

Pha UdCons Fs Ap Ug

Pet

Pmen

Psit

Sxci

Df

Psit

Pmen

Px

Fs Ap

Psit Bet

Lx

Pabi

Pabi

Fs

DfBet

Pt

Ap Ug Fs

Bet

Fs

Ae Dg

Fs

Fs

Fs Psyl

FuUd

Lx

Ae

Ae

ChaPt

Fs Til

Ri

Bet Ap Pa

Cha

Fs

Pt

Pm

Ap Ah Fs Ug

Sx

Cha

Cha

Cha

Ap

Ae

Ae

ChaFs Ap Til

Qu Fs

Ae Rf

Cha

Bet Cm

Sx

Cha

Hl FrPsyl Bet

Cha

Pha

Ao Fr

Cha

Ae

Pt

Cha

Ae

Fs

Cha

Cha

Cons

Cha

Ue Bet

Cha

Ap BetBet Sx

Fs

Sx

Fs

FsAp

Ap

Sx

Sx

AgAgFe

Fe

Ag

Qu

Fe

9

8

76

5

3

2

1

27

24

26

25

23

22

212019

18

1716

15

14

13

12

11

10

THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN PREPARED IN ACCORDANCEWITH THE SCOPE OF URS SCOTT WILSON'S APPOINTMENTWITH ITS CLIENT AND IS SUBJECT TO THE TERMS OF THATAPPOINTMENT. URS SCOTT WILSON ACCEPTS NO LIABILITYFOR ANY USE OF THIS DOCUMENT OTHER THAN BY ITS CLIENTAND ONLY FOR THE PURPOSES FOR WHICH IT WASPREPARED AND PROVIDED. © URS SCOTT WILSON LTD 2012

KEY

Reproduced by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf ofHMSO, © Crown copyright and database right 2010.All rights reserved. Ordnance Survey Licence number100046668.

A96 INVERAMSAY BRIDGE IMPROVEMENT FIGURE 6.1

0 100 200 300 400 50050m

PHASE 1 HABITAT MAP (SHEET 1 OF 3)

* Text boxText boxText boxText boxText boxText boxText boxText boxText boxText boxText boxText box

A1.1.1 Broad-lvd semi-nat woodland

A1.1.2 Broad-leaved plantation

A1.2.2 Coniferous plantation

! !

! !

! !

! !

! !

! !A1.3.1 Mixed semi-nat woodland

A1.3.2 Mixed plantation

A2.1 Dense scrub

B1.1 Unimproved acid grassland

B2.1 Unimproved neutral grassland

IS ISIS IS B2.2 Semi-imp neutral grassland

I IB4 Improved grassland

B5 Marshy grassland

SI SISI SI B6 Poor semi-imp grassland

C1.1 Dense bracken

C3.1 Tall ruderal herb

D1.1 Dry dwarf shrub acid heath

F1 Swamp

M M MM M MG1.2 Mesotrophic standing water

G2 Running water

A A

A A J1.1 Arable

A A AA A AA A A

J1.2 Amenity grassland

J1.4 Exotic shrub

D A2.2 Scattered scrub

! A3.1 Scattered br-lvd trees

! A3.2 Scattered conifers

Ae = False oat-grassAg = AlderAh = Horse-chestnutAo = Sweet vernal-grassAp = SycamoreAt = Common bent-grassBet = BirchCha = Rosebay willowherbCm = HawthornCons = ConifersDc = Tufted hair-grassDf = Wavy hair-grassDg = CocksfootFe = AshFr = Red fescueFs = BeechFu = MeadowsweetHl = Yorkshire-fogHm = Creeping soft-grassLx = LarchPa = Wild cherryPabi = Norway sprucePet = ButterburPha = Reed canary-grassPmen = Douglas firPsit = Sitka sprucePsyl = Scot's pinePt = BrackenPx = SpruceQu = OakRf = BrambleRi = RaspberrySx = WillowSxci = Grey willowTil = LimeUd = Common nettleUe = GorseUg = Wych elm

J2.2.2 Spp-poor defunct hedge

H Phase 1 target note

E

KEY



Preferred Scheme Outline

H

H

HH

H

HH

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

HH

H

HH H

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

HH

PsylPsit

Lx

At Hm

Psyl

Psit

Fs

Fu

Pabi

Pmen

Dc

Cha

Psit

Sxci

Fs Til Ap

Psit

Pmen

Pmen

Fs

Fs

Fs Ap

Psit Bet

Lx

PabiFs

Cha

Pt

Bet

Bet

Fs

Fs

Psit

Ae Dg

ChaAp

Cha

Df

Fu

Ri

Cha

Cha

ChaFs Ap Til

Ap Ug Ah

Ae Rf

Cha

Bet Cm

Hl FrPsyl Bet

Cha

Ao Fr

BetCha

Bet Sx

Pt

Cha

Cha

Cha

Ap BetBet Sx

Sx

Ue

Sx

AgSx

Fe

Fe

Sx

AgAgFe

FeAg

Fe

Til

3231

27

24

30

29

28

26

25

23

22

212019

18

14


KEY



0 100 200 300 400 50050m






! !

! !

! !

! !

! !



A2.1 Dense scrub





B5 Marshy grassland


C1.1 Dense bracken



F1 Swamp


G2 Running water

A A

A A J1.1 Arable

A A AA A AA A A


J1.4 Exotic shrub







E

KEY




H

H

HH

H

HH

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

HH

H

HH H

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

HH

FsCha

Fs

Fs

Cha

Psit

ChaAp

Ap Ug Ah

BetCha

Bet Sx

Cha

Ap BetAe RfBet Sx Ri

Ue

Sx

AgSx

Fe

Fe

Til

3231

27

30

29

28


KEY



0 100 200 300 400 50050m






! !

! !

! !

! !

! !



A2.1 Dense scrub





B5 Marshy grassland


C1.1 Dense bracken



F1 Swamp


G2 Running water

A A

A A J1.1 Arable

A A AA A AA A A


J1.4 Exotic shrub







E

KEY




!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(

!( !(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

Plantation Block 1

Plantation Block 2

Plantation Block 3

Plantation Block 4

SUDS pond

ANABAT LOCATION

3634

3738

394041

42 43

45

4648+49

50

54

THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN PREPARED INACCORDANCE WITH THE SCOPE OF URS'SAPPOINTMENT WITH ITS CLIENT AND ISSUBJECT TO THE TERMS OF THAT APPOINTMENT.URS ACCEPTS NO LIABILITY FOR ANY USE OFTHIS DOCUMENT OTHER THAN BY ITS CLIENTAND ONLY FOR THE PURPOSES FOR WHICH ITWAS PREPARED AND PROVIDED.© URS SCOTT WILSON LTD 2012

KEY



0 100 200 300 400 50050m

BAT SURVEY

E

Preferred Scheme Outline(including SUDS ponds)

!( Bat, Confirmed roost!( Bat, High bat roost potential!( Bat, Moderate bat roost potential!( Bat, Low bat roost potential

Transect 1Transect 2Bat commuting route

®

®

®

³

®®

®

³

®

³®

³®

®

³

®

³ ®

®

³®

®

³

®

®®

³

®

³

®

®

³®

³®

³®

³®

³®

³

®

³

®®

³

®

® ³®

³

®

®

³

®

³

®

³®

®®

³

® ³

®

®

³

®

®

³

®

³®³®

³ ®

®

³

®

®

³®

³®

³®

³®

®

®

®

®

³

®

³

®®®

³

®

®

³

®³

® ³ ®

³

®

³®

³®

³

®

³

®

³

®

³

®

³

®

³ ®

³

®

³®

³ ®³ ®

³®

®® ³

®

³

® ³ ®

³

®

³®

³

®

®

®

®

³

®

³

®

(

(

(

((

( (

(

(

(

( ((

(

((

(

(

(

maf

(

(

doofdoof

(

(

(

(

(

(

((

(

(

(

(

(

(

doof

(

((maf

(

(

( (

((

( (

(

(

(

(

((

(

(

(

(

(((

(

(

(

(

((

((

(

(

( ((

((

(

(

(

(

((

(

(

(

(

( (

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(( (

(

((

(

(

(

R.

GT

WR

WP

WW

B.

CH CH

B.

WP

WW

CH

BC CHY.

CH

WW

B.CH

CH

GW

SL

Y.

H.

SL

BT

JD

WR

B.

OCY.

RO

RORO B.

RO

JD

BTRO

PWPW

WR

GS

SL

R.

R.

WPJD

WR

WPWP

JD

BZ

Y.WR

SW

C.

WW GW

BCWP

WP

CH WW

WW

B.

B.

C.

WP

STC.

B.BT

WW

WW

B.

Y.

GO

R.WRWP

WW

CH

B.

B.GO

BT

WP

RO

C.

D.

BT

B.

WWGR

GO

GO

TS

TSOC

CH

BT CHSW

BZRORO

RO

RO

RORO

RORO

RO WR MA

CH

RB

RO

DI

C.

BT ROY.

BTMAPW

C.

SL

C.SL

SL

SL

C.

SL

3

3

6

2

2


KEY


A96 INVERAMSAY BRIDGE IMPROVEMENT

0 50 100 150 20025m

BIRD SURVEY (SHEET 1 OF 3)

( Singingmaf familydoof carrying food


³ ® flight across® flight out

® flight inXXX

B. - BlackbirdBC - BlackcapBT - Blue titBZ - BuzzardC. - CrowCH - ChaffinchD. - DunnockDI - DipperGO - GoldfinchGR - GreenfinchGS - Great spotted woodpeckerGT - Great titGW - Garden warblerH. - HeronHS - House sparrowJD - JackdawM. - Mistle thrushMA - MallardOC - OystercatcherPW - Pied wagtailR. - RobinRB - Reed buntingRO - RookS. - SkylarkSL - SwallowST - Song thrushSW - Sedge warblerTS - Tree sparrowWP - Wood pigeonWR - WrenWW - Willow warblerY. - Yellowhammer

Birds in red are from the firstsurvey on 09/05/2012.Birds in blue are from thesecond survey on 14/06/2012.

EFIGURE 6.3

®

®

®

³

®®

®

³

®

³®

³®

®

³

®

³ ®

®

³®

®

³

®

®®

³

®

³

®

®

³®

³®

³®

³®

³®

³

®

³

®®

³

®

® ³®

³

®

®

³

®

³

®

³®

®®

³

® ³

®

®

³

®

®

³

®

³®³®

³ ®

®

³

®

®

³®

³®

³®

³®

®

®

®

®

³

®

³

®®

®

³

®

®

³

®

³

® ³ ®

³

®

³®

³®

³

®

³

®

³

®

³

®

³

®

³ ®

³

®

³®

³ ®³ ®

³®

®® ³

®

³

® ³ ®

³

®

³®

³

®

®

®

®

³

®

³

®

(

(

(

((

( (

(

(

(

( ((

(

((

(

(

(

maf

(

(

doofdoof

(

(

(

(

(

(

((

(

(

(

(

(

(

doof

(

((maf

(

(

( (

((

( (

(

(

(

(

((

(

(

(

(

(((

(

(

(

(

((

((

(

(

( ((

((

(

(

(

(

((

(

(

(

(

( (

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(( (

(

((

(

(

(

CH

WW

B.CH

CH

GW

RO

RORO B.

RO

JD

BTRO

PWPW

WR

GS

SL

R.

R.

WPJD

WR

WPWP

JD

BZ

BZ

Y.WR

SW

C.

CH

C.

B.

CH

CH

M.

BT

Y.PW

SW

Y.

B.

R.WR

WW

CH

B.

B.GO

BT

WP

RO

C.

D.

BT

B.

WWGR

GO

GO

TS

TSOC

WW

CH

BT CHSW

BZRORO

RO

RO

RORO

RORO

RO WR MARO

CH

GT

R.

WW CH

BZWP

WR

MA

WP WP

C.

Y.

6

2

2

3


KEY



0 50 100 150 20025m





® flight inXXX



EFIGURE 6.3

®

®

®

³

®®

®

³

®

³®

³®

®

³

®

³ ®

®

³®

®

³

®

®®

³

®

³

®

®

³®

³®

³®

³®

³®

³

®

³

®®

³

®® ³®

³

®

®

³

®

³

®

³®

®®

³

® ³

®

®

³

®

®

³

®

³®³®

³ ®

®

³

®

®

³®

³®

³®

³®

®

®

®

®

³

®

³

®®

®

³

®

®

³

®

³

® ³ ®

³

®

³®

³®

³

®

³

®

³

®

³

®

³

®

³ ®

³

®

³®

³ ®³ ®

³®

®® ³

®

³

® ³ ®³

®

³®

³

®

®

®

®

³

®

³

®

(

(

(

((

( (

(

(

(

( ((

(

((

(

(

(

maf

(

(

doofdoof

(

(

(

(

(

(

((

(

(

(

(

(

(

doof

(

((maf

(

(

( (

((

( (

(

(

(

(

((

(

(

(

(

(((

(

(

(

(

((

((

(

(

( ((

((

(

(

(

(

((

(

(

(

(

( (

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(( (

(

((

(

(

(

CH

C.

B.

CH

CH

M.

BT

Y.PW

SW

Y.

SL

B.

S.

SL

WP

CHR.GO

HS

TSGT SL

SL

CH

B.

C.

RO

B.

CH

GT

R.

WW CH

BZWP

WR

MA

WP WP

C.

JDJD

Y.

Y.

SL

Y.

SL

S.

B.

Y.

TSY. TS GO

SL

BTSL

SL

B.WW

GT

CH

3

3

5

2


KEY



0 50 100 150 20025m





® flight inXXX



EFIGURE 6.3

Dier Cottage

72.8m

Dockendale

Track

Track

Dunmuir

MP 20.5

Govals

75.0m

1

Drain

MP 20.25

Dismantled Railway

River Urie

4

MP 20.75

Rowan Cottage

MS

Track

Legatesden House

Farm

Pond

Station Cottages

Quarry

Legatesden

72.8m

Track

A 96

(disused)

72.2m

Wester HarlawInveramsay

Milton

Track

MP

(site of)

Track

Viaduct

Milton of

Liggars' Stane

20

63.4m

Cottage

Resthivet Croft

Gardeners Cottage

River Urie

Pump

Resthivet Cottage

Masts (Telecommunication)

Uryview


KEY



0 100 200 300 400 50050m

ECOLOGICAL MITIGATION

E

KEY

Mitigation

Mammal underpassCulvert with mammal ledge

Location for Bird/Bat boxesPreferred Scheme Outline

Compensatory woodland

Badger commuting routeunder new bridge

Bat boxes onold disused bridge

FIGURE 6.4

johbac

Typewritten Text

johbac

Typewritten Text

(including SUDS ponds)

johbac

Typewritten Text

Note: Locations of artificial setts and sett to be potentially close temporarily are shown in Figure 1.1 in the Confidential Badger Report

_̂

_̂ _̂_̂

_̂

_̂_̂

_̂

_

_̂

_̂_̂

_̂̂__̂̂_

_̂̂_

_̂_̂_̂_̂̂_

_̂̂_̂__̂

_̂

THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN PREPARED INACCORDANCE WITH THE SCOPE OF URS'SAPPOINTMENT WITH ITS CLIENT AND ISSUBJECT TO THE TERMS OF THAT APPOINTMENT.URS ACCEPTS NO LIABILITY FOR ANY USE OFTHIS DOCUMENT OTHER THAN BY ITS CLIENTAND ONLY FOR THE PURPOSES FOR WHICH ITWAS PREPARED AND PROVIDED.© URS SCOTT WILSON LTD 2012

KEY



0 100 200 300 400 50050m

OTTER SURVEY

E

(including SUDS ponds)

_̂ Otter, Holt

_̂ Otter, Lie-up

_̂ Otter, Spraint_ Otter, Trail


FIGURE 6.5

6 nature conservation - transport scotland– sg natural environment 1 – protection of nature...

Documents