FORTH CROSSING BILL OBJECTION 88 RSPB SCOTLAND FORTH REPLACEMENT CROSSING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT We refer to the above document which has been produced by Jacobs Arup on behalf of Transport Scotland. RSPB Scotland has taken the opportunity to review the relevant sections of the Environmental Statement (ES) and our detailed comments can be found in Annex 1 which accompanies this letter. RSPB Scotland wish to object to the Forth Crossing Bill (as introduced) as there is insufficient evidence provided to demonstrate that bird interests will not be adversely affected. Our objection primarily relates to Part 9, Environmental Matters. We also object to the Bill and the construction of the additional crossing in principle because it would result in significant additional climate change causing emissions and compromise ability to meet emission reduction targets required by the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009. The RSPB in Scotland is supported by over 82,000 members and employs around 200 staff to promote the conservation of birds and biodiversity. Bird populations reflect the health of the planet on which our future depends. Climate change, agricultural intensification, expansion of urban areas, new transport and energy infrastructure and over-exploitation of our seas all pose major threats to birds. RSPB Scotland s work covers a wide range of issues including planning, climate change, energy, marine issues, water, trade and agriculture. We also have practical experience of managing land and coast for conservation, farming, forestry and other enterprises As well as commenting on national policy issues, our professional planning and conservation staff are regularly involved with individual project proposals and we comment on several hundred individual proposals in Scotland each year. In combination with RSPB staff across the UK, and our international partners in Birdlife i we have cross-cutting expertise and experience of spatial planning, marine and sustainability issues within Scotland, the UK and internationally. RSPB Scotland has been following proposals for an additional Forth Crossing for a number of years. We have also engaged with the National Planning Framework for Scotland 2 (NPF2) throughout its development and have sought to engage with this particular National Development where there has been the opportunity. We are disappointed that non-statutory consultees have not been actively consulted at this stage. As a result, we only became aware of the availability of the ES at a late stage and have not had as much time to review its contents as we would have wished for such a significant development. We look forward to receiving the additional information requested in the annex to this letter. We would be happy to reconsider our position on these matters once this information is made available. Please do not hesitate to contact us should you require further information on any of the above points.
The 20 fee for lodging objections is enclosed with this letter. We would be grateful for confirmation that this objection is admissible. Yours faithfully Louise Ross Senior Conservation Planner louise.ross@rspb.org.uk
Annex 1: RSPB Scotland s Comments on the Forth Replacement Crossing Environmental Statement This annex provides further detailed comments on specific sections of the ES. Appropriate Assessment Unfortunately, the reports to inform appropriate assessment that have been undertaken for the Forth Islands and Imperial Dock Lock SPAs and the Firth of Forth SPA have not been made publicly available by Transport Scotland along with the ES. These reports should provide detailed information on the impact of the proposed additional crossing on these internationally important wildlife sites. Their findings will be critical to whether the Bill can progress and are of great interest to RSPB Scotland, potentially determining our final position in relation to this proposal. We have therefore requested these documents separately. We wish to reserve our position on the aspects of the proposal which have the potential to affect the Forth Islands and Firth of Forth SPAs until we have had an opportunity to scrutinise these documents. We will forward any comments on these documents as soon as possible. In view of regulation 48(4) of The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &rc.) Regulations 1994 (as amended) we are curious as to why it seems to have been considered not appropriate to take the opinion of the general public in regard to the appropriate assessment process. Potential impacts on St Margaret s Marsh SSSI St Margaret s Marsh Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) is a site designated for its coastal reedbed and saltmarsh features. In addition to the notified features, the site also supports a good breeding and wintering bird community including lirmet, which is a Birds of Conservation Concern (BOCC), Red List and UK Biodiversity Action Plan species. In addition, the autumn hirundine roost in the reedbeds comprises swallows with smaller numbers of sand martins on migration and has peaked at 40,000. Reedbeds are a scarce and restricted habitat, with drainage and reclamation having eradicated most of them, not least in the Upper Forth. It is considered that the proposed realignment of the B981 would likely have a substantial impact on the SSSI due to the direct loss of habitat, along with associated changes to the hydrology of the site, and the proposal is therefore of significant concern to RSPB Scotland. It is understood that some discussions have been held between Transport Scotland and Scoftish Natural Heritage (SNH) over the future management of the SSSI and that a commitment to implement a management strategy has been agreed (Chapter 10 10.5.13). However, we are concerned that although the proposed strategy appears to provide for some welcome enhancement of the existing habitat, it does not include any proposals to replace the area of the SSSI that would be lost. We consider that, as a minimum, a new waterbody and reedbed in the vicinity of the SSSI should also be considered. RSPB Scotland would welcome involvement in the development of the future management strategy of the SSSI given the importance of the site for many bird species.
We note that the second National Planning Framework (NPF2), which identifies a Replacement Forth Crossing as a national development, requires that effects on the natural environment, including St. Margaret s Marsh SSSI are addressed when consent is sought i.e. as part of the passage of this Bill. Paragraph 102 of NPF2 specifically recognises the importance of the coastal environment and states: Where wetland habitat would be lost as a result of development or sea level rise, replacement through coastal realignment should be pursued. Coastal realignment may not be appropriate in this case but the requirement to replace lost habitat is clear. C02 emissions and climate change Climate change is widely recognised as a serious threat to our environment, including birds and other wildlife, and the transport sector is a significant generator of carbon dioxide emissions in Scotland. The Scottish Government has agreed a target of an 80% reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions from 1990 levels by 2050 and the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 may require reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 levels by at least 42% by 2020. RSPB Scotland strongly supports these targets. We note that the policy briefing accompanying the Bill acknowledges that the additional crossing will result in an increase in emissions that will require offsetting by greater reductions elsewhere in Scotland. We therefore maintain our previously stated opposition to the additional road crossing on climate change grounds. Detailed comments on the Ecology sections of the ES Non-Technical Summary (pg 8): It is stated among the measures which will be implemented that there will be sensitive timing of construction activities, e.g. to avoid the tern nesting season. Given that construction is estimated to take five years, clarification of this statement is required. Construction and other work must be controlled where it might impact upon the vulnerable sites of Long Craig and the Port Edgar tern rafts during the breeding season, however the main body of bridge construction can proceed without restriction in this regard. Chapter 11 (11.2.33): Given that heavy seabird passage (skuas, terns and gulls) is known to occur in August and September, the months chosen for the Vantage Point (VP) watches (October to April) seem inappropriate. This requires further explanation and justification to ensure the results presented are representative. The duration and intensity of seabird passage is extremely variable and is regulated by local and much broader weather conditions (see, e.g., annual Lothian Bird Reports). Seabird passage data collected by birdwatchers from Hound Point may be able to provide additional information to help assess whether the VP watch data is representative. The SOC at Aberlady can be contacted for this data. Whilst the existing bridges do not seem to pose a significant collision risk to birds, measures should be taken to ensure that during construction all temporary or incomplete structures are also made visible as there is a risk that stays, wires, hawsers, etc might pose an additional collision risk.
Chapter 11 (11.3.74 et seq): There appears to be no significant oversights or omissions from the list of observed species. Works carried out during the non-breeding season should ensure that no nonnative, invasive species are introduced to Long Craig. Screening of construction compounds and all subsequent planting of road verges, embankments, etc and landscaping in general, should involve only native British species including trees, shrubs, grasses and wildflowers. Enhancement Works Whilst we are yet to see the detail of the Reports to Inform Appropriate Assessment, we consider that there may be an impact on roseate terns, a qualifying feature of the Forth Islands SPA. This is a Red Listed, Annex 1 species whose only Scottish breeding site is in the Firth of Forth in the vicinity of the existing bridges. Any effect on these birds would be of great concern. Even if an appropriate assessment finds that there is not likely to be a significant adverse effect on the SPA, and that compensatory measures are therefore not necessary, we would suggest that the provision of enhancement measures to benefit this species would constitute good practice. All efforts should be made, not only to avoid disturbance of this colony, but also to provide increased security from disturbance and predators. The opportunity should be taken, while plant is on site, to construct further breeding platforms in the form o islands and rafts. These should not be linked to the mainland. This would be a major and significant contribution to making the most of environmental opportunities provided by the project. The protection of the existing colony and provision of new habitat and nesting areas for roseate and other tern species should be carried out in consultation with RSPB, SNH and the Forth Seabird Group. Another measure that we consider worthy of further consideration is the installation of seabird nesting ledges on the pillar supports. In addition, extended bases, above high water, at the foot of the bridge supports could provide suitable nest sites for terns. Consultation Generally, we are disappointed with the level of consultation that has been undertaken with our organisation as the project has progressed. Whilst we attended meetings at early stages in project development and were approached as part of a standard data search, we consider that the opportunity for input to the Environmental Impact Assessment (ETA) process has been extremely limited, particularly given the scale of the proposal and the wide range of potential impacts. We consider the project would have benefited from our input in relation to scoping and assessing the potential impacts of the project on bird and habitat interests. We have also had difficultly locating the electronic ES documents on the Transport Scotland website arid we consider that these should have been more readily accessible to aid transparency. In addition, whilst we assume
that the minimum level of statutory consultation and advertisement for the ES has been undertaken, it is disappointing that the regular email updates from Transport Scotland, to which we subscribed, were not used as a means of altering people to the fact the ES was available for consultation purposes.