Docstoc

Header Template for Email Fax Letter - Download Now PDF

Document Sample
Header Template for Email Fax Letter - Download Now PDF Powered By Docstoc
					                                           FORTH AND BORDERS        Anderson’s Chambers
                                           Area Office              Market Street
                                                                    Galashiels
                                                                    TD1 3AF

                                                                    Tel:     01896 756652
654 2466                                                            Fax:     01896 750427


Mr Fergus Cochrane                                       Our Ref:     CNS/EIA/WAV
Private Bills Unit
T1.01
The Scottish Parliament
Edinburgh
EH99 1SP                                                              17 March 2006


Dear Fergus,

THE WAVERLEY RAILWAY PRIVATE BILL
RIVER TWEED SPECIAL AREA OF CONSERVATION:                                  APPROPRIATE
ASSESSMENT

I am writing to provide the Waverley Railway Private Bill Committee with the advice
of Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) regarding the Appropriate Assessment for the Bill,
as requested in your letter of 15 December 2005.

1. SNH Advice

This advice relates only to those sections of the proposed railway for which an
Appropriate Assessment is required – that is, those sections which may potentially
impact upon the River Tweed Special Area of Conservation (SAC). In preparing our
advice, we have considered the information provided by the Promoter within the
Environmental Impact Assessment and the further information which they have
provided to inform the Appropriate Assessment (listed in Annex 1). This includes
both environmental information and information on the individual engineering
components of the railway as they might affect the SAC. We have also considered
the cumulative effect of these engineering solutions, and their effect in combination
with any other known plans or projects. This assessment has been done against the
conservation objectives of the SAC (listed in Annex 3).

As a result of the information supplied to us to date, meetings and discussions held
with the Promoter and our own detailed assessment of this information, SNH are now
in a position to advise the Committee in relation to Parliament’s determination of the
Appropriate Assessment that:

   •   Parliament should conclude that the construction of the Waverley
       Railway Line as set out in the Bill as currently drafted is likely to
       adversely affect the integrity of the River Tweed SAC; however

   •   if the Bill is modified to take account of the further proposals put
       forward recently by the Promoter, Parliament should be able to conclude
       that the construction of the Waverley Railway Line will not adversely
       affect the integrity of the River Tweed SAC. In order for the Bill to meet
       the requirements of the Habitats Regulations, this conclusion can only
       be reached if these further proposals and any related conditions are
       included within the Bill, together with a mechanism to ensure that they
       are legally enforceable. In other words, Parliament needs to be certain
       that the proposals on which they determine the Appropriate Assessment
       are those which are subsequently implemented, and that this is enforced
       during the construction phase. Otherwise, our advice that Parliament
       should conclude that the integrity of the SAC is likely to be adversely
       affected should stand.

   •   Parliament should conclude that the operation of the Waverley railway,
       once constructed, will not adversely affect the integrity of the River
       Tweed SAC.

2. Background

This Private Bill proposal is for the reopening of the Waverley Line between
Edinburgh Waverley and Tweedbank in the Borders. Over half of the length of the
proposed route is within or in close proximity to the River Tweed Special Area of
Conservation (SAC).

SNH has previously advised the Committee and the Bill’s Promoter, Scottish Borders
Council (SBC), and their agents of the need to fully assess the impacts to the natural
heritage arising from this proposed development during construction and operation of
the railway.

This requirement to consider and fully assess the impacts to the natural heritage is to
ensure compliance with the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994
(‘the Habitats Regulations’). These require that an Appropriate Assessment should
be undertaken where a project or plan, unconnected with site management for nature
conservation, is likely to have a significant effect on a Special Area of Conservation
(SAC) or Special Protection Area (SPA). The Appropriate Assessment should
ascertain whether or not the project or plan will adversely affect the integrity of the
site or sites. If it cannot be shown that there will be no adverse affect, the project or
plan can only be allowed to proceed if there are no alternative solutions and if there
are issues of over-riding public interest that require it to proceed.

The Scottish Parliament, as the Competent Authority determining whether the
Waverley Railway proposal should be allowed to proceed, are responsible for
determining the Appropriate Assessment for the Bill. In a letter to SNH on 15th
December 2005, the Clerk to the Committee indicated that SNH should provide
advice on the Appropriate Assessment based on the information provided by the
Promoter, to allow the Committee to report to the Parliament at the conclusion of the
Consideration Stage.

Since November, when SNH received initial information from the Promoter to inform
the Appropriate Assessment, SNH has been in close liaison with the Promoter and
their agents, as well as the Parliament’s Private Bills Unit, to discuss the adequacy
and details of the information supplied. Attached as an annex to this letter is SNH’s
detailed consideration and advice to the Committee of this information. However,
SNH would also wish to draw to the attention of the Committee the following general
points.

3. Appropriate Assessment Information

As the Committee will be aware, SNH has consistently given advice that for an
assessment of impacts to the natural heritage, and to the SAC in particular, to be
effective, there needs to be sufficient detail in the proposal of those aspects that
might lead to adverse effects. In particular, there needs to be detail on the
engineering and other works where the proposed railway line crosses or runs
alongside the Gala Water component of the SAC. It is also necessary that this detail
is provided prior to any consent being given by the Bill, as the consent sets the
framework for construction and operation of the railway, limiting or negating the
possibilities for avoiding or reducing any adverse effects at later stages.

SNH is in receipt of very significant amounts of information from the Promoter to
inform the Appropriate Assessment. We received the first batch of this in November
2005. Unfortunately, there were omissions in this data, resulting in SNH going back
to the Promoter’s agents on several occasions to seek clarification or further
information. It is only since receiving our preliminary advice on this information in
February that significant consideration has been given by the Promoter to the
detailed design criteria and engineering solutions. It is only since early March that
details on significant and large scale changes in design and engineering at a number
of locations have been submitted for our consideration. These changes have the
potential through appropriate and agreed mitigation to reduce or eliminate the
adverse affects that would arise from the construction. The reduced timescale which
SNH has had to consider these proposals has, however, been extremely difficult.
Consequently, were the Bill to be enacted, SNH would require involvement in the
implementation of mitigation methods during construction and operation.

The short period of time we have had to assess the implications of the latest
proposals and respond to the Committee with our advice, has resulted in areas
where that advice is less detailed than we would have preferred. We are, however,
content with the key conclusions which convey the main advice which we wish the
Committee and the Parliament to consider.

4. SNH Appraisal of the Proposals

In our opinion, the earlier engineering proposals supplied by the Promoter in
November 2005 failed to demonstrate conclusively that the integrity of the River
Tweed SAC would not be adversely affected. Consideration of the conservation
objectives for the River Tweed SAC and the qualifying features at each engineering
location, led us to believe that adverse effects on the integrity would occur due to
impacts on all of the qualifying features of the site. The adverse effects related to
possible sedimentation, pollution, disturbance of the qualifying species, habitat loss
and changes to the geomorphology of the river. This information also did not
satisfactorily take into account, the cumulative impacts arising from all of the
engineering proposals or what impacts this project would have in combination with
other projects.
Following our meetings with the Promoter in February and early March 2006, further
detailed consideration of each of the engineering locations has been provided. SNH
has assessed each of the engineering locations and identified those locations and
proposals which require either further modification or detailed mitigation, to reduce
impacts further to an acceptable level. It is these further detailed engineering
proposals that SNH advise must be included within the Bill, subject to any further
modifications or conditions recommended by SNH, if Parliament is to conclude that
the SAC will not be adversely affected.

Our detailed appraisal of the proposals, taking account of the revisions, is contained
in Table 1 of Annex 1 to this letter.

In the meantime if any aspect of this letter should require clarification, please contact
Andrew Panter in our Galashiels office (phone: 01896 756652; e-mail:
andrew.panter@snh.gov.uk).

Yours sincerely,




Andrew Bachell
Director of Strategy & Operations, East
ANNEX 1

Advice from Scottish Natural Heritage to the Committee regarding the
Appropriate Assessment for the proposed Waverley Railway (Scotland) Bill

1. Summary

As a result of the information supplied to date, meetings and discussions with the
Promoter and our own detailed assessment of this information, SNH are now in a
position to advise the Committee:

   •   Parliament should conclude that the construction of the Waverley
       Railway Line as set out in the Bill as currently drafted is likely to
       adversely affect the integrity of the River Tweed SAC; however

   •   if the Bill is modified to take account of the further proposals put
       forward recently by the Promoter, Parliament should be able to conclude
       that the construction of the Waverley Railway Line will not adversely
       affect the integrity of the River Tweed SAC. In order for the Bill to meet
       the requirements of the Habitats Regulations, this conclusion can only
       be reached if these further proposals and any related conditions are
       included within the Bill, together with a mechanism to ensure that they
       are legally enforceable. In other words, Parliament needs to be certain
       that the proposals on which they determine the Appropriate Assessment
       are those which are subsequently implemented, and that this is enforced
       during the construction phase. Otherwise, our advice that Parliament
       should conclude that the integrity of the SAC is likely to be adversely
       affected should stand.

   •   Parliament should conclude that the operation of the Waverley railway,
       once constructed, will not adversely affect the integrity of the River
       Tweed SAC.

2. Legislative Requirements for European Sites

The legislative requirements are summarised in SE Circular 6/1995 as amended
June 2000. Further details of the legislative requirements are provided at Annex 2.

3. Information which SNH has assessed with regard to impacts to the River
Tweed SAC

SNH has made assessment of the following information received from the Promoter
since December 2005:

   •   An Assessment of the effects to the River Tweed Special Area of
       Conservation Volumes 1 & 2 , November 2005
   •   Appropriate Assessment Table, January 27th 2006
   •   Response to Queries raised by SNH on 12 January 2006, note dates 27th
       January 2006
   •   Addendum to Appropriate Assessment March 2006
    •    Engineering Drawings for Various Locations March 2006
    •    Piling details and Clarifications for SNH, March 2006

Despite much earlier requests and advice from SNH, some of this information has
only been supplied within the last fortnight. We have been under considerable
pressure to analyse and assess what these changes to the proposals mean in terms
of impacts to the natural heritage within the SAC. There are some aspects which
SNH would wish to give further detailed consideration to at the design and
construction phase and should have a tie in to a revised Code of Construction
Practice (CoCP).

4. Natural Heritage Interests Affected

The proposed Waverley Railway Line runs adjacent to or in close proximity to the
Gala Water and River Tweed, both are within the River Tweed SAC.

The River Tweed SAC is designated for the qualifying Annex 1 1 habitat -
watercourses of plain to montane levels with the Ranunculion fluitantis and
Callitricho–Batrachion vegetation as well as for the qualifying Annex 2 2 species -
Atlantic salmon, otter and 3 species of lamprey (sea, brook and river).

Conservation objectives (see Annex 3) were written for the site in October 2003. The
objectives identify the need to avoid deterioration of the habitats and to avoid
significant disturbance to the qualifying species. Potential impacts relate to possible
sedimentation, pollution, disturbance of the qualifying species, habitat loss and
changes to the geomorphology of the river.

5. Individual Engineering Location Site Assessments

Assessment comments and recommendations are given in Table 1.

The description of the engineering locations and the unique identifying code follow
that provided within the information provided by the Promoter – Annexe K in Volume
2 of the Assessment 3 information contains the original summaries of the proposals
and impacts. The numbered engineering locations start in the north and then go
downstream. Where there are gaps in the chronological order of the locations, this is
due to engineering works being proposed that are outwith the SAC and where we
have assessed that there will be no impacts, direct or indirect, on the SAC. These
sites have not been considered further.

Please note that the engineering proposals at Location ID 50, 51, 52, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
and 10 are not located within the boundary of the River Tweed SAC, but have been


1
  Annex 1 of Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Flora and Fauna (The
Habitats Directive). Natural habitat types of Community interest whose conservation requires the designation of
Special Areas of Conservation.
2
  Annex 2 of the above Habitats Directive. Animal and plant species of Community interest whose conservation
requires the designation of Special Areas of Conservation.
3
  Waverly Railway (Scotland): An Assessment of the effects to the River Tweed Special Area of Conservation Volumes 1 &
2 , November 2005. ERM.
assessed. This is because these engineering proposals had the potential to impact
on the SAC.

Note that where there is a recommendation that mitigated in-stream works should be
carried out between June and 15 October, this refers to avoidance of adverse effects
on salmon and lamprey spawning and hatching during the most sensitive months.
However, it is stressed that at all other times, both salmon and lamprey species can
still be vulnerable to impacts and operations still require adequate mitigation.

It is stated by the Promoter that, except for the few locations where mitigated bank
protection works are necessary, all access to works will be outwith the river channel
and banks and/or gained from the railway line. This requirement should be
included within the Bill.

6. Cumulative and In Combination Assessment

Considering in isolation the proposed engineering works at each of the locations,
provides an assessment of impacts at each site. The Habitats Regulations, however,
require consideration of the cumulative impacts arising from the entire project, and
also in combination with any other plans or projects which may be undertaken at the
same time as the proposed Waverley Line construction works. The cumulative
assessment should assess the predicted impacts from the proposals and consider
these impacts for the Gala Water itself, and for the wider River Tweed SAC.

In the addendum to the Appropriate Assessment, March 2006, further consideration
has been given to the assessment of cumulative impacts in the light of changes to
the proposed engineering works at some of the locations.

We had previously been concerned that the Promoter had failed to adequately
assess the cumulative impacts which could arise through changes in stream
hydraulics downstream of the proposed site locations. These concerns have now
been partially addressed. The Promoter had previously failed to provide sufficient
information on the fluvial geo-morphological aspects of the proposals. This was
leading to an overall negative assessment of the proposal – i.e. there was insufficient
information to demonstrate that the SAC would not be adversely affected.

This concern has been reduced to some extent, due to the removal of a large
proportion of in-stream engineering works. It is now our assessment that, with
appropriate modifications and conditions requiring mitigation measures, the
cumulative effect of the proposals is not likely to adversely affect the integrity of the
SAC.

7. Mitigation, Conditions and Enforcement

We have outstanding concerns that there is no clear mechanism for enforcement of
any conditions and / or mitigation which is required to reduce the impacts of the
proposal on the SAC. It is unclear to us how such a mechanism might be
incorporated into the Private Bills process. We would suggest that, before
recommending the Bill to Parliament, the Committee must satisfy themselves that:
•   the proposals on which they determine the Appropriate Assessment are those
    which will be subsequently implemented; and

•   that there is a clear mechanism to enforce during the construction phase any
    conditions or mitigation measures which Parliament wish to attach to the Bill to
    ensure that the SAC will not be adversely affected.

Otherwise, Parliament should conclude that it has not been shown that the
integrity of the River Tweed SAC will not be adversely affected.

It should also be noted, given the significant time interval between enactment of the
Bill and the commencement of construction, that there will be a requirement for re-
assessment of some aspects of natural heritage interest which may have changed
since first surveyed. This will be particularly true for European Protected Species,
especially otter and bat species whose holt / roost locations may have altered.

8. Ongoing Maintenance and Operation

Consideration also needs to be given to the operational phase of the railway,
including maintenance. It is our advice that the integrity of the SAC will not be
adversely affected by the operation of the railway, provided that all aspects of
operation and maintenance are qualified by condition and enforcement.

It is essential that, in the event of the need for any new or emergency operation, that
such operations must be subject to formal assessment through the Habitats
Regulations – for example, approval by the Planning Authority of operations under a
General Permitted Development Order (GPDO) and / or SEPA licensing via the
Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Act 2005.


Scottish Natural Heritage
March 2006
ANNEX 2

Legislative Requirements for European Sites

The site's status as an SAC under the EC Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation
of Natural Habitats and of Wild Flora and Fauna (the “Habitats Directive”) means that
the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 as amended 2004, (the
“Habitats Regulations”) apply. The requirements are summarised in SE Circular
6/1995 as amended June 2000 and include, at paragraph 12,

       "The Regulations (48) require that, where an authority concludes that a
       development proposal unconnected with the nature conservation
       management of a Natura 2000 site is likely to have a significant effect on that
       site, it must undertake an appropriate assessment of the implications for the
       conservation interests for which the area has been designated.".

The need for appropriate assessment extends to plans or projects outwith the
boundary of the site in order to determine their implications for the interest protected
within the site.

Under Regulation 3(4) of the Habitats Regulations, the Scottish Parliament, as a
competent authority, has a duty “in the exercise of any of their functions [to] have
regard to the requirements of the Habitats Directive so far as they may be affected by
the exercise of those functions”. This means that the Scottish Parliament must
undertake the same considerations, as required by Article 6.3 of the Directive, as are
specified in Regulation 48, i.e. to:

Under Regulation 48 of the Habitats Directive, this means that the Scottish
Parliament, as competent authority, has a duty to:

       • determine whether the proposal is directly connected with or necessary to
         site management for conservation; and, if not,
       • determine whether the proposal is likely to have a significant effect on the
         site either individually or in combination with other plans or projects; and, if
         so, then
       • make an appropriate assessment of the implications (of the proposal) for
         the site in view of that site's conservation objectives.

The competent authority can only agree to the proposal under Regulation 48 after
having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site. If this is not
the case, and there are no alternative solutions, the proposal can only be allowed to
proceed if there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest, which in this
case can include those of a social or economic nature. If you propose to approve the
plan on the grounds of imperative reasons of overriding public interest then
Regulation 49 states that you must inform Scottish Ministers and you must not issue
approval for a period of 21 after receipt by Scottish Ministers unless notified
otherwise. If proposals are allowed to proceed in accordance with Regulation 49
then it should be noted that Regulation 53 requires that Scottish Ministers shall
secure that any necessary compensatory measures are taken to ensure that the
overall coherence of Natura 2000 is protected.
ANNEX 3

Conservation Objectives for River Tweed Special Area Of Conservation


   To avoid deterioration of the qualifying habitat(s) (listed below) thus ensuring
   that the integrity of the site is maintained and the site makes an appropriate
   contribution to achieving favourable conservation status for each of the
   qualifying features; and

   To ensure for the qualifying habitat(s) that the following are maintained in the
   long term:

          Extent of the habitat on site
          Distribution of the habitat within site
          Structure and function of the habitat
          Processes supporting the habitat
          Distribution of typical species of the habitat
          Viability of typical species as components of the habitat
          No significant disturbance of typical species of the habitat


   Qualifying Habitats:

      •   Water courses of plain to montane levels with the Ranunculion
          fluitantis and Callitricho-Batrachion vegetation.



NB The conservation objectives for the qualifying species are on the next page
Conservation Objectives for River Tweed Special Area Of Conservation
(continued)


  To avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species (listed below) or
  significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the
  integrity of the site is maintained and the site makes an appropriate
  contribution to achieving Favourable Conservation Status for each of the
  qualifying features; and

  To ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the
  long term:

         Population of the species (including range of genetic types where
         relevant) as a viable component of the site
         Distribution of the species within site
         Distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species
         Structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the
         species
         No significant disturbance of the species
         Distribution and viability of the species' host species (where relevant)
         Structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the
         species' host species (where relevant)


  Qualifying Species:

     •   Sea lamprey
     •   Brook lamprey
     •   River lamprey
     •   Atlantic salmon
     •   Otter
TABLE 1 - Engineering Locations and Proposals


Location ID No.        Engineering Location                                 Assessment                                                   Recommendations
ID 50             Under bridge 45 - nr Heriot       Our assessment is that the proposed works in this                The Code Of Construction practice (CoCP) should have
                  Culvert                           location will not adversely affect any of the qualifying         sufficient detail regarding the use of materials and method
                                                    features of the SAC. No engineering works are proposed           of working to avoid spillages and/or vehicles entering any
                                                    within the in-stream environment.                                watercourse.

ID 51             Under bridge 47 - nr Heriot       Our assessment is that the proposed works in this                The Code Of Construction practice (CoCP) should have
                                                    location will not adversely affect any of the qualifying         sufficient detail regarding the use of materials and method
                                                    features. No engineering works are proposed within the in-       of working to avoid spillages and / or vehicles entering any
                                                    stream environment.                                              watercourse.

ID 52, 4 and 5    Under bridges 48 & 49 and RBP -   Our assessment for each of the under bridge locations ID         The Code of Construction practice (CoCP) should have
                  nr Heriot, Gala water and         52 & 5 and the culvert at location ID 4 is that there will be    sufficient detail regarding the use of materials and method
                  Shoestanes Burn confluence and    no adverse impact on any of the qualifying features.             of working to avoid spillages and / or vehicles entering any
                  Shoestanes                        Previous proposals for river bank protection works have          watercourse.
                                                    been retained at this location, but it is our opinion that
                                                    these will not indirectly adversely affect any of the
                                                    qualifying features.

ID 6              River Diversion under new road    The proposed river diversion will result in a loss of riverine   The Code of Construction practice (CoCP) should have
                  alignment - Heriot Station        habitat as the diversion is shorter and straighter than the      sufficient detail regarding the use of materials and method
                                                    original river channel. However our assessment is that           of working to avoid spillages and / or vehicles entering any
                                                    there will be no adverse impact on the qualifying interest       watercourse. SNH should be fully consulted during the
                                                    features of the SAC. There is potential to compensate for        detailed design phase of the river diversion (as mentioned
                                                    the loss in habitat by undertaking restorative works in the      on page 46, Annex B of the Appropriate Assessment, dated
                                                    vicinity of the river diversion and SNH is willing to work       November 2005). Prior to closing off the original channel,
                                                    with the Promoter on any future restoration work.                all resident fish should be caught and transferred upstream
                                                    Proposals for culverting the channel beneath the                 of the river diversion. It is suggested that the channel could
                                                    proposed new access road may be subject to CARs at a             be replicated in form and length to the west thus avoiding
                                                    later date.                                                      loss in length of stream, and road realignment. It is
                                                                                                                     recommended that bridging the channel under the
                                                                                                                     proposed new access road is preferable to culverting. A
                                                                                                                     larger square section culvert with a mineral substrate could
                                                                                                                     be a compromise between a bridge and standard
                                                                                                                     cylindrical culvert.
Location ID No.        Engineering Location                                  Assessment                                                  Recommendations
ID 7              Culvert Replacement - nr           The culvert replacement is remote from the Gala Water
                  Shoestanes                         and is essentially a field drain rather than a watercourse.
                                                     There will therefore be no adverse effect on any of the
                                                     qualifying features of the SAC.

ID 8              RBP - nr Heriot Station            The previous proposals for river bank protection works in        The revised proposal, with no river bank protection works at
                                                     stream have been superseded and there is no longer any           this location, should be included in the final project
                                                     requirement for works to be carried out at this location.        proposals during the final consideration of the Bill.

ID 9              RBP - nr Stagebank                 Previous proposals for river bank protection works in-           The revised proposal with no river bank protection works at
                                                     stream have been superseded and there is no longer any           this location should be included in the final project
                                                     requirement for works to be carried out at this location. In     proposals during the final consideration of the Bill.
                                                     the longer term, it is likely that river bank protection works
                                                     will be required but these will be subject to consideration
                                                     under The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.)
                                                     Regulations 1994 and the Water Environment (Controlled
                                                     Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2005.

ID 10             Under bridge 52 - nr Little Gala   Temporary in-stream works are required in order to carry         The CoCP should be revised to take into account detailed
                                                     out repairs to the superstructure. Our assessment is that        mitigation measures at this location including details on
                                                     these works should be carried out with detailed mitigation       timing, pollution control and methods. The works should be
                                                     to ensure any impacts on salmon juvenile and spawning            carried out between end of June and 15th October. SNH
                                                     habitat are reduced.                                             would wish to be involved further in the revision of the
                                                                                                                      CoCP.

ID 11             RBP - nr Haltree                   The previous proposals for river bank protection works in        The revised proposal with no river bank protection works at
                                                     stream have been superseded and there is no longer any           this location should be included in the final project
                                                     requirement for works to be carried out at this location.        proposals during the final consideration of the Bill.

ID 13             Under bridge 53 - near             Temporary in stream works are required in order to carry         The CoCP should be revised to take into account detailed
                  Crookstone Mill                    out repairs to the superstructure. Our assessment is that        mitigation measures at this location including details on
                                                     these works should be carried out with detailed mitigation       timing, pollution control and methods. The works should be
                                                     to ensure any impacts on lamprey and salmon habitat are          carried out between end of June and 15th October. SNH
                                                     reduced.                                                         would wish to be involved further in the revision of the
                                                                                                                      CoCP.
Location ID No.        Engineering Location                                Assessment                                                  Recommendations
ID 14 &15         Under bridge 54 & 55 -           Under bridge 54 requires temporary in-stream works in            The CoCP should be revised to take into account detailed
                  Hollowshank                      order to carry out repairs to the superstructure. Our            mitigation measures at this location including details on
                                                   assessment is that these works should be carried out with        timing, pollution control and methods. The works should be
                                                   detailed mitigation to ensure any impacts on lamprey and         carried out between end of June and 15th October. SNH
                                                   salmon habitat are reduced.                                      would wish to be involved further in the revision of the
                                                                                                                    CoCP.

                                                   Under bridge 55 is in a flood relief channel and mitigation      The CoCP should be revised to take into account detailed
                                                   should ensure that works are carried out in zero flow            mitigation measures at this location including details on
                                                   conditions to ensure no impacts on any of the qualifying         timing, pollution control and methods. The works should be
                                                   features.                                                        carried out between end of June and 15th October and in
                                                                                                                    periods of low flow. SNH would wish to be involved further
                                                                                                                    in the revision of the CoCP.


ID 16             Under bridge 56 - nr Bower       Under bridge 56 requires temporary in-stream works in            The CoCP should be revised to take into account detailed
                                                   order to carry out repairs to the superstructure. Our            mitigation measures at this location including details on
                                                   assessment is that these works should be carried out with        timing, pollution control and methods. The works should be
                                                   detailed mitigation to ensure any impacts on lamprey and         carried out between end of June and 15th October. SNH
                                                   salmon habitat are reduced                                       would wish to be involved further in the revision of the
                                                                                                                    CoCP.

ID 17             Under bridge 58 - Fountainhall   There is limited habitat interest at this location for salmon,   The CoCP should provide details on timing, pollution
                                                   lamprey or macrophytes. Our assessment is that there will        control and methods. The works should be carried out
                                                   be no adverse effects on qualifying interests at this            between end of June and 15th October. SNH would wish to
                                                   location.                                                        be involved further in the revision of the CoCP.
Location ID No.        Engineering Location                                  Assessment                                                Recommendations
ID 18             RBP - nr Burnhouse                  Significant changes have been made to the engineering         The revised proposal, with remote bank protection works at
                                                      solution at this location, Previous proposals required rip    this location, should be included in the final project
                                                      rap to be installed in the in stream environment. This is     proposals during the final consideration of the Bill. The
                                                      no longer required, and whilst bank protection works are      CoCP should be revised to take into account detailed
                                                      still proposed they will no longer be carried out in the in   mitigation measures at this location including details on
                                                      stream environment. These works will however require          timing, pollution control and methods. The works should be
                                                      piling to install the bank protection measures. Further       carried out between end of June and 15th October. SNH
                                                      consideration of the effects of piling on the qualifying      would wish to be involved further in the revision of the
                                                      species of salmon and lamprey has been provided, and          CoCP.
                                                      SNH are satisfied that any impacts can be further reduced
                                                      through detailed mitigation measures.

ID 19             Under bridge 60 - Plenploth North   Under bridge 60 requires temporary in-stream works in         The CoCP should be revised to take into account detailed
                                                      order to carry out repairs to the superstructure. Our         mitigation measures at this location including details on
                                                      assessment is that these works should be carried out with     timing, pollution control and methods. The works should be
                                                      detailed mitigation to ensure any impacts on habitats are     carried out between end of June and 15th October. SNH
                                                      reduced.                                                      would wish to be involved further in the revision of the
                                                                                                                    CoCP.

ID 20             Under bridge 61 - Torquhan          Under bridge 61 requires temporary in-stream works in         The CoCP should be revised to take into account detailed
                  South                               order to carry out repairs to the superstructure. Our         mitigation measures at this location including details on
                                                      assessment is that these works should be carried out with     timing, pollution control and methods. The works should be
                                                      detailed mitigation to ensure any impacts on habitats are     carried out between end of June and 15th October. SNH
                                                      reduced.                                                      would wish to be involved further in the revision of the
                                                                                                                    CoCP.


ID 22             RBP Pirnhouse                       The previous proposals for river bank protection works in-    The revised proposal, with no river bank protection works at
                                                      stream have been superseded and there is no longer any        this location, should be included in the final project
                                                      requirement for works to be carried out at this location.     proposals during the final consideration of the Bill.

ID 23             Under bridge 64 - Watherston        There are no qualifying interests at this location and        The CoCP should provide details on timing, pollution
                  Culvert                             therefore there will be no adverse effect.                    control and methods. The works should be carried out
                                                                                                                    between end of June and 15th October. SNH would wish to
                                                                                                                    be involved further in the revision of the CoCP.
Location ID No.        Engineering Location                              Assessment                                                 Recommendations
ID24              RBP - Craigsbank               The previous proposals for river bank protection works in-      The revised proposal, with no river bank protection works at
                                                 stream have been superseded and there is no longer any          this location, should be included in the final project
                                                 requirement for works to be carried out at this location to     proposals during the final consideration of the Bill. The
                                                 reopen the railway.                                             CoCP should provide details on timing, pollution control
                                                                                                                 and methods. SNH would wish to be involved further in the
                                                                                                                 revision of the CoCP.


ID 25             Under bridge 65 - Watherston   Under bridge 65 requires temporary in-stream works in           The CoCP should be revised to take into account detailed
                  Bridge                         order to carry out repairs to the superstructure. Our           mitigation measures at this location including details on
                                                 assessment is that these works should be carried out with       timing, pollution control and methods. The works should be
                                                 detailed mitigation to ensure any impacts on habitats are       carried out between end of June and 15th October. SNH
                                                 reduced.                                                        would wish to be involved further in the revision of the
                                                                                                                 CoCP.

ID 26             Under bridge 67 - Gala Bank    Under bridge 67 requires temporary in stream works in           The CoCP should be revised to take into account detailed
                                                 order to carry out repairs to the superstructure. Our           mitigation measures at this location including details on
                                                 assessment is that these works should be carried out with       timing, pollution control and methods. The works should be
                                                 detailed mitigation to ensure any impacts on habitats are       carried out between end of June and 15th October. SNH
                                                 reduced. Macrophyte species have been recorded in the           would wish to be involved further in the revision of the
                                                 vicinity of this site, and detailed mitigation measures will    CoCP.
                                                 be required to protect this interest.

ID 27             RBP - MillBank Section 1       The installation of bank protection measures will require       The revised proposal with remote bank protection works at
                                                 piling. Further consideration of the effects of piling on the   this location should be included in the final project
                                                 qualifying species of salmon and lamprey has been               proposals during the final consideration of the Bill.
                                                 provided and SNH are satisfied that any impacts can be
                                                 further reduced through detailed mitigation measures.

                                                                                                                 The CoCP should be revised to take into account detailed
                                                                                                                 mitigation measures at this location including details on
                                                                                                                 timing, pollution control and methods. The works should be
                                                                                                                 carried out between end of June and 15th October. SNH
                                                                                                                 would wish to be involved further in the revision of the
                                                                                                                 CoCP.
Location ID No.        Engineering Location                                 Assessment                                                 Recommendations
                                                                                                                    A licence from the Scottish Executive will be required as
                                                                                                                    the proposed works will cause disturbance to otter. Early
                                                                                                                    discussion with the Scottish Executive’s Licensing team
                                                                                                                    and SNH is required to discuss full mitigation measures to
                                                                                                                    reduce impacts on otters from disturbance, this could
                                                                                                                    include the provision of artificial otter holts.



ID 28             RBP - Millbank Section 2           Significant changes have been made to the engineering          The revised proposal, with remote bank protection works at
                                                     solution at this location. Previous proposals required rip     this location, should be included in the final project
                                                     rap to be installed in the in-stream environment. This is no   proposals during the final consideration of the Bill. The
                                                     longer required, and whilst bank protection works are still    CoCP should be revised to take into account detailed
                                                     proposed they will no longer be carried out in the in-         mitigation measures at this location including details on
                                                     stream environment. These works will, however, require         timing, pollution control and methods. The works should be
                                                     piling to install the bank protection measures. Further        carried out between end of June and 15th October. SNH
                                                     consideration of the effects of piling on the qualifying       would wish to be involved further in the revision of the
                                                     species of salmon and lamprey has been provided and            CoCP.
                                                     SNH are satisfied that any impacts can be further reduced
                                                     through detailed mitigation measures. It may also be
                                                     necessary to infill a section of the slope between the set
                                                     back bank protection works and the railway solum,
                                                     resulting in potential sedimentation release.

ID 29             RBP - Lady’s Park near Stow        The previous proposals for river bank protection works in-     The revised proposal, with no river bank protection works at
                                                     stream have been superseded and there is no longer any         this location, should be included in the final project
                                                     requirement for works to be carried out at this location.      proposals during the final consideration of the Bill. The
                                                                                                                    CoCP should provide details on timing, pollution control
                                                                                                                    and methods. SNH would wish to be involved further in the
                                                                                                                    revision of the CoCP.

ID 30             Under bridge 70 - Luggate Bridge   Under bridge 70 requires temporary in-stream works in          The CoCP should be revised to take into account detailed
                                                     order to carry out repairs to the superstructure. Our          mitigation measures at this location including details on
                                                     assessment is that these works should be carried out with      timing, pollution control and methods. The works should be
                                                     detailed mitigation to ensure any impacts on habitats are      carried out between end of June and 15th October. SNH
                                                     reduced.                                                       would wish to be involved further in the revision of the
                                                                                                                    CoCP.
Location ID No.        Engineering Location                               Assessment                                                Recommendations
ID 31, 32, 33 &   Under bridges 72, 73B, 74 & 77   Under bridges 72, 73B, 74 & 77 require temporary in          The CoCP should be revised to take into account detailed
34                                                 stream works in order to carry out repairs to the            mitigation measures at this location including details on
                                                   superstructure. Our assessment is that these works           timing, pollution control and methods. The works should be
                                                   should be carried out with detailed mitigation to ensure     carried out between end of June and 15th October. SNH
                                                   any impacts on habitats are reduced. Macrophyte species      would wish to be involved further in the revision of the
                                                   have been recorded in the vicinity of this site, detailed    CoCP.
                                                   mitigation measures will be required to protect this
                                                   interest.

ID 35 & 36        RBP and Under bridge 78,         ID 35 Significant changes have been made to the              The revised proposal with remote bank protection works at
                  Bowshank South                   engineering solution at this location. Previous proposals    this location should be considered as the Final Project
                                                   required rip rap to be installed in the in-stream            Prposals during the final consideration of the Bill. The
                                                   environment. This is no longer required and whilst bank      CoCP should be revised to take into account detailed
                                                   protection works are still proposed they will no longer be   mitigation measures at this location including details on
                                                   carried out in the in-stream environment.                    timing, pollution control and methods. The works should be
                                                                                                                carried out between end of June and 15th October. SNH
                                                                                                                would wish to be involved further in the revision of the
                                                                                                                CoCP.

                                                   ID 36 Under bridge 78 is not within the in-stream            The set back bank protection works are likely to cause
                                                   environment and therefore there will be no adverse           disturbance to otter. A licence from the Scottish Executive
                                                   effects on the qualifying features.                          will be required. Early discussion with the Scottish
                                                                                                                Executive’s Licensing team and SNH is required to discuss
                                                                                                                full mitigation measures to reduce impacts on otters from
                                                                                                                disturbance.

ID 37             RBP - Bowland                    The previous proposals for river bank protection works in-   The revised proposal, with no river bank protection works at
                                                   stream have been superseded and there is no longer any       this location, should be included in the final project
                                                   requirement for works to be carried out at this location.    proposals during the final consideration of the Bill. The
                                                                                                                CoCP should provide details on timing, pollution control
                                                                                                                and methods. SNH would wish to be involved further in the
                                                                                                                revision of the CoCP.

ID 38             RBP - Whitelee House             The proposals are for set back bank protection works and     The proposal for remote bank protection works at this
                                                   therefore there are no impacts from in-stream disturbance    location should be included in the final project proposals
                                                   at this location.                                            during the final consideration of the Bill.
Location ID No.         Engineering Location                           Assessment                                                  Recommendations
ID 39             Under bridge 83 - Whitelee    Under bridge 83 requires temporary in-stream works in          The CoCP should be revised to take into account detailed
                  Culvert                       order to carry out repairs to the superstructure. Our          mitigation measures at this location including details on
                                                assessment is that these works should be carried out with      timing, pollution control and methods. The works should be
                                                detailed mitigation to ensure any impacts on habitats are      carried out between end of June and 15th October. SNH
                                                reduced.                                                       would wish to be involved further in the revision of the
                                                                                                               CoCP.


ID 40             Under bridge 84 - Whinwater   Under bridge 84 requires temporary in-stream works in          The CoCP should be revised to take into account detailed
                                                order to carry out repairs to the superstructure. Our          mitigation measures at this location including details on
                                                assessment is that these works should be carried out with      timing, pollution control and methods. The works should be
                                                detailed mitigation to ensure any impacts on habitats are      carried out between end of June and 15th October. SNH
                                                reduced. Macrophyte species have been recorded in the          would wish to be involved further in the revision of the
                                                vicinity of this site, and detailed mitigation measures will   CoCP.
                                                be required to protect this interest.

ID 41             RBP                           The proposals are for set back bank protection works and       The proposal for remote bank protection works at this
                                                therefore there are no impacts from in-stream disturbance      location should be included in the final project proposals
                                                at this location.                                              during the final consideration of the Bill.

ID 42 and 43      Under bridges 87 and 88       Significant changes have been made to the engineering          The revised proposal, with remote bank protection works at
                                                solution at this location. Previous proposals required to be   this location, should be included in the final project
                                                clarified to identify which piers were in need of repair and   proposals during the final consideration of the Bill. The
                                                scour protection and whether or not they were in the in        CoCP should be revised to take into account detailed
                                                stream environment. Significant changes have been              mitigation measures at this location including details on
                                                made to set back the piers for the superstructure from the     timing, pollution control and methods. The works should be
                                                in-stream environment. Full details on the design have         carried out between end of June and 15th October. SNH
                                                not yet been provided.                                         would wish to be involved further in the revision of the
                                                                                                               CoCP.

                                                                                                               The set back bank protection works are likely to cause
                                                                                                               disturbance to otter. A licence form the Scottish Executive
                                                                                                               will be required. Early discussion with the Scottish
                                                                                                               Executive Licensing team and SNH is required to discuss
                                                                                                               full mitigation measures to reduce impacts on otters from
                                                                                                               disturbance. Full mitigation measures including the
                                                                                                               provision of artificial otter holts will be required.
Location ID No.        Engineering Location                                     Assessment                                                   Recommendations
ID 45             Under bridge 92 - Ryehaugh            Under bridge 92 requires structural repairs to the                The CoCP should be revised to take into account detailed
                  Water                                 substructure of the bridge. There is no requirement for in-       mitigation measures at this location including details on
                                                        stream works. Macrophyte species have been recorded in            timing, pollution control and methods. The works should be
                                                        the vicinity of this site, detailed mitigation measures will be   carried out between end of June and 15th October. SNH
                                                        required to protect this interest.                                would wish to be involved further in the revision of the
                                                                                                                          CoCP


ID 46             Under bridge 95 - Kilnknowe           Under bridge 95 requires temporary in-stream works in             The CoCP should be revised to take into account detailed
                                                        order to carry out repairs to the superstructure. Our             mitigation measures at this location including details on
                                                        assessment is that these works should be carried out with         timing, pollution control and methods are included. The
                                                        detailed mitigation to ensure any impacts on habitats are         works should be carried out between end of June and 15 th
                                                        reduced. Salmon habitat has been recorded in the vicinity         October. SNH would wish to be involved further in the
                                                        of this site.                                                     revision of the CoCP.

ID 49             Under bridge 104 - Red Bridge –       Under bridge 104 requires temporary in stream works in            The CoCP should be revised to take into account detailed
                  limited information on alternatives   order to carry out repairs to the superstructure. The river       mitigation measures at this location including details on
                                                        was too deep for a full survey of the available salmon and        timing, pollution control and methods are included. The
                                                        lamprey habitat at this location. However our assessment          works should be carried out between end of June and 15 th
                                                        is that these works should be carried out with detailed           October. SNH would wish to be involved further in the
                                                        mitigation to ensure any impacts on habitats are reduced.         revision of the CoCP.
                                                        Macrophyte species have been recorded in the vicinity of
                                                        this site, detailed mitigation measures will be required to
                                                        protect this interest.

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
views:180
posted:3/8/2010
language:English
pages:21
Description: Header Template for Email Fax Letter