TERRESTRIAL FLORA AND FAUNA - Planning Service · Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation...

Report No.: COR014/GBBCA/HRA/0.4

Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural

habitats and of wild fauna and flora

Draft Habitats Regulation Assessment Pursuant to Article

6(3): Proposal to remove the seats for sale (SFS) limitation,

George Best Belfast City Airport Prepared for:

GBBCA /Turley Associates Ltd

July 2014

Author(s)

Dr James K. O’Neill B.Sc. (Hons), Ph.D., FRICS

.

Corvus Consulting

Arthur House

41 Arthur St

Belfast

BT1 4GB

Tel: +44 (0) 2890 447601

www.corvusconsulting.com

[email protected]

________________________________________________ ToLS: GBBCA

Corvus Consulting July 2014

Page 2 of 62

Contents 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 4

1.1.1 The site location and site boundary are indicated at Figure 1. ..................................... 4

1.2 Remit and Scope of Assessment ......................................................................................... 4

1.3 Legislative Context ............................................................................................................... 6

2 Methodology.................................................................................................................................. 7

3 Sources of Information .................................................................................................................. 8

4 Assessment: Background Information ......................................................................................... 9

4.1 Screening of European Sites ................................................................................................ 9

4.2 Rationale for Screening ...................................................................................................... 14

4.2.1 Brief Description of the Natura 2000 Sites ................................................................... 14

4.2.2 Summary Site Description ............................................................................................. 14

4.2.3 Boundary Rationale ....................................................................................................... 15

4.2.4 SPA Selection Features .................................................................................................. 15

Feature .............................................................................................................................................. 15

4.2.5 Additional ASSI Selection Features ............................................................................... 16

Feature Type ..................................................................................................................................... 16

(i.e. habitat, species or earth science) ............................................................................................. 16

4.2.6 Conservation Objectives ............................................................................................... 17

4.2.7 SPA Selection Feature Objectives ................................................................................. 18

4.3 Belfast Lough Open Water Special Protection Area ......................................................... 18

4.3.1 Summary Site Description ............................................................................................. 19

4.3.2 Boundary Rationale ....................................................................................................... 19

4.3.3 SPA Selection Features .................................................................................................. 20

Feature .............................................................................................................................................. 20

4.3.4 Conservation Objectives ............................................................................................... 20

4.3.5 SPA Selection Feature Objectives ................................................................................. 20

4.4 Potentially Implicated SPA Features & Conservation Objectives .................................... 21

4.4.1 Belfast Lough Ramsar Site ............................................................................................. 21

4.4.2 Belfast Lough SPA & Belfast Lough Open Water Conservation Objectives................ 22

5 Brief Description of the Proposals .............................................................................................. 26

5.1 Context ................................................................................................................................ 26

6 Ecological Baseline: ...................................................................................................................... 27

6.1 Site Context and Adjacent Land Uses ............................................................................... 27

7 Ecological Baseline: Habitats ....................................................................................................... 31

8 Ecological Baseline: Fauna (excluding avifauna) ........................................................................ 31

9 Ecological Baseline (Avifauna) ..................................................................................................... 31

10 Hydrological Baseline................................................................................................................... 36

________________________________________________ ToLS: GBBCA


Page 3 of 62

11 General Quantitative Risk Assessment ....................................................................................... 38

12 Air Quality: Baseline ..................................................................................................................... 38

13 Potential Drainage Design ........................................................................................................... 38

14 Direct Impacts: Source-Pathway-Receptor Analysis .................................................................. 39

15 Indirect Impacts: Source-Pathway-Receptor Analysis ............................................................... 39

15.1 Potential Sources of Indirect Impact (Construction) ........................................................ 39

15.2 Potential Sources of Indirect Impact (Operation) ............................................................ 40

16 Review of IMpacts and Associated Mitigation Proposals .......................................................... 41

16.1 Construction noise arising from construction works ....................................................... 41

16.2 Potential visual disturbance of roosting and foraging birds due to presence of vehicles

on construction site .......................................................................................................................... 43

16.3 Potential visual disturbance of roosting and foraging birds due to presence of human

operatives on construction site ....................................................................................................... 43

16.4 Potential for contamination of receiving waterbodies from construction runoff (from

silt and potential contaminates present with excavated arising) .................................................. 43

16.5 Potential for contamination of receiving waterbodies via mobilisation through the

groundwater of potential contaminates present. .......................................................................... 44

16.5.1 Mitigation during Construction ................................................................................ 45

16.6 Operational noise arising from air traffic movements leading to disturbance of

significant numbers of SPA feature and assemblage species ........................................................ 46

16.7 Visual disturbance arising from air traffic movements leading to disturbance of

significant numbers of SPA feature and assemblage species ........................................................ 47

16.8 Potential for changes in Bird Management Practices & Take Off & Landing Procedures

leading to increased disturbance of significant numbers of SPA feature and assemblage species;

49

16.9 Potential for increase in hydrocarbons (all trafficked areas) to be entrained within

runoff. 49

16.10 Potential increase of risk to water environment due to impact of or use of the

following;........................................................................................................................................... 50

16.11 Potential for airborne pollutants to cause habitat changes as a result of deposition

effects. 51

16.11.1 Cumulative assessment ............................................................................................ 54

17 Test Of Likely Significance: Conclusions...................................................................................... 58

________________________________________________ ToLS: GBBCA


Page 4 of 62

1 INTRODUCTION

A Seats for Sale (SfS) limitation is in place in respect of George Best Belfast City Airport' (GBBCA)

existing Article 40 Agreement (A40). A request to modify the A40 has been made to the

Department of the Environment (DoE). A document in the form of an environmental statement

(ES) has been prepared and should be read in conjunction with this assessment. Full details of the

request are provided in Chapter 6 of that document.

1.1.1 The site location and site boundary are indicated at Figure 1.

This assessment has a narrow focus. It is protection-led, conducted with due regard to the

Precautionary Principle and concerned exclusively with the maintenance of the integrity of Natura

2000 Sites, specifically assessment of the nature and significance of all potential effects on site

selection features and conservation objectives of Natura 2000 sites concerned.

1.2 Remit and Scope of Assessment

It is the responsibility of the competent authority, in this case the DoE, to conduct assessments

pursuant to Article 6 of the Habitats Directive.

However, it is considered best practice to develop development proposals and potential proposals

with regard to this assessment and test potential proposals and mitigation measures prior to the

formal submission of plans. Although the request does not constitute a development proposal

Corvus Consulting was engaged by GBBCA in order to:

• Advise on and undertake a review of the ‘project’ as defined in Chapter 4 of the

environmental statement;

• Undertake a review of the environmental baseline;

• Review potential mitigation plans;

• Identify potentially significant ecological impacts;

• Conduct assessment based on this information; and

• Produce a draft Test of Likely Significance (ToLS) report.



1.3 Legislative Context

Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora,

commonly known as the Habitats Directive, is transposed into law in Northern Ireland by the

Conservation (Natural Habitats, etc.,) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1995 (as amended); the

Conservation Regulations.

Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive (transposed by Regulation 43) establishes the requirement

that any plan or project likely to have a significant effect on any Natura 2000 Site(s) shall first be

subject to an Appropriate Assessment (AA) of the implications for the site(s), and further that

competent national authorities shall agree to the plan or project only after having ascertained

that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site(s) concerned:

“Any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of

the [Natura 2000] site but likely to have a significant effect thereon, either

individually or in combination with other plans and projects, shall be subjected to

appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in view of the site’s

conservation objectives. In light of the conclusions of the assessment of the

implication for the site and subject to the provisions of paragraph 4, the competent

national authorities shall agree to the plan or project only after having ascertained

that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned and, if appropriate,

after having obtained the opinion of the general public”

The Natura 2000 network is comprised of sites designated, or in the latter stages of designation,

under both the EU Birds Directive and EU Habitats Directive. Specifically:

Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) designated under the EU Habitats Directive for flora,

fauna and habitat interest which have been adopted by the European Commission (EC)

and formally designated by the national government;

Special Protection Areas (SPA) designated under the EU Birds Directive for rare,

vulnerable or migratory bird interest which have been adopted by the EC and formally

designated by the national government;

Candidate and proposed sites (cSAC and pSPA), being those that have been submitted to

the EC but not yet formally adopted; and

Sites of Community Importance (SCI), being those that have been adopted by the EC, but

not yet formally designated by the national government. Once a site is adopted as an SCI

it is subject to Article 6 (2), (3) and (4) of the EC Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC.

Ramsar Sites are listed under the International Convention on Wetlands of International

Importance (the Ramsar Convention) and usually share boundaries with SACs and/or SPAs. In

Northern Ireland it is established Government policy to afford to Ramsar Sites the same degree of

protection as Natura 2000 sites.

________________________________________________ ToLS: GBBCA


Page 7 of 62

2 METHODOLOGY

Assessments pursuant to the requirements of Article 6 of the Habitats Directive are completed in

accordance with the EC recommended methodology, set out in the following documents:

‘Assessment of plans and projects significantly affecting Natura 2000 sites,

Methodological guidance on the provisions of Article 6 (3) and (4) of the Habitats

Directive 92/43/EEC’; and

‘Managing Natura 2000 Sites, The provisions of Article 6 of the ‘Habitats’ Directive

92/43/EEC’.

The methodology recommends a four-staged approach, where the results obtained upon

completion of each stage determines the requirement for and scope of the subsequent stage:

Stage One: Screening or Test of Likely Significance: The process which identifies the likely impacts

of a project or plan upon Natura 2000 sites, either alone or in combination with

other projects or plans, and determines whether or not these impacts are likely to

be significant. A baseline environmental assessment is required to identify potential

sources of impact and environmental receptors.

Stage Two: Appropriate Assessment: The consideration of the impact on the integrity of Natura

2000 sites of the likely significant impacts of the plan or project identified in Stage 1.

Impacts are assessed alone and in combination with other projects or plans, with

respect to the site’s structure and function and its conservation objectives.

Additionally, where there are adverse impacts, an assessment of the potential

mitigation of those impacts.

Stages Three and Four are unlikely to be of relevance to the current assessment. They provide a

methodology for the further assessment of plans or projects where likely significant effects cannot

be excluded on the basis of the first two stages of assessment. These stages are concerned

respectively with alternative methods of achieving the objectives of a plan or project which avoids

adverse impacts and of assessing and designing compensatory measures for plans or projects

which must progress for established Reasons of Overriding Public Interest.

To permit this assessment process to be followed in the current instance this report reviews and

assesses the environmental baseline and identifies potential sources of impact. Where such

impacts may exist, a review of mitigation and the scientific literature is carried out to determine

whether or not they are likely to be significant.

________________________________________________ ToLS: GBBCA


Page 8 of 62

3 SOURCES OF INFORMATION

The data and information employed in the course of this assessment was sourced from the

following documents and publicly available resources:

GBBCA Environmental Statement (Turley Associates for GBBCA, December 2013);

GBBCA Proposed Modification Environmental Statement Addendum (Turley Associates

for GBBCA, May 2014);

GBBCA Proposed Modification Environmental Statement Addendum (Turley Associates

for GBBCA, July 2014);

George Best Belfast City Airport Environmental Site Assessment, Lands at George Best

Belfast City Airport, Belfast 600871– R2 (00) (RSK, July 2014)

Preliminary Drawing, Potential Car Park Reconfiguration, George Best Belfast City Airport

(DCGAC009C) Doran Consulting (July 2014)

Belfast Lough SPA: Conservation Objectives (published NIEA);

Outer Belfast Lough SPA: Conservation Objectives (published NIEA);

Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) (www.ni-environment.gov.uk);

National Biodiversity Network (NBN) gateway (www.searchnbn.net);

Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) (www.jncc.gov.uk);

Belfast Harbour Biodiversity Audit; Belfast Harbour Commission;

Draft Baseline Environmental Assessment & Assessments Pursuant to Article 6(3):

Construction of a new Quay & hinterland development: Site at D1, Belfast Harbour.

Corvus Environmental Consulting Ltd for Belfast Harbour Commission (March 2011).

Musgrove, A J, Langston, R H W, Baker, H and Ward, R M (eds). 2003. Estuarine

Waterbirds at Low Tide: the WeBS Low Tide Counts 1992/93 to 1998/99.

WSG/BTO/WWT/RSPB/JNCC, Thetford.

British Trust for Ornithology WeBS Core Count Data & Low Tide Count Data, Belfast Lough

2008/2009

British Trust for Ornithology WeBS Core Count Data & Low Tide Site Summary, Belfast

Lough 2008/2009

Site Specific Data & General Communication, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds,

Allen & Mellon, Corvus Consulting.

The GB BCA site and its environs were visited by Corvus Consulting and allied personnel between

October 2010 and July 2014 for the purposes of this assessment.

http://www.ni-environment.gov.uk/

http://www.jncc.gov.uk/

________________________________________________ ToLS: GBBCA


Page 9 of 62

4 ASSESSMENT: BACKGROUND INFORMATION

4.1 Screening of European Sites

The GB BCA site is not within or subject to any statutory nature conservation designations made

under international legislation. The site is indirectly hydrologically and ecologically connected to a

variety of Natura 2000 sites and Areas of Special Scientific Interest.

Where such connections exist, assessment must be made of potential indirect impacts upon

receptor sites. The assessment herein has concentrated upon a variety of identified and potential

sources of impact.

While only limited development is included within the ‘project’, the indirect effects of the ‘project’

also have been assessed. Air Quality Assessment carried out in support of it and detailed

dispersion modelling of combustion emissions has been undertaken. These works are reported in

Chapter 10 of the environmental statement, Section 5 of the Addendum and within the GQRA

carried out to inform proposals. Such assessments are of merit when potential impacts upon

designated sites are considered.

Designated sites have been screened for nitrogen deposition impacts against relevant standards

where they are located within the following set distances from the proposed development:

• Natura 2000 Sites ((Special Protection Areas (SPAs), Special Areas of Conservation

(SACs) or Ramsar sites)) within 10km of the installation; and

• Areas of Special Scientific Interest (ASSIs) within 2 km of the installation.

Interrogation of the NIEA (Protected Areas) website yielded the following information regarding

Natura 2000 sites situated within 10km (determined by generation of a 10km buffer surrounding

the application boundary) of the site and thus potentially implicated in terms of adverse impacts

resulting from the proposal:

Belfast Lough Special Protection Area/ASSI: JNCC Site Code UK9020101;

Belfast Lough Open Water Special Protection Area/ASSI: JNCC Site Code UK9020290;

Belfast Lough Ramsar Site (coincident with Belfast Lough SPA)

Locations of designated sites are provided at Figure 2.


________________________________________________ ToLS: GBBCA


Page 11 of 62

________________________________________________ ToLS: GBBCA


Page 12 of 62

________________________________________________ ToLS: GBBCA


Page 13 of 62


4.2 Rationale for Screening

The GB BCA site is not situated within any Natura 2000 site, however, it is situated adjacent to

Belfast Lough Special Protection Area & Ramsar Site (approximately 390m NW of the proposal

site), and in proximity to Outer Belfast Lough Special Protection Area (approximately 510m north

of the proposal site). Therefore, should the project give rise to sources of adverse environmental

impact, there is the potential for such sources to give rise to both direct and indirect impacts on

these Natura 2000 sites.

Ecological impact assessment of potential indirect impacts on Natura 2000 sites is conducted

utilising a standard source-receptor-pathway model, where, in order for an indirect impact to be

established all three elements of this mechanism must be in place. The absence or removal of one

of the elements of the mechanism is sufficient to conclude that a potential impact is not of any

relevance or significance.

It is accepted that the ‘project’ includes potentially impacting activities, or sources of potential

impacts.

The site selection features of Belfast Lough SPA, Belfast Lough Ramsar Site and Belfast Lough

Open Water SPA, and the related conservation objectives, represent valuable ecological

receptors.

It has been concluded that the source-pathway-receptor mechanism cannot be established for

any additional Natura 2000 sites as those sites are distant from or not hydrologically or

ecologically connected to the GB BCA site. Therefore the only Natura 2000 sites potentially

implicated in terms of indirect impacts as a result of the ‘project’ are Belfast Lough SPA, Belfast

Lough Ramsar Site and Belfast Lough Open Water SPA. The spatial relationship between the site

and the designated areas is indicated in Figure 2.

4.2.1 Brief Description of the Natura 2000 Sites

BELFAST LOUGH SPA

COUNTY: Antrim and Down

G.R. J353 783 AREA: 432.14 ha.

4.2.2 Summary Site Description

The site comprises the sea lough of Belfast Lough. A range of inter-tidal habitats are present

including extensive mud and sand flats, mussel beds, boulder shores and rock platforms.

Adjoining habitat includes beaches and limited maritime heath and grasslands notably on the

outer southern shore. The lagoons at Belfast Harbour and Victoria Park (the latter formally tidal)

are also included.

________________________________________________ ToLS: GBBCA


Page 15 of 62

4.2.3 Boundary Rationale

The SPA comprises most of Inner and all of Outer Belfast Lough ASSI and is coincident with the

Ramsar boundary. All inter-tidal habitat is included together with any adjoining natural or semi-

natural habitat. The outer boundary on the northern shore is the limit of wide sediment

dominated shore (east of Kilroot the inter-tidal zone is generally narrow and typically boulder

dominated). On the southern shore, it is the general limit of rock platform interspersed with mud

and sand dominated embayments (east of Horse Rock typically alternates between broad sand

beaches with intervening rock shores). Also included is the important brackish lagoon at the

Harbour Estate (D2), together with the tidal channel at Dargan Road. All these areas are utilised

by Redshank. Roost sites occurring outside the extent of natural or semi-natural habitat have not

been included but their importance must not be underestimated. The boundary differs from the

Inner Belfast Lough ASSI as follows

Victoria Park excluded – formerly tidal but now of limited importance

Reduced section of Dargan Channel – limited to inter-tidal area only, excluding developed

land.

Inter-tidal area on lands north of Herdman Channel – developed for industry

Inter-tidal area on lands north of Musgrave Channel – not utilised by birds

Former lagoon, D3, in Belfast Harbour Estate - infilled

4.2.4 SPA Selection Features

Table 4.1: SPA Selection Features

F

e

Feature Population

(5 year

average

1995-2000)

Population

at time of

designation

(ASSI)

Population at

time of

designation

(SPA)

SPA Review

population

CSM

baseline

Species Redshank

wintering

population

2266 2466 2466 2010

(1993/4-

1997/98

)

Species Great

Crested

Grebe

wintering

population

1646 Not listed 1385 1015

(1993/4-

1997/98

)

Habitat1 Habitat

extent

________________________________________________ ToLS: GBBCA


Page 16 of 62

Habitat1 Roost site

locations

Table 1. List of SPA selection features.

1 Habitat is not a selection feature but is a factor and is more easily treated as if it were a feature.

4.2.5 Additional ASSI Selection Features

Table 4.2: Additional ASSI Selection Features

Feature Type

(i.e. habitat,

species or

earth

science)

Feature Size/

extent/

pop.

Population

at time of

designation

(ASSI)

CSM

baseline

Habitat Maritime cliffs and slope (Outer

Belfast Lough ASSI)

Species Invertebrate assemblage

Species Turnstone wintering population 614 503

(1989/90-

1995/96)

Species Cormorant wintering population 276

(1989/90-

1995/96)

Species Shelduck wintering population 589 278

(1989/90-

1995/96)

Species Mallard wintering population 321

(1989/90-

1995/96)

Species Scaup wintering population 29

(1989/90-

1995/96)

Species Eider wintering population 391

(1989/90-

1995/96)

Species Goldeneye wintering population 231

(1989/90-

1995/96)

________________________________________________ ToLS: GBBCA


Page 17 of 62

Species Red-breasted Merganser

wintering population

136

(1989/90-

1995/96)

Species Oystercatcher wintering

population

6584 4782

(1989/90-

1995/96)

Species Ringed Plover wintering

population

93

(1989/90-

1995/96)

Species Lapwing wintering population 1770

(1989/90-

1995/96)

Species Knot wintering population 56

(1989/90-

1995/96)

Species Dunlin wintering population 1440 742

(1989/90-

1995/96)

Species Black-tailed Godwit wintering

population

433 135

(1989/90-

1995/96)

Species Curlew wintering population 1271 871

(1989/90-

1995/96)

Earth Science Cultra – Craigavad Carboniferous

stratigraphy (Outer Belfast Lough

ASSI)

Earth Science Grey Point - Horse Rock Lower

Palaeozoic stratigraphy (Outer

Belfast Lough ASSI)

Earth Science Cultra Permian stratigraphy

(Outer Belfast Lough ASSI)

Table 2. List of ASSI features, additional to those that form all or part of SPA selection features.

4.2.6 Conservation Objectives

The Conservation Objectives for this site are:

To maintain each feature in favourable condition.

________________________________________________ ToLS: GBBCA


Page 18 of 62

For each feature there are a number of component objectives which are outlined in the tables

below. Component objectives for Additional ASSI Selection Features are not yet complete. For

each feature there are a series of attributes and measures which form the basis of Condition

Assessment. The results of this will determine whether a feature is in favourable condition, or not.

The feature attributes and measures are found in the attached annexes. Those for Additional ASSI

Selection Features (Annex II) are not yet completed.

4.2.7 SPA Selection Feature Objectives

Table 4.3: SPA Selection Feature Objectives

Feature Component Objective

Redshank

wintering

population

No significant decrease in population against national trends, caused by on-

site factors

Great Crested

Grebe wintering

population

No significant decrease in population against national trends, caused by on-

site factors

Habitat extent To maintain or enhance the area of natural and semi-natural habitats

potentially usable by Feature bird species (X ha intertidal area), subject to

natural processes

Habitat extent Maintain the extent of main habitat components subject to natural

processes

Roost sites Maintain or enhance sites utilised as roosts

Table 4.3: above (reproduced from the Natura 2000 Standard Data Form) details the SPA

qualifying features and summarises the conservation objectives.

The SPA Natura 2000 Standard Data Form is included at Appendix 1.

4.3 Belfast Lough Open Water Special Protection Area

Belfast Lough Open Water is designated as Special Protection Area (SPA) under the EC Birds

Directive. The Lough’s open water is of international importance for over-wintering waterfowl and

for regularly supporting internationally important populations of Great Crested Grebe in winter.

COUNTY: Antrim and Down

G.R. J407 838 AREA: 5592.99 ha

________________________________________________ ToLS: GBBCA


Page 19 of 62

4.3.1 Summary Site Description

Belfast Lough is a large intertidal sea lough situated at the mouth of the River Lagan on the east

coast of Northern Ireland. The inner part of the lough comprises a series of mudflats and lagoons.

The outer lough is restricted to mainly rocky shores with some small sandy bays.

The Belfast Lough open water area comprises the marine area below the mean low water mark.

Seawards it extends to a notional boundary between the eastern limits on the north and south

shores of the Outer Belfast Lough Area of Special Scientific Interest at Kilroot and Horse Rock

respectively. The boundary towards the head of the lough is a notional line between Greencastle

on northern shore and Holywood Bank on the southern shore.

Water depths within the site are generally between 1m and 10m. Shallow waters, less than 5m in

depth, dominate the area with deeper waters confined to the central area of the lough, east of a

line between Greenisland and Cultra.

4.3.2 Boundary Rationale

The SPA comprises the marine area of Belfast Lough. The landward boundary conjoins that of

Belfast Lough SPA and Ramsar site. The outer boundary is a notional line taken between the

eastern limits of Belfast Lough SPA that is from Kilroot on the northern shore to Horse Rock near

Grey Point on the southern. The open water supports the main part of the internationally

important wintering population of Great Crested Grebe. While the main roosting area for this

species is in the Inner Lough area, the entire site is of importance for feeding and loafing activities.

In addition these waters host nationally important wintering populations of a number of other

species.

________________________________________________ ToLS: GBBCA


Page 20 of 62

4.3.3 SPA Selection Features

Table 4.4: SPA Selection Features

Feature

Type

Feature Population

(5 year

average

1995-2000)

Population at

time of

designation

(ASSI)

Population at

time of

designation

(SPA)

SPA

Review

populati

on

CSM

baseline

Species Great Crested

Grebe wintering

population

1646 N/A 1677

individuals –

wintering

Habitat1 Habitat extent

Roosting/

loafing

sites1

locations of sites

1 Habitat and roost sites are not a selection feature but are a factor and more easily treated as if

they were a feature.

4.3.4 Conservation Objectives

The Conservation Objectives for this site are:

To maintain each feature in favourable condition.

For each feature there are a number of component objectives which are outlined in the tables

below. For each feature there are a series of attributes and measures which form the basis of

Condition Assessment. The results of this will determine whether a feature is in favourable

condition, or not. The feature attributes and measures are found in the attached annexes.

4.3.5 SPA Selection Feature Objectives

Table 4.5: SPA Selection Feature Objectives

Feature Component Objective

Great Crested

Grebe wintering

population

No significant decrease in population against national trends, caused by on-site

factors

Habitat extent Maintain the extent of main habitat components subject to natural processes

________________________________________________ ToLS: GBBCA


Page 21 of 62

Roosting/loafing

sites

Maintain all locations of sites.

4.4 Potentially Implicated SPA Features & Conservation Objectives

The proposal site lies outwith the formal boundary of the designated site(s). In the context of the

current assessment, it is therefore likely that potential adverse impacts will arise solely via indirect

sources (noise, transportation, waterborne pollutants etc).

It is considered highly unlikely that the terrestrial habitat will be implicated in any way.

All species listed as feature species of the Belfast Lough SPA and Belfast Lough Open Water SPA

are implicated in the current assessment.

The SPA Natura 2000 Standard Data Form is included at Appendix 1.

4.4.1 Belfast Lough Ramsar Site

Belfast Lough Ramsar Site boundary is entirely coincident with that of Outer Belfast Lough ASSI

but within the immediate harbour area the boundary has been redrawn to take into account

permitted port related development and landfill which has taken place since the Inner Belfast

Lough ASSI was declared in 1987.

Marine areas below mean low water are not included. The Ramsar boundary is entirely coincident

with that of the Belfast Lough Special Protection Area. The site qualifies under Criterion 3c by

regularly supporting internationally important numbers of redshank in winter.

The site also regularly supports nationally important numbers of shelduck, oystercatcher, purple

sandpiper, dunlin, black-tailed godwit, bar-tailed godwit, curlew and turnstone.

Belfast Lough as a whole is also used by several other waterfowl species including great crested

grebe, scaup, eider, goldeneye and red-breasted merganser.

The Information Sheet on Ramsar Wetlands (RIS) for Belfast Lough Ramsar Site is contained at

Appendix 2.

While not material to Article 6 Assessments except where assemblages are a conservation feature

of allied SPAs, Inner Belfast Lough ASSI supports nationally important numbers of waders as

detailed below.

________________________________________________ ToLS: GBBCA


Page 22 of 62

Table 4.6: SPA and ASSI feature species (Source, NIEA, 2009)

As a precautionary measure, impacts upon ASSI assemblages will be assumed to lead to potential

impacts upon SPA/Ramsar feature species and assemblages for the purposes of this assessment.

4.4.2 Belfast Lough SPA & Belfast Lough Open Water Conservation Objectives

The SPA Conservation Objectives documents for the implicated sites, published by NIEA, identifies

a number of notifiable operations within the SPA(s) which are considered to be impacts on the

SPA(s), have an influence on conservation and must therefore be considered cumulatively, as

background or on-going diffuse impacts, with potential impacts occurring as a result of the

proposed development.

These impacts primarily concern activities which contribute to the change in surrounding land use

parameters, activities relevant to the implicated site(s) are:

________________________________________________ ToLS: GBBCA


Page 23 of 62

4.4.2.1 Belfast Lough SPA

Table 4.7: SPA Activities of Concern (NIEA)

Generic site/feature issues

Issue Threat/comments Local considerations

Adjoining habitat Particularly important for swans and

geese as well as providing high tide roost

locations. Significant changes in land

management and disturbance are key

considerations. Such areas lie without

the site making effective management of

developments other than those for

which planning permission is required,

difficult.

Most adjoining habitat utilised by birds other

than as roost sites, comprises managed amenity

grass. This provides important additional

feeding opportunities for selected wader

species but would not merit any formal

designation.

Boating activity – commercial Disturbance and potential for impact

from high-speed liners.

Major shipping channel plus cross-lough activity

imminent. The former is long-established, the

latter is yet to be evaluated (Dec. ’01)

Dredging Generally only an issue in relation to

commercial shipping channels. Issues

include disturbance, remobilisation of

contaminated sediment and spoil

dumping zones.

Major capital dredging programme recently

completed (2001). Established ongoing

maintenance programme.

Habitat extent – inter-tidal Loss of habitats through development,

changes in coastal processes. Loss of

inter-tidal habitat is a critical issue as this

is the feeding zone for the majority

(numbers and species) of birds.

There has been extensive loss of inter-tidal

habitat historically. Inner lough mudflats

particularly vulnerable.

Habitat extent – open water Loss likely to be limited but expansion of

commercial port facilities can impact on

key localities.

Ongoing and further planned harbour

developments will reduce open water area.

Probably insignificant.

Habitat quality – inter-tidal Alteration of habitat quality through

diminution of water quality, invasive

species or changes in coastal processes.

Historically impacted by industrial and

sewerage effluent.

________________________________________________ ToLS: GBBCA


Page 24 of 62

Habitat quality – open water Alteration of habitat quality through

diminution of water quality or invasive

species.


sewerage effluent. Vulnerable to pollution

incidents from both industry and shipping.

High tide roosts An essential component of sites hosting

waders. Development of adjoining

ground or actual traditional roost

localities may adversely impact on the

sites carrying capacity. Many such sites

lie without the site making effective

management of developments, other

than those for which planning

permission is required, difficult.

Localities should be mapped. Loss of wader

roost sites within the Inner Lough has been

notable.

Introduced species Range of threats from loss of habitat,

feeding competition, disease, hosting

species presenting a threat outside of

the site.

Not evident but given nature of the site, could

be an issue through commercial shipping and

aquaculture.

4.4.2.2 Belfast Lough Open Water SPA

Table 4.8: SPA Activities of Concern

Issue Threat/comments Local considerations

Boating activity – commercial Disturbance and potential for impact

from high-speed liners.

Major shipping channel plus cross-lough activity

imminent (proposal dropped_April 2006). The

former is long-established, the latter is yet to be

evaluated (Dec. ’01)

________________________________________________ ToLS: GBBCA


Page 25 of 62

Dredging Generally only an issue in relation to

commercial shipping channels. Issues

include disturbance, remobilisation of

contaminated sediment and spoil

dumping zones.

Major capital dredging programme recently

completed (2001). Established ongoing

maintenance programme.

Habitat extent – open water Loss likely to be limited but expansion of

commercial port facilities can impact on

key localities.

Ongoing and further planned harbour

developments will reduce open water area.

Probably insignificant.

Habitat quality – open water Alteration of habitat quality through

diminution of water quality or invasive

species.


sewerage effluent. Vulnerable to pollution

incidents from both industry and shipping.

Roosting and loafing areas An essential component of sites hosting

waterfowl. Inappropriate development

of or change in use of critical areas may

adversely impact on the sites carrying

capacity.

Localities should be mapped.

Introduced species Range of threats from loss of habitat,

feeding competition, disease, hosting

species presenting a threat outside of

the site.

Not evident but given nature of the site, could

be an issue through commercial shipping and

aquaculture.

________________________________________________ ToLS: GBBCA


Page 26 of 62

5 BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSALS

5.1 Context

The ‘project’ assessed is defined in the Environmental Statement and summarised as follows.

The removal of the existing Seats for Sale cap .

The introduction of an enforceable noise control contour

Potential extension and reconfiguration of aircraft parking areas. If implemented These

will potentially require resurfacing of an existing hard standing area.

Demolition of part of the old terminal building

Potential reconfiguration of the existing long stay car park together with the potential re-

development of existing hardstand areas and small areas of grassland including the

demolition of a small pre-fabricated building

The potential re-development of existing brownfield and greenfield areas.

________________________________________________ ToLS: GBBCA


Page 27 of 62

6 ECOLOGICAL BASELINE:

6.1 Site Context and Adjacent Land Uses

The GB BCA site has been utilised as an aerodrome since 1937, for this reason it is accepted that

aviation is a long-established land use in the area. Located within an estuarine port, the

predominant surrounding land use in the area is industrial and commercial.

Comparative analysis of recent aerial imagery with recent historical imagery (overleaf) has

indicated that land uses immediately adjacent to the Airport site have not altered significantly in

the previous decade.

The most significant alterations in this period have been the construction of a D1 New Quay and

Harbour and Deep Water Berths in 2012 and use of the adjacent area as an offshore wind turbine

construction site. The construction of this proposal, which constituted permitted development,

required significant piling and allied works and took place within 50m of the SPA boundary and

RSPB Harbour Reserve.

It is noted that no significant disturbance of birds arose as part of construction or operational

activities associated with this major development (Source: Belfast Harbour Commission D1

Ecological Steering Group, 2012).

Construction of the Belfast Harbour Commissioner’s VT4 Terminal also occurred during this

period, with significant piling and allied works taking place within 400m of the SPA boundary and

the RSPB Harbour Reserve. No significant disturbances of birds were reported during the

construction of this proposal (Source: Draft Baseline Environmental Assessment & Assessments

Pursuant to Article 6(3): Construction of a new Quay & hinterland development: Site at D1, Belfast

Harbour Commission).

Construction of a Bombardier Aircraft Manufacturing Facility also took place during this period.

Site specific image analysis indicates that no significant changes in habitat extent or composition

are likely to have occurred in the last decade. Evidence that the vegetation of the GB BCA site has

been subject to periodic management can also be observed.

Appendix 2.1 of the environmental statement has been reviewed for projects capable of giving

rise to cumulative or synergistic impacts.

________________________________________________ ToLS: GBBCA


Page 28 of 62

Figure 6a: Recent Imagery indicating site context and surrounding land use

15/04/2012

Figure 6b: Historical Imagery indicating site context and surrounding land use

23/05/2010

________________________________________________ ToLS: GBBCA


Page 29 of 62

Figure 6c: Historical Imagery indicating site context and surrounding land use

31/05/2009

Figure 6d: Historical Imagery indicating site context and surrounding land use

01/04/2007

________________________________________________ ToLS: GBBCA


Page 30 of 62

Figure 6e: Historical Imagery indicating site context and surrounding land use

01/01/2005

.

________________________________________________ ToLS: GBBCA


Page 31 of 62

7 ECOLOGICAL BASELINE: HABITATS

Phase 1 Habitat Surveys carried out as part of the environmental statement have indicated that

the following habitats are extant within and adjacent to the GB BCA Site.

• Unimproved neutral grasslands

• Earth Bank

• Semi-improved neutral grasslands

• Poor Semi-improved Grasslands

• Improved Grasslands

• Hard Standing

• Buildings

• Tall herb & Fern (Non-Ruderal)

• Broad-leaved Plantation Woodland

• Continuous Scrub

• Scattered Scrub

• Eutrophic Standing Water/Ponds (Priority Habitat)

• Brackish Standing Water

• Swamp (Priority Habitat)

• Intertidal Mud & Sands (Priority Habitat)

• Saltmarsh (Priority Habitat)

• Scattered Bracken

• Intact Hedgerows (Priority Habitat).

• Scattered trees

• Ephemeral/Short Perennial

Where these habitats are utilised by feature species of Natura 2000 sites or have the potential for

such use, potential impacts upon these habitats must be assessed.

8 ECOLOGICAL BASELINE: FAUNA (EXCLUDING AVIFAUNA)

A diverse range of small mammals and herpetofauna is extant on site. These species are not

relevant to the implicated Natura 2000 sites and are not considered here.

9 ECOLOGICAL BASELINE (AVIFAUNA)

Bird Surveys were carried out for a total of 245 hours and 34 minutes between October 2010 and

August 2013. Bird usage in the vicinity of the airport was thus assessed over three full

overwintering periods.

________________________________________________ ToLS: GBBCA


Page 32 of 62

Survey effort and methodology appropriate to the airport site (1 x count per survey area per

month at High & Low Tide States) is appropriate for impact assessment of the ‘project’.

During all surveys, detailed information on all air traffic movements and the reaction of birds to air

traffic and other potential disturbance events was documented.

Four survey zones have been utilised in recent surveys, these zones are:

• Belfast Harbour Conservation Lands;

• North East Intertidal Area;

• South East Intertidal Area; and,

• Tillysburn Creek.

The locations and boundaries of each survey zone are indicated in Figure 6. Surveys were carried

out across a range of weather conditions. Surveys were carried out at the following times,

weather conditions and tide states (Table 10.1)

Table 10.1 Survey times, weather conditions and tide states

Date Start End Duration Tide Precipitation Wind

(MPH)

Wind

Direction

Vis (km)

06-Oct-10 13:30 17:20 03:50 LW 0 3 SW 5

11-Oct-10 11:30 14:10 02:40 HW 0 1 E 5

04-Nov-10 07:50 11:10 03:20 HW 0 3 NE 5

05-Nov-10 13:45 16:00 02:15 LW 0 3 S 5

09-Dec-10 11:50 15:10 03:20 HW 0 1 N 5

13-Dec-10 08:30 11:45 03:15 LW 0 0 0 5

04-Jan-11 10:10 13:00 02:50 HW 0 3 SE 5

12-Jan-11 09:00 11:50 02:50 LW 0 1 SE 5

03-Feb-11 10:30 13:30 03:00 HW 0 3 S 5

09-Feb-11 08:10 10:40 02:30 LW 0 1 SW 5

09-Mar-11 12:25 14:25 02:00 HW Light rain 4 SW 5

14-Mar-11 11:30 14:30 03:00 LW 0 1 SW 5

02-Apr-11 09:45 12:45 03:00 HW 0 1 S 5

23-Apr-11 07:05 10:35 03:30 LW 0 2 SE 5

17-May-11 08:00 12:15 04:15 HW 0 2 W 3

22-May-11 07:30 10:40 03:10 LW 0 2 SW 5

14-Jun-11 14:10 17:00 02:50 LW 0 3 SE 5

21-Jun-11 13:12 16:35 03:23 HW 0 1 SE 2

06-Jul-11 11:30 15:40 04:10 HW 0 1 SW 3

14-Jul-11 14:40 17:40 03:00 LW 0 2 S 5

________________________________________________ ToLS: GBBCA


Page 33 of 62

15-Aug-11 16:15 19:10 02:55 LW 0 2 S 5

29-Aug-11 09:00 12:10 03:10 HW 0 3 NW 3

17-Sep-11 12:50 15:30 04:10 HW 0 2 W 5

20-Sep-11 08:20 12:30 05:10 LW 0 1 SE 5

12-Oct-11 08:45 12:55 06:10 HW Light rain 1 SW 3

23-Oct-11 12:30 15:40 03:10 LW Heavy rain 3 E 1.5

06-Nov-11 12:20 15:30 03:10 LW 0 1 S 5

17-Nov-11 13:25 16:50 03:25 HW Heavy rain 3 S 3

07-Dec-11 08:45 11:55 03:10 HW 0 4 SE 5

19-Dec-11 10:00 13:20 03:20 LW 0 2 S 1.5

06-Jan-12 14:30 15:55 01:25 LW 0 2 N 3

13-Jan-12 13:30 15:50 02:20 HW 0 2 S 5

04-Feb-12 08:15 12:20 04:05 HW 0 1 S 2.5

13-Feb-12 07:55 11:10 03:15 LW 0 2 E 5

05-Mar-12 08:45 12:45 04:00 HW 0 2 W 5

28-Mar-12 08:00 11:40 03:40 LW 0 1 SE 5

05-Apr-12 09:10 12:40 03:30 HW 0 - - 5

17-Apr-12 14:28 17:30 02:58 LW 0 2 SW 5

03-May-12 14:27 17:30 02:57 LW 0 1 SW 5

20-May-12 09:50 12:25 02:35 HW 0 1 SE 5

20-Jun-12 16:20 20:20 04:00 LW 0 1 SE 5

4-July-12 16:30 20:30 04:00 LW 0 1 S 5

31-Jul-12 09:20 13:20 04:00 HW 0 1 NE 5

07-Aug-12 14:40 18:05 03:25 HW 0 1 NE 5

29-Aug-12 14:30 17:57 03:27 LW 0 1 SE 5

17-Sep-12 10:55 14:40 03:45 HW 0 2 SE 5

30-Sep-12 17:01 19:30 02:29 LW 0 1 SW 5

15-Oct-12 10:10 13:50 03:30 LW 0 1 S 5

25-Oct-12 11:00 18:45 07:45 LW 0 2 NW 5

27-Nov-12 15:45 17:20 02:05 LW 0 4 E 5

28-Nov-12 09:50 13:30 03:40 HW 0 4 N 5

10-Dec-12 12:10 16:20 04:30 LW 0 2 NW 5

17-Dec-12 12:00 16:00 04:00 HW 0 2 NE 5

09-Jan-13 12:55 16:40 03:45 LW 0 2 W 5

25-Jan-13 08:15 12:00 03:45 HW 0 3 NW 5

15-Feb-13 12:35 16:35 04:00 HW 0 3 NW 5

20-Feb-13 11:20 15:25 04:05 LW 0 3 SW 5

12-Mar-13 09:30 13:30 04:00 HW 0 5 NW 5

20-Mar-13 08:55 12:55 04:00 LW 0 3 NW 5

03-Apr-13 15:00 19:00 04:00 HW 0 3 NE 5

________________________________________________ ToLS: GBBCA


Page 34 of 62

14-Apr-13 06:00 10:00 04:00 LW Light Rain 4 NE 5

07-May-13 14:00 18:00 04:00 HW 0 3 SE 5

24-May-13 14:00 18:00 04:00 LW 0 4 NW 5

16-Jun-13 08:00 12:00 04:00 LW 0 2 NW 5

26-Jun-13 11:00 15:15 04:15 HW 0 3 NE 5

16-Jul-13 15:30 19:30 04:00 HW 0 2 NW 5

22-Jul-13 15:30 19:45 04:15 LW 0 3 NE 5

16-Aug-13 16:20 20:30 04:10 HW 0 3 NE 5

23-Aug-13 16:30 20:30 04:00 LW 0 3 SE 5



Bird survey results are provided in full in Table 12.3A of Appendix 12.3 of the environmental

statement. A total of 44,537 bird registrations were made during current surveys.

In order to determine whether each survey area important is for bird populations as either the

location of high tide roosts or low water foraging assemblages, a threshold of more than 5% of the

SPA population (mean 5 year peak winter count 2004-2009) was used. This threshold has been

commonly applied in respect of impact analyses in Belfast Lough.

Where more than 5% of the SPA population was observed in a survey area during high water or

low water, that area was deemed to be significant in respect of that species.

Survey results in respect of the maximum numbers of each species recorded in each area as a

proportion of the SPA totals are provided at Appendix 3.

All survey areas were found to contain significant assemblages of birds in the context of the

SPA/ASSI Assemblage Species.

On the basis of this data it is concluded the surveyed areas comprise significant resources for

Belfast Lough SPA and Outer Belfast Lough SPA feature species. Additionally, it is concluded that

significant assemblages of ASSI feature species are extant within the surveyed areas. Interviews

with RSPB personnel have indicated that almost the entirety of the Reserve is utilised by roosting

assemblages.

Due to the proximity of surveyed areas to the GB BCA site, it is concluded that these species and

assemblages may be vulnerable to indirect impacts arising from the ‘project’. Significant impacts

upon the roosting utility of the area would thus represent significant impacts upon the integrity of

the SPA in the event of their occurrence.

10 HYDROLOGICAL BASELINE

Chapter 10 of the environmental statement details the hydrological and drainage impacts of the

‘project’. That Chapter should be read in conjunction with this assessment.

The hydrological assessment covers the construction, operation and maintenance of the potential

physical changes associated with the ‘project’. The chapter identifies and assesses the potential

effects on the following:

• Existing hydrological conditions, including:

Flooding and impediments to flows

Runoff rates and volumes

• Terrestrial and aquatic surface water dependant areas of environmental / scientific

interest

• Water quality of surface waters including abstractions

________________________________________________ ToLS: GBBCA


Page 37 of 62

• Water quality of surface water discharges from the site

Potential effects were considered:

• Within the site

• Within the context of any potential downstream of wider catchment effects

It is noted that the hydrology assessment was undertaken using a qualitative assessment based

on experienced professional judgement and assessment of compliance with statutory and

industry guidance, including site visits for verification.

The assessment notes that the site is currently served by a conventional drainage system, with

surface runoff collected in gullies and channels.

Flow is conveyed in pipes to arrangements of sampling chambers and oil interceptors prior to

being conveyed to the respective final point of discharge. There are five points of discharge from

the site for surface runoff to the receiving watercourses.

Surface runoff flows are generally conveyed to the Tillysburn Stream / Kinnegar Water or the

Conns Water / Mallusk Channel. Where sampling indicates an exceedance in discharge consent

(Water Order 1999), surface runoff flows are diverted to the foul system as discussed below.

These connections give rise to a hydrological connection between the GB BCA site and the

implicated Natura 2000 sites.

It is noted that contingency is in place for the containment of pollutants within surface runoff as

follows;

• Apron and runway. All surface runoff flows pass via an oil interceptor, to a chamber

which contains automated sampling equipment. Where conductivity of flow exceeds

threshold levels (indicating presence of pollutant or contamination within the flow),

penstocks within the diversion chamber diverts all flow to a containment lagoon,

which has a volume of approximately 1,250m3. Flows from the lagoon are pumped

to a secondary diversion chamber (MH12), which allows for diversion of flow to

either the NI Water foul sewer (which conveys flow to Kinnegar WWTW) or the local

storm drain (via the oil interceptor located in the car park).

• Car park, terminal building roof area and access roads. All surface runoff flows are

collected in a separate storm systems and pass via oil interceptors to the respective

point of outflow.

________________________________________________ ToLS: GBBCA


Page 38 of 62

• Foul flows generated by the site discharge to a NI Water combined trunk sewer via

gravity.

During recent sampling, there were no other notable anomalies or indicators of pollution within

the results obtained. Full results are included in Appendix 10.4 of the environmental statement

The hydrological appraisal has classified any likely adverse impacts upon Belfast Lough as

significant (in the absence of mitigation) due to the range of statutory protections and

designations which apply to the Lough.

11 GENERAL QUANTITATIVE RISK ASSESSMENT

In May 2014, RSK Ireland Limited (RSK) was commissioned by George Best Belfast City Airport (GB

BCA) to prepare a contaminated land assessment for lands within GB BCA. The aim of the study

was to establish the potential sources of environmental risk and liabilities associated with any soil

and groundwater contamination at the site.

The resulting assessment has been subjected to detailed review to determine if impacts upon

designated site may arise. Where this is the case, these potential impacts must be assessed in the

context of the Directive and Regulations.

12 AIR QUALITY: BASELINE

Local background air quality data was obtained from a variety of sources detailed in full in Chapter

8 of the environmental statement and section 5 of the Addendum both of which should be read

in conjunction with this assessment.

13 POTENTIAL DRAINAGE DESIGN

It is noted that the proposal may require alteration of extant hardstanding areas to provide

parking provision for aircraft and vehicles. Provision of these areas may potentially lead to impacts

upon Natura 2000 sites due to hydrological connection and allied impact pathways. Where this is

the case, these potential impacts must be assessed in the context of the Directive and

Regulations.

________________________________________________ ToLS: GBBCA


Page 39 of 62

As the potential for such impacts is recognised in the current instance, areas that may be used for

these purposes have been subjected to mitigation design works to determine whether mitigation

works can be designed into the potentially impacted areas in such a manner as to eliminate all

potential impacts upon Natura 2000 sites.

In this case, only proven mitigation works of known efficacy have been utilised in design works

and the locations, technical specifications (where known) and allied information have been

detailed in accordance with best practice in Habitats Regulations Assessment.

14 DIRECT IMPACTS: SOURCE-PATHWAY-RECEPTOR ANALYSIS

It is noted that the GB BCA site is outwith the implicated designated sites. In consequence no

direct impacts will arise upon them.

15 INDIRECT IMPACTS: SOURCE-PATHWAY-RECEPTOR ANALYSIS

It is noted that the ‘project’ may give rise to indirect impacts. Where adverse impacts are likely to

arise, a Test of Likely Significance is likely to be required. Potential impacts are identified below

15.1 Potential Sources of Indirect Impact (Construction)

During any potential construction works a number of activities may be undertaken on site, some

of which may have the potential to give rise to noise and to modify hydrological regimes and

affect the water quality in the receiving environment.

A review of the environmental statement and all allied documents indicates that the following

potentially significant construction impacts have been identified:-

Construction noise arising from construction works;

Potential visual disturbance of roosting and foraging birds due to presence of vehicles on

construction site.

Potential visual disturbance of roosting and foraging birds due to presence of human

operatives on construction site.

Potential for contamination of receiving waterbodies from construction runoff (from silt

and potential contaminates present).

Potential for contamination of receiving waterbodies via mobilisation through the

groundwater of potential contaminates present.

________________________________________________ ToLS: GBBCA


Page 40 of 62

15.2 Potential Sources of Indirect Impact (Operation)

A review of the environmental statement indicates that the following potentially significant

operational impacts have been identified:-

Operational noise arising from air traffic movements leading to disturbance of significant

numbers of SPA feature and assemblage species;

Visual disturbance arising from air traffic movements leading to disturbance of significant

numbers of SPA feature and assemblage species

Potential for changes in Bird Management Practices & Takeoff & Landing Procedures

leading to increased disturbance of significant numbers of SPA feature and assemblage

species;

Potential for increase in hydrocarbons (all trafficked areas) to be entrained within runoff.

Potential increase of risk to water environment due to impact of or use of the following;

• Fuel spillages

• De-Icing Chemicals (Aircraft)

• De-icing Chemicals (Apron/Taxiway Areas)

• Fire Fighting Chemicals

• Potential for airborne pollutants to cause habitat changes as a result of deposition effects.

________________________________________________ ToLS: GBBCA


Page 41 of 62

16 REVIEW OF IMPACTS AND ASSOCIATED MITIGATION

PROPOSALS

In order to carry out the Test of Likely Significance (ToLS) required by Article 6 of the Habitats

Directive it is necessary to determine whether identified potential impacts are likely to arise,

whether (in the event of being likely to arise) they can be eliminated or adequately mitigated, and

whether such methods are achievable and likely to succeed. An assessment of potential

mitigation proposals is therefore required.

This section assesses the mitigation proposals and characteristics of the potential construction,

and operational impacts identified above.

Each potential impact is assessed in turn with reference to mitigation either designed into the

‘project’ or committed to by the Airport, and a summary table provided.

16.1 Construction noise arising from construction works

It is evident that man-made disturbance of birds has the potential to negatively impact upon wild

bird populations. Consequently, assessing the severity of the effects of disturbance has practical

consequences for human activities where disturbance may have significant negative impacts upon

protected areas (Gill et al., 2001)

The 2008 Harbasins1 Report “Conservation Goals for Waterfowl in Estuaries2” prepared by the

Institute of Estuarine & Coastal Studies (IECS) of the University of Hull has sought to address this

problem.

The report considers that the most important anthropogenic influence on waterfowl assemblages

outwith those directly affecting habitat extent and quality, relate to disturbance effects.

Disturbance events can arise from a variety of sources including industrial activity, construction,

transport and recreation. Disturbance stimuli originating from within the estuarine system tend to

have the greatest level of impact, followed by those originating from the estuarine fringe, but this

may not always be the case (Cutts, in prep.). Whilst potential stimuli (aural and visual) may be at

their greatest in the context of industrial activity, the regularity of stimuli resulting from such

ongoing activity can often be readily habituated to, and more infrequent lower magnitude stimuli,

1 HARBASINS is a project funded under the European Regional Development Fund INTERREG IIIB North Sea Region Program – A European

Community Initiative concerning Trans National Co-operation on Spatial Development 2000-2006. 2 Cutts, N.D., 2008. Conservation Goals for Waterfowl in Estuaries. Institute of Estuarine & Coastal Studies (IECS), University of Hull, UK.

Report produced as part of the European Interreg IIIB HARBASINS project.

________________________________________________ ToLS: GBBCA


Page 42 of 62

for instance arising from recreational activity, can have a greater effect at a local scale (Cutts,

1999).

The following Figure (Amended from Figure 1.2 from the Harbasins Report), collates and assigns

typical impact significances to some key findings of research carried out by a variety of sources

and summarised in Davidson and Rothwell (1993), together with behavioural response monitoring

of waterfowl to a range of different anthropogenic activities relating to construction work

adjacent to an estuarine mudflat on the Humber Estuary (Cutts, 1999).

Personnel and plant on mudflat: High (and should be managed at all times)

Third party on mudflat: High (but difficult to manage)

Personnel and plant on seaward toe and face: High to Moderate

Intermittent plant and personnel on crest: High to Moderate

Third party on bank: High to Moderate

Irregular piling noise (above 70db): High to Moderate

Long-term plant and personnel on crest: Moderate

Regular piling noise (above 70db): Moderate

Irregular noise (50db - 70db): Moderate

Regular noise (50db - 70db): Moderate to Low

Occasional movement of crane jib and load above sight-line: Moderate to Low

Noise below 50db: Low

Long-term plant only on crest: Low

Activity behind flood bank (inland): Low

Table 14.1: Waterfowl disturbance response summary to a range of anthropogenic activities

(Cutts, 1999). Activities in Red produce a significant, often flight response, in Amber, a behavioural

response and in Green, no observable response.

This table clearly distinguishes between regular and non-regular sources of disturbance and

draws a distinction between them (thus taking account of the increased tolerance and habituation

of most bird species to regular and predictable non-threatening noise events).

It is noted in the current instance that noise associated with construction works will occur within

1km of the designated site boundary. It is also noted that no direct visual connection exists

between the designated areas and the areas of the GB BCA site where such works will take place.

In consequence it is deemed that no pathway (noise or visual) exists between the source of

impact (construction noise) and the receptor (SPA Feature assemblage species).

For this reason construction noise is unlikely to lead to significant effects upon the feature species

or conservation objectives of the implicated Natura 2000 sites.

________________________________________________ ToLS: GBBCA


Page 43 of 62

16.2 Potential visual disturbance of roosting and foraging birds due to

presence of vehicles on construction site

It is noted that the HARBASINS report deems construction activity inland to give rise to low levels

of impact significance. In the current instance no visual link exists between the relevant areas of

the GB BCA site and the implicated designated sites.

In addition a spatial separation of >1km between the relevant areas of the GB BCA site and the

implicated designated sites is noted.

For this reason visual disturbance arising from the presence of construction vehicles is unlikely to

lead to significant effects upon the feature species or conservation objectives of the implicated

Natura 2000 sites.

16.3 Potential visual disturbance of roosting and foraging birds due to

presence of human operatives on construction site

It is noted that the HARBASINS report deems the construction activity inland to give rise to low

levels of impact significance. In the current instance no visual link exists between the proposed

construction areas and the implicated designated sites.

In addition a spatial separation of >1km between the relevant areas of the GB BCA site and the

implicated designated sites is noted.

For this reason visual disturbance arising from the presence of construction workers is unlikely to

lead to significant effects upon the feature species or conservation objectives of the implicated

Natura 2000 sites.

16.4 Potential for contamination of receiving waterbodies from

construction runoff (from silt and potential contaminates present

with excavated arising)

The Hydrological assessment contained within the environmental statement has indicated that in

the absence of mitigation, pollution effects arising from the release of silt / suspended solids, oils,

fuels and chemicals has the clear potential to cause a detectable change to water quality causing

a non-fundamental temporary or permanent consequential change in the waterbody.

________________________________________________ ToLS: GBBCA


Page 44 of 62

Non-prevention of spillages during the operation of the GB BCA site has potential to cause a

detectable change to water quality causing a non-fundamental temporary or permanent

consequential change in the water body.

Such events have been classed as major adverse impacts in the event of their occurrence.

16.5 Potential for contamination of receiving waterbodies via mobilisation

through the groundwater of potential contaminates present.

The GQRA (which should be read in conjunction with this assessment) has indicated that in the

event of occurrence, mobilisation of contaminants through the groundwater caused by

construction works has the potential to cause a detectable change to water quality causing a non-

fundamental temporary or permanent consequential change in the waterbody.

Such impacts have been identified as potentially arising from:-

Leaching of contaminants from soil to perched/shallow groundwater;

Lateral migration of contaminated perched/shallow groundwater to the off-site surface

watercourse and/or off-site receptors; and,

Vertical migration of contaminated perched/shallow groundwater to deeper

groundwater resources.

The GQRA indicates that vertical migrations are unlikely due to the presence of impermeable

strata.

The GQRA indicates that groundwater flow direction at the site has indicated groundwater flow is

towards the north / northwest in GQRA Zone 3, away from Tillysburn stream. No impacts upon

Natura 2000 sites are therefore likely to arise as a result of leaching of contaminants to

perched/shallow groundwater.

The closest down gradient controlled water receptor is therefore Belfast Lough. Considering

Belfast Lough is situated at a distance of c.1km from the site, the localised nature of the

groundwater impact in BH4 & BH16 and the substantial reduction in reported concentrations at

down gradient boreholes (i.e. BH2, BH3, BH7 and BH8) means that site evidence supports the

conclusion that lateral migration of potential leached and dissolved phase hydrocarbon based

contaminants beyond the area of Zone 3 is not occurring.

No impacts upon Natura 2000 sites are therefore likely to arise as a result of lateral migration of

contaminated perched/shallow groundwater to the off-site surface watercourse and/or off-site

receptors

________________________________________________ ToLS: GBBCA


Page 45 of 62

The GQRA indicates that vertical migrations are unlikely due to the presence of impermeable

strata. No impacts upon Natura 2000 sites are therefore likely to arise as a result of vertical

migration of contaminated perched/shallow groundwater to deeper groundwater resources.

he GQRA therefore concludes that mobilisation of contaminants to groundwater due to

construction works at the site do not pose a risk to the Natura 2000 sites.

16.5.1 Mitigation during Construction

During all phases the site manager would ensure that mitigation measures as identified within the

environmental statement were fully implemented, and that activities would be carried out in such

a manner as to prevent or reduce effects. The following construction phase-specific measures

would be implemented.

Pollution Prevention Guidance

To ensure best practice on site and to help avoid pollution release to watercourses and

groundwater, the following NIEA Pollution Prevention Guidance (PPGs) would be adhered to:

• PPG1: General guide to the prevention of water pollution;

• PPG2: Above ground storage tanks;

• PPG3: Use and design of oil separators in surface water drainage systems;

• PPG4: Treatment and disposal of sewage where no foul sewer is available;

• PPG5: Works in, near or liable to affect watercourses;

• PPG6: Working at construction and demolition sites;

• PPG7: Refuelling facilities;

• PPG8: Safe storage and disposal of used oils;

• PPG13: Vehicle washing and cleaning;

• PPG18: Managing fire water and major spillages; and

• PPG21: Pollution Incident Response Planning.

In addition it is noted that Drawing DC GA C 009D states:-

Any pollution prevention measures installed would be subject to a regular maintenance

regime for the life of the construction phase in order to maintain functionality of all

features.

________________________________________________ ToLS: GBBCA


Page 46 of 62

This would include unblocking of drains, maintenance of hardstanding surfaces,

replacement of silt settlement features and removal of silt build-up from settlement

features.

Soil and subsoil excavation and movement would be undertaken in accordance with best

practice guidelines such as Good Practice Guide for Handling Soils (MAFF, 2000).

Soil is not to be stockpiled in areas designated as watercourse buffer zones or designated

as floodplains. Stockpiles are to be remediated so that there would be no contaminated

runoff generated.

Key requirements for the control of chemical pollution risk during the construction phase

of the project include:

1. Storage – all equipment, materials and chemicals would be stored away from any

watercourse or area designated as a floodplain. Chemical, fuel and oil stores would

be sited on impervious bases in accordance with PPG2 and within a secured bund of

110% of the storage capacity, within the lay down area.

2. Vehicles and refuelling – standing machinery would have drip trays placed

underneath to prevent oil and fuel leaks causing pollution. Where practicable,

refuelling of machinery would be carried out on an impermeable surface in

designated areas well away from any watercourse, or drainage ditches, and would

adhere to best practice as outlined in PPG7.

3. Maintenance – maintenance to construction plant would not be permitted on site,

unless vehicles have broken down necessating maintenance at the point of

breakdown. All necessary pollution prevention measures would be put in place prior

to the commencement of maintenance in the area.

Significance of Effects

Due to the efficacy of the mitigation measures outlined above, the environmental statement has

concluded that no significant adverse impacts would arise upon the implicated sites as a result of

construction activities on the site.

16.6 Operational noise arising from air traffic movements leading to

disturbance of significant numbers of SPA feature and assemblage

species

And:

________________________________________________ ToLS: GBBCA


Page 47 of 62

16.7 Visual disturbance arising from air traffic movements leading to

disturbance of significant numbers of SPA feature and assemblage

species

To determine whether Airport Operations cause significant bird disturbance to SPA feature and

Assemblage species, over 245 hours of Bird Surveys were carried out.

A total of 21 disturbance events attributable to airport operations (aircraft overflight and bird

scaring operations) were observed during the survey period. Details of all such events recorded

are provided at Table 12.3.C in Appendix 12.3 of the environmental statement.

Of these events, only one involved significant numbers of SPA Assemblage species and none

involved SPA feature species.

On February 9th 2011 at 08:36 16 Knot (17.6% of the peak SPA 5 year mean) were displaced from

the North East Intertidal Area by a departing DH4 (BE683, Runway 22). The birds took flight and

flew towards the RSPB Belfast Harbour Reserve. This event occurred at Low Water and did not

involve the disturbance of a high tide roost.

A total of 349 individuals were observed to be disturbed by airport operations during current

studies, comprising 0.78% of all bird registrations made. Records of all air traffic movements are

provided at Table 12.4A in Appendix 12.4 of the environmental statement.

A summary table of recorded disturbance events is provided below.

Table 15.1: Summary of Bird Disturbance

Species

SPA

Feature

Species

Disturbance

Events

Total

Disturbed

SPA 5 Yr

Winter Mean

2004-2009

Maximum % of SPA 5

Yr Winter Mean 2004-

2009 Observed to be

disturbed

Knot No 1 16 93 17.20%

Shelduck No 3 18 429 4.20%

Black-headed

Gull No 14 290 5899 4.92%

Buzzard No 1 1 N/A N/A

Mallard No 1 3 405 0.74%

Lapwing No 1 1 1247 0.08%

Sandwich

Tern No 1 3 11 27.27%

Feral Pigeon No 1 20 N/A N/A

________________________________________________ ToLS: GBBCA


Page 48 of 62

Of these species it is noted that only Knot and Sandwich Tern exceed the 5 % threshold for a

disturbance event to be deemed to be significant.

In respect of Knot, it has already been noted that 16 individuals were observed to be disturbed at

low water in the North Eastern Intertidal Area and the response consisted of flight to a nearby

alternate feeding site (RSPB Harbour Reserve). In consequence the response is not considered to

be significant or adverse in terms of the integrity of the implicated Natura 2000 sites.

No impact upon high tide roosts was observed in respect of this species (when present) and

significant numbers of Knot were observed in the vicinity of the proposal site on only two

occasions (9/02/2011 and 12/03/2013) during current surveys. Due to the low numbers of this

species observed during current surveys a single disturbance event is not considered to be

significant in the context of the SPA and ASSI.

In respect of Sandwich Tern, the species is migratory and only low numbers remain within Belfast

Lough throughout the winter. A single disturbance event was observed in early Autumn on

17/09/2012.

While three individuals were disturbed (representing 27.27% of the 5 Year SPA Winter Mean for

this species), the measure of significance used in this assessment (5% of the 5 Year SPA Winter

Mean) necessarily overstates the significance of this event.

It is noted that 68 individuals were observed in the area at the time the event occurred and thus

that the recorded event disturbed 4.4% of the individuals observed at the time of occurrence.

such an event is not significant in terms of the SPA/ASSI or the current assessment.

A total of 290 Black Headed Gulls were observed to be disturbed with 14 disturbance events

recorded. The mean number of gulls disturbed on each occasion was 20.7 while the maximum

was 100 (0.35% and 1.7% of the 5 Year SPA Winter Mean for this species respectively.

As a threshold of 5% of the 5 Year SPA Winter Mean is used as the threshold of significance in this

assessment no significant disturbance events occurred in respect of this species.

It is evident that anthropogenic disturbance of birds may have the potential to negatively impact

upon wild bird populations. Consequently, assessing the severity of the effects of disturbance has

practical consequences for human activities where disturbance may have significant negative

impacts upon protected areas.

It is known that birds readily habituate to aircraft, as is evident from the issues raised in “CAP 772:

Birdstrike Risk Management for Aerodromes” (published by the Civil Aviation Authority), which

cites birds as potential hazards in close proximity to airport runways for this very reason.

________________________________________________ ToLS: GBBCA


Page 49 of 62

In the current instance no significant responses to aircraft overflight were observed with the

potential to impact significantly upon avifauna or upon the integrity of designated sites.

As no significant responses have been observed in respect of SPA feature or Assemblage species it

is reasonable to assume that bird populations have fully habituated to airport operations and that

such habituation is likely to continue. In consequence it is predicted that no significant impact will

arise upon the implicated feature and assemblage species and thus upon the integrity of the

implicated designated sites.

16.8 Potential for changes in Bird Management Practices & Take Off &

Landing Procedures leading to increased disturbance of significant

numbers of SPA feature and assemblage species;

It is confirmed that no changes will arise to current bird hazard management practices at the

airport as a result of current proposals.

No significant effects upon Natura 2000 sites are likely to arise.

In respect of Takeoff and Landing Procedures, it is noted that the Airport is committed to carrying

out on-going review and evaluation of operational procedures and practices in consultation with

the Flight Operations Committee and the Airport Forum aimed at achieving ongoing

improvements in the levels of aircraft noise.

The review required by that commitment shall include the application of best practice flight

management procedures which might reasonably be expected to reduce noise within the

constraints of the Aerodrome’s existing controlled airspace and consideration of the merits of the

introduction of departure noise limits for aircraft using the Aerodrome and the use of continuous

descent approaches within the constraints of safety and the operational performance

requirements of the individual aircraft.

While the airport is committed to a review of procedures and may implement CDA upon the

completion of such a review, this will only be done following consultation with relevant

competent authorities including DoE, it is likely that lower noise levels and airborne deposition

levels arising from the implementation of this technique will have no significant adverse impacts

upon implicated Natura 2000 sites.

16.9 Potential for increase in hydrocarbons (all trafficked areas) to be

entrained within runoff.

________________________________________________ ToLS: GBBCA


Page 50 of 62

And;

16.10 Potential increase of risk to water environment due to impact of or

use of the following;

• Fuel spillages

• De-Icing Chemicals (Aircraft)

• De-icing Chemicals (Apron/Taxiway Areas)

• Fire Fighting Chemicals

The potential for these sources of impact to cause adverse impact upon the implicated Natura

2000 sites is noted within Chapter 10 of the environmental statement. Detailed mitigation is

provided in Doran Consulting drawing DCGAC009D Details of mitigation are provided below.

As noted drainage design Is detailed on Drawing DCGAC009D which should be viewed and read in

conjunction with this document.

In respect of areas which may potentially be used for aircraft parking, they are currently either

hard standing or building. These areas drain to the west.

Storm water draining from potential new aircraft parking areas would pass through a sample

chamber where the presence of de-iceants would be detected through testing the electrical

conductivity of the water.

When de-iceants are not detected storm water would discharge to the west as at present. When

de-iceants are detected penstocks would activate within the chamber preventing the water from

discharging to the west. The water would instead be pumped to the existing attenuation lagoon

where it would be stored.

The contaminated salt water in the lagoon would be pumped at an agreed discharge rate past a

second conductivity test point. If the concentration of salt in the stormwater is below accepted

levels the water would be discharged ot the existing storm sewer network.

If the concentration of salt is above the accepted levels the water would be discharged to a NIW

foul sewer under a trade effluent agreement.

Hydrocarbon contamination of designated areas would be prevented through the use of a class 1

full retention interceptor with coalescence filter and automatic shut off.

In respect of areas which may potentially be utilised for car parking, these areas would be drained

to a buried, impermeably lined storm water attenuation tank via a class 1 full retention separator

tank with a coalescence filter and automatic shut off 9vortex flow control units to be located in

manhole).

________________________________________________ ToLS: GBBCA


Page 51 of 62

Storm water would be attenuated to the equivalent 1 in 100 year green field run-off rate and

discharged to the existing storm sewer under agreement with DRD Rivers Agency.

The implementation of these measures would ensure that no pathway is available between the

sources of impact and the receptors.

As no pollution pathways are available, no significant impacts are likely to arise upon designated

sites.

16.11 Potential for airborne pollutants to cause habitat changes as a

result of deposition effects.

The impact of LTO aircraft emissions has been undertaken for ‘Annual Aircraft Movement Activity’

for the without (‘Do Nothing’) and with the proposed modification scenarios in 2025, as supplied

by York Aviation. As stated in the Air Quality Impact Assessment Chapter, the effects on local air

quality have been assessed through the use of air dispersion modelling of the Annual Aircraft

Movement Activity – Operating in 2025 (without proposed modification) and for the proposed

modification case in 2025 (with proposed modification). The Federal Aviation Authority has

stated that aircraft engine emissions are roughly composed of about 70% CO2, a little less than

30% H2O, and less than 1% each of NOx, CO, SOx, VOC, particulates, and other trace components

including HAPs (a subset of VOCs and particulates are considered hazardous air pollutants or

HAPs).

Nitrogen deposition describes the input of reactive nitrogen species from the atmosphere to the

biosphere and impacts may also occur in the marine environment. There are no statutory

Environmental Quality Standards in the UK for deposition onto land or water.

The pollutants that contribute to nitrogen deposition derive mainly from nitrogen oxides (NOX)

and ammonia (NH3) emissions. In relation to the GBBCA emissions to atmosphere, the NOX

emissions can be transformed to a range of secondary pollutants, including nitric acid (HNO3),

nitrates (NO3) and organic compounds. Both the primary and secondary pollutants may be

removed by wet and dry deposition. The loading of nitrogen in wet deposition will depend on the

amount of precipitation. Sulphur deposition rates have been assumed to be insignificant as there

is little or no sulphur releases from aviation.

The process contribution of air emissions deposited to land or water can be calculated by:

Where:

________________________________________________ ToLS: GBBCA


Page 52 of 62

PCground = process contribution to daily deposition rate (mg/m2/day)

RR = release rate (g/s)

DV = deposition velocity (m/s)

PCair = Process contribution to air, based on maximum annual average ground

level concentration for unit mass release rate (μg/m3 or g/s)

The value of 3 is a nominal factor to convert dry deposition to total deposition and

the value 86,400 is a correction factor from days to seconds.

Source: Environment Agency, H1 Annex, Air Emissions (2011)

The Air Pollution Information System (APIS) provides a source of information on air

pollution and the effects on habitats and species. The baseline nitrogen deposition and the

sensitivity of the soils and eco-systems around GBBCA have been determined using the APIS

website. The potential impacts from nitrogen deposition have been undertaken through

consultation with the online APIS database to source critical (and current) loads for the SPA

designations, as shown on Table 14.10.1. These critical loads represent the threshold level for the

atmospheric concentration of a pollutant where harmful direct effects can be shown on a habitat

or species according to current knowledge. In relation to Belfast Lough SPA, only a critical load for

nitrogen deposition applies as the designating species Redshank and supporting habitats are not

considered to be sensitive to acidification. Therefore, the impact of airborne concentrations of

NOx on sensitive ecology (Critical Levels) have been considered.

Critical Loads are defined as ‘a quantitative estimate of exposure to one or more pollutants below

which significant harmful effects on specified sensitive elements of the environment do not occur

according to present knowledge3’ . Environmental criteria include critical loads for nitrogen

deposition (kg Nitrogen / ha / year) and acid deposition and critical levels for ammonia

(µg/m3), sulphur dioxide (µg/m3), nitrogen dioxide (µg/m3), ozone (ppb hours). Critical

load values for nutrient nitrogen deposition are provided as a range, e.g. 20 -30 kg

N/ha/year for marine habitats (Mid-upper saltmarshes (A2.53) & Pioneer & low-mid

saltmarshes (A2.54 and A2.55)) as sourced from http://www.apis.ac.uk/indicative-

critical-load-values. Critical levels nitrogen oxides are 30 µg/m3.

Table 14.10.1: Relevant Critical and Current Loads – Belfast Lough SPA (and Belfast Lough Ramsar

and Belfast Lough Open Water SPA)

Receptor Pollutant /

Deposition

Critical Load Current Load

Belfast Lough SPA

Nitrogen acid

deposition

Not sensitive – Exceedance

Impacts: Species’ broad habitat

n/a

3 http://www.unece.org/env/lrtap/WorkingGroups/wge/definitions.htm

http://www.apis.ac.uk/indicative-critical-load-values

http://www.apis.ac.uk/indicative-critical-load-values

________________________________________________ ToLS: GBBCA


Page 53 of 62

Interest Name:

Redshank; Broad

Habitat: Littoral

sediment (source:

APIS online database)

not sensitive to acidification

(source: APIS online database)

Sulphur acid

deposition

Not sensitive – ‘Exceedance

Impacts: Species’ broad habitat

not sensitive to acidification

(source: APIS online database)

n/a

Nitrogen

deposition

(enrichment)

20 – 30 kg N/ha/yr –

Exceedance Impacts: Increase

late successional species,

increase productivity and

dominance of graminoids (source:

APIS online database)

16.5 kg

N/ha/yr

Without the proposed modification – Operating in 2025, the predicted annual mean NOx

concentration from GBBCA Annual Aircraft Movement Activity at Belfast Lough is ~0.75 µg/m3.

With the proposed modification – Operating in 2025, the predicted worst-case annual mean NOx

concentration from GBBCA Annual Aircraft Movement Activity at Belfast Lough is ~1.5 µg/m3.

Therefore, without the proposed modification – Operating in 2025, the predicted process

contribution of NOx concentration at Belfast Lough is ~2.5% of the ecological standards and the

EC standards for the protection of vegetation. With the proposed modification – Operating in

2025, the predicted process contributions of NOx concentration at Belfast Lough is ~5% of the

ecological standards and the EC standards for the protection of vegetation. Therefore, this is not

significant in terms of the standards for the protection of vegetation. (Table 14.10.2).

In terms of the process contribution of air emissions deposited to land or water based on the

dispersion model outputs, this equates to the following Nitrogen Deposition Rates:

Without proposed modification – Operating in 2025:

= ~0.029 Kg/Ha/year = ~0.0021 keq N/ha/year

With proposed modification – Operating in 2025:

= ~0.067 Kg/Ha/year = ~0.0048 keq N/ha/year

Note: Kg/ha/year to kilo equivalents Keq/ha/year: The unit eq (a keq is 1000 eq) refers to molar equivalent of

potential acidity resulting from e.g. sulphur, oxidised and reduced nitrogen, as well as base cations. For

example: 1 keq N/ha/year is equal to 14 kg N/ha/year.

________________________________________________ ToLS: GBBCA


Page 54 of 62

Table 14.10.2: BCA nitrogen deposition rates assessed at the nearest sensitive ecological site

(Belfast Lough SPA & ASSI) against the APIS Current & Critical Loads.

Scenario Contribution Baseline Percentage of Critical Load

Critical Load (APIS website)

- 20 - 30 Kg N/ha/year

-

Current Load (Baseline, APIS website)

16.5 Kg N/ha/year 16.5 Kg N/ha/year -

GB BCA Impact Without Modification 2025

0.029 Kg N/ha/year (~0.0021 keq N/ha/year)

- 0.15%

GB BCA Impact With Modification 2025

0.067 Kg N/ha/year (~0.0048 keq N/ha/year)

- 0.34%

16.11.1 Cumulative assessment

Deposition impact assessments include here a ‘cumulative’ assessment including Bombardier

energy from waste facility or others. There are a number of sources of air pollution within the

surrounding area that presently have the potential to affect air quality including works associated

with the wider Belfast Harbour Estate (referred to as Belfast Harbour) specifically Port Operations

and road traffic on the A2 Sydenham Bypass. Other significant sources in the area include

residential, commercial, industrial and power generation emission sources. This assessment

assumes that these emission sources are included within the published baseline estimates.

However, it likely that nitrogen deposition impacts are relatively insignificant in comparison to the

daily load received into Belfast Lough from sources such as WWTPs, etc. The air quality

assessment which formed part of the environmental statement accounted for the emissions as

part of the baseline estimates.

In terms of committed schemes at the time of undertaking of the air quality assessment there

were no approved schemes located within or adjacent to the designated sites of significant scale

which were taken into consideration. Following the submission of the environmental statement

DoE Planning subsequently approved the Bombardier energy from waste scheme (ref:

Z/2012/1387/F) which is located to the west of the site.

In terms of a ‘cumulative’ assessment including the proposed Bombardier energy from

waste facility, Figure 13.4 of the Bombardier energy from waste facility Air Quality Impact

Assessment indicates a Nitrogen deposition rate of 0.4 – 0.6 Kg N / hectare / year. No specific

assessment of the impact on Belfast Lough has been carried out in the Bombardier energy from

waste facility Air Quality Impact Assessment.

________________________________________________ ToLS: GBBCA


Page 55 of 62

Table 14.10.3: BCA and cumulative nitrogen deposition rates assessed at the nearest sensitive

ecological site (Belfast Lough SPA & ASSI) against the APIS Current & Critical Loads.

Scenario Contribution Baseline Percentage of Critical Load

Critical Load (APIS website) - 20 - 30 Kg N/ha/year

-

Current Load (Baseline, APIS website) 16.5 Kg N/ha/year

16.5 Kg N/ha/year

-

Bombardier Impact ~0.4 – 0.6 Kg N/ha/year

3%

Current Load (Baseline) with Bombardier Impact

- ~16.9 - 17.1 Kg N/ha/year

85.5%

BCA Impact – Without Modification 2025 0.029 Kg N/ha/year

- 0.15%

BCA Impact – With Modification 2025 0.067 Kg N/ha/year

- 0.34%

Current Load (Baseline) + Bombardier Impact + BCA impact – Without Modification 2025

- 16.929 - 17.129 Kg N/ha/year

85.6%

Current Load (Baseline) + Bombardier Impact + BCA impact – With Modification 2026

- 16.967 - 17.167 Kg N/ha/year

85.8%

In terms of the cumulative impact of the nitrogen deposition rate as reported against the APIS

Critical Load Function Tool there is no predicted exceedance and nitrogen deposition due to

BCA emissions as a proportion of the Critical Load Function is insignificant.

The nitrogen deposition rate quoted in the original draft shadow HRA of 0.029 kgN/Ha/Year refers

to the process contribution of air emissions deposited to land or water for the without proposed

modification operating in 2025 scenario. Assuming a worst-case take-off and climb out NOx

emission rate, the nitrogen deposition rate without the proposed modification operating in 2025

is predicted to be ~0.029 Kg/Ha/year and with the proposed modification operating in 2025 is

predicted to be ~0.067 Kg/Ha/year at the nearest ecological receptor.


Table 14.2: Matrix of Construction Impact Sources, Pathways, Receptors, Proposed Mitigation, Assessment of Efficacy and Determination of Likely Significance

Source of Potential Construction Impact Pathway Receptor Proposed Mitigation Assessment of Likely

Efficacy Determination of

Significance

Construction noise arising from construction works;

Noise disturbance, subsequent displacement impacts may be significant upon more distant

areas of the SPA. SPA/Ramsar Site Feature Species & Assemblages

Analysis of site context indicates that likely noise impact from these activities is within those currently experienced in the vicinity.

No mitigation required, any construction areas would be physically separated from receptors and no significant impact is likely to arise

- Unlikely to be Significant

Potential visual disturbance of roosting and foraging birds due to presence of vehicles on

construction site

Visual disturbance, subsequent displacement impacts may be significant upon more distant




Potential visual disturbance of roosting and foraging birds due to presence of human

operatives on construction site

Visual disturbance, subsequent displacement impacts may be significant upon more distant




Potential for contamination of receiving waterbodies from construction runoff (from silt and potential contaminates present with

excavated arising)

The Hydrological assessment contained within the Environmental assessment has indicated that in the absence of mitigation, pollution

effects arising from the release of silt / suspended solids, oils, fuels and chemicals has

the clear potential to cause a detectable change to water quality causing a non-fundamental temporary or permanent

consequential change in the waterbody.

Non-prevention of spillages during the operation of the site has potential to cause a detectable change to water quality causing a non-fundamental temporary or permanent

consequential change in the water body.

Such events have been classed as major adverse impacts in the event of their

occurrence.

SPA/Ramsar Site Feature Species & Assemblages

During all phases the site manager would ensure that mitigation measures as identified within prior assessments would be fully implemented, and that activities would be carried out in such a

manner as to prevent significant effects.

A range of construction phase-specific measures would be implemented including compliance with all relevant PPG’s and compliance with key requirements for control of chemical risk

identified within the environmental statement.

Mitigation likely to be effective

Unlikely to be Significant

Potential for contamination of receiving waterbodies via mobilisation through the groundwater of potential contaminates

present.

Leaching of contaminants from soil to perched/shallow groundwater

Lateral migration of contaminated

perched/shallow groundwater to the off-site surface watercourse and/or off-site receptors

Vertical migration of contaminated

perched/shallow groundwater to deeper groundwater resources.


The GQRA for the project indicates that vertical migrations are unlikely due to the presence of impermeable strata.

The GQRA indicates that groundwater flow direction at the site has

indicated groundwater flow is towards the north / northwest in GQRA Zone 3, away from Tillysburn stream. No impacts upon

Natura 2000 sites are therefore likely to arise as a result of leaching of contaminants to perched/shallow groundwater.

The GQRA indicates that no impacts upon Natura 2000 sites are

likely to arise as a result of lateral migration of contaminated perched/shallow groundwater to the off-site surface watercourse

and/or off-site receptors

The GQRA indicates that vertical migrations are unlikely due to the presence of impermeable strata. No impacts upon Natura 2000

sites are therefore likely to arise as a result of vertical migration of contaminated perched/shallow groundwater to deeper

groundwater resources.

No mitigation is therefore required.


________________________________________________ ToLS: GBBCA


Page 57 of 62

Table 14.3: Matrix of Operational & Impact Sources, Pathways, Receptors, Proposed Mitigation, Assessment of Efficacy and Determination of Likely Significance

Source of Potential Construction Impact Pathway Receptor Proposed Mitigation Assessment of Likely

Efficacy Determination of

Significance

Operational noise arising from air traffic movements leading to disturbance of

significant numbers of SPA feature and assemblage species

Noise disturbance, subsequent displacement impacts may be significant the integrity of the

SPA/Ramsar Sites. SPA/Ramsar Site Feature Species & Assemblages

Analysis of site context and a near total lack of bird disturbance events within 245 hours of bird surveys indicates that bird populations are likely to be fully habituated to Air Traffic

Movements. Birds are known to readily habituate to regular sources of disturbance and this finding is consistent with known

responses of birds in the vicinity of airports.

In consequence no mitigation is proposed or required.


Visual disturbance arising from air traffic movements leading to disturbance of

significant numbers of SPA feature and assemblage species

Noise disturbance, subsequent displacement impacts may be significant the integrity of the

SPA/Ramsar Sites. SPA/Ramsar Site Feature Species & Assemblages

Analysis of site context and a near total lack of bird disturbance events within 245 hours of bird surveys indicates that bird populations are likely to be fully habituated to Air Traffic

Movements. Birds are known to readily habituate to regular sources of disturbance and this finding is consistent with known

responses of birds in the vicinity of airports.



Potential for changes in Bird Management Practices & Take Off & Landing Procedures

leading to increased disturbance of significant numbers of SPA feature and assemblage

species;

Noise & Visual disturbance, subsequent displacement impacts may be significant upon

more distant areas of the SPA. SPA/Ramsar Site Feature Species & Assemblages

No changes in Bird Management Practices Proposed

Ongoing review of Take Off & Landing Procedures proposed as part of the modification request however no proposals to change

current procedure are extant at the current time.



Potential for increase in hydrocarbons (all trafficked areas) to be entrained within runoff.

Hydrological connection between operational areas and implicated Natura 2000 sites


Engineered solutions would include hydrocarbon interceptors, holding tanks and a full range of pollution containment measures.

Implementation of such measure would break the pathway

between pollutant source and ecological receptors.



Potential increase of risk to water environment due to impact of or use of the

following;

Fuel spillages De-Icing Chemicals (Aircraft)

De-icing Chemicals (Apron/Taxiway Areas) Fire Fighting Chemicals

Hydrological connection between operational areas and implicated Natura 2000 sites


Engineered solutions would include hydrocarbon interceptors, holding tanks and a full range of pollution containment measures.

Implementation of such measure would break the pathway

between pollutant source and ecological receptors.

Mitigation is detailed in full on drawing DCGAC009D



Potential for airborne pollutants to cause habitat changes as a result of deposition

effects.

Deposition impact arising from proposals impacting upon habitats of implicated Natura

2000 sites and leading to functional changes and consequent impacts upon site integrity.

SPA/Ramsar Site Feature Species& Assemblages, Habitats upon which feature species depend.

Assessment has indicated that impacts will be below those likely to give rise to significant ecological impacts.

No mitigation is proposed or required.



17 TEST OF LIKELY SIGNIFICANCE: CONCLUSIONS

This review of the ‘project’ has concluded that no significant ecological impacts upon Natura 2000

Sites are likely to arise as a result.

All current, recently consented and proposed planning applications within the area ecologically

linked to the implicated site have been considered for the purposes of this assessment. A list of

such proposals can be found at Appendix 2.1 of the environmental statement.

As no significant or perceptible impacts are predicted as a result of the ‘project’ it is reasonable to

assume that impacts are de minimis and that no cumulative or synergistic impacts will arise.

The preceding Stage 1 Test of Likely Significance has demonstrated that the project:

Will have no direct adverse impacts on Belfast Lough SPA/Belfast Lough Open Water

SPA/Belfast Lough Ramsar Site; and,

Emissions from the project will not result in significant adverse indirect impacts on Belfast

Lough SPA/Belfast Lough Open Water SPA/Belfast Lough Ramsar Site provided the

mitigation strategies proposed are fully implemented.

________________________________________________ ToLS: GBBCA


Page 59 of 62

Appendix 1: NATURA 2000 Standard Data Forms

UK SPA data form

Belfast Lough Standard Natura 2000 Data Form Produced by JNCC. Version 1.1, 05/05/06 Page 1 of

NATURA 2000 STANDARD DATA FORM

FOR SPECIAL PROTECTION AREAS (SPA) FOR SITES ELIGIBLE FOR IDENTIFICATION AS SITES OF COMMUNITY IMPORTANCE (SCI)

AND FOR SPECIAL AREAS OF CONSERVATION (SAC)

1. Site identification: 1.1 Type A 1.2 Site code UK9020101

1.3 Compilation date 199808 1.4 Update 199902

1.5 Relationship with other Natura 2000 sites

1.6 Respondent(s) International Designations, JNCC, Peterborough

1.7 Site name Belfast Lough

1.8 Site indication and designation classification dates date site proposed as eligible as SCI date confirmed as SCI date site classified as SPA 199808 date site designated as SAC

2. Site location: 2.1 Site centre location longitude latitude 05 54 00 W 54 38 00 N

2.2 Site area (ha) 432.14 2.3 Site length (km)

2.5 Administrative region

NUTS code Region name % cover

UKB Northern Ireland 100.00% 2.6 Biogeographic region

X Alpine Atlantic Boreal Continental Macaronesia Mediterranean

3. Ecological information:

3.1 Annex I habitats Habitat types present on the site and the site assessment for them:

Annex I habitat % cover Representativity

Relative surface

Conservation status

Global assessment

UK SPA data form


3.2 Annex I birds and regularly occurring migratory birds not listed on Annex I Population Site assessment

Migratory

Code Species name

Resident

Breed Winter Stage Population Conservation Isolation Global A162 Tringa totanus 2466 I B C

4. Site description:

4.1 General site character

Habitat classes % cover Marine areas. Sea inlets Tidal rivers. Estuaries. Mud flats. Sand flats. Lagoons (including saltwork basins) 100.0Salt marshes. Salt pastures. Salt steppes Coastal sand dunes. Sand beaches. Machair Shingle. Sea cliffs. Islets Inland water bodies (standing water, running water) Bogs. Marshes. Water fringed vegetation. Fens Heath. Scrub. Maquis and garrigue. Phygrana Dry grassland. Steppes Humid grassland. Mesophile grassland Alpine and sub-alpine grassland Improved grassland Other arable land Broad-leaved deciduous woodland Coniferous woodland Evergreen woodland Mixed woodland Non-forest areas cultivated with woody plants (including orchards, groves, vineyards, dehesas) Inland rocks. Screes. Sands. Permanent snow and ice Other land (including towns, villages, roads, waste places, mines, industrial sites) Total habitat cover 100%

4.1 Other site characteristics

Soil & geology: Igneous, Sandstone/mudstone, Sedimentary, Slate/shale

Geomorphology & landscape: Estuary, Intertidal rock, Intertidal sediments (including sandflat/mudflat), Lagoon

4.2 Quality and importance

ARTICLE 4.2 QUALIFICATION (79/409/EEC) Over winter the area regularly supports:

Tringa totanus (Eastern Atlantic - wintering)

1.4% of the population 5 year peak mean 1991/1992 - 1995/1996

UK SPA data form


4.3 Vulnerability The loss of wildlife habitat around Inner Belfast Lough as a result of land-claim for industry and port development, and the continued use of Belfast Harbour Estate pools and adjacent areas for dumping (involving domestic refuse disposal and hardcore-tipping) could significantly affect the integerity and functioning of the site. Eutrophication of the lough from sewage disposal has been an issue in the past. The effect of recent improvements in sewage treatment on bird populations is not known. An agreement was reached between Belfast Harbour Commissioners and various conservation groups in 1990, and finalised in early 1995, to safeguard 81 hectares of intertidal mudflats, lagoons and land for wildlife conservation purposes and to undertake appropriate management. RSPB have recently (1998) taken the lead management role for much of the areas included above. Much of this area had previously been earmarked for development and includes key high-tide wader roosts. Under this agreement significant funds were secured from ERDF which has led to many nature conservation initiatives for the general Belfast Harbour Estate including the SPA. These initiatives have included education and interpretation facitities at one of the lagoons within the Lough, creation of tidal inlets, the creation of an area for breeding wetland birds and the capping and contouring of the nearby landfill site to include areas for nature conservation. An existing Conservation Plan for Belfast Lough is now under review. This review will update existing management prescriptions and refine existing conservation objectives.

5. Site protection status and relation with CORINE biotopes:

5.1 Designation types at national and regional level Code % cover

UK04 (SSSI/ASSI) 100.0

UK SPA data form

Belfast Lough Open Water

Standard Natura 2000 Data Form Produced by JNCC, 11/12/09

Page 1 of 3

NATURA 2000

STANDARD DATA FORM

FOR SPECIAL PROTECTION AREAS (SPA)

FOR SITES ELIGIBLE FOR IDENTIFICATION AS SITES OF COMMUNITY IMPORTANCE (SCI)

AND

FOR SPECIAL AREAS OF CONSERVATION (SAC)

1. Site identification:

1.1 Type A 1.2 Site code UK9020290

1.3 Compilation date 200912 1.4 Update 200912

1.5 Relationship with other Natura 2000 sites

1.6 Respondent(s) International Designations, JNCC, Peterborough

1.7 Site name Belfast Lough Open Water

1.8 Site indication and designation classification dates date site proposed as eligible as SCI

date confirmed as SCI

date site classified as SPA 200909

date site designated as SAC

2. Site location:

2.1 Site centre location longitude latitude

05 49 00 W 54 41 00 N

2.2 Site area (ha) 5592.99 2.3 Site length (km)

2.5 Administrative region

NUTS code Region name % cover

UKN NORTHERN IRELAND 100.0%

2.6 Biogeographic region

X

Alpine Atlantic Boreal Continental Macaronesia Mediterranean

3. Ecological information:

3.1 Annex I habitats

Habitat types present on the site and the site assessment for them:

Annex I habitat % cover Representati

vity

Relative

surface

Conservation

status

Global

assessment

UK SPA data form



Page 2 of 3

3.2 Annex I birds and regularly occurring migratory birds not listed on Annex I

Population Site assessment

Resident Migratory

Code Species name Breed Winter Stage Population Conservation Isolation Global

A005 Podiceps cristatus 1677 I

4. Site description:

4.1 General site character

Habitat classes % cover

Marine areas. Sea inlets 100.0

Tidal rivers. Estuaries. Mud flats. Sand flats. Lagoons (including saltwork basins)

Salt marshes. Salt pastures. Salt steppes

Coastal sand dunes. Sand beaches. Machair

Shingle. Sea cliffs. Islets

Inland water bodies (standing water, running water)

Bogs. Marshes. Water fringed vegetation. Fens

Heath. Scrub. Maquis and garrigue. Phygrana

Dry grassland. Steppes

Humid grassland. Mesophile grassland

Alpine and sub-alpine grassland

Improved grassland

Other arable land

Broad-leaved deciduous woodland

Coniferous woodland

Evergreen woodland

Mixed woodland

Non-forest areas cultivated with woody plants (including orchards, groves, vineyards, dehesas)

Inland rocks. Screes. Sands. Permanent snow and ice

Other land (including towns, villages, roads, waste places, mines, industrial sites)

Total habitat cover 100%

4.1 Other site characteristics

Soil & geology:

Boulder, Cobble, Gravel, Mud, Sand, Sedimentary

Geomorphology & landscape:

Enclosed coast (including embayment), Sealoch (fjord)

4.2 Quality and importance

ARTICLE 4.2 QUALIFICATION (79/409/EEC)

Over winter the area regularly supports:

Podiceps cristatus

(North-western Europe - wintering)

0.35% of the NW European population

5-year mean 1996/97–2000/01

4.3 Vulnerability

No current or known future activities represent significant actual or potential impacts to the site.

Existing Conservation Objectives for Belfast Lough Open Water will be kept under review ensuring

appropriate management prescriptions and refining site objectives.

UK SPA data form



Page 3 of 3

5. Site protection status and relation with CORINE biotopes:

5.1 Designation types at national and regional level

Code % cover UK00 (N/A) 100.0

________________________________________________ ToLS: GBBCA


Page 60 of 62

Appendix 2: Ramsar Site Information Sheet

Ramsar Information Sheet: UK12002 Page 1 of 8 Belfast Lough

Produced by JNCC: Version 3.0, 13/06/2008

Information Sheet on Ramsar Wetlands (RIS)

Categories approved by Recommendation 4.7 (1990), as amended by Resolution VIII.13 of the 8th Conference of the Contracting Parties (2002) and Resolutions IX.1 Annex B, IX.6, IX.21 and IX. 22 of the 9th Conference of the Contracting Parties (2005).

Notes for compilers:

1. The RIS should be completed in accordance with the attached Explanatory Notes and Guidelines for completing the Information Sheet on Ramsar Wetlands. Compilers are strongly advised to read this guidance before filling in the RIS.

2. Further information and guidance in support of Ramsar site designations are provided in the Strategic Framework for

the future development of the List of Wetlands of International Importance (Ramsar Wise Use Handbook 7, 2nd edition, as amended by COP9 Resolution IX.1 Annex B). A 3rd edition of the Handbook, incorporating these amendments, is in preparation and will be available in 2006.

3. Once completed, the RIS (and accompanying map(s)) should be submitted to the Ramsar Secretariat. Compilers

should provide an electronic (MS Word) copy of the RIS and, where possible, digital copies of all maps. 1. Name and address of the compiler of this form:

Joint Nature Conservation Committee Monkstone House City Road Peterborough Cambridgeshire PE1 1JY UK Telephone/Fax: +44 (0)1733 – 562 626 / +44 (0)1733 – 555 948 Email: [email protected]

2. Date this sheet was completed/updated: Designated: 05 August 1998

3. Country: UK (Northern Ireland)

4. Name of the Ramsar site: Belfast Lough

5. Designation of new Ramsar site or update of existing site: This RIS is for: Updated information on an existing Ramsar site

6. For RIS updates only, changes to the site since its designation or earlier update:

a) Site boundary and area:

** Important note: If the boundary and/or area of the designated site is being restricted/reduced, the Contracting Party should have followed the procedures established by the Conference of the Parties in the Annex to COP9 Resolution IX.6 and provided a report in line with paragraph 28 of that Annex, prior to the submission of an updated RIS. b) Describe briefly any major changes to the ecological character of the Ramsar site, including in the application of the Criteria, since the previous RIS for the site:

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY. DD MM YY

Designation date Site Reference Number

Information Sheet on Ramsar Wetlands (RIS), page 2



7. Map of site included: Refer to Annex III of the Explanatory Notes and Guidelines, for detailed guidance on provision of suitable maps, including digital maps.

a) A map of the site, with clearly delineated boundaries, is included as:

i) hard copy (required for inclusion of site in the Ramsar List): yes -or- no ; ii) an electronic format (e.g. a JPEG or ArcView image) Yes iii) a GIS file providing geo-referenced site boundary vectors and attribute tables yes -or- no ;

b) Describe briefly the type of boundary delineation applied: e.g. the boundary is the same as an existing protected area (nature reserve, national park etc.), or follows a catchment boundary, or follows a geopolitical boundary such as a local government jurisdiction, follows physical boundaries such as roads, follows the shoreline of a waterbody, etc.

The site boundary is the same as, or falls within, an existing protected area.

For precise boundary details, please refer to paper map provided at designation 8. Geographical coordinates (latitude/longitude): 54 38 00 N 05 54 00 W 9. General location: Include in which part of the country and which large administrative region(s), and the location of the nearest large town. Nearest town/city: Belfast Belfast Lough is a large intertidal sea lough situated at the mouth of the River Lagan on the east coast of Northern Ireland. Administrative region: Antrim; Down 10. Elevation (average and/or max. & min.) (metres): 11. Area (hectares): 432.14

Min. 0 Max. 10 Mean 0

12. General overview of the site: Provide a short paragraph giving a summary description of the principal ecological characteristics and importance of the wetland. The inner part of the lough comprises areas of intertidal foreshore, comprising of mudflats and lagoons, and land, both land-claimed and being land-claimed, which form important feeding/roosting sites for significant numbers of wintering waders and wildfowl. The outer lough is restricted to mainly rocky shores with some small sandy bays and beach-head saltmarsh. 13. Ramsar Criteria: Circle or underline each Criterion applied to the designation of the Ramsar site. See Annex II of the Explanatory Notes and Guidelines for the Criteria and guidelines for their application (adopted by Resolution VII.11).

6 14. Justification for the application of each Criterion listed in 13 above: Provide justification for each Criterion in turn, clearly identifying to which Criterion the justification applies (see Annex II for guidance on acceptable forms of justification).

Ramsar criterion 6 – species/populations




occurring at levels of international importance. Qualifying Species/populations (as identified at designation): Species with peak counts in spring/autumn: Common redshank , Tringa totanus totanus, 1897 individuals, representing an average of

1.4% of the population (5 year peak mean 1998/9-2002/3)

Species/populations identified subsequent to designation for possible future consideration under criterion 6. Species with peak counts in spring/autumn: Black-tailed godwit , Limosa limosa islandica, Iceland/W Europe

521 individuals, representing an average of 1.4% of the population (5 year peak mean 1998/9-2002/3)

Contemporary data and information on waterbird trends at this site and their regional (sub-national) and national contexts can be found in the Wetland Bird Survey report, which is updated annually. See www.bto.org/survey/webs/webs-alerts-index.htm. 15. Biogeography (required when Criteria 1 and/or 3 and /or certain applications of Criterion 2 are

applied to the designation): Name the relevant biogeographic region that includes the Ramsar site, and identify the biogeographic regionalisation system that has been applied.

a) biogeographic region: Atlantic

b) biogeographic regionalisation scheme (include reference citation): Council Directive 92/43/EEC

16. Physical features of the site: Describe, as appropriate, the geology, geomorphology; origins - natural or artificial; hydrology; soil type; water quality; water depth, water permanence; fluctuations in water level; tidal variations; downstream area; general climate, etc. Soil & geology igneous, sedimentary, sandstone, slate/shale Geomorphology and landscape intertidal sediments (including sandflat/mudflat), estuary,

lagoon, intertidal rock Nutrient status eutrophic pH no information Salinity brackish / mixosaline Soil no information Water permanence usually permanent Summary of main climatic features Annual averages (Aldergrove, 1971–2000)

(www.metoffice.com/climate/uk/averages/19712000/sites/aldergrove.html)

Max. daily temperature: 12.5° C Min. daily temperature: 5.8° C Days of air frost: 39.1 Rainfall: 862.4 mm Hrs. of sunshine: 1313.7

General description of the Physical Features:

Belfast Lough is a large, open sea lough located on the north-eastern coast of Northern Ireland. The inner part of the lough includes areas of intertidal foreshore, mainly mudflats and




lagoons. In the outer lough the site includes mainly rocky shores with some small sandy bays and beach-head saltmarsh.

17. Physical features of the catchment area: Describe the surface area, general geology and geomorphological features, general soil types, general land use, and climate (including climate type).

Belfast Lough is a large, open sea lough located on the north-eastern coast of Northern Ireland. The inner part of the lough includes areas of intertidal foreshore, mainly mudflats and lagoons. In the outer lough the site includes mainly rocky shores with some small sandy bays and beach-head saltmarsh.

18. Hydrological values: Describe the functions and values of the wetland in groundwater recharge, flood control, sediment trapping, shoreline stabilization, etc.

No special values known 19. Wetland types:

Marine/coastal wetland

Code Name % Area G Tidal flats 60.2 D Rocky shores 34.7 J Coastal brackish / saline lagoons 5.1 20. General ecological features: Provide further description, as appropriate, of the main habitats, vegetation types, plant and animal communities present in the Ramsar site, and the ecosystem services of the site and the benefits derived from them. The Ramsar site includes areas of intertidal foreshore, comprising of mudflats and lagoons, and land, both land-claimed and being land-claimed, which form important feeding/roosting sites for significant numbers of wintering waders and wildfowl.

Semi-natural vegetation is confined to a narrow shoreline strip which is fragmented, particularly along the inner reaches of the lough. The sheltered bays and inlets of the south-eastern shore contain pockets of beach-head saltmarsh. Shores with harder rocks support vegetation typical of maritime cliff ledges giving way to maritime grassland. Notable plant species found include spring squill Scilla verna and Ray's knotgrass Polygonum oxyspermum.

Ecosystem services

21. Noteworthy flora: Provide additional information on particular species and why they are noteworthy (expanding as necessary on information provided in 12. Justification for the application of the Criteria) indicating, e.g. which species/communities are unique, rare, endangered or biogeographically important, etc. Do not include here taxonomic lists of species present – these may be supplied as supplementary information to the RIS. None reported 22. Noteworthy fauna: Provide additional information on particular species and why they are noteworthy (expanding as necessary on information provided in 12. Justification for the application of the Criteria) indicating, e.g. which species/communities are unique, rare, endangered or biogeographically important, etc., including count data. Do not include here taxonomic lists of species present – these may be supplied as supplementary information to the RIS. Birds Species currently occurring at levels of national importance: Species with peak counts in spring/autumn:




Great cormorant , Phalacrocorax carbo carbo, NW Europe

279 individuals, representing an average of 5.5% of the all-Ireland population (5 year peak mean 1998/9-2002/3)

Common eider , Somateria mollissima mollissima, NW Europe


Eurasian oystercatcher , Haematopus ostralegus ostralegus, Europe & NW Africa -wintering


Ruff , Philomachus pugnax, Europe/W Africa 3 individuals, representing an average of 15% of the all-Ireland population (5 year peak mean 1998/9-2002/3)

Species with peak counts in winter: Red-throated diver , Gavia stellata, NW Europe 27 individuals, representing an average of 2.7%

of the all-Ireland population (5 year peak mean 1998/9-2002/3)

Great crested grebe , Podiceps cristatus cristatus, NW Europe


Common shelduck , Tadorna tadorna, NW Europe


Greater scaup , Aythya marila marila, W Europe 340 individuals, representing an average of 11.3% of the all-Ireland population (5 year peak mean 1998/9-2002/3)

Common goldeneye , Bucephala clangula clangula, NW & C Europe


Red-breasted merganser , Mergus serrator, NW & C Europe


Ringed plover , Charadrius hiaticula, Europe/Northwest Africa

133 individuals, representing an average of 1% of the all-Ireland population (5 year peak mean 1998/9-2002/3)

Red knot , Calidris canutus islandica, W & Southern Africa

(wintering)

386 individuals, representing an average of 1% of the all-Ireland population (5 year peak mean 1998/9-2002/3)

Ruddy turnstone , Arenaria interpres interpres, NE Canada, Greenland/W Europe & NW Africa


Mew gull , Larus canus canus, Europe to N Africa


Species Information None reported

23. Social and cultural values: Describe if the site has any general social and/or cultural values e.g. fisheries production, forestry, religious importance, archaeological sites, social relations with the wetland, etc. Distinguish between historical/archaeological/religious significance and current socio-economic values.

Aesthetic Environmental education/ interpretation Non-consumptive recreation




Tourism Transportation/navigation

b) Is the site considered of international importance for holding, in addition to relevant ecological values, examples of significant cultural values, whether material or non-material, linked to its origin, conservation and/or ecological functioning? No If Yes, describe this importance under one or more of the following categories: i) sites which provide a model of wetland wise use, demonstrating the application of traditional

knowledge and methods of management and use that maintain the ecological character of the wetland:

ii) sites which have exceptional cultural traditions or records of former civilizations that have

influenced the ecological character of the wetland:

iii) sites where the ecological character of the wetland depends on the interaction with local communities or indigenous peoples:

iv) sites where relevant non-material values such as sacred sites are present and their existence is

strongly linked with the maintenance of the ecological character of the wetland:

24. Land tenure/ownership:

Ownership category On-site Off-site Non-governmental organisation (NGO)

+

Local authority, municipality etc. + National/Crown Estate + Other + 25. Current land (including water) use:

Activity On-site Off-site Nature conservation + + Tourism + + Recreation + + Current scientific research + Fishing: commercial + Gathering of shellfish + Bait collection + Industrial water supply + Industry + Sewage treatment/disposal + Harbour/port + Transport route + Urban development + Non-urbanised settlements +




26. Factors (past, present or potential) adversely affecting the site’s ecological character, including changes in land (including water) use and development projects:

Explanation of reporting category: 1. Those factors that are still operating, but it is unclear if they are under control, as there is a lag in showing the

management or regulatory regime to be successful. 2. Those factors that are not currently being managed, or where the regulatory regime appears to have been ineffective so

far.

NA = Not Applicable because no factors have been reported.

Adverse Factor Category

Rep

ortin

g C

ateg

ory Description of the problem (Newly reported Factors

only)

On-

Site

Off

-Site

Maj

or Im

pact

?

No factors reported NA

For category 2 factors only. What measures have been taken / are planned / regulatory processes invoked, to mitigate the effect of these factors? Is the site subject to adverse ecological change? NO

27. Conservation measures taken: List national category and legal status of protected areas, including boundary relationships with the Ramsar site; management practices; whether an officially approved management plan exists and whether it is being implemented. Conservation measure On-site Off-site Site/ Area of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI/ASSI)

+

Special Protection Area (SPA) + Management agreement + Site management statement/plan implemented + b) Describe any other current management practices: The management of Ramsar sites in the UK is determined by either a formal management plan or through other management planning processes, and is overseen by the relevant statutory conservation agency. Details of the precise management practises are given in these documents. 28. Conservation measures proposed but not yet implemented: e.g. management plan in preparation; official proposal as a legally protected area, etc. No information available 29. Current scientific research and facilities: e.g. details of current research projects, including biodiversity monitoring; existence of a field research station, etc.

Fauna. Numbers of migratory birds and wildfowl and waders are monitored annually as part of the national Irish Wetland Birds Survey (I-WEBS) organised by the IWC Birdwatch Ireland, the National Parks and Wildlife Service (Ireland) and the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust.




30. Current communications, education and public awareness (CEPA) activities related to or benefiting the site:

e.g. visitor centre, observation hides and nature trails, information booklets, facilities for school visits, etc. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds presence on the site is centred around a brackish lagoon with well developed educational facilities including observation hides and a large observation room and a warden for the site. 31. Current recreation and tourism: State if the wetland is used for recreation/tourism; indicate type(s) and their frequency/intensity. None reported 32. Jurisdiction: Include territorial, e.g. state/region, and functional/sectoral, e.g. Dept. of Agriculture/Dept. of Environment, etc. Department of the Environment (Northern Ireland), Environment and Heritage Service,

Commonwealth House, Castle Street, Belfast, Northern Ireland, BT1 1GU 33. Management authority: Provide the name and address of the local office(s) of the agency(ies) or organisation(s) directly responsible for managing the wetland. Wherever possible provide also the title and/or name of the person or persons in this office with responsibility for the wetland. Department of the Environment (Northern Ireland), Environment and Heritage Service,

Commonwealth House, Castle Street, Belfast, Northern Ireland, BT1 1GU 34. Bibliographical references: Scientific/technical references only. If biogeographic regionalisation scheme applied (see 15 above), list full reference citation for the scheme.

Site-relevant references

Barne, JH, Robson, CF, Kaznowska, SS, Doody, JP, Davidson, NC & Buck, AL (eds.) (1997) Coasts and seas of the United Kingdom. Region 17. Northern Ireland. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough. (Coastal Directories Series.)

Buck, AL & Donaghy, A (eds.) (1996) An inventory of UK estuaries. Volume 7. Northern Ireland. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough

Cranswick, PA, Waters, RJ, Musgrove, AJ & Pollitt, MS (1997) The Wetland Bird Survey 1995–96: wildfowl and wader counts. British Trust for Ornithology, Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds & Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Slimbridge

Crowe, O (2005) Ireland’s wetlands and their waterbirds: status and distribution. BirdWatch Ireland, Newcastle, Co. Wicklow

Musgrove, AJ, Langston, RHW, Baker, H & Ward, RM (eds.) (2003) Estuarine waterbirds at low tide. The WeBS Low Tide Counts 1992–93 to 1998–99. WSG/BTO/WWT/RSPB/JNCC, Thetford (International Wader Studies, No. 16)

Musgrove, AJ, Pollitt, MS, Hall, C, Hearn, RD, Holloway, SJ, Marshall, PE, Robinson, JA & Cranswick, PA (2001) The Wetland Bird Survey 1999–2000: wildfowl and wader counts. British Trust for Ornithology, Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds & Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Slimbridge. www.wwt.org.uk/publications/default.asp?PubID=14

Stroud, DA, Chambers, D, Cook, S, Buxton, N, Fraser, B, Clement, P, Lewis, P, McLean, I, Baker, H & Whitehead, S (eds.) (2001) The UK SPA network: its scope and content. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough (3 vols.) www.jncc.gov.uk/UKSPA/default.htm

Way, LS, Grice, P, MacKay, A, Galbraith, CA, Stroud, DA & Pienkowski, MW (1993) Ireland’s Internationally Important Bird Sites: a review of sites for the EC Special Protection Area network. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough, for Department of the Environment (Northern Ireland), Belfast, and Irish Wildlife Service, Dublin

Weighell, AJ, Donnelly, AP & Calder, K (eds.) (2000) Directory of the Celtic coasts and seas. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough

Please return to: Ramsar Secretariat, Rue Mauverney 28, CH-1196 Gland, Switzerland Telephone: +41 22 999 0170 • Fax: +41 22 999 0169 • email: [email protected]

________________________________________________ ToLS: GBBCA


Page 61 of 62

Appendix 3: Significant Numbers of SPA Feature and Assemblage Species by Survey Area

SWIA Tillysburn BHCA NEIA

BT0 5 Yr Peaks 2004-2009 HW Peak % of SPA peak LW Peak % of SPA peak HW Peak % of SPA peak LW Peak % of SPA peak HW Peak % of SPA peak LW Peak % of SPA peak HW Peak % of SPA peak LW Peak % of SPA peak BOCC BOCCI

Bar Tailed Godwit 146 3 2.05% 19 13.01% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 112 76.71% 23 15.75% AMBER AMBER

Black-headed Gull 5899 150 2.54% 200 3.39% 272 4.61% 73 1.24% 100 1.70% 7 0.12% 299 5.07% 690 11.70% AMBER RED

Black-tailed Godwit 581 37 6.37% 45 7.75% 56 9.64% 2 0.34% 40 6.88% 4 0.69% 41 7.06% 206 35.46% RED AMBER

Common Gull 1278 4 0.31% 6 0.47% 1 0.08% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 0.16% 234 18.31% 187 14.63% AMBER AMBER

Common Tern 0 6 N/A 20 N/A 2 N/A 2 N/A 2 N/A 0 0.00% 25 N/A 49 N/A AMBER AMBER

Coot 108 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 4 3.70% 3 2.78% 9 8.33% 11 10.19% 5 4.63% 6 5.56% GREEN AMBER

Cormorant 297 4 1.35% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 0.34% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 5 1.68% 7 2.36% GREEN AMBER

Curlew 471 3 0.64% 30 6.37% 1 0.21% 1 0.21% 66 14.01% 45 9.55% 73 15.50% 137 29.09% AMBER RED

Dunlin 1042 4 0.38% 14 1.34% 39 3.74% 34 3.26% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 103 9.88% 70 6.72% RED AMBER

Eider 1747 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 0.06% 0 0.00% 186 10.65% 38 2.18% AMBER AMBER

Goldeneye 182 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 4 2.20% 0 0.00% 2 1.10% 0 0.00% 60 32.97% 15 8.24% AMBER AMBER

Great Black-backed Gull. 700 0 0.00% 1 0.14% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 0.29% 19 2.71% AMBER AMBER

Great Crested Grebe 1682 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 15 0.89% 3 0.18% GREEN AMBER

Greenshank 1 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 100.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% GREEN AMBER

Grey Heron 32 1 3.13% 3 9.38% 2 6.25% 2 6.25% 2 6.25% 1 3.13% 3 9.38% 4 12.50% GREEN GREEN

Grey Plover 0 0 0.00% 1 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% AMBER AMBER

Greylag Goose 125 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 6 4.80% 3 2.40% 46 36.80% 11 8.80% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% AMBER AMBER

Herring Gull 4893 13 0.27% 18 0.37% 11 0.22% 3 0.06% 11 0.22% 2 0.04% 94 1.92% 72 1.47% RED RED

Knot 93 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 87 93.55% 16 17.20% AMBER RED

Lapwing 1247 172 13.79% 141 11.31% 76 6.09% 58 4.65% 200 16.04% 200 16.04% 48 3.85% 92 7.38% RED RED

Lesser Black-backed Gull 84 2 2.38% 11 13.10% 2 2.38% 4 4.76% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 43 51.19% 93 110.71% AMBER AMBER

Light-bellied Brent Goose 74 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 8 10.81% 0 0.00% 4 5.41% 3 4.05% 44 59.46% GREEN GREEN

Little Egret 0 2 N/A 2 N/A 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% AMBER GREEN

Little Grebe 17 0 0.00% 2 11.76% 0 0.00% 2 11.76% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 4 23.53% 1 5.88% AMBER AMBER

Little Ringed Plover 0 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 14 N/A GREEN GREEN

Mallard 405 10 2.47% 46 11.36% 25 6.17% 27 6.67% 29 7.16% 18 4.44% 47 11.60% 86 21.23% AMBER GREEN

Moorhen 48 0 0.00% 1 2.08% 12 25.00% 14 29.17% 5 10.42% 7 14.58% 6 12.50% 7 14.58% GREEN GREEN

Mute Swan 29 1 3.45% 1 3.45% 5 17.24% 3 10.34% 3 10.34% 2 6.90% 4 13.79% 2 6.90% GREEN AMBER

Oytsercatcher 3588 82 2.29% 54 1.51% 30 0.84% 30 0.84% 60 1.67% 27 0.75% 394 10.98% 285 7.94% AMBER AMBER

Red-breasted Merganser 126 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 1.59% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 8 6.35% 23 18.25% GREEN GREEN

Redshank 1440 87 6.04% 140 9.72% 92 6.39% 107 7.43% 30 2.08% 2 0.14% 192 13.33% 135 9.38% AMBER RED

Ringed Plover 153 14 9.15% 2 1.31% 48 31.37% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 17 11.11% 118 77.12% AMBER AMBER

Sandwich Tern 11 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 8 72.73% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 74 672.73% 28 254.55% AMBER AMBER

Shag 82 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 3 3.66% 3 3.66% AMBER AMBER

Shelduck 429 6 1.40% 3 0.70% 6 1.40% 15 3.50% 17 3.96% 9 2.10% 7 1.63% 29 6.76% AMBER AMBER

Shoveler 25 4 16.00% 0 0.00% 7 28.00% 0 0.00% 1 4.00% 6 24.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% AMBER RED

Snipe 68 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 1.47% 2 2.94% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% AMBER AMBER

Spotted Redshank 0 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 4 N/A 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% AMBER GREEN

Teal 534 8 1.50% 8 1.50% 69 12.92% 29 5.43% 104 19.48% 120 22.47% 113 21.16% 106 19.85% AMBER AMBER

Tufted Duck 37 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 18 48.65% 22 59.46% 4 10.81% 0 0.00% 38 102.70% 97 262.16% AMBER AMBER

Turnstone 416 103 24.76% 0 0.00% 85 20.43% 31 7.45% 0 0.00% 1 0.24% 140 33.65% 40 9.62% AMBER GREEN

Whooper Swan 0 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 5 N/A 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 N/A 0 0.00% 0 0.00% AMBER AMBER

Wigeon 273 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 9 3.30% 0 0.00% 64 23.44% 38 13.92% 38 13.92% 34 12.45% AMBER AMBER

Woodcock 0 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 N/A 0 0.00% 0 0.00% AMBER AMBER

________________________________________________ ToLS: GBBCA


Page 62 of 62

Appendix 4:APIS Critical Load Data.

1

APIS indicative critical load values: Recommended values within nutrient nitrogen critical load ranges for use in air pollution impact assessments Introduction Critical load values for nutrient nitrogen deposition are provided by the UNECE as a range (e.g. 10-20 kgN/ha/yr for dry heaths1). This table provides indicative values within the critical load range, by habitat type, for use in detailed impact assessments in the UK. The minimum of the range should always be used for initial screening. The principles of the approach behind this table are explained in Annex 1. Recommended values Habitat type (EUNIS code)

Critical load (CL)

range

(kgN/ha/yr)

Modifying factors from UNECE expert

workshop

Recommended value for use in detailed impact

assessment (kgN/ha/yr)

Explanation

Marine habitats Mid-upper saltmarshes (A2.53) Pioneer & low-mid saltmarshes (A2.54 and A2.55)

20-30

20-30

None identified

None identified

20

30

Effects are most likely to be found in the tall vegetation of the closed upper marsh communities where inter-specific competition is at its greatest. Therefore it is suggested that the value of 30 kgN/ha/yr is applied to most of the marsh with the lower level of 20 kgN/ha/yr being applied to the more densely vegetated upper marsh and to areas of marsh subjected to direct run-off from adjacent catchments2.

Coastal habitats Shifting coastal dunes (B1.3) Coastal stable dune grasslands (grey dunes) (B1.4) Coastal dune heaths (B1.5)

10-20

8-15

10-20

None identified

For acid dunes use 8-10 kgN/ha/yr range; for

calcareous dunes use the 10-15 kgN/ha/yr

range.

None identified

10

Acid dunes: 8 Calcareous dunes: 10

10

Use minimum of range. Targeted survey in UK3 supports the range but is not able to define a value within it. Apply modifying factor then use minimum of that part of the range. UK mapping value is set at mid-point as a default value due to insufficient evidence to precisely determine the value within the range. See Annexes 2 and 3 for further information. Use minimum of the range. No information on modifiers.

2

Moist to wet dune slacks (B1.8)

10-20 Use the lower end of the range with low base availability; use the

higher end of the range with high base

availability.

Low base availability: 10

High base availability: 15

Apply modifying factor. Use minimum of range for sites with low base availability. Use 15kgN/ha/yr with high base availability, as UK study4 showed effects above this value. See Annex 4 for further information.

Inland surface waters Softwater lakes (permanent oligotrophic waters) (C1.1) Dune slack pools (permanent oligotrophic waters) (C1.16) Permanent dystrophic lakes, ponds and pools (C1.4)

3-10

10-20

3-10

Critical load should only be applied to oligotrophic waters with low alkalinity

with no significant agricultural or other human inputs. Use

lower end of range for boreal and alpine lake types; use the higher end of the range for

Atlantic softwater lake types.

None identified

Critical load should only be applied to waters with

low alkalinity with no significant agricultural or

other direct human inputs. Use lower end of

range for boreal and alpine dystrophic lakes.

Seek site specific advice

10

Seek site

specific advice

No definition of these boreal/alpine/Atlantic types is given in the critical load expert workshop report1. The UK Statutory Nature Conservation Bodies (SNCBs*

Note that for Annex I habitat type H3110 the relevant critical load is 5-10 kgN/ha/yr. Note that the critical load should only be applied to oligotrophic waters with low alkalinity with no significant agricultural or other human inputs. See Annex 5.

) are of the opinion that some UK lakes are “alpine lakes”, not Atlantic lakes in this context, and that to apply a simple altitudinal cut off is not appropriate. Site specific advice should be sought from the relevant SNCB, as to which part of the range is relevant. If there are no survey data available for a site, a precautionary approach may have to be taken and the lower end of the range applied.

Use minimum of critical load range to apply caution in the absence of any UK studies. Only apply to sites with low alkalinity and no significant agricultural inputs. Seek advice from the relevant SNCB*, as above. See Annex 5.

* Natural England, Natural Resources Wales, Scottish Natural Heritage and Northern Ireland Environment Agency.

3

Mire, bog and fen habitats Raised & blanket bogs (D1) Valley mires, poor fens and transition mires (D2) Rich fens (D4.1) Montane rich fens (D4.2)

5-10

10-15

15-30

15-25

Use the high end of the range with high

precipitation and the low end of the range with low

precipitation; use the high end of the range for systems with a low water table, and the high end

of the range for systems with a high water table.

Note that water table can be modified by management.

For quaking fens and transition mires, use

lower end of the range.

For high latitude systems use lower end of the

range.

For high latitude systems use lower end of the

range.

10

15

15

Use the minimum of the range in the first instance. Then seek site-specific advice from the relevant SNCB*. Use minimum of the range with quaking fens and transition mires. Use minimum of the range with poor fens and valley mires in the absence of any evidence to support use of a higher value. Use minimum of the range with all rich fens in the first instance in the absence of any UK evidence to support use of a higher value. Use minimum of the range in the absence of any UK evidence to support use of a higher critical load.

4

Grasslands and tall forb habitats Sub-atlantic semi-dry calcareous grassland (E1.26) Non-Mediterranean dry acid and neutral closed grassland (E1.7) Inland dune pioneer grasslands (E1.94) Inland dune siliceous grassland (E1.95) Low and medium altitude hay meadows (E2.2) Mountain hay meadows (E2.3) Moist & wet oligotrophic grasslands: Molinia caerulea meadows (E3.51)

15-25

10-15

8-15

8-15

20-30

10-20

15-25

None identified

Use the lower end of the range with low base availability; use the


availability.



availability.



availability.

None identified

None identified

None identified

15

10



20

10

15

Use minimum of the range (based on UK data and consistent with UK mapping value4,5 (Annex 2)). Use minimum of CL range (based on UK data and consistent with revised mapping value4,5 (Annex 2)). Critical load based on dry dunes, therefore apply same approach as coastal stable dune grasslands. Critical load based on dry dunes, therefore apply same approach as coastal stable dune grasslands. Use minimum of the range in the absence of any data on modifying factors. Use minimum of the range in the absence of any data on modifying factors. Use minimum of the range in the absence of any data on modifying factors.

5

Heath (Juncus) meadows & humid (Nardus Stricta) swards (E3.52) Moss & lichen dominated mountain summits (E4.2) Alpine and subalpine acid grasslands (E4.3) Alpine and subalpine calcareous grasslands (E4.4)

10-20

5-10

5-10

5-10

None identified

None identified

None identified

None identified

10

7 5 5

Use minimum of the range in the absence of any data on modifying factors. Use 7 kgN/ha/yr. UK mapping value set at 7 as although chemical changes may occur below this value, the evidence suggests that habitat degradation is not seen below 7kgN/ha/yr 4. See Annex 2. Use minimum of range in the absence of any data on modifying factors. Use minimum of range in the absence of any data on modifying factors.

Heathland, scrub & tundra Arctic, alpine and subalpine scrub habitats (F2) Northern wet heaths (F4.11) • U’ Calluna-dominated

wet heath (upland moorland)

5-15

10-20

None identified

Use the high end of the range with high

precipitation and the low end of the range with low precipitation; use the low

end of the range for systems with a low water table, and the high end

of the range for systems with a high water table. Use the high end of the

5

10

Use minimum of the range in the absence of any data on modifying factors. Use minimum of range based on UK data5 on impacts and to be consistent with UK mapping value4 (Annex 2). Unable to quantify the suggested management modifier at this time.

6

• ‘L’ Erica tetralix

dominated wet heath (lowland)

Dry heaths (F4.2)

10-20

10-20

range when sod cutting has been practices; use

the lower end of the range with low intensity

management.

As above (re precipitation and

management)

As above (re precipitation and

management)

10

10

Use minimum of range based on UK data5 and to be consistent with UK mapping value4 (Annex 2). Use minimum of range based on UK data5 and to be consistent with UK mapping value4 (Annex 2).

Forest habitats (general) Use if not one of specific forests in section below Broadleaved woodland (G1) Coniferous woodland (G3) Mixed woodland

10-20

5-15

-

None identified

None identified

None identified

10

10 unless lichens are considered important at site

10

Note - if the site is designated for other features, such are rare plants in woodland rides, it may also be necessary to apply a critical load representative of that habitat (e.g. a grassland or heathland critical load). Not appropriate to use UK mapping value (Annex 2) as it does not distinguish between broadleaf and coniferous forest and is a default value not based on UK evidence4. Use the minimum of the range when considering impacts at the site level. Not appropriate to use UK mapping value (Annex 2) as it does not distinguish between broadleaf and coniferous forest and is a default value not based on UK evidence4. Use 10kgN/ha/yr to protect trees, mycorrhiza, ground vegetation and soil processes. Consider using lower value if lichens are an integral part of the site. UK mapping value is a default value, set to protect the woodland ground flora. It is based on the 2003 critical load range for all forests of 10-15 kgN/ha/yr and retained in the 2011 national mapping report4 as it falls within other woodland CL ranges (10-20 kgN/ha/yr). Use the minimum of the two recommended values for broadleaved and coniferous when considering impacts at the site level.

7

Forest habitats (specific) Fagus woodland (beech) (G6.1) Acidophilous Quercus-dominated woodland (oak) (G1.8) Meso- and eutrophic Quercus woodland (G1.A) Pinus sylvestris woodland south of the taiga (G3.4)

10-20

10-15

15-20

5-15

None identified

None identified

None identified

None identified

15

10

15

12

Note - if the site is designated for other features, such are rare plants in woodland rides, it may also be necessary to apply a critical load representative of that habitat (e.g. a grassland or heathland critical load). Use middle of the range based on UK data and to be consistent with UK mapping value4 (Annex 2). Use minimum of the range based on UK data and to be consistent with UK mapping value4 (Annex 2). No UK mapping value or UK evidence to support applying anything other than the minimum of the range. Use middle of the range based on UK data and to be consistent with UK mapping value4 (Annex 2).

References

1. Bobbink, R. & Hettelingh, J.P. (eds). (2011). Review and revision of empirical critical loads and dose-response relationships. Proceedings of an expert workshop, Noordwijkerhout, 23-25 June 2010. Published by RIVM. http://www.rivm.nl/bibliotheek/rapporten/680359002.pdf

2. Boorman L.A. & Hazelden J. (2012). Impacts of additional aerial inputs of nitrogen to salt marsh and transitional habitats. Countryside Council for

Wales Science Report No. 995. http://naturalresourceswales.gov.uk/?lang=en

3. UK Research on The Eutrophication and Acidification of Terrestrial Ecosystems. http://ukreate.defra.gov.uk/

4. Hall, J., Emmett1, B., Garbutt, A., Jones, L., Rowe, E., Sheppard, L., Vanguelova, E., Pitman, R., Britton, A., Hester, A., Ashmore, M., Power, S., Caporn, S. (2011). UK Status Report July 2011: Update to empirical critical loads of nitrogen. Report to Defra under contract AQ801 Critical Loads and Dynamic Modelling. http://cldm.defra.gov.uk/PDFs/UK_status_report_2011_finalversion_July2011_v2.pdf

http://www.rivm.nl/bibliotheek/rapporten/680359002.pdf�

http://naturalresourceswales.gov.uk/?lang=en�

http://ukreate.defra.gov.uk/�

http://cldm.defra.gov.uk/PDFs/UK_status_report_2011_finalversion_July2011_v2.pdf�

8

5. Emmett, B.A., Rowe, E.C., Stevens, C.J., Gowing, D.J., Henrys, P.A., Maskell, L.C. & Smart, S.M. (2011). Interpretation of evidence of nitrogen impacts on vegetation in relation to UK. JNCC Report 449. http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-5895.

6. Rodwell, J.S. (ed.) 2000. British plant communities. Volume 5. Maritime communities and vegetation of open habitats. Cambridge University Press. APIS Steering Group July 2013

http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-5895�

9

Annexes Annex 1: Principles of the approach The table above is based on the following principles, agreed by the APIS partners (environment agencies and statutory nature conservation bodies):

• For sensitive habitats, a critical load should be selected from within the appropriate critical load range (i.e. those adopted and published by the UNECE1).

• The minimum of the critical load range should be applied during the screening assessment stage to ensure a precautionary and efficient approach. Any modifying factors should be considered and applied at the detailed assessment stage.

• In a very few cases (e.g. Crymlyn Bog in Wales), published site-specific research has been used to derive a critical load for the site and this must be taken into consideration at the detailed assessment stage. However, critical load allocation should not be based on site ‘condition’ information. Where no site-specific critical load research has been published (in the majority of cases), the UK evidence on nitrogen impacts must be used to guide the choice of critical load.

o Where the UK mapping value (see Annex 2) is set at a certain point in the critical load range based on UK evidence

o Where the UK mapping value is set at the mid-point or other part of the critical load range as a

then this value should also be adopted in detailed impact assessments.

default

o Where there is no mapping value with which to compare, then the minimum of the critical load range should be applied in detailed impact assessments, unless the critical load expert report1 has identified modifying factors that need to be taken into consideration (e.g. for inland surface waters).

, i.e. because there is no UK evidence to define a more precise mapping value, then the lower end of the critical load range should be applied in detailed impact assessments in order to apply the necessary level of precaution and site protection.

o Where modifying factors have been identified for a critical load range, these should be applied in detailed impact assessments wherever possible, taking into account the available site specific information. For example, for stable dune grasslands, the pH of the dune should be taken into account where it is known. Note – for other modifying factors, it may be difficult to quantify their effect making it not possible to apply them. This is reflected in the table above. The critical load expert report1 concludes that in cases where it was not possible to reach agreement on how to quantify modifying factors for use in assessments, the minimum value of the critical load range should be used.

Annex 2: UK mapping value The Coordination Centre for Effects (CCE) in the Netherlands (www.rivm.nl/cce) is responsible for compiling European scale maps of critical loads and critical load exceedance. Member states that submit critical loads exceedance data to the Co-ordination Centre of Effects of ICP on Modeling and Mapping, under the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution, have to determine which critical load value within the range to use with their national habitat maps. In the UK this is known as a ‘mapping value’.

http://www.rivm.nl/cce�

10

The mapping value may be based on country-specific evidence or, in the absence of such information, set as a default value within the range. In the absence of evidence, the UK uses a default value of the mid-point in the range for UK reporting purposes. It is however acknowledged that site specific applications of critical loads may use a different part of the critical load range from those used for national mapping purposes, depending on the site and policy context (Hall et al., 20114). The Coordination Centre for Effects (CCE) produces European scale maps of critical loads and exceedances. These maps combine critical loads for countries that submit national data, with critical loads based on European background databases for countries that have not submitted national data. Where it is necessary to use the background databases for maps of nitrogen critical loads, the CCE will apply the empirical values at the lower end of each habitat critical load range, based on the precautionary principle, and will not apply any modifying factors. Annex 3: Coastal stable dunes grasslands The critical load range for coastal stable dune grasslands (grey dunes) depends on whether the dune is acid or non-acid. Any dunes with soil pH below 6.5 can be considered to be acid in this context and the lower part of the critical load range applied to it. The vegetation communities on the site may also indicate whether the dune is acidic or calcareous (Rodwell, 20006). It is important to remember that there may be both acidic and calcareous parts on the same site (e.g. sites that are predominantly calcareous but where the older soils have started to decalcify) and so a different critical load value may need to be used depending on the part of the site in question. Annex 4: Moist to wet dune slacks The critical load range for moist to wet dune slacks comes with a modifying factor of base availability. Base availability in dune slacks comes either from the dune sand itself or from the groundwater which provides geochemical buffering. There has been very little hydrological or hydrochemical work on dune slacks in the UK and this makes it difficult to assess base availability. It might be possible to use vegetation community as a guideline, with SD17 Potentilla anserina–Carex nigra or mire communities suggesting acid conditions with low base availability. All other dune slack types are likely to have high base availability. However, as with grey dunes, it is likely to find base-rich and more acidic (SD17) slacks on the same site, particularly in the north of UK. Annex 5: Inland surface waters Alkalinity is a measure of the buffering capacity of water, or the capacity of bases to neutralize acids. Alkalinity does not refer to pH, but instead refers to the ability of water to resist change in pH. Waters with low alkalinity are very susceptible to changes in pH; waters with high alkalinity are able to resist major shifts in pH.

‘Dystrophic’ is a term used to describe natural lakes and ponds with brown tinted water due to peat and humic acids, generally on peaty soils in bogs or in heaths with natural evolution toward bogs. The pH is often low (pH 3 to 6). EUNIS factsheet (http://eunis.eea.europa.eu/habitats/10068). An oligotrophic lake is a lake with low primary productivity, the result of low nutrient content. Also waterbodies with a low nutrient (nitrogen and phosphorus) content, mostly acid (pH 4-6). EUNIS factsheet (http://eunis.eea.europa.eu/habitats/722).

http://eunis.eea.europa.eu/habitats/10068�

http://eunis.eea.europa.eu/habitats/722�

Date post:	20-May-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	5 times
Download:	0 times

TERRESTRIAL FLORA AND FAUNA - Planning Service · Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation...

Documents