Ecology and Nature Conservation

Mitigation proposed for the project included landscape planting to compensate for the loss of woodland. As mentioned in the Landscape and Visual section above, this was generally successful throughout the project.

Several SUDS basins were identified as an opportunity to provide wetland habitat. Marginal vegetation surrounding each SUDS basin was variable. A number of SUDS did provide an extension of wetland habitat, however - refer to Appendix A for more details.

Mitigation measures for the M74 Junction 5, Raith Project included the creation of new wetland habitat and conservation grassland in Compensatory Flood Storage Areas (CFSA). New wetland habitat created within the CFSA north east of the Raith Junction has been successful.

As previously noted, the as-built drawings were not available at the time of the site visits and the ES mitigation drawings were used to inform the onsite evaluation. The following ecological mitigation measures were not specified on the ES mitigation drawings and were therefore not checked during the site visit:

Mammal crossings
Bat boxes
Artificial holts
Artificial badger setts
Non-native invasive plant species burial grounds

It is recommended the above ecological mitigation is inspected during a subsequent 3YA and / or 5YA evaluation for the project. Additional information regarding the location of certain features will be required, namely the artificial shelters, as these will be difficult to locate without an accurate grid reference.

The installation of deer fencing is noted in the Schedule of Environmental Commitments as part of the ecological mitigation for all three projects. The location of deer fencing, however, was not included on the ES Conceptual Mitigation strategy drawings used during the site visit and, therefore, was not inspected at the time of the 1YA Evaluation. No deer fencing was noted during the review of the as-built environmental mitigation drawings.

Road Drainage and Water Environment

Erosion protection measures were to be implemented in outfalls of watercourses for all three projects, using soft engineering techniques, including stone pitching and reinforced grass. Due to access restrictions during the site visits, not all outfalls were inspected. Erosion protection measures were, however, in place at all outfalls that were inspected and were in good condition.

Several variations were noted, in terms of drainage, between the ES mitigation drawings and the as-built drawings. A total of 21 SUDS basins were shown in the ES mitigation drawings. During the site visits, it was noted that four of the SUDS basins on the ES mitigation drawings were not constructed. At these locations, alterative drainage designs have been implemented, predominantly filter drains and at one location, a buried stormwater management system using a Graf EcoBloc Tank. It should be confirmed that sufficient treatment is in place to maintain water quality in locations were filter drainage has been installed in place of SUDS.

The remaining 17 SUDS basins noted on the ES Conceptual Mitigation Strategy Drawings were inspected during the site visit. All SUDS basins appeared to be in-line with the configuration set out in the ES mitigation drawings and included a sediment forebay and attenuation pond. The condition and extent of vegetation surrounding each SUDS basin was variable. It was noted that several accesses to SUDS basins were obstructed by significant amounts of fly-tipped waste.

Two additional SUDS basins, not included in the ES mitigation drawings, were recorded on-site. Specific details are provided in Appendix A. This should be investigated further to establish what design this SUDS basin is associated with and if it is part of the drainage system for the project.

Pedestrians, Cyclists, Equestrians and Community Effects

New agricultural access and recreation routes proposed as part of the M8 M73 M74 Motorway Improvements Project have been implemented as indicated on the Conceptual Mitigation Strategy drawings. Local access / tracks and pedestrian / cycle paths were used to undertake the majority of the site visit and no issues were identified.

Environment: Key Findings

For the most part, the environmental mitigation as described in the ES has been implemented across the project and, at the time of the 1YA Evaluation, is generally operating as expected. There are some issues that require further investigation and possibly additional actions taken to address these issues.

Areas of planting have generally been successful, however, there are some areas that may require re-planting or re-seedings.

SUDS basins that have been put in place are in variable but, for the most part, good condition. Some SUDS basins have limited marginal vegetation that would benefit from replanting to aid the ES commitments relating to wetland habitat extension.

There are some variances, in terms of the reporting of drainage. Some SUDS have been replaced with alternative drainage, mainly filter drains. The reasons for this are not clear at the time of the 1YA Evaluation, nor is it understood if the alternative drainage implemented provides the correct level of treatment, as stipulated in the ES. Two undocumented SUDS basins were also identified during the site visit.

Several fairly severe instances of fly-tipped waste were observed during the site visits undertaken at the time of the 1YA Evaluation. In a few instances, the fly-tipped waste was obstructing SUDS access tracks, potentially creating difficulties for access, inspection and maintenance. Responsibility for the removal of this waste should be established and a monitoring regime instituted to avoid further deposits of waste within the vicinity of the project.

< Previous | Contents | Next >