Orkney Core Paths Plan
Appendix C
Assessment of Core Paths against SEA Objectives
Table 1: SEA objectives and SEA Criteria for the assessment of Core Paths
| SEA Objectives | Relevant SEA topics | SEA criteria for Core Paths |
|---|---|---|
| To conserve and enhance natural habitats and species and avoid adverse effects on Natura sites | biodiversity | - Minimise the impact of outdoor access on designated sites - Minimise the impact of outdoor access on other areas of natural and semi-natural vegetation - Ensure outdoor access does not cause significant disturbance/damage to protected or priority species |
| To conserve and enhance the integrity of ecosystems | biodiversity, soil, water, air, landscape | - Ensure outdoor access and associated infrastructure does not cause fragmentation of habitats, or inhibit movement of species. |
| To conserve geodiversity including geology, geomorphology and natural processes | geology, landscape | - Minimise the impact of outdoor access on geological and geomorphological features |
| Provide opportunities for people to enjoy and appreciate wildlife and wild places | biodiversity, landscape | - Provide sustainable access opportunities for people to enjoy wildlife and wild places |
| To protect water bodies and water quality | biodiversity, water, landscape, human health | - Minimise significant adverse impacts on water bodies and associated wildlife from recreational activities/new access infrastructure - Minimise water pollution from recreational access/new infrastructure |
| To conserve & enhance distinctive landscape character and scenic value of the area | landscape, biodiversity, material assets, cultural heritage | - Minimise the adverse impact of outdoor access on landscape character. - Ensure infrastructure is sited/designed to make a positive contribution to landscape character |
| To maintain and improve air quality | air, human health, biodiversity | - Reduce the need for travel by private car for outdoor access |
| To maintain soil quality and integrity | soil, water, human health, biodiversity | - Minimise erosion from outdoor access - Safeguard soil quality and function when developing new access routes/infrastructure |
| To reduce greenhouse gas emissions | Climatic factors | - To reduce the dependency on travel by private car for outdoor access |
| To conserve & where appropriate enhance or restore the historic environment | cultural heritage, material assets, landscape | - Ensure new outdoor access/infrastructure has a positive effect on archaeological/historical/cultural sites and/or their setting - Ensure new access alleviates pressure on sensitive sites |
| Provide opportunities for people to enjoy and appreciate the historic environment | cultural heritage, material assets | - Provide sustainable access to historic sites |
| To protect and enhance human health | population, human health | - Provide outdoor access opportunities for all sectors of the community - Encourage communities/visitors to be more active - Encourage less dependency on cars - Maintain and improve access to public open space |
| To reduce waste and pollution | air, water, soil, biodiversity, human health | - Reduce litter and dereliction in the countryside - Minimise pollution from human waste in the countryside - Reduce the need for use of private cars for outdoor access |
| To promote sustainable use of natural resources and material assets | material assets | - Encourage use of local materials in development of access infrastructure - Encourage use of materials from sustainable resources |
IMAGE: Page 2 contains a table titled “Table 1: SEA objectives and SEA Criteria for the assessment of Core Paths”, setting out SEA objectives, relevant SEA topics and assessment criteria. The table continues onto page 3.
IMAGE: Page 3 contains the continuation of the SEA objectives and criteria table, including the objectives concerning the historic environment, human health, waste and pollution, and sustainable use of natural resources and material assets.
Core Path Assessments
North Ronaldsay assessment
| SEA Objectives | Likely significant impact | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| To conserve and enhance natural habitats and species and avoid adverse effects on Natura sites | neutral | The coastline of the island is an extensive site of local nature conservation importance. The existing coastal walk requires minor improvements to existing infrastructure but this is unlikely to have any adverse impact on the natural heritage. |
| To conserve and enhance the integrity of ecosystems | neutral | Core paths will not cause fragmentation of habitats or inhibit movement of species. No new infrastructure is planned, or changes to natural path surfaces |
| To conserve geodiversity including geology, geomorphology and natural processes | neutral | The various cliffs, dunes, rocky shores are not affected by the access routes. |
| Provide sustainable opportunities for people to enjoy, understand and contribute to the conservation of wildlife and wild places | Slightly positive | Interpretation relating to the natural heritage will be provided to raise awareness of the wildlife and habitats in general |
| To protect water bodies and improve water quality | neutral | No new infrastructure is proposed which might affect water bodies. Core Paths do not pass close enough to water bodies to cause erosion of banks, or disturbance to wildlife. |
| To conserve & enhance distinctive landscape character, scenic value and visual amenity of the area | neutral | No changes to the natural surfaces along the routes are proposed in the plan. Minor improvements to existing infrastructure will not have any adverse impact on landscape or visual amenity. Any on site interpretation will be sensitively sited. |
| To maintain and improve air quality | slightly positive | Promotion of walking and cycling may reduce dependency on cars for short journeys |
| To reduce greenhouse gas emissions | slightly positive | Promotion of walking and cycling may reduce dependency on cars for short journeys |
| To maintain and where possible improve soil quality and integrity | neutral | Minor improvements to infrastructure eg stiles will not affect soil integrity. Erosion through access is minimal compared with erosion by the sea. At one point on the west coast erosion by the sea requires a minor detour in the path for safety. |
| To conserve & where appropriate enhance or restore the historic environment | neutral | The stone dyke around the coast of North Ronaldsay is a unique historic feature. No additional infrastructure is required that would affect the dyke. Existing stiles and gates in the dyke allow access to and from the coast, reducing any requirement for people to climb over the wall. |
| Provide opportunities for people to enjoy and appreciate the historic environment | Slightly positive | The paths provide access to various historic sites including the old beacon. |
| To protect and enhance human health | Slightly positive | Promoted paths will encourage walking in the local population. |
| To reduce waste and pollution | Slightly positive | Information about reducing litter should be provided. Guidance for wild campers should also be developed. |
| To promote sustainable use of natural resources and material assets | neutral | No new infrastructure is required |
IMAGE: Page 4 shows the heading “Core Path Assessments”, the “North Ronaldsay assessment” table and its first assessment rows.
IMAGE: Page 5 shows the continuation of the North Ronaldsay assessment table, including soil quality, historic environment, human health, waste and pollution, and sustainable resources.
Papa Westray assessment
| SEA Objectives | Likely significant impact | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| To conserve and enhance natural habitats and species and avoid adverse effects on Natura sites | neutral | P1 passes through the North Hill SSSI and RSPB reserve. SNH have indicated that the location of the path will not adversely affect the interests of the designated site. The path is well established and well used and managed by the RSPB. They provide guidance on the sensitivities of the site. |
| To conserve and enhance the integrity of ecosystems | neutral | Core paths will not cause fragmentation of habitats or inhibit movement of species. No new infrastructure or changes to natural path surfaces are planned. |
| To conserve geodiversity including geology, geomorphology and natural processes | neutral | The various cliffs, dunes, rocky shores are not affected by the access routes. Where there are easily damaged features, such as dunes or links, the path routes do not cross particularly sensitive areas eg at North Wick and the Links of Moclett the path runs along an already existing track. |
| Provide sustainable opportunities for people to enjoy, understand and contribute to the conservation of wildlife and wild places | Slightly positive | Interpretation relating to the natural heritage will be provided to raise awareness of the wildlife and habitats in general and designated sites in particular. The RSPB provides information about North Hill. |
| To protect water bodies and improve water quality | neutral | No new infrastructure is proposed which might affect water bodies. Core paths do not pass close enough to water bodies to cause erosion of banks. |
| To conserve & enhance distinctive landscape character, scenic value and visual amenity of the area | neutral | No changes to the natural surfaces along the routes are proposed in the plan. No additional infrastructure is required that could affect the landscape value or have an adverse visual impact. Any on site interpretation will be sensitively sited. |
| To maintain and improve air quality | slightly positive | Promotion of walking and cycling may reduce dependency on cars for short journeys. |
| To reduce greenhouse gas emissions | slightly positive | Promotion of walking and cycling may reduce dependency on cars for short journeys |
| To maintain and where possible improve soil quality and integrity | neutral | No new infrastructure or path improvements are required. No erosion issues are evident. |
| To conserve & where appropriate enhance or restore the historic environment | neutral | PW6, PW5 and PW8 provide access to historic sites. They are well established routes and no new infrastructure or improvements are proposed. Current access does not appear to be causing problems and any significant increase in visitor numbers is unlikely. |
| Provide opportunities for people to enjoy and appreciate the historic environment | positive | PW6, PW5 and PW8 provide access to historic sites. Information is provided about the sites for visitors. |
| To protect and enhance human health | Slightly positive | Promoted paths will encourage walking in the local population. |
| To reduce waste and pollution | Slightly positive | Information about reducing litter should be provided. Guidance for wild campers should also be developed. |
| To promote sustainable use of natural resources and material assets | neutral | No new infrastructure is required |
IMAGE: Page 6 shows the Papa Westray assessment table and its first rows, including the North Hill SSSI and RSPB reserve assessment.
IMAGE: Page 7 shows the continuation of the Papa Westray assessment table, including historic environment, human health, waste and pollution, and sustainable resources.
Westray assessment
| SEA Objectives | Likely significant impact | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| To conserve and enhance natural habitats and species and avoid adverse effects on Natura sites | neutral | W1 and W5 pass through the West Westray SSSI/SPA. SNH have indicated that they consider the location of the paths will not adversely affect the designated site. No additional infrastructure or upgrading is required which could affect the site. Guidance is available which advises visitors about sensitivities. W6 and W8 pass through sites of local nature conservation importance. No new infrastructure or path upgrades are required which could affect habitats. Wintering waders on the coast are unlikely to be affected by the low numbers of access users. |
| To conserve and enhance the integrity of ecosystems | neutral | Core paths will not cause fragmentation of habitats or inhibit movement of species. No new infrastructure or changes to natural path surfaces are planned. |
| To conserve geodiversity including geology, geomorphology and natural processes | neutral | The various cliffs, dunes, rocky shores are not likely to be adversely affected by the access routes. Where there are easily damaged features such as dunes or links the path routes follow already established tracks. |
| Provide sustainable opportunities for people to enjoy, understand and contribute to the conservation of wildlife and wild places | Slightly positive | The paths provide access to a range of wildlife habitats. Interpretation relating to the natural heritage is provided to raise awareness of the wildlife and habitats in general and designated sites in particular. The RSPB provides information about the birds at Noup Head (W1). |
| To protect water bodies and improve water quality | neutral | No new infrastructure or path upgrades are proposed which might affect water bodies. |
| To conserve & enhance distinctive landscape character, scenic value and visual amenity of the area | neutral | No changes to the natural surfaces along the routes are proposed in the plan. No additional infrastructure is required that could affect the landscape value or have an adverse visual impact. Any on site interpretation will be sensitively sited. |
| To maintain and improve air quality | slightly positive | A number of access options exist from the main population centre of Pierowall. This will help to reduce dependency on cars for short journeys and hence air pollution |
| To reduce greenhouse gas emissions | slightly positive | A number of access options exist from the main population centre of Pierowall. This will help to reduce dependency on cars for short journeys. |
| To maintain and where possible improve soil quality and integrity | neutral | No new infrastructure or path improvements are required. No erosion issues are evident. |
| To conserve & where appropriate enhance or restore the historic environment | neutral | The path at Grobust (W3) does not cross the SAM. The path at Tuquoy (W6) passes by the Cross Kirk but it is well established and appears to have had no adverse impact on the monument. No new infrastructure or path upgrades which could adversely affect historic sites are proposed for any of the paths |
| Provide opportunities for people to enjoy and appreciate the historic environment | positive | W3, W6 provide access to key historical sites on the island. |
| To protect and enhance human health | Slightly positive | Promoted paths will encourage walking in the local population. |
| To reduce waste and pollution | Slightly positive | Information about reducing litter should be provided. Guidance for wild campers should also be developed. |
| To promote sustainable use of natural resources and material assets | neutral | No new infrastructure is required |
IMAGE: Page 8 shows the first part of the Westray assessment table, including the designated sites and natural heritage assessments.
IMAGE: Page 9 shows the continuation of the Westray assessment table, including air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, soil, historic environment, human health, waste and pollution, and sustainable resources.
Sanday assessment
| SEA Objectives | Likely significant impact | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| To conserve and enhance natural habitats and species and avoid adverse effects on Natura sites | neutral | Sa2, Sa3, Sa4 and Sa6 pass through/close to the East Sanday Coast SPA. Sa3 passes through the Northwall SSSI. SNH have not indicated that they consider the location of the paths will adversely affect the interests of the designated sites. No additional infrastructure or upgrading is required which could affect the sites. Guidance is available which advises visitors about sensitivities. Sa1, Sa2 and Sa9 pass through or close to sites of local nature conservation importance. These are well established paths where there are no current issues with disturbance of wildlife through public access. No additional infrastructure or upgrading is required which could affect the sites |
| To conserve and enhance the integrity of ecosystems | neutral | Core paths will not cause fragmentation of habitats or inhibit movement of species. No new infrastructure or changes to natural path surfaces are planned. |
| To conserve geodiversity including geology, geomorphology and natural processes | neutral | The various cliffs, dunes, rocky shores are not likely to be adversely affected by the access routes. Where there are easily damaged features such as dunes or links the path routes follow already established tracks. Sa11 passes through a local geological site. No additional infrastructure or upgrading is required which could affect the geological interest. |
| Provide sustainable opportunities for people to enjoy, understand and contribute to the conservation of wildlife and wild places | Slightly positive | The paths provide access to a range of wildlife habitats. Interpretation relating to the natural heritage is provided to raise awareness of the wildlife and habitats in general. Ranger led walks are carried out on the island. |
| To protect water bodies and improve water quality | neutral | No new infrastructure or path upgrades are proposed which might affect water bodies. Sa3 is sufficiently removed from the loch to avoid erosion issues or disturbance to wildlife on the loch |
| To conserve & enhance distinctive landscape character, scenic value and visual amenity of the area | neutral | No changes to the natural surfaces along the routes are proposed in the plan. No additional infrastructure is required that could affect the landscape value or have an adverse visual impact. Any on site interpretation will be sensitively sited. |
| To maintain and improve air quality | slightly positive | A number of access options exist from the village of Lady. This will help to reduce dependency on cars for short journeys and hence air pollution |
| To reduce greenhouse gas emissions | slightly positive | A number of access options exist from the village of Lady. This will help to reduce dependency on cars for short journeys. |
| To maintain and where possible improve soil quality and integrity | neutral | No new infrastructure or path improvements are required. No erosion issues are evident. |
| To conserve & where appropriate enhance or restore the historic environment | neutral | Sa6 accesses the SAM at Elsness. This is a well established route and there have been no issues with access affecting the site. No new path improvements or infrastructure are planned. |
| Provide opportunities for people to enjoy and appreciate the historic environment | slightly positive | The paths access a range of sites of historic interest and interpretation/information is provided about them. |
| To protect and enhance human health | slightly positive | Promoted paths will encourage walking/cycling in the local population. |
| To reduce waste and pollution | slightly positive | Information about reducing litter should be provided. Guidance for wild campers should also be developed. |
| To promote sustainable use of natural resources and material assets | neutral | No new infrastructure is required |
IMAGE: Page 10 shows the first part of the Sanday assessment table, including the East Sanday Coast SPA, Northwall SSSI, geological site and water-body assessments.
IMAGE: Page 11 shows the continuation of the Sanday assessment table, including landscape, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, soil, historic environment, human health, waste and pollution, and sustainable resources.
Rousay Assessment
| SEA Objectives | Likely significant impact | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| To conserve and enhance natural habitats and species and avoid adverse effects on Natura sites | neutral | R6 and R7pass through Rousay SPA and Rousay SSSI. SNH have indicated that the location of the proposed paths will not adversely affect the interests of the designated sites. No additional infrastructure, which could adversely affect the interests of the sites, is required on these routes. Signage and interpretation will be developed to raise awareness of sensitivities eg keeping dogs under control especially during bird breeding season. R2 passes through an SSSI and the RSPB nature reserve. However this is a well established route, set up by the RSPB with appropriate signage and interpretation to ensure sensitive wildlife is not adversely affected by access. No additional infrastructure is required on this route. |
| To conserve and enhance the integrity of ecosystems | neutral | Core paths will not cause fragmentation of habitats or inhibit movement of species. No new infrastructure or changes to natural path surfaces are planned. |
| To conserve geodiversity including geology, geomorphology and natural processes | neutral | All routes are existing paths and current access is not causing erosion problems. |
| Provide sustainable opportunities for people to enjoy, understand and contribute to the conservation of wildlife and wild places | Slightly positive | Interpretation relating to the natural heritage will be provided to raise awareness of the importance/interests of designated sites and the natural heritage in general |
| To protect water bodies and improve water quality | neutral | R4 follows the route of a burn but is sufficiently separated from the burn banks to avoid any erosion. R2 passes close to the Loch of Kitchen but the RSPB provide guidance on prevention of disturbance to the red throated divers on the loch. |
| To conserve & enhance distinctive landscape character, scenic value and visual amenity of the area | neutral | No changes to the natural surfaces along the routes are proposed in the plan. No additional infrastructure is required that could affect the landscape value or have an adverse visual impact |
| To maintain and improve air quality | slightly positive | Promotion of walking and cycling may reduce dependency on cars for short journeys |
| To reduce greenhouse gas emissions | slightly positive | Promotion of walking and cycling may reduce dependency on cars for short journeys |
| To maintain and where possible improve soil quality and integrity | neutral | No new infrastructure is required. All routes are existing routes where current access is not causing erosion problems |
| To conserve & where appropriate enhance or restore the historic environment | neutral | R5 and R3 pass by several SAMs. Both these routes are well established and well used paths with no improvements required. Current access management is effective. |
| Provide opportunities for people to enjoy and appreciate the historic environment | Slightly positive | R5 and R3 provide access to important archaeological heritage |
| To protect and enhance human health | Slightly positive | Promoted paths will encourage walking in the local population. |
| To reduce waste and pollution | Slightly positive | Information about reducing litter should be provided. Guidance for wild campers should also be developed. |
| To promote sustainable use of natural resources and material assets | neutral | No new infrastructure is required |
IMAGE: Page 12 shows the first part of the Rousay Assessment table, including designated sites, ecosystem, geodiversity, wildlife and water-body assessments.
IMAGE: Page 13 shows the continuation of the Rousay Assessment table, including landscape, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, soil, historic environment, human health, waste and pollution, and sustainable resources.
Egilsay and Wyre assessment
| SEA Objectives | Likely significant impact | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| To conserve and enhance natural habitats and species and avoid adverse effects on Natura sites | neutral | E1 passes through a site of local nature conservation importance and an RSPB reserve. No new infrastructure or path improvements are required on this route which could affect the site. Number of access users on the island is very low and likely to continue so. The RSPB manages the reserve and provides guidance to access users. |
| To conserve and enhance the integrity of ecosystems | neutral | Core paths will not cause fragmentation of habitats or inhibit movement of species. No new infrastructure or changes to natural path surfaces are planned. |
| To conserve geodiversity including geology, geomorphology and natural processes | neutral | |
| Provide sustainable opportunities for people to enjoy, understand and contribute to the conservation of wildlife and wild places | slightly positive | The paths access interesting natural heritage. RSPB provide information about their reserve on Egilsay. |
| To protect water bodies and improve water quality | neutral | |
| To conserve & enhance distinctive landscape character, scenic value and visual amenity of the area | neutral | No changes to the natural surfaces along the routes are proposed in the plan. No additional infrastructure is required that could affect the landscape value or have an adverse visual impact. Any on site interpretation will be sensitively sited. |
| To maintain and improve air quality | slightly positive | Promotion of walking and cycling may reduce dependency on cars for short journeys. |
| To reduce greenhouse gas emissions | slightly positive | Promotion of walking and cycling may reduce dependency on cars for short journeys |
| To maintain and where possible improve soil quality and integrity | neutral | No new infrastructure or path improvements are required. No erosion issues are evident. |
| To conserve & where appropriate enhance or restore the historic environment | neutral | W1 and E2 provide access to SAMs. These are well established routes and there is currently no evidence of adverse impacts on the sites from access users. |
| Provide opportunities for people to enjoy and appreciate the historic environment | positive | Access is provided to St Magnus Church, St Marys Chapel and Cubbie Roos castle. Interpretation is provided at these sites. |
| To protect and enhance human health | Slightly positive | Promoted paths will encourage walking in the local population. |
| To reduce waste and pollution | Slightly positive | Information about reducing litter should be provided. Guidance for wild campers should also be developed. |
| To promote sustainable use of natural resources and material assets | neutral | No new infrastructure is required |
IMAGE: Page 14 shows the first part of the Egilsay and Wyre assessment table, including natural heritage, ecosystem, geodiversity, wildlife, water and landscape rows.
IMAGE: Page 15 shows the continuation of the Egilsay and Wyre assessment table, including air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, soil, historic environment, human health, waste and pollution, and sustainable resources.
Shapinsay assessment
| SEA Objectives | Likely significant impact | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| To conserve and enhance natural habitats and species and avoid adverse effects on Natura sites | neutral | There are no SSSIs or European designated sites on Shapinsay. Mill Dam is an RSPB reserve. Access to the reserve is to a bird hide only so disturbance of birds is kept to a minimum. Sh3 and Sh5 pass close to or through sites of local nature conservation importance. No additional infrastructure or upgrading is required which could affect these sites. The low levels of public access on Shapinsay are unlikely to have an adverse impact on wildlife or habitats. |
| To conserve and enhance the integrity of ecosystems | neutral | Core paths will not cause fragmentation of habitats or inhibit movement of species. No new infrastructure or changes to natural path surfaces are planned. |
| To conserve geodiversity including geology, geomorphology and natural processes | neutral | The various cliffs, beaches, rocky shores are not likely to be adversely affected by the access routes. |
| Provide sustainable opportunities for people to enjoy, understand and contribute to the conservation of wildlife and wild places | Slightly positive | The paths provide access to a range of wildlife habitats. |
| To protect water bodies and improve water quality | neutral | No new infrastructure or path upgrades are proposed which might affect water bodies. |
| To conserve & enhance distinctive landscape character, scenic value and visual amenity of the area | neutral | No changes to the natural surfaces along the routes are proposed in the plan. No additional infrastructure is required that could affect the landscape value or have an adverse visual impact. Any on site interpretation will be sensitively sited. |
| To maintain and improve air quality | slightly positive | Access options exist from the village of Balfour. This will help to reduce dependency on cars for short journeys and hence air pollution |
| To reduce greenhouse gas emissions | slightly positive | Access options exist from the village of Balfour. This will help to reduce dependency on cars for short journeys. |
| To maintain and where possible improve soil quality and integrity | neutral | No new infrastructure or path improvements are required. No erosion issues are evident. |
| To conserve & where appropriate enhance or restore the historic environment | neutral | Sh7 accesses the SAM at Burroughston Broch. This access is well established and there have been no issues with public access. |
| Provide opportunities for people to enjoy and appreciate the historic environment | slightly positive | SH7 provides access to Burroughston Broch. On site interpretation is available. |
| To protect and enhance human health | slightly positive | Promoted paths will encourage walking/cycling in the local population. |
| To reduce waste and pollution | slightly positive | Information about reducing litter should be provided. Guidance for wild campers should also be developed. |
| To promote sustainable use of natural resources and material assets | neutral | No new infrastructure is required |
IMAGE: Page 16 shows the first part of the Shapinsay assessment table, including designated sites, wildlife, water and landscape assessments.
IMAGE: Page 17 shows the continuation of the Shapinsay assessment table, including air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, soil, historic environment, human health, waste and pollution, and sustainable resources.
Kirkwall and St Ola assessment
| SEA Objectives | Likely significant impact | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| To conserve and enhance natural habitats and species and avoid adverse effects on Natura sites | neutral | No Natura sites or SSSIs in the area. K6, K11, and K15 cross sites of local nature conservation importance. All these routes have well established paths and no new infrastructure or path upgrades are proposed. Provision of a path should reduce impact on other areas of the sites. |
| To conserve and enhance the integrity of ecosystems | neutral | Core paths will not cause fragmentation of habitats or inhibit movement of species. No new infrastructure or changes to natural path surfaces are planned. |
| To conserve geodiversity including geology, geomorphology and natural processes | neutral | No significant features affected by core paths. |
| Provide sustainable opportunities for people to enjoy, understand and contribute to the conservation of wildlife and wild places | Slightly positive | The paths provide access to a range of wildlife habitats adjacent to the town. Interpretation relating to the natural heritage is provided on K6 and K15. |
| To protect water bodies and improve water quality | neutral | No new infrastructure or path upgrades are proposed which might affect water bodies. K13 and K15 run adjacent to burns but the current locations of the paths should not have any negative impacts on the watercourses. |
| To conserve & enhance distinctive landscape character, scenic value and visual amenity of the area | neutral | No changes to the natural surfaces along the routes are proposed in the plan. No additional infrastructure is required that could affect the landscape value or have an adverse visual impact. Any on site interpretation will be sensitively sited. |
| To maintain and improve air quality | slightly positive | Most of the routes can be accessed from the town without the use of a car. This will help to reduce dependency on cars for short journeys and hence air pollution |
| To reduce greenhouse gas emissions | Slightly positive | Most of the routes can be accessed from the town without the use of a car. This will help to reduce dependency on cars for short journeys. |
| To maintain and where possible improve soil quality and integrity | neutral | No new infrastructure or path improvements are required which could affect soil integrity. No erosion issues are evident. |
| To conserve & where appropriate enhance or restore the historic environment | neutral | There are no SAMs in the vicinity of the paths. No new infrastructure or path upgrades are proposed for any of the paths which could adversely affect historic sites. |
| Provide opportunities for people to enjoy and appreciate the historic environment | neutral | |
| To protect and enhance human health | slightly positive | Promoted paths close to the town will encourage walking in the local population. |
| To reduce waste and pollution | slightly positive | Interpretation on key routes includes guidance on not leaving litter. Guidance for wild campers should also be developed. |
| To promote sustainable use of natural resources and material assets | neutral | No new infrastructure is required |
IMAGE: Page 18 shows the first part of the Kirkwall and St Ola assessment table.
IMAGE: Page 19 shows the continuation of the Kirkwall and St Ola assessment table, including historic environment, human health, waste and pollution, and sustainable resources.
Tankerness assessment
| SEA Objectives | Likely significant impact | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| To conserve and enhance natural habitats and species and avoid adverse effects on Natura sites | neutral | T2 and T2 pass through sites of local conservation importance. T2 is sufficiently removed from the loch to prevent significant disturbance of wildlife on the loch. Neither does the route impact on the wetland vegetation. Rerwick Head is important for great yellow bumble bee – the location of the path does not impinge on its habitat. No path upgrades or new infrastructure are proposed. |
| To conserve and enhance the integrity of ecosystems | neutral | Core paths will not cause fragmentation of habitats or inhibit movement of species. No new infrastructure or changes to natural path surfaces are planned. |
| To conserve geodiversity including geology, geomorphology and natural processes | neutral | Rerwick Head (T3) has interesting geology but the path location does not have an adverse impact on this. |
| Provide sustainable opportunities for people to enjoy, understand and contribute to the conservation of wildlife and wild places | Slightly positive | The paths provide access to a range of wildlife habitats. |
| To protect water bodies and improve water quality | neutral | No new infrastructure or path upgrades are proposed which might affect water bodies. The location of R2 is unlikely to have an impact on Tankerness Loch as it does not pass too close to the water body. |
| To conserve & enhance distinctive landscape character, scenic value and visual amenity of the area | neutral | No changes to the natural surfaces along the routes are proposed in the plan. No additional infrastructure is required that could affect the landscape value or have an adverse visual impact. Any on site interpretation will be sensitively sited. |
| To maintain and improve air quality | slightly positive | Promotion of walking and cycling may reduce dependency on cars for short journeys |
| To reduce greenhouse gas emissions | slightly positive | Promotion of walking and cycling may reduce dependency on cars for short journeys |
| To maintain and where possible improve soil quality and integrity | neutral | No new infrastructure or path improvements are required. No erosion issues are evident. |
| To conserve & where appropriate enhance or restore the historic environment | neutral | The wartime buildings at Rerwick Head (T3) are unlikely to be adversely affected by access users or the location of the path |
| Provide opportunities for people to enjoy and appreciate the historic environment | positive | T3 provides access to the Rerwick Head wartime heritage. |
| To protect and enhance human health | Slightly positive | Promoted paths will encourage walking in the local population. |
| To reduce waste and pollution | Slightly positive | Information about reducing litter will be provided in interpretive materials. Guidance for wild campers should also be developed. |
| To promote sustainable use of natural resources and material assets | neutral | No new infrastructure is required |
IMAGE: Page 20 shows the first part of the Tankerness assessment table.
IMAGE: Page 21 shows the continuation of the Tankerness assessment table, including historic environment, human health, waste and pollution, and sustainable resources.
Deerness assessment
| SEA Objectives | Likely significant impact | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| To conserve and enhance natural habitats and species and avoid adverse effects on Natura sites | neutral | D1 passes through Mull Head LNR. The paths avoid ground nesting bird areas and guidance is provided about keeping dogs under control during the bird breeding season. |
| To conserve and enhance the integrity of ecosystems | neutral | Core paths will not cause fragmentation of habitats or inhibit movement of species. No new infrastructure or changes to natural path surfaces are planned. |
| To conserve geodiversity including geology, geomorphology and natural processes | neutral | D4 and D5 pass through a geological site of local nature conservation importance. This site is important for showing the transition from Rousay flags to Eday beds. The location of the paths will have no adverse impact on the geology. D3 passes near the Denwick SSSI which is important for geology. The path does not enter the SSSI and helps to protect the site by directing access away from it. Sand dunes occur at Dingieshowe (D5). The access route uses an existing entrance in the dune system and follows existing routes over the dune area. Encouraging access users to follow the path will reduce impact on the dunes. |
| Provide sustainable opportunities for people to enjoy, understand and contribute to the conservation of wildlife and wild places | Slightly positive | The paths provide access to a range of wildlife habitats. Extensive interpretation of the natural environment is provided at Mull Head (D1, 2 and 3) |
| To protect water bodies and improve water quality | neutral | No new infrastructure or path upgrades are proposed which might affect water bodies. |
| To conserve & enhance distinctive landscape character, scenic value and visual amenity of the area | neutral | No changes to the natural surfaces along the routes are proposed in the plan. No additional infrastructure is required that could affect the landscape value or have an adverse visual impact. Any on site interpretation will be sensitively sited. |
| To maintain and improve air quality | slightly positive | Promotion of walking and cycling may reduce dependency on cars for short journeys |
| To reduce greenhouse gas emissions | slightly positive | Promotion of walking and cycling may reduce dependency on cars for short journeys |
| To maintain and where possible improve soil quality and integrity | neutral | No new infrastructure or path improvements are required. No erosion issues are evident. |
| To conserve & where appropriate enhance or restore the historic environment | neutral | Dingieshowe Broch is a SAM – D5 does not go past the broch. The Broch of Deerness is a SAM – the core path does not include access to the broch. |
| Provide opportunities for people to enjoy and appreciate the historic environment | neutral | |
| To protect and enhance human health | Slightly positive | Promoted paths will encourage walking in the local population. |
| To reduce waste and pollution | Slightly positive | Information about reducing litter will be provided in interpretive materials. Guidance for wild campers should also be developed. |
| To promote sustainable use of natural resources and material assets | neutral | No new infrastructure is required |
IMAGE: Page 22 shows the first part of the Deerness assessment table, including Mull Head LNR, geological sites, Denwick SSSI and Dingieshowe.
IMAGE: Page 23 shows the continuation of the Deerness assessment table, including the historic environment, human health, waste and pollution, and sustainable resources.
Holm assessment
| SEA Objectives | Likely significant impact | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| To conserve and enhance natural habitats and species and avoid adverse effects on Natura sites | neutral | Loch of Ayre (H1) and Roseness (H4) are sites of local nature conservation importance. H1 is at an adequate distance from the loch to ensure minimal disturbance to birds. H4 follows the coastline, thereby avoiding disturbance or birds nesting on the heath. No new infrastructure or path upgrades are required which could affect natural habitats. |
| To conserve and enhance the integrity of ecosystems | neutral | Core paths will not cause fragmentation of habitats or inhibit movement of species. No new infrastructure or changes to natural path surfaces are planned. |
| To conserve geodiversity including geology, geomorphology and natural processes | neutral | No significant features affected by core paths. |
| Provide sustainable opportunities for people to enjoy, understand and contribute to the conservation of wildlife and wild places | Slightly positive | The paths provide access to a range of wildlife habitats. |
| To protect water bodies and improve water quality | neutral | No new infrastructure or path upgrades are proposed which might affect water bodies. The path (H10) at the Loch of Ayres is sufficiently removed from the loch to avoid any adverse impact on the loch. |
| To conserve & enhance distinctive landscape character, scenic value and visual amenity of the area | neutral | No changes to the natural surfaces along the routes are proposed in the plan. No additional infrastructure is required that could affect the landscape value or have an adverse visual impact. Any on site interpretation will be sensitively sited. |
| To maintain and improve air quality | slightly positive | H1, H2 and H3 are close to the village of Holm providing access opportunities which avoid car usage. |
| To reduce greenhouse gas emissions | H1, H2 and H3 are close to the village of Holm providing access opportunities which avoid car usage. | |
| To maintain and where possible improve soil quality and integrity | neutral | No new infrastructure or path improvements are required. No erosion issues are evident. |
| To conserve & where appropriate enhance or restore the historic environment | neutral | The Loch of Ayre Broch is not on the route of the path (H1). H3 passes near the wartime buildings at Graemeshall but does not impact on them or their setting. |
| Provide opportunities for people to enjoy and appreciate the historic environment | Slightly positive | H3 provides access to wartime heritage |
| To protect and enhance human health | Slightly positive | Promoted paths will encourage walking in the local population. |
| To reduce waste and pollution | Slightly positive | Information about reducing litter will be provided in interpretive materials. Guidance for wild campers should also be developed. |
| To promote sustainable use of natural resources and material assets | neutral | No new infrastructure is required |
IMAGE: Page 24 shows the first part of the Holm assessment table.
IMAGE: Page 25 shows the continuation of the Holm assessment table, including historic environment, human health, waste and pollution, and sustainable resources.
North Hoy assessment
| SEA Objectives | Likely significant impact | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| To conserve and enhance natural habitats and species and avoid adverse effects on Natura sites | neutral | H1, H2, H4 pass through the Hoy SPA, SSSI and RSPB reserve. These are all already existing and well used paths. H1 and H2 are managed by the RSPB. The RSPB are hoping to carry out works to upgrade H2 within the timescale of this plan, to prevent habitat erosion, though full details are not currently available. It is noted here that the RSPB may need to undertake an appropriate assessment for any future works on H2. No works are currently planned for H1 or H4. The use of paths through the SPA could help to reduce impact of access users on other more sensitive areas of the designated site. |
| To conserve and enhance the integrity of ecosystems | neutral | Core paths will not cause fragmentation of habitats or inhibit movement of species. |
| To conserve geodiversity including geology, geomorphology and natural processes | neutral | The Hoy SSSI is important for its geology and geomorphology. The proposed core paths would have no adverse impact on this interest. |
| Provide sustainable opportunities for people to enjoy, understand and contribute to the conservation of wildlife and wild places | Slightly positive | The paths provide access to a range of wildlife habitats. The RSPB promote the North Hoy reserve and provide interpretation about its wildlife. |
| To protect water bodies and improve water quality | neutral | No new infrastructure or path upgrades are proposed which might affect water bodies. |
| To conserve & enhance distinctive landscape character, scenic value and visual amenity of the area | Slightly positive | The routes fall within the Hoy and West Mainland NSA. Part of H2 has stone pitching. Improvements works to this route may include increasing the length of the stone pitching. This type of path surfacing blends in well in the landscape and would not have any adverse impacts. Without this work there is likely to be erosion of the path surface which would have a negative visual impact. |
| To maintain and improve air quality | slightly positive | Promotion of walking and cycling may reduce dependency on cars for short journeys |
| To reduce greenhouse gas emissions | slightly positive | Promotion of walking and cycling may reduce dependency on cars for short journeys |
| To maintain and where possible improve soil quality and integrity | neutral | Path improvements to H2 would alleviate any erosion problems |
| To conserve & where appropriate enhance or restore the historic environment | neutral | H4 accesses the Dwarfie Stane, the route does not impact on the monument. The monument is very robust and unlikely to suffer any negative impacts from access users. No improvements of the route are planned. H5 provides access to wartime heritage at Scad Head. No path upgrades or improvements are planned that would have a negative impact on the heritage interests of the site |
| Provide opportunities for people to enjoy and appreciate the historic environment | Slightly positive | H4 provides access to the Dwarfie Stane. Historic Scotland provides information about the monument. H5 provides access to Scad Head wartime defences. |
| To protect and enhance human health | Slightly positive | Promoted paths will encourage walking in the local population. |
| To reduce waste and pollution | Slightly positive | Information about reducing litter will be provided in interpretive materials. Guidance for wild campers should also be developed. |
| To promote sustainable use of natural resources and material assets | neutral | Any new path infrastructure should use local resources and/or materials from sustainable sources, |
IMAGE: Page 26 shows the first part of the North Hoy assessment table, including the Hoy SPA, SSSI, RSPB reserve, geology and landscape assessments.
IMAGE: Page 27 shows the continuation of the North Hoy assessment table, including soil, historic environment, human health, waste and pollution, and sustainable resources.
North and South Walls assessment
| SEA Objectives | Likely significant impact | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| To conserve and enhance natural habitats and species and avoid adverse effects on Natura sites | neutral | Wa1,Wa2, Wa3 and Wa5 pass through sites of local nature conservation importance. Wa1 and Wa2 are existing vehicle tracks, no additional work is required on these routes. Wa5 and Wa3 are natural surfaced paths, no changes or improvements are intended. Wa6 passes through the SWT reserve at Hill of White Hammars. Access is managed by the SWT and no improvements or new infrastructure are required |
| To conserve and enhance the integrity of ecosystems | neutral | Core paths will not cause fragmentation of habitats or inhibit movement of species. No new infrastructure or changes to natural path surfaces are planned. |
| To conserve geodiversity including geology, geomorphology and natural processes | neutral | Wa3 passes through Melsetter links. No erosion issues are foreseen along this route. |
| Provide sustainable opportunities for people to enjoy, understand and contribute to the conservation of wildlife and wild places | Slightly positive | The paths provide access to a range of wildlife habitats. SWT provide interpretation about their nature reserve. |
| To protect water bodies and improve water quality | neutral | No new infrastructure or path upgrades are proposed which might affect water bodies. |
| To conserve & enhance distinctive landscape character, scenic value and visual amenity of the area | Slightly positive | No changes to route surfaces or additional infrastructure are proposed, that might have impact on the landscape |
| To maintain and improve air quality | slightly positive | Promotion of walking and cycling may reduce dependency on cars for short journeys |
| To reduce greenhouse gas emissions | slightly positive | Promotion of walking and cycling may reduce dependency on cars for short journeys |
| To maintain and where possible improve soil quality and integrity | neutral | No new infrastructure or path improvements are required. No erosion issues are evident. |
| To conserve & where appropriate enhance or restore the historic environment | neutral | Wa1 accesses wartime heritage at Wee Fea. No works are proposed that could have an adverse impact on the heritage. |
| Provide opportunities for people to enjoy and appreciate the historic environment | Slightly positive | Wa1 provides access to wartime heritage at Wee Fea and views of the surrounding war time remains. |
| To protect and enhance human health | Slightly positive | Promoted paths will encourage walking in the local population. |
| To reduce waste and pollution | Slightly positive | Information about reducing litter will be provided in interpretive materials. Guidance for wild campers should also be developed. |
| To promote sustainable use of natural resources and material assets | neutral | No path works are proposed. |
IMAGE: Page 28 shows the first part of the North and South Walls assessment table.
IMAGE: Page 29 shows the continuation of the North and South Walls assessment table, including the historic environment, human health, waste and pollution, and sustainable resources.
Burray assessment
| SEA Objectives | Likely significant impact | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| To conserve and enhance natural habitats and species and avoid adverse effects on Natura sites | neutral | There are no Natura sites or SSSIs on Burray. B1, B2, B4, B6, B7 and B9 all pass through sites of local nature conservation importance. None of these paths require additional infrastructure or surface improvements that could damage habitats. Breeding birds at B1 and B6 could potentially be disturbed by access users, especially dogs not under proper control. Both routes are already well used without apparent detriment to the birds. Information should be provided about the nesting birds and guidance on keeping dogs under control. |
| To conserve and enhance the integrity of ecosystems | neutral | Core paths will not cause fragmentation of habitats or inhibit movement of species. No new infrastructure or changes to natural path surfaces are planned. |
| To conserve geodiversity including geology, geomorphology and natural processes | neutral | Access to various beaches should not have an adverse impact on the geomorphology of these sites. |
| Provide sustainable opportunities for people to enjoy, understand and contribute to the conservation of wildlife and wild places | Slightly positive | Access to, and interpretation of, the natural heritage will be provided to raise awareness of the wildlife and habitats in general |
| To protect water bodies and improve water quality | neutral | No path upgrades or new infrastructure are proposed which might affect water bodies. |
| To conserve & enhance distinctive landscape character, scenic value and visual amenity of the area | neutral | No changes to the natural surfaces along the routes are proposed in the plan. No additional infrastructure is required that could affect the landscape value or have an adverse visual impact |
| To maintain and improve air quality | slightly positive | Promotion of walking and cycling may reduce dependency on cars for short journeys |
| To reduce greenhouse gas emissions | slightly positve | Promotion of walking and cycling may reduce dependency on cars for short journeys |
| To maintain and where possible improve soil quality and integrity | neutral | No new infrastructure is required |
| To conserve & where appropriate enhance or restore the historic environment | neutral | No SAMs on the island. B8 has brochs and wartime heritage but the access route should have no adverse impact on these sites and no new infrastructure or path upgrading is required in the vicinity of these sites. |
| Provide opportunities for people to enjoy and appreciate the historic environment | neutral | B8 will provide access to historical sites on this peninsula |
| To protect and enhance human health | Slightly positive | Promoted paths will encourage walking in the local population. |
| To reduce waste and pollution | Slightly positive | Information about reducing litter should be provided. Guidance for wild campers should also be developed. |
| To promote sustainable use of natural resources and material assets | neutral | No new infrastructure is required |
IMAGE: Page 30 shows the first part of the Burray assessment table.
IMAGE: Page 31 shows the continuation of the Burray assessment table, including the historic environment, human health, waste and pollution, and sustainable resources.
South Ronaldsay assessment
| SEA Objectives | Likely significant impact | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| To conserve and enhance natural habitats and species and avoid adverse effects on Natura sites | neutral | SR1 passes through the Ward Hill cliffs SSSI. Grey seals are unlikely to be disturbed by access users as the tall cliffs separate people from the seal pupping areas. No new infrastructure is planned for this section that might damage plant communities. A Schedule 1 bird species nests on the cliffs at various points along SR1 and SR3. While access users will not be able to approach nests, general disturbance can be minimised by providing guidance and interpretation. SR1, SR2, SR3 and SR9 pass through sites of local nature conservation importance. These are all existing paths and no new infrastructure is planned. |
| To conserve and enhance the integrity of ecosystems | neutral | Core paths will not cause fragmentation of habitats or inhibit movement of species. No new infrastructure or changes to natural path surfaces are planned. |
| To conserve geodiversity including geology, geomorphology and natural processes | neutral | Access to various beaches should not have an adverse impact on the geomorphology of these sites. |
| Provide sustainable opportunities for people to enjoy, understand and contribute to the conservation of wildlife and wild places | Slightly positive | Access to, and interpretation of, the natural heritage will be provided to raise awareness of the wildlife and habitats in general. Interpretation is planned for SR1 and is in place at SR9 and SR10 |
| To protect water bodies and improve water quality | neutral | No path upgrades or new infrastructure are proposed which might affect water bodies. |
| To conserve & enhance distinctive landscape character, scenic value and visual amenity of the area | neutral | No changes to the natural surfaces along the routes are proposed in the plan. No additional infrastructure is required that could affect the landscape value or have an adverse visual impact |
| To maintain and improve air quality | slightly positive | Promotion of walking and cycling may reduce dependency on cars for short journeys |
| To reduce greenhouse gas emissions | slightly positive | Promotion of walking and cycling may reduce dependency on cars for short journeys |
| To maintain and where possible improve soil quality and integrity | neutral | No new infrastructure is required. Location of paths is unlikely to increase erosion |
| To conserve & where appropriate enhance or restore the historic environment | neutral | S10 passes through the Hoxa Head SAM. There is no evidence of damage to the site from the existing well used path and no new infrastructure is planned which could have an adverse impact on the historic environment. |
| Provide opportunities for people to enjoy and appreciate the historic environment | neutral | S10 provides access to, and interpretation of, the wartime heritage at Hoxa Head |
| To protect and enhance human health | Slightly positive | Promoted paths will encourage walking in the local population. |
| To reduce waste and pollution | Slightly positive | Information about reducing litter should be provided. Guidance for wild campers should also be developed. |
| To promote sustainable use of natural resources and material assets | neutral | No new infrastructure is required |
IMAGE: Page 32 shows the first part of the South Ronaldsay assessment table, including the Ward Hill cliffs SSSI, Schedule 1 bird species and natural heritage assessments.
IMAGE: Page 33 shows the continuation of the South Ronaldsay assessment table, including soil, historic environment, human health, waste and pollution, and sustainable resources.
Flotta assessment
| SEA Objectives | Likely significant impact | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| To conserve and enhance natural habitats and species and avoid adverse effects on Natura sites | neutral | There are no Natura sites or SSSIs on Flotta. West Hill is a site of local nature conservation importance. F1 passes through this site and access could cause disturbance to the arctic tern colony in the area. Guidance should be provided to ensure access users do not go near the colony. |
| To conserve and enhance the integrity of ecosystems | neutral | Core paths will not cause fragmentation of habitats or inhibit movement of species. No new infrastructure or changes to natural path surfaces are planned. |
| To conserve geodiversity including geology, geomorphology and natural processes | neutral | All routes are existing paths and current access is not causing erosion problems. |
| Provide sustainable opportunities for people to enjoy, understand and contribute to the conservation of wildlife and wild places | Slightly positive | F1 provides access to the natural heritage and offers an opportunity to improve understanding of the local wildlife and habitats. |
| To protect water bodies and improve water quality | neutral | Core Paths have no impact on any water bodies. |
| To conserve & enhance distinctive landscape character, scenic value and visual amenity of the area | neutral | No changes to the natural surfaces along the routes are proposed in the plan. No additional infrastructure is required that could affect the landscape value or have an adverse visual impact |
| To maintain and improve air quality | slightly positive | Promotion of walking and cycling may reduce dependency on cars for short journeys |
| To reduce greenhouse gas emissions | slightly positive | Promotion of walking and cycling may reduce dependency on cars for short journeys |
| To maintain and where possible improve soil quality and integrity | neutral | No new infrastructure is required. All routes are existing routes where current access is not causing erosion problems |
| To conserve & where appropriate enhance or restore the historic environment | neutral | F4 accesses the SAM at Stanger Head. No new path infrastructure or path improvement is planned for this route. If new interpretation is developed HS will be consulted at an early stage with respect to siting. |
| Provide opportunities for people to enjoy and appreciate the historic environment | Slightly positive | F1, F3 and F4 provide access to wartime heritage |
| To protect and enhance human health | Slightly positive | Promoted paths will encourage walking in the local population. |
| To reduce waste and pollution | neutral | Information about reducing litter should be provided. Guidance for wild campers should also be developed. |
| To promote sustainable use of natural resources and material assets | neutral | No new infrastructure is required |
IMAGE: Page 34 shows the first part of the Flotta assessment table.
IMAGE: Page 35 shows the continuation of the Flotta assessment table, including historic environment, human health, waste and pollution, and sustainable resources.
Graemsay assessment
| SEA Objectives | Likely significant impact | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| To conserve and enhance natural habitats and species and avoid adverse effects on Natura sites | neutral | There are no Natura sites of SSSIs on Graemsay. The only site of local nature conservation importance is unaffected by any of the paths. |
| To conserve and enhance the integrity of ecosystems | neutral | Core paths will not cause fragmentation of habitats or inhibit movement of species. No new infrastructure or changes to natural path surfaces are planned. |
| To conserve geodiversity including geology, geomorphology and natural processes | neutral | Several paths go along the coast but the coastal geology is unlikely to be adversely affected by the low numbers of access users on the island. |
| Provide sustainable opportunities for people to enjoy, understand and contribute to the conservation of wildlife and wild places | Slightly positive | Interpretation relating to the natural heritage will be provided to raise awareness of the wildlife and habitats in general |
| To protect water bodies and improve water quality | neutral | Core Paths have no impact on any water bodies. |
| To conserve & enhance distinctive landscape character, scenic value and visual amenity of the area | neutral | No changes to the natural surfaces along the routes are proposed in the plan. No additional infrastructure is required that could affect the landscape value or have an adverse visual impact |
| To maintain and improve air quality | slightly positive | Promotion of walking and cycling may reduce dependency on cars for short journeys |
| To reduce greenhouse gas emissions | slightly positive | Promotion of walking and cycling may reduce dependency on cars for short journeys |
| To maintain and where possible improve soil quality and integrity | neutral | No new infrastructure is required |
| To conserve & where appropriate enhance or restore the historic environment | neutral | No SAMs on the island |
| Provide opportunities for people to enjoy and appreciate the historic environment | neutral | |
| To protect and enhance human health | Slightly positive | Promoted paths will encourage walking in the local population. |
| To reduce waste and pollution | Slightly positive | Information about reducing litter should be provided. Guidance for wild campers should also be developed. |
| To promote sustainable use of natural resources and material assets | neutral | No new infrastructure is required |
IMAGE: Page 36 shows the first part of the Graemsay assessment table.
IMAGE: Page 37 shows the continuation of the Graemsay assessment table, including the historic environment, human health, waste and pollution, and sustainable resources.
West Mainland assessment – South East
| SEA Objectives | Likely significant impact | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| To conserve and enhance natural habitats and species and avoid adverse effects on Natura sites | neutral | Wm4 and Wm5 pass through the Orkney Mainland Moors SPA and the Orphir and Stenness Hilss SSSI. SNH requested that the middle triangle of Wm5 be removed as it crossed sensitive habitats – this has been done. No improvements or additional infrastructure are proposed on these routes. Wm1 passes through the Hobbister RSPB reserve. The RSPB manage access on this route. Wm3 crosses a site of local nature conservation importance. No works are required that could have an adverse impact on this site. |
| To conserve and enhance the integrity of ecosystems | neutral | Core paths will not cause fragmentation of habitats or inhibit movement of species. No new infrastructure or changes to natural path surfaces are planned. |
| To conserve geodiversity including geology, geomorphology and natural processes | neutral | No significant features affected by core paths. |
| Provide sustainable opportunities for people to enjoy, understand and contribute to the conservation of wildlife and wild places | Slightly positive | The paths provide access to a range of wildlife habitats. Interpretation relating to the natural heritage is provided to raise awareness of the wildlife and habitats in general. The RSPB provide interpretation related to their reserve at Hobbister. |
| To protect water bodies and improve water quality | neutral | No new infrastructure or path upgrades are proposed which might affect water bodies. |
| To conserve & enhance distinctive landscape character, scenic value and visual amenity of the area | neutral | No changes to the natural surfaces along the routes are proposed in the plan. No additional infrastructure is required that could affect the landscape value or have an adverse visual impact. Any on site interpretation will be sensitively sited. |
| To maintain and improve air quality | slightly positive | Access options exist near Orphir village. This will help to reduce dependency on cars for short journeys. |
| To reduce greenhouse gas emissions | slightly positive | Access options exist near Orphir village. This will help to reduce dependency on cars for short journeys. |
| To maintain and where possible improve soil quality and integrity | neutral | No new infrastructure or path improvements are required. No erosion issues are evident. |
| To conserve & where appropriate enhance or restore the historic environment | neutral | Wm2 accesses SAMs at the Bu. No new infrastructure or path improvements are proposed within the SAM. This is a well established route and no adverse impacts on the site from public access are recorded. Wm12 accesses the World Heritage Site at Ring of Brodgar and Stones of Stenness. The route has been developed in conjunction with Historic Scotland and should be of benefit to visitor management within the WHS. |
| Provide opportunities for people to enjoy and appreciate the historic environment | slightly positive | Wm2 accesses the Earl’s Bu and St. Nicholas Church. Interpretation is provided about the historic sites. WM12 access Ring of Brodgar, Stones of Stenness and Barnhouse. Interpretation is provided at these sites. |
| To protect and enhance human health | slightly positive | Promoted paths will encourage walking/cycling in the local population. |
| To reduce waste and pollution | slightly positive | Information about reducing litter should be provided. Guidance for wild campers should also be developed. |
| To promote sustainable use of natural resources and material assets | neutral | No new infrastructure is required |
IMAGE: Page 38 shows the first part of the West Mainland South East assessment table.
IMAGE: Page 39 shows the continuation of the West Mainland South East assessment table, including the historic environment, human health, waste and pollution, and sustainable resources.
West Mainland assessment – North East
| SEA Objectives | Likely significant impact | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| To conserve and enhance natural habitats and species and avoid adverse effects on Natura sites | neutral | Wm13, Wm21 pass through the West Mainland Moorlands SSSI and Orkney Mainland Moors SPA. No path improvements or new infrastructure are proposed on these routes. All these routes follow existing peat tracks. |
| To conserve and enhance the integrity of ecosystems | neutral | Core paths will not cause any fragmentation of habitats or inhibit movement of species. No new infrastructure or changes to natural path surfaces are planned. |
| To conserve geodiversity including geology, geomorphology and natural processes | neutral | No significant features affected by core paths. |
| Provide sustainable opportunities for people to enjoy, understand and contribute to the conservation of wildlife and wild places | Slightly positive | The paths provide access to a range of wildlife habitats. Wm23 provides access to the RSPB bird hide at Burgar Hill. Wm 14 provides access to the RSPB reserve at Cottasgarth. The RSPB has interpretation at both these sites. |
| To protect water bodies and improve water quality | neutral | No new infrastructure or path upgrades are proposed which might affect water bodies. |
| To conserve & enhance distinctive landscape character, scenic value and visual amenity of the area | neutral | No changes to the natural surfaces along the routes are proposed in the plan. No additional infrastructure is required that could affect the landscape value or have an adverse visual impact. Any on site interpretation will be sensitively sited. |
| To maintain and improve air quality | neutral | Promoted paths will encourage walking/cycling in the local population and help to reduce dependency on cars. |
| To reduce greenhouse gas emissions | neutral | Promoted paths will encourage walking/cycling in the local population and help to reduce dependency on cars.. |
| To maintain and where possible improve soil quality and integrity | neutral | No new infrastructure or path improvements are required. No erosion issues are evident. |
| To conserve & where appropriate enhance or restore the historic environment | neutral | Wm17 provides access to the SAM at Knowes of Trotty. WM 24 provides access to the SAM at the Broch of Gurness. Historic Scotland manage access at the Broch of Gurness. No path improvements which might adversely affect the Knowes of Trotty SAM are proposed. |
| Provide opportunities for people to enjoy and appreciate the historic environment | slightly positive | WM17 accesses the Broch of Gurness. Wm 24 accesses the Knowes of Trotty. HS provide interpretation at the Broch of Gurness. |
| To protect and enhance human health | slightly positive | Promoted paths will encourage walking/cycling in the local population. |
| To reduce waste and pollution | slightly positive | Information about reducing litter should be provided. Guidance for wild campers should also be developed. |
| To promote sustainable use of natural resources and material assets | neutral | No new infrastructure is required |
IMAGE: Page 40 shows the first part of the West Mainland North East assessment table.
IMAGE: Page 41 shows the continuation of the West Mainland North East assessment table, including the historic environment, human health, waste and pollution, and sustainable resources.
West Mainland assessment – North West
| SEA Objectives | Likely significant impact | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| To conserve and enhance natural habitats and species and avoid adverse effects on Natura sites | neutral | Wm26 passes through the RSPB reserve at Marwick Head and through the Stromness Coasts and Heaths SSSI. RSPB manage access at Marwick Head. SNH do not consider that the location of the path will adversely affect the interests of the designated site. No path improvements or new infrastructure are proposed for this route. |
| To conserve and enhance the integrity of ecosystems | neutral | Core paths will not cause any fragmentation of habitats or inhibit movement of species. No new infrastructure or changes to natural path surfaces are planned. |
| To conserve geodiversity including geology, geomorphology and natural processes | neutral | Wm 26 passes through the Stromness heaths and Coasts SSSI. SNH do not consider that the location of the path will adversely affect the interests of the designated site. No path improvements or new infrastructure are proposed for this route. Guidance on protecting geology should help to prevent damage. |
| Provide sustainable opportunities for people to enjoy, understand and contribute to the conservation of wildlife and wild places | Slightly positive | The paths access a range of natural heritage. Interpretation is provided for WM26 by the RSPB and the Viking Heaths Project. |
| To protect water bodies and improve water quality | neutral | No water bodies are affected by the paths. |
| To conserve & enhance distinctive landscape character, scenic value and visual amenity of the area | neutral | No changes to the natural surfaces along the routes are proposed in the plan. No additional infrastructure is required that could affect the landscape value or have an adverse visual impact. Any on site interpretation will be sensitively sited. |
| To maintain and improve air quality | neutral | Promotion of walking and cycling may reduce dependency on cars for short journeys |
| To reduce greenhouse gas emissions | neutral | Promotion of walking and cycling may reduce dependency on cars for short journeys |
| To maintain and where possible improve soil quality and integrity | neutral | No new infrastructure or path improvements are required. No erosion issues are evident. |
| To conserve & where appropriate enhance or restore the historic environment | neutral | Wm26 provides access to the SAM on the Brough of Birsay but has no direct impact on the designated area. It also passes close to the SAM at Skara Brae, but again has no direct impact on the designated area. |
| Provide opportunities for people to enjoy and appreciate the historic environment | slightly positive | Wm26 provides access to the Brough of Birsay. Historic Scotland provide interpretation about the historic site. |
| To protect and enhance human health | slightly positive | Promoted paths will encourage walking/cycling in the local population. |
| To reduce waste and pollution | slightly positive | Information about reducing litter should be provided. Guidance for wild campers should also be developed. |
| To promote sustainable use of natural resources and material assets | neutral | No new infrastructure is required |
IMAGE: Page 42 shows the first part of the West Mainland North West assessment table, including Marwick Head, Stromness Coasts and Heaths SSSI, geology and natural heritage.
IMAGE: Page 43 shows the continuation of the West Mainland North West assessment table, including the historic environment, human health, waste and pollution, and sustainable resources.
West Mainland assessment – South West
| SEA Objectives | Likely significant impact | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| To conserve and enhance natural habitats and species and avoid adverse effects on Natura sites | neutral | Wm31 passes through a site of local nature conservation importance. No path improvements or new infrastructure are planned which could impact on the site. |
| To conserve and enhance the integrity of ecosystems | neutral | Core paths will not cause any fragmentation of habitats or inhibit movement of species. No new infrastructure or changes to natural path surfaces are planned. |
| To conserve geodiversity including geology, geomorphology and natural processes | neutral | No significant features affected by core paths. |
| Provide sustainable opportunities for people to enjoy, understand and contribute to the conservation of wildlife and wild places | Slightly positive | The paths access a range of natural heritage. |
| To protect water bodies and improve water quality | neutral | No water bodies are affected by the paths. |
| To conserve & enhance distinctive landscape character, scenic value and visual amenity of the area | neutral | No changes to the natural surfaces along the routes are proposed in the plan. No additional infrastructure is required that could affect the landscape value or have an adverse visual impact. Any on site interpretation will be sensitively sited. |
| To maintain and improve air quality | neutral | A range of access opportunities are available from the town of Stromness, reducing the need for cars for short journeys. |
| To reduce greenhouse gas emissions | neutral | A range of access opportunities are available from the town of Stromness, reducing the need for cars for short journeys. |
| To maintain and where possible improve soil quality and integrity | neutral | No new infrastructure or path improvements are required. No erosion issues are evident. |
| To conserve & where appropriate enhance or restore the historic environment | neutral | |
| Provide opportunities for people to enjoy and appreciate the historic environment | slightly positive | Wm30 and Wm33 provide access to wartime heritage and historical sites |
| To protect and enhance human health | slightly positive | Promoted paths will encourage walking/cycling in the local population. |
| To reduce waste and pollution | slightly positive | Information about reducing litter should be provided. Guidance for wild campers should also be developed. |
| To promote sustainable use of natural resources and material assets | neutral | No new infrastructure is required |
IMAGE: Page 44 shows the first part of the West Mainland South West assessment table.
IMAGE: Page 45 shows the continuation of the West Mainland South West assessment table, including the historic environment, human health, waste and pollution, and sustainable resources.