Using Spur Point for inert waste ‘would bury habitat’
EXTENDING Longue Hougue to dispose of inert waste is a temporary solution which may create permanent harm, said La Societe Guernesiaise’s Scientific Committee.
Specialist firm LUC are drafting a local planning brief on the extension into Spur Point and are consulting with islanders, local environmental groups, affected parishes, and relevant States committees.
‘We are ensuring that LUC are made aware of the shortfalls in the Royal Haskoning Environmental Impact Assessment, and the unique ecological and geological character of the site,’ said a committee spokesperson.
Eelgrass beds comprising 10% of the island’s total habitat could be lost, which is vital for carbon sequestration and as nursery for many fish species, as well as slow-growing maerl algae and 570 million year-old St Peter Port Gabbro rock.
Scaly crickets, a rare species of international importance, live across 2,000sq. m of Spur Point and could also be lost.
‘This inert waste would bury a large area of habitat, which would clearly have a detrimental impact on the wildlife in the area.’
Construction materials such as stone, rubble and earth are defined as inert.
‘To our knowledge, the inert waste is not tested before disposal.’
Criteria for site selection included two environmental considerations under the Island Development Plan: being within or adjacent to a Site of Special Significance, or an Area of Biological Importance.
‘We have several concerns with this limited assessment criteria.’
If the EIA included appropriate criteria, recognising the scaly cricket and eelgrass habitats, the committee believes using Longue Hougue South would be discounted on environmental grounds.
Before Spur Point was determined by the Development & Planning Authority to be the best solution, 50 potential alternatives were reportedly considered. Other sites were rejected for major environmental constraints, including European-protected maerl presence, such as Black Rock.
Criteria only applies to land above the mean high-water mark.
‘And so cannot be used to assess the importance of marine sites.’
International best practice guidance was removed before EIA, involving locally, nationally or internationally important species and habitats.
In 2016 the intertidal zone was recommended as a Site of Special Significance due to the ecological importance of the areas, but rejected by the DPA not for lack of ecological importance, but for restricting beach users.
‘This highlights the ecological importance of intertidal sites. Even based on these limited assessment criteria, LHS ranked ninth out of 20 sites. We believe it is unlikely that any other sites would suffer such significant ecological impacts as Spur Point.’
Mitigation measures may not remove or alleviate adverse effects on marine and terrestrial habitats and unique geology.
Translocating scaly crickets to Belle Greve will likely fail, which was not included in the EIA, according to world scaly crickets expert Professor Karim Vahed.
‘Unfortunately, this method has never been attempted and similar projects using lab reared specimens have failed.’
The Environmental Impact Assessment downgraded impacts on scaly crickets from major adverse to minor adverse.
‘Given current scientific advice, we do not believe this reclassification is justified. In addition, there is no guarantee that Belle Greve will be protected in the future.’
Even if translocation is successful the protection of scaly crickets is not guaranteed. Moving eelgrass is proposed to an unspecified location, which again downgraded the risks to minor adverse from major adverse effects.
‘Eelgrass translocation has been attempted many times and there is usually a 35% survival rate for the eelgrass plants.’
Invasion from Japanese wireweed and loss of habitat at the new site were not considered.
Given uncertanties, the committee disagrees with the EIA that there will be minor eelgrass loss, nor the minor adverse classification, supported by marine ecologist Dr Melanie Broadhurst-Allen.
Mitigation of St Peter Port Gabbro loss involves placing boulders onshore, where they can ‘quickly become overgrown with mosses and lichens, making observations of the structure and mineralogy challenging. More importantly, geologists would not be able to observe the outcrop in situ, vital for robust investigation of the geological history of the area.’
If approved, the proposed site has a predicted lifespan of 11 to 15 years before another solution is needed.
