7 ECOLOGY AND NATURE CONSERVATION 7.1 INTRODUCTION · 7 ECOLOGY AND NATURE CONSERVATION 7.1...
Transcript of 7 ECOLOGY AND NATURE CONSERVATION 7.1 INTRODUCTION · 7 ECOLOGY AND NATURE CONSERVATION 7.1...
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT KEADBY DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED
7-1
7 ECOLOGY AND NATURE CONSERVATION
7.1 INTRODUCTION
7.1.1 Terms of Reference for this Chapter
This chapter presents an assessment of the likely significant ecological and
nature conservation effects from construction, operation and decommissioning
of the Keadby II project (henceforth the ‘Proposed Development’). The
baseline nature conservation interests of the Proposed Development site are
described, potential effects identified, proposed mitigation measures listed and
an assessment of the significance of residual effects is made. Supporting
ecological information is contained in Annex E.
With regard to ecology, potential effects of the Proposed Development as
defined in Chapter 2, include:
secondary effects on statutory and non-statutory designated sites,
associated with emissions from combustion processes within the Proposed
Development;
effects on protected species that may occur in the area; and
effects on habitats in the Proposed Development site area such as:
amenity grassland, dense and scattered scrub and drainage ditches.
7.1.2 Basis of Assessment including Realistic Worst Case Scenario
The ecological and nature conservation assessment made in this report is
based on the following:
the project layout presented in Chapter 2 Project Description of this ES,
plus an additional 50 m buffer which are referred to collectively as the
‘Proposed Development site’ (see Figure 2.1);
the cooling water abstraction and discharge; and
the results of the modelling of emissions to air.
For the purposes of assessment, permanent loss of all habitats is assumed for
above ground operational components. For buried services (pipelines, cables
etc.) it is assumed habitats in these areas will be temporarily lost for a period
of one year, after which time they will be reinstated. In the case of
construction laydown areas, it is assumed that habitat within these areas will
be permanently lost as hardstanding areas will be retained after construction
is concluded.
7.1.3 Consultation
SSE is carrying out various formal and informal consultation activities as part
of the s36 variation application. The formal Scoping Opinion is set out in
Annex B. As part of the process, consultation responses relevant to ecology
and nature conservation were received from Natural England, North
Lincolnshire Council and Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust and are detailed in Table
7.1.
Table 7.1 Consultation Responses
Source Consultee Comment Response
Natural England Natural England received an EIA Scoping Report for the above proposal from DWD LLP on 18 March 2015.
2. Biodiversity and Geology
2.1 Ecological Aspects of an Environmental Statement
Natural England advises that the potential impact of the proposal upon features of nature conservation interest
and opportunities for habitat creation/enhancement should be included within this assessment in accordance with
appropriate guidance on such matters. Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) have been developed
by the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM) and are available on their
website.
EcIA is the process of identifying, quantifying and evaluating the potential impacts of defined actions on
ecosystems or their components. EcIA may be carried out as part of the EIA process or to support other forms of
environmental assessment or appraisal.
The National Planning Policy Framework sets out guidance in S.118 on how to take account of biodiversity
interests in planning decisions and the framework that local authorities should provide to assist developers.
2.2 Internationally and Nationally Designated Sites
The ES should thoroughly assess the potential for the proposal to affect designated sites. European sites (e.g.
designated Special Areas of Conservation and Special Protection Areas) fall within the scope of the Conservation
of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. In addition paragraph 118 of the National Planning Policy Framework
requires that potential Special Protection Areas, possible Special Areas of Conservation, listed or proposed
Ramsar sites, and any site identified as being necessary to compensate for adverse impacts on classified,
potential or possible SPAs, SACs and Ramsar sites be treated in the same way as classified sites.
Under Regulation 61 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, an appropriate assessment
needs to be undertaken in respect of any plan or project which is (a) likely to have a significant effect on a
European site (either alone or in combination with other plans or projects) and (b) not directly connected with or
necessary to the management of the site.
Should a Likely Significant Effect on a European/Internationally designated site be identified or be uncertain, the
competent authority (in this case the Local Planning Authority) may need to prepare an Appropriate Assessment,
in addition to consideration of impacts through the EIA process.
Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) and sites of European or international importance (Special Areas of
The Ecological Impact Assessment
was undertaken in accordance with
the CIEEM Guidelines for Ecological
Impact Assessment 2006 (see
Section 7.2.3).
Opportunities for onsite habitat
creation/enhancement will be
developed as part of the site
Landscape Masterplan, once the
final layout of the scheme is defined.
Effects on Internationally and
Nationally Designated have been
assessed in Section 7.4. and Annex
E4.
Source Consultee Comment Response
Conservation, Special Protection Areas and Ramsar sites)
In this case the proposal is not directly connected with, or necessary to, the management of a European site. In
our view it is likely that it will have a significant effect on internationally designated sites and therefore will require
assessment under the Habitats Regulations. We welcome the intention to undertake a Habitats Regulations
screening assessment as detailed in Section 5.10.6 of the EIA Scoping Report. We recommend that this should
form a separate section of the Environmental Statement entitled ‘Information for Habitats Regulations
Assessment’. We note from Section 5.3.4 of the report that effects on sensitive ecological receptors due to
nitrogen and acid deposition will be considered. This should include consideration of effects on sensitive habitats
which are interest features of the Humber Estuary and Thorne Moor SACs. We are pleased to note that the
impacts on the Humber Estuary SAC of any variation to the existing water offtake will also be considered.
2.3 Regionally and Locally Important Sites
The EIA will need to consider any impacts upon local wildlife and geological sites. Local Sites are identified by the
local wildlife trust, geoconservation group or a local forum established for the purposes of identifying and
selecting local sites. They are of county importance for wildlife or geodiversity. The Environmental Statement
should therefore include an assessment of the likely impacts on the wildlife and geodiversity interests of such
sites. The assessment should include proposals for mitigation of any impacts and if appropriate, compensation
measures. Contact the local wildlife trust, geoconservation group or local sites body in this area for further
information.
2.4 Protected Species - Species protected by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and by the
Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010
The ES should assess the impact of all phases of the proposal on protected species (including, for example,
great crested newts, reptiles, birds, water voles, badgers and bats). Natural England does not hold
comprehensive information regarding the locations of species protected by law, but advises on the procedures
and legislation relevant to such species. Records of protected species should be sought from appropriate local
biological record centres, nature conservation organisations, groups and individuals; and consideration should be
given to the wider context of the site for example in terms of habitat linkages and protected species populations in
the wider area, to assist in the impact assessment.
The conservation of species protected by law is explained in Part IV and Annex A of Government Circular
06/2005 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation: Statutory Obligations and their Impact within the Planning
System. The area likely to be affected by the proposal should be thoroughly surveyed by competent ecologists at
appropriate times of year for relevant species and the survey results, impact assessments and appropriate
accompanying mitigation strategies included as part of the ES.
We note from Section 5.10.5 that the scope of protected species surveys will be refined following the Extended
A separate Information to Inform
Habitats Regulations Assessment
(HRA) is provided (see Annex E4).
Regionally and locally important
sites have been considered within
the ES (see Section 7.4).
Breeding bird surveys were
commissioned (see Annex E2).
Subsequent to the Extended Phase
1 survey further surveys for badgers
have been ruled out due to no
evidence being recorded. Further
bat surveys have also been ruled out
as no suitable roost sites were
identified. Potential foraging habitat
has been identified. Great crested
newt (GCN) surveys are not required
as no ponds occur within the
Proposed Development site and no
records of GCN have been recorded
Source Consultee Comment Response
Phase 1 Habitat Survey. Surveys should always be carried out in optimal survey time periods and to current
guidance by suitably qualified and where necessary, licensed, consultants. Natural England has adopted standing
advice for protected species which includes links to guidance on survey and mitigation, and is available at the
following link:
https://www.gov.uk/protected-species-and-sites-how-to-review-planning-proposals#standing-advice-for-protected-
species
2.5 Habitats and Species of Principal Importance
The ES should thoroughly assess the impact of the proposals on habitats and/or species listed as ‘Habitats and
Species of Principal Importance’ within the England Biodiversity List, published under the requirements of S41 of
the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006. Section 40 of the NERC Act 2006 places a
general duty on all public authorities, including local planning authorities, to conserve and enhance biodiversity.
Further information on this duty is available in the Defra publication ‘Guidance for Local Authorities on
Implementing the Biodiversity Duty’.
Government Circular 06/2005 states that Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) species and habitats ‘are capable of
being a material consideration…in the making of planning decisions’. Natural England therefore advises that
survey, impact assessment and mitigation proposals for Habitats and Species of Principal Importance should be
included in the ES. Consideration should also be given to those species and habitats included in the relevant
Local BAP.
We welcome the intention to carry out an Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey on the site, in order to identify any
important habitats present, and further detailed ecological surveys undertaken as required. The Environmental
Statement should include details of:
Any historical data for the site affected by the proposal (e.g. from previous surveys);
Additional surveys carried out as part of this proposal;
The habitats and species present;
The status of these habitats and species (e.g. whether priority species or habitat);
The direct and indirect effects of the development upon those habitats and species;
Full details of any mitigation or compensation that might be required.
The development should seek if possible to avoid adverse impact on sensitive areas for wildlife within the site,
and if possible provide opportunities for overall wildlife gain.
The record centre for the relevant Local Authorities should be able to provide the relevant information on the
location and type of priority habitat for the area under consideration.
2.6 Contacts for Local Records
in the vicinity of the site (see Annex
E1).
Identification of S1 habitats and
Species of Principal Importance,
incorporated into the Phase 1 survey
and impact assessment (see Section
7.4.2).
Source Consultee Comment Response
Natural England does not hold local information on local sites, local landscape character and local or national
biodiversity priority habitats and species. We recommend that you seek further information from the appropriate
bodies (which may include the local records centre, the local wildlife trust, local geoconservation group or other
recording society and a local landscape characterisation document).
Local Record Centre (LRC) in North Lincolnshire please contact:
Lincolnshire Environmental Records Centre (LERC)
Banovallum House, Manor House Street
Horncastle, Lincolnshire LN9 5HF Tel: 01507 526667
Email [email protected]
Geological sites in North Lincolnshire please contact:
Lincolnshire RIGS Group
160, Eastgate
Louth, Lincolnshire LN11 9AB
7. Climate Change Adaptation
The England Biodiversity Strategy published by Defra establishes principles for the consideration of biodiversity
and the effects of climate change. The ES should reflect these principles and identify how the development’s
effects on the natural environment will be influenced by climate change, and how ecological networks will be
maintained. The NPPF requires that the planning system should contribute to the enhancement of the natural
environment ‘by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures’
(NPPF Para 109), which should be demonstrated through the ES.
8. Cumulative and in-combination effects
A full consideration of the implications of the whole scheme should be included in the ES. All supporting
infrastructure should be included within the assessment.
The ES should include an impact assessment to identify, describe and evaluate the effects that are likely to result
from the project in combination with other projects and activities that are being, have been or will be carried out.
The following types of projects should be included in such an assessment, (subject to available information):
a. existing completed projects;
b. approved but uncompleted projects;
c. ongoing activities;
d. plans or projects for which an application has been made and which are under consideration by the
consenting authorities; and
e. plans and projects which are reasonably foreseeable, i.e. projects for which an application has not yet
been submitted, but which are likely to progress before completion of the development and for which
sufficient information is available to assess the likelihood of cumulative and in-combination effects.
Local records search commissioned
and data used to inform ES (see
Annex E3).
Opportunities for incorporating
ecological networks into mitigation
and landscape plans will be
considered in detail in a Landscape
masterplan to be developed in
consultation with North Lincolnshire
Council and Lincolnshire Wildlife
Trust.
Noted and considered within the ES.
Source Consultee Comment Response
Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust (LWT) Figure 5.10 - Environmental Sensitivities Map Within 10km
There are a number of non-statutory designated sites of nature conservation importance within 10km of the
proposed site which should be included on this map. These sites are called Local Wildlife Sites (LWSs) or Sites of
Nature Conservation Importance (SNCIs) and information on these sites can be obtained from the Lincolnshire
Environmental Records Centre (LERC) at the Greater Lincolnshire Nature Partnership (GLNP)
(www.glnp.org.uk).
Section 5.10.2
This section states that there is only one non-statutory designated site (or SINC) within 2km of the project. There
are a number of non-statutory designated sites within 2km of the project site. Information on these sites should be
obtained from the LERC and potential effects on these sites as a result of the development should be assessed
within the Environmental Impact Assessment.
Section 5.10.5
The desk study should include a data search from the LERC for records of protected and priority species and
non-statutory designated sites.
Consideration should be given to the need to assess habitats against the LWS criteria for Lincolnshire. For
example, from the description of the site it sounds like there may be habitats present that could potentially meet
the Brownfield mosaic criterion. Sufficient information should therefore be recorded during ecological surveys on
site to enable assessment against LWS criteria. If habitats of LWS quality are found on site then efforts should be
made to avoid development within those areas. However, if avoidance would not be possible then appropriate
compensatory habitat should be proposed of at least double the area to be lost and of at least equal quality, to
ensure that there would be a net gain in biodiversity in line with Biodiversity 2020 and the National Planning
Policy Framework.
Thank you again for the opportunity to comment. Should you have any queries regarding the above comments
please do not hesitate to contact me.
Data obtained from the Greater
Lincolnshire Nature Partnership and
mapped accordingly (see Figure 7.1
and 7.2).
Data obtained from the Greater
Lincolnshire Nature Partnership and
mapped accordingly (see Figure 7.1
and 7.2).
.
Data obtained from the Greater
Lincolnshire Nature Partnership and
mapped accordingly (see Figure 7.1
and 7.2).
.
Checks for habitat qualifying under
Local Wildlife Site criteria were
undertaken with particular attention
paid to brownfield mosaic habitat
(see Annex E1, Section 3.2).
North Lincolnshire Council North Lincolnshire Council received the EIA Scoping Report for the above proposal from DWD LLP on the18th
March 2015.
North Lincolnshire Council support the approach proposed for EIA in relation to ecology and make the follow
comments to support the preparation of the EIA;
Source Consultee Comment Response
• Water vole and otter should be added to the list of protected species that may be affected.
• The data search should include a search for details of Local Sites, including the adjacent Stainforth and Keadby
Canal Corridor Local Wildlife Site LWS.
• The applicant should provide the information reasonably required for the Competent Authority to carry out a
Habitats Regulations Assessment.
• If permission is ultimately granted, there will be a need to secure biodiversity enhancements in accordance with
the National Planning Policy Framework.
We agree with the proposal to compare the likely effects of the new proposal with those of the consented
scheme.
• We agree with the proposal to set out an assessment of the environmental effects of the alternatives
considered.
• In terms of survey work, we agree that it would be appropriate to carry out extended phase 1 habitat survey with
target notes, followed by standard methods surveys for protected and priority species where potential is identified.
• Given that there may be works to the Stainforth and Keadby Canal, water vole and otter should be added to the
list of protected species that may be affected and for which survey work may be required.
• We agree that a desktop data search is also required. The main source of information is the Lincolnshire
Environmental Records Centre. The search should include a search for details of Local Sites, including the
adjacent Stainforth and Keadby Canal Corridor Local Wildlife Site LWS.
North Lincolnshire Council agrees that the applicant should provide the information reasonably required for the
Competent Authority to carry out a Habitats Regulations Assessment. This could include:
Details of any water borne pollution from cooling water discharges (both thermal and chemical pollution).
Details of likely aerial deposition to habitat features.
Details of Humber Estuary SAC, SPA and Ramsar features that could be affected.
Potential for the entrainment of lamprey species or impacts on their habitat.
Biodiversity Enhancement
The National Planning Policy Framework states that:
“The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by:
• protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, geological conservation interests and soils;
• recognising the wider benefits of ecosystem services;
• minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible, contributing to
the Government’s commitment to halt the overall decline in biodiversity, including by establishing coherent
ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures...”
Local records search and the
Extended Phase 1 and an otter and
water vole survey were undertaken
to identify sites, species and habitats
and inform any additional survey
work. A report to Inform Appropriate
assessment has been prepared (see
Annex E4).
Source Consultee Comment Response
and
“opportunities to incorporate biodiversity in and around developments should be encouraged;”
With this application, biodiversity enhancement could be secured by:
• Enhanced management of brownfield habitats on site.
• Use of native trees and shrubs of high biodiversity value in landscaping.
• Provision of features such as nestboxes or bat boxes for Daubenton’s bats in particular.
SoS Scoping Opinion The SoS recommends that surveys should be thorough, up to date and the scope agreed in consultation with the
relevant Statutory Nature Conservation Bodies (SNCBs) and Local Wildlife Trusts. Particular attention should be
paid to the need for European and nationally protected species surveys which on the basis of current knowledge
potentially include:
Great Crested Newt
Bats
Badger
Water Vole
Breeding and Wintering Birds
Lesser Silver Water Beetle
Consultation has been undertaken
with SNBCs and LWT.
Breeding bird, otter, water vole and
badger field sign surveys have been
undertaken in addition to a bat roost
suitability survey (see Annexes E1
and E2).
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT KEADBY DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED
7-9
7.1.4 Policy and Legislation
General Considerations
Relevant wildlife and countryside legislation has been referred to along with
planning policy guidance and the Local Biodiversity Action Plans (LBAP) to
inform this assessment. Legislation and guidance of relevance to the
ecological impact assessment for the Proposed Development is set out below.
Policy
Policy relevant to the Proposed Development is set out in Chapter 3 of this
ES. The table below identifies those policies that are relevant to ecology.
Topic Ecology and nature conservation
Overarching National
Policy Statement for
Energy(EN-1)
5.3 Biodiversity and geological conservation
National Policy Statement
for Fossil Fuel Electricity
Generating Infrastructure
(EN-2)
-
National Planning Policy
Framework (NPPF)
11 Conserving and enhancing the natural environment
Planning Practice
Guidance (PPG)
Natural environment
North Lincolnshire Local
Plan
Landscape and conservation policies
LC1, LC2, LC4, LC5, LC6
North Lincolnshire Core
Strategy
CS17 Biodiversity
North Lincolnshire Local Plan
The North Lincolnshire Local Development Framework sets out the strategic
policy framework for the North Lincolnshire region and is used to make
decisions on planning applications. The Core Strategy (1) (adopted 2011) is an
important element of the development framework and Chapter 11,
Environment and Resources, provides a detailed approach for managing the
environment in spatial terms.
North Lincolnshire Council’s Core Strategy (at policy CS17) states that the
Council will promote effective stewardship of North Lincolnshire’s wildlife
through seven identified actions, In respect to habitats and species, the
Lincolnshire Biodiversity Action Plan (LBAP) for Greater Lincolnshire was
published in 2011 by the Lincolnshire Biodiversity Partnership (LBP). The
Lincolnshire BAP seeks to meet the needs of UK BAP priority habitats found in
Lincolnshire, while addressing local needs. The Plan ensures biodiversity is
recognised as an essential element of life in the historic county of Lincolnshire
and relevant policies are aimed at safeguarding, managing, monitoring and
enhancing the biodiversity resources of the region.
(1) North Lincolnshire Council.2011. North Lincolnshire Local Development Framework Core Strategy Adopted - Chapter
11 Environment and Resources. Lincolnshire: North Lincolnshire Council
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT KEADBY DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED
7-10
European Legislation
EC Directive 2009/147/EC on the Conservation of Wild Birds (The ‘Birds
Directive’)
EC Council Directive 2009/147/EC on the Conservation of Wild Birds
(the ‘Birds Directive’) provides a framework for the conservation and
management of wild birds in Europe by introducing a general framework of
protection. The Directive additionally provides for the identification and
classification of Special Protection Areas (SPAs) for rare or vulnerable species
listed in Annex I of the Directive, and for regularly occurring migratory species.
EC Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of
Wild Fauna and Flora (The ‘Habitats Directive’)
In 1992 the then European Community adopted Council Directive 92/43/EEC
on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, known as
the ‘Habitats Directive’. The main aim of this Directive is to promote the
maintenance of biodiversity by requiring member states to introduce protection
for these habitats and species of European importance. Included within the
Directive is a requirement for the designation of Special Areas of Conservation
(SAC), both for habitats listed under Annex I and for species listed within
Annex II of the Directive. It also introduces a strict system of protection for
species listed on Annex IV of the Directive (referred to as European Protected
Species) irrespective of where they occur.
Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, as amended
(The ‘Habitats Regulations’)
In the UK, the ‘Habitats Directive’ was transposed into law by means of the
Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 (as amended). The
Regulations came into force on 30th October 1994, and have been amended
several times. Subsequently the Conservation of Habitats and Species
Regulations 2010 were made which consolidate all the various amendments
made to the 1994 Regulations in respect of England and Wales and is
commonly known as the ‘the Habitats Regulations’. The Regulations contain
five Parts and four Schedules, and provide for the designation and protection
of ‘European Sites’, the protection of ‘European Protected Species’, and the
adoption of planning and other controls for the protection of European Sites.
This legislation is the principal means by which the Birds Directive and
‘Habitats Directive’ are implemented in the UK.
National Legislation
Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, as amended (WCA)
The WCA is the major legal instrument for wildlife protection in the UK;
however the original act has been subject to significant modification by
subsequent legislation. The WCA is the means by which the Bern Convention
and the ‘Birds Directive’ are implemented in Great Britain.
The WCA protects the most important habitats as Sites of Special Scientific
Interest (SSSIs).
Wild animals listed in Schedule 5 of the Act are subject to specific protection
under Section 9, which make the following an offence:
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT KEADBY DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED
7-11
intentional killing, injuring and taking;
possession or control;
intentional or reckless damage to, destruction of, obstruction of access to
any structure or place used by a scheduled animal for shelter or protection;
intentional or reckless disturbance of an animal occupying such a structure
or place;
selling, offering for sale, possessing or transporting for the purposes of
sale; and
advertising for buying or selling.
The WCA prohibits the intentional killing, injuring or taking of any wild bird
(with certain exceptions) and the taking, damaging or destroying of a wild
bird’s nest or eggs. Special penalties are given for offences related to birds
listed on Schedule 1. It also provides a level of protection to plants listed in
Schedule 8 and makes it an offence to plant or otherwise cause to grow in the
wild any plant that is included in Schedule 9 of the Act.
Countryside and Rights of Way (CRoW) Act 2000 (as amended)
Part III of the CRoW Act deals specifically with wildlife protection and nature
conservation. The CRoW Act amends the WCA, by strengthening the
protection of designated SSSIs. In addition, it increases the legal protection of
threatened species, by also making it an offence to ‘recklessly’ destroy,
damage or obstruct access to a sheltering place used by an animal listed in
Schedule 5 of the Act or ‘recklessly’ disturb an animal occupying such a
structure or place.
Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006
The NERC Act created a new integrated agency, named ‘Natural England’,
through the merger of the Countryside Agency’s landscape, access and
recreation functions, English Nature and part of the Rural Development
Service (RDS) that dealt with nature conservation.
Section 40 provides that every public authority, in exercising its functions, shall
have regard, so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those
functions, to the purpose of conserving biodiversity. Conserving biodiversity
includes, in relation to a living organism or type of habitat, restoring or
enhancing a population or habitat. A public authority includes a Minister of the
Crown. It also requires the Secretary of State to publish a list of living
organisms and habitat types which in his or her opinion are of principal
importance for the purpose of conserving biodiversity. Before publishing that
list, the Secretary of State is obliged to consult Natural England.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT KEADBY DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED
7-12
Protection of Badgers Act 1992
The Protection of Badgers Act 1992 was specifically put in place to protect the
welfare of badgers (Meles meles) in the UK and protect them from
persecution. The Act makes it an offence to:
wilfully kill, take, possess or cruelly ill-treat a badger, or attempt to do so;
interfere with a sett by damaging or destroying it;
obstruct access to, or any entrance of, a badger sett; or
disturb a badger when it is occupying a sett.
Eels (England and Wales) Regulations 2009
The Eels (England and Wales) Regulations 2009 grants powers to the
Environment Agency to implement measures for the recovery of European eel
stocks and have implications for the operators of abstractions and discharges.
For the power plant operations, particularly involving the abstraction of
relatively large water volumes for cooling, a main implication is for intake
design to include measures that prevent the entrainment of eels.
Hedgerow Regulations 1997
The Hedgerow Regulations detail the following criteria for the protection of
‘important’ hedgerows in England and Wales. Important hedgerows are those
which:
have existed for 30 years or more; and/or
satisfy at least one of the criteria listed in Part II of Schedule 1.
The criteria included in Part II of Schedule 1 include hedgerows that possess
features of archaeological, conservation or landscape interest. In addition, the
regulations detail prohibited actions and exceptions for the removal and
replacement of hedgerows.
7.1.5 Supporting Information for this Chapter
Information on the results of baseline surveys and other studies is provided in
a series of Appendices as set out below.
Annex E1 Extended Phase 1Survey Report and Target Notes
Annex E2 Common Bird Census Survey Report
Annex E3 Greater Lincolnshire Nature Partnership Data Request Results
Annex E4 Information to Inform Habitat Regulations Assessment
7.2 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
7.2.1 Desk Study Methodology
Data were requested from the Greater Lincolnshire Nature Partnership
(GLNP) to obtain information on non-statutory sites, known habitats and
species of note, within 2 km of the Proposed Development and statutory sites
of nature conservation interest within 10 km.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT KEADBY DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED
7-13
The UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UK BAP), Lincolnshire Biodiversity Action
Plan (LBAP) and Keadby Wind Farm ES (1) were also consulted to identify
habitats and species of national and local importance.
7.2.2 Baseline Survey Methodologies
Introduction
A number of ecological surveys have been undertaken. These surveys have
broadly followed the standard survey guidance for habitats and species and
provide an important resource upon which to base the impact assessment.
The individual survey methodologies are outlined below.
Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey
An Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey was undertaken by two ERM
consultants between the 27th and 29th April 2015 (late April is considered the
start of the field season for vegetation survey in north England). An additional
area added to the development footprint was surveyed on 26th August. The
adopted methodology followed the Joint Nature Conservation Committee
(JNCC) Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey (2003) (2) as extended for use in
Environmental Assessment (3). This involved classifying habitats, determining
the dominant plant species and compiling a species list for each habitat type.
The locations of field evidence of protected fauna, notably bats, badgers,
water vole and otter or (potential) areas of protected fauna breeding and
foraging activity are marked on the habitat map that is included as Annex E1,
Figure 7.1 and the Target Notes provided in Annex E1.
The nomenclature of vascular plants occurring within the defined survey area
follows Stace (2010) (4).
Common Bird Census Survey
A terrestrial breeding bird survey was undertaken by Peak Ecology
consultants using a six visit Common Bird Census (CBC) methodology as
described in Bibby et al (2000); with surveys conducted in April, May, June
and July 2015. During each visit, British Trust for Ornithology (BTO) breeding
evidence codes were used to record the species present, age and sex (where
possible), as well as numbers and behaviour.
7.2.3 Impact Assessment Methodology and Criteria
Overview
The EIA considers the likely effects of construction, operational and
decommissioning activities on habitats and species of conservation interest.
The assessment has been informed by a combination of desk based
assessment and field based surveys and consultation, with further
(1) Renewable Energy Systems (RES)(2003) Keadby Wind Farm Environmental Impact Assessment. Hertfordshire: RES (2) Joint Nature Conservation Committee (2003) Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey - A Technique for Environmental
Audit, Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC), Peterborough. (3) Institute of Environmental Assessment (1995) Guidelines for Baseline Ecological Assessment, Spon, London.
(4) Stace, C. (2010) New Flora of the British Isles. 3rd edition. UK. Cambridge University Press.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT KEADBY DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED
7-14
consultation to be continued with relevant statutory and non-statutory
organisations as necessary.
The significance of effects is determined using standard impact assessment
methods and criteria, i.e. Institute of Ecology and Environmental
Management’s (IEEM, now the Chartered Institute of Ecology and
Environmental Management, CIEEM) Guidelines for Ecological Impact
Assessment (EcIA) (2006). The assessment takes into account the
magnitude of the impact and the nature conservation value of affected
receptors.
The residual effects are presented to make it clear to the decision maker and
stakeholders the likely significance of the effects that will result from the
Proposed Development on nature conservation interest with all mitigation
measures in places. Mitigation measures will be presented to avoid, minimise
or reduce adverse effects; suitable opportunities to enhance the nature
conservation interest of the site will also be developed.
The ecological impact assessment and associated Annex E is intended to
present sufficient information on the effects predicted on European designated
sites to enable the competent authority to undertake, if required, a
screening (1) or appropriate assessment (2) under the Habitat Regulations.
Specifically, information to inform a Habitats Regulations Assessment by the
competent authority is presented in Annex E4). Where, in Annex E4, the
conclusion is reached that the Proposed Development will not adversely affect
the integrity of a European site, the EIA reports that in EcIA terms, the residual
effect is Not Significant.
Prediction of Impacts
The impacts of the Proposed Development during construction, operation and
decommissioning were assessed in relation to the findings of the ecological
baseline surveys. In addition, possible impacts on designated sites in
proximity to the Proposed Development were considered.
Significance Evaluation Criteria
The potential for ecological and nature conservation effects has been
assessed in light of the habitats and the species that are likely to be affected
by the Proposed Development, taking into account the latest Guidelines for
Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom published by the
Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM,
2006) (3) .
(1) A determination as to whether the Proposed Development is likely to have a significant effect on a European site or
European offshore marine site (either alone or in combination with other plans or projects) (2) An appropriate assessment of the implications for a European site or European offshore marine site in view of the site’s
conservation objectives. (3) CIEEM (2006) Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom. IEEM, Winchester.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT KEADBY DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED
7-15
As part of the assessment the significance of potential ecological effects has
been evaluated taking into account the following factors:
the magnitude of both positive and negative effects, as determined by
intensity, frequency and by the extent of the effect in space and time;
the vulnerability of the habitat or species to the changes likely to arise from
the development;
the ability of the habitat, species or ecosystem to recover, considering both
fragility and resilience;
the viability of component ecological elements and the integrity of
ecosystem function, processes and favourable condition;
value within a defined geographic frame of reference (e.g. UK, national,
regional or district);
the biodiversity value of affected species, populations, communities,
habitats and ecosystems, considering aspects such as rarity, distinct sub-
populations of a species, habitat diversity and connectivity, species-rich
assemblages and species distribution and extent; and
designated site and protected species status including listing under section
41 of the NERC (2006) act, and as Priority Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP)
or Habitat Action Plan (HAP) status.
Effects are considered to be either significant or not significant in their residual
effect on each ecological receptor, after taking into account criteria including
the extent, magnitude and duration of the impact, zone of influence, mitigation
measures and the confidence in predictions associated with the assessment.
7.3 BASELINE CONDITIONS
7.3.1 Introduction
This section sets out what is currently known about the baseline ecology and
nature conservation interests of the Proposed Development site.
7.3.2 Ecological Context and Study Area
The study area has been defined with reference to CIEEM guidance (1). The
zone of influence for the Proposed Development has been initially defined as
10 km for Statutory Designated sites, 2 km for non-Statutory Designated sites,
and a general field survey of all habitats within the red line boundary plus a
buffer of up to 50 m, on the basis that there was no GCN habitat in the vicinity
of the Proposed Development. In addition, protected species recorded within
2 km of the Proposed Development have been considered.
(1) IEEM (2006) Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom. IEEM, Winchester.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT KEADBY DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED
7-16
7.3.3 Desk Study Results
Nature Conservation Designations
The Proposed Development is not located within any statutory or non-statutory
nature conservation designations. The closest designated sites are listed in
Table 7.2. The locations of statutory sites are shown in Figure 7.1 and non-
statutory sites in Figure 7.2.
Table 7.2 Ecological Designations
Ecological
Designation
Name and Proximity to
Proposed Development
Site
Ecological Qualifying Feature/s
Special Area of Conservation (SAC)
SAC Thorne Moor (6.7 km) Raised bog habitat
SAC Humber Estuary (i.e. that
part of the SAC directly
adjacent to the outflow
pipe)
Atlantic salt meadows, estuarine
habitats, sandbanks, coastal lagoons
and dunes.
Grey seal (Halichoerus grypus)
River lamprey (Lampetra fluviatilis)
Sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus)
Special Protection Area (SPA)
SPA Thorne and Hatfield Moor
(6.7 km)
European Nightjar
SPA Humber Estuary (i.e. that
part of the SPA at the
mouth of the Trent on the
edge of the 10 km zone of
influence)
Breeding, passage and wintering bird
populations
Ramsar site
Ramsar Humber Estuary (i.e. that
part of the Ramsar site
directly adjacent to the
outflow pipe)
Near natural estuary, supporting dune
systems, estuarine waters, intertidal mud
and sand flats, saltmarshes and saline
lagoons. The Humber estuary supports
a breeding colony of grey seals and an
assemblage of waterfowl of international
importance.
Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI)
SSSI Crowle Borrow Pits
(3.3 km)
Alder woodland with willow scrub habitat.
Supports nationally rare marsh fen.
SSSI Eastoft Meadow (4.2 km) Herb rich, meadow habitat.
SSSI Messingham Heath
(9.25 km)
Coversand heathland
SSSI Risby Warren (7.6 km) Heathland habitat supporting a mosaic of
plant communities of acid and
calcareous grassland, broadleaved scrub
and coniferous plantation.
SSSI Belshaw (7.7 km) Neutral grassland habitat which supports
the nationally rare Rhinanthus
angustifolius (greater yellow rattle).
SSSI Thorne, Crowle and Goole
Moors (6.7 km)
Lowland raised mire
SSSI Conesby (Yorkshire East)
Quarry (7 km)
Geological designation for exposure of
Frodingham Ironstone. Supports a rich
bivalve population.
SSSI Hatfield Chase Ditches
(3.6 km)
Former marsh and wetland habitat
including ditches which support a rich
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT KEADBY DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED
7-17
Ecological
Designation
Name and Proximity to
Proposed Development
Site
Ecological Qualifying Feature/s
assemblage of aquatic flora.
SSSI Humber Estuary (directly
adjacent to outflow pipe)
Estuary habitats including mudflats,
saltmarsh, sand dunes. The site supports
a grey seal colony, two lamprey species
and a number of nationally important
populations of breeding, wintering and
passage birds.
National Nature Reserve (NNR)
NNR Humberhead Peatlands
(6.8 km)
Extensive lowland mire habitat.
Local Nature Reserve (LNR)
LNR Atkinson’s Warren (3.9 km) Extensive area of rough grazed
grassland, birch and oak woodland and
Scot’s pine and sycamore plantation.
LNR Brumby Wood (4.3 km) Ancient semi natural woodland which
provides valuable habitat for birds,
mammals and invertebrates.
LNR Frodingham (4.9 km) Supports a declining wet wildflower
meadow and perimeter trees.
LNR Sawcliffe (6.8 km) Former ironstone mine which has been
planted with mixed broadleaved and
coniferous trees.
LNR Phoenix Parkway (4.2 km) Acid grassland and woodland habitat.
LNR Silica Lodge (5.6 km) Open grassland habitat with ponds and a
small area of woodland.
Local Wildlife Sites (LWS)
LWS Keadby Boundary Drain
(540 m)
Semi improved grassland habitat with a
drain feature, supporting aquatic
vegetation, including locally uncommon
Myriophyllum verticillatum (whorled water
milfoil).
LWS Keadby Warping Drain Reedbed, coarse grassland and scrub
habitat mosaic with a drain feature
supporting aquatic vegetation.
LWS Keadby Wet Grassland
(70m)
Grassland mosaic including; neutral
grassland, damp grassland, marsh, fen
and grazing marsh.
LWS Keadby Wetland (46 m) Scrub and grassland habitats.
LWS South Soak Drain, Keadby
(45 m)
Semi improved neutral grassland habitat
with a running water drain supporting
aquatic, emergent and marginal flora.
LWS Stainforth and Keadby
Canal Corridor (10 m)
Canal and drain features bordered by
coarse and neutral grassland, scrub and
reed bed habitats.
LWS Three Rivers (447 m) Dense and scattered scrub, semi
improved neutral grassland and running
water habitat mosaic.
Sites of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCIs)
SNCI Keadby Power Station
(43 m)
Scrub and grassland habitat
SNCI Three Rivers Marsh
(324 m)
Reed bed habitat
Crowle Borrow Pits
Eastoft Meadow
Messingham Heath
Risby Warren
BelshawHatfield Chase Ditches
Humberhead Peatlands
Atkinson's Warren
Brumby Wood
Frodingham
Phoenix Parkway
Silica Lodge
Thorne & Hatfield Moors
Thorne Moor
Thorne, Crowle and Goole Moors
Conesby (Yorkshire East) Quarry
Sawcliffe
The Humber Estuary SSSI, SAC and Ramsar
Humber EstuarySPA
10km Buffer of Site Boundary
DRAWN: GB
CHECKED: AW
APPROVED: KM
PROJECT: 0280278
Figure 7.1Statutory Designated Sites within 10 km
© OpenStreetMap (and) contributors, CC-BY-SA; Reproduced with the permission of the British Geological Survey ©NERC. All rights reserved, Natural England, English Heritage, National Grid, RSPB
SCALE: As scale bar
Path: P:\Projects\0280278_KeadbyGIS_GB_KM\MAPS\EIA\07_Ecology\0280278_DesingatedSites_A02.mxd
PROJ
ECTIO
N: Br
itish N
ation
al Gr
id
VERSION: A05
SIZE: A3
DATE: 26/02/2015
Site Location10km Buffer of Site Boundary
Statutory Sites within 10km of the SiteRamsarSpecial Area of ConservationSite of Special Scientific InterestNational Nature ReserveLocal Nature Reserve
! ! !
! ! ! Special Protection Area0 1 2 3 4
Kilometres ±
Keadby Boundary Drain
Keadby Warping Drain
Keadby Wet Grassland
Keadby Wetland
South Soak Drain, KeadbyStainforth and Keadby Canal Corridor
Three Rivers
Keadby Power Station
Three Rivers Marsh
2km Buffer of Site Boundary
DRAWN: GB
CHECKED: PW
APPROVED: KM
PROJECT: 0280278
Figure 7.2Non - Statutory Designated Sites within 2 km
© OpenStreetMap (and) contributors, CC-BY-SA; Reproduced with the permission of the British Geological Survey ©NERC. All rights reserved, Natural England, English Heritage, National Grid, RSPB
SCALE: As scale bar
Path: P:\Projects\0280278_KeadbyGIS_GB_KM\MAPS\EIA\07_Ecology\0280278_NONStatutorySites_A01.mxd
PROJ
ECTIO
N: B
ritish
Nati
onal
Grid
VERSION: A05
SIZE: A3
DATE: 26/02/2015
2km Buffer of Site BoundarySite Boundary
Statutory Sites within 2km of Site BoundarySite of Nature Conservation InterestLocal Wildlife Site
0 200 400 600 800Meters ±
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT KEADBY DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED
7-20
Protected Species
The results of the data requests submitted to GLNP are provided in full in
Appendix E3 and have been used to inform the sections below.
Species of note that are known to occur, or having potential to occur within
2 km of the Proposed Development are listed in Table 7.3. Consultation with
Natural England, North Lincolnshire Council and Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust
confirmed that the need or otherwise for surveys for protected and priority
species, notably otter and water vole should be determined, following the
Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey.
Table 7.3 Priority and Protected Species Records
Species and Conservation Status GLNP Records
European Protected Species:
Bats
All bat species are protected in Europe under
Annex IIa and IVa of the EC Habitats
Directive (92/43/EC), as applied in the UK
under the 2010 Conservation of Habitats and
Species Regulations (the Habitats
Regulations) Schedule 2
12 records of Chiroptera species have been
recorded between 1988 and 2012.
Seven records of common pipistrelle
(Pipistrellus pipistrellus) between 2002 and
2012.
One soprano pipistrelle (Pipistrellus
pygmaeus) recorded in 2003.
Two records of unidentified Pipistelle sp.
between 2003 and 2010.
Otter (Lutra lutra)
Protected under Schedule 2 of the Habitats
Regulations 2010.
No historic records of otter within 2 km of the
Proposed Development.
Great Crested Newt (Triturus cristatus)
Protected under Schedule 2 of the Habitats
Regulations (2010
Listed under Section 41 and 42 of the NERC
Act 2006 (1).
One historic record of great crested newt in
1977.
Other Protected Species:
Reptiles
All reptiles in the UK are protected under
Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside
Act 1981 (as amended)
One historic record of common lizard
(Zootoca vivipara) in 1977.
Amphibians, including common frog
(Rana temporaria), common toad (Bufo
bufo) and smooth newt (Lissotriton
vulgaris)
Protected under Wildlife & Countryside Act
1981, Countryside and Rights of Way Act
2000, NERC Act 2006, Conservation of
Habitats and Species Regulations 2010.
11 records of common frog between 1977
and 2010.
Nine records of common toad between 1977
and 2003.
One record of smooth newt in 1977.
Water vole
Protection through inclusion on Schedule 5 of
the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as
51 records of water vole have been recorded
between 1977 and 2013.
(1) Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (2006).
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT KEADBY DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED
7-21
Species and Conservation Status GLNP Records
amended) in respect of
Section 9 (4) only
Badger (Meles meles)
Protected under the Protection of Badgers
Act 1992
20 records of badger have been recorded
between 2006 and 2013.
Breeding Birds including
barn owl (Tyto alba), Cetti’s warbler (Cettia
cetti), marsh harrier (Circus aeruginosus),
Montagu’s harrier (Circus pygargus),
osprey (Pandion haliaetus), hobby (Falco
subbuteo) and peregrine (Falco
peregrinus)
All breeding birds are protected under the
under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981
Barn owl, Cetti’s warbler, marsh harrier,
Montagu’s harrier, osprey, hobby and
peregrine are listed on Schedule 1 of the
Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981 and are
subject to additional protection particularly in
relation to protection from disturbance whilst
nesting.
Seven historic records of barn owl have been
recorded between 2001 and 2003.
One historic record of Cetti’s warbler in 2009.
Two records of hen harrier between 2003 and
2005.
Two records of Montagu’s harrier were
recorded in 2012.
One record of osprey in 2012.
Two records of hobby between 2003 and
2011.
Two records of peregrine have been recorded
between 2003 and 2011.
Data request results from the GLNP show that there have been few recent
records for amphibians and reptiles and no records for otter and great crested
newts. Locations for sightings of water vole were not provided however
survey results within the Keadby Wind Farm ES show a water vole sighting
recorded south of the power station, at the Three Rivers.
European Eel
The European eel, Anguilla anguilla, is widely distributed throughout European
estuarine and inland waters. Estimates at the glass eel stage, however,
indicate that recruitment across Europe has fallen to below five per cent of
historic levels. Since 2000, The International Council for the Exploration of the
Seas (ICES) has advised that the stock is outside safe biological limits and
that current fisheries are not sustainable. This includes European eel
populations throughout the UK, and they are considered a priority species
under the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP). Protection of European eels is
offered by the Council Regulation (EC) 1100/2007 which sets a target for the
recovery of European eel stocks and requires EU member states to develop
management plans to improve eel stocks.
Likely causes for the current decline in the eel population include:
barriers to migration and habitat loss;
overfishing;
pollution;
infestation by the nematode parasite Anguillicola crassus; and
climate conditions affecting ocean currents and temperatures.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT KEADBY DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED
7-22
The Eel Management Plan for the Humber River Basin District (RBD) provides
information on the status of eels and provides detailed data for several
catchments. Fishery surveys undertaken as part of the Management Plan in
rivers, streams and drains close to the Humber (within the study area)
between 2001 and 2009 found eels in 58% of the surveys. The presence of
eels at survey sites is shown in Figure 7.3 (where there are at least two
surveys over the period).
Figure 7.3 Presence of Eels at Survey Sites 2001-2009
Source: Environment Agency 2011a. The Humber Environment in Focus 2011.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/297466/gene061
1btzc-e-e.pdf
Within the Humber RBD (which incorporates the River Trent and Stainforth
and Keadby Canal) work to implement the Eel Regulation 2009 is underway,
including removal of barriers to upstream and downstream migration.
Sea and River Lamprey
Lampreys are among the most primitive of all living vertebrate animals. They
have a distinct mouth with no lower jaw; instead the mouth is surrounded by a
round sucker like disc within which adults have strong, rasping teeth. Three
species of lamprey inhabit British waters; sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus),
river lamprey (Lampetra fluviatilis) and brook lamprey (Lampetra planeri). All
three are listed under the Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna
and flora Directive (92/43/EEC) and are indicator species under the fish
biological element of the Water Framework Directive. Special Areas of
Conservation (SAC) require the assessment of consents which may present a
risk to lamprey populations and actions to protect them.
Sea lampreys are the largest and rarest of the three lamprey species recorded
within the UK. Sea lampreys are found in shallow coastal and deep offshore
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT KEADBY DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED
7-23
waters over much of the North Atlantic and migrate into fresh water to spawn.
Sea lamprey spawn on clean gravel. These spawning sites are in the main
river tributaries of the Ouse such as the Swale, Ure, Nidd and Wharfe. The
larvae (ammocetes) hatch out of the eggs and burrow in silt beds before they
metamorphose and migrate downstream into the Humber Estuary and to the
sea.
River lampreys migrate from the sea to spawn in many UK rivers. As with sea
lamprey, they need clean gravel for spawning and marginal silt for their larvae
to burrow into. The larvae spend several years in silt beds before
metamorphosing and migrating downstream into estuaries to feed. After one
to two years they stop feeding and migrate upstream to spawn in freshwater.
The river lamprey is found only in western Europe, where it has a wide
distribution from southern Norway to the western Mediterranean. The UK
populations are considered important for the conservation of the species at an
EU level.
River lampreys use the Humber as a migratory passage to and from their
spawning and nursery grounds in the River Derwent and the River Ouse.
Evidence indicates those lampreys are present in the River Humber
throughout the year (Humber Nature Partnership).
7.3.4 Field Survey Results
Introduction
For ease of reference, key information from the individual field survey reports
is summarised below and in the appendices to this document (Annexes E1
and E2).
Phase 1 Habitat Survey
Most of the brownfield area of the Proposed Development site supports dense
and scattered scrub, dominated by Crataegus monogyna (common hawthorn)
and Rubus fruticosus (bramble), with waste and spoil deposits (see Figure
7.4). The brownfield site within the western part of the Proposed Development
site was assessed according to GLNP guidelines for brownfield mosaic
habitats. The brownfield site was considered to not meet the guideline criteria
for brownfield mosaic (1) habitats, as it did not support the required number of
two early successional communities, having only sparse, short sward
grassland. Additionally, the site did not support the required minimum of four
brownfield features, having only the following: variation in topography and
substrate; unmanaged dead plant matter; and rabbit grazing and human
activities to maintain bare substrate.
(1) Greater Lincolnshire Nature Partnership (GLNP) (2013) Local Wildlife Site Guidelines for Greater Lincolnshire. 3rd
Edition
!P!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P !P!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
12
3
45
67
8
9
1011
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2122
23 2425
26
27
2828
29
30
31
DRAWN: GB
CHECKED: KM
APPROVED: KM
PROJECT: 0265294
Figure 7.4Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey Map
SOURCE: Reproduced from Ordnance Survey digital map data. © Crown copyright, All rights reserved. 2016 License number 0100031673.
SCALE: As scale bar
Path: P:\Projects\0280278_KeadbyGIS_GB_KM\MAPS\EIA\07_Ecology\0280278_Phase1 _A03.mxd
PROJ
ECTIO
N: Br
itish N
ation
al Gr
id
VERSION: A05
SIZE: A3
DATE: 03/02/2015
Site BoundarySite Survey AreaExisiting Cooling Pipe
!P Target Note
D A2.2 - Scrub - scatteredD D DA2.2 - Scrub - scattered! !! A3.3 - Mixed parkland/scattered trees| | | | | | | J2.4 - Fence
J2.6 - Dry ditchA1.1.1 - Broadleaved woodland - semi-naturalA1.1.2 - Broadleaved woodland - plantationA2.1 - Scrub - dense/continuous
D D D
D D D A2.2 - Scrub - scattered
! ! !
! ! !! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !A3.3 - Mixed parkland/scattered treesB2.1 - Neutral grassland - unimproved
IS IS ISB2.2 - Neutral grassland - semi-improved
I II I B4 - Improved grassland
SI SISI SI B6 - Poor semi-improved grassland
F2.2 - Marginal and inundation - inundation vegetationG1 - Standing waterG2 - Running water
S S SS S SI2.2 - Spoil
A A AA A AJ1.1 - Cultivated/disturbed land - arable
A A AA A AJ1.2 - Cultivated/disturbed land - amenity grassland
D
D DD DD D J1.3 - Cultivated/disturbed land - ephemeral/short
perennial
J3.6 - Buildings
!
!
!
! !
! !
! !
! !
J4 - Bare groundJ5 - Other habitat
0 50 100 150 200Metres ±
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT KEADBY DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED
7-25
In the eastern part of the Proposed Development site (within the perimeter
fence and surrounding the cooling towers), amenity grassland is the dominant
habitat with four isolated semi mature Sorbus sp. trees and an isolated Malus
sp. and areas of bare and disturbed ground.
At the southern boundary of the survey area, two running water bodies were
recorded: North Soak Drain and the Stainforth and Keadby Canal. Both water
bodies are characterised by deep water and are approximately 4 m and 15 m
in width, respectively. Both water bodies appear to be intensively managed
through frequent dredging and clearing, with little aquatic vegetation visible
from the banking.
To the south of the Proposed Development site, adjacent to the North Soak
Drain and Stainforth and Keadby canal is an area of semi natural broadleaved
woodland and includes native Crataegus monogyna and Salix caprea.
European Protected Species
The dense and scattered scrub brownfield habitats may provide potential
breeding and foraging habitat for birds and foraging habitat for bats. No
suitable roost features for bats were identified within the brownfield area
during the survey.
The Sorbus sp trees within the perimeter fence in the eastern part of the
Proposed Development site were assessed as having low potential to support
roosting bats, as they are semi mature with no visible cracks, crevices or hole
features.
The Malus sp. tree located in the amenity grassland, next to the storage tanks
was assessed as having moderate potential to support roosting bats as there
were several visible hole and crevice features.
The woodland to the south of the Proposed Development site may provide
potential breeding and foraging habitat for birds and foraging habitat for bats.
Trees within this woodland area are considered semi mature and not suitable
for roosting bats due to having no visible crevice, hole or crack features.
Within the perimeter fence, there are a number of portable cabin buildings
which have been assessed as being of low potential to support roosting bats
due to having no access points, roof void or loose roof or wall features.
Nationally Protected Species
No signs of badger activity were recorded during the survey but the species is
known to be widespread and common in North Lincolnshire. The broadleaved
semi natural Salix caprea woodland to the south of the power station, adjacent
to the canal is considered to provide suitable breeding habitat for badger,
however, no evidence of badger was recorded.
No signs of badgers were recorded within the brownfield area and the nature
of the gravelly substrate and concrete, tarmac and rubble waste and spoil
deposits within the brownfield site is considered unsuitable for badgers to
construct setts.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT KEADBY DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED
7-26
A survey of the Stainforth and Keadby Canal, South Soak Drain, North Soak
Drain, Keadby Warping Drain, Keadby Pumping Drain and ditches within the
development footprint were surveyed for characteristic field signs of otter
(Lutra lutra) and water vole (Arvicola amphibius) on the 26th August 2015.
No signs of otter were recorded during the survey and limited bankside trees,
logs or caves suitable for holts were noted. During the survey, two local
fishermen provided anecdotal evidence stating that they had never seen otter
at the Stainforth and Keadby Canal. The Keadby Wind Farm ES (1)
considered that otter may move through water courses surrounding the
Keadby power station on an irregular basis.
No water voles were seen during the survey however possible signs and
suitable habitat were recorded in several of the drains. The South Soak Drain,
North Soak Drain and Keadby Pumping Drain were found to have slow flowing
water, easily penetrable earth banks and riparian vegetation on the banks and
in the water. There was also limited over- shading vegetation. However,
suitability was limited as the drains appear to be intensively managed and
banking had been recently mown (Annex E1, Target Note 27 and 29).
Stainforth and Keadby Canal was not found suitable for water vole as the
canal was lined with sheet metal and in-water vegetation has been recently
dredged and deposited on the banking (Annex E1, Target Note 28).
Other Species
During the survey, six roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) were seen moving from
the dense scrub in the northern extent of the survey area; into spring sown
arable crops north of the survey area (Annex E1, Target note 10). Signs of
roe deer browsing were also observed throughout the brownfield section of the
survey area, with bark stripped from semi mature Salix sp. (Annex E1, Target
Note 8) and numerous racks (2) identified.
Fox scats were observed throughout the dense and scattered scrub habitat
within the brownfield extent of the survey area (Annex E1, Target Note 17).
Common Bird Census Survey
Breeding bird surveys within the survey boundary commenced in early April
and concluded in July. Survey findings suggest that the dense and scattered
scrub habitat within the brownfield site supports probable breeding willow
warbler (Phylloscopus trochilus) and whitethroat (Sylvia communis) which are
Amber listed Birds of Conservation Concern (BoCC) (3) , chiffchaff
(Phylloscopus collybita), lesser whitethroat (Sylvia curruca), yellowhammer
(Emberiza citrinella) and linnet (Carduelis cannabina), the latter two species
being Red listed BoCC. A large carrion crow (Corvus corone) population has
(1) Renewable Energy Systems (RES)(2003) Keadby Wind Farm Environmental Impact Assessment. Hertfordshire: RES (2) Track which deer regularly use. (3) Red listed – a species of high conservation concern; Amber listed – a species of medium conservation concern.
Conservation status is taken from Eaton MA, Brown AF, Noble DG, Musgrove AJ, Hearn R, Aebischer NJ, Gibbons DW,
Evans A and Gregory RD (2009) Birds of Conservation Concern 3: the population status of birds in the United Kingdom,
Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. British Birds 102, pp296-341.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT KEADBY DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED
7-27
also been recorded using the electricity towers and gantries within the power
station.
Survey Limitations
The Extended Phase 1 Habitat map produced is thought to be a reasonable
representation of the survey area. The survey was undertaken early in the
vegetation season and the timing was suitable for early flowering species.
However, given differing phenology of plants not all species would have been
flowering at the time of survey and so some may not have been identified.
The limitation of not identifying all flora species will not undermine the value of
the impact assessment.
Due to the depth of water within the surveyed drains and health and safety
protocol, surveyors did not enter the water in order to look for water vole field
signs along the banking. Signs of water vole were relatively difficult to detect
due to the steep nature of the banking and heavy rainfall during the night
before the survey. Surveyors were also unable to gain access to drains
bordering arable fields to the north east of the power station, following the
discharge pipeline route due to access arrangements with landowners. A
precautionary approach has therefore been adopted for the impact
assessment, whereby where potential signs were identified water vole are
considered to be present.
7.3.5 Other Surveys
European Eel
An entrainment survey undertaken by APEM in 2010 (1) recorded all life stages
of eel as entrained at the Keadby 1 cooling water intake site, located
approximately 10 miles upstream of the confluence with the Humber Estuary.
The 2010 APEM study noted that the eel/silver eel life-stage was the most
abundant during the entrainment study. However, it was also noted that due
to the small size of the glass eel and elver life-stages, they may pass through
the screen mesh and be lost to the entrainment sample. If eels, including
glass eels and elvers, are deemed to be at risk of entrainment there is a
requirement under the Eels Regulations to screen intakes.
The Environment Agency undertake multi-species electric fishing surveys
throughout the Humber RBD, recording eels in all major rivers of the RBD,
particularly in the lower reaches (2). There is a lack of eel count information
from the River Trent, however a declared commercial catch of 300 kg of
yellow eel and 140 kg of silver eel was taken from the lower reaches of the
River Trent in 2005 (from a total commercial catch of 8,260 kg yellow eel and
4,278 kg silver eels in the Humber RBD) (DEFRA 2010). APEM recorded a
small number of glass eel and elver entrained at the intake of Keadby during
the 2011 survey, but as eels at this stage in their life-cycle are small enough to
pass through the screen, the actual numbers being entrained may have been
higher.
(1) O’Keefe, N., Clough, S. and Cesar, C. 2011. Keadby Power Station fish entrainment study. APEM Scientific Report
410735. (2) DEFRA (2010) Eel Management Plans for the United Kingdom: Humber River Basin District.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT KEADBY DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED
7-28
Lamprey
An indication of the potential for lamprey entrainment is given by the results of
an entrainment survey conducted by the former National Rivers Authority
(NRA) at Yorkshire Water’s Moor Monkton pumping station on the River
Ouse (1). Over a 15 month period between January 1990 and May 1991, over
16,000 lampreys were impinged. Most were recently metamorphosed down-
migrating river lampreys, along with some brook lamprey, averaging about 100
mm in length. The entrainment rate was very sensitive to the proportion of
river flow abstracted. This risk has now largely been eliminated through new
fine-screening measures (2).
Notwithstanding the above it is worth noting that lamprey were not among the
22 species of fish recorded in the entrainment study conducted at the Keadby
I cooling water intake in 2012 (3).
7.4 ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS
7.4.1 Potential Impacts
Potential impacts that may arise from construction include:
permanent loss of grassland, scattered trees and potential breeding bird
and reptile habitat due to land take to the west of the existing Keadby I
power station, in order to accommodate laydown areas, site
accommodation and car parking required for the construction of the steam
and gas turbine halls;
disturbance to, or displacement/exclusion of, a species from foraging
habitat due to construction and operational activities, including but not
limited to diesel generators, dump trucks, vibratory rollers and hydraulic
piling rig;
disturbance or damage to adjacent habitats and species caused by piling
of foundations, movement of vehicles and personnel, artificial lighting,
dust, spillage of fuels and chemicals, emissions and noise; and
disturbance to, or displacement/ exclusion of, a species from breeding and
foraging habitat due to the construction of a water and gas pipeline
network within existing pipeline corridors.
Potential impacts that may arise from operational activities include:
impacts on sensitive habitats and/ or species associated with air emissions
from the gas turbine and waste heat recovery boiler, including; daily and
annual ambient concentrations of NOx on the Humber Estuary SAC and
the effect of nutrient nitrogen deposition on local wildlife sites and the
(1) Frear, P.A. and Axford, S.N. 1991. Impingement and mortality of fish associated with the R. Ouse abstraction scheme.
National River Authority, Yorkshire Region, Fisheries Science Report No. 62/91. (2) Environment Agency (Turnpenny, A.W.H and O’Keeffe, N.) 2005. Screening for Intake and Outfalls: a best practice
guide. Science Report SC030231. (3) APEM (2012) Keadby Power Station Eel Entrainment Study Final data Report. APEM report 411859
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT KEADBY DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED
7-29
Humber Estuary SAC (as detailed in Chapter 2 Project Description and
Chapter 9 Air Quality);
effects on protected species associated with water abstraction from the
Stainforth and Keadby Canal and discharge to the River Trent as required
for the water cooling system; and
effects on the Humber Estuary SAC from cooling water discharge.
In the event that Keadby I was to permanently cease operating it is possible
that the Proposed Development will make use of the existing Keadby I cooling
water infrastructure in terms of the intake and outfall on the banks of the River
Trent and intervening pipework. Under this scenario the impacts described
herein would not occur in regard to the water abstracted from the Stainforth
and Keadby Canal for use in the hybrid cooling towers and its discharge into
the River Trent. Use of the Keadby I cooling system for the Proposed
Development would essentially result in the same effects as are currently
occurring for Keadby I.
Impacts on sensitive habitats and/ or species and designated sites associated
with decommissioning activities are predicted to be similar to those of
construction. However, at present it is not possible to confirm what
decommissioning measures will be undertaken. The Proposed Development
is expected to operate for 25 years, it is assumed that over the next 25 years,
technology and best practise techniques for decommissioning and demolition
will have advanced and therefore potential negative effects will be minimised.
The purpose of the following sections is to identify likely significant effects and
mitigation. This includes effects linked to other EIA subjects, for instance the
potential for air pollution to affect habitats and species.
7.4.2 Assessment of Effects during Construction
Designated Sites
There are no statutory or non-statutory designated ecological sites located
within the Proposed Development site.
However, the proposed new water discharge pipeline (Chapter 2 Project
Description), crosses the Keadby Warping Drain Local Wildlife Site (LWS)
(see Figure 7.2) and discharges at a sluice north of Keadby adjacent to the
River Trent, part of the Humber Estuary SAC. A further eight non-statutory
designated sites occur within 2 km of the Proposed Development, with the
Keadby Power Station Site of Nature Conservation Interest (SNCI) and South
Soak Drain and Stainforth and Keadby Canal Corridor Local Wildlife Sites
(LWS) located immediately adjacent to the Proposed Development.
The location and method of installing the pipeline is still to be finalised,
however the optimal solution will be to ‘thread’ a new pipeline within the
existing pipeline leading from Keadby I. If threading is possible, trenching will
not be required. If ‘threading’ is not possible the pipeline will be installed in a
new trench located within the existing wayleave. Assuming a worst case
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT KEADBY DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED
7-30
scenario, for the purpose of the assessment, the open cut trenching of a new
trench within the wayleave has been assessed.
The main impacts arising from the open cut trenching will be removal of
habitat associated with the excavation of a trench and work area (for the
purpose of this assessment consider to be 10 m wide) in which the pipeline
will be laid plus storage of material on the substrate adjacent.
The Keadby Warping Drain has been designated an LWS as it meets criteria
for wetland and freshwater habitats and supports the scarce Myriophyllum
verticillatum (whorled water milfoil). Trenching will result in the temporary loss
of 150 m² of habitat (assuming a trenching work area of 10 m width and the
width of the LWS being 15 m) which accounts for 0.4 % of the LWS. The
eastern extent of the LWS where the pipeline will be installed is characterised
by shallow water and has several species of note including; Mentha aquatica
(water mint), Scrophularia auriculata (water figwort) and Rorippa palustris
(marsh yellow cress). The scarce Myriophyllum verticillatum is located in the
western extent of the LWS and will not be affected by the installation of the
pipeline. It is assumed that any vegetation removed by the installation of the
pipeline will re-establish within one year.
The impact on the Keadby Warping Drain LWS will be of relatively short
duration, occur in an isolated area and will have a temporary and reversible
effect; therefore effects are predicted to be not significant.
Trenching will not affect the habitat within the Humber Estuary SAC. The
discharge will be designed to meet industry standards and is not predicted to
affect the receiving habitats or species present and are predicted to be not
significant.
Direct disturbance of birds within the Humber Estuary Ramsar Site could
potentially occur from construction activity associated with the cooling water
discharge pipe to the outfall to the River Trent, within the boundary of the
Ramsar Site. However the area of available foraging habitat for Ramsar Site
(or SPA) qualifying interest feature birds in the vicinity of the outfall is limited
by the relatively low tidal range at this point in the Humber Estuary Ramsar
Site, particularly in comparison to the large expanses of highly productive
sediments in the lower estuary. In addition, construction activity associated
with the pipe to the outfall is predicted to last for a relatively short timescale,
likely to be restricted to a matter of weeks. As a result of the short duration of
the activity, and the likely low use of the area affected by qualifying interest
feature bird species, the effects on the Humber Estuary SPA or Ramsar Site
are considered to be not significant. Given the distance of the Proposed
Development site from the boundary of the Humber Estuary Ramsar Site
(approximately 600 m) and the existing development in the area, no
disturbance effects from construction activity on the main site on qualifying
bird species of the Humber Estuary or Ramsar site are predicted.
The impact of traffic during construction is considered not significant (see
Chapter 10 Air Quality), therefore no air quality impacts on designated sites
during construction are predicted.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT KEADBY DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED
7-31
No impacts on other statutory and non-statutory designated sites are
predicted. Further detail on the assessment of effects on statutory European
designated sites is presented in Annex E4 Information to Inform Habitats
Regulations Assessment.
Habitats
No habitats of national or international importance were identified during field
surveys.
Habitats likely to be affected by the Proposed Development include; amenity
grassland, dense continuous and scattered scrub, improved neutral grassland
and young broadleaved woodland.
As set out in Chapter 2 (Project Description), the configuration of the turbines
has not been finalised and two options are under consideration: single-shaft
and multi-shaft (see Figure 2.3, Chapter 2). For the purpose of this
assessment, assuming a worst case scenario, the multi-shaft option is
assessed in that it has a larger footprint than the single-shaft layout.
The Proposed Development multi-shaft configuration will result in the
permanent loss of an area of 2.53 ha amenity grassland in an area referred to
as the main power island area in the east of the Proposed Development site.
Also, within the main power island area, four Sorbus sp. trees which have
been planted as part of previous amenity planting will also be removed in
order to construct buildings associated with the turbine configuration. The
understorey of the Sorbus sp. trees is characterised by amenity grassland with
multiple rabbit burrows located at the foot of the trees. No nests were
identified within the trees during the Extended Phase 1 habitat survey and the
trees were considered of low suitability for roosting bats. Considering the
limited conservation value of the amenity grassland habitat and limited
conservation value of the Sorbus sp. the loss of habitat within the main power
island area is considered not significant.
In the western part of the site, scattered and continuous scrub, ephemeral/
short perennial and unimproved neutral grasslands habitats will be
permanently lost to accommodate 12 hybrid cooling towers, a construction
laydown area and an area reserved for carbon capture readiness.
The configuration of the cooling towers has not been finalised but for the
purpose of this assessment a configuration of setting the cooling towers in a
single line has been assessed. Additionally, the land requirement for carbon
capture readiness has not been defined as the specifics of the carbon capture
technology which will be used cannot be predicted. For the purpose of this
assessment, the area is considered to be within the western area footprint
provided in Figure 2.2, Chapter 2. As outlined in the Project Description, the
area of hardstanding constructed as a laydown area will also be reinstated or
retained as required following completion of construction of the Proposed
Development. Considering the limited conservation value of habitats and low
sensitivity of receptors lost, effects on habitats in the western part of the site
are predicted to be of minor significance.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT KEADBY DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED
7-32
Species
Bats
Following the Extended Phase 1 survey, existing buildings within the power
station area were found to have been constructed from metal and brickwork
and do not contain attic space and had limited possible external entry points
which would be suitable for bat roosting. Additionally, within the power station
perimeter fence, there are a number of portable cabin buildings which have
been assessed as being of low potential to support roosting bats due to having
no access points, roof void or loose roof or wall features.
The Sorbus sp trees within the perimeter fence in the eastern part of the
Proposed Development site were assessed as having low potential to support
roosting bats, as they are semi mature with no visible cracks, crevices or hole
features. The trees also have low connectivity to surrounding habitat and are
not an important foraging habitat for bats. Therefore the loss of these trees will
not negatively affect bats.
The Malus sp. tree located in the amenity grassland, next to the storage tanks
was assessed as having moderate potential to support roosting bats as there
were several visible hole and crevice features. According to the Project
Description (Chapter 2), this tree will not be removed; therefore there will be
no potential negative effects on roosting bats.
No suitable roost features for bats were identified within the brownfield area
during the survey.
The woodland to the south of the Proposed Development site may provide
foraging habitat for bats. Trees within this woodland area are considered semi
mature and not suitable for roosting bats due to having no visible crevice, hole
or crack features. According to the Project Description (Chapter 2), this area
of woodland will not be removed; therefore there will be no negative effects on
roosting or foraging bats.
In summary the Proposed Development is not expected to result in any
significant adverse effects on bats and therefore none of the prohibitions
imposed by Article 12 of the Habitats Directive (including disturbance) are
engaged.
Otter
There are no historic records of otters within 2 km of the Proposed
Development and no field signs of otter were recorded during the survey.
Bankside habitats were also found to be of limited suitability for otter. Otter
are not thought to occur in the area of impact and therefore no effects on
otters as a result of construction are predicted.
Great Crested Newt
Surveys for great crested newt were scoped out as there were no records
since 1977 reported by the LERC, nor have species specific surveys
undertaken for other projects such as the Keadby wind farm extension, found
any evidence of their being present. The wider primarily intensive arable
landscape provides little suitable habitat and poor connectivity with the
Proposed Development. Great crested newt and suitable habitat for them are
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT KEADBY DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED
7-33
both absent from the area of impact and therefore there will be no effects on
this species and none of the prohibitions imposed by Article 12 of the Habitats
Directive are engaged.
Water Vole
Assuming a worst case scenario, a trench will be excavated along the existing
SSE water discharge wayleave, crossing up to eight ditches in order to install
a new cooling water discharge pipeline, joining the existing outfall to the River
Trent.
During the water vole survey, ditches along the pipeline wayleave were found
to be intensively managed, having been recently mown and dredged. All
ditches were also bordered by intensively managed arable fields, further
limiting suitability for water vole. Oil sheen was recorded on the surface of the
Pumping Drain and Keadby Warping Drain.
Despite the limited habitat suitability, potential water vole burrows and tracks
were identified along the Keadby Warping Drain and Pumping Drain. The
Keadby Pumping Drain will not be directly affected by the construction of a
trench. Water voles are known to be tolerant of disturbance, for example boat
traffic along a canal. Therefore, indirect disturbance of a potential water vole
population along the Pumping Drain is not predicted. Direct impacts
associated with trenching on the Keadby Warping Drain will be restricted to a
limited area and appropriate mitigation and best practise techniques will be
applied; therefore no significant effects on water vole are predicted.
To the south of the Proposed Development, the South Soak Drain leading to
the Three Rivers (Annex E1, Target Note 31) and the North Soak Drain
(Annex E1, Target Note 30) have suitable habitat for water vole, with slow
flowing water, easily penetrable earth banks and riparian vegetation on the
banks and in the water.
Both the North Soak and South Soak Drain are not within the footprint of the
Proposed Development and no direct impacts on either drain are expected.
As water voles are known to have a level of tolerance to disturbance, no
negative effects as a result of construction adjacent to a potential North Soak
and South Soak Drain population are predicted.
Badgers
No evidence of badgers was recorded during the Extended Phase 1 Habitat
survey; therefore no effects associated with construction are predicted.
Reptiles
Only one historic record of a common lizard was identified during the local
data centre records search.
During the Extended Phase 1 survey, suitable habitat and refugia were
identified however no reptiles were seen during the survey and potential
refugia were not occupied. As a result, reptiles are not predicted to occur
within the Project area, although the presence of suitable habitat and the
cryptic and unobtrusive nature of reptiles mean that a small population may be
present.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT KEADBY DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED
7-34
As a result, prior to habitat clearance work being undertaken, an Ecological
Clerk of Works will undertake a pre-clearance check survey of the area for
reptiles. If reptiles are present they will be translocated to alternative suitable
habitat. Considering the availability of alternative suitable reptile habitat near
and adjacent to the Proposed Development, which reptiles could be displaced
or move to, including rail tracks and sidings, and implementation of mitigation
measures effects on reptiles are considered to be not significant.
Breeding Birds
Assuming the worst case scenario of the larger footprint of the multi-shaft
configuration, the Proposed Development will result in the permanent loss of
dense and scattered scrub, unimproved grassland and an area of broadleaved
woodland plantation in the western part of the site. There will also be the
permanent loss of amenity grassland habitat and four Sorbus sp. trees in the
main island power area.
During the common bird census surveys, the dense and scattered scrub
habitat on the Project site was identified as providing suitable foraging and
nesting habitat for species typical of lowland farm habitats, including 3 red and
5 amber listed Birds of Conservation Concern (BoCC) (1). Large numbers of
corvids were also recorded perching on electrical lines and metal structures
within the main power island station.
Breeding birds associated with habitats within and adjacent to the Proposed
Development may experience disturbance effects associated with construction
works during working hours. The construction activities will require heavy
equipment including but not limited to: hydraulic hammer piling rig, dump
trucks, tracked excavators and diesel generators. Construction works will
typically be undertaken between 08:00 and 18:00; however, there will be
periods when 24 hours working will be undertaken.
Linnet (Carduelis cannabina), song thrush (Turdus philomelos) and yellow
hammer (Emberiza citronella) were considered as probable breeders within
the site and are red listed under BoCC3. The numbers likely to be displaced
through loss of habitat or construction disturbance are small in comparison to
estimated breeding populations given in the Lincolnshire Biodiversity Action
Plan (2); 18,000, 26,000 and 20,000 respectively. Starling (Sturnus vulgaris)
which is also red listed under BoCC3 and a UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UK
BAP) species was recorded flying over the site but was not considered to be
breeding on the site.
One amber listed BoCC3 species was confirmed breeding on the site; white
throat (Sylvia communis). Bullfinch (Pyrrhula pryhula), dunnock (Prunella
modularis) and reed bunting (Emberiza schoeniclus) which are UK BAP
species and amber listed and willow warbler (Phylloscopus trochilus) which is
also amber listed were considered to probably breed on the site. The amber
listed mistle thrush (Turdus viscivorus) was considered to possibly breed on
the site. The numbers likely to be displaced through loss of habitat or
construction disturbance are also considered to be small in comparison to
(1) Eaton MA, Brown AF, Noble DG, Musgrove AJ, Hearn R, Aebischer NJ, Gibbons DW, Evans A and Gregory RD (2009)
Birds of Conservation Concern 3: the population status of birds in the United Kingdom, Channel Islands and the Isle of
Man. British Birds 102, pp 296 – 341. (2) Greater Lincolnshire Nature Partnership (GLNP) Lincolnshire Biodiversity Action Plan. 3rd edition. Nov 2012. GLNP.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT KEADBY DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED
7-35
estimated breeding populations recorded within the Bird Atlas 2007 - 2011 (1).
Reed bunting, dunnock and white throat are all considered to be experiencing
an increase in relative breeding abundance in the area of Lincolnshire where
the Proposed Development occurs. Bullfinch and willow warbler are thought
to be experiencing a minor decline in relative abundance in the north
Lincolnshire area, however the scrub habitats which will be lost are suboptimal
for both species and therefore limit the potential for breeding pairs.
Considering the spatial extent of the area affected and the proportion of the
population affected, no significant effects on breeding birds as a consequence
of habitat loss and disturbance are predicted.
7.4.3 Assessment of Effects during Operation
General Considerations
The main operational impacts identified relate to emissions to air leading to air
quality, nitrogen and acid deposition impacts on designated sites, cooling
water discharge and potential entrainment of eels and lamprey within the
pumping station intake.
Chapter 9 Air Quality sets out the results of the dispersion modelling for the
sensitive ecological receptors due to acid deposition, nutrient nitrogen
deposition and NOX. Impacts on sensitive ecological receptors have been
quantified on the basis of the largest impacts arising at any point on the
designated habitat within 10 km radius of the Proposed Development.
Ecological receptors sensitive to emissions to atmosphere were identified in
line with Environmental Agency Guidance Note H1 (2) and comprise:
European designated sites within 10 km of the Project, including the
Humber Estuary Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) and Ramsar Site;
statutory nationally designated Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs),
designated for reasons of ecological interest within 2 km of the Project; and
national and local non-statutory designated sites within 2 km, including
National Nature Reserves (NNRs), Local Nature Reserves (LNRs), Local
Wildlife Sites (LWS), Sites of Nature Conservation Interest (SNCI) etc.
The modelling assumed that the new plant and the existing plant (Keadby I)
will be operating at maximum capacity for 8,760 hours per annum, with the
Proposed Development in supplementary firing mode which results in the
highest NOx emissions, and lowest emission temperature.
The reason for Keadby I and the Proposed Development both being modelled
is because Keadby I was ‘moth balled’ at the time of assessment. As a result
it is possible that the baseline data available do not fully account for Keadby I
emissions. Assessing both together provides a realistic, albeit possibly worst
(1) Balmer, D.E, Gillings, S., Caffrey, B.J., Swann, R.L., Downie, I.S & Fuller, R.J. (2013) Bird Atlas 2007- 2011: the
breeding and wintering birds of Britain and Ireland. BTO Books, Thetford. (2) The Environment Agency for England and Wales (2010) Horizontal Guidance Note H1: Annex F
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT KEADBY DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED
7-36
case, understanding of potential effects once process contributions are added
to the baseline.
The results of the air quality modelling are assumed to be worst case and an
assessment of their implications is provided within Chapter 9 and Annex G.
Both impacts are discussed below.
Designated Sites and Air Quality Impacts
The results of the air quality modelling predict that both short term and long
term NOx concentrations and nutrient nitrogen deposition at the Humber
Estuary SAC, Ramsar Site and SSSI exceed the assessment criteria and
therefore require more detailed assessment. The air quality modelling
presents an initial assessment of impacts on broad scale habitat types, which
identifies the maximum predicted concentration or deposition rate anywhere
on a site. The effects on the SAC are considered in more detail in Annex E4
Information to Inform HRA which assesses the changes in air quality and acid
and nutrient nitrogen deposition in relation to the conservation objectives of
the site.
The additional information and assessment presented in the Annex E4
concludes that the predicted will not result in an effect on the integrity of the
Humber Estuary SAC and Ramsar Site, and as a result, in EIA terms, the
effect on the Humber Estuary SAC is considered to be not significant. The
Humber Estuary SAC, Ramsar Site and SSSI occupy the same area, and the
conclusions of Annex E4 are considered to apply equally to the habitats for
which the Humber Estuary SSSI has been designated. As a result, effects on
the Humber Estuary SSSI are also considered to be not significant.
The air quality modelling also predicts short term NOx concentrations and
nutrient nitrogen deposition above the assessment criteria at the non-statutory
designated sites Keadby Warping Drain LWS, Keadby Wet Grassland LWS,
Keadby Wetland LWS, Keadby Soak Drain LWS, Stainforth and Keadby Canal
Corridor LWS, Three Rivers LWS and Three Rivers Marsh SNCI. The criteria
exceeded are related to impacts on the neutral grassland, coastal and
floodplain grazing marsh, and fen, marsh and swamp habitats supported by
these sites.
Taking a precautionary approach, it is concluded that the air quality effects
associated with short term exceedance of the assessment criteria may be
significant for the Keadby Warping Drain LWS, Keadby Wet Grassland LWS,
Keadby Wetland LWS, Keadby Soak Drain LWS, Stainforth and Keadby Canal
Corridor LWS, Three Rivers LWS and Three Rivers Marsh SNCI. However
the air quality modelling is highly conservative as it considers that the
Proposed Development (and Keadby I) will be operating full time. In reality,
the power plants will only operate part of the time, as required to meet
demand (see Chapter 2).
The Keadby Boundary Drain, Keadby Warping Drain and Stainforth and
Keadby Canal are actively managed by vegetation mowing and clearance.
The Canal is also heavily used by canal barges and boats and consequently
has litter and boat fuel visible on the water and also the banking. The Keadby
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT KEADBY DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED
7-37
Wet Grassland is also managed through grazing by ponies. Although the
predicted changes in air quality may result in changes to the nutrient status of
the sites identified, the active management of the sites is still likely to be the
key factor in maintaining the status of the sites and therefore effects resulting
from air quality impacts could be offset through other active management
measures (see Section 7.4.7 final subsection).
Currently within Greater Lincolnshire, there are 1,168 Local Wildlife sites with
more being selected annually by the GLNP. The seven locally designated
sites represent a limited number and area of the local wildlife sites present in
the area surrounding the Proposed Development.
Designated Sites and Water Quality Impacts
Cooling water (also referred to as blowdown water) from the hybrid cooling
towers and general cooling system will be discharged to the River Trent via
the existing Keadby I outfall. Water will be abstracted from the Stainforth and
Keadby Canal at an approximate rate of 0.157 m3s-1. This water will be used
for evaporative cooling in the hybrid cooling towers and so a much smaller
volume will be discharged as a batched release. It is currently estimated that
for each week of operation approximately 10% of the daily abstraction volume
will be discharged and the discharge will last for one day. The resultant
discharge rate of approximately 0.016 m3s-1 is very small. By comparison
when Keadby I is in operation the rate of discharge via the outfall is
approximately 12 m3s-1. Since the Proposed Development is not anticipated to
be a continuous operation the discharge is likely to be smaller than the
0.016 m3s-1 rate quoted above as well as intermittent. Although the
temperature of this discharge will vary through the year and at times be
measurably higher than the ambient temperature of the River Trent, based on
work undertaken for the Keadby I thermal discharge (see below) it will have a
negligible impact in terms of thermal loading to the river and no significant
effects on ecological populations, including interest features for the Humber
Estuary SAC.
The hybrid indirect cooling system for the Proposed Development will use an
air-cooled condenser and wet-cooling tower. This means that some of the
water abstracted from the Stainforth and Keadby Canal will be heated and lost
as vapour, therefore concentrating some of the dissolved material present in
the canal water and changing the chemical properties of the water before it is
discharged to the River Trent.
In addition, all dissolved minerals have a saturation limit that, if exceeded, will
lead to scale formation within the cooling water system which will require
management. Additionally, high levels of dissolved minerals can increases
the tendency for corrosion. Chemical and mechanical methods are used to
treat these effects to some extent but limits still persist, necessitating
management of dissolved minerals levels. In addition, careful monitoring of
biocide treatments, along with routine measurements of biological activity is
important to ensure bio-activity is controlled and limited throughout the cooling
system. As a result the periodic batches of blowdown water will require
treatment before they can be safely discharged to the River Trent. The
treatment methods and the quality of the effluent will be influenced by several
factors including:
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT KEADBY DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED
7-38
the ultimately selected design and operating parameters for the cooling
towers and system as a whole;
the quality of the Stainforth and Keadby Canal water, including any
seasonal variations;
any pre-treatment of the above; and
BAT studies during detailed design and development of an Environmental
permit application that meets the EA’s requirements in terms of the effluent
quality.
During operation SSE will be required to monitor and report compliance of the
cooling water discharge parameters to the Environment Agency to maintain
the permit to discharge cooling water. Conditions attached to the discharge
permit will detail the compliance and monitoring requirements based on
environmental quality standards.
On the basis that SSE will operate within the parameters of a permit that is
designed to maintain the status of the receiving waters, there will be no
significant effects on ecological populations, including the interest features of
the Humber Estuary SAC.
Entrainment of Aquatic Species
Potential operational impacts on eels and sea and river lamprey may occur
due to entrainment associated with the operation of a new pumping station
abstracting water from the Stainforth and Keadby Canal.
As eels are catadromous, they migrate between marine and freshwater
environments. Spawning occurs at sea; from there juveniles migrate into
coastal, estuarine and freshwater habitats over a period of one to three years.
Potentially, eels can get caught up in intake flows and screens at any stage of
their life; however they are most at risk during their upstream and downstream
migrations within fresh water.
Due to the elongate body shape of eels, they can often easily fit through a
mesh that would exclude other fish of a similar size. Eels passing through a
pump or turbine can be injured by, among other things, mechanical (blade)
strike, grinding and shear pressure. If a pumping station is not adequately
screened, eels may not be able to reach the sea to spawn.
On the basis that appropriate mitigation measures are implemented in
accordance with The Environment Agency guidance (1), potential entrapment
effects on eels are considered to be minor at the local level as physical
screens will not exclude every eel but will significantly reduce the potential for
entrapment. In terms of the wider population of eels moving through the Trent
and its catchment there will be no significant effects.
Juvenile lampreys may be liable to similar effects but a 2014 study undertaken
by Turnpenny and Horsfield (2) showed that lamprey exhibit high retention and
survival rates on travelling band screens. The findings showed that lamprey
are hardy taxa and are able to survive over the long-term following
(1) The Environment Agency. Screening at intakes and outfalls: measure to protect eel. The Environment Agency. Bristol. (2) Turnpenny, A.W.H. and Horsfield, R.A. (2014). International Fish Screening Techniques. WIT press.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT KEADBY DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED
7-39
entrainment. On the basis that mitigation will be in place to protect eels and
the lower sensitivity of lamprey to entrainment impacts, no significant effects
on this species are predicted.
No significant operational effects on any other species are predicted.
Impacts from the Continued use of Keadby I Cooling Water Infrastructure
During periods of operation, Keadby I power station has been discharging a
thermal plume to the River Trent since 1998.
In 2007 the EA undertook a Stage 3 Review of Consents to investigate
thermal loading to the Humber Estuary SAC. The aim of the review was to
quantify impacts originating from permits issued by the EA. The study
focussed on the interest features of the SAC, which in terms of relevance for
the Keadby I thermal plume comprise sea and river lamprey and specifically
during their April to July migration. The other interest features were assessed
as having zero vulnerability to the thermal regime.
Initially the review concluded no adverse effects on sea and river lamprey.
However the inputs to the model used in the review assumed optimal cooling
system performance which due to ambient operating conditions (water quality
and presence of debris in the Trent) was not always possible, resulting in
lower volumes of water drawn out and higher temperatures in that returned.
Although EA issued a new PPC (Pollution Prevention and Control) permit in
2007 that did not set a maximum temperature limit, SSE was asked to review
station performance and propose a temperature limit that would prevent
environmental harm and provide justification that this limit would represent
BAT (Best Available Technique) for the station. Further work was therefore
undertaken in terms of modelling of actual performance data and field
measurements (by thermal imaging) of temperatures in the channel. The
scope of the further studies was agreed with EA.
The study was undertaken in 2010 and reported in 2011 (1). The main
conclusions were as follows.
Based on the modelling and measurements the majority of the river
channel would be classified under ‘good’ status, with a small part falling
within the 28º C isotherm as ‘poor’.
The 28º C isotherm (the only modelled isotherm with potential for lethal
effect) extended only a short distance from the outfall into the river.
Fish are able to readily avoid plumes of undesirably high temperature
water as long as they do not extend across a full channel width.
No effects on the overall status of sea or river lamprey (or eels) were
anticipated.
(1) Keadby Thermal Plume Study Preliminary Report, APEM Scientific Report 411099.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT KEADBY DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED
7-40
The work supported the EA’s original conclusion that the thermal plume
from Keadby I would have no significant effect on migrating sea and river
lamprey.
Based on the above considerations, in the event that the Keadby I cooling
water system is used for the Proposed Development there will be no likely
significant effects on aquatic populations in the River Trent including those
migrating past the outfall and including interest features of the Humber
Estuary SAC.
7.4.4 Assessment of Effects during Decommissioning
Impacts on sensitive habitats and/ or species and designated sites associated
with decommissioning activities are predicted to be similar to those of
construction. However, at present it is not possible to confirm what
decommissioning measures will be undertaken. It is assumed that over the
next 25 years, technology and best practise techniques will have advanced
and therefore potential negative effects will be minimised.
7.4.5 Cumulative Effects
Other projects currently within the planning system which have the potential to
contribute toward cumulative effects on the same ecological and nature
conservation resources likely to be affected by the Proposed Development
were considered. Two projects were identified: the Lincolnshire Lakes
residential development and White Rose Carbon Capture Storage (CCS)
Project. Although the North Killingholme Power Project (NKPP) is considered
in the Information to Inform HRA (Annex E4), at a distance away of 35 km the
effects of this project and the Proposed Development do not overlap and so
the NKPP is not included here as a cumulative scheme.
The Lincolnshire Lakes development lies on the outskirts of Scunthorpe,
between the River Trent and western extent of Scunthorpe. The biodiversity
assessment submitted as part of the planning application in 2013, considered
that impacts associated with the development would be of ‘negligible
significance’ prior to the implementation of mitigation measures. No
cumulative effects from the Lincolnshire Lakes Scheme on the same receptors
as assessed in this EIA are predicted.
The ES and Habitats Regulations Assessment Report for the White Rose CCS
project identified potential likely significant effects on three internationally
designated sites: the River Derwent SAC; Skipwith Common SAC; and Thorne
Moor SAC. The assessment of ‘in combination’ effects from the White Rose
CCS on these sites is presented in Annex E4 and concludes from a Habitats
Regulations Perspective that there will be no in combination effects with the
Proposed Development and therefore there will be no cumulative effects.
7.4.6 Uncertainty and Key Assumptions
It is assumed, as a worst case scenario, that ‘threading’ of a new water
discharge pipeline through the existing pipeline will not be possible and
therefore trenching of the entire pipeline length will be required.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT KEADBY DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED
7-41
It is assumed, considering both the single-shaft and multi-shaft configurations,
the pipework route from the air cooled condensers to the Keadby 2 power
station will not result in the removal of the Malus sp. tree.
No landscaping enhancement other than perimeter planting will occur.
7.4.7 Mitigation Measures and Residual Significance of Effects
General Considerations
Table 7.4 summarises the impacts where, either due to the significance of
effects or requirements to comply with legislation, mitigation will be required.
The mitigation is described and the significance of the residual effect after
mitigation applied is assessed.
Table 7.4 Mitigation and Residual Effects
Phase Receptor and Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
Construction Habitat: permanent loss of
dense continuous and scattered
scrub, amenity grassland and 4
Sorbus sp. trees. This habitat
loss will affect breeding birds.
Temporary loss of aquatic
vegetation along drainage
ditches.
Landscape Masterplan will include
screen planting which will offset the loss
of scrub habitat suitable for breeding
birds.
Temporary and permanent habitat loss
will be limited to the minimum needed for
safe implementation of the works.
Not Significant
(once established in long term likely to be minor
positive).
Construction All topsoil and subsoil will be stored
separately and reinstated as soon as
possible after completion of construction
using best available practice (e.g. Defra.
2009. Construction code of practice for
the sustainable use of soils on
construction sites). Where necessary
seeding will be undertaken to aid
restoration.
Not Significant
Construction Breeding Birds – potential
disturbance and displacement
Any lighting that is required for the
construction and operation of the
Proposed Development will be directed
away from surrounding habitat to
minimise light disturbance to fauna
Not Significant
Construction Qualifying and protected
species.
Use of Best Available Techniques (BAT)
to minimise disturbance will include
specification of efficient well-maintained,
quiet machinery with inbuilt noise
attenuation. Perimeter fencing and
screens will be used where necessary to
minimise disturbance due to noise and
activity.
Not Significant
Construction Breeding birds – disturbance,
displacement and potential for
Although impacts are predicted to be
negligible there is a potential to commit
Not Significant
Phase Receptor and Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
injury offences without mitigation.
The initial soil stripping and vegetation
removal stage will be undertaken as far
as possible outside of the bird breeding
season (reasonably being regarded as
1st April-31st July given the northern
location). Where this cannot be achieved
all areas to be cleared will be assessed
first by an Ecological Clerk of Works
(ECoW) or suitably qualified ecologist,
and any nest sites identified.
Construction in and around any nesting
sites will be prevented until such time as
young have either left the area or are
capable of strong flight.
Construction Water Vole – potential
disturbance and displacement
In the March prior to construction,
vegetation should be removed from both
banks (1). All growth should be stripped
to bare soil, and should include, where
possible, the emergent fringe. Any
subsequent re-growth should be removed
up until construction works take place.
A repeat survey of the drain for water
vole signs should be undertaken two
weeks prior to works starting. If water
vole latrines or other water vole signs are
found, a programme of trapping and
removal should take place.
Not Significant
Construction Reptiles - potential injury and
killing during site clearance of
potential habitat.
All areas of potentially suitable reptile
habitat to be cleared will be assessed
first by an Ecological Clerk of Works
Not Significant
(1) Strachan R and Moorhouse T (2006) Water vole conservation handbook 2nd Edition. Wildlife Conservation
Research Unit, Oxford1.
Phase Receptor and Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
(ECoW) or suitably qualified ecologist for
reptile presence. If required a destructive
search in the presence of the ECoW or
suitably qualified ecologist will take place
If reptiles are found to they will be
released into suitable habitat.
Operation Eels - potentially, eels can get
caught up in intake flows and
screens at any stage of their
life. Similar considerations
apply to lamprey.
Best practise measures will be
implemented according to The
Environment Agency guidance (1).
Screens can be placed diagonally to the
flow to effectively reduce entrapment of
eels.
Screens should be properly maintained
and cleaned to retain effectiveness.
Strobe lights and/ or acoustic infrasound
may also provide an additional deterrent.
Further information is provided in the
sub-sections below.
Minor
Operation Air quality impacts on the
Keadby Warping Drain LWS,
Keadby Wet Grassland LWS,
Keadby Wetland LWS, Keadby
Soak Drain LWS, Stainforth and
Keadby Canal Corridor LWS,
Three Rivers LWS and Three
Rivers Marsh SNCI.
Supporting management of the LWSs
and SNCI through working with GLNP to
manage and monitor sites.
Not Significant
Operation Air quality impacts on the
Humber SAC and SSSI
None required. Not Significant
(1) The Environment Agency. Screening at intakes and outfalls: measure to protect eel. The Environment Agency. Bristol.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT KEADBY DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED
7-45
Landscape Masterplan
A Landscape Masterplan will be developed for the Proposed Development.
The masterplan will address both conventional landscaping and biodiversity
enhancement measures.
Landscaping to mitigate the impacts of the main structures is not possible and
so it will be aimed at perimeter planting to soften the overall visual effect,
screen low level structures and blend in with existing vegetation e.g. along the
canal side. The mix of species used in landscaping will be native and locally
occurring in keeping with species already locally established.
The design of the Landscape Masterplan will also take cognisance of
opportunities for habitat provision especially for species of insects, birds and
bats.
The ultimate design of the masterplan will depend on the selected layout for
the Proposed Development and the detail will be developed in consultation
with the Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust and with North Lincolnshire Council in order
to be in keeping with other initiatives such as the local authority Green
Infrastructure strategy.
Mitigation of Entrainment of European Eels
Despite the well-established guidance on methods and screening techniques,
the effectiveness of these techniques for eels will vary considerably due to
factors such as site specific conditions. The Environment Agency
recommends monitoring to improve current designs and improve future
approaches (1). Monitoring techniques for adult eels include:
high resolution acoustic telemetry, by tracking eels in 2D or 3D in front of
a screen it is possible to estimate the screen’s effectiveness;
acoustic camera, survey areas in front of the screen and bywash; and
combining the batch-marking and release of eels upstream of the screen
with some form of monitoring/trapping behind the screens and in the
bywash, the results can be used to estimate screen efficiency.
The Environment Agency has published an assessment of screening options
some of which may be appropriate for the proposed development (see Figure
7.5 and Figure 7.6)
(1) Environment Agency 2011. Screening at intakes and outfalls: measures to protect eel. The Eel Manual
GEHO0411BTQD-E-E. Available online from
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/297342/geho0411btqd-e-e.pdf
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT KEADBY DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED
7-46
Table 7.5 Screening Options and Suitability
Life Stage Canal supplies Thermal power
plant
Outfall
Glass eels/elver Passive wedge wire
cylinder (PWWC),
sub-gravel intakes,
modular inclined,
strobe light, travelling
screens (e.g.
Hydrolox),
fish recovery and
return
(FRR)
PWWC, modular
inclined, strobe light,
travelling screens
(e.g. Hydrolox), FRR
Elevated discharge,
Graduated Field Fish
Barrier (GFFB),
electric barrier,
screens <2 mm
aperture
Adult yellow/ silver
eels
Passive mesh,
Coanda, PWWC,
sub-gravel intakes,
modular inclined,
strobe light, eel
bottom bypass,
travelling screens
(e.g. Hydrolox), FRR
Passive mesh,
Coanda, PWWC,
modular inclined,
strobe light, eel
bottom bypass,
travelling screens
(e.g. Hydrolox), FRR
-
Source: Environment Agency 2011. Screening at intakes and outfalls: measures to protect eel.
The Eel Manual GEHO0411BTQD-E-E. Available online from
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/297342/geho041
1btqd-e-e.pdf
Table 7.6 Screening Techniques Suitable for Eels - Physical Screens
Type of screen Comments / problems
Passive-mesh/wedge-wire panels, angled
towards bywash
Traditional inland solution. Cleaning can be
difficult.
Vertical or inclined bar racks, angled towards
bywash
Good for manual or self-cleaning. Eels may
force their way through, especially if not
angled. No good for fry.
FRR on band, drum or cup screens
Depends on mesh size – usually ≥6 mm but
can be 2-3 mm. Further R&D needed on fish
bucket design to ensure good survival.
Coanda screen Excellent, but only suitable for spillways.
PWWC screen
Excellent where space, depth and currents
are suitable. 1-2 mm required for juveniles.
Modular inclined screen Yet to be used in UK but looks promising
Travelling Screen -Hydrolox
Better than modular due to rotating band –
limited testing in UK
Labyrinth screen
Allows for compact screen arrangement at
large sites.
Sub-gravel intake Suitable locations limited
Source: (1)
SSE will review the options available and consult with EA in determining a
solution that is appropriate to the intake location and ambient characteristics of
the Stainforth and Keadby Canal and which also serves to minimise
entrainment of lamprey (see below).
(1) Environment Agency 2011. Screening at intakes and outfalls: measures to protect eel. The Eel Manual
GEHO0411BTQD-E-E. Available online from
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/297342/geho0411btqd-e-e.pdf
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT KEADBY DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED
7-47
Lamprey
Lamprey lack both a swim bladder and otolith organs and as such fall within
the non-specialist hearing group, suggesting that neither low frequency nor
ultrasound acoustic deterrents would be effective behavioural deterrents for
their protection. Intake screening is therefore currently restricted to physical
exclusion.
Research on juvenile lamprey provides useful corroboration. For Pacific
lamprey transformers, it was found that a flat wedge-wire panel screen with 3
mm spacings tended to trap individuals. However, greatly improved results
were reported with 1.75 mm spacings.
A 2014 study undertaken by Turnpenny and Horsfield (1) showed that lamprey
exhibit high retention and survival rates on travelling band screens. The
findings showed that lamprey are hardy taxa and are able to survive over the
long-term following entrainment. There is the potential, however, to improve
the efficacy of intake screening with the use of modified screens, designed
specifically to reduce the risk of lamprey entrainment.
Due to similarities in physiology and behaviour of eels and lamprey, it is
assumed that the screening options and techniques listed in Table 7.5 and
Table 7.6 also largely applicable to lamprey.
Support to Manage and Monitor LWS and SINCs
Operation of the Proposed Development may result in short term elevated
concentrations of NOx at nearby LWS and SINC non-statutory designated
sites. These sites are actively managed to help maintain their conservation
interest. Keadby Developments Limited will engage with GLNP to agree an
appropriate role (and one that is proportionate to the likely effects) for the
Company in terms of assisting in the management of the sites. This could for
example involve providing a monitoring package to record potential changes in
air quality at the sites, or provide some other support to manage the sites to
maintain their habitats. Provision of additional input to active management of
these sites should provide nature conservation benefits which will offset the
negative effects that may occur from air quality impacts.
7.5 CONCLUSIONS
In summary, the majority of the western part of the site is dense and scattered
scrub with waste and spoil deposits. Within the main power island area to the
east of the site, amenity grassland is the dominant habitat with four isolated
Sorbus sp., a singular Malus sp. and areas of bare and disturbed ground. All
of these habitats in both areas are of low ecological and conservation value,
with the exception of the Malus sp. tree as it has moderate potential for
support bat roosts. Consequently, the permanent loss of dense and scattered
scrub habitat within the western extent and amenity grassland and four trees
in the eastern extent during construction of the Proposed Development is
(1) Turnpenny, A.W.H. and Horsfield, R.A. (2014). International Fish Screening Techniques. WIT press.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT KEADBY DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED
7-48
predicted to have a negligible impact on the habitats and the species the
habitats supports.
Within the main power island to the east, there are a number of portable cabin
buildings which have been assessed as being of low potential to support
roosting bats due to having no access points, roof void or loose roof or wall
features.
Assuming a worst case scenario, the Keadby Warping Drain LWS will
experience a temporary impact restricted to a limited area (150 m²) due to the
installation of a new pipeline by trenching. Aquatic vegetation is predicted to
recolonise the trenched area within one year, consequently an effect of minor
significance is predicted.
The intensive management of the drains and canal within and surrounding the
Proposed Development area and buffer reduces the suitability to support
water vole populations. However, possible field signs were identified during
the survey at the Keadby Pumping Drain, Keadby Warping Drain, North Soak
Drain and South Soak Drain and local data centre records indicate those
water voles are present in the wider area. The Keadby Pumping Drain, North
Soak Drain and South Soak Drain will not be directly affected during
construction; therefore significant effects are not predicted. Direct impacts
associated with trenching to the Keadby Warping Drain will be restricted to a
limited area and appropriate mitigation and best practise techniques will be
applied; therefore no significant effects on water vole are predicted.
Impacts on eels during operation are predicted due to potential entrapment
associated with the operation of a new pumping station abstracting water from
the Stainforth and Keadby Canal. However, considering that mitigation will be
implemented and best practise techniques applied, impacts are predicted to
be of minor significance locally at most. There will be no significant effects on
lamprey.
Significant effects on six LWSs and one SNCI due to short term impacts
associated with NOx concentrations and nutrient nitrogen deposition are
predicted; however by implementing the mitigation strategy, nature
conservation benefits will be provided to offset these negative effects. The
overall effects on nature conservation interest are predicted to be not
significant.
Potential effects on the Humber Estuary SAC, Ramsar Site and SSSI
associated with NOx concentrations and nutrient nitrogen deposition are
predicted to be not significant and the Proposed Development will not
adversely affect the integrity of any European site.
In conclusion, considering residual effects no significant effects of greater than
minor to any designated site, species or habitat are predicted as a result of the
construction, operation and decommissioning of the Keadby 2 Combined
Cycle Gas Turbine. That minor effect is identified in respect of one impact
only, namely the effect locally on eels that may be caught in the intake flows.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT KEADBY DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED
7-49
7.6 COMPARISON BETWEEN THE LIKELY SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS OF THE
CONSENTED DEVELOPMENT AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
This ES is required to present the main respects in which it is considered that
the likely significant effects on the environment of the Proposed Development
would differ from those described in the Environmental Assessment (EA) that
was prepared for the Consented Development.
The Proposed Development is predicted to result in either no change, or a
reduction in the impacts and the likelihood of significant environmental effects
when compared to the Consented Development. Therefore, on balance, the
Proposed Development is considered to be less likely to result in significant
environmental effects when compared to the Consented Development.
The table below makes a comparison between the findings of this EIA for the
Proposed Development and those of the 1992 EA to the extent possible.
Topic Comparison Result of
Variation
between
Proposed
Development v
Consented
Development
Key: = positive change; O= neutral; = negative change
Effects on
Habitats and
Flora –
Construction
and Operation
The EA of the Consented Development concluded
that the construction and operation of the project
would have no impacts on habitats and flora. The
existing habitats were regarded as being of no value
to flora as a result of the previous use of the site as a
coal fired power plant.
The EIA of the Proposed Development concludes that
construction and operation will not result in significant
effects on habitats or flora, given the habitats that will
be affected. The development of a Landscape
Masterplan will lead to a minor positive effect in the
long term.
O/
Effects on
Fauna –
Construction
and Operation
The EA of the Consented Development concluded
that the construction and operation of the project
would have no impacts on fauna. The existing
habitats were regarded as being of no value to fauna
as a result of the previous use of the site as a coal
fired power plant.
The EIA of the Proposed Development concludes that
construction and operation will not result in significant
effects on fauna, particularly protected species, given
the habitats that will be affected. The development of
a Landscape Masterplan will lead to a minor positive
effect in the long term.
O/
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT KEADBY DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED
7-50
Topic Comparison Result of
Variation
between
Proposed
Development v
Consented
Development
Key: = positive change; O= neutral; = negative change
Effects on
ecological
receptors from
emissions to
air
The EA of the Consented Development concluded
that the operation of the project would increase local
concentrations of NOx and SO2, but did not assess the
impacts of these increases on sensitive ecological
receptors.
The EIA of the Proposed Development concludes that
the operation of the project would result in lower total
emissions than the Consented Development for all but
three ecological receptors where the scheme will
result in a slight increase in 24 hour NOx emissions at
three non-statutory designated sites. Mitigation
measures are proposed to offset this effect. Overall
the assessment of air quality impacts concluded
effects on ecological receptors would be not
significant.
O
Effects on
Aquatic
Ecology
The EA of the Consented Development concluded
that the abstraction of cooling water would result in
the mortality of biota drawn through intake screens,
but that the losses would not be significant. It also
concluded that the discharge of cooling water would
have no effect on ecology.
The EIA of the Proposed Development concludes that
the use of screens on any water intake would reduce
the effects on adult eels and lamprey being entrained.
Eels are known to be more susceptible to effects than
lamprey, and minor significant effects on the eel
population are predicted. However, it is reasonable to
conclude that if the EA of the Consented
Development had also considered effects on eels a
similar conclusion would have been reached.
O
Habitats
Regulations
Assessment
The EA of the Consented Development was
undertaken prior to the passing of the EC Habitats
Directive or its enacting legislation, therefore
European designated sites were not considered in this
context.
The EIA of the Proposed Development is supported
by a separate report containing Information to Inform
HRA by the competent authority. The key
considerations for the purposes of Habitats
Regulations Assessment relate to disturbance during
construction and operation, atmospheric emissions
during operation and cooling water abstraction and
discharge during operation. The Information to Inform
HRA concludes that the development will not result in
any effects on the integrity of any of the European
designated sites considered either alone or in
combination with other projects.
O