THE INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING (APPLICATIONS: PRESCRIBED FORMS AND PROCEDURE) REGULATIONS 2009

Transcription

1 THE INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING (APPLICATIONS: PRESCRIBED FORMS AND PROCEDURE) REGULATIONS 2009 Preesall Underground Gas Storage Facility, Lancashire Information to Support a Habitats Regulations Assessment Morecambe Bay SPA and Ramsar Regulation No: 5(2)(g) Document Ref: 3.3 Author: Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited 330 Firecrest Court Centre Park Warrington WA1 1RG Telephone Date: November 2011 Version Number: 1

2

3 Preesall Underground Gas Storage Facility Information to Support a Habitats Regulations Assessment Morecambe Bay SPA and Ramsar November 2011

4 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Firecrest Court Centre Park Warrington WA1 1RG United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0) Fax: +44 (0) Preesall Underground Gas Storage Facility Information to Support a Habitats Regulations Assessment Morecambe Bay SPA and Ramsar Author Marie Evans/Liz Turley Checker Samantha Walters Approver Elaine Richmond Report No 0013-WX40004-NHR-02 Date November 2011 This report has been prepared for Halite Energy Group in accordance with the terms and conditions of appointment for Environmental Services dated March Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited ( ) cannot accept any responsibility for any use of or reliance on the contents of this report by any third party. Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited

5 CONTENTS 1 SUMMARY INTRODUCTION Background Requirements for Appropriate Assessment Selection and Screening of European Sites Objectives of the Report DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT Purpose and Objectives of the Project Key Stages of the Project Project Programme Resource Requirements Waste Products CHARACTERISTICS OF THE EUROPEAN SITE Introduction Qualifying Features Qualifying Features Potentially Affected by the Project Conservation Objectives Conservation Status Vulnerability Potential Effect Pathways Likely Future Changes in Absence of Project In-Combination Projects Seasonal Influences on Qualifying Bird Species Physical and Chemical Composition of the European Site e.g. geology, hydrology or soils, identifying key physical features with a direct influence on the qualifying features of the site Dynamics of the Habitats, Species and their Ecology Key Structural and Functional Relationships that Create and Maintain the Site s Integrity BIRD DATA COLLECTION METHOLODOGY AND CONSULTATIONS Methodology Collation of Baseline Information BOTANICAL DATA COLLECTION METHOLODOGY Methodology Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page i

6 6.2 Collation of Baseline Information BASELINE CONDITIONS Habitats Approach to Screening Bird Species Qualifying Features of Morecambe Bay SPA and Ramsar Site Screening of Bird Species SCREENING OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS Approach to Determining Significance on Qualifying Bird Species Elements of the Project Screened out of the Assessment Elements of the Project which can be Screened out of the Assessment for Certain Qualifying Features of the European Site Elements of the Project likely to give rise to Significant Effects and the Species that they are Likely to Affect Summary of Activities Screened into the Assessment ASSESSMENT OF LIKELY SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS Assessment of Likely Changes and Significance Likely Changes to the Conservation Objectives of the European Site Conclusion of Likely Significant Effects IN-COMBINATION ASSESSMENT Identification of Projects Wyre Power Station Fleetwood Harbour Village Cuadrilla Shale Gas Exploration MITIGATION MEASURES Need for Mitigation Landscape and Ecological Management Strategy Plan ASSESSMENT OF RESIDUAL IMPACTS CONCLUSION REFERENCES Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page ii

7 Tables Table 3-1 Indicative Construction Programme 14 Table 4-1 Condition Assessment of Morecambe Bay SPA, Ramsar Component SSSIs 24 Table 7-1 European Site Species Potentially Affected by the Project 58 Table 8-1 Activities Associated with the Project, their Potential Significant Effects, and European Site Species/Habitats Likely to be affected 75 Table 10-1 Projects with the potential to have significant in-combination effects 88 Appendices Figure 1A & 1B Location of Designated Sites Figure 2 Project Masterplan Figure 3 Survey Areas Figure 4 Location of In-combination Projects Appendix 1 Screening Matrix Appendix 2 Summary of Consultations Appendix 3 Designated Site Citations Morecambe Bay Ramsar: Natura 2000 Form Appendix 4 Conservation Objectives Appendix 5 Consultations Presented in Full (in chronological order) Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page iii

8 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page iv

9 1 SUMMARY Halite Energy Group Limited (Halite) is applying for a Development Consent Order (DCO) to construct and operate an Underground Gas Storage (UGS) facility at Preesall, Lancashire which includes an interconnector pipeline to the National Grid Transmission System at Nateby, 12 km to the east, and a brine discharge pipeline extending 2.3 km off shore from Rossall, Fleetwood (the Project) This report is one of two Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) reports undertaken by Hyder Consulting (UK) Ltd for the Preesall Underground Gas Storage Facility Project (See Document 3.2 within the DCO Application). This report considers Morecambe Bay Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar site, and provides baseline information on the ecological interests of the European site in relation to the features which could be affected by the Project, together with an assessment of the likely nature and scale of impacts associated with the Project, both in isolation, as well as in-combination with other relevant projects This report should be read in conjunction with the HRA report that has been prepared by Hyder Consulting for the Preesall Underground Gas Storage Facility Project with respect to Morecambe Bay SAC, Liverpool Bay SPA, Shell Flat and Lune Deep csac. Together these reports provide the necessary information to enable the Competent Authority to determine whether an Appropriate Assessment is required and also sufficient information to undertake an Appropriate Assessment, should it be deemed necessary The assessment has been undertaken in accordance with the Habitats Directive, the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended), the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedures) Regulations 2009 (the APFP Regulations), and IPC Advice Note 10, in support of the DCO Application for the Project The assessment involved a review of all elements of the Project and a comprehensive desk study, literature and survey data review to establish baseline conditions for Morecambe Bay SPA and Ramsar (hereafter referred to as the European site). It also involved an assessment of the proportion of the European site population potentially affected by the Project; together with an assessment of potential effect pathways and a review of potential incombination projects or plans The desk study and survey data review determined that a significant number of qualifying interest features of the European site (wintering and passage waders and wildfowl) occurred within the habitats of the Wyre Estuary and functionallylinked land on both sides of the Estuary. It also concluded that only significant numbers of wintering pink-footed geese were found to be using the functionallylinked land, outside of the European site boundary within the Project boundary Through the implementation of tried and tested embedded design and mitigation measures, including: noise and visual screening, sensitive timing of the construction programme; adherence to best practice guidelines with regard to construction and operational activities (including the Environment Agency s Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 1

10 Pollution Prevention Guidelines); and control and monitoring of the brine discharge and seawater abstraction, it was possible to screen out elements of the Project that would have as having no significant effects on the European site and its qualifying features. It was also possible to screen out certain bird species, due to the low numbers of individuals recorded within areas that would be affected by the Project and/or a lack of a potential effect pathway The assessment concluded that there would be no significant effects on the habitats of the European site. The cavern creation and directional drilling under the European site habitats would have no significant effects on the European site as a result of well-established techniques, the design, and best practice pollution control measures. Sensitive timing of works closest to the European site habitat and noise and visual screening would also ensure no significant effects on the qualifying species using the habitats within the European site boundary, adjacent to the Project. However, it was concluded that, in the absence of mitigation, it would not be possible to conclude no significant effects on the large numbers of pink-footed geese using the functionally-linked land to the east of the Wyre Estuary, within the Project boundary. Since noise and physical presence of structures and personnel during the construction phases would be likely to affect these geese Mitigation has been devised in the form of a Landscape and Ecological Management Strategy Plan. Significant effects on wintering pink-footed geese would occur during winter for the first three years of the Project and may continue for a further five years when caverns are being created. The effects would be likely to occur up to a distance of 500 m from the disturbing activity. The implementation of the Landscape and Ecological Management Strategy Plan will ensure that sufficient undisturbed alternative foraging and roosting habitat will be maintained during the construction period. This will ensure that no residual effects on the European site qualifying features and species, both in isolation and in-combination with other projects Given that no significant residual effect is envisaged on the bird species using the designated land within the European site, there will be no net loss of designated site habitat and no deterioration of habitat quality, and the implementation of the Landscape and Ecological Management Strategy Plan, it is considered that overall there will be no significant residual effects on Morecambe Bay SPA and Ramsar as a result of the Project. Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 2

11 2 INTRODUCTION 2.1 Background Hyder Consulting Limited was appointed by Halite Energy Group Limited (Halite) to consider the potential effects of the Preesall Underground Gas Storage Facility Project on European sites in the vicinity of the Project. The Project involves the creation of 19 underground gas storage caverns using a solution mining process (leaching), together with associated water-washing infrastructure, gas and electrical infrastructure, and road infrastructure. Following creation of the caverns, gas would be processed and stored in these underground caverns prior to its distribution to the National Transmission System (NTS) through a proposed pipeline to the east Whilst the above ground features of the Project would not be located within any European sites, several of the underground caverns would be located under the saltmarsh habitats of Morecambe Bay Special Area of Protection (SPA) and Ramsar. In addition, four underground pipe crossings would also be installed under the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary in two separate locations (i.e. under Morecambe Bay SPA and Ramsar site). The northern crossing would comprise two water pipelines and the southern crossing would comprise electrical cabling. Figure 1 shows the location of the Project in relation to Morecambe Bay SPA and Ramsar A Screening exercise, Stage One of the Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) process (as detailed within and Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) Advice Note 10 and described within Section below), has been carried out as part of this assessment. The Screening Matrix presents the findings of the Screening exercise and is included as Appendix 1. This report further refines the Screening exercise (See Section 8) and considers those likely significant effects in detail within Section 9. Consultations have also taken place throughout the HRA process (see Appendix 2 for summary details of consultations, and Appendix 5 for consultations presented in full) This report therefore constitutes information to support a HRA, which has been produced following an assessment of the potential impacts of proposals to create an Underground Gas Storage Facility (and associated infrastructure), on Morecambe Bay SPA and Ramsar, hereafter referred to in this report as the European site A further three European sites, including Morecambe Bay Special Area of Conservation (SAC), Liverpool Bay SPA, Shell Flat and Lune Deep candidate SAC (csac), were also considered to be potentially affected by the Project; however, the Screening exercise concluded that it was unlikely that the Project would give rise to potentially significant effects upon the integrity of these European sites and therefore, these sites have been considered separately in Preesall Underground Gas Storage Facility Information to Support a Habitat Regulations Assessment: Morecambe Bay SAC, Liverpool Bay SPA, Shell Flat and Lune Deep csac (See Document 3.2 with the DCO Application). Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 3

12 2.1.6 The document considers the potential impacts of the Project with a number of measures already embedded into the design of the Project to eliminate or reduce (where possible) potential impacts of the proposals on the European site s qualifying features. These embedded design measures include the sensitive programming of works activities, the provision of visual and noise screening of works activities, and the use of tried and tested, best practice measures for controlling emissions to the environment This assessment has been undertaken in accordance with the Habitats Directive, the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended), the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedures) Regulations 2009 (the APFP Regulations), and IPC Advice Note 10, in support of the Development Consent Order application for the Project. 2.2 Requirements for Appropriate Assessment Under Article 6 of the Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora (hereafter referred to as the Habitats Directive), an assessment is required where a plan or project may give rise to significant effects upon a Natura 2000 site (otherwise referred to as a European site). This includes SPAs designated under the Conservation of Wild Birds Directive (2009/147/EC, which codifies Directive 79/409/EEC) for rare, vulnerable and regularly occurring migratory bird species and internationally important wetlands The requirements of the Habitats Directive are transposed into UK law through the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (which has superseded the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations 1994 (as amended)), hereafter referred to as the Habitats Regulations. In addition, it is a matter of UK Government policy that sites designated under the 1971 Ramsar Convention for their internationally important wetlands (Ramsar sites) are also considered in this process Paragraph 3, Article 6 of the Habitats Directive states that: Any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site but likely to have a significant effect thereon, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects, shall be subject to appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in view of the site s conservation objectives. In light of the conclusions of the assessment of the implications for the site and subject to paragraph 4 (see below), the competent national authority shall agree to the plan or project only having ascertained that it would not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned and, if appropriate, after having obtained the opinion of the general public Paragraph 4, Article 6 of the Habitats Directive states that: If, in spite of a negative assessment of the implications for the site and in the absence of alternative solutions, a plan or project must nevertheless be carried out for imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of social or economic nature, the Member State shall take all compensatory measures to ensure that the overall coherence of Natura 2000 is protected. It shall inform Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 4

13 the Commission of the compensatory measures adopted Where the site concerned hosts a priority natural habitat type and/or priority species, the only considerations which may be raised are those relating to human health or public safety, to the beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment or, further to an opinion from the Commission, to other imperative reasons of overriding public interest As the assessment requirements of the Habitats Directive have been applied, it has become generally accepted that the process comprises up to four stages (Assessment of plans and projects significantly affecting Natura 2000 sites (European Commission, 2001)): Stage One: Screening the process which identifies the likely impacts upon a Natura 2000 site of a project or plan, either alone or in combination with other projects or plans, and considers whether these impacts are likely to be significant Stage Two: Appropriate Assessment the consideration of the impact on the integrity of the Natura 2000 site of the project or plan, either alone or in combination with other projects or plans, with respect to the site s structure and function and its conservation objectives. Additionally, where there are adverse impacts, an assessment of the potential mitigation of those impacts Stage Three: Assessment of alternative solutions the process which examines alternative ways of achieving the objectives of the project or plan that avoid adverse impacts on the integrity of the Natura 2000 site Stage Four: Assessment where no alternative solutions exist and where adverse impacts remain - an assessment of compensatory measures where, in the light of an assessment of imperative reasons of overriding public interest (IROPI), it is deemed that the project or plan should proceed 2.3 Selection and Screening of European Sites The zone of influence for marine ecological receptors and European marine sites was considered to be greater than the 2 km from the work activities identified for terrestrial habitats, given the presence of mobile qualifying species (birds) and the potential effect pathway through the Irish Sea However, based on the construction methodology and the results of the Marine Dispersion Modelling (See Volume 1B of the Environmental Statement (ES), Technical Appendix: 2.2) it was considered that the potential impacts of the development would not extend beyond 10 km into the marine environment as a worst case scenario Through consultation with Natural England (See Appendix 2 and Appendix 5 for further details), the following five sites within 10 km were therefore identified as being potentially affected by the Project: Morecambe Bay SAC Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 5

14 Liverpool Bay SPA Shell Flats and Lune Deep csac Morecambe Bay SPA Morecambe Bay Ramsar As described above, the initial Screening exercise concluded that the potential impacts of the development may be significant for only two of the above sites: Morecambe Bay SPA and Ramsar. The assessment of no significant effects on the remaining three sites is detailed within a separate report (Document 3.2 of the DCO Application) entitled: Preesall Underground Gas Storage Facility Information to Support a Habitats Regulations Assessment: Morecambe Bay SAC, Liverpool Bay SPA and Shell Flats and Lune Deep csac. These sites will therefore not be discussed further in this report. 2.4 Objectives of the Report The objectives of this report are to: Provide baseline information on the ecological interests of the European site in relation to the features which could be affected by the Project (based on the outcomes of the screening exercise (Stage One of the process)) Assess the likely nature and scale of the effects on the European site designations from the Project in isolation, as well as in combination with other relevant projects in the same area Give consideration of the results to provide information to allow an Appropriate Assessment to be carried out (Stage Two of the process, described above) by the Competent Authority Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 6

15 3 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT 3.1 Purpose and Objectives of the Project The purpose and objectives of the Project are to provide an Underground Gas Storage Facility which can contribute to the demand of the UK for gas storage. Natural gas production in the UK is in significant decline, and since 2004 the UK has become a net importer of gas. As the UK is the world s fifth largest consumer of gas, it is predicted that by 2020 the UK could be importing 70% of its gas. To insure against interruptions to supply, for example during the harsh winters of recent years, the UK needs to increase its gas storage capacity. The current capacity in the UK is only 14 days of gas storage. By storing gas in underground caverns, the UK will be better able to meet the future demands for gas The proposed Project comprises 19 gas storage caverns with a total capacity of 900 million cubic metres, providing a working capacity of 600 million standard cubic metres of natural gas. The gas would be stored underground and could be released on demand via an interconnector pipeline to the gas NTS at Nateby There is an acknowledged need for Underground Gas Storage facilities in the UK and this is recognised in the Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1) (DECC, 2011). This policy statement makes the point that the UK is highly dependent on natural gas with strong seasonal variations in demand such that it needs a diverse mix of gas storage and supply infrastructure to respond effectively in future to the large daily and seasonal changes in demand and to provide endurance capacity during a cold winter. The statement makes the point that a range of gas infrastructure is required but that Underground Gas Storage Facilities can assist in responding to changing market conditions. 3.2 Key Stages of the Project Detailed Project proposals are described in Volume 1A of the ES, Chapter 2: Project Description. An outline of the proposals and key stages of construction are provided below. The total application site covers approximately 500 ha, plus some land in the ownership of the Crown Estates and the Duchy of Lancaster. The location of the Project in relation to the European site can be found in Figures 1a and 1b and the Project Masterplan is presented in Figure 2. Gas Storage Caverns The Project would involve the creation of up to 19 gas storage caverns located approximately 250 m to 400 m below the surface, within the Preesall saltfields in Lancashire. The storage caverns would be created using a solution mining process (leaching) from within the salt strata in the Preesall saltfields. This process dissolves the salt layer through the injection of saltwater. These caverns would be created, filled, and emptied from wellheads at the surface (see below for further details) to create a storage facility for a total of 900 million m 3 of natural gas, with an operational capacity of 600 million m 3. The precise Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 7

16 location of each cavern has not yet been determined as this would depend on consent from the Health & Safety Executive (HSE) and would be an iterative process as each cavern is installed. The caverns would be formed within two distinct areas, one of which would be located under saltmarsh designated within the European site. The other location for the caverns would be beneath the farmland adjacent to the European site which is functionally-linked to the European site, as it is known to support bird species for which the site has been designated (See Paragraph for more details) The caverns have been designed to international standards to ensure there will be no risk of catastrophic cavern collapse at any stage of the Project, both during and following their creation, and international standards would be strictly adhered to. The cavern design will ensure salt roof/cap is maintained for each cavern. Research has shown that local failures in the Preesall area have occurred when historic mine workings collapsed, and that the collapses are due to the removal of the salt roof/cap (See Volume 1A of the ES, Chapter 10: Geology, Hydrogeology and Stability, Paragraphs ). No failure to date has occurred in the UK due to crown-hole developments (when the cavern collapses) with caverns of the design proposed for the Preesall Project. In addition, a Seismic Hazard Desk Study undertaken has shown that the Project, including cavern locations, are located in an area of low seismic activity, even by UK standards (See Volume 1A of the ES, Chapter 10: Geology, Hydrogeology and Stability, Paragraphs ), and interpretation of historical earthquakes in the UK shows the fault rupture hazard at Preesall to be low; therefore, it is highly unlikely that there would be tremors in this area which could cause cavern instability A Surface Subsidence Assessment has also been undertaken for the Project (Mott MacDonald, 2011), which has concluded that initially, after one year of cavern creation, maximum subsidence of 9 mm would occur in two areas, one in the area of the northern cavern field (in agricultural land, functionally-linked to the European site, on the eastern side of the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary) and one in the area of the southern cavern field (under the mudflat habitats of the European site) Seven multiple wellhead compounds would be constructed for the formation of the caverns, the location of these are shown on Figure 2 together with their associated numbering. Although the wellheads are not within the European site they are located in the adjacent functionally-linked farm land. At the top of the wellheads, seawater would be pumped via cement-cased boreholes underground to dissolve salt and create the 19 caverns in areas for cavern development. The wellhead area would be graded and a layer of stone added to create the piling platform. Soil removed during the creation of the platforms would be used to create a bund around the wellhead compound. This bund would be at least 2.3 m above ground level. To reach the saltfields and create the caverns, boreholes would be created using a drilling rig located within the wellhead compound. The drilling rig would take approximately 4 to 6 weeks to drill each borehole, and each borehole would be created sequentially Drilling of boreholes would be a continuous activity and therefore take place during both daylight and night hours. Two 4 m high floodlights would be used to light the construction works after dark. These floodlights would be shielded and Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 8

17 directional and no light would spill onto the saltmarsh habitats of the European site Seawater abstraction to create the caverns would take place from Fleetwood Dock using a newly constructed Seawater Pump Station (as shown on Figure 2). The compound containing the Seawater Pump Station would also include a standby generator, switchgear and transformer, an access road and a car parking area. The compound would be located adjacent to existing built development. Filters would be incorporated into the inlet to the Pump Station to minimise the opportunity for marine macro-organisms to be drawn into the water washing infrastructure. The amount of seawater to be used would be very large (up to 80 megalitres a day). The volume of water to be abstracted would be equivalent to approximately 47% of the volume of water held in the dock. The water would, however, only be abstracted as the tide floods (i.e. 6-8 hours per day over two tides), and intake rates would be around 2,700 cubic litres per second. The levels of water within the Fleetwood Fish Dock would be closely monitored during abstractions to ensure appropriate levels remain in the dock. Although neither Fleetwood Fish Dock nor the Seawater Pump Station are within the European site, they are located close to it. The Fish Dock is 220 m to the west of the European site boundary and the Seawater Pump Station is 250 m to the west of the European site boundary Seawater from the Seawater Pump Station would be delivered to the caverns via a pipeline constructed under the River Wyre/Wyre. There would be four pipelines installed under River Wyre/Wyre Estuary at the north river crossing, one for the seawater abstracted from the Fish Dock, one for brine generated during the washing process, one for power, communications, controls and ancillary uses, leaving one in reserve The pipelines at the northern river crossing would be installed using directional drilling from platforms to a depth of at least 8 m below the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary (and hence below the European site). The installed pipes would be approximately 1.3 km long. A well established drilling technique would be used to install the pipes, taking into consideration best practice guidance. Compounds would be constructed on either side of the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary. The drilling rig would be located on the western side of the river crossing and the pipes pulled from the eastern side. All pipes for the river crossing would be brought by road on the Preesall side of the River Wyre. All equipment and compounds associated with the directional drilling would be located outside of the European site. The Under River Entry Point on the west of the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary would be located within terrestrial habitat 50 m west of the European site boundary. The Under River Exit Point on the east side of the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary would be located within a field that forms part of the functionally-linked land for the European site. Once drilling commences, it would be continuous for a period of four months. The drilling would take place in the summer months (May to August) to avoid potential impacts on the qualifying bird species of the European site (See Volume 1A of the ES, Chapter 5: Environmental Impact Assessment Methodology, Table 5-5) Saturated brine arising from the washing process and cavern creation would be returned through washwater pipelines to a De-Brining Facility adjacent to the Booster Pump Station east of the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary. The De-brining Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 9

18 Facility would include a reservoir tank to collect sediment, and would be located adjacent to an existing wastewater treatment facility (Preesall Wastewater Treatment Works), as shown on Figure 2. The Booster Pump Station, Control Centre and De-brining Facility would be within a compound 80 m north of the European site boundary (at its closest point) A brine discharge pipeline would be constructed from the De-brining Facility, back under the river to a Control Centre situated adjacent to the Seawater Pump Station at Fleetwood Fish Dock. As described above, the pipeline beneath the river would be within the European site. From the northern river crossing to the sea wall at Rossall, all pipework would be installed underground with the exception of the crossing of the old railway line adjacent to the Jameson Road bridge crossing where a pipe bridge is proposed. The pipeline between the river crossing and sea wall would either be installed in trenches, or thrust bore to avoid disrupting services. The pipeline would then go under the sea wall, and out to approximately 2.3 km offshore to the discharge point in the Irish Sea The pipes that would transport the seawater and brine would be towed from Norway to the UK by boat via regular shipping lanes. It would then be towed by tug to the installation points. It is envisaged that the number of vessels involved in the installation of the brine outfall pipeline would be in the region of three to four vessels. A vessel management plan would be produced to dictate the routes the vessels would take to access the construction site. The area of construction works would also be demarcated Between the mean low water mark and the sea wall, the pipeline would be laid in a trench excavated by a digger (aided by dump trucks) which would access the beach via an existing ramp from the sea wall. An area either side of the pipeline (intertidally) would be reserved for construction compounds and the storage of spoil. The section of the pipeline between the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary and Rossall would be located within land that is outwith the European site boundary, and in land not functionally-linked to the European site; however, the pipeline route does pass near to Fleetwood Farm and Fleetwood Marsh Nature Reserve/Fleetwood Marsh Industrial Land Biological Heritage Site (BHS), which are areas known to support species for which the European site is designated (See Figure 3 for location of these areas). The Seawall Crossing Construction Site is approximately 2 km south of the closest coastal habitats that form part of the European site (the shingle beach at Rossall Point) In the sublittoral habitats, the outfall pipe would comprise an undersea highdensity polyethylene (HDPE) pipe (900 mm diameter) which would be installed in 450 m sections in a trench 2.5 m deep excavated by barge using a cutter suction dredger. This type of dredger uses a large mechanical cutter to break up larger rocks. The sediments are temporarily stored close to the trench and then re-used as backfill material once the pipe has been installed. The route corridor will be 58 m wide through the foreshore and offshore sections; this represents the maximum extent of any activity, including vessel anchoring. The width of the trench in both the sublittoral and littoral habitats would be 7 m wide and 2.5 m deep. The Brine discharge pipeline (and associated works) would be constructed between April and July, with foreshore works taking place first and Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 10

19 progressively working offshore (See Volume 1A of the ES, Chapter 5: Environmental Impact Assessment Methodology, Table 5-5) The pipe would be weighted by concrete collars and anchored to the seabed and the trench then backfilled from a seagoing vessel. Backfilling would be with approximately 83,000 tons of rock deposited from a side stone dumping vessel to weight the pipeline, onto which a proportion of excavated sediments from the trench will be backfilled to seabed level. Excess sediments (approximately 24,150 m 3 ) would be distributed back into the marine environment across the 58 m wide and 2.3 km long pipeline corridor. Following construction, seabed levels would be returned to preconstruction levels The brine discharge point would be through a two port single diffuser, optimised by design for the marine environment. The discharge point into the Irish Sea is 3 km south-west of the shingle beach at Rossall Point which is the part of the European site that is closest to the Project (as shown on Figure 1b) The discharged brine will be highly saline. Modelling of the discharge plume has shown that the predominant flows within the area of the brine outfall are in a north and south direction, with very limited flows in an east-west direction (See Volume 1B of the ES, Technical Appendix 2.2: Marine Dispersion Modelling, Figure 4.6 and Figure 4.7). The modelling predicts that the brine would reach 5% of the ambient salinity within 500 m of the discharge diffuser in a northsouth direction (See Volume 1B of the ES, Technical Appendix 2.2: Marine Dispersion Modelling, Section4.2). The brine would also be discharged at a maximum change in ambient water temperature of 2 o C or less. Gas Processing A Gas Compressor Compound would be constructed north-west of Higher Lickow Farm to the east of the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary (as shown on Figure 2). It would be located outside of the European site but within functionallylinked fields, and would be designed and landscaped to minimise visual impacts, including the provision of bunds as screens. Gas would be processed at this compound for entry into the caverns and to the NTS. The compound would include compressors, dehydration units, air cooled heat exchangers, filters, separators, storage tanks and utility systems, additional buildings containing electrical and instrument equipment and a vent stack for emergency and routine maintenance use. Adjacent to the Gas Compressor Compound would be an Electrical Sub-station Gas would be distributed from the Gas Compressor Compound through a 42 inch pipeline, via an Interconnector Metering Station, to the NTS near Nateby; approximately 12 km to the east of the European site. The Interconnector Metering Station would also house automatic metering and gas analysis instrumentation. Neither the Gas Compressor Compound nor the Electrical Sub-station are located with the European site. However, these structures would be located within farmland that is considered to be functionally-linked to the European site. Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 11

20 Interconnector Pipeline The pipeline connecting the Gas Compressor Compound to the NTS at Nateby would comprise a 42-inch (or 36-inch) diameter high tensile steel pipe which would be buried. A working width of approximately 37 m wide would be required to install the pipeline. The width would decrease in confined or sensitive areas. Vegetation removal would take place initially followed by grading using graders, backhoes and bulldozers. In agricultural areas, the topsoil would be stripped from the working width in consultation with landholders. Topsoil would not remain exposed for longer than three months at any one place The trench in which the pipes would sit would be excavated using a wheel trencher or an excavator. The distance covered per day would be dependent on terrain, equipment availability and weather conditions. A wheel excavator could excavate 1200 m per day but only on flat terrain. An excavator could only excavate approximately 210 m on all terrains The pipes would be delivered by trucks in 18 m sections and welded prior to laying within the trench. The movement of pipe sections would be undertaken using side boom tractors. Following the installation of the pipeline within the trench the habitats would be reinstated For the majority of its length, the NTS would be located within farmland that may occasionally support species for which the European site has been designated, although most of this farmland is not considered to be of sufficient value to be functionally-linked. However, it would also pass through Pilling Moss: Eagland Hill BHS and Pilling Moss: Head Dyke BHS, which are known to support wintering pink-footed geese (a qualifying species of the European site). The works through these sites would take place in the summer months (between May to August) to avoid impacts on wintering pink-footed geese (See Volume 1A of the ES, Chapter 5: Environmental Impact Assessment Methodology, Table 5-5). Electrical Infrastructure Electrical cables would be laid underground to connect the Gas Compressor Compound sub-station with the Stanah sub-station on the western side of the River Wyre (referred to as the south river crossing). The route of the cables is shown on Figure 2. The cables would be installed under the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary through the use of directional drilling, in the same manner as the north river crossing. Temporary crossing compounds would be created each side of the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary in fields which are immediately adjacent to the European site. As with the seawater/brine pipelines described in Paragraph above (the north river crossing), the cables would be installed at least 8 m below ground level to avoid impacts on the European site habitats above ground The connecting cabling from the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary would be installed predominantly using trenched methods; however, trenchless methods would also be used where appropriate. For the majority of its length the electrical Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 12

21 cables would be installed within the margins of field that are considered to be functionally-linked to the European site. Other Associated Infrastructure Other associated infrastructure to be considered in the assessment include the following: The creation of a fire pond adjacent to the Gas Compressor Compound, in land that is functionally-linked to the European site; The refurbishment of Higher Lickow Farm to provide office accommodation, where the adjacent farmland is functionally-linked to the European site; Extension to the sea wall at West Way to accommodate the brine outfall and a new observation platform, on built land that is approximately 2 km from the European site; New access road from the A588 and new and upgraded internal access tracks within the site. These works will take place close to fields that are functionally-linked to the European site; Temporary construction compounds. One compound would be located adjacent to the Gas Compressor Compound in land that is functionallylinked to the European site. Whilst, others are located on built land to the west of the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary which is outwith the European site and of limited value to bird species for which the European site has been designated; Various elements of the Project would be lit. In all cases this would be highly directional to avoid the illumination of adjacent habitats. This includes lighting to illuminate the well-heads during drilling; security lighting around permanent compounds, and low-level lighting along permanent access roads. Operation, Maintenance, and Decommissioning During the operation of the Project, strict monitoring of the caverns would be undertaken. Every ten to fifteen years, the caverns would be filled with brine solution to test their mechanical integrity. The latter would involve the charging of each cavern with seawater from the Fleetwood Fish Dock and discharging of brine, as described for construction above. Caverns would be tested sequentially and not all together. Brine discharge associated with the flushing of caverns would be controlled and monitored as described for the construction period and would comply with the Environment Agency (EA) granted discharge consent licence The Project is envisaged to be operational for a period of 40 years, although it may be possible that the site would be operational for longer. If there are no future uses for the caverns and facilities then the caverns would be emptied of gas, filled with brine and sealed at the end of the Project. The wellheads would be maintained and monitored. The remaining infrastructure could also remain in place if required for alternative use. Alternatively the buildings and pipelines would be removed. Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 13

22 As described for construction above (See Paragraphs 3.2.3), the caverns have been designed to prevent collapse. In addition to the stable design, on completion of the operational phase, the caverns would be backfilled with brine to ensure pressure is maintained and to further prevent the caverns collapsing. A Seismic Hazard Desk Study undertaken has also shown that the Project, including cavern locations, are located in an area of low seismic activity, even by UK standards, and therefore cavern collapse as a result of seismic activity is not anticipated (See Volume 1A of the ES, Chapter 10: Geology, Hydrogeology and Stability: Paragraphs ) A Surface Subsidence Assessment has also been undertaken for the Project (Mott MacDonald, 2011), which has concluded that the creations of the caverns would result in 46 mm of subsidence in ground levels above the caverns during the lifetime of the Project (considered to be 40 years) (See Volume 1A of the ES, Chapter 10: Geology, Hydrogeology and Stability, Paragraphs ). 3.3 Project Programme Construction of the Project is programmed for Following Project set-up, construction of the development would be phased over a period of eight years. A number of the construction and operational phases would take place in parallel over these years, and these are summarised as: the construction phase (Years 1-3), construction and operation combined phase (Years 3-8), operation phase (Years 9-40), and decommissioning phase. An indicative programme is provided in Table 3.1 below. Table 3-1 Indicative Construction Programme Construction Task New Access Roads and Internal Access Roads Higher Lickow Farm Brine Pipeline and Outfall North River Crossing South River Crossing Seawater Pump Station Installation of Electrical Infrastructure Booster Pump Station Gas Compressor Compound Interconnector Pipeline Wellheads Creation of Caverns Years Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 14

23 3.3.2 All of the above ground built development and associated infrastructure (cabling, pipelines and access roads) would be completed within the first three years of the construction programme; however, the washing and creation of the caverns would take place sequentially over a four to six year period as each cavern is created and tested individually. As caverns become available and subject to HSE approval, caverns may be operational whilst others are still being washed or tested During the first year of construction it is anticipated that the preliminary earthworks, access roads, river crossings, pumping stations and brine discharge pipeline would be constructed. The Gas Compressor Compound would be constructed between years one and three, and the Interconnector Pipeline between years two and three. Drilling compounds would commence in year two and continue for five years, and the wellheads and caverns would commence construction in year two and continue for four to six years. 3.4 Resource Requirements There is no requirement to extract or remove resources from the European site as part of the Project. 3.5 Waste Products Construction Brine Solution The main waste generated during the Project construction would be a saturated brine solution, as a result of the washing of the caverns. This would be disposed of via a pipeline to the Irish Sea, in accordance with the existing discharge licence granted by the EA for the Project. The outfall would be located 2.3 km offshore On completion of the washing process, the brine solution used would be returned to the de-brining facility, which would ensure the brine contains no insolubles prior to its release to the sea. The quality of the brine would be carefully monitored prior to disposal. Any insolubles present would be collected and disposed of to an existing underground cavern on site, in close proximity to the de-brining facility. The movement of these insolubles would be through a tanker or slurry pipeline The final brine solution to be released would be of varying saturation, depending on the stage of washing; however, as a worst-case-scenario, the concentration is considered to be saturated (i.e. approximately 26% weight/weight (w/w) sodium chloride). The release of the brine at the outfall would be through a two port single diffuser, carefully designed to be optimised for the marine environment Modelling of the discharge plume has shown that the predominant flows within the area of the brine outfall are in a north and south direction, with very limited flows to the east and west direction, in line with prevailing conditions. The modelling predicts that the brine would reach levels of 40 psu (practical salinity Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 15

24 unit) within 50 m of the discharge diffuser. The modelling has also shown that brine plume would reach 5% of the ambient salinity within 500 m of the discharge diffuser in a north-south direction (See Volume 1B of the ES, Technical Appendix 2.2: Marine Dispersion Modelling, Section 4.2) Although the saline element of the brine plume would contain more sodium and chloride ions than seawater, sufficient mixing would have taken place that the ratio of mineral constituents will be in proportion with the surrounding water when the salinity levels have reached ambient salinity (See Volume 1A of the ES, Chapter 9: Ecology and Nature Conservation, Paragraphs ). Brine would be released during the cavern construction over a period of 4 to 6 years, commencing in year two. Drilling Wastes As a result of the drilling processes for the cavern construction, drilling waste would arise. This would be in the form of solids (for example, shale, sandstone, and chert) and associated drilling muds. These solids would be used on site for landscape buffers and mounding, or alternatively they would be removed from site. Drilling wastes would be collected and controlled through the application of best practice Pollution Prevention Guideline (PPG) measures as prescribed within detailed Method Statements for the drilling activities. The drilling fluids to be used for the river crossing drilling will be a water-based mud system and all components are in the Cefas/Ospar list of substances and are considered to pose little or no risk to the environment. Dredgings The brine outfall pipeline trench excavation is anticipated to generate approximately 16, 100m 3 of excess sediment. A proportion of this will be used to backfill the trench to seabed level. Any excess will then be distributed back into the marine environment across the 58 m wide pipeline corridor and following construction, seabed levels would be returned to preconstruction levels, in accordance with conditions set out in the Marine Licence. Topsoil/Earth/Rock Materials associated with the construction of building foundations, haul roads, and levelling of compounds would be disposed of on site. They would be used to form bunds for landscaping purposes. Emissions to Water Pollution prevention measures would be used during construction, for example the control of run-off to existing surface drains and the use of silt traps and bunding to prevent silt run-off and/or uncontrolled pollution events, in line with best practice PPGs There exists a small risk of oil/fuel spillages into the marine environment throughout the dredging activities. These will be minimised by ensuring that all the dredging equipment and boats/tugs meet the most up-to-date standards and that risk assessments are carried out and method statements produced to reduce the likelihood and severity of any potential spill. Measures would Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 16

25 include the bunding of any fuel, oils, and chemicals associated with plant, refuelling, and equipment, and any oil, fuel or chemical spill within the marine environment would be immediately reported to the Marine Management Organisation (MMO) Marine Pollution Response team, in accordance with the Marine Licence. Emissions to Air During construction, there would be an increase in the number of HGVs in the locality as a result of the Project during construction, which would give rise to small increases in oxides of nitrogen and nitrogen deposition. Modelling of the traffic-related air emissions have indicated that the increase in oxides of nitrogen emitted and any subsequent nitrogen deposition would be negligible within 200 m, and only slightly elevated levels within 10 m; however, these are not considered to be significant as they are significantly lower than critical levels for the habitats present (See Volume 1A of the ES, Chapter 6: Air Quality, Paragraphs and ) There would also be potential for fugitive dust deposition to occur as a result of construction activities. For those activities close to the European site (including the construction of the wellhead compounds and directional drilling under the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary), there is potential for dust deposition to occur on the saltmarsh habitats used by wintering birds for foraging or roosting where construction activities occur within close proximity to the European site (See Volume 1A of the ES, Chapter 6: Air Quality, Table 6.23). Control of fugitive dust would be undertaken in line with best practice guidance PPG measures. Barriers including the bunding around the wellhead compounds and the presence of the existing seawall would also prevent dust movement between the Project and the European Site. In addition, the majority of construction activities which may generate fugitive dust emissions close to the European site would be undertaken in the summer months; thus dust would have been removed by rainfall and through the inundation of saltmarsh habitats before wintering birds and birds on passage are present. Operation and maintenance Brine Solution During the operation period, the seawater washing infrastructure and the generation of brine would only be used during periods of maintenance. These would be every years to permit the testing and inspection of the gas storage caverns. Washing of caverns would take place individually over a period of five years. As with the construction phase, brine release during operation and maintenance would be strictly controlled and comply with the EA discharge licence. Emissions to Air During the operation of the Project, emissions to air may arise as a result of: emergency and maintenance gas from the vent system; combustion products from the dehydration incinerator; or combustion products from heating boilers. The vent system would only release air. The dehydration unit includes two small stacks. These two stacks would emit oxides of nitrogen and result in Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 17

26 nitrogen deposition. Emission from the dehydration unit would be continuous during the withdrawal period (i.e. during the period when gas is withdrawn to the NTS). The levels of emissions from these stacks are predicted to be low and considered to have a negligible impact on adjacent habitats or the European sites (see Volume 1A of the ES, Chapter 6: Air Quality of the ES, Paragraphs ). Other emissions to air would be infrequent as heating boilers are unlikely to be in regular use, and maintenance would also be infrequent. Liquid Emissions A number of liquid emissions may arise from the gas compressor facility, together with site drainage, and chemicals used in the construction process. The process water collected from the gas would be collected in a Condensate Tank. This tank would be emptied by road tanker for offsite disposal through a specialist waste contractor Any plant areas where liquid spills are expected (e.g. processing units or equipment) would be bunded or similar to ensure containment of the liquid. Any liquids generated in the bunds would be collected and, depending on the type of liquid, would either be sent offsite using a specialist waste contractor or released to the site drainage system for treatment Liquids collected in plant areas where spills are not anticipated (e.g. roads, building roofs etc) would be sent directly to the site drainage system or soakaways. The drainage system would comprise a number of tanks or chambers to permit sentencing of liquids; this would include the testing of liquids for hydrocarbons and other compounds, oils separation by gravity; buffer capacity for steady flows and surge capacity to allow for storms. Once sentenced, liquids would be discharged to a surface drain. Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 18

27 4 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE EUROPEAN SITE 4.1 Introduction Figures 1a and 1b illustrate the location of the European site in relation to the Project. The characteristics of the European site including the primary reason for selection and qualifying interests are described in detail below. The citations/natura 2000 data forms for Morecambe Bay SPA and Ramsar are provided in Appendix 3. Detailed baseline data for qualifying species, against which potential effects are assessed, are described in Section Qualifying Features Morecambe Bay SPA Morecambe Bay qualifies as an SPA under Article 4.1 of the Directive 79/409/EEC (as now codified by Directive 2009/147/EC) by supporting populations of European importance of the following species listed on Annex I of the Directive (taken from Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) s SPA Review published 2001 ( During the breeding season: Little Tern (Sterna albifrons) Sandwich Tern (S. sandvicensis) Overwinter: Bar-tailed Godwit (Limosa lapponica) Golden Plover (Pluvialis apricaria) This site also qualifies under Article 4.2 of the Directive (79/409/EEC) by supporting populations of European importance of the following migratory species: During the breeding season: Herring Gull (Larus argentatus) Lesser Black-backed Gull (L. fuscus) On passage: Ringed Plover (Charadrius hiaticula) Sanderling (Calidris alba) Over winter: Curlew (Numenius arquata) Dunlin (Calidris alpina alpine) Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 19

28 Grey Plover (Pluvialis squatarola) Knot (Calidris canutus) Oystercatcher (Haematopus ostralegus) Pink-footed Goose (Anser brachyrhynchus) Pintail (Anas acuta) Redshank (Tringa tetanus) Shelduck (Tadorna tadorna) Turnstone (Arenaria interpres) The area qualifies under Article 4.2 of the Directive (79/409/EEC) by regularly supporting at least 20,000 seabirds. Assemblage qualification: a seabird assemblage of international importance During the breeding season, the area regularly supports 61,858 individual seabirds (5 year peak mean for 1991/92 to 1995/96) including: herring gull, lesser black-backed gull, little tern, sandwich tern The area qualifies under Article 4.2 of the Directive (79/409/EEC) by regularly supporting at least 20,000 waterfowl. Assemblage qualification: A wetland of international importance Over winter, the area regularly supports 210,668 individual waterfowl (5 year peak mean for 1991/92 to 1995/96) including: great crested grebe (Podiceps cristatus), bar-tailed godwit, pink-footed goose, shelduck, pintail, oystercatcher, grey plover, knot, dunlin, curlew, golden plover (Pluvialis apricaria), turnstone, black-tailed godwit (Limosa limosa islandica), cormorant (Phalacrocorax carbo), Wigeon (Anas penelope), teal (A. crecca), mallard (A. platyrhynchos), eider (Somateria mollissima), goldeneye (Bucephala clangula), red-breasted merganser (Mergus serrator), ringed plover (Charadrius hiaticula), lapwing (Vanellus vanellus), sanderling, redshank, and whimbrel (Numenius phaeopus). Morecambe Bay Ramsar Morecambe Bay is designated as a Ramsar site by qualifying with the following Ramsar Criteria Ramsar Criterion 4: By supporting plant and/or animal species at a critical stage in their life cycles, or providing refuge during adverse conditions: The site is staging area for migrating waterfowl including internationally important numbers of ringed plover Ramsar Criterion 5: By regularly supporting 20,000 or more waterbirds. Supports assemblages of international importance: 223,709 waterfowl in winter Ramsar Criterion 6: Regularly supports 1% of the individuals in a population of one species or sub-species of waterbird. Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 20

29 During the breeding season: Lesser black-backed gull Herring gull Sandwich tern On passage (peak counts spring/autumn): Cormorant Shelduck Pintail Eider Oystercatcher Ringed plover Grey plover Sanderling Curlew Redshank Turnstone Lesser black-backed gull Over winter (peak counts): Great crested grebe Pink-footed goose Wigeon Goldeneye Red-breasted merganser Golden plover Lapwing Knot Dunlin Bar-tailed godwit The Project has the potential to give rise to potentially significant effects upon the birds for which the European site has been designated (see Screening Matrix in Appendix 1). The potential impacts of the Project on breeding, passage and over-wintering waterfowl are, therefore, considered further in this document. Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 21

30 4.3 Qualifying Features Potentially Affected by the Project Morecambe Bay SPA and Ramsar site is located on the Irish Sea coast of north-west England. It is the second largest embayment area in the UK after the Wash and is fed by five main river channels (the Leven, Kent, Keer, Lune and Wyre) which drain through intertidal flats of sand and mud. The SPA and Ramsar site have the same boundaries and occupy the same area of 37,404.6 ha. The location of Project in relation to this European site is shown on Figures 1a and 1b Morecambe Bay SPA and Ramsar site is of European importance throughout the year for a wide range of important bird species (as described in Section 4.2 above). The area comprises large intertidal mudflats and sandflats which support dense populations of marine invertebrate species, which in turn provide food for a large population of waterfowl. It also includes shingle areas which are an important nesting area for breeding sandwich terns within the Morecambe Bay. The main areas of nesting are on Foulney and Walney Islands approximately 20 km north of the Project, on the opposite side of Morecambe Bay from the Project Wildfowl and waders overwinter in internationally important numbers within Morecambe Bay, and the area is also used during the spring and autumn migration periods. Morecambe Bay is of particular importance during migration periods for waders moving up the west coast of the UK. During severe winter weather the Bay assumes even greater importance as waterfowl arrive from other areas inland, attracted by the mild conditions and abundant food resource The ability of Morecambe Bay to support internationally significant numbers of birds derives from the rich intertidal food sources together with intertidal and sub-tidal boulder and cobble skear communities, saltmarsh, and coastal lagoons, as well as dock structures and shingle banks that provide secure roosts at high tide. Of these habitats, the saltmarsh and intertidal sandflats and mudflats of the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary lie immediately adjacent to the Project, at Burrows Marsh, Arm Hill and Barnaby s Sand (see Figure 3 for locations) Whilst all above ground infrastructure associated with the Project would be installed outwith the European site, several of the underground gas storage caverns would be created under the saltmarsh habitats of the European site. Saltmarsh areas within Morecambe Bay provide important feeding, roosting and breeding areas. On high spring tides, wading birds concentrate on roost sites on the upper levels of the saltmarsh. Arm Hill is also a major high tide roost within the Wyre Estuary (See Figure 3 for location). On spring tides birds are displaced from smaller roosts in the area to Armhill, which on occasions can hold over one thousand birds The fields within agricultural use to the east of the saltmarsh, beyond the European site boundary, are also used by foraging and roosting bird species associated with the European site. Although they are outside of the European site boundary, they are referred to as functionally-linked land, as they provide Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 22

31 suitable foraging and roosting habitat at varying times of winter. The use of these fields varies across the winter and passage season, and across years, in line with the rotation of the crops. 4.4 Conservation Objectives The conservation objectives for Morecambe Bay SPA and Ramsar site are presented in Appendix 4 of the report, including the table of associated species. A summary of the objectives is included below: Subject to natural change, to maintain in favourable condition the habitats of the internationally important populations of regularly occurring bird species listed on Annex 1 of the Birds Directive, in particular: Shingle areas. Subject to natural change, to maintain in favourable condition the habitats of the internationally important assemblage of waterfowl and seabirds and the internationally important populations of regularly occurring migratory species, in particular: Intertidal mudflat and sandflat communities Intertidal and sub tidal boulder and cobble skear communities Saltmarsh communities Coastal lagoon communities 4.5 Conservation Status The most recent detailed conservation status for each of the qualifying features of the SPA is evaluated in Section 7. In addition, the Wetland Bird Survey (WeBS) Alert Site Account for Morecambe Bay SPA (2008) was also consulted. WeBS Alerts are produced every three years by the British Trust for Ornithology (BTO) in order to evaluate trends in populations of bird species Of the 23 species evaluated, three species (goldeneye, knot and bar-tailed godwit) triggered high alerts in the short to long term and 11 species triggered medium alerts, the majority in the medium to long term. The species triggering medium alerts included: eider, goldeneye, great crested grebe, ringed plover, grey plover, knot, dunlin, bar-tailed godwit, curlew, turnstone, and mallard. For many of these species, site specific pressures were identified as being a factor in their decline, particularly the improvements in sewage treatment. Broader scale changes such as climate induced range shifts were also identified as underpinning the declines All SPAs are underpinned by one or more Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), as notified under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). Morecambe Bay SPA is underpinned by six SSSIs (component SSSIs listed in Table 4.1, below). SSSIs are assessed against their conservation objectives to determine their conservation status/condition Whilst the condition of the component SSSIs does not give a precise indication of the status of each SPA habitat (and may include additional habitats to those Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 23

32 within the SPA), it does provide an indication of the overall conservation status for the area. It also provides more recent conservation status data than that presented within the Natura 2000 forms. The results of the site assessments for those sites that are components of the European site are found in Table 4.1, below This indicates that the majority of the European site s component SSSIs and their habitats are in favourable condition, with a small percentage in unfavourable condition but recovering or with no change. Habitats within the Wyre Estuary, within and adjacent to the Project, are entirely in favourable condition Overall it is considered that the European site s habitats are in favourable condition in terms of their conservation status. With respect to the individual qualifying species, their conservation status varies, with both broader scale changes and site specific pressures having different impacts on the population status of the birds (see Section 7.3 of this report). Table 4-1 Condition Assessment of Morecambe Bay SPA, Ramsar Component SSSIs SSSI Component Sites Morecambe Bay Favourable Unfavourable recovering Unfavourable no change Unfavourable declining Lune Estuary South Walney and Piel Channel Flats Wyre Estuary Cockerham Marsh Humphrey Head Destroyed, part destroyed 4.6 Vulnerability The following information is taken from the Regulation 33 Advice provided by Natural England (2000) Human activities currently believed to be actual or potential threats to the European site features, and thereby the site is vulnerable to them include: Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 24

33 Physical loss through the loss of breeding, roosting and foraging habitats, particularly the loss of shingle habitats for sandwich terns, and loss of shallow water over intertidal habitats which provide marine invertebrate prey for the European site bird species Physical damage from selective extraction, siltation, and abrasion Non-physical disturbance through human activities which cause noise and visual disturbance. This is of particular concern during winter high spring tides when birds are pushed high up onto shore to small roost sites Toxic contamination by the introduction of synthetic and non-synthetic compounds, which bioaccumulate in bird species as a result of eating contaminated prey Non-toxic contamination e.g. nutrient and organic enrichment; changes in thermal regime and salinity Biological disturbance through the selective extraction of prey species (e.g. bait digging, wildfowling, shell-fishing and other commercial and recreational fishing) 4.7 Potential Effect Pathways The most significant potential effect of the Project on the European site is considered to be disturbance/displacement of the birds listed as qualifying features of the European site. This could include visual or noise disturbance/displacement throughout the construction and operation phases of the Project. Physical loss and damage, toxic and non-toxic contamination, is considered unlikely to occur to the European site, due to the best practice pollution control measures embedded within the Project design. Biological disturbance as defined by the Regulation 33 Advice would not occur as a result of the Project Despite no envisaged physical loss to the European site, direct loss of or disturbance to habitat within the functionally-linked land, used by birds listed as qualifying features of the European site, could be potentially significant. 4.8 Likely Future Changes in Absence of Project Morecambe Bay SPA and Ramsar supports a wide range of bird species both over winter, on passage, and during the breeding season. Some of the qualifying features of the European site have increased significantly since designation (for example pink-footed geese populations), whereas other species have suffered from both broader-scale changes, and site-specific pressures, which have affected their population status All of the European site features are vulnerable to certain activities and operations (see Section 4.6 above). As a European site, it is considered that damaging activities/operations would be controlled such that the site would be moving towards achieving its conservation objectives. Therefore, in the absence of the Project, the European site and its associated habitats and species are considered likely to remain the same, subject to natural change. Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 25

34 4.9 In-Combination Projects The Local Planning Authority (Wyre Borough Council) provided information regarding nine major planning applications in the locality. Five of these planning applications were housing developments, including the recent Fleetwood Harbour Village (Redrow Homes); two were commercial developments, two were wind turbines (comprising one or two turbines) and one was for the Wyre Power Station Statutory consultees also revealed that there were three major projects which they considered have the potential for in-combination effects on this European site (see Appendix 2 and Appendix 5). These were the, the Wyre Power Station, Fleetwood Harbour Village (as above), and Cuadrilla Shale (UK) Ltd Gas Exploration (the location of these sites in relation to the Project is shown on Figure 4). The in-combination impacts of these projects and plans with the Project are examined further in Section 10 of this report Seasonal Influences on Qualifying Bird Species Seasonal influences are particularly important for the bird fauna associated with the European site. In summer, the site is important for the nationally important population of breeding sandwich and little terns, herring gull and lesser blackbacked gull, and also for the waterfowl and seabirds that feed and breed around the bay. Every autumn internationally important numbers of migratory birds fly to overwinter on the site, feeding on the diverse range of invertebrate communities that the intertidal mud and sandflats support. The site is particularly important during severe winter weather as waterfowl arrive for other areas inland The upper levels of the saltmarsh plant communities will only be covered by sea water during the highest spring tides that occur in the spring and autumn Physical and Chemical Composition of the European Site e.g. geology, hydrology or soils, identifying key physical features with a direct influence on the qualifying features of the site The sheer size of the site provides a diverse range of habitats with different physical and chemical compositions. The hydrophysical regime (tides, waves and currents), the nutrient levels, temperature, oxygen levels, salinity and the composition of the substrate all influence the diversity and composition of biological communities that occur in the European site. For example, the largest continuous area of intertidal mudflats and sandflats in the UK, with its mobile sediments of different stabilities, size and softness, provide a diverse range of habitats and communities. At low water, these mudflats and sandflats are exposed, providing rich feeding grounds for waterfowl and seabirds. Scattered areas of boulders and cobbles provide a hard substrate for dense beds of mussels. The sheltered waters of the Walney Channel in the north Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 26

35 create a different habitat, and the only eelgrass beds in Northwest England colonise the sheltered mudflats Dynamics of the Habitats, Species and their Ecology Saltmarsh plays a fundamental role in the European site, bringing stability to its margins and also operating as a source of primary productivity. The very high densities of invertebrates they support are particularly important food sources for breeding and migratory birds, for which the site is nationally and internationally important. Different habitats in the bay have a diverse range of sediments which support an interacting range of habitat and community types. The eelgrass beds (which provide important spawning, nursery and refuge areas for fish, and also help to stabilise the sediment and contribute to primary productivity), and the brittlestar beds in the Walney channel (which are a major concentration of biomass, provide food for a range of fish species and may play an important role in local carbon and nutrient cycles) Key Structural and Functional Relationships that Create and Maintain the Site s Integrity Morecambe Bay is the second largest bay in Britain and contains the largest continuous area of intertidal mudflats and sandflats in the UK. The sheer size of this habitat, along with mosaic of other habitats within the site (shallow sheltered inlets, coastal lagoons, areas of harder substrate, eelgrass beds, and saltmarsh areas) and the relationships between these habitats, provides the key to the sites integrity. The saltmarsh habitat makes a vital contribution to the structure and function of the site s ecosystem, providing its major source of primary productivity. Other habitats support a wide range of invertebrate communities which provide food for the site s large animals (especially the nationally and internationally important birds). Physical and environmental gradients (for example, exposure to waves, oxygen levels and salinity), increase the diversity of niches within the site, and, coupled with anthropogenic factors (such as grazing of saltmarsh), help maintain the site s integrity. The fragility of some of the diverse range of habitats and communities in the Bay is an important element to consider in relation to the site s integrity. Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 27

36 5 BIRD DATA COLLECTION METHOLODOGY AND CONSULTATIONS 5.1 Methodology In order to determine the baseline conditions to inform the assessment, available data sources have been used to collate data for the site of the Project and surrounding area. This ensures a detailed and robust assessment can be undertaken. 5.2 Collation of Baseline Information Information was gathered from a number of sources including: A desk-based study A consultation exercise A suite of bird surveys A noise monitoring survey Desk-based Study Desk study information relating to the Project and its surroundings was obtained from relevant organisations and local groups, as well as through a search of available web-based data, to gain further information on the qualifying features and species of the European site The following organisations were approached in order to identify any existing ornithological information relating to the Project area and its surroundings: RSPB Natural England Fylde Bird Club (Fylde Bird Club data from 1981 to 2010 for approximately 5 km from the Project) BTO (WeBS Data: 5 Year Summary for the Wyre Estuary (Arm Hill) 2005/ /10) BTO (WeBS Data: 5 Year Summary for Morecambe Bay SPA 2005/ /10) In addition, the following other sources of information were reviewed in order to inform the assessment: Citation and Natura 2000 data form for Morecambe Bay SPA ( and Natura 2000 data form for Morecambe Bay Ramsar ( Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 28

37 Wyre Estuary SSSI citation ( ) Morecambe Bay European Marine Site: English Nature s Advice Given Under Regulation 33(2) of the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations 1994 ( Ramsar Report for Morecambe Bay Ramsar. ( n-us/default.aspx) The Wetland Bird Survey (WeBS) Alerts for Morecambe Bay (winters to 2007/08 inclusive) ( In addition, information supplied by one of the tenant farmers with respect to the locations of wildfowl and waders in the Project area was also reviewed. Consultation Consultation has taken place throughout Stages One and Two of the HRA process with a number of stakeholders including RSPB, Natural England, EA, MMO, Lancashire County Council, Wyre Borough Council, and Wildlife Trust for Lancashire, Manchester and North Merseyside. This consultation exercise has primarily comprised site meetings, teleconferences, and and letter correspondence related to the Environmental Impact Assessment for the Project but also included discussions regarding the HRA. Further details of the consultations are summarised in Appendix 2 and presented in full in Appendix Based upon the findings of consultations (described above), an iterative approach to the design of the Project has been adopted, culminating in the development of a scheme design, which seeks to avoid and (where not possible) minimise the impact of the Project upon the qualifying features of the European site. Field Surveys In order to inform the impact assessment, a number of bird surveys have been undertaken. The estuarine habitats and fields surveyed are shown on Figure 3. The surveys were carried out between 2003 and 2009 and included: Wintering bird surveys (February to March 2003) Breeding bird surveys (April to June 2003) Passage bird surveys (July to November 2004) Wintering bird surveys (November 2008 to March 2009) Detailed survey methodologies and the results of the surveys are provided in Volume 1B of the ES, Technical Appendix 9.4, these are also summarised and assessed within Volume 1A, Chapter 9: Ecology and Nature Conservation of the ES. Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 29

38 Noise Monitoring (2011) Baseline noise monitoring was undertaken between 20 and 25 January 2011(See Volume 1A of the ES, Chapter 12 Noise and Vibration: Paragraphs to ) A separate noise monitoring survey was carried out at The Heads and Arm Hill to inform the assessment of impacts on birds. At this time noise monitoring equipment was installed at both locations for a period of 24 hours (07.00 to 07.00) during January During this monitoring, site observations were made by an ecologist during daylight hours (approximately 08:00 16:30) to record the source of any stand alone noise incidents that occurred and to record any such noise instances at low, neap or high tides and the effects of existing noise disturbance on bird behaviour. The surveyor was located on the eastern side of the saltmarsh between two noise monitors located at Arm Hill and The Heads. Observations were concentrated on establishing the effects that noise disturbance had on birds using the habitats within the European site Constant background noise was recorded originating from the west side of the estuary and in particular, the following areas: Landfill opposite the saltmarsh Hammering sound on the west side of the estuary Fish dock area The landfill site generated continual noise from excavator operation, intermittent bangs from what appeared to be a bird scarer, and a persistent hammering from a drilling rig. The new residential development (the Redrow Homes Fleetwood Marina development) adjacent to the Fish Dock also contributed to the levels of background noise For the 24 hour baseline monitoring, noise measurements from Arm Hill and the Heads ranged between 44.1dB L eq and 47.7dB L eq during the day and 39.2dB L eq and 41.4dB L eq at night The birds using the estuary did not appear to be affected by the background noise generated on the western bank. The only occasions when birds using the estuary appeared to be affected when low-flying aircraft passed over where flocks of geese were congregated, forcing them to fly away from the area. This happened on two occasions. Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 30

39 6 BOTANICAL DATA COLLECTION METHOLODOGY 6.1 Methodology In order to determine the baseline conditions to inform the assessment, available data sources have been used to collate data for the site of the Project and surrounding area. This ensures a detailed and robust assessment can be undertaken. 6.2 Collation of Baseline Information Information was gathered from a number of sources including: A desk-based study A consultation exercise A Phase 1 habitat survey Targeted botanical surveys Desk-based Study Desk study information relating to the Project and its surroundings was obtained from relevant organisations and local groups, as well as through a search of available web-based data, to gain further information on the qualifying features and species of the European site (See Volume 1A of the ES, Chapter 9: Ecology and Nature Conservation, Paragraphs to ) Lancashire County Council was approached in order to identify any existing botanical information relating to the Project area and its surroundings. Field Surveys A Phase 1 habitat survey of the Project area which included the European site was undertaken in September 2008 and May 2009 to inform both the Environmental Impact Assessment and the HRA the results of which are presented in Volume 1B of the ES, Technical Appendix 9.5. Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 31

40 7 BASELINE CONDITIONS 7.1 Habitats The botanical surveys revealed that the parts of European site that are within or close to the Project comprise intertidal mudflat and sandflat communities and saltmarsh communities. The other habitats associated with the European site namely intertidal and sub tidal boulder and cobble skear communities and coastal lagoon communities were not recorded within or adjacent to the Project area. As indicated previously in Paragraph above, it is considered that the habitats in the European site are in favourable condition. 7.2 Approach to Screening Bird Species The bird data collected during field surveys and the WeBS core count data for the Arm Hill count zone (within which the Project lies) have been compared to the population estimates provided on either the JNCC SPA Review or the Ramsar citation. Where field survey data was not available, in particular for the western side of the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary, data supplied by Fylde Bird Club was used to compare against the SPA data or Ramsar data. WeBS data for the entire estuary has also been reviewed to add contextual information on the current status of species within the European site. This use of bird club data for the western side of the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary was agreed with Natural England (See Appendix 2 and 5) For those features and species listed as qualifying features or species on the JNCC SPA Review form (dated 2001), the population estimate is based on the 5 year mean peak data recorded between 1992 and For those species listed on the Ramsar citation but not on the SPA Review form, the population estimate is based on the 5 year peak mean data recorded between 1998 and The JNCC figures are referred to in the text below as the citation data and the Ramsar figures are referred to as the Ramsar citation Where the bird data revealed that the habitats of the European site within the zone of influence of the Project support 1% or more of the European site population, (as defined by the SPA citation or the Ramsar citation), it is considered that there is the potential for significant effects on that particular species. The locations described in the following paragraphs are shown on Figure Qualifying Features of Morecambe Bay SPA and Ramsar Site During the Breeding Season Morecambe Bay qualifies as an SPA under Article 4.1 of the Directive (79/409/EEC) by supporting populations of European importance species of the following species listed on Annex I of the Directive during the breeding season: little tern and sandwich tern. This site also qualifies under Article 4.2 of the Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 32

41 Directive (79/409/EEC) by supporting populations of European importance of the following migratory species during the breeding season: herring gull and lesser black-backed gull Morecambe Bay also qualifies as a Ramsar site, by regularly supporting 1% of the individuals in a population of one species or sub-species of waterbird during the breeding season including: sandwich tern, herring gull and lesser blackbacked gull The value of the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary for these species within the Project area, together with the likelihood that significant effects could arise as a result of the Project, based on the numbers of birds recorded using the Wyre, is discussed in more detail below. Little Tern Morecambe Bay supports numbers of little tern of European importance during the breeding season. The main areas of nesting are on Foulney and Walney Islands approximately 20 km north of the Project, on the opposite side of Morecambe Bay The SPA citation provides a population estimate for little tern of 26 pairs (based on the count taken in 1994). This represents at least 1.1% of the breeding population in Great Britain Although there is the potential for breeding little tern to forage within the Wyre Estuary, no little terns were recorded foraging within the survey area during the breeding bird surveys undertaken in Data received from Fylde Bird Club indicates that only small numbers of birds have been recorded on both the western and eastern sides of the estuary during the breeding season. Although little tern may forage within the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary; given the low numbers recorded and the amount of suitable foraging habitat elsewhere within Morecambe Bay, it is considered unlikely that little terns would to be significantly affected by the Project Given the distance between the breeding areas and the Project and amount of suitable foraging areas elsewhere, no significant effects are anticipated on the little tern breeding colonies within the European site No significant effects on breeding little tern within the European site are anticipated as a result of the Project. Sandwich Tern Morecambe Bay supports numbers of sandwich tern of international importance during the breeding season. The main nesting areas are on Foulney and Walney Islands approximately 20 km north of the Project, on the opposite side of Morecambe Bay The SPA citation provides a population estimate for sandwich tern of 290 pairs (based on the five year peak mean for 1992 to 1996). This represents at least 2.1% of the breeding population in Great Britain. Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 33

42 As described for little tern above, whilst there is the potential for breeding sandwich tern to forage within the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary, no sandwich terns were recorded foraging there during the breeding bird surveys undertaken in However, data received from Fylde Bird Club indicates that small numbers of birds have been recorded on both the western and eastern sides of the estuary during the breeding season. Given the low numbers of birds recorded and the amount of suitable foraging habitat elsewhere within Morecambe Bay, it is considered unlikely that sandwich terns would to be significantly affected by the Project Given the distance between the breeding areas and the Project, and the amount of suitable foraging areas elsewhere, no significant effects are anticipated on the sandwich tern breeding colonies within the European site No significant effects on breeding sandwich tern within the European site are anticipated as a result of the Project. Herring Gull Morecambe Bay supports numbers of herring gull of international importance during the breeding season The SPA citation provides a population estimate for herring gull of 11,000 pairs (based on the five year peak mean for 1992 to 1996). This represents at least 1.2% of the North-western Europe (breeding) and Icelandic/Western European breeding population. More recent data from the Seabird Census in 2000 (Mitchell et al., 2004) provides a population estimate of 10,431 occupied nests, representing an average of 2.8% of the UK breeding population A peak count of 25 herring gull were recorded foraging within the survey area during the breeding bird surveys undertaken in Data received from Fylde Bird Club indicates that relatively small numbers of birds have been recorded on both the western and eastern sides of the estuary during the breeding season. However, given the amount of suitable foraging habitat within Morecambe Bay and surrounding areas, it is considered unlikely that herring gull which may occasionally use the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary as a foraging resource, would be significantly affected by the Project Given that no gull nest sites were recorded within or close to the Project and the amount of suitable foraging area away from the Project, no significant effects are anticipated on herring gull breeding within the European site No significant effects on breeding herring gull within the European site are therefore anticipated as a result of the Project. Lesser Black-backed Gull Morecambe Bay supports numbers of lesser black-backed gull of international important during the breeding season The SPA citation provides a population estimate for lesser black-backed gull of 22,000 pairs (based on the five year peak mean for 1992 to 1996). This represents at least 17.7% of the breeding Western Europe/ Mediterranean/ Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 34

43 Western Africa population. More recent data from the Seabird Census in 2000 (Mitchell et al., 2004) provides a population estimate of 19,666 occupied nests, representing an average of 13.3% of the UK breeding population A maximum of ten lesser black-backed gulls were recorded foraging within the survey area during the breeding bird surveys undertaken in Data received from Fylde Bird Club indicates that relatively small numbers of birds have been recorded on both the western and eastern sides of the estuary during the breeding season. As described for herring gull above, given the amount of suitable foraging habitat elsewhere within Morecambe Bay and surrounding areas, it is considered that lesser black-backed gulls, which may occasionally use the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary as a foraging resource, would not be affected by the Project Given that no gull nest sites were recorded within or close to the Project and the amount of suitable foraging area away from the Project, no significant effects are anticipated on the lesser black-backed gull breeding within the European site No significant effects on breeding lesser black-backed gull within the European site are therefore anticipated as a result of the Project. Overwinter Morecambe Bay qualifies as an SPA under Article 4.1 of the Directive (79/409/EEC) by supporting populations of European importance of the following species listed on Annex I of the Directive during the winter: bar-tailed godwit and golden plover. This site also qualifies under Article 4.2 of the Directive (79/409/EEC) by supporting populations of European importance of the following migratory species during the winter: curlew, dunlin, grey plover, knot, oystercatcher, pink-footed goose, pintail, redshank, shelduck and turnstone Morecambe Bay also qualifies as a Ramsar site by regularly supporting 1% of the individuals in a population of one species or sub-species of waterbird during the winter months, including great crested grebe, pink-footed goose, wigeon, goldeneye, red-breasted merganser, golden plover, lapwing, knot, dunlin, and bar-tailed godwit The value of the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary for these species within the Project area and the likelihood that significant effects could arise, as a result of the Project, based on the numbers of birds recorded using the Wyre is discussed in more detail below. Bar-tailed Godwit Morecambe Bay supports numbers of bar-tailed godwit of European importance during the winter The SPA citation provides a population estimate for bar-tailed godwit of 2,611 birds overwinter, based on the 5 year peak mean (1991/92 to 1995/96). This represents at least 4.9% of the population of birds in Great Britain. More recent WeBS data for Morecambe Bay suggest that this population has remained Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 35

44 relatively stable, with the most recent 5 year peak mean (2005/ /10) data indicating a population estimate of 2,164 birds WeBS data for the Wyre Estuary (Arm Hill) count zone (covering the eastern side of the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary) provides a population estimate of 10 birds, based on the 5 year peak mean (2005/ /10). This represents 0.38% of the European site population, based on the citation data. No bar-tailed godwits were recorded within the survey area during the wintering bird surveys (2008/09). Data received from Fylde Bird Club confirms that small numbers of bar-tailed godwit have been recorded on the eastern side of the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary, with a peak count of 33 birds in Taking the peak count, this represents 1.3% of the European site population, based on the citation data Data received from Fylde Bird Club indicates that very small numbers of bartailed godwit have been recorded on the western side of the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary, with a peak count of five birds in Given that the Fylde Bird Club data indicates that over 1% of the European site population has been recorded in the vicinity of the works on the eastern side of the estuary during the winter months; there is the potential for the Project to cause significant effects on the population of bar-tailed godwit associated with the European site The potential for significant effects on the overwintering population of bartailed godwit on the eastern side of estuary, through displacement/disturbance of foraging or roosting birds will therefore be considered further in this document. Golden Plover Morecambe Bay supports numbers of golden plover of European importance during the winter The SPA citation provides a population estimate for golden plover of 4,097 birds, based on the 5 year peak mean (1991/92 to 1995/96). This represents at least 1.6% of the population of birds in Great Britain. More recent WeBS data for Morecambe Bay suggests that the population has remained relatively stable, with the most recent 5 year peak mean (2005/ /10) data indicating a population estimate of 5,088 birds WeBS data for the Wyre Estuary (Arm Hill) count zone provides a population estimate of five birds, based on the 5 year peak mean (2005/ /10). This represents 0.12% of the European site population, based on the citation data. Data received from Fylde Bird Club confirms that only very small numbers of golden plover have been recorded on both the western and eastern sides of the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary, with a peak count of one bird in 2005 on the eastern side and ten birds on the western side in Therefore, given that no golden plover were recorded within the survey area during the wintering bird surveys (2008/09 and 2003), and the WeBS data for the Wyre Estuary (Arm Hill) count zone and Fylde Bird Club data indicate that less than 1% of the European site population is present in the vicinity of the Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 36

45 Project (on both the western and eastern sides of the estuary), no significant effects on the overwintering population of golden plover are anticipated. Curlew Morecambe Bay supports numbers of curlew of European importance during the winter The SPA citation provides a population estimate for curlew of 13,620 birds, based on the 5 year peak mean (1991/ /96). This represents at least 3.9% of the wintering European population. More recent WeBS data for Morecambe Bay suggest that the population has declined slightly, with the most recent 5 year peak mean (2005/ /10) data indicating a population estimate of 11,479 birds WeBS data for the Wyre Estuary (Arm Hill) count zone provides a population estimate of 120 birds, based on the 5 year peak mean (2005/ /10). This represents 0.88% of the European site population, based on the citation data Curlew were recorded throughout the winter months, at both low and high tide, during the wintering bird surveys (2008/09). A mean peak count of 48 birds and peak count of 107 birds were recorded at low tide. The peak count of 107 birds represents 0.79% of the European site population, based on the citation data. A maximum count of 500 birds was recorded during the 2003 wintering bird surveys which represents 3.67% of the European site population, based on the citation data. In addition, data received from Fylde Bird Club also indicates that relatively large aggregations of curlew have been recorded at Arm Hill (on the eastern side of the estuary) with a peak count of 102 birds in Transect surveys undertaken in parallel with the low and high tide wintering bird surveys (2008/09) identified that a number of fields adjacent to the estuary were also used at high tide. Twenty curlew were recorded in November 2008 in the fields indicated as Fields 1 and 2 on Figure 3 and a further 26 curlew were recorded in March 2009 in the fields indicated as Fields 48 and 49 on Figure 3. Taking the peak count of 26 birds, this represents less than 0.2% of the European site population based on the citation data In addition, data received from Fylde Bird Club indicates that relatively small numbers of curlew (up to a peak count of 50 birds) have been regularly recorded at locations including Fleetwood Marsh, Fleetwood Dock and Fleetwood Marsh Nature Reserve/Fleetwood Marsh Industrial Land BHS on the western side of the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary between 2006 and Given the proportionally low numbers of birds recorded on the western side of the estuary and on the functionally-linked farmland on the eastern side of the estuary, no significant effects on the over wintering population of curlew using these features are anticipated. However, given that over 1% of the European site population was recorded in the vicinity of the Project on the mudflats and saltmarsh during the 2003 survey and taking a precautionary approach, there is the potential for significant effects on the population of curlew using these features. Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 37

46 The potential for significant effects on the overwintering population of curlew on the eastern side of the estuary, through displacement/disturbance of foraging or roosting birds will therefore be considered further in this document. Dunlin Morecambe Bay supports numbers of dunlin of European importance during the winter The SPA citation provides a population estimate for dunlin of 52,671 birds, based on the 5 year peak mean (1991/ /96). This represents at least 3.8% of the wintering Northern Siberia/Europe/Western African population. More recent WeBS data for Morecambe Bay suggests that the population is dramatically declining, with the most recent 5 year peak mean (2005/ /10) data indicating a population estimate of 28,228 birds WeBS data for the Wyre Estuary (Arm Hill) count zone provides a population estimate of 257 birds, based on the 5 year peak mean (2005/ /10). This represents 0.49% of the European site population, based on the citation data Small numbers of dunlin were recorded at low tide during the wintering bird surveys (2008/09), with no dunlin recorded at high tide. A mean peak count of 25 birds and a peak count of 125 birds were recorded at low tide. Taking the peak at low tide, this represents 0.24% of the European site population, based on the citation data. A maximum count of 52 birds was recorded during the 2003 wintering bird surveys. In addition, data received from Fylde Bird Club also indicates that aggregations of dunlin have been recorded at Arm Hill and Barnaby s Sands (on the eastern side of the estuary) with a peak count of 740 birds in 2003, which represents 1.4% of the European site population based on the citation data Data received from Fylde Bird Club also indicates that relatively small numbers of dunlin (up to a peak count of 202 birds at Fleetwood Docks in 2004) have been recorded at locations on the western side of the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary, including Fleetwood Dock, Fleetwood Marsh Nature Reserve/Fleetwood Marsh Industrial Land BHS and Fleetwood Lagoons, between 2004 and Given the proportionally low numbers of birds recorded on the western side of the estuary, no significant effects on the over wintering population of dunlin using these features are anticipated Although only small numbers of dunlin were recorded within the survey areas during the wintering bird surveys (2008/09 and 2003) and within the WeBS Wyre Estuary Arm Hill count zone, given that over 1% of the European site population has been recorded in the vicinity of the Project during the winter months (based on data received from Fylde Bird Club), and the population of dunlin appears to be declining significantly, it is considered that there is the potential for significant effects to arise as a result of the works on the eastern side of the estuary for the Project The potential for significant effects on the overwintering population of dunlin on the eastern side of estuary, through displacement/disturbance of foraging or roosting birds will therefore be considered further in this document Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 38

47 Grey Plover Morecambe Bay supports numbers of grey plover of European importance during the winter The SPA citation provides a population estimate for grey plover of 1,813 birds, based on the 5 year peak mean (1991/ /96). This represents at least 1.2% of the wintering eastern Atlantic population. More recent WeBS data for Morecambe Bay suggests that the population is declining, with the most recent 5 year peak mean (2005/ /10) data indicating a population estimate of 991 birds No grey plover were recorded within the WeBS data for the Wyre Estuary (Arm Hill) count zone, based on the 5 year peak mean (2005/ /10). No grey plover were recorded during the winter 2008/09 bird surveys nor within the Arm Hill WeBS count zone, and only one bird was recorded during the 2003 wintering bird surveys. Data received from Fylde Bird Club indicated that very small numbers of these birds have been recorded on the eastern side of the estuary (with a peak count of less than six birds between 2006 and 2010), and only one grey plover was recorded at Fleetwood on the western side of the estuary in Therefore, given the very small numbers of grey plover recorded in the vicinity of the Project, on both the eastern and western side of the estuary, no significant effects on wintering grey plover are anticipated as a result of the Project. Knot Morecambe Bay supports numbers of knot of European importance during the winter The SPA citation provides a population estimate for knot of 29,426 birds, based on the 5 year peak mean (1991/ /96). This represents at least 8.4% of the wintering northern Canada/Greenland/Iceland/North-western Europe population. More recent WeBS data for Morecambe Bay suggests that this population is increasing, with the most recent 5 year peak mean (2005/ /10) data indicating a population estimate of 44,878 birds WeBS data for the Wyre Estuary (Arm Hill) count zone provides a population estimate of 1,101 birds, based on the 5 year peak mean (2005/ /10). This represents 3.74% of the European site population, based on the citation data Relatively large flocks of knot were recorded throughout the winter months, at both low and high tide, during the wintering bird surveys (2008/09). A peak count of 260 birds was recorded at low tide and peak count of 350 birds was recorded at high tide. A maximum count of 20 birds was recorded during the 2003 wintering bird surveys. A peak count of 350 birds represents 1.19% of the European site population based on the citation data. In addition, data received from Fylde Bird Club also indicates that relatively large aggregations of knot have been recorded at Arm Hill and Barnaby s Sands (on the eastern side of the estuary) with a peak count of 340 birds at Arm Hill in 2006 and 2,400 birds at Barnaby s Sands in Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 39

48 Data received from Fylde Bird Club indicates that relatively small numbers of knot (up to a peak count of 85 birds at Fleetwood Marsh in 2010) have been recorded at locations on the western side of the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary, including Fleetwood Dock, Fleetwood Marsh Nature Reserve/Fleetwood Marsh Industrial Land BHS, and Fleetwood Lagoons, between 2006 and Given the proportionally low numbers of birds recorded on the western side of the estuary, no significant effects on the over wintering population of knot using these features are anticipated Given that more than 1% of the European site population is present in the vicinity of the Project on the eastern side of the estuary during the winter months; there is the potential for the Project to cause significant effects on the population of knot associated with the European site on this side of the estuary The potential for significant effects on the overwintering population of knot on the eastern side of estuary, through displacement/disturbance of foraging or roosting birds, will therefore be considered further in this document. Oystercatcher Morecambe Bay supports numbers of oystercatcher of European importance during the winter The SPA citation provides a population estimate for oystercatcher of 47,572 birds, based on the 5 year peak mean (1991/ /96). This represents at least 5.3% of the wintering European and Northern/Western Africa population. More recent WeBS data for Morecambe Bay indicates that this population is increasing, with the most recent 5 year peak mean (2005/ /10) data indicating a population estimate of 53,410 birds WeBS data for the Wyre Estuary (Arm Hill) count zone provides a population estimate of 2,792 birds based on the 5 year peak mean (2005/ /10). This represents 5.87% of the European site population, based on the citation data Oystercatchers were recorded throughout the winter months, at both low and high tide, during the wintering bird surveys (2008/09). A peak count of 310 birds was recorded at low tide and peak count of 550 birds was recorded at high tide. A peak count of 550 birds represents 1.16% of the European site population, based on the citation data. However, a maximum count of 3,000 birds was recorded during the 2003 wintering bird surveys. In addition, data received from Fylde Bird Club also indicates that relatively large aggregations of oystercatcher have been recorded at Arm Hill and Barnaby s Sands (on the eastern side of the estuary) with a peak count of 3,800 birds at Arm Hill in 2006 and 2,450 birds at Barnaby s Sands in A peak count of 3,800 birds represents 7.99% of the European site population, based on the citation data Transect surveys undertaken in parallel with the low and high tide wintering bird surveys (2008/09) recorded two oystercatchers within fields adjacent to the European site, indicated as Fields 48 and 49 on Figure In addition, data received from Fylde Bird Club indicates that relatively small numbers of oystercatcher (up to a peak count of 270 birds) have been regularly Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 40

49 recorded at locations including Fleetwood Farm, Fleetwood Lagoons, and Fleetwood Marsh Nature Reserve/Fleetwood Marsh Industrial Land BHS on the western side of the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary between 2006 and Given the proportionally low numbers of birds recorded on the western side of the estuary and on the functionally-linked farmland on the eastern side of the estuary, no significant effects on the over wintering population of oystercatcher using these areas are anticipated However, given that over 1% of the European site population is present in the vicinity of the Project on the saltmarsh and mudflats on the eastern side of the estuary, there is the potential for significant effects on the population of oystercatcher using these habitats. The potential for significant effects on the overwintering population of oystercatcher on the eastern side of estuary, through displacement/disturbance of foraging or roosting birds will therefore be considered further in this document. Pink-footed Goose Morecambe Bay supports numbers of pink-footed geese of European importance during the winter The SPA citation provides a population estimate for pink-footed geese of 2,475 birds, based on the 5 year peak mean (1991/ /96). This represents at least 1.1% of the wintering eastern Greenland/Icelandic/UK population. More recent WeBS data for Morecambe Bay suggests that this population is increasing by significant numbers, with the most recent 5 year peak mean (2005/ /10) data indicating a population estimate of 6,258 birds WeBS data for the Wyre Estuary (Arm Hill) count zone provides a population estimate of 1,188 birds, based on the 5 year peak mean (2005/ /10). This represents 48% of the European site population, based on the citation data Pink-footed geese were recorded between December and February (inclusive) during the wintering bird surveys (2008/09). A peak count of 1,800 birds were recorded at low tide which represents 73% of the European site population based on the citation data. A maximum count of 5,000 birds was recorded during the 2003 wintering bird surveys. Data received from Fylde Bird Club and anecdotal information from a local tenant farmer indicates that relatively large aggregations of pink-footed geese have been recorded at Arm Hill (with a peak count of 1,000 birds in 2006), Barnaby s Sands (with a peak count of 10,250 birds in 2010), and Burrow s Marsh (with a peak count of 800 birds in 2007) Transect surveys undertaken in parallel with the low and high tide wintering bird surveys (2008/09) identified that a number of fields adjacent to the estuary were also used at high tide. A count of 420 pink-footed geese were recorded in January 2009 in Fields 25/26 as shown on Figure 3 and a further 60 birds were recorded in December 2008 in Field 58. Taking the peak count of 420 birds, this represents less than 17% of the European site population, based on the citation data. During the March 2009 survey visit approximately 2,000 pinkfooted geese were recorded feeding and roosting within stubble fields to the Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 41

50 north of the survey area, and incidental sightings where made on a number of occasions of a similar numbers of pink-footed geese feeding and roosting within farmland up to 11km to the east of the Project. Observations from the tenant farmer also indicate that large numbers of pink-footed geese (up to 4,000 birds) use the fields adjacent to and surrounding the European site between mid- September and late March/early April In addition, data received from Fylde Bird Club indicates that relatively large numbers of pink-footed geese have been recorded at locations on the western side of the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary (including Fleetwood Farm (with a peak count of 4,000 birds in 2010) and Fleetwood Marsh Nature Reserve/Fleetwood Marsh Industrial Land BHS with a peak count of 2,500 birds in 2009)) between 2006 and Given that more than 1% of the European site population is present in the vicinity of the Project on both the eastern and western sides of the estuary, there is the potential for significant effects to arise on the population of pinkfooted geese associated with the European site The potential for significant effects on the population of overwintering pinkfooted geese on both the western and eastern sides of the estuary (including functionally-linked land within the Project) through displacement/disturbance of foraging or roosting birds will therefore be considered further within this document. Pintail Morecambe Bay supports numbers of pintail of European importance during the winter The SPA citation provides a population estimate for pintail of 2,804 birds, based on the 5 year peak mean (1991/ /96). This represents at least 4.7% of the wintering north-western Europe population. More recent WeBS data for Morecambe Bay suggests that this population is stable, with the most recent 5 year peak mean (2005/ /10) data indicating a population estimate of 2,512 birds WeBS data for the Wyre Estuary (Arm Hill) count zone provides a population estimate of 5 birds, based on the 5 year peak mean (2005/ /10). This represents 0.18% of the European site population, based on the citation data No pintail were recorded within the survey area during the wintering bird surveys (2008/09 and 2003). Data received from Fylde Bird Club also confirms that small numbers of pintail have been recorded on both the western and eastern sides of the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary, with a peak count of 15 birds at Arm Hill (on the eastern side of the estuary) in The survey data, WeBS data for the Wyre Estuary (Arm Hill) count zone, and Fylde Bird Club data indicates that few pintail are present in the vicinity of the Project; thus, no significant effects on the over wintering population of pintail are anticipated. Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 42

51 Redshank Morecambe Bay supports numbers of redshank of European importance during the winter The SPA citation provides a population estimate for redshank of 6,336 birds, based on the 5 year peak mean (1991/ /96). This represents at least 4.2% of the wintering eastern Atlantic population. More recent WeBS data for Morecambe Bay suggests that this population is increasing, with the most recent 5 year peak mean (2005/ /10) data indicating a population estimate of 7,525 birds WeBS data for the Wyre Estuary (Arm Hill) count zone provides a population estimate of 412 birds, based on the 5 year peak mean (2005/ /10). This represents 6.5% of the European site population based on the citation data Redshank were recorded throughout the winter months, at both low and high tide, during the wintering bird surveys (2008/09). A peak count of 155 birds was recorded at low tide and peak count of 100 birds was recorded at high tide. A peak count of 155 birds represents 2.45% of the European site population based on the SPA citation data. A maximum count of 1,000 birds was recorded during the 2003 wintering bird surveys, which is equivalent to 15.8% of the European site population based on the citation data. Data received from Fylde Bird Club also indicates that relatively large aggregations of redshank have been recorded at Arm Hill, Barnaby s Sands, and The Heads (on the eastern side of the estuary) with a peak count of over 400 birds regularly recorded (2006 to 2010). This count is equivalent to at least 6.3% of the European site population based on the citation data Transect surveys undertaken in parallel with the low and high tide wintering bird surveys (2008/09) identified a small number of redshank using the fields adjacent to the estuary at high tide. Fifteen birds were recorded in November 2008 in Fields 62, 63 and 64 as shown on Figure 3. Given the proportionally low numbers of birds recorded on the functionally-linked farmland on the eastern side of the estuary, no significant effects on the over wintering population of curlew using these areas are anticipated Data received from Fylde Bird Club indicates that redshank have been recorded at locations on the western side of the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary between 2006 and 2010, including: Fleetwood Marsh, Fleetwood Dock, Fleetwood Marsh Nature Reserve/Fleetwood Marsh Industrial Land BHS, and Fleetwood Farm. The majority of the records are from Fleetwood Marsh, with a peak count of 800 birds in Taking the peak count this represents 13% of the European site population based on the citation data Given that over 1% of the European site population has been recorded in the vicinity of the Project on both the western and eastern sides of the estuary during the winter months, there is the potential for significant effects on the population of redshank associated with the European site to arise. Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 43

52 The potential for significant effects on the population of redshank on the eastern and western sides of the estuary, through displacement/disturbance of foraging or roosting birds will therefore be considered further in this document. Shelduck Morecambe Bay supports numbers of shelduck of European importance during the winter The SPA citation provides a population estimate for shelduck of 6,372 birds, based on the 5 year peak mean (1991/ /96). This represents at least 2.1% of the wintering north-western Europe population. More recent WeBS data for Morecambe Bay suggests that this population is slightly increasing, with the most recent 5 year peak mean (2005/ /10) data indicating a population estimate of 7,097 birds WeBS data for the Wyre Estuary (Arm Hill) count zone provides a population estimate of 151 birds, based on the 5 year peak mean (2005/ /10). This represents 2.4% of the European site population based on the citation data Shelduck were recorded throughout the winter months at both low and high tide during the wintering bird surveys (2008/09). A peak count of 70 birds was recorded at low tide, with a peak count of 125 birds recorded at high tide. A peak count of 125 birds represents 1.96% of the European site population, based on the citation data. However, a maximum count of 500 birds was recorded during the 2003 wintering bird surveys, representing 7.85% of the European site population. In addition, data received from Fylde Bird Club also indicates that flocks of shelduck have been regularly recorded along the eastern side of the estuary with a peak count of 274 birds at Barnaby s Sands in 2008 (equivalent to 4.3% of the European site population) Transect surveys undertaken in parallel with the low and high tide wintering bird surveys (2008/09) identified a small number of shelduck using the fields adjacent to the estuary at high tide. Ten shelduck were recorded in March 2009 in Fields 48 and 49 as indicated on Figure 3. This is less than 1% of the European site population Data received from Fylde Bird Club indicates that relatively small numbers of shelduck (up to a peak count of fewer than 20 birds at Fleetwood Marsh) have been recorded at locations the western side of the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary between 2004 and 2010, including: Fleetwood Dock, Fleetwood Marsh Nature Reserve/Fleetwood Marsh Industrial Land BHS and Fleetwood Lagoons. This is less than 1% of the European site population Given the proportionally low numbers of birds recorded on the western side of the estuary and on the functionally-linked farmland on the eastern side of the estuary, no significant effects on the over wintering population of shelduck using these areas are anticipated However, given that over 1% of the European site population has been recorded in the vicinity of the Project within the saltmarsh and mudflats habitats on the eastern side of the estuary during the winter months, there is the Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 44

53 potential for significant effects on the population of shelduck associated with the European site to arise The potential for significant effects on the population of shelduck on the eastern side of the estuary, through displacement/disturbance of foraging or roosting birds will therefore be considered further in this document. Turnstone Morecambe Bay supports numbers of turnstone of European importance during the winter The SPA citation provides a population estimate for turnstone of 1,583 birds, based on the 5 year peak mean (1991/ /96). This represents at least 2.3% of the Western Palearctic wintering population. More recent WeBS data for Morecambe Bay suggests that this population is slightly decreasing, with the most recent 5 year peak mean (2005/ /10) data indicating a population estimate of 946 birds WeBS data for the Wyre Estuary (Arm Hill) count zone provides a population estimate of eight birds, based on the 5 year peak mean (2005/ /10). This represents 0.5% of the citation data. No turnstones were recorded within the survey area during the wintering bird surveys (2008/09 and 2003). However, data received from Fylde Bird Club indicates that small numbers of turnstone have been recorded on the eastern side of the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary, with a peak count of 53 birds in This peak count is equivalent to 3.3% of the European site population In addition, data received from Fylde Bird Club indicates that relatively small numbers of turnstone (up to a peak count of 53 birds) have been recorded at locations including Fleetwood Marsh, Fleetwood Dock and Fleetwood Lagoons on the western side of the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary between 2006 and Again, this is equivalent to 3.3% of the European site population Given that more than 1% of the European site population have been recorded in the vicinity of the Project on both the eastern and western side of the estuary (based on Fylde Bird Club data), it is considered that there is the potential for significant effects on the population of turnstone associated with the European site The potential for significant effects on the population of turnstone on both the eastern and western sides of the estuary, through displacement/disturbance of foraging or roosting birds, will therefore be considered further in this document. Great Crested Grebe Morecambe Bay supports numbers of great crested grebe of European importance during the winter The Ramsar citation provides a population estimate for great crested grebe of 217 birds, based on the 5 year peak mean (1998/ /03). This represents at least 1.3% of the Great Britain population. More recent WeBS data for Morecambe Bay suggests that this population has slightly declined, with the Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 45

54 most recent 5 year peak mean (2005/ /10) data indicating a population estimate of 113 birds WeBS data for the Wyre Estuary (Arm Hill) count zone provides a population estimate of two birds based on the 5 year peak mean (2005/ /10). This represents 0.92% of the European site population, based on the Ramsar citation. Data received from Fylde Bird Club also indicates that very small numbers of great crested grebe have been recorded on the eastern and western sides of the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary with a peak count of six birds (on the eastern side) in 2010 and a peak count of 18 birds in 2004 (on the western side). However, peak counts of 6 and 18 birds represents 2.8% and 8.3% (respectively) of the European site population, based on the Ramsar citation Although no great crested grebe were recorded within the survey area during the wintering bird surveys (2008/09 and 2003), and the WeBS data for the Wyre Estuary (Arm Hill) count zone indicates less than 1% of the European site population is present in the vicinity of the Project, the bird club data has indicated that greater than 1% of the population exist on both sides of the estuary. Therefore potential exist for the Project to have a significant effects on the overwintering population of great crested grebe as a result of the Project The potential for significant effects on the population of great crested grebe through displacement/disturbance of foraging or roosting birds will therefore be considered further in this document. Wigeon Morecambe Bay supports numbers of wigeon of European importance during the winter The Ramsar citation provides a population estimate for wigeon of 6,133 birds, based on the 5 year peak mean (1998/ /03). This represents at least 1.5% of the Great Britain population. More recent WeBS data for Morecambe Bay suggests that this population is increasing, with the most recent 5 year peak mean (2005/ /10) data indicating a population estimate of 8,406 birds WeBS data for the Wyre Estuary (Arm Hill) count zone provides a population estimate of 412 birds, based on the 5 year peak mean (2005/ /10). This represents 6.7% of the European site population, based on the Ramsar citation. In addition, data received from Fylde Bird Club also indicates that aggregations of wigeon have been recorded at Arm Hill and Barnaby s Sands (on the eastern side of the estuary) with a peak count of 650 birds in 2005 (equivalent to 10.6% of the population) Wigeon were recorded throughout the winter months, at both low and high tide, during the wintering bird surveys (2008/09). A peak count of 200 birds was recorded at low tide and a peak count of 300 birds was recorded at high tide. A maximum count of 250 birds was also recorded during the 2003 wintering bird surveys. A peak count of 300 birds represents 4.89% of the European site population, based on the Ramsar citation. Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 46

55 In addition, data received from Fylde Bird Club indicates that flocks of wigeon have been recorded at Fleetwood Farm (with a peak count of 4,000 birds in 2010) and Fleetwood Marsh Nature Reserve/Fleetwood Marsh Industrial Land BHS (with a peak count of 2,500 birds in 2009) on the western side of the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary between 2006 and Taking the peak count, this represents 65% of the European site population based on the Ramsar citation Given that more than 1% of the European site population is present in the vicinity of the Project, on both the western and eastern sides of the estuary; there is the potential for significant effects to arise The potential for significant effects on the overwintering population of wigeon on the western and eastern sides of the estuary, through displacement/ disturbance of foraging or roosting birds will therefore be considered further in this document. Goldeneye Morecambe Bay supports numbers of goldeneye of European importance during the winter The Ramsar citation provides a population estimate for goldeneye of 285 birds, based on the 5 year peak mean (1998/ /03). This represents at least 1.1% of the Great Britain population. More recent WeBS data for Morecambe Bay suggests that this population is relatively stable, with the most recent 5 year peak mean (2005/ /10) data indicating a population estimate of 290 birds No goldeneye were recorded within the WeBS data for the Wyre Estuary (Arm Hill) count zone (2005/ /10) or during the winter 2008/09 bird surveys. Only one bird was recorded during the 2003 wintering bird surveys. Information obtained from Fylde Bird Club confirmed that very small numbers of goldeneye have been recorded on the eastern side of the estuary, with a peak count of four birds in However, this peak count represents 1.4% of the European site population, based on the Ramsar citation Data received from Fylde Bird Club also indicates that small flock of goldeneye (less than 20 birds) have been regularly recorded at Fleetwood Lagoon, Fleetwood Marsh Nature Reserve/Fleetwood Marsh Industrial Land BHS, and the ICI Ponds on the western side of the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary between 2006 and This also represents greater that 1% of the European site population Given that more than 1% of the European site population is present in the vicinity of the Project, on both the western and eastern sides of the estuary; there is the potential for significant effects to arise The potential for significant effects on the overwintering population of goldeneye on the western and eastern sides of the estuary, through displacement/disturbance of foraging or roosting birds will therefore be considered further in this document. Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 47

56 Red-breasted Merganser Morecambe Bay supports numbers of red-breasted merganser of European importance during the winter The Ramsar citation provides a population estimate for red-breasted merganser of 327 birds, based on the 5 year peak mean (1998/ /03). This represents at least 3.3% of the Great Britain population. More recent WeBS data for Morecambe Bay suggests that the population is relatively stable, with the most recent 5 year peak mean (2005/ /10) data indicating a population estimate of 230 birds WeBS data for the Wyre Estuary (Arm Hill) count zone provides a population estimate of ten birds, based on the 5 year peak mean (2005/ /10). This represents 3% of the European site population based on the Ramsar citation Red-breasted mergansers were recorded on two occasions at low tide during the wintering bird surveys (2008/09). A peak count of two birds were recorded at low tide (2008/09). Two birds represent 0.61% of the European site population based on the Ramsar citation. A maximum count of 10 birds was recorded during the 2003 wintering bird surveys, which is equivalent to 3.06% of the European site population. Data received from Fylde Bird Club confirms that small numbers of red-breasted merganser have been recorded on the eastern side of the estuary, with a peak count of 11 birds in 2009 (equivalent to 3.37% of the European site population) In addition, data received from Fylde Bird Club indicates that flock of redbreasted merganser have also been recorded at locations on the western side of the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary between 2006 and 2010, including: Fleetwood Docks, Fleetwood Marsh and Fleetwood Marsh Nature Reserve/Fleetwood Marsh Industrial Land BHS, with a peak count of 15 birds at Fleetwood Docks in Taking the peak count, this represents 4.6% of the European site population based on the Ramsar citation Given that more than 1% of the European site population is present in the vicinity of the Project, on both the western and eastern sides of the estuary; there is the potential for significant effects to arise The potential for significant effects on the overwintering population of redbreasted merganser on the western and eastern sides of the estuary, through displacement/disturbance of foraging or roosting birds will therefore be considered further in this document. Lapwing Morecambe Bay supports numbers of lapwing of European importance during the winter The Ramsar citation provides a population estimate for lapwing of 16,492 birds, based on the 5 year peak mean (1998/ /03). This represents an average 1% of the Great Britain population. More recent WeBS data for Morecambe Bay suggests that this population is relatively stable, with the most Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 48

57 recent 5 year peak mean (2005/ /10) data indicating a population estimate of 17,109 birds WeBS data for the Wyre Estuary (Arm Hill) count zone provides a population estimate of 788 birds, based on the 5 year peak mean (2005/ /10). This represents 4.8% of the European site population based on the Ramsar citation Lapwing were recorded throughout the winter months at both low and high tide, during the wintering bird surveys (2008/09). A peak count of 350 birds was recorded at low tide, with a peak count of 250 birds recorded at high tide. Taking the highest peak count (350 birds at low tide), this represents 0.79% of the European site population based on the Ramsar citation. A maximum number of 300 birds were recorded during the 2003 wintering bird surveys. In addition, data received from Fylde Bird Club also indicates that aggregations of lapwing have been recorded at Arm Hill and Barnaby Sands (on the eastern side of the estuary) with a peak count of 1,200 birds in 2008 at Barnaby s Sands. This peak count represents 7.3% of the European site population In addition, transect surveys undertaken in parallel with the low and high tide wintering bird surveys (2008/09) identified that a number of fields adjacent to the European site which were used at high tide. Eight lapwing were recorded in March 2009 in the fields indicated as Fields 48 and 48 on Figure 3; 120 birds were recorded in February 2009 in the field indicated as Field 52 on Figure 3; 35 birds in November 2008 and 50 birds in January 2009 were recorded in the field indicated as Field 56 on Figure 3; a further 16 birds were recorded in March 2009 in the field indicated as Fields 62/62/64 on Figure 3. Taking the peak count of 120 birds, this represents 0.7% of the European site based on the Ramsar citation. Given that less than 1% of the European site population is present within the functionally-linked land, no significant effects on the birds using these features are anticipated as a result of the Project Data received from Fylde Bird Club indicates that flock of lapwing have been recorded at locations on the western side of the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary between 2006 and 2010, including: Fleetwood Farm, Fleetwood Marsh, Fleetwood Marsh Nature Reserve/Fleetwood Marsh Industrial Land BHS and the ICI Tanks (with a peak count of 800 birds at the ICI Tanks in 2007). Taking the peak count, this represents 4.9% of the European site population based on the Ramsar citation Given that more than 1% of the European site population is present in the vicinity of the Project on both the western and eastern sides of the estuary (but not within the functionally-linked land), there is the potential for significant effects on the over wintering population of lapwing within the European site The potential for significant effects on the overwintering population of lapwing on the western and eastern sides of the estuary, through displacement/ disturbance of foraging or roosting birds will therefore be considered further in this document. Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 49

58 On Passage This European site qualifies as an SPA under Article 4.2 of the Directive (79/409/EEC) by supporting populations of European importance of two migratory species on passage: ringed plover and sanderling This site qualifies as a Ramsar site by regularly supporting 1% of the individuals in a population of one species or sub-species of waterbird during the spring/autumn passage period, including cormorant, shelduck, pintail, eider, oystercatcher, ringer plover, grey plover, sanderling, curlew, redshank, turnstone and lesser black-backed gull The value of the Wyre estuary for these species within the Project area and the likelihood that significant effects could arise, as a result of the Project, based on the numbers of birds recorded using the Wyre is discussed in more detail below. Ringed Plover Morecambe Bay supports numbers of ringed plover of European importance on passage The SPA citation provides a population estimate for ringed plover of 693 birds, based on the 5 year peak mean (1991/ /96). This represents at least 1.4% of the Europe/northern Africa population WeBS data for the Wyre Estuary (Arm Hill) count zone provides a population estimate of 13 birds during the spring and four birds during the autumn migration periods, based on the 5 year peak mean (2005/ /10). This represents 1.9% and 0.6% of the European site population respectively, based on the citation data No ringed plover were recorded during the 2004 autumn migratory bird surveys. Data received from Fylde Bird Club confirmed that small numbers of ringed plover have been recorded on the western side of the estuary with a peak count of 7 birds recorded during autumn migration. Taking the peak count, this represents 1% of the SPA population, based on the Ramsar citation Information obtained from Fylde Bird Club confirms that small numbers of ringed plover have also been regularly recorded on the western side of the estuary, with a peak count of 14 birds during spring and 10 birds during autumn. Taking the peak count, this represents 2% of the SPA population, based on the Ramsar citation Given that more than 1% of the European site population is present in the vicinity of the Project on the eastern side of the estuary during spring and autumn migration and during the autumn migration period on the western side of the estuary, there is the potential for significant effects on the migratory population of ringed plover within the European site as a result of the Project The potential for significant effects on the population of ringed plover during migration on both sides of the estuary, through displacement/ disturbance of foraging or roosting birds will therefore be considered further in this document. Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 50

59 Sanderling Morecambe Bay supports numbers of sanderling of European importance on passage The SPA citation provides a population estimate for sanderling of 2,466 birds, based on the count as at May This represents at least 2.5% of the Eastern Atlantic/Western and Southern Africa population No sanderling were recorded within the WeBS data for the Wyre Estuary (Arm Hill) count zone (2005/ /10), or during the 2004 autumn migratory bird surveys. Data received from Fylde Bird Club confirmed that one sanderling was recorded at Barnaby s Sands in 2010 on the eastern side of the estuary. One record of sanderling from Fleetwood Docks on the western side of the estuary was also received from the bird club Given the small numbers of birds recorded on both the western and eastern sides of the estuary, no significant effects as a result of the Project are anticipated on the passage population of sanderling within the European site. Cormorant Morecambe Bay supports numbers of cormorant of European importance on passage The Ramsar citation provides a population estimate for cormorant of 967 birds, based on the 5 year peak mean (1998/ /03). This represents an average 1% of the Great Britain population WeBS data for the Wyre Estuary (Arm Hill) count zone provides a population estimate of four birds during the spring and 11 birds during the autumn migration period, based on the 5 year peak mean (2005/ /10). This represents 0.4% and 1.1% of the European site population (respectively) based on the Ramsar citation No cormorants were recorded during the 2004 autumn migratory bird surveys. Data received from Fylde Bird Club confirmed that small numbers of cormorant have been recorded on the eastern side of the estuary with a peak count of 20 birds recorded at Barnaby s Sands during autumn migration. Taking the peak count, this represents 2% of the European site population based on the Ramsar citation Information obtained from Fylde Bird Club confirms that small numbers of cormorant have been regularly recorded on the western side of the estuary, with a peak count of eight birds recorded at Fleetwood Docks between 2006 and Taking the peak count, this represents 0.8% of the European site population based on the Ramsar citation Given that more than 1% of the European site population is present in the vicinity of the Project on the eastern side of the estuary during the autumn migration, there is the potential for significant effects to arise. Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 51

60 The potential for significant effects on the migratory population of cormorant during autumn migration on the eastern side of the estuary, through displacement/disturbance of foraging or roosting birds will therefore be considered further in this document. Shelduck Morecambe Bay supports numbers of shelduck of European importance on passage. The Ramsar citation provides a population estimate for shelduck of 7,032 birds, based on the 5 year peak mean (1998/ /03). This represents an average 2.3% of the Great Britain population WeBS data for the Wyre Estuary (Arm Hill) count zone provides a population estimate of 60 birds during the spring and 96 birds during the autumn migration periods, based on the 5 year peak mean (2005/ /10). This represents 0.85% and 1.4% of the European site population (respectively), based on the Ramsar citation Data received from Fylde Bird Club indicates that aggregations of shelduck have been recorded at Arm Hill and Barnaby Sands (on the eastern side of the estuary) during spring and autumn migration; with a peak count of 172 birds in autumn 2006 at Arm Hill. This peak count represents 2.45% of the European site population Information obtained from Fylde Bird Club also confirms that small numbers of shelduck have been recorded on the western side of the estuary during the migration periods, with a peak count of 50 birds recorded at Fleetwood Marsh Nature Reserve/Fleetwood Marsh Industrial Land BHS in spring Taking the peak count this represents 0.7% of the European site population Given that more than 1% of the European site population (during the autumn migration period) is present in the vicinity of the Project on the eastern side of the estuary, there is the potential for significant effects on shelduck to arise The potential for significant effects on the population of shelduck during autumn migration on the eastern side of the estuary, through displacement/disturbance of foraging or roosting birds, will therefore be considered further in this document. Pintail Morecambe Bay supports numbers of pintail of European importance on passage The Ramsar citation provides a population estimate for pintail of 3,743 birds, based on the 5 year peak mean (1998/ /03). This represents 6.2% of the Great Britain population No pintail were recorded within the WeBS data for the Wyre Estuary (Arm Hill) count zone during spring, four birds were recorded during autumn (2005/ /10). This represents 0.11% of the European site population based on the Ramsar citation. Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 52

61 No pintail were recorded during the 2004 autumn migratory bird surveys. Data received from Fylde Bird Club confirmed that one pintail was recorded at Fleetwood Marsh Nature Reserve/Fleetwood Marsh Industrial Land BHS in 2007 on the western side of the estuary Given the small numbers of birds recorded on both the western and eastern sides of the estuary, no significant effects as a result of the Project are anticipated on the passage population of pintail within the European site. Eider Morecambe Bay supports numbers of eider of European importance on passage The Ramsar citation provides a population estimate for pintail of 5,657 birds, based on the 5 year peak mean (1998/ /03). This represents 7.7% of the Great Britain population WeBS data for the Wyre Estuary (Arm Hill) count zone provides a population estimate of 18 birds during the spring and 4 birds during the autumn migration periods, based on the 5 year peak mean (2005/ /10). This represents 0.3% and 0.07% of the European site population (respectively), based on the Ramsar citation No eider were recorded during the 2004 autumn migratory bird surveys. Information obtained from Fylde Bird Club confirms that small numbers of eider have been recorded on both the western and eastern side of the estuary during the migration periods, with a peak count of 27 birds at Arm Hill in spring Taking the peak count this represents 0.48% of the European site population, based on the Ramsar citation Given that less than 1% of the European site population is present in the vicinity of the Project, no significant effects are anticipated on the migratory population of eider within the European site as a result of the Project. Oystercatcher Morecambe Bay supports numbers of oystercatcher of European importance on passage The Ramsar citation provides a population estimate for oystercatcher of 66,577 birds, based on the 5 year peak mean (1998/ /03). This represents an average of 6.5% of the Great Britain population WeBS data for the Wyre Estuary (Arm Hill) count zone provides a population estimate of 1,930 birds during the spring and 3,595 birds during the autumn migration periods, based on the 5 year peak mean (2005/ /10). This represents 2.9% and 5.4% of the European site population (respectively), based on the Ramsar citation Data received from Fylde Bird Club confirms that relatively large flocks of oystercatcher have been recorded on the eastern side of the estuary during the spring and autumn migration period with a peak count of 4,730 birds recorded Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 53

62 at Barnaby s Sands during autumn Taking the peak count, this represents 2% of the European site population based on the Ramsar citation Information obtained from Fylde Bird Club also confirms that small numbers of oystercatcher have been regularly recorded on western side of the estuary, with a peak count of 21 birds at Fleetwood Marsh Nature Reserve/Fleetwood Marsh Industrial Land BHS in Taking the peak count, this represents 0.03% of the European site population based on the Ramsar citation Given that more than 1% of the European site population is present in the vicinity of the Project on the eastern side of the estuary during the spring and autumn migration period, there is the potential for significant effects as a result of the Project The potential for significant effects on the migratory population of oystercatcher during spring and autumn migration on the eastern side of the estuary, through displacement/disturbance of foraging or roosting birds will be considered further in this document. Grey Plover Morecambe Bay supports numbers of grey plover of European importance on passage The Ramsar citation provides a population estimate for pintail of 1,655 birds, based on the 5 year peak mean (1998/ /03). This represents 3.1% of the Great Britain population A five year peak mean count of no grey plover was recorded in the WeBS data spring counts for the Wyre Estuary (Arm Hill) count zone. With a mean peak count of one recorded during the autumn migration periods for the same zone and period. This autumn count represents 0.06% of the European site population based on the Ramsar citation No grey plover were recorded during the 2004 autumn migratory bird surveys. Data received from Fylde Bird Club confirms that two grey plover were at Arm Hill and Barnaby s Sands in autumn 2006 on the eastern side of the estuary. One record of grey plover from Fleetwood was received also from Fylde Bird Club Given that less than 1% of the European site population is present in the vicinity of the Project, no significant effects are anticipated on the migratory population of grey plover within the European site as a result of the Project. Curlew Morecambe Bay supports numbers of curlew of European importance on passage The Ramsar citation provides a population estimate for curlew of 20,018 birds, based on the 5 year peak mean (1998/ /03). This represents an average 4.7% of the Great Britain population. Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 54

63 WeBS data for the Wyre Estuary (Arm Hill) count zone provides a population estimate of 15 birds during the spring and 223 birds during the autumn migration periods, based on the 5 year peak mean (2005/ /10). This represents 0.07% and 1.1% of the European site population (respectively), based on the Ramsar citation Data received from Fylde Bird Club indicates that aggregations of curlew have been recorded at Arm Hill and Barnaby s Sands (on the eastern side of the estuary) during spring and autumn migration, with a peak count of 285 birds in autumn 2006 at Arm Hill. This represents 1.4% of the European site population Information obtained from Fylde Bird Club also confirms that aggregations of curlew have been recorded on the western side of the estuary during the migration periods, with a peak count of 19 birds at Fleetwood Marsh in autumn 2010 (equivalent to 0.09% of the European site population) Given that more than 1% of the European site population (during the autumn migration period) is present in the vicinity of the Project on the eastern side of the estuary, there is the potential for significant effects on curlew to arise The potential for significant effects on the population of curlew during autumn migration on the eastern side of the estuary, through displacement/disturbance of foraging or roosting birds will be considered further in this document. Redshank Morecambe Bay supports numbers of redshank of European importance on passage The Ramsar citation provides a population estimate for oystercatcher of 8,816 birds, based on the 5 year peak mean (1998/ /03). This represents an average of 3.5% of the Great Britain population WeBS data for the Wyre Estuary (Arm Hill) count zone provides a population estimate of 309 birds during the spring and 870 birds during the autumn migration periods, based on the 5 year peak mean (2005/ /10). This represents 3.5% and 9.9% of the European site population (respectively), based on the Ramsar citation Data received from Fylde Bird Club indicates that relatively large aggregations of redshank have been recorded at Arm Hill and Barnaby Sands (on the eastern side of the estuary) during spring and autumn migration, with a peak count of 1,150 birds in autumn 2009 at Barnaby s Sands. This peak count represents 13% of the European site population Information obtained from Fylde Bird Club also confirms that relatively large aggregations of redshank have been recorded on the western side of the estuary during the migration periods, with a peak count of 900 birds at Fleetwood Marsh in autumn Taking the peak count this represents 10.2% of the European site population based on the Ramsar citation. Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 55

64 Given that more than 1% of the European site population (during the autumn migration period) is present in the vicinity of the Project on the eastern and western side of the estuary, there is the potential for significant effects on redshank to arise The potential for significant effects on the population of redshank during autumn migration on the western and eastern sides of the estuary, through displacement/disturbance of foraging or roosting birds will therefore be considered further in this document. Turnstone Morecambe Bay supports numbers of turnstone of European importance on passage. The Ramsar citation provides a population estimate for turnstone of 1,371 birds, based on the 5 year peak mean (1998/ /03). This represents an average of 1.4% of the Great Britain population WeBS data for the Wyre Estuary (Arm Hill) count zone provides a population estimate of 16 birds during the spring and 19 birds during the autumn migration periods, based on the 5 year peak mean (2005/ /10). This represents 1.1% and 1.4% of the European site population (respectively), based on the Ramsar citation Data received from Fylde Bird Club confirms that flocks of turnstone have been recorded on the eastern side of the estuary with a peak count of 57 birds recorded at Barnaby s Sands during autumn migration. Taking the peak count, this represents 4% of the European site population, based on the Ramsar citation. Data received from Fylde Bird Club also confirms that a peak count of less than 10 birds have been recorded on the western side of the estuary (2006 to 2010). This is less than 1% of the European site population recorded on the western side of the estuary Given that more than 1% of the European site population is present in the vicinity of the Project on the eastern side of the estuary, there is the potential for significant effects on the population of turnstone during spring and autumn migration period on the eastern sides of the estuary as a result of the Project Significant effects in terms of displacement/disturbance of foraging or roosting turnstones will be therefore considered further in this document. Lesser Black-backed Gull Morecambe Bay supports numbers of lesser black-backed gull of European importance on passage. The Ramsar citation provides a population estimate for lesser black-backed gull of 40,393 birds, based on the 5 year peak mean (1998/ /03). This represents an average of 7.6% of the Great Britain population WeBS data for the Wyre Estuary (Arm Hill) count zone provides a population estimate of 446 birds during the spring and 45 birds during the autumn migration periods, based on the 5 year peak mean (2005/ /10). This represents 1.1% and 0.1% of the European site population (respectively), based on the Ramsar citation. Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 56

65 Data received from Fylde Bird Club confirms that a peak count of 2,000 birds have been recorded on the eastern side of the estuary at Barnaby s Sands in spring Taking the peak count this represents 4.9% of the European site population based on the Ramsar citation Data received from Fylde Bird Club also confirms that a peak count of 308 birds have been recorded on the western side of the estuary at Fleetwood Farm in spring Taking the peak count this represents 0.76% of the European site population based on the Ramsar citation Given that more than 1% of the European site population (during the spring migration period) is present in the vicinity of the Project on the eastern side of the estuary, there is the potential for significant effects on lesser black-backed gull to arise The potential for significant effects on the population of lesser black-backed gull during spring migration on the eastern side of the estuary, through displacement/disturbance of foraging or roosting birds will therefore be considered further in this document. Assemblage Qualification Morecambe Bay SPA and Ramsar Site This site qualifies as an SPA based on the seabird assemblage present during the breeding season. At that time, the area regularly supports 61,858 individual seabirds (5 year peak mean for 1991/92 to 1995/96) including: herring gull, lesser black-backed gull, little tern, sandwich tern Given that no breeding seabirds were recorded within or close to the Project and the amount of suitable foraging areas away from the Project, no significant effects are anticipated on the breeding seabird assemblage within the European site The site also qualifies as an SPA under Article 4.2 of the Directive (79/409/EEC) by regularly supporting at least 20,000 waterfowl. Assemblage qualification: a wetland of international importance. Over winter, the area regularly supports 210,668 individual waterfowl (5 year peak mean for 1991/92 to 1995/96) including: great crested grebe, bar-tailed godwit, pink-footed goose, shelduck, pintail, oystercatcher, grey plover, knot, dunlin, curlew, golden plover, turnstone, black-tailed godwit, cormorant, wigeon, teal, mallard, eider, goldeneye, red-breasted merganser, ringed plover, lapwing, sanderling, redshank, and whimbrel. The most recent 5 year peak mean (2005/ /10) WeBS data for the European site provides an overwintering assemblage population of 206, 279 birds The site regularly supports assemblages of international importance: 223,709 waterfowl in winter. Thus, it qualifies as a Ramsar site by regularly supporting 20,000 or more waterbirds (Ramsar Criterion 5) WeBS data for the Wyre Estuary (Arm Hill) count zone provides a population estimate of 9,422 birds, based on the 5 year peak mean (2005/ /10). Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 57

66 This represents 4.5% of the European site population based on the citation data, and 4.2% of the European site population based on the Ramsar citation Given that over 1% of the European site overwintering assemblage population was recorded in the vicinity of the Project, there is potential for significant effects on the overwintering wildfowl of the European site. The potential effects of the Project on the assemblage population associated with the European site, through displacement/disturbance of foraging or roosting birds during the winter months will therefore be considered in this document. 7.4 Screening of Bird Species As identified in Section 7.3, the habitats within and adjacent to the Project are of sufficient value to wildfowl and wading bird species that there is potential for activities associated with the Project to cause significant effects on the qualifying features and species of the European site Not only is there the potential for significant effects on the overwintering bird assemblage, but there is also the potential for significant effects on particular bird species at certain times of the year, during spring and autumn migration. The individual bird species that could be affected by the Project are shown in Table 7-1 below. Table 7-1 European Site Species Potentially Affected by the Project Species Present within the European Site Breeding season Lesser blackbacked gull Potential for Significant Effects Works on eastern Works on western Overwinter On passage side of River Wyre side of River Wyre (spring) Bar-tailed godwit Curlew (autumn) Dunlin Knot Oystercatcher Pink-footed geese (autumn & spring) (including functionally-linked land) Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 58 (including functionally-linked land)

67 Species Redshank Shelduck Turnstone Present within the European Site Breeding season Potential for Significant Effects Works on eastern Works on western Overwinter On passage side of River Wyre side of River Wyre (autumn) (autumn) (autumn) (autumn & spring) Great crested grebe Wigeon Goldeneye Red-breasted merganser Lapwing Ringed plover Cormorant (autumn) Waterfowl assemblage Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 59

68 8 SCREENING OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS 8.1 Approach to Determining Significance on Qualifying Bird Species In order to determine whether an effect on qualifying bird species is significant or not, impacts have been considered in relation to the conservation objectives for each of the qualifying features (See Conservation Objectives provided in Appendix 4). An impact that would affect 1% or more of the European site population of a particular wintering or passage bird species (as determined in Section 7 above) is considered to have a significant effect on the European site. Similarly, an impact that would affect 1% or more of the waterfowl assemblage qualifying feature is considered to have a significant effect. Determining Wildfowl/Wader Disturbance Distances Consideration has been given to identifying species-specific disturbance distances (i.e. the distance at which a source of disturbance would cause birds to change their behaviour in response to that disturbance). A literature review has revealed that very few studies quantifying disturbance distances for wintering wildfowl and waders have been carried out. Furthermore, where disturbance distance data exist, they are highly variable and indicate that the responses of roosting wildfowl and waders to disturbance are likely to be dependent upon a range of site-specific factors (for example: the nature of the disturbance; the degree to which the birds may have become habituated; the tidal state and prevailing wind direction; the extent of sight-lines around the roost site; etc) The following disturbance distances have been used for the qualifying species and waterfowl assemblage screened in and out of the assessment (Madsen, 1985; Liley et al., 2011; and Anon., 2009): pink-footed geese (500 m) ; bartailed godwit, curlew, dunlin, knot, oystercatcher, redshank, lapwing, turnstone, shelduck, lapwing, ringed plover, cormorant, great crested grebe, red-breasted merganser, and wigeon (200 m); and all species within the waterfowl assemblage (500 m). Determining Noise Thresholds for Wildfowl/Waders A literature review carried out by Cutts et al. (2008) addressed over 100 scientific papers and applied research reports. For some activities, it was possible to determine the likely responses by waterfowl species and/or assemblages, but for others there was little empirical data available. The literature review did however, identify that construction noise levels should be restricted to below 70 db (A). Birds will habituate to regular noise below this level, but where possible sudden irregular noise above 50 db (A) should be avoided as this causes disturbance to birds. These noise levels will be applied when determining the potential effects of the construction and operation of the proposed works. These figures were also recommended by RSPB during consultations (See Appendix 2 and 5). Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 60

69 8.2 Elements of the Project Screened out of the Assessment It is possible to identify certain elements of the Project that would not lead to significant effects on the qualifying features and species of the European site, as result of the distance of activities to the European site and its qualifying features, embedded design measures, timing of works activities, existing background noise levels, and existing or proposed screening preventing visual disturbance. These elements have been screened out of the assessment for the reasons provided below. Emissions to Air, Land and Water Emissions to air, land and water are anticipated as a result of the Project (as described in Section to ). These emissions would be controlled through best practice control measures in line with the EA s PPG All fuels, oils and chemicals would be stored on an impermeable base, bunded and secured. To protect aquatic ecosystems, construction activities in and near all watercourses would be restricted and managed in accordance with EA guidance. Any drilling wastes would be collected and controlled. The drilling fluids used for the river crossing drilling will be a water-based mud system and all components of the fluids will be within the Cefas/Ospar list of substances considered to pose little or no risk to the environment, in accordance with MMO licensing conditions Emissions associated with construction and operational machinery/vehicles are not expected to have a significant effect on local air quality. Modelling of the traffic-related air emissions, as a result of an increase in HGVs, has indicated that the increase in oxides of nitrogen emitted and any subsequent nitrogen deposition would be negligible (See Volume 1A of the ES, Chapter 6: Air Quality, Paragraphs to ). Air quality modelling of emissions from the dehydration unit of the Gas Compressor Compound during operation are also predicted to be low, and are considered to have a negligible impact on adjacent habitats and species of the European sites (See Volume 1A of the ES, Chapter 6: Air Quality, Paragraph ) Dust deposition on the saltmarsh habitats of the European site during the works could adversely affect wintering birds and their food supply. However, these effects are unlikely to occur as at those points closest to the European site. Dust would only be generated during the summer months (i.e. during construction of the north river crossing and the construction of the wellhead compounds). In all cases, control of fugitive dust would be undertaken in line with best practice guidance PPG measures. Barriers including the bunding around the wellhead compounds and the presence of the existing seawall would also prevent dust movement between the Project and the European site. Should dust deposition occur on the saltmarsh habitats, it would be a small amount and be for a short period, as any dust deposition settling here would be diluted and washed away on regular inundation with water. It is therefore considered that dust deposition would not significantly affect the European site or the qualifying bird species using these habitats in winter and on passage. Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 61

70 8.2.6 Overall no significant effects on habitats and species of the European site are likely as a result of air emissions Emissions to air, land and water as a result of the Project are not likely to give rise to significant effects on the habitats and/or species of the European site, and would therefore not prevent the European site from achieving its conservation objectives, either individually or in-combination with one another. Lighting During construction, lighting (in the form of two 4m high luminaires at each location) would be used at the wellhead compounds, and the north and south river crossings, during drilling operations. These would be required for safety reasons as drilling operations would need to take place continuously once it commences (day and night). The lighting would be shielded and highly directional to light the works activities only. No lighting would fall onto the habitats of the European site Lighting during the north river crossing and for the construction of wellheads 1, 5 and 7, would take place in the summer months (May to August) and would therefore not adversely affect the qualifying species of the European site During operation, low level lighting would be required for security purposes at the wellhead compounds and the access roads. This lighting would be highly directional and shielded, and not extend onto the habitats within the European site or the functionally-linked fields. The lighting at the wellhead compounds would also be screened by the presence of a 2.3 m high bund around each compound. No floodlighting is proposed for the Project It is therefore considered that lighting during the construction or operation would not affect the European site or the qualifying species present, or prevent the European site from achieving its conservation objectives. Gas Storage Caverns: Construction Construction of the Seawater Pump Station (and associated infrastructure) at Fleetwood Dock and water abstraction from Fleetwood Docks through the Seawater Pump Station, on the western side of the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary The area surrounding the Seawater Pump Station on the western side of the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary is currently subject high levels of visual and noise disturbance related to the Fleetwood Docks and adjacent residential development (currently under construction). Mitigated noise levels at the Seawater Pump Station would be below 70 db at 50 m (See Volume 1A of the ES Chapter 12: Noise and Vibration, Table (assuming 10dB reduction as per Paragraph of Volume 1A of the ES Chapter 12: Noise and Vibration)), and therefore considered not to affect the qualifying bird species using functionally-linked habitats such as the Fleetwood Marsh Nature Reserve/Fleetwood Marsh Industrial Land BHS, approximately 80 m away. In addition, the abstraction of seawater from the Fish Dock would be strictly controlled to ensure sufficient water remains within the Dock. This would Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 62

71 therefore not affect water levels within the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary or the Irish Sea, nor would it affect the European site or its qualifying features The construction of the Seawater Pump Station and the abstraction water from Fleetwood Fish Dock is therefore considered unlikely to have a significant effect on the habitats or qualifying features and species associated with the European site, or prevent it from achieving its conservation objectives. Construction of the Brine discharge pipeline (on land) on the western side of the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary For most of its length the pipe route is sufficient distance from the European site that no adverse effects on the European site are predicted. At each location the pipeline works would be quickly completed and the habitats reinstated. The only part of the pipeline route that is close to the estuary is from the Fleetwood Dock area to the A585, along a former railway to Jameson Road (See Figure 2). These areas are currently screened from the estuary by the existing landfill site, and are also adjacent to the new housing estate currently under construction. Those works that would take place close to the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary, associated mudflats, and ponds at Fleetwood Marsh Nature Reserve/Fleetwood Marsh Industrial Land BHS (i.e. adjacent to the north river crossing) would take place in the summer months (May to August), and therefore no significant effects are anticipated on the birds (such as redshank, shelduck, wigeon, great crested grebe, and lapwing) using these features during the passage period and overwinter Whilst remote from the European site, Fleetwood Farm is known to support large numbers of pink-footed geese in winter (See Figure 3 for location of Fleetwood Farm). It is possible that the construction of the section of pipeline in fields north of Fleetwood Farm could take place during the winter months and therefore could potentially displace/cause disturbance to pink-footed geese using the adjacent fields. However, the pipeline would be located north of the fields known to be used by the geese, and north of an existing road, close to an existing housing estate. Given the small-scale and short-term nature of the works (using an excavator or wheel-trencher), the adjacent road and properties, and the amount of other suitable foraging areas for these birds more than 500 m from the proposed works, it is considered that the construction of the pipeline is unlikely to cause significant disturbance to pink-footed geese roosting and foraging at Fleetwood Farm Given the distance of the pipeline from the European site, the urban environment in close proximity to the route of the pipeline, the small-scale and short-term nature of the works (the land would be reinstated on completion), and the timing of works close to the estuary; the construction of the Brine discharge pipeline is considered unlikely to have a significant effect on the qualifying features and species associated with the European site, or prevent it from achieving its conservation objectives. Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 63

72 Construction of the Brine discharge pipeline (into the Irish Sea), including the extension to sea wall at West Way to accommodate the brine outfall and a new observation platform The Brine discharge pipeline (and associated works) would be constructed between April and July, with foreshore works taking place first and progressively working offshore (See Volume 1A of the ES, Chapter 5: Environmental Impact Assessment Methodology, Table 5-5). It is therefore considered that there would be no significant effect on the qualifying features or species associated with the European site as a result of these activities. The brine pipeline construction would not affect the European site from obtaining its conservation objectives. Construction of the north river crossing (including the seawater abstraction pipeline and brine discharge pipe) under the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary Construction of the north river crossing (including the seawater abstraction pipeline and brine discharge pipe) under the River Wyre would take place in the summer months (May to August) and therefore avoid causing disturbance to qualifying bird species of the European site, through visual presence or noise The location of the north river crossing and compound would be outside of the European site. Fencing would be used to demarcate the area and ensure no plant, material, or construction personnel would encroach on the European site. Once drilling and pipeline installation is complete, the drilling compound would be reinstated The method used for the drilling follows tried and tested, EA approved methodologies. Best practice control measures in line with EA PPG would be applied throughout the process and any arisings generated during the drilling process would be collected and removed from the site Given the timing of the works outside the wintering and passage periods, and the best practice control measures applied, it is considered there would be no impact associated with the north river crossing on the European site and its qualifying features. The works activity would not prevent the European site from achieving its conservation objectives. Gas Storage Caverns: Construction and Operation Brine discharge into the Irish Sea Modelling has shown that the release of brine solution into the Irish Sea at the discharge point, as a result of the construction of the gas caverns, will only have a localised effect on marine habitats and associated fauna (i.e. experience salinities greater than 40 psu) (See Volume 1A of the ES, Chapter 9: Ecology and Nature Conservation, Paragraphs to ). The modelling predicts that beyond 500 m from the discharge point salinity would return to 5% of normal levels, and that impacts due to salinity levels would be low to insignificant, and within acceptable limits. It is not anticipated that the brine discharge would have any significant effect on the European site since it is at Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 64

73 least 2.8 km from the outfall pipe to the boundary of the European site (via the potential pollution pathway of the Irish Sea) Brine discharge into the Irish Sea is therefore considered unlikely to have a significant effect on the qualifying features and species associated with the European site, or prevent it from achieving its conservation objectives. Creation and operation of the gas storage caverns on habitats associated with the European site The Surface Subsidence Assessment has concluded that initially, after one year, subsidence of over 9mm would occur in two areas, in the area of the northern cavern field and in the area of the southern cavern field. Ten years after cavern creation, the rate of subsidence would decrease to a stable maximum of 0.85 mm/year. After 40 years, the proposed lifetime of the facility, maximum subsidence would be just over 46 mm within these two areas (See Volume 1A of the ES, Chapter 10: Geology, Hydrogeology and Stability Paragraphs ). The overall drop in the level of the land by 46 mm is not considered to result in a significant effect on the saltmarsh habitat present. It would not lead to increase in submergence of the saltmarsh or mudflat habitats within the location of the caverns, and would not affect the levels of accretion or erosion. The habitats would continue to persist in these locations, and there would be no discernable change in the quality of habitat, or change in use by bird species associated with the European site Therefore, it is considered subsidence would not affect the European site and its qualifying habitats and species, or affect its ability to achieve its conservation objectives. Electrical Infrastructure: Construction Installation of electrical cable on the western side of the River Wyre The area surrounding the proposed works is currently subject to high levels of disturbance associated with the existing substation and switchyard on the western side of the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary. Noise levels from the eastern side of the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary are already considerably high, with the landfill and the ICI plant (See Volume 1A of the ES, Chapter 12: Noise and Vibration, Paragraph ). The installation of the electrical cable on the western side of the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary is therefore considered unlikely to exceed the existing levels of disturbance already experienced by birds using the adjacent estuarine habitats The installation of electrical cable on the western side of the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary is therefore considered unlikely to have a significant effect on the qualifying features and species associated with the European site, or prevent it from achieving its conservation objectives. Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 65

74 Other Associated Infrastructure: Construction The refurbishment of Higher Lickow Farm to provide office accommodation Given the small-scale, and localised nature of the proposed refurbishment works, it is considered unlikely that the refurbishment works would have a significant effect on the qualifying features and species associated with the European site. Noise levels would be high in the close proximity to the works; however, significant numbers of species associated with the European site have not been recorded using the area around the Farm. The adjacent fields are also considered too small and enclosed for use by pink-footed geese, which are the only species which have been recorded in significantly high numbers on functionally-linked land east of the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary The refurbishment of Higher Lickow Farm is therefore considered unlikely to have a significant effect on the qualifying features and species associated with the European site, or prevent it from achieving its conservation objectives. New access road from the A588 to Higher Lickow Farm The new access road from the A588 would be constructed within areas which are already subject to existing levels of disturbance (associated with the local village, the existing Preesall Wastewater Treatment Works, and farm activities). At its closest point, the new access road is located more than 500 m from the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary sea defences. Noise monitoring undertaken as part of the impact assessment indicates that mitigated construction works will be below 70 db at 100 m (See Volume 1A of the ES Chapter 12: Noise and Vibration, Table (Park Cottage area)). As described for Higher Lickow Farm above, significant numbers of species associated with the European site have not been recorded using this area of the Project The construction of the new access road is therefore considered unlikely to cause disturbance, or displace birds using the mudflats or saltmarsh on the edge of the estuary. It would also not prevent the European site from achieving its conservation objectives. Operation of the Booster Pump Station, Control Centre and De-brine Facility Although the facility is located within 250 m of the edge of the European site, the buildings have been sited behind Preesall Wastewater Treatment Works, adjacent to the European site, thus reducing the visual impact of the facility on birds using the adjacent mudflats and saltmarsh at high tide on the edge of the estuary Appropriate landscape planting and bunding would be used to hide the completed buildings from view, and help to reduce noise generated by the operating facility. Noise modelling, undertaken as part of the impact assessment, indicates that noise levels associated with the operation of the facility would be below 40 db at the closest point of the European site (See Plan 1: Predicted unmitigated operational noise levels (below)). This noise would be Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 66

75 continuous throughout its operation. Baseline levels at Arm Hill from noise monitoring (42.5 db) indicate that the bird species present in this area already experience noise levels higher than predicted to occur from the operational facility (See Volume 1A of the ES Chapter 12: Noise and Vibration, Table 12.10, and Figure 14.8 of Volume 1B of the ES) It is therefore considered that the noise levels generated during operation would not be at levels considered to affect bird species (considered to be 70dB (Cutts et al., 2008)) and birds would habituate to the constant noise. It would therefore not have a significant effect the qualifying features of the European site (either within the European site boundary or within functionally-linked land), or prevent it from achieving its conservation objectives. Operation of the Gas Compressor Compound and Electrical Substation (and associated infrastructure) Noise modelling, undertaken as part of the impact assessment, indicates that noise levels associated with the operation of the Gas Compressor Compound and Electrical Sub-station facility would not exceed 70 db beyond the facility (See Plan 1: Predicted operational noise levels (below)). The compound would also be partially screened with a bund, and landscape planting to reduce the visual impact and reduce the impact of noise associated with the operation of the facility. Noise from the operational facility would be less than 35 db upon reaching the closest point of the European site (saltmarsh habitats adjacent to the seawall), and would be less than 50 db within fields adjacent to the facility; decreasing with distance. The noise generated would be continuous throughout the operation Given that the noise generated by the operational facility would be continuous and significantly less than 70 db, particularly within the European site boundary, it is considered that it would not significantly disturb bird species on the European site or the functionally-linked land, and birds would habituate to the continuous noise Therefore it is considered that the operation of the facility would not disturb roosting and/or foraging birds within the European site boundary or the functionally-linked land, and would not prevent the European site from achieving its conservation objectives. Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 67

76 Plan 1 Predicted operational noise levels from the Booster Pump Station, Control Centre and De-Brine Facility (left) and Gas Compressor Compound, Electrical Sub-station and associated infrastructure (right) Summary None of the elements of the Project described above would be located with habitats designated as part of the European site. Through the use of tried and tested, best practice techniques and control measures embedded within the Project design, it is not considered that there would be any significant effects on the habitats of the European site as a result of emissions to air, land and water None of the elements described above would give rise to likely significant effects on the European site individually, and would also therefore not contribute to in-combination effects on the European site. 8.3 Elements of the Project which can be Screened out of the Assessment for Certain Qualifying Features of the European Site The following paragraphs describe elements of the Project for which it is possible to screen out certain interest features of the European site (i.e. particular bird species). However, these elements cannot be screened out of the detailed assessment completely since they affect the functionally-linked farmland adjacent to the European site. The functionally-linked farmland Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 68

77 support pink-footed geese. Pink-footed geese are one of the qualifying interest features of the European site The following process makes clear which elements of the Project should be carried forward to the detailed assessment, and the reasoning behind the screening out of effects. Construction of wellheads 2, 3, 4 and 6 within agricultural land adjacent to the European site Construction of wellheads 2, 3, 4 and 6 may take place during the winter months and/or during the passage period and therefore has the potential to cause disturbance/displace of foraging and roosting birds using the adjacent saltmarsh, mudflat and functionally-linked land However, given the distance between the wellheads (2, 3, 4, and 6) and the mudflats (the closest of these wellheads is 730 m from the mudflats which are the habitats of greatest value to foraging birds), the construction of the wellheads is unlikely to cause disturbance, or displace foraging birds at low tide (based on a disturbance distance of 500 m). In addition, given that all four of the wellheads are more than 500 m from the known high tide roost at Arm Hill (used by species such as bar-tailed godwit, curlew, dunlin, knot, oystercatcher, redshank, shelduck, wigeon, turnstone, lapwing, as well as a range of other species within the waterfowl assemblage at high tide), it is also considered unlikely that the proposed works would have a significant effect on the birds using the Arm Hill roost site All four of the wellheads are within 250 m from the top of the saltmarsh (i.e. 250 m from the European site boundary), and therefore there is still the potential to cause disturbance, or displace foraging and/or roosting birds using the saltmarsh adjacent to Arm Hill at high tide (such as bar-tailed godwit, curlew, dunlin, knot, oystercatcher, redshank, shelduck, wigeon, turnstone, lapwing and ringed plover). However, a bund (at least 2.3 m high) would be constructed around each of the wellheads to reduce the visual impact of the wellheads, and reduce the impact of noise associated with the construction works Noise modelling undertaken as part of the impact assessment indicates that the noise levels associated with the construction of the wellheads at the boundary of the European site (i.e. at the top of the saltmarsh) without the bunds in place, would not exceed 70 db within 250 m (calculated to be: Wellhead 2 (253 m): 62.5 db; Wellhead 3 (161 m): 66.4 db; Wellhead 4 (158 m): 66.6 db; Wellhead 6 (120 m) 69.0 db) (Calculations undertaken to inform this assessment). Noise levels would also be considerably less than 70 db within 250 m with the bunds in place (assuming 10 db reduction as a result of mitigation (See Volume 1A of the ES Chapter 12: Noise and Vibration, Paragraph )). It is therefore considered unlikely that the proposed works would have a significant effect on the birds using the very top of the saltmarsh at high tide The wellheads would be constructed in fields which are within and adjacent to areas known to support foraging and or roosting pink-footed geese, functionallylinked to the European site. Therefore the effects of the construction of Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 69

78 wellheads 2, 3, 4, and 6 on pink-footed geese have been carried forward to the assessment of likely effects. Drilling of caverns under the European site and agricultural land adjacent to the European site, from wellheads Cavern creation would take place through drilling from the wellhead compounds. The drilling could take place during the winter months or the passage period at any of the seven wellheads; although, the vast majority of drilling at wellheads 1, 5, and 7 would be programmed for the summer months (May to August) and thus would avoid disturbing birds using the saltmarsh/mudflats of the European site and the functionally-linked land in winter and on passage As four of the wellheads would be located within 250 m from the top of the saltmarsh (i.e. 250 m from the European site boundary), there may be the potential to cause disturbance, or displace foraging and/or roosting birds using the saltmarsh adjacent to Arm Hill at high tide (such as bar-tailed godwit, curlew, dunlin, knot, oystercatcher, redshank, shelduck, wigeon, turnstone, lapwing and ringed plover). However, the drilling rigs would be partially hidden from view behind a 2.3 m bund around each of the wellheads, thus reducing their visual impact and the noise levels associated with the drilling Despite the uncertainty regarding the completion of the drilling of the closest wellheads to the European site (numbers 1, 5, and 7) entirely in the summer months, the predicted noise levels arising from the drilling at all wellheads, with the application of bunding and noise/visual screening, would be less than 70 db within the saltmarsh habitats at a distance of 50 m, taking into account the 10 db reduction achieved by the screening (See Volume 1A of the ES Chapter 12: Noise and Vibration, Table (Drilling wellhead) and Paragraph ). It is therefore considered unlikely that the drilling associated with the cavern creation would have a significant effect on the foraging and or roosting birds using the edge of the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary during the winter and on passage. Construction of the Booster Pump Station, Control Centre and De-brine Facility (and associated infrastructure) on the eastern side of the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary Construction of the Booster Pump Station, Control Centre and De-brine Facility (and associated infrastructure) may take place during the winter months and/or the passage period. Therefore there is potential to cause noise and visual disturbance to foraging and roosting birds at low and high tide within the estuary (such as bar-tailed godwit, curlew, knot, dunlin, oystercatcher, redshank, shelduck, wigeon, lapwing, ringed plover, cormorant, turnstone and the waterfowl assemblage), and also to pink-footed geese using the fields adjacent to the facility Although the facility is located within 250 m of the edge of the European site, the buildings have been sited behind the existing Preesall Wastewater Treatment Works adjacent to the European site, thus reducing the visual impact of the facility for birds using the adjacent mudflats and saltmarsh at low and Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 70

79 high tide along the edge of the estuary. Appropriate landscape planting and bunding would also be used to hide the buildings from view, and help to reduce the impact of any noise created by the construction of the facility Noise modelling, undertaken as part of the impact assessment, indicates that unmitigated noise levels associated with the construction of the facility would not exceed 70 db within 100 m (See Volume 1A of the ES Chapter 12: Noise and Vibration, Table 12.22). Levels at the European site boundary with the presence of bunding/noise screening would therefore be less 65 db given the distance between the facility and the European site (80 m at its closest point, and 440 m from the Arm Hill roost site). It is therefore considered unlikely that the construction of the Booster Pump Station (and associated infrastructure) would have a significant effect on the foraging and or roosting birds using the edge of the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary at low and high tide The facility is, however, located near to or within areas of functionally-linked land used by significant numbers of pink-footed geese, and therefore there is potential for the construction of the facility to result in likely effects on this species. Therefore, construction of the Booster Pump Station, Control Centre and De-brine Facility (and associated infrastructure) in relation to disturbance and loss of foraging/roosting habitat of pink-footed geese will be carried forward in the assessment of likely effects. Construction of the Gas Compressor Compound and Electrical Substation (and associated infrastructure) The construction of the Gas Compressor Compound and Electrical Sub-station (and associated infrastructure) to the north-west of Higher Lickow Farm, on the eastern side of the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary, may take place during the winter months and/or the passage period and therefore has the potential to cause disturbance/displacement of foraging and roosting birds (such as bar-tailed godwit, curlew, knot, dunlin, oystercatcher, redshank, shelduck, wigeon, lapwing, ringed plover, cormorant, turnstone and the waterfowl assemblage) Given the distance of the compound and associated infrastructure from the mudflats (approximately 940 m), and the edge of the saltmarsh (approximately 500 m) the construction and operation of the compound (and associated infrastructure) is unlikely to cause disturbance, or displace foraging birds using the saltmarsh and mudflat habitats within the European site at low tide or high tide. In addition, noise associated with the construction of the Gas Compressor Compound, Electrical Sub-station and associated infrastructure would be significantly less than 70 db at a distance of 500 m, and therefore would be considered to not affect species using the European site habitat (See Volume 1A of the ES Chapter 12: Noise and Vibration, Table 12.23) As the Gas Compressor Compound is located within and near to areas of functionally-linked land used by significant numbers of pink-footed geese, there is however, the potential for the construction of the facility to affect this species. Therefore, construction of the Gas Compressor Compound, Electrical Substation and associated infrastructure in relation to disturbance and loss of foraging/roosting habitat of pink-footed geese will be carried forward in the assessment of likely effects. Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 71

80 Installation of electrical cable across agricultural land on the eastern side of the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary Installation of electrical cable across agricultural land on the eastern side of the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary, outside of the European site boundary, could take place during the winter months and/or the passage period (currently programmed to take place between August 2013 and April 2014), and therefore has the potential to cause disturbance/displace to qualifying bird species using the European site habitats or the fields within and adjacent to the European site Given the distance of the northern section of the cable installation (north of Burrow s Marsh, See Figures 2 and 3), approximately 500 m to 1 km from the edge of the European site; the installation of the northern section of the cable is unlikely to cause disturbance, or displace foraging or roosting birds along the edge of the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary at low tide or high tide. In addition, the northern section also runs parallel to an existing road and therefore the construction works are unlikely to have a significant effect on foraging and or roosting birds using the fields adjacent to the proposed works The southern section of the cable installation runs parallel to Burrows Marsh and therefore has the potential to disturb or displace birds foraging and/or roosting along the edge of the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary and within the adjacent fields. However, given that small-scale machinery would be used to install the cable, it is not anticipated that works would generate more visual and noise disturbance than existing farm activities. Noise modelling indicates that the works would not exceed 70 db at 100 m (See Volume 1A of the ES Chapter 12: Noise and Vibration, Table 12.19), and the presence of the seawall between the works and the European site would also provide a visual and noise screen from the works, thus reducing noise and visual disturbance to species using Burrows Marsh. The works would also be transient, moving rapidly between areas Overall, the temporary nature and small scale nature of the proposed works, coupled with the screening of noise and visual effects, it is not considered that the installation of the electrical infrastructure along the eastern side of the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary would affect the European site or qualifying species within the site. It may however, cause disturbance to pink-footed geese using fields adjacent to the proposed activities which are functionally-linked to the European site. Disturbance/displacement effects on pink-footed geese as a result of the electrical infrastructure installation on the eastern side of the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary will therefore be carried forward in the assessment of likely effects. Construction of the Interconnector Pipeline The construction of the interconnector pipeline would take place over a year and therefore would occur during the winter months and/or the passage period, and therefore has the potential to cause disturbance/displacement of foraging and/or roosting birds. However, the majority of the pipeline is more than 1 km from the edge of the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary and therefore no significant effects on foraging and/or roosting birds along the edge of the estuary at low and high tide are anticipated. Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 72

81 Whilst a short section of pipeline, between the first road crossing (opposite Park Cottage) and the Gas Compressor Compound, is approximately 400 m from the edge of the European site at its closest point, it is separated from view by the seawall, across hedgerow-bounded fields, and is considered to be less imposing than the closer, above ground structures such as the Gas Compressor Compound. Thus, the installation of the Interconnector Pipeline would not be expected to affect birds on the European site It does, however, have the potential to disturb and displace pink-footed geese using the functionally-linked land within and adjacent to the interconnector pipeline works, and this will therefore be carried forward in the assessment of likely effects. Summary It is considered that the elements described above would not give rise to likely significant effects on the European site individually, and therefore would not contribute in-combination with other elements of the Project on the European site. However, as described above, these project elements may still give rise to impacts on pink-footed geese, and these are described in Section 8.4 below. 8.4 Elements of the Project likely to give rise to Significant Effects and the Species that they are Likely to Affect As described within Section 3.2: Key Stages of the Project of this report, the Project comprises several elements which are considered to have the potential to affect the European site and its qualifying features. These have been summarised below and assessed in detail in Section 9 of this report. Gas Storage Caverns Construction of all wellheads 1, 5, and 7 within agricultural land adjacent to the European site (within functionally-linked land used by significant numbers of pink-footed geese) Construction of wellheads 2, 3, 4 and 6 within agricultural land adjacent to the European site in functionally-linked land (within functionally-linked land used by significant numbers of pink-footed geese) Drilling of the caverns from wellheads under the European site and agricultural land adjacent to the European site (within functionally-linked land used by significant numbers of pink-footed geese) Construction of the Booster Pump Station, Control Centre and De-brine Facility (and associated infrastructure) (within functionally-linked land used by significant numbers of pink-footed geese) Gas Processing Construction of the Gas Compressor Compound and Electrical Sub-station (and associated infrastructure) (in functionally-linked land used by pinkfooted geese) Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 73

82 Electrical Infrastructure Installation of electrical cable across agricultural land on the eastern side of the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary, in functionally-linked land used by pinkfooted geese Construction of the south river crossing, including the installation of electrical cable under the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary and the compound on the eastern side of the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary (in functionally-linked land used by pink-footed geese) Interconnector Pipeline Construction of the gas pipeline (and associated infrastructure) across agricultural land to the east of the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary (in functionally-linked land used by pink-footed geese) Other Associated Infrastructure New and upgraded internal access tracks within the application boundary 8.5 Summary of Activities Screened into the Assessment Table 8.1 (below) provides a summary of those activities considered likely to result in significant effects as a result of the Project, together with the likely potential effect, and the habitat or species/species assemblage it is likely to affect. The latter is based on a combination of the screening assessment (Sections 8.2 to 8.4 above), the bird species present and likely significant numbers (as screened in Section 7), and a consideration of effects on habitats The activities described in Table 8.1 will be carried forward in the detailed assessment of likely impacts and significance in Section 9. Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 74

83 Table 8-1 Activities Associated with the Project, their Potential Significant Effects, and European Site Species/Habitats Likely to be affected Element of the Project Work Activity and Timing Potential Significant Effects Sensitive Species/Species Assemblage/Habitats Gas storage caverns Construction of wellheads 1, 5 and 7 within agricultural land adjacent to the European site. Wellheads constructed during the summer months (May to August) between Years 2 and 8. Construction of wellheads 2, 3, 4 and 6 within agricultural land adjacent to the European site. Wellheads constructed during the winter/migration period between Years 2 and 8. Drilling of caverns under the European site and agricultural land adjacent to the European site. Drilling to take place all year including the winter/migration period Loss of foraging/roosting habitat on functionally-linked land. Loss of foraging/roosting habitat on functionally-linked land. Disturbance/displacement of foraging/roosting birds on functionally-linked land (including noise and visual disturbance from construction activities) using functionallylinked land during the winter and on passage. Disturbance/displacement of foraging/roosting birds on functionally-linked land (including noise and visual disturbance from construction activities) during the winter and on passage. Pink-footed geese (overwinter) Pink-footed geese (overwinter) Pink-footed geese (overwinter) Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 75

84 Element of the Project Work Activity and Timing Potential Significant Effects Sensitive Species/Species Assemblage/Habitats between Years 2 and 8. Construction of the Booster Pump Station, Control Centre and De-brine Facility (and associated infrastructure, including the pipelines between the seven wellheads) on the eastern side of the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary. Construction includes wintering and passage period in addition to summer, in Year 1. Loss of foraging/roosting habitat within functionallylinked land. Disturbance/displacement of foraging/roosting birds (including noise and visual disturbance from construction activities) using functionallylinked land during the winter and on passage. Pink-footed geese (overwinter) Gas processing Construction of the Gas Compressor Compound and Electrical Sub-station (and associated infrastructure) to the north-west of Higher Lickow Farm on the eastern side of the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary. Construction includes wintering and passage period in addition to summer, over a period of three years from (Year 1 to Year 3). Loss of foraging/roosting habitat within functionallylinked land. Disturbance/displacement of foraging/roosting birds (including noise and visual disturbance from construction activities) using functionallylinked land during the winter and on passage. Pink-footed geese (overwinter) Electrical infrastructure Installation of electrical Temporary loss of Pink-footed geese (overwinter) Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 76

85 Element of the Project Work Activity and Timing Potential Significant Effects Sensitive Species/Species Assemblage/Habitats cable across agricultural land on the eastern side of the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary. Construction includes wintering and passage period in addition to summer, but would be shortscale and transient, over Year 1. Construction of the south river crossing, including exit compound on the eastern side of the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary Construction includes wintering and passage period in addition to summer, but would be shortscale and duration, within Year 1. Interconnector pipeline Construction and operation of the gas pipeline (and associated infrastructure) across agricultural land to the west of the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary Construction includes foraging/roosting habitat for birds during the winter and on passage during the pipeline construction. Disturbance/displacement of foraging/roosting birds (including noise and visual disturbance from construction activities) using functionallylinked land during the winter and on passage. Loss of foraging/roosting habitat at the exit points of the pipeline in functionally-linked land. Disturbance/displacement of foraging/roosting birds (including noise and visual disturbance from construction activities) using functionallylinked land during the winter and on passage. Temporary loss of foraging/roosting habitat for birds during the winter and on passage during the pipeline construction. Temporary disturbance/ displacement of Pink-footed geese (overwinter) Pink-footed geese (overwinter) Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 77

86 Element of the Project Work Activity and Timing Potential Significant Effects Sensitive Species/Species Assemblage/Habitats wintering and passage period in addition to summer, but would be shortscale and transient, over Year 1. foraging/roosting birds (including noise and visual disturbance from construction activities) using functionallylinked land during the winter and on passage. Other associated infrastructure New and upgraded internal access tracks, and haul roads, within the site. Construction includes wintering and passage period in addition to summer, but would be shortscale and transient, over Year 1. Loss of foraging/roosting habitat for birds using functionally-linked land (temporary loss for haul roads, permanent loss for new access tracks). Temporary disturbance/ displacement of foraging/roosting birds (including noise and visual disturbance from construction activities) using functionallylinked land during the winter and on passage. Pink-footed geese (overwinter) Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 78

87 9 ASSESSMENT OF LIKELY SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS 9.1 Assessment of Likely Changes and Significance Habitat Loss There would be no loss of designated habitats within the European site as a result of the Project. Standard pollution prevention control guidelines would be followed to ensure that emissions to air and alterations in water quality would have No Significant Effect on the habitats in the European site. There would however, be both a temporary and permanent loss of habitat within functionallylinked land used by qualifying species of the European site, i.e. used by the qualifying species of the European site for roosting and foraging The loss of habitat which would occur as a result of the following activities, together with its extent and significance is described below: Construction of the seven wellheads within agricultural land adjacent to the European site Construction of the seven wellheads adjacent to the European site would lead to the loss of small areas of habitat within the functionally-linked land suitable for foraging and/or roosting pink-footed geese which have been recorded within fields adjacent to proposed works. However, given the relatively small footprint of the wellheads (approximately 1.97 ha combined), and the amount of alternative suitable habitat available to foraging and roosting pink-footed geese in the surrounding area, no significant effects (in terms of habitat loss) on foraging and/or roosting pink-footed geese are anticipated as a result of the construction of the seven wellheads. New and upgraded internal access tracks, and temporary haul roads within the site The creation of new and upgraded internal access tracks, together with temporary haul roads, would result in the loss of small areas of functionallylinked land used by significant numbers of pink-footed geese. The haul roads would result in a temporary loss during Year 1; however, these areas would be reinstated following works, and therefore are not considered to result in a significant effect. The new and upgraded tracks would be largely installed over existing tracks. New tracks would have a relatively small footprint and not reduce the size of the fields in a way that would deter pink-footed geese from using the areas following construction. Therefore no significant effects (in terms of habitat loss) on foraging and/or roosting pink-footed geese are anticipated as a result of the construction new access roads and temporary haul roads. Construction of the Booster Pump Station, Control Centre, De-brine Facility, and Associated Infrastructure Construction of the Booster Pump Station, Control Centre, De-brine Facility and associated infrastructure would lead to the loss of a relatively small area of Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 79

88 habitat suitable for foraging and/or roosting birds within the functionally-linked land. However, given the relatively small footprint of the works (approximately 0.34 ha), its location next to an existing wastewater treatment works, and the amount of alternative suitable habitat available to foraging and roosting birds in the surrounding area, no significant effects are anticipated (in terms of habitat loss) on foraging and/or roosting as a result of the construction of Booster Pump Station, Control Centre, De-brine Facility, and Associated Infrastructure. Construction of the Gas Compressor Compound and Electrical Substation (and associated infrastructure) Construction of the Gas Compressor Compound and Electrical Sub-station (and associated infrastructure) to the north-west of Higher Lickow Farm, would lead to the loss of a relatively small area of habitat suitable for foraging and/or roosting pink-footed geese within the functionally-linked land (approximately 1.55 ha). Given the relatively small footprint of the works, and the amount of alternative suitable habitat available to foraging and roosting birds in the surrounding area, no significant effects are anticipated (in terms of habitat loss) on foraging and/or roosting birds as a result of the construction of the Gas Compressor Compound and Electrical Sub-station (and associated infrastructure). Installation of electrical cable across agricultural land on the eastern side of the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary Installation of electrical cable across agricultural land on the eastern side of the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary, outside of the European site, would lead to the temporary loss of an area of habitat suitable for foraging and/or roosting pinkfooted geese. However, given the temporary nature of the proposed works (habitats will be reinstated), the rapid nature of the works moving progressively across the route, and given the amount of alternative suitable habitat available to foraging and roosting birds in the surrounding area, no significant effects are anticipated (in terms of habitat loss) on foraging and/or roosting birds associated with the European site as a result of the installation of the electrical cable across agricultural land on the eastern side of the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary. Construction of the south river crossing, including the installation of electrical cable under the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary Construction of the south river crossing would lead to the temporary loss of a relatively small area of habitat suitable for foraging and/or roosting birds at the under river exit point on the eastern side of the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary. This habitat loss would be outside of the European site but within functionally-linked land (potentially used by, or close to areas used by pink-footed geese) Given that the construction works associated with the under river exit points would take place within a single small field, and be temporary in nature (currently programmed to take place between March and July 2014), and the amount of alternative suitable habitat available to foraging and roosting birds in the surrounding area, no significant effects are anticipated (in terms of habitat Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 80

89 loss) on foraging and/or roosting birds associated with the European site as a result of the construction of the south river crossing. Construction of Interconnector pipeline Installation of the interconnector pipeline would lead to the temporary loss of an area of habitat suitable for foraging and/or roosting pink-footed geese. However, given the temporary nature of the proposed works, (although the pipeline would take a year to install, it is envisaged that the works required in a particular area would be completed within a few months) and the amount of alternative suitable habitat available to foraging and roosting birds in the surrounding area, no significant effects are anticipated (in terms of habitat loss) on foraging and/or roosting birds associated with the European site as a result of the installation of the interconnector pipeline. Summary of habitat loss Overall, it is not considered that the permanent and temporary loss of habitat within the functionally-linked land, as described above would result in a significant adverse effect on the European site or its qualifying features, or prevent the conservation objectives for the European site from being achieved. Fragmentation No fragmentation of habitats or species associated with the European site is anticipated as a result of the Project. Disruption (e.g. to foraging or migration routes) No significant disruption to the natural habitats and processes of the European site are anticipated as a result of the Project. There would be no disruption to the natural patterns of erosion and accretion within the saltmarsh habitats adjacent to the Project. The Project is also not anticipated to result in the disruption of the qualifying species of the European site, as it would not disrupt species using regular migration routes. Disturbance/Displacement of Qualifying Species The following activities, associated with construction of the Project could have potentially significant effects on the qualifying features and species of the European site. Construction of all seven wellheads within agricultural land adjacent to the European site All seven wellheads would be constructed in fields which are within and adjacent to areas known to support significant numbers of foraging and or roosting pink-footed geese, (these fields are considered to be functionally-linked to the European site). The noise modelling undertaken as part of the impact assessment indicates that the noise levels associated with the construction of the wellheads would exceed 70 db within and directly adjacent to the area of proposed works (See Volume 1A of the ES Chapter 12: Noise and Vibration, Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 81

90 Table 12.26). A bund at least 2.3 m high would be constructed around each of the wellheads to reduce the visual impact of the wellheads, and reduce the impact of noise. Nevertheless, the potential exists for disturbance to birds using the functionally-linked land as a result of noise and the presence of plant, equipment, and construction personnel It is therefore considered likely that the proposed works would have a significant effect on pink-footed geese. Drilling of caverns under the European site and agricultural land adjacent to the European site, from wellheads Whilst it is considered that with the majority of drilling at three of the seven wellheads would be undertaken during the summer months (May to August), and that noise and visual screening would avoid visual and noise disturbance to species using the European site habitats adjacent to the Project, the predicted noise levels and visual presence of plant, equipment, and personnel during the works activities is considered to deter and disturb the significant numbers of pink-footed geese using the functionally-linked land within and adjacent to these works activities It is therefore considered likely that the drilling of the caverns would have a significant effect on pink-footed geese using the functionally-linked land associated with the European site. Construction of the Booster Pump Station, Control Centre and De-brine Facility (and associated infrastructure) on the eastern side of the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary The facility would be constructed adjacent to areas known to support foraging and or roosting pink-footed geese, and therefore there is the potential to cause noise and visual disturbance to these birds during the construction and operation of facility. Although the area is currently subject to existing noise and visual disturbance associated with Preesall Wastewater Treatment Works; it is considered likely that the construction of the Booster Pump Station, Control Centre and De-brine Facility (and associated infrastructure) would disturb/displace pink-footed geese using the functionally-linked land in this area. Construction of the Gas Compressor Compound and Electrical Substation (and associated infrastructure) The Gas Compressor Compound and Electrical Sub-station (and associated infrastructure) would be constructed in fields which are within and adjacent to areas known to support foraging and or roosting pink-footed geese. Construction would take place over three years, including in the winter months. Noise modelling, undertaken as part of the impact assessment, indicates that the noise levels associated with the construction of the facility would exceed 70 db within 50 m (See Volume 1A of the ES Chapter 12: Noise and Vibration, Table 12.23). The compound would be partially screened with a bund and landscape planting to reduce the visual impact and reduce the impact of noise associated with the construction of the compound; however, it is considered likely that construction of the Gas Compressor Compound (and associated Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 82

91 infrastructure) would have a significant effect on foraging and/or roosting pinkfooted geese using the functionally-linked land within 100 m of the compound, as a result of visual and noise disturbance It is therefore considered likely that the construction and the operation of the Gas Compressor Compound and the Electrical Sub-station (and associated infrastructure) would disturb roosting and/or foraging pink-footed geese using the functionally-linked land during the winter. Installation of electrical cable across agricultural land on the eastern side of the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary Installation of electrical cable across agricultural land on the eastern side of the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary, outside of the European site boundary, could take place during the winter months and/or the passage period (currently programmed to take place between August 2013 and April 2014), and therefore has the potential to cause disturbance/displace pink-footed geese using the fields within and adjacent to the works. However, given that small-scale machinery would be used to install the cable, it is not anticipated that works would generate more visual and noise disturbance than existing farm activities. The works would also be temporary in nature (given that the fields would be reinstated on completion of the installation); they would also be transient (working progressively across the pipeline route) Given these factors, and the amount of alternative suitable habitat available to foraging and roosting pink-footed geese in the surrounding area, no significant effects are anticipated on these birds associated with the European site as a result of the installation of the electrical cable across agricultural land on the eastern side of the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary. Construction of the Interconnector pipeline As the construction of the interconnector pipeline would take place during the winter months and/or the passage period (June 2014 to June 2015), as well as summer months, there is the potential to cause disturbance/displacement of foraging and/or roosting pink-footed geese using the functionally-linked land adjacent to the works However, given the temporary nature (works currently programmed to take place between June 2014 and June 2015) of the proposed works, the fluctuating noise levels of the transient works as it progresses along the route of the pipeline, and the amount of alternative suitable habitat available to foraging and roosting birds in the surrounding area, no significant effects are anticipated on foraging and/or roosting birds associated with the European site as a result of the installation of the interconnector pipeline. Summary of Disturbance Effects Overall it is considered that disturbance of a significant proportion of the European site s population of pink-footed geese that use the functionally-linked land on the eastern side of the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary could be affected by the construction of a number of Project elements. These elements include: Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 83

92 Construction of wellheads 2, 3, 4 and 6 in the functionally-linked land on the pink-footed geese population of the European site Drilling of the caverns from the wellheads on pink-footed geese using the functionally-linked land adjacent to the European site Construction of the Booster Pump Station, Control Centre and De-brine Facility (and associated infrastructure) on pink-footed geese using the functionally-linked land adjacent to the European site Construction of the Gas Compressor Compound and Electrical Sub-station (and associated infrastructure) on pink-footed geese using the functionallylinked land adjacent to the European site These four elements would also act collectively, disturbing/displacing pinkfooted geese in this distinct area within the Project boundary that forms part of the functionally-linked land to the European site. From literature, this disturbance is likely to extend to a distance of 500 m from the works activities. Population Size As identified above it is considered likely that the Project would cause disturbance to, and the displacement of, significant numbers of pink-footed geese using the functionally linked land, based on the numbers of geese for which the European site has been designated. However, as indicated in Paragraph , the population of pink-footed geese associated with the European site has increased markedly since its designation. Recent trends in WeBS data for the European site indicate that the population of pink-footed geese has increased from 2,475 in the period 1991 to 1996 to 6,258 birds (2005 to 2010) In addition to the habitat that would be disturbed by the Project, there is suitable foraging and roosting habitat in the locality as demonstrated by data from Fleetwood Farm, Fleetwood Marsh Nature Reserve/Fleetwood Marsh Industrial Land BHS and fields north of the Project area (as identified in paragraphs above). The data clearly demonstrate that pink-footed geese are mobile moving between areas of suitable habitat both in response to changes in the cropping regimes used by farmers and in response to the effects of disturbance. On completion of the construction works the majority of the habitat that was suitable for pink-footed geese would be available to them. Nevertheless, there is the potential that construction works, particularly those that take place in the first winter, would disturb and displace the 4,000 birds that have been recorded in the Project area. This represents a significant proportion of the European site population of pink-footed geese and therefore without mitigation there is the potential for a significant effect on the European site population of overwintering pink-footed geese. Change to Key Elements of the European Site It is not envisaged that there will be changes to key elements of the European site, such as hydrological regime, as a result of the Project. Key functions of the designated habitats which support the qualifying species, such as saltmarsh Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 84

93 accretion and erosion, and the availability of mudflats, are not anticipated to alter as a result of the Project. 9.2 Likely Changes to the Conservation Objectives of the European Site The conservation objectives for the site are to maintain the habitats of the internationally important assemblage of waterfowl and seabirds and the internationally important populations of regularly occurring migratory species in favourable condition It is considered that the Project would not adversely affect the favourable conservation status of the shingle habitats, given the distance from the Project to these habitats, and the nature of the Project activities. The Project would also not affect the intertidal mudflat and sandflat, intertidal and sub tidal boulder and cobble skear, saltmarsh, or coastal lagoon communities. Therefore, it is considered that the Project would not prevent the conservation objectives in relation to maintaining habitats from being achieved It is envisaged that the Project may disturb/displace a proportion of the European site s population of pink-footed geese; however, this disturbance is considered to temporarily move pink-footed geese into other areas within and surrounding Morecambe Bay, and is unlikely to affect the population size. It is however, not considered that the disturbance would prevent the European site from achieving its conservation objectives. 9.3 Conclusion of Likely Significant Effects Through the embedded design of the Project, including the avoidance of sensitive migration and winter periods, and the provision of visual and noise screening, it is considered that the majority of the Project activities would not impact on birds (whether foraging and/or roosting in winter, and/or on passage) that use the saltmarsh and mudflats that form part of the European site, either in isolation or in-combination with each project element (as described in Section 8.3) It is however, considered likely that pink-footed geese using the functionallylinked land would be disturbed or displaced by the following activities of the Project, either in isolation or in-combination: Construction of wellheads 2, 3, 4 and 6 in the functionally-linked land on the pink-footed geese population of the European site Drilling of the caverns from the wellheads under the European site and agricultural land adjacent to the European site Construction of the Booster Pump Station, Control Centre and De-brine Facility (and associated infrastructure) Construction of the Gas Compressor Compound and Electrical Sub-station (and associated infrastructure) Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 85

94 9.3.3 As disturbance/displacement of pink-footed geese using the functionally-linked fields on the eastern side of the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary is envisaged, during the winter periods, where Project elements are located within 500 m from the geese, it is considered feasible that mitigation measures could be incorporated to reduce the likely effect on the European site to levels that would not result in significant effects It is considered that the disturbance effects would only occur during the construction period in these areas, and that the majority of works that would cause disturbance would be complete within the initial three years of the Project. The drilling of caverns from the wellhead compounds could continue to cause disturbance, for a further four to six years, to geese in close proximity to the wellheads at the time of drilling. Therefore it is considered that providing suitable, undisturbed areas away from the construction activities but within the local area would ensure no significant effect on the pink-footed geese (and the European site) as a result of the Project. The mitigation measures proposed are therefore described in detail in Section 11 below. Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 86

95 10 IN-COMBINATION ASSESSMENT 10.1 Identification of Projects As described above, the embedded design of the Project, including the avoidance of sensitive migration and winter periods, and the provision of visual and noise screening bunds, it has been possible to avoid the potential effects of the majority of Project activities on foraging and/or roosting birds in winter and/or on passage that use the saltmarsh and mudflats that form part if the European site, either in isolation or in-combination Volume 1A of the ES, Chapter 18: Cumulative Effects identifies all plans and projects considered in the EIA process, and carries out an in-combination assessment for all disciplines. The locations of these projects and plans are shown on Figure 18.1 in Volume 2B of the ES. As identified in the ES the area around the European site is subject to various development pressures, some of which have the potential to cause in-combination impacts with the Project As identified in Section 4.9 (above), consultation with Wyre Borough Council and statutory consultees resulted in a list of eleven major projects that that have the potential to give rise to in-combination effects with the Project. Table 10.1 below assesses the potential of each of these projects to have a significant effect on the European site in-combination with the Project. This includes the three major projects that statutory nature conservation consultees identified as having the potential to result in in-combination effects. These three projects have also been assessed in more detail within Sections 10.2 to 10.4 below. The location of these three projects is shown on Figure 4. Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 87

96 Table 10-1 Projects with the potential to have significant in-combination effects Project or plan and status Distance from European site Potential in- combination effect Project or plan considered further Planning Application 10/00529 Outline Application for a change of use to provide a new fish and food processing park (Class B2), Copse Road, Fleetwood. Permitted but awaiting funding before it progresses 800 m None predicted The location of this application (in the fish docks, already subject to existing development and high levels of background noise) and the distance from the European site means that no significant incombination impacts are predicted. In addition, the construction period of the elements of the Project closest to this application (construction of the brine discharge pipeline on land) is timed to take place during the summer months (May to August) and thereby avoiding any adverse impacts on birds using the habitats of the European site. This project is therefore not considered further in this assessment Planning Application 10/00515 Full Application for erection of 16 affordable dwellings (including an area of 5 car parking spaces), at Birch Grove, Stalmine, for use by Stalmine County Primary School. Permitted (Under 2.6 km None predicted This application is under construction and will be completed by the time the Project starts construction. The significant distance between the European site and the lack of potential pathways for any impacts also means that no in-combination effects are predicted, and this project is not considered further Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 88

97 construction) Planning Application 08/00676 Full Small Scale Application for erection of one 126m high wind turbine, foundation, access track and ancillary equipment, at Dewlay Cheese Factory, A6, Garstang. Operational Planning Application 09/00971 Outline Small Scale Application for a local centre, Bourne Road, Thornton-Cleveleys. Permitted (No development to date) 12.5 km None predicted This application has been constructed and is currently operational. The significant distance between the European site and the application, and the lack of potential impact pathways also mean that no in-combination effects are predicted, and this project is not considered further. 600 m None predicted The small scale nature and location of this application (600m from SPA on the urban fringe and screened from the European site) means that no incombination impacts are predicted with respect to disturbance or displacement of foraging/roosting birds are predicted. This application is also located approximately 2 km from the closest element of the Project (the construction of the south river crossing), a distance considered sufficient to reduce further the possibility of any in-combination effect. Planning Application 10/00215 For erection of 273 dwellings with access, parking, public open space and landscaping, 600 m None predicted This application is currently under construction and the majority should be completed by the time construction of the Project commences. Statutory consultees did not request an HRA to be carried out of this application ( Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 89

98 Bourne Road, Thornton- Cleveleys. Under construction Planning Application 11/00226 Outline Small Scale Application proposing the demolition of existing football club and erection of a residential development comprising up to 54 dwellings (Bourne Road, Thornton- Cleveleys). Decision pending Planning Application 07/01211 Planning application for 30 dwellings, Former Auction Mart, Lancaster Road, Pilling. Permitted (No development to date) The Gateway Project Gas storage caverns to be constructed 25km out at sea Permitted 00215), and as this application is 2 km from the Project at its nearest point, no in-combination impacts are anticipated and this application is not considered further. 600 m None predicted The small scale nature and location of this application (600m from SPA on the urban fringe and screened from the European site) means that no incombination impacts with respect to disturbance or displacement of foraging/roosting birds are predicted. This application is also located approximately 2km from the closest element of the Project (the construction of the south river crossing), a distance considered sufficient to reduce further the possibility of any in-combination effect. 6.5 km None predicted The significant distance between the European site and the application and the lack of potential impact pathways means that no in-combination effects are predicted and this project is not considered further. 22 km None predicted The significant distance between the European site and the application and the lack of potential impact pathways means that no in-combination effects are predicted and this project is not considered further. Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 90

99 Wyre Power Station Planning Application 09/00685 Circular 18/84 Government Development. Erection of gas powered power station at NPL site, Thornton-Cleveleys (land at Bourne Road). Permitted (No development to date) Fleetwood Harbour Village Planning Application 04/00240 Construction of 380 dwellings and associated infrastructure, Fleetwood Marina 500 m Disturbance/displacement of foraging/roosting birds (including noise and visual disturbance from the construction of a pipeline under the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary) Increased potential for contaminated surface water run-off to be discharged into the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary 100 m Disturbance/displacement of foraging/roosting birds (including noise and visual disturbance from construction activities) Increased potential for contaminated surface water run-off to be discharged into the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary This application may have the potential to act incombination with the Project on the European site due to the proximity of the pipeline under the Wyre Estuary to those associated with the Project and the timing of construction This application is considered further in Paragraphs to This application could have potential in-combination impacts with the Project due to the proximity of the two applications and the timing of construction This application is considered further in Paragraphs to Cuadrilla UK Shale Ltd are currently undertaking investigative studies to assess the potential for shale gas exploitation of the Bowland Shale 9 km to the south, at depths of approximately 2 km The potential increased risk in catastrophic cavern collapse under the European site as a result of the fracking technique utilised for shale gas exploration This application could have potential in-combination impacts with the Project due to increasing the risks associated with catastrophic cavern collapse This application is considered further in Paragraphs to Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 91

100 10.2 Wyre Power Station Wyre Power Station is a proposed 850-megawatt electrical (MWe) combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) and 25-MWe open cycle gas turbine (OCGT) power station, together with an associated gas pipeline, to be built in Thornton Cleveleys, Lancashire. The proposed power station is less than 500 m from the European site at its closest point and an interconnecting pipeline is planned to go under the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary adjacent to the southern river crossing for the Preesall Project (as shown in Figure 4). Potential in-combination impacts relate to the increased disturbance of any birds using the European site and also the increased risks of pollution entering the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary Information provided with the application included overwintering bird surveys as part of the ES (RSK Environmental, 2009). These found no significant aggregations of birds (for which the European site is designated) using the Estuary closest to the proposed power station. In addition, the use of horizontal directional drilling to install the interconnecting pipeline under the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary (starting in Spring 2013) led to the conclusion that there would be no adverse effects on Morecambe Bay SPA and Ramsar as a result of the power station construction The construction of the southern river crossing for the Preesall Project will not directly affect any habitat within the European site and the use of directional drilling to a depth of at least 8 m throughout the summer months will avoid any adverse impacts on the majority of the wintering and on passage birds. This element was not screened out of the detailed assessment due to the temporary loss of a small area of habitat suitable for foraging/roosting pink-footed geese on the eastern side of the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary (See Paragraphs and 9.1.9). However, no significant effects are predicted due to the small scale and temporary nature of the works, and the amount of alternative habitat nearby All drilling wastes from both projects would be collected and controlled through the application of best practice PPG measures (See Paragraph 3.5.6) thereby reducing the potential for significant adverse impacts through the release of sediment loaded water into the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary. In addition the drilling fluids to be used for the Preesall Project river crossing will be a water-based mud system considered to pose little or no risk to the environment The use of non-destructive drilling techniques, the timing of drilling to avoid the over-wintering period, and the use of PPG measures means that no significant effects are anticipated from these projects either individually or in-combination, and would not prevent the conservation objectives for the European site from being achieved Fleetwood Harbour Village The location of this site is shown on Figure 4. This outline planning application was originally for 380 dwellings, and reserved matters have since been approved for approximately 240 houses currently under construction by two separate companies. The most recent planning application received by Wyre Borough Council concerned a time extension to the original outline application Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 92

101 for the remaining houses. Part of the scheme is currently under construction; however, there is no definite timeline for completion of this phased development The development is within 100 m of the European site in places, and approximately 50 m from the closest element of the Project (construction of the Brine discharge pipeline (on land) on the western side of the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary). In-combination impacts relate to the potential disturbance of birds using the European site in close proximity to the projects and an increased risk of pollution entering the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary The northern river crossing will be constructed during the summer months (May to August) using directional drilling techniques thereby avoiding any adverse impacts on the qualifying features using the European site or adjacent habitats during the passage period and overwinter (See Paragraph ) With respect to any increased risk in polluted run-off entering the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary, the Project will ensure that the same pollution prevention controls and drilling techniques will be implemented as for the southern river crossing ensuring no significant adverse impact will ensue. Surface water runoff controls have also been implemented on the construction site/housing development to ensure that no polluted water enters the watercourse (bunds, oil interceptors, directing run-off into the main sewerage system and not directly into the watercourse) As a result of this embedded mitigation through design and through the implementation of standard pollution prevention measures, no significant incombination impacts are predicted with the Fleetwood Harbour Village development, and would not prevent the conservation objectives for the European site from being achieved Cuadrilla Shale Gas Exploration Cuadrilla Resources are currently undertaking investigative studies to assess the potential for shale gas exploitation of the Bowland Shale approximately 9 km to the south of the Project at a depth of 2 km. The location of this site is shown on Figure 4. In-combination impacts relate to the potential increased risk in catastrophic cavern collapse under the European site as a result of the fracking technique utilised for shale gas exploration Following two minor earthquakes with their focus relatively near to Cuadrilla s exploration area, exploration was suspended pending an investigation as to whether the fracking technique utilised for Shale Gas exploitation was inducing seismicity. In November 2011, the company admitted that the shale gas exploration probably triggered the earthquakes; however, there was little risk of tremors caused by exploration in the future The caverns have been designed to international standards to ensure that there will be no risk of catastrophic cavern collapse at any stage of the Project, both during and following their creation (See Paragraph 3.2.3). Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 93

102 The Seismic Hazard Desk Study for the Project has shown that the cavern locations are located in an area of low seismic activity, even by UK standards, therefore it is highly unlikely that there would be tremors in this area which could cause cavern instability (See Volume 1A of the ES, Chapter 10: Geology, Hydrogeology and Stability, Paragraphs ). This study also examined the risks of any induced seismicity, and found that the size and extent of any induced seismicity is considered to lie within the natural spectrum of seismicity for Preesall and hence will not adversely impact the Project (See Volume 1A of the ES, Chapter 10: Geology, Hydrogeology and Stability, Paragraphs ) As a result, no significant in-combination impacts are predicted with the Cuadrilla UK Shale Gas exploration, and the implementation of these projects would not prevent the conservation objectives for the European site from being achieved. Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 94

103 11 MITIGATION MEASURES 11.1 Need for Mitigation Through the embedded design of the Project, including the avoidance of sensitive migration and winter periods, and the provision of visual and noise screening bunds, it has been possible to avoid the potential significant effects of a number of the Project activities on foraging and/or roosting birds in winter and/or on passage that use the saltmarsh and mudflats that form part of the European site, either in isolation or in-combination It is not considered that the loss of 3.86 ha of farmland that is used by pinkfooted geese would have a significant effect on these geese. However, it is considered likely that pink-footed geese, which use the functionally-linked land during the winter period, would be disturbed or displaced by construction and/or operational activities associated with the Project. The following paragraphs therefore set out the mitigation measures which will be put in place to ensure no significant effects on the pink-footed geese, associated with the European site, which use the functionally-linked farmland during the winter. The detailed mitigation measures described below incorporated into the Landscape and Ecological Management Strategy Plan for the Project (See Figure of Volume 2B of the ES) Landscape and Ecological Management Strategy Plan The final Landscape and Ecological Management Strategy Plan will be produced in consultation with Natural England, Environment Agency, RSPB, Lancashire County Council, Wyre Borough Council, and tenant farmers. This Management Plan and associated landscaping works would be funded and delivered by Halite and its implementation secured as a requirement attached to the DCO. It will occur within land owned by Halite and the arable fields will continue to be managed by the tenant farmers The purpose of the Landscape and Ecological Management Strategy Plan is to ensure the favourable conservation status of the farmland within and adjacent to the Project is maintained. This will be achieved by bringing together the various design measures required by ecology, landscape and hydrology, to minimise the effects of the Project on the pink-footed geese which use the functionally-linked land adjacent to the European site The Landscape and Ecological Management Strategy Plan specifically covers the farmland within and adjacent to the application boundary at Preesall, known to support overwintering pink-footed geese. The farmland is situated at the edge of the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary, within its eastern rural hinterland In preparing the Landscape and Ecological Management Strategy Plan, reference has been made to the guidance contained within Biodiversity by Design: A Guide for Sustainable Communities (Town and County Planning Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 95

104 Association, 2004) and the best practice guidance set out in the pink-footed geese advisory sheet, produced by RSPB and Natural England (RSPB, 2008) The Landscape and Ecological Management Strategy Plan will be implemented over a phased programme during the Project s construction to ensure that suitable alternative habitat is available to pink-footed geese from the onset of the Project and throughout the construction phase and the construction and operational phase. Mitigation Measures for Pink-Footed Geese In order to reduce the potential adverse effects of the Project on overwintering pink-footed geese, management that would be undertaken as part of the Landscape and Ecological Management Strategy Plan would include measures targeted specifically towards pink-footed geese which use the functionally-linked land, adjacent to the European site In order to forage successfully, the RSPB advice sheet (RSPB, 2008) identifies that pink-footed geese require undisturbed daytime feeding sites and a supply of carbohydrate-rich food. Research also suggests that pink-footed geese avoid feeding in fields less than 6 ha in size and in fields that are close to major roads. It is proposed that at least 16 ha of land would be specifically managed to provide habitat suitable for foraging and roosting pink- footed geese, to provide habitat that would remain undisturbed throughout the duration of the construction and the construction and operational phase. Other farmland within the Project area would continue to be farmed in a manner that would be beneficial to pink-footed geese so that it would be available to geese in the event that they either become habituated to disturbance or that these fields provide suitable habitat when works are not taking place close to them The Management Plan will include provision of safe feeding sites in large fields, more than 500 m from Project-related activities. Fields close to busy roads will also be avoided. Given the size and duration of the Project, different areas will be disturbed at different times. The Plan will therefore include specifications for the management of crop rotation, to ensure that pink-footed geese will always be provided with safe feeding sites, away from Project-related sources of disturbance, for the duration of the construction and construction and operational period of the Project (deemed to be Years 1 to 8). The locations of the fields will be determined based on the final Project programme. However, the areas that will be managed for pink-footed geese will be equivalent to the area that is affected by construction and operational activities, to ensure there would be no adverse effect on pink-footed geese using the functionally-linked land The cropping regime of the farmland proving safe feeding sites will be targeted to enhance the value of retained farmland for pink-footed geese. This would include the provision of crops rich in carbohydrates, such as potatoes and grain, and the implementation of specific farming practices to encourage pink-footed geese into the safe feeding sites. The RSPB advice sheet (RSPB, 2008) suggests ways to encourage pink-footed geese: Retain the winter stubbles and crops as long as possible Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 96

105 Provide geese with access to unharvested fields Leave Winter Stubbles and Crops as Long as Possible Pink-footed geese prefer to feed on post-harvest spilt grain and potatoes. They will graze on harvested fields for a period after harvest. Therefore, ploughing in stubbles and plant material directly after harvest to sow a winter cereal will be avoided. Spring-sown cereal will be planted instead. Provide Geese with Unharvested Fields If a sufficient number of undisturbed fields cannot be retained, fields set aside as safe feeding sites will not be harvested to provide forage for pink-footed geese. However, it is considered likely that sufficient foraging habitat would need to be provided. Other Enhancement Opportunities The Landscape and Ecological Management Strategy Plan also identifies opportunities to enhance biodiversity connectivity within the Preesall area. Other measures that have been incorporated into the Landscape and Ecological Management Strategy Plan that would be beneficial to wildfowl and waders include: Provision of shallow scrapes within low-lying pasture fields Excavation of low lying area for the creation of reed beds Arable field margins managed to benefit farmland birds Management of existing ponds within arable fields through scrub removal Improvements to the network of ditches and watercourses Monitoring As part of the Landscape and Ecological Management Strategy Plan, a monitoring scheme will be devised, in consultation with Natural England and RSPB, in order to monitor the success of the mitigation measures. 12 ASSESSMENT OF RESIDUAL IMPACTS It is considered that implementation of the Landscape and Ecological Management Strategy Plan will ensure no significant effects on pink-footed geese associated with the European site, which use the functionally-linked land during the winter. This is on the basis that implementation of the Landscape and Ecological Management Strategy Plan will occur throughout the period when pink-footed geese would be disturbed and displaced, which is considered to be during the period Year 1 to Year 8 and that the Landscape and Ecological Management Strategy Plan will ensure that sufficient alternative foraging and roosting habitat would be maintained throughout this period. Therefore, no residual effects on the European site qualifying features and species are anticipated both in isolation and in-combination with other projects. It is Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 97

106 considered extremely unlikely that the habitat management recommendations to mitigate for the effects on pink-footed geese would fail since the habitat enhancement measures follow tried and tested techniques that are proven to provide habitat suitable for pink-footed geese Given that no significant effect is envisaged on the bird species using the designated land within the European site, or the pink-footed geese using functionally-linked land (following mitigation), and that there will be no net loss of designated site habitat or deterioration in habitat quality as a result of the Project, no residual effects are anticipated as a result of the Project. Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 98

107 13 CONCLUSION A number of construction activities associated with the Project have the potential to affect the qualifying features and species associated with the European site. However, careful timing of particular activities, in particular the construction of wellheads close to the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary and the installation of the pipelines and electrical cable beneath the Wyre Estuary has ensured that these works would not cause significant effects. The use of bunds to both screen the Project, and to provide a noise barrier has also ensured that the effects associated with noise and visual disturbance have been reduced as far as possible Nevertheless it is necessary for works to take place during wintering periods, giving rise to the potential for effects on birds using the functionally-linked land. Implementation of measures in the Landscape and Ecological Management Strategy Plan would ensure that there is enhancement of the value of the functionally-linked farmland for roosting and foraging birds associated with the European site to ensure that these birds, in particular pink-footed geese, continue to have access to suitable habitat which is not subject to disturbance from Project activities It is considered that, following the implementation of the Landscape and Ecological Management Strategy Plan, the project would not lead to significant effects on Morecambe Bay SPA and Ramsar site, its qualifying features, species, and conservation objectives, as a result of the Project, both in isolation and in-combination with other projects. Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 99

108 14 REFERENCES Anon. (2009). The Severn Estuary European Marine Site: Natural England & the Countryside Council for Wales advice given under Regulation 33(2) (a) of the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994, as amended. Natural England/CCW Cutts, N, Phelps, A. & D. Burdon (2008) Construction and Waterfowl: Defining Sensitivity, Response, Impacts and Guidance. Report to Humber INCA. Institute of Estuarine and Coastal Studies, University of Hull DECC (2011) Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN- 1).London: The Stationery Office. July English Nature (2000) Morecambe Bay European Marine Site: English Nature s Advice Given Under Regulation 33(2) of the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations 1994 ( European Commission (2001) Assessment of plans and projects significantly affecting Natura 2000 sites ( ura_2000_assess_en.pdf) European Commission (2009) Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds ( F) European Commission (1979) Council Directive of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (79/409/EEC) ( lex.europa.eu/lexuriserv/site/en/consleg/1979/l/01979l en.pdf) Hyder Consulting (2011) Preesall Underground Gas Storage Facility Habitats Regulations Assessment: No Significant Effects Report. JNCC (2001) SPA Review for Morecambe Bay SPA ( information as published 2001). Liley, D. & Fearnley, H. (2011). Bird Disturbance Study, North Kent 2010/11. Footprint Ecology. Madsen, J. (1985). Impact of Disturbance on Field Utilization of Pink-footed Geese in West Jutland, Denmark. BioI. Cons. 33: Mitchell, I., Newton, S., Ratcliffe, N., & Dunn. T.E. (eds.) (2004) Seabird Populations of Britain and Ireland Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 100

109 Mott MacDonald (2011) Preesall Underground Gas Storage Facility: Surface Subsidence Assessment Natura 2000 Data Form for Morecambe Bay Ramsar ( Ramsar Report for Morecambe Bay Ramsar ( US/Default.aspx) RSK Environmental (2009) The Wyre Power Station Environmental Statement RSPB (2008) Farming for Wildlife. Pink-footed goose advisory sheet. RSPB/ English Nature Town and County Planning Association (2004) Biodiversity by Design: A Guide for Sustainable Communities ( Wetland Bird Survey (2008) Alert Site Account for Morecambe Bay SPA ( Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 101

110

111 Figure 1A & 1B Location of Designated Sites Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 102

112

113 MORECAMBE BAY SPA MORECAMBE BAY RAMSAR MORECAMBE BAY SPA MORECAMBE BAY RAMSAR APPLICATION BOUNDARY SPECIAL PROTECTION AREA (SPA) RAMSAR SITE Notes Client Status Project Scales PREESALL UNDERGROUND GAS STORAGE FACILITY Current Issue Signatures N.T.S Author J.NORMAN Original Size Datum 01 FIRST ISSUE NOV 11 Grid Issue Description Date 50mm on Original A3 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited 330 Firecrest Court Centre Park Warrington WA1 1RG Checker D.HOARE Title Approver O.S D.HOARE O.S C Copyright reserved Filename: FIGURE1A-WX40004-UE31D-01-DES-SITES.DWG FIGURE 1a DESIGNATED SITES Tel: +44 (0) Fax: +44 (0) Figure No. Project No. Issue 001 WX V1

114 MORECAMBE BAY SPA MORECAMBE BAY RAMSAR MORECAMBE BAY SPA MORECAMBE BAY RAMSAR m 1 : APPLICATION BOUNDARY SPECIAL PROTECTION AREA (SPA) RAMSAR SITE Notes Client Status Project Scales Current Issue Signatures 1:25000 Author J.NORMAN Original Size Datum 01 FIRST ISSUE NOV 11 Grid Issue Description Date 50mm on Original A3 PREESALL UNDERGROUND GAS STORAGE FACILITY Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited 330 Firecrest Court Centre Park Warrington WA1 1RG Checker M.EVANS Approver O.S D.HOARE O.S C Copyright reserved Title FIGURE 1b DESIGNATED SITES Filename: FIGURE1B-WX40004-UE31D-01-LOC-OF-DS_SIAA.DWG Tel: +44 (0) Fax: +44 (0) Figure No. Project No. Issue 001 WX V1

115 Figure 2 Project Masterplan Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 103

116

117 Wellhead Compounds Seawater Pump Station Booster Pump Station, Control Centre, and De-brining Facility 1 2 Temporary Construction Compound Under River Entry Point 2 ea. 11kv Circuits to Seawater Pump Station HDPE Pipe Under River Wyre 2 ea. 40" OD and 2 ea. 13 3/8" OD Steel Casing Under River Exit Point Wellhead Compounds Gas Compressor Compound Electrical Substation Fence Line Gas Manifold 3 ea. 36" Gravel Tracks Each 4 metres wide 7 6 Temporary Construction Compound Wellhead Compounds Vent Stack Permanent Access Road Site Entrance Facilities NTS Interconnector Gas Pipeline IRISH SEA Seawall Crossing Construction Site Launch Pit Temporary Compound Receiver Pit Launch Pit Brine Discharge Pipeline Receiver Pit Brine Discharge Pipeline Launch Pit Temporary Construction Compound Air Vent 132 kv Dual Underground circuits feeding Booster Pump Station, Seawater Pump Station and Gas Compressor Station via Electrical Substation adjacent the Compressor Compound. Splice Pits Splice Pits Launch Pit for Auger Permanent Bore beneath the A588 Access Road Reception Pit for Auger Bore beneath A588 Brine Discharge Pipeline Splice Pits River Wyre Splice Pits at Exit Points South River Crossing Temporary Compound Location of Entry to Substation Launch Pit for directional drill under estuary & caravan park 2 ea. 13 3/8" OD (min) Pipes for 132kV Electrical Circuits Under River Wyre South River Crossing Temporary Compound Stanah Switchyard Hambleton 01 FIRST ISSUE NOV 11 Issue Description Date 50mm on Original Notes APPLICATION BOUNDARY Client Status Scales Original Size Datum Grid Filename: 1:25,000 Current Issue Signatures Author J.NORMAN PREESALL UNDERGROUND GAS STORAGE FACILITY Project Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited 330 Firecrest Court Centre Park Warrington WA1 1RG Checker A3 M.EVANS Title Tel: +44 (0) Fax: +44 (0) Approver DATUM D.HOARE FIGURE 2 GRID C Copyright reserved PROJECT Figure No. Project No. Issue 002-WX40004-UE31D-01-MASTERPLAN_SIAA.DWG MASTERPLAN 002 WX

118

119 Figure 3 Survey Areas Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 104

120

121 Fleetwood Docks Fleetwood Nature Reserve Arm Hill Fleetwood Marsh Landfill Site a Barnaby's Sands Fleetwood Farm The Heads ICI Tanks Fleetwood Lagoons Burrows Marsh m 1 : Notes Client APPLICATION BOUNDARY 10 Status Scales FIELD NUMBERS NOV 11 Grid Issue Date Author J.NORMAN Datum Description Current Issue Signatures 1:25000 Original Size 01 FIRST ISSUE Project A3 PREESALL UNDERGROUND GAS STORAGE FACILITY Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited 330 Firecrest Court Centre Park Warrington WA1 1RG Checker M.EVANS Title Approver O.S D.HOARE O.S C Copyright reserved Filename: 003-WX40004-UE31D-01-SURVEY_AREAS_SIAA.DWG Tel: +44 (0) Fax: +44 (0) FIGURE 3 SURVEY AREAS Figure No. Project No. Issue 003 WX mm25/Nov/2011 on Original Plot Date: 11:28:13 AM File Location: K:\PROJECTS\WX40004-FLEETWOOD SOLUTION MINING\E-OUR-DRAWINGS\2011 HABITAT REGULATIONS ASSESSMENT CAD DRAWINGS\STATEMENT-TO-INFORM-DRAWINGS\003-WX40004-UE31D-01-SURVEY_AREAS_SIAA.DWG V1

122

123 Figure 4 Location of In-combination Projects Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 105

124 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 106

125 FLEETWOOD MARINA (REDROW HOMES) WYRE PROPOSED PIPELINE WYRE POWER STATION AND PIPELINE CUADRILLA SHALE GAS EXPLORATION TEST WELLS Notes Client Status Project APPLICATION BOUNDARY Scales Current Issue Signatures 1:10,000 Author J.NORMAN Original Size Datum 01 FIRST ISSUE NOV 11 Grid Issue Description Date 50mm on Original A3 Checker M.EVANS DATUM Approver D.HOARE GRID C Copyright reserved Filename:004-WX40004-UE31D-01-INCOMBIN.DWG PREESALL UNDERGROUND GAS STORAGE FACILITY Title FIGURE 4 LOCATION OF IN-COMBINATION PROJECTS Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited 330 Firecrest Court Centre Park Warrington WA1 1RG Tel: +44 (0) Fax: +44 (0) Figure No. Project No. Issue 004 WX V1

126

127 Appendix 1 Screening Matrix Note the report referred to as this report in the matrix is the report that precedes the matrix Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 107

128 Project Name: Preesall Underground Gas Storage Natura 2000 Site under Consideration Morecambe Bay SPA and Ramsar Date: Author (Name/Organisation): Verified (Name/Organisation): 18 th November 2011 Marie Evans BSc MSc CEnv MIEEM Senior Ecologist Samantha Walters BSc CEnv IEEM Technical Director Hyder Consulting Hyder Consulting Description of Project Describe any likely direct, indirect or secondary impacts of the project (either alone or in combination with other plans or projects) on the European Site by virtue of: Size and scale Land-take Morecambe Bay SPA and Morecambe Bay Ramsar site occupy the same area of 37,404.6 ha. The extent of the European site in relation to the Project is shown on Figures 1a and 1b. No land take from within the Morecambe Bay SPA and Ramsar is required. However, a number of the gas storage caverns would be created 250 m to 400 m underneath the saltmarsh habitats east of Arm Hill, within the SPA and Ramsar site; as shown on Figure 2. The Surface Subsidence Assessment has calculated that after eight years following cavern creation, a worst-case subsidence level would occur within the estuarine environment of the order of 20 mm, attaining a steady maximum rate of subsidence in the areas of the caverns of 1 mm/year (See Volume 1A of the ES, Chapter 10: Geology, Hydrogeology and Stability, Paragraphs ). After 40 years, the proposed lifetime of the facility, maximum subsidence would result in 46 mm of subsidence in ground levels above the caverns during the lifetime of the Project (considered to be 40 years) (See Volume 1A of the ES, Chapter 10: Geology, Hydrogeology and Stability, Paragraphs ). A shown on Figure1. Four underground pipe crossings would be installed under the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary (under the European site) in two separate locations; one location for the washwater and brine outfall pipelines, and one location for the electrical cables leading to the Stanah sub-station. These would be installed through horizontal directional drilling to a depth of at least 8 m below the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary, with drilling platforms located outside the European site, and as a consequence would require no land take from the European site. The location of the Project in relation to the European site is shown on Figures 1a and 1b. As discussed above, the pipelines crossing the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary and the gas storage caverns would be installed below the European site, and therefore the Project boundary includes part of the European site. Distance from the European Site or key features of the site (from edge of the project assessment corridor) The Project boundary also lies adjacent to the European site on the western side of the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary. The infrastructure within this area and closest to the European site includes: the Under River Entry Point (for the pipeline) which is adjacent to the European site), the Seawater Pump Station which is 250 m from the European site and the launch pit for the electrical cable in land adjacent to the European site. The seawater pipe will pass from the pump station and under the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary to the Booster Pump Station on the eastern side of the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary. The Brine Discharge pipe will pass from the Under River Entry Point and continue west through largely built land before it becomes crosses beneath the seawall and discharges through a diffuser at a point 2.3km from land into the Irish Sea. The point of brine discharge is 2 km from the boundary of the European site at its closest point. On the eastern side of the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary it is proposed to Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 108

129 construct various structures as illustrated on Figure 2. Those closest to the European site are: three wellhead compounds (well heads 1, 5 and 7), at a distance of 17 m from the European site boundary at the closest point; the Booster Pump Station is located 80 m from the European site and the electrical cabling to be installed from the Stanah sub-station. The latter would be installed in fields located to the west of the existing sea wall that divides Burrow s Marsh and the adjacent fields. The distances between other elements of the Project and the European site are provided in Section 3.2 of this report. There is the potential that any works that take place close to the European site during the winter or at time when birds are on passage would cause disturbance to bird species for which the European site has been designated. Resource requirements (from the European Site or from areas in proximity to the site, where of relevance to consideration of impacts) No resource requirements are needed from within the European site. Seawater would be taken from Fleetwood Fish Dock to be used in cavern creation and to wash the caverns and test them once operational. However, the use of seawater will be strictly controlled to ensure sufficient water remains within the dock. This will not affect water levels within the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary or the Irish Sea, nor would it affect the designated site or its qualifying features. The Fish Dock is located within a built-up area it is not thought that these works would cause disturbance to bird species for which the European site has been designated see Paragraphs to of this report. The seven wellheads, the Booster Pump Station and the Gas Compressor Station will be built within the farmland that is adjacent to the European site. This farmland that is to the east of the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary and is considered to be functionally-linked to the European site since it supports large numbers of pink-footed geese over the winter. The total footprint of these structures is 3.86 ha. Measures to avoid the contamination of surface waters during construction would be incorporated into the construction programme and Project design in line with best practice pollution prevention guidelines (PPGs), and would be agreed with the Environment Agency (EA) prior to construction. (See Paragraphs and of this report.) A surface water drainage strategy would be established for the construction phase to ensure that site drainage is controlled and that no contaminated runoff is allowed to enter surface watercourses. This would be agreed with the EA prior to the start of works. Emissions (e.g. polluted surface water runoff both soluble and insoluble pollutants, atmospheric pollution) All fuels, oils and chemicals would be stored on an impermeable base, bunded and secured. To protect aquatic ecosystems, construction activities in, and near, all watercourses would be restricted and managed in accordance with EA guidance. Paragraph of this report states that drilling waste, created as a result of cavern construction, would be controlled through the application of best practice PPG measures as prescribed within detailed Method Statements. Emissions associated with construction and operational machinery/vehicles are not expected to have a significant effect on local air quality (See Paragraph and of this report for further details). Oxides of Nitrogen emissions from the dehydration unit of the Gas Compressor Compound during operation would be low and considered to have a negligible impact on adjacent habitats and species of the European sites (See Paragraph of this report). Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 109

130 Excavation requirements (e.g. impacts on local hydrogeology) Transportation requirements Duration of construction, operation etc; Emissions to land, water and air have the potential to affect the European site; but it is not considered that they would have a significant effect on the European site or its qualifying interest features see Paragraphs to The four underground pipelines will be installed through the use of directional drilling. Temporary crossing compounds would be created either side of the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary in terrestrial habitat beyond the boundary of the European site. All pipelines and cables would be installed at least 8 m below ground level to avoid impacts on the habitats above ground and impacts on local hydrology. The pipelines would be installed over the summer months to avoid disturbance to the bird species (overwintering and ion passage) that are the qualifying interest features of the SPA. As identified in Paragraph of this report, the gas storage caverns would be 250 to 400 m below the surface and created using a solution mining technique, thus avoid impacts on the habitats above ground and impacts on local hydrology. The caverns will be created by drilling below the well heads, three of which are close to the European site, as noted above, although works on these well heads would commence in the summer months to avoid disturbance to wintering birds works may continue into the winter and thus, there is the potential for disturbance to the qualifying interest feature of the European site. Plant and construction materials would need to be transported to and from the construction site(s). This would predominantly be via existing roads and a new road created from the A588 to the site, together with access roads and tracks within the site linking the main permanent structures and wellheads. The main route of transport would be from the south along the A588 across Shard Bridge. It is possible that bird species of the European site using habitats within close proximity to the transport requirements (e.g. when supplying the wellhead compounds) may be affected by disturbance, should it be undertaken at a time when they are present. The construction period is anticipated to be phased over a period of eight years. The built development would be completed within the initial three years. Most construction works would be complete in years 1 to 3 referred to as the construction phase. Whilst cavern creation would take place sequentially over a period of six years as each cavern is created and tested individually. As caverns become available and subject to HSE approval, caverns may be operational whilst others are still being washed or tested. (See Section 3.3 of this report for further details). Maintenance would take place once every 10 to 15 years in the form of testing the caverns through the washing procedure, including brine discharge. Other. The site is anticipated to be operational for a period of at least 40 years. At the end of its useful life, alternative uses for the infrastructure would be considered or the Project would be decommissioned in accordance with a scheme to be agreed with the relevant authorities. Disturbance Disturbance from construction and operational activities, particularly noise and visual disturbance could have an adverse impact on the bird species that are the qualifying interest feature of the European site. In-combination Effects Potential in-combination projects have been described in Section 4.9 and Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 110

131 Description of avoidance and/or mitigation measures assessed in Section 10 of this report. The extent of these projects was determined in consultation with the Wyre Borough Council and on consultee recommendation, together with professional judgement. Lighting Lighting would be used during construction and operation. Lighting would be directional and shielded to ensure that the European site is not illuminated see Paragraphs to This would ensure that impacts on the qualifying interest features of the European site are avoided. In the event that it is necessary to illuminate the areas close to the estuary during the summer months during construction of the pipelines this would not affect the qualifying interest features of the European site (overwintering birds and birds on passage). Describe any assumed (plainly established and uncontroversial) mitigation measures, including information on: It is anticipated that the majority of construction activities that are likely to affect birds using the saltmarsh and mudflats can be timed to avoid disturbance to the qualifying interest features of the European site that may be using habitat within the European site adjacent to the Project. The Construction programme has been modified ensure that the River Wyre / Wyre Estuary would be crossed during the summer months, similarly works on the three wellheads close to the European site would also commence in the summer months to reduce impacts on wintering birds. Nature of proposals In addition, bunds would be used to screen the wellheads to ensure that when works are undertaken during the winter months, noise and visual disturbance would be reduced as far as possible. Noise modelling that was undertaken to inform the Environmental Impact Assessment and the results of published studies has informed the screening assessment presented in Section 8 of this report. Activities that occur on the functionally-linked land in the winter and on passage would cause disturbance to pink-footed geese using this land and up to a distance on 500m. Mitigation measures would be required. Pollution Prevention Guidelines would be followed during construction to avoid the contamination of surface waters. Detailed Method Statements would be produced for separate activities during the construction phase, documenting how effects on water quality are to be controlled. These would be submitted to the EA for approval. Location Evidence for effectiveness Mechanism for delivery (legal conditions, restrictions or other legally enforceable obligations) The location of the Project in relation to the European site is shown on Figures 1a and 1b. The Landscape and Ecological Management Strategy Plan illustrates the location of the landscape screening bunds. All mitigation measures described above are tried and tested, and are in accordance with best practice guidance to ensure that disturbance to bird species using the surrounding habitats for feeding and resting is minimised. The use of Pollution Prevention Guidelines will ensure that pollutants do not enter the estuary. Any conditions imposed by the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) would be adhered to. Detailed Method Statements would be produced for separate activities of the construction phase, documenting how emissions to air and water will Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 111

132 be controlled. Characteristics of European Site(s) Name of European Site and its EU code Location and distance of the European Site from the proposed works European Site size Key features of the European Site including the primary reasons for selection and any other qualifying interests Morecambe Bay SPA (UK ) and Morecambe Bay Ramsar (3UK104) Morecambe Bay SPA and Ramsar site is located on the Irish Sea coast of north-west England, within the Application Site boundary, although at this point the Project would be located beneath the European site. Other infrastructure associated with the Project lie adjacent to the European site. See Section 3.2 of this report for more details regarding the location of the European site with respect to particular Project elements. Morecambe Bay SPA and Ramsar occupy the same area of 37,404.6ha Morecambe Bay SPA Morecambe Bay SPA is of European importance for the wide range of bird species it supports throughout the year (See Paragraphs to of this report). Morecambe Bay Ramsar Morecambe Bay has been identified as a Ramsar on the basis of the wintering birds and birds on passage that it supports See Paragraphs to of this report. Vulnerability of the See Section 4.6 of this report. European Site any information available from the standard data forms on potential effect pathways European Site See Appendix 4 of this report and Section 4.4 conservation objectives where these are readily available Assessment Criteria Describe the individual elements of the project (either alone or in combination with other plans or projects) likely to give rise to impacts on the European Site. The construction of infrastructure near to saltmarsh habitats within the European site (e.g. the temporary drilling compounds, wellhead compounds, pipelines and electrical cabling) have the potential to disturb species using this area, as a result of noise and visual disturbance. The footprint of the built infrastructure such as the Gas Compressor Compound and well-head compounds would result in the loss of foraging/roosting habitat on the functionally-linked land outside the European site. Drilling for the creation of the gas storage compounds has the potential to generate noise and vibration within and adjacent to the European site which may disturb birds. Operational noise generated by the Gas Compressor Compound and Booster Pump Station (during day and night) has the potential to disturb birds using the European site or the functionally-linked land. Initial Assessment The key characteristics of the site and the details of the European Site should be considered in identifying potential impacts. Describe any likely changes to the site arising as a result of: Reduction of habitat area There will be no reduction in area. Subsidence is predicted to be 46 mm over the 40 year lifetime of the Project. This is Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 112

133 Disturbance to key species Habitat or species fragmentation None Reduction in species density Changes in key indicators of conservation value (water quality etc.) Climate change not considered to be significant. Describe any likely impacts on the European Site as a whole in terms of: Interference with the key relationships that define the structure of the site Interference with key relationships that define the function of the site During the construction of the wellhead compounds, temporary river crossings, electrical cabling and pipelines there is the potential to disturb wintering or passage birds that are the qualifying features for the SPA. Disturbance of bird species during construction has the potential to reduce the use of the area by wintering or passage birds. The proposals have the potential to cause disturbance to birds. Excessive disturbance can result in a reduction in numbers or displacement of birds and thereby increase energy expenditure and reduce food consumption. This in turn affects the birds survival rate. Coastal squeeze, could lead to the loss of saltmarsh and mudflat habitat upon which the birds depend. The Project would not affect coastal squeeze. None. None. Indicate the significance as a result of the identification of impacts set out above in terms of: Reduction of habitat area No loss of habitat within the European site. Loss of 3.86 ha of farmland within the functionally-linked land that is used by pink-footed geese. Not significant in terms of the land area that is available to pink-footed geese. Some potential for impacts to wintering and/or passage bird Disturbance to key species species where works take place over winter on when birds are on passage. Habitat or species fragmentation None. Birds that are disturbed or displaced during construction Loss-Population size may be put under energetic stress, leading to mortality of individuals. The Project is unlikely to cause effects at the population scale. Fragmentation None. Disruption Disturbance Change to key elements of the site (e.g. water quality, hydrological regime etc) Some potential for minor impacts to wintering and/or passage bird species during construction. Some potential for minor impacts to wintering and/or passage bird species during construction The implementation of pollution prevention guideline would ensure water quality protected, Emissions to air would not have a significant impact on air quality. Not alterations to hydrological regime anticipated. Describe from the above those elements of the project, or combination of elements, where the above impacts are likely to be significant or where the scale or magnitude of impacts is not known. It is considered that through the embedded design of the Project which includes the avoidance of sensitive periods (winter and passage months) and the provision of visual and noise screening, the Project activities would not impact on foraging and/or roosting birds in winter and/or on passage that use the saltmarsh and mudflats of the European site. See Section 8 of this report. It is however, considered likely that bird species of the European site using the functionally-linked land (pink-footed geese) would be disturbed or displaced by the following activities associated with the Project: Construction of wellheads 2, 3, 4 and 6 within agricultural land adjacent to the European site Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 113

134 Cavern creation under the European site and agricultural land adjacent to the European site, including drilling from the wellheads Construction of the Gas Compressor Compound and associated infrastructure Outcome of screening stage (delete as appropriate). Are the appropriate statutory environmental bodies in agreement with this conclusion (delete as appropriate and attach relevant correspondence). Whilst European site would not be directly affected by the Project, there is the potential for Significant Effects on the bird species that are the qualifying interest features of the SPA. Natural England, the Environment Agency and the Marine Management Organisation are in agreement that the potential for significant effects cannot be screened out and that more detail would be required meeting 17 th November 2010 (see Appendix 2 and 5). It was agreed at that time that dependent on the findings of a HRA report it may be possible to substantiate a finding of No Significant Effects. Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 114

135 Appendix 2 Summary of Consultations Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 115

136 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 116

137 Summary Table of Consultation Responses Consultee/ Organisation and Contact Details RSPB: Tim Melling Environment Agency: Jackie Monk Amy Heys Nikki Bamber Kyle Young Alison Whalley (No longer working for the Environment Agency) Natural England: Pin Dhillon-Downey (Pin.Dhillon- Mark Johnston Marine Management Organisation: Elaine Young Date and type of Consultation 12 November 2010 Meeting held at Hyder Consulting (UK) Ltd s offices in Warrington 17 November 2010 Meeting held at Halite s offices in Kirkham Summary of Consultation Response Discussed the following in relation to HRA: With regard mitigation and enhancement measures, TM stated that waders and geese prefer open fields with good visibility and it would be preferable to avoid construction activity during the winter months, particularly close to the Wyre Estuary. However, construction during the summer months may not be ideal for other species. TM requested that consideration be afforded to the timing of constructing the wellheads closer to the SPA (i.e. try and construct these in the summer months). BG stated that Halite would consider this when formulating the construction programme. With regard to the HRA process, Natural England provided the following: With regard to the HRA process, Natural England highlighted the requirement for a separate report entitled Information to Inform a Habitat Regulations Assessment. Within this report, all relevant information from the ES would need to be extrapolated with regards to the potential impact of the brine discharge on the qualifying features of the stat sites situated off the coastline. The report would also need to explain the potential in-combination effects on stat sites of other projects that discharge into the Irish Sea (e.g. the Gateway Project) and discuss the potential hydrological impact of cavern development on the Wyre Estuary. Depending on the findings of the report. Natural England intimated that this should be enough to satisfy the requirements of the Habitats Regulations, and no further documentation should be required in terms of the Appropriate Assessment process. Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 117

138 Consultee/ Organisation and Contact Details Natural England: Pin Dhillon-Downey (Pin.Dhillon- Date and type of Consultation 2 December Summary of Consultation Response In response to issued meeting minutes from the above, Natural England added that the HRA report needs to include all elements of the project against all interest features of all the protected areas (new Marine Natura Sites, Morecambe Bay SAC, SPA, Ramsar, Wyre Estuary SSSI) with mitigation where potential impacts are perceived e.g. provision of wintering habitat for PFG [Pink-footed geese]. This would be a better way of determining No Likely Significant Effects if this is the case, on the overall project rather than separate sections of the project. RSPB: Tim Melling (tim.melling@rspb.org.uk) Natural England: Pin Dhillon-Downey (Pin.Dhillon- Downey@naturalengland.org.uk) Environment Agency: Alison Whalley (No longer working for the Environment Agency) Lancashire County Council: John Jones (John.Jones@lancashire.gov.uk ) Wildlife Trust for Lancashire, Manchester and North Merseyside: Kim Wisdom (kwisdom@lancswt.org.uk) Singleton Parish Council: Gill Mason (gill.mason@sky.com) 2 December January 2011 Conference call 26 April 2011 S42 consultation response Provided an extract of a paper on constructional disturbance on birds. Conference call to discuss which surveys require updating in 2011 in preparation for the DCO Application. Those relevant to the European sites included: Breeding and wintering bird survey No requirement to update surveys prior to submission of the DCO Application. However, Fylde Bird Club should be contacted for latest bird records. An understanding of the cropping regimes on the functionally-linked land would be useful, in terms of how this influences where the over-wintering birds feed. Benthic survey No requirement to update survey prior to submission of the DCO Application. However, an update survey would be required prior to construction commencing. Parish Councillors have serious concerns over the ecological impact of the gas storage. Preesall Town Council: Lionel Marr (marrj@sky.com) 16 May 2011 S42 consultation Expressed concern of the environment of the sea bed, fisheries and the control of levels of salt discharge into sea and the impact of wildlife in Morecambe Bay. Queried what tests have been carried out. Also had concerns over the SSSI and Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 118

139 Consultee/ Organisation and Contact Details Natural England: Janet Belfield Peter Close Mike Young Date and type of Consultation response 23 June 2011 Conference call Summary of Consultation Response wildlife. A conference call was held with Natural England to update them on the Project progress and inform new case officer within Natural England (Janet Belfield). Earlier versions of the scheme included construction of wellheads within the Wyre Estuary SSSI. However, the scheme has subsequently moved so that the wellheads are outwith the SSSI, and contains only half the number of caverns previously proposed. Consensus was that the scheme would not cause any Likely Significant Effects. A Screening report should be produced to demonstrate this following IPC guidance note (10) on HRAs. The HRA would also need to include Marine Sites (as discussed with Pin Dhillon-Downey previously). Wildlife Trust for Lancashire, Manchester and North Merseyside: Kim Wisdom (kwisdom@lancswt.org.uk) Natural England: Janet Belfield (Janet.Belfield@naturalengland.org.uk) Mark Johnston (Mark.Johnston@naturalengland.org.uk) 13 July 2011 S42 consultation response 15 July Formal S42 consultation response provided: Wildlife Trust for Lancashire, Manchester and North Merseyside expressed that the in-combination / cumulative effect with other known major developments (proposed Wyre Power Station and Cuadrilla Shale Gas Exploration should it proceed to commercial production) will be an important consideration for the Project. Natural England provided a formal response on the assessment methodologies for the Project. Those comments relevant to European sites included the following: The ES should thoroughly assess the impact of the proposals on designated sites, including Special Areas of Conservation (SAC), Special Protection Areas (SPA), Ramsar sites and Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). Should a Likely Significant Effect on a European/Internationally designated site be identified, the competent authority (in this case the Local Planning Authority) may need to prepare an Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (the full process being termed Habitats Regulations Assessment), in addition to consideration of impacts through the EIA process. Statutory site locations can be found at Further information concerning particular statutory sites can be found on the Natural England website. Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 119

140 Consultee/ Organisation and Contact Details Wyre Borough Council: David Thow Date and type of Consultation 15 August 2011 S42 consultation response Summary of Consultation Response Formal S42 consultation response provided: Consider that the development will affect various protected sites and areas including Liverpool Bay SPA, Wyre Estuary SSSI, SAC and SPA, and various BHS sites including Fleetwood coastal and Dune Grasslands, Rossall School Fields, Fleetwood Marsh and Industrial Lands, ICI Salt Pools, Preesall, Pilling Moss (Head Dyke), and Pilling Moss (Eagland Hill). It is considered that these sites should be identified on a plan showing their locations in relation to the development proposals. The impact of the development on these sites and any mitigation proposals should also be set out. Lancashire County Council 16 August 2011 S42 consultation response Formal S42 consultation response provided. The elements of the response related to the HRA are included below: Natural England should be consulted regarding potential impacts on statutory designated sites and associated species populations. The County Council does not have the expertise to comment on the assessment methodology for marine habitats. Various including: Environment Agency: Georgina Fellows (georgina.fellows@environmentagency.gov.uk) RSPB: Tim Melling (tim.melling@rspb.org.uk) 26 August 2011 Site meeting Site meeting to discuss the first draft of the Ecology and Landscape Management Plan (ELMP) [Post meeting note: now referred to as the Landscape and Ecological Management Strategy Plan (LEMSP]. Discussed the following in relation to the HRA: The main compound proposed mounding is currently a gently sloping feature. Following a discussion, it was agreed to revise this for a steep mound in recognition of the area being connected to the designated SPA and forming part of the functionally linked land for pink footed geese, which are a significant consideration. RSPB stated that they would prefer that the requirements of the pink footed geese are prioritised over the visual aspect LCC preferred to fit with land character. Peter Taylor (local farmer) disagrees and would prefer an extension of the wood or scrub. The RSPB offer to talk to the LCC to point out that their proposal is detrimental to the land functionally linked to the SPA. Various including: 18 October 2011 Discussed the following in relation to the HRA: Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 120

141 Consultee/ Organisation and Contact Details Natural England: Janet Belfield Rosie Baynes (RB) RSPB: Tim Melling (TM) Environment Agency: Georgina Fellows Date and type of Consultation Conference Call Summary of Consultation Response Marie Evans (Hyder) provided an over-view of Hyder s approach to the SIAA: Each of the qualifying features of the SPA/Ramsar site was considered individually. Each of the construction/operational activities were also considered and it was possible to identify certain activities that would not lead to significant effects on the qualifying features and species of the SPA/Ramsar site. Those construction/operational activities which have the potential to cause a significant effect on the qualifying features scoped into the assessment were considered in more detail in the impact assessment of the SIAA. Marie Evans also explained that there would be a number of embedded mitigation measures to eliminate or reduce (where possible) potential impacts of the proposals. Marie Evans outlined that an Ecological and Landscape Management Plan (ELMP) [Post meeting note: now referred to as the Landscape and Ecological Management Strategy Plan (LEMSP)] is in the process of being finalised in consultation with Natural England, Environment Agency, the RPSB, Lancashire County Council, Wyre Borough Council, and tenant farmers. The aim of the ELMP is to ensure the favourable conservation status of the farmland within and adjacent to the Project is maintained. Bruce Gibson (Halite Energy) explained the drilling strategy for the northern crossing of the River Wyre: Once started, drilling would be continuous for a period of four months and would take place during the summer months to avoid potential impact on the qualifying features of the SPA/Ramsar site. Bruce Gibson Confirmed that all drilling would be underground (at least 8m). The drill head would be above ground, but would not be located on the saltmarsh, or within the boundary of the SPA/ Ramsar site. In response to a query raised by GF regarding whether breeding birds of the SPA had been considered in terms of working during the summer months, ME explained that in terms of the HRA, the qualifying species of the SPA/Ramsar present during the breeding season have been considered in the assessment. These include little tern, sandwich tern, herring gull and lesser black-backed gull. Given the distance of the known breeding colonies of these species, it is considered that no significant Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 121

142 Consultee/ Organisation and Contact Details Natural England: Rosie Baynes (RB) Liz Turley (LT) Hyder Consulting Date and type of Consultation 21 October 2011 Phone call Summary of Consultation Response effects are anticipated on these species, as a result of the proposed project. Breeding birds would however be considered within the EIA. In response to a query from TM regarding further details of the survey timings and sources of information, Marie Evans described the bird surveys that had taken place and outlined the desk study information collected. David Hoare (Hyder) confirmed that the scope of the surveys had previously been discussed with Natural England (at a meeting held in January) and it was agreed that no further surveys were deemed necessary. RB/TM expressed concerns about gaps in the data and suggested that the most up to date data should be used in the assessment, particularly in relation to recent cold winters and in the case of pink-footed geese (given that the number of PFG has increased in recent years). Marie Evans confirmed that the most up to date data will be used in the assessment. David Hoare confirmed that a draft version of the SIAA would be submitted to the consultees for formal consultation and review. RB expressed concerns about the age of the data. She would particularly like us to include information for the past two winters which have been particularly severe. LT confirmed that we would be using a combination of a) WeBS data; b) data received from the local bird club; and c) goose census data. These data sources included information up to RB was happy with this approach. LT asked if RB had any specific requirements with regard to providing alternative foraging and roosting site for pink-footed geese during the construction and operational phases of the project. RB confirmed that we should provide alternative areas for the geese during the winter months in areas where there was a potential for birds to be disturbed/ displaced. Considering that the programme is not fully confirmed, RB agreed that at this stage it was difficult to specify specific fields for enhancement. Rosie suggested that this could be discussed in consultation with RSPB (Tim Melling) and/ or local birders to identify the most appropriate areas. Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 122

143 Consultee/ Organisation and Contact Details Natural England: Chris Edwards Janet Belfield Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited and Halite Energy Date and type of Consultation 29 November 2011 Teleconference Summary of Consultation Response Teleconference to discuss Natural England s views with respect to the scope and results of the HRA report. Natural England agreed that further surveys were not required and that all relevant baseline information had been collated. They queried why teal and black-tailed godwit had been omitted from the assessment (not qualifying interest features of the European site). They requested mapping to illustrate the locations of roosting and foraging habitat (spatial data not available for all records use to inform the assessment). They stated that some of the statements in the report are unsubstantiated and that further clarification is required. They agreed that the conclusion of no significant effects is likely to be the case, but that further work is required to confirm this. A formal response to their review of an initial draft of the HRA is to be provided Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 123

144 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 124

145 Appendix 3 Designated Site Citations Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 125

146 Morecambe Bay SPA description (information as published 2001). Taken from (Accessed 01/09/2011) Country England Unitary Authority Lancashire, Cumbria SPA status Classified 24/09/1999 Latitude N Longitude W SPA EU code UK Area (ha) Lune Estuary Morecambe Bay Component SSSI/ASSIs Roudsea Wood and Mosses South Walney and Piel Channel Flats Wyre Estuary Morecambe Bay is located on the Irish Sea coast of north-west England. It is one of the largest estuarine systems in the UK and is fed by five main river channels (the Leven, Kent, Keer, Lune and Wyre) which drain through the intertidal flats of sand and mud. Mussel Mytilus edulis beds and banks of shingle are present, and locally there are stony outcrops. The whole system is dynamic, with shifting channels and phases of erosion and accretion affecting the estuarine deposits and surrounding saltmarshes. The flats contain an abundant invertebrate fauna that supports many of the waterbirds using the bay. The capacity of the bay to support large numbers of birds derives from these rich intertidal food sources together with adjacent freshwater wetlands, fringing saltmarshes and saline lagoons, as well as dock structures and shingle banks that provide secure roosts at high tide. The site is of European importance throughout the year for a wide range of bird species. In summer, areas of shingle and sand hold breeding populations of terns, whilst very large numbers of geese, ducks and waders not only overwinter, but (especially for waders) also use the site in spring and autumn migration periods. The bay is of particular importance during migration periods for waders moving up the west coast of Britain. Qualifying species For individual species accounts visit the Species Accounts section This site qualifies under Article 4.1 of the Directive (79/409/EEC) by supporting populations of European importance of the following species listed on Annex I of the Directive: During the breeding season; Little Tern Sterna albifrons, 26 pairs representing at least 1.1% of the breeding population in Great Britain (Count, as at 1994) Sandwich Tern Sterna sandvicensis, 290 pairs representing at least 2.1% of the breeding population in Great Britain (5 year peak mean for 1992 to 1996) Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 126

147 Over winter; Bar-tailed Godwit Limosa lapponica, 2,611 individuals representing at least 4.9% of the wintering population in Great Britain (5 year peak mean for 1991/92 to 1995/96) Golden Plover Pluvialis apricaria, 4,097 individuals representing at least 1.6% of the wintering population in Great Britain (5 year mean for 1991/92 to 1995/96) This site also qualifies under Article 4.2 of the Directive (79/409/EEC) by supporting populations of European importance of the following migratory species: During the breeding season; Herring Gull Larus argentatus, 11,000 pairs representing at least 1.2% of the breeding Northwestern Europe (breeding) and Iceland/Western Europe - breeding population (5 year mean 1992 to 1996) Lesser Black-backed Gull Larus fuscus, 22,000 pairs representing at least 17.7% of the breeding Western Europe/Mediterranean/Western Africa population (5 year mean 1992 to 1996) On passage; Ringed Plover Charadrius hiaticula, 693 individuals representing at least 1.4% of the Europe/Northern Africa - wintering population (5 year peak mean for 1991/92 to 1995/96) Sanderling Calidris alba, 2,466 individuals representing at least 2.5% of the Eastern Atlantic/Western & Southern Africa - wintering population (Count as at May 1995) Over winter; Curlew Numenius arquata, 13,620 individuals representing at least 3.9% of the wintering Europe - breeding population (5 year peak mean for 1991/92 to 1995/96) Dunlin Calidris alpina alpina, 52,671 individuals representing at least 3.8% of the wintering Northern Siberia/Europe/Western Africa population (5 year peak mean for 1991/92 to 1995/96) Grey Plover Pluvialis squatarola, 1,813 individuals representing at least 1.2% of the wintering Eastern Atlantic - wintering population (5 year peak mean for 1991/92 to 1995/96) Knot Calidris canutus, 29,426 individuals representing at least 8.4% of the wintering Northeastern Canada/Greenland/Iceland/Northwestern Europe population (5 year peak mean for 1991/92 to 1995/96) Oystercatcher Haematopus ostralegus, 47,572 individuals representing at least 5.3% of the wintering Europe & Northern/Western Africa population (5 year peak mean for 1991/92 to 1995/96) Pink-footed Goose Anser brachyrhynchus, 2,475 individuals representing at least 1.1% of the wintering Eastern Greenland/Iceland/UK population (5 year peak mean for 1991/92 to 1995/96) Pintail Anas acuta, 2,804 individuals representing at least 4.7% of the wintering Northwestern Europe population (5 year peak mean for 1991/92 to 1995/96) Redshank Tringa totanus, 6,336 individuals representing at least 4.2% of the wintering Eastern Atlantic - wintering population (5 year peak mean for 1989/90 to 1993/94) Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 127

148 Shelduck Tadorna tadorna, 6,372 individuals representing at least 2.1% of the wintering Northwestern Europe population (5 year peak mean for 1991/92 to 1995/96) Turnstone Arenaria interpres, 1,583 individuals representing at least 2.3% of the wintering Western Palearctic - wintering population (5 year peak mean for 1991/92 to 1995/96) Assemblage qualification: A seabird assemblage of international importance The area qualifies under Article 4.2 of the Directive (79/409/EEC) by regularly supporting at least 20,000 seabirds During the breeding season, the area regularly supports 61,858 individual seabirds (5 year peak mean for 1991/92 to 1995/96) including: Herring Gull Larus argentatus, Lesser Black-backed Gull Larus fuscus, Little Tern Sterna albifrons, Sandwich Tern Sterna sandvicensis. Assemblage qualification: A wetland of international importance. The area qualifies under Article 4.2 of the Directive (79/409/EEC) by regularly supporting at least 20,000 waterfowl Over winter, the area regularly supports 210,668 individual waterfowl (5 year peak mean for 1991/92 to 1995/96) including: Great Crested Grebe Podiceps cristatus, Bar-tailed Godwit Limosa lapponica, Pink-footed Goose Anser brachyrhynchus, Shelduck Tadorna tadorna, Pintail Anas acuta, Oystercatcher Haematopus ostralegus, Grey Plover Pluvialis squatarola, Knot Calidris canutus, Dunlin Calidris alpina alpina, Curlew Numenius arquata, Golden Plover Pluvialis apricaria, Turnstone Arenaria interpres, Black-tailed Godwit Limosa limosa islandica, Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo, Wigeon Anas penelope, Teal Anas crecca, Mallard Anas platyrhynchos, Eider Somateria mollissima, Goldeneye Bucephala clangula, Red-breasted Merganser Mergus serrator, Ringed Plover Charadrius hiaticula, Lapwing Vanellus vanellus, Sanderling Calidris alba, Redshank Tringa totanus, Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus. Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 128

149 Morecambe Bay Ramsar: Natura 2000 Form Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 129

150 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 130

151 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 131

152 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 132

153 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 133

154 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 134

155 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 135

156 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 136

157 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 137

158 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 138

159 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 139

160

161 Appendix 4 Conservation Objectives Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 140

162 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 141

163 The conservation objectives for the Morecambe Bay SPA features are:- Subject to natural change, to maintain in favourable condition the habitats of the internationally important populations of regularly occurring bird species listed on Annex 1 of the Birds Directive, in particular: Shingle areas (Numbers of birds using these habitats are given in Table 1 below) Subject to natural change, to maintain in favourable condition the habitats of the internationally important assemblage of waterfowl and seabirds and the internationally important populations of regularly occurring migratory species, in particular: Intertidal mudflat and sandflat communities Intertidal and subtidal boulder and cobble skear communities Saltmarsh communities Coastal lagoon communities (Numbers of birds using these habitats are given in Table 1 below) Note: These SPA conservation objectives focus on habitat condition in recognition that bird populations may change as a reflection of national or international trends or events. Annual counts for qualifying species will be used by English Nature, in the context of five year peak means, together with available information on UK population and distribution trends, to assess whether this SPA is continuing to make an appropriate contribution to the Favourable Conservation Status of the species across Europe. Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 142

164 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 143

165 Appendix 5 Consultations Presented in Full (in chronological order) Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 144

166 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Page 145

167 MINUTES Issue date 23 November 2010 Issued by David Hoare Subject Gas Storage Scheme Meeting Reference 0049-WX40004-NHL-01 Client Halite Energy Group Limited Meeting date 12 November 2010 Time Location Warrington Present Brian Stanley (BS - Halite) Bruce Gibson (BG - Halite) Tim Melling (TM RSPB) Andy Saunders (AS - Hyder) David Hoare (DH - Hyder) Item Comments Action by 1 Introductions 2 Description of the project and discussions of recent developments BG presented the revised scheme, and explained the work that has been undertaken since the last application and the options considered (e.g. not being able to construct the Gas Compressor Compound on the west bank of the Wyre Estuary). 3 Summary of IPC process AS spoke about the requirement for a Preliminary Environmental Information Report to be produced. Also spoke generally about the IPC process, although all attendees had a sound knowledge of the IPC process. 4 Scoping Report Discussed the presence of the statutory designated sites close to the Fylde coastline. TM stated that Liverpool Bay SPA is primarily designated for its population of red throated diver (feed on fish) and common scoter (feed on molluscs, muscles, razor clams etc). In terms of the potential impact of the brine outfall on these designated sites, consideration would need to be afforded to the tidal flow. DH produced maps showing the extent and location of the SPA and SACs. It appeared that the brine outfall pipeline would not intrude into any of the sites, and neither would the anticipated plume of sterilisation (i.e. the level at which the saline plume would return to background levels). TM suggested that in his mind, it would be unlikely that an Appropriate Assessment would be required. However, further advice should be sought from Natural England. 5 Mitigation & Enhancement Opportunities DH / AS discussed the commitment to the Ecological and Landscape Management Plan. AS to investigate previous work TM stated that waders and geese like open fields with good visibility (wet grassland, undertaken preferably 5cm in height). Any construction activity would be fine during the summer months on managed k:\projects\wx40004-fleetwood solution mining\a-correspondence\0049-wx40004-nhl-01-meeting minutes.docx Page 1

168 6 AOB in terms of the SPA bird population. It would be preferable to avoid any activity during the winter months, particularly close to the Wyre Estuary. However, constructing the project during the summer months may not be ideal for other species. TM requested that consideration be afforded to the timing of constructing the wellheads closer to the SPA (i.e. try and construct these in the summer months). BG stated that Halite would consider this when formulating the construction programme. TM raised the possibility of managed realignment near The Heads or just to the south. AS stated that some work had been done on this for the first application and Halite would review the list of suggested mitigation from consultations in finalising the scheme in advance of the application. TM stated that anything that can be done to enhance the existing habitat for tree sparrows, barn owls, yellowhammer and linnet would be well received. TM also stated what a fantastic opportunity this project has to promote and enhance the current conservation interest, particularly with someone like Peter Taylor involved. TM requested that all topsoil be relocated to save seed bank in the area. NTS pipeline should be constructed a field at a time and avoid breeding season when hedgerows taken out. DH mentioned about the use of interpretation to attract people to the area. TM agreed this would be an excellent idea, not least because it would allow people to see and learn about one of the few colonies of rock sea lavender in the world (around Arm Hill). None. realignment k:\projects\wx40004-fleetwood solution mining\a-correspondence\0049-wx40004-nhl-01-meeting minutes.docx Page 2

169 MINUTES Issue date 23 November 2010 Issued by David Hoare Subject Gas Storage Scheme Meeting Reference 0048-WX40004-NHL-01 Client Halite Energy Group Limited Meeting date 17 November 2010 Time Location Kirkham Present Brian Stanley (BS - Halite) Bruce Gibson (BG - Halite) Debbie Morris (DM - Halite) Jackie Monk (JM - EA) Amy Heys (AH - EA) Nikki Bamber (NB - EA) Kyle Young (KY - EA) Alison Whalley (AW - EA) Pin Dhillon-Downey (PDD - NE) Mark Johnston (MJ - NE) Elaine Young (EY - MMO) Andy Saunders (AS - Hyder) David Hoare (DH - Hyder) Apologies: Kim Wisdom (LWT) Item Comments Action by 1 Introductions EY attended through conference call. 2 Description of the project and discussions of recent developments BG presented the revised scheme, and explained the work that has been undertaken since the last application and the options considered (e.g. not being able to construct the Gas Compressor Compound on the west bank of the Wyre Estuary) 3 Summary of IPC process AS spoke about the requirement for a Preliminary Environmental Information Report to be produced. Also spoke generally about the IPC process, although all attendees had a sound knowledge of the IPC process. 4 Scoping Report AH and PDD stated that they had submitted their response to the scoping report to the IPC earlier in the week. AH offered to send a copy of the response to DH. AH intimated that there were no show stoppers in the opinion of the Environment Agency. AW questioned the balance between ecology and landscape. AS discussed the previous work that was done on the Ecology and Landscape Management Plan, and the commitment AH to send copy of scoping opinion to DH k:\projects\wx40004-fleetwood solution mining\a-correspondence\0048-wx40004-nhl-01-meeting minutes.docx Page 1

170 to ensure that further work is done on updating it for this application. NB briefly discussed the FRA requirements with DH. DH said that Hyder had some questions for NB with regards to the FRA. It was agreed that NB would respond to those questions outside of the meeting. DH to AH / NB with questions DH and PDD / MJ discussed the implementation of the new IEEM Marine EcIA guidelines. It was agreed that the use of these guidelines would be discussed again once all parties had been able to review them. KY stated that the application needs to explain how the monitoring data from the discharge modelling (to be undertaken as part of the conditions of the previously obtained discharge consent) will be used to assess the impacts on the Irish Sea once the project is operational. KY offered to work with Halite / Hyder on this to ensure that such requirements are met. KY stated the application should address the potential hydrological impacts of creating the caverns, particularly the potential indirect impact on the Wyre Estuary. 5 Preliminary Environmental Information Report Considered in Item 3 6 Stat Sites / Future Stat Sites (including Appropriate Assessment) PDD confirmed that there were no plans for any more statutory site designations within the surrounding area / the area that could be potentially impacted upon by the project. DH produced plans showing the boundaries of the currently designated stat sites in the Irish Sea, and it was concluded that the brine outfall pipe would not be likely to encroach into these designations (although it was difficult to be 100% sure due to the scale of mapping) Although it was agreed that there shouldn t be any impacts on the stat sites, PDD / MJ highlighted the requirement for a separate report entitled Information to Inform a Habitat Regulations Assessment. Within this, Hyder would need to extrapolate all relevant information from the ES with regards to the potential impact of the brine discharge on the qualifying features of the stat sites situated off the coastline. The report would also need to explain the potential in-combination effects on stat sites of other projects that discharge into the Irish Sea (e.g. the Gateway Project) and discuss the potential hydrological impact of cavern development on the Wyre Estuary. Depending on the findings of the report, PDD / MJ intimated that this should be enough to satisfy the requirements of the Habitats Regulations, and no further documentation should be required in terms of the Appropriate Assessment process. The intention to directionally drill under the Wyre Estuary was discussed. PDD highlighted the number of other applications currently being determined by DECC that also intend to directionally drill under the Wyre Estuary. 7 Status of Flora / Fauna Surveys DH stated that breeding bird surveys, terrestrial invertebrate surveys and phase 1 habitat surveys had all been updated in PDD confirmed that the existing marine baseline survey information would be valid for use in the application documentation, but that the baseline information would need to be updated once consent for the project has been granted before discharge monitoring begins. AW discussed the requirement for water vole surveys. DH stated that water vole surveys had been updated in 2008 / AW highlighted the requirement for toad surveys (now a UK BAP species) to be undertaken if any ponds were to be lost. DH stated that at present, no ponds would be lost to the project. AW stated that an appropriate buffer zone of 5m should be introduced around all ponds so as to ensure their conservation status is preserved. 8 Flood Risk Assessment Considered in Item 4 DH, PDD and MJ to review the IEEM Marine EcIA guidelines for further discussion MJ to DH a GIS file delineating the Liverpool Bay, Shell Flat and Lune Deep boundaries Halite to commission updated marine surveys once the application has been consented. k:\projects\wx40004-fleetwood solution mining\a-correspondence\0048-wx40004-nhl-01-meeting minutes.docx Page 2

171 9 Relevant NE and EA Plans AH / PDD suggested Hyder looks at SMP 2 ( AH stated that the EA were currently updating the CAMS document for the area. DH to AH for the CAMS document (currently being validated) 10 SuDS A general discussion was held on the benefit of wetland restoration to the area. Consideration would also need to be afforded to what could be done with the NTS pipeline application site. The general consensus was that the incorporation for SuDS techniques into the design of the project would be beneficial, as this would restrict discharge rates to receiving watercourses. 11 Waste / Sustainability Issues AH said that the Environment Agency has no particular requirements. AS stated that a draft Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) and a Site Waste Management Plan (SWMP) was produced for the previous application, and would be produced for this application. The disposal of brine was discussed in terms of whether it could be used for any other purpose instead of disposing of it in the Irish Sea. BG stated that a study had been undertaken on this issue, but Halite was willing to explore this further. BG stated that as the project s capacity has been significantly reduced from the previous application, the ultimate volume of brine discharged has also reduced to a third, although the project would still discharge 80 mega litres of brine per day. 12 Visual Impact The general consensus was that the buildings should be designed to blend into the existing landscape. BS stated that there was a commitment from Halite to explore all options. AS explained there was a balance to be struck between ecological, landscape and agricultural interests and that mounding may be required instead of screen planting for example. Halite to undertake further study into other options for disposing / reusing the brine. 13 Future Baseline AS stated that baseline noise monitoring was due to be undertaken. PDD requested that such monitoring be undertaken at Arm Hill and The Heads. A discussion was held about what the area would look like in the future if any future shoreline management plans etc became effective (refer to Item 9). Hyder to undertake baseline noise monitoring at both locations 14 Consents AH stated that the Environment Agency has not given the IPC permission to grant any of their consents / licences. Therefore, any Environment Agency consents will need to be obtained directly from the Environment Agency. MJ presumed that a FEPA licence would be required from the Marine Management Organisation. MJ confirmed that Natural England would be consulted. 15 Mitigation Enhancement Opportunities DH / AS discussed the commitment to the Ecological and Landscape Management Plan. BG confirmed that management would extend to the extent of Halite s land ownership, not just within the application boundary. It was requested that the management plan illustrate a zone of impact influence along the NTS pipeline route. PDD stated that the exit / entry points of the pipeline under the Wyre Estuary need to be set back as far from the SPA as possible, and the methodology for directional drilling needs to be made as clear as possible within the application documents. Hyder / Halite to determine zone of impact influence along NTS pipeline route k:\projects\wx40004-fleetwood solution mining\a-correspondence\0048-wx40004-nhl-01-meeting minutes.docx Page 3

172 16 AOB The Environment Agency requires 21 days to respond to consultation requests (10 days for data requests). Natural England requires 28 days to respond to consultation requests. k:\projects\wx40004-fleetwood solution mining\a-correspondence\0048-wx40004-nhl-01-meeting minutes.docx Page 4

173 From: Dhillon-Downey, Pin (NE) Sent: 02 December :45 To: David Hoare; Heys, Amy; Kim Wisdom; Young, Elaine C (MMO); Brian Stanley; Bruce Gibson; Andrew Saunders Cc: Tim Melling Subject: RE: Notes from Meeting 17 November 2010 David, I have just one comment on the attached minutes, under point 6; PDD / MJ highlighted the requirement for a separate report entitled Information to Inform a Habitat Regulations Assessment. Within this, Hyder would need to extrapolate all relevant information from the ES with regards to the potential impact of the brine discharge on the qualifying features of the stat sites situated off the coastline. The report would also need to explain the potential in-combination effects on stat sites of other projects that discharge into the Irish Sea (e.g. the Gateway Project) and discuss the potential hydrological impact of cavern development on the Wyre Estuary. Depending on the findings of the report, PDD / MJ intimated that this should be enough to satisfy the requirements of the Habitats Regulations, and no further documentation should be required in terms of the Appropriate Assessment process. I want to point out that the HRA report needs to include all elements of the project against all interest features of all the protected areas (new Marine Natura Sites, Morecambe Bay SAC, SPA, Ramsar, Wyre Estuary SSSI) with mitigation where potential impacts are perceived e.g. provision of wintering habitat for PFG. This will be a better way of determining No Likely Significant Effects if this is the case, on the overall project rather than separate sections of the project. Regards Pin

174 From: David Hoare Sent: 24 November :49 To: Heys, Amy; Dhillon-Downey, Pin (NE); Kim Wisdom; Young, Elaine C (MMO); Brian Stanley; Bruce Gibson; Andrew Saunders Subject: Notes from Meeting 17 November 2010 [Disk Folder K:\projects\WX40004-Fleetwood Solution Mining\M-Mail] [Filed :49:21] Dear all Sorry it s taken a while, but please find attached some notes of our meeting. They re quite brief (must learn short hand), but I hope they cover the topics we discussed. Amy - could you please forward this onto your colleagues who attended. Pin could you please forward this onto Mark. Best wishes David David Hoare Principal Consultant - Environment Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Firecrest Court, Centre Park, Warrington, WA1 1RG Direct Dial Tel: +44 (0) Reception Tel: +44 (0) Mob: +44 (0) Fax: +44 (0) Hyder is an international advisory and design consultancy Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this ? ********************************************************************************* This message contains information which is confidential and may also be privileged. It is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient(s) please note that any form of distribution, copying or use of this communication or the information in it is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error please return it to the sender and then delete the and destroy any copies of it. Thank you. Hyder Consulting cannot guarantee that this message or any attachment is virus-free or has not been intercepted or changed. Any opinions or other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of the Company are neither given nor endorsed by it. ********************************************************************************* This and any attachments is intended for the named recipient only. If you have received it in error you have no authority to use, disclose, store or copy any of its contents and you should destroy it and inform the sender.

175 Nothing in the amounts to a legal commitment on our part unless confirmed by a signed communication. Whilst this and associated attachments will have been checked for known viruses whilst within the Natural England systems, we can accept no responsibility once it has left our systems. Communications on Natural England systems may be monitored and/or recorded to secure the effective operation of the system and for other lawful purposes.

176 From: Melling, Tim Sent: 02 December :34 To: David Hoare; Dhillon-Downey, Pin (NE) Subject: Noise Disturbance Hi David and Pin This is from a 2008 report by ICES for Humber INCA on constructional disturbance on Humber birds. The full report is 4Mb which might cripple my system if I sent that. The relevant bit is in red. There were also some tables estimating the noise levels from various activities such as piling and steam emission (frequent on Humber). I couldn t find the actual paper on which the 70dB figure is based but that was the magic level that NE adopted for the Humber. Best wishes Tim 5.2 Summary of Literature Review The literature review addressed over 100 scientific papers and applied research reports, with many more initially viewed but then discarded due to lack of relevance. Whilst it is evident that for some activities, there are good data on likely responses by waterfowl species and/or assemblages, there remain areas where data are poor. The review identified that: The avifaunal community will vary in its sensitivity to disturbances on a seasonal basis. Sensitivity is greatest in migration periods during the spring and autumn and measures to reduce disturbance at migration staging areas should be taken. Effects and impacts of disturbance will be increased in hard weather conditions and thus construction and boating activity should be reduced or ceased at these times. Redshank are particularly sensitive during these periods. Based on information on Oystercatcher tolerance (in order to maintain fitness they can tolerate disturbances times per hour in poor feeding conditions and times per hour in good feeding conditions), it is evident that individuals feeding on sub optimal areas or in sub optimal conditions will be more quickly detrimentally affected by disturbance. Roosting birds, especially in areas where there are limited alternative roosting areas available will be sensitive to disturbance and in these areas disturbance events should be restricted at and around high tide as birds begin to roost. In cases where a roost site is disrupted or lost, the creation of artificial roost sites elsewhere maybe effective in mitigating detrimental effects. Boating activity around seabird colonies should be restricted with boats kept to designated channels around a minimum of 100 to preferably 600m from the shore. Boating activity around roost sites should be limited to 100m from the roost. The presence of people engaging in both recreational and construction activity on the mudflats when birds are feeding, particularly in spring and autumn passages and winter should be restricted as this has a high impact on bird s fitness. Birds respond more severely to disturbance from people in greater numbers. Larger parties or personnel should retain a larger distance from avifauna than individual persons; 100m recommended. Construction noise levels should be restricted to below 70 db (A), birds will habituate to regular noise below this level. Where possible sudden irregular noise above 50 db (A) should be avoided as this causes disturbance to birds. However, data are generally poor.

177 Habitat/Species Type of Survey Study Area Date(s) Undertaken Summary of Findings Outcome of Conference Call held on 24 January 2011 at 10.30am Habitats (including invasive species) Phase 1 Habitat Fylde Peninsula study area April 2003 Habitats comprised improved grassland, poor semi-improved grassland, broad-leaved woodland, scrub, hedgerow, ditches, ponds and swamp. JJ requested Phase 1 for areas where IPC access obtained. Wyre Estuary and Preesall to Nateby study area September September 12 October 2010 April 2003 Most of the survey area was occupied by newly constructed buildings with the additional presence of lagoons, ditches, poor semi-improved grassland, hedgerows, woodland, scrub and marshy grassland. A number of drains were present within the survey area that contained flowing water. Main habitats comprised improved grassland, standing water, running water and scattered / dense scrub with patchy semi-improved grassland along the disused railway. Scattered trees and scrub with saltmarsh were present near Stanah. The survey was undertaken within the Gas Storage site only. West of Burrows Lane, the survey area largely comprised saltmarsh. East of Burrows Lane, the survey area was dominated by improved grassland and arable fields with hedges and/or drains as boundaries. Ponds were common in these fields. Areas of broad-leaved woodland were also present. JJ also suggested the results of previous Phase 1 surveys are confirmed by a walkover survey of those areas previously surveyed. AW requested that only the most recent Phase 1 survey information should form the basis of the assessment. DH noted that technical appendices for all surveys would be prepared and included in the ES, all of which would briefly summarise the history of previous surveys undertaken, but would only present the most recent survey information in detail. 22 July 2 September September 2008 The survey was undertaken within the NTS Pipeline corridor only. General habitats recorded comprised improved grassland, arable, hedgerows, scrub, broad-leaved trees, broad-leaved woodland, broad-leaved plantation woodland, mixed plantation woodland, waterbodies (mainly comprising a number of ditches and ponds), tall ruderal and neutral grassland (improved). In general, the eastern extent of the survey corridor supported a greater diversity of habitats including a number of ponds. The survey was undertaken within the Gas Storage site only. West of Burrow s Lane and Browns Lane, the habitat was largely saltmarsh. East of these two roads, the survey area was dominated by arable fields and improved grassland. Field ponds were common as were reed-filled ditches, particularly around the edges of fields nearest the River Wyre Estuary. Pockets of woodland and areas of scrub were also present. Habitats recorded included improved grassland, arable, hedgerows, standing water, running water, semi-natural broad-leaved woodland, scrub, amenity grassland and saltmarsh. JJ said ideal survey time was late spring early summer. JJ said Phase 1 should be carried out before submission of the application although could potentially do Phase 2 surveys under condition to inform appropriate mitigation. UNDERTAKE UPDATE SURVEY BEFORE SUBMISSION OF APPLICATION 5 7 May 2009 The survey was undertaken within the NTS Pipeline Corridor only. The dominant habitats recorded comprised improved grassland and arable farmland interspersed with species-poor semi-improved grassland, broad-leaved trees and scrub split up by hedgerows and ditches. 29 September 12 October 2010 The survey was undertaken within the Gas Storage site and areas that had never been previously surveyed due to access restrictions within the NTS Pipeline corridor. With the exception of the saltmarsh area west of Burrows Lane and Browns Lane, the dominant habitats were improved grassland and arable farmland interspersed by occasional scattered broad-leaved trees / copses and scrub split up by ditches and species poor hedgerows. Other habitats recorded included standing water, running water, semi-natural broad-leaved woodland, mixed plantation woodland and amenity grassland on the golf course. Habitats within areas that had never been previously surveyed along the NTS Pipeline corridor comprised almost entirely of improved grassland with occasional arable fields split up by ditches and species-poor hedgerows. Other habitats included a small copse of scattered broad-leaved trees and standing and running water. Phase 2 National Vegetation Classification (NVC) Fylde Peninsula study area Wyre Estuary and Preesall to Nateby study area June 2003 July August 2003 Broadwater Wood The woodland was dominated by sycamore with an understorey of elder and a species-poor field layer. It was of no special interest botanically. However, the associated field is more botanically interesting. Fleetwood Marsh Industrial Lands This site and the associated grasslands to the north-west were extremely diverse in terms of habitats, vegetation communities and species. Unmanaged grassland, scrub, carr, ditch and swamp were all present. Rossall School Fields The ditches supported swamp vegetation. The banks supported short mixed grassland. The area surveyed comprised the Saltmarsh and adjacent areas at Barnaby Sands Marsh, which was expanded at the request of Lancashire County Council to include all aspects of the Wyre Estuary Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). Notable features of the Wyre Estuary SSSI included: The presence of one plant species rare in Britain and one that is of scarce status DH explained saltmarsh was surveyed as previously affected. Now not affected. It was agreed that there would be no requirement to re-survey the saltmarsh area to Phase 2 level. JJ said Phase 1 habitat survey should inform the need for any Phase 2 surveys e.g. of seminatural habitats. However, only those habitats that were considered to warrant surveying to Phase 2 level and would be directly or indirectly affected by the Project should be considered. JJ - As a general rule surveys should take place between May and August. As stated above, the Phase 2 surveys could potentially k:\projects\wx40004-fleetwood solution mining\a-correspondence\0058-wx40004-nhl-01-summary of conference call.docx Page 1

178 Habitat/Species Type of Survey Study Area Date(s) Undertaken Summary of Findings Outcome of Conference Call held on 24 January 2011 at 10.30am At least a further eight plant species of rare or other significant status within the county of Lancashire Three vegetation communities that are frequent and often abundant on the Wyre but are otherwise rare in north-west England Two variants of major plant communities that are not described in the National Vegetation Classification Evidence of succession from Spartina marshes into other vegetation types, one of these being via pathways not seen elsewhere in north-west England The presence of a recurved spit, a landform of rare occurrence in north-west England and the only one of this type in Lancashire The presence of examples of many of the more widely-occurring plant species and communities of saltmarshes, including various types of transition vegetation be done under condition to inform appropriate mitigation. NO REQUIREMENT TO UNDERTAKE UPDATE SURVEY BEFORE SUBMISSION OF APPLICATION Arable weeds (Purple Rampingfumitory) Wyre Estuary and Preesall to Nateby study area May, June 2003 May July July 2 September /3 June and 29/30 June 2009 Fumitory species were recorded in a number of targeted fields. Specific species identified comprised Common Ramping-fumitory and Tall Rampingfumitory recorded at Clods Carr Land Fields. Purple Ramping-fumitory was recorded in a field at SD (adjacent to Clods Carr Lane Fields). Purple Ramping-fumitory and Common Ramping-fumitory was recorded in a large field at SD Fumitory species were recorded in a number of targeted fields. Specific species identified comprised Purple Ramping-fumitory, White Rampingfumitory, Common Ramping-fumitory, Common Fumitory and Tall Ramping-fumitory recorded at Clods Carr Land Fields. Purple Ramping-fumitory was recorded in a field at SD (adjacent to Clods Carr Lane Fields). Purple Ramping-fumitory, White Ramping-fumitory, Tall Rampingfumitory, Common Ramping-fumitory and Common Fumitory were recorded in a field at SD Purple Ramping-fumitory and Common Ramping-fumitory was recorded in a narrow field between the sea wall and Aggleby s Road at SD An area of Purple Ramping-fumitory was recorded in an arable field located between Preesall Park and Woodside Country Park Residential Caravan Site on Moss House Lane. Purple Ramping-fumitory was recorded at 12 locations, including the six locations where it had been recorded during the 2003 / 2004 surveys. The survey also identified three other fumitory species, the localised Tall Ramping-fumitory and the more widespread Common Ramping-fumitory and Common Fumitory. In addition to fumitory species, the survey highlighted the presence of large colonies of Corn Marigold and the possible presence of Field Woundwort. Corn Marigold receives the status of Vulnerable and Field Woundwort the status of Near Threatened under Red listing based on 2001 IUCN guidelines (the most comprehensive, objective global approach for evaluating the conservation status of plant and animal species). JJ could deal with this under condition given previous amount of work done. JJ - A survey should be undertaken immediately before construction commences. JJ - The update walkover survey (see Phase 1 above) should also highlight within which fields fumitory species are likely to be present (the walkover survey would be completed before this species flowers, and therefore it would not be possible to record the actual presence of this species), which would inform commitments that should be made in the application to mitigation principles. NO REQUIREMENT TO UNDERTAKE UPDATE SURVEY BEFORE SUBMISSION OF APPLICATION Rock Sealavender Wyre Estuary and Preesall to Nateby study area July August 2003 At Hackensall Brows, in excess of 230 clumps of Limonium britannicum subspecies celticum were recorded between SD and SD A shingle beach arcs around the western flank of Arm Hill. Approximately 40 clumps of Limonium britannicum subspecies celticum were recorded at this location. PD-D said unlikely to be impacts and that data is still valid. Enhancement opportunities could be proposed in the application. Arm Hill has a basal wall of uncemented limestone blocks. An estimated 600 clumps of Limonium britannicum subspecies celticum occurred at this location. A causeway runs between the ridge off the south-western corner of the waste water treatment works and the start of the ridge leading to Arm Hill (between grid references SD and SD ). A total of around 40 rosettes of Limonium britannicum subspecies celticum occurred at this location. NO REQUIREMENT TO UNDERTAKE UPDATE SURVEY BEFORE SUBMISSION OF APPLICATION 30 June 2009 The presence of Limonium britannicum subspecies celticum south of Hackensall Brows was confirmed. Two separate colonies were identified close together. Both occurred on the low earth cliff just north of the waste water treatment works. The smaller and more northerly colony contained just 4 plants spread over 2m 2, located at grid reference SD A larger colony of 14 plants was present at grid reference SD This was also compact and spread over just 2m 2. No single rosette plants were noted, and no seedlings were in evidence. The western flank of Arm Hill and the causeway (south of the inlet for the creek through Barnaby Sands Marsh), were not resurveyed in 2009 as they were no longer directly affected. The Causeway north of the inlet for the creek through Barnaby Sands Marsh was surveyed, but no plants of Limonium britannicum subspecies celticum were recorded. Hedgerows Standard Hedgerow Regulations 1997 Assessment Fylde Peninsula study area Wyre Estuary and Preesall to Nateby study area September October 2003 September October 2003 Hedgerows predominantly consisted of hawthorn Crataegus monogyna with sparse presence of blackthorn Prunus spinosa and elder Sambucus nigra. Many of the hedgerows were species poor and unmanaged and had therefore become gappy in nature. None of the hedgerows were considered to qualify as being important under the Hedgerows Regulations The survey was undertaken within the Gas Storage site only. Hedgerows recorded were species poor and typically dominated by hawthorn. Other species noted included blackthorn, dog rose Rosa canina and elder with the occasional broad-leaved sapling or mature tree such as sycamore Acer pseudoplatanus, ash Fraxinus excelsior and pedunculate oak Quercus robur. Herbaceous species were sparse but included herb-robert Geranium robertanium, common nettle Urtica dioica, hedge woundwort JJ can be combined with the Phase 1 survey approach (see above). Also suggested checking against BAP criteria and the NERC Act Results should be reported separately to the Phase 1. JJ and DH - For hedgerows could consider reducing width of easement, realigning through k:\projects\wx40004-fleetwood solution mining\a-correspondence\0058-wx40004-nhl-01-summary of conference call.docx Page 2

179 Habitat/Species Type of Survey Study Area Date(s) Undertaken 22 July 2 September 2004 Summary of Findings Outcome of Conference Call held on 24 January 2011 at 10.30am Stachys sylvatica and red dead nettle Lamium purpereum. Many of the hedges in the area were gappy and no longer formed stock-proof boundaries. None of the hedgerows identified within the survey area were considered to qualify as being important under the Hedgerows Regulations The survey was undertaken within the NTS Pipeline corridor only. None of the hedgerows surveyed were considered to qualify as being important under the Hedgerow Regulations gaps or directionally drilling. UNDERTAKE UPDATE SURVEY BEFORE SUBMISSION OF APPLICATION Ponds Lancashire Pond Biodiversity Survey Wyre Estuary and Preesall to Nateby study area October 2003 The survey was undertaken at the request of Lancashire County Council. Only one pond near Burrows Farm was surveyed because of access issues. The pond supported a limited number of common wetland plants and a poor invertebrate community. DH confirmed that the current layout of the Project does not cause any direct impact to any ponds. JJ / AW - Only those ponds that would be indirectly affected should be surveyed. However, if it could be demonstrated that the risk of impact could be minimised, then there would be no need to survey. However, if the risk of impact on a particular pond was considered to be high, then that pond would need to be surveyed to Lancashire Pond Biodiversity level. JJ if a survey is required, the pond(s) should also be assessed against UK BAP criteria to see if they qualify. JJ - Planning condition could be applied to do detailed surveys. PD-D mentioned timing risk also e.g. having to work outside winter period to minimise impact on birds may have an effect on ponds. ASSESS THE POTENITAL HYDROLOGICAL IMPACT AND UNDERTAKE UPDATE SURVEY BEFORE SUBMISSION OF APPLICATION IF CONSIDERED NECESSARY Terrestrial Invertebrates Standard Fylde Peninsula study area May, July and September 2003 The surveys were undertaken within Rossall School Fields only. The nationally notable (nationally scarce) Roesel s bush-cricket was recorded around the Rossall School Fields Biological Heritage Site (BHS). JJ any further updates could be carried out through conditions. Wyre Estuary and Preesall to Nateby study area August, September and October 2010 May, July and September 2003 August, September and October 2010 The surveys were undertaken within Rossall School Fields only. Roesel s Bush Cricket was recorded at Rossall School Fields. The surveys were undertaken within Preesall saltmarsh only. A nationally notable (nationally scarce) species of hoverfly, Platycheirus immarginatus was recorded from the saltmarsh at The Heads. The surveys were undertaken at The Heads only. One Notable B species Mantura rustica (a leaf beetle) was recorded at The Heads. In addition, two local species were recorded: a seed weevil Apion cruentatum and a 16 spot ladybird Tytthaspis sedecimpunctata. The complete species list is quite diverse, and indicates damp meadows with quite a good vegetation structure. However, there were relatively few rare or local species. NO REQUIREMENT TO UNDERTAKE UPDATE SURVEY BEFORE SUBMISSION OF APPLICATION Great crested newts Standard Fylde Peninsula study area 26 May 12 June May 13 June 2007 No great crested newts were recorded. No great crested newts were recorded. 20 April 5 No great crested newts were recorded. JJ, AW, PD-D - Only those ponds never previously surveyed due to access issues should be surveyed. Existing data for all other ponds will be considered valid for an application between March 2011 and March k:\projects\wx40004-fleetwood solution mining\a-correspondence\0058-wx40004-nhl-01-summary of conference call.docx Page 3

180 Habitat/Species Type of Survey Study Area Date(s) Undertaken Wyre Estuary and Preesall to Nateby study area June April 28 May April 2004 Summary of Findings Outcome of Conference Call held on 24 January 2011 at 10.30am The surveys were undertaken at three ponds within the Gas Storage site only. Great crested newts were recorded from two ponds, near Burrows Farm (estimated small populations). The surveys were undertaken within the NTS Pipeline corridor only. No great crested newts were recorded. See also comments re ponds above. JJ comply with NE guidance re: survey effort and validity of previous surveys. AW survey should also record the presence of common toad. 8 May 13 June 2007 The surveys were undertaken within the Gas Storage site only. Great crested newts were recorded from two ponds, near Burrows Farm (estimated small populations). One of the ponds was the same pond within which great crested newts had been recorded in UNDERTAKE UPDATE SURVEY BEFORE SUBMISSION OF APPLICATION 20 April 5 June 2009 Great crested newts were recorded from five ponds, two of which were near Burrows Farm (estimated medium populations) from which great crested newts had been recorded during previous surveys. The other three ponds were located within the NTS Pipeline corridor (estimated medium populations (one pond) and small populations (two ponds)). Breeding and Wintering Birds Standard Wyre Estuary and Preesall to Nateby study area February March 2003 April June 2003 May and June 2004 July November 2004 The surveys were undertaken within the Gas Storage site only, and the area was divided into three separate survey compartments, these being 1) the existing salt marsh 2) land below 5m AOD 3) land above 5m AOD. A total of 62 species were identified. The surveys were undertaken from Knott End golf-course to the north, south to the village of Staynall and approximately 1 km inland. Two of the species which are constituents of the Morecambe Bay SPA wintering waterfowl assemblage, lapwing and redshank, also breed within the SPA. Outside the boundary of the SPA, lapwing was relatively abundant in fields to the north east of The Heads Caravan Park. A single barn owl was observed in fields to the south east of The Heads Caravan Park. The nest site is believed to be at a nearby farm (location confidential). The remaining species recorded during the breeding bird survey were common and widespread. The surveys were undertaken within the NTS Pipeline corridor only. A total of 29 bird species were identified, comprising two species listed on Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). A single barn owl was observed on one occasion foraging in grassland to the north of the survey corridor. Peregrine records comprised one sighting of an individual flying overhead. The surveys were undertaken at Arm Hill and the adjacent intertidal and Saltmarsh areas. WeBS count data suggest that the Arm Hill count area regularly supports numbers of Oystercatcher and Redshank that are considered to be significant in the context of the Morecambe Bay SPA, together with several other waterfowl, including knot and dunlin in numbers that are variable, but occasionally significant in the context of the Wyre Estuary. Patterns of usage suggest that, during the majority of tides, it is the sand bank to the north west of Arm Hill that supports greatest numbers of birds. However, when tide heights exceed approximately 9.1m, birds are displaced. On such occasions, numbers of birds decline dramatically as birds leave the estuary. However a relatively small number of Oystercatcher and a greater proportion of Redshank remain around Arm Hill, either roosting on the beach close to the causeway (where they are regularly disturbed) or on the saltmarsh to the south of Arm Hill. Wigeon and Teal also use the saltmarsh on higher tides, concentrating around the creek system. PD-D get in touch with Fylde Bird Club to get latest information. PD-D would be useful to understand the cropping regimes on the functionally linked land, and how this influences where the overwintering birds feed. This could be done during the updated walkover survey (see Phase 1 above). PD-D / JJ any removal of hedgerows should be undertaken outside of the breeding bird season replacement would be the preferable form of mitigation. JJ noted need to consider ground nesting birds also. Survey data should be used to inform restoration scheme to benefit priority species. NO REQUIREMENT TO UNDERTAKE UPDATE SURVEY BEFORE SUBMISSION OF APPLICATION November March 2009 The surveys were undertaken within the Gas Storage site only. Low Tide Counts The results indicate that a diverse and abundant avian fauna make use of the intertidal zone. At low tide the exposed mud flats are used by a significant number of feeding birds including a high abundance of oystercatcher Haematopus ostralegus, teal Anas crecca, knot Calidris canuta, redshank Tringa tetanus, lapwing Vanellus vanellus, curlew Numenius arquata, wigeon Anas penelope, shelduck Tadorna tadorna, pink-footed goose Anser brachyrhynchus and gulls. A total of 23 wintering species were recorded during the low tide counts, which included hunting kestrel Falco tinnunculus and merlin Falco columbarius. High Tide Counts The high tide counts to date would suggest that the saltmarshes are used by wintering wetland birds for roosting purposes, with the area around Arm Hill being of particular importance. Here large concentrations of oystercatcher, knot, curlew, black-tailed godwit, redshank and lapwing were recorded on a frequent basis. Significant abundances of wigeon, shelduck, gulls and teal were also recorded during the high tide counts. Snipe Gallinago gallinago were recorded in relatively low abundances. Transect Survey k:\projects\wx40004-fleetwood solution mining\a-correspondence\0058-wx40004-nhl-01-summary of conference call.docx Page 4

181 Habitat/Species Type of Survey Study Area Date(s) Undertaken Summary of Findings Outcome of Conference Call held on 24 January 2011 at 10.30am The transect survey of the functionally linked fields of the SPA would indicate that some wetland birds make use of these habitats for roosting and feeding purposes. Species recorded included lapwing, redshank, curlew, shelduck, oystercatcher, a single barnacle goose Branta leucopsis, Canada goose Branta Canadensi, pink-footed goose, and greylag goose Anser anser. With exception of pink-footed goose, the abundance of the species recorded within the fields was relatively low with fewer than 50 individuals being present at any one time. On 15/01/09 approximately 420 pink-footed geese were recorded feeding within the stubble fields between Burrow s Farm and Height o th Hill. During the March survey visit approximately 2,000 pink-footed geese were recorded feeding and roosting within stubble fields to the north of the survey area and incidental sightings where made on a number of occasions of a similar numbers of pink-footed geese feeding and roosting within farmland approximately up to 11 km to the east. Other notable species recorded during the transect survey included kestrel, merlin, redwing Turdus iliacus, fieldfare Turdus pilaris and high abundances of starling Sturnus vulgaris June 2010 The survey area was found to support a range of breeding birds typical of arable farmland and grassland habitat. Most bird activity was centred around the hedgerows and small woodland copses. Birds typically associated with coastal habitats were also recorded throughout. These included curlew Numenius arquata and shelduck Tadorna tadorna. 42 species of birds were identified, of which 33 species were considered likely to be breeding (or have bred) within habitats within the survey area. Large numbers of curlew, lapwing Vanellus vanellus and starling Sturnus vulgaris were recorded. It would appear likely that these were postbreeding flocks that had been attracted to the freshly mown silage and hayfields. This does not indicate that large numbers of breeding pairs were present within the survey area. Barn owl Tyto alba were seen flying in three different locations: Bone Hill Farm (SD ); Hackensall Barn (SD ); and along the coast at the north-western end of the pipeline (SD ). Ten species identified as red listed birds of conservation concern and Priority Species in the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) were recorded and it is considered likely that these birds would have been breeding within suitable habitat within the survey area. These comprise corn bunting Emberiza calandra, curlew, grey partridge Perdix perdix, herring gull Larus argentatus, house sparrow Passer domesticus, lapwing, linnet Carduelis cannabina, skylark Alauda arvensis, song thrush Turdus philomelos and starling. Reed bunting Emberiza schoeniclus, a Priority species in the UK BAP, was also recorded. The remainder of the species recorded during the survey are common, widespread species. Brown hare Standard Wyre Estuary and Preesall to Nateby study area March 2003 The survey was undertaken within the Gas Storage site only. A number of sightings were recorded within the arable fields. A number of incidental sightings have been recorded during subsequent site visits. DH will take into account when preparing Ecological and Landscape Enhancement Strategy JJ can be dealt with through condition. NO REQUIREMENT TO UNDERTAKE UPDATE SURVEY BEFORE SUBMISSION OF APPLICATION Water vole Standard Fylde Peninsula study area Wyre Estuary and Preesall to Nateby study area May September 2008 May June No evidence of water vole activity recorded. No evidence of water vole activity recorded. The survey was undertaken within the Gas Storage site only. DH plan to survey ditches not previously surveyed through using IPC powers. AW requested update desktop search and resurvey in areas which have recent records. Also survey ponds that could be affected No evidence of water vole activity recorded May 2004 The survey was undertaken within the NTS Pipeline corridor only. Evidence of water vole activity was recorded at two ditches. Evidence comprised latrines, burrows, feeding remains and an individual sighting (the latter being outside of the survey corridor). UNDERTAKE UPDATE SURVEY BEFORE SUBMISSION OF APPLICATION September June 2009 The survey was undertaken within the Gas Storage site only. No evidence of water vole activity recorded. The survey was undertaken within the NTS Pipeline corridor only. A number of burrows and a single old dropping were recorded within one ditch. No other evidence of water vole activity was recorded from any of the other ditches surveyed. k:\projects\wx40004-fleetwood solution mining\a-correspondence\0058-wx40004-nhl-01-summary of conference call.docx Page 5

182 Habitat/Species Type of Survey Study Area Date(s) Undertaken Summary of Findings Outcome of Conference Call held on 24 January 2011 at 10.30am Badger Standard Fylde Peninsula study area Wyre Estuary and Preesall to Nateby study area 5 6 October 2008 February May October 2008 No evidence of badger activity recorded. The survey was undertaken within the Gas Storage site only. No evidence of badger activity recorded. The survey was undertaken within the NTS Pipeline corridor only. Badger activity was noted towards the eastern end of the corridor mainly along the disused railway embankment. Activity comprised eight setts (one active four hole main sett, four active one hole outlying setts, one partially active one hole outlying sett and two disused one hole outlying setts), latrines, pathways and foraging signs. The survey was undertaken within the Gas Storage site only. No evidence of badger activity recorded. February 2003 No evidence of badger activity recorded. JJ deal with through condition (preconstruction survey). Include measures to prevent badgers moving into spoil heaps during construction within mitigation. DH agreed that any evidence of badger activity is recorded during the walkover survey (see Phase 1 above). NO REQUIREMENT TO UNDERTAKE UPDATE SURVEY BEFORE SUBMISSION OF APPLICATION 5 7 May 2009 The survey was undertaken within the NTS Pipeline corridor only. Significantly less badger activity was recorded than in the 2004 survey, although one outlying sett comprising one well-used entrance hole was noted along the disused railway embankment. The tunnel extended into the embankment (i.e. to the north). This outlying sett was previously identified during the 2004 survey. Marine benthic ecology and habitats Diving, taking sediment samples Irish Sea Study Area October 2001 The survey was undertaken with the littoral and sublittoral construction area and discharge area. Plankton The plankton is made up of two main groups, phytoplankton (unicellular and multicellular free floating plants) and zooplankton (animals). The latter group, however, is further divided into holoplankton (or permanent plankton) and meroplankton (temporary residents). DH and PD-D had previously agreed data valid for application but updating pre-construction in line with the discharge consent would be required. In the north-eastern part of the Irish Sea, phytoplankton is generally dominated by diatoms and dinoflagellates, with the zooplankton dominated by crustaceans, primarily copepods (Edwards & John, 1996). Benthic Fauna and Habitats Sublittoral NO REQUIREMENT TO UNDERTAKE UPDATE SURVEY BEFORE SUBMISSION OF APPLICATION All the sublittoral sites had similar, recurring, associated communities of species. Using the JNCC Marine Biotope Classification for Britain and Ireland, Volume 2 (Connor et al, 1997) all the sites had the same biotope classification, Flustra foliacea and other hydroid/bryozoan turf species on slightly scoured mixed substrata (MCR.Flu). The sublittoral habitats comprised a mixed substratum of gravel, pebbles, cobbles and boulders in varying proportions. Parts of the substrata were stabilised in boulder clay leading to no available undersurface and anoxic conditions. Approximately 10-70% of the substrata (usually pebbles and small cobbles) appeared to have been recently mobile causing scour conditions. All sites had a heavy silt layer (sometimes mixed with fine sand) and high turbidity. A hydroid and bryozoan turf of Flustra foliacea, Membranipora membranacea, Alcyonidium diaphanum, Scrupocellaria reptans, Abietinaria abietina, Tubularia indivisa, Rhizocaulus verticillatus, Eudendrium sp., Halecium halecinum and Hydrallmania falcata characterised most sites. An associated sponge fauna of Halichondria panicea, Haliclona oculata, Dysidea fragilis, Esperiopsis fucorum and Cliona celata was invariably present. The only macroalgae recorded throughout the survey period was a single small specimen of Laminaria saccharina at 0.5m bcd. This was presumably due to the high turbidity, siltation and scour. The biomass of the characterising species was largely determined by the stability of the site. The greater the proportion of boulders and large cobbles, the greater the species richness and biomass. The more gravel, pebbles and small cobbles, the more impoverished the site. An unusual finding was several small patches of boulder clay at sites which contained the piddock, Barnea candida (MCR.Pid). This is a nationally scarce biotope. The discharge area and the sublittoral construction area was a mixture of scour and silt tolerant species, ephemeral species and a few stable substratum species on the larger and more consolidated cobbles and boulders. It is highly likely that a significant proportion of the fauna either dies back or is scoured clean during winter storms. Littoral The infauna of the littoral construction area, although species poor and low in biomass, showed a zonation from the sublittoral fringe to the upper shore. The lower-shore comprised a burrowing amphipod and polychaete community dominated by Nephtys cirrosa, Magelona mirabilis and k:\projects\wx40004-fleetwood solution mining\a-correspondence\0058-wx40004-nhl-01-summary of conference call.docx Page 6

183 Habitat/Species Type of Survey Study Area Date(s) Undertaken Summary of Findings Outcome of Conference Call held on 24 January 2011 at 10.30am Arenicola marina (LGS.AP.P). The amphipods, Bathyporeia pelagica and Pontocrates altamarinus were typically present but in very low numbers. The mid-shore and upper mid-shore supported an impoverished, low biomass fauna of polychaete worms, mainly Nephtys cirrosa and Scolelepis squamata. The isopod, Eurydice pulchra was typically present, but in very low numbers. Nephtys cirrosa declined in numbers from the lower-shore to the mid-shore, while Scolelepis squamata increased in numbers. Molluscs were characteristically absent from the community. Beneath the sea wall a mobile, well drained mixed substrata supported no visible life (LGS.BarSnd). Fish & Fisheries The large range of habitats and sediment types in the Irish Sea support a diverse ichthyofauna, including many commercially important species. As a result, the survey area contains numerous fish species and fish nursery grounds. Marine Mammals Common and grey seals, bottlenose dolphins and harbour porpoises are present in small numbers in the Irish Sea Ditches RSPB, National Rivers Authority & RSNC (2001) Wyre Estuary and Preesall to Nateby study area 8 9 September June 2009 The survey was undertaken within the NTS Pipeline corridor only. The majority of ditches contained very shallow, often eutrophic water, choked with tall ruderal species such as stinging nettle, creeping thistle with various tall terrestrial grasses such as Cock s Foot Dactylis glomerata and False Oat-grass Arrhenatherum elatius indicative of increased nutrient levels. However, two of the ditches had a slightly increased diversity with aquatic plants present such as Watercress Rorippa nasturtium-aquaticum, Water Plantain Plantago aquaticum, Skullcap Scutelleria galericulata and Wild Angelica Angelica sylvestris. All ditches supported a low species number, with many of the ditches being over-managed. The survey was undertaken within the NTS Pipeline corridor only. Many of the ditches were generally species-poor, some being dry at the time of survey. Bankside vegetation, where recorded, was generally dominated by tall grasses such as Cock s Foot, False Oat-grass, Meadow Foxtail, Creeping Bent and Yorkshire-fog. Herbaceous species, where recorded, generally comprised Cleavers, Common Nettle, Creeping Thistle, Broad-leaved Dock and Bramble. Common Ramping-fumitory was recorded in one ditch. Aquatic vegetation was generally sparse within a majority of the ditches surveyed. DH stated that the pipeline would be directionally drilled under any watercourses / ditches. AW no requirement to update survey if directionally drilling. However, if water voles are recorded in ditches the point at which directional drilling commences may have to be further back from ditch. NO REQUIREMENT TO UNDERTAKE UPDATE SURVEY BEFORE SUBMISSION OF APPLICATION Bats Standard Wyre Estuary and Preesall to Nateby study area August September 2004 The survey was undertaken within the NTS Pipeline corridor only. The walkover survey identified one tree as offering potential to support roosting bats. The survey was undertaken within the NTS Pipeline corridor only. The emergence / re-entry surveys did not record any bat activity around the one tree identified as offering potential to support roosting bats. No signs of roosting bats were found during the endoscopic examination. JJ demonstrate in the Phase 1 that no suitable roosts sites would be affected. If suitable features identified and likely to be affected surveys should be undertaken in advance of the application. 5 7 May 2009 The survey was undertaken within the NTS Pipeline corridor only. A number of trees were noted as offering potential to support roosting bats. However, none of the trees identified would require felling during the construction phase, and therefore no further emergence / re-entry surveys were undertaken. WALKOVER SURVEY TO INFORM REQUIREMENT TO UNDERTAKE UPDATE SURVEY BEFORE SUBMISSION OF APPLICATION k:\projects\wx40004-fleetwood solution mining\a-correspondence\0058-wx40004-nhl-01-summary of conference call.docx Page 7

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

192 Consultation on Proposed Application to the IPC for a Development Consent Order to construct and operate an Underground Natural Gas Facility at Preesall, Lancashire for Halite Energy Note of Teleconference held 23 rd June pm 4pm Present: Natural England: Janet Belfield, Peter Close, Mike Young Hyder Consulting: David Hoare, Andy Saunders Mott McDonald: Nick Haynes Purpose: Teleconference called to enable Hyder to share Halite s plans with Natural England, particularly for Janet Belfield s benefit who is the new NE lead for the case. Agenda: History Overview of current project Recap of previous meetings Licensing HRA IEEM Marine EcIA Guidelines History 1880 s to 1990 s salt extraction existed in the locality. Approx 110 disused former salt wells, and a salt mine are found to the east of the application site. ICI former operator. Mine closed in 1930 s due to water ingress. Long site history, schemes previously much larger and developer Canatxx, developer now Halite Energy. Halite Energy have taken over from Canatxx Schemes been to planning before: 1 to PI in 2005, 1 to Lancs CC who recommended refusal in Jan Main issues around lack of information on geology and risk; & landscape concerns (including future collapse of caverns). 1 to Wyre BC for the NTS Interconnector Pipeline only. Never determined, but minded to approve subject to satisfactory traffic data. Current proposal / Meeting recap Smaller scheme (50%) with significantly more geological and risk assessment/safety information as this was lacking in the earlier proposals; and public consultation now closed. Halite own approx 600 acres, including site and surrounding land. Part of site is a RIGS for its drumlin landscape, see Preliminary Environmental Information report Vol 2b, fig 7.1. British Geological Survey have provided data, and have prepared some 3D modelling of the salt layer, m below the surface, and m thick. Thickening from east to west. 7 wellheads will serve 19 caverns, pipes to caverns drilled at range of angles, see Preliminary Environmental Information report (Vol 2a, fig 2.3). Project has 40 year lifespan, at end of life, filled with saline, plugged and monitored. 12km of pipeline from cavern sites to gas pipeline at Nateby. Construction estimated to take 6 9 months to complete, working in 500 metre sections and working west to east. Working width 36 37m. Route

193 crosses Pilling Moss (BHS). Raises issues around use of land by wintering birds, breeding ground nesting birds, so timing is crucial. Soil handling better done in drier months, but again needs to fit in with bird issue. MY raised issue of need for survey work on bird issues. Hedgerow crossings limited to 10m width, ditch crossings undertaken by drilling underneath. Wider enhancement offered too predominantly through an Ecological and Landscape Management Plan for the Gas Storage site, check previous engagement by Pin Dillon-Downey (PDD) (NE) and Tim Melling (RSPB). Separate consultation needed for this. Environmental Statements. Hyder need to agree the ES assessment methodology with consultees, and will consult with NE separately. IPC require Hyder to produce Statements of Common Ground, again will consult us separately. IPC require Hyder to produce summaries of where there is still conflict and no agreement, again will consult us separately. Hyder explained that there were issues of landowners not allowing access to parts of the application site and surrounding land for survey purposes, making taking matters forward awkward and there was a need to take a precautionary approach in those areas. Licensing & Consents EPS Licensing Hyder explained that the IPC wanted the promoters to seek any other consents and licenses from the relevant licensing bodies before submission. E.g. EPS Licenses. DH has spoken with Dylan Poole (NE) about NE s licensing requirements and a holding response would be welcomed. This can be done in exceptional circumstances, but it s unlikely that this scheme fits into such an exceptional circumstances. MY suggested DH us and we can take this matter up direct with Licensing. (See Section 4.12 of IPC s Scoping response DH to send through.) HRA Screening Numerous discussions held to date EN objected as the scheme included the SSSI. Scheme moved on now smaller and not include SSSI itself, although the site boundary includes some of it. Drilling under the Wyre will not affect the surface of the SSSI. A distance of approx 500m would be drilled under the River Wyre. The outfall pipe would discharge brine from the caverns 2.3km offshore. MY considered that the previous data on this issue was satisfactory in terms of modelling and reporting. Scheme now proposed half the caverns of the previous scheme, Would discharge at the same rate, but for half the time, DH confirmed that EA were satisfied with the brine discharge (discharge consent already obtained), The discharge modelling report was still fit for purpose in terms of dilution and temperatures, De-brining facility removes solids and vents any gases to the surface, MY questioned on removal of contaminants from the salt beds at this stage, DH would ensure that this has been addressed. Consensus is that now the scheme will not cause any LSE but will produce a Screening report to demonstrate that. IPC has an Advice Note (10) on HRA. HRA will now need to include Marine Sites, and MY has spoken with PDD concerning this on an earlier occasion. IEEM Marine EcIA Guidelines DH would discuss this directly with Mark Johnston Questions PC Confirmed that from his earlier engagement it was considered unlikely for the pipeline route to raise any significant effects on soils in terms of land quality. The footprint and permanent disturbance of land was small. Questioned whether the data on land quality was sourced from NE DH answered Yes. PC questioned the areas of land involved in the scheme: What is the overall site area?

194 What amount of land within that site would be disturbed? What is the footprint of permanent development on the site? What is the area of temporary compounds and disturbed land? After-use of the land? majority returned to farmed landscape. Commitment to restoration? DH signposted PC to Preliminary Environmental Information Report Vol 2a, fig The discharge consent outlines required contaminant levels within the brine solution that would outfall into the Irish Sea. Would the revised scheme be able to adhere to these prescribed contaminant levels?

195 From: Kim Wisdom Sent: 13 July :12 To: David Hoare Cc: Andrew Saunders Subject: RE: Preesall Underground Gas Storage Facility - Ecology and Nature Conservation Assessment Methodology Hi David Thanks for your message. Unlikely I can respond by the end of the week, as I have deadlines today and then I'm not in until Monday. Please find below my brief comments on the PEI report: Dear Mr Budinger Thank you for consulting the Wildlife Trust in connection with this application. Having studied the information supplied as it relates to biodiversity interests, I have the following two brief comments to offer at this stage: 1. To comment fully on any likely biodiversity impacts arising from this proposal, we await the full Environmental Statement containing the additional information agreed during the conference call of 24th January 2011 and subsequent correspondence with Hyder Consulting (UK) and fellow environmental consultees (Lancashire County Council, RSPB, Natural England, Environment Agency. Section 6.8 (page ) refers. 2. The in-combination/cumulative effect with other known major developments (proposed Wyre Power Station and Cuadrilla Shale Gas Exploration - should it proceed to commercial production) will be an important consideration. We await the next stage in the IPC process. I may not have anything further to add but I feel that I should at least check. Kind regards Kim Kim Wisdom Conservation Officer for North Lancashire (Blackpool, Fylde, Lancaster and Wyre districts) The Wildlife Trust for Lancashire, Manchester and North Merseyside Direct line/voic Direct kwisdom@lancswt.org.uk Available: Monday to Wednesday

196 -----Original Message----- From: David Hoare Sent: 13 July :14 To: Kim Wisdom Cc: Andrew Saunders Subject: Preesall Underground Gas Storage Facility - Ecology and Nature Conservation Assessment Methodology Page 1 of 3 file://c:\users\swa49724\appdata\local\microsoft\windows\temporary Internet Fil... 23/11/2011 [Disk Folder K:\projects\WX40004-Fleetwood Solution Mining\M-Mail] [Filed :13:57] Hi Kim Responses received to the Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report require us to consult with yourselves on the proposed assessment methodology for the Ecology and Nature Conservation chapter of the Environmental Statement. The proposed methodology for the Ecology and Nature Conservation assessment is outlined in the Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report and in the Preliminary Environmental Information Report, which you should have copies of. The assessment methodology proposed for the terrestrial element follows the IEEM EcIA Guidelines. We are proposing to follow the IEEM Marine EcIA Guidelines for the marine assessment. Could you review the proposed methodology outlined in these two documents and respond to me with any comments please? Due to the tight programme deadlines, we are keen to gain agreement on the proposed methodology as soon as possible. Therefore, if you could respond by the end of this week, that would be much appreciated. We already have a copy of your response to the Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report (we are awaiting your response to the Preliminary Environmental Information Report). If you feel that there is nothing more to add to these responses in terms of comments on the proposed assessment methodology and your are happy with our proposed approach, then please respond to that effect. Many thanks David David Hoare Principal Consultant - Environment Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Firecrest Court, Centre Park, Warrington, WA1 1RG Direct Dial Tel: +44 (0) Reception Tel: +44 (0) Mob: +44 (0) Fax: +44 (0) Hyder is an international advisory and design consultancy Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this ? ********************************************************************************* This message contains information which is confidential and may also be privileged. It is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient(s) please note that any form of distribution, copying or use of this communication or the information in it is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error please return it to the sender and then delete the and destroy any copies of it. Thank you. Hyder Consulting cannot guarantee that this message or any attachment is virus-free or has not been intercepted or changed.

197 From: Belfield, Janet (NE) Sent: 15 July :18 To: David Hoare Cc: Robert Kitch; Andrew Saunders; Johnston, Mark (NE) Subject: RE: Preesall Underground Gas Storage Facility - Methodologies for Ecology and Nature Conservation; and Seascape, Landscape, Townscape and Visual Amenity Assessment Planning consultation: Halite Energy's Underground Gas Storage at Preesall Saltfield, Lancashire Assessment Methodologies Natural England is a non-departmental public body. Our statutory purpose is to ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development. Thank you for your dated 13 July 2011, concerning the methodologies for the Ecology and Nature Conservation; and the Seascape, landscape, Townscape and Visual Amenity Chapters of the Environmental report. Mark Johnston and I have reviewed the methodologies stated in the Preliminary Environmental report and have the following comments to make. 1 General Principles We would expect the final Environmental Statement (ES) to include all necessary information as outlined in Schedule 4 of the Town & Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 1999, specifically: A description of the development including physical characteristics and the full land use requirements of the site during construction and operational phases. Expected residues and emissions (water, air and soil pollution, noise, vibration, light, heat, radiation, etc.) resulting from the operation of the proposed development. An assessment of alternatives and clear reasoning as to why the preferred option has been chosen. A description of the aspects of the environment likely to be significantly affected by the development, including, in particular, population, fauna, flora, soil, water, air, climatic factors, material assets, including the architectural and archaeological heritage, landscape and the interrelationship between the above factors. A description of the likely significant effects of the development on the environment this should cover direct effects but also any indirect, secondary, cumulative, short, medium and long term, permanent and temporary, positive and negative effects. Effects should relate to the existence of the development, the use of natural resources and the emissions from pollutants. This should also include a description of the forecasting methods to predict the likely effects on the environment A description of the measures envisaged to prevent, reduce and where possible offset any significant adverse effects on the environment. A non-technical summary of the information. An indication of any difficulties (technical deficiencies or lack of know-how) encountered by the applicant in compiling the required information. It will be important for any assessment to consider the potential cumulative effects of this proposal, including all supporting infrastructure, with other similar proposals and a thorough assessment of the in combination effects of the proposed development with any existing developments and new applications. A full consideration of the implications of the whole scheme should be included in the ES. 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

198 Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) have been developed by the Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (IEEM) 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. EcIA should include the following stages: scoping, involving consultation to ensure the widest possible input to all following stages (in practice this is iterative throughout the EcIA process); identification of the likely zone of influence arising from the proposals; identification and evaluation of ecological resources and features likely to be affected. The IEEM guidance on Survey Methodology states that the importance of primary data collection in all survey work cannot be over-emphasised. Without good survey data the quality of an ecological assessment and any mitigation or compensation proposals will be compromised... the need to report in an unbiased, clear and detailed manner is required by the Code of Professional Conduct. This IEEM guidance also makes reference to other key survey methodologies and standards, including key Natural England guidance available from our website; identification of the biophysical changes likely to affect valued ecological resources and features; assessment of whether these biophysical changes will give rise to a significant ecological impact, defined as an impact on the integrity of the defined site or ecosystem(s) and/or the conservation status of habitats or species, including cumulative impacts; refinement of proposals to incorporate ecological enhancement measures and to avoid negative ecological impacts, reduce any impacts that cannot be avoided; and compensate for any significant adverse impacts that remain. Measures identified to address this should be agreed with the developer to facilitate their inclusion within the scheme at an early stage. They would then become part of the proposals and subject to detailed assessment. An options list of proposed mitigation at the end of an EcIA is of very little value as it requires the competent authority to enter into discussion with the proponent to agree what will be implemented. An EcIA is effectively meaningless if it provides an assessment of the significance of the residual impacts of a scheme based on the proposed mitigation measures being implemented even though these measures have not been agreed by the developer; provision of advice on the consequences for decision making of the significant ecological impacts, based on the value of the affected resource or feature; and provision for monitoring and following up the implementation and success of mitigation measures and ecological outcomes. We are pleased to see that the assessment methodology proposed for the Ecology and Nature Conservation Chapter for the terrestrial element follows the IEEM EcIA Guidelines; and that you are proposing to follow the IEEM Marine EcIA Guidelines for the marine assessment; and we find such methodologies satisfactory. Any baseline information shall contain up to date survey data in order for a thorough assessment of the proposal to be made. Key Principle (vi) of PPS9 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation, begins The aim of planning decisions should be to prevent harm to biodiversity and geological conservation interests and the Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) Five Point Approach to Planning Decisions for Biodiversity (which are summarised within the joint Communities & Local Government, Defra and English Nature companion guide to PPS9, entitled Planning for Biodiversity and Geological Conservation: A Guide to Good Practice) are both relevant. The ES should aim to address these principles to assist the IPC in identifying whether they have been met by the proposals within the application for a development consent order. 2.2 Internationally and Nationally Designated Sites The ES should thoroughly assess the impact of the proposals on designated sites, including Special Areas of Conservation (SAC), Special Protection Areas (SPA), Ramsar sites and Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). Should a Likely Significant Effect on a European/Internationally designated site be identified, the competent authority (in this case the Local Planning Authority) may need to prepare an Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation of Habitats and Species

199 Regulations 2010 (the full process being termed Habitats Regulations Assessment), in addition to consideration of impacts through the EIA process. Statutory site locations can be found at Further information concerning particular statutory sites can be found on the Natural England website. 2.3 Protected Species The ES should assess the impact of all phases of the proposal on protected 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. Natural England has adopted standing advice for protected species. It provides a consistent level of basic advice which can be applied to any planning application that could affect protected species. It also includes links to guidance on survey and mitigation. Bat surveys should conform to our current guidance TIN051 - Bats and onshore wind turbines (interim guidance). You may also wish to refer to the consultation draft from the Bat Conservation Trust on surveying wind farms Bat Surveys Good Practice Guidelines 2nd Edition - Surveying for onshore windfarms. Breeding bird surveys should conform to Natural England guidance TIN069 Assessing the effects of onshore wind farms on birds. 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. 2.4 Regionally and Locally Important Sites The ES should thoroughly assess the impact of the proposals on non-statutory sites, for example Local Wildlife Sites (LoWS), Local Nature Reserves (LNR) and Regionally Important Geological and Geomorphological Sites (RIGS). Natural England does not hold comprehensive information on these sites. We therefore advise that the appropriate local biological record centres, nature conservation organisations, Local Planning Authority and local RIGS group should be contacted with respect to this matter. 2.5 Biodiversity Action Plan Habitats and Species The ES should thoroughly assess the impact of the proposals on habitats and/or species listed in the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP). These Priority Habitats and Species are listed as Habitats and Species of Principal Importance within the England Biodiversity List, recently published under the requirements of S14 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 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. PPS9 Paragraph 16 states Planning authorities should ensure that these species (Habitats and Species of Principal Importance identified in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 section 74 list) are protected from the adverse effects of development. Government Circular 06/2005 adds that 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.

200 3 Landscape, Access and Recreation The ES should address in an appropriately broad and detailed way any impacts on the landscape as well as access and recreation assets. This assessment should include thorough consideration of any impacts on National Parks, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), Heritage Coasts and National Trails. 3.1 Landscape and Visual Impacts (including Seascape and Townscape) Natural England expects the methodology of consideration of landscape impacts to reflect the approach set out in the Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (The Landscape Institute, 2002), the Landscape Character Assessment Guidance for England and Scotland (Scottish Natural Heritage and The Countryside Agency, 2002) and good practice. The assessment should also include the cumulative effect of the development with other relevant existing or proposed developments in the area. In this context Natural England would expect the cumulative impact assessment to include those proposals currently at Scoping stage. Due to the overlapping timescale of their progress through the planning system, cumulative impact of the proposed development with those proposals currently at Scoping stage would be likely to be a material consideration at the time of determination of the development consent order. We are pleased to see that the report refers to preparation of the ES in accordance with the above Guidance. We are also pleased that the ZVI has been extended to include a viewpoint within the Forest of Bowland AONB. The assessment should refer to the relevant National Characters Areas which can be found on our website. Links for Landscape Character Assessment at a local level are also available on the same page. 3.2 Access and Recreation The ES should include a thorough assessment of the development s effects upon public rights of way and access to the countryside and its enjoyment through recreation. With this in mind and in addition to consideration of public rights of way, the landscape and visual effects on Open Access land, whether direct or indirect, should be included in the ES. Natural England would also expect to see consideration of opportunities for improved or new public access provision on the site, to include linking existing public rights of way and/or providing new circular routes and interpretation. We also recommend reference to relevant Right of Way Improvement Plans (ROWIP) to identify public rights of way within or adjacent to the proposed site that should be maintained or enhanced. 4 Land use and soils Impacts from the development should be considered in light of the Government's policy for the protection of the best and most versatile (BMV) agricultural land. Whilst we appreciate that the majority of Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 7 has been superseded by PPS4, paragraphs 28 and 29 have been saved and therefore are relevant when considering the protection of BMV agricultural land. We also recommend that soils should be considered under a more general heading of sustainable use of land. The emphasis is now placed on the importance of soils as a natural resource, as enshrined in a number of important documents including the Soil Strategy for England, a successor to the First Soil Action Plan for England This outlines the Government s approach to safeguarding our soils for the future. It provides a clear vision to guide long term policy development across a range of areas and sets out the practical steps that we will need to take to protect the full range of functions (ecosystem services) that soils provide. Soil performs many vital functions, so their wise use and management is essential to sustainable development. Development of buildings and infrastructure prevents alternative uses for those soils that are permanently covered, and also often results in degradation of soils around the development as result of construction activities. This affects their functionality as wildlife habitat, and reduces their ability to support landscape works and green infrastructure. Sealing and compaction can also contribute to increased surface run-off, ponding of water and localised erosion, flooding and pollution. Defra published a Code of Practice for the sustainable use of soils on construction sites

201 (2009). The purpose of the Code of Practice is to provide a practical guide to assist anyone involved in the construction industry to protect the soil resources with which they work. I trust the above is satisfactory confirmation for you, but should you have any questions do not hesitate to contact me. Yours sincerely, Janet Belfield Janet Belfield Lead Adviser Local Land Use Team - Crewe Natural England 3rd Floor, Bridgewater House, Whitworth Street, Manchester, M1 6LT Tel Mob: We are here to secure a healthy natural environment for people to enjoy, where wildlife is protected and England s traditional landscapes are safeguarded for future generations. Please note that as of 1st April 2011 we changed the way we deal with consultations and all consultations should be sent to consultations@naturalengland.org.uk In an effort to reduce Natural England's carbon footprint, I will, wherever possible, avoid travelling to meetings and attend via audio, video or web conferencing. Teleconference or from mobile. My Pass Code is Webinar access web address

202 From: David Hoare Sent: 13 July :48 To: Belfield, Janet (NE) Cc: Robert Kitch; Andrew Saunders Subject: RE: Preesall Underground Gas Storage Facility - Seascape, Landscape, Townscape and Visual Amenity Assessment Methodology [Disk Folder K:\projects\WX40004-Fleetwood Solution Mining\M-Mail] [Filed :48:07] Hi Janet I should have added that we already have copies of your responses to the Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report and the Preliminary Environmental Information Report. If you feel that there is nothing more to add to these responses in terms of comments on the proposed assessment methodology, then please respond to that effect. Best wishes David David Hoare Principal Consultant - Environment Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Firecrest Court, Centre Park, Warrington, WA1 1RG Direct Dial Tel: +44 (0) Reception Tel: +44 (0) Mob: +44 (0) Fax: +44 (0) Hyder is an international advisory and design consultancy Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this ?

203 From: David Hoare Sent: 13 July :38 To: 'Belfield, Janet (NE)' Cc: Robert Kitch; Andrew Saunders Subject: Preesall Underground Gas Storage Facility - Seascape, Landscape, Townscape and Visual Amenity Assessment Methodology [Disk Folder K:\projects\WX40004-Fleetwood Solution Mining\M-Mail] [Filed :38:18] Hi Janet One of the responses to the Scoping Report requires us to consult with yourselves on the proposed assessment methodology for Seascape, Landscape, Townscape and Visual Amenity. We did start discussing this with Ruth Benson before she left, but didn t really get to a conclusion. The proposed methodology for the Seascape, Landscape, Townscape and Visual Amenity assessment is outlined in the Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report and in the Preliminary Environmental Information Report, which you should have copies of. Could you review the proposed methodology outlined in these two documents and respond to me with any comments please? Due to the tight programme deadlines, we are keen to gain agreement on the proposed methodology as soon as possible. Therefore, if you could respond by the end of this week, that would be much appreciated. Many thanks David David Hoare Principal Consultant - Environment Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Firecrest Court, Centre Park, Warrington, WA1 1RG Direct Dial Tel: +44 (0) Reception Tel: +44 (0) Mob: +44 (0) Fax: +44 (0) Hyder is an international advisory and design consultancy Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this ? ********************************************************************************* This message contains information which is confidential and may also be privileged. It is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient(s) please note that any form of distribution, copying or use of this communication or the information in it is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error please return it to the sender and then delete the and destroy any copies of it. Thank you. Hyder Consulting cannot guarantee that this message or any attachment is virus-free or has not been intercepted or changed. Any opinions or other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of the Company are neither given nor endorsed by it. ********************************************************************************* This and any attachments is intended for the named recipient only. If you have received it in error you have no authority to use, disclose, store or copy any of its contents and you should destroy it and inform the sender. Nothing in the amounts to a legal commitment on our part Unless confirmed by a signed communication. Whilst this and Associated attachments will have been checked for known viruses whilst within the Natural England systems, we can accept no responsibility once it has left our systems. Communications on Natural England systems may be monitored and/or recorded to secure the effective operation of the system and for other lawful purposes.

204

205

206

207

208

209

210

211

212

213 Appendix 'A' Consultation by Halite Energy Limited on their proposals to create an underground gas storage facility, associated above and below ground infrastructure, interconnecting brine supply and discharge pipe work and gas interconnection to the national transmission line, Preesall, Wyre. The County Council is a consultee on the proposals by Halite Energy. The County Council does not have the benefit of advice from other bodies and organisations in the same way as it does when determining planning applications. It therefore relies on other bodies and organisations to comment on specialist areas such as marine conservation, impact on water bodies, water abstraction and health and safety as part of the consultation process. The County Council is of the view that the applicant's Preliminary Environmental Information Report and supporting documentation seeks to address the concerns of the Secretary of State set out in her decision to refuse the appeal on the previous planning application and application for Hazardous Substance Consent and those views expressed by the County Council at the time. The applicant's Preliminary Environmental Information Report and supporting information also seeks to address those matters set out in the Scoping Opinion set out by the Infrastructure Planning Commission and the views expressed by the County Council as part of the IPC consultation process. The County Council is of the view that it is for the applicant to properly assess the environmental impacts of the development and in light of the views set out in the appendix to this report and in light of comments made by other organisations and bodies. The County Council has drawn on specialist advice in respect of geology, ecology, landscape, archaeology and transport issues and with regard to the views it expressed to the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) on the Scoping Opinion and to the Scoping Opinion provided by the IPC. Throughout the previous planning application process, specialist consultants were appointed to advise on geological and hydro geological matters. The consultants have been retained for the purposes of the IPC process. The proposals have been assessed in respect of these issues and comments provided along with further general comments and other matters referred to on the proposal as follows. The comments should not be interpreted as the County Councils views on the proposal, only those issues it considers Halite Energy Group should take into account in preparing their submission for a Development Order Consent to the Infrastructure Planning Commission. 1

214 Main Issues Geology Both the Secretary of State and County Council considered that the geological assessments that had been submitted with past planning applications were incomplete. The Technical Assessor to the Inquiry was of the view that at least two more seismic survey lines and the drilling of and geophysical logging of boreholes along the survey lines be undertaken. Following a review of the geological information and a critical review of the previous planning submissions and further geological assessments 'hazard exclusion zones' have been identified outside of which, based on available data, the risks of cavern construction were considered too high. Two polygonal areas have been identified outside the buffer area in the northern part of the site where it is proposed to develop the caverns. The proposed areas are significantly smaller than the area within which caverns were proposed in previous applications resulting in fewer caverns and a slightly smaller gas storage capacity. All wellheads and associated above ground infrastructure would be located on the east side of the Wyre estuary. A review of the following documents has been carried out: Geological Summary Report (GSR) March 2011 (Mott MacDonald) (Erroneously dated March 2010) Preliminary Risk Assessment March 2011 (Mott MacDonald) Reports on pulse tests and gas injection tests March 2011 (Golder) Drilling Report March 2011 (Baker Hughes) Pipeline Subsidence Assessment Report March 2011 (Mott MacDonald) Preliminary Environmental Information Report March 2011 (Hyder) The GSR includes a number of items of new and revised information not included in earlier versions of the report, as follows: Methods and results of mechanical tests on salt and interbedded mudstones, with cross-referencing to the Golder reports (page 26) Thermal properties of the salt and overburden (page 28) Confirmation of the extent of the Preesall mine (page 30) Constraints on the position of the Burn Naze Fault (page 35) Additional hydro geological information and discussion of wet rockhead (page 38) A relative safety index in relation to potential gas migration pathways, with cross-referencing to the risk assessment report (page 46) Potential subsidence contours based on the current indicative cavern layout (page 51) Volumetric analysis of the indicative cavern layout 2

215 In general terms it is concluded that the new information strengthens the conclusions drawn in earlier versions of the GSR as regards the practical achievability of accommodating caverns in the Preesall Halite and that the developer has demonstrated that the previous concerns expressed by the County Council and the Secretary of State could not be sustainably maintained. Nevertheless it is considered that there is still a need to address certain matters and which are set out under the following headings rather than in respect of individual reports: Wet rockhead On the basis of the hydro geological analysis in an earlier version of the GSR, it is now considered that wet rockhead is not a major issue for the area within which caverns are proposed. The current version contains new information and argument which appears to overplay the issue and which will be discussed further with HEGL, but it is not considered that wet rockhead will extend into the development area. Hazard exclusion zones and cavern locations The description of the hazard exclusion zones in the GSR around the old salt caverns (page 32) states: The hazard zones are applied to the centre of the existing cavern or exploratory hole (italics added). Since the distance between the walls of adjacent caverns is an important factor in hazard avoidance it is considered that the exclusion zones should be measured from the cavern walls. Reference is made on page 33 of the GSR to the drilling of BW130 and the supposed incident of drill rods dropping at the top of the salt, suggested a cavity. Information provided by the drilling company rebuts the statement of the drill-hand and it is unlikely that the facts of this matter can now be resolved with certainty. However, an appropriate exclusion zone is proposed for this well and, during the drilling of cavern development wells, measures should be adopted to confirm the integrity of the salt/mudstone interface at specific cavern locations (see Drilling procedures below). In other respects the exclusion zones appear satisfactory. Subsidence On page 34 of the GSR there is a reference to the possible impact of suspect former brine wells on sub-surface infrastructure (specifically the connection pipeline to the NTS) in the brine-field area, and this is the subject of a stand-alone report the Pipeline Subsidence Assessment Report. That report provides an assessment of, inter alia, the potential future subsidence related to Preesall Mine and brine wells BW44 and BW50 and the impact on the pipeline route passing between them. It is noted (page 30) that there is a pinch-point of about 80m width between the mine and the brine wells where settlement of up to 50mm could occur over a length of 30m of the pipeline. It is implied (though not stated) that this is an acceptable amount of settlement and which may be found acceptable subject to the comments on monitoring and maintenance referred to below. Surface, subsurface and brine-well settlement monitoring measures are proposed, and possible mitigation measures are 3

216 identified for consideration as necessary. These include induced collapsing or infilling of BW44 and BW50 and protective piling adjacent to the wells or the pipeline. Geomechanics A number of items are missing from Tables 4.4 (gas threshold pressure testing) and 4.5 (rock testing) of the GSR (which are also reproduced as Tables 3.3a and 3.3b in the Pipeline Subsidence Assessment Report); these should be included in future versions of the report. In Appendix 3 of the Drilling Report (Drilling Fluids), section 2.3.5, second paragraph, the fracture pressure is defined as the pressure that breaks down the rock matrix and forms fractures. However, in the accompanying Figure 2-1 the Frac gradient does not correspond to the breakdown pressure data that have been specified in Table 4.4 of the GSR. Otherwise it is considered that the geomechanical data included in the various reports provides a comprehensive basis for the overall assessment of the proposals. Construction procedures The Preliminary Risk Assessment (PRA) by Mott MacDonald includes a more detailed overview of the project than other documents previously produced; the project description has been reviewed as it relates to the formation and operation of the storage caverns. During cavern washing a nitrogen gas blanket would be used to prevent overwashing of the cavern roof (page 20). The gas/brine interface would be monitored by recording the well-head nitrogen pressure. The volume of cavern space created each day would be calculated from the brine volume and specific gravity, and by checking volume against depth it will be possible to ensure that the planned cavern diameter is not exceeded. Sonar surveys would be carried out intermittently for confirmation of the cavern volume and shape. This addresses queries that have been raised by the County Council about the control of cavern size. The Schedule on pages of the PRA shows all surface infrastructure being completed prior to the drilling of any wells. Whilst it is clear that substantial surface infrastructure must be installed before cavern washing (to allow for the provision of seawater and the disposal of brine), it is questioned whether at least some of the wells could be drilled before the infrastructure is developed, for the purpose of demonstrating such matters as the success of the drilling technology (especially for the slant wells) and the integrity of the salt/mudstone interface. On a regulatory matter, it is noted that the disposal of drilling wastes is intended to be in existing caverns 118 to 123 (PRA page 31), but there is no mention of the necessity for an environmental permit (waste management licence) to cover this activity in the section on regulatory requirements (page 38) or on the linked HSE web page. 4

217 Drilling procedures Further details of the proposed drilling procedures are given in the Baker Hughes Drilling Report. In relation to previous concerns that the curvature of the slant wells would prevent coring of the salt/mudstone interface, it is noted that possible procedures for core recovery are now suggested in the Drilling Report (page 20). Baker Hughes suggests either the use of a wireline-conveyed coring device or the drilling of a straight section at the interface to allow coring. It is considered that either of these would be acceptable. Several precautions for minimising casing wear are now specified in Appendix 4 of the Drilling Report (Casing Design and Installation) and which are considered acceptable. According to the Executive Summary of this appendix, manufacturers have confirmed the sealing integrity of casing connections (couplings) in curvatures exceeding 10º / 30m (the maximum proposed for Preesall installations is less than 6º / 30m). However, connections have not been tested for combined bending and rotation through such curvatures. Baker Hughes recommends that such testing be carried out if screw connections are to be used, but it is understood that HEGL now propose to use welded connections which will have similar integrity to the rest of the casing. Risk assessment The Preliminary Risk Assessment is an attempt to quantify the surface and subsurface risks associated with the development. The sub-surface risk assessment has been reviewed. The assessment is essentially in two parts, namely a literature review and specific analysis of the Preesall conditions. The literature review focuses on published HSE documents and in broad terms the generic assessments in those reports, which are based to a large extent on failure rates worldwide, are accepted. It is questionable whether some of the averages quoted from the HSE reports are relevant to specific situations and the conclusion on page 46 that the failure rate for pipe systems is similar to the rate for geological cavern failures is probably incorrect, since the latter are almost unknown. However, the PRA rightly points out on page 48 that the risk assessment of the Preesall proposal needs to be more specific than the generic approach of the HSE documents. The source-pathway-receptor approach adopted in the PRA is accepted, together with the qualitative assessment of the likely sources (points from which gas might escape), gas migration pathways and potential receptors. The identified pathways do not include near-surface man-made features such as utility runs (pipe bedding materials can provide pathways more-or-less directly into properties), or overpressured, fractured rock, although more permeable beds are included (page 49). The near-surface pathways are less significant than the deeper migration pathways but further assessments should include them. The appendices setting out the risk calculations include pathway P9, which is not listed or defined in the text, but from the context it is assumed it refers to Sherwood Sandstone to the west of the Burn Naze Fault. 5

218 A main concern relates to the attempt to quantify the pathways, and specifically to the numerical values applied to some of the factors. Many of the assumptions used in the risk calculations are such that some quite feasible variations in the figures used would completely alter the relative importance of the different scenarios considered. It is therefore difficult to see what the comparative analysis achieves. Moreover, the absolute likelihood of any of the scenarios being accurately represented in numerical terms is extremely low. It is questioned whether the calculations provided in the PRA can be considered realistic, and therefore whether they have any practical value. Nevertheless, it is the numerics rather than the overall assessment of risk that is questioned. On a qualitative basis, and principally because of the use of hazard exclusion zones, it is considered that the current proposals incur negligible risk of fatality, injury or significant property damage. The review of risk failures should ensure that the number and extent of recorded loss of gas incidents are comprehensively reported. Monitoring and Maintenance Recently there has been a serious rupture of well head 45. Concerns have previously been expressed to the stability of the former brinefield and in particular the caverns in proximity to the proposed caverns and above and below ground infrastructure. There is historic evidence of unpredictable catastrophic failure of caverns in close proximity to the proposal. Details of the location of the existing caverns should be presented at a readable scale along with monitoring records of the former caverns, the current monitoring regime and results thereof to demonstrate the stability of the caverns, what risk they pose to the development proposal, what future monitoring regime will be employed and what amended design of the below and above ground infrastructure may be required and what mitigation measures and safeguards would need to be in place. Details of the extent of existing caverns should be projected to the surface and shown in cross section form in relevant directions or presented in a three dimensional visual model. This should also be demonstrated for the interconnecting pipe work to the gas transmission line and for the electricity supply given the known instability of the cavern and wellhead located to the north of Height O'th Hill Farm in close proximity to which the power supply cable is proposed to be aligned. It is essential to demonstrate consistency in submissions regarding the extent and duration of former mining activities for both the dry mine and the former caverns and how these relate to the proposed above and below ground infrastructure. Recently there have been recorded earthquakes in the area and into which investigations are being carried out to establish their cause and possible association with investigations for shale gas. Assessment should be made of the impacts such events may have on the integrity of the editing brine caverns and on the proposed above and below ground infrastructure. 6

219 Environmental impact The possible environmental effects of the development are considered in the Preliminary Environmental Information Report by Hyder. The sections relevant to geology and ground engineering have been reviewed and the geology of the area, potential risks, mitigation measures, residual risks and necessary further investigation works are considered to be satisfactorily described. The information in the report is consistent with that in the more detailed technical reports. An environmental issue arises from the Risk Assessment report in relation to possible groundwater pollution following decommissioning of the caverns (section , page 25). It is not clear whether the proposed sealing of the caverns is intended to be by permanently shutting the wellhead brine valve or by plugging the wells at depth. The proposed ICI approach to long-term maintenance is only applicable to the former case. In the latter case brine will eventually infiltrate into the rock surrounding each cavern; it will be necessary to estimate the thickness of the infiltration zone and to assess the potential risk of pollution of any nearby aquifer formations. Ecology matters A review of the documents has been carried out. Based on the information submitted to date, it appears that the ongoing ecological assessment is seeking to address the issues described in previous scoping comments. It will need to be ensured that the final environmental statement submitted with the planning application adequately addresses the requirements specified in previous scoping comments. It is stated within the consultation documents that the final proposals will include an ecological and landscape management plan. However, it is also made clear within the consultation documents that the ecological surveys and impact assessment are not complete. Until complete ecological survey data and a full impact assessment are provided, it is not possible to make adequate comments on the likely impacts of the proposed development or the adequacy of any avoidance, mitigation or compensation proposals. An appropriate area of land to be covered by the proposed ecological and landscape management plan, and the necessary content of the management plan cannot be adequately determined in the absence of a complete ecological survey and impact assessment. Based on the survey results to date, submitted with the consultation documents, it appears that there is potential for impacts on various sites, habitats, species and features of ecological value, for example, statutory designated sites, Biological Heritage Sites, species populations associated with these sites, statutorily protected species, species and habitats of principal importance (NERC Act, 2006), red data list species, locally or nationally rare or scarce species. In order to meet the policy requirements described within the County Council's comments on the scoping opinion, the location and design of the proposed development should be informed by a complete/comprehensive ecological survey 7

220 and impact assessment. It should be demonstrated that the proposed development has been located and designed to avoid ecological impacts. The proposals should include adequate mitigation and compensation proposals to fully offset all unavoidable ecological impacts and to deliver overall enhancement of ecological value. Mitigation proposals should be part of a Farm Conservation Plan on land within the applicants control to ensure the protection of any disturbed species and which would need to provide for long term financial management for the operational life of the site and any subsequent restoration. DEFRA Circular 01/2005 states that It is essential that the presence or otherwise of protected species, and the extent that they may be affected by the proposed development, is established before the planning permission is granted. Owing to potential impacts on European Protected species, the determining authority will need to have regard for the requirements of the Habitats Regulations 2010 in reaching a decision. Natural England should be consulted regarding potential impacts on statutory designated sites and associated species populations. The assessment methodology should be based on the IEEM EcIA Guidelines. To reduce the degree of subjectivity within the methodology, it is recommended that each habitat type that would be lost, damaged, re-established, enhanced, or brought into favourable management is quantified and clearly mapped to assist in demonstrating that all habitat losses are fully off-set and that overall gains in biodiversity and habitat value will be delivered. The County Council does not have the expertise to comment on the assessment methodology for marine habitats. Landscape matters A review of the work carried out to date by the applicant on determining the proposals likely landscape and visual impacts and the methodology used has been carried out. Interim Advice Note 135/10 Landscape and Visual Effects Assessment is being used to determine landscape and visual impacts. This document was developed primarily for use on highway schemes. Whilst it may not be inappropriate to use this document for landscape assessment work on this application an explanation of why the methodology in IAN135/10 was deemed suitable should be provided for clarity. Practice documents are/will be used by the applicant to inform the assessment of landscape and visual impacts. However, there is no reference to TOPIC PAPER 6: Techniques and Criteria for Judging Capacity and Sensitivity (available from Natural England). It is considered that the guidance in this document is crucial to this particular application and its use is recommended. It should be made clear whether the proposals would be visible from beyond the defined Zone of Visual Influence (ZVI) and what exactly the ZVI represents e.g. area where the development would be visible, area where the development would be a 8

221 dominant feature, area where significant landscape and visual impacts would occur, etc. Clarification is necessary as ZVI mapping usually depicts where a proposed feature(s) are visible in the landscape. It should be demonstrated whether the ZVI mapping is different from this. In paragraph Sources of desk study information; no reference has been made to the Historic Designed Landscapes of Lancashire Research Study, Phase 1, November 1998, (English Heritage and Lancashire County Council). This omission also occurred on previous applications for underground gas storage in this area. The document should be used to provide baseline information and provide a basis for assessing the likely impacts of the proposals on the setting and character of historic designed landscapes. Assessment of likely impacts in a landscape context is of equal importance to considerations of impacts in an archaeological or cultural heritage context. The final ES will need a much expanded assessment of the likely landscape and visual impacts of the proposals against the key tests of landscape planning policy. Section 10 SEASCAPE, LANDSCAPE, TOWNSCAPE AND VISUAL AMENITY of Volume 1: Preliminary Environmental Information Report makes no reference to the national planning policy context. In addition the principal test of RSS Policy EM1, no net loss of resources, is not referred to. Section 10 also makes no reference to the finding of Natural England's regional landscape character assessment. An explanation of this omission should be provided. It is usual for local landscape character assessment to be informed by all known character assessments for the area where the application site is. The CPRE Intrusion Map North West has been used when considering the site and wider landscape's landscape tranquillity. However the finer grain mapping of this resource also produced by CPRE is not referred to. It is recommended that both forms of data are used in the assessment process. Where Potential Significant Effects have been identified by the applicant, at this stage, any judgements on their validity be delayed until landscape sensitivity and capacity have been adequately assessed. To assist with determining landscape and visual impacts the applicant has created new landscape character areas and to which the County Council has the following reservations: The absence of formal consultation on the findings of the landscape character assessment reduces its value. The character areas do not appear to dovetail well with the existing, published landscape character assessment undertaken by Lancashire County Council. No descriptions of the new landscape character areas and their key environmental features have been provided. It is not clear what methodology was used to classify and map the character areas and their boundaries. 9

222 No explanation has been provided on why the County Council's landscape character assessment was deemed to be unsuitable for the applicant's assessment of landscape and visual impacts. A more robust approach would be to identify finer grained localised landscape character areas that nest within the landscape character types/areas classified/described and mapped by LCC. Although smaller than the Canatxx proposals the proposal still contains a similar scale of development in similar locations within the Wyre Estuary and Preesall to Nateby Study Area. Whilst it is recognised that the design and scale of some of the above ground infrastructure has changed and some of the proposed designs are more sensitive than previous, on the east side of the Wyre Estuary they would still represent a significant visual intrusion in open countryside. In particular, concern is expressed to the scale of the well heads and what justification there is for the size of such during and on completion of drilling operations; to the proposed compressor station that would introduce a significant alien industrial presence into open countryside notwithstanding the limited mitigation that is proposed; the layout and location of well heads in relation to the residential property, recreational facilities including the private golf course and public rights of way and their relationship to the surrounding topography; the inappropriate design of the proposed metering station as part of the interconnection to the national transmission line; and to the proposed security measures to be employed around the facilities and access roads. The County Council is concerned that the impacts of the above ground development associated with the current proposal are greater than those associated with similar previous proposals on the site and which were found unacceptable to the Secretary of State and the County Council. The proposal must demonstrate that there are no alternatives available which would enable the majority of the above ground development being less visually intrusive and in the event there are no alternatives, ensure that the visual impact of such in terms of the above ground infrastructure including the well heads, interconnecting roadways, pumping station and compressor station is minimised in a way that would reduce the visual impact in the area and particularly when seen from the Wyre Way. Details of any enhanced mitigation should be provided along with details of means of construction and origin of materials. With regard to the development proposals on the Fleetwood peninsula, there should be further consideration of the design of the above ground pumping station at Fleetwood dock to reflect and have regard to the emerging residential, marine / leisure environment that is being developed. The need for the land footprint proposed has not been demonstrated; the size of the land footprint should be the minimum required to facilitate the development and be appropriately landscaped. Advice has previously been provided that there is a potential conflict with the routeing of the proposed discharge pipeline with the bridleway that is to be constructed to the west boundary of the Fleetwood Waste Water Treatment Works as part of the refurbishment and extension of the existing works. It is necessary to have regard to that proposal and ensure there would be no conflict with the proposed bridleway. 10

223 There is also conflict with the routeing of the pipeline crossing the grounds of the Cardinal Allen RC High School and the impact this may have on playing space provision, associated disturbance during construction and the potential for future action and maintenance. Archaeological matters A review of the documents has been carried out. Chapter 4 of Volume 1: Preliminary Environmental Information Report briefly summarises some earlier assessment and consultation undertaken in connection with previous earlier proposals and a partial walk-over survey, but is not the result of a complete up-to-date assessment. The chapter notes in section that data from the National Monuments Record (NMR) and the Lancashire Historic Environment Record (HER) was collected in November 2010 and known sites are set out in Appendices 4.1 and 4.2, as well as on Figures 4.1 and 4.2. Comparison with the HER shows that a number of known sites have not been included in the appendices or on the figures. As a consequence Tables 4.1 and 4.2 are incomplete and potentially misleading. Impacts on known heritage assets should be dealt with in the new desk-based assessment (below) and will need to take into account such sites as the Hackensall Tide Mill (SD ) and New Mill, Fleetwood (SD ). The impact on as-yet unknown heritage assets cannot, by definition, be determined but the potential for such impacts could be summarised as follows: Irish Sea Study Area: There is limited potential for finds or in-situ remains associated with former dry-land activity of prehistoric and later dates. The potential for natural and semi-natural deposits such as peat or submerged forests which will preserve information relating to past environments is perhaps somewhat higher, such deposits having been identified less than 2km to the south at Cleveleys. There is also a medium potential for shipwreck remains in this area as a significant number of wrecks having been recorded along this coast, many of which are poorly located. Fylde Peninsula Study Area: There is limited potential for finds or in-situ remains associated with activity of prehistoric and later dates. It seems probable that any remains of prehistoric medieval dates will have been heavily affected by more recent activity, but that some remains of post medieval and modern dates will be impacted. Wyre Estuary and Preesall: This area has more potential for sites of prehistoric and later dates, as development has been more limited in this area. Medieval and later farming activities and works associated with earlier brine extraction will, however, still have impacted these earlier sites and left their own remains. Preesall to Nateby: The line of the interconnector pipeline crosses both Pilling and Nateby Mosses, areas where substantial numbers of prehistoric sites have been encountered in the past. These include settlement sites of Mesolithic date and ritual deposits of the mid- and later Bronze Age. There is considerable potential for further discoveries of these dates to be made along the pipeline route. Reclamation of the mosses in the later medieval and post medieval periods is also likely to have left remains. Surviving peat deposits will also have potential for the 11

224 retention of information related to past climate and land use and may be impacted directly by the construction process but also by alterations to drainage patterns resulting in the drying out and destruction of the peat record. Impacts on the built environment in the Irish Sea, Fylde Peninsula and Preesall to Nateby pipeline areas is likely to reflect that set out in Tables 4.1 and 4.2, but that in the main development area of Preesall the impact seems to be somewhat understated. In particular there will be a major impact on Higher Lickow Farm by the construction of the Security and Support facilities (Sections ). This impact will need to be assessed in detail. The above suggests that there is a need for a formal programme of archaeological works, including both desk-based and field investigations, before the full implications of the proposals can be established. It does not, however, imply that the principal of development is unacceptable nor does it show that there are heritage assets present which should be preserved in-situ at the expense of development. What seems more probable is that, following the investigations noted above, that there should be efforts made to minimise the impacts on heritage assets and to mitigate those impacts that cannot be avoided. Such mitigation will need to include investigation and recording before and during construction works. A phased scheme of investigation and mitigation should, therefore, be developed as part of the development. The development of the scheme and its phasing will of necessity be an iterative process, but it is essential that a comprehensive deskbased investigation is undertaken as soon as is practicable and the results incorporated into the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). The scope of this desk-based assessment should be discussed and agreed with the County Archaeology Service in advance, but it should include re-consultation with the HER and NMR, map regression, examination of existing aerial photographic and LiDAR coverage, as well as further background research (Section 4.8) Where possible targeted field investigations further walk-over survey, topological and geophysical survey, trial trenching, etc. should also be undertaken and the results submitted with the EIA (Section 4.8.2). Where such field research is not possible, the reasons for this should be given and a programme of proposed investigation set out. Should a DCO be issued, a phase or phases of further investigation and/or mitigation will be required. The scope of this work should be set out in the EIA and the details agreed with the County Archaeology Service (Sections ). Impacts during the pure operation stage of the scheme and in the decommissioning stage are likely to be low or negligible (Sections ), but this needs to be assessed and confirmed. Residual effects on heritage assets from the project are likely, but their scale and extent will depend on the nature of the assets themselves, the actual impact of the scheme and the mitigation undertaken. Where possible the residual effects should 12

225 be described in the EIA. As a minimum, a method of assessing and reporting on the residual impacts which cannot be quantified at this stage should be provided. The proposed development will have an impact on known and unknown heritage assets, but that impact is not considered so significant as to require the preservation in situ of assets at the expense of development. A phased scheme of further investigation and mitigation would be required both before and after any consent is granted and before and during any construction works. The post-consent archaeological work may be required either by condition or a separate legal agreement. Highway matters A review of the submitted documents has been carried out. A revised full transport assessment, addressing the impact and outlining any necessary mitigation resulting from any increase in traffic over and above that assessed as part of the previous development proposal this traffic would need to be undertaken. The construction phase and the operational phase of the development may have the potential to have an impact on the highway network. At the time of the previous application it was accepted that the level of additional traffic on the overall highway network could be accommodated without capacity issues arising. On the assumption that there will be at least no greater traffic impact that view would remain. The proposal recognises the potential impact of development traffic on the junction at the A588/Cemetry Lane junction and proposes an access/haul link road to A588, avoiding this junction. This would be acceptable in principle subject to detailed assessment. The proposed haul road and the route of various pipelines will affect a number of Public Rights of Way and will require temporary closures and diversions. An initial list has been posted and, subject to results of consultations this may require amendment at application stage. At this stage the required closures/diversions seem the minimum necessary but would need to be agreed in advance of the actual works taking place and Orders made under the appropriate Act. There are a number of access points to various sites associated with the proposed development which may be acceptable in principle but would all require examination in detail at a later stage. Note should be taken that while MfS and MfS2 standards will be acceptable for site accesses in the urban sections of the development, DMRB standards may be more appropriate in the rural area where traffic speeds are higher. Details of all accesses to the highway network should be submitted as part of the DOC application or they could be controlled by condition requiring details to be submitted prior to commencement of development. Wheel cleaning facilities will be required at all site access points to the public highway during the construction phase of the development should consent be forth coming A routeing agreement would be required to minimise the risk of construction traffic using inappropriate routes to the various sites. This is considered particularly important in the Hambleton, Stalmine and Preesall areas where there are a number 13

226 of narrows lanes which are generally not suitable for use by large vehicles although there are no Traffic Regulation Orders prohibiting their use. A travel plan would be required to minimise the impact of employee traffic both during the construction and operational stages. At formal application stage, an interim plan the operational stage would be acceptable although a full plan would be required for the construction stage to avoid the development of inappropriate travel patterns in the early stages of the development. Other Issues Storage Capacity Within the documents submitted at this stage there is an inconsistent approach to how the capacity of the site has been presented and which has been variable between cubic metres and tonnes. This should be addressed in the documents submitted to the IPC as part of the Development Consent Order process. Cable Routing It is proposed to create two under River Wyre crossings; one for electrical connections to Stanah in the south and one for sea water delivery and saturated brine removal and associated telecommunications equipment in the north. The County Council questions the justification for this and the potential disturbance associated with the electricity connection to Stanah when an alternative may be available on the western side of the estuary irrespective of the route not being in Halite Energy Groups ownership, that the route would be longer and in the absence of any assessment of the presence of contaminated land. The County Council is also concerned to the routing of the electricity cable in such close proximity to existing caverns know to be unstable as referred to above. Conditions Should the IPC find the proposal acceptable it would most likely be subject to conditions controlling the development for land use planning purposes. The County Council is concerned that the requirements of such conditions may involve expertise on matters that it does not have available expertise, most particularly on geological and hydro geological matters. In the event a Development Order Consent is issued by the IPC subject to land use planning conditions controlling such matters, the County Council would invite Halite to consider the monitoring of such by an independent body provided by Halite as part of a legal agreement. Whilst conditions were considered as part of the previous planning appeal, a new set of conditions will need to be prepared and which could form the subject of any statement of common ground. Well being Section 2 of the Local Government Act 2000 makes provisions for well being payments to offset the impacts of development projects. In this instance the proposed development will generate visual impact in the countryside and on users of 14

227 the Wyre Way and surrounding recreational highway network. Irrespective of the capability of the selected geology and the caveat that expansion of any successful proposal will be considered in the future, there is likely to remain a perceived fear and possible health implications irrespective of any counter case of national need for the underground storage of natural gas. There would remain the realistic possibility of the devaluation of property. Halite Energy Group is invited to consider how they could mitigate such impacts associated with the proposal in the event a Development Order Consent is forthcoming. Bonds The nature of the project is that extensive development works are required on both sides of the Wyre Estuary before an underground cavern to store natural gas could be created. It is proposed that such works would be done in tandem with the initial boreholes which would be drilled to identify the suitability of the salt within which the caverns would be created. In the event the development order consent were to be successful provision should be made for the establishment of a bond to provide for the removal of all above and below ground infrastructure in the event the project were not to be successful relative to the extent of development undertaken and for decommissioning of the site at the end of its operational life. Vehicle Routing Agreement A routeing agreement would be required to minimise the risk of construction traffic using inappropriate routes to the various sites. This is considered particularly important in the Hambleton, Stalmine and Preesall areas where there are a number of narrows lanes which are generally not suitable for use by large vehicles. Evacuation The Preliminary Quantitative Risk Assessment concludes there is no risk of gas leaking from the caverns necessitating large scale evacuation. Whilst it is acknowledged that the proposal would be subject to COMAH and which would minimise the risk of accidents involving dangerous substances and to limit the impact of the proposed development on people and the environment in the event an accident were to occur, it is considered that an emergency plan to provide for any such risk or incident should be provided. Monitoring of Existing Caverns Concerns have previously been expressed to the programme of monitoring for the former brine wells to ensure their integrity and stability. Reference is made to such in the section on geology above. This concern has been demonstrated in the recent failure of well heads. There are no current planning requirements to undertake any programme of monitoring or provide the results or an action plan for such in the event instability is identified. Whilst some of the responsibility for such may fall to the Health and Safety Executive, Halite are invited, as part of the submission for a development order consent, to agree to an ongoing programme of monitoring of the existing brine wells, the submission of the results of such programme and any action 15

228 plan to be implemented in the event any instability is identified or in the event of brine wee, cavern or wellhead failure to ensure stability or remedial action in the event of failure. 16

229 From: Nick Taylor Sent: 28 August :01 To: David Hoare Cc: Subject: Ecology Enhancement & Landscape Strategy Planning Meeting Ecology Enhancement & Landscape Strategy Planning Meeting Attendees Georgina Fellows Environment Agency Biodiversity Officer (Lancs and Cumbria) Peter Taylor Local Farmer Will Bagshaw Land Agent working for Halite Energy Group Brian Stanley Programme Director Tim Melling RSPB senior conservation officer David Hoare Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Rob Kitch Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Bill Reynolds CFO Halite Energy Group Nick Taylor Bodyproject CSR professional adviser to Halite Energy Group Not in attendance (apologies) Lancashire County Council The WIldlife Trust (for Lancashire, Manchester and North Merseyside) Natural England A second meeting is planned on 13th September to brief those not in attendance. Notes The purpose of the meeting is to consider the draft plan and seek input from the main stakeholders (plans distributed to attendees). David and Rob hosted the meeting and presented the plan. They set out that originally there had been two project applications. One for a pipeline that was never determined by Wyre Borough Council. The second for the natural gas project was twice refused application by Lancashire County Council. The two schemes are now joined together and include the 12km pipeline to the national transmission system link at Nateby. The gas storage project is not changed on the Fleetwood side of the Wyre estuary and the crossing and marine aspects - the main change elements of the project are relevant to Preesall and the size of the footprint is reduced by 50% The built elements into the landscape that aren't apparent at the moment and the application boundary has changed and are detailed in the construction environmental management plan The bulk of the project is temporary in terms of pipeline construction some 1.2m below ground with full restoration of the natural environment upon completion. e.g. fields, hedgerows etc. An aerial photograph now and predicted after demonstrates that above ground elements are pretty minimal. Discussion about the main compound proposed mounding around with steep inward gentle outwards returned to agriculture 1:10 aspect and 1:5 internally, fenced inside scrub margin inside and south side not planted with trees. The tree line to the north to be connected in line with the ecology of the area. Following discussion and representations it was agreed to revise this for a steep mound with minimal gentle sloping in recognition of the area being connected to the designated Special Protection Area (SPA) and connected land with the needs of pink footed geese birds as as significant consideration. A general overview of species suggest that great crested newt surveys show presence in eight ponds including the golf course. No badger activity although historically there may be some presence near the eastern end of the NTS connector area. There are bats and a barn owl in one farm. There is an abundance of purple ramping fumitory which is rare but thrives here - nationally a priority species - Clods Carr is a biological heritage site

230 Fumitory species survey shows all five species on the land - it is a plant that needs arable land to grow and so needs cultivating and sensitive arable and cultivation mitigation measures There is also rock sea lavender one of 20 sites in the UK - endemic species only occurs in the UK but not impacted by the development. Water voles pot recorded and no evidence but will be considered when improving ditches etc. Techniques are being considered in terms of crossing water courses and ponds directly lost or indirectly impacted and we are using the Lancashire pond biodiversity survey to assist - 13 ponds surveyed. There are lot of hedgerows on Peter Taylor's farm and he has planted considerable new as well as 6,000 trees - he records at least 150 species of bird on his farm alone. There are species poor hedgerows that we can improve Lots of brown hares in the area The pipeline below the Wyre will be 8m below the sea bed so no impact. It was suggested that participants watch the Halite video to note the project. Proposals Individual tables have been completed for each field and proposed enhancement measures Plan shows 19 wells through seven well heads using existing tracks to access if possible. New tracks will be rough in farmed area. A588 new access will be a metalled surface just south of Preesall - the rest of the above ground aspects will be low key structures. There are no visual intrusions and landscape is gentle with no visual impact for properties or even the Wyre Way. The land is functional linking to the SPA and birds like flat land so RSPB would prefer a steep mound rather than worrying about the visual aspect LCC wanted graded to fit with land character. Peter Taylor disagrees and would prefer extension of the wood or scrub. Geese won't use the slope. Trees will take 15 years to reach 25ft. Suggested hedgerow on outside of the slope with security fence on inside - planted with scrub and wild roses and trees. RSPB offer to talk to LCC to point out their proposal is detrimental to SPA functionally linked land usage. Attendees not worried about compound adjacent to United Utilities waste water treatment site and mound will be sloping about 2m planted and returned to agricultural use. Well head compounds are restricted zones and will keep screening small as possible - RSPB request scrubbed around the fence line as tight as possible. Proposed arable scrub margin against the Wyre Way. On the Wyre Way suggested some interpretation boards and viewing screens to hide behind for bird watchers set against the prevailing winds with wheelchair access access - see RSPB Marsh Side and Hesketh for ideas - no hides though as encourages anti social behaviour. Interpretation sign as regionally important geological site and nature point and heritage of area. Peter has planted three and a half miles of hedges - Peter would like to do the work on the compound scheme. Knott End golf club own land at the far end but the field tenanted so lease or purchase is now under negotiation. Course not impacted. It is possible to create some ditches in the south of the land in area where no agriculture - create ditches as good for lap wings - shallow ditches but water feature rather than hedges Mentioned need control of jet skis on the estuary - education and enforcement aspect as considered reckless disturbance under CROW Act (Countryside Rights of Way) Wyre estuary country park - key to Wyre borough tourism so need to think how we can help with promoting that. Fylde Wildfowlers - need to help them long term. Peter is the Chair and will talk to Nick at a later date.

231 There is a charity horse ride once a year through the land but few bridleways. Edge of Burrow's Marsh field margin is low intensity arable margin alongside the edge The Heads is a possible good lapwing habitat and the margins might be able to do something - but tenant grows maize at the moment - not a good crop for wildlife so may need to look at that area. that would be a significant biodiversity improvement but farmer needs it as it is critical for him -might be high level stewardship (HLS) available if that land management realign to a salt marsh - may need RSPB or EA help - sensitive realignment. Also may be beneficial in the extra HLS and land swaps. Agreed the company should support Peter and his sons looking at moving from ELS to HLA - RSPB endorsement will be given and they will put their farm adviser David Morris in touch with Peter. Overhead lines - Electricity North West being consulted but have no monies for under grounding - discussions ongoing. Looking to improve all the ponds - thinning vegetation might indirectly affect the ponds as part of hydrology so may enhancement by way of mitigation or possible creation of new ponds. Need to try and compensate in the locality enhancing to mitigate and protect species. EA will look at balance of lost aquatic locations across the entire scheme so pasture area best area to create new ponds for mitigation etc. Hyder will work up plan and it is work in progress and not just for the IPC application. Next meeting - 13th September

232 MINUTES Issue date 28 October 2011 Issued by Subject Reference David Hoare Preesall Underground Gas Storage Facility: Statement to Inform an Appropriate Assessment consultation 0091-WX40004-NHL-01 Client Halite Energy Meeting date 18 October 2011 Time 11:30 Location Present Copies Teleconference David Hoare (Hyder Consulting) Andy Saunders (Hyder Consulting) Marie Evans (Hyder Consulting) Jo Pickard (Hyder Consulting) Bruce Gibson (Halite Energy) Pip Saill (Halite Energy) Janet Belfield (Natural England) Rosie Baynes (Natural England) Tim Melling (RSPB) Georgina Fellows (Environment Agency) Item Comments Action by 1 DH provided a brief description of purpose of the meeting. 2 JB re-iterated that it was not possible to fully comment on the proposals based on the discussions held in today s teleconference. JB requested a draft copy of the SIAA in order to provide a formal written consultation response. 3 ME provided an over-view of Hyder s approach to the SIAA. Each of the qualifying features of the SPA/Ramsar site was considered individually. Where field surveys reveal that the saltmarsh, mudflats and fields surveyed, within and adjacent to the proposals, support 1% or more of the SPA population (as defined on the SPA citation, or the Ramsar citation), then it is considered that there is the potential for significant effects on that particular species. Further data, for example WeBS core count data, was also reviewed, where appropriate, to add contextual information to the assessment. Each of the construction/operational activities were also considered and it was possible to identify certain activities that would not lead to significant effects on the qualifying features and species of the SPA/Ramsar site (due to, for example, the timings and distance of the works from the areas of value to the birds, the presence of existing screening and high levels of background noise and/or visual disturbance). Those construction/operational activities which have the potential to cause a significant effect on the qualifying features scoped into the assessment were considered in more detail in the impact assessment of the SIAA. ME also explained that there would be a number of embedded mitigation measures (including sensitive programming of works activities, the provision of visual and noise screening of works activities, and the use of tried and tested, best practice measures for controlling emissions to the environment) to eliminate or reduce (where possible) potential impacts of the proposals. ME outlined that an Ecological and Landscape Management Plan (ELMP) is in the process of being finalised in consultation with Natural England, Environment Agency, the RPSB, Lancashire County Council, Wyre Borough Council, and tenant farmers. The aim of the ELMP is to ensure the favourable conservation status of the farmland within and adjacent to the Project is maintained. Preesall Underground Gas Storage Facility - SIAA Page 1

233 4 In response to a query raised by JB, BG explained that measures would be put in place to prevent catastrophic collapse, including the use of a salt cap. Research has shown that when a salt cap is used, any collapse during the lifetime of the works (in this case years) is prevented. A monitoring system will be put in place to pick up any movement during the construction and operation of the wells. In addition, as part of the decommissioning phase of the proposed project, the caverns will be filled with brine water to further prevent any potential for cavern collapse. BG explained that old workings traditionally have not used a salt cap and therefore could be liable to collapse. 5 In response to a query raised by JB regarding whether Lancashire County Council have been consulted on the issues associated with cavern collapse and local geology, BG confirmed that consultation has taken place and Mott MacDonald has been undertaking work on behalf of Halite. 6 BG explained the drilling strategy for the northern crossing of the River Wyre: A well established drilling technique would be used, taking into consideration best practice guidance. A comprehensive Method Statement would be produced for the works, which would be agreed in consultation with the Health and Safety Executive and the Environment Agency. Compounds would be constructed on either side of the river and pilot holes would be drilled. All pipes would be brought by road, on the Pressall side of the River Wyre. Once started, drilling would be continuous for a period of four month and would take place during the summer months to avoid potential impact on the qualifying features of the SPA/Ramsar site. BG Confirmed that all drilling would be underground (at least 8m). The drill head would be above ground, but would not be located on the saltmarsh, or within the boundary of the SPA/ Ramsar site. 7 JB asked if the size of the compounds could be confirmed. Hyder to provide this information to NE. DH 8 In response to a query raised by GF regarding whether breeding birds of the SPA had been considered in terms of working during the summer months, ME explained that in terms of the HRA, the qualifying species of the SPA/Ramsar present during the breeding season have been considered in the assessment. These include little tern, sandwich tern, herring gull and lesser black-backed gull. Given the distance of the known breeding colonies of these species, it is considered that no significant effects are anticipated on these species, as a result of the proposed project. Breeding birds would however be considered within the EIA 9 In response to a query from TM regarding further details of the survey timings and sources of information, ME outlined that the following surveys have taken place: Wintering bird surveys (February to March 2003) Breeding bird surveys (April to June 2003) Passage bird surveys (July to November 2004) Wintering bird surveys (November 2008 to March 2008) In addition, the survey data has been supplemented with WeBS data, goose censes data and information provided by the Fylde Bird Club. DH confirmed that the scope of the surveys had previously been discussed with Natural England (at a meeting held in January) and it was agreed that no further surveys were deemed necessary. 10 RB/TM expressed concerns about gaps in the data and suggested that the most up to date data should be used in the assessment, particularly in relation to recent cold winters and in the case of pink-footed geese (given that the number of PFG has increased in recent years). ME confirmed that the most up to date data will be used in the assessment. 11 DH confirmed that a draft version of the SIAA would be submitted to the consultees for formal consultation and review. DH Preesall Underground Gas Storage Facility - SIAA Page 2

234 From: Liz Turley Sent: 21 October :36 To: David Hoare; Marie Evans Cc: Samantha Walters Subject: Summary of my conversation with Rosie at Natural England [Disk Folder K:\UA UA2000\UA Preesall Underground Gas Storage Facility\HRA 2011\01_Correspondence\ s] [Filed :16:41] Hi Dave Rosie was concerned about the age of the data which we were using for our assessment in the SIAA. She would particularly like us to include information for the past two winters which have been particularly severe, and therefore should be considered in the assessment. LT confirmed that we would be using a combination of a) WeBS data (including the most recent 5 year peak mean data for the Arm Hill count zone and for the SPA as a whole (2005/6 2009/10); b) data received from the local bird club (which included WeBS data as well as other anecdotal sightings up to 2010); and c) goose census data (which included information up to 2010). Rosie was happy with this approach. LT asked if Rosie had any specific requirements with regard to providing alternative foraging and roosting site for pink-footed geese during the construction and operational phases of the project. Rosie confirmed that we should provide alternative areas for the geese during the winter months in areas where there was a potential for birds to be disturbed/ displaced. Considering that the programme is not fully confirmed, Rosie agreed that at this stage it was difficult to specify specific fields for enhancement. Rosie suggested that this could be discussed in consultation with RSPB (Tim Mellings) and/ or local birders to identify the most appropriate areas. Liz Liz Turley BSc MIEEM Senior Ecologist Cresswell A Hyder Consulting group company The Mill, Brimscombe Port, Stroud, GL5 2QG Tel: (Direct: ) Fax: Mobile: Hyder is a multi-national advisory and design consultancy Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this

235 CONVERSATION RECORD/FILE NOTE Project code: WX40004 Project title: Preesall Underground Gas Storage Subject: Teleconf with NE, Hyder, Halite Participants: Bruce Gibson Halite Energy (BG) Participants: Dave Hoare (DH) Hyder Consulting Pip Saill Halite Andy Saunders Hyder Consulting Energy (AS) Janet Belfield Natural Marie Evans Hyder Consulting England (JB) (ME) Chris Edwards Natural Samantha Walters Hyder Consulting England (CE) (SW) Conversation 29 November 2011 Organisation: date: Time: *Location: Teleconf Incoming call: Meeting: x Outgoing call: File note: *Phone: * Not necessary if regular contact details are recorded on project file Conversation details: Key Points Discussed 1. NE queried the apparent omission of teal and godwit from the assessment. Hyder: they were considered as part of the assemblage qualification but not individually since they were not qualifying interest features. Numbers are not available for all species in the assemblage qualification. Agreement: NE content that this can be dealt with by submission of post-application information. 2. NE queried whether a map illustrating roosting and foraging areas could be produced to illustrate why things screened out. Hyder: Not possible to present most of the data this way. Data from a variety of sources not all of it is spatial data e.g. WEBS data identifies species in the count zone and doesn t note bird activity and Fylde Club data often identifies where species are down to the farm and not a particular field. 3. NE identified that parts of Arm Hill roost are of greater value than other parts. Hyder: Acknowledged this to be the case. We have based our assessment on a worst case scenario. 4. NE identified a couple of unsubstantiated statements re Lickow Farm and Fleetwood Farm. Hyder: the text can be tightened up as necessary. 5. Hyder informed NE that further work has been done on the landscape and ecology management plan, and this will be submitted with the application. It includes measures to mitigate for impacts on pink-footed geese. 6. NE requested further clarification regarding how Hyder could scope out off-site impacts on all PM 0910/1 Page 1:2

236 Project code: WX40004 species other than pink-footed geese. Hyder: This information is presented in Section 7 of the report (JB confirmed this was indeed the case). Information supplied by tenant farmers has informed this assessment. Agreement: NE will review to satisfy themselves that all statements are backed up by evidence. 7. NE requested spatial data for pink-footed geese. Hyder: Data has shown geese have been recorded in most of the large fields at some point in time. It is clear that geese move in response to cropping and in response to disturbance. (Note: as stated in report geese avoid fields that are less than 6 ha). Again, it is important to remember that the assessment based on the worst case scenario that all suitable fields could be used by pink-footed geese. 8. NE requested confirmation that sufficient mitigation measures would be in place to assist in the conclusion of no significant effects on pink-footed geese. If land outwith Halite s land holding is required this would need to be guaranteed. Hyder: Although mitigation measures would take place outwith the application boundary it would take place on land that is owned by Halite. 9. Hyder sought agreement regarding scope of work that has been undertaken and the findings of no significant effects. Halite observed that NE has been involved in this project since 2003 and has had a familiarity with the issues, which have been discussed at length. NE agreed that all information has been collected and that to date nothing has emerged to cast doubt on the conclusion of No Significant Effects. The further work referred to above will be provided to NE post-submission. An official response from NE would be provided in due course. 10. NE agreed that it was not necessary for any new survey work or further analysis of the data to be undertaken. They did recommend that there be better cross-referencing to enable particular conclusions to be verified. 11. Hyder said that they were going to provide a note of the Meeting that would be issued tonight for agreement with NE as a document to support the DCO application submission. PM 0910/1 Page 2:2

237 FILE NOTE ALAN LAW (DIRECTOR OF LAND USE, NATURAL ENGLAND) WITH KEITH BUDINGER (CEO OF HALITE ENERGY) WEDNESDAY 30 TH NOVEMBER 2011 AT AM Mr Law confirmed that Natural England were content with the conclusions of the file note dated the 29 th November 2011 and they were happy for further work to deal with the matters identified. Mr Law confirmed that a comfort letter would be received from Natural England within 2-3 days to that effect. Mr Law also offered to speak to the IPC regarding our work at any time should we wish him to do so.

238

239 Appendices for Advice note 10: Habitat Regulations Assessment (HRA) APPENDIX 1 HRA SCREENING CHECKLIST... 2 APPENDIX 3 INFORMATION TO INFORM APPROPRIATE ASSESSMENT CHECKLIST These checklists are provided as a guide to assist developers and should accompany the HRA report required under Regulation 5 (2) (g) of The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 together with the developer's screening matrix. Consideration should be given to the presentation of information. Where appropriate developers could use a single checklist to cover multiple European sites. ** Where information is not provided within the developer s HRA report the box should be completed to provide explanation as to why this information is not relevant.

240 APPENDIX 1 HRA SCREENING CHECKLIST 1 - HRA SCREENING CHECKLIST NAME OF PROJECT NAME, LOCATION AND EU CODE OF EUROPEAN SITE INCLUDING QUALIFYING FEATURES Date AUTHOR NAME/ORGANISATION AND QUALIFICATIONS Preesall Underground Gas Storage Facility Morecambe Bay SPA, Cumbria UK Morecambe Bay Ramsar, Cumbria 3UK November 2011 Marie Evans BSc MSc CEnv MIEEM Hyder Consulting 1A - DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT Is the following information provided within the HRA report? The purpose and objectives of the project including strategic importance with reference to specific sections of relevant NPS(s) Tick as appropriate Yes No Cross refer to relevant sections in the HRA report or the ES, if appropriate** Information to Support a Habitats Regulations Assessment Morecambe Bay SPA and Ramsar (hereafter referred to as Document 3.3), Section 3.1 The key stages of the project and the various timescales thereof Document 3.3, Section 3.2 Any other services (e.g. pipelines, electricity, traffic management/technology, lighting, signage etc) which will be required as part of the project Document 3.3, Paragraph The resource requirements throughout the lifetime of the project Document 3.3, Section 3.4 Appendices for Advice note 10: Habitat Regulations Assessment Page 2 of 14

241 Any waste products arising during construction and operation Document 3.3, Section 3.5 Distance of the project from the European site or qualifying features of the site Maps and plans which illustrate the nature of the works planned as part of the project Document 3.3, Paragraph Document 3.3, Figure 2 1B - CHARACTERISTICS OF THE EUROPEAN SITE Is the following information provided within the HRA report? Map(s) indicating the relative position(s) of the European site to the project and where appropriate showing the location and spatial extent of the qualifying features Tick as appropriate Yes No Cross refer to relevant sections in the HRA report or the ES, if appropriate** Document 3.3, Figure 1a & 1b Size of the European site Document 3.3, Paragraph Document 3.3, Appendix 1: Screening Matrix The qualifying features of the European site including the primary reasons for selection and any other qualifying interests (please present copies of the citations in an appendix Document 3.3, Section 4.3 Document 3.3, Appendix 3: Designated Site Citations Details of the existing baseline conditions of the site Document 3.3, Section 4 and 8 Details of data collection methodologies, and consultations undertaken Cross-reference to any accompanying surveys or reports/ data form Document 3.3, Section 5 Document 3.3, Section 6.1 and 6.2 Document 3.3, Appendix 2: Consultations Throughout Document 3.3. Other reports or data referenced include the following: Environmental Statement (ES) Volume 1A Chapter 6: Air Appendices for Advice note 10: Habitat Regulations Assessment Page 3 of 14

242 Quality ES Volume 1A Chapter 9: Ecology and Nature Conservation ES Volume 1A Chapter 10: Geology, Stability and Hydrogeology ES Volume 1A Chapter 12: Noise and Vibration ES Volume 1B Technical Appendix 2.2: Marine Dispersion Modelling ES Volume 1B Technical Appendix 9.4: Marine Ecology Baseline Report ES Volume 1B Technical Appendix 9.5: Phase 1 habitat Surveys ES Volume 1B Technical Appendix 9.12: Breeding and Wintering Bird Surveys ES Volume 1B: Appendix 14.11: Landscape and Ecological Management Strategy Plan The vulnerability of the Europeans site s qualifying features Document 3.3, Section 4.6 Information to Support a Habitats Regulations Assessment: Morecambe Bay SAC, Liverpool Bay SPA, Shell Flat and Lune Deep csac (Document 1) Available information on potential effect pathways from the standard data forms or gained from consultation with relevant nature conservation bodies The European site conservation objectives in consultation with relevant nature conservation bodies and/or management plans Conservation status of each qualifying feature on the European site (favourable or otherwise) Document 3.3, Section 4.7 Document 3.3, Section 4.4 Document 3.3, Appendix 4: Conservation Objectives Document 3.3, Section 4.5 Appendices for Advice note 10: Habitat Regulations Assessment Page 4 of 14

243 The seasonal influences on the qualifying Annex I habitats and Annex II species on the site The physical and chemical composition of the European site e.g. geology, hydrology or soils, identifying key physical features with a direct influence on the qualifying features of the site Document 3.3, Section 4.10 Document 3.3, Section 4.11 The dynamics of the habitats, species and their ecology Document 3.3, Section 4.12 The key structural and functional relationships that create and maintain the site s integrity The likely future natural changes in baseline conditions at the site in the absence of the project Document 3.3, Section 4.13 Document 3.3, Section 4.8 1C - INITIAL ASSESSMENT Is the following information provided within the HRA report? A description of the individual elements of the project likely to give rise to impacts on the European site (either alone or in combination with other plans or projects) An explanation of the physical scope for surveys used to inform the assessment Tick as appropriate Yes No Cross refer to relevant sections in the HRA report or the ES, if appropriate** Document 3.3, Section 8 Document 3.3, Section 5.2 DESCRIBE ANY LIKELY DIRECT, INDIRECT OR SECONDARY IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT OR ASSOCIATED DEVELOPMENT, (ALONE OR IN COMBINATION WITH OTHER PLANS OR PROJECTS) IN THE CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION AND DECOMMISSIONING PHASE ON THE EUROPEAN SITE BY VIRTUE OF: The extent of habitat loss Document 3.3, Appendix 1: Screening Matrix Description of Project, Land-take Appendices for Advice note 10: Habitat Regulations Assessment Page 5 of 14

244 Resource requirements (from the European site or from areas in close proximity to the site, in relevance to consideration of impacts e.g. water abstraction) Physical changes that would occur as a result of project (e.g. from excavation, piling, dredging etc) taking into consideration the duration, frequency and reversibility of potential impacts Document 3.3, Appendix 1: Screening Matrix Description of Project, Resource requirements Document 3.3, Appendix 1: Screening Matrix Initial Assessment, Description of Project, Emissions Waste products arising during construction and operation Document 3.3, Appendix 1: Screening Matrix Initial Assessment Emissions (to land, water or air e.g. polluted surface water runoff both soluble and insoluble pollutants) Document 3.3, Appendix 1: Screening Matrix Description of Project, Emissions Excavation requirements (e.g. impacts on local hydrogeology) Document 3.3, Appendix 1: Screening Matrix Description of Project, Excavation requirements Transportation requirements Document 3.3, Appendix 1: Screening Matrix Description of Project, Transportation requirements Duration of construction, operation, decommissioning etc Document 3.3, Appendix 1: Screening Matrix Description of Project, Duration of construction, operation etc Any other likely impacts Document 3.3, Appendix 1: Screening Matrix Description of Project, Other In combination impacts with other projects or plans, in consultation with the relevant nature conservation bodies to ensure all potential receptors of likely changes are considered and adequately assessed Document 3.3, Section 10 THE KEY CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SITE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN IDENTIFYING POTENTIAL IMPACTS (ALONE OR IN COMBINATION WITH OTHER PLANS OR PROJECTS) Appendices for Advice note 10: Habitat Regulations Assessment Page 6 of 14

245 DESCRIBE ANY LIKELY CHANGES TO THE SITE ARISING AS A RESULT OF: The extent of habitat loss Section 9.1 Document 3.3, Appendix 1: Screening Matrix Initial Assessment, Reduction of habitat area Habitat or species fragmentation Document 3.3, Appendix 1: Screening Matrix Initial Assessment, Habitat or species fragmentation Disturbance to qualifying species on the site Document 3.3, Appendix 1: Screening Matrix Initial Assessment, Disturbance to key species Reduction in population size of species Document 3.3, Appendix 1: Screening Matrix Initial Assessment, Reduction in species density Changes in key indicators of conservation value (water quality, etc) Document 3.3, Appendix 1: Screening Matrix Initial Assessment, Changes in key indicators of conservation value Climate change Document 3.3, Appendix 1: Screening Matrix Initial Assessment, Climate change WITH REFERENCE TO ITS CONSERVATION OBJECTIVES, DESCRIBE ANY LIKELY IMPACTS ON THE EUROPEAN SITE AS A WHOLE IN TERMS OF: Interference with the key relationships that define the structure of the site Interference with key relationships that define the function of the site Document 3.3, Appendix 1: Screening Matrix Initial Assessment, Interference with the key relationships that define the structure of the site Document 3.3, Appendix 1: Screening Matrix Initial Assessment, Interference with key relationships that define the function of the site INDICATE THE SIGNIFICANCE AS A RESULT OF THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS SET OUT ABOVE AND IN Appendices for Advice note 10: Habitat Regulations Assessment Page 7 of 14

246 CONSULTATION WITH RELEVANT NATURE CONSERVATION BODIES IN TERMS OF: The extent of habitat loss Document 3.3, Appendix 1: Screening Matrix Initial Assessment, Reduction of habitat area Fragmentation Document 3.3, Appendix 1: Screening Matrix Initial Assessment, Fragmentation Disruption e.g. to foraging or migration routes Document 3.3, Appendix 1: Screening Matrix Initial Assessment, Disruption Disturbance of qualifying species on site Document 3.3, Appendix 1: Screening Matrix Initial Assessment, Disturbance Population size Document 3.3, Appendix 1: Screening Matrix Initial Assessment, Population size Change to key elements of the site (e.g. water quality, hydrological regime etc) A description of those elements of the project, or combination of elements, where the above impacts are likely to affect the integrity of the European site or where the scale or magnitude of impacts is not known Provide certainty/deliverability of mitigation and whether a mitigation impact affects the integrity of the site Document 3.3, Appendix 1: Screening Matrix Initial Assessment, Change to key elements of the site Document 3.3, Appendix 1: Screening Matrix Initial Assessment (description provided) Document 3.3, Appendix 1: Screening Matrix Description of avoidance and/or mitigation measures 1D - RESULTS OF CONSULTATION Is the following information provided within the HRA report? Tick as appropriate Yes No Cross refer to relevant sections in the HRA report and/or the ES/Consultation Report if appropriate.** Appendices for Advice note 10: Habitat Regulations Assessment Page 8 of 14

247 Name(s) of agency(ies) or body(ies) consulted (provide contact name and telephone or address, date of consultation etc) Document 3.3, Appendix 5: Consultations The date when formal s.42 consultation commenced 17 November 2010 ANTICIPATED OUTCOME OF THE HRA (DETERMINED BY THE DEVELOPER PRIOR TO SUBMISSION OF THE DCO APPLICATION) Is the following information provided within the HRA report? Tick as appropriate Yes No Cross refer to relevant sections in the HRA report or the ES, if appropriate** A conclusion that significant effects are likely Document 3.3, Appendix 1: Screening Matrix Outcome of screening stage A conclusion that sufficient uncertainty remains Document 3.3, Appendix 1: Screening Matrix Outcome of screening stage A conclusion that mitigation is able to reduce the effect(s) to negligible levels Document 3.3, Section 13 A conclusion that there is not likely to be Significant Effects Document 3.3, Section 13 Any questions or concerns over any of the HRA issues from non statutory bodies e.g. RSPB Evidence as appropriate that the relevant nature conservation bodies is in agreement with this conclusion Document 3.3, Appendix 2 and 5 Document 3.3, Appendix 2 and 5; NE are in agreement that no significant effects are likely but further clarification is likely to be necessary on certain points (teleconference on ). Formal response to be received. Appendices for Advice note 10: Habitat Regulations Assessment Page 9 of 14

248 APPENDIX 3 INFORMATION TO INFORM APPROPRIATE ASSESSMENT CHECKLIST 3A - INFORMATION TO INFORM APPROPRIATE ASSESSMENT (IF REQUIRED) Is the following information provided within the HRA report? Tick as appropriate Yes No An Executive Summary Document 3.3, Section 1 Cross refer to relevant sections in the HRA report or the ES, if appropriate** The Characteristics of European site (See Checklist 1B) Document 3.3, See Checklist 1B above A description of the assessment techniques, including details of Document 3.3, Section 7.2 and 8.1 how impacts on integrity are assessed 1 A reference to the sources of information used in the assessment An assessment of significant residual impacts on qualifying interests against the conservation objectives for each designated feature Document 3.3, Section 5 and 6 Document 3.3, Section 9.2 (Given the nature conservation value of the sites in a European context, any residual impact on a qualifying interest that in the view of the developer was greater than negligible would be considered significant) A description of how the project will affect qualifying species and qualifying habitats Acknowledge uncertainties and any gaps in information Document 3.3, Section Where reference is made to guidance or technical advice, the developer is required to provide an accurate reference and where possible an up to date web-link Appendices for Advice note 10: Habitat Regulations Assessment Page 10 of 14

249 A description of the anticipated duration and reversibility of the impacts Acknowledge uncertainties and any gaps in information A description of how the project has the potential to cause changes to the vital site characteristics (e.g. nutrient balance) that determine how the site functions as a habitat or ecosystem* A description of how the project has the potential change the dynamics of the relationships (between, for example, soil and water or plants and animals) that define the structure and/or function of the site* A description of how the project has the potential to interfere with predicted or expected natural changes to the site (such as water dynamics or chemical composition)* A description of how the project has the potential to reduce the area of key habitats* A description of how the project has the potential to reduce the population of key species* A description of how the project has the potential to change the balance between key species* A description of how the project has the potential to reduce the diversity of species and habitat on the site* A description of how the project has the potential to result in disturbance that could affect population size or the balance between key species* Document 3.3, Section 9.1 Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Document 3.3, Paragraph and Section 10 Not Applicable Not Applicable Document 3.3, Paragraphs to and Section 10 Appendices for Advice note 10: Habitat Regulations Assessment Page 11 of 14

250 A description of how the project has the potential to result in fragmentation of species or habitat* A description of how the project has the potential to result in loss or reduction of qualifying features (e.g. tree cover, tidal exposure, annual flooding, etc)* A description of how the project has the potential to disrupt those factors that help to maintain the favourable conditions of the site* A description of how the project has the potential to interfere with the balance, distribution and density of key species that are the indicators of the favourable condition of the site* A description of how the project has the potential to interrupt or cause delays in progress towards achieving the conservation objectives of the site* A description of how the integrity of the site (determined by structure and function and conservation objectives) is likely to be affected by the project (e.g. loss of habitat, disturbance, disruption, chemical changes, hydrological changes and geological changes, etc.) An acknowledgment of any uncertainties and any gaps in information Document 3.3, Paragraphs and Section 10 Not Applicable but refer to Document 3.3, Section 9.1 and Section 10 Document 3.3, Section and Section 10 Document 3.3, Section 9.1 and Section 10 Document 3.3, Section 9.2 and Section 10 Document 3.3, Section 9.3 Not Applicable * Descriptions should include consideration of the project either alone or in combination with other plans and projects Appendices for Advice note 10: Habitat Regulations Assessment Page 12 of 14

251 3B - MITIGATION MEASURES (INCLUDING s174 PLANNING OBLIGATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS) Is the following information provided within the HRA report? Tick as appropriate Yes No Mitigation measures to be introduced Document 3.3, Section 11 Cross refer to relevant sections in the HRA report, DCO and/or the ES/s174 Heads of Terms 2 if appropriate** An explanation of how these measures would avoid the adverse effects on the integrity of the site An explanation of how these measures would reduce the adverse effects on the integrity of the site A description of what the residual effect on site or species would be An explanation of how these effects would have an in combination impact with any other plans or projects Document 3.3, Section 11 Document 3.3, Section 11 Document 3.3, Section 12 Document 3.3, Section 10 Evidence of how they would be implemented and by whom Document 3.3, Section Evidence of degree of confidence in their success Document 3.3, Appendix 1: Screening Matrix Evidence of Effectiveness A timescale, relative to the project, for implementation Document 3.3, Paragraphs and An explanation of the proposed monitoring scheme and how any mitigation failure will be addressed Document 3.3, Paragraphs Developers should agree at least the heads of terms of any development consent obligation with the relevant local authority before an application is submitted. Ideally a fully drafted agreement (or unilateral undertaking) which has been consulted upon and referred to in the consultation report should be included with the application. Appendices for Advice note 10: Habitat Regulations Assessment Page 13 of 14

252 3C - RESULTS OF CONSULTATION Is the following information provided within the HRA report? The name(s) of agency(ies) or body(ies) consulted (provide contact name and telephone or address, date of consultation etc) A summary of their response DATA COLLECTED TO CARRY OUT THE ASSESSMENT Is the following information provided within the HRA report? The name and qualifications of the person who carried out the assessment The sources of data e.g. field studies, existing records, consultation The level of, and confidence in, assessment e.g. desk top, full assessment The full results of the assessment (if provided in other documents please provide reference) An overall conclusion Tick as appropriate Yes No Tick as appropriate Yes No Cross refer to relevant sections in the HRA report, and/or the ES/Consultation Report if appropriate** Document 3.3, Appendix 5 Document 3.3, Appendix 2 and Appendix 5 Cross refer to relevant sections in the HRA report or the ES, if appropriate** Document 3.3, Appendix 1: Screening Matrix Document 3.3, Section 5 and 6 Document 3.3, Section 13 Document 3.3 Document 3.3, Section 13 Appendices for Advice note 10: Habitat Regulations Assessment Page 14 of 14