7 ecology and nature conservation 7.1 introduction · 7 ecology and nature conservation 7.1...

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT KEADBY DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED

7-1

7 ECOLOGY AND NATURE CONSERVATION

7.1 INTRODUCTION

7.1.1 Terms of Reference for this Chapter

This chapter presents an assessment of the likely significant ecological and

nature conservation effects from construction, operation and decommissioning

of the Keadby II project (henceforth the ‘Proposed Development’). The

baseline nature conservation interests of the Proposed Development site are

described, potential effects identified, proposed mitigation measures listed and

an assessment of the significance of residual effects is made. Supporting

ecological information is contained in Annex E.

With regard to ecology, potential effects of the Proposed Development as

defined in Chapter 2, include:

secondary effects on statutory and non-statutory designated sites,

associated with emissions from combustion processes within the Proposed

Development;

effects on protected species that may occur in the area; and

effects on habitats in the Proposed Development site area such as:

amenity grassland, dense and scattered scrub and drainage ditches.

7.1.2 Basis of Assessment including Realistic Worst Case Scenario

The ecological and nature conservation assessment made in this report is

based on the following:

the project layout presented in Chapter 2 Project Description of this ES,

plus an additional 50 m buffer which are referred to collectively as the

‘Proposed Development site’ (see Figure 2.1);

the cooling water abstraction and discharge; and

the results of the modelling of emissions to air.

For the purposes of assessment, permanent loss of all habitats is assumed for

above ground operational components. For buried services (pipelines, cables

etc.) it is assumed habitats in these areas will be temporarily lost for a period

of one year, after which time they will be reinstated. In the case of

construction laydown areas, it is assumed that habitat within these areas will

be permanently lost as hardstanding areas will be retained after construction

is concluded.

7.1.3 Consultation

SSE is carrying out various formal and informal consultation activities as part

of the s36 variation application. The formal Scoping Opinion is set out in

Annex B. As part of the process, consultation responses relevant to ecology

and nature conservation were received from Natural England, North

Lincolnshire Council and Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust and are detailed in Table

7.1.

Table 7.1 Consultation Responses

Source Consultee Comment Response

Natural England Natural England received an EIA Scoping Report for the above proposal from DWD LLP on 18 March 2015.

2. Biodiversity and Geology

2.1 Ecological Aspects of an Environmental Statement

Natural England advises that the potential impact of the proposal upon features of nature conservation interest

and opportunities for habitat creation/enhancement should be included within this assessment in accordance with

appropriate guidance on such matters. Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) have been developed

by the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM) and are available on their

website.

EcIA is the process of identifying, quantifying and evaluating the potential impacts of defined actions on

ecosystems or their components. EcIA may be carried out as part of the EIA process or to support other forms of

environmental assessment or appraisal.

The National Planning Policy Framework sets out guidance in S.118 on how to take account of biodiversity

interests in planning decisions and the framework that local authorities should provide to assist developers.

2.2 Internationally and Nationally Designated Sites

The ES should thoroughly assess the potential for the proposal to affect designated sites. European sites (e.g.

designated Special Areas of Conservation and Special Protection Areas) fall within the scope of the Conservation

of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. In addition paragraph 118 of the National Planning Policy Framework

requires that potential Special Protection Areas, possible Special Areas of Conservation, listed or proposed

Ramsar sites, and any site identified as being necessary to compensate for adverse impacts on classified,

potential or possible SPAs, SACs and Ramsar sites be treated in the same way as classified sites.

Under Regulation 61 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, an appropriate assessment

needs to be undertaken in respect of any plan or project which is (a) likely to have a significant effect on a

European site (either alone or in combination with other plans or projects) and (b) not directly connected with or

necessary to the management of the site.

Should a Likely Significant Effect on a European/Internationally designated site be identified or be uncertain, the

competent authority (in this case the Local Planning Authority) may need to prepare an Appropriate Assessment,

in addition to consideration of impacts through the EIA process.

Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) and sites of European or international importance (Special Areas of

The Ecological Impact Assessment

was undertaken in accordance with

the CIEEM Guidelines for Ecological

Impact Assessment 2006 (see

Section 7.2.3).

Opportunities for onsite habitat

creation/enhancement will be

developed as part of the site

Landscape Masterplan, once the

final layout of the scheme is defined.

Effects on Internationally and

Nationally Designated have been

assessed in Section 7.4. and Annex

E4.


Conservation, Special Protection Areas and Ramsar sites)

In this case the proposal is not directly connected with, or necessary to, the management of a European site. In

our view it is likely that it will have a significant effect on internationally designated sites and therefore will require

assessment under the Habitats Regulations. We welcome the intention to undertake a Habitats Regulations

screening assessment as detailed in Section 5.10.6 of the EIA Scoping Report. We recommend that this should

form a separate section of the Environmental Statement entitled ‘Information for Habitats Regulations

Assessment’. We note from Section 5.3.4 of the report that effects on sensitive ecological receptors due to

nitrogen and acid deposition will be considered. This should include consideration of effects on sensitive habitats

which are interest features of the Humber Estuary and Thorne Moor SACs. We are pleased to note that the

impacts on the Humber Estuary SAC of any variation to the existing water offtake will also be considered.

2.3 Regionally and Locally Important Sites

The EIA will need to consider any impacts upon local wildlife and geological sites. Local Sites are identified by the

local wildlife trust, geoconservation group or a local forum established for the purposes of identifying and

selecting local sites. They are of county importance for wildlife or geodiversity. The Environmental Statement

should therefore include an assessment of the likely impacts on the wildlife and geodiversity interests of such

sites. The assessment should include proposals for mitigation of any impacts and if appropriate, compensation

measures. Contact the local wildlife trust, geoconservation group or local sites body in this area for further

information.

2.4 Protected Species - Species protected by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and by the

Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010

The ES should assess the impact of all phases of the proposal on protected species (including, for example,

great crested newts, reptiles, birds, water voles, badgers and bats). Natural England does not hold

comprehensive information regarding the locations of species protected by law, but advises on the procedures

and legislation relevant to such species. Records of protected species should be sought from appropriate local

biological record centres, nature conservation organisations, groups and individuals; and consideration should be

given to the wider context of the site for example in terms of habitat linkages and protected species populations in

the wider area, to assist in the impact assessment.

The conservation of species protected by law is explained in Part IV and Annex A of Government Circular

06/2005 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation: Statutory Obligations and their Impact within the Planning

System. The area likely to be affected by the proposal should be thoroughly surveyed by competent ecologists at

appropriate times of year for relevant species and the survey results, impact assessments and appropriate

accompanying mitigation strategies included as part of the ES.

We note from Section 5.10.5 that the scope of protected species surveys will be refined following the Extended

A separate Information to Inform

Habitats Regulations Assessment

(HRA) is provided (see Annex E4).

Regionally and locally important

sites have been considered within

the ES (see Section 7.4).

Breeding bird surveys were

commissioned (see Annex E2).

Subsequent to the Extended Phase

1 survey further surveys for badgers

have been ruled out due to no

evidence being recorded. Further

bat surveys have also been ruled out

as no suitable roost sites were

identified. Potential foraging habitat

has been identified. Great crested

newt (GCN) surveys are not required

as no ponds occur within the

Proposed Development site and no

records of GCN have been recorded


Phase 1 Habitat Survey. Surveys should always be carried out in optimal survey time periods and to current

guidance by suitably qualified and where necessary, licensed, consultants. Natural England has adopted standing

advice for protected species which includes links to guidance on survey and mitigation, and is available at the

following link:

https://www.gov.uk/protected-species-and-sites-how-to-review-planning-proposals#standing-advice-for-protected-

species

2.5 Habitats and Species of Principal Importance

The ES should thoroughly assess the impact of the proposals on habitats and/or species listed as ‘Habitats and

Species of Principal Importance’ within the England Biodiversity List, published under the requirements of S41 of

the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006. Section 40 of the NERC Act 2006 places a

general duty on all public authorities, including local planning authorities, to conserve and enhance biodiversity.

Further information on this duty is available in the Defra publication ‘Guidance for Local Authorities on

Implementing the Biodiversity Duty’.

Government Circular 06/2005 states that Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) species and habitats ‘are capable of

being a material consideration…in the making of planning decisions’. Natural England therefore advises that

survey, impact assessment and mitigation proposals for Habitats and Species of Principal Importance should be

included in the ES. Consideration should also be given to those species and habitats included in the relevant

Local BAP.

We welcome the intention to carry out an Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey on the site, in order to identify any

important habitats present, and further detailed ecological surveys undertaken as required. The Environmental

Statement should include details of:

Any historical data for the site affected by the proposal (e.g. from previous surveys);

Additional surveys carried out as part of this proposal;

The habitats and species present;

The status of these habitats and species (e.g. whether priority species or habitat);

The direct and indirect effects of the development upon those habitats and species;

Full details of any mitigation or compensation that might be required.

The development should seek if possible to avoid adverse impact on sensitive areas for wildlife within the site,

and if possible provide opportunities for overall wildlife gain.

The record centre for the relevant Local Authorities should be able to provide the relevant information on the

location and type of priority habitat for the area under consideration.

2.6 Contacts for Local Records

in the vicinity of the site (see Annex

E1).

Identification of S1 habitats and

Species of Principal Importance,

incorporated into the Phase 1 survey

and impact assessment (see Section

7.4.2).

https://www.gov.uk/protected-species-and-sites-how-to-review-planning-proposals#standing-advice-for-protected-species

https://www.gov.uk/protected-species-and-sites-how-to-review-planning-proposals#standing-advice-for-protected-species


Natural England does not hold local information on local sites, local landscape character and local or national

biodiversity priority habitats and species. We recommend that you seek further information from the appropriate

bodies (which may include the local records centre, the local wildlife trust, local geoconservation group or other

recording society and a local landscape characterisation document).

Local Record Centre (LRC) in North Lincolnshire please contact:

Lincolnshire Environmental Records Centre (LERC)

Banovallum House, Manor House Street

Horncastle, Lincolnshire LN9 5HF Tel: 01507 526667

Email [email protected]

Geological sites in North Lincolnshire please contact:

Lincolnshire RIGS Group

160, Eastgate

Louth, Lincolnshire LN11 9AB

7. Climate Change Adaptation

The England Biodiversity Strategy published by Defra establishes principles for the consideration of biodiversity

and the effects of climate change. The ES should reflect these principles and identify how the development’s

effects on the natural environment will be influenced by climate change, and how ecological networks will be

maintained. The NPPF requires that the planning system should contribute to the enhancement of the natural

environment ‘by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures’

(NPPF Para 109), which should be demonstrated through the ES.

8. Cumulative and in-combination effects

A full consideration of the implications of the whole scheme should be included in the ES. All supporting

infrastructure should be included within the assessment.

The ES should include an impact assessment to identify, describe and evaluate the effects that are likely to result

from the project in combination with other projects and activities that are being, have been or will be carried out.

The following types of projects should be included in such an assessment, (subject to available information):

a. existing completed projects;

b. approved but uncompleted projects;

c. ongoing activities;

d. plans or projects for which an application has been made and which are under consideration by the

consenting authorities; and

e. plans and projects which are reasonably foreseeable, i.e. projects for which an application has not yet

been submitted, but which are likely to progress before completion of the development and for which

sufficient information is available to assess the likelihood of cumulative and in-combination effects.

Local records search commissioned

and data used to inform ES (see

Annex E3).

Opportunities for incorporating

ecological networks into mitigation

and landscape plans will be

considered in detail in a Landscape

masterplan to be developed in

consultation with North Lincolnshire

Council and Lincolnshire Wildlife

Trust.

Noted and considered within the ES.

mailto:[email protected]


Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust (LWT) Figure 5.10 - Environmental Sensitivities Map Within 10km

There are a number of non-statutory designated sites of nature conservation importance within 10km of the

proposed site which should be included on this map. These sites are called Local Wildlife Sites (LWSs) or Sites of

Nature Conservation Importance (SNCIs) and information on these sites can be obtained from the Lincolnshire

Environmental Records Centre (LERC) at the Greater Lincolnshire Nature Partnership (GLNP)

(www.glnp.org.uk).

Section 5.10.2

This section states that there is only one non-statutory designated site (or SINC) within 2km of the project. There

are a number of non-statutory designated sites within 2km of the project site. Information on these sites should be

obtained from the LERC and potential effects on these sites as a result of the development should be assessed

within the Environmental Impact Assessment.

Section 5.10.5

The desk study should include a data search from the LERC for records of protected and priority species and

non-statutory designated sites.

Consideration should be given to the need to assess habitats against the LWS criteria for Lincolnshire. For

example, from the description of the site it sounds like there may be habitats present that could potentially meet

the Brownfield mosaic criterion. Sufficient information should therefore be recorded during ecological surveys on

site to enable assessment against LWS criteria. If habitats of LWS quality are found on site then efforts should be

made to avoid development within those areas. However, if avoidance would not be possible then appropriate

compensatory habitat should be proposed of at least double the area to be lost and of at least equal quality, to

ensure that there would be a net gain in biodiversity in line with Biodiversity 2020 and the National Planning

Policy Framework.

Thank you again for the opportunity to comment. Should you have any queries regarding the above comments

please do not hesitate to contact me.

Data obtained from the Greater

Lincolnshire Nature Partnership and

mapped accordingly (see Figure 7.1

and 7.2).




and 7.2).

.




and 7.2).

.

Checks for habitat qualifying under

Local Wildlife Site criteria were

undertaken with particular attention

paid to brownfield mosaic habitat

(see Annex E1, Section 3.2).

North Lincolnshire Council North Lincolnshire Council received the EIA Scoping Report for the above proposal from DWD LLP on the18th

March 2015.

North Lincolnshire Council support the approach proposed for EIA in relation to ecology and make the follow

comments to support the preparation of the EIA;


• Water vole and otter should be added to the list of protected species that may be affected.

• The data search should include a search for details of Local Sites, including the adjacent Stainforth and Keadby

Canal Corridor Local Wildlife Site LWS.

• The applicant should provide the information reasonably required for the Competent Authority to carry out a

Habitats Regulations Assessment.

• If permission is ultimately granted, there will be a need to secure biodiversity enhancements in accordance with

the National Planning Policy Framework.

We agree with the proposal to compare the likely effects of the new proposal with those of the consented

scheme.

• We agree with the proposal to set out an assessment of the environmental effects of the alternatives

considered.

• In terms of survey work, we agree that it would be appropriate to carry out extended phase 1 habitat survey with

target notes, followed by standard methods surveys for protected and priority species where potential is identified.

• Given that there may be works to the Stainforth and Keadby Canal, water vole and otter should be added to the

list of protected species that may be affected and for which survey work may be required.

• We agree that a desktop data search is also required. The main source of information is the Lincolnshire

Environmental Records Centre. The search should include a search for details of Local Sites, including the

adjacent Stainforth and Keadby Canal Corridor Local Wildlife Site LWS.

North Lincolnshire Council agrees that the applicant should provide the information reasonably required for the

Competent Authority to carry out a Habitats Regulations Assessment. This could include:

Details of any water borne pollution from cooling water discharges (both thermal and chemical pollution).

Details of likely aerial deposition to habitat features.

Details of Humber Estuary SAC, SPA and Ramsar features that could be affected.

Potential for the entrainment of lamprey species or impacts on their habitat.

Biodiversity Enhancement

The National Planning Policy Framework states that:

“The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by:

• protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, geological conservation interests and soils;

• recognising the wider benefits of ecosystem services;

• minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible, contributing to

the Government’s commitment to halt the overall decline in biodiversity, including by establishing coherent

ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures...”

Local records search and the

Extended Phase 1 and an otter and

water vole survey were undertaken

to identify sites, species and habitats

and inform any additional survey

work. A report to Inform Appropriate

assessment has been prepared (see

Annex E4).


and

“opportunities to incorporate biodiversity in and around developments should be encouraged;”

With this application, biodiversity enhancement could be secured by:

• Enhanced management of brownfield habitats on site.

• Use of native trees and shrubs of high biodiversity value in landscaping.

• Provision of features such as nestboxes or bat boxes for Daubenton’s bats in particular.

SoS Scoping Opinion The SoS recommends that surveys should be thorough, up to date and the scope agreed in consultation with the

relevant Statutory Nature Conservation Bodies (SNCBs) and Local Wildlife Trusts. Particular attention should be

paid to the need for European and nationally protected species surveys which on the basis of current knowledge

potentially include:

Great Crested Newt

Bats

Badger

Water Vole

Breeding and Wintering Birds

Lesser Silver Water Beetle

Consultation has been undertaken

with SNBCs and LWT.

Breeding bird, otter, water vole and

badger field sign surveys have been

undertaken in addition to a bat roost

suitability survey (see Annexes E1

and E2).


7-9

7.1.4 Policy and Legislation

General Considerations

Relevant wildlife and countryside legislation has been referred to along with

planning policy guidance and the Local Biodiversity Action Plans (LBAP) to

inform this assessment. Legislation and guidance of relevance to the

ecological impact assessment for the Proposed Development is set out below.

Policy

Policy relevant to the Proposed Development is set out in Chapter 3 of this

ES. The table below identifies those policies that are relevant to ecology.

Topic Ecology and nature conservation

Overarching National

Policy Statement for

Energy(EN-1)

5.3 Biodiversity and geological conservation

National Policy Statement

for Fossil Fuel Electricity

Generating Infrastructure

(EN-2)

-

National Planning Policy

Framework (NPPF)

11 Conserving and enhancing the natural environment

Planning Practice

Guidance (PPG)

Natural environment

North Lincolnshire Local

Plan

Landscape and conservation policies

LC1, LC2, LC4, LC5, LC6

North Lincolnshire Core

Strategy

CS17 Biodiversity

North Lincolnshire Local Plan

The North Lincolnshire Local Development Framework sets out the strategic

policy framework for the North Lincolnshire region and is used to make

decisions on planning applications. The Core Strategy (1) (adopted 2011) is an

important element of the development framework and Chapter 11,

Environment and Resources, provides a detailed approach for managing the

environment in spatial terms.

North Lincolnshire Council’s Core Strategy (at policy CS17) states that the

Council will promote effective stewardship of North Lincolnshire’s wildlife

through seven identified actions, In respect to habitats and species, the

Lincolnshire Biodiversity Action Plan (LBAP) for Greater Lincolnshire was

published in 2011 by the Lincolnshire Biodiversity Partnership (LBP). The

Lincolnshire BAP seeks to meet the needs of UK BAP priority habitats found in

Lincolnshire, while addressing local needs. The Plan ensures biodiversity is

recognised as an essential element of life in the historic county of Lincolnshire

and relevant policies are aimed at safeguarding, managing, monitoring and

enhancing the biodiversity resources of the region.

(1) North Lincolnshire Council.2011. North Lincolnshire Local Development Framework Core Strategy Adopted - Chapter

11 Environment and Resources. Lincolnshire: North Lincolnshire Council


7-10

European Legislation

EC Directive 2009/147/EC on the Conservation of Wild Birds (The ‘Birds

Directive’)

EC Council Directive 2009/147/EC on the Conservation of Wild Birds

(the ‘Birds Directive’) provides a framework for the conservation and

management of wild birds in Europe by introducing a general framework of

protection. The Directive additionally provides for the identification and

classification of Special Protection Areas (SPAs) for rare or vulnerable species

listed in Annex I of the Directive, and for regularly occurring migratory species.

EC Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of

Wild Fauna and Flora (The ‘Habitats Directive’)

In 1992 the then European Community adopted Council Directive 92/43/EEC

on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, known as

the ‘Habitats Directive’. The main aim of this Directive is to promote the

maintenance of biodiversity by requiring member states to introduce protection

for these habitats and species of European importance. Included within the

Directive is a requirement for the designation of Special Areas of Conservation

(SAC), both for habitats listed under Annex I and for species listed within

Annex II of the Directive. It also introduces a strict system of protection for

species listed on Annex IV of the Directive (referred to as European Protected

Species) irrespective of where they occur.

Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, as amended

(The ‘Habitats Regulations’)

In the UK, the ‘Habitats Directive’ was transposed into law by means of the

Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 (as amended). The

Regulations came into force on 30th October 1994, and have been amended

several times. Subsequently the Conservation of Habitats and Species

Regulations 2010 were made which consolidate all the various amendments

made to the 1994 Regulations in respect of England and Wales and is

commonly known as the ‘the Habitats Regulations’. The Regulations contain

five Parts and four Schedules, and provide for the designation and protection

of ‘European Sites’, the protection of ‘European Protected Species’, and the

adoption of planning and other controls for the protection of European Sites.

This legislation is the principal means by which the Birds Directive and

‘Habitats Directive’ are implemented in the UK.

National Legislation

Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, as amended (WCA)

The WCA is the major legal instrument for wildlife protection in the UK;

however the original act has been subject to significant modification by

subsequent legislation. The WCA is the means by which the Bern Convention

and the ‘Birds Directive’ are implemented in Great Britain.

The WCA protects the most important habitats as Sites of Special Scientific

Interest (SSSIs).

Wild animals listed in Schedule 5 of the Act are subject to specific protection

under Section 9, which make the following an offence:


7-11

intentional killing, injuring and taking;

possession or control;

intentional or reckless damage to, destruction of, obstruction of access to

any structure or place used by a scheduled animal for shelter or protection;

intentional or reckless disturbance of an animal occupying such a structure

or place;

selling, offering for sale, possessing or transporting for the purposes of

sale; and

advertising for buying or selling.

The WCA prohibits the intentional killing, injuring or taking of any wild bird

(with certain exceptions) and the taking, damaging or destroying of a wild

bird’s nest or eggs. Special penalties are given for offences related to birds

listed on Schedule 1. It also provides a level of protection to plants listed in

Schedule 8 and makes it an offence to plant or otherwise cause to grow in the

wild any plant that is included in Schedule 9 of the Act.

Countryside and Rights of Way (CRoW) Act 2000 (as amended)

Part III of the CRoW Act deals specifically with wildlife protection and nature

conservation. The CRoW Act amends the WCA, by strengthening the

protection of designated SSSIs. In addition, it increases the legal protection of

threatened species, by also making it an offence to ‘recklessly’ destroy,

damage or obstruct access to a sheltering place used by an animal listed in

Schedule 5 of the Act or ‘recklessly’ disturb an animal occupying such a

structure or place.

Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006

The NERC Act created a new integrated agency, named ‘Natural England’,

through the merger of the Countryside Agency’s landscape, access and

recreation functions, English Nature and part of the Rural Development

Service (RDS) that dealt with nature conservation.

Section 40 provides that every public authority, in exercising its functions, shall

have regard, so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those

functions, to the purpose of conserving biodiversity. Conserving biodiversity

includes, in relation to a living organism or type of habitat, restoring or

enhancing a population or habitat. A public authority includes a Minister of the

Crown. It also requires the Secretary of State to publish a list of living

organisms and habitat types which in his or her opinion are of principal

importance for the purpose of conserving biodiversity. Before publishing that

list, the Secretary of State is obliged to consult Natural England.


7-12

Protection of Badgers Act 1992

The Protection of Badgers Act 1992 was specifically put in place to protect the

welfare of badgers (Meles meles) in the UK and protect them from

persecution. The Act makes it an offence to:

wilfully kill, take, possess or cruelly ill-treat a badger, or attempt to do so;

interfere with a sett by damaging or destroying it;

obstruct access to, or any entrance of, a badger sett; or

disturb a badger when it is occupying a sett.

Eels (England and Wales) Regulations 2009

The Eels (England and Wales) Regulations 2009 grants powers to the

Environment Agency to implement measures for the recovery of European eel

stocks and have implications for the operators of abstractions and discharges.

For the power plant operations, particularly involving the abstraction of

relatively large water volumes for cooling, a main implication is for intake

design to include measures that prevent the entrainment of eels.

Hedgerow Regulations 1997

The Hedgerow Regulations detail the following criteria for the protection of

‘important’ hedgerows in England and Wales. Important hedgerows are those

which:

have existed for 30 years or more; and/or

satisfy at least one of the criteria listed in Part II of Schedule 1.

The criteria included in Part II of Schedule 1 include hedgerows that possess

features of archaeological, conservation or landscape interest. In addition, the

regulations detail prohibited actions and exceptions for the removal and

replacement of hedgerows.

7.1.5 Supporting Information for this Chapter

Information on the results of baseline surveys and other studies is provided in

a series of Appendices as set out below.

Annex E1 Extended Phase 1Survey Report and Target Notes

Annex E2 Common Bird Census Survey Report

Annex E3 Greater Lincolnshire Nature Partnership Data Request Results

Annex E4 Information to Inform Habitat Regulations Assessment

7.2 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

7.2.1 Desk Study Methodology

Data were requested from the Greater Lincolnshire Nature Partnership

(GLNP) to obtain information on non-statutory sites, known habitats and

species of note, within 2 km of the Proposed Development and statutory sites

of nature conservation interest within 10 km.


7-13

The UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UK BAP), Lincolnshire Biodiversity Action

Plan (LBAP) and Keadby Wind Farm ES (1) were also consulted to identify

habitats and species of national and local importance.

7.2.2 Baseline Survey Methodologies

Introduction

A number of ecological surveys have been undertaken. These surveys have

broadly followed the standard survey guidance for habitats and species and

provide an important resource upon which to base the impact assessment.

The individual survey methodologies are outlined below.

Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey

An Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey was undertaken by two ERM

consultants between the 27th and 29th April 2015 (late April is considered the

start of the field season for vegetation survey in north England). An additional

area added to the development footprint was surveyed on 26th August. The

adopted methodology followed the Joint Nature Conservation Committee

(JNCC) Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey (2003) (2) as extended for use in

Environmental Assessment (3). This involved classifying habitats, determining

the dominant plant species and compiling a species list for each habitat type.

The locations of field evidence of protected fauna, notably bats, badgers,

water vole and otter or (potential) areas of protected fauna breeding and

foraging activity are marked on the habitat map that is included as Annex E1,

Figure 7.1 and the Target Notes provided in Annex E1.

The nomenclature of vascular plants occurring within the defined survey area

follows Stace (2010) (4).

Common Bird Census Survey

A terrestrial breeding bird survey was undertaken by Peak Ecology

consultants using a six visit Common Bird Census (CBC) methodology as

described in Bibby et al (2000); with surveys conducted in April, May, June

and July 2015. During each visit, British Trust for Ornithology (BTO) breeding

evidence codes were used to record the species present, age and sex (where

possible), as well as numbers and behaviour.

7.2.3 Impact Assessment Methodology and Criteria

Overview

The EIA considers the likely effects of construction, operational and

decommissioning activities on habitats and species of conservation interest.

The assessment has been informed by a combination of desk based

assessment and field based surveys and consultation, with further

(1) Renewable Energy Systems (RES)(2003) Keadby Wind Farm Environmental Impact Assessment. Hertfordshire: RES (2) Joint Nature Conservation Committee (2003) Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey - A Technique for Environmental

Audit, Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC), Peterborough. (3) Institute of Environmental Assessment (1995) Guidelines for Baseline Ecological Assessment, Spon, London.

(4) Stace, C. (2010) New Flora of the British Isles. 3rd edition. UK. Cambridge University Press.


7-14

consultation to be continued with relevant statutory and non-statutory

organisations as necessary.

The significance of effects is determined using standard impact assessment

methods and criteria, i.e. Institute of Ecology and Environmental

Management’s (IEEM, now the Chartered Institute of Ecology and

Environmental Management, CIEEM) Guidelines for Ecological Impact

Assessment (EcIA) (2006). The assessment takes into account the

magnitude of the impact and the nature conservation value of affected

receptors.

The residual effects are presented to make it clear to the decision maker and

stakeholders the likely significance of the effects that will result from the

Proposed Development on nature conservation interest with all mitigation

measures in places. Mitigation measures will be presented to avoid, minimise

or reduce adverse effects; suitable opportunities to enhance the nature

conservation interest of the site will also be developed.

The ecological impact assessment and associated Annex E is intended to

present sufficient information on the effects predicted on European designated

sites to enable the competent authority to undertake, if required, a

screening (1) or appropriate assessment (2) under the Habitat Regulations.

Specifically, information to inform a Habitats Regulations Assessment by the

competent authority is presented in Annex E4). Where, in Annex E4, the

conclusion is reached that the Proposed Development will not adversely affect

the integrity of a European site, the EIA reports that in EcIA terms, the residual

effect is Not Significant.

Prediction of Impacts

The impacts of the Proposed Development during construction, operation and

decommissioning were assessed in relation to the findings of the ecological

baseline surveys. In addition, possible impacts on designated sites in

proximity to the Proposed Development were considered.

Significance Evaluation Criteria

The potential for ecological and nature conservation effects has been

assessed in light of the habitats and the species that are likely to be affected

by the Proposed Development, taking into account the latest Guidelines for

Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom published by the

Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM,

2006) (3) .

(1) A determination as to whether the Proposed Development is likely to have a significant effect on a European site or

European offshore marine site (either alone or in combination with other plans or projects) (2) An appropriate assessment of the implications for a European site or European offshore marine site in view of the site’s

conservation objectives. (3) CIEEM (2006) Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom. IEEM, Winchester.


7-15

As part of the assessment the significance of potential ecological effects has

been evaluated taking into account the following factors:

the magnitude of both positive and negative effects, as determined by

intensity, frequency and by the extent of the effect in space and time;

the vulnerability of the habitat or species to the changes likely to arise from

the development;

the ability of the habitat, species or ecosystem to recover, considering both

fragility and resilience;

the viability of component ecological elements and the integrity of

ecosystem function, processes and favourable condition;

value within a defined geographic frame of reference (e.g. UK, national,

regional or district);

the biodiversity value of affected species, populations, communities,

habitats and ecosystems, considering aspects such as rarity, distinct sub-

populations of a species, habitat diversity and connectivity, species-rich

assemblages and species distribution and extent; and

designated site and protected species status including listing under section

41 of the NERC (2006) act, and as Priority Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP)

or Habitat Action Plan (HAP) status.

Effects are considered to be either significant or not significant in their residual

effect on each ecological receptor, after taking into account criteria including

the extent, magnitude and duration of the impact, zone of influence, mitigation

measures and the confidence in predictions associated with the assessment.

7.3 BASELINE CONDITIONS

7.3.1 Introduction

This section sets out what is currently known about the baseline ecology and

nature conservation interests of the Proposed Development site.

7.3.2 Ecological Context and Study Area

The study area has been defined with reference to CIEEM guidance (1). The

zone of influence for the Proposed Development has been initially defined as

10 km for Statutory Designated sites, 2 km for non-Statutory Designated sites,

and a general field survey of all habitats within the red line boundary plus a

buffer of up to 50 m, on the basis that there was no GCN habitat in the vicinity

of the Proposed Development. In addition, protected species recorded within

2 km of the Proposed Development have been considered.

(1) IEEM (2006) Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom. IEEM, Winchester.


7-16

7.3.3 Desk Study Results

Nature Conservation Designations

The Proposed Development is not located within any statutory or non-statutory

nature conservation designations. The closest designated sites are listed in

Table 7.2. The locations of statutory sites are shown in Figure 7.1 and non-

statutory sites in Figure 7.2.

Table 7.2 Ecological Designations

Ecological

Designation

Name and Proximity to

Proposed Development

Site

Ecological Qualifying Feature/s

Special Area of Conservation (SAC)

SAC Thorne Moor (6.7 km) Raised bog habitat

SAC Humber Estuary (i.e. that

part of the SAC directly

adjacent to the outflow

pipe)

Atlantic salt meadows, estuarine

habitats, sandbanks, coastal lagoons

and dunes.

Grey seal (Halichoerus grypus)

River lamprey (Lampetra fluviatilis)

Sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus)

Special Protection Area (SPA)

SPA Thorne and Hatfield Moor

(6.7 km)

European Nightjar

SPA Humber Estuary (i.e. that

part of the SPA at the

mouth of the Trent on the

edge of the 10 km zone of

influence)

Breeding, passage and wintering bird

populations

Ramsar site

Ramsar Humber Estuary (i.e. that

part of the Ramsar site

directly adjacent to the

outflow pipe)

Near natural estuary, supporting dune

systems, estuarine waters, intertidal mud

and sand flats, saltmarshes and saline

lagoons. The Humber estuary supports

a breeding colony of grey seals and an

assemblage of waterfowl of international

importance.

Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI)

SSSI Crowle Borrow Pits

(3.3 km)

Alder woodland with willow scrub habitat.

Supports nationally rare marsh fen.

SSSI Eastoft Meadow (4.2 km) Herb rich, meadow habitat.

SSSI Messingham Heath

(9.25 km)

Coversand heathland

SSSI Risby Warren (7.6 km) Heathland habitat supporting a mosaic of

plant communities of acid and

calcareous grassland, broadleaved scrub

and coniferous plantation.

SSSI Belshaw (7.7 km) Neutral grassland habitat which supports

the nationally rare Rhinanthus

angustifolius (greater yellow rattle).

SSSI Thorne, Crowle and Goole

Moors (6.7 km)

Lowland raised mire

SSSI Conesby (Yorkshire East)

Quarry (7 km)

Geological designation for exposure of

Frodingham Ironstone. Supports a rich

bivalve population.

SSSI Hatfield Chase Ditches

(3.6 km)

Former marsh and wetland habitat

including ditches which support a rich


7-17

Ecological

Designation

Name and Proximity to

Proposed Development

Site

Ecological Qualifying Feature/s

assemblage of aquatic flora.

SSSI Humber Estuary (directly

adjacent to outflow pipe)

Estuary habitats including mudflats,

saltmarsh, sand dunes. The site supports

a grey seal colony, two lamprey species

and a number of nationally important

populations of breeding, wintering and

passage birds.

National Nature Reserve (NNR)

NNR Humberhead Peatlands

(6.8 km)

Extensive lowland mire habitat.

Local Nature Reserve (LNR)

LNR Atkinson’s Warren (3.9 km) Extensive area of rough grazed

grassland, birch and oak woodland and

Scot’s pine and sycamore plantation.

LNR Brumby Wood (4.3 km) Ancient semi natural woodland which

provides valuable habitat for birds,

mammals and invertebrates.

LNR Frodingham (4.9 km) Supports a declining wet wildflower

meadow and perimeter trees.

LNR Sawcliffe (6.8 km) Former ironstone mine which has been

planted with mixed broadleaved and

coniferous trees.

LNR Phoenix Parkway (4.2 km) Acid grassland and woodland habitat.

LNR Silica Lodge (5.6 km) Open grassland habitat with ponds and a

small area of woodland.

Local Wildlife Sites (LWS)

LWS Keadby Boundary Drain

(540 m)

Semi improved grassland habitat with a

drain feature, supporting aquatic

vegetation, including locally uncommon

Myriophyllum verticillatum (whorled water

milfoil).

LWS Keadby Warping Drain Reedbed, coarse grassland and scrub

habitat mosaic with a drain feature

supporting aquatic vegetation.

LWS Keadby Wet Grassland

(70m)

Grassland mosaic including; neutral

grassland, damp grassland, marsh, fen

and grazing marsh.

LWS Keadby Wetland (46 m) Scrub and grassland habitats.

LWS South Soak Drain, Keadby

(45 m)

Semi improved neutral grassland habitat

with a running water drain supporting

aquatic, emergent and marginal flora.

LWS Stainforth and Keadby

Canal Corridor (10 m)

Canal and drain features bordered by

coarse and neutral grassland, scrub and

reed bed habitats.

LWS Three Rivers (447 m) Dense and scattered scrub, semi

improved neutral grassland and running

water habitat mosaic.

Sites of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCIs)

SNCI Keadby Power Station

(43 m)

Scrub and grassland habitat

SNCI Three Rivers Marsh

(324 m)

Reed bed habitat

Crowle Borrow Pits

Eastoft Meadow

Messingham Heath

Risby Warren

BelshawHatfield Chase Ditches

Humberhead Peatlands

Atkinson's Warren

Brumby Wood

Frodingham

Phoenix Parkway

Silica Lodge

Thorne & Hatfield Moors

Thorne Moor

Thorne, Crowle and Goole Moors

Conesby (Yorkshire East) Quarry

Sawcliffe

The Humber Estuary SSSI, SAC and Ramsar

Humber EstuarySPA

10km Buffer of Site Boundary

DRAWN: GB

CHECKED: AW

APPROVED: KM

PROJECT: 0280278

Figure 7.1Statutory Designated Sites within 10 km

© OpenStreetMap (and) contributors, CC-BY-SA; Reproduced with the permission of the British Geological Survey ©NERC. All rights reserved, Natural England, English Heritage, National Grid, RSPB

SCALE: As scale bar

Path: P:\Projects\0280278_KeadbyGIS_GB_KM\MAPS\EIA\07_Ecology\0280278_DesingatedSites_A02.mxd

PROJ

ECTIO

N: Br

itish N

ation

al Gr

id

VERSION: A05

SIZE: A3

DATE: 26/02/2015

Site Location10km Buffer of Site Boundary

Statutory Sites within 10km of the SiteRamsarSpecial Area of ConservationSite of Special Scientific InterestNational Nature ReserveLocal Nature Reserve

! ! !

! ! ! Special Protection Area0 1 2 3 4

Kilometres ±

Keadby Boundary Drain

Keadby Warping Drain

Keadby Wet Grassland

Keadby Wetland

South Soak Drain, KeadbyStainforth and Keadby Canal Corridor

Three Rivers

Keadby Power Station

Three Rivers Marsh

2km Buffer of Site Boundary

DRAWN: GB

CHECKED: PW

APPROVED: KM

PROJECT: 0280278

Figure 7.2Non - Statutory Designated Sites within 2 km

© OpenStreetMap (and) contributors, CC-BY-SA; Reproduced with the permission of the British Geological Survey ©NERC. All rights reserved, Natural England, English Heritage, National Grid, RSPB

SCALE: As scale bar

Path: P:\Projects\0280278_KeadbyGIS_GB_KM\MAPS\EIA\07_Ecology\0280278_NONStatutorySites_A01.mxd

PROJ

ECTIO

N: B

ritish

Nati

onal

Grid

VERSION: A05

SIZE: A3

DATE: 26/02/2015

2km Buffer of Site BoundarySite Boundary

Statutory Sites within 2km of Site BoundarySite of Nature Conservation InterestLocal Wildlife Site

0 200 400 600 800Meters ±


7-20

Protected Species

The results of the data requests submitted to GLNP are provided in full in

Appendix E3 and have been used to inform the sections below.

Species of note that are known to occur, or having potential to occur within

2 km of the Proposed Development are listed in Table 7.3. Consultation with

Natural England, North Lincolnshire Council and Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust

confirmed that the need or otherwise for surveys for protected and priority

species, notably otter and water vole should be determined, following the

Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey.

Table 7.3 Priority and Protected Species Records

Species and Conservation Status GLNP Records

European Protected Species:

Bats

All bat species are protected in Europe under

Annex IIa and IVa of the EC Habitats

Directive (92/43/EC), as applied in the UK

under the 2010 Conservation of Habitats and

Species Regulations (the Habitats

Regulations) Schedule 2

12 records of Chiroptera species have been

recorded between 1988 and 2012.

Seven records of common pipistrelle

(Pipistrellus pipistrellus) between 2002 and

2012.

One soprano pipistrelle (Pipistrellus

pygmaeus) recorded in 2003.

Two records of unidentified Pipistelle sp.

between 2003 and 2010.

Otter (Lutra lutra)

Protected under Schedule 2 of the Habitats

Regulations 2010.

No historic records of otter within 2 km of the

Proposed Development.

Great Crested Newt (Triturus cristatus)

Protected under Schedule 2 of the Habitats

Regulations (2010

Listed under Section 41 and 42 of the NERC

Act 2006 (1).

One historic record of great crested newt in

1977.

Other Protected Species:

Reptiles

All reptiles in the UK are protected under

Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside

Act 1981 (as amended)

One historic record of common lizard

(Zootoca vivipara) in 1977.

Amphibians, including common frog

(Rana temporaria), common toad (Bufo

bufo) and smooth newt (Lissotriton

vulgaris)

Protected under Wildlife & Countryside Act

1981, Countryside and Rights of Way Act

2000, NERC Act 2006, Conservation of

Habitats and Species Regulations 2010.

11 records of common frog between 1977

and 2010.

Nine records of common toad between 1977

and 2003.

One record of smooth newt in 1977.

Water vole

Protection through inclusion on Schedule 5 of

the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as

51 records of water vole have been recorded


(1) Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (2006).


7-21

Species and Conservation Status GLNP Records

amended) in respect of

Section 9 (4) only

Badger (Meles meles)

Protected under the Protection of Badgers

Act 1992

20 records of badger have been recorded


Breeding Birds including

barn owl (Tyto alba), Cetti’s warbler (Cettia

cetti), marsh harrier (Circus aeruginosus),

Montagu’s harrier (Circus pygargus),

osprey (Pandion haliaetus), hobby (Falco

subbuteo) and peregrine (Falco

peregrinus)

All breeding birds are protected under the

under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981

Barn owl, Cetti’s warbler, marsh harrier,

Montagu’s harrier, osprey, hobby and

peregrine are listed on Schedule 1 of the

Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981 and are

subject to additional protection particularly in

relation to protection from disturbance whilst

nesting.

Seven historic records of barn owl have been

recorded between 2001 and 2003.

One historic record of Cetti’s warbler in 2009.

Two records of hen harrier between 2003 and

2005.

Two records of Montagu’s harrier were

recorded in 2012.

One record of osprey in 2012.

Two records of hobby between 2003 and

2011.

Two records of peregrine have been recorded


Data request results from the GLNP show that there have been few recent

records for amphibians and reptiles and no records for otter and great crested

newts. Locations for sightings of water vole were not provided however

survey results within the Keadby Wind Farm ES show a water vole sighting

recorded south of the power station, at the Three Rivers.

European Eel

The European eel, Anguilla anguilla, is widely distributed throughout European

estuarine and inland waters. Estimates at the glass eel stage, however,

indicate that recruitment across Europe has fallen to below five per cent of

historic levels. Since 2000, The International Council for the Exploration of the

Seas (ICES) has advised that the stock is outside safe biological limits and

that current fisheries are not sustainable. This includes European eel

populations throughout the UK, and they are considered a priority species

under the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP). Protection of European eels is

offered by the Council Regulation (EC) 1100/2007 which sets a target for the

recovery of European eel stocks and requires EU member states to develop

management plans to improve eel stocks.

Likely causes for the current decline in the eel population include:

barriers to migration and habitat loss;

overfishing;

pollution;

infestation by the nematode parasite Anguillicola crassus; and

climate conditions affecting ocean currents and temperatures.


7-22

The Eel Management Plan for the Humber River Basin District (RBD) provides

information on the status of eels and provides detailed data for several

catchments. Fishery surveys undertaken as part of the Management Plan in

rivers, streams and drains close to the Humber (within the study area)

between 2001 and 2009 found eels in 58% of the surveys. The presence of

eels at survey sites is shown in Figure 7.3 (where there are at least two

surveys over the period).

Figure 7.3 Presence of Eels at Survey Sites 2001-2009

Source: Environment Agency 2011a. The Humber Environment in Focus 2011.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/297466/gene061

1btzc-e-e.pdf

Within the Humber RBD (which incorporates the River Trent and Stainforth

and Keadby Canal) work to implement the Eel Regulation 2009 is underway,

including removal of barriers to upstream and downstream migration.

Sea and River Lamprey

Lampreys are among the most primitive of all living vertebrate animals. They

have a distinct mouth with no lower jaw; instead the mouth is surrounded by a

round sucker like disc within which adults have strong, rasping teeth. Three

species of lamprey inhabit British waters; sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus),

river lamprey (Lampetra fluviatilis) and brook lamprey (Lampetra planeri). All

three are listed under the Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna

and flora Directive (92/43/EEC) and are indicator species under the fish

biological element of the Water Framework Directive. Special Areas of

Conservation (SAC) require the assessment of consents which may present a

risk to lamprey populations and actions to protect them.

Sea lampreys are the largest and rarest of the three lamprey species recorded

within the UK. Sea lampreys are found in shallow coastal and deep offshore

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/297466/gene0611btzc-e-e.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/297466/gene0611btzc-e-e.pdf


7-23

waters over much of the North Atlantic and migrate into fresh water to spawn.

Sea lamprey spawn on clean gravel. These spawning sites are in the main

river tributaries of the Ouse such as the Swale, Ure, Nidd and Wharfe. The

larvae (ammocetes) hatch out of the eggs and burrow in silt beds before they

metamorphose and migrate downstream into the Humber Estuary and to the

sea.

River lampreys migrate from the sea to spawn in many UK rivers. As with sea

lamprey, they need clean gravel for spawning and marginal silt for their larvae

to burrow into. The larvae spend several years in silt beds before

metamorphosing and migrating downstream into estuaries to feed. After one

to two years they stop feeding and migrate upstream to spawn in freshwater.

The river lamprey is found only in western Europe, where it has a wide

distribution from southern Norway to the western Mediterranean. The UK

populations are considered important for the conservation of the species at an

EU level.

River lampreys use the Humber as a migratory passage to and from their

spawning and nursery grounds in the River Derwent and the River Ouse.

Evidence indicates those lampreys are present in the River Humber

throughout the year (Humber Nature Partnership).

7.3.4 Field Survey Results

Introduction

For ease of reference, key information from the individual field survey reports

is summarised below and in the appendices to this document (Annexes E1

and E2).

Phase 1 Habitat Survey

Most of the brownfield area of the Proposed Development site supports dense

and scattered scrub, dominated by Crataegus monogyna (common hawthorn)

and Rubus fruticosus (bramble), with waste and spoil deposits (see Figure

7.4). The brownfield site within the western part of the Proposed Development

site was assessed according to GLNP guidelines for brownfield mosaic

habitats. The brownfield site was considered to not meet the guideline criteria

for brownfield mosaic (1) habitats, as it did not support the required number of

two early successional communities, having only sparse, short sward

grassland. Additionally, the site did not support the required minimum of four

brownfield features, having only the following: variation in topography and

substrate; unmanaged dead plant matter; and rabbit grazing and human

activities to maintain bare substrate.

(1) Greater Lincolnshire Nature Partnership (GLNP) (2013) Local Wildlife Site Guidelines for Greater Lincolnshire. 3rd

Edition

!P!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P !P!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

12

3

45

67

8

9

1011

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2122

23 2425

26

27

2828

29

30

31

DRAWN: GB

CHECKED: KM

APPROVED: KM

PROJECT: 0265294

Figure 7.4Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey Map

SOURCE: Reproduced from Ordnance Survey digital map data. © Crown copyright, All rights reserved. 2016 License number 0100031673.

SCALE: As scale bar

Path: P:\Projects\0280278_KeadbyGIS_GB_KM\MAPS\EIA\07_Ecology\0280278_Phase1 _A03.mxd

PROJ

ECTIO

N: Br

itish N

ation

al Gr

id

VERSION: A05

SIZE: A3

DATE: 03/02/2015

Site BoundarySite Survey AreaExisiting Cooling Pipe

!P Target Note

D A2.2 - Scrub - scatteredD D DA2.2 - Scrub - scattered! !! A3.3 - Mixed parkland/scattered trees| | | | | | | J2.4 - Fence

J2.6 - Dry ditchA1.1.1 - Broadleaved woodland - semi-naturalA1.1.2 - Broadleaved woodland - plantationA2.1 - Scrub - dense/continuous

D D D

D D D A2.2 - Scrub - scattered

! ! !

! ! !! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !A3.3 - Mixed parkland/scattered treesB2.1 - Neutral grassland - unimproved

IS IS ISB2.2 - Neutral grassland - semi-improved

I II I B4 - Improved grassland

SI SISI SI B6 - Poor semi-improved grassland

F2.2 - Marginal and inundation - inundation vegetationG1 - Standing waterG2 - Running water

S S SS S SI2.2 - Spoil

A A AA A AJ1.1 - Cultivated/disturbed land - arable

A A AA A AJ1.2 - Cultivated/disturbed land - amenity grassland

D

D DD DD D J1.3 - Cultivated/disturbed land - ephemeral/short

perennial

J3.6 - Buildings

!

!

!

! !

! !

! !

! !

J4 - Bare groundJ5 - Other habitat

0 50 100 150 200Metres ±


7-25

In the eastern part of the Proposed Development site (within the perimeter

fence and surrounding the cooling towers), amenity grassland is the dominant

habitat with four isolated semi mature Sorbus sp. trees and an isolated Malus

sp. and areas of bare and disturbed ground.

At the southern boundary of the survey area, two running water bodies were

recorded: North Soak Drain and the Stainforth and Keadby Canal. Both water

bodies are characterised by deep water and are approximately 4 m and 15 m

in width, respectively. Both water bodies appear to be intensively managed

through frequent dredging and clearing, with little aquatic vegetation visible

from the banking.

To the south of the Proposed Development site, adjacent to the North Soak

Drain and Stainforth and Keadby canal is an area of semi natural broadleaved

woodland and includes native Crataegus monogyna and Salix caprea.

European Protected Species

The dense and scattered scrub brownfield habitats may provide potential

breeding and foraging habitat for birds and foraging habitat for bats. No

suitable roost features for bats were identified within the brownfield area

during the survey.

The Sorbus sp trees within the perimeter fence in the eastern part of the

Proposed Development site were assessed as having low potential to support

roosting bats, as they are semi mature with no visible cracks, crevices or hole

features.

The Malus sp. tree located in the amenity grassland, next to the storage tanks

was assessed as having moderate potential to support roosting bats as there

were several visible hole and crevice features.

The woodland to the south of the Proposed Development site may provide

potential breeding and foraging habitat for birds and foraging habitat for bats.

Trees within this woodland area are considered semi mature and not suitable

for roosting bats due to having no visible crevice, hole or crack features.

Within the perimeter fence, there are a number of portable cabin buildings

which have been assessed as being of low potential to support roosting bats

due to having no access points, roof void or loose roof or wall features.

Nationally Protected Species

No signs of badger activity were recorded during the survey but the species is

known to be widespread and common in North Lincolnshire. The broadleaved

semi natural Salix caprea woodland to the south of the power station, adjacent

to the canal is considered to provide suitable breeding habitat for badger,

however, no evidence of badger was recorded.

No signs of badgers were recorded within the brownfield area and the nature

of the gravelly substrate and concrete, tarmac and rubble waste and spoil

deposits within the brownfield site is considered unsuitable for badgers to

construct setts.


7-26

A survey of the Stainforth and Keadby Canal, South Soak Drain, North Soak

Drain, Keadby Warping Drain, Keadby Pumping Drain and ditches within the

development footprint were surveyed for characteristic field signs of otter

(Lutra lutra) and water vole (Arvicola amphibius) on the 26th August 2015.

No signs of otter were recorded during the survey and limited bankside trees,

logs or caves suitable for holts were noted. During the survey, two local

fishermen provided anecdotal evidence stating that they had never seen otter

at the Stainforth and Keadby Canal. The Keadby Wind Farm ES (1)

considered that otter may move through water courses surrounding the

Keadby power station on an irregular basis.

No water voles were seen during the survey however possible signs and

suitable habitat were recorded in several of the drains. The South Soak Drain,

North Soak Drain and Keadby Pumping Drain were found to have slow flowing

water, easily penetrable earth banks and riparian vegetation on the banks and

in the water. There was also limited over- shading vegetation. However,

suitability was limited as the drains appear to be intensively managed and

banking had been recently mown (Annex E1, Target Note 27 and 29).

Stainforth and Keadby Canal was not found suitable for water vole as the

canal was lined with sheet metal and in-water vegetation has been recently

dredged and deposited on the banking (Annex E1, Target Note 28).

Other Species

During the survey, six roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) were seen moving from

the dense scrub in the northern extent of the survey area; into spring sown

arable crops north of the survey area (Annex E1, Target note 10). Signs of

roe deer browsing were also observed throughout the brownfield section of the

survey area, with bark stripped from semi mature Salix sp. (Annex E1, Target

Note 8) and numerous racks (2) identified.

Fox scats were observed throughout the dense and scattered scrub habitat

within the brownfield extent of the survey area (Annex E1, Target Note 17).

Common Bird Census Survey

Breeding bird surveys within the survey boundary commenced in early April

and concluded in July. Survey findings suggest that the dense and scattered

scrub habitat within the brownfield site supports probable breeding willow

warbler (Phylloscopus trochilus) and whitethroat (Sylvia communis) which are

Amber listed Birds of Conservation Concern (BoCC) (3) , chiffchaff

(Phylloscopus collybita), lesser whitethroat (Sylvia curruca), yellowhammer

(Emberiza citrinella) and linnet (Carduelis cannabina), the latter two species

being Red listed BoCC. A large carrion crow (Corvus corone) population has

(1) Renewable Energy Systems (RES)(2003) Keadby Wind Farm Environmental Impact Assessment. Hertfordshire: RES (2) Track which deer regularly use. (3) Red listed – a species of high conservation concern; Amber listed – a species of medium conservation concern.

Conservation status is taken from Eaton MA, Brown AF, Noble DG, Musgrove AJ, Hearn R, Aebischer NJ, Gibbons DW,

Evans A and Gregory RD (2009) Birds of Conservation Concern 3: the population status of birds in the United Kingdom,

Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. British Birds 102, pp296-341.


7-27

also been recorded using the electricity towers and gantries within the power

station.

Survey Limitations

The Extended Phase 1 Habitat map produced is thought to be a reasonable

representation of the survey area. The survey was undertaken early in the

vegetation season and the timing was suitable for early flowering species.

However, given differing phenology of plants not all species would have been

flowering at the time of survey and so some may not have been identified.

The limitation of not identifying all flora species will not undermine the value of

the impact assessment.

Due to the depth of water within the surveyed drains and health and safety

protocol, surveyors did not enter the water in order to look for water vole field

signs along the banking. Signs of water vole were relatively difficult to detect

due to the steep nature of the banking and heavy rainfall during the night

before the survey. Surveyors were also unable to gain access to drains

bordering arable fields to the north east of the power station, following the

discharge pipeline route due to access arrangements with landowners. A

precautionary approach has therefore been adopted for the impact

assessment, whereby where potential signs were identified water vole are

considered to be present.

7.3.5 Other Surveys

European Eel

An entrainment survey undertaken by APEM in 2010 (1) recorded all life stages

of eel as entrained at the Keadby 1 cooling water intake site, located

approximately 10 miles upstream of the confluence with the Humber Estuary.

The 2010 APEM study noted that the eel/silver eel life-stage was the most

abundant during the entrainment study. However, it was also noted that due

to the small size of the glass eel and elver life-stages, they may pass through

the screen mesh and be lost to the entrainment sample. If eels, including

glass eels and elvers, are deemed to be at risk of entrainment there is a

requirement under the Eels Regulations to screen intakes.

The Environment Agency undertake multi-species electric fishing surveys

throughout the Humber RBD, recording eels in all major rivers of the RBD,

particularly in the lower reaches (2). There is a lack of eel count information

from the River Trent, however a declared commercial catch of 300 kg of

yellow eel and 140 kg of silver eel was taken from the lower reaches of the

River Trent in 2005 (from a total commercial catch of 8,260 kg yellow eel and

4,278 kg silver eels in the Humber RBD) (DEFRA 2010). APEM recorded a

small number of glass eel and elver entrained at the intake of Keadby during

the 2011 survey, but as eels at this stage in their life-cycle are small enough to

pass through the screen, the actual numbers being entrained may have been

higher.

(1) O’Keefe, N., Clough, S. and Cesar, C. 2011. Keadby Power Station fish entrainment study. APEM Scientific Report

410735. (2) DEFRA (2010) Eel Management Plans for the United Kingdom: Humber River Basin District.


7-28

Lamprey

An indication of the potential for lamprey entrainment is given by the results of

an entrainment survey conducted by the former National Rivers Authority

(NRA) at Yorkshire Water’s Moor Monkton pumping station on the River

Ouse (1). Over a 15 month period between January 1990 and May 1991, over

16,000 lampreys were impinged. Most were recently metamorphosed down-

migrating river lampreys, along with some brook lamprey, averaging about 100

mm in length. The entrainment rate was very sensitive to the proportion of

river flow abstracted. This risk has now largely been eliminated through new

fine-screening measures (2).

Notwithstanding the above it is worth noting that lamprey were not among the

22 species of fish recorded in the entrainment study conducted at the Keadby

I cooling water intake in 2012 (3).

7.4 ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS

7.4.1 Potential Impacts

Potential impacts that may arise from construction include:

permanent loss of grassland, scattered trees and potential breeding bird

and reptile habitat due to land take to the west of the existing Keadby I

power station, in order to accommodate laydown areas, site

accommodation and car parking required for the construction of the steam

and gas turbine halls;

disturbance to, or displacement/exclusion of, a species from foraging

habitat due to construction and operational activities, including but not

limited to diesel generators, dump trucks, vibratory rollers and hydraulic

piling rig;

disturbance or damage to adjacent habitats and species caused by piling

of foundations, movement of vehicles and personnel, artificial lighting,

dust, spillage of fuels and chemicals, emissions and noise; and

disturbance to, or displacement/ exclusion of, a species from breeding and

foraging habitat due to the construction of a water and gas pipeline

network within existing pipeline corridors.

Potential impacts that may arise from operational activities include:

impacts on sensitive habitats and/ or species associated with air emissions

from the gas turbine and waste heat recovery boiler, including; daily and

annual ambient concentrations of NOx on the Humber Estuary SAC and

the effect of nutrient nitrogen deposition on local wildlife sites and the

(1) Frear, P.A. and Axford, S.N. 1991. Impingement and mortality of fish associated with the R. Ouse abstraction scheme.

National River Authority, Yorkshire Region, Fisheries Science Report No. 62/91. (2) Environment Agency (Turnpenny, A.W.H and O’Keeffe, N.) 2005. Screening for Intake and Outfalls: a best practice

guide. Science Report SC030231. (3) APEM (2012) Keadby Power Station Eel Entrainment Study Final data Report. APEM report 411859


7-29

Humber Estuary SAC (as detailed in Chapter 2 Project Description and

Chapter 9 Air Quality);

effects on protected species associated with water abstraction from the

Stainforth and Keadby Canal and discharge to the River Trent as required

for the water cooling system; and

effects on the Humber Estuary SAC from cooling water discharge.

In the event that Keadby I was to permanently cease operating it is possible

that the Proposed Development will make use of the existing Keadby I cooling

water infrastructure in terms of the intake and outfall on the banks of the River

Trent and intervening pipework. Under this scenario the impacts described

herein would not occur in regard to the water abstracted from the Stainforth

and Keadby Canal for use in the hybrid cooling towers and its discharge into

the River Trent. Use of the Keadby I cooling system for the Proposed

Development would essentially result in the same effects as are currently

occurring for Keadby I.

Impacts on sensitive habitats and/ or species and designated sites associated

with decommissioning activities are predicted to be similar to those of

construction. However, at present it is not possible to confirm what

decommissioning measures will be undertaken. The Proposed Development

is expected to operate for 25 years, it is assumed that over the next 25 years,

technology and best practise techniques for decommissioning and demolition

will have advanced and therefore potential negative effects will be minimised.

The purpose of the following sections is to identify likely significant effects and

mitigation. This includes effects linked to other EIA subjects, for instance the

potential for air pollution to affect habitats and species.

7.4.2 Assessment of Effects during Construction

Designated Sites

There are no statutory or non-statutory designated ecological sites located

within the Proposed Development site.

However, the proposed new water discharge pipeline (Chapter 2 Project

Description), crosses the Keadby Warping Drain Local Wildlife Site (LWS)

(see Figure 7.2) and discharges at a sluice north of Keadby adjacent to the

River Trent, part of the Humber Estuary SAC. A further eight non-statutory

designated sites occur within 2 km of the Proposed Development, with the

Keadby Power Station Site of Nature Conservation Interest (SNCI) and South

Soak Drain and Stainforth and Keadby Canal Corridor Local Wildlife Sites

(LWS) located immediately adjacent to the Proposed Development.

The location and method of installing the pipeline is still to be finalised,

however the optimal solution will be to ‘thread’ a new pipeline within the

existing pipeline leading from Keadby I. If threading is possible, trenching will

not be required. If ‘threading’ is not possible the pipeline will be installed in a

new trench located within the existing wayleave. Assuming a worst case


7-30

scenario, for the purpose of the assessment, the open cut trenching of a new

trench within the wayleave has been assessed.

The main impacts arising from the open cut trenching will be removal of

habitat associated with the excavation of a trench and work area (for the

purpose of this assessment consider to be 10 m wide) in which the pipeline

will be laid plus storage of material on the substrate adjacent.

The Keadby Warping Drain has been designated an LWS as it meets criteria

for wetland and freshwater habitats and supports the scarce Myriophyllum

verticillatum (whorled water milfoil). Trenching will result in the temporary loss

of 150 m² of habitat (assuming a trenching work area of 10 m width and the

width of the LWS being 15 m) which accounts for 0.4 % of the LWS. The

eastern extent of the LWS where the pipeline will be installed is characterised

by shallow water and has several species of note including; Mentha aquatica

(water mint), Scrophularia auriculata (water figwort) and Rorippa palustris

(marsh yellow cress). The scarce Myriophyllum verticillatum is located in the

western extent of the LWS and will not be affected by the installation of the

pipeline. It is assumed that any vegetation removed by the installation of the

pipeline will re-establish within one year.

The impact on the Keadby Warping Drain LWS will be of relatively short

duration, occur in an isolated area and will have a temporary and reversible

effect; therefore effects are predicted to be not significant.

Trenching will not affect the habitat within the Humber Estuary SAC. The

discharge will be designed to meet industry standards and is not predicted to

affect the receiving habitats or species present and are predicted to be not

significant.

Direct disturbance of birds within the Humber Estuary Ramsar Site could

potentially occur from construction activity associated with the cooling water

discharge pipe to the outfall to the River Trent, within the boundary of the

Ramsar Site. However the area of available foraging habitat for Ramsar Site

(or SPA) qualifying interest feature birds in the vicinity of the outfall is limited

by the relatively low tidal range at this point in the Humber Estuary Ramsar

Site, particularly in comparison to the large expanses of highly productive

sediments in the lower estuary. In addition, construction activity associated

with the pipe to the outfall is predicted to last for a relatively short timescale,

likely to be restricted to a matter of weeks. As a result of the short duration of

the activity, and the likely low use of the area affected by qualifying interest

feature bird species, the effects on the Humber Estuary SPA or Ramsar Site

are considered to be not significant. Given the distance of the Proposed

Development site from the boundary of the Humber Estuary Ramsar Site

(approximately 600 m) and the existing development in the area, no

disturbance effects from construction activity on the main site on qualifying

bird species of the Humber Estuary or Ramsar site are predicted.

The impact of traffic during construction is considered not significant (see

Chapter 10 Air Quality), therefore no air quality impacts on designated sites

during construction are predicted.


7-31

No impacts on other statutory and non-statutory designated sites are

predicted. Further detail on the assessment of effects on statutory European

designated sites is presented in Annex E4 Information to Inform Habitats

Regulations Assessment.

Habitats

No habitats of national or international importance were identified during field

surveys.

Habitats likely to be affected by the Proposed Development include; amenity

grassland, dense continuous and scattered scrub, improved neutral grassland

and young broadleaved woodland.

As set out in Chapter 2 (Project Description), the configuration of the turbines

has not been finalised and two options are under consideration: single-shaft

and multi-shaft (see Figure 2.3, Chapter 2). For the purpose of this

assessment, assuming a worst case scenario, the multi-shaft option is

assessed in that it has a larger footprint than the single-shaft layout.

The Proposed Development multi-shaft configuration will result in the

permanent loss of an area of 2.53 ha amenity grassland in an area referred to

as the main power island area in the east of the Proposed Development site.

Also, within the main power island area, four Sorbus sp. trees which have

been planted as part of previous amenity planting will also be removed in

order to construct buildings associated with the turbine configuration. The

understorey of the Sorbus sp. trees is characterised by amenity grassland with

multiple rabbit burrows located at the foot of the trees. No nests were

identified within the trees during the Extended Phase 1 habitat survey and the

trees were considered of low suitability for roosting bats. Considering the

limited conservation value of the amenity grassland habitat and limited

conservation value of the Sorbus sp. the loss of habitat within the main power

island area is considered not significant.

In the western part of the site, scattered and continuous scrub, ephemeral/

short perennial and unimproved neutral grasslands habitats will be

permanently lost to accommodate 12 hybrid cooling towers, a construction

laydown area and an area reserved for carbon capture readiness.

The configuration of the cooling towers has not been finalised but for the

purpose of this assessment a configuration of setting the cooling towers in a

single line has been assessed. Additionally, the land requirement for carbon

capture readiness has not been defined as the specifics of the carbon capture

technology which will be used cannot be predicted. For the purpose of this

assessment, the area is considered to be within the western area footprint

provided in Figure 2.2, Chapter 2. As outlined in the Project Description, the

area of hardstanding constructed as a laydown area will also be reinstated or

retained as required following completion of construction of the Proposed

Development. Considering the limited conservation value of habitats and low

sensitivity of receptors lost, effects on habitats in the western part of the site

are predicted to be of minor significance.


7-32

Species

Bats

Following the Extended Phase 1 survey, existing buildings within the power

station area were found to have been constructed from metal and brickwork

and do not contain attic space and had limited possible external entry points

which would be suitable for bat roosting. Additionally, within the power station

perimeter fence, there are a number of portable cabin buildings which have

been assessed as being of low potential to support roosting bats due to having

no access points, roof void or loose roof or wall features.

The Sorbus sp trees within the perimeter fence in the eastern part of the

Proposed Development site were assessed as having low potential to support

roosting bats, as they are semi mature with no visible cracks, crevices or hole

features. The trees also have low connectivity to surrounding habitat and are

not an important foraging habitat for bats. Therefore the loss of these trees will

not negatively affect bats.

The Malus sp. tree located in the amenity grassland, next to the storage tanks

was assessed as having moderate potential to support roosting bats as there

were several visible hole and crevice features. According to the Project

Description (Chapter 2), this tree will not be removed; therefore there will be

no potential negative effects on roosting bats.

No suitable roost features for bats were identified within the brownfield area

during the survey.

The woodland to the south of the Proposed Development site may provide

foraging habitat for bats. Trees within this woodland area are considered semi

mature and not suitable for roosting bats due to having no visible crevice, hole

or crack features. According to the Project Description (Chapter 2), this area

of woodland will not be removed; therefore there will be no negative effects on

roosting or foraging bats.

In summary the Proposed Development is not expected to result in any

significant adverse effects on bats and therefore none of the prohibitions

imposed by Article 12 of the Habitats Directive (including disturbance) are

engaged.

Otter

There are no historic records of otters within 2 km of the Proposed

Development and no field signs of otter were recorded during the survey.

Bankside habitats were also found to be of limited suitability for otter. Otter

are not thought to occur in the area of impact and therefore no effects on

otters as a result of construction are predicted.

Great Crested Newt

Surveys for great crested newt were scoped out as there were no records

since 1977 reported by the LERC, nor have species specific surveys

undertaken for other projects such as the Keadby wind farm extension, found

any evidence of their being present. The wider primarily intensive arable

landscape provides little suitable habitat and poor connectivity with the

Proposed Development. Great crested newt and suitable habitat for them are


7-33

both absent from the area of impact and therefore there will be no effects on

this species and none of the prohibitions imposed by Article 12 of the Habitats

Directive are engaged.

Water Vole

Assuming a worst case scenario, a trench will be excavated along the existing

SSE water discharge wayleave, crossing up to eight ditches in order to install

a new cooling water discharge pipeline, joining the existing outfall to the River

Trent.

During the water vole survey, ditches along the pipeline wayleave were found

to be intensively managed, having been recently mown and dredged. All

ditches were also bordered by intensively managed arable fields, further

limiting suitability for water vole. Oil sheen was recorded on the surface of the

Pumping Drain and Keadby Warping Drain.

Despite the limited habitat suitability, potential water vole burrows and tracks

were identified along the Keadby Warping Drain and Pumping Drain. The

Keadby Pumping Drain will not be directly affected by the construction of a

trench. Water voles are known to be tolerant of disturbance, for example boat

traffic along a canal. Therefore, indirect disturbance of a potential water vole

population along the Pumping Drain is not predicted. Direct impacts

associated with trenching on the Keadby Warping Drain will be restricted to a

limited area and appropriate mitigation and best practise techniques will be

applied; therefore no significant effects on water vole are predicted.

To the south of the Proposed Development, the South Soak Drain leading to

the Three Rivers (Annex E1, Target Note 31) and the North Soak Drain

(Annex E1, Target Note 30) have suitable habitat for water vole, with slow

flowing water, easily penetrable earth banks and riparian vegetation on the

banks and in the water.

Both the North Soak and South Soak Drain are not within the footprint of the

Proposed Development and no direct impacts on either drain are expected.

As water voles are known to have a level of tolerance to disturbance, no

negative effects as a result of construction adjacent to a potential North Soak

and South Soak Drain population are predicted.

Badgers

No evidence of badgers was recorded during the Extended Phase 1 Habitat

survey; therefore no effects associated with construction are predicted.

Reptiles

Only one historic record of a common lizard was identified during the local

data centre records search.

During the Extended Phase 1 survey, suitable habitat and refugia were

identified however no reptiles were seen during the survey and potential

refugia were not occupied. As a result, reptiles are not predicted to occur

within the Project area, although the presence of suitable habitat and the

cryptic and unobtrusive nature of reptiles mean that a small population may be

present.


7-34

As a result, prior to habitat clearance work being undertaken, an Ecological

Clerk of Works will undertake a pre-clearance check survey of the area for

reptiles. If reptiles are present they will be translocated to alternative suitable

habitat. Considering the availability of alternative suitable reptile habitat near

and adjacent to the Proposed Development, which reptiles could be displaced

or move to, including rail tracks and sidings, and implementation of mitigation

measures effects on reptiles are considered to be not significant.

Breeding Birds

Assuming the worst case scenario of the larger footprint of the multi-shaft

configuration, the Proposed Development will result in the permanent loss of

dense and scattered scrub, unimproved grassland and an area of broadleaved

woodland plantation in the western part of the site. There will also be the

permanent loss of amenity grassland habitat and four Sorbus sp. trees in the

main island power area.

During the common bird census surveys, the dense and scattered scrub

habitat on the Project site was identified as providing suitable foraging and

nesting habitat for species typical of lowland farm habitats, including 3 red and

5 amber listed Birds of Conservation Concern (BoCC) (1). Large numbers of

corvids were also recorded perching on electrical lines and metal structures

within the main power island station.

Breeding birds associated with habitats within and adjacent to the Proposed

Development may experience disturbance effects associated with construction

works during working hours. The construction activities will require heavy

equipment including but not limited to: hydraulic hammer piling rig, dump

trucks, tracked excavators and diesel generators. Construction works will

typically be undertaken between 08:00 and 18:00; however, there will be

periods when 24 hours working will be undertaken.

Linnet (Carduelis cannabina), song thrush (Turdus philomelos) and yellow

hammer (Emberiza citronella) were considered as probable breeders within

the site and are red listed under BoCC3. The numbers likely to be displaced

through loss of habitat or construction disturbance are small in comparison to

estimated breeding populations given in the Lincolnshire Biodiversity Action

Plan (2); 18,000, 26,000 and 20,000 respectively. Starling (Sturnus vulgaris)

which is also red listed under BoCC3 and a UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UK

BAP) species was recorded flying over the site but was not considered to be

breeding on the site.

One amber listed BoCC3 species was confirmed breeding on the site; white

throat (Sylvia communis). Bullfinch (Pyrrhula pryhula), dunnock (Prunella

modularis) and reed bunting (Emberiza schoeniclus) which are UK BAP

species and amber listed and willow warbler (Phylloscopus trochilus) which is

also amber listed were considered to probably breed on the site. The amber

listed mistle thrush (Turdus viscivorus) was considered to possibly breed on

the site. The numbers likely to be displaced through loss of habitat or

construction disturbance are also considered to be small in comparison to

(1) Eaton MA, Brown AF, Noble DG, Musgrove AJ, Hearn R, Aebischer NJ, Gibbons DW, Evans A and Gregory RD (2009)

Birds of Conservation Concern 3: the population status of birds in the United Kingdom, Channel Islands and the Isle of

Man. British Birds 102, pp 296 – 341. (2) Greater Lincolnshire Nature Partnership (GLNP) Lincolnshire Biodiversity Action Plan. 3rd edition. Nov 2012. GLNP.


7-35

estimated breeding populations recorded within the Bird Atlas 2007 - 2011 (1).

Reed bunting, dunnock and white throat are all considered to be experiencing

an increase in relative breeding abundance in the area of Lincolnshire where

the Proposed Development occurs. Bullfinch and willow warbler are thought

to be experiencing a minor decline in relative abundance in the north

Lincolnshire area, however the scrub habitats which will be lost are suboptimal

for both species and therefore limit the potential for breeding pairs.

Considering the spatial extent of the area affected and the proportion of the

population affected, no significant effects on breeding birds as a consequence

of habitat loss and disturbance are predicted.

7.4.3 Assessment of Effects during Operation


The main operational impacts identified relate to emissions to air leading to air

quality, nitrogen and acid deposition impacts on designated sites, cooling

water discharge and potential entrainment of eels and lamprey within the

pumping station intake.

Chapter 9 Air Quality sets out the results of the dispersion modelling for the

sensitive ecological receptors due to acid deposition, nutrient nitrogen

deposition and NOX. Impacts on sensitive ecological receptors have been

quantified on the basis of the largest impacts arising at any point on the

designated habitat within 10 km radius of the Proposed Development.

Ecological receptors sensitive to emissions to atmosphere were identified in

line with Environmental Agency Guidance Note H1 (2) and comprise:

European designated sites within 10 km of the Project, including the

Humber Estuary Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) and Ramsar Site;

statutory nationally designated Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs),

designated for reasons of ecological interest within 2 km of the Project; and

national and local non-statutory designated sites within 2 km, including

National Nature Reserves (NNRs), Local Nature Reserves (LNRs), Local

Wildlife Sites (LWS), Sites of Nature Conservation Interest (SNCI) etc.

The modelling assumed that the new plant and the existing plant (Keadby I)

will be operating at maximum capacity for 8,760 hours per annum, with the

Proposed Development in supplementary firing mode which results in the

highest NOx emissions, and lowest emission temperature.

The reason for Keadby I and the Proposed Development both being modelled

is because Keadby I was ‘moth balled’ at the time of assessment. As a result

it is possible that the baseline data available do not fully account for Keadby I

emissions. Assessing both together provides a realistic, albeit possibly worst

(1) Balmer, D.E, Gillings, S., Caffrey, B.J., Swann, R.L., Downie, I.S & Fuller, R.J. (2013) Bird Atlas 2007- 2011: the

breeding and wintering birds of Britain and Ireland. BTO Books, Thetford. (2) The Environment Agency for England and Wales (2010) Horizontal Guidance Note H1: Annex F


7-36

case, understanding of potential effects once process contributions are added

to the baseline.

The results of the air quality modelling are assumed to be worst case and an

assessment of their implications is provided within Chapter 9 and Annex G.

Both impacts are discussed below.

Designated Sites and Air Quality Impacts

The results of the air quality modelling predict that both short term and long

term NOx concentrations and nutrient nitrogen deposition at the Humber

Estuary SAC, Ramsar Site and SSSI exceed the assessment criteria and

therefore require more detailed assessment. The air quality modelling

presents an initial assessment of impacts on broad scale habitat types, which

identifies the maximum predicted concentration or deposition rate anywhere

on a site. The effects on the SAC are considered in more detail in Annex E4

Information to Inform HRA which assesses the changes in air quality and acid

and nutrient nitrogen deposition in relation to the conservation objectives of

the site.

The additional information and assessment presented in the Annex E4

concludes that the predicted will not result in an effect on the integrity of the

Humber Estuary SAC and Ramsar Site, and as a result, in EIA terms, the

effect on the Humber Estuary SAC is considered to be not significant. The

Humber Estuary SAC, Ramsar Site and SSSI occupy the same area, and the

conclusions of Annex E4 are considered to apply equally to the habitats for

which the Humber Estuary SSSI has been designated. As a result, effects on

the Humber Estuary SSSI are also considered to be not significant.

The air quality modelling also predicts short term NOx concentrations and

nutrient nitrogen deposition above the assessment criteria at the non-statutory

designated sites Keadby Warping Drain LWS, Keadby Wet Grassland LWS,

Keadby Wetland LWS, Keadby Soak Drain LWS, Stainforth and Keadby Canal

Corridor LWS, Three Rivers LWS and Three Rivers Marsh SNCI. The criteria

exceeded are related to impacts on the neutral grassland, coastal and

floodplain grazing marsh, and fen, marsh and swamp habitats supported by

these sites.

Taking a precautionary approach, it is concluded that the air quality effects

associated with short term exceedance of the assessment criteria may be

significant for the Keadby Warping Drain LWS, Keadby Wet Grassland LWS,

Keadby Wetland LWS, Keadby Soak Drain LWS, Stainforth and Keadby Canal

Corridor LWS, Three Rivers LWS and Three Rivers Marsh SNCI. However

the air quality modelling is highly conservative as it considers that the

Proposed Development (and Keadby I) will be operating full time. In reality,

the power plants will only operate part of the time, as required to meet

demand (see Chapter 2).

The Keadby Boundary Drain, Keadby Warping Drain and Stainforth and

Keadby Canal are actively managed by vegetation mowing and clearance.

The Canal is also heavily used by canal barges and boats and consequently

has litter and boat fuel visible on the water and also the banking. The Keadby


7-37

Wet Grassland is also managed through grazing by ponies. Although the

predicted changes in air quality may result in changes to the nutrient status of

the sites identified, the active management of the sites is still likely to be the

key factor in maintaining the status of the sites and therefore effects resulting

from air quality impacts could be offset through other active management

measures (see Section 7.4.7 final subsection).

Currently within Greater Lincolnshire, there are 1,168 Local Wildlife sites with

more being selected annually by the GLNP. The seven locally designated

sites represent a limited number and area of the local wildlife sites present in

the area surrounding the Proposed Development.

Designated Sites and Water Quality Impacts

Cooling water (also referred to as blowdown water) from the hybrid cooling

towers and general cooling system will be discharged to the River Trent via

the existing Keadby I outfall. Water will be abstracted from the Stainforth and

Keadby Canal at an approximate rate of 0.157 m3s-1. This water will be used

for evaporative cooling in the hybrid cooling towers and so a much smaller

volume will be discharged as a batched release. It is currently estimated that

for each week of operation approximately 10% of the daily abstraction volume

will be discharged and the discharge will last for one day. The resultant

discharge rate of approximately 0.016 m3s-1 is very small. By comparison

when Keadby I is in operation the rate of discharge via the outfall is

approximately 12 m3s-1. Since the Proposed Development is not anticipated to

be a continuous operation the discharge is likely to be smaller than the

0.016 m3s-1 rate quoted above as well as intermittent. Although the

temperature of this discharge will vary through the year and at times be

measurably higher than the ambient temperature of the River Trent, based on

work undertaken for the Keadby I thermal discharge (see below) it will have a

negligible impact in terms of thermal loading to the river and no significant

effects on ecological populations, including interest features for the Humber

Estuary SAC.

The hybrid indirect cooling system for the Proposed Development will use an

air-cooled condenser and wet-cooling tower. This means that some of the

water abstracted from the Stainforth and Keadby Canal will be heated and lost

as vapour, therefore concentrating some of the dissolved material present in

the canal water and changing the chemical properties of the water before it is

discharged to the River Trent.

In addition, all dissolved minerals have a saturation limit that, if exceeded, will

lead to scale formation within the cooling water system which will require

management. Additionally, high levels of dissolved minerals can increases

the tendency for corrosion. Chemical and mechanical methods are used to

treat these effects to some extent but limits still persist, necessitating

management of dissolved minerals levels. In addition, careful monitoring of

biocide treatments, along with routine measurements of biological activity is

important to ensure bio-activity is controlled and limited throughout the cooling

system. As a result the periodic batches of blowdown water will require

treatment before they can be safely discharged to the River Trent. The

treatment methods and the quality of the effluent will be influenced by several

factors including:


7-38

the ultimately selected design and operating parameters for the cooling

towers and system as a whole;

the quality of the Stainforth and Keadby Canal water, including any

seasonal variations;

any pre-treatment of the above; and

BAT studies during detailed design and development of an Environmental

permit application that meets the EA’s requirements in terms of the effluent

quality.

During operation SSE will be required to monitor and report compliance of the

cooling water discharge parameters to the Environment Agency to maintain

the permit to discharge cooling water. Conditions attached to the discharge

permit will detail the compliance and monitoring requirements based on

environmental quality standards.

On the basis that SSE will operate within the parameters of a permit that is

designed to maintain the status of the receiving waters, there will be no

significant effects on ecological populations, including the interest features of

the Humber Estuary SAC.

Entrainment of Aquatic Species

Potential operational impacts on eels and sea and river lamprey may occur

due to entrainment associated with the operation of a new pumping station

abstracting water from the Stainforth and Keadby Canal.

As eels are catadromous, they migrate between marine and freshwater

environments. Spawning occurs at sea; from there juveniles migrate into

coastal, estuarine and freshwater habitats over a period of one to three years.

Potentially, eels can get caught up in intake flows and screens at any stage of

their life; however they are most at risk during their upstream and downstream

migrations within fresh water.

Due to the elongate body shape of eels, they can often easily fit through a

mesh that would exclude other fish of a similar size. Eels passing through a

pump or turbine can be injured by, among other things, mechanical (blade)

strike, grinding and shear pressure. If a pumping station is not adequately

screened, eels may not be able to reach the sea to spawn.

On the basis that appropriate mitigation measures are implemented in

accordance with The Environment Agency guidance (1), potential entrapment

effects on eels are considered to be minor at the local level as physical

screens will not exclude every eel but will significantly reduce the potential for

entrapment. In terms of the wider population of eels moving through the Trent

and its catchment there will be no significant effects.

Juvenile lampreys may be liable to similar effects but a 2014 study undertaken

by Turnpenny and Horsfield (2) showed that lamprey exhibit high retention and

survival rates on travelling band screens. The findings showed that lamprey

are hardy taxa and are able to survive over the long-term following

(1) The Environment Agency. Screening at intakes and outfalls: measure to protect eel. The Environment Agency. Bristol. (2) Turnpenny, A.W.H. and Horsfield, R.A. (2014). International Fish Screening Techniques. WIT press.


7-39

entrainment. On the basis that mitigation will be in place to protect eels and

the lower sensitivity of lamprey to entrainment impacts, no significant effects

on this species are predicted.

No significant operational effects on any other species are predicted.

Impacts from the Continued use of Keadby I Cooling Water Infrastructure

During periods of operation, Keadby I power station has been discharging a

thermal plume to the River Trent since 1998.

In 2007 the EA undertook a Stage 3 Review of Consents to investigate

thermal loading to the Humber Estuary SAC. The aim of the review was to

quantify impacts originating from permits issued by the EA. The study

focussed on the interest features of the SAC, which in terms of relevance for

the Keadby I thermal plume comprise sea and river lamprey and specifically

during their April to July migration. The other interest features were assessed

as having zero vulnerability to the thermal regime.

Initially the review concluded no adverse effects on sea and river lamprey.

However the inputs to the model used in the review assumed optimal cooling

system performance which due to ambient operating conditions (water quality

and presence of debris in the Trent) was not always possible, resulting in

lower volumes of water drawn out and higher temperatures in that returned.

Although EA issued a new PPC (Pollution Prevention and Control) permit in

2007 that did not set a maximum temperature limit, SSE was asked to review

station performance and propose a temperature limit that would prevent

environmental harm and provide justification that this limit would represent

BAT (Best Available Technique) for the station. Further work was therefore

undertaken in terms of modelling of actual performance data and field

measurements (by thermal imaging) of temperatures in the channel. The

scope of the further studies was agreed with EA.

The study was undertaken in 2010 and reported in 2011 (1). The main

conclusions were as follows.

Based on the modelling and measurements the majority of the river

channel would be classified under ‘good’ status, with a small part falling

within the 28º C isotherm as ‘poor’.

The 28º C isotherm (the only modelled isotherm with potential for lethal

effect) extended only a short distance from the outfall into the river.

Fish are able to readily avoid plumes of undesirably high temperature

water as long as they do not extend across a full channel width.

No effects on the overall status of sea or river lamprey (or eels) were

anticipated.

(1) Keadby Thermal Plume Study Preliminary Report, APEM Scientific Report 411099.


7-40

The work supported the EA’s original conclusion that the thermal plume

from Keadby I would have no significant effect on migrating sea and river

lamprey.

Based on the above considerations, in the event that the Keadby I cooling

water system is used for the Proposed Development there will be no likely

significant effects on aquatic populations in the River Trent including those

migrating past the outfall and including interest features of the Humber

Estuary SAC.

7.4.4 Assessment of Effects during Decommissioning

Impacts on sensitive habitats and/ or species and designated sites associated

with decommissioning activities are predicted to be similar to those of

construction. However, at present it is not possible to confirm what

decommissioning measures will be undertaken. It is assumed that over the

next 25 years, technology and best practise techniques will have advanced

and therefore potential negative effects will be minimised.

7.4.5 Cumulative Effects

Other projects currently within the planning system which have the potential to

contribute toward cumulative effects on the same ecological and nature

conservation resources likely to be affected by the Proposed Development

were considered. Two projects were identified: the Lincolnshire Lakes

residential development and White Rose Carbon Capture Storage (CCS)

Project. Although the North Killingholme Power Project (NKPP) is considered

in the Information to Inform HRA (Annex E4), at a distance away of 35 km the

effects of this project and the Proposed Development do not overlap and so

the NKPP is not included here as a cumulative scheme.

The Lincolnshire Lakes development lies on the outskirts of Scunthorpe,

between the River Trent and western extent of Scunthorpe. The biodiversity

assessment submitted as part of the planning application in 2013, considered

that impacts associated with the development would be of ‘negligible

significance’ prior to the implementation of mitigation measures. No

cumulative effects from the Lincolnshire Lakes Scheme on the same receptors

as assessed in this EIA are predicted.

The ES and Habitats Regulations Assessment Report for the White Rose CCS

project identified potential likely significant effects on three internationally

designated sites: the River Derwent SAC; Skipwith Common SAC; and Thorne

Moor SAC. The assessment of ‘in combination’ effects from the White Rose

CCS on these sites is presented in Annex E4 and concludes from a Habitats

Regulations Perspective that there will be no in combination effects with the

Proposed Development and therefore there will be no cumulative effects.

7.4.6 Uncertainty and Key Assumptions

It is assumed, as a worst case scenario, that ‘threading’ of a new water

discharge pipeline through the existing pipeline will not be possible and

therefore trenching of the entire pipeline length will be required.


7-41

It is assumed, considering both the single-shaft and multi-shaft configurations,

the pipework route from the air cooled condensers to the Keadby 2 power

station will not result in the removal of the Malus sp. tree.

No landscaping enhancement other than perimeter planting will occur.

7.4.7 Mitigation Measures and Residual Significance of Effects


Table 7.4 summarises the impacts where, either due to the significance of

effects or requirements to comply with legislation, mitigation will be required.

The mitigation is described and the significance of the residual effect after

mitigation applied is assessed.

Table 7.4 Mitigation and Residual Effects

Phase Receptor and Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance

Construction Habitat: permanent loss of

dense continuous and scattered

scrub, amenity grassland and 4

Sorbus sp. trees. This habitat

loss will affect breeding birds.

Temporary loss of aquatic

vegetation along drainage

ditches.

Landscape Masterplan will include

screen planting which will offset the loss

of scrub habitat suitable for breeding

birds.

Temporary and permanent habitat loss

will be limited to the minimum needed for

safe implementation of the works.

Not Significant

(once established in long term likely to be minor

positive).

Construction All topsoil and subsoil will be stored

separately and reinstated as soon as

possible after completion of construction

using best available practice (e.g. Defra.

2009. Construction code of practice for

the sustainable use of soils on

construction sites). Where necessary

seeding will be undertaken to aid

restoration.

Not Significant

Construction Breeding Birds – potential

disturbance and displacement

Any lighting that is required for the

construction and operation of the

Proposed Development will be directed

away from surrounding habitat to

minimise light disturbance to fauna

Not Significant

Construction Qualifying and protected

species.

Use of Best Available Techniques (BAT)

to minimise disturbance will include

specification of efficient well-maintained,

quiet machinery with inbuilt noise

attenuation. Perimeter fencing and

screens will be used where necessary to

minimise disturbance due to noise and

activity.

Not Significant

Construction Breeding birds – disturbance,

displacement and potential for

Although impacts are predicted to be

negligible there is a potential to commit

Not Significant


injury offences without mitigation.

The initial soil stripping and vegetation

removal stage will be undertaken as far

as possible outside of the bird breeding

season (reasonably being regarded as

1st April-31st July given the northern

location). Where this cannot be achieved

all areas to be cleared will be assessed

first by an Ecological Clerk of Works

(ECoW) or suitably qualified ecologist,

and any nest sites identified.

Construction in and around any nesting

sites will be prevented until such time as

young have either left the area or are

capable of strong flight.

Construction Water Vole – potential

disturbance and displacement

In the March prior to construction,

vegetation should be removed from both

banks (1). All growth should be stripped

to bare soil, and should include, where

possible, the emergent fringe. Any

subsequent re-growth should be removed

up until construction works take place.

A repeat survey of the drain for water

vole signs should be undertaken two

weeks prior to works starting. If water

vole latrines or other water vole signs are

found, a programme of trapping and

removal should take place.

Not Significant

Construction Reptiles - potential injury and

killing during site clearance of

potential habitat.

All areas of potentially suitable reptile

habitat to be cleared will be assessed

first by an Ecological Clerk of Works

Not Significant

(1) Strachan R and Moorhouse T (2006) Water vole conservation handbook 2nd Edition. Wildlife Conservation

Research Unit, Oxford1.


(ECoW) or suitably qualified ecologist for

reptile presence. If required a destructive

search in the presence of the ECoW or

suitably qualified ecologist will take place

If reptiles are found to they will be

released into suitable habitat.

Operation Eels - potentially, eels can get

caught up in intake flows and

screens at any stage of their

life. Similar considerations

apply to lamprey.

Best practise measures will be

implemented according to The

Environment Agency guidance (1).

Screens can be placed diagonally to the

flow to effectively reduce entrapment of

eels.

Screens should be properly maintained

and cleaned to retain effectiveness.

Strobe lights and/ or acoustic infrasound

may also provide an additional deterrent.

Further information is provided in the

sub-sections below.

Minor

Operation Air quality impacts on the

Keadby Warping Drain LWS,

Keadby Wet Grassland LWS,

Keadby Wetland LWS, Keadby

Soak Drain LWS, Stainforth and

Keadby Canal Corridor LWS,

Three Rivers LWS and Three

Rivers Marsh SNCI.

Supporting management of the LWSs

and SNCI through working with GLNP to

manage and monitor sites.

Not Significant

Operation Air quality impacts on the

Humber SAC and SSSI

None required. Not Significant

(1) The Environment Agency. Screening at intakes and outfalls: measure to protect eel. The Environment Agency. Bristol.


7-45

Landscape Masterplan

A Landscape Masterplan will be developed for the Proposed Development.

The masterplan will address both conventional landscaping and biodiversity

enhancement measures.

Landscaping to mitigate the impacts of the main structures is not possible and

so it will be aimed at perimeter planting to soften the overall visual effect,

screen low level structures and blend in with existing vegetation e.g. along the

canal side. The mix of species used in landscaping will be native and locally

occurring in keeping with species already locally established.

The design of the Landscape Masterplan will also take cognisance of

opportunities for habitat provision especially for species of insects, birds and

bats.

The ultimate design of the masterplan will depend on the selected layout for

the Proposed Development and the detail will be developed in consultation

with the Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust and with North Lincolnshire Council in order

to be in keeping with other initiatives such as the local authority Green

Infrastructure strategy.

Mitigation of Entrainment of European Eels

Despite the well-established guidance on methods and screening techniques,

the effectiveness of these techniques for eels will vary considerably due to

factors such as site specific conditions. The Environment Agency

recommends monitoring to improve current designs and improve future

approaches (1). Monitoring techniques for adult eels include:

high resolution acoustic telemetry, by tracking eels in 2D or 3D in front of

a screen it is possible to estimate the screen’s effectiveness;

acoustic camera, survey areas in front of the screen and bywash; and

combining the batch-marking and release of eels upstream of the screen

with some form of monitoring/trapping behind the screens and in the

bywash, the results can be used to estimate screen efficiency.

The Environment Agency has published an assessment of screening options

some of which may be appropriate for the proposed development (see Figure

7.5 and Figure 7.6)

(1) Environment Agency 2011. Screening at intakes and outfalls: measures to protect eel. The Eel Manual

GEHO0411BTQD-E-E. Available online from

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/297342/geho0411btqd-e-e.pdf


7-46

Table 7.5 Screening Options and Suitability

Life Stage Canal supplies Thermal power

plant

Outfall

Glass eels/elver Passive wedge wire

cylinder (PWWC),

sub-gravel intakes,

modular inclined,

strobe light, travelling

screens (e.g.

Hydrolox),

fish recovery and

return

(FRR)

PWWC, modular

inclined, strobe light,

travelling screens

(e.g. Hydrolox), FRR

Elevated discharge,

Graduated Field Fish

Barrier (GFFB),

electric barrier,

screens <2 mm

aperture

Adult yellow/ silver

eels

Passive mesh,

Coanda, PWWC,

sub-gravel intakes,

modular inclined,

strobe light, eel

bottom bypass,

travelling screens


Passive mesh,

Coanda, PWWC,

modular inclined,

strobe light, eel

bottom bypass,

travelling screens


-

Source: Environment Agency 2011. Screening at intakes and outfalls: measures to protect eel.

The Eel Manual GEHO0411BTQD-E-E. Available online from

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/297342/geho041

1btqd-e-e.pdf

Table 7.6 Screening Techniques Suitable for Eels - Physical Screens

Type of screen Comments / problems

Passive-mesh/wedge-wire panels, angled

towards bywash

Traditional inland solution. Cleaning can be

difficult.

Vertical or inclined bar racks, angled towards

bywash

Good for manual or self-cleaning. Eels may

force their way through, especially if not

angled. No good for fry.

FRR on band, drum or cup screens

Depends on mesh size – usually ≥6 mm but

can be 2-3 mm. Further R&D needed on fish

bucket design to ensure good survival.

Coanda screen Excellent, but only suitable for spillways.

PWWC screen

Excellent where space, depth and currents

are suitable. 1-2 mm required for juveniles.

Modular inclined screen Yet to be used in UK but looks promising

Travelling Screen -Hydrolox

Better than modular due to rotating band –

limited testing in UK

Labyrinth screen

Allows for compact screen arrangement at

large sites.

Sub-gravel intake Suitable locations limited

Source: (1)

SSE will review the options available and consult with EA in determining a

solution that is appropriate to the intake location and ambient characteristics of

the Stainforth and Keadby Canal and which also serves to minimise

entrainment of lamprey (see below).

(1) Environment Agency 2011. Screening at intakes and outfalls: measures to protect eel. The Eel Manual

GEHO0411BTQD-E-E. Available online from





7-47

Lamprey

Lamprey lack both a swim bladder and otolith organs and as such fall within

the non-specialist hearing group, suggesting that neither low frequency nor

ultrasound acoustic deterrents would be effective behavioural deterrents for

their protection. Intake screening is therefore currently restricted to physical

exclusion.

Research on juvenile lamprey provides useful corroboration. For Pacific

lamprey transformers, it was found that a flat wedge-wire panel screen with 3

mm spacings tended to trap individuals. However, greatly improved results

were reported with 1.75 mm spacings.

A 2014 study undertaken by Turnpenny and Horsfield (1) showed that lamprey

exhibit high retention and survival rates on travelling band screens. The

findings showed that lamprey are hardy taxa and are able to survive over the

long-term following entrainment. There is the potential, however, to improve

the efficacy of intake screening with the use of modified screens, designed

specifically to reduce the risk of lamprey entrainment.

Due to similarities in physiology and behaviour of eels and lamprey, it is

assumed that the screening options and techniques listed in Table 7.5 and

Table 7.6 also largely applicable to lamprey.

Support to Manage and Monitor LWS and SINCs

Operation of the Proposed Development may result in short term elevated

concentrations of NOx at nearby LWS and SINC non-statutory designated

sites. These sites are actively managed to help maintain their conservation

interest. Keadby Developments Limited will engage with GLNP to agree an

appropriate role (and one that is proportionate to the likely effects) for the

Company in terms of assisting in the management of the sites. This could for

example involve providing a monitoring package to record potential changes in

air quality at the sites, or provide some other support to manage the sites to

maintain their habitats. Provision of additional input to active management of

these sites should provide nature conservation benefits which will offset the

negative effects that may occur from air quality impacts.

7.5 CONCLUSIONS

In summary, the majority of the western part of the site is dense and scattered

scrub with waste and spoil deposits. Within the main power island area to the

east of the site, amenity grassland is the dominant habitat with four isolated

Sorbus sp., a singular Malus sp. and areas of bare and disturbed ground. All

of these habitats in both areas are of low ecological and conservation value,

with the exception of the Malus sp. tree as it has moderate potential for

support bat roosts. Consequently, the permanent loss of dense and scattered

scrub habitat within the western extent and amenity grassland and four trees

in the eastern extent during construction of the Proposed Development is

(1) Turnpenny, A.W.H. and Horsfield, R.A. (2014). International Fish Screening Techniques. WIT press.


7-48

predicted to have a negligible impact on the habitats and the species the

habitats supports.

Within the main power island to the east, there are a number of portable cabin

buildings which have been assessed as being of low potential to support

roosting bats due to having no access points, roof void or loose roof or wall

features.

Assuming a worst case scenario, the Keadby Warping Drain LWS will

experience a temporary impact restricted to a limited area (150 m²) due to the

installation of a new pipeline by trenching. Aquatic vegetation is predicted to

recolonise the trenched area within one year, consequently an effect of minor

significance is predicted.

The intensive management of the drains and canal within and surrounding the

Proposed Development area and buffer reduces the suitability to support

water vole populations. However, possible field signs were identified during

the survey at the Keadby Pumping Drain, Keadby Warping Drain, North Soak

Drain and South Soak Drain and local data centre records indicate those

water voles are present in the wider area. The Keadby Pumping Drain, North

Soak Drain and South Soak Drain will not be directly affected during

construction; therefore significant effects are not predicted. Direct impacts

associated with trenching to the Keadby Warping Drain will be restricted to a

limited area and appropriate mitigation and best practise techniques will be

applied; therefore no significant effects on water vole are predicted.

Impacts on eels during operation are predicted due to potential entrapment

associated with the operation of a new pumping station abstracting water from

the Stainforth and Keadby Canal. However, considering that mitigation will be

implemented and best practise techniques applied, impacts are predicted to

be of minor significance locally at most. There will be no significant effects on

lamprey.

Significant effects on six LWSs and one SNCI due to short term impacts

associated with NOx concentrations and nutrient nitrogen deposition are

predicted; however by implementing the mitigation strategy, nature

conservation benefits will be provided to offset these negative effects. The

overall effects on nature conservation interest are predicted to be not

significant.

Potential effects on the Humber Estuary SAC, Ramsar Site and SSSI

associated with NOx concentrations and nutrient nitrogen deposition are

predicted to be not significant and the Proposed Development will not

adversely affect the integrity of any European site.

In conclusion, considering residual effects no significant effects of greater than

minor to any designated site, species or habitat are predicted as a result of the

construction, operation and decommissioning of the Keadby 2 Combined

Cycle Gas Turbine. That minor effect is identified in respect of one impact

only, namely the effect locally on eels that may be caught in the intake flows.


7-49

7.6 COMPARISON BETWEEN THE LIKELY SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS OF THE

CONSENTED DEVELOPMENT AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

This ES is required to present the main respects in which it is considered that

the likely significant effects on the environment of the Proposed Development

would differ from those described in the Environmental Assessment (EA) that

was prepared for the Consented Development.

The Proposed Development is predicted to result in either no change, or a

reduction in the impacts and the likelihood of significant environmental effects

when compared to the Consented Development. Therefore, on balance, the

Proposed Development is considered to be less likely to result in significant

environmental effects when compared to the Consented Development.

The table below makes a comparison between the findings of this EIA for the

Proposed Development and those of the 1992 EA to the extent possible.

Topic Comparison Result of

Variation

between

Proposed

Development v

Consented

Development

Key: = positive change; O= neutral; = negative change

Effects on

Habitats and

Flora –

Construction

and Operation

The EA of the Consented Development concluded

that the construction and operation of the project

would have no impacts on habitats and flora. The

existing habitats were regarded as being of no value

to flora as a result of the previous use of the site as a

coal fired power plant.

The EIA of the Proposed Development concludes that

construction and operation will not result in significant

effects on habitats or flora, given the habitats that will

be affected. The development of a Landscape

Masterplan will lead to a minor positive effect in the

long term.

O/

Effects on

Fauna –

Construction

and Operation


that the construction and operation of the project

would have no impacts on fauna. The existing

habitats were regarded as being of no value to fauna

as a result of the previous use of the site as a coal

fired power plant.


construction and operation will not result in significant

effects on fauna, particularly protected species, given

the habitats that will be affected. The development of

a Landscape Masterplan will lead to a minor positive

effect in the long term.

O/


7-50

Topic Comparison Result of

Variation

between

Proposed

Development v

Consented

Development

Key: = positive change; O= neutral; = negative change

Effects on

ecological

receptors from

emissions to

air


that the operation of the project would increase local

concentrations of NOx and SO2, but did not assess the

impacts of these increases on sensitive ecological

receptors.


the operation of the project would result in lower total

emissions than the Consented Development for all but

three ecological receptors where the scheme will

result in a slight increase in 24 hour NOx emissions at

three non-statutory designated sites. Mitigation

measures are proposed to offset this effect. Overall

the assessment of air quality impacts concluded

effects on ecological receptors would be not

significant.

O

Effects on

Aquatic

Ecology


that the abstraction of cooling water would result in

the mortality of biota drawn through intake screens,

but that the losses would not be significant. It also

concluded that the discharge of cooling water would

have no effect on ecology.


the use of screens on any water intake would reduce

the effects on adult eels and lamprey being entrained.

Eels are known to be more susceptible to effects than

lamprey, and minor significant effects on the eel

population are predicted. However, it is reasonable to

conclude that if the EA of the Consented

Development had also considered effects on eels a

similar conclusion would have been reached.

O

Habitats

Regulations

Assessment

The EA of the Consented Development was

undertaken prior to the passing of the EC Habitats

Directive or its enacting legislation, therefore

European designated sites were not considered in this

context.

The EIA of the Proposed Development is supported

by a separate report containing Information to Inform

HRA by the competent authority. The key

considerations for the purposes of Habitats

Regulations Assessment relate to disturbance during

construction and operation, atmospheric emissions

during operation and cooling water abstraction and

discharge during operation. The Information to Inform

HRA concludes that the development will not result in

any effects on the integrity of any of the European

designated sites considered either alone or in

combination with other projects.

O

7 ecology and nature conservation 7.1 introduction · 7 ecology and nature conservation 7.1...

Documents