Ecology and Nature Conservation – Post-Scoping ... · Consultee Date of Consultation Summary of Consultation RSPB (Tim Melling) 12 November 2010 Meeting held at Hyder Consulting

Appendix 9.2

Ecology and Nature Conservation – Post-Scoping Consultation Responses

1

Consultee Date of Consultation Summary of Consultation

RSPB (Tim Melling) 12 November 2010

Meeting held at Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited’s offices in Warrington

Discussed the following:

� Description of the Project and discussions of recent developments

� Summary of IPC process

� Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report

� Mitigation & enhancement opportunities

Notes of the meeting are provided below this table.

Environment Agency (Jackie Monk, Amy Heys, Nikki Bamber, Kyle Young, Alison Whalley)

Natural England (Pin Dhillon-Downey, Mark Johnston)

Marine Management Organisation (Elaine Young)

17 November 2010

Meeting held at Halite’s offices in Kirkham


� Description of the Project and discussions of recent developments

� Summary of IPC process

� Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report

� Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI) Report

� Statutory sites / future statutory sites (including Appropriate Assessment)

� Status of flora / fauna surveys

� Flood Risk Assessment

� Relevant Natural England and Environment Agency Plans

� Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS)

� Waste / sustainability issues

� Visual impact

� Future baseline

� Consents

� Mitigation / enhancement opportunities

Notes of the meeting are provided below this table.

Natural England (Pin Dhillon-Downey)

24 November 2010

E-mail

Response from Natural England to a question posed by Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited regarding the request to monitor baseline noise levels at The Heads and Arm Hill:

Would be useful to do a night time baseline particularly now (wintering months) to assess change if any, during operation (I presume operation activity will be continuous day and night?). Could there also be a post construction noise monitoring plan for at least 1 year?

2


Can a lighting plan be worked in with the landscape and screening design to make sure there is no high level light spillage into areas currently used by wintering SPA birds and also into the habitat areas to be managed for SPA wintering birds.

Environment Agency (Amy Heys, Alison Whalley)

25 November 2010

E-mail

Response from Environment Agency to notes of meeting held on 17 November 2010:

Could you note that I also requested that any ponds that had restricted access for Great Crested Newt Surveys should be assumed positive. The EA will require updated water vole surveys with the planning application and any flood defence consent. The Environment Agency has recent evidence within the catchment and therefore they could move in to any area/water body that could be affected.


25 November 2010

E-mail

Response from Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited to the e-mail received from the Environment Agency dated 25 November 2010 (above):

In terms of the great crested newts, we’d taken the approach outlined by Alison in the previous application, and therefore we’re going to adopt the same approach in this application. Therefore, I didn’t make a specific point of it in the meeting notes. I can of course add it in and re-issue if you would like.

Can I ask why water vole survey updates have been requested, when the surveys were last undertaken in 2008 (gas storage area) and 2009 (NTS pipeline area)?


26 November 2010

E-mail

Response from Environment Agency to the e-mail sent by Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited on 25 November 2010 (above):

We have recent evidence (2010) in the area - close to Pressall. After the breeding season (end of summer) the young water voles will move to new territories. Therefore in June - Sept 2009 and June- Sept 2010 the water voles will have increased their range (they have average 2 litters a year). This will happen again in 2011. Therefore there is a chance that water voles will be present within any water bodies affected. The surveys found no evidence of water voles. This may have been correct at the time of survey but as we now know they are in the area, the water bodies that didn't have water voles in could be colonised within the next year. For info - they have been known to move 9 km to find new territories.


26 November 2010

E-mail

Response from Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited to the e-mail received from the Environment Agency dated 26 November 2010 (above):

At present, the idea is to directionally drill under any watercourse the scheme crosses.

3


Therefore, we do not believe that there would be any direct impact to any watercourse / drain, nor therefore any water vole populations that may be present. However, we appreciate that there is potential for indirect impacts to occur to the water vole population of a particular watercourse in terms of vibration / disturbance.

In recognition of this, and in light of the continual changing status of the water vole population in the local area, we propose to treat those watercourses under which we would need to directionally drill as supporting a water vole population, and mitigate accordingly. We would also propose to undertake pre-construction water vole survey as part of the mitigation proposals.

Just to note that we have found evidence of water voles along the NTS pipeline route during previous surveys

I trust this approach will be acceptable.


26 November 2010

E-mail

Response from Environment Agency to the e-mail be Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited on 26 November 2010 (above):

That sounds acceptable - again though the 5 metre buffer for the ponds will also need to be guaranteed - as water voles are also found around ponds.


RSPB (Tim Melling)

2 December 2010

E-mail

E-mail sent by Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited confirming the approach to the requested baseline noise surveys at The Heads and Arm Hill:

I’ve discussed this further with one of our ornithologists who undertook the breeding bird surveys this year, and also Tim Melling.

We propose to undertake a 24 hour monitoring survey in mid-December at both Arm Hill and The Heads (undertaking the survey this month will ensure we measure at a time when it is considered that the SPA population should be at its peak). This will record peak and average noise levels over 10 or 15 minute intervals. We will also have someone out on site (positioned away from the monitors and the roosting areas) during daylight hours (approx 8am – 4pm) to record the source of any ‘stand alone’ noise incidents that occur (to assist in explaining any anomalies in the daytime data). We’re also hopeful that we will be on site to record any such noise instances at low / neap / high tides (we need to check the tide tables for the particular day that we’ll be monitoring).

Tim is happy with this approach, and therefore please could you confirm this approach will be acceptable.

4


RSPB (Tim Melling) 2 December 2010

E-mail

Provided an extract of a paper on constructional disturbance on birds.


2 December 2010

E-mail

Response to notes of meeting held on 17 November 2010.

I have just one comment on the attached minutes, under point 6:

PDD / MJ highlighted the requirement for a separate report entitled ‘Information to Inform a Habitat Regulations Assessment’. Within this, Hyder would need to extrapolate all relevant information from the ES with regards to the potential impact of the brine discharge on the qualifying features of the stat sites situated off the coastline. The report would also need to explain the potential ‘in-combination’ effects on stat sites of other projects that discharge into the Irish Sea (e.g. the Gateway Project) and discuss the potential hydrological impact of cavern development on the Wyre Estuary. Depending on the findings of the report, PDD / MJ intimated that this should be enough to satisfy the requirements of the Habitats Regulations, and no further documentation should be required in terms of the Appropriate Assessment process.

I want to point out that the HRA report needs to include all elements of the project against all interest features of all the protected areas (new Marine Natura Sites, Morecambe Bay SAC, SPA, Ramsar, Wyre Estuary SSSI) with mitigation where potential impacts are perceived e.g. provision of wintering habitat for PFG.

This will be a better way of determining No Likely Significant Effects if this is the case, on the overall project rather than separate sections of the project.


6 December 2010

E-mail

Response from Natural England confirming that the approach to the baseline noise monitoring outlined in Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited’s e-mail of 2 December 2010 is acceptable.


13 December 2010

E-mail

E-mail sent by Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited stating that the baseline noise monitoring won’t be undertaken until January 2011 and asking whether there would be any issue with this.


13 December 2010

E-mail

Response from Natural England received to the e-mail sent by Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited on 13 December 2010 (above):

As agreed with Tim, noise monitoring in either December or January shouldn’t significantly affect the results, and this should coincide with peak PF-goose presence.

Natural England (Pin 24 January 2011 Conference call to discuss which surveys require updating in 2011 in preparation for the DCO

5


Dhillon-Downey)

Environment Agency (Alison Whalley)

Lancashire County Council (John Jones)

Wildlife Trust for Lancashire, Manchester and North Merseyside (Kim Wisdom)

Conference call Application:

Phase 1 Habitat survey

Update survey required prior to the submission of the DCO Application to confirm the results of the Phase 1 Habitat surveys previously undertaken, together with undertaking Phase 1 Habitat surveys within those areas of the application site that had been previously unsurveyed. Only the most recent Phase 1 Habitat survey information should form the basis of the EcIA. The survey should be undertaken between late spring – early summer.

Phase 2 National Vegetation Classification (NVC) survey

No requirement to re-survey the saltmarsh area to Phase 2 NVC level.

The Phase 1 Habitat survey should inform the need for any Phase 2 NVC surveys. However, only those habitats that are considered to warrant surveying to Phase 2 NVC level and would be directly or indirectly affected by the Project should be considered.

As a general rule, Phase 2 NVC surveys should take place between May and August. However, the surveys (if required) could potentially be done under condition to inform appropriate mitigation.

Arable Weeds Survey

No requirement to update survey prior to submission of the DCO Application. However, a survey should be undertaken immediately prior to construction commencing.

The updated Phase 1 Habitat survey should highlight any fields within which fumitory species are likely to be present, which would inform commitments to mitigation principles.

Rock Sea-Lavender survey

No requirement to update survey prior to submission of the DCO Application. However, enhancement opportunities for this species should be considered.

Hedgerow survey

Update survey required prior to the submission of the DCO Application. Can be undertaken in conjunction with the Phase 1 Habitat survey, but results should be reported separately.

Lancashire Pond Biodiversity survey

Undertake survey prior to the submission of the DCO Application on those ponds that it is considered would be at high risk from being potentially indirectly affected by the Project. Those

6


ponds surveyed should also be assessed against UK BAP criteria to see if they qualify.

Terrestrial invertebrate survey

No requirement to update survey prior to submission of the DCO Application.

Great crested newt survey

Undertake surveys prior to the submission of the DCO Application on those ponds that weren’t included within the previous survey undertaken in 2009. The surveys should also record the presence of common toad.

Breeding and wintering bird survey

No requirement to update surveys prior to submission of the DCO Application. However, Fylde Bird Club should be contacted for latest bird records.

An understanding of the cropping regimes on the functionally linked land would be useful, in terms of how this influences where the over-wintering birds feed.

Brown hare survey

No requirement to update survey prior to submission of the DCO Application.

Water vole survey

Undertake surveys prior to the submission of the DCO Application on those ditches / ponds that weren’t included within the previous surveys undertaken in 2008 / 2009. Updated water vole records should be obtained and surveys should be undertaken in areas which have recent records.

Badger survey

No requirement to update survey prior to submission of the DCO Application. However, evidence of badger activity should be recorded during the Phase 1 Habitat survey.

Benthic survey

No requirement to update survey prior to submission of the DCO Application. However, an update survey would be required prior to construction commencing.

Bats

Potential bat roosts should be identified during the Phase 1 Habitat survey. If potential roost sites are identified and are likely to be affected, surveys should be undertaken prior to the submission of the DCO application.

7


Natural England (Mark Johnston)

22 February 2011

E-mail

E-mail sent by Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited asking advice as to whether the desk study on plankton, fish, spawning and nursery grounds and marine mammals should be updated. If so, could Natural England point us in the direction of suitable sources of information.


1 March 2011

E-mail

Response received from Natural England to the e-mail sent by Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited on 22 February 2011 (above):

I agree the desk study would profit from some updating and strengthening, possibly via the addition of extra information. It may also profit from further cross referencing between the modelling data and the ecological data i.e. indications of sensitivity or likely impact (and extent) to biotopes present.

Possible additional data sources:-

� The only projects with relevant marine information are the Gateway gas storage project and the now cancelled Cirrus Shell Flats array wind farm. These projects collected trawl and benthic sampling data in the Shell Flats area but do not have a great deal of information in the area of likely impact resulting from the brine discharge.

� One possible source of information regarding demersal/finfish data in the area are the fish surveys conducted by Cefas in the Irish Sea (the Irish Sea and Bristol Channel survey (conducted in September-October) and the Quarter 4 Westerly ground fish survey (conducted in November – December). You may need to contact CEFAS for this info as I do not have it to hand.

� The only real source of plankton data are the east Irish sea plankton studies undertaken by CEFAS in 2000 – 2003. It is quite broad scale but may have some relevant data www.cefas.co.uk/publications/files/datarep42.pdf.

� Natural England undertook video and grab surveys along this area of coast in 2005 which may be of use and I will search for this data and pass it on to you if it could be of use.

� Dong Energy have recently undertaken benthic trawls and grabs in the vicinity of the outfall in support of their Walney Wind farm phase 2 export cable (which makes land fall at Cleveleys) this may prove useful as it lists some of the epifaunal species of the stony habitat in the area. This is very recent data and is still being used as part of a habs regs assessment so may not be easily available.

Natural England (Pin 2 March 2011 E-mail sent by Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited requesting advice on the survey area required for

8


Dhillon-Downey)




E-mail the great crested newt surveys.


4 March 2011

E-mail

Response from Natural England to the e-mail sent by Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited on 2 March 2011 (above):

The GCN mitigation guidelines suggest a 500m search area for surveys, given the number of open water bodies/ ponds in the area, I would recommend adopting a more precautionary approach to survey methodology and surveying within 500m of the application boundary. Do others agree?


7 March 2011

Telephone conversation

Response from Lancashire County Council to the e-mail sent by Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited on 2 March 2011 (above).

Suggest that we carry out a preliminary risk assessment (as set out in the Natural England great crested newt licence application forms) to determine the required extent of the survey area for great crested newts.


16 March 2011

E-mail

Further response from Natural England to the e-mail sent by Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited on 2 March 2011 (above):

The advice I have regarding your enquiry below, is firstly to refer to the license risk assessment checklist (available through this link). If it can be determined through field surveys and other that there will be no indirect effects on GCN beyond the extent of your initial 250m surveys then we would accept that the surveys are sufficient. However, the determination of effects or non-effects need to be supported by evidence and clear justifications. The assessment must be based on a precautionary principle therefore if there is any doubt in the findings or if there is evidence to suggest that GCN could be impacted beyond the limitations of the survey area,

9


would have no alternative but to advise the IPC accordingly. I hope this information is helpful, and I hope that you are able to understand our position in that we are not able to provide an absolute answer yes or no answer to your question until we have seen the field survey result.


21 March 2011

E-mail

Natural England provided the report for the survey they undertook in the area offshore Blackpool in 2007.



Environment Agency (Alison Whalley)

1 April 2011

E-mail

Response from Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited to e-mail of 16 March 2011:

It has recently been confirmed that we will only be able to request access through the IPC to those areas to which we’ve historically been denied within the application boundary. We will not be able to request access to such areas that lie outside of the application boundary.

As discussed, we have the majority of the landowner information for within 250m. Therefore, all I’m afraid we can do is undertake great crested newt surveys within 250m, although we will not be able to undertake any surveys on land to which we’ve historically been denied outside of the application boundary.

We are currently identifying which ponds we need to survey this year. Obviously it’s been agreed that we don’t need to undertake surveys on those ponds which were surveyed in 2009. Therefore, we will concentrate on (i) those ponds which were surveyed to HSI level in 2009, but weren’t subsequently surveyed for populations, and (ii) those ponds considered suitable (as a result of this year’s HSI) that were not surveyed in 2009.

John – with regard to the Lancashire Pond Methodology / BAP surveys, our hydrologist has identified those ponds which are considered to be at High Risk from indirect impacts. We feel that there are no ponds which fall into this category outside of 250m, so therefore we should be able to undertake the surveys on most, if not all, of the ponds identified by our hydrologist.

Please note that we have yet to undertake the risk assessment check list.

Singleton Parish Council

26 April 2011

S42 consultation response

Parish Councillors have serious concerns over the ecological impact of the gas storage.

North Western Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority

4 May 2011


Concerns were centred on potential damage to sensitive marine and estuarine habitats from brine discharge.

10



11 May 2011


Call to discuss the aquatic invertebrate survey element of the Lancashire Pond Biodiversity Survey methodology


11 May 2011

E-mail

Response from Lancashire County Council, outlining a different aquatic invertebrate survey methodology to follow (PSYM).


12 May 2011

E-mail

Response from Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited to the e-mail received from Lancashire County Council on 11 May 2011 (above):

1) Should we only use this guidance for the collation of aquatic invert data, but stick to the Lancs Pond Method for everything else?

2) The aquatic invert survey method suggests that only one visit to each pond is required. Is that the case?

3) Is there a requirement to send the data collected to Pond Conservation for analysis?


13 May 2011


Response from Lancashire County Council to questions in the e-mail sent by Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited on 12 May 2011 (above):

1) Yes

2) Yes

3) No

Preesall Town Council 16 May 2011


Concern over the environment of the sea bed, fisheries and the control of levels of salt discharge into sea and the impact of wildlife in Morecambe Bay. What tests have been carried out?

Concern over the SSSI and wildlife

Maritime and Coastguard Agency

13 June 2011


Considered the information provided and it can be noted that the works are unlikely to have an adverse impact with regards to the safety of navigation, provided the conditions below are applied to this development.

Please note that these conditions only apply to the cables / pipelines crossing the river and salt water outfall as described in the project plan. MCA would however only confirm these conditions once have seen the appropriate Marine Licence application from the Marine Management Organisation or as appropriate:

� A copy of this consent must be given to each contractor appointed to carry our part or all of

11


‘the works’ in order that they are clear about the extent of ‘the works’ for which consent has been given and the conditions that are attached to the consent.

� The Consent Holder should ensure appropriate steps are taken to minimise damage to the beach / foreshore / river banks by the works.

� The Consent Holder should ensure any equipment, temporary works, and / or debris associated with the works is removed from the foreshore upon completion of the works.

� The Consent Holder should ensure the best method of practice is used to minimise re-suspension of sediment during these works.

� The Consent Holder should ensure suitable bunding / storage facilities are employed to prevent the release of fuel oils, lubricating fluids associated with the plant, and equipment into the marine environment.

� The Consent Holder must ensure the beach / foreshore / riverbank is returned to the original profile following the completion of the works.

� The Consent Holder should ensure the local mariner’s and fishermen’s organisations are notified.

� The Consent Holder should notify the UK Hydrographic Office to permit the promulgation of maritime safety information and updating of nautical publications.

� The works shall be maintained at all times in good repair.

� The works should be removed from below the level of mean high water springs within 1 month of notice being given by the Secretary of State at any time he considers this necessary / advisable for the safety of navigation, and not replaced without further consent by the SoS.

� No radio beacon or radar beacon operating in the Marine frequency bands shall be installed or used on the works without prior written approval by the SoS.

� If in the opinion of the SoS the assistance of a Government Department (including the broadcast of navigational warnings) is required in connection with the works or to deal with any emergency arising from the failure to mark and light the works as required by the consent or to maintain the works in good order or from the drifting or wreck of the works, the owner of the works shall be liable for any expense incurred in securing such assistance.

� Officers of the MCA or any other person authorised by the SoS should be permitted to

12


inspect the works at any reasonable time.

� The site is within port limits and the responsible local navigation authority, in close consultation with the Harbour Commissioners where appropriate, may wish to issue local warnings to alert those navigating in the vicinity to the presence of the works during construction. Additionally, they may need to review their Port Marine Safety Code risk assessments.

� The matter is an issue for the local harbour authority with conservancy responsibilities. They have the responsibility within their port limits for ensuring their harbour is fit for use by, for example, not permitting the spoil to foul navigable channels thus assuring the safety of navigation.

� Vessels to comply with the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREGs) 1972, as amended, particularly with respect to the display of lights, shapes and signals.

� The works should be marked and lighted in accordance with the requirements of the General Lighthouse Authority, in this case Trinity House Lighthouse Service.

� Any jack up barges / vessels utilised during the works, when jacked up, should exhibit signals in accordance with the UK Standard Marking Schedule for Offshore Installations.

Marine Management Organisation

15 June 2011


The PEI Report outlines the surveys / work undertaken to date. States that 1 marine benthic ecology and habitats survey was conducted in October 2001 in the Irish Sea. This survey is outdated and does not consider temporal (seasonal and/or yearly) variations. Would expect a more thorough assessment considering the implications on the marine environment.

However, in Section 6.6.49, the report highlights the discussions with NE regarding further baseline surveys before construction / operation commences, to enable a more detailed baseline to be identified. MMO strongly feel the survey design needs to be agreed on before work commences. Monitoring can then take place to ensure the predictions made in the ES are correct.

Methods used to undertake the survey are not provided and it is therefore difficult to understand what was done and how. This detail should be provided in the ES (even if it is presented in another document elsewhere).

Generally the Summary of Baseline Information (6.3) is vague for intertidal, subtidal habitats, fish/fisheries and plankton (whilst there is plenty of information regarding terrestrial

13


environments / habitats).

Report does not mention all the relevant fish species in the area and there is no mention of the shellfisheries (cockles) in the area. This information should be provided, even just to say impacts will not be significant, to show that every aspect has been assessed in relation to the project.

Also, marine mammal’s information is limited and should be expanded for ES.

Generally the report lacks supporting information to back up assumptions. Greater detail will need to be provided for the ES (e.g. Section 6.7.2 makes a statement about recovery taking a comparatively short period of time. Compared to what? Where is the supporting evidence?).

Report mentions marine dispersion modelling, but little direct reference is made to it. This information should be provided in the ES to form a comprehensive document.

Pleased to see that some form of noise and vibration study will be undertaken on marine species, although the exact details are not provided.

EIA must include an assessment of the environmental effects of those species and habitats in the OSPAR List of Threatened and Declining Species and Habitats.

CEFAS is of the opinion that the proposal, due to its location, nature and scale, may warrant an Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation (Natural Habitats & c.) Regulations 1994. However, this decision lies ultimately with Natural England.

Concerns regarding the discharge of the brine, from the excavation of the caverns, into the Irish Sea. Was limited information within PEI and need further clarification on the overall amounts to be discharged and the discharge rates over a specified period, salinity and its effects on fisheries, supported with appropriate mitigation.

Section 1.2.32 of the Scoping Report refers to the outfall for the saturated brine from the washed out caverns situated 2.3km offshore. Following issues need clarifying:

� How toxic is the saturated brine, and what are implications of its release at different times of the year (e.g. spawning for particular fish spp?)

� Over what period will the brine be released and what are the cumulative effects of such a release? Flow rates and arrangements for screening of intakes / outfalls?

� Does the position of the outfall impinge on any fishing / spawning / nursery grounds / sensitive habitats?

14


� What is quantity of brine to be released?

� What is radius around the outfall over which marine life will be impacted? Are some species particularly susceptible to saturated brine?

What are implications of current patterns etc? 2.3km is not all that far offshore, so is there potential for the brine to be carried closer in shore in particular tides / weather conditions? What suspended solids are coming with the brine?

In section 6.3.40 of the PEI, the Latin name of the Atlantic herring is used instead of the common seal’s Latin name.

Overall the report has highlighted the main issues associated with such a project, but lacks the detail required to undertake a full and comprehensive assessment of the likely environmental effects.

General statements are unsupported and where reference is made to other reports, little detail is provided.

Where work is yet to be done, no detail is provided.

This would have been a good opportunity for feedback on proposed future work prior to it being undertaken. Several of these comments have been raised in previous advice in November 2010, of which not all have been addressed, and some are still relevant for this current PEI report. Suggest more work is required to inform the ES.

The items highlighted in the letter should be considered in the EIA process, and would like to see the outcome of suggestions in the ES.

Environment Agency 16 June 2011


Previous consultation with Natural England has established that great crested newt surveys should be carried out within 500 m of the proposed works. The Environment Agency recommends full consultation with Natural England to determine whether the extent of surveys is sufficient. Where access to ponds is not possible, the presence of great crested newts should be assumed.

Sections 6.6.33 to 6.6.36 of the PEI Report should provide enough information to allow the determining officer that risks to great crested newts have been fully considered and adequate protection and mitigation can be achieved. Mitigation measures should include details of proposed habitat creation to mitigate for the loss of terrestrial habitat as outlined in Tables 6.2 and 6.3. In addition, proposals should provide further information in relation to impacts on the

15


hydrology of the ponds and measures to prevent negative impacts on great crested newts.

The Environment Agency holds records of water voles throughout the area of proposed works. There is possibility for water voles to colonise waterbodies to be impacted by the proposed scheme. Least impact methods of working should be developed, e.g. directional drilling where possible.

Updated surveys will be required through the full working area where impacts on waterbodies (including ditches and ponds) will occur. Sections 6.6.40 to 6.6.14 (of the PEI Report) state ‘surveys will only be required where works will be carried out during spring and summer’. The Environment Agency does not agree with this statement. Where works are carried out on any waterbody, including during winter months, updated water vole surveys will be required. Surveys should be carried out using standard water vole methodology. Full exclusion and mitigation method statements will be required where water voles are found to be present.

Natural England (Janet Belfield, Peter Close, Mike Young)

23 June 2011

Conference call

Conference call held to bring Janet, Peter and Mike up to speed with the Project.


� History of the Project

� Overview of current Project

� Recap of previous meetings

� Licensing

� HRA

� IEEM Marine EcIA Guidelines

Natural England 30 June 2011


Optimum periods in which to handle soils may conflict with breeding bird season / over-wintering birds, along with disturbance to hedgerows along the pipeline route. NE recommends that scrub and ground clearance, vegetation removal, drainage works or any other activity on land which has lain undisturbed for some time, shall be avoided during the main bird breeding period (1st March to 1st August inclusive), unless the area concerned had been shown to be free of nesting birds following a robust survey by a suitably qualified person immediately prior to such works commencing. (This is adopted in minerals cases where there would be ground disturbance). This should be taken into account and presented in a management strategy as part of the submission for the DCO.

NE is satisfied with the content suggested, but has concerns about lack of survey information

16


for areas with denied access to land for survey purposes. NE is aware that this matter is being progressed. NE notes the comments in the report and look forward to further consultation and discussion in due course.

NE however does have concerns about displacement of SPA birds from foraging and roosting areas, through additional mounding and planting that is planned as part of the proposal, and would like to discuss this in more detail along with landscape colleagues and the RSPB.

Project has the potential to impact upon the marine environment through 2 main pathways:

� The introduction of terrestrially derived sediment into the Wyre Estuary during construction.

� The discharge of super saline brine into the east Irish Sea via a diffuser off the Fylde coast.

NE was consulted upon a project during a prior application for gas storage under the River Wyre through Canatxx. It was NE’s opinion that neither the introduction of suspended sediment into the Wyre, nor the proposed discharge of brine, would significantly affect any designated site / known feature of conservation importance. It is NE’s understanding that Halite’s construction plan will infer a similar construction methodology and brine disposal methodology to the Canatxx proposal. No information has been provided which indicates the physical / biological characteristics of the disposal site have changed from the previous proposal, therefore NE does not feel that a review of the (granted) discharge consent is required and continue to hold the opinion that the project will not have any significant impact on any designated feature.

Under table 13.1 ‘Receptors Potentially Effected’ it is not clear what is meant by the specific receptor ‘Morecambe Bay’. It is not clear whether this refers to the larger general area of Irish Sea around the north Lancashire coastline or the Morecambe Bay SAC. For clarity NE recommends this is amended for the following 2 reasons:

� The Morecambe Bay SAC is not the only designated site with the potential to act as a receptor. Other sites include Shell Flats SAC, Lune Deep pSAC, and Liverpool Bay SPA.

� NE recommends Halite assesses the impact of the brine discharge on a receptor which incorporates the wider Morecambe Bay Fylde coast region. This should include reference to both statutory designated sites but also the wider ecological impact to habitats along the Fylde coast which exist outside of a designated site.

Although agree the discharge of brine into the Irish Sea is unlikely to affect any designated site, annex 1 habitat or BAP priority habitat, the area around the diffuser will likely suffer a reduction

17


in benthic and demersal abundance and diversity. E.g. it will take 500m for the salinity to return to 5% of the ambient concentration.

The consultation should acknowledge this impact but state whether it feels this impact is of scale that it will not impact the wider ecological functioning of the surrounding marine environment. It should also outline that the specific location and operation of the diffuser will reduce this impact to a minimum and that a robust programme will be in place to monitor the condition of the site and verify the claims of dispersal and likely demersal impact made in the EIA.

Natural England (Janet Belfield, Mark Johnston)

Environment Agency (Amy Heys)



13 July 2011

E-mail

E-mail sent by Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited, requesting any additional comments to the proposed assessment methodology outlined in both the Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report and the PEI Report, over and above those already received.

Wildlife Trust for Lancashire, Manchester and North Merseyside

13 July 2011


To comment fully on any likely biodiversity impacts arising from this proposal, we await the full Environmental Statement containing the additional information agreed during the conference call of 24th January 2011 and subsequent email correspondence with Hyder Consulting (UK) and fellow environmental consultees (Lancashire County Council, RSPB, Natural England, Environment Agency). The in-combination / cumulative effect with other known major developments (proposed Wyre Power Station and Cuadrilla Shale Gas Exploration – should it proceed to commercial production) will be an important consideration.


14 July 2011

E-mail

Response from Lancashire County Council to the e-mail sent by Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited on 13 July 2011 (above):

I have contributed to Lancashire County Council responses to the scoping response and the Preliminary Environmental Information Report. These previous comments include comments on

18


methodology.

As discussed today, in my opinion, it would be reasonable to base your assessment methodology on the IEEM EcIA Guidelines. However, in order to reduce the degree of subjectivity within the methodology, I recommend that you ensure that each habitat type that would be lost, damaged, re-established, enhanced, or brought into favourable management is quantified and clearly mapped. This will assist in demonstrating that all habitat losses are fully off-set and that overall gains in biodiversity and habitat value will be delivered.

I cannot comment on assessment methodology for marine habitats.

Natural England (Janet Belfield, Mark Johnston)

15 July 2011

E-mail

Response from Natural England to the e-mail sent by Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited on 13 July (above). Full response is provided below this table.


15 July 2011

E-mail

Response from Environment Agency to the e-mail sent by Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited on 13 July (above):

We have no further comments to make on the Ecology and Nature Conservation Assessment Methodology.

Ribble Fisheries Consultative Association

27 July 2011


Consultation Response Letter (27 July 2011)

Re-iterated the objection the chairman (C.D. Hinks) submitted in 2009 (see below).

Stated that as far as the Association is concerned, continue to have very serious concerns about the proposed discharge and its impact upon the Irish Sea, especially on the spawning habitat and the migration routes of endangered species.

Spoken to the EA concerning the discharge into the sea very close to a protected area, and sought assurances from them that there would be no impact. Regrettably they have, as yet, been unable to give such assurances and so the Association objects to the discharge of this quantity of saturated solution and at such temperatures.

Have concerns about the proposals relating to safety of the area especially after the accident earlier this month, and so would totally support the letter Halite received from the Protect Wyre Group dated 21 June, and the position adopted by the Group on this issue. If such an incident is sufficient to cause disruption on land what would be the impact at sea; probably where it would be undetected for a considerable time when the damage would already be done? The precious habitat in the Irish Sea is irreplaceable and would, in all probability, never recover.

19


Furthermore, are concerned at the effects on the quality of bathing water off the Fylde Coast, and whether it would then meet the WDF standards.

Objection Letter (25 May 2009)

Registered objection to 2009 proposals.

Effects of amount of concentrated brine (resulting brine estimated at 45 million tonnes pumped into Irish Sea) into sea would be dramatic to the environment and sea life in the vicinity. The idea that it will be localised to a small area of the sea bed is nonsensical, since it does not take into effect the sea currents at the sea floor level, nor the changes in currents caused by the variations in temperature in such a shallow sea. Establishing currents at the sea floor level is different than at the surface.

Concern is for all fauna / flora that could be affected by the salt, including damage to food chain for a range of marine life. Most especially want to draw attention to the potentially damaging effect upon the environment of such a concentrated salt solution, especially at temperature, and how it would decimate the natural marine life in the area. The tidal flows in the Irish Sea would not encourage dissipation, as might be the case in the Atlantic, but rather mean an increased concentration in the whole of the Irish Sea and so a ‘marine dessert’ could be created.

This would have disastrous effect on the shrimp and shellfish of the area (i.e. the food chain for other spp) and would, in turn, ruin the livelihood of many people who have depended on the sea for generations. Similarly, there would be a detrimental effect on the tourist industry in the north west, as the purity of the sea water along the coast would once more be compromised. The hard work of recent years to improve water quality on our beaches would once again be put in jeopardy by the perceived needs of industry.

Draw attention to the potentially damaging effect upon the wild Atlantic salmon, which is the 10th most threatened of all species in Europe, and its decline is well documented and internationally recognised. The rivers of the NW of England are some of the most important for the species. Furthermore, many rivers do not have self-sustaining stocks of these fish. Salmon breed in rivers and always return to their river of birth. Upon return from the Northern Atlantic to breed, they are known to detect their parent river by organoleptic (smell, salinity etc) sensoring. In the coastal area, near the river’s estuary, the salmon’s physiological functions change to accommodate living in the fresh water of their breeding river. Young salmon leaving the parent river for the ocean part of their existence go through the reverse process. The natural stable coastal and estuarine salinity levels are therefore absolutely critical for the continued existence

20


of the salmon spp in the NW rivers.

In addition, another salmonid, the sea trout, is an important sea spp that does not leave the coastal areas other than to breed in the rivers of the region. This fish also undergoes the same physiological changes as the salmon prior to moving into fresh river water in order to breed and the reverse when returning back to sea. Again the NW rivers are important for this spp, and the NW has some of the best marine life and salmon and sea trout fisheries in the country

These processes of physiological adaptation are only capable of dealing with the very limited salinity ranges, which occur naturally. Unnaturally increased salinity levels and salinity gradients will significantly interfere with the salmon’s ability to migrate to their breeding rivers and for the young fish to enter the sea. Furthermore, even though the discharged salinity may seem relatively localised affecting the Rivers Lune and Wyre, it will also, since the salmon use distinct sea routes from the North Atlantic, affect the salmon populations for most of the rivers of the NW and perhaps even further southwards.

The Association consider this project would have a disastrous effect on these very important, and in the case of the wild Atlantic salmon, threatened spp.

Once environment has been affected, can take many years to recover, assuming that it can. On environmental grounds alone, this project should not be allowed to go ahead.

Much has been done over the past decade to ensure the Ribble has maintained its runs of migratory fish through habitat work and catch and release propagation programmes etc, which has proved success in that the Ribble has joined other rivers in the north west as category one migratory rivers in the UK. Indeed, the Ribble is unusual in that it supports both salmon and sea trout migrations. These fisheries represent considerable investment and have a value in excess of £15 million. Add to that the increased value to the NW economy and many more millions added. Therefore, on economic grounds feel the project should not go ahead.

This is an operation with a high risk factor. There are numerous examples of failure (e.g. Abbeystead, Buncefield and Flixborough). Too many people live in close proximity to this proposal for it to be acceptable. It is documented that gas can travel up to 10 miles underground from its source as it tries to surface with all the possible consequences of fire and explosion. There are numerous abandoned salt mines within close proximity of the project and there is a danger of gas escaping into them. One of these caverns was used for the storage of toxic mercury sludge.

21


Canatxx should have produced irrefutable scientific evidence that meets the criteria for safe gas storage, in their 10 years of evaluating the site. However, words such as ‘if’ and ‘attempt’ are still used when discussing location / size of caverns etc. The application should be firmly rejected.

Natural England (Janet Belfield)



RSPB (Tim Melling)


5 August 2011

E-mail

E-mail sent by Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited, outlining the issues with the S53 Application to the IPC i.e. the application had been withdrawn, and there were areas of the application boundary within which we will be unable to conduct specific surveys pre-application.

Environment Agency (Amy Heys, Georgina Fellows)

12 August 2011

E-mail

Response from Environment Agency to the e-mail sent by Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited on 5 August 2011 (above):

The issue regarding access for survey in relation to Great Crested Newts should be directed to Natural England (Janet Belfield has been previously involved) and NE's standing advice in order to determine the level of survey required, as this will need to be consistent with Natural Englands requirements if a great crested newt development licence is required in the future.

Regarding water vole surveys, some locations within the study area have shown positive signs for water vole. Due to the potentially long timescales between these initial surveys and the commencement of works on site watercourses, ponds and ditches will require repeat survey checks for water voles for works that affect bankside habitats or involve watercourse crossings. This also includes any areas that have so far been inaccessible for survey work, before any works take place that impact on watercourses or ponds in these areas water vole surveys should be carried out and a methodology agreed with the Environment Agency to avoid or mitigate for impacts to water voles if found to be present.

Please note that if survey work is not carried out due to continued access problems in the future

22


then sites should be treated as potentially positive for water voles rather than assuming they are absent (precautionary approach)

Wyre Borough Council 15 August 2011


Furthermore the pipeline would appear to be located within a Biological Heritage Site which follows the line of the track bed and the impact of the development upon this BHS and any mitigation works should be set out.

The development will affect various protected sites and areas including Liverpool Bay SPA, Wyre Estuary SSSI, SAC and SPA, and various BHS sites including Fleetwood coastal and Dune Grasslands, Rossall School Fields, Fleetwood Marsh and Industrial Lands, ICI Salt Pools, Preesall, Pilling Moss (Head Dyke), and Pilling Moss (Eagland Hill). It is considered that these sites should be identified on a plan showing their locations in relation to the development proposals. The impact o the development on these sites and any mitigation proposals should also be set out.

Lancashire County Council

16 August 2011


It will need to be ensured that the final environmental statement submitted with the planning application adequately addresses the requirements specified in previous scoping comments.

Until complete ecological survey data and a full impact assessment are provided, it is not possible to make adequate comments on the likely impacts of the proposed development or the adequacy of any avoidance, mitigation or compensation proposals. An appropriate area of land to be covered by the proposed ecological and landscape management plan, and the necessary content of the management plan cannot be adequately determined in the absence of a complete ecological survey and impact assessment.

Based on the survey results to date, submitted with the consultation documents, it appears that there is potential for impacts on various sites, habitats, species and features of ecological value, for example, statutory designated sites, Biological Heritage Sites, species populations associated with these sites, statutorily protected species, species and habitats of principal importance (NERC Act, 2006), red data list species, locally or nationally rare or scarce species.

In order to meet the policy requirements described within the County Council's comments on the scoping opinion, the location and design of the proposed development should be informed by a complete/comprehensive ecological survey and impact assessment. It should be demonstrated that the proposed development has been located and designed to avoid ecological impacts. The proposals should include adequate mitigation and compensation proposals to fully offset all unavoidable ecological impacts and to deliver overall enhancement

23


of ecological value. Mitigation proposals should be part of a Farm Conservation Plan on land within the applicants control to ensure the protection of any disturbed species and which would need to provide for long term financial management for the operational life of the site and any subsequent restoration.

DEFRA Circular 01/2005 states that “It is essential that the presence or otherwise of protected species, and the extent that they may be affected by the proposed development, is established before the planning permission is granted”. Owing to potential impacts on European Protected species, the determining authority will need to have regard for the requirements of the Habitats Regulations 2010 in reaching a decision.

Natural England should be consulted regarding potential impacts on statutory designated sites and associated species populations.

The assessment methodology should be based on the IEEM EcIA Guidelines. To reduce the degree of subjectivity within the methodology, it is recommended that each habitat type that would be lost, damaged, re-established, enhanced, or brought into favourable management is quantified and clearly mapped to assist in demonstrating that all habitat losses are fully off-set and that overall gains in biodiversity and habitat value will be delivered.

The County Council does not have the expertise to comment on the assessment methodology for marine habitats.

RSPB (Tim Melling) 22 August 2011

E-mail

Response from RSPB to the e-mail sent by Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited on 5 August 2011 (above):

I don’t have a massive problem with this from a bird point of view. The areas are so small their importance could be assessed from neighbouring land. Can’t comment on things like newts and water voles though.


23 August 2011


Discussed how the areas of land to which we’ve not been afforded access for certain ecological surveys should be dealt with in the assessment. Suggested that a worst case scenario be adopted for species such as great crested newts (i.e. assume presence in those ponds to which access was not afforded). Clearly highlight on drawings which areas were not accessible


23 August 2011


Discussed how the areas of land to which we’ve not been afforded access for certain ecological surveys should be dealt with in the assessment. Suggested that a worst case scenario be adopted for species such as great crested newts (i.e. assume presence in those ponds to which

24


access was not afforded). Clearly highlight on drawings which areas were not accessible. Not much point in filling in the gaps of the Phase 1 Habitat survey by consulting aerial images.

RSPB (Tim Melling)

Environment Agency (Georgina Fellows)

26 August 2011

Site Meeting

Site meeting to discuss first draft of the Landscape and Ecological Management Strategy Plan


7 September 2011

E-mail

Confirming Lune Deep and Shell Flats are currently separate independent sites Lune Deep pSAC and Shell Flat cSAC. The Lune deep is still a pSAC because the boundary changed significantly to accommodate new information thus it had to go out for re-consultation. Once the consultation has been finalised (October) it will also be a cSAC. When they are both cSACs they will again be joined up under the title of the Shell Flat and Lune Deep SAC. Thus if you are referring to them now, refer to them as separate sites i.e. Lune Deep pSAC Shell Flats cSAC.

RSPB (Tim Melling) 9 September 2011

Site Meeting

Site meeting to discuss further work on the Landscape and Ecological Management Strategy Plan

Lancashire County Council (John Jones, Steve Brereton)

Natural England (Janet Belfield, Mark Johnston, Rosie Baines)


Wyre Borough Council (David Shepherd)

13 September 2011

Site meeting

Site meeting to discuss the second draft of the Landscape and Ecological Management Strategy Plan

Tenant farmer 13 September 2011

Meeting

Provided his observations on the activity of the Morecambe Bay SPA / Ramsar qualifying species on the functionally linked land at Preesall.

Natural England 14 September 2011 Announcement regarding Lune Deep pSAC. This site has been submitted to the European Commission as an amendment to the Shell Flat cSAC. The site has been renamed Shell Flat

25


E-mail and Lune Deep cSAC.


19 September 2011

Telephone call

Discussed the requirement to include Marine Conservation Zones within the assessment. There are currently three Marine Conservation Zones proposed within the vicinity of the Project (forming part of the Irish Sea Conservation Zone), these being Ribble, Wyre-Lune and rMCZ8. Mark advised that as further work is required to formally designate these sites (boundaries may change and there are no citations currently available), we should make reference to them at the start of the ES chapter, but state that they have not been considered within the assessment for these reasons.


19 September 2011

E-mail

Received a report outlining the final recommendations for the Irish Sea Marine Conservation Zones.


Telephone call

Tim provided his thoughts on which qualifying species of the Morecambe Bay SPA / Ramsar could be scoped out of the ‘Information to Support a Habitats Regulations Assessment – Morecambe Bay SPA and Ramsar’.

Natural England (Rosie Baynes)

28 September 2011

E-mail

Rosie provided her thoughts on which qualifying species of the Morecambe Bay SPA / Ramsar could be scoped out of the ‘Information to Support a Habitats Regulations Assessment – Morecambe Bay SPA and Ramsar’. Also received a draft report entitled ‘Morecambe Bay and the Duddon Estuary European Marine Site’, which contained more recent bird data for the area.


Telephone call

Discussed Natural England’s views on which qualifying species of the Morecambe Bay SPA / Ramsar could be scoped out of the ‘Information to Support a Habitats Regulations Assessment – Morecambe Bay SPA and Ramsar’.


30 September 2011

E-mail

E-mail confirming that we are correct in using the JNCC data that we sourced from the following link http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-1982 within the Habitat Regulations Assessment. Also confirmed it is appropriate to refer to the sites separately by each of their designations within the Habitat Regulations Assessment, whether they be SAC, SPA or Ramsar.


5 October 2011

Telephone call

Discussed the approach and findings of the ‘Information to Support a Habitats Regulations Assessment – Morecambe Bay SAC, Liverpool Bay SPA, Shell Flat and Lune Deep cSAC’.


11 October 2011

Telephone call

Discussed the approach and findings of the ‘Information to Support a Habitats Regulations

26


Assessment – Morecambe Bay SPA and Ramsar’.

RSPB (Tim Melling) 14 October 2011

E-mail

E-mail to discuss the revised mounding around the Gas Compressor Compound. Tim was satisfied that the revised mounding will minimise the impacts on the goose usage of the field to the south of the Gas Compressor Compound. The reduced bund heights seem to have reduced the need to affect large areas of the field with an increased incline.

Natural England (Janet Belfield, Rosie Baynes and Mark Johnston)


RSPB (Tim Melling)

18 October 2011

Conference call

Discussed the approach and findings of the ‘Information to Support a Habitats Regulations Assessment – Morecambe Bay SPA and Ramsar’. Notes of the call are provided below this table.

Natural England (Janet Belfield and Mark Johnston)


North Western Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority (Mandy Knott)

Marine Management Organisation (Anna Gerring)

20 October 2011

Conference call

Discussed the approach and findings of the ‘Information to Support a Habitats Regulations Assessment – Morecambe Bay SAC, Liverpool Bay SPA, Shell Flat and Lune Deep cSAC’ and the Deemed Marine Licence. Notes of the call are provided below this table.

Natural England (Rosie Baynes)

20 October 2011

Telephone call

During the conference call held on 18 October 2011, Natural England expressed concern about the age of the data which were being used for the assessment in the ‘Information to Support a Habitat Regulations Assessment – Morecambe Bay SPA and Ramsar’. Natural England recommended that we include information for the past two winters, which have been particularly severe.

27


Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited confirmed that we would be using a combination of a) WeBS data (including the most recent 5 year peak mean data for the Arm Hill count zone and for the SPA as a whole (2005/6 – 2009/10); b) data received from the local bird club (which included WeBS data as well as other anecdotal sightings up to 2010); and c) goose census data (which included information up to 2010). Natural England agreed to this approach.

Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited asked if Natural England had any specific requirements with regard to providing alternative foraging and roosting sites for pink-footed geese during the construction and operational phases of the Project. Rosie confirmed that we should provide alternative areas for the geese during the winter months in areas where there was a potential for birds to be disturbed/displaced. Considering that the programme is not fully confirmed, Rosie agreed that at this stage it was difficult to specify specific fields for enhancement. Rosie suggested that this could be discussed in consultation with RSPB (Tim Melling) and/or local birders to identify the most appropriate areas.

Natural England (Janet Belfield, Mark Johnston, Rosie Baynes)



RSPB (Tim Melling)


26 October 2011

E-mail

Issued the revised version of the ‘Information to Support a Habitats Regulations Assessment – Morecambe Bay SAC, Liverpool Bay SPA, Shell Flat and Lune Deep cSAC’ for review.


27 October 2011

E-mail

Response to the ‘Information to Support a Habitats Regulations Assessment – Morecambe Bay SAC, Liverpool Bay SPA, Shell Flat and Lune Deep cSAC’. Confirmed that, following their written correspondence and tele-conferencing call, the issues that the NWIFCA has raised have been included in the assessment.

28



28 October 2011

E-mail

Response to the ‘Information to Support a Habitats Regulations Assessment – Morecambe Bay SAC, Liverpool Bay SPA, Shell Flat and Lune Deep cSAC’. Confirmed that the Environment Agency has no further comment to make on the report.


28 October 2011

E-mail / Letter

Response to the ‘Information to Support a Habitats Regulations Assessment – Morecambe Bay SAC, Liverpool Bay SPA, Shell Flat and Lune Deep cSAC’. Confirmed that Natural England agree with the conclusions of the report, but state that it could be strengthened in some areas and provided a couple of comments in this respect.


28 October 2011

E-mail / Letter

Response to the ‘Information to Support a Habitats Regulations Assessment – Morecambe Bay SAC, Liverpool Bay SPA, Shell Flat and Lune Deep cSAC’. Given the tight deadline for comments, the Marine Management Organisation has not been able to undertake a technical review of the document and they have only undertaken a brief review to inform the drafting of the marine licence. As such, they reserve the right to comment further once the application is submitted to the IPC. However, they were pleased to see that a number of items raised in previous correspondence have been included.

Natural England (Janet Belfield, Mark Johnston, Rosie Baynes)



RSPB (Tim Melling)


7 November 2011

E-mail

Issued the revised version of the ‘Information to Support a Habitats Regulations Assessment – Morecambe Bay SPA and Ramsar’ for review.


10 November 2011 Agreed that for those ponds surveyed to Lancashire Pond Biodiversity Survey methodology, the results only need to be assessed against UK BAP criteria and not the Lancashire County

29


Telephone call Council BHS Selection Guidelines.


10 November 2011

E-mail

Confirmed that the Environment Agency Biodiversity team have no comments to make on the ‘Information to Support a Habitats Regulations Assessment – Morecambe Bay SPA and Ramsar’ and are happy with the findings of the assessment.


11 November 2011

E-mail

Confirmed that Georgina's comments will be the Environment Agency’s substantive response.


16 November 2011

E-mail

Response to the ‘Information to Support a Habitats Regulations Assessment – Morecambe Bay SPA and Ramsar’. The MMO’s principal interest in this at this stage is to ensure that any relevant provisions arising out of the HRA process which relate to the marine environment are captured in the deemed marine licence if and when appropriate. They are content through the previous consultations undertaken with the MMO, Natural England and other interested bodies that this has been achieved as far as is practicable at this stage of the process.

As timeframes are short they have not undertaken a full review of the ‘Information to Support a Habitats Regulations Assessment – Morecambe Bay SPA and Ramsar’ and as such reserve the right to comment further once the application is submitted to the IPC, but they are content with the process as conducted to date.

Natural England 29 November 2011

Conference call

Discussed the approach and findings of the ‘Information to Support a Habitats Regulations Assessment – Morecambe Bay SPA and Ramsar’.

MINUTES

Issue date 23 November 2010

Issued by David Hoare

Subject Gas Storage Scheme Meeting

Reference 0049-WX40004-NHL-01

Client Halite Energy Group Limited

Meeting date 12 November 2010

Time 14.00

Location Warrington

Present Brian Stanley (BS - Halite)

Bruce Gibson (BG - Halite)

Tim Melling (TM – RSPB)

Andy Saunders (AS - Hyder)

David Hoare (DH - Hyder)

Item Comments

Action

by

1 Introductions

2 Description of the project and discussions of recent developments

BG presented the revised scheme, and explained the work that has been undertaken since

the last application and the options considered (e.g. not being able to construct the Gas

Compressor Compound on the west bank of the Wyre Estuary).

3 Summary of IPC process

AS spoke about the requirement for a Preliminary Environmental Information Report to be

produced. Also spoke generally about the IPC process, although all attendees had a sound

knowledge of the IPC process.

4 Scoping Report

Discussed the presence of the statutory designated sites close to the Fylde coastline. TM

stated that Liverpool Bay SPA is primarily designated for its population of red throated diver

(feed on fish) and common scoter (feed on molluscs, muscles, razor clams etc). In terms of

the potential impact of the brine outfall on these designated sites, consideration would need

to be afforded to the tidal flow.

DH produced maps showing the extent and location of the SPA and SACs. It appeared that

the brine outfall pipeline would not intrude into any of the sites, and neither would the

anticipated plume of ‘sterilisation’ (i.e. the level at which the saline plume would return to

background levels). TM suggested that in his mind, it would be unlikely that an Appropriate

Assessment would be required. However, further advice should be sought from Natural

England.

5 Mitigation & Enhancement Opportunities

DH / AS discussed the commitment to the Ecological and Landscape Management Plan.

TM stated that waders and geese like open fields with good visibility (wet grassland,

preferably 5cm in height). Any construction activity would be fine during the summer months

AS to

investigate

previous work

undertaken

on managed

in terms of the SPA bird population. It would be preferable to avoid any activity during the

winter months, particularly close to the Wyre Estuary. However, constructing the project

during the summer months may not be ideal for other species. TM requested that

consideration be afforded to the timing of constructing the wellheads closer to the SPA (i.e.

try and construct these in the summer months). BG stated that Halite would consider this

when formulating the construction programme.

TM raised the possibility of managed realignment near The Heads or just to the south. AS

stated that some work had been done on this for the first application and Halite would review

the list of suggested mitigation from consultations in finalising the scheme in advance of the

application.

TM stated that anything that can be done to enhance the existing habitat for tree sparrows,

barn owls, yellowhammer and linnet would be well received. TM also stated what a fantastic

opportunity this project has to promote and enhance the current conservation interest,

particularly with someone like Peter Taylor involved.

TM requested that all topsoil be relocated to save seed bank in the area. NTS pipeline

should be constructed a field at a time and avoid breeding season when hedgerows taken

out.

DH mentioned about the use of interpretation to attract people to the area. TM agreed this

would be an excellent idea, not least because it would allow people to see and learn about

one of the few colonies of rock sea lavender in the world (around Arm Hill).

realignment

6 AOB

None.

MINUTES

Issue date 23 November 2010


Subject Gas Storage Scheme Meeting


Client Halite Energy Group Limited

Meeting date 17 November 2010

Time 10.30

Location Kirkham

Present Brian Stanley (BS - Halite)

Bruce Gibson (BG - Halite)

Debbie Morris (DM - Halite)

Jackie Monk (JM - EA)

Amy Heys (AH - EA)

Nikki Bamber (NB - EA)

Kyle Young (KY - EA)

Alison Whalley (AW - EA)

Pin Dhillon-Downey (PDD - NE)

Mark Johnston (MJ - NE)

Elaine Young (EY - MMO)

Andy Saunders (AS - Hyder)

David Hoare (DH - Hyder)

Apologies: Kim Wisdom (LWT)

Item Comments

Action

by

1 Introductions

EY attended through conference call.

2 Description of the project and discussions of recent developments

BG presented the revised scheme, and explained the work that has been undertaken since

the last application and the options considered (e.g. not being able to construct the Gas

Compressor Compound on the west bank of the Wyre Estuary)

3 Summary of IPC process

AS spoke about the requirement for a Preliminary Environmental Information Report to be

produced. Also spoke generally about the IPC process, although all attendees had a sound

knowledge of the IPC process.

4 Scoping Report

AH and PDD stated that they had submitted their response to the scoping report to the IPC

earlier in the week. AH offered to send a copy of the response to DH. AH intimated that

there were no ‘show stoppers’ in the opinion of the Environment Agency.

AW questioned the balance between ecology and landscape. AS discussed the previous

work that was done on the Ecology and Landscape Management Plan, and the commitment

AH to send

copy of

scoping

opinion to DH

to ensure that further work is done on updating it for this application.

NB briefly discussed the FRA requirements with DH. DH said that Hyder had some

questions for NB with regards to the FRA. It was agreed that NB would respond to those

questions outside of the meeting.

DH and PDD / MJ discussed the implementation of the new IEEM Marine EcIA guidelines. It

was agreed that the use of these guidelines would be discussed again once all parties had

been able to review them.

KY stated that the application needs to explain how the monitoring data from the discharge

modelling (to be undertaken as part of the conditions of the previously obtained discharge

consent) will be used to assess the impacts on the Irish Sea once the project is operational.

KY offered to work with Halite / Hyder on this to ensure that such requirements are met.

KY stated the application should address the potential hydrological impacts of creating the

caverns, particularly the potential indirect impact on the Wyre Estuary.

DH to e-mail

AH / NB with

questions

DH, PDD and

MJ to review

the IEEM

Marine EcIA

guidelines for

further

discussion

5 Preliminary Environmental Information Report

Considered in Item 3

6 Stat Sites / Future Stat Sites (including Appropriate Assessment)

PDD confirmed that there were no plans for any more statutory site designations within the

surrounding area / the area that could be potentially impacted upon by the project.

DH produced plans showing the boundaries of the currently designated stat sites in the Irish

Sea, and it was concluded that the brine outfall pipe would not be likely to encroach into

these designations (although it was difficult to be 100% sure due to the scale of mapping)

Although it was agreed that there shouldn’t be any impacts on the stat sites, PDD / MJ

highlighted the requirement for a separate report entitled ‘Information to Inform a Habitat

Regulations Assessment’. Within this, Hyder would need to extrapolate all relevant

information from the ES with regards to the potential impact of the brine discharge on the

qualifying features of the stat sites situated off the coastline. The report would also need to

explain the potential ‘in-combination’ effects on stat sites of other projects that discharge into

the Irish Sea (e.g. the Gateway Project) and discuss the potential hydrological impact of

cavern development on the Wyre Estuary. Depending on the findings of the report, PDD /

MJ intimated that this should be enough to satisfy the requirements of the Habitats

Regulations, and no further documentation should be required in terms of the Appropriate

Assessment process.

The intention to directionally drill under the Wyre Estuary was discussed. PDD highlighted

the number of other applications currently being determined by DECC that also intend to

directionally drill under the Wyre Estuary.

MJ to e-mail

DH a GIS file

delineating

the Liverpool

Bay, Shell

Flat and Lune

Deep

boundaries

7 Status of Flora / Fauna Surveys

DH stated that breeding bird surveys, terrestrial invertebrate surveys and phase 1 habitat

surveys had all been updated in 2010.

PDD confirmed that the existing marine baseline survey information would be valid for use in

the application documentation, but that the baseline information would need to be updated

once consent for the project has been granted before discharge monitoring begins.

AW discussed the requirement for water vole surveys. DH stated that water vole surveys

had been updated in 2008 / 2009. AW highlighted the requirement for toad surveys (now a

UK BAP species) to be undertaken if any ponds were to be lost. DH stated that at present,

no ponds would be lost to the project. AW stated that an appropriate buffer zone of 5m

should be introduced around all ponds so as to ensure their conservation status is

preserved.

Halite to

commission

updated

marine

surveys once

the

application

has been

consented.

8 Flood Risk Assessment

Considered in Item 4

9 Relevant NE and EA Plans

AH / PDD suggested Hyder looks at SMP – 2 (www.mycoastline.com)

AH stated that the EA were currently updating the CAMS document for the area.

DH to e-mail

AH for the

CAMS

document

(currently

being

validated)

10 SuDS

A general discussion was held on the benefit of wetland restoration to the area.

Consideration would also need to be afforded to what could be done with the NTS pipeline

application site.

The general consensus was that the incorporation for SuDS techniques into the design of

the project would be beneficial, as this would restrict discharge rates to receiving

watercourses.

11 Waste / Sustainability Issues

AH said that the Environment Agency has no particular requirements. AS stated that a draft

Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) and a Site Waste Management Plan

(SWMP) was produced for the previous application, and would be produced for this

application.

The disposal of brine was discussed in terms of whether it could be used for any other

purpose instead of disposing of it in the Irish Sea. BG stated that a study had been

undertaken on this issue, but Halite was willing to explore this further. BG stated that as the

project’s capacity has been significantly reduced from the previous application, the ultimate

volume of brine discharged has also reduced to a third, although the project would still

discharge 80 mega litres of brine per day.

Halite to

undertake

further study

into other

options for

disposing / re-

using the

brine.

12 Visual Impact

The general consensus was that the buildings should be designed to blend into the existing

landscape. BS stated that there was a commitment from Halite to explore all options. AS

explained there was a balance to be struck between ecological, landscape and agricultural

interests and that mounding may be required instead of screen planting for example.

13 Future Baseline

AS stated that baseline noise monitoring was due to be undertaken. PDD requested that

such monitoring be undertaken at Arm Hill and The Heads. A discussion was held about

what the area would look like in the future if any future shoreline management plans etc

became effective (refer to Item 9).

Hyder to

undertake

baseline

noise

monitoring at

both locations

14 Consents

AH stated that the Environment Agency has not given the IPC permission to grant any of

their consents / licences. Therefore, any Environment Agency consents will need to be

obtained directly from the Environment Agency.

MJ presumed that a FEPA licence would be required from the Marine Management

Organisation. MJ confirmed that Natural England would be consulted.

15 Mitigation Enhancement Opportunities

DH / AS discussed the commitment to the Ecological and Landscape Management Plan. BG

confirmed that management would extend to the extent of Halite’s land ownership, not just

within the application boundary. It was requested that the management plan illustrate a zone

of impact influence along the NTS pipeline route.

PDD stated that the exit / entry points of the pipeline under the Wyre Estuary need to be set

back as far from the SPA as possible, and the methodology for directional drilling needs to

be made as clear as possible within the application documents.

Hyder / Halite

to determine

zone of

impact

influence

along NTS

pipeline route

16 AOB

The Environment Agency requires 21 days to respond to consultation requests (10 days for

data requests). Natural England requires 28 days to respond to consultation requests.

1

David Hoare

From: Belfield, Janet (NE) [[email protected]]Sent: 15 July 2011 18:18To: David HoareCc: Robert Kitch; Andrew Saunders; Johnston, Mark (NE)Subject: RE: Preesall Underground Gas Storage Facility - Methodologies for Ecology and Nature Conservation; and Seascape, Landscape, Townscape

and Visual Amenity Assessment

Planning consultation: Halite Energy's Underground Gas Storage at Preesall Saltfield, Lancashire Assessment Methodologies

Natural England is a non-departmental public body. Our statutory purpose is to ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development. Thank you for your email dated 13 July 2011, concerning the methodologies for the Ecology and Nature Conservation; and the Seascape, landscape, Townscape and Visual Amenity Chapters of the Environmental report. Mark Johnston and I have reviewed the methodologies stated in the Preliminary Environmental report and have the following comments to make. 1 General Principles We would expect the final Environmental Statement (ES) to include all necessary information as outlined in Schedule 4 of the Town & Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 1999, specifically:

• A description of the development – including physical characteristics and the full land use requirements of the site during construction and operational phases.

• Expected residues and emissions (water, air and soil pollution, noise, vibration, light, heat, radiation, etc.) resulting from the operation of the proposed development.

• An assessment of alternatives and clear reasoning as to why the preferred option has been chosen. • A description of the aspects of the environment likely to be significantly affected by the development, including, in particular, population, fauna,

flora, soil, water, air, climatic factors, material assets, including the architectural and archaeological heritage, landscape and the interrelationship between the above factors.

• A description of the likely significant effects of the development on the environment – this should cover direct effects but also any indirect, secondary, cumulative, short, medium and long term, permanent and temporary, positive and negative effects. Effects should relate to the existence of the development, the use of natural resources and the emissions from pollutants. This should also include a description of the forecasting methods to predict the likely effects on the environment

• A description of the measures envisaged to prevent, reduce and where possible offset any significant adverse effects on the environment. • A non-technical summary of the information. • An indication of any difficulties (technical deficiencies or lack of know-how) encountered by the applicant in compiling the required information.

2

It will be important for any assessment to consider the potential cumulative effects of this proposal, including all supporting infrastructure, with other similar proposals and a thorough assessment of the ‘in combination’ effects of the proposed development with any existing developments and new applications. A full consideration of the implications of the whole scheme should be included in the ES. 2 Biodiversity and Geology 2.1 Ecological Aspects of an Environmental Statement Natural England advises that the potential impact of the proposal upon features of nature conservation interest and opportunities for habitat creation/enhancement should be included within this assessment in accordance with appropriate guidance on such matters. Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) have been developed by the Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (IEEM) and are available on their website. EcIA is the process of identifying, quantifying and evaluating the potential impacts of defined actions on ecosystems or their components. EcIA may be carried out as part of the EIA process or to support other forms of environmental assessment or appraisal. EcIA should include the following stages:

• scoping, involving consultation to ensure the widest possible input to all following stages (in practice this is iterative throughout the EcIA process); • identification of the likely zone of influence arising from the proposals; • identification and evaluation of ecological resources and features likely to be affected. The IEEM guidance on Survey Methodology states that “the

importance of primary data collection in all survey work cannot be over-emphasised. Without good survey data the quality of an ecological assessment and any mitigation or compensation proposals will be compromised ... the need to report in an unbiased, clear and detailed manner is required by the Code of Professional Conduct”. This IEEM guidance also makes reference to other key survey methodologies and standards, including key Natural England guidance available from our website;

• identification of the biophysical changes likely to affect valued ecological resources and features; • assessment of whether these biophysical changes will give rise to a significant ecological impact, defined as an impact on the integrity of the

defined site or ecosystem(s) and/or the conservation status of habitats or species, including cumulative impacts; • refinement of proposals to incorporate ecological enhancement measures and to avoid negative ecological impacts, reduce any impacts that

cannot be avoided; and compensate for any significant adverse impacts that remain. Measures identified to address this should be agreed with the developer to facilitate their inclusion within the scheme at an early stage. They would then become part of the proposals and subject to detailed assessment. An options list of proposed mitigation at the end of an EcIA is of very little value as it requires the competent authority to enter into discussion with the proponent to agree what will be implemented. An EcIA is effectively meaningless if it provides an assessment of the significance of the residual impacts of a scheme based on the proposed mitigation measures being implemented even though these measures have not been agreed by the developer;

• provision of advice on the consequences for decision making of the significant ecological impacts, based on the value of the affected resource or feature; and

• provision for monitoring and following up the implementation and success of mitigation measures and ecological outcomes.

We are pleased to see that the assessment methodology proposed for the Ecology and Nature Conservation Chapter for the terrestrial element follows the IEEM EcIA Guidelines; and that you are proposing to follow the IEEM Marine EcIA Guidelines for the marine assessment; and we find such methodologies satisfactory. Any baseline information shall contain up to date survey data in order for a thorough assessment of the proposal to be made.

Key Principle (vi) of PPS9 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation, begins “The aim of planning decisions should be to prevent harm to biodiversity and geological conservation interests” and the Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) “Five Point Approach to Planning Decisions for Biodiversity” (which are

3

summarised within the joint Communities & Local Government, Defra and English Nature companion guide to PPS9, entitled Planning for Biodiversity and Geological Conservation: A Guide to Good Practice) are both relevant. The ES should aim to address these principles to assist the IPC in identifying whether they have been met by the proposals within the application for a development consent order. 2.2 Internationally and Nationally Designated Sites The ES should thoroughly assess the impact of the proposals on designated sites, including Special Areas of Conservation (SAC), Special Protection Areas (SPA), Ramsar sites and Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). Should a Likely Significant Effect on a European/Internationally designated site be identified, the competent authority (in this case the Local Planning Authority) may need to prepare an Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (the full process being termed Habitats Regulations Assessment), in addition to consideration of impacts through the EIA process. Statutory site locations can be found at www.magic.gov.uk. Further information concerning particular statutory sites can be found on the Natural England website. 2.3 Protected Species The ES should assess the impact of all phases of the proposal on protected species. Records of protected species should be sought from appropriate local biological record centres, nature conservation organisations, groups and individuals; and consideration should be given to the wider context of the site for example in terms of habitat linkages and protected species populations in the wider area, to assist in the impact assessment. The conservation of species protected by law is explained in Part IV and Annex A of Government Circular 06/2005 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation: Statutory Obligations and their Impact within the Planning System. The area likely to be affected by the proposal should be thoroughly surveyed by competent ecologists at appropriate times of year for relevant species and the survey results, impact assessments and appropriate accompanying mitigation strategies included as part of the ES. Natural England has adopted standing advice for protected species. It provides a consistent level of basic advice which can be applied to any planning application that could affect protected species. It also includes links to guidance on survey and mitigation. Bat surveys should conform to our current guidance TIN051 - Bats and onshore wind turbines (interim guidance). You may also wish to refer to the consultation draft from the Bat Conservation Trust on surveying wind farms Bat Surveys – Good Practice Guidelines – 2nd Edition - Surveying for onshore windfarms. Breeding bird surveys should conform to Natural England guidance TIN069 Assessing the effects of onshore wind farms on birds. Natural England does not hold comprehensive information regarding the locations of species protected by law, but advises on the procedures and legislation relevant to such species. 2.4 Regionally and Locally Important Sites The ES should thoroughly assess the impact of the proposals on non-statutory sites, for example Local Wildlife Sites (LoWS), Local Nature Reserves (LNR) and Regionally Important Geological and Geomorphological Sites (RIGS). Natural England does not hold comprehensive information on these sites. We

4

therefore advise that the appropriate local biological record centres, nature conservation organisations, Local Planning Authority and local RIGS group should be contacted with respect to this matter. 2.5 Biodiversity Action Plan Habitats and Species The ES should thoroughly assess the impact of the proposals on habitats and/or species listed in the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP). These Priority Habitats and Species are listed as “Habitats and Species of Principal Importance” within the England Biodiversity List, recently published under the requirements of S14 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 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”. PPS9 Paragraph 16 states “Planning authorities should ensure that these species (Habitats and Species of Principal Importance identified in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 section 74 list) are protected from the adverse effects of development…”. Government Circular 06/2005 adds that BAP species and habitats, “are capable of being a material consideration…in the making of planning decisions”. Natural England therefore advises that survey, impact assessment and mitigation proposals for Habitats and Species of Principal Importance should be included in the ES. Consideration should also be given to those species and habitats included in the relevant Local BAP. 3 Landscape, Access and Recreation The ES should address in an appropriately broad and detailed way any impacts on the landscape as well as access and recreation assets. This assessment should include thorough consideration of any impacts on National Parks, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), Heritage Coasts and National Trails. 3.1 Landscape and Visual Impacts (including Seascape and Townscape) Natural England expects the methodology of consideration of landscape impacts to reflect the approach set out in the Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (The Landscape Institute, 2002), the Landscape Character Assessment Guidance for England and Scotland (Scottish Natural Heritage and The Countryside Agency, 2002) and good practice. The assessment should also include the cumulative effect of the development with other relevant existing or proposed developments in the area. In this context Natural England would expect the cumulative impact assessment to include those proposals currently at Scoping stage. Due to the overlapping timescale of their progress through the planning system, cumulative impact of the proposed development with those proposals currently at Scoping stage would be likely to be a material consideration at the time of determination of the development consent order. We are pleased to see that the report refers to preparation of the ES in accordance with the above Guidance. We are also pleased that the ZVI has been extended to include a viewpoint within the Forest of Bowland AONB. The assessment should refer to the relevant National Characters Areas which can be found on our website. Links for Landscape Character Assessment at a local level are also available on the same page. 3.2 Access and Recreation The ES should include a thorough assessment of the development’s effects upon public rights of way and access to the countryside and its enjoyment through recreation. With this in mind and in addition to consideration of public rights of way, the landscape and visual effects on Open Access land, whether direct or indirect, should be included in the ES.

5

Natural England would also expect to see consideration of opportunities for improved or new public access provision on the site, to include linking existing public rights of way and/or providing new circular routes and interpretation. We also recommend reference to relevant Right of Way Improvement Plans (ROWIP) to identify public rights of way within or adjacent to the proposed site that should be maintained or enhanced. 4 Land use and soils Impacts from the development should be considered in light of the Government's policy for the protection of the best and most versatile (BMV) agricultural land. Whilst we appreciate that the majority of Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 7 has been superseded by PPS4, paragraphs 28 and 29 have been saved and therefore are relevant when considering the protection of BMV agricultural land. We also recommend that soils should be considered under a more general heading of sustainable use of land. The emphasis is now placed on the importance of soils as a natural resource, as enshrined in a number of important documents including the Soil Strategy for England, a successor to the First Soil Action Plan for England 2004-2006. This outlines the Government’s approach to safeguarding our soils for the future. It provides a clear vision to guide long term policy development across a range of areas and sets out the practical steps that we will need to take to protect the full range of functions (ecosystem services) that soils provide. Soil performs many vital functions, so their wise use and management is essential to sustainable development. Development of buildings and infrastructure prevents alternative uses for those soils that are permanently covered, and also often results in degradation of soils around the development as result of construction activities. This affects their functionality as wildlife habitat, and reduces their ability to support landscape works and green infrastructure. Sealing and compaction can also contribute to increased surface run-off, ponding of water and localised erosion, flooding and pollution. Defra published a Code of Practice for the sustainable use of soils on construction sites (2009). The purpose of the Code of Practice is to provide a practical guide to assist anyone involved in the construction industry to protect the soil resources with which they work. I trust the above is satisfactory confirmation for you, but should you have any questions do not hesitate to contact me. Yours sincerely, Janet Belfield

Janet Belfield

Lead Adviser

Local Land Use Team - Crewe

Natural England

3rd

Floor, Bridgewater House, Whitworth Street,

Manchester, M1 6LT

Tel Mob: 07900 608281

www.naturalengland.org.uk

6

We are here to secure a healthy natural environment for people to enjoy, where wildlife is protected and England’s traditional landscapes are safeguarded for future generations.

Please note that as of 1st April 2011 we changed the way we deal with consultations and all consultations should be sent to [email protected]

In an effort to reduce Natural England's carbon footprint, I will, wherever possible, avoid travelling to meetings and attend via audio, video or web conferencing. Teleconference - 0800 528 5280 or 0207 979

0003 from mobile. My Pass Code is 4451821 Webinar access web address http://www.globalcrossing.com/conferencing

From: David Hoare [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: 13 July 2011 09:48 To: Belfield, Janet (NE)

Cc: Robert Kitch; Andrew Saunders Subject: RE: Preesall Underground Gas Storage Facility - Seascape, Landscape, Townscape and Visual Amenity Assessment Methodology

[Disk Folder K:\projects\WX40004-Fleetwood Solution Mining\M-Mail] [Filed 2011-07-13 09:48:07]

Hi Janet

I should have added that we already have copies of your responses to the Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report and the Preliminary Environmental

Information Report. If you feel that there is nothing more to add to these responses in terms of comments on the proposed assessment methodology, then please respond

to that effect.

Best wishes

David

David Hoare Principal Consultant - Environment Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Firecrest Court, Centre Park, Warrington, WA1 1RG Direct Dial Tel: +44 (0) 1925 800 752 Reception Tel: +44 (0) 1925 800 700 Mob: +44 (0) 7796 300376 Fax: +44 (0) 1925 572462

www.hyderconsulting.com

Hyder is an international advisory and design consultancy

7

� Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this email?

From: David Hoare

Sent: 13 July 2011 09:38 To: 'Belfield, Janet (NE)' Cc: Robert Kitch; Andrew Saunders

Subject: Preesall Underground Gas Storage Facility - Seascape, Landscape, Townscape and Visual Amenity Assessment Methodology

[Disk Folder K:\projects\WX40004-Fleetwood Solution Mining\M-Mail] [Filed 2011-07-13 09:38:18]

Hi Janet

One of the responses to the Scoping Report requires us to consult with yourselves on the proposed assessment methodology for Seascape, Landscape, Townscape and

Visual Amenity. We did start discussing this with Ruth Benson before she left, but didn’t really get to a conclusion.

The proposed methodology for the Seascape, Landscape, Townscape and Visual Amenity assessment is outlined in the Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report

and in the Preliminary Environmental Information Report, which you should have copies of.

Could you review the proposed methodology outlined in these two documents and respond to me with any comments please? Due to the tight programme deadlines, we

are keen to gain agreement on the proposed methodology as soon as possible. Therefore, if you could respond by the end of this week, that would be much appreciated.

Many thanks

David

David Hoare Principal Consultant - Environment Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Firecrest Court, Centre Park, Warrington, WA1 1RG Direct Dial Tel: +44 (0) 1925 800 752 Reception Tel: +44 (0) 1925 800 700 Mob: +44 (0) 7796 300376 Fax: +44 (0) 1925 572462

8

www.hyderconsulting.com

Hyder is an international advisory and design consultancy

� Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this email?

*********************************************************************************

This message contains information which is confidential and may also be privileged. It is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient(s) please note that any form of distribution, copying or use of this communication or the information in it is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.

If you have received this communication in error please return it to the sender and then delete the email and destroy any copies of it. Thank you.

Hyder Consulting cannot guarantee that this message or any attachment is virus-free or has not been intercepted or changed.

Any opinions or other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of the Company are neither given nor endorsed by it.

*********************************************************************************

This email and any attachments is intended for the named recipient only. If you have received it in error you have no authority to use, disclose, store or copy any of its contents and you should destroy it and inform the sender. Nothing in the email amounts to a legal commitment on our part unless confirmed by a signed communication. Whilst this email and associated attachments will have been checked for known viruses whilst within the Natural England systems, we can accept no responsibility once it has left our systems. Communications on Natural England systems may be monitored and/or recorded to secure the effective operation of the system and for other lawful purposes.

MINUTES

Preesall Underground Gas Storage Facility - SIAA Page 1

Issue date 28 October 2011


Subject Preesall Underground Gas Storage Facility: Statement to Inform an Appropriate Assessment consultation


Client Halite Energy

Meeting date 18 October 2011

Time 11:30

Location Teleconference

Present David Hoare (Hyder Consulting)

Andy Saunders (Hyder Consulting)

Marie Evans (Hyder Consulting)

Jo Pickard (Hyder Consulting)

Bruce Gibson (Halite Energy)

Pip Saill (Halite Energy)

Janet Belfield (Natural England)

Rosie Baynes (Natural England)

Tim Melling (RSPB)

Georgina Fellows (Environment Agency)

Copies

Item Comments Action by

1 DH provided a brief description of purpose of the meeting.

2 JB re-iterated that it was not possible to fully comment on the proposals based on the discussions held in today’s teleconference.

JB requested a draft copy of the SIAA in order to provide a formal written consultation response.

3 ME provided an over-view of Hyder’s approach to the SIAA.

Each of the qualifying features of the SPA/Ramsar site was considered individually. Where field surveys reveal that the saltmarsh, mudflats and fields surveyed, within and adjacent to the proposals, support 1% or more of the SPA population (as defined on the SPA citation, or the Ramsar citation), then it is considered that there is the potential for significant effects on that particular species. Further data, for example WeBS core count data, was also reviewed, where appropriate, to add contextual information to the assessment.

Each of the construction/operational activities were also considered and it was possible to identify certain activities that would not lead to significant effects on the qualifying features and species of the SPA/Ramsar site (due to, for example, the timings and distance of the works from the areas of value to the birds, the presence of existing screening and high levels of background noise and/or visual disturbance).

Those construction/operational activities which have the potential to cause a significant effect on the qualifying features scoped into the assessment were considered in more detail in the impact assessment of the SIAA.

ME also explained that there would be a number of embedded mitigation measures (including sensitive programming of works activities, the provision of visual and noise screening of works activities, and the use of tried and tested, best practice measures for controlling emissions to the environment) to eliminate or reduce (where possible) potential impacts of the proposals.

ME outlined that an Ecological and Landscape Management Plan (ELMP) is in the process of being finalised in consultation with Natural England, Environment Agency, the RPSB, Lancashire County Council, Wyre Borough Council, and tenant farmers. The aim of the ELMP is to ensure the favourable conservation status of the farmland within and adjacent to the Project is maintained.

Preesall Underground Gas Storage Facility - SIAA Page 2

4 In response to a query raised by JB, BG explained that measures would be put in place to prevent catastrophic collapse, including the use of a ‘salt cap’. Research has shown that when a ‘salt cap’ is used, any collapse during the lifetime of the works (in this case 40 – 50 years) is prevented. A monitoring system will be put in place to pick up any movement during the construction and operation of the wells. In addition, as part of the decommissioning phase of the proposed project, the caverns will be filled with brine water to further prevent any potential for cavern collapse.

BG explained that old workings traditionally have not used a salt cap and therefore could be liable to collapse.

5 In response to a query raised by JB regarding whether Lancashire County Council have been consulted on the issues associated with cavern collapse and local geology, BG confirmed that consultation has taken place and Mott MacDonald has been undertaking work on behalf of Halite.

6 BG explained the drilling strategy for the northern crossing of the River Wyre:

A well established drilling technique would be used, taking into consideration best practice guidance. A comprehensive Method Statement would be produced for the works, which would be agreed in consultation with the Health and Safety Executive and the Environment Agency.

Compounds would be constructed on either side of the river and pilot holes would be drilled. All pipes would be brought by road, on the Pressall side of the River Wyre. Once started, drilling would be continuous for a period of four month and would take place during the summer months to avoid potential impact on the qualifying features of the SPA/Ramsar site.

BG Confirmed that all drilling would be underground (at least 8m). The drill head would be above ground, but would not be located on the saltmarsh, or within the boundary of the SPA/ Ramsar site.

7 JB asked if the size of the compounds could be confirmed.

Hyder to provide this information to NE.

DH

8 In response to a query raised by GF regarding whether breeding birds of the SPA had been considered in terms of working during the summer months, ME explained that in terms of the HRA, the qualifying species of the SPA/Ramsar present during the breeding season have been considered in the assessment. These include little tern, sandwich tern, herring gull and lesser black-backed gull. Given the distance of the known breeding colonies of these species, it is considered that no significant effects are anticipated on these species, as a result of the proposed project. Breeding birds would however be considered within the EIA

9 In response to a query from TM regarding further details of the survey timings and sources of information, ME outlined that the following surveys have taken place:

• Wintering bird surveys (February to March 2003)

• Breeding bird surveys (April to June 2003)

• Passage bird surveys (July to November 2004)

• Wintering bird surveys (November 2008 to March 2008)

In addition, the survey data has been supplemented with WeBS data, goose censes data and information provided by the Fylde Bird Club.

DH confirmed that the scope of the surveys had previously been discussed with Natural England (at a meeting held in January) and it was agreed that no further surveys were deemed necessary.

10 RB/TM expressed concerns about gaps in the data and suggested that the most up to date data should be used in the assessment, particularly in relation to recent cold winters and in the case of pink-footed geese (given that the number of PFG has increased in recent years).

ME confirmed that the most up to date data will be used in the assessment.

11 DH confirmed that a draft version of the SIAA would be submitted to the consultees for formal consultation and review.

DH

MINUTES

Preesall Gas storage and brine outfall Page 1

Issue date 28 October 2011


Subject Preesall Gas storage and brine outfall Deemed Marine Licence and HRA for Liverpool Bay SPA,

Morecambe Bay SAC and Shell Flats and Lune Deep cSAC


Client Halite

Meeting date 20 October 2011

Time 11am

Location Telephone Conference

Present Present:

Bruce Gibson Halite Energy (BG)

Pip Saill Halite Energy

David Hoare Hyder Consulting (DH)

Andrew Saunders Hyder Consulting (AS)

Marie Evans Hyder Consulting (ME)

Samantha Walters Hyder Consulting

Suzie Clarke Hyder Consulting (SC)

Anna Gerring MMO

Mandy Knott IFCA (MK)

Georgina Fellows Environment Agency (GF)

Amy Heys Environment Agency (AH)

Janet Belfield Natural England (JB)

Mark Johnson Natural England (MJ)

Ian Gloyne-Phillips CMACS (IGP)

Tina Hopewell CMACS

Item Comments

Action

by

1 DH outlined the purpose of the meeting: to discuss the responses received in response to

the Deemed Marine Licence and Hyder’s findings with respect to the HRA for the European

marine sites. In response to a query from MJ, DH also identified the documents that would

be presented to the IPC regarding the marine environment: the marine assessment in the

Environmental Statement; and the Habitat Regulations Assessments with respect to

Morecambe Bay SPA and Ramsar site (the subject of a previous telecom), Morecambe Bay

SAC, Lune Deep and Shell Flats SAC and Liver pool Bay SPA. The Deemed Marine

Licence has been submitted prior to the application to the IPC.

2 MK outlined her concerns regarding the brine modelling. She identified that the United

Utilities (UU) outfall pipe has created a pooling effect which has not been considered. In

response to a query from SC, MK identified that their local fisheries officer was familiar with

the area. It is her understanding that a 10 foot high wall has been created from the diffuser

end towards the land. [Post meeting note: MK circulated an aerial photograph via e-mail to

Halite 20.10.11 Page 2

illustrate this fact] The outfall starts at a location close to Chatsworth Road and continues in

a north-westerly direction.

MJ indicated that the UU outfall pipe is at 0.2 to 2m above chart datum and that UU have

undertaken a study of the outfall pipe.

MK (in response to query from SC) indicated that the pooling holds the water back until it

overtops the wall.

SC said that by the time the brine plume reached the UU pipe salt concentration would be

back to background levels. Also the plume would reach the UU pipe at a point where the

UU pipe is submerged and that there would not be a concentration of saline water near the

coast where the pooling is thought to occur.

GF requested supplementary information regarding the brine discharge to be issued to the

EA with respect to the discharge consent. AH indicated that it was Halite’s responsibility to

identify any significant changes that have occurred, since the EA would need to make a

record.

SC to draft response on brine modelling and the sewage outfall as part of Halite/Hyder’s

response to comments on the Deemed Marine Licence application.

SC

MJ requested post-construction monitoring.

DH will draft a letter to respond to all of the issues raised in the responses to the Deemed

Marine Licence and cc other in to this response (in response to request from MK).

DH

3 MK identified that she had concerns regarding post construction monitoring and the remedial

action that could be undertaken. In particular she is concerned that Halite is using the same

company that UU used for their outfall pipe.

BG indicated that Halite is aware of the issues that the UU outfall has had, in particular that

the pipeline has come afloat (the UU Pipeline originally had intermittent weighting collars

and no rock armour). Lessons have been learnt and the Brine outfall will be installed in a

2.5m deep trench which is 7m wide. The pipe will be fitted with continuous weighted

concrete collars throughout its length to provide negative buoyancy and covered by rock

armour, all within a covered trench. During the excavation the sea bed material will be put

to the side (up to 25m from the trench).

BG also stated that after the pipe trench is backfilled with rock armour and the sediment is

replaced over this there would be a mound of approximately 400mm, but experience shows

that after a month this will level out due to the action of the tidal conditions.

MJ requested that the back-filled trench be flush to the sea bed and that there is post-

construction monitoring to prove that this is the case.

4 IGP identified that in MJ’s response he had raised the issue that the brine outfall could lead

to an ion in balance. BG queried whether the concern was that the minerals in the Brine

would not disperse in the same manner as the salt (sodium chloride). DH stated that Hyder

would review this. MJ identified that there must not be any uncertainty. IGP identified that

there would be certainty with regard to this issue.

DH and IGP

5 MJ identified that the baseline level of disturbance is very low and thus disturbance to

scoters and divers should be considered. He also identified that Mark Kaiser has produced

papers with regard to disturbance distances. ME identified that disturbance has been

considered in the HRA. This has identified that there is not an abundance of food resource

in the area affected by the outfall route, that the vessel movements will be from the north

and thus not cross Liverpool Bay SPA, and that the number of boat movements is also low.

DH identified that these issues would be covered in the ES also.

MJ identified that he would like to see a management plan and a map to illustrate how the

site will be accessed during construction.


BG identified that a vessel management plan would be produced. BG

6 DH identified that MJ’s concerns regarding directional drilling had been considered in a

previous telecom, all agreed.

7 MJ identified that very little of conservation importance had been identified during the marine

survey; although there were patches of Sabellaria reefs. He queried whether there was

concrete evidence that sensitive habitats would not be affected by the outfall pipe route.

IGP identified that it would be unusual to produce a detailed map, it is known that the main

interest is stony reef.

MJ requested that a map be produced on the basis of the information that is available. IGP

identified that the guidance regarding what constitutes stony reef has changed since the

survey were undertaken.

IGP

AH queried whether there was scope to micro-site the line of the pipe if Sabellaria was found

to be on the route. AS identified that there is a limit of deviation on the consent form. BG

indicated that there is a 60m limit of deviation. He also identified that there is a commitment

to undertake an archaeological investigation before the pipeline is laid.

DH queried whether the sensitivity map could be produced post submission. MJ indicated

that they would prefer a pre-construction survey, but it is up to the IPC. AG indicated that it

could be condition for the Deemed Marine Consent Licence.

DH identified that it had been agreed that the marine survey was valid for the DCO

application. MJ reiterated that he would like a map using the old data. CMACS to produce

a map.

IGP

8 DH queried whether there were any other queries concerning rock armouring placing or

sediment and no other points were raised.

9 DH identified that the discharge consent licence had been granted before both Liverpool Bay

SPA and hell Flats and Lune Deep cSAC had been designated. MJ stated should be

considered in the HRA and ME confirmed that they have been. MJ queried whether the

effects of the brine discharge had been considered. ME confirmed that they had.

10 MJ identified that there appeared to be uncertainty with regard to the effects of the brine on

plankton mortality. He has concerns particularly with respect to recruitment into Morecambe

Bay. The text that MJ has seen indicates there is the potential for a significant effect. IGP

to review this assessment. MJ identified that the EA should have considered this when they

granted the discharge consent.

IGP

AH will look for the original HRA. AH

11 IGP identified that there are potential effects on fish recruitment, which would need to be

monitored. MK would like to see the fish recruitment information. DH identified that it will be

covered in the ES.

12 DH asked whether there were any other issues regarding the Deemed Marine Consent

Licence.

MK queried whether monitoring could be conditioned. AG identified that the EA were

responsible for monitoring the discharge consent. MJ identified that the Deemed Marine

Consent Licence should cover monitoring of the physical environment.

MK queried whether the monitoring of the discharge consent could be altered. MJ

confirmed that it is something that the EA and Halite can review.

13 AG queried why the aggregates ramp and some other activities had not been covered in the

licence.

DH there had been a misunderstanding. However, the scheme has been fully described, DH


thus only the form needs to be changed. DH to amend form.

14 AH identified that EA consent is required for the seawall works. DH responded that this

would be dealt with post-application.

14 DH will discuss with AG how to deal with the vessel Management plan and the pre- and

post-construction surveys

DH and AG

15 ME provided a rapid summary of the HRA. The aspects of the Project that have the

potential to cause significant effects are considered to be: sedimentation, construction works

leading to noise and visual disturbance, and the effects of the brine discharge. The

sediment mobilisation will last for 4 months and be restricted to the construction zone. The

Brine modelling has shown how far brine would move and it is anticipated that the sediment

would dissipate out far more quickly and thus not affect the sites of European importance.

The works associated with the outfall have been timed to avoid the period when scoters and

divers are present. The brine modelling has shown that the salinity will fall to ambient levels

within 150m in an east/west direction and therefore not affect the designated sites or the

species for which they have been designated to the west. It also reaches acceptable levels

prior to reaching Morecambe Bay SAC.

MJ queried whether ME had considered killing plankton that feed into Morecambe Bay. ME

had not thought that this would be an issue but will review with IGP.

ME and IGP

MK queried whether she had seen the HRA. DH confirmed that the HRA had not been

circulated to consultees, the purpose of the call was to confirm whether Hyder had covered

the salient points; clearly matters arising from the Deemed Consent Licence have the

potential to affect the HRA; thus there is some further work required to address the issues

raised. JB asked when the HRA would be issued. DH will confirm by e-mail [Post meeting

note: e-mail issued on 21.10.11].

DH

Documents

Ecology and Nature Conservation – Post-Scoping ... · Consultee Date of Consultation Summary of Consultation RSPB (Tim Melling) 12 November 2010 Meeting held at Hyder Consulting