Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report
Document Number: Strategic Pipeline Alliance 07330-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Worldwide House, Thorpe Wood, Date: December 2020 Peterborough PE3 6SB
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type
Contents
Revision History
Issue Author Date Description 01 Dan Johnston 04/12/2020 For external issue
Technical Check
Role Name Signature Date EIA lead Dan O’Kelly 04/12/2020
Planning lead Natalie Durney-Knight 04/12/2020
Approval
Role Name Signature Date Consenting Manager Deryl Roberts 04/12/2020
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type ii
Contents
Contents
Contents ...... iii Figures vii 1 Introduction ...... 8 1.1 Purpose and content of this report ...... 8 1.2 Background and Project Need ...... 8 1.3 Context within the Planning System ...... 9 1.4 Scheme Development and Alternatives Considered ...... 10 1.5 Consultations ...... 11 2 The Proposed Scheme ...... 14 2.1 Scheme Outline ...... 14 2.2 Construction Phase Strategy ...... 19 3 EIA Methodology ...... 20 3.1 EIA Process ...... 20 3.2 Baseline ...... 20 3.3 Assessment of Effects ...... 20 3.4 Project Design and Approach to Mitigation ...... 21 3.5 Proposed Scope of EIA ...... 21 3.6 Planning Policy Context ...... 22 4 Air quality ...... 24 4.1 Introduction ...... 24 4.2 Legislative ...... 24 4.3 Guidance and Approach to Scoping ...... 25 4.4 Baseline conditions ...... 26 4.5 Potential Impacts ...... 28 4.6 Proposed Scope of Assessment ...... 34 4.7 Proposed EIA Methodology ...... 35 5 Biodiversity ...... 36 5.1 Introduction ...... 36 5.2 Legislative and policy background ...... 36 5.3 Guidance and Approach to Scoping ...... 37 5.4 Baseline conditions ...... 39 5.5 Potential Impacts ...... 55 5.6 Proposed Scope of Assessment ...... 56
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type iii
Contents
5.7 Proposed EIA Methodology ...... 57 6 Climate Change, Major Accidents and Natural Disasters ...... 65 6.1 Introduction ...... 65 6.2 Legislative and policy background ...... 65 6.3 Guidance and Approach to Scoping ...... 66 6.4 Baseline conditions ...... 67 6.5 Potential Impacts ...... 68 6.6 Proposed Scope of Assessment ...... 70 6.7 Proposed EIA Methodology ...... 70 7 Historic environment ...... 71 7.1 Introduction ...... 71 7.2 Legislative and policy background ...... 71 7.3 Guidance and Approach to Scoping ...... 72 7.4 Baseline ...... 73 7.5 Potential Impacts ...... 80 7.6 Proposed Scope of Assessment ...... 81 7.7 Proposed EIA Methodology ...... 82 8 Land Use and Recreation ...... 86 8.1 Introduction ...... 86 8.2 Legislative and policy background ...... 86 8.3 Guidance and Approach to Scoping ...... 87 8.4 Baseline ...... 87 8.5 Potential Impacts ...... 89 8.6 Proposed Scope of Assessment ...... 90 8.7 Proposed EIA Methodology ...... 90 9 Landscape and Visual Amenity ...... 91 9.1 Introduction ...... 91 9.2 Legislative and policy background ...... 91 9.3 Guidance and Approach to Scoping ...... 92 9.4 Baseline conditions ...... 93 9.5 Potential Impacts ...... 96 9.6 Proposed Scope of Assessment ...... 96 9.7 Proposed EIA Methodology ...... 97 10 Materials and waste ...... 105 10.1 Introduction ...... 105
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type iv
Contents
10.2 Legislative and policy background ...... 105 10.3 Guidance and Approach to Scoping ...... 106 10.4 Baseline conditions ...... 106 10.5 Potential Impacts ...... 109 10.6 Proposed Scope of Assessment ...... 110 10.7 Proposed EIA Methodology ...... 111 11 Noise and vibration ...... 112 11.1 Introduction ...... 112 11.2 Legislative and policy background ...... 112 11.3 Guidance and Approach to Scoping ...... 113 11.4 Baseline ...... 115 11.5 Potential Impacts ...... 116 11.6 Proposed Scope of Assessment ...... 118 11.7 Proposed EIA Methodology ...... 118 12 Population and Human Health ...... 124 12.1 Introduction ...... 124 12.2 Legislative and policy background ...... 124 12.3 Guidance and Methodology ...... 125 12.6 Proposed Scope of Assessment ...... 129 12.7 Proposed EIA Methodology ...... 129 13 Soils, Geology and Hydrogeology ...... 130 13.1 Introduction ...... 130 13.2 Legislative and policy background ...... 130 13.3 Guidance and Approach to Scoping ...... 132 13.4 Baseline ...... 133 13.5 Potential Impacts ...... 138 13.6 Proposed Scope of Assessment ...... 139 13.7 Proposed EIA Methodology ...... 140 14 Traffic & Transport ...... 145 14.1 Introduction ...... 145 14.2 Legislative and policy background ...... 145 14.3 Guidance and Methodology ...... 146 14.4 Baseline conditions ...... 146 14.5 Potential Impacts ...... 150 14.6 Proposed Scope of Assessment ...... 153
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type v
Contents
14.7 Proposed EIA Methodology ...... 154 15 The Water Environment ...... 158 15.1 Introduction ...... 158 15.2 Legislative and policy background ...... 158 15.3 Guidance and methodology ...... 159 15.4 Baseline conditions ...... 161 15.5 Potential Impacts ...... 162 15.6 Proposed Scope of Assessment ...... 164 15.7 Proposed EIA Methodology ...... 165 16 Cumulative Effects ...... 166 16.1 Introduction ...... 166 17 Proposed Scope and Environmental Statement Structure ...... 171 17.1 Proposed Scope ...... 171 17.2 Structure of the Environmental Statement ...... 172 17.3 Summary of Supporting Documents ...... 173 Appendix 1.1 Environmental Avoidance Criteria ...... 175 Appendix 5.1 Ecological features and relevant survey guidance ...... 176 Appendix 5.2 Ecological field survey methodologies ...... 177 Appendix 5.3 Determining the importance of bats ...... 218 Appendix 13.1 Land quality assessment detailed methodology ...... 221
Figures – see overleaf
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type vi
Contents
Figures
Figure Title Number of no. sheets 1.1 Scheme location and extent 1 2.1 Scheme layout 19 2.2 Alternative routes considered 1 5.1 Statutory and non-statutory wildlife sites 13 5.2 Priority habitats 13 7.1 Historic assets 13 9.1 Landscape and visual amenity 1 13.1 Provisional agricultural land classification 1 13.2 Superficial geology 1 13.3 Bedrock geology 1 13.4 Minerals resources 3 13.5 Potential sources of contamination 3 14.1 Department for Transport traffic data 3 15.1 Surface water environment 13 15.2 Flood risk 13 15.3 Groundwater environment 13
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type vii
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report - Introduction
1 Introduction
1.1 Purpose and content of this report This Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Scoping Report has been prepared on behalf of Anglian Water Services (AWS) in relation to a proposed 94 kilometre potable water pipeline between Ancaster (north east of Grantham) and Bexwell (hereafter referred to as ‘the Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline’), and associated supporting infrastructure (collectively referred to as ‘the proposed scheme’). The proposed scheme is shown on the Scheme Location and Extent Plan presented at Figure 1.1 and is described in more detail in Chapter 2 of this report. This Scoping Report is submitted to the Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) listed below in support of a request for an EIA scoping opinion in accordance with Section 15 of The Town & Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 as amended (‘the EIA Regulations’). The relevant LPAs are: • North Kesteven District Council; • South Kesteven District Council; • Peterborough City Council; • Fenland District Council; and • the Borough Council of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk. The purpose of this report is to provide sufficient information relating to the proposed scheme to enable the LPAs to issue their scoping opinion. The report is intended to ensure that the EIA is proportionate and appropriately focused in the context of the proposed scheme. As outlined in the EIA Regulations, this report includes: • A plan sufficient to identify the land (see Figures 1.1 and 2.1); • A brief description of the nature and purpose of the proposed scheme, including its location and technical capacity; • An explanation of the likely significant effects of the proposed scheme on the environment; and • Additional information provided to inform the determination of the scope of the EIA.
1.2 Background and Project Need Anglian Water Services Ltd (“AWS”) covers the largest geographical area of any water and wastewater company in England and Wales. Our region stretches from the Humber estuary, north of Grimsby, to the Thames estuary, and from Buckinghamshire, in the south of England, to Lowestoft on the east coast. It has 112,833 kilometres of water and sewer pipes supplying water across some 27,500 square kilometres. The region is one of driest in the country with just 600 millimetres of rain each year, a third less than the rest of England. Compared to other water company regions, it has a high proportion of flat and low-lying areas, including The Fens in Cambridgeshire and the Norfolk Broads. A quarter of the region lies below sea level, increasing the risk of flooding and meaning more energy is needed to pump water from place to place. We employ 5,000 people and supply water and water recycling services to more than six million customers in the east of England and Hartlepool. The region’s population has grown by 20 per cent in the last 20 years and it continues to grow.
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 8
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report - Introduction
AWS has a statutory duty, under the 1991 Water Industry Act, to ensure a continuous supply of good quality drinking water to homes and businesses in their area of operations. AWS has developed a Water Resources Management Plan1 (WRMP) based on statutory guidance for determining the availability of water supplies, forecasting the demand for water, establishing the allowance needed for uncertainties and using these to identify the sustainable options for maintaining a secure balance between available water supply and demand. It puts in place the plans needed to underpin sustainable economic and housing growth, in the context of climate change for the next 25 years, as referenced in AWS’s Strategic Direction Statement2. The WRMP identifies solutions to ensure the availability of water, outlining both demand options (to reduce demand for water) and supply options, including transfer of water using long-distance pipelines. It identifies available options to develop a demand management programme, including moving water around the region within existing infrastructure to where it is needed most, increasing the number of customers who are metered, reducing leakage and encouraging and supporting customers to become more water efficient. The WRMP also identifies requirements for additional water resources comprising water re-use schemes, groundwater sources and new transfer mains, including the proposed Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline. The Grantham to Bexwell pipeline is designed to achieve the following aims: • To form part of a strategic pipeline network to move surplus existing water resources in the northern and central areas of the Anglian Water region to areas with future resource shortfalls, including parts of Lincolnshire, the Peterborough area and west Norfolk; • Increasing the connectivity of the network to improve the resilience of the system to unforeseen events and, in particular, the resilience of water supply in the areas surrounding Grantham, Peterborough and west Norfolk. Under the terms of European Union Directive 2001/42/EC (the ‘SEA Directive’)3, a ‘strategic environmental assessment’ (SEA) was undertaken to consider the potential environmental effects of the WRMP at a strategic level. 1.2.1 The Strategic Pipeline Alliance AWS has built an alliance with construction and engineering firms Costain, Farrans, Jacobs and Mott MacDonald Bentley. Known as the Strategic Pipeline Alliance (SPA), it will deliver a smart, resilient network of interconnecting pipelines which will allow AWS to move water more flexibly around its region.
1.3 Context within the Planning System The EIA Regulations provide the regulatory framework for determining where an EIA is required for proposed developments. All projects that fall within the definitions of Schedule 1 development require an EIA. Projects listed within the definitions of Schedule 2 require a case-by-case decision on the need for EIA and should be Screened by the Local Planning Authority. The proposed scheme falls within a description included in Schedule 2 paragraph 10 (l) (‘long distance aqueducts’) of the EIA Regulations. Paragraph 10 column 2 lists the applicable threshold for long distance aqueducts as areas of work exceeding 1 hectare. As a Schedule 2 project, the proposed scheme must be assessed on its own merits, taking into account the likelihood of significant environmental effects. For this scheme, AWS has made a
1https://www.anglianwater.co.uk/siteassets/household/about-us/wrmp-report-2019.pdf 2 https://www.anglianwater.co.uk/_assets/media/55189_AW_Long_Term_Strategy_single_pages.pdf 3 https://www.anglianwater.co.uk/siteassets/household/about-us/wrmp-2019-sea-environmental-report.pdf
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 9
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report - Introduction
decision to proceed with an EIA as we have determined that the proposed scheme has the potential to result in significant environmental effects. An Environmental Statement (ES) will be produced and submitted as part of an application for full planning permission for the proposed scheme. The ES will set out assessment methodologies, potential impacts and proposed mitigation. In addition to the application for full planning permission, all statutory consents such as Hedgerow Removal Consents, Road Closure Orders, Environment Agency environmental permits and any protected species licences will be gained at appropriate stages of development of the proposed scheme.
1.4 Scheme Development and Alternatives Considered The overall need for the proposed scheme has been based on requirements outlined in the WRMP as summarised in Section 1.2. Section 1.2 summarises alternative solutions to the strategic need to ensure the availability of water that were considered in the WRMP and the SEA, outlining both demand options (to reduce demand for water) and supply options, including transfer of water using long-distance pipelines. It is not proposed to describe alternatives at this strategic level in the ES, as they have been covered in the WRMP and SEA. Alternative options for the transfer of water between Ancaster and Bexwell and intervening towns, including Grantham and Peterborough, have been considered from an early stage of the proposed scheme. Adjustments have been made to the proposed route and pipeline design, taking into account environmental constraints, community considerations and engineering capabilities, topography and water flow modelling. Alternative pipeline routes that have been considered and rejected are shown on Figure 2.2. The following general design and construction principles were used to develop the initial route of the proposed scheme:
• Minimise the number of major road crossings; • Minimise the number of bends along the route; • Minimise the length of the pipeline; • Minimise entry into urban areas; • Minimise areas which will limit the pipeline easement; • Minimise areas requiring vegetation removal; • Minimised areas with poor ground conditions such as peat and alluvium. Environmental avoidance criteria were then used to develop the route further. Further details of the avoidance criteria can be found in Appendix 1.1. It is proposed that the following alternatives considered are outlined within the ES: • Alternative pipeline routes considered; • Alternative pipeline materials, diameters and design, and construction techniques considered; and • The above ground structures, their need, location and design, and alternatives considered. The methodology used for selecting the preferred option and a ‘Do Nothing’ scenario will be outlined.
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 10
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report - Introduction
1.5 Consultations An initial round of consultation with key stakeholders has been undertaken, focusing on key areas relevant to the proposed scheme. Letters have also been issued to all landowners and Parish Councils along the route. As the EIA progresses and more detailed baseline information becomes available, wider consultation with interested parties including statutory consultees, interest groups and the local community will be carried out. Table 1.1: Consultation Summary
Consultees Summary of Consultation
Local Planning Letters introducing the proposed scheme and requesting information Authorities relevant to the assessment have been issued to each relevant LPA. An introductory meeting has been held with planning officers from each relevant LPA to establish communication, provide an overview of the scheme ahead of submission of the Scoping Report and to request feedback to inform preparation of the Scoping Report.
Environmental Health Air quality - Environmental Health Officers from each relevant LPA Officers have been consulted by email with reference to the proposed approach to scoping air quality impacts and the intention to scope out air quality from the EIA. Peterborough City Council requested further information which has been provided. The District and Borough Councils of North Kesteven, South Kesteven, Fenland and King’s Lynn and West Norfolk have all responded to confirm their agreement with the proposed approach. Noise and vibration - Environmental Health Officers from each relevant LPA have been consulted by telephone or email with reference to the proposed approach to scoping noise and vibration impacts. Feedback was received from four of the local authorities. Feedback related to working hours and the importance of engagement with local communities. Soils, Geology and Hydrogeology and Land Use and Recreation - The Environmental Health Officer from North Kesteven District Council attended an online scoping consultation meeting on 12th October 2020. The proposed approach to land quality assessment and evaluation was discussed. Soils, Geology and Hydrogeology and Land Use and Recreation Planning Officers Three online meetings have been held, as follows: Environmental Health Officer from North • 12 October 2020 (North Kesteven District Council, Peterborough Kesteven District City Council and Norfolk County Council); Council • 13 October 2020 (Borough Council of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Minerals and Waste and South Kesteven District Council); and Officer (Peterborough • 28 October 2020 (Cambridgeshire County Council) City Council) An outline of the proposed approach to soils, geology, hydrogeology, Public Rights of Way and land use evaluation was provided. Officers The Minerals and Waste Officer from Peterborough City Council noted that the proposed Scheme intersects the Maxey sand and gravel
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 11
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report - Introduction
Consultees Summary of Consultation Minerals Allocation Area (MAA). It was confirmed that the first principle is avoidance and the design team was assessing the option of running the pipeline within the footprint of an existing road through the MAA to avoid the feature. Subsequent to the meeting, this route option was adopted. The Officer also noted an Environment Agency remediation scheme near Maxey Quarry at a former landfill associated with Mecoprop pollution. Information was requested for inclusion in land quality assessments. Post-meeting feedback has been received via email from the Public Rights of Way Officers (PRoW) from Norfolk County Council and Cambridgeshire County Council supporting the approach to managing temporary impacts on PRoW through a Management Plan.
Highways Authorities Relevant Highway Authorities have been consulted by email with reference to a Transport Statement Scoping Report and a proposed Transport Statement. Feedback has been received from three of the four Highway Authorities, broadly supporting the proposed approach. Further information has been provided where it was requested.
Highways England Highways England has been consulted by email with reference to a Transport Statement Scoping Report and a proposed Transport Statement. Further information was provided on request and Highways England have confirmed their agreement to the proposed approach. Highways England will require information to support trip generation and distribution and details of road crossings and the construction methods used to achieve these.
Archaeological Officers Two online meetings have been held, as follows: • 10 July 2020 (Lincolnshire County Council, Peterborough City Lincolnshire Heritage Council and Lincolnshire Heritage Trust), covering the sections Trust of the proposed scheme between Ancaster, Grantham and Peterborough; • 29 October 2020 (Lincolnshire County Council, Peterborough City Council and Norfolk County Council), covering the length of the proposed scheme but emphasising the Peterborough to Bexwell section. The County Archaeologist for Cambridgeshire was unable to attend. An introduction to the proposed scheme was provided, with an outline of the proposed approach to historic environment assessment and evaluation. Points raised by attendees included the importance of public engagement and opportunities for the project to provide insight into the development of the landscape over time. It was confirmed that the local research agendas will be used as a basis for investigations.
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 12
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report - Introduction
Consultees Summary of Consultation Consultation with Historic England Regional Scientific adviser re approaches to geo-archaeological assessment was advised.
Historic England Consultation was initiated by email on 17 July 2020 with further engagement planned. The proposed scheme was presented at a meeting with the Lincolnshire Wildlife Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust Conservation Officer in August 2020. Trust Additional data on Road Verge Nature Reserves that will be impacted by the proposed route were subsequently provided through the ‘Life on the Verge’ project. The principles of re-establishment methods for Road Verge Nature Reserves where avoidance is not possible were agreed. It was agreed that Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) opportunities should be explored within nearby Trust reserves and/or Local Wildlife Sites (LWS).
Wildlife Trust for The Cambridgeshire Conservation Officer sent details of potential local Bedfordshire, partnership projects for BNG including John Clare Country Living Cambridgeshire & Landscape Partnership and the Thorney Farmland Bird Friendly Zone Northamptonshire initiative.
Norfolk Wildlife Trust An email with details of the proposed route was sent to the Trust (NWT) noting that no County Wildlife Sites will be affected. NWT in their response commented that in addition to the potential impact on the drainage network, the pipeline route is likely to impact on the following: • Areas of floodplain grazing marsh associated with the River Great Ouse and the Relief Channel to the west of Downham Market; and • A number of areas of semi-improved and poor semi-improved grassland (particularly towards the county boundary). In both cases it will be important to review the current quality and condition of these areas of habitat, mitigating any impacts wherever appropriate and potentially identifying enhancement opportunities where relevant. NWT also mentioned the ‘Fens for the Future’ project and the ‘Fenland Flora’ initiative as other relevant consultees.
Environment Agency An introductory meeting was held on 20 August 2020 to explain the overarching approach being taken to routing, surveys and EIA assessment, particularly with reference to soils, geology and hydrogeology, the water environment and aquatic ecology. A follow up meeting was held on 24 September 2020and a further meeting to outline and discuss our approach to Water Framework Directive was held on 19 October 2020.
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 13
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – The Proposed SchemeEIA Methodology
2 The Proposed Scheme
2.1 Scheme Outline 2.1.1 Key features of the scheme The proposed scheme will comprise ‘the pipeline’ plus ‘the associated infrastructure’. All measurements specified in this description are approximate and are subject to confirmation as the design of the scheme is developed. The key features of the proposed scheme will comprise:
The pipeline • A new buried potable water pipeline approximately 94 kilometres in length, comprising the following sections: o A new 5.5-kilometre pipeline, between Wilsford Heath, to the south of Ancaster, and a new water storage tank east of Harrowby; o A new 38-kilometre pipeline between the proposed water storage tank east of Harrowby and an existing AWS site at Etton, near Peterborough; and o A new 51-kilometre pipeline between Etton and an existing AWS site at Bexwell, near Downham Market. • A 4-kilometre section of pipeline (the ‘Harrowby spur’) between the proposed water storage tank east of Harrowby and an existing AWS water storage tank at Harrowby, east of Grantham.
Associated infrastructure • A new partially buried bulk potable water storage tank east of Harrowby; • Refurbishment of an existing, currently disused water storage tank at the existing AWS site at Etton; • A new pumping station adjacent to the new water storage tank east of Harrowby; and • A second new pumping station located within the existing AWS site at Etton. 2.1.2 The pipeline The proposed route of the pipeline is shown in Figure 1.1, and in more detail on Figure 2.1 (sheets 1 to 19). Design development, including design changes to reduce or avoid environmental impacts, may result in localised changes to the proposed route. The proposed pipeline is anticipated to be buried below existing ground level for its entire length. It will be sized to allow the movement of up to 67 megalitres of potable water per day from its connection at Wilsford Heath, via the proposed new water storage tank east of Harrowby, to the existing AWS site at Etton. The proposed pipeline from Etton to the existing AWS site at Bexwell will be sized to allow the transmission of up to 35 megalitres of potable water per day. It is anticipated that for the majority of the pipeline length its diameter will be no greater than 850mm between Grantham and Etton, and 660mm between Etton and Bexwell. The material selected for the pipeline is dependent on ground conditions, construction requirements, water pressures, construction constraints and cost optimisation. The pipe material for the proposed scheme is anticipated to be steel.
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 14
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – The Proposed SchemeEIA Methodology
Detailed hydraulic modelling and geotechnical investigations are still to be carried out for the proposed scheme to confirm the ground conditions present along the route, acceptable operational water pressure and water flow parameters. This information will inform the depth at which the pipe will be laid as well as other parameters such as the location for valve chambers, for air valves and washouts, as well as the final diameter of the pipe. The pipeline will be constructed using a combination of open cut and trenchless techniques. It is anticipated that open cut trenching will be used throughout the majority of the pipeline route. In general, trenchless techniques will be applied for crossings of railways, major roads and larger watercourses. 2.1.3 Pipe fittings Pipeline fittings and ancillary features such as air valves, washout chambers, line valves, cathodic protection kiosks and provision for connection to other existing or proposed pipes will be positioned along the length of the pipeline. Air valves are to be located at high points in the pipeline profile or where required by design. They allow air to be admitted into the pipeline during drain down and released from the pipe as any trapped air will reduce flow capacity. Line valves will be installed at regular intervals, enabling strategic sections of the pipeline to be closed for maintenance and repair works when required. Washout valves will be located at low points in the pipeline to enable the pipe to be drained during maintenance works. On average, washouts and air valves are spaced every 0.3 kilometres and line valve arrangements spaced every 1.5-4 kilometres. All fittings will be housed in concrete chambers of varying sizes depending on local requirements to ease operation and maintenance. Each chamber will typically have a footprint of between 1m2 and 8m2. The chambers will typically finish 200mm to 500mm above ground level to prevent ingress of soil into the chamber. Where required, chambers may also be laid flush to the ground, located at the edges of fields or in road verges and will be marked with industry standard marker posts. Demarcation post and rail fencing will be approximately 750mm to 1.5 metres in height and installed around chambers in arable land to protect the buried infrastructure. Fences will be installed appropriately to allow farm plant sprayers to pass over the chamber/fencing. At appropriate locations, chambers may be grouped and fenced collectively. 2.1.4 Associated infrastructure Additional associated infrastructure is required to provide water storage along the route to maintain water flows and water pressure within the pipeline.
Water storage tanks The new potable water storage tank (see Figure 2.1 sheet 2) will be constructed in an arable field on Welby Heath, approximately 4 kilometres east of the existing Harrowby reservoir and 1.2 kilometres south-east of Welby. The capacity of the tank is to be confirmed, but it is anticipated it would be around 10 megalitres. The tank’s dimensions are anticipated to be approximately 40 x 40 metres x 7 metres high. The associated pipework will be constructed below ground level. Grassed earth embankments will be constructed up the sides of the tank at a 1 in 3 slope (maximum). There will be
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 15
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – The Proposed SchemeEIA Methodology
a 150mm thick gravel layer over the concrete roof of the tank. Options to partially bury the tank so that the visible height is less than 7 metres above ground level will be investigated further during detailed design.
An existing, disused water storage tank within the existing AWS site at Etton will be refurbished and brought back into use.
The new water storage tank east of Harrowby will be housed within a permanent compound of approximately 3.2 hectares, including the access roadway and landscaping areas. A palisade fence will be constructed around the perimeter of the permanent site. In addition, the boundaries of the permanent site where it adjoins existing field boundaries (the south, west and north) will be planted with hedging.
A new permanent 5-metre wide concrete access road off Church Lane is required to provide long term access to the site.
A 4.8-kilometre buried outfall pipe is required from the storage tank east of Harrowby to the River East Glen. Approximately 4.3 kilometres of this will be constructed parallel to the potable water pipeline and within the same construction corridor.
Pumping stations Two new pumping stations are required:
• One within the same permanent compound as the new water storage tank east of Harrowby; and • One within the existing AWS site at Etton. The design of the pumping stations is still being developed. The number and size of pumps may vary between locations and this will influence the size of the pumping station buildings. However, at this stage the following indicative characteristics can be defined:
• A pumping station building with a footprint of approximately 290m2 will house the pumps, control boards and associated valves; • The height of the building will be a maximum of 6 metres; • The building will have a reinforced concrete substructure with a concrete or steel framed superstructure with a pitched roof; and • The superstructure will be clad with steel. Ancillary infrastructure for the pumping stations will include footpaths, paved loading areas, a fuel tank, a base slab for a standby generator, surge vessels, buried chambers and pipework, chemical dosing kiosk, Distribution Network Operator (DNO) metering kiosk and transformers (there will be one encapsulated transformer and one substation).
2.1.5 Construction A construction corridor, or easement, will be required along the proposed route of the pipeline. In general, the construction corridor will be approximately 40 metres wide, with some wider sections where required. Construction access will in most circumstances be from locations agreed with the
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 16
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – The Proposed SchemeEIA Methodology
Local Highways Authorities where the route crosses public roads, and with landowners where access is required on private roads, and then along the construction corridor. Construction traffic will comprise Heavy Duty Vehicles (HDV) required to transport materials and equipment to the site and wastes away from the site and Light Duty Vehicles (LDV; cars and vans), primarily to transport the workforce to and from and within the site.
Additional working areas Main construction compounds and satellite compounds will be set up at intervals along the route, to support the construction of the pipeline and the above-ground infrastructure. Main and satellite compound locations are to be confirmed, but provisionally will be set up at the following locations (see Figure 2.1 sheets 1 to 19): • Main compounds: - Off Church Lane on Welby Heath, adjacent to the proposed location of the new water storage tank and pumping station east of Harrowby; - At the crossing of Hawthorpe Road, between Irnham and Hawthorpe; - At the crossing of the A6121, north of Toft; - East of King Street, north-west of Langtoft; - West of the existing Anglian Water site at Etton; - East of the A16 Thorney Road, east of Newborough; - At the crossing of Gull Bank, in the parish of Wisbech St Mary; - At the crossing of the A1101 north of Outwell; and - West of the A10, adjacent to the existing AWS site at Bexwell. • Satellite compounds: - Adjacent to Heath Lane on Wilsford Heath, where the scheme commences; - Adjacent to the location of the existing Harrowby reservoir; - At the crossing of Humby Road, between Ropsley and Sapperton; - At the crossing of the A151 Main Street, between Grimsthorpe and Edenham; - East of Mansthorpe Road, north of Wilsthorpe; - West of the A15, south of the River Welland crossing near Market Deeping; - West of the existing Anglian Water site at Etton; - At the crossing of English Road, north of Thorney; - At the crossing of Black Drove, in the parish of Wisbech St Mary; - At the crossing of March Road, near Friday Bridge; and - South of Outwell Road, in the parish of Stow Bardolph. Main compounds will include offices, parking, location of materials, fuel, construction substances/chemicals, waste containers, plant/equipment and car parking as required. Temporary construction lighting will be required at main compounds, to be used at the start and end of the day during winter months. If night-time working is required at specific locations, additional temporary
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 17
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – The Proposed SchemeEIA Methodology
lighting may be used at those locations for limited periods of time. Night-time working may also be required at some major crossing locations if trenchless techniques and ground conditions dictate that continuous drilling is required. Satellite compounds are required for the unloading and temporary storage of sections of pipe and bedding materials to be used along sections of the scheme. Satellite compounds will also include staff facilities such as ‘mess’ rooms, welfare and vehicle parking. Materials and pipe sections will be unloaded at satellite compounds and then transported along the working corridor. In addition to the above, there is expected to be (see Figure 2.1 sheets 1 to 19):
• Approximately 28 lined temporary lagoons, used to hold water during pipeline testing and commissioning, to ensure it is suitable for discharge to watercourses; • Approximately 40 trenchless crossings of roads, railways or rivers, with a widened working area either side of each crossing; and • Approximately 130 temporary laydown areas. Note these numbers are provisional and may be subject to change as the design progresses. Provisional typical traffic volumes per day for each compound type are set out in Table 2.1, these may be subject to change as the design progresses. Table 2.1: Typical traffic flows per compound type Cars – Vans HDV Total Total staff deliveries LDV HDV Operations/ staff delivery Main compounds 50 40 8 8 98 8 Satellite compounds 4 12 2 2 18 2 Laydown areas 2 12 0 4 14 4 2.1.6 Programme The programme of works will begin with an enabling phase, which will include activities such as establishing the working corridor, construction of access points, flume crossings and pre- construction drainage required to facilitate the construction works. This is anticipated to commence in the spring of 2022. Immediately following the enabling phase, main construction works will begin and are anticipated to be completed over a period of around 14 months, from the summer of 2022 to the autumn of 2023. Reinstatement works (such as replacing topsoil, reseeding and replanting hedgerows), testing and commissioning works are expected to commence in the late summer of 2022, with early sections of the pipeline route being reinstated and tested while construction works continue on the remaining pipeline. The whole site is expected to be reinstated, with the pipeline tested and commissioned by the spring of 2024.
Scheme Operation and Maintenance Once the proposed scheme is operational, minimal staffing or vehicle movements will be required for maintenance of the associated infrastructure. Should maintenance be required on the pipeline in the future, this will be carried out under the AWS Standards for pipe repairs and environmental duty of care.
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 18
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – The Proposed SchemeEIA Methodology
Any long-term maintenance requirements or repairs would be carried out within easements as discussed with landowners. Further environmental mitigation, if required, will be considered at the appropriate time and will be carried out on a ‘needs’ basis depending on the work required.
Permanent lighting will be required within the fenced boundary of the new pumping stations and water storage tank. The intention is that lighting will be motion sensitive for security purposes out of working hours.
Where necessary, lighting schemes will be directed away from suitable bat foraging, commuting or roosting habitats and designed to avoid any potential disturbance to local communities.
2.2 Construction Phase Strategy A set of design and construction standards and parameters for the proposed scheme will be outlined, to be carried forward by the appointed contractors for detailed design and construction of the proposed scheme. These will be based on good practice, the AWS Code of Practice for Pipelaying and the AWS Environmental Management System (EMS). These will form the Framework Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) to be submitted alongside the ES as part of the application for full planning permission. It is recognised that there needs to be some flexibility during the detailed design stage, for example to allow for different types of construction machinery or engineering capabilities, but this will be within standards of environmental protection and site parameters established to ensure no significant impacts occur. For example, principles will be outlined for locating access points, to minimise construction impacts on local residents, businesses, rights of way, sensitive areas, and traffic safety on local roads. Mitigation measures outlined in the ES will be included.
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 19
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – EIA Methodology
3 EIA Methodology
3.1 EIA Process The EIA process will identify the likely significant environmental effects (both adverse and beneficial) of the proposed scheme. It will highlight the importance of these environmental effects and the opportunity for reducing any adverse environmental impacts as part of the design development process, and ensure that these are understood by the public, the relevant competent authorities, statutory bodies and other interested parties.
3.2 Baseline The baseline conditions of the site and its surroundings form the basis of the assessment for the EIA. The current and future baseline will be defined on an environmental topic basis. Baseline conditions will be identified using the following sources of information (further topic- specific information is provided as appropriate in chapters 4-15): • Open-source information available from national and local government organisations and environmental bodies; • Information available by request or purchase from national and local government organisations and environmental bodies; • Information gained through interpretation of published documents and both modern and historic cartographic information (maps); • Information gained from previous environmental reports, where available; • Interpretation of existing aerial or satellite photographic information; • Surveys, including as a minimum: - An aerial photographic survey of the whole scheme and its immediate surroundings; - Ecological surveys as required; - Archaeological surveys as required; and - Landscape and visual impact assessment surveys as required. The likely significant environmental effects will be identified through a comparison of the proposed works with the baseline that comprises both the current and future scenarios.
3.3 Assessment of Effects The ES will report the likely significant environmental effects (beneficial and adverse) that would result from the construction and operation of the proposed scheme. There is no statutory definition of what constitutes a significant effect; however, a balanced assessment of the proposed scheme will be made using professional judgement with reference to standard assessment methodology and guidance available from appropriate professional institutes and bodies. The guidance and methodology for each assessment will be outlined on a topic-specific basis within chapters 4-16 of this report. The ES will also report the likely cumulative effects of the proposed scheme together with other projects. The approach to cumulative effects assessment is set out in Chapter 16 of this report. Interactions between different environmental topics will be reported as appropriate within the topic chapters (Chapters 4-15).
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 20
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – EIA Methodology
The ES will set out how the proposed scheme relates to policies and plans in place at national, county and district level as well as relevant legislation applicable to each assessment topic. A summary will be included for each technical assessment within the ES. A separate Planning, Design and Access Statement will be submitted as part of the application for full planning permission which will report on how the proposed scheme complies with relevant planning policy at both the national and local level.
3.4 Project Design and Approach to Mitigation Measures incorporated into the design of the proposed scheme to avoid and reduce significant adverse effects on the environment will be included in the scheme description. Mitigation proposals identified in the design phase and as a result of assessments during the EIA for the enabling, construction, commissioning, reinstatement and operational phases of the proposed scheme will be outlined. Residual impacts following assessment of the design considerations and mitigation will also be outlined.
3.5 Proposed Scope of EIA 3.5.1 Spatial Scope The study areas within the EIA will vary according to the topic of assessment, taking into account the baseline environment and the nature of the impact, e.g. direct or indirect. The study areas have been defined for each topic within this Scoping Report where relevant. 3.5.2 Temporal Scope The EIA will consider the construction and operational phases of the proposed scheme. For the construction phase, the impacts will be assessed from when the construction works are scheduled to commence until the completion of site reinstatement. Potential impacts during the operation of the proposed scheme will be assessed on different timescales as appropriate for each topic area, as defined in the topic sections of this Scoping Report. The ES will not cover decommissioning of the proposed scheme as it has been assumed that it will remain part of the operational water supply indefinitely. The infrastructure will be regularly maintained as required under AWS’s duty of care to ensure that it could be continuously operational. 3.5.3 Technical Scope The following technical scope is considered for the proposed scheme, with details presented in Chapters 4 to 16 of this Scoping Report: • Air quality; • Biodiversity; • Climate change resilience, major accidents and natural disasters; • Historic environment; • Land use and recreation; • Landscape and visual amenity; • Materials and waste; • Noise and vibration; • Population and human health; • Soils, geology and hydrogeology;
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 21
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – EIA Methodology
• Traffic and transport; • The water environment; and • Cumulative effects.
3.6 Planning Policy Context 3.6.1 National Policy The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out the Government’s overarching planning policies for England and identifies how these are expected to be applied in the decision-making process. The NPPF is a material consideration which should be taken into account when making planning decisions. It sets out clear economic, social and environmental objectives which include ‘protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment; including…mitigating and adapting to climate change’. Additional guidance is also provided in the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG). 3.6.2 Adopted Local Policies The proposed scheme passes through the County council areas of Lincolnshire, Cambridgeshire and Norfolk, within which the route passes through North Kesteven, South Kesteven and Fenland District Councils, King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council and Peterborough City Council. Adopted local plan policy documents are set out in Table 3.1 below. Table 3.1: Adopted local plan policy documents Local Planning Authority Document name Date adopted Lincolnshire County Council Lincolnshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan June 2016 North Kesteven District Council Core Strategy and Development Managed Policies South Kesteven District Council Lincolnshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan December Site Locations Plan 2017 Central Lincolnshire Local Plan April 2017 South Kesteven Local Plan January 2020 Cambridgeshire County Council Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals July 2011 Peterborough City Council and Waste Core Strategy Fenland District Council Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals February and Waste Core Strategy Site Specific 2012 Proposals Plan Fenland Local Plan May 2014 Peterborough Local Plan July 2019 Norfolk County Council Norfolk Core Strategy and Minerals and Waste September Borough Council of King’s Lynn Development Management Policies 2011 and West Norfolk Development Plan Document (DPD) Norfolk Minerals Site Specific Allocations DPD December 2017 Norfolk Waste Site Specific Allocations DPD October 2013
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 22
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – EIA Methodology
Local Planning Authority Document name Date adopted King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Core Strategy July 2011 King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Site Allocation September and Development Management Policies Plan 2016
3.6.3 Emerging Local Policies In line with the provisions of the NPPF, due weight should be given to policies within emerging Local Plans according to the stage of preparation, the extent of unresolved objections to policies and the degree of consistency with the relevant policies of the NPPF. Emerging policies are summarised in Table 3.2 below. Table 3.2: Emerging local plan policies Local Planning Authority Document name Current status Lincolnshire County Council Central Lincolnshire Local Plan Consultation 2019 North Kesteven District Council Review Further consultation due 2020 South Kesteven South Kesteven Local Plan Due for submission 2023 Early Review in progress Cambridgeshire County Council Cambridgeshire and Proposed Submission Peterborough City Council Peterborough Minerals and Waste Local Plan Fenland District Fenland New Local Plan Issues and Options Consultation Norfolk Minerals and Waste Preferred Option Norfolk County Council Local Plan Review Consultation October 2019
Borough Council of King’s Lynn King’s Lynn and West Norfolk and West Norfolk Local Plan ReviewLocal Plan Review in progress Consultation February 2019
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 23
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Air Quality
4 Air quality
4.1 Introduction This chapter describes the proposed approach to identifying the potential significant effects of the scheme on air quality. This chapter outlines:
• the relevant legislative and policy background; • topic-specific guidance to be applied; • the methodology to be applied for gathering baseline data and for identifying and assessing potentially significant effects; • current understanding of baseline conditions within the Working Corridor and the surrounding area, and the approach to further data gathering; and • the approach to be taken to determining the mitigation measures required to prevent, reduce or offset any significant adverse effects. The main pollutants of concern for air quality in the United Kingdom (UK) and the proposed scheme are associated with combustion emissions typically arising from road traffic and industry, which are primarily oxides of nitrogen (NOx), nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5, (particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns or less and 2.5 microns or less, respectively)). Air pollutants can affect human health and cause damage to sensitive plants and ecosystems. Air quality also refers to dust, which could affect health or give rise to annoyance due to the soiling of surfaces through deposition. The term 'dust' refers to all particulate matter including all solid particles suspended in air or settled and deposited on a surface after having been suspended in air, due to activities related to construction. This includes the smaller-sized particles associated with potential health impacts (i.e. PM10 and PM2.5) and the larger particles associated with causing annoyance or affecting sensitive vegetation through deposition on a surface.
4.2 Legislative This section summarises legislation specific to the assessment of air quality. Table 4.1: Summary of Relevant Air Quality Legislation Legislation Implication for the project The Environmental Protection Defines provisions for statutory nuisance for dust and details Act 1990 the principal controls over it for local authorities. The Environment Act 1995, Part Defines the requirements for Local Air Quality Management IV and the role of local authorities in systematically reviewing and assessing air quality within their boundaries on a regular basis. The Air Quality (England) Gives statutory force to the limit values for pollutants set out in Regulations 2000 / The Air the National Air Quality Strategy 2007. Quality (England) (Amendment) The National Air Quality Strategy (AQS) sets out a strategy for Regulations 2002 compliance with the statutory Air Quality Objectives (AQO) for NO2, PM10 and PM2.5 (to protect human health) and the AQO for NOx (to protect vegetation and ecosystems). The AQS includes other pollutants but these aren’t relevant to this project.
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 24
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Air Quality
Legislation Implication for the project The Air Quality Standards Has the objective to improve air quality by reducing the impact Regulations (England) 2010 of air pollution on human health and ecosystems. The regulations transpose the air quality limit values set out in the EU ambient air quality directive (2008/50/EC) into UK law. Of which, the limit values for NO2, PM10 and PM2.5 and NOx are relevant to this project. The Clean Air Strategy 2019 and Outlines actions to tackle emissions to air from a number of the National Air Pollution sources. Control Programme 2019 The Conservation of Habitats These Regulations implement the provisions of the Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 Directive (92/43/EEC) and the Birds Directive (2009/147/EC). They provide for the designation and protection of European Designated Sites and species, and the adaptation of planning and other controls for the protection of European Designated Sites. These legislative requirements have been considered in assessing air quality and dust impacts from the Proposed Scheme at those designated sites.
4.3 Guidance and Approach to Scoping 4.3.1 Guidance The assessment will be conducted in accordance with the Institute of Air Quality Management (IAQM) guidance on the assessment of construction dust4. In addition, the assessment will be conducted with regard to the guidance produced by Environmental Protection UK (EPUK) and the IAQM, which provides criteria (see Section 4.5) that define when an air quality assessment of road traffic emissions is required as a result of changes in traffic flows due to construction or operation of a development5. 4.3.2 Study area There are a number of different types of potential air quality impacts or emission sources that may require assessment. The study areas for the different air quality impacts are set out in this section. For construction dust, the following study areas will be applied, all of which are based on the IAQM dust guidance: • Effects of construction dust on human receptors – 350 metres from the site boundary; • Trackout – up to 50 metres from the edge of the local road network, within 500 metres of the proposed construction site exits (‘trackout’ is the transport of dust or mud from the construction site onto the public road network, where it may be deposited and re- suspended by road traffic); and • Dust effects on relevant ecological receptors (including Special Areas of Conservation (SACs), Special Protection Areas (SPAs); Ramsar sites; Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs); National and Local Nature Reserves, Local Wildlife Sites (LWSs) and Ancient Woodlands) – 50 metres from the site boundary.
4 IAQM 2016, Guidance on the assessment of dust from construction and demolition. Version 1.1. 5 Moorcroft and Barrowcliffe, et al, 2017. Land-use Planning and Development Control: Planning for Air Quality. V1.2. Institute of Air Quality Management, London.
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 25
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Air Quality
For emissions of pollutants to air, the following study areas will be applied: • Emissions from construction plant and machinery (i.e. ‘non-road mobile machinery’, or NRMM) – a qualitative assessment of effects at the nearest receptors, typically within 200 metres of the site boundary, based on the scale of the activities; • Human and ecological receptors affected by changes in emissions from road traffic – up to 200 metres from links in the road network, where there are changes in the flow of traffic that exceed the criteria set out in Section 4.5.1.
4.4 Baseline conditions Baseline information on air quality within the study areas defined above has been gathered from the following sources:
• Local authority local air quality management (LAQM) Air Quality Annual Status Reports 6,7 8 9 10; and
• Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) UK Air Information Resource11. Information on the location and nature of human and ecological receptors for the assessment of air quality and construction dust impacts will be identified from national datasets and Ordnance Survey mapping applied within a GIS system, and in consultation with the Local Planning Authorities (LPAs). It is not proposed to undertake any baseline measurements of ambient air quality. The proposed scheme is mainly in sparsely populated rural areas where the existing air quality is good and well within the relevant AQOs. Any supplementary air quality baseline information that is required will be obtained by consultation with the LPAs. The route passes through five LPAs (as listed in Section 1.1 of this report). Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) declared by the relevant LPAs are described below:
• North Kesteven District Council: none. • South Kesteven District Council has declared six AQMAs. The closest, AQMA No. 6, has been
declared for exceedances of the annual mean and one-hour mean NO2 AQOs at roadside locations due to emissions from road traffic. This AQMA is more than 2 kilometres to the west of the proposed scheme in Grantham.
• Peterborough City Council has declared an AQMA, but for exceedances of the 15-minute SO2 air quality objective. The AQMA is located over 6 kilometres south of the proposed scheme.
• Fenland District Council has declared AQMAs for exceedances of the annual mean nitrogen
dioxide, 24-hour PM10 and 15-minute SO2 air quality objective in Wisbech, which is more than 4 kilometres to the north of the proposed scheme.
6 North Kesteven District Council (2020), Annual Status Report 2020. 7 Borough Council of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk (2019), Annual Status Report 2019. 8 Fenland District Council (2019), 2019 Air Quality Status Report. 9 Peterborough City Council (2019), 2019 Air Quality Status Report. 10 South Kesteven District Council (2020), Annual Status Report 2020. 11 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). (2020). UK Air Information Resource. Available at: https://uk- air.defra.gov.uk/aqma/maps/. Accessed September 2020.
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 26
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Air Quality
• The Borough Council of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk has declared two AQMAs for exceedances of the annual mean nitrogen dioxide air quality objective both of which are more than 10 kilometres from the proposed scheme. None of the AQMAs listed above are close to the proposed scheme. There are several air quality monitoring locations (diffusion tubes for measuring concentrations of
NO2) along the proposed pipeline route. The closest local authority air quality monitoring location to the northern end of the proposed scheme is the South Kesteven District Council monitoring location reference SK47/48. SK47/48 is a roadside diffusion tube located within the AQMA in Grantham on the A552 Bridge End Road, approximately 2.3 kilometres southwest of the proposed scheme. The 3 measured 2019 annual mean NO2 concentration at this location was 30.3 µg/m . Outside of the AQMA, the closest monitoring location is the South Kesteven District Council monitoring location reference SK25. SK25 is a roadside diffusion tube located on the A607 High Road in Manthorpe, approximately 2.5 kilometres northwest of the proposed scheme. The measured 2019 annual mean 3 NO2 concentration at this location was 17.8 µg/m . At the southern/central end of the proposed pipeline route from Grantham to Peterborough, the closest local authority air quality monitoring location is the Peterborough City Council monitoring location reference PT13. PT13 is a roadside diffusion tube located on the A15 Lincoln Road, approximately 4.6 kilometres southeast of the proposed scheme. The measured 2019 annual mean 3 NO2 concentration at this location was 29.6 µg/m . Along the stretch of the proposed pipeline route from Peterborough to Bexwell, the closest local authority air quality monitoring location to the scheme is the Fenland District Council monitoring location reference S9. S9 is a roadside diffusion tube located adjacent to the A47 at Thorney Toll, approximately 1.2 kilometres south of the proposed scheme. The measured 2018 annual mean NO2 concentration at this location was 19.3 µg/m3. The DEFRA background maps were used to provide typical background concentrations for the area surrounding the proposed scheme. The range in concentrations from the 1 x 1 kilometre grid squares within 1 kilometre of the proposed scheme are shown in Table 4.2. These background map concentrations would represent the concentrations away from specific/major air pollution sources and are more akin to the rural or urban background. Table 4.2: Summary of Background Map Pollutant Concentrations Pollutant Ai Quality Objective Annual mean concentration (µg/m3) (µg/m3) Minimum Maximum
NOx 30 7.8 15.1
NO2 40 6.1 11.3
PM10 40 12.9 17.1
PM2.5 25 7.8 9.5
The local authority air quality monitoring data and the information in Table 4.2 shows that the existing air quality concentrations in the vicinity of the proposed scheme are all well below the relevant AQOs.
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 27
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Air Quality
With regard to ecological receptors, Ancaster Valley, Wilsford Heath Quarry, Dole Wood, Langtoft Gravel Pits SSSIs and five ancient woodlands are within the study area. No SPAs, SACs, RAMSAR sites, national nature reserves or local nature reserves have been identified within 1 kilometre of the proposed scheme.
4.5 Potential Impacts 4.5.1 Construction impacts Construction of water pipelines and supporting infrastructure can have the following potential impacts on air quality:
• dust emissions generated by construction activities – a temporary impact; • emissions of pollutants to air from construction plant and machinery – a temporary impact; and • emissions of pollutants from construction related road vehicles travelling on the local road network – a temporary impact.
Emissions of Dust Construction activities associated with the proposed scheme have the potential to generate fugitive dust emissions. These may give rise to annoyance due to the soiling of surfaces, risk of health effects due to the increase in exposure to fine particulates such as PM10 and PM2.5 and damage to vegetation and ecosystems (where very high levels of dust soiling occur). The main construction activities associated with the proposed scheme that could generate dust include earthworks, trench excavation for the installation of the pipeline and temporary material storage and handling. Dust may also be generated by vehicle movements on haul routes predominantly within the construction areas. The screening distances to identify where there is a need to consider construction dust are set out within the IAQM dust guidance as follows: • the presence of human receptor locations within 350 metres of the construction site boundaries and/or within 50 metres of the access route(s) used by construction vehicles on the public highway; and • the presence of ecological receptors within 50 metres of the construction site boundaries and access routes. Along the proposed pipeline route there are sensitive human receptors within 350 metres. The identified streets / post codes with high sensitive human receptors within 50 metres of the proposed scheme, taken from Ordnance Survey Address Base data, are listed in Table 4.3. Table 4.3: High Sensitive Receptors within 50m of Proposed Scheme Easement 1 Receptor description Post code Distance from proposed scheme easement1 (m) Property on Fox Covert Road PE6 7HF 10.8 Property on Vergette Road PE6 7NB 28.1 Elm Terrace, Scottlethorpe Road PE10 0LW 42.5
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 28
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Air Quality
Receptor description Post code Distance from proposed scheme easement1 (m) Within 40 metre Property on Stowe Road PE6 9NE easement Property on Dickens Close PE6 9RT 2.0 Property on Holmes Road PE6 7LZ 2.3 Property on Welmore Road PE6 7LU 5.6 Property on Lincoln Road PE6 7AW 33.1 Property on Neaverson Road PE6 7LY 15.9 Shepards Lodge, Meadow Road PE6 7QG 42.2 Property on Werrington Bridge Road PE6 7QF 14.6 Lime Tree Farm, English Drove PE6 0PA 18.5 Property on Harrowby Lane NG31 9HB 49.7 Quarry Cottage, Bulby Road NG33 4JQ 36.3 Property on High Road PE13 4EQ 14.6 Rivendell, Needham Bank PE14 0LA 42.1 Property on March Road PE14 0LP 39.0 Willow Lodge, Maltmas Drove PE14 0HS 29.1 Within 40 metre Glenshee, Hall Road PE14 8PE easement Within 40 metre Property on Marsh Road PE14 8PR easement Thornhills, Stow Road PE14 8QL 49.0 Genesis, Taggs Lane PE14 8PH 16.6 Property on Wisbech Road PE14 8PJ 32.5 Property on Outwell Road PE14 8PQ 47.8 Property on Heron Close PE38 9QD 45.3 Property on Broomhill PE38 9QU 21.1 Dolvers Farm, Ouse Bank PE38 0AX 40.5 Property on Broomhill PE38 9QY 46.0 Note 1: easement based on 40 m buffer around the proposed scheme In addition, the proposed pipeline route and access routes pass within 50 metres of an ancient woodland (Breaches Wood). Therefore, there would be a risk of dust impacts on human and ecological receptors. The main dust generating activities would be earthworks activities, which would include topsoil stripping (where required) along the proposed pipeline route, at the construction compounds (including the main compounds and satellite compounds described in Section 2.1.4), the excavation
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 29
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Air Quality
of trenches (typically utilising an open cut method) to install the pipeline and the excavation for proposed temporary lagoons. The material excavated during the excavation of the trenches would be placed in temporary stockpiles. Topsoil and subsoil intended for reinstatement would be temporarily stockpiled as close to where they were stripped as practicable to minimise the risk of dust emissions. Main site compounds along the route range in size from approximately 3,000 m2 to 15,000 m2. Satellite compounds cover smaller areas. Temporary lagoons range from 700 m2 to 3,000 m2. However, there would be a relatively small volume of earthworks (mainly for vegetation clearance to form hardstanding areas) (i.e. less than 20,000 tonnes of material) and typically less than eight heavy earth moving vehicles operating at any one time. Therefore, taking these factors into account, the earthworks associated with the compounds and proposed pipeline route would be representative of a “small” dust emission magnitude (based on the IAQM dust guidance). The rate at which the pipeline is estimated to be laid could be between 70 and 280 metres of pipeline per week but would vary depending on ground and weather conditions. This means that typically the main construction activities would only occur at any one specific location for a relatively short time and be within 350 metres of any receptor for between three to 10 weeks. No requirement for demolition of any buildings or structures has been identified at this stage. However, if any demolitions are required as part of the scheme, these would be limited to a very small amount of works, this could include the removal of fences and outbuildings etc. Therefore, based on the limited activities associated with the construction of the proposed pipeline and the short duration that each receptor would potentially experience any adverse impacts from the construction works it is considered that there would be a “small” dust emission magnitude potential for construction activities (based on the IAQM dust guidance). For “trackout”, Table 2.1 indicates that there would be less than 10 outward HDV movements per day from any of the proposed site compounds. Therefore, it is considered that there would be a “small” dust emission magnitude for trackout (based on the IAQM dust guidance). The high sensitive human receptors, such as residential properties, within the assessment bands set out in the IAQM dust guidance around the proposed scheme are set out in Table 4.4. Table 4.4: Number of high sensitive receptors within set distance bands of Proposed Scheme Distance band (metres) High sensitive receptor count <20 27 <50 76 <100 208 <200 7,810 <350 2,284
Based on the receptor counts in Table 4.4 and the IAQM dust guidance the sensitivity of the area would be high. However, these counts are based on the entire proposed 94-kilometre pipeline route. In any 1-kilometre section of the proposed pipeline route there are less than four receptors within 20 metres of the working corridor, apart from one short section of the proposed pipeline route in Glinton where there are 14 receptors within 20 metres of the working corridor. However,
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 30
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Air Quality
due to the extent of the working corridor these are likely to be more than 20 metres from the constructions works themselves. Similarly, there are less than 10 receptors within 50 metres of the working corridor in any 1-kilometre section of the proposed pipeline route apart from one short section in Glinton where there are 41 receptors within 50 metres of the working corridor. Therefore, in most areas the sensitivity around the pipeline sections or compounds would be low, with the exception of an area close to Glinton, where the sensitivity of the area would be medium. In line with the IAQM dust guidance, the low emission magnitude of construction activities (earthworks, construction and trackout) in areas considered to be low sensitivity means that there would be a negligible to low risk of dust impacts during the construction of the proposed scheme. Although the risk of dust impacts from these activities would be negligible to low, emissions of dust would be controlled through the adoption of standard good practice dust mitigation measures to prevent or reduce dust emissions. The relevant good practice mitigation measures for the construction phase of the proposed scheme have been taken from the IAQM dust guidance. These mitigation measures and controls are set out below and would be required to be included in the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP), which would be implemented during the construction phase. The IAQM dust guidance acknowledges that taking these mitigation measures into consideration, the environmental effect from dust emissions would not be significant at any off- site receptor. The contractor would undertake and implement the following management and control measures, where the measure is relevant in the context of the works being undertaken and the construction plant in use. • Provide general site management and good housekeeping procedures, including: - name and contact details for air and dust issues displayed at site boundary; - plan the site layouts so that machinery and dust-generating activities are located as far as practicable from nearby receptors, such as residential properties; - erect a screen or barrier around dust activities at the site compounds, where required and where water suppression is not effective; and - appropriate training of the construction workers to increase awareness of dust management and control measures. • Record all dust and air quality complaints and any exceptional incidents, identify cause(s), take appropriate measures to reduce emissions in a timely manner and record the measures taken. The complaints and incidents log would be available to the LPAs. • Implement a CEMP, which could include the following measures to control or mitigate potential adverse impacts caused by the construction works: - control runoff of water or mud to reduce spread of particulates that could subsequently be disturbed and become airborne; - return subsoil and topsoil at the earliest suitable time of year; - manage earthworks and exposed areas or soil stockpiles to prevent wind whipping. Use methods such as covering, sealing of stockpiles, re-vegetating or using water suppression; - signpost a maximum speed limit of 15mph on surfaced and 10mph on unsurfaced haul roads and work areas;
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 31
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Air Quality
- where there is a risk of dust nuisance, use cutting, grinding or sawing equipment fitted, or in conjunction, with suitable dust suppression techniques; - ensure an adequate water supply on the site for effective dust/particulate matter suppression/mitigation; - where there is a risk of dust nuisance, use enclosed chutes and conveyors and covered skips; - when loading/unloading vehicles, drop heights must be kept to a minimum; - ensure equipment is readily available on site to clean any dry spillages. Clean up spillages as soon as reasonably practicable after the event using wet cleaning methods; - dry sweeping of large areas should be avoided; - no bonfires or the burning of waste materials; - avoid scabbling (roughening of concrete surfaces) where possible; - ensure sand and other aggregates are not allowed to dry out. If drying out is required for a particular process, ensure that appropriate additional control measures are in place; - water assisted road sweepers should be deployed on public roads when necessary, and on haul roads when the easement is particularly dry, to prevent excessive dust or mud deposits; - sheet vehicle loads during the transportation of loose or potentially dusty material or spoil; and - adequate wheel washing facilities could be provided at access points on to the public highway from the site compounds, where required. Dust and air pollution monitoring measures would be implemented at the main site compounds and during the construction of the permanent structures, such as pumping stations and break tanks, which would include the following. • Undertake on-site and off-site inspection to monitor dust. Inspection results to be recorded in a log. The log would be available to view by the LPA if asked. This would include dust soiling checks of surfaces. For example, checking of street furniture, cars and flat surfaces around the site boundary. • Carry out site inspections to monitor compliance with the CEMP and record inspection results. The inspection log would be available to the LPA when asked. The frequency of inspections would be increased when activities with a high potential to produce dust are being carried out and during prolonged dry or windy conditions. • Develop action plans and contingency plans for adverse weather conditions and rapid response to the breakdown of dust suppression equipment. Therefore, with the implementation of the dust mitigation measures and controls, the likely effect of dust emissions on human health, amenity and ecological receptors during construction is concluded to be not significant.
Emissions from Construction Plant and Machinery The type and numbers of construction plant and machinery would vary over the construction period of the proposed scheme. The typical construction techniques and methodologies are outlined in Chapter 2.
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 32
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Air Quality
Based on a typical section of the proposed pipeline route, the construction plant and machinery are anticipated to consist of a mixture of the following types:
• tracked machines, such as excavators (up to 40 tonne) and dozers, typically less than four; • dumper trucks (30 tonne), typically less than two; • crawler and mobile crane (for tunnelling); • compressor (for tunnelling); • tunnel boring machine (for tunnelling); • trenching machines; • drilling rig; • screeners, crushers and processing buckets; • tractors / trailers; and • compaction plant. A slurry and separation plant would be required for tunnelling activities and a recycling unit for horizontal directional drilling. Small diesel generators (4-6 kVA) would be required for various construction activities such as de- watering pumps and also generators required at site compounds and where horizontal drilling is required (approximately 60 kVA) where connection to the mains electricity grid is not available. Additionally, various petrol chain saws, chippers and welding plant may be required during construction. The rate at which the proposed pipeline will be laid is anticipated to be approximately between 70 and 280 metres of pipeline per week (dependant on ground and weather conditions). The construction areas would generally be long and narrow with the works spread out across different parts of the proposed scheme at any one time. Where there would be an overlap in construction activities, these would typically be undertaking different elements of the works rather than all plant operating at the same location simultaneously carrying out the same construction activities. For example, construction plant associated with the excavation of the pipeline trench would operate in one area initially, followed further behind by the plant laying the pipe itself, and then the plant required to refill the excavated material and the levelling of the new surface. Other examples of phased working include topsoil stripping in advance of any pipe excavating/laying works and trenchless crossings before pipelaying works. The IAQM dust guidance specifies the following in relation to the assessment of emissions to air from construction plant and machinery: "Experience of assessing the exhaust emissions from on-site plant (also known as Non-road Mobile Machinery or NRMM) and site traffic suggests that they are unlikely to make a significant impact on local air quality, and in the vast majority of cases they will not need to be quantitatively assessed." Construction plant and machinery would be in operation at any one location for only a relatively short duration. There would also only be a relatively low number and size of plant and machinery items operating during construction simultaneously (typically less than eight plant items). Therefore, the potential effect on local air quality at human receptors and ecological receptors in the vicinity of the construction works would be negligible. On this basis, and in line with the IAQM dust
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 33
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Air Quality
guidance, the effect on air quality from construction plant and machinery emissions is considered to be not significant.
Emissions from Road Traffic Engine exhaust emissions from heavy duty vehicles (HDVs) and light duty vehicles (LDVs) associated with construction of the proposed scheme have the potential to affect local air quality. The Land Use Planning and Development Control: Planning for Air Quality guidance (IAQM/EPUK, 2017) sets out screening criteria for identifying the need for an air quality assessment, as follows: • the change in LDV flows is greater than 100 vehicles per day (as annual average daily traffic (AADT) within or adjacent to an AQMA or greater than 500 vehicles per day elsewhere; and • the change in HDV flows is greater than 25 vehicles per day within or adjacent to an AQMA or greater than 100 vehicles per day elsewhere. Based on information provided in Table 2.1, the typical daily flows for a main compound is 98 LDVs (i.e. 49 in and 49 out) and eight HDVs (i.e. four in and four out). The daily traffic for the satellite compounds and laydown areas would be less than the flows associated with the main compound (as shown in Table 2.1) These movements would be distributed across different road links along the proposed 94-kilometre pipeline route, and so the increase in vehicle movements on the majority of the individual road links which form part of the local rod network are likely to be less than those presented. The number of daily LDVs and HDVs associated with construction traffic, calculated as an AADT, is 98 and eight, respectively. These changes in daily vehicle numbers associated with construction traffic would not exceed the EPUK/IAQM screening criteria for locations outside of AQMAs set out above in this section. On this basis, emissions from construction-related road traffic are not considered to represent a significant air quality effect on receptors adjacent to the local road network. The effects would be described as negligible. Therefore, the air quality impacts from construction traffic on human and ecological receptors are unlikely to have significant effects on the environment. 4.5.2 Operational impacts There are no significant sources of air quality or dust effects associated with the operational phase of the proposed scheme.
4.6 Proposed Scope of Assessment 4.6.1 Scoped out The following are scoped out of the EIA, as the information considered in this report suggests they are unlikely to cause significant impacts on human health, amenity or ecological receptors, with the specified construction mitigation measures in place:
• Dust emissions from construction activities on-site and as a result of trackout; • Emissions of pollutants to air from construction plant and machinery;
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 34
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Air Quality
• Emissions of pollutants to air from construction related road vehicles travelling on the road network; and • Operational impacts on air quality. 4.6.2 Scoped in All potential sources of air quality impacts have been scoped out above. It is therefore proposed to scope out air quality from further assessment. If there are significant changes to the project design (embedded or good practice mitigation measures or construction techniques), a review of the potential air quality effects would be undertaken to determine if any significant air quality effects are likely to arise as a result of the changes.
4.7 Proposed EIA Methodology With the adoption of mitigation measures included within a CEMP to ensure dust impacts are not significant, there are unlikely to be significant effects related to air quality. It is therefore proposed that air quality is scoped out of further assessment.
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 35
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report -Biodiversity and Ecology
5 Biodiversity
5.1 Introduction The Biodiversity and Ecology assessment considers the potential significant impacts effects of the proposed scheme on sites designated for their ecological value as well as habitats and wildlife (including protected species), together with any inter-relationships between these features and the processes that support them. This chapter describes the proposed approach to identifying the potential significant effects and outlines: • The relevant legislative and policy background; • Topic-specific guidance to be applied; • The methodology to be applied for gathering baseline data and for identifying and assessing potentially significant effects; • Current understanding of baseline conditions within the working corridor and the surrounding area, and the approach to further data gathering; and • The approach to be taken to determining the mitigation measures required to prevent, reduce or offset any significant adverse effects.
5.2 Legislative and policy background 5.2.1 Legislation Table 5.1 summaries key legislation and policies which are instrumental to the assessment of biodiversity and ecology. Table 5.1: Key legislation and policy Legislation/ Policy Relevance to the Proposed Scheme The Wildlife and Provides protection to a range of species of flora and fauna and details Countryside Act (WCA) the law relating to Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). 1981 (as amended) The Conservation of Transposes the European Habitats Directive and European Birds Habitats and Species Directive into UK law in England and Wales. The Regulations provide Regulations 2017 (as for the designation and protection of European sites, the protection of amended) certain species (referred to as European Protected Species or EPS) and the adaptation of planning and other controls for the protection of European sites. The Countryside and Details certain measures for the management and protection of SSSIs Rights of Way (CROW) and strengthens wildlife enforcement legislation. Act 2000 The Natural Places a duty to conserve biodiversity on public authorities in England. Environment and Rural Section 40 requires local authorities and government departments to Communities (NERC) have regard to the purposes of conserving biodiversity in a manner Act 2006 section 40 that is consistent with the exercise of their normal functions. Section 41 also places a duty on the Secretary of State to maintain lists of
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 36
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report -Biodiversity and Ecology
Legislation/ Policy Relevance to the Proposed Scheme species and habitats which are regarded as being of principal importance for the conservation of biodiversity in England. The Hedgerows Protects hedgerows which are considered ‘important’ (as described Regulations 1997 within the act) by controlling the removal of such hedgerows through a system of notification. The Protection of Protects badgers within the UK from wilful injuring, killing, taking (or Badgers Act, 1992 attempt to do so), digging for a badger, or intentionally or recklessly damaging or destroying a sett. National Planning Policy Section 15 of the NPPF sets out the Government’s over-arching Framework (NPPF) planning policies in relation to conserving and enhancing the natural environment. Paragraph 170 sets out how the Government expects planning decisions to contribute to and enhance the natural environment through a number of measures including protecting landscapes, recognition of wider benefits from natural capital, minimising impacts on and achieving net gains for biodiversity. Paragraph 175 provides a number of principles that should be applied by LPAs when determining planning applications. These include refusing permission where significant harm cannot be avoided, mitigated or compensated for. The Biodiversity 2020 The most recent biodiversity strategy for England has as its mission to Strategy for England’s halt overall biodiversity loss, support healthy well-functioning wildlife and ecosystem ecosystems, and establish coherent ecological networks, with more services and better places for nature for the benefit of wildlife and people. The 25-year This includes a theme entitled “thriving plants and wildlife”, developing Environment Plan a growing and resilient network of land, water and sea that is richer in plants and wildlife. Specific measures include providing opportunities for the reintroduction of native species and the establishment of Nature Recovery Networks. Local planning policy The documents that comprise the Local Plan for each LPA area affected by the proposed scheme are described in Chapter 3 (section 3.7). Local Plan policies relevant to the protection of biodiversity will be taken into account in the development of the proposed scheme and in the ES.
5.3 Guidance and Approach to Scoping 5.3.1 Guidance The assessment will be conducted in accordance with the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB), LA108 (Biodiversity). In addition, the assessment will be conducted with regard to the following guidance: • Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM 201812) Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK; and
12 CIEEM (2018) Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK and Ireland: Terrestrial, Freshwater, Coastal and Marine version 1.1. Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management, Winchester.
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 37
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report -Biodiversity and Ecology
• CIEEM Sources of Survey Methods. Appendix 5.1 details the guidance relevant to Biodiversity and the extent of land required to inform this assessment. 5.3.2 Study area The proposed scheme was reviewed to identify the spatial scale at which ecological features could be affected as a result of the proposed scheme and associated activities. This is defined as the Zone of Influence (ZoI). The current guidance on ecological assessments (CIEEM, 2018) recommends that all ecological features that occur within a Zol for a scheme are investigated. Areas within the ZoI may include: • Areas directly within the land take for the proposed scheme and access; and • Areas beyond the proposed scheme boundary where impacts could nevertheless occur. The ZoI is used to determine the geographical area for assessing the effects (both positive and negative) of the proposed scheme on ecological features based on all the available information. The ZoI will vary for different ecological features depending on their sensitivity to an environmental change. The geographical area for obtaining ecological data through desk and field-based surveys is based on the potential impacts of the proposed scheme on ecological features and accepted best practice field survey guidance. Within the bounds of the study area, field surveys will be conducted (based on best practice) within the predicted ZoI of the proposed scheme on ecological features likely to be present. A desk study was undertaken to obtain existing information relating to statutory and non-statutory sites designated for nature conservation, Habitats of Principal Importance (HPI), Species of Principal Importance (SPI), legally protected and controlled species and other conservation notable species that have been recorded over the previous ten years (2010-2020). Existing information on the ecological baseline includes the location and extent of nationally and internationally designated sites from MAGIC13 and the features that they support from Natural England’s designated sites view webpages, together with information on locally designated sites and species records from the local Biodiversity Records Centres. A summary of the areas of desk survey search for relevant types of ecological feature is presented within Table 5.2 below. Table 5.2 Summary of desk study areas Ecological Feature Study Area Statutory sites designated under Land within the working corridor plus an additional search UK legislation, international area of 2 kilometres. conventions or European For some mobile species their ranging behaviour may form an Directives impact pathway between the ZoI and a distant designated site. Where appropriate, potential impacts on these qualifying features of designated sites beyond the ZoI will be considered for:
13 Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside (MAGIC), Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC).
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 38
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report -Biodiversity and Ecology
Ecological Feature Study Area • designated sites where a Natural England SSSI Impact Risk Zone overlaps the ZoI; • designated sites for bats within 30 kilometres; and • Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar sites (bird features) within 20 kilometres and where there is potential supporting habitat within the ZoI. Locally designated sites Land within the working corridor plus an additional search area of 2 kilometres. Legally protected species, HPI Land within the working corridor plus an additional search and SPI, legally controlled area out to 2 kilometres, with the exception of bird species species, Red listed species and UK Habitat Classification1415. Non-designated habitats All non-designated habitats within the working corridor plus an additional buffer of 250 metres.
5.3.3 Field surveys Field surveys have commenced on sections of the proposed scheme and will be undertaken during 2020 and 2021 where the ecological features listed in Column 1 of Table 5.2 are within the relevant ZoI. Details of the methodologies to be followed are provided in Appendix 5.2.
5.4 Baseline conditions 5.4.1 Statutory and non-statutory designated sites No statutory designated sites are intersected by the proposed scheme. The statutory sites of international importance within 2 kilometres and then those between 2 and 20 kilometres of the proposed pipeline route which have bird features are presented in Table 5.4 below. Sites within the 2-kilometre study area are shown on Figure 5.1. No SACs designated for bats are located within 30 kilometres of the proposed pipeline route.
14 The Government’s MAGIC website for statutory designations, Natural England’s Priority Habitat Inventory and Natural England’s Ancient Woodland Inventory; Natural England website for descriptions of statutory designated sites; Norfolk Biodiversity Information Service; Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Environmental Records Centre; Suffolk Biodiversity Information Service; Ordnance Survey data layers; CORINE Geographic Information System for CORINE biotope mapping and Forestry Commission’s National Forest Inventory – working corridor plus 250m either side 15 Bird Species: Data from Bird Atlas 2007–11 (BTO, BirdWatch Ireland and the Scottish Ornithologists' Club) and BirdTrack (BTO, RSPB, BirdWatch Ireland, SOC and Welsh Ornithological Society) to summarise bird occurrence and breeding information in the vicinity of the scheme
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 39
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report -Biodiversity and Ecology
Table 5.4: Natura 2000 and Ramsar sites within 20 kilometres of the proposed scheme Site Name Designation Approximate Description Distance to the Route International sites within 2 kilometres Nene Washes SAC, SPA & 1.8 SAC: Spined Loach Ramsar kilometres SPA: Breeding and non-breeding duck; breeding Black- south tailed Godwit Limosa limosa and non-breeding Bewick’s Swan Cygnus columbianus bewickii. Ramsar: Supports an important breeding assemblage of wetland birds as well as providing an important migration staging point and over-wintering. Supports notable wetland plants and invertebrates. International sites between 2-20 kilometres (excluding those sites designated for habitats only) Ouse Washes SAC, SPA & 3 kilometres SAC: Spined Loach Ramsar south SPA: Non-breeding waterbird assemblage including Bewick’s swan and whooper swan Cygnus cygnus. Breeding population of ruff Philomachus pugnax and black-tailed godwit as well as several species of duck. Ramsar: The site supports nationally and internationally important numbers of wintering waterfowl and nationally important numbers of breeding waterfowl. The site is also of note for the large area of unimproved neutral grassland communities which it holds, and for the richness of the aquatic flora within the associated watercourses. The Wash SPA & 18.6 SPA: One of the most Important areas in Britain for Ramsar kilometres wintering waterfowl, moulting waders, wintering (The Wash north passerines and breeding birds. & North Ramsar: It is the most important staging post and over- Norfolk wintering site for migrant wildfowl and wading birds in Coast) eastern England. It supports a valuable commercial fishery for shellfish and also an important nursery area for flatfish. It holds one of the North Sea's largest breeding populations of common seal Phoca vitulina and some grey seals Halichoerus grypus. The sublittoral area supports a number of different marine communities including colonies of the reef-building polychaete worm Sabellaria spinulosa. Breckland SPA 14.2 Breeding stone curlew Burhinus oedicnemus, nightjar kilometres Caprimulgus europaeus and woodlark Lullula arborea. east Rutland SPA & 18.6 SPA: Non-breeding waterbird assemblage including Water Ramsar kilometres internationally important numbers of Gadwall and west Shoveler.
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 40
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report -Biodiversity and Ecology
Site Name Designation Approximate Description Distance to the Route Ramsar: Non-breeding gadwall and shoveler plus a wintering waterbird assemblage.
The statutory sites of national importance within 2 kilometres of the proposed pipeline route are presented in Table 5.5 below and shown on Figure 5.1. There are no statutory sites of national importance intersected by the working corridor.
Table 5.5: SSSI within 2 kilometres of the proposed scheme Site Name Approximate Description Distance to the Route Ancaster 556 metres Historically one of the best examples of a species-rich limestone Valley north-west grassland in the area with scarce plants on the edge of their range. Communities on the slopes of this valley range from those restricted to permanent unimproved grassland through scrub to woodland. Copper Hill 1.5 The main interest of the site lies in the wide verges of Ermine Street, a kilometres Roman road, and the verges of the branch road to Belton. The road north-west verges have a rich and varied limestone flora. Historically the man orchid Aceras anthropophorum occurs here at the northern edge of its range in Britain. Several species of butterfly including those whose larvae feed on typical limestone plants have been recorded at this site in the past. Wilsford 580 metres Deciduous woodland, scrub and areas of limestone grassland within a Heath west former quarry. The woodland ground flora is sparse and dominated by Quarry ivy and male fern whereas the open grassland supports a good range of species including salad burnet and autumn gentian. Sapperton & 1.9 Three ancient semi-natural woodlands which contain representative Pickworth kilometres examples of wet-ash-maple woodland and acid pedunculate oak-ash- Woods east hazel woodland. Grimsthorpe 1.9 This is considered the best remaining example of ancient parkland in Park kilometres Lincolnshire. The ancient and mature trees support more than 250 west species of beetle, including a Nationally Rare species and several more of restricted distribution in Britain. Hollow trees provide roosts for a number of bat species which feed over the unimproved grassland in the park. Additional interest is provided by several disused stone quarries with rich limestone flora. Math and 1.6 Two adjoining ancient semi-natural woodlands. Both have rich ground Elsea Wood kilometres flora with the species composition tending to vary with soil drainage. east Historically they supported woodland plants which are more uncommon in Lincolnshire including thin-spiked wood-sedge Carex strigosa, early purple orchid Orchis mascula, herb Paris Paris quadrifolia, hard shield
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 41
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report -Biodiversity and Ecology
Site Name Approximate Description Distance to the Route fern Polystichum aculeatum and hart’s-tongue fern Phyllitis scolopendrium. Dole Wood 822 metres This ancient woodland and Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust reserve is east managed as hazel coppice with oak standards. The site has detailed records for molluscs and species found include those confined to ancient woodland. The wood is an important site for birds and includes breeding great spotted woodpecker and treecreeper. Langtoft 180 metres Langtoft Gravel Pits comprise a complex of flooded sand and gravel pits Gravel Pits south-west of varying size and depth which support plant communities characteristic of calcareous eutrophic water. Historically a band of willow scrub Salix spp. borders most of the pits, supporting large numbers of passerines, particularly warblers. Deeping 1.8 Extremely important ornithological site. The pits support a heronry of Gravel Pits kilometres national importance, being the largest in Lincolnshire. The diversity of north the wintering wildfowl species and the breeding bird community are of regional importance. Nene 1.9 This site represents one of the country’s few remaining areas of Washes kilometres washland habitat which is essential to the survival nationally and south internationally of populations of wildfowl and waders. The site is also notable for the diversity of plant and associated animal life within its network of dykes.
Non-statutory sites designated for their nature conservation value within 2 kilometres of the proposed pipeline centreline are shown on Figure 5.1.
Table 5.6 below identifies those sites (Roadside Nature Reserves, or RNR, and Local Wildlife Sites, or LWS, and County Wildlife Sites or CWS) that lie at least partly within the working corridor or within 250 metres of the proposed pipeline centreline. The table is subdivided according to the county or unitary authority within whose area the sites lie.
Table 5.6: Non-Statutory sites within 250m of pipeline centreline Site Name Designation Approximate Description distance (metres) from centreline of the route Lincolnshire Heath Lane RNR 0 The main habitat is calcareous grassland. Better Wildflower quality patches are interspersed with coarser Way vegetation dominated by false oat-grass with frequent nitrophilous species which suggests a deteriorating condition. Vegetation is mown short near property entrances. Standard trees and taller
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 42
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report -Biodiversity and Ecology
Site Name Designation Approximate Description distance (metres) from centreline of the route shrubs are occasional, but the site is largely unshaded. Some vehicle rutting and shrub planting. Heydour RNR 0 Calcareous grassland, surveyed as part of the Warren to Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust Life on the Verge project. Oasby Road Verges Heydour RNR 0 Calcareous grassland extending over a 1.4 kilometre Lodge length of verge. Road Verges Welby to RNR 0 Calcareous grassland, surveyed as part of the Haceby Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust Life on the Verge project. Road Verge Alma Park LWS 50 Alma Park is an area of neutral and acid grassland dotted with groves of mature ash and field maple trees on a west-facing slope overlooking Alma Park Industrial Estate. Abney LWS 100 Abney Wood is primarily an ancient woodland site Wood on level ground comprising mainly oak and ash standards with a hazel and field maple understorey. It has areas of sycamore and bramble increasing in density towards the west. Ropsley RNR 0 Calcareous grassland, surveyed as part of the Heath Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust Life on the Verge project. Road Verges West of RNR 100 Calcareous grassland, surveyed as part of the Braceby Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust Life on the Verge project. Wild Better quality patches are interspersed with coarser Flower vegetation dominated by false oat-grass with Way frequent nitrophilous species which suggests a deteriorating condition. Vegetation is mown short near property entrances. Standard trees and taller shrubs are occasional but site is largely unshaded. Vehicle rutting and shrub planting is occasional. Humby RNR 0 Calcareous grassland, surveyed as part of the North Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust Life on the Verge project. Road Verges
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 43
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report -Biodiversity and Ecology
Site Name Designation Approximate Description distance (metres) from centreline of the route Osgodby RNR 150 Calcareous grassland, surveyed as part of the Road Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust Life on the Verge project. verges, North Bulby Hall LWS 150 Bulby Hall Wood is a Plantation on Ancient Wood Woodland Site of oak and ash standards with mature hazel and field maple coppice. Some areas have been planted with beech, Scots pine and larch. Catbury LWS 150 A small ancient woodland site surrounded by arable Wood fields. This woodland was originally designated when it was a mature deciduous woodland but has since been replanted with alternating strips of oak and conifer trees and the ratio of site-appropriate and native species to planted conifers is approximately 50:50. Bulby Park LWS 200 The LWS comprises five fields surrounding Bulby West Hall. Habitats include neutral grassland (semi- improved), pond, river, calcareous grassland (semi- improved), parkland, pond, ruderal and scrub (scattered / dense). Breache’s LWS <50 Breaches Wood is a Planation on Ancient Woodland Wood Site surrounded by a ditch within arable fields. The woodland is primarily a mixed plantation of larch, Scots pine and spruce but oak is present too. Blackthorn, field maple and ash dominate the woodland edge. Toft Tunnel LWS 150 Located on a dismantled railway and tunnel. The main habitat is woodland with additional habitat including scrub, unimproved calcareous grassland, coarse grassland, pond, drain and marsh Greatford RNR 100 Calcareous grassland, surveyed as part of the Road Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust Life on the Verge project. Verges, North Deeping LWS 0 Deeping Mill Stream is a stretch of disused canal Mill running parallel and to the north of the River Stream Welland to the south east of Market Deeping. The main habitat of this LWS is canal, with additional dense scrub. City of Peterborough
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 44
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report -Biodiversity and Ecology
Site Name Designation Approximate Description distance (metres) from centreline of the route Marholm CWS <50 The site is made up of scrub, grassland, cultivated / Crossing disturbed land and open water in the form of a and Brook pond. It qualifies as a CWS because it supports a Drain significant population of a Red Data Book moth. Freshwater CWS 178 A drainage ditch approximately 1.1 kilometres long Drain and which supports the Nationally Scarce species Nymphoides peltata. Catchwater CWS 40 A drainage ditch which supports a good range of Drain macrophytes including Myriophyllum verticillatum, Groenlandia densa and Ranunculus circinatus. Soke Road CWS 95 This site qualifies because it has at least five species Drain of submerged, floating and emergent vascular plant per twenty metre stretch, including Myriophyllum verticillatum (Nationally Scarce at the time the site was listed). Highland CWS 0 A drainage ditch approximately 6.25 kilometres long. Drain This site qualifies because it contains at least five species of submerged, floating and emergent vascular plant per twenty metre stretch and because it supports a population of a Nationally Scarce aquatic weevil, Hydronomous alismatis. Willow CWS 0 A drove lined with pollarded willows. It is estimated Drove that at least 150 trees are present. The willows are closely spaced, particularly on the western side, and many are of considerable age, with large amounts of dead wood. Some planting of young willows has taken place, particularly at the southern end of the site. Hundreds CWS 0 A drainage ditch approximately 3.25 kilometres long. Farm Drain This site qualifies because it contains at least five species of submerged, floating and emergent vascular plant per twenty metre stretch and because it supports a population of a Nationally Scarce vascular plant species. Lords Drain CWS 57 A drainage ditch approximately 1.2 kilometres long. This site qualifies because it contains at least five species of submerged, floating and emergent vascular plant per twenty metre stretch. Cambridgeshire
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 45
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report -Biodiversity and Ecology
Site Name Designation Approximate Description distance (metres) from centreline of the route River Nene CWS 0 A major river approximately 20-40 metres wide with moderate water quality which flows in a relatively unmodified channel with meanders, shallow beaches and backwaters. Weirs such as the one at Alwalton, provide fast-flowing well-oxygenated conditions. The river supports a good range of aquatic plants including Myriophyllum spicatum, Potamogeton pectinatus, P. lucens, P. perfoliatus and P. crispus. There is a good fish community which includes the uncommon Spined Loach. The invertebrates, though poorly known, include a Red Data Book riffle beetle Stenelmis canaliculata, a good assemblage of dragonflies, molluscs and several Nationally Scarce reed beetles. Norfolk None
5.4.1 Habitats Notable habitats also occur outside of statutory and non-statutory sites. This section provides a summary of the broad habitat types identified within the working corridor and 250 metres either side of the proposed pipeline centreline. HPI are shown on Figure 5.2. Habitat mapping described below follows UK Habitats Classification system16. All classified habitats have been assigned Primary Codes. The information presented in Table 5.7 below is based upon desk study data only and will be refined using purpose flown aerial imagery data and ground truthing (where considered appropriate) for the ecological impact assessment. Linear habitat features comprise hedgerows, ditches and minor watercourses. Mapping of ditches and watercourses has been obtained from the Ordnance Survey watercourses dataset. Hedgerow locations within the working corridor have been informed by assessment of pre-existing aerial photography.
16 UK Habitat Classification Working Group, 2018
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 46
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report -Biodiversity and Ecology
Table 5.7: Main habitat types identified within the study area Habitat Area present (Ha) % coverage HPI Notes/Description of the proposed scheme Grantham to Peterborough Cropland 19.9 hectares (0.7%) 86.7% None Arable and horticulture is cropland the dominant habitat along the proposed route. 2566.9 hectares (86%) arable and horticulture
Grassland 11.1 hectares (0.4%) 7.7% Coastal and Patches of floodplain floodplain grazing floodplain grazing marsh located marsh grazing marsh close to Market Deeping and Glinton at the south 0.3 hectares (<0.1%) Traditional of this section. grassland associated orchard with traditional orchards 216.7 hectares (7.3%) grassland Heathland 1.1 hectares (<0.1%) <0.1% None None and shrub
Rivers and 23.3 hectares (0.8%) 1.5% Rivers and The proposed pipeline lakes standing open water streams route crosses and canals watercourses including Standing open the Rivers Welland, Ram 22.4 hectares (0.7%) water Dike, River Glen and East rivers and streams (waterbodies) Glen River. It also crosses a fishing lake in Langtoft. Sparsely 18.9 hectares (0.6%) 0.6% None None vegetated sparsely vegetated land land Urban 7.1 hectares (0.2%) 0.9% Urban mosaics None built-up areas and on previously gardens developed land 20.7 hectares (0.7%) open mosaic habitats on previously developed land
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 47
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report -Biodiversity and Ecology
Habitat Area present (Ha) % coverage HPI Notes/Description of the proposed scheme Woodland 5.9 hectares (0.2%) 2.6% Ancient Some ancient woodland woodland woodland present outside of the (including working corridor but 11.4 hectares (0.4%) replanted within 250 metres (Auster woodland and forest ancient wood and Abney wood). 46.4 hectares (1.5%) woodland) An area of ancient broadleaved mixed and Woodland and replanted woodland is yew woodland forest within the working 5.6 hectares (0.2%) corridor (Breache’s Broadleaved wet woodland Wood). mixed and yew 8.6 hectares (0.3%) woodland Woodlands are generally coniferous woodland small and scattered. Small amount of priority deciduous woodland within the working corridor. Peterborough to Bexwell Cropland 2526.7 hectares 89.2% None (89.2%) arable and horticulture
Grassland 74.9 hectares (2.6%) 3.5% Coastal and grassland floodplain grazing marsh 13 hectares (0.5%) coastal and floodplain Good quality grazing marsh semi-improved grassland 2.1 hectares (<0.1%) good quality semi- Undefined improved grassland priority habitat 0.5 hectares (<0.1%) Traditional grassland (undefined orchard priority habitat) 0.8 hectares (<0.1%) traditional orchard 4.5 hectares (0.2%) other neutral grassland
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 48
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report -Biodiversity and Ecology
Habitat Area present (Ha) % coverage HPI Notes/Description of the proposed scheme 5.2 hectares (0.2%) modified grassland Heathland 0.5 hectares (<0.1%) <0.1% None and Shrub dense scrub Rivers and 67.5 hectares (2.4%) 2.4% Rivers and Lakes Lakes rivers and lakes
Marine 1 hectares (<0.1%) <0.1% Mudflats Associated with the River Inlets and intertidal mudflats Nene Tidal Waters Urban 5.3 hectares (0.2%) 3.3% None urban 88.9 hectares (3.1%) built-up areas and gardens
Woodland 1.9 hectares (<0.1%) 1.4% Deciduous There will be no direct woodland and forest woodland impacts on woodland as the route alignment has 28.2 hectares (1.0%) been selected to avoid broadleaved mixed and them. yew woodland 10.9 hectares (0.4%) other woodland; broadleaved 0.6 hectares (<0.1%) coniferous woodland Wetland 0.4 hectares (<0.1%) <0.1% Lowland Fen To be confirmed by field bog (NA) surveys 0.3 hectares (<0.1%) lowland fens (Lowland fens)
Data on the location of HPI, including ancient woodland, that otherwise fall outside of designated sites will be mapped and reviewed as part of the assessment process, including identifying the need for any field surveys in 2021. These sites will also be cross-referenced against the high-resolution purpose flown aerial imagery. This will be done by an experienced ecologist who will determine whether HPI from MAGIC are actually semi-natural habitats. Field surveys will be undertaken where there is a risk of these being directly affected.
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 49
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report -Biodiversity and Ecology
Land-use along the whole route of the proposed scheme is predominantly arable, with only a handful of agricultural grassland sites. The latter may include some wet grassland associated with watercourses. There are 50 ponds within 250 metres of the proposed pipeline route and numerous small blocks of woodland within 500 metres. This includes ancient and semi natural ancient woodland, with the closest being Breaches Wood LWS, a Plantation on an Ancient Woodland Site, located 50 metres west of the proposed scheme at Grimsthorpe. The route passes through three National Character Areas (NCA). Running from north to south they are: South Lincolnshire Edge NCA, Kesteven Uplands NCA, and The Fens NCA. The northern end of the route between Ancaster and Grantham includes the limestone escarpment and plateau of the South Lincolnshire Edge NCA. It is a landscape dominated by cultivated fields with drystone walls often forming the boundaries. Botanically species-rich limestone verges are a feature, whilst the fields support a good range of farmland birds including turtle dove. The majority of the northern section, from Ropsley (east of Grantham) through to Peterborough passes through the Kesteven Uplands NCA. This is a gently rolling landscape dominated by arable farming, but with some major watercourse and scattered blocks of woodland adding structural and biodiversity interest. There are also field ponds and drainage ditches, together with hedgerows and plantation woodland and/or shelterbelts. The amount of semi-natural grassland appears to be low, but where it does occur (often on road verges) it is likely to be of high quality given the calcareous character of the soils. It is therefore anticipated that there may also be some field margins with potential to support an interesting arable flora. The eastern section, running from Peterborough to Bexwell (Downham Market) falls wholly within the Fens NCA. The Fens is a distinctive, historic and human influenced wetland landscape lying to the south of the Wash estuary which formerly constituted the largest wetland area in England. It is a low-lying flat landscape, with many drainage ditches, dykes and rivers that slowly drain to the Wash and is dominated by large scale cultivation for arable and horticultural crops. 5.4.2 Protected and Notable Species Records of protected and notable species identified during the desk study are summarised in Table 5.8 based on an initial review of desk survey data currently available. Due to the size of the proposed scheme and the different characteristics between the length north of Peterborough compared to that to the east, the records have been split into two sections; Grantham to Peterborough (G2P; including the section between Ancaster and Grantham) and Peterborough to Bexwell (P2B). The list will be reviewed as further data becomes available, including that gathered from the field surveys in 2021. Table 5.8: Protected and notable species from desk survey Species / groups Scheme Details Section Flora G2P The desk study identified numerous species of flora within 2 kilometres of the G2P section including flowering plants and conifers. Species include bluebell, Scots pine Pinus sylvestris, round leaved mint Mentha suaveolens, dwarf spurge Euphorbia exigua tubular water-dropwort Oenanthe fistulosa (a section 41
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 50
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report -Biodiversity and Ecology
Species / groups Scheme Details Section species), man orchid Orchis anthropophora and southern marsh- orchid Dactylorhiza praetermissa. P2B The desk study identified numerous species of flora within 2 kilometres of P2B. This includes shining pondweed Potamogeton lucens, whorled water-milfoil Myriophyllum verticillatum, cornflower Centaurea cyanus and fringed water-lily Nymphoides peltata. Amphibians G2P The desk study identified 30 records of Great Crested Newt (GCN) Triturus cristatus within the study area, with a peak record of 72 individuals at Ropsley Quarry, to the north of the proposed pipeline route. A search for European Protected Species (EPS) licences within 2 kilometres returned four licences for GCN in the wider area surrounding the G2P section; the closest was 1.4 kilometres. There are 30 ponds within 250 metres of the working corridor within the G2P section of the proposed scheme. There are seven records for common toad Bufo bufo, a SPI. P2B The desk study identified 26 records of GCN, with a peak record of 32 individuals within the study area. There are also three records for common toad. A search for EPS licences within 2 kilometres returned two licences for GCN in the wider area surrounding the scheme; the closest was 340 metres to the north of the proposed scheme, near Peterborough. There are 20 ponds within 250 metres of the working corridor within the P2B section of the proposed scheme. Badger G2P The desk study identified over 80 records of badger Meles meles within the study area. This includes individuals and setts. P2B The desk study identified seven records of badger within the study area. Bats G2P The desk study identified numerous records of bat species within the study area. Species identified includes barbastelle bat Barbastella barbastellus, brown long eared Plecotus auratus, common pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus, soprano pipistrelle Pipistrellus pygmaeus, Pipistrelle sp. Pipistrellus, noctule Nyctalus noctule, natterer's bat Myotis nattereri and whiskered/Brandt's bat Myotis mystacinus/brandtii. The closest roost to the proposed scheme is at Toft tunnel LWS, 150 metres from the proposed pipeline route where there are records of natterer's bat, brown long-eared and barbastelle roosting. A search for EPS licences within 2 kilometres returned three mitigation licences for bats:
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 51
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report -Biodiversity and Ecology
Species / groups Scheme Details Section • Destruction of a resting place for brown long eared, located approximately 1.8 kilometres north of the proposed pipeline route, at Londonthorpe. • Impact and destruction of a breeding place, and destruction to a resting place for common pipistrelle soprano pipistrelle, brown long-eared bat, barbastelle and natterers bat located approximately 1.9 kilometres east of the route near Greatford. • Impact and destruction of a breeding place, and destruction to a resting place for soprano pipistrelle located within 600 metres of the proposed pipeline route near Market Deeping. P2B The desk study identified six bat species records within the study area. Species identified includes Daubenton’s bat Myotis daubentonii, soprano pipistrelle, natterer's bat, noctule, pipistrelle species and common pipistrelle. All records are for in flight observations. There are no records of roosts. A search for EPS licences within 2 kilometres returned five mitigation licences for bats. All licenses were for damage to a resting place, with two licences also covering destruction of a breeding site for brown long-eared bat, common pipistrelle and serotine. The closest license was 250 metres north of the proposed scheme at Wimbotsham. The license was granted for the following species; Brown long-eared bat, common pipistrelle, serotine and soprano pipistrelle. Dormouse G2P There are no records of hazel dormouse within 2 kilometres of the G2P section. P2B There are no records of hazel dormouse within 2 kilometres of the P2B section. Birds G2P The desk study identified numerous bird species records within the study area. This includes some which are included in Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended): red kite Milvus milvus, hobby Falco subbuteo, barn owl Tyto alba, firecrest Regulus ignicapilla, kingfisher Alcedo atthis and marsh harrier Circus aeruginosus. There are no sites specifically designated for birds within the potential Zone of Influence of the G2P section. Nevertheless, birds will be found throughout the working corridor including protected and priority species associated with cultivated land, woodland and watercourses, for example corn bunting, hobby and kingfisher. Langtoft Pits SSSI and other permanent bodies of water and wet grassland are also likely to provide important habitat for birds.
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 52
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report -Biodiversity and Ecology
Species / groups Scheme Details Section P2B The desk study identified numerous bird species records within the study area. This includes several Schedule 1 species such as barn owl, red kite and black redstart. Nene Washes, a designated SAC, SPA and Ramsar is located less than 1.8 kilometres south of the P2B section. The site supports breeding wetland birds and over-wintering bird species. This includes breeding black-tailed godwit Limosa limosa and non- breeding Bewick’s swan Cygnus columbianus bewickii.
Invertebrates G2P The desk study identified numerous records of terrestrial invertebrate species within the study area. This includes dingy skipper Erynnis tages, duke of burgundy Hamearis Lucina and black oil beetle Meloe proscarabaeus. A review of additional Environment Agency (EA) macroinvertebrate data will be undertaken as part of the assessment. There are no records of white-clawed crayfish Austropotamobius pallipes within the study area within the G2P section. The River Witham is known to support this species and is located 2.4 kilometres west of the proposed pipeline route at its closest point. P2B The desk study identified numerous records of terrestrial invertebrate species within the study area. This includes the grizzled skipper Pyrgus malvae. There are no records of white-clawed crayfish within the study area for the P2B section. A review of additional EA macroinvertebrate data will be undertaken as part of the assessment, for the whole of the proposed scheme. Fish G2P There are 22 records of fish within the study area. This includes 18 records of European eel Anguilla anguilla and four records of spined loach Cobitis taenia centred around East Glen River and associated tributaries were identified. A review of additional EA fish data will be undertaken as part of the assessment. P2B No records of fish species were identified during the desk study within 2 kilometres of the P2B section although the rivers and large drain network are known to support good populations of coarse fish. A review of additional EA fish data will be undertaken as part of the assessment. Otter G2P There are 12 records of otter Lutra lutra within the study area. This includes along the River Welland south of Market Deeping, East Glen River south of Bourne and in agricultural land east of Grantham.
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 53
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report -Biodiversity and Ecology
Species / groups Scheme Details Section P2B There are 21 records of European otter within 2 kilometres of the P2B section. They are located at River Welland and associated channels, New Wryde Drain, Asholt Drain and The Relief Channel at Downham Market. Reptiles G2P There are six records for common lizard Zootoca vivipara, 14 records for grass snake Natrix helvetica and two records for slow worm Anguis fragilis.
P2B Records include three of grass snake, with one record at Moor Drain CWS and two records at Thorney, and one record of common lizard at Stoke Road Drain CWS. Water vole G2P There are multiple field observations of water vole at the southern end of the G2P section around Market Deeping where they are associated with the network of ditches surrounding Greatford Cut. P2B There are multiple field observations of water vole within 2 kilometres of the P2B section. This includes to the west of the proposed pipeline route around Glinton and within the ditches surrounding Outwell. The closest record is within Old Wryde Drain, which the route crosses east of Thorney. Other notable G2P There are 31 records of brown hare Lepus europaeus and 82 species (Section records of west European hedgehog Erinaceus europaeus within 41) the study area. P2B There are 18 records of brown hare Lepus europaeus and 36 records of west European hedgehog Erinaceus europaeus within the study area. Legally controlled / G2P There are multiple records of invasive non-native fauna within invasive species the study area. This includes American mink Neovison vison and Crangonyx pseudogracilis/floridanus. There are multiple records of invasive non-native flora within the study area. This includes butterfly bush Buddleja davidii, winter heliotrope Petasites fragrans, Indian balsam Impatiens glandulifera, Japanese knotweed Fallopia japonica and Nuttall's waterweed Elodea nuttallii. P2B There are multiple records of invasive non-native fauna within the study area. This includes American mink and midwife toad Alytes obstetricans. There are multiple records of invasive non-native flora within the study area. This includes giant hogweed Heracleum mantegazzianum and Japanese knotweed.
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 54
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report -Biodiversity and Ecology
5.5 Potential Impacts 5.5.1 Construction impacts Construction of the proposed pipeline and supporting infrastructure can have the following potential impacts on ecology and biodiversity: • Permanent loss of habitat under the footprint of any new above-ground infrastructure e.g. pumping stations, leading to: o Loss of ecological connectivity through severance of habitats resulting in fragmentation; and o Reduction in the availability of foraging and commuting habitat and resting or breeding sites. • Temporary loss of or changes to habitat due to excavation for the proposed pipeline as well as within the wider working corridor (typical width of 40 metres): o Degradation and/or loss of habitat (including through soil compaction); o Changes in hydrology resulting in changes in water quality and/or quantity; and o Loss and severance of commuting, foraging and other routes used by species e.g. the cover along ditches and hedgerows used by amphibians moving to and from their breeding ponds. • Indirect impacts on designated sites and other important habitats due to generation of dust or effects on hydrology; • Introduction of invasive non-native species and spread of diseases; • Disturbance and displacement of sensitive species from the use of artificial lighting during construction; • Risk of killing or injuring animals including those that receive legal protection and/or are priority biodiversity species; • Risk of visual, noise and vibration impacts causing disturbance to sensitive species using nearby habitat; and • Creation of early successional habitats through clearance and ground disturbance may benefit some plants and invertebrates. 5.5.2 Operational impacts The operation of the proposed pipelines and supporting infrastructure could have the following potential impacts on ecology and biodiversity: • Disturbance associated with maintenance and operation of new pumping stations and water storage tanks as well as along the proposed pipeline route itself. Depending on the activity this could involve one or more of visual, noise and vibration disturbance. 5.5.3 Interaction with other topics The assessment of significant effect on some ecology and biodiversity receptors will use data and analysis provided under other topic headings. The ones most likely to be relevant in this context are:
• Water environment: where permanent or temporary changes in the water table may affect the condition or integrity of wetland sites and where temporary mobilisation of sediments and/or a pollution incident could affect habitats and species downstream;
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 55
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report -Biodiversity and Ecology
• Noise: where changes in the noise environment may affect sensitive species within any zone of influence; and • Air quality: risk of dust and other particulate matter from construction activities affecting nearby vegetation. Note however that air quality has been scoped out of the EIA on the basis that no significant impacts will occur. Additionally, the ecology team will work closely with the landscape team to ensure that reinstatement of habitat will offer increased opportunities for protected and notable species and contribute towards biodiversity net gains where possible.
5.6 Proposed Scope of Assessment 5.6.1 Scoped out The features that can be scoped out because there is no prospect of any direct or indirect effects (i.e. there are no pathways or other mechanisms whereby the construction or operation of the proposed scheme could have any impact whatsoever) are: • Rutland Water SPA and Ramsar because it is 18 kilometres away and there are no known locations within the ZoI that could represent functionally linked land on which the bird features are dependent whilst migrating or using when moving between roost and feeding sites; • Breckland SPA as the ZoI does not provide any functionally linked land or habitats that are used by any of the three listed bird features; • The Wash SAC, SPA & Ramsar is 18.6 kilometres away and there is a potential hydrological connection to the working corridor via the Great River Ouse. Otter is a qualifying feature of the SAC, and there are records of them using the Great River Ouse within 2 kilometres of the proposed scheme. Whilst Otter are scoped in as part of this assessment, given that any changes in the water table will be localised, and the risk of pollution is low given standard pollution prevention that will be in place, the SAC has been scoped out. The Ramsar site is also scoped out as none of the qualifying features are likely to be affected; • All of the SSSIs listed in Table 5.5, with the exception of Langtoft Gravel Pits and the Nene Washes. There are no known pathways or mechanisms by which there could be indirect effects, including disturbance to species, on the other sites given the distance from the works corridorproposed pipeline route, and the features that the sites support. They will still be included for reference on environmental constraints drawings during detailed design and within the CEMP but are scoped out for the purposes of assessment; • All LWS (Lincolnshire), CWS (Peterborough and Cambridgeshire) and RNR beyond the 250 metre buffer either side of the proposed pipeline centreline (Figure 5.1). There are not considered to be any pathways or mechanisms by which there could be indirect effects, including disturbance to species, to these sites given the distance from the proposed pipeline route, and the features that the sites support. They will still be included for reference on environmental constraints drawings during detailed design and within the CEMP but are scoped out for the purposes of assessment; • The route crosses Norfolk and Lincolnshire where hazel dormouse is considered absent. While there are dormouse records within the south west of Cambridgeshire, these records are located over 50 kilometres away from the working corridor. Peterborough has a very low dormouse population. The closest record is located over 11 kilometres away, with no connectivity between this record and habitats along the proposed pipeline route. It is
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 56
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report -Biodiversity and Ecology
therefore considered that hazel dormouse is absent from the ZoI and not relevant to the assessment; • Dedicated field surveys for common reptile species are not proposed as part of the assessment. Wherever suitable habitats are present along the proposed pipeline route, a precautionary assumption will be made that reptiles are present. Appropriate mitigation will therefore be applied to ensure legal compliance of works; and • Detailed surveys for terrestrial invertebrates are not proposed as part of the assessment. Given the overriding approach of avoidance and the temporary nature of the majority of the proposed works, adverse effects on this group are considered extremely unlikely. It is considered that any terrestrial invertebrate assemblages present along the route will remain viable and sustainable. 5.6.2 Scoped In Except for those species and sites listed in Section 5.6.1 above, all ecological features considered in section 5.4 are scoped in to the assessment, including: • Nene Washes SAC, SPA & Ramsar (1.8 kilometres away at its closest point) because of the possibility that some parts of the proposed scheme could provide supporting habitat to some of the designated features; • Ouse Washes SAC, SPA & Ramsar (3 kilometres away at its closest point) because of the possibility that some parts of the proposed scheme could provide supporting habitat to some of the designated features; • Bewick’s swan are a feature of The Wash SPA and it is possible that there is movement between birds using the coast and the Nene and Ouse Washes and therefore land within the scheme ZoI. The Wash SPA is therefore scoped in to the assessment because of the potential for Bewick’s swans to use the ZoI; • Langtoft Gravel Pits SSSI and the Nene Washes SSSI because of the potential hydrological connection and that some of the bird features of the latter could use habitats within the ZoI; • All LWS, CWS and RNR within 250 metres of the proposed pipeline centreline (Table 5.6) together with any others within 250 metres of the proposed pumping station, site compounds and temporary haul routes; • All HPI within the working corridor; and • All individual species and species groups included in Table 5.8.
5.7 Proposed EIA Methodology 5.7.1 Further baseline data gathering The gathering of further desk study data to inform the baseline for the biodiversity assessment will be undertaken prior to the start of the field recording season in 2021. This will include sources such as the EA, the Botanical Society of Britain and Ireland, the Fenland Flora Project and other relevant locally based organisations. The methodologies for gathering baseline information with regards to biodiversity and ecology have been designed to provide information on the distribution of legally protected habitats and species, HPIs, SPIs and legally controlled species. The purpose of this is to provide the basis for a robust assessment to be undertaken for the proposed scheme. Survey method statements have been
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 57
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report -Biodiversity and Ecology
produced that describe the field survey methodologies (Appendix 5.2). At this stage it is anticipated that these will include:
• Update the desk study of protected and notable species records; • Update the desk study of habitats utilising the aerial imagery obtained from a flyover of the proposed pipeline route undertaken in 2020; • Habitat surveys including NVC, hedgerow surveys and condition assessments; • Surveys for GCN, comprising habitat suitability index (HSI) of suitable water bodies (including ditches) and eDNA surveys; • Bat roost suitability surveys, supplemented by tree-climbing inspection as required; • Bat emergence and re-entry surveys; • Badger surveys; • Schedule 1 bird species surveys (the need for wider breeding bird and wintering bird species will be kept under review); • Water vole and otter surveys; and • Aquatic ecology surveys.
5.7.2 Assessment of Impacts The impact assessment on biodiversity will be undertaken in accordance with the following guidance:
• Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) LA 108 Biodiversity17; and • Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (2018) Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK18. The assessment of the potential effects considers those both within and beyond the working corridor. The assessment will consider mitigation measures required and assess the significance of residual effects of residual impacts. CIEEM Guidance (2018) will be used to help evaluate sites, habitats and species and to assess the effects on ecological integrity to help apply the DMRB method. Following the completion of further surveys and the assessment of impacts, mitigation measures to reduce and avoid any adverse effects will be identified and developed, and any residual significant effects evaluated. Throughout the consenting process, findings about likely significant effects will inform the requirements for further baseline data gathering and the identification of environmental measures that will avoid or reduce any adverse effects or that will be used to deliver mitigation. The results of this assessment will reflect the current scheme design.
17 DMRB (2020) Sustainability & Environment Appraisal: LA 108 Biodiversity. [online] available here: https://standardsforhighways.co.uk/dmrb/search?discipline=SUSTAINABILITY_AND_ENVIRONMENT accessed: 09/10/2020 18 CIEEM (2018) Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK and Ireland: Terrestrial, Freshwater, Coastal and Marine version 1.1. Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management, Winchester.
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 58
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Biodiversity and Ecology
Assigning Value The importance of an ecological feature (sensitivity) is determined on a geographical scale, where the broader geographical context reflects an increased value and/or sensitivity: • International (within Europe); • National (relating to the UK, specifically England); • County (Lincolnshire, City of Peterborough Cambridgeshire and Norfolk); and • Local. The geographical context for each important ecological feature will be determined on the basis of a variety of factors, for example, the quality or extent of designated sites or habitats; habitat/species rarity; the extent to which they are threatened throughout their range; or their rate of decline. With the exception of bats, which is considered separately below, the rationale to demonstrate a robust selection process is given below in Table 5.9 for each important ecological feature. The importance of an ecological feature may differ from that which might be suggested by the level of legislative protection or from identification as a conservation priority species or habitat. Wherever possible information regarding the extent and distribution, and where relevant the population size and trends, of the ecological feature will be used to determine its importance. Ecological features will be considered within the assessment if they are important and potentially affected by the proposed scheme. Ecological features that are sufficiently widespread, unthreatened, resilient to impacts created by the proposed scheme and that will remain viable and sustainable are not considered relevant to the assessment. The importance of bat roosts and associated habitats will follow the methodology developed by Wray et al. (2010)19. The methodology follows a similar approach to the one described above, and the geographic reference described in Table 5.9 will be followed, but the criteria used to determine importance will differ. The status of the species, species distribution and the diversity of species recorded during baseline surveys will be considered when determining importance. Details of the methodology are presented in Appendix 5.3. Table 5.9: Geographic Importance of Ecological Features (DMRB, 2019) Feature Example / Description International (within Europe)
Sites European sites including: SPAs, SACs, candidate SACs and Sites of Community Importance (SCI). Potential SPAs (pSPA), possible SACs (pSAC) and Ramsar sites (designated under international convention). Areas that meet the published selection criteria20 for the sites listed above but which are not themselves designated as such.
Habitats No Annex 1 habitats are present within the ZoI. Species Resident or regularly occurring populations of species which can be considered at an international level where impacts would occur at an international scale where:
19 Wray, S., Wells, D., Long, E and Mitchell-Jones, T., 2010. Valuing Bats in Ecological Impact Assessment. In practice. CIEEM, Winchester. 20European site selection criteria can be found at https://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/sites/index_en.htm
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 59
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Biodiversity and Ecology
Feature Example / Description 1) the loss of these populations would adversely affect the conservation status or distribution of the species at an international or European scale; or 2) the population forms a critical part of a wider population at this scale; or 3) the species is at a critical phase of its life cycle at an international or European scale. National
Sites Sites including: 1) Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) or Areas of Special Scientific Interest (ASSIs); 2) National Nature Reserves (NNRs); 3) National Parks; 4) Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) including Marine Conservation Zones (MCZs); or 5) areas which meet the published selection criteria for those sites listed above but which are not themselves designated as such.
Habitats Habitats of Principal Importance (HPIs) listed on Section 41 of the NERC Act 2006, identified through desk study or field surveys. Irreplaceable habitats, such as ancient woodland (woodland listed within the Ancient Woodland Inventory or identified as meeting the qualifying criteria), ancient or veteran trees, blanket bog, limestone pavement, sand dunes, salt marsh and lowland fen. Habitats that meet the definition for those listed above but which are not themselves designated.
Species Resident, or regularly occurring, populations of species which can be considered at an international, European, UK or national level where: 1) the loss of these populations would adversely affect the conservation status or distribution of the species at a UK or national scale; or 2) the population forms a critical part of a wider population at this scale; or 3) the species is at a critical phase of its life cycle at a UK or national scale. County
Sites Wildlife / nature conservation sites designated at a county (or equivalent) level including: 1) Local Wildlife Sites (LWS); 2) Local Nature Conservation Sites (LNCS); 3) Local Nature Reserves (LNRs); 4) Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs); 5) Sites of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCIs); and 6) County Wildlife Sites (CWSs).
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 60
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Biodiversity and Ecology
Feature Example / Description Habitats Areas of habitats identified in county or equivalent authority plans or strategies (where applicable).
Species Species including: 1) resident, or regularly occurring, populations of species which can be considered at an international, European, UK or national level where: a) the loss of these populations would adversely affect the conservation status or distribution of the species at a county or unitary authority scale; or b) the population forms a critical part of a wider county or equivalent authority area population, e.g. metapopulations; or c) the species is at a critical phase of its life cycle. 2) Species identified in a county or equivalent authority area plans or strategies. Local
Sites Sites formally or informally recognised at the Parish level that have some biodiversity interest e.g. allotments and community woodlands. Habitats Areas of habitat considered to appreciably enrich the habitat resource within the local context including features of importance for migration, dispersal, or genetic exchange.
Species Populations and/or communities of species considered to appreciably enrich the habitat resource within the local context including features of importance for migration, dispersal or genetic exchange.
Assigning magnitude of impact When considering likely significant effects on biodiversity features, whether these be adverse or beneficial, the following characteristics of environmental change have been taken into account: • Extent – the spatial or geographical area over which the environmental change may occur; • Magnitude – the size, amount, intensity or volume of the environmental change; • Duration – the length of time over which the environmental change may occur; • Frequency – the number of times an environmental change may occur; • Timing – the periods of the day/year/season during which an environmental change may occur; and • Reversibility – whether the environmental change can be reversed through restoration actions or regeneration. DMRB (2020)21 uses the term ‘level of impact/change’ to express magnitude and relates to the level at which the receptor will be impacted, using the duration of the impact, timing, scale, size and frequency to determine the magnitude of the impact to each receptor. The level of impact/change will be evaluated in accordance with the definitions set out in Table 5.10 below.
Table 5.10: Magnitude of impact and typical descriptors
21 DMRB (2020) Sustainability & Environment Appraisal: LA 108 Biodiversity. [online] available here: https://standardsforhighways.co.uk/dmrb/search?discipline=SUSTAINABILITY_AND_ENVIRONMENT accessed: 09/10/2020
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 61
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Biodiversity and Ecology
Magnitude of impact Definition Major Adverse • Permanent / irreversible damage to an ecological feature; and • The extent, magnitude, frequency and / or timing of an impact adversely affects the integrity or key characteristics of the resource. Beneficial • Permanent addition of, improvement to, or restoration of an ecological feature; and • The extent, magnitude, frequency and / or timing of an impact positively affects the integrity or key characteristics of the resource. Moderate Adverse • Temporary / reversible damage to an ecological feature; and • The extent, magnitude, frequency and / or timing of an impact adversely affects the integrity or key characteristics of the resource. Beneficial • Temporary addition of, improvement to, or restoration of an ecological feature; and • The extent, magnitude, frequency and / or timing of an impact positively affects the integrity or key characteristics of the resource. Minor Adverse • Permanent / irreversible damage to an ecological resource; and • The extent, magnitude, frequency and / or timing of an impact does not affect the integrity of key characteristics of the resource. Beneficial • Permanent addition of, improvement to, or restoration of a biodiversity resource; and • The extent, magnitude, frequency and / or timing of an impact does not affect the integrity of key characteristics of the resource. Negligible Adverse • Temporary / reversible damage to an ecological feature; and • The extent, magnitude, frequency and / or timing of an impact does not affect the integrity of key characteristics of the resource. Beneficial • Temporary addition of, improvement to, or restoration of an ecological feature; and • The extent, magnitude, frequency and / or timing of an impact does not affect the integrity of key characteristics of the resource. No change • No loss or alteration of characteristics, features or elements; no observable impact in either direction; and • No observable impact, either beneficial or adverse.
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 62
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Biodiversity and Ecology
Assessing Significance of Effects In determining the significance of a potential effect, the magnitude of impact arising from the proposed scheme is correlated with the geographical importance of the particular important ecological feature. In accordance with CIEEM (2018)22, a ‘significant effect’ is an effect that either supports or undermines biodiversity conservation objectives for ‘important ecological features’ or for biodiversity in general. Significant effects are assessed as either beneficial or adverse. Where an effect is neither beneficial nor adverse, this is assessed as neutral. For the purposes of this assessment, any effects with a significance level of Moderate or above (see Table 5.11) will be concluded to be significant. Where Table 5.11 includes two significance categories in one cell, a single category will be assigned and an evidence-based, reasoned judgement will be given for the selection of that category. The mitigation hierarchy will be applied and opportunities to avoid or reduce significant effects taken where possible. Avoidance and mitigation measures associated with the conservation of notable and legally protected habitats and species are being actively considered throughout the design process. Appropriate mitigation (i.e. application of best practice) will be applied where significant effects are unavoidable, and, as a last resort, compensation provided for residual effects that remain after avoidance and mitigation measures are implemented. AWS are to develop a biodiversity offsetting strategy to ensure biodiversity net gain across SPA. The use of a biodiversity offsetting metric (DEFRA 2.023) provides a transparent and measurable way to account for the losses and gains associated with the project and a holistic approach to project design and mitigation/compensation design that makes a positive contribution to local biodiversity.
Table 5. 11: Significance matrix (DMRB, 2019) Magnitude of impact No change Negligible Minor Moderate Major Moderate or Large or very International Neutral Slight Very large large large Slight or Moderate or Large or very Ecological National Neutral Slight moderate large large importance County or Neutral or Neutral or Slight or Neutral Slight equivalent slight slight moderate Neutral or Neutral or Local Neutral Neutral Slight slight slight
5.7.3 Habitats Regulations Assessment A Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) will be provided as required by the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) as AWS is a competent authority with respect
22 IEEM (2018) Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK and Ireland: Terrestrial, Freshwater, Coastal and Marine version 1.1. Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management, Winchester.
23 http://nepubprod.appspot.com/publication/5850908674228224
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 63
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Biodiversity and Ecology
to the Regulations. The HRA focuses solely on ’habitat sites’ and follows a methodology that is necessarily different to that presented above in order to follow due process. Habitat sites are considered both within the EIA and HRA processes and, although the end conclusions are common, the steps taken to reach these end points and the terms used to describe the outcomes differ. Habitat sites include:
• SACs; • SPAs; • A site of community importance which has been placed on the list of sites of Community importance; • A site (possible SAC) that has been approved for consultation by the Government but has yet to be submitted to the European Commission; • A site (potential/proposed SPA) that has been approved for consultation by the Government but is not yet classified; and, • A site which has been proposed to the European Commission until such time as the site is placed on the list of sites of Community importance or agreement is reached or a decision is taken not to place the site on that list (candidate SAC [cSAC]). The NPPF extends the protection afforded to habitat sites to listed or proposed Ramsar sites. The HRA is a staged and iterative process. The European Commission’s Methodological guidance on the implementation of Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) defines four distinct stages of an HRA, which are as follows: • Stage 1 - Screening: Screening for Likely Significant Effects (LSE). Stage 1 sets out which habitat sites may experience LSE in the absence of mitigation. The habitat sites identified at the screening stage where LSE are anticipated will be taken forward to Stage 2 (Appropriate Assessment). • Stage 2 - Appropriate Assessment: If Stage 1 identifies LSE, it is necessary to assess the implications of the Project with respect to the conservation objectives of the affected habitat site(s). • Stage 3 - Assessment of alternatives: A consideration of alternative solutions is required if it cannot be excluded beyond reasonable scientific doubt that there will be an adverse effect on the integrity of the affected habitat site. • Stage 4 - Consideration of IROPI: If there are no alternative solutions, an assessment of Imperative Reasons of Overriding Public Interest (IROPI) is required. Consultation will be undertaken with Natural England to agree the scope of the HRA, which will be produced as a standalone document and included as an appendix to the ES.
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 64
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Climate Change Resilience, Major Accidents and Natural Disasters
6 Climate Change, Major Accidents and Natural Disasters
6.1 Introduction This chapter considers climate change resilience in the context of the proposed scheme, as well as considering the potential consequences and risk control/mitigation measures associated with major accidents and natural disasters arising during the construction and operational phases of the proposed scheme.
This chapter consists of the following aspects:
• Climate change resilience – to understand the impact of the proposed scheme on AWS ability to deliver water supply in the context of a changing climate, and the effect of climate change on the proposed scheme itself; • Capital carbon – comprising the emissions of greenhouse gases resulting from construction of the scheme, including emissions associated with production and manufacture of construction materials (e.g. pipes) and direct greenhouse gas emissions from construction activities (e.g. construction plant and construction traffic); • Operational carbon emissions – the direct emissions of greenhouse gases from the operation of the proposed scheme (e.g. from energy used to power pumping stations); • In-Combination Assessment (where climate is exacerbating or conversely diminishing the effect of an existing impact of the proposed scheme); • A major accident as defined in the COMAH regulations, arising from the construction or operation of the proposed scheme; • A major accident as defined in the COMAH regulations, arising from a cause external to the scheme, but that may affect the proposed scheme during its construction or operation; and • Natural disasters such as extreme weather events, major flooding, landslips or earthquakes that could affect the proposed scheme during its construction or operation.
6.2 Legislative and policy background 6.2.1 Legislation Table 6.1 summarises key legislation and policies which are relevant to the assessment of Climate Change Resilience, Major Accidents and Natural Disasters. Table 6.1 Key legislation and policy Legislation/ Policy Relevance to the Proposed Scheme
Town and Country The 2014 amended EU EIA Directive was transposed into UK law by the Planning (Environment UK Town and Country Planning (Environment Impact Assessment) Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017. The amended regulations introduced climate change Regulations 2017 and major accident events and natural disasters as mandatory topics for consideration in EIA. Schedule 4 (5) of the EIA Regulations requires that EIAs should consider the impact of a proposed project on climate, and the vulnerability of the project to climate change as well as the risks to human health,
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 65
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Climate Change Resilience, Major Accidents and Natural Disasters
Legislation/ Policy Relevance to the Proposed Scheme cultural heritage or the environment (for example due to accidents or disasters).
The Climate Change Act The Climate Change Act 2008 established the context for Government 2008 action and incorporated the requirement to undertake Climate Change Risk Assessments,24 and to develop a National Adaptation Programme (NAP)25 to address opportunities and risks from climate change.
National Planning Policy The NPPF recognises that planning plays a key role in minimising Framework (NPPF) vulnerability, providing resilience and managing risks associated with climate change.26 The NPPF does not make specific reference to EIA’s role in mitigating and adapting to climate change; however, it does recognise that local planning authorities should adopt proactive strategies to mitigate and adapt to climate change.
Local planning policy The documents that comprise the Local Plan for each LPA area affected by the proposed scheme are described in Chapter 3 (section 3.7). Local Plan policies relevant to the protection of biodiversity will be taken into account in the development of the proposed scheme and in the ES.
6.3 Guidance and Approach to Scoping 6.3.1 Climate Change The Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA) has published guidance on the assessment of climate change resilience and adaptation27 and assessing greenhouse gas emissions and evaluating their significance28.
6.3.2 Major Accidents and Natural Disasters There is no specific guidance on the assessment of the potential for major accidents and disasters associated with cross country pipelines carrying potable water.
A major accident is defined within COMAH as ‘an occurrence such as a major emission, fire, or explosion resulting from uncontrolled developments in the course of the operation of any establishment to which these Regulations apply, and leading to serious danger to human health or the environment (whether immediate or delayed) inside or outside the establishment, and involving one or more dangerous substances’29.
Common health and safety risks during design, construction and operation are deemed to be outside the scope of this topic as they will be separately identified and assessed through the operation of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations (the CDM Regulations).
24 Numerous reports produced as part of the national Climate Change Risk Assessment are summarized in ‘UK Climate Change Risk Assessment: Government Report’. January 2012, HM Government. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-climate-change-risk-assessment- government-report 25 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/209866/pb13942-nap-20130701.pdf 26 DCLG (2012) National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), Chapter 10. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/ file/6077/2116950.pdf 27 https://www.iema.net/assets/newbuild/Policy%202020/IEMA%20EIA%20Climate%20Change%20Resilience%20June%202020.pdf 28 IEMA, May 2016, Environmental Impact Assessment Guide to Assessing Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Evaluating their Significance: https://www.iaia.org/pdf/wab/EIA%20Guide_GHG%20Assessment%20and%20Significance_IEMA_16May17.pdf 29 Major Accident Hazard Pipeline as prescribed in the Pipelines Safety Regulations (1996), as amended
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 66
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Climate Change Resilience, Major Accidents and Natural Disasters
6.4 Baseline conditions 6.4.1 Climate Change
Climate change resilience The impacts of climate change on future water availability have been considered in detail, in AWS’s WRMP30. As part of the plan development, Anglian Water undertook a vulnerability assessment for climate change, consistent with the Environment Agency’s 2017 climate change assessment methodology31. This showed that climate change would cause the supply-demand deficit to increase and concluded that the overall regional impact of climate change on deployable output is 57.7 Ml/d.
The Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) of the WRMP also identified climate change risks to the water supply in the Anglia region, stating: “Climate change may result in reduced summer rainfall and low river flows. These climate conditions, combined with localised over abstraction, could further concentrate pollutants in water and impact water quality. Climate change may also result in increased frequency and severity of extreme weather events causing or exacerbating future droughts and floods.” As described in Section 1.2 of this Scoping Report, the Grantham to Bexwell pipeline has been proposed as a direct result of the WRMP and is part of a wider AWS strategy to mitigate future demand and climate change scenarios to ensure the continued supply of water.
Carbon emissions Construction of the proposed scheme will result in greenhouse gas emissions. These will comprise emissions associated with the production of primary materials (e.g. aggregate) and manufacture of secondary materials (e.g. steel pipes) used in construction; and emissions associated with direct construction activity (e.g. energy used by construction plant, construction vehicles and at site compounds). However, AWS has made a commitment to reduce capital carbon emissions from relevant activities by 65% against a 2010 baseline standard by 2025. Carbon performance is a key factor in design decision making, including option development and selection, choice of materials and procurement. Capital carbon includes emissions from excavated materials and reinstatement. The proposed scheme is expected to be constructed in an area of peat. Peatlands represent the most significant terrestrial carbon store in the UK and maintaining these areas in good condition is important in the context of greenhouse gas emissions associated with land-use change. Geological mapping suggests that peat may be present in several sections of the proposed scheme totalling approximately 14.5 kilometres (approximately 15% of the length of the proposed scheme), although the full extent, depth and condition of the peat is unknown. There will be carbon emissions from the operation of the proposed scheme. The majority of these emissions will arise from energy used to operate pumping stations. However, AWS has made a commitment to reduce operational carbon emissions to net zero by 2030.
30 https://www.anglianwater.co.uk/siteassets/household/about-us/wrmp-report-2019.pdf 31 Environment Agency (2017), ‘Estimating impacts of climate change on water supply’
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 67
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Climate Change Resilience, Major Accidents and Natural Disasters
6.4.2 Major Accident Events and Natural Disasters The proposed scheme does not fall within the COMAH regulations, nor is the pipeline element classified as a Major Accident Hazard Pipeline (MAHP)32. There is the potential risk of Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) in the area, however a UXO screening exercise is ongoing and the findings of this study will inform the project design to avoid any significant risk.
EA flood zone mapping shows that the study area in the section between Ancaster, Grantham and Peterborough is predominantly within Flood Zone 1 (land assessed as having a less than 1 in 1,000 annual probability of river or sea flooding in any year (<0.1%)). However, areas of the study area do fall within areas of increased risk to flooding, and land categorised as medium and high risk. These are mainly located either side of river crossings, with a larger area between Maxey and Etton. Between Peterborough and Bexwell, the route of the proposed scheme runs mainly through fenland, and the majority of this section of the route is in Flood Zone 3. Flood risk is considered further in Chapter 15 ‘Water Environment’. Land within the study area is not affected by significant geological hazards (for instance seismic risk).
6.5 Potential Impacts 6.5.1 Climate Change
Climate change resilience As described above, the proposed scheme has been specifically proposed as part of Anglian Water’s WRMP, one of the objectives of which is to improve the climate change resilience of AWS’s distribution network. The delivery of the proposed scheme will therefore represent a positive impact in terms of climate change resilience.
Greenhouse gas emissions Direct greenhouse gas emissions from the proposed scheme (e.g. from construction traffic) are unavoidable during the construction phase. Traffic generation associated with the project proposed scheme is discussed in the traffic and transport section of this Scoping Report (see Chapter 14) and best practice measures such as car sharing, switching off plant and equipment when not in use, and using well-maintained, fuel efficient machinery will be included in the project CEMP to minimise these impacts.
Although the full extent, depth and condition of peat deposits along the proposed pipeline route are not yet known, excavation of the peat is expected to result in carbon losses from the excavated peat and also from surrounding areas that may be affected by temporary dewatering. AWS are investigating construction methods to minimise the extent of peat excavation required.
Embodied carbon in construction materials is also an unavoidable element of the carbon balance for the proposed scheme. The selection of the materials required is driven in the first instance by the resilience of the operational pipeline and security of water supply. However, AWS has a business goal to deliver a 65% reduction in capital (embodied) carbon by 2025 from a 2010 baseline and the
32 Major Accident Hazard Pipeline as prescribed in the Pipelines Safety Regulations (1996), as amended
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 68
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Climate Change Resilience, Major Accidents and Natural Disasters
Anglian Water Strategic Direction Statement 2020 – 204533 sets a long-term goal of becoming a Carbon-Neutral Business by 2030.
This strong commitment to reducing embodied carbon will be reflected in the design of the proposed scheme. Alternative, lower carbon construction materials and construction techniques will be considered as the design evolves and a range of design tools and carbon calculators will be used to assess the level of embodied carbon for alternative materials and scenarios.
The proposed scheme will also deliver operational carbon savings. As much of the region is flat and low-lying, AWS has to pump more water than other water companies, which uses a large amount of energy. Connecting more of the network and increasing storage capacity in strategic locations will contribute to AWS’ business goal to deliver a 7% reduction in real terms in gross operational carbon by 2020 from a 2015 baseline by reducing the overall requirement to pump water around the AWS network.
6.5.2 Major Accident Events and Natural Disasters The proposed scheme does not fall within the COMAH regulations, nor is the proposed pipeline element classified as a Major Accident Hazard Pipeline (MAHP), however, hypothetical impacts could arise from:
• The accidental release of a large volume of a construction-related material or fuel, such as bentonite slurry or diesel, into the surface water environment; • Flood risk associated with potential loss of containment and significant release of treated water from the operational aqueduct or water storage tanks; or • Natural disasters such as extreme weather events. The risk of accidental releases of pollutants affecting the water environment during construction will be controlled through the CEMP. The risk of an accidental release occurring that would have significant environmental effects is therefore considered very low. The proposed scheme is designed to meet all relevant design standards and AWS asset standards, leading to a design that includes a required depth of cover for pipes to avoid potential hazards such as floatation risks, damage from loading, extreme heat or weather events, and minimises the risk of a pipeline breach. Where pipelines go above ground, for example at connection points to pumping stations and break tanks, additional protection measures are considered in light of security and risk of disasters.
The design is being prepared under the CDM Regulations, to ensure that the proposed scheme is built and operated safely for construction workers, operational staff and the public. The design will also go through a number of risk assessment stages including Access Lifting and Maintenance (ALM) and Hazard and Operability Study (HAZOP) assessments to ensure that the proposed solutions are operable, maintainable and follow the required Health and Safety at Work measures, including consideration of lifting and access, fire and emergency access. Flood risk assessments will also be carried out as part of the design phase for break tanks and reservoirs.
33 https://www.anglianwater.co.uk/about-us/our-strategies-and-plans/future-challenges/strategic-direction-statement/
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 69
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Climate Change Resilience, Major Accidents and Natural Disasters
6.6 Proposed Scope of Assessment 6.6.1 Scoped out The following topics will be scoped out, or addressed within other EIA topics: • Construction and operational phase climate change resilience is scoped out as the proposed scheme will contribute positively to the climate change resilience of the water supply infrastructure; • Impacts of operational phase carbon emissions, because the proposed scheme will deliver operational carbon savings; and • Impacts of construction and operational phase major accidents and natural disasters, because the proposed scheme is not considered a significant risk in relation to these issues and its design, construction and operation will be undertaken in accordance with appropriate legislation and guidance. 6.6.2 Scoped in The impacts of capital carbon emissions will be scoped in to the assessment, including direct greenhouse gas emissions and emissions associated with construction activities including taking account of construction through an area of peatland.
6.7 Proposed EIA Methodology 6.7.1 Further Baseline Data Collection Baseline data on capital carbon will be generated using AWS’ carbon modelling and will be based on various assumptions and parameters using a baseline scenario. This baseline scenario will use capital carbon data arising from an alternative and more traditional project design. This will be detailed in the ES. 6.7.2 Assessment methodology It is recognised that all projects will result in capital carbon, but AWS has taken steps to innovate and use alterative construction methods to deliver a solution which results in capital carbon savings. The assessment methodology is being developed as the details of the design and construction methodology are also being determined and refined. The proposed scheme’s capital carbon emissions will be quantified using AWS’ carbon models in accordance with PAS 2080, to which AWS is verified. Opportunities for carbon savings will be identified and engagement with relevant stakeholders will be undertaken as these opportunities arise.
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 70
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Historic Environment
7 Historic environment
7.1 Introduction The historic environment assessment considers the potential significant effects of the proposed scheme on the material remains of our past. It can be subdivided into three main areas of interest – archaeological remains, historic buildings and the historic landscape. This chapter describes the proposed approach to identifying the potential significant effects of the proposed scheme on archaeological and cultural heritage (the historic environment). This chapter outlines: • The relevant legislative and policy background; • Topic-specific guidance to be applied; • The methodology to be applied for gathering baseline data and for identifying and assessing potentially significant effects; • Current understanding of baseline conditions within the proposed scheme’s working corridor and the surrounding area, and the approach to further data gathering; and • The approach to be taken to determining the mitigation measures required to prevent, reduce or offset any significant adverse effects.
7.2 Legislative and policy background 7.2.1 Legislation Table 7.1 summarises key legislation and policies which are instrumental to the assessment of the historic environment. Table 7.1 Key legislation and policy Legislation/ Policy Relevance to the Proposed Scheme Ancient Monuments Scheduled Monuments and Areas of Archaeological Interest are and Archaeological afforded statutory protection and the consent of the Secretary of State Areas Act 1979 (as (Department of Culture, Media and Sport), as advised by Historic Amended) England, is required for any works. Historic Buildings and Historic England is enabled to maintain a register of parks, gardens and Ancient Monuments Act battlefield sites which appear to Historic England to be of special 1953 (as amended by historic interest. Registration in this way makes the effect of proposed the National Heritage development on the sites and their settings a material consideration. Act 1983) Historic England are a statutory consultee in relation to works affecting Grade I/II* Registered Parks and Gardens. Planning (Listed LPAs are required to have special regard for the desirability of Buildings and preserving a listed building, its setting, or any features of special Conservation Areas) Act architectural or historic interest that it possesses. 1990
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 71
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Historic Environment
Legislation/ Policy Relevance to the Proposed Scheme
National Planning Policy Section 16 of the NPPF sets out the Government’s over-arching 34 Framework (NPPF: planning policies in relation to the conservation and enhancement of issued July 2018) the historic environment. • Paragraphs 189 and 190 address the consideration of the significance of heritage assets, including their setting, in determining planning applications; • Paragraphs 193 and 194 address the weight to be given to the desirability of the conservation of any designated historic assets, and the requirement for clear and convincing justification if the proposed development would result in any harm to or loss of the asset. Further detail is provided for specific groups of designated assets; • Paragraphs 195 and 196 state the principle that consent should be refused if the proposed development would lead to substantial harm to, or total loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset, together with the conditions under which such harm or loss may be permitted, and address the consideration of cases where less than substantial harm may be caused; • Paragraph 197 addresses the consideration of non-designated heritage assets in determining planning applications; • Paragraph 199 advises authorities to require developers to record and make publicly available information about the significance of any heritage assets that would be lost. The ability to make such records is not to be a factor in deciding whether the loss should be permitted; • Paragraphs 200 and 201 address developments in Conservation Areas and World Heritage Sites, emphasising the importance of development that makes a positive contribution to their significance.
Local planning policy The documents that comprise the Local Plan for each LPA area affected by the proposed scheme are described in Chapter 3 (section 3.7). Local Plan policies relevant to the protection of biodiversity will be taken into account in the development of the proposed scheme and in the ES.
7.3 Guidance and Approach to Scoping 7.3.1 Guidance The assessment will be conducted in accordance with the guidance provided in the DMRB, document LA106 (Cultural Heritage assessment), Revision 1 (January 2020). Although developed specifically for highway projects, DMRB provides the most widely accepted guidance for assessment of heritage impacts for most types of project and is particularly applicable to linear infrastructure.
34 The National Planning Policy Framework is supplemented by the Department for Communities and Local Government’s Planning Practice Guidance: Historic environment (October 2019)
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 72
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Historic Environment
In addition, the assessment will be conducted with regard to the following guidance: • Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (CIfA) ‘Standard and guidance for desk-based assessment’ (2020); • Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (CIfA) ‘Standards and guidance for geophysical survey’ (2020); • Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (CIfA) ‘Standards and guidance for archaeological field evaluation’ (2020); • Historic England’s ‘Conservation Principles: Policies and Guidance’ (2008); • Historic England’s ‘Managing Significance in Decision-Taking in the Historic Environment’ (2015) • Historic England’s ‘The Setting of Heritage Assets’ (2017); and • Historic England’s ‘Statements of Heritage Significance: Analysing Significance in Heritage Assets (2019). 7.3.2 Study area Baseline data will be gathered for a study area extending to 1 kilometre either side of the working corridor. This study area will be used to identify archaeological remains, built heritage assets and historic landscape character using desk-based data sources. In addition, information on designated heritage assets will be gathered for a wider study area extending to a maximum of 2 kilometres around the working corridor. Archaeological surveys are likely to be required, including but not limited to geophysical survey and archaeological trial trenching. Any such surveys will be carried out within the working corridor. Aerial photography surveys have been carried out by AWS along the proposed pipeline route. Targeted analysis of these and LiDAR data will be carried out and will focus on areas where conditions are unsuited to geophysical survey (e.g. the Fens) or targeted locations where further analysis of heritage assets is required.
The scope of all surveys will be established in consultation with the archaeological advisors to the LPAs.
7.4 Baseline 7.4.1 Designated assets There are no registered battlefields or World Heritage Sites within 1 kilometres of the proposed scheme.
Scheduled monuments • No scheduled monuments lie on the proposed pipeline route. There are 16 scheduled monuments within 1 kilometre of the proposed scheme as follows: - Site of Cistercian grange (NHLE 1005038), 180 metres east of the proposed scheme; - Ring Dam medieval fishpond (NHLE 1019976), 640 metres west of the proposed scheme; - Settlement site E of Greatford village (NHLE 1004934), 840 metres south-west of the proposed scheme;
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 73
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Historic Environment
- Gatehouse of manor house (NHLE 1006828), 880 metres east of the poposed scheme; - Maxey Castle: a moated site with associated enclosures and a fishpond (NHLE 1008454), 370 metres south-west of the proposed scheme; - Village cross, Towngate (NHLE 1009219), 940 metres east of the proposed scheme; - A bowl barrow, immediately south of Long Meadow Farm (NHLE 1021315), 420 metres north of the proposed scheme; - Bowl barrow 130 metres south west of Gaylands, Milking Nook (NHLE 1021316), 90 metres north of the proposed scheme; - Three bowl barrows and a ring ditch 590 metres and 500 metres north west of The Four inds (NHLE 1021318), 630 metres south-east of the proposed scheme; - Three bowl barrows 390 metres north west of The Firs (NHLE 1021317), 980 metres south-east of the proposed scheme; - Earthwork enclosure at Peakirk Moor (NHLE 1006811), 800 metres north of the proposed scheme; - Bowl barrow 550 metres south east of Hill Farm (NHLE 1021304), 405 metres north of the proposed scheme; - Bowl barrow 570 metres north east of Slipe Farm (NHLE 1021303), 275 metres north of the proposed scheme; - Bowl barrow 880 metres south west of Singlecote Cottage (NHLE 1021312), 305 metres north of the proposed scheme; - Bowl barrow 620 metres north east of East Wryde Cottages (NHLE 1021306), 120 metres north of the proposed scheme; and - Old gatehouse at Bexwell Hall (NHLE 1003963), 670 metres east of the proposed scheme. A scheduled shrunken medieval village is recorded at Sapperton, 1.2 kilometres east of the proposed scheme. This asset is not within the proposed 1-kilometre study area, however the LHER records features associated with the shrunken medieval village extending into the study area, 960 metres east of the proposed scheme.
Listed buildings There are no listed buildings within the working corridor. There are 276 listed buildings within 1 kilometre of the proposed scheme. Of these, ten are Grade I listed, 14 are Grade II* and the remaining 252 are Grade II. There are two assets within 1 kilometre of the proposed structures at Harrowby:
• Archway at Harrowby Hall (NHLE 1253210), 690 metres south-west of the western end of the Harrowby spur; and • Harrowby Hall (NHLE 1261915), 730 metres south-west of the western end of the Harrowby spur.
Registered parks and gardens The proposed pipeline working corridor does not intersect any registered parks and gardens (RPG). There is one Grade I listed RPG within the 1 kilometre study area: Grimsthorpe Castle, situated 370 metres west of the proposed pipeline route, in the area to the west of Bourne.
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 74
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Historic Environment
Conservation Areas There are no Conservation Areas (CA) on the proposed pipeline route. Eleven CAs lie within 1 kilometre of the proposed scheme (note all distances are to the nearest 5 metres):
• Ropsley CA, 640 metres west; • Irnham CA, 1 kilometre west; • Langtoft CA, 1 kilometre east; • Market Deeping CA, 880 metres east; • Northborough CA, 875 metres east; • Maxey CA, 950 metres west; • Etton CA, 180 metres west; • Glinton CA, 365 metres north; • Peakirk CA, 760 metres north; • Thorney Conservation Area, 605 metres south; and • Downham Market CA, 940 metres south. All of the CAs listed above comprise the cores of historic villages. Their historic settings are the housing, high street and amenities of the historic village cores surrounded by rural, agricultural farmland. 7.4.2 Non-designated assets
Palaeoenvironmental (multi-period) The Peterborough to Bexwell section of the proposed scheme runs through the Fens. The British Geological Survey (BGS) Digital 1:50k data shows this area overlies alluvial deposits, particularly tidal flats, comprised of alluvium and clay, indicating former low-lying coastal environments. These former wetland conditions would provide ideal anaerobic conditions for the preservation of organic material, including plant and pollen fossils, which could be used to recreate past environments
The Fens have extensive and well documented peat landscapes, within the alluvial zones. These typically comprise two main phases dating to broadly the Neolithic and Bronze Age, and the Iron Age to Romano-British periods, and are indicative of drier phases, where the tidal zones retreated. These layers are interleaved with marine clays of the Barroway Drove and Upper Barroway Drove formations, indicative of subsequent phases of tidal inundation35.
The wetland nature of the Fens would have been unsuited to extensive early human habitation and would have dictated settlement patterns along this section of the proposed scheme towards higher, drier ground along the fen edge. However, the wetlands would have likely been exploited for their predictable resources, including hunting, fishing, fowling, and peat extraction and evidence of these activities may survive.
35 Hall D, 1987, The Fenland Project Number 2: Fenland Landscapes and Settlement Between Peterborough and March, East Anglian Archaeology Report No.35, 1987
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 75
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Historic Environment
Prehistoric (500,000 BC to AD 43) There is a high potential for the presence of prehistoric remains within the study area, particularly dating to the Bronze Age and Iron Age. Towards the northern end of the proposed scheme, evidence of prehistoric activity appears to be sporadic. Trackways are recorded at Ropsley (MLI84221) and Irnham (MLI84080). Possible ditched enclosures suggestive of prehistoric settlement or agricultural features are recorded at Edenham (MLI34735), and at Manthorpe (MLI91022). A possible barrow (prehistoric burial site) has been identified north-west of Ingoldsby (MLI84185). Barrows have also been identified at intervals along the East Glen River valley HER (MLI8415; MLI80098; MLI84082; MLI84034; MLI84023; MLI84010; MLI83513) which would have formed a major topographic feature. Between Welby and Ropsley, fieldwalking in the late 1970s identified several areas of Bronze Age pottery. Iron Age pottery was also recovered during field walking near Ropsley (MLI34924). A possible late prehistoric settlement has been identified adjacent to the Harrowby Spur section of the proposed scheme, north of Welby Heath, 2.2 kilometres east of the the Harrowby Storage Tanks (MLI80809). This might be associated with several areas of cropmark boundaries (MLI84263; MLI84264) on the southern side of the proposed scheme in this location. Late Iron Age and Romano- British features are recorded at the northern end of the proposed pipeline route, near Wilsford Storage Tank (MLI191748). The Harrowby spur would run through a prehistoric cropmark enclosure identified through aerial photography (MLI84266), east of the junction between Harrowby Lane and the B6403. The northern part of the proposed pipeline route would pass through further cropmark enclosures east of Welby (MLI84268). A cropmark enclosure is noted immediately west of the proposed scheme where it passes Humby Hill (MLI84220), however, aerial imagery indicates that this might form part of a much wider complex of features including possible enclosures, field systems and pits. At this stage the archaeological nature of these features is unconfirmed, and it is possible that they may be natural, formed through glacial and fluvial action. There are several further areas of cropmark features, chiefly at Irnham, Grimsthorpe, and Manthorpe, although these appear to be less dense than those at Ropsley. The concentrations of prehistoric remains appear highest in the section of the proposed scheme immediately to the north-west of Peterborough, where sub-surface geology comprises River Terrace gravels. The proposed scheme intersects with the large Bronze Age or Iron Age complex at Rectory Farm, near Market Deeping, which includes a co-axial field system (MLI83500), a triple ditch system and associated settlement evidence (MLI83501), cropmark enclosures (MLI33464), and artefact scatters including Mesolithic to Neolithic flints (MLI83494). The proposed scheme intersects an area of cropmarks near Tithe Farm, Langtoft (MLI33421), and a further area of cropmarks to the south of Baston Road (MLI83465). It is unclear if these are separate settlement areas from the Rectory Farm complex or if they amalgamate to form a wide-spread late prehistoric landscape of settlement and agricultural features. This level of intensive activity appears to extend as far north as Wilsthorpe, where the proposed scheme crosses another possible prehistoric settlement (MLI35024).
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 76
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Historic Environment
The proposed scheme intersects with the area of the Newborough Solar Park Site (EPB878). Excavations in this area in 2014 uncovered 16 curvilinear features divided into two broad groups, and a further concentration of six features near the northern-most group. These have broadly been interpreted as ring-ditches indicating a Bronze Age barrow cemetery, or external gullies surrounding hut circles. Surveys carried out along the A47 Thorney Bypass in 2002-2006 identified a series of marine and peat deposits, possibly dating to the Mesolithic period, 140 metres south of the proposed scheme (MPB2658). Aerial photograph surveys conducted as part of Thorney Bypass scheme, centred 130 metres south of the proposed scheme (MPB2695), identified possible Bronze Age enclosures to the west of the survey area, likely on areas of drier ground, and it is possible that similar features are present in this area of the proposed scheme here. Aerial photo surveys have also identified possible settlement evidence, 185 metres north of the proposed scheme near Friday Bridge (MCB29241). The survey also identified numerous former watercourses cutting through the features, suggesting that inundation of the fenland area drove settlement out of the area. Further prehistoric settlement evidence has been identified by aerial photography to the east of Outwell, 330 metres south of the proposed scheme (MNF32065), identifying possible Bronze Age ring ditches and stack stands. Such remains would indicate that there was a drier period in the fenland, creating more favourable conditions for settlement, and that further remains may be present beneath alluvial deposits.
Romano-British (AD 43 to AD 410) Between Ancaster and Peterborough, the proposed scheme runs roughly parallel to the course of King Street Roman Road (MLI33097), crossing it twice. King Street connects Sapperton c.700 metres to the east, at the northern end, to Deeping via Bourne at the southern end (MLI33097). A probable Roman villa is recorded 120 metres to the south of the proposed scheme near Harrowby (MLI97513). Settlement evidence, comprising stone foundations and ceramic building materials were excavated at Sapperton in the 1970s over an area of c.16 hectares along King Street, and were interpreted as industrial in nature (MLI33795). A possible villa site is also noted near Sapperton, evidenced from stonework, coloured pottery types and tesserae from an estimated three individual mosaic floors which were recovered in plough soils (MLI33796). The LHER notes a Romano-British site north of Ingoldsby, 275 metres west of the proposed scheme (MLI34839). The remaining Romano-British assets noted on the LHER comprise artefact and/or pottery scatters. It is likely that the extent of the proposed scheme in southern Lincolnshirewas used for agricultural purposes, located between small settlements, farmsteads and villas. Further to the south, the proposed scheme intersects with an area of possible Romano-British settlement east of Greatford (MLI 33418). A possible building has been identified on the north side of Baston Road, which intersects with the proposed scheme (MLI33268) and may be related to this settlement. Further south, a Romano-British villa and associated agricultural landscape were recorded at Rectory Farm (MLI83502) 75 metres west of the proposed scheme. It is likely that some agricultural features identified at the Rectory Farm may date to this period as well, indicating continued settlement in the area. Romano-British remains were identified during evaluations at Newborough Solar Park (EPB878), north of Peterborough. The proposed scheme intersects the southern extent of this area; however, the HER report notes remains of this period were confined to the north of the solar park site, on the
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 77
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Historic Environment
higher gravel spur. Remains included evidence of former field boundaries, enclosures, and possible agricultural structures.
Further remains of enclosures and droves were identified by aerial photography at Parson Drove, 1 kilometres north of the proposed Scheme (MCB4650). It is likely that similar geological conditions dictated the presence of activity here, and that certainly in the west of the Fens, Romano-British settlement was pushed outside the study area.
During this period, the Fens would have been largely dry as in the Iron Age36. The proposed scheme intersects possible Roman turbaries (peat cuttings) to the south of Marsh Road, near Outwell, a further area of turbaries was identified 710 metres south of the proposed scheme (MNF31429) in this area. It is likely that there was an area of settlement nearby, however no such remains have been identified in the vicinity.
It is likely that some form of settlement was located at Downham Market, as Romano-British ditches were excavated along with undated post holes and modern features at Short Drive, 435 metres south of the proposed scheme (MNF41331). The remaining Romano-British features at Downham Market comprise find spot locations, possibly suggesting the focus of settlement was outside the study area, away from the proposed scheme.
Early medieval (AD 410 to AD 1066) The proposed scheme passes through several early medieval manors (land divisions) noted in the Domesday Survey. Settlement evidence comprises shrunken medieval villages that appear on the LHER in the vicinity of the existing villages along the route of the proposed scheme. It is likely that early medieval activity was focused on these locations, and they Scheme would have been predominantly within open fields, possibly for agricultural purposes at this time. During this period, the Fens were once again inundated, making it generally unsuited to intensive activity. However, attempts were made to reclaim areas of the fenland with the construction of flood and sea defences along the drier edges37. It is possible that remains of such strategies occur along the proposed pipeline route.
Medieval (AD 1066 to AD 1550) Fieldwalking in the area surrounding the Cistercian Grange at Ropsley and Humby (see ‘scheduled monuments’ above) has recorded medieval to post-medieval artefacts in an area that extends beyond the boundary of the scheduled monument (LHER MLI30069), 50 metres from the proposed pipeline route. Settlement was focused around the areas of the modern villages, and the proposed scheme runs through open, agricultural fields, outside the boundaries of these settlements. The proposed scheme intersects three areas of ridge and furrow (earthworks indicative of medieval or post-medieval cultivation) recorded on the LHER. The northern-most of these is to the south-east of Ropsley village (MLI84217). A second area of ridge and furrow is noted to the south-east of Ingoldsby village,
36 Hall D, 1987, The Fenland Project Number 2: Fenland Landscapes and Settlement Between Peterborough and March, East Anglian Archaeology Report No.35, 1987, pp.66
37 Hall D, 1987, The Fenland Project Number 2: Fenland Landscapes and Settlement Between Peterborough and March, East Anglian Archaeology Report No.35, 1987, pp.11
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 78
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Historic Environment
adjacent to Hall Lane (MLI84174). The third area of ridge and furrow is recorded to the west of Edenham (MLI84037). Aerial photography digitised on the Peterborough Historic Environment Record (PHER) indicates an extensive area of ridge and furrow between Deeping Gate and Northborough, and an aerial photo survey recorded ridge and furrow at Glinton (EPB383).
At Downham Market, an area of ridge and furrow has been identified 835 metres south-west of the proposed scheme (MNF62930). The market town would have formed the main focus of settlement in this area, centred around the market square and high street, outside the study area. It is likely further associated areas of cultivation land surrounded the settlement, possibly within the area of the proposed scheme, although modern development and activity, such as the construction of Downham Market airbase (see below) would have removed them.
Between Peterborough and Bexwell, medieval evidence is largely confined to findspots, suggesting the main foci of settlement were away from the proposed pipeline route. As in the preceding period, the Fens were inundated, and attempts to manage the wetlands would have likely been made. The concentrations of medieval pottery fragments found as find spots are likely indicative of manuring strategies on strip fields, rather than evidence of settlement location. With regards to the fenland, this would likely be indicative that the field would be on a landward side of the flood defences.
Post-medieval (AD 1540 to AD 1900) Many of the post-medieval assets within 1 kilometres of the proposed pipeline route relate to listed buildings. As with the medieval period, the majority of post-medieval activity recorded within this area relates to settlements within the existing villages and towns nearby and to agricultural practices. Historic mapping demonstrates that this area remained rural and in agricultural use throughout the post-medieval period, with the modern field layout reflecting that which is recorded on the 19th century Ordnance Survey maps. The trend for estate emparkment during the 18th and 19th centuries is recorded within the LHER and represented by the parks at Bulby Hall, Irnham (MLI98393), through which the proposed pipeline route runs. Further from the proposed pipeline route lie Greatford Hall Parkland (MLI98384) and The Wilderness at Braceborough Spa (MLI92379). Post-medieval quarrying activities are recorded sporadically within the area surrounding the proposed scheme for example the quarry pits recorded at Langtoft (MLI35033) 420 metres north- east of the proposed pipeline route. Between Peterborough and Bexwell, the proposed scheme intersects the area of a post-medieval duck decoy (MNF64799), south-west of Highbridge Road. Post-medieval activities in this area appear to be largely focused on wetland management, including drainage mills (MNF16327, MNF16328) and the line of the Middle Level Main Drain (MNF13533) which the proposed scheme intersects.
The initial phase of drainage in the 17th century was undone by its own success, as the draining of the Fens and shrinking of the peat deposits lowered ground levels so that they became inundated again. The existing landscape of agricultural fields is a result of the second phase of drainage carried out in the 19th and early 20th centuries. However, the peat deposits have been slowly oxidising and shrinking again, which would impact earlier remains contained within them.
Modern (AD 1900 onwards) A small number of modern assets are recorded within 1 kilometre of the proposed scheme. These include telephone kiosks and other modern structures. The north-west to south-east aligned branch
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 79
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Historic Environment
of the proposed pipeline that would connect to the Harrowby reservoir, runs roughly parallel to Harrowby Lane, north of the Prince William of Gloucester Barracks, a former World War One and Two RAF base, known as RAF Grantham/Spittlegate (LHER MLI34958). The Peterborough to Bexwell section of the propoed scheme terminates in the area of the former World War Two Downham Market airfield (MNF2455).
7.5 Potential Impacts 7.5.1 Construction impacts Construction of water pipelines and supporting infrastructure can have the following impacts on heritage assets:
• Topsoil stripping and construction activities within the working corridor, including any temporary land and access routes, can lead to the loss of or damage to buried archaeological remains, or the severance of linked features; • Physical harm to historic buildings and their setting, including their grounds or related features that form part of their curtilage or their setting; • Removal of all or part of features of the historic landscape, or the severance of linked features; • Drying out of potential waterlogged archaeological/palaeoenvironmental deposits as a result of temporary dewatering during construction; and • Impacts on the setting of designated historic assets through visual intrusion or construction noise. Any direct physical impacts on archaeological remains, historic buildings or the historic landscape are likely to be permanent. However, in most cases it is possible to avoid impacts on designated sites through the application of design mitigation measures. Any impact of the construction works on the setting of heritage assets are likely to be temporary in nature. 7.5.2 Operational impacts Operation of the proposed pipeline is not likely to result in any additional loss of or harm to heritage assets once the construction phase has concluded. Operation of above-ground supporting infrastructure such as pumping stations or water storage tanks may result in localised long-term impacts on the setting of nearby heritage assets, through visual intrusion or operational noise. 7.5.3 Interaction with other topics Some types of impact on heritage receptors may be subject to assessment under other topic headings. Where this is the case, the heritage team will liaise with the other relevant topic team to identify/confirm the impact and to obtain the magnitude of effect. The significance of effect will be assessed separately in the heritage chapter and may differ from the significance identified in the other relevant topic. Other topics most likely to be relevant in this context include:
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 80
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Historic Environment
• Water environment: where permanent or temporary changes in the water table may affect the condition or integrity of archaeological remains, in particular waterlogged archaeological or palaeoenvironmental deposits; • Landscape and visual impact assessment: where changes in the landscape or visual intrusion may affect historic landscape character or the setting of a heritage asset; and • Noise: where changes in the noise environment may affect the setting of a heritage asset.
7.6 Proposed Scope of Assessment 7.6.1 Scoped out There are no World Heritage Sites or Registered Battlefields within the study area. The nearest such sites are located at least 25 kilometres from the proposed scheme. Consideration of potential impacts on these sites can be scoped out. The application of avoidance criteria in developing the proposed pipeline route means that impacts on Scheduled Monuments, Listed Buildings and Registered Parks and Gardens have been avoided. The proposed pipeline will be underground and not visible in operation, while the Harrowby break tank and pumping station are located approximately 750 metres from the nearest designated site, and separated from it by screening vegetation, so impacts on the settings of such designated sites are unlikely to occur. Therefore, consideration of potential impacts on these sites can be scoped out. Further information on each of these categories is given below. • The scheduled bowl barrows along the proposed pipeline route from Peterborough to Bexwell appear to be discrete, with no associated features extending into the proposed scheme. Consideration of impacts on these sites is therefore scoped out of the EIA. • The proposed scheme does not affect the designated area of any Registered Parks and Gardens (RPG). The nearest RPG is Grimsthorpe Castle park, located approximately 370 metres west of the proposed pipeline route at the nearest point. No above-ground infrastructure is proposed within 1 kilometre of this asset and the land within which the proposed pipeline runs will be restored to its pre-existing condition after construction. There are therefore no predicted permanent impacts to this asset through the construction and operation of the proposed scheme. Impacts on Registered Parks and Gardens are therefore scoped out. • The proposed scheme does not affect any Listed Buildings or their curtilage. The nearest Listed Building is Elm Terrace, a Grade II Listed Building comprising a terrace of six cottages located on Scottlethorpe Road, approximately 75 metres east of the proposed pipeline route. Impacts on Listed Buildings are therefore scoped out. • The proposed scheme does not affect any Conservation Areas. The nearest conservation is along the high street at Etton, some 180 metres to the west of the proposed scheme. The Conservation Area has a ‘rural open landscape setting which is gained from views towards and out of the village.’38. The proposed pipeline route would run parallel to the new A15, to the east of the Conservation Area. None of the above ground structures that are proposed would permanently alter the setting of the Conservation Area. Impacts on Conservation Areas are therefore scoped out.
38 Peterborough City Council, 2015 Etton Conservation Area Appraisal Report and Management Plan available at https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B75rMDFAlIHARnU2eWhKM3htams last access 09/06/2020
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 81
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Historic Environment
• The proposed scheme runs through a largely rural landscape with, in some cases, field boundaries which appear to be relics of historic, former agricultural land divisions, and past practices. The proposed pipeline route would be open cut excavation along much of its alignment, however the working corridor will be restored to its pre-construction condition. Therefore, there would be no permanent impact to the historic landscape through the construction of the proposed pipeline. Impacts to the historic landscape are therefore scoped out. 7.6.2 Scoped in The proposed scheme does not affect the designated area of any scheduled monuments. The nearest scheduled monuments are the site of a Cistercian grange near Ropsley (list entry 100538), which lies approximately 170 metres east of the route and 750 metres south-east of the proposed Harrowby water storage tank; a bowl barrow near Milking Nook (list entry 1021316), 90 metres north of the proposed scheme; and a further bowl barrow near East Wryde Cottages (list entry 1021306), 120 metres north of the proposed scheme.
However, medieval and post-medieval pottery has been recorded within an area up to around 50 metres from the proposed pipeline route in the vicinity of the Cistercian Grange. Additionally, parch- marks visible in aerial photographs indicate that boundaries extending from the scheduled monument designated area, and therefore associated with the scheduled monument, would be intersected by the proposed pipeline. Any such extension of associated remains is likely to be connected to the scheduled monument and its setting and would therefore be classified as assets of equal status as those of the scheduled monument itself. Impacts to scheduled monuments are therefore scoped in to the EIA, with specific reference to these remains.
The proposed scheme does intersect undesignated archaeological remains at several locations. These remains are recorded in the Lincolnshire and Peterborough Historic Environment Records (HER). There is also high potential for the presence of additional archaeological remains not recorded in the HERs. Potential impacts on archaeological remains are therefore scoped in to the EIA.
7.7 Proposed EIA Methodology 7.7.1 Baseline data gathering Baseline data on archaeological remains, historic buildings and the historic environment will be gathered within the 1-kilometre study area, and for designated historic assets for the 2 kilometre study area, from the following sources:
• Historic England’s National Heritage List for England (NHLE); • Lincolnshire HER; • The Peterborough City Council HER; • The Cambridgeshire HER; • Norfolk HER; • Historic Landscape Characterisation information available from the Archaeological Data Service (ADS) website; • LiDAR data as held by the EA;
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 82
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Historic Environment
• Historic England’s National Mapping Programme (NMP); • An aerial photographic and topographic survey of the whole proposed pipeline route working corridor undertaken for AWS in 2020; • Published and unpublished historic cartographic evidence; and • Published and unpublished archaeological reports relating to any assets within the study area. As the baseline across the proposed pipeline route will have distinct differences, baseline data gathering will be approached and described in relation to topographic areas to reflect this.
7.7.2 Surveys to support data gathering Where appropriate and where land conditions are suitable, archaeological geophysical surveys will be carried out within the proposed pipeline route working corridor, on an assumed working width of 40 metres. The full scope and extent of geophysical survey will be determined in light of the results of desk-based data gathering. Geoarchaeological surveys will be carried out in areas of alluvial or peat deposits, particularly in the Fens. The results of these surveys will be used to create deposit models of the sub-surface terrain. The full scope of these surveys will be determined in light of the results of the desk-based data gathering.
A programme of archaeological trial trenching is likely to be required. The requirement for trial trenching will be confirmed, and the scope of such will be determined, in light of the results of data gathering and geophysical survey. At this stage it is envisaged that the trial trenching will be undertaken during the determination period for the planning application. The geophysical and geoarchaeological surveys, and trial trenching, would each be conducted in accordance with a Written Scheme of Investigation that has been prepared in consultation with the Lincolnshire County Archaeologist and Peterborough City Archaeologist. 7.7.3 Assessment of Impacts The assessment of impacts will be undertaken in accordance with the methodology set out in LA106 (Cultural Heritage Assessment), which refers to the standard methodology provided in DMRB document LA104 (Environmental Assessment and Monitoring).
Assigning value A value (sensitivity) will be assigned to each heritage asset reported in the ES, in accordance with Table 7.2 below: Table 7.2: Environmental value (sensitivity) of historic environment receptors Value/ Sensitivity Typical description Very High Very high importance and rarity, international scale and very limited potential for substitution. High High importance and rarity, national scale, and limited potential for substitution.
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 83
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Historic Environment
Medium Medium or high importance and rarity, regional scale, limited potential for substitution Low Low or medium importance and rarity, local scale. Negligible Very low importance and rarity, local scale.
Assigning magnitude of impact The magnitude of impact will be assessed for each heritage asset reported in the ES. Magnitude is a measure of the scale of impact and the value or sensitivity of the receptor is not taken into account at this stage. Magnitude will be described in accordance with Table 7.3 below: Table 7.3: Magnitude of impact and typical descriptors Magnitude of impact Typical description (change) Major Adverse Loss of resource and/or quality and integrity of resource; severe damage to key characteristics, features or elements. Beneficial Large scale or major improvement of resource quality; extensive restoration; major improvement of attribute quality. Moderate Adverse Loss of resource, but not adversely affecting the integrity; partial loss of/damage to key characteristics, features or elements. Beneficial Benefit to, or addition of, key characteristics, features or elements; improvement of attribute quality. Minor Adverse Some measurable change in attributes, quality or vulnerability; minor loss of, or alteration to, one (maybe more) key characteristics, features or elements. Beneficial Minor benefit to, or addition of, one (maybe more) key characteristics, features or elements; some beneficial impact on attribute or a reduced risk of negative impact occurring. Major Adverse Very minor loss or detrimental alteration to one or more characteristics, features or elements. Beneficial Very minor benefit to or positive addition of one or more characteristics, features or elements. No change No loss or alteration of characteristics, features or elements; no observable impact in either direction.
Assessing significance of effect The significance of effect will be assessed for each heritage receptor reported in the ES. Significance will be assessed on a five-point scale, according to the definitions provided in Table 7.4 below: Table 7.4: Significance categories and typical descriptors Significance category Typical description Very large Effects at this level are material in the decision-making process. Large Effects at this level are likely to be material in the decision-making
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 84
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Historic Environment
process. Moderate Effects at this level can be considered to be material decision-making factors. Slight Effects at this level are not material in the decision-making process. Neutral No effects or those that are beneath levels of perception, within normal bounds of variation or within the margin of forecasting error.
Significant effects typically comprise residual effects that are within the moderate, large or very large categories. For the historic environment, the effect is deemed not to be significant when the impact does not substantially diminish the heritage interest of the affected cultural heritage resource. The approach to deriving significance of effects from the assigned receptor value and magnitude of impact will be based on the matrix set out in Table 7.5 below. Table 7.5 is not definitive but is provided as a guide. Where Table 7.5 includes two significance categories in one cell, a single category shall be assigned, and an evidence-based reasoned judgement will be given for the selection of that category. Table 7.5: Significance of effects matrix Magnitude of impact (degree of change) No change Negligible Minor Moderate Major
Very high Neutral Slight Moderate Large or Very large or large very large High Neutral Slight Slight or Moderate Large or moderate or large very large Medium Neutral Neutral or Slight Moderate Moderate slight or large Low Neutral Neutral or Neutral or Slight Slight or
slight slight moderate Heritage value (sensitivity) value Heritage Negligible Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral or Slight slight
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 85
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Land Use and Recreation
8 Land Use and Recreation
8.1 Introduction This chapter outlines the potential significant effects on land use and recreation due to the construction and operational phases of the proposed scheme. Land use and recreation aspects are likely to include: • private property and housing; • community land and assets; • development land and businesses; • agricultural land holdings; and • walkers, cyclists, and horse-riders (WCH). This chapter describes the proposed approach to identifying the potential significant effects of the proposed scheme on the sub-topics listed above and outlines: • The relevant legislative and policy background; • Topic-specific guidance to be applied; • The methodology to be applied for gathering baseline data and for identifying and assessing potentially significant effects; • Current understanding of baseline conditions within the proposed pipeline working corridor and surrounding affected area; and • The approach to be taken to determining the mitigation measures required to prevent, reduce, or offset any significant adverse effects. Soil aspects including effects on agricultural soil, productivity, and sensitive and vulnerable soils are considered in Chapter 13 ‘Soils, Geology and Hydrogeology’ and impacts related to land designated as mineral safeguarding areas are considered in Chapter 10 ‘Materials and Waste’.
8.2 Legislative and policy background Table 8.1 summarises key legislation and policies which are instrumental to the assessment of land use and recreation.
Table 8.1 Key legislation and policy Legislation/ Policy Relevance to the Proposed Scheme Section 6 of the NPPF Sets out the Government’s over-arching planning policies in relation to building a strong, competitive economy. Section 12, Para 80 of Requires planning decisions to facilitate the conditions in which the NPPF businesses can invest with great weight given to supporting economic growth and productivity. Section 12, Para 127 of Makes clear the Government’s expectation that developments should the NPPF contribute positively to the overall quality of an area. Section 12, Para 128 of Requires quality design to be considered throughout the development the NPPF of proposals and encourages early engagement with local communities.
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 86
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Land Use and Recreation
Legislation/ Policy Relevance to the Proposed Scheme Local planning policy The documents that comprise the Local Plan for each LPA area affected by the proposed scheme are described in Chapter 3 (section 3.7). Local Plan policies relevant to consideration of land use and recreation will be taken into account in the development of the proposed scheme and in the ES.
8.3 Guidance and Approach to Scoping 8.3.1 Guidance There are no specific guidelines for assessing effects on land use and recreation arising from interconnecting water pipeline developments, therefore this scoping assessment has been carried out in accordance with relevant sections of the guidance in the DMRB39. This is the most appropriate guidance for assessing the environmental effects of linear schemes and is also a well-established and tested methodology.
8.3.2 Study area The assessment will consider potential direct and indirect, spatial, and terrestrial impacts associated with the proposed pipeline working corridor (i.e. working width of site including compounds, laydown areas, access routes and any drainage outfalls) up to a 500 metre buffer either side of the proposed pipeline centreline to account for the likely distance within which land use and recreation receptors could be affected by the proposed scheme. For the above ground infrastructure described in Chapter 2, a radius of 500 metres from the outer boundary will be used. In addition, statistical data of the wider county areas available from DEFRA has been reviewed to calculate average farm sizes, labour, cropping and livestock along the proposed pipeline route and in the surrounding area.
8.4 Baseline Existing available baseline information relating to land use and recreation is summarised below. Section 8.7.1 below defines any additional baseline information we propose to collect and our proposed method of data gathering. Existing baseline information has been obtained from the following sources:
• Ordnance Survey mapping; • Aerial and satellite photographs; • OS Address Base Plus data; • DEFRA Agricultural Statistical Data40; • Norfolk Highways and Public Rights of Way Interactive Map41
39 Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Sustainability and Environment, LA112 (Population and human health), Revision 1 (January 2020), https://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/dmrb/search/1e13d6ac-755e-4d60-9735-f976bf64580a. 40 Defra, ‘Defra Statistics: Agricultural Facts, England Regional Profiles’ (February 2020), https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/866807/regionalstatistics_overview_20feb 20.pdf
41 Norfolk County Council, Norfolk Highways and Public Rights of Way (accessed 22 September 20202): http://maps.norfolk.gov.uk/highways/
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 87
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Land Use and Recreation
• Environmental Stewardship, Woodland Grant Scheme and Energy Crop Scheme data from MAGIC42; and • Direct request to Cambridgeshire County Council for information on Public Rights of Way (PRoW). 8.4.1 Residential Property The proposed pipeline avoids residential settlements. Residential land (current or proposed) is not directly crossed by the proposed pipeline working corridor, nor does it include any area of land associated with the proposed permanent associated infrastructure. 8.4.2 Agricultural Land Use Within Lincolnshire, cereals and general cropping are the main farm type, followed by lowland grazing livestock. Most of the nation’s vegetables are grown in Lincolnshire. In addition to vegetables, large amounts of barley, wheat, oilseed rape and sugar beet are grown. Within the areas of Peterborough, Cambridgeshire and Norfolk the predominant farm types are cereal farms and general cropping farms. Due to the nature of these activities and local soil conditions, most fields are equipped with comprehensive land drainage systems. The proposed pipeline working corridor crosses multiple farm units. However, information is not available at this stage to define the extent and boundaries of individual farm units. Above ground infrastructure will be located on land currently in agricultural use, thus reducing the size of the farm units at those locations.
Agri-Environment Schemes
There are several Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) funded land management schemes administered by DEFRA and Natural England. These schemes include Environmental Stewardship, Countryside Stewardship, and the Woodland Grant scheme. Approximately 25% of land within the study area is subject to agri-environment land management schemes. The middle tier Countryside Stewardship and Entry Level plus Higher-Level Stewardship forming options within the Environmental Stewardship scheme, are the most common land management agreements within the study area. The majority of these land management schemes correspond with the northern section of the study area between Ancaster, Grantham and Grimsthorpe.
8.4.3 Commercial Land Local plan allocations and planning applications A high-level review of the LPA planning database for the five relevant LPAs indicates that commercial-based planning applications within the study area are limited. None have been identified within the working corridor.
42 Defra, Magic Map Application (accessed 22 September 2020): https://magic.defra.gov.uk/MagicMap.aspx
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 88
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Land Use and Recreation
8.4.4 Walking, Cycling and Horse-riding Routes WCH journeys comprise both ‘utility journeys’ (e.g. travel to work or school or to access facilities) and ‘recreational journeys’ (in which the journey is a leisure activity, or part of a leisure activity, in itself). Typically, WCH utility journeys are made mainly by road but can include use of PRoWs. Recreational journeys may be made by road or on PRoWs or using a combination of the two and comprise the majority of PRoW use. The following approximate number of PRoW and other routes used by WCH are crossed by the proposed pipeline route or are located within the study corridor:
• Footpaths – 40; • Bridleways – 9; • National Cycle Routes – 6; • Byways open to all traffic – 1; and • Restricted byways – 4.
8.5 Potential Impacts 8.5.1 Construction impacts Construction of water pipelines and supporting infrastructure can have the following impacts on land use and recreation:
• Short term effects on agricultural land and farm units, including: o Severance, disruption to field drainage systems, and separation and disruption to normal farming activities; o Temporary loss of crop production and grazing along the proposed pipeline working corridor; o Short term impact on the commitments made by farmers/landowners, with regard to agri-environment schemes; and • Short term impact on the use of roads and public rights of way by walkers, cyclists and horse-riders, where these routes are crossed by the proposed pipeline working corridor. These short-term effects will be managed by application of a WCH management plan. The short-term nature of these effects means that it is not likely that any of them would be significant. 8.5.2 Operational impacts Construction of the proposed new water storage tank and pumping station at Harrowby will result in loss of agricultural land to non-agricultural use, with associated effects onfarm related business, including local agri-environmental schemes. The permanent nature of this proposed above-ground infrastructure means that these effects will continue in the operational phase. However, effects on the long-term economic viability of farm units as a result of operation of the proposed above-ground infrastructure are unlikely to be significant, due to the localised and relatively small permanent land- take required for these facilities compared to average farm sizes. There will be a requirement for a permanent easement along the proposed pipeline route. Effects on agricultural operations are expected to be small-scale and insignificant.
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 89
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Land Use and Recreation
8.6 Proposed Scope of Assessment 8.6.1 Scoped out No significant effects have been identified in relation to the following elements of this topic, and they are therefore scoped out of the assessment: • Short-term effects of construction on agricultural land and farm units; • Long-term effects of land taken for above-ground infrastructure on agricultural land and farm units; • Short term impact on roads, PRoWs and any other routes used by WCH and crossed by the proposed pipeline working corridor. In addition, no significant effects in relation to land use and recreation are anticipated and it is therefore proposed to scope this topic out from further consideration in the EIA.
8.7 Proposed EIA Methodology No elements of the Land use and recreation topic have been scoped in to the assessment, and the topic will not be taken forward into the ES, therefore no assessment method is proposed.
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 90
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Landscape and Visual Amenity
9 Landscape and Visual Amenity
9.1 Introduction The assessment of effects on landscape and visual amenity considers the potential significant effects of the proposed scheme on landscape, its component parts and the receptors that experience it. The landscape takes its character from a mixture of elements, including landform, watercourses, land-use and pattern, vegetation, open space and cultural heritage influences. Landscapes vary considerably in character and quality and are a key component of the distinctiveness of any local area. To a large extent, human beings experience the landscape visually. The quality of views available in any given area can influence the quality of life. The proposed scheme has the potential to have a physical effect on the landscape and on views from surrounding receptors. A distinction can therefore be made between: • Landscape character and the elements and features that contribute to it (landscape receptors); and • People who experience the visual amenity offered by the landscape (visual receptors). This chapter describes the proposed approach to identifying the potential significant effects of the proposed scheme on landscape and visual amenity. This chapter outlines:
• The relevant legislative and policy background; • Topic-specific guidance to be applied; • The methodology to be applied for gathering baseline data and for identifying and assessing potentially significant effects; • Current understanding of baseline conditions within the proposed pipeline working corridor and the surrounding area, and the approach to further data gathering; and • The approach to be taken to determining the mitigation measures required to prevent, reduce or offset any significant adverse effects.
9.2 Legislative and policy background 9.2.1 Legislation Table 9.1 summarises key legislation and policies which are instrumental to the assessment of landscape and visual amenity. Table 9.1 Key legislation and policy Legislation/ Policy Relevance to the Proposed Scheme The Town and Country Defines legislation that protects specific trees, groups of trees or Planning (Tree woodlands in the interest of amenity. Preservation) (England) Regulations 2012
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 91
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Landscape and Visual Amenity
Legislation/ Policy Relevance to the Proposed Scheme Planning (Listed Defines protection for conservation areas, which are identified as Buildings and having special architectural or historic interest which it is desirable to Conservation Areas) Act preserve and includes tree protection. 1990 Hedgerow Regulations For the protection of hedgerows deemed ‘important’ under criteria set 1997 out in the regulations.
NPPF Section 12 sets out the Government’s over-arching planning policies in relation to ‘Achieving well-designed places’. Section 15 addresses ‘Conserving and enhancing the natural environment’. • Paragraph 127 makes clear the Government’s expectation that developments should contribute positively to the overall quality of an area and that they establish and maintain a strong sense of place. • Paragraph 170 requires development proposals to protect and enhance valued landscapes whilst recognising the intrinsic character of the countryside.
Local planning policy The documents that comprise the local plan for each LPA affected by the proposed scheme are described in Chapter 3 (section 3.7). Local plan policies relevant to consideration of the landscape will be taken into account in the development of the proposed scheme and in the ES.
9.3 Guidance and Approach to Scoping 9.3.1 Guidance The assessment will be conducted in accordance with The Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, Third Edition (GLVIA3)43. This promotes landscape and visual impact assessment that is proportional to the scale and nature of the proposals and the likely landscape and visual effects. In addition, the assessment will be conducted with regard to the following guidance:
• Highways England DMRB LA107 Landscape and Visual effects • Landscape Institute TGN 06/19 Visual Representation of development proposals 9.3.2 Study area Baseline data will be gathered for a study area extending to 1 kilometre either side of the working corridor. This is set to provide an understanding of the wider landscape context and constraints and consider landscape assets. Long distance viewpoints over 1 kilometre will be considered where they relate to particularly sensitive views and/or the above ground infrastructure.
43 Landscape Institute and Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment, 2013
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 92
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Landscape and Visual Amenity
9.4 Baseline conditions The proposed scheme is set within a rural landscape with scattered small villages and isolated farms and residential buildings. The proposed pipeline route crosses mainly agricultural land consisting largely of arable fields, with some hedges and isolated trees or blocks of trees. At the northern end of the route, to the east of Grantham, the landscape is at around 110 metres above ordnance datum (AOD). As it heads south it gradually drops to below 10 metres AOD at its southern end. Along the proposed pipeline route there are areas of gently undulating land, for instance south of Ingoldsby and close to Scottlethorpe. Heading east from the north of Peterborough, the proposed pipeline route is set within a rural landscape with scattered small villages and isolated farms and residential buildings. The proposed pipeline route crosses a fenland landscape of mainly agricultural land consisting largely of arable fields, with some hedges and isolated trees or blocks of trees. To the north of Peterborough, the landscape is at around 6 metres AOD. As it heads east it gradually drops to around 1 metre AOD and then 0 metres AOD at Wisbech High Fen. Further east it crosses the River Nene and Nene Way path, passing south of the settlement at Friday Bridge, and then north of Outwell. Although the field size reduces close to the village, its character is still an open flat fen landscape. This is the dominant character as the proposed pipeline route crosses the Great Ouse River, Relief Channel and Fen Rivers Way, finishing north-east of Downham Market. 9.4.1 National and Local Landscape Designations There are no national or local landscape designations along the proposed pipeline route within the study area. 9.4.2 National Landscape Character Areas The northern part of the proposed pipeline route, from south of Ancaster to north of Ropsley, is in the south-west part of NCA 47 South Lincolnshire Edge. An extract of the description of the area relevant to this part of the NCA states: “On lower land to the south-west and the eastern edge, where the dip slope falls to meet the fens, deposits of glacial till result in heavier land that is slower draining and prone to waterlogging in winter. This landscape has a more enclosed, wooded feel, with smaller, less regular fields and more hedgerows, hedgerow trees, parkland and woodland. The heavier land supports more livestock grazing pastures and more mixed farms than on the higher, more freely draining plateau.” From just north of Ropsley the rest of the proposed pipeline route to Peterborough is in NCA 75 Kesteven Uplands. Extracts from the description of the NCA states: “Wide road verges with herbs and wildflowers characterise the area, and individual hedgerow trees provide important woodland character. Significant areas of woodland including semi-natural and ancient woodland, commercial woodlands and parkland landscapes which, in combination with the topography, frame and contain views.” “Much of the NCA is agricultural land; arable predominates on this higher ground or plateau where crops such as cereals, vegetables and oilseed are grown in larger fields bounded by clipped and intermittent hedgerows.”
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 93
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Landscape and Visual Amenity
A small section of the route close to Peterborough is in NCA 88 Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire Claylands. An extract of the description states: “Gently undulating, lowland plateau divided by shallow river valleys that gradually widen as they approach The Fens NCA in the east. Variable, scattered woodland cover comprising smaller plantations, secondary woodland, pollarded willows and poplar along river valleys”. A large section of the proposed scheme (approximately 47 kilometres) east of Peterborough is in the central part of NCA 46 The Fens. Below is an extract of the description of the area: “The Fens National Character Area (NCA) is a distinctive, historic and human-influenced wetland landscape lying to the west of the Wash estuary, which formerly constituted the largest wetland area in England. The area is notable for its large-scale, flat, open landscape with extensive vistas to level horizons.” In terms of landscape pattern and boundaries it states: “Traditional boundaries in this NCA are drainage ditches and dykes which form key landscape elements. Hedgerows tend to be located on clay islands and areas of infrequently ‘enclosed’ pockets of inland Fenland, “Woodland cover in the Fens is sparse. Hedgerow habitats are scarce within the Fens.” 9.4.3 South Kesteven District Council The South Kesteven District Council Landscape Character Assessment January 2007 states: “The landscape of the Kesteven Uplands is medium in scale with a strong landscape pattern of woodland and hedgerows. It contains areas of sensitive landscape including the historic parks and areas around the edge of the often-picturesque villages. Away from the main transport corridors it is a relatively tranquil landscape” 9.4.4 North Kesteven District Council Less than 1km of the northern part of route is within North Kesteven District Council, on the reducing southern scarp slope. Landscape information is in the archived Local Plan (2007), covering the scarp slope: “The majority of the scarp is farmed for the production of arable crops or for the grazing of livestock and is divided up into relatively small fields, most commonly by thorn hedges.” Policy LP17 from the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan covers landscape, its character and setting. 9.4.5 Peterborough City Council Policy LP27 ‘Landscape Character’ of the Peterborough Local Plan identifies six landscape character areas for which there are Landscape Character Assessments (LCAs). There are two which cover the proposed pipeline route (LCA Welland Valley, and LCA Peterborough Fens). The proposed pipeline route runs through two sub areas of the LCAs, namely Maxey Island and Welland Floodplain. For the Welland Floodplain, the LCA includes the following objective:
“The emphasis should be to provide a stronger sense of connectivity between the habitats along the full length of the river. This should involve retaining the meadows and riparian tree belts”.
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 94
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Landscape and Visual Amenity
9.4.6 Fenland District Council Section C of Policy LP16 ‘Delivering and protecting high quality environments across the district’. requires new developments to protect natural and historic features. 9.4.7 Borough Council of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Approximately 17 kilometres of the proposed pipeline route is within the administrative area of the Borough Council of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk. Policy CS12 ‘Environmental Assets’ of the adopted Core Strategy (adopted July 2011) their Environmental Assets Policy CS12 covers landscape and states: “Development should seek to avoid, mitigate or compensate for any adverse impacts on biodiversity, geodiversity and heritage as well as seeking to enhance sites through the creation of features of new biodiversity, geodiversity and heritage interest. The Council will protect and enhance County Wildlife Sites, ancient woodlands, Biodiversity Action Plan Species and Habitats, Regionally Important Geological Sites and designated sites of historical value from development which damages their interest or significance unless the need for, and public benefits of the development outweigh the loss of interest or significance”. 9.4.8 Registered Parks and Gardens (RPG) On RPG (Grimsthorpe Castle) lies within the study area. It is located approximately 400m west of the proposed pipeline route at its nearest point. The working corridor does not intersect any RPG. 9.4.9 Heritage Assets There are Listed buildings and Conservation Areas within the study area, but none within the working corridor. 9.4.10 Ancient Woodland, Veteran Trees and Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs) There are areas of Ancient Woodland close to the proposed pipeline working corridor within the study area, but the proposed pipeline route itself does not cross any Ancient Woodland areas. Any Veteran Trees/Notable trees will be surveyed and noted during the site surveys. Any Local Tree Protection Orders are still to be confirmed.
Important Hedgerows The proposed pipeline route crosses a number of hedgerows, some of which could be Important Hedgerows. These will be assessed as to whether they are Important Hedgerows during site surveys. 9.4.11 Public Rights of Way (PRoW) The proposed pipeline route crosses a number of PRoWs, including four promoted long-distance paths (the Cross Britain Way, the Fen Rivers Way, the Nene Way and the MacMillan Way). 9.4.12 Registered Common Land The existence of any registered common land along the proposed pipeline route is still to be confirmed.
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 95
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Landscape and Visual Amenity
9.5 Potential Impacts 9.5.1 Construction impacts Construction of water pipelines and supporting above ground infrastructure can have the following impacts on landscape and visual aspects during the construction phase: • Landscape impact of excavation and location of directional drilling areas on landform, trees and hedges, this could be long term/permanent; • Marks across the landscape following topsoil strip and surface reinstatement of the working corridor (short term); • Excavated material/topsoil storage and lay down areas; • Visual impact of plant and machinery including moving vehicles, this is during construction phase only; and • Visual and landscape impact of construction compounds and access including lighting. This is construction phase only for some elements and short-term to mid-term for landscape if ground levels changed, longer term for tree and hedge removal. Loss of vegetation would largely be avoided. Other appropriate measures to mitigate the landscape and visual impacts of construction on the landscape include the design, specification and monitoring of all reinstatement and mitigation planting, which will be included in an appropriate appendix to be included in the Environmental Statement. 9.5.2 Operational impacts Operation of water pipelines and associated infrastructure can have the following impacts on landscape and visual in the operational phase: • Visual impact of above ground elements such as pumping stations, their security fencing and access roads. This is a permanent impact; • Visual impact of lighting for above ground elements; and • Visual and landscape impact of tree/hedge removal, this is a short to long term impact depending on type and scale.
9.6 Proposed Scope of Assessment 9.6.1 Scoped out The following topics will be scoped out: • Visual and landscape assessment of full proposed pipeline route in the operational phase. The pipe is underground and therefore not visible at operation; • Locally designated landscape sites/areas, as none have been identified within the proposed pipeline working corridor; • Ancient Woodland/Veteran Trees/TPO’s greater than 15 metres from the proposed pipeline working corridor; and • Heritage assets, including Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas and Registered Parks and Gardens, as none are located within 300 metres of the above ground infrastructure. Where such sites do lie within 300 metres of the proposed pipeline working corridor, no significant
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 96
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Landscape and Visual Amenity
landscape or visual impact is likely to occur as construction activities will be temporary in nature and the land will be restored to its former state post-construction. 9.6.2 Scoped in The following topics are scoped in: • Visual impact on sensitive receptors in the construction phase using representative viewpoints – which provides an assessment of visual effects proportional to the scale and nature of the Project proposed scheme and the likely effects; • Visual impact of above ground infrastructure in the operational phase - scoped in as potential for visual impact in rural setting; • National and local Landscape character areas – to provide an assessment of landscape effects proportional to the scale and nature of the proposed scheme and the likely effects, which would largely be of a temporary nature. Assessment would allow development of landscape reinstatement mitigation measures; • Ancient Woodland/Veteran Trees/TPO’s within 15 metres of the proposed pipeline working corridor; and • Registered Common Land - if any present, the landscape impacts on Common Land would be restricted to those areas that would be severed by the proposed pipeline route. Loss of vegetation could potentially cause partial loss or noticeable damage to the landscape. This could cause significant effects both during construction and for a period of time post construction before replacement planting has become established.
9.7 Proposed EIA Methodology 9.7.1 Further baseline data gathering Baseline data on landscape will be gathered within the 1-kilometre study area, and for longer views, from the following sources: • Ordnance Survey mapping; • Google Earth/Streetview; • Aerial photography undertaken by AWS in 2020; • MAGIC website; • LPAs; • Natural England Landscape Character Information; • Woodland Trust Ancient Tree Inventory; and • Site surveys as appropriate, including summer and winter landscape and visual survey. 9.7.2 Assessment methodology The landscape and visual impact assessment will be based on GLVIA3. The largely temporary nature of the construction phase means that that likely landscape and visual effects of significance would be limited. Landscape and visual effects and mitigation proposals would be very similar across broad areas of landscape, and for groups of visual receptors with the same sensitivity (such as users of PRoW and residents in properties within similar locations).
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 97
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Landscape and Visual Amenity
It is not therefore considered proportionate or beneficial to carry out an extensive study which would include effects on detailed landscape character areas and all visual receptors that would be affected. The following scope of the landscape and visual impact assessment represents a proportionate approach which would focus on identifying the key and most significant landscape and visual effects and appropriate landscape mitigation. The assessment would consider: • landscape and visual effects during construction, and • post construction in winter year 1 (worst case – any mitigation planting not yet effective); • summer year 15 (when any mitigation planting would have established). This will demonstrate the benefits of any proposed mitigation planting and how the landscape and visual effects would decrease over time. The likelihood of longer-term landscape and visual effects (summer year 15) of significance would be limited once mitigation planting had established and any marks upon the landscape had reduced. However, longer term landscape and visual effects will be considered to demonstrate the effectiveness of proposed landscape reinstatement mitigation. This approach is in accordance with GLVIA3. It is also likely that stakeholders would prefer to see how the landscape mitigation would reduce the significance of effects in the longer term.
Study Area The study area for the landscape and visual impact assessment would be 1 kilometre from the proposed pipeline working corridor. Whilst there may be longer distance views towards temporary construction activity and areas of vegetation loss post construction (until any replacement planting establishes), it is unlikely that visual effects would be significant. This is because of the largely temporary nature of construction effects and/or the distance to receptors. There may, however, be some exceptions to this from certain points for above ground infrastructure depending on scale and form. A selection of representative longer distance viewpoints in excess of 1 kilometre could be included within the assessment if required.
Assigning value The published National Character Areas would be used as the baseline against which to assess landscape effects. County and local landscape character areas would also be considered in the baseline assessment, where appropriate. This approach would be proportional to the scale and nature of the proposed scheme and the likely effects which would largely be temporary in nature. Vegetation forms part of the landscape character, and loss of vegetation would contribute to the overall magnitude of landscape impact (refer to Table 9.3) on each landscape character area assessed. Loss of vegetation would be included in the assessment of effects on landscape character. Impacts on trees would be informed by an arboricultural assessment in the appropriate areas. To ensure a proportionate assessment, visual effects would be assessed from a range of representative viewpoints in accordance with GLVIA3. A selection of initial publicly accessible viewpoints would be identified throughout the study area.
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 98
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Landscape and Visual Amenity
Representative viewpoints would be selected to show the most significant visual effects because of their high sensitivity, closeness to the proposed scheme (in particular to construction compounds), and the likely change in existing view. The locations will be selected from the baseline assessment of key potential visual receptors, references to views made within published literature, the findings of the Landscape Survey and professional judgement. The number and location of representative viewpoints are subject to change. Agreement of representative viewpoints will be sought through engagement with landscape officers at lthe LPAs.Visual effects would be assessed from the representative viewpoints identified and agreed where possible with LPAs. The sensitivity of the visual receptor is related to the ability of the view to accommodate change without consequences to its scenic quality, the circumstances in which the visual receptor is experiencing the view and the value attached (Table 9.2) A value (sensitivity) will be assigned to each environmental receptor reported in the ES, in accordance with Table 9.2 below:
Table 9.2: Environmental value (sensitivity) of landscape and visual receptors Typical Typical description – landscape Typical description - visual description Very High • The landscape character/feature is • N/A particularly distinctive and cannot readily accommodate the types of change resulting from the proposed scheme without harm. • The landscape is highly valued and includes international or national designations such as World Heritage Sites, National Parks, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, • High recreational value due to public accessibility, the existence of widely distributed promotional (tourist) material and/or local groups indicate a high level of interest in the area. • The landscape is in consistently good condition and provides a high level of scenic quality. • A rare landscape which includes internationally or nationally unique landscape elements/features. • Strong cultural heritage associations of more than local significance. High • Landscapes of high national • Visual receptors experiencing cherished importance containing distinctive views of historic and/or cultural
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 99
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Landscape and Visual Amenity
Typical Typical description – landscape Typical description - visual description features/elements with limited importance at a national or regional ability to accommodate change level and which are highly susceptible without incurring substantial to change. loss/gain. • Residents in their homes. • This could include landscape • Users of PRoW or other recreational designations, registered parks and trails (e.g. National Trails, footpaths, gardens, Conservation Areas, bridleways etc.). country parks, areas with a strong • Users of recreational facilities where sense of place. the purpose of that recreation is enjoyment of the landscape (e.g. Public Parks, National Trust/English Heritage properties or estates and other areas of high heritage value). Medium • The landscape character/feature, • Visual receptors experiencing cherished while distinctive, has some ability to views of historic and/or cultural accommodate the types of change importance at a local level and which resulting from the proposed scheme are moderately susceptible to change. with limited harm. • Outdoor workers. • The landscape is moderately valued • Users of scenic roads, railways or and may include local designations. waterways or users of designated • Recreational value due to public tourist routes. accessibility, the existence of some • Schools and other institutional locally distributed promotional buildings, and their outdoor areas and (tourist) material and/or local users of recreational facilities where groups indicate a degree of interest there is incidental enjoyment of the in the area. landscape (e.g. golfers) • The landscape is in moderate physical condition with some degree of scenic quality or in a condition that could be readily improved, with greater scenic quality, without excessive capital investment. • A landscape which includes regionally or locally unique landscape elements/features. • Strong cultural heritage associations, but of primarily local significance. Low • The landscape character/feature is • Visual receptors experiencing views of not distinctive and can readily little historic and/or cultural accommodate the types of change importance which are not very resulting from the proposed scheme susceptible to change. without harm. • Indoor workers. • The landscape contains no designations.
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 100
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Landscape and Visual Amenity
Typical Typical description – landscape Typical description - visual description • There is little recreational value, • Users of main roads (e.g. trunk roads) very limited public access and no or passengers in public transport on obvious local interest in the area. main arterial routes. • The majority of the landscape is in • Users of recreational facilities where poor/derelict condition with little the purpose of that recreation is not scenic merit. It could not be related to the view (e.g. sports improved without extensive capital facilities). investment. • The landscape is not remarkable or unique in any way. • Few cultural heritage assets.
The existing views from the representative viewpoints would be described. The magnitude of visual change would be assessed by the potential size and extent of the change in the view. The change in the view relates to the loss or addition of features, and the proportion of the view occupied by the proposed scheme. The distance of the receptor from the proposed scheme would influence these aspects. The degree of contrast or integration with the character of the landscape would be important as well as the nature of the view in terms of the relative amount of time over which it would be experienced. The change in view both during and after construction would be described. Whether impacts effects are beneficial or adverse would be recorded based on whether the changes affect the quality of the views. Post construction effects would be considered in year 1 following construction and in year 15 when landscape mitigation planting would be fully established. Descriptions of the criteria applied in considering the magnitude of visual impact are given in Table 9.3xxx. The significance of the visual effects identified would depend on the sensitivity of the viewer likely to be affected and the magnitude of the change in the view experienced by the receptor. The sensitivity of the visual receptors and the magnitude of the visual effects would be combined. In simple terms where the visual receptor has a high level of sensitivity and the view they experience undergoes a large magnitude of change, the overall significance of effect would be of a high order. Conversely where the visual receptor has a low level of sensitivity and the view they experience undergoes a small magnitude of change, the overall significance of effect would be of a low order.
Assigning magnitude of impact The magnitude of impact will be assessed for each landscape and visual receptor reported in the ES. Magnitude is a measure of the scale of impact, the value or sensitivity of the receptor is not taken into account at this stage. Magnitude will be described in accordance with Table 9.3 below: Table 9.3: Magnitude of impact and typical descriptors Magnitude of impact Typical description (change) Major Adverse Loss of resource and/or quality and integrity of resource; severe damage to key characteristics, features or elements.
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 101
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Landscape and Visual Amenity
Beneficial Large scale or major improvement of resource quality; extensive restoration; major improvement of attribute quality. Moderate Adverse Loss of resource, but not adversely affecting the integrity; partial loss of/damage to key characteristics, features or elements. Beneficial Benefit to, or addition of, key characteristics, features or elements; improvement of attribute quality. Minor Adverse Some measurable change in attributes, quality or vulnerability; minor loss of, or alteration to, one (maybe more) key characteristics, features or elements. Beneficial Minor benefit to, or addition of, one (maybe more) key characteristics, features or elements; some beneficial impact on attribute or a reduced risk of negative impact occurring. Negligible Adverse Very minor loss or detrimental alteration to one or more characteristics, features or elements. Beneficial Very minor benefit to or positive addition of one or more characteristics, features or elements. No change No loss or alteration of characteristics, features or elements; no observable impact in either direction.
Assessing significance of effect The significance of effect will be assessed for each landscape and visual receptor reported in the ES. Significance will be assessed on a five-point scale, according to the definitions provided in Table 9.4 below: Table 9.4: Significance categories and typical descriptors Significance Typical description category Very large Effects at this level are material in the decision-making process. Large Effects at this level are likely to be material in the decision-making process. Moderate Effects at this level can be considered to be material decision-making factors Slight Effects at this level are not material in the decision-making process. Neutral No effects or those that are beneath levels of perception, within normal bounds of variation or within the margin of forecasting error.
Significant effects typically comprise residual effects that are within the moderate, large or very large categories. For landscape, the effect is deemed not to be significant when “the impact does not substantially diminish the landscape or visual amenity of the affected receptor”44. The approach to deriving significance of effects from receptor sensitivity (susceptibility and value) combined with magnitude and nature of effects shall be in accordance with the Table 'Significance
44 https://www.landscapeinstitute.org/technical/glvia3-panel
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 102
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Landscape and Visual Amenity
categories and typical descriptions', as set out in the ‘Environmental assessment methodology’ section of LA104 Environmental Assessment and Monitoring (DMRB, July 2019). In accordance with LA107 paragraph 3.27 the assessment shall state whether or not a project is likely to give rise to significant effects and the significance of the effect. The evaluation of the significance of the landscape effects of the proposed scheme is drawn from the matrix in Table B.6 of LA107. The approach to deriving significance of effects from the assigned receptor value and magnitude of impact will be based on the matrix set out in Table 9.5 below. Table 9.5 is not definitive but is provided as a guide to professional judgement. Where Table 9.5 includes two significance categories in one cell, a single category shall be assigned and an evidence-based reasoned judgement will be given for the selection of that category.
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 103
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Landscape and Visual Amenity
Table 9.5: Significance of effects matrix Magnitude of impact (degree of change) No change Negligible Minor Moderate Major
Very high Neutral Slight Moderate Large or Very large or large very large High Neutral Slight Slight or Moderate Large or moderate or large very large Medium Neutral Neutral or Slight Moderate Moderate slight or large Low Neutral Neutral or Neutral or Slight Slight or
slight slight moderate Heritage value (sensitivity) value Heritage Negligible Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral or Slight slight
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 104
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Materials and Waste
10 Materials and waste
10.1 Introduction This chapter outlines the approach and scope of the materials and waste assessment to determine the potential temporary and permanent effects during the construction and operational phases of the proposed scheme (as described in Chapter 2). It assembles baseline data and design information that is readily available to reach a conclusion on the likely significant environmental effects of constructing the proposed scheme. This includes a scoping level assessment of the potential environmental effects related to the use and consumption of materials and the production and management of waste that can reasonably be anticipated with construction of the proposed scheme.
The scoping assessment for materials and waste considers the following elements:
• Materials – which are considered to be the physical resources in the environment, which may be of human or natural origin. This includes the material and construction products required for constructing the proposed scheme including primary, secondary, recycled materials and manufactured construction products; and
• Waste – this includes surplus materials which can become waste during the construction of the proposed scheme, as well as other substances which the holder discards or intends or is required to discard. Waste may arise from site clearance activities, existing site materials through the demolition of existing features or from materials brought to site but not used for the original purpose, such as offcuts, damaged items and surplus.
10.2 Legislative and policy background Table 10.1 summarises key legislation and policies which are instrumental to the assessment of materials and waste. Table 10.1 Key legislation and policy Legislation/ Policy Relevance to the Proposed Scheme The Environmental Implements Integrated Pollution Control (IPC) for the disposal of waste Protection Act 1990 (as to air, land and water. Under IPC, a range of obligations are placed on amended) the developer. Clean Neighbourhoods Chapter 16 prescribes the correct transportation, collection, disposal and Environment Act and management methods for waste, and prohibits fly tipping. 2005 The Waste (England and The Regulations prescribe management of waste in accordance with Wales) Regulations the waste hierarchy. 2011 (as amended) The Hazardous Waste Details how hazardous wastes shall be managed and disposed of. (England and Wales) Regulations 2005 (as amended)
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 105
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Materials and Waste
Legislation/ Policy Relevance to the Proposed Scheme NPPF Section 2 of the NPPF sets out the government’s objectives in relation to sustainable development. Paragraph 8c includes “minimising waste and pollution” as part of the NPPF’s environmental objectives. Section 17 sets out the government’s policies relating to the sustainable use of minerals. Paragraph 204b emphasises the importance of using substitute, secondary or recycled materials before considering the extraction of primary materials, and of sourcing minerals supplies indigenously. Local planning policy The documents that comprise the adopted Local Plan for each LPA area affected by the proposed scheme are described in Chapter 3 (section 3.7). Local plan policies relevant to consideration of materials and waste will be taken into account in the development of the proposed scheme and in the ES.
10.3 Guidance and Approach to Scoping 10.3.1 Guidance In the absence of industry specific guidance, this assessment has been informed and guided by the Highways Agency DMRB LA110 Material Assets and Waste (August 2019). DMRB provides a comprehensive and consistent approach to assessing and reporting the environmental impacts and effects of linear construction projects. 10.3.2 Study area In accordance with LA110, the assessment utilises two geographically different study areas to examine the use of primary, secondary and recycled construction materials; and the generation and management of waste: • Study Area 1: The construction footprint / boundaries (including compounds and temporary land take) of the proposed scheme. Within these areas, construction materials will be consumed, and waste will be generated; and • Study Area 2: The wider study area is based on the likely provenance of construction materials required to construct the main elements of the proposed scheme, and waste infrastructure that is likely to be suitable (permitted for waste volume and type) to accept arisings and/or waste generated by the proposed scheme. Professional judgement (a balance of the proximity principle and value for money principle) has been applied in deriving the second study area.
10.4 Baseline conditions 10.4.1 Material assets The East of England Aggregates Working Party (EEAWP) and East Midlands Aggregates Working Party (EMAWP) are the bodies charged with data collection to facilitate planning by Mineral Planning Authorities, national government agencies and the aggregate industry. The latest annual monitoring reports for the East of England45 and East Midlands Aggregates Working Parties (AWPs)46 provide
45 https://www.centralbedfordshire.gov.uk/info/48/minerals_and_waste/447/east_of_england_aggregate_working_party 46 https://www.nottinghamshire.gov.uk/media/2890567/emawp-annual-report-2016-final.pdf
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 106
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Materials and Waste
data on aggregates provision as an aid to mineral planning. AWPs are bodies that monitor the supply, demand and reserves of all aggregates in its area. The data therefore provides an overview of availability of resources in each region. These reports have been summarised for the respective study areas in Table 10.2 and 10.3 below.
Table 10.2 EEAWP Annual Monitoring Report 2018 Summary47 Material type Cambridgeshire Norfolk Suffolk East of England Sand & Gravel 3.2 1.51 1.22 12.37 Sales (Mt) Crushed rock 217 - 0.22 Sand & Gravel 41.8 13.3 10.69 12.1 Reserves (Mt) Crushed rock 4.3 - 4.3 Landbank (years) 17.5 / 9.7 / 9.8 / 11.4 / Sand & Gravel (based on 10 year 14.5 5.2 6.6 8.2 average/sub- 12.1 / 12.1 / national Crushed rock - apportionment) 10.7 10.7 Sand & Gravel 15 34 18 116 Permitted Quarries Crushed rock - 2 - 2 in 2018 Specialist 4 - - 4 Limestone
Table 10.3 EMAWP Annual Monitoring Report 2017’ Summary Material type Lincolnshire East Midlands
Sand & Gravel 2.38 6.79 Sales (Mt) Crushed rock 0.93 28.41
Sand & Gravel 20.19 57.59 Reserves (Mt) Crushed rock 25.59 1281.43
Landbank (years) Sand & Gravel 9.8 8.93 (based on 10 year average/sub-national Crushed rock 39.46 54.93 apportionment)
Sand & Gravel 11 33
Active Quarries in 2017 Chalk 2 2 Limestone 14 42
47 Cambridgeshire and Norfolk crushed rock volumes are report as combined figures for the purpose of confidentiality within the EEAWP 2018 Monitoring Report
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 107
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Materials and Waste
10.4.2 Waste The proposed pipeline working corridor crosses one historic landfill site, Wisbech Canal, running between Wisbech and Outwell. There are six other historic landfill sites within 1 kilometres of the proposed scheme. The EA waste information 2017 includes information about waste sent to landfills and remaining capacity in the East Midlands and East of England. Table 10.4 and Table 10.5 below show the available capacity in the relevant sub-regions based on mandatory reporting of permitted and licensed sites for waste treatment which is collated by the EA. This shows there is currently significant capacity in the sub-regions (It should be noted that it will not be possible for AWS to prescribe which particular landfill(s) a contractor or contractors should use – this is a commercial matter which will be decided at a later stage in the development process). Table 10.4: East Midlands Landfill Capacity 2017 (000 cubic metres) Landfill Type Sub-Region East Derbyshire Leicestershire Lincolnshire Northamptonshire Nottinghamshire Midlands Hazardous - - - 948 - 948 Merchant Hazardous ------Restricted Non- 5,749 10,594 - 1,729 - 18,072 Hazardous with SNRHW cell* Non- 2,849 258 9,660 509 179 13,455 Hazardous Non- - - 114 - 3,411 3,525 Hazardous Restricted Inert 850 2,365 14,299 1,261 4,021 22,796 Total 9,448 13,217 24,073 4,447 7,611 58,796
* some non-hazardous sites can accept some Stable Non-Reactive Hazardous Wastes (SNRHW) into a dedicated cell, but this is usually only a small part of the overall capacity of the site. Table Notes: Data for 2017 is classified into Landfill Directive categories. 2017 landfill capacity data was obtained from environmental monitoring reports required by permits or directly from the operator. All figures are provided in thousands of cubic metres.
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 108
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Materials and Waste
Table 10.5: East of England Landfill Capacity 2017 (000 cubic metres) Landfill Type Sub-Region East of Bedfordshire Cambridgeshire Essex Hertfordshire Norfolk Suffolk England Hazardous - - - - - 6 6 Merchant Hazardous ------Restricted Non- - 348 - - - 371 719 Hazardous with SNRHW cell* Non- 609 1,290 2,338 502 126 56 4,921 Hazardous Non------Hazardous Restricted Inert 765 710 1,053 838 122 167 3,655 Total 1,374 2,348 3,391 1,341 248 600 9,302
* some non-hazardous sites can accept some Stable Non-Reactive Hazardous Wastes (SNRHW) into a dedicated cell, but this is usually only a small part of the overall capacity of the site. Table Notes: Data for 2017 is classified into Landfill Directive categories. 2017 landfill capacity data was obtained from environmental monitoring reports required by permits or directly from the operator. All figures are provided in thousands of cubic metres.
Although there is a reducing trend for landfill disposal, there is significant landfill capacity on both a regional and sub-regional basis. This means that any waste that is destined for landfill would most likely find available regional capacity. It is also of note that even where wastes are accepted at landfill, some may, subject to their properties, be used for reuse, recycling or recovery within landfill cover or other engineering rather than subject to and accounted for as disposal.
10.5 Potential Impacts 10.5.1 Construction impacts Construction of water pipelines and supporting infrastructure can have the following impacts on materials and waste: • Consumption of finite natural resources resulting in the temporary or permanent degradation of the natural environment; • Release of greenhouse gas emissions (through transportation); • Water consumption; and • Reduction in landfill capacity.
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 109
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Materials and Waste
10.5.2 Operational impacts No significant impacts are anticipated during the operational phase of the proposed scheme as the consumption of resources and generation of waste associated with the maintenance and operation of the proposed scheme will be limited. The operation of the proposed scheme has the potential for beneficial impacts as a result of the redirection of surplus resources (water) to reduce the unsustainable consumption of a limited resource in water deprived regions.
10.6 Proposed Scope of Assessment LA110 confirms that a series of scoping questions should be considered to determine the need for further assessment of materials and waste. Where the response to one or more of these questions in Table 10.6 is 'yes', further assessment should be undertaken. The scoping questions and assessment of the potential effects of the proposed scheme against each question is provided in Table 10.6.
Table 10.6 LA 110 Scoping questions Question Response Is the project likely to recover / No/unlikely. Whilst the design will include minimising the use reuse little on-site material of concrete on-site, reuse of excavated materials on-site and thereby requiring materials to where possible use site-won materials given that the proposed be imported to site? pipeline and associated infrastructure will be new structures they will naturally require materials to be imported to site. However, AWS’s 2020 to 2025 business plan for carbon reduction and its development of a circular economy approach to recover and reuse is likely to be higher than the industry standard. Is the project likely to use little / No / unlikely. WRAP (2009) research suggests that no recycled / secondary infrastructure projects typically exceed 10% recycled content materials thereby requiring the even without explicitly trying to increase recycled content, and majority of materials used on that the recycled content as a percentage of the total material the project to comprise primary cost for an infrastructure project was in the region of 8-36% materials? using standard practice products, with this rising to 25-49% when applying cost-neutral good practice. Would the project generate No/unlikely. Whilst the proposed scheme has the potential to large quantities of waste generate an undefined volume of waste (at this stage of relative to regional landfill design); a >1% reduction in the East of England regional landfill capacity? capacity is unlikely to occur given that the proposed scheme would need to generate >511,450 m3 of waste for this to be realised, and for this waste to be disposed of entirely to landfill. This is considered unlikely based on the application of industry benchmarks / Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for completed infrastructure projects, and that DEFRA (2019) statistics confirms that 92% of all Construction and Demolition (C&D) waste is currently being diverted from landfill in England. Will the project have an effect No/unlikely, given the anticipated types and quantities of on the ability of waste waste, the receiving waste infrastructure is likely to have
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 110
Grantham to Bexwell Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Materials and Waste
Question Response infrastructure within the region sufficient capacity to accommodate waste arising from the to continue to accommodate construction of the proposed scheme, without compromising waste from other sources? integrity of the receiving infrastructure within the region.
Table 10.5 indicates that the proposed scheme would be unlikely to result in significant effects in relation to materials and waste. The proposed scheme will seek to minimise the consumption of raw materials and generation of waste, so it is proposed that materials and waste issues are scoped out from further assessment.
10.7 Proposed EIA Methodology No elements of the materials and waste topic have been scoped in to the assessment, and the topic will not be taken forward into the ES, therefore no assessment method is proposed.
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 111
Grantham to Peterborough Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Population and Human Health
11 Noise and vibration
11.1 Introduction Noise and vibration can have an impact on the environment and on the quality of life enjoyed by individuals and communities. They may, in certain circumstances, lead to effects on human, ecological and infrastructure receptors. Potential noise and vibration effects have therefore been considered during this EIA scoping process. This chapter considers the potential for the following activities to give rise to noise and vibration effects: • Construction activity within the working corridor described in Chapter 2, including construction compounds, site haul routes, and trenchless crossings; • Construction vehicle movements on public highways; and • The operation of the pipeline and associated above ground infrastructure, including normal pumping operations, commissioning, maintenance, and inspection. The likely effects associated with each of these on human receptors (i.e. dwellings, schools, hospitals, places of worship, recreational areas, and other noise-sensitive locations) are considered within this chapter. Effects of noise and vibration on other receptors are considered in the following chapters: • Chapter 5 Archaeology and Cultural Heritage – historic receptors such as Listed Buildings; • Chapter 6 Biodiversity and Ecology – ecological receptors within designated sites; • Chapter 8 Land Use and Recreation – human receptors such as users of PRoWs; and • Chapter 9 Landscape and visual amenity – areas of tranquillity. In this section, in line with current legislation, references to ‘noise’ can apply equally to the assessment of vibration impacts.
11.2 Legislative and policy background This section summarises legislation and policy specific to the assessment of noise. Relevant legislative and policy provisions will be described in more detail in the ES. Table 11.1 summarises key legislation and policies which are instrumental to the assessment of noise and vibration. Table 11.1 Key legislation and policy Legislation/ Policy Relevance to the Proposed Scheme The Control of Pollution Defines the powers of Local Authorities to control construction noise Act 1974 (as amended) by restricting construction methods, plant and working hours. The Environmental Requires improved control of pollution, including noise, arising from Protection Act 1990 industrial, commercial or other activities and it restates the law defining statutory nuisances and improves the summary procedures for dealing with them.
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 112
Grantham to Peterborough Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Population and Human Health
Legislation/ Policy Relevance to the Proposed Scheme NPPF Sets out the Government’s over-arching planning policies for England and includes some information relevant to the consideration of noise impacts. At paragraph 170 the NPPF states that planning decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by, amongst other factors, preventing existing development from being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of noise pollution. At paragraph 180, the NPPF states that planning decisions should also: • Mitigate, and reduce to a minimum, potential adverse impacts resulting from noise from new development – and avoid noise giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and the quality of life; • identify and protect tranquil areas which have remained relatively undisturbed by noise and are prized for their recreational and amenity value for this reason. The Noise Policy Provides explanation of the term 'significant adverse impact' from the Statement for England, NPPF. The document also defines the meanings of the terms No 2010 Observed Effect Level (NOEL), Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL) and Significant Observed Adverse Effect Level (SOAEL). Planning Practice Provides advice on how the planning system can manage potential Guidance: Noise (2019; noise impacts in new development. It advises that LPAs should take PPG Noise) account of the acoustic environment and in doing so consider: • whether or not a significant adverse effect is occurring or likely to occur; • whether or not an adverse effect is occurring or likely to occur; and • whether or not a good standard of amenity can be achieved. PPG states that these potential effects should be evaluated by comparison with the SOAEL and the LOAEL for the given situation. Local planning policy The documents that comprise the adopted Local Plan for each LPA area affected by the proposed scheme are described in Chapter 3 (section 3.7). Local plan policies relevant to noise and vibration will be taken into account in the development of the proposed scheme and in the ES.
11.3 Guidance and Approach to Scoping 11.3.1 Guidance Various British Standards (BS) provide relevant guidance on the quantification, prediction and management of noise. The noise and vibration assessment will consider the standards set out below: • BS 5228-1:2009+A1:2014 ‘Noise and vibration control on construction and open sites. Part 1 - Noise’ (BSI, 2014) provides noise source levels for typical construction equipment and calculation methods to determine construction noise levels at distance. It will be used for all construction noise calculation and assessment.
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 113
Grantham to Peterborough Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Population and Human Health
• BS 5228-2:2009+A1:2014 ‘Noise and vibration control on construction and open sites. Part 2 – Vibration’ (BSI, 2014) contains guidance on construction vibration and its effect on buildings and people. It provides a prediction methodology for mechanised construction works, such as compaction and tunnelling works. The standard also presents guidance for the control of vibration from construction works. Assessment of the likelihood of significant effects as a result of ground-borne vibrations, will be carried out using the guidance contained within this standard. • BS 7385-2:1993 ‘Evaluation and measurement for vibration in buildings’ (BSI, 1993) gives guidance on the levels of vibration above which building structures could be damaged. • BS 6472:1992 ‘Evaluation of human exposure to vibration in buildings [1 Hz to 80 Hz]’ (BSI, 1992) gives guidance on the levels of vibration within building that give rise to human response. • BS 4142:2014 Methods for rating and assessing industrial and commercial sound. Methodology for rating and assessing the effects of new or existing sound sources on people. It uses outdoor sound levels to assess the likely effects of sound on people who might be inside or outside a dwelling or premises used for residential purposes upon which sound is incident. • BS 8233:2014 Guidance on sound insulation and noise reduction for buildings Includes guideline values for noise levels within domestic homes and other building uses. A number of government departments and Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) have published noise and vibration guidance. The following are relevant to the noise and vibration assessments: • ‘Calculation of Road Traffic Noise' (CRTN) (Department for Transport and the Welsh Office, 1988) - used for the calculation and measurement of road traffic noise. • DMRB, Sustainability and Environment, Appraisal, Noise and Vibration (LA111 Version 2) (Highways England, 2020) - used to define boundaries for the likely effect of increases in traffic noise levels, and to inform the construction noise and vibration assessment approach. Whilst this guidance applies to highways schemes, it is considered relevant to the proposed scheme due to its linear nature, and it represents the most recent government guidance on construction noise and vibration. • Guidelines for Environmental Noise Impact Assessment (IEMA 2014) - set out key principles and advice on noise impact assessment but acknowledge that impact assessment methodologies should be specific to each project. • ISO 9613-2:1996. Acoustics – Attenuation of sound propagation outdoors – Part 2: General method of calculation the primary standard used in the UK and much of Europe for the calculation of environmental sound propagation. • World Health Organization (WHO) 'Guidelines for Community Noise' (1999) - provides guidance on acceptable internal and external noise levels in buildings and outdoor living areas. • WHO ‘Night Noise Guidelines for Europe’ (WHO 2009) - reviews health effects associated with exposure to night-time noise and recommends guideline values. 11.3.2 Study area Separate study areas are defined below for each element of the noise and vibration assessment. Based on the assessment of impacts on receptors within these study areas during the impact
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 114
Grantham to Peterborough Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Population and Human Health
assessment stage, consideration will be given to the likelihood of significant noise effects outside these areas, and the study areas will be extended where required.
Construction noise and vibration assessment Following guidance in BS5228-1 and LA111, the initial study area (for both the scoping and impact assessment stages of the EIA process) for the construction noise assessment is 300metres from the proposed pipeline working corridor or any other area used for construction including construction compounds, laydown areas, and sites for associated above ground infrastructure. The study area for the construction vibration assessment is 100metres from the working corridor in accordance with LA111, as effects are commonly experienced over much lesser distances than noise effects.
Construction traffic noise For the construction traffic noise study area, this is defined as 50 metres from the carriageway edge of public roads with the potential for an increase in basic noise level (BNL) of 1 dB(A) or more. The procedure for calculating a BNL is set out by the CRTN document and relates to a noise level at a reference location 10metres from the carriageway edge.
Operational noise There is no current authoritative guidance on how far a noise study area should extend from the operational noise sources proposed as part of a project. The study area required for operational noise sources will depend upon the noise emission level from those sources; a low noise emission level would result in a small study area, whereas a higher noise emission level would result in a larger study area. It is anticipated that the most common receptor type with the potential to be affected by operational noise from the proposed scheme is residential. The study area is therefore defined as the area where indicative worst-case noise levels are predicted to exceed the 35 dB LAeq T criterion presented in BS8233 to ensure daytime resting in living rooms and bedrooms. Application to outdoor environment ensures resting would be possible in outdoor living areas during daytime periods.
11.4 Baseline In order to inform this Scoping Report, reference has been made to OS mapping and the strategic noise mapping undertaken by the DEFRA in 2012 and 2017 to satisfy the requirements of the Environmental Noise Directive. These results (Extrium, 202048) have been used to provide a high- level description of existing traffic and rail noise levels at receptors in parts of the study areas covered by the strategic noise mapping. Baseline noise levels are likely to vary along the proposed pipeline route as it passes through a variety of rural and more built-up areas. The main factors that affect baseline noise levels are expected to be as follows: • Higher noise levels would be expected at locations closer to transport infrastructure and industrial activity. Agricultural noise sources are not considered due to their intermittent and highly variable nature;
48 England Noise and Air Quality Viewer http://www.extrium.co.uk/noiseviewer.html website accessed 21 October 2020
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 115
Grantham to Peterborough Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Population and Human Health
• Diurnal patterns – higher noise levels would be expected at times of peak transport activity and lowest at night; and • Meteorological conditions – noise levels would be at their lowest in the absence of wind and rain. Whilst the majority of the proposed pipeline route is rural, and baseline noise levels are expected to be comparatively low, some receptors within the study area may be affected by noise from sources included in the strategic noise mapping, such as:
• A151 south west of Bourne; • A15 from Baston to Peterborough; • A16 east of Newborough; • A47 north of Thorney to Guyhirn • A1104 north of Outwell; • A10 east of Downham Market, and • Railway between Stamford and Peterborough.
The noise maps indicate that noise levels at some receptors in these areas could be above 55dB LAeq
16 hr, and/or above 50 dB Lnight. There are no particular sources of ground borne vibration identified along the proposed pipeline route other than highways and railways. Existing levels of vibration present at receptors (including those adjacent to highways and railways) would not influence the assessment as they are typically orders of magnitude below levels that would give rise to adverse vibration effects. In accordance with LA111, the baseline vibration levels are assumed to be zero.
11.5 Potential Impacts 11.5.1 Construction impacts The majority of the proposed pipeline will be installed using open-cut trench techniques. Noise and vibration from construction plant activity within the proposed pipeline working corridor will mainly come from the following activities: • Vegetation removal and fencing; • Access point creation; • Watercourse flume installation; • Topsoil strip and haul road creation in rural areas; • Breaking of hard surfaces; • Compound preparation; • Pipe stringing; • Pipe welding; • Excavation; • Pipe laying; • Backfill;
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 116
Grantham to Peterborough Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Population and Human Health
• Compaction; • Reinstatement; and • Vehicles using private access routes to work sites. In addition, at some major road, rail and watercourse crossings, trenchless techniques such as horizontal directional drilling and pipe jacking are proposed, where noise and vibration generating equipment will be positioned at either end of the trenchless section. Construction activity will also be required in the construction of the proposed associated above ground infrastructure. The equipment associated with the above works could include dumpers, tracked excavators, hydraulic breakers, telescopic handlers, lorries, dozers, cranes, compressors, generators, tunnel boring machines, drill rigs, slurry plant and pumps. The various different types of construction activities will not occur at the same location simultaneously. For example, plant associated with the excavation of the proposed pipeline trench will be followed behind by the plant laying the pipe, and then the plant needed to refill the excavated material and level the new surface. Each receptor will not experience worst case noise or vibration effects for the different activities simultaneously. Within the overall construction period, there will be days when no construction activities would be audible. Similarly, any receptor will only experience the highest construction noise levels for a limited duration within the construction period. The majority of construction activity will be undertaken during the standard daytime working hours of 0700-1900 hours Monday to Friday and 0700-1600 hours Saturday. In areas where the works are comparatively close to noise sensitive receptors, the activities with the highest potential to lead to elevated noise levels will not be undertaken during the early morning or later evening periods within these hours. At the present time, the need to undertake some limited works outside of daytime hours cannot be discounted. Such works may include pipe-jacking for longer tunnel lengths. In addition to the above noise sources, the additional traffic movements required to transport personnel, materials and equipment to and from the various work sites have the potential to increase noise levels at receptors close to relevant parts of the public highway network. Vehicles using dedicated private access routes will be considered as part of the construction noise assessment. LA111 states that a maintained road surface should be free from irregularities, so vibration from traffic using the highway will not have the potential to lead to significant adverse effects. 11.5.2 Operational impacts During the operational phase, noise will be generated by the use of new equipment at the above ground infrastructure sites, such as the pumps within the proposed pumping stations. In addition, noise may also be generated by the transformer and the testing and occasional use of the emergency generators at the proposed pumping station locations. As an example of balanced rotating equipment, the pumps have the potential to be sources of vibration. However, as the pumps will be located on large concrete bases, any vibration transmitted into the ground is likely to be negligible, and orders of magnitude lower than would be expected to give rise to nuisance or damage to properties.
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 117
Grantham to Peterborough Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Population and Human Health
All valves will be located within concrete chambers, which are predominantly below ground. The air valves and line valves are not considered likely to generate sufficient noise to be perceptible at local receptors. The operation of the washout valves may result in some noise from water draining out of a section of pipe. However, this will only occur on an infrequent basis, during maintenance works. Since the proposed pipeline will be buried, noise from the flow of water within the pipeline is considered unlikely to be perceptible at receptor locations. The pipeline will be designed and operated in accordance with industry good practice. This will ensure that pipeline walls are suitably rigid, and that fluid flow within the pipeline will be smooth enough that vibration issues associated with turbulent flow will be avoided. Additional traffic movements required during the operational phase are considered likely to be small scale and intermittent and thus not have the potential to result in significant noise and vibration effects.
11.6 Proposed Scope of Assessment 11.6.1 Scoped out The following elements of the topic are scoped out of this assessment: • Vibration from construction traffic on the public highway; • Noise and vibration from operational traffic on the public highway; • Noise and vibration from the operation of valves and flow of water within the pipeline; and • Operational vibration from associated above ground infrastructure. 11.6.2 Scoped in The following elements are scoped in to this assessment: • Construction noise and vibration associated with construction works, including installation of pipes in open-cut trenches and trenchless crossings, and construction of the proposed associated above ground infrastructure including pumping stations, and water storage tanks; • Traffic noise from construction vehicles using the public highways; and • Operational noise from the proposed associated above ground infrastructure.
11.7 Proposed EIA Methodology 11.7.1 Further baseline data gathering LA 111 (Highways England, 2020) states that: ”Noise monitoring, specifically for the purposes of construction noise baseline data collection, should only be undertaken where data from other sources is not sufficient to enable production of a proportionate construction noise assessment”. A baseline noise survey is not proposed to support the construction noise assessment. The proposed method for the assessment of construction noise is based on Annex E.3.2 of BS 5228- 1:2009+A1:2014 (BSI, 2014) and LA111 (Highways England 2020). Whilst these methods use baseline noise levels to set assessment criteria, lower cut off values are set for areas with relatively low baseline noise levels. For example, where daytime baseline ambient noise levels are 65dB LAeq
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 118
Grantham to Peterborough Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Population and Human Health
T or less, the assessment criterion is 65dB(A). Taking into account the predominantly rural setting of the proposed scheme, it is considered likely that ambient noise levels will be low, and hence the lower cut off values will apply. The application of the most stringent thresholds from BS5228-1 and LA 111 will ensure that a proportionate assessment based on conservative assumptions will be achieved; in consequence baseline noise monitoring is not required. No baseline vibration survey is proposed to support the construction vibration assessment. Following guidance from LA111, the vibration baseline shall be assumed to be zero. With respect to construction traffic noise, the baseline basic noise level will be calculated using the CRTN methodology and the baseline traffic flows for the road links identified as having the potential to experience increases in traffic due to construction activities. For operational noise, a baseline noise level survey will be undertaken at locations representative of receptors where noise levels are predicted to exceed relevant absolute noise level criteria presented in BS8233 and/or the WHO publications Guidelines for Community Noise and Night Noise Guidelines for Europe. The survey will include both daytime and night-time periods. The relevant LPA will be consulted regarding the details of the proposed methodology prior to any surveys being undertaken. No baseline vibration survey is proposed to support the operational vibration assessment; the vibration baseline shall be assumed to be zero. Where relevant, further reference may be made to baseline noise levels published as part of the strategic noise mapping undertaken by DEFRA in 2012 and 2017 to satisfy the requirements of the Environmental Noise Directive. These results (Extrium, 202049) may be used to describe existing traffic and rail noise levels at receptors in parts of the study areas covered by the strategic noise mapping. 11.7.2 Assessment of Impacts The assessment of impacts will be undertaken in accordance with the policy and guidance documents set out in sections 11.2 and 11.3.
Assigning sensitivity LA111 (Highways England, 2020), provides various examples of noise sensitive receptors: “Examples include dwellings, hospitals, healthcare facilities, education facilities, community facilities, END quiet areas or potential END quiet areas, international and national or statutorily designated sites, public rights of way and cultural heritage assets.” The IEMA Guidelines for Environmental Noise Impact Assessment (2014) detail additional noise sensitive receptor types, including: • places of worship; • open-air amenities; • cemeteries; • farms and kennels; • retail premises; and
49 England Noise and Air Quality Viewer http://www.extrium.co.uk/noiseviewer.html website accessed 21 October 2020
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 119
Grantham to Peterborough Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Population and Human Health
• some commercial and industrial installations. Both LA111 and the IEMA Guidelines note that receptors may have various sensitivities to noise, but do not specifically define a sensitivity scale. Many of the guidance documents cited in Section 11.3 present different assessment criteria for different receptor types. The sensitivity of receptors has therefore been considered when selecting the assessment criteria used to describe the magnitude of . It is therefore not necessary to define a separate sensitivity scale for noise receptors.
Assigning magnitude of impact - construction noise Construction noise levels will be predicted by using noise modelling software (such as CadnaA) and validated spreadsheet techniques to implement the BS5228-1 calculation methodology. The method for assigning the magnitude of impact will be based on guidance presented in LA111 which has been developed from assessment criteria set out in BS5228-1. The magnitude scale adopted for the proposed scheme, along with the supporting LOAEL and SOAEL values required by the magnitude scale are detailed in Table 11.2. and 11.3 respectively.
Table 11.2 Magnitude of impact and construction noise descriptions Magnitude of impact Construction noise level
Major Above or equal to SOAEL +5dB Moderate Above or equal to SOAEL and below SOAEL +5dB Minor Above or equal to LOAEL and below SOAEL Negligible Below LOAEL
Table 11.3 Construction LOAELs and SOAELs Time period LOAEL SOAEL
Day (0700-1900 weekday and 0700-1300 Baseline noise levels LAeq,T 65 dB LAeq T Saturdays)
Night (2300-0700) Baseline noise levels LAeq,T 45 dB LAeq T
Evening and weekends (time periods not covered Baseline noise levels LAeq,T 55 dB LAeq T above)
The majority of construction activity will be undertaken during daytime hours; however, at the present time, the need to undertake some limited works outside of daytime hours cannot be discounted. Therefore criteria have been set out for all possible working hours. Proposed working hours will be confirmed in the ES. The SOAEL values have been determined as per BS 5228-1 Section E3.2 and Table E.1 BS 5228-1, assuming a low baseline noise level. They are the lowest values included by this British Standard. Should site specific baseline data be available for certain locations within the study area at the time
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 120
Grantham to Peterborough Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Population and Human Health
of the ES, these criteria may be reviewed. However, it is considered unlikely that they will be altered. For example, a daytime ambient noise level of 65 dB(A) (rounded to the nearest 5dB(A)) would be required before a higher assessment criterion would be applicable. For context, an ‘average suburban area’ may have a typical noise level of 40dB(A), whilst the kerbside of a busy street would be around 80dB(A) (Woods, 2001)50. It is acknowledged that without a comprehensive baseline dataset for the entire study area, the LOAEL cannot be set. By not being able to define the LOAEL, it cannot be determined whether a location with an existing noise level below the SOAEL is within the Minor or Negligible category. However, following guidance in LA111 that significant effects can only occur when the magnitude is Moderate or above, this is not considered to be a limiting factor or risk to the assessment. The magnitude scale, LOAEL and SOAEL methodology set out above are applicable to the range of receptors described by LA111 and noted in the section on Assigning Sensitivity. Should other receptor types or unusual local circumstances be identified, reference will be made to other absolute noise criteria such as those presented by BS8233 and the WHO.
Assigning magnitude of impact - construction vibration Construction vibration levels will be predicted using validated spreadsheet techniques to implement the BS5228-2 methodology. LA 111 and BS5228-2 have been used to determine the magnitude of construction vibration impacts. The magnitude scale adopted for the proposed scheme, along with the supporting LOAEL and SOAEL values required by the magnitude scale are detailed in Table 11.4. and 11.5 respectively. Table 11.4 Magnitude of impact and construction vibration descriptions Magnitude of impact Construction noise level
Major Above or equal to 10 mm/s PPV Moderate Above or equal to SOAEL and below 10 mm/s PPV Minor Above or equal to LOAEL and below SOAEL Negligible Below LOAEL
Table 11.5 Construction LOAELs and SOAELs Time period LOAEL SOAEL
All time periods 0.3mm/s PPV 1.0mm/s PPV
The magnitude scale, LOAEL and SOAEL set out above are applicable to the range of receptors described by LA111 and noted in ‘Assigning Sensitivity’. Should other receptor types or unusual local circumstances be identified, reference will be made to other vibration criteria such as those presented by BS5228-2 which are based on guidance set out in BS7385 and BS6472.
50 Sharland (2001) Woods Practical Guide to Noise Control
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 121
Grantham to Peterborough Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Population and Human Health
Construction traffic Construction traffic noise will be predicted using the CRTN methodology. LA111 provides guidance on describing the magnitude of impact of construction traffic noise. However, it does not define a LOAEL and SOAEL specifically for this noise source. Project specific LOAELs and SOAELs have been developed for the purposes of this EIAScoping Report, taking into account the LOAELs and SOAELs for construction noise and operational traffic set out by LA111. The magnitude scale adopted for the proposed scheme along with the supporting LOAEL and SOAEL values are detailed in Table 11.6 and 11.7 respectively Table 11.6 Magnitude of impact for construction traffic Magnitude of Change in BNL resulting from construction traffic noise level impact
Where BNL is less than Where BNL is Where BNL is more than SOAEL LOAEL of 55 dB between LOAEL of 68dB LA10,18hr façade LA10,18hr facade and SOAEL (equivalent to 66 dB LAeq T) Major - Greater than or Greater than or equal to 5.0 equal to 10.0 Moderate - Greater than or Greater than or equal to 3.0 and equal to 10.0 and less than 5.0 less than 5.0 Minor - Greater than or Greater than or equal to 1.0 and equal to 3.0 and less than 3.0 less than 5.0 Negligible Any Less than 3.0 Less than 1.0
The magnitude scale, LOAEL and SOAEL values set out above are applicable to the range of receptors described by LA111 and noted in ‘Assigning Sensitivity’. Should other receptor types or unusual local circumstances be identified, reference will be made to other absolute noise criteria such as those presented by BS8233 and the WHO. In addition, if receptors are located at markedly different distances from the road than the 10 metres assumed by the BNL value, the BNL value may be modified to take these distances into account.
Operational Noise Operational noise levels will be predicted using validated spreadsheet techniques or noise modelling software (such as CadnaA) to implement the ISO 9613-2 calculation methodology. The magnitude scale to be used in the assessment of operational noise has been developed based upon guidance in BS4142. The scale to be used for residential receptors, and those of a similar sensitivity, is presented below in Table 11.7. Should other receptor types or unusual local circumstances be identified, reference will be made to other absolute noise criteria such as those presented by BS8233 and the WHO. The absolute values relevant to each receptor location will be reviewed once appropriate survey data has been obtained.
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 122
Grantham to Peterborough Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Population and Human Health
Table 11.7 Magnitude of impact for operational noise Magnitude of impact Difference between background noise level and rating noise level in accordance with BS4142 Major More than +10 Moderate +5 to +10 Minor +5 to +0 Negligible Below background
LOAEL and SOAEL values have not been defined for operational noise. A 2014 report undertaken for DEFRA entitled ‘Possible options for the identification of SOAEL and LOAEL in support of the NPSE’ states that: “Given that there is insufficient robust information on people's response to industrial noise it is not possible to derive a LOAEL or SOAEL for industrial sources”. The assessment of operational noise will therefore be undertaken using the magnitude scale developed based on guidance in BS4142. It should be noted that BS4142 emphasises that, along with the difference between a rating level and background noise level, contextual factors should also be considered. These include consideration of the absolute level of sound, the character of the existing noise environment and industrial noise source, and whether the receptor property includes any noise insulation, mechanical ventilation or acoustic screening measures. These contextual factors may be used to modify the magnitude of impact if required in the assessor’s professional judgement.
Assessing significance of effect As detailed above, the sensitivity of the receptors has been considered in setting the magnitude scales. Following LA111, a significant effect will generally be where a magnitude of moderate or major is predicted to occur. However, when determining significance, it is important to also take into account the duration of effect. LA111 states that significant construction noise, construction vibration and construction traffic noise effects would only occur if the following timescales are exceeded: • 10 or more days or nights in any 15 consecutive days or nights; or • a total number of days exceeding 40 in any 6 consecutive months. Operational noise will be long term, and the frequency of occurrence and duration of effect are considered as part of the BS4142 assessment. A significant effect will therefore be deemed to have occurred for receptors identified as experiencing moderate or major magnitudes of effect. Where significant effects are identified, mitigation measures will be proposed, and any residual effects identified. Such mitigation measures may include the use of temporary acoustic barriers, community liaison communications, noise monitoring and management plan (within the CEMP) or a best practicable means specific to the noise source or activity causing the significant effect.
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 123
Grantham to Peterborough Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Population and Human Health
12 Population and Human Health
12.1 Introduction This chapter outlines the approach and scope of the population and human health assessment to determine the potential temporary and permanent effects during construction and operation of the proposed scheme (as described in Chapter 2). It also provides an indication of the potential effects which could arise as result of the proposed scheme on identified surrounding receptors for the following socio-economic topics:
• Population and Health; • Employment; • Economy; and • Tourism. The consideration of some of these topics will require contributions from other environmental topics, particularly those which may give rise to potential significant effects on communities – for example air quality; noise and vibration; landscape and visual; and traffic and transport. The combination of these effects contribute to a broader picture of how local people, businesses and community resources may respond to the proposed scheme. The EIA Regulations require consideration of the impacts resulting from the proposed scheme upon human health, defined by the WHO as ‘a state of complete physical, mental and social wellbeing and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity’. This chapter provides a proportionate approach to assessment of human health and considers the inter-relationships of other related environmental topics, noting that human health should only be scoped into an EIA where the likely health consequences of the proposed scheme are considered to be significant.
12.2 Legislative and policy background 12.2.1 Legislation Table 12.1 summarises key legislation and policies which are instrumental to the assessment of population and human health. Table 12.1 Key legislation and policy
Legislation/ Policy Relevance to the Proposed Scheme
Equalities Act 2010 Neither the construction or operation of the proposed scheme should result in the unfair treatment of individuals and should promote a fair and more equal society.
Environmental Requires the proposed scheme to control emissions (including dust, Protection Act 1990 noise and light) that may be prejudicial to health or a nuisance.
NPPF Section 8, paragraphs 91, 98, 170,180 and 181 are most relevant to the proposed scheme, setting out the over-arching planning policies in relation to promoting healthy and safe communities and avoiding impacts on health and quality of life.
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 124
Grantham to Peterborough Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Population and Human Health
Legislation/ Policy Relevance to the Proposed Scheme Section 6, paragraphs 80 to 84 are also relevant to the proposed scheme with regards to the importance of sustainable economic growth and infrastructure provision.
12.3 Guidance and Methodology 12.3.1 Guidance There is no externally established guidance for this topic area which is relevant to the proposed scheme. However, based on professional judgement it is considered appropriate to focus on the direct and indirect methods by which the proposed scheme could affect the health and wellbeing of local communities, through impacts on determinants of health, including impacts on the availability, accessibility and amenity of residential properties, community and recreational facilities and through impacts on the local economy, and hence the availability and accessibility of employment opportunities. In addition, the assessment will be conducted with regard to, so far as relevant, the following guidance: • DMRB, LA112 Population and Human Health (January 2020). Although developed specifically for highways projects, DMRB is often considered a best practice assessment guidance to be adopted in the absence of development specific guidance, particularly for linear infrastructure projects; • Additionality Guide by the Housing and Communities Agency (4th Edition, 2014); and • The Good Practice Guide on Planning for Tourism by the Department for Communities and Local Government, May 2006 (now superseded but still considered good practice in the absence of tourism specific planning guidance). 12.3.2 Study area Professional judgement has been applied in identifying a suitable study area for the reporting of environmental conditions relevant to human health as set out within paragraph 3.21 of LA112. Where possible, data has been presented for a sturdy area comprising the five LPA areas that the proposed pipeline route intersects. Where this is not relevant, a study area extending to 500 metres either side of the working corridor has been used. 12.4 Baseline conditions 12.4.1 Demographics Table 12.2 shows that, with the exception of Lincolnshire and Peterborough, the study area has a slightly lower proportion of children (aged under 15) than the average for England as a whole.
The study area also has a higher proportion of older people (aged over 65) compared to the England average, with Peterborough again being an exception.
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 125
Grantham to Peterborough Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Population and Human Health
Table 12.2: Demographics Measure Lincolnshire Peterborough Cambridgeshire Norfolk East of England England Population aged 17.1 22.9 18.6 16.9 19.2 19.1 under 15 (%) (2017)
Population aged 23.1 14.6 18.6 24.1 18.0 18.0 65 and over (%) (2017)
12.4.2 Health and wellbeing Table 12.3 below indicates that two of the counties intersected by the route of the proposed scheme, Cambridgeshire and Norfolk, have a notably lower premature mortality rate than the average for England. Residents living with limiting long term illness or disability is lower in Peterborough and Cambridgeshire than the average for England.
For Lincolnshire and Norfolk there is a relatively high proportion of residents with limiting long term illness or disability when compared to the other regions and England, this could potentially be linked to the relatively high proportion of older residents (aged over 65; see Table 12.2).
Within the East of England region, Peterborough has the fourth highest income deprivation score out of 50 areas51. The Marmot Review (Public Health England, 2010) identifies clear links between income deprivation at neighborhood level and both life expectancy and disability free life expectancy, and therefore, it is a reasonable assumption that the relatively high rate of premature deaths for Peterborough may indicate that other factors, such as income deprivation, have an influence on health outcomes within that authority boundary.
Table 12.3: Public health indicators Measure Lincolnshire Peterborough Cambridgeshire Norfolk East of England England Life 82.9 82.3 84.3 84.0 83.7 83.2 expectancy (female) (years) (2016- 2018) Life 79.2 78.2 81.2 79.9 80.3 79.6 expectancy (male) (years) (2016-2018) Premature 340 383 279 309 302 330 mortality (All causes, aged under 75) (Standardised Mortality
51 https://lginform.local.gov.uk/reports/lgastandard?mod-metric=3903&mod-area=E06000031&mod-group=AllLaInRegion&mod- type=comparisonGroupType
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 126
Grantham to Peterborough Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Population and Human Health
Measure Lincolnshire Peterborough Cambridgeshire Norfolk East of England England Ratios, 2016- 2018)
Limiting long- 20.4 16.7 15.3 20.1 16.7 17.6 term illness or disability (%) (2011) Adults 66.5 70.6 62.1 62.7 63.3 62.3 classed as overweight or obese (%) (2018-2019) Physically 64.8 66.0 68.0 67.9 66.9 67.2 active adults (%) (2018/2019)
12.4.3 Communities and recreational assets The proposed pipeline has been designed to generally avoid settlements to reduce the risk of disruption to property and land use. The residential areas within the study area are listed in Table 8.6 of Chapter 8 Land Use and Recreation. The nearest towns and cities to the working corridor are Grantham, Bourne, Market Deeping, Peterborough, March, Wisbech and Downham Market. There are multiple PRoWs used by WCH and open spaces within the study area, these are also covered in Chapter 8 Land Use and Recreation.
12.4.4 Local economy The local economy of the study area is sustained primarily by the agri-food industry, construction manufacturing, logistics and tourism industries. The Greater Lincolnshire Strategic Economic Plan (2015/2016)52, reports that the total size of the Greater Lincolnshire economy was approximately £16 billion. The Cambridge and Peterborough Local Industrial Strategy (2019)53 reports the area contributes £22 million to the UK economy. The New Anglia Strategic Economic Plan (2014)54 which covers the area of Norfolk and Suffolk reports that the total size of the economy is £27.5 billion. In Greater Lincolnshire, agriculture, food and drink is one of the biggest importation growth sectors, with farms producing/processing 12% of the UK’s food supply and employing 68,000 staff across the supply chain.
52 https://www.lincolnshire.gov.uk/downloads/file/1957/strategic-economic-plan 53 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/818886/Cambridge_SINGLE_PAGE.pdf 54 https://newanglia.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/New-Anglia-Strategic-Economic-Plan.pdf
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 127
Grantham to Peterborough Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Population and Human Health
Five key supporting sectors identified in Cambridge and Peterborough are logistics, health and social care (employing 30,000 staff), education, visitor economy and construction, with opportunities in these sectors to create business growth in the area. For all areas, the visitor economy is also an important growth sector. Visitors are attracted to the unique nature of the local landscape, local biodiversity and cultural heritage. Attractions include Peterborough Castle, Grimsthorpe Castle and the North Norfolk coastal areas.
12.5 Potential Impacts 12.5.1 Construction impacts Construction of water pipelines and supporting infrastructure can have the following effects on people, communities and human health: • There is the potential for temporary adverse impacts on community land and assets as a result of land take and associated changes in accessibility / severance during the construction phase of the proposed scheme. Any such impacts effects are addressed in Chapter 8, Land Use and Recreation;
• There is potential for temporary adverse impacts effects on agricultural land holdings as a result of land take and associated changes in accessibility / severance during the construction phase of the proposed scheme. Any such impacts effects are addressed in Chapter 8 (Land use and recreation);
• Disruption to agricultural land holdings and accessibility can affect the local economy and employment;
• Transient users of various WCH routes which intersect the proposed pipeline working corridor may experience short-lived disturbance as a result of temporary closures / diversions to facilitate the construction of the proposed scheme. Any such impacts effects are addressed in Chapter 8 (Land use and recreation); and
• There is potential for adverse impacts effects upon sensitive individuals and communities as a result of elevated noise and / or dust during the construction phase. Any such effects are addressed in Chapter 11 Noise and Vibration and Chapter 4 Air Quality.
It is considered unlikely that any of these potential effects will be significant, given their short-term nature. There is also the potential for localised economic effects where the construction of the proposed scheme results in a loss of revenue for land and business owners. For example, impacts upon the local agricultural industry as a result of disruptions to operations (lower crop yields and therefore smaller workforces required). However, this is balanced by the potential positive impacts effects on the local economy as a result of the proposed scheme, both directly through job creation during the construction phase and indirectly as a result of the workforce using local facilities such as accommodation, shops and restaurants and is therefore unlikely to be significant in a regional context.
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 128
Grantham to Peterborough Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Population and Human Health
12.5.2 Operational impacts Overall, the operation of the proposed scheme represents a positive effect for local people, communities and human health as it increases the resilience of the water distribution network and ensures a safe and efficient long-term water supply. However, there is potential for permanent adverse effects on some agricultural land holdings as a result of the permanent land take for above ground assets and AWS will also retain a permanent right of access along an easement for maintenance of the pipeline.
12.6 Proposed Scope of Assessment 12.6.1 Scoped out Construction phase impacts identified are generally associated with the temporary land take of the proposed scheme and the potential for access restrictions / severance during the construction phase. These impacts are considered in Chapter 8 (land use and recreation) of the ES and are therefore scoped out of the people and human health chapter. There is the potential for impacts on human health as a result of noise and dust generated during the construction phase. These impacts are considered in more detail in Chapter 11 Noise and Vibration and Chapter 4 Air Quality). Therefore, it is proposed that these impacts are scoped out of the people population and human health chapter. 12.6.2 Scoped in As it is proposed that all impacts to population and human health are considered in other topic chapters, there will be no separate chapter on population and human health scoped in to the ES.
12.7 Proposed EIA Methodology No elements of the population and human health topic have been scoped in to the assessment, and the topic will not be taken forward into the ES, therefore no assessment method is proposed. .
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 129
Grantham to Peterborough Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Soils, Geology and Hydrogeology
13 Soils, Geology and Hydrogeology
13.1 Introduction Soils, geology, and hydrogeology are principal factors in determining the environmental character and quality of an area. This chapter considers the existing ground conditions present in the vicinity of the proposed pipeline route and addresses the potential effects that the construction and operational phases of the proposed scheme may have on soil, geological and hydrogeological receptors. This chapter will cover the following sub-disciplines: • agricultural soils; • geological resources – geology, designated geological features/geo-conservation; • mineral protection; • contaminated land; and • hydrogeological resources. Potential effects on mineral resources are discussed within Chapter 10 Materials and waste.
13.2 Legislative and policy background 13.2.1 Legislation Table 13.1 summarises key legislation and policies which are instrumental to the assessment of soils, geology and hydrogeology. Table 13.1 Key legislation and policy Legislation/ Policy Relevance to the Proposed Scheme Water Framework The WFD establishes a framework for the protection of inland surface Directive (WFD) 2000 waters, transitional waters, coastal waters and groundwater. It requires that: • environmental objectives should be set to ensure that good status of groundwater is achieved and that its deterioration is avoided. This includes that any upward sustaining trend in the concentration of a pollutant must be identified and reversed; • a good status of groundwater requires early action and stable long-term planning of protective measures, owing to the natural time lag in its formation and renewal; and • monitoring programmes should cover monitoring of the chemical and quantitative status of groundwater. Part 2A of the Part 2A provides a statutory regime for the identification and Environmental remediation of ‘Contaminated Land’. It introduced a statutory definition Protection Act (EPA) of ‘Contaminated Land’ based on significant harm or the likelihood of 1990 (as amended) significant harm or the pollution or likely pollution of controlled waters (all groundwater, inland waters and estuaries, excluding water perched above the zone of saturation).
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 130
Grantham to Peterborough Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Soils, Geology and Hydrogeology
Legislation/ Policy Relevance to the Proposed Scheme Local authorities are the primary regulators under the Part 2A regime, with a duty to identify ‘Contaminated Land’ in their area. The Water Resources The Water Resources Act sets controls of pollution of water sources in Act 1991 (as Section III. It contains information about water quality objectives, amended) powers to prevent and control pollution and pollution offences. Planning and The Act amends the law relating to town and country planning to extend Compensation Act the powers to acquire by agreement land that may be affected by 1991 carrying out public works and to provide compensation where applicable. The Environment Act The act established the EA and transferred to it powers over the control 1995 of pollution and the conservation and enhancement of natural resources and the environment. The Water Act 2014 The Water Act 2014 introduced a revision to the wording of the EPA, which requires that if a site is causing or could cause significant pollution of controlled waters it may be determined as contaminated land. Once a site is determined to be ‘contaminated land’ then remediation is required to render significant pollutant linkages insignificant (i.e. the source-pathway-receptor relationships that are associated with significant harm to human health and/or significant pollution of controlled waters are broken), subject to a test of reasonableness. NPPF Section 15 sets out the Government’s over-arching planning policies in relation to Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment which includes geological value, soils and land contamination. • Paragraph 170 sets out how the Government expects planning decisions to protect and enhance sites of geological value and soils. It also sets out how development should be prevented from contributing to or being put at risk from soil instability whilst also requiring proposals to remediate and mitigate despoiled or contaminated land; • Paragraph 170 (b) refers to the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile (BMV) agricultural land. Footnote 53 emphasises the priority to be given to the use of poorer quality land for development in preference to higher quality land; • Paragraph 178 makes clear the Government’s expectation that development should ensure that a site is suitable for its proposed use when taking in to account the presence of any contamination or land instability; • Paragraph 180 requires development to be appropriate for its location taking into account the potential effects of pollution on health; and • Paragraph 170 (e) also states that the planning system should prevent new and existing development from contributing to unacceptable risks of pollution of groundwater. Local planning policy The documents that comprise the adopted Local Plan for each LPA area affected by the proposed scheme are described in Chapter 3 (section 3.7). Local plan policies relevant to soils, geology and hydrogeology will
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 131
Grantham to Peterborough Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Soils, Geology and Hydrogeology
Legislation/ Policy Relevance to the Proposed Scheme be considered in the development of the proposed scheme and in the ES.
13.3 Guidance and Approach to Scoping 13.3.1 Guidance There are no specific guidelines for assessing effects on soils, geology and hydrogeology arising from interconnecting water pipeline developments. This scoping assessment has therefore been conducted in line with relevant sections of the guidance on ‘Geology and soils’55 and on ‘Road drainage and the water environment’56 in the DMRB. This is the most appropriate guidance for assessing the environmental effects of linear schemes and is also a well-established and tested methodology accepted by statutory consultees and regulators. In addition, the assessment will be conducted in accordance with the following guidance: Table 13.2 Soils, Geology & Hydrogeological relevant assessment guidance Sub Discipline Relevant Assessment Guidance Agricultural Soils Agricultural Land Classification of England & Wales: Revised guidelines and criteria for grading the quality of agricultural land (MAFF, 1988)
Agricultural Soils Construction Code of Practice for the Sustainable Use of Soils on Construction Sites (DEFRA, 2009) Agricultural Soils TIN049 Agricultural Land Classification: Protecting the Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land (Natural England, 2012) Geological Regionally Important Geological Sites (RIGS) Handbook (RSNC, 1999) Resources Geological Geological Conservation – A guide to good practice (Natural England, Resources 2006) Mineral Protection Mineral Safeguarding in England: Good Practice Advice, reference (BGS, 2011) Contaminated Land Piling and Penetrative Ground Improvement Methods on land affected & Hydrogeology by Contamination: Guidance on Pollution Prevention (EA, 2001) Contaminated Land Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination (CLR11) & Hydrogeology (EA,2004) Contaminated Land Environmental Protection Act 1990: Part 2A Contaminated Land & Hydrogeology Statutory Guidance (DEFRA, 2012) Contaminated Land Groundwater Protection: Principles and Practice (GP3) (EA, 2013) & Hydrogeology Contaminated Land Managing and reducing land contamination: guiding principles (GPLC) & Hydrogeology (EA, Updated April 2016)
55 Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Sustainability and Environment, LA109 ‘Geology and soils’, Revision 0 (October 2019) https://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/dmrb/search/adca4c7d-4037-4907-b633-76eaed30b9c0. 56 Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Sustainability and Environment, LA113 ‘Road drainage and the water environment’, Revision 1 (March 2020) https://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/dmrb/search/d6388f5f-2694-4986-ac46-b17b62c21727.
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 132
Grantham to Peterborough Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Soils, Geology and Hydrogeology
Sub Discipline Relevant Assessment Guidance Contaminated Land BS 10175 Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Sites (BSI, amended & Hydrogeology 2017) Contaminated Land Land Contamination: Risk Management (EA, Updated May 2020) & Hydrogeology
13.3.2 Study area The assessment will consider potential direct and indirect, spatial, and terrestrial effects associated with the proposed pipeline working corridor (i.e. working width of site including compounds, laydown areas, access routes and any drainage outfalls) up to a 500 metre buffer either side of the centreline to account for the likely distance within which ground contamination could affect, or be affected by, the proposed scheme. For the proposed associated above ground infrastructure described in Chapter 2, a radius of 500 metres from the outer boundary will be used. For consideration of potential effects on groundwater abstractions and surface water from contamination, a 1 kilometre buffer will be used. Most impacts to soils, geology and hydrogeology are likely to arise during the construction phase and are anticipated to be localised, with possible exceptions being mineral resources, geologically designated sites and groundwater, where impacts may have more regional effects. Assessments will be undertaken using principally desk-based information. Proportionally targeted geo-environmental investigations will be completed prior to the submission of the application for full planning permission, and this information is also be included within the baseline conditions section of this chapter. Although walkover surveys are not proposed, there may be some instances when certain baseline features, e.g. a former landfill site or a geo-conservation site, may require site visits.
13.4 Baseline 13.4.1 Agricultural Soils Quality Table 13.3 below shows the area of provisional ALC grade land which will be affected by the proposed scheme, determined by use of available ALC mapping (1988). The provisional ALC grades are illustrated in Figure 13.1. Table 13.3 Estimated distribution of BMV Provisional ALC Grades by local authority area Local Authority Working ALC Grade 1 ALC Grade 2 ALC Grade 3 Non- Area corridor (hectares) (hectares) (hectares) Agricultural (hectares) (hectares) North Kesteven 3.42 3.42 (100%) South Kesteven 150.48 34.2 (23%) 115.14 (76%) 1.14 (1%) Peterborough 120.1 95.4 (79%) 24.7 (21%) Fenland 84.9 64.7 (76%) 20.2 (24%)
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 133
Grantham to Peterborough Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Soils, Geology and Hydrogeology
Local Authority Working ALC Grade 1 ALC Grade 2 ALC Grade 3 Non- Area corridor (hectares) (hectares) (hectares) Agricultural (hectares) (hectares) King’s Lynn and 66.4 52 (78%) 14.4 (22%) West Norfolk Total 425.3 116.7 (27%) 164.2 (39%) 143.26 (34%) 1.14 (<1%)
Agricultural land classified as Grade 1, Grade 2 or Grade 3a is considered to be ‘best and most versatile’ (BMV) land. Information available at this stage does not allow separation of Grade 3a from Grade 3b land, so it is not possible to accurately determine the proportion of BMV land affected. However, BMV land within the working corridor on falls in between: • 279 hectares (66%; Grade 2 only, assuming all the Grade 3 land is Grade 3b and therefore not BMV); and • 421 hectares (99%; includes all Grade 2 and Grade 3 land on the assumption that all the Grade 3 land is Grade 3a and therefore BMV). 13.4.2 Geological Resources Information on baseline conditions is expressed in Tables 13.4 and 13.5 below and illustrated in Figure 13.2.1 and 13.2.2.
Superficial Deposits Table 13.4 Superficial Deposits within a 100-metre buffer from proposed pipeline route Strata Description % No superficial deposits Shallow bedrock 24 Till, Mid Pleistocene Heterogenous mixture of clay, sand, gravel, and boulders 6 to Diamicton varying widely in size and shape Glaciofluvial Deposits, Sand and gravel, locally with lenses of silt, clay or organic 2 Mid Pleistocene material Alluvium Normally soft to firm consolidated, compressible silty clay, 5 but can contain layers of silt, sand, peat and basal gravel River Terrace Deposits Sand and gravel, locally with lenses of silt, clay or peat. 15 Head Deposits Poorly sorted and poorly stratified, angular rock debris <1 and/or clayey hillwash and soil creep. Locally with lenses of silt, clay or peat and organic material. Peat Peat is a partially decomposed mass of semi-carbonized 5 vegetation which has grown under waterlogged, anaerobic conditions, usually in bogs or swamps. Marsh Gravels The deposit can vary from sandy flint gravel to clayey, silty, 1 Member pebbly sand. Abbey Sand and Sands and gravels <1 Gravel Tidal Flat Deposits Normally a consolidated soft silty clay, with layers of peat, 41 sand and a basal gravel.
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 134
Grantham to Peterborough Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Soils, Geology and Hydrogeology
Strata Description % Lowerstoft Formation An extensive sheet of chalky till, together with outwash 1 sands and gravels, silts and clays.
The proposed pipeline route is located mainly on previously undeveloped land, and therefore, made ground is anticipated to be mostly absent, although small discrete areas of made ground could be present.
Bedrock Deposits Table 13.5 Bedrock Deposits within a 100-metre buffer from proposed pipeline route Strata Description % Upper Lincolnshire Limestone Limestone. Commonly includes sandy limestone. 8 Member Lower Lincolnshire Limestone Limestone. Commonly includes sandy limestone or 2 Member calcareous sandstone and substantial units of mudstone. Rutland Formation Mudstone and siltstone with occasional limestone and 3 sandstones. The base of the formation is dominated by sandstones. Blisworth Limestone Limestone with thin beds of marl and mudstone. 4 Blisworth Clay Formation Silicate-mudstone which weathers to a highly plastic 4 clay. Commonly contains sideritic ironstone nodules, and lenses of argillaceous limestone and sandstone. Cornbrash Formation Limestone. Thin argillaceous partings or interbeds of 4 calcareous mudstone may occur. Kellaways Clay Member Mudstone with thin beds of siltstone and sandstone, 3 and nodules of argillaceous limestone. Kellaways Sand Member Sandstone and siltstone with interbeds of sandy and 7 silty mudstone. Oxford Clay Formation Silicate-mudstone, with sporadic beds of argillaceous 34 limestone nodules. West Walton Formation and Mudstone. 19 Ampthill Clay Formation (Undifferentiated) Kimmeridge Clay Formation Mudstones (calcareous or kerogen-rich or silty or 10 sandy); thin siltstone and cementstone beds; locally sands and silts. Leziate Member Sands with subordinate bands of silt or clay. 1 Carstone Formation Sandstone. 1 Roxham Member and Runcton Sand. <1 Member (Undifferentiated)
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 135
Grantham to Peterborough Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Soils, Geology and Hydrogeology
Geological Designations Table 13.6: Geological Designations within 1 kilometre of the proposed scheme Site Name Designation Approximate Description Distance to the Route Maxey Quarry LGS Adjacent Former sand and gravel quarry. The and Preferred south-west corner of the LGS (>1 area kilometre from the proposed scheme) is an active quarry named Tarmac Maxey Sand and Gravel Quarry. Langtoft Gravel SSSI 180 metres south- Langtoft Gravel Pits comprise a complex Pits west of flooded sand and gravel pits of varying size and depth. Ancaster SSSI 556 metres north- Historically one of the best examples of a Valley west species-rich limestone grassland in the area with scarce plants on the edge of their range. Wilsford Heath SSSI 580 metres west Areas of limestone grassland within a Quarry former quarry.
Maxey Quarry LGS is located to the east of Maxey and is intersected from north to south by a minor road named Main Road. In this area the proposed pipeline has been routed along Main Road in order to avoid directly interacting with the LGS.
If determined to be present/relevant via stakeholder consultation, other LGS (previously Regionally Important Geological and Geomorphological Sites) and the Geodiversity Strategy for Lincolnshire, Peterborough, Cambridgeshire and Norfolk will be assessed in relation to the proposed scheme.
13.4.3 Mineral Resources The limestone and sands and gravel in Lincolnshire, the sands, gravels, and brickclays in Peterborough, and the sand and gravel, silica sand and carstone in Norfolk are a significant resource for industry and agriculture, as identified within the respective minerals and waste local plans.
The proposed scheme does not lie in any existing or identified future sites for mineral extraction within Lincolnshire, however it does run through limestone, sand and gravel Minerals Safeguarding Areas (MSA) as shown on the LPA’s interactive web map viewer57 and on Figure 13.3.
In Peterborough, the pipeline runs through a sand and gravel and brickclay MSA as shown on the LPA’s interactive web map viewer58 and on Figure 13.3. In addition, the proposed pipeline runs through a Mineral Consultation Area (MCA) located immediately west of Northborough. However,
57https://wlnk.statmap.co.uk/map/Aurora.svc/run?script=%5cShared+Services%5cJPU%5cJPUJS.AuroraScript%24&nocache=1206308816&resize=al ways
58 https://peterborough.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=1b6ea2d5d29d47f7a676106f08d8f3e9
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 136
Grantham to Peterborough Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Soils, Geology and Hydrogeology
the proposed pipeline has been routed to avoid a sand and gravel Mineral Allocation Area and Mineral Development Area associated with the MCA by following the path of a minor road.
The proposed scheme does not lie within any existing or identified future sites for mineral extraction or MSA within Norfolk as shown on the LPAs interactive web map viewer59
13.4.4 Contaminated Land The ability for contaminated soils and groundwater (if present) to impact on scheme receptors will be influenced by the superficial deposits, bedrock geology, artificial ground and other geological features encountered along the proposed pipeline route. Given the agricultural nature of the land along most of the proposed pipeline route, it is likely that existing land contamination issues will be minimal and cause no significant effects. However, the proposed pipeline does pass alongside a discrete area of made ground in the form of a previously worked and backfilled open cast quarry at Tallington Lakes to the west of Market Deeping as shown on Figure 13.4. Three historical landfills are within the study area (including one on-site) as shown in Table 13.7 and on Figure 13.4. In addition, an active sewage works owned and operated by AWS is present approximately 50 metres south of the proposed pipeline route north-west of Market Downham. Table 13.7: Historical landfill sites within the proposed study area Site Name Status Approximate distance Description to the route Little Humby Closed 420 metres west Accepted household waste during operation. Wisbech Canal Closed On-site, A1101 Outwell Accepted inert, commercial, household and Road industrial waste during operation. Approximately 6.7 kilometres in length and 20 metres wide and present in the location of the former Wisbech Canal. The footprint of the landfill is mostly covered by the A1101 Outwell Road. Downham Market Closed 170 metres south Accepted inert, commercial and industrial waste.
At this stage only freely available, accessible information sources have been interrogated regarding potential sources of contamination. A full suite of environmental desk study hazards in GIS format will be obtained from Envirocheck following the scoping stage. This will form the basis of an initial screening assessment, followed by a Phase 1 Geotechnical and Geo-environmental Desk Study (Phase 1 desk study) where scoped in sources will be considered for further risk assessment to determine any potential significant effects associated with contamination that may require mitigation. The output of the risk assessment will be red, amber, green (RAG) rated for presentation on figures within the desk study. Only red and amber risks (moderate/low to very high risk) will be taken forward for assessment within the ES.
59 https://norfolk.opus4.co.uk/planning/localplan/maps/norfolk-minerals#/x:599916/y:312764/z:2/b:15/o:1157,o:1165,o:1252
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 137
Grantham to Peterborough Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Soils, Geology and Hydrogeology
The Phase 1 desk study will make recommendations for further targeted assessment such as ground investigation, including soil and groundwater, and surface water sampling and monitoring as appropriate (Phase 2). These investigations will target: • target the ground conditions where hazard mapping has indicated amber and red risk rankings; • target ground conditions at crossings; and • will provide confirmatory soil quality data on a wider linear spacing across anticipated clean agricultural land. There is also the potential for unexploded ordnance (UXO) to be present along the proposed pipeline route and UXO hazard/threat maps will be obtained through a firm of UXO risk management specialists. UXO risks will not be included as part of the Phase 1 desk study and any required mitigation will be managed separately as a package of works by the risk management specialists under a service level agreement. 13.4.5 Hydrogeology Most of the area crossed by the working corridor between Grantham and Peterborough is designated as either a Principal, Secondary A or Secondary B Aquifer, with smaller areas classified as Secondary B or Secondary Undifferentiated. The aquifer properties are strongly linked to the bedrock lithology, and therefore the aquifer boundaries follow those of the underlying geology. Between Peterborough and Bexwell the majority of the bedrock is designated as Unproductive Strata, with the exception of the eastern extent around Bexwell which is classified as a Principal Aquifer. The superficial geology along this section of the proposed pipeline route is also mostly designated as Unproductive Strata, with localised areas classified as Secondary A or Secondary Undifferentiated. Drinking water abstraction records (private and public) are not known at this stage. This information will be obtained and assessed in the Phase 1 desk study.
13.5 Potential Impacts 13.5.1 Construction impacts Construction of water pipelines and supporting infrastructure can have the following impacts on soil, geology, and hydrogeology: • Topsoil and subsoil stripping within the working corridor, including storage areas and access routes, will lead to temporary removal of soils and a temporary negative effect on soil quality, including BMV soils where present; • Short-term sterilisation of mineral resources in areas affected by the working corridor within limestone, sand, gravel and brickclay MCAs and MSAs during construction; and • Potential risk of contamination to receptors, including geological designated sites, surface water and hydrogeological resources, should the risk assessment identify ‘red’ or ‘amber’ risks with complete pollutant source/pathway/receptor linkages in the context of development of the proposed pipeline and associated above ground infrastructure.
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 138
Grantham to Peterborough Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Soils, Geology and Hydrogeology
13.5.2 Operational impacts Operation of water pipelines and associated infrastructure can have the following impacts effects on soil, geology, and hydrogeology: • Long-term sterilisation of areas affected by the permanent easement width containing limestone, sand, and gravel and brickclay mineral safeguarding resources during operation; and • Potential for permanent loss of BMV agricultural land (excluding woodland) where occupied by associated above ground infrastructure.
13.6 Proposed Scope of Assessment 13.6.1 Scoped out The following topics will be scoped out: • Long-term effects on agricultural soil quality (BMV land) in relation to construction and operation of the permanent sub-surface pipeline are unlikely to occur, as BMV quality soil will be returned to its initial baseline as part of reinstatement. The methodology for how this will be achieved will be contained within an appropriate CEMP and soil management protocol to be submitted as part of the application for full planning permission; • Impacts on geologically designated sites which lie at a distance greater than 500 metres from the proposed pipeline, associated infrastructure, and temporary construction access and laydown/compound areas; • Effects on potential contamination sources where hazard mapping has determined a risk ranking of ‘green’ are scoped out on the basis they would not be significant; and • UXO is scoped out. This risk will be identified during theplanning phase of the proposed scheme and managed as part of good construction techniques. A separate UXO management plan will be submitted along with as part of the application for full planning permission. 13.6.2 Scoped in The following topics are scoped in: • Short-term effects on BMV soil quality due to stripping and stockpiling. For this assessment it will be assumed that all Grade 3 land constitutes BMV Grade 3a, with minimal confirmation undertaken using the baseline information won from ground investigations, as the same high levels of reinstatement and aftercare will be employed to restore soil quality back to baseline condition regardless of whether it is grade 3a or 3b; • Long-term effects on BMV soil quality in relation to the proposed above ground infrastructure; • Long-term effects on geological SSSI or LGS within the study area; • Potential sterilisation of mineral resources, including the limestone, sand and gravel MSAs in Lincolnshire; and sand and gravel and brickclay MSAs in Peterborough, will be addressed through a minerals assessment; • Potential environmental risks arising in relation to contaminated land will be addressed through a Phase 1 desk study based on the Model Procedures for the Management of Contaminated Land CLR11 Land Contamination: Risk Management, which will include
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 139
Grantham to Peterborough Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Soils, Geology and Hydrogeology
assessment of all identified pollutant linkages, including those that may relate to hydrogeology, in the context of construction and operational impacts.
13.7 Proposed EIA Methodology 13.7.1 Further baseline data gathering Sources of information for baseline data on soils, geology and hydrogeology may include, but are not limited to the following: • Agricultural Land Classification of England and Wales: Revised guidelines and criteria for grading the quality of agricultural land, MAFF (1988), DEFRA Open Source GIS data; • Met Office 1989 Climatological Data for Agricultural Land Classification: Grid point datasets of climatic variables at 5 kilometre intervals for England and Wales; • LandIS Natmap soils series data, East of England, and BGS records of peat depth; • Published geological maps prepared by the BGS at 1:50,000 scale and BGS GIS digital geological mapping data; • Lincolnshire County Council RIGS GIS data set; • Greater Lincolnshire Nature Partnership for LGS records GIS data set; • BGS Britpits digital database in GIS containing records of mineral workings covering the assessment area; • Lincolnshire County Council GIS data sets, including site allocations and proposed MSAs; • Coal Authority: Interactive Online Map; • Landmark Information Group (Envirocheck) data sets provided in GIS format including historical mapping, source protection zone (SPZ) boundaries and aquifer classification (from local authority, EA, and BGS records) and regulatory data; • Standalone records including available historical borehole logs and site investigation records, UXO) desk study reports; • MAGIC website www.magic.defra.gov.uk; • 6-Alpha UXO GIS Risk Maps; • General records and geo-environmental records held by the relevant LPAs and the EA; • EA groundwater quality network data for establishing baseline conditions within aquifer units; and • Aerial photographic and topographic surveys of the proposed pipeline route undertaken by AWS in 2020. EIA assessments will largely be undertaken using desk-based information. Proportionally targeted geo-environmental investigations will be completed prior to the submission of the application for full planning permission, this information is also be included within the baseline conditions section of this chapter. ALC information will be obtained in an innovative manner at the same time as general ground investigations take place (i.e. boreholes started as hand pits will also be logged for ALC characteristics).
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 140
Grantham to Peterborough Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Soils, Geology and Hydrogeology
Although walkover surveys are not generally planned for this chapter due to reliance on digital mapping and aerial imagery, there may be some limited instances when certain baseline features, e.g. former landfill site or a geo-conservation site, may warrant closer inspection. In these situations, it may be advantageous to undertake detailed site reconnaissance on a case by case basis. 13.7.2 Assessment methodology The assessment of effects will be undertaken in accordance with the methodology set out in DMRB: LA109 (Geology and Soils), Revision 0 (March 2019) and, LA113 (Road drainage and the water environment), Revision 1 (March 2020) which refer to the standard methodology provided in DMRB document LA104 (Environmental Assessment and Monitoring). It is proposed that effects assessed as moderate or major will be significant for EIA purposes. This does not, however, mean that effects assessed as minor will be disregarded. Although not significant for EIA purposes, measures to reduce such effects may be incorporated where practical. All assessments will be made on a receptor basis.
Assigning value A value (sensitivity) will be assigned to each environmental receptor reported in the ES, in accordance with Table 13.8 below: Table 13.8: Environmental value (sensitivity) of soil, geology, and hydrogeology receptors Value/ Criteria Examples Sensitivity Very High Very high Geology: Very rare and of international importance with no potential importance and for replacement (e.g. UNESCO World Heritage Sites, UNESCO Global rarity, international Geoparks, SSSI's and GCR where citations indicate features of scale and very international importance). Geology meeting international limited potential for designation citation criteria which is not designated as such. substitution. Soils: Soils directly supporting an EU designated site (e.g. SAC, SPA, Ramsar); and/or ALC grade 1 & 2 or Land Classification for Agriculture (LCA) grade 1 & 2.
Contamination: Human health- very high sensitivity land use such as residential or allotments. Groundwater- Principal aquifer providing a regionally important resource and/or supporting a site protected under EC and UK habitat legislation. SPZ1 (Inner Protection Zone). Surface water- Watercourse having a WFD status shown in a River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) and a Q95 flow of ≥ 1.0 m3/s. Site protected/designated under EC or UK legislation (SAC, SPA, SSSI, Ramsar site, salmonid water)/Species protected by EC legislation.
High High importance Geology: and rarity, national Rare and of national importance with little potential for replacement scale, and limited (e.g. geological SSSI, ASSI, National Nature Reserves (NNR)). Geology potential for meeting national designation citation criteria which is not substitution. designated as such. Soils:
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 141
Grantham to Peterborough Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Soils, Geology and Hydrogeology
Value/ Criteria Examples Sensitivity Soils directly supporting a UK designated site (e.g SSSI); and / or ALC grade 3a, or LCA grade 3.1. Contamination: Human health- high sensitivity land use such as public open space. Groundwater- Principal aquifer providing locally important resource or supporting a river ecosystem. SPZ2 (Outer Protection Zone). Surface water- Watercourse having a WFD status shown in a RBMP and Q95 <1.0 m3/s. Species protected under EC or UK legislation.
Medium Medium or high Geology: importance and Geology of regional importance with limited potential for rarity, regional replacement (e.g. RIGS). Geology meeting regional designation scale, limited citation criteria which is not designated as such potential for substitution. Soils: Soils supporting non-statutory designated sites (e.g. LNR, LGS, Sites of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCIs)); and / or ALC grade 3b or LCA grade 3.2. Contamination: Human health: medium sensitivity land use such as commercial or industrial. Groundwater- Aquifer providing source of water for agricultural or industrial use with limited connection with surface water features. SPZ3 (Source Catchment Protection Zone) Surface water- Watercourses not having a WFD classification shown in a RBMP and Q95 >0.001 m3/s.
Low Low or medium Geology: importance and Geology of local importance / interest with potential for rarity, local scale. replacement (e.g. non designated geological exposures, former quarry's / mining sites). Soils: ALC grade 4 & 5 or LCA grade 4.1 to 7; and / or Soils supporting non-designated notable or priority habitats. Contamination: Human health- low sensitivity land use such as highways and rail; Groundwater- Unproductive strata. Surface water- Watercourses not having a WFD classification shown in a RBMP and Q95 ≤ 0.001 m3/s.
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 142
Grantham to Peterborough Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Soils, Geology and Hydrogeology
Value/ Criteria Examples Sensitivity Negligible Very low Geology: importance and No geological exposures, little / no local interest rarity, local scale. Soils: Previously developed land formerly in 'hard uses' with little potential to return to agriculture.
Contamination: Human health- undeveloped surplus land / no sensitive land use proposed
Notes: Derived from DMRB LA 104, Table 3.4N
Assigning magnitude of impact The magnitude of impact will be assessed for each soil, geology and hydrogeology receptor reported in the ES. Magnitude is a measure of the scale of impact and the value or sensitivity of the receptor is not considered at this stage. Magnitude will be described in accordance with Table 13.9 below: Table 13.9: Magnitude of impact and typical descriptors Magnitude of impact Typical description (change) Major Adverse Loss of soil, geology and hydrogeology resource and/or quality and integrity of resource; severe damage to key characteristics, features, or elements. Beneficial Large scale or major improvement of soil, geology and hydrogeology resource quality; extensive restoration; major improvement of quality. Moderate Adverse Loss of soil, geology and hydrogeology resource, but not adversely affecting the integrity; partial loss of/damage to key characteristics. Beneficial Benefit to soil, geology and hydrogeology, or addition of, key characteristics, features, or elements; improvement of attribute quality. Minor Adverse Some measurable change in soil, geology and hydrogeology attributes, quality, or vulnerability; minor loss of, or alteration to, one (maybe more) key characteristics, features or elements. Beneficial Minor benefit to soil, geology and hydrogeology, or addition of, one (maybe more) key characteristics, features, or elements; some beneficial impact on attribute or a reduced risk of negative impact. Major Adverse Very minor loss or detrimental alteration to one or more characteristics, features or elements of soil, geology and hydrogeology. Beneficial Very minor benefit to soil, geology and hydrogeology, or positive addition of one or more characteristics, features, or elements. No change No loss or alteration of soil, geology and hydrogeology characteristics, features, or elements; no observable impact in either direction.
Notes: Derived from DMRB LA 104, Table 3.4N.
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 143
Grantham to Peterborough Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Soils, Geology and Hydrogeology
Assessing significance of effect The significance of effect will be assessed for each soil, geology and hydrogeology receptor reported in the ES. Significance will be assessed on a five-point scale, according to the definitions provided in Table 13.10 below: Table 13.10: Significance categories and typical descriptors Significance category Typical description Very large Effects at this level are material in the decision-making process. Large Effects at this level are likely to be material in the decision-making process. Moderate Effects at this level can be material decision-making factors. Slight Effects at this level are not material in the decision-making process. Neutral No effects or those that are beneath levels of perception, within normal bounds of variation or within the margin of forecasting error.
Notes: Derived from DMRB LA 104, Table 3.7. In respect of ‘significance’ in the context of the EIA Regulations, the soil, geology, and hydrogeology criteria are poorly defined, in that there is no set threshold to determine ‘significance’. As such, significant effects are typically considered to comprise residual effects that are within the moderate, large, or very large categories. The approach to deriving significance of effects from the assigned receptor value and magnitude of impact will be based on the matrix set out in Table 13.11 below. Table 13.11 is not definitive but is provided as a guide to professional judgement. Where Table 13.11 includes two significance categories in one cell, a single category shall be assigned, and an evidence-based reasoned judgement will be given for the selection of that category. Table 13.11: Significance of effects matrix Magnitude of impact (degree of change) No change Negligible Minor Moderate Major
Very high Neutral Slight Moderate Large or Very large or large very large High Neutral Slight Slight or Moderate Large or moderate or large very large Medium Neutral Neutral or Slight Moderate Moderate slight or large Low Neutral Neutral or Neutral or Slight Slight or
slight slight moderate Receptor value (sensitivity) value Receptor Negligible Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral or Slight slight
Notes: Derived from DMRB LA104, Table 3.8.1.
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 144
Grantham to Peterborough Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Traffic and Transport
14 Traffic and Transport
14.1 Introduction The assessment of effects on traffic and transport considers the potential significant effects of the proposed scheme on users of the transport network. It is not an assessment of the impact on the performance of the transport network, which will be assessed separately in a proposed Transport Statement to be included as part of the application for full planning permission. The users of the transport network constitute the receptors for environmental assessment, for example: • Private vehicle users; • Public transport users; • People that are walking and cycling; and • Depending on the project can include impacts on users of public car parking. The potential effects can be measured in several ways, including through changes in traffic volumes, delay, inconvenience and collisions. Potential effects on walking and cycling are addressed in Chapter 8 Land Use and Recreation. The following Information will be obtained from within the proposed scheme’s delivery team: • Preferred routes for the delivery of materials/removal of wastes and transport for the workforce; • Numbers of LDVs and HDVs required, apportioned across the construction programme and across the preferred routes; and • Any partial or full closures of highways (location, timing and duration).
14.2 Legislative and policy background There is no legislation and limited policy specific to the assessment of traffic and transport environmental effects relevant to the proposed scheme. There are policies related to the assessment of impacts on the performance of the transport network. These will be assessed in the proposed Transport Statement, the scope of which is the subject of a separate Transport Statement Scoping Report. In its document relating to delivery of sustainable development, Highways England states that the requirement for environmental assessment applies to ‘the temporary construction works and the permanent transport solution associated with the development, as well as the environmental impact of the existing trunk road upon the development itself.’60
60 Department for Transport 10 September 2013 ‘DfT Circular 02/2013 THE STRATEGIC ROAD NETWORK AND THE DELIVERY OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT’
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 145
Grantham to Peterborough Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Traffic and Transport
14.3 Guidance and Methodology 14.3.1 Guidance There is limited guidance relevant to the assessment of traffic and transport, particularly where it relates specifically to pipeline projects. For these projects the duration of the impacts may be short term because once construction is complete much of the infrastructure is below ground away from the public highway or railway. Based on IEMA guidance, traffic impacts should generally be considered when traffic flows may increase by more than 30% or more than 10% in sensitive areas, or where HGV flows may increase significantly (IEMA, pg 16). Examples of sensitive areas are hospitals, churches and schools (IEMA, page 16).61 Because of the nature of the proposed scheme, professional judgement, based on good practice, is also required when scoping the assessment. 14.3.2 Study Area Subject to data availability the study area for traffic and transport comprises:
• Roads to be used for access to the site during construction, between and including any nearby links with the Strategic Road Network (SRN) and the specified access points into the construction site; and • Any road carrying diverted traffic where it is identified this may be required, or where traffic management may be required that could constrain capacity. In both cases the roads to be used will be defined by the proposed scheme’s delivery team in discussion with the relevant highway authorities.
14.4 Baseline conditions The proposed scheme crosses the Highways England SRN at the A47 South Brink between its junction with the A141 March Road and Wisbech. Other significant road crossings include the A52, A151, A6121, A1175, A15, A16, and A1101. There are 81 road crossings, excluding private or restricted access roads. At this stage, it is proposed that 40 road crossings will be constructed using open-cut methods with the remainder currently planned to be constructed using trenchless crossing techniques. Traffic data available from the Department for Transport (DfT)62 is shown in Figure 14.1. The Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) at key locations is shown in Table 14.1. Table 14.1: Traffic flows available at key locations Location Easting/Northing Road Type DfT Data Site AADT (Year)
Main compounds
Adjacent to the 497274, 337106 Single track - - location of the unclassified road
61 Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA, 1993) 62 https://roadtraffic.dft.gov.uk/downloads
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 146
Grantham to Peterborough Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Traffic and Transport
Location Easting/Northing Road Type DfT Data Site AADT (Year) proposed new water storage tank and pumping station east of Harrowby (Church Lane)
At the crossing of 503589, 327251 Narrow single - - Hawthorpe Road, carriageway C between Irnham road and Hawthorpe
At the crossing of 507444, 318121 Single 28366 6,946 (2018) the A6121, north carriageway A of Toft road
At the crossing of 510788, 312184 Single 931660 2,013 (2009) King Street, west carriageway C of Langtoft road
Woodcroft Road 513898, 305184 Single track - - unclassified road
A16 at B1443 522237, 306146 Single 81587 15,288 (2018) Thorney Road carriageway A road
Murrow Bank 538074, 305328 Single - - carriageway B road
Bramble Lane 550243, 304994 Single track - - unclassified road
Bexwell Road 562600, 303550 Single 16170 12,587 (2018) carriageway A road
Open-cut crossings
Ancaster Lane 499464, 340043 Single track - - unclassified road
Lincoln Lane 499234, 339773 Single track - - unclassified road
Welby Road 498492, 338380 Single - - carriageway classified road
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 147
Grantham to Peterborough Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Traffic and Transport
Location Easting/Northing Road Type DfT Data Site AADT (Year)
Church Lane 497274, 337106 Single track - - unclassified road
Newgate Lane 494781, 336485 Single track - - unclassified road
A52 Bridge End 498216, 336555 Single 16523 6,073 (2018) Road carriageway A road
Chain Lane 499459, 335024 Single track - - classified road
Braceby Road 499799, 334699 Single track - - classified road
Lenton Road 501943, 330170 Single - - carriageway classified road
Main Street 504286, 325871 Single track - - unclassified road
Elsthorpe Road 505284, 323229 Single track - - classified road
Scottlethorpe 505717, 321182 Single track - - Road unclassified road
Edenham Road 506948, 318578 Single track 940461 308 (2018) classified road
Thurlby Lane 507995, 316890 Single track - - classified road
Wilsthorpe Road 509092, 314462 Single track - - classified road
Mill Road 513416, 308975 Single track - - unclassified road
Foxcovert Road 516316, 305450 Single track - - unclassified road
Meadow Road 517656, 305586 Single track 941992 543 ((2018) unclassified road
Werrington Bridge 518390, 305598 Single - - Road carriageway classified road
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 148
Grantham to Peterborough Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Traffic and Transport
Location Easting/Northing Road Type DfT Data Site AADT (Year)
Willow Drove 520419, 306467 Single track 941994 4 (2017) unclassified road
Speechley Drove 521821, 306228 Single track 941994 4 (2017) unclassified road
Peterborough 523226, 305916 Single 27531 3,736 (2014) Road carriageway classified road
English Drove 528144, 305237 Single 941993 1,226 (2009) carriageway classified road
Black Drove 535154, 305567 Single track 946371 577 (2009) classified road
Long Drove 537371, 305232 Single track - - unclassified road
Plash Drove 538559, 305159 Single - - carriageway classified road
Folleys Drove 539312, 305024 Single track - - unclassified road
Long Drove 543052, 303913 Single track - - classified road
Maltmas Drove 546032, 304002 Single track - - unclassified road
Laddus Drove 547256, 303912 Single track - - classified road
Molls Drove 548932, 304310 Single track - - unclassified road
Needham Bank 549624, 304682 Single - - carriageway classified road
Robbs Lane 551458, 305285 Single track - - unclassified road
Hall Road 551894, 305078 Single - - carriageway classified road
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 149
Grantham to Peterborough Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Traffic and Transport
Location Easting/Northing Road Type DfT Data Site AADT (Year)
Marsh Road 552650, 304748 Single - - carriageway classified road
Stow Road 553357, 304699 Single track - - classified road
Highbridge Road 557726, 304894 Single - - carriageway classified road
Cuckoo Road 558457, 304965 Single track - - unclassified road
Low Road 561955, 304448 Single - - carriageway classified road
B1507 Lynn Road 562067, 304456 Single - - carriageway classified road
The route of the proposed scheme crosses the following railways. All crossings of railways would be achieved using trenchless techniques: • The East Midlands Railway immediately north of the A15 between Peterborough and Market Deeping; • The section of the proposed pipeline route between March and Wisbech (note that this railway spur is currently mothballed, although with several studies investigating opportunities for the reinstatement of services); • Immediately north of Downham Market the route of the proposed scheme crosses the Great Northern route. The route of the proposed scheme is predominantly rural in nature and as a result may affect bus routes commensurate with the number and frequency usually expected in rural areas. In addition, the roads most suited to bus services are those that are generally being crossed using a trenchless technique. The assessment will identify bus routes that may be affected by works.
14.5 Potential Impacts 14.5.1 Key assumptions For the purposes of scoping the key assumptions set out in Table 14.2 were used. This information will be refined for the assessment of potential effects. These assumptions should also be read with reference to the traffic flow information presented in Table 2.1.
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 150
Grantham to Peterborough Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Traffic and Transport
Table 14.2: Key Scoping Assumptions Item Assumption
1. Construction activities included in traffic All construction activities for the proposed demand. pipeline and associated above ground infrastructure including pumping stations and reservoirs.
2. Duration of open-cut crossings of roads. Maximum two weeks.
3. Requirement for Abnormal Loads. A small number will be required to deliver construction materials.
4. Working hours. Weekdays 07:00-19:00 (Summer) 07:00-17:30 (Winter) Saturday 07:00-16:00 No civils works without permission on Sundays. Environmental mitigation and plant maintenance only.
5. Hourly profile of traffic. Cars will arrive in the hour before the working day and depart in the hour after the working day. All other traffic would be spread approximately evenly throughout the working day.
6. Interaction of traffic between main There would be some interaction, primarily compounds, satellite compounds and transport of crew in cab vehicles. Construction laydown areas on the public highway. materials would be transported directly to where they are required as far as practicable to avoid double handling.
7. Location of workforce. Both local resource and with people housed in temporary accommodation (rented houses and hotel spaces).
8. Construction route principles. All main compounds are sited near to A roads to reduce impact on local network. Satellite compounds situated near B roads where practicable to provide additional office/welfare space at locations to avoid the workforce having to travel to main compounds.
9. Construction worker travel. Anticipated to be by car and van. Workers will be encouraged to share vehicles where practicable. Assumption is one worker per vehicle for commuting to site.
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 151
Grantham to Peterborough Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Traffic and Transport
Item Assumption
10. Pipe length laid per week when along 35 metres the highway (duration of required traffic management along a length of highway)
11. Use of car parks for construction Not proposed activities (e.g. compounds)
12. Number of active gangs at any one time 15
13. Definition of a HDV Any vehicle exceeding 3.5 tonnes gross weight. Therefore, all other vehicles are light vehicles.
Based on the key assumptions in Table 14.2 and the traffic flow information shown in Table 2.1 the current forecast trip generation for a weekday is shown in Table 14.3. Table 14.3: Indicative Hourly Traffic Demand Average Working hour 06:00-07:00 (Winter) 17:30-18:30 Vehicle Location Type Arrive Depart Total Arrive Depart Total Arrive Depart Total
Main Light 25 0 25 2.3 2.3 4.6 0 25 25 compounds Heavy 0 0 0 0.4 0.4 0.8 0 0 0
Total 25 0 25 2.7 2.7 5.3 0 25 25
Satellite Light 2 0 2 0.7 0.7 1.3 0 2 2 compounds Heavy 0 0 0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0 0 0
Total 2 0 2 0.8 0.8 1.5 0 2 2
Laydown Light 1 0 1 0.6 0.6 1.1 0 1 1 areas Heavy 0 0 0 0.2 0.2 0.4 0 0 0
Total 1 0 1 0.8 0.8 1.5 0 1 1
During the operational phase it is anticipated that at any one location along the proposed pipeline route the trip generation would be less than one vehicle in any day on average. 14.5.2 Construction impacts Construction of water pipelines and supporting infrastructure can have the following effects on traffic and transport: • Construction traffic to and from the site may increase the volume of traffic on local roads and alter the composition of the traffic flows by changing the proportion of HDVs;
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 152
Grantham to Peterborough Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Traffic and Transport
• Construction work may require temporary partial or full closures of some roads, resulting in traffic diversions and longer journeys for local traffic; • Temporary partial or full closures of roads may lead to temporary disruption of public transport routes, particularly bus services; • Additional traffic and traffic management either for full or partial temporary road closures has the potential to affect traffic speeds (and consequently journey times) and community severance; • Changes in traffic volumes and speeds have the potential to affect collisions and safety, with changes to the road network also having the potential to affect this; and • Car parking may be affected depending on the need for temporary traffic management or the siting of compounds. Whether these changes result in significant effects will depend on current traffic flows (i.e. the number of vehicles per hour, average speeds and the proportion of HDVs); and the location of receptors relative to the roads affected by the proposed scheme to access the site and facilitate construction. 14.5.3 Operational impacts Operation of water pipelines and supporting infrastructure may require a small number of trips for routine maintenance and day-to-day operation. These would be small scale and intermittent. This is unlikely to exceed one vehicle a day.
14.6 Proposed Scope of Assessment 14.6.1 Scoped out The following topics are scoped out: • Journey time delay: Traffic management including road closures and diversions would be required for a short duration. Based on the key scoping assumptions this would typically be for a period of up to two weeks at any given location. On this basis any impacts would be short term in nature and commensurate with emergency works or maintenance for utilities or transport infrastructure. The CTMP will include measures to minimise the potential impact from restrictions to capacity on the transport network. • Public Transport: Changes in traffic volumes are forecast to be low, not enough to impact on the operation of the bus network. All crossings of railways are proposed to be trenchless and would not interfere with the safe operation of rail services. • Transport by water: All crossings at watercourses will be by trenchless tunnelling and so would not impact users of the watercourse. • Severance: All road crossings would be completed within a short duration with appropriate traffic management in place. Where the proposed pipeline route is along the highway this would be achieved at a rate of 35 metres per week, therefore there would be no requirement for traffic management that would restrict movement between origins and destinations for an extended period that may be the cause of significant effects. • Car parking: There are no proposals to use existing car parking for construction activities. There may be cases where a suspension of on-street parking is required to facilitate the delivery of large plant or an abnormal load, but this would be agreed on a case by case basis
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 153
Grantham to Peterborough Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Traffic and Transport
• Operation: Typical operational trips are anticipated to be negligible. 14.6.2 Scoped in The following topics are scoped in: Traffic volumes: Changes in traffic volume can indicate a change in the experience of users of the transport network, particularly for intangible effects such as frustration, or fear and intimidation both for users of vehicles and those outside of vehicles. Because of this it is also appropriate to consider the change in HDVs separately from total traffic. This includes both for changes associated with construction traffic (including construction workers) and for diverted traffic. • Collisions and safety: Changes in traffic volume or to the road network (for example the introduction of new junctions) can change the number and severity of collisions on the road network.
14.7 Proposed EIA Methodology 14.7.1 Further Baseline Data Collection Further data requirements would be based upon existing sources of information comprising:
• Traffic volume data available from highway authorities (including Highways England data where relevant); and • Available collision data. 63
14.7.2 Assessment methodology Detailed relevant guidance on the environmental assessment of road traffic is provided by IEMA (1993).64 Previous guidance in DMRB is now superseded. Because of this it is also appropriate to draw on good practice from other projects to develop the criteria and method for assessment. This includes that assessment should be time based, to inform the likelihood and magnitude of potential effects.
Assessment of transport users affected by changes in traffic flows Baseline traffic flows will be identified using open-source data from DfT and through consultation with the local highway authority. It is not proposed to undertake any traffic counts or traffic modelling. Based on this approach it may not be practicable to assess every location where work is being undertaken, but reasonable effort will be made to complete assessment of representative road types and traffic volumes. Based on IEMA guidance traffic impacts should generally be assessed when traffic flows have increased by more than 30% or more than 10% in sensitive areas, or where HGV flows have increased significantly (IEMA, pg 16). Examples of sensitive areas are hospitals, churches and schools (IEMA, pg 16). Guidance advises that changes exceeding 30%, 60% and 90% are considered as slight, moderate and substantial impacts respectively (IEMA, pg 15). It advises that this should be based on changes in traffic flow, which should be considered for appropriate periods where the change may be greatest.
63 To be sourced from https://data.gov.uk/dataset/cb7ae6f0-4be6-4935-9277-47e5ce24a11f/road-safety-data. 64 IEMA 1993 ‘Guidance on the environmental assessment of road traffic’.
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 154
Grantham to Peterborough Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Traffic and Transport
Based on the guidance the assessment will consider the hour in which there is the greatest change in total traffic and HDVs, this may be separate hours, which will use annual average traffic. A 24-hour assessment using Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) will be completed alongside this for both total traffic and AADT. Where data is available, locations considered will include main compounds and satellite compounds and, where traffic distribution permits, the road network away from these locations. The baseline would use publicly available traffic flows with TEMPRO traffic growth applied to the relevant year. The assessment year will be the year in which the greatest change in traffic occurs as a result of the proposed scheme.
Assessment of collisions & Safety Baseline collision data will be sourced from DfT65. On links for which baseline traffic flows are available from existing sources, collision rates would be calculated. These would be applied to changes in traffic associated with project traffic to calculate the change in collisions. To acknowledge that any real terms change in collisions is an impact on those involved, all changes will be assessed. Particular attention will be paid to locations with existing collision clusters regardless of whether baseline collision rates can be calculated. Potential impacts at new permanent junctions will be considered qualitatively. The findings from any Road Safety Audits required to support the application for full planning permission will be considered as part of the assessment.
Assessing significance of effects The sensitivity of receptors will be based on descriptions set out in Table 14.4. Table 14.4: Sensitivity of Traffic and Transport receptors Typical Typical description description High Of value, importance or rarity on a national scale, and with very limited potential for substitution; and/or Very sensitive to change or has little capacity to accommodate a change. Medium Of value, importance or rarity on a regional scale, and with limited potential for substitution; and/or Moderate sensitivity to change, or moderate capacity to accommodate a change. Low Of value, importance or rarity on a local scale; and/or Not particularly sensitive to change or has considerable capacity to accommodate a change. Negligible Of value, importance or rarity on a very local scale; and/or Not sensitive to change or has very considerable capacity to accommodate a change.
The magnitude criteria set out in Table 14.5 are based on guidance (Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic IEMA (1993) and good practice. These criteria have been
65 https://data.gov.uk/dataset/cb7ae6f0-4be6-4935-9277-47e5ce24a11f/road-safety-data
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 155
Grantham to Peterborough Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Traffic and Transport
developed for each receptor, to reflect that a smaller real terms change has a greater magnitude when considering collisions and safety. Table 14.5: Magnitude of impact on traffic and transport receptors Magnitude Change Transport users affected by changes in traffic flows Major A change in average daily traffic in excess of 90% and an increase in traffic of greater than 100 total two-way movements (30 two-way movements for HGVs); and Change occurs for a period greater than 6 months in any 12-month period based on annual average changes in traffic. Moderate A change in average daily traffic in excess of 60% and an increase in traffic of greater than 60 total two-way movements (20 two-way movements for HGVs); and Change occurs for a period greater than 4 consecutive weeks in any 12-month period based on annual average changes in traffic. Minor A change in average daily traffic in excess of 30% and an increase in traffic of greater than 40 total two-way movements (10 two-way movements for HGVs); and Change occurs for a period greater than 2 consecutive weeks in any 12-month period based on annual average changes in traffic. Negligible A change in average daily traffic of up to 30% for a period up to 2 weeks in any 12- month period based on annual average changes in traffic. Collisions and Safety Major A change in annual collision numbers of at least one collision and in excess of 90%; or severity of existing collisions likely to change by two steps (e.g. slight to fatal). Moderate A change in annual collision numbers of at least one collision and in excess of 60%; or severity of existing collisions likely to change by one step (e.g. slight to serious). Minor A change in annual collision numbers of at least one collision and in excess of 30%; and severity of existing collisions not likely to change. Negligible A change in annual collision numbers not likely to be more than one collision and up to 30%; or severity of existing collisions not likely to change.
The significance of effects is based on the significance matrix provided as Table 14.6. These are, however, subject to professional judgement with robust justification.
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 156
Grantham to Peterborough Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Traffic and Transport
Table 14.6: Significance of effects matrix Sensitivity
Major Moderate Minor Negligible
Magnitude High Slight Moderate or Large or very Very large large large
Medium Slight Slight or Moderate or Large or very moderate large large
Low Neutral or Slight Moderate Moderate or slight large
Negligible Neutral or Neutral or Slight Slight or slight slight moderate
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 157
Grantham to Peterborough Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – The Water Environment
15 The Water Environment
15.1 Introduction This chapter considers the existing water environment, sets out the scope for the ES and addresses the potential significant effects that the construction and operational phases of the proposed scheme may have on the water environment. This chapter will cover the following sub disciplines
• Surface water; • Hydromorphology; • Groundwater; • Flood risk; and • Water-dependent designated sites.
15.2 Legislative and policy background 15.2.1 Legislation Table 15.1 summarises legislation specific to the assessment of the water environment. Table 15.1: Water environment legislation Legislation / regulation Summary of requirements European legislation Water Framework The WFD aims to protect and enhance the quality of the water Directive environment. The WFD requires all natural surface water bodies (2000/60/EC) to achieve both good chemical status and good ecological status. Artificial and Heavily Modified Water Bodies may be prevented from reaching good ecological status due to the modifications necessary to maintain their function, e.g. navigation. They are, however, required to achieve good ecological potential, through the implementation of a series of mitigation measures. The WFD also requires good status (both qualitative and quantitative) to be achieved for all groundwater bodies and the prevention of the deterioration in groundwater status. Status is reported at the water body scale, with individual water bodies forming part of larger RBDs, for which RBMPs have been developed. The first RBMPs were published in 2009 followed by a Cycle 2 update published in 2016. Environmental Quality Environmental Quality Standards (EQS) lists the priority Standards Directive substances and certain other pollutants as provided for in Article (2008/105/EC), amended by 16 of the WFD, with the aim of achieving good surface water Directive 2013/39/EU chemical status. Groundwater Directive Complements the WFD. It requires measures to prevent or limit (2006/118/EC) inputs of pollutants into groundwater to be operational so that WFD environmental objectives can be achieved.
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 158
Grantham to Peterborough Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – The Water Environment
Legislation / regulation Summary of requirements Habitats Directive To promote the maintenance of biodiversity by taking measures to (92/43/EEC) maintain or restore natural habitats and wild species at a favourable conservation status, introducing robust protection for those habitats and species of European importance. Sites or species that come under this Directive will heighten the importance of water features that sustain them. Floods Directive Protecting the community from the risk and impact of flooding is (2007/60/EC) at the centre of the Floods Directive 2007/60/EC. This Directive, provided a new approach to managing flood risk on a catchment- wide scale and which applies to all kinds of floods (river, lakes, flash floods, urban floods, coastal floods, including storm surges). NPPF The NPPF sets strict tests to protect people and property from flooding which all LPAs are expected to follow. It forms the basis of assessment of flood risk for schemes. Section 14 of the NPPF sets out the Government’s over-arching planning policies in relation to meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change. Local planning policy The documents that comprise the adopted Local Plan for each LPA area affected by the proposed scheme are described in Chapter 3 (section 3.7). Local plan policies relevant to the water environment will be considered in the development of the proposed scheme and in the ES.
15.3 Guidance and methodology 15.3.1 Guidance There are no specific guidelines for assessing potential impacts on the water environment arising from interconnecting water pipeline developments. Relevant sections of the guidance on ‘Road drainage and the water environment’ in the DMRB66 will therefore be used to identify best practice. This is the most appropriate guidance for assessing the environmental effects of linear schemes and provides a well-established and tested methodology accepted by statutory consultees and regulators. The significance of effect will be assessed using relevant parts of the guidance on ‘Environmental Assessment and Monitoring’ in DMRB67. In addition, a WFD assessment will be conducted with regard to the Planning Inspectorate’s guidance on the preparation of WFD assessments for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs)68.
66 Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Sustainability and Environment, LA113 Road drainage and the water environment, Revision 1 (March 2020), https://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/dmrb/search/d6388f5f-2694-4986-ac46-b17b62c21727. 67 Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Sustainability and Environment, LA104 ‘Environmental assessment and monitoring’, Revision 1 (August 2020), https://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/dmrb/search/0f6e0b6a-d08e-4673-8691-cab564d4a60a. 68 Planning Inspectorate 2017, Advice Note 18, The Water Framework Directive. https://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/wp- content/uploads/2017/06/advice_note_18.pdf.
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 159
Grantham to Peterborough Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – The Water Environment
In addition to the guidance and criteria provided in the DMRB, a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) will be undertaken in accordance with the requirements of the NPPF69, and its accompanying Technical Guidance70and the EA’s ‘Climate change allowances for planners’ NPPF supporting guidance71
15.3.2 Study area This Scoping Report takes into account baseline data gathered to date on the water environment. Data has been gathered for a study area of up to a 250 metre buffer either side of the proposed pipeline working corridor. This will account for the likely distance within which the water environment could be affected by the proposed scheme. This is considered appropriate in the context of surface water quality as research indicates that beyond 100 metres, any potential pollution impacts from sedimentation during construction (the most significant issue facing water quality from pipeline schemes) would not be significant, as settlement and dilution would be expected to reduce potential impacts (LA113, August 2019). In addition, it is considered that 250 metres represents the maximum potential extent of the zone of impact of dewatering during construction, so this study area is also appropriate in the context of groundwater. A 250 metre buffer will be used for the hydromorphology assessment and WFD assessment, with a focus on potential watercourse crossings. A 500 metre buffer will be used for the FRA. However, at the time of reporting this study area approach is arbitrary and, as the EIA progresses, may extend wider than this (if required) considering any impacts that fall outside of this study area. Given the FRA study area is a larger study area than for surface water quality, WFD and hydrogeology, this study area has been adopted for scoping for the benefit of identifying all water receptors.
Baseline data has been gathered for these study areas from the following sources:
• EA Catchment Data Explorer for identifying WFD waterbodies; • OS data on the presence of Ordinary Watercourses; • Association of Drainage Authorities interactive map to identify the presence of Internal Drainage Boards (IDBs); • Published geological maps prepared by the BGS at 1:50,000 scale and BGS GIS digital geological mapping data; • Statutory designated sites that are designated due to their water-dependency provided by Natural England’s open license and Envirocheck GIS data sets; and • Envirocheck data sets, provided in GIS format including abstraction and discharge data (from LPAs, EA, and BGS records).
69https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-planning-policy-framework--2 70 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-planning-policy-framework-technical-guidance 71 https://www.gov.uk/guidance/flood-risk-assessments-climate-change-allowances
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 160
Grantham to Peterborough Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – The Water Environment
15.4 Baseline conditions
Surface waterbodies Key features of the surface water environment are shown on Figures 15.1, and flood zone mapping is shown on Figure 15.2.
There are numerous surface watercourses within the study area that could be crossed or are significant enough in the context of WFD legislation to warrant further consideration. This includes the following watercourses, all classified as Main Rivers by the EA, reported from most northerly to southerly:
1. The East Glen River; 2. The West Glen River; 3. The River Glen; 4. The River Welland; 5. King Street Drain (not designated under the WFD); 6. Maxey Cut; 7. Brook Drain, including Marholm Brook; 8. Folly River, including Werrington and Marholm Brooks; 9. North Level Pumped Areas 2 and 3; 10. The River Nene; 11. The River Great Ouse; 12. Middle Level Main Drain; and 13. Relief Channel. All of these are Main Rivers and have associated floodplains (Flood Zones 2 and 3). In addition to the Main Rivers listed above, numerous Ordinary Watercourses lie within the study area. Included within the Ordinary Watercourse category are several drains and ditches that fall under the jurisdiction of Internal Drainage Boards (IDBs) and Lead Local Flood Authorities (LLFA). These are all in hydraulic connectivity to Main Rivers. There is one WFD designated lake within the study area - Langtoft Gravel Pits, to the west of Market Deeping. There are numerous ponds within the study area. Potential significant effects on ponds are considered in Chapter 5 Biodiversity and ecology and will not be considered further within the water environment topic.
Groundwater bodies and Aquifers Features of the groundwater environment are illustrated on Figure 15.3. Groundwater bodies within the study area that are relevant to this assessment include (note numbering of water environment receptors is continuous from the previous list):
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 161
Grantham to Peterborough Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – The Water Environment
14. Blisworth Limestone Rutland formation; 15. Witham Limestone Unit A; 16. Witham Limestone Unit B; 17. Witham Lias U; 18. Welland Mid Jurassic Unit; 19. North west Norfolk Sandringham Sands; and 20. Cam and Ely Ouse Woburn Sands. BGS data (BGS 1:50,000 scale mapping on the MAGIC website72) indicates that the study area in the sections of the proposed scheme between Ancaster, Grantham and Peterborough, and in the area around Downham Market, are characterised by Principal Aquifers and pockets of Secondary A Superficial Aquifers. Further information on geology and hydrogeology is presented in Chapter 13 Soils, Geology and Hydrogeology. The majority of the section of the proposed pipeline between Grantham and Peterborough lies within SPZ. These range from zones 1 (inner), 2 (outer) and 3 (total catchment). These zones are indicative of the level of risk to the source (groundwater wells, boreholes and springs) from contamination. There are no SPZs in the sections of the proposed pipeline between Peterborough and Bexwell. EA online data73 indicates that there are no groundwater-dependent terrestrial ecosystems within the study area. Therefore, these will not be considered further within the water environment topic.
15.5 Potential Impacts 15.5.1 Construction impacts Without mitigation in place, construction of the proposed scheme has potential to result in the following effects on the water environment.
Surface water, hydromorphology and groundwater • The removal of on-site vegetation and compaction of soils due to construction vehicles and materials storage may locally reduce the rate at which rainfall infiltrates to groundwater for a short duration; • There is the potential for the spillage of fuels, contamination, hazardous materials or liquids, accidental leaks of concrete and cement products (which can be contained in uncontrolled wash-down water) and surface water runoff to impact both surface and groundwater resources; • The release of hydrocarbons and oils due to vehicles accessing the site. Leakage from oil/fuel storage tanks and accidental spillages could impact the quality of surface and groundwater resources;
72 https://magic.defra.gov.uk/MagicMap.aspx 73 https://data.gov.uk/dataset/72a149a2-1be7-441f-bc37-94a77f261e27/groundwater-dependent-terrestrial-ecosystems-england-only
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 162
Grantham to Peterborough Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – The Water Environment
• De-watering – local changes to groundwater levels associated with pumping out of subterranean works areas (e.g. deep foundations) and the disposal of pumped water to surface waterbodies; • Direct morphological changes at crossing points could result in changes in flow, loss of sediment continuity, increased sedimentation, habitat severance, and a potential barrier to fish. These physical impacts could affect the status of the watercourses with implications for changes in drainage patterns. With best practice design and construction, potential morphological conflicts are likely to be resolved. However, a WFD assessment will be undertaken in consultation with the EA; • Open cut crossing techniques have the potential for direct morphological changes caused by the disturbance to the bed and banks of the river, and the removal of riparian vegetation; • Open cut techniques are invasive excavations, and the subsequent deposition of soils, sediment, or other construction materials can potentially lead to changes in flow and sediment inputs such impacts can directly impact morphology and the aquatic environment; • Cutting and deep foundations may create rapid vertical flow pathways into the underlaying aquifers or affect flow paths and provide new pathways for contamination to reach groundwater; and • Sediment and/or other contaminants entering watercourses or groundwater affecting the quality of the water which could have implications for abstractions.
Flood risk Potential effects include the following: • Construction works within a floodplain. Temporary stockpiling of material in the flood plain could result in a loss of flood storage and/or diversion of existing overland flow routes to areas that are not currently affected. Bridges or culverts crossing watercourses that are required to accommodate haul roads could impact flow conveyance and flood levels; • Increases in flow and volume to existing small watercourses which are inundated as a result of having water diverted to them to manage site runoff; • Sediment runoff from construction sites could increase the risk of blockage in existing structures downstream of temporary outfalls; and • Any ponds constructed to hold water to manage sediment could increase the risk of flooding to watercourses or adjacent land in the event of overtopping or a breach. 15.5.2 Operational impacts Potential effects during the operational phase include, but are not limited to the following:
• Surface water quality impacts and morphological impacts from permanent outfalls from water storage tanks to surface watercourses. Their main purpose is to act as an overflow for the storage tanks. Note storage tanks are defined as closed water storage points (concrete boxes) and not open impounding reservoirs. In an emergency the outfall could be used to drain the whole tank. The requirement for the addition of water treatment chemicals is unknown at the time of scoping, but some additives, if present, could be toxic to aquatic invertebrates and fish (Julio A. Camargo, Chemosphere, 2003)74;
74 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0045653502004988
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 163
Grantham to Peterborough Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – The Water Environment
• Hydromorphological changes to watercourses where the proposed pipeline limits the adjustment of the channel (vertical and lateral), over time; • Flood risk arising from the increases in flow and volume to existing watercourses where outfalls are discharging; and • Any impacts on groundwater during operations would primarily relate to groundwater flow owing to the construction of proposed storage tanks which will create a large area of deep excavation to accommodate the new impermeable underground structure and the proposed new pipeline. In areas of shallow groundwater (particularly fen peat soils) there could be new flow pathways created by the proposed pipeline and impacts to existing flow paths for contamination to reach groundwater.
15.6 Proposed Scope of Assessment 15.6.1 Scoped out The following topics are scoped out:
• Surface water features not directly crossed will be scoped out as the construction risk is low due to limited/no hydraulic pathway; • Surface water features more than 250 metres downstream and upstream of a crossed watercourse will be scoped out as the construction risk is low due to limited/no hydraulic pathway; • Surface water quality impacts from permanent outfalls are scoped out as the proposed pipeline will not be fluoridated; • Groundwater units not directly crossed will be scoped out as there is a low risk of impact due to limited/no hydraulic pathway; • Ponds and lakes will not be considered within the water environment scope. This is based on the assumption that any potential hydrologic pathway for pollution (i.e. surface or groundwater dependant/fed) will be assessed within this chapter. These are scoped in to the biodiversity and ecology assessment; and • The effects of existing ground contamination on surface water and groundwater are not considered here as they are covered within Chapter 13 Soils, geology and hydrogeology. 15.6.2 Scoped in Based on the potential effects detailed in section 15.5 the following elements have been scoped in for further assessment in the ES; • Surface water features directly crossed and those within 250 metres of a crossing will be scoped in. A WFD compliance assessment will demonstrate the proposed scheme will not cause deterioration in the status of the waterbody or prevent the attainment of Good ecological status in the future; • An assessment of the effect of the proposed scheme (both construction and operation) on flood risk is to be scoped in. This will focus on areas where the proposed scheme crosses flood zones and where outfalls are proposed; and • Groundwater units directly crossed by the proposed scheme and those which underlie the dewatering zone are scoped in for further assessment, as there is a risk associated with new contamination and process impact pathways both during the construction and operational phases. The assessment will also determine WFD compliance.
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 164
Grantham to Peterborough Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – The Water Environment
15.7 Proposed EIA Methodology 15.7.1 Further baseline data gathering The study area for the assessment will be the same as that stated in Section 15.3.2. The 100 metre buffer either side of the centreline will also be used for the hydromorphology assessment, WFD assessment and FRA, with a focus on potential watercourse and floodplain crossings. Alongside the data sources detailed in Section 15.3.2, existing baseline data will be supplemented with data from the following sources:
• EA groundwater level data for establishing baseline conditions within the groundwater; • Hydromorphological walkover survey; and
• EA, LLFA, relevant County Councils, IDBs, Natural England and data available within AWS itself. EIA assessments will largely be undertaken using desk-based information. Proportionally targeted hydromorphological and ground investigations will be completed prior to the submission of the application for full planning permission, and this information will also be included within the baseline conditions section of this chapter. 15.7.2 Assessment methodology The assessment of impacts will be informed by the methodology set out in DMRB (LA104, August 2020 and LA113, March 2020). This specifies the following steps: • The importance of water environment attributes is identified using the matrix set out in Table 3.70 of LA113; • The magnitude of impact on water environment attributes is assessed in line with Table 3.71 of LA113; and • The significance of environmental effects on water environment attributes is assessed in line with the significance categories defined in Table 3.7 of LA104 and the significance matrix set out in Table 3.8.1 of LA104. Table 3.7 of LA104 is reproduced here as Table 15.2 below. Table 15.2 Assigning Significance* Significance category Typical description Very large effects Effects at this level are material in the decision-making process. Large effects Effects at this level are likely to be material in the decision-making process. Moderate effects At this level can be considered to be material decision-making factors. Slight effects At this level are not material in the decision-making process. Neutral No effects or those that are beneath levels of perception, within normal bounds of variation or within the margin of forecasting error.
* In line with Note 3 to Table 3.7 of LA104, ‘significant’ effects typically comprise residual effects that are within the moderate, large or very large categories.
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 165
Grantham to Peterborough Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Cumulative Effects
16 Cumulative Effects
16.1 Introduction The proposed approach to the assessment of cumulative effects is based on a modified version of the guidance provided by the Planning Inspectorate in their Advice Note 17 and accompanying annexes ‘Cumulative effects assessment relevant to nationally significant infrastructure projects’ (Planning Inspectorate 2019). The Cumulative Effects Assessment ("CEA") follows the five-stage approach summarised below:
• Stage 1 – Establish long list of other developments; • Stage 2 – Establish the zone of influence of the proposed scheme; • Stage 3 - Identify a short list of other developments for the assessment; • Stage 4 – Gather information on the other developments; • Stage 5 – Assessment. Note that there may be some overlap and iteration between these stages. 16.1.1 Stage 1 – Establish the long list of other developments The long list of other developments represents a list of projects that could potentially result in significant cumulative effects when taken together with the proposed scheme. Table 16.1 below identifies sources of information for compiling the long list, organised in tiers according to decreasing levels of certainty that the development will proceed and/or decreasing levels of available information. This table is adapted from the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note 17, Table 275. The long list of other developments will therefore be populated through a desk-based study to identify projects within the descriptions identified in Table 16.1, where all or part of the proposed other development lies within 1 kilometre of the proposed scheme boundary.
75 https://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Advice-note-17V4.pdf
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 166
Grantham to Peterborough Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Cumulative Effects
Table 16.1: ‘Other Development’ for inclusion in the Cumulative Effects Assessment Tier 1 a) Development under construction Decreasing level of detail b) Permitted application(s), whether under the Town and Country likely to be Planning Act (TCPA) or other regimes, but not yet implemented. available c) Submitted application(s) whether under the TCPA or other regimes, but not yet determined. Tier 2 NSIPs on the Planning Inspectorate’s portal or planning applications on the LPAs’ planning portals where a Scoping Report has been submitted for an EIA Development. Tier 3 Developments on the Planning Inspectorate’s portal where a Scoping Report has not been submitted. [An NSIP is very likely to require an EIA.] Projects or land allocations identified in the relevant adopted Local Plan, recognising that there will be limited information available on these proposals. Emerging Local Plans will be considered, with appropriate weight being given according to the stage of development. Projects and proposals identified in other plans and programmes that set the framework for future development consents/approvals, where such development is reasonably likely to come forward. Developments on the LPAs’ planning portals where a Screening Opinion has determined that a development is EIA Development, but a Scoping Report has not been submitted.
16.1.2 Stage 2 - Establish the zone of influence of the proposed scheme The ZoI is defined by the potential distance over which the proposed scheme may affect the environment. In consequence, the ZoI varies from topic to topic and between the construction and operational phases of the proposed scheme. The ZoI during the construction phase is measured from the proposed pipeline working corridor , which includes both the area required for the permanent works and the land to be used temporarily during construction (i.e. including any compounds, access routes etc.). The ZoI during the operational phase is measured from the proposed permanent scheme features. It will be assumed that equivalent ZoIs apply to each long-listed development, unless specified otherwise in their own environmental reporting. 16.1.3 Stage 3 – Identify the short list of other developments A sifting process will be undertaken to reduce the long list to a short list of other developments that are likely to give rise to cumulative impacts together with the proposal. Developments included in the short list will be included in the assessment of cumulative effects. The sifting process will be based on the following criteria: • All Tier 1 and Tier 2 developments (as defined in Table 16.1 above) will be included in the short list, unless insufficient information is available to enable an assessment. Tier 3
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 167
Grantham to Peterborough Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Cumulative Effects
developments will be included if sufficient information is available to permit an assessment, although this may be more qualitative and at a very high level; • The relevant other development has an overlap in temporal scope with the proposed scheme in the construction and/or operational phase; i.e., for construction impacts there is an overlap between the construction periods of the proposed scheme and the relevant other development and for operational impacts they will be in operation simultaneously; and • The geographic scope of the relevant other development overlaps with the geographic scope of the proposed scheme. This will be defined by comparing the ZoI of the two schemes for each topic to identify overlaps; and • The relevant other development has been identified as an EIA development or meets the criteria in Schedule 3 to the EIA Regulations; or • If the relevant other development does not require an EIA, the scale and nature of development or its proximity to the proposed scheme may cause it to have a significant effect on a receptor which lies within the ZoI for the proposed scheme; and • Sufficient information is available in respect of the relevant other development to enable identification of its environmental effects that may act cumulatively with the effects of the proposed scheme. In general, ‘sufficient information’ is deemed to comprise an Scoping Report, an ES or other environmental reporting; and • Where sufficient information is not available, developments may still be shortlisted on an exceptional basis if it appears likely that they will have significant environmental effects and reasonable assumptions can be made about the nature and extent of those effects. Developments that are likely to be completed before the start of construction of the proposed scheme are considered to form part of the future baseline within the construction and operational assessments of the technical topic chapters and are not considered in the CEA. This sifting process and the content of the short list will be confirmed through consultation with the relevant LPAs. 16.1.4 Stage 4 – Information Gathering Information on other developments is gathered from open sources, principally the planning documents available on the relevant LPA planning portals. Where information is lacking, the potential for environmental impacts arising from other developments will be based on professional experience. The LPAs may also be able provide information on the likelihood of developments going ahead, potential effects and likely planning conditions on mitigation.
Information to be obtained will include as a minimum: • Location, extent and design of the development; • Current status of the application for planning permission (e.g. granted, applied for, not submitted); • Temporal scope – i.e. programme for construction, operation and decommissioning; and • Any environmental reporting (including but not limited to a Scoping Report, ES or other environmental report, whether multi-disciplinary or topic-specific), which would provide information on environmental baseline and predicted effects.
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 168
Grantham to Peterborough Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Cumulative Effects
16.1.5 Stage 5 – Cumulative Effects Assessment
Identification of potential cumulative effects Potential cumulative environmental effects will be identified through the following process:
• To identify potential ‘additive’ cumulative effects, the relevant ZoI for each scheme will be plotted in GIS, on a topic-by-topic basis, and any overlaps identified; • To identify potential ‘synergistic’ cumulative effects, the proposed scheme ZoI for each topic will be plotted against the other development ZoI for any other topics that may interact; • Where these steps identify an overlap between ZoIs , an assessment of the potential for cumulative effects is required for any relevant receptors in the area of overlap. In identifying potential cumulative effects, it is important to determine whether the effects would take place during the construction or operational of the proposed scheme and whether they are permanent or temporary, and if temporary over what timescale.
Mitigation of cumulative effects Where potential cumulative effects are identified, consideration will be given to the provision of mitigation measures to avoid the occurrence of the effect, or to reduce its significance, so far as these lie within the capability and remit of AWS rather than the promoter of the relevant other development. Any relevant mitigation measures that are relied on in the impact assessment will be described in the ES.
Assessment of potential cumulative effects The determination of the residual significance after mitigation of any ‘between project’ cumulative effects will be carried out using the professional judgement of the topic specialist principally responsible for the relevant receptor type. Effects will be characterised as:
• Construction or operational effects; • Temporary or permanent effects; • Beneficial or adverse effects. The significance of any effects will be described using the terminology and definitions set out in Table 16.2: Table 16.2: Determining the significance of cumulative effects Significance Typical description category Very large Effects at this level are material in the decision-making process. Large Effects at this level are likely to be material in the decision-making process. Moderate Effects at this level can be considered to be material decision-making factors. Slight Effects at this level are not material in the decision-making process. Neutral No effects or those that are beneath levels of perception, within normal bounds of variation or within the margin of forecasting error.
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 169
Grantham to Peterborough Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Cumulative Effects
The proposed mitigation measures are those to which AWS is committed. There may be potential for additional measures which would need the agreement of promoters of the relevant other developments, but these would have to be developed and agreed with them. At present no such measures have been identified. Residual cumulative effects are considered to be significant or not significant based on the professional judgement of the multi-disciplinary team comprising environmental, engineering and planning specialists. The assessment will be accompanied by figures which show the location of the other development in relation to the proposed scheme.
Limitations The CEA will be based on information available from the promoters of other developments which is in the public domain. Where this information is not available, the CEA will be based on the professional judgement of qualified environmental specialists, taking account of consultation responses from the planning and environmental regulators. The quality of available information decreases with the certainty of the other development, and for likely projects where an application for planning permission has not yet been made the quality of information on likely environmental effects may be limited.
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 170
Grantham to Peterborough Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Error! Reference source not found.
17 Proposed Scope and Environmental Statement Structure
17.1 Proposed Scope This Scoping Report has been prepared in accordance with the EIA Regulations. It identifies the potential significant environmental effects that may arise from the construction and operational phases of the proposed scheme, in the light of available baseline information and the current stage of design development. The conclusions of the report in respect of which environmental topics require further assessment as part of the EIA process, and coverage within the ES, are summarised in Table 17.1. Table 17.1: Technical Assessments scoped in to or out of the ES Assessment Topic Focus of Assessment Scoped In Scoped Out
Air Quality Not applicable. ✓
Biodiversity Statutory designated sites listed in Section 5.6.2; ✓ Non-statutory designated sites within 250 metres of the proposed pipeline centreline or associated above- ground infrastructure; Habitats listed in Table 5.7; and Protected and notable species and species groups listed in Table 5.8. Climate Change Potential effect on climate change of capital carbon ✓ Resilience, Major emissions arising from construction of the proposed Accidents and Natural scheme. Disasters
Historic Environment Scheduled monuments – with reference to potentially ✓ related remains outside the scheduled area of the Cistercian Grange near Ropsley (list entry 100538); Potential effects of construction on undesignated archaeological remains; and Potential effect of the construction and operational phases on palaeoenvironmental remains in the Fens. Land use and Not applicable ✓ Recreation
Landscape and Visual Visual impact of the whole proposed scheme during ✓ Amenity construction and of the proposed above-ground infrastructure during the operational phase; National and local landscape character areas; Ancient woodland, veteran trees and TPOs within 15 metres of the construction corridor; and Registered common land. Materials and Waste Not applicable. ✓
Noise and Vibration Construction noise and vibration; ✓ Traffic noise from construction vehicles on the public highway; and Operational noise from the proposed above-ground infrastructure.
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 171
Grantham to Peterborough Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Error! Reference source not found.
Assessment Topic Focus of Assessment Scoped In Scoped Out
Population and Not applicable ✓ Human Health
Soils, Geology and Short-term impacts on BMV land during construction; ✓ Hydrogeology Long-term loss of BMV land due to the presence of the proposed above-ground infrastructure; Geological SSSI or LGS within the study area; Mineral safeguarding areas; and Contaminated land risk assessment (phase 1 desk study). Traffic and Transport Changes in traffic volumes during construction; and ✓ Collisions/road safety during construction. Water environment Surface water features directly crossed or within 250 ✓ metres of the proposed scheme; Groundwater units directly crossed or underlying the dewatering zone; WFD assessment; and Flood risk
17.2 Structure of the Environmental Statement
Volume 1 The structure of the ES is currently proposed to comprise: • Introduction and background including need for the proposed scheme; • A description of the proposed scheme; • A summary of the alternatives that have been considered; • A summary of the consultation undertaken for the EIA; • A description of the approach to assessment; • Technical assessments (Scoped In) outlined in Table 17.1, to include: - Introduction - Assessment scope - Statutory and planning policy context - Assessment methodology - Baseline - Predicted impacts - Proposed mitigation - Residual effects - Conclusions • Cumulative effects; • Register of environmental actions and commitments; and
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 172
Grantham to Peterborough Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Error! Reference source not found.
• Summary of residual effects.
Volume 2 ES figures as required to support the proposed scheme description and illustrate the technical assessment.
Volume 3 Appendices to the ES would include: • Project Drawings; and • Technical Appendices such as desk-based assessments, survey reports, and photomontages.
Non-technical summary The ES would include a Non-Technical Summary (NTS), a brief report summarising the project and the principal findings of the EIA. This would be written in non-technical language which is readily understood by members of the public. The NTS would be bound into the ES and will also be available as a stand-alone document.
17.3 Summary of Supporting Documents In addition to the ES, the application for full planning permission will also be supported by documents including but not limited to the following, which will also be used to inform the completion of the ES:
• Planning, Design and Access Statement; • Statement of Community Involvement; • Transport Statement; • Flood Risk Assessment; and • Framework CEMP. 17.3.1 Framework Construction Environment Management Plan Measures to be included within the Framework CEMP would include but not be limited to: • Pollution prevention measures, including prevention of spills and refuelling protocols; • Dust prevention and suppression; • Habitats and wildlife protection measures; • Soil protection, handling, storage, drainage and reinstatement; • Construction waste management considerations; • Construction traffic management considerations; • Spoil management and reuse; • Water use and discharge; • Energy efficiency and carbon reduction; • Testing, handling and disposal of contaminated soils;
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 173
Grantham to Peterborough Pipeline EIA Scoping Report – Error! Reference source not found.
• All measures to be incorporated by the contractor as identified during the EIA through assessments; and • Good practice as outlined by AWS’s EMS and industry standards.
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 174
Appendix 1.1 Environmental Avoidance Criteria
Appendix 1.1 Environmental Avoidance Criteria
Feature/Designation Optioneering scale Air Quality Priority for Avoidance AQMAs = Primary Biodiversity Green Belt = Secondary Local Nature Reserves National Nature Reserves Priority Habitat Inventory Special Areas of Conservation Special Protection Areas Sites of Special Scientific Interest Sites of Special Scientific Interest Impact Risk Zone Ramsar RSPB Reserves Wood Pasture and Parkland BAP Priority Habitat Woodland Priority Habitat Network Local and County Wildlife Sites Historic Environment Battlefields Listed Buildings Registered Parks and Gardens Scheduled Monuments World Heritage Sites Conservation Areas Landscape and Visual Amenity Ancient Woodland Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty National Character Areas Tree Preservation Orders Country Parks Materials and Waste Authorised landfill sites Historic landfill sites Water Environment Main Rivers* Flood Zone 2 Flood Zone 3 Source protection zones * Avoid by using trenchless crossing techniques
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 175
Appendix 5.1 Ecological features and relevant survey guidance
Appendix 5.1 Ecological features and relevant survey guidance
Ecological Relevant Survey Guidance Notes Feature Designated CIEEM (2018) Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the Sites UK and Ireland: Terrestrial, Freshwater and Coastal. Designated DMRB (2009) Environmental Assessment: Assessment of Sites for bats Implications on European Sites. Volume 11, Section 4 [HD 44/09]. Habitats for Bellamy, C., Scott, C. & Altringham, J. (2013) Multiscale, presence- bats only habitat suitability models: fine resolution maps for eight bat species. Journal of Applied Ecology, 50: 4. Brown, E. (2013) Multiscale habitat suitability models for bats in the Yorkshire Dales. Are site-specific models more accurate than those transferred from other geographic regions. Dissertation. Leeds University. Hedgerows DEFRA Hedgerow Survey Handbook (2nd edition) (2007) Badger Natural England Guidance Badgers: surveys and mitigation for Field surveys of all suitable development projects (2015). habitat within the Scottish Natural Heritage Best Practice Guidance - Badger construction footprint plus Surveys. Inverness Badger Survey. Commissioned Report No. 096, within a 30 metre buffer (2003). zone outside of the construction footprint. 1 CIEEM Technical Guidance Series. Competencies for Species Surveys: Badger. CIEEM, Hampshire (2013). 1 Andrews, R Classification of badger setts Meles meles in the UK: A Review and Guidance for Surveyors (2013). CIEEM In Practice Issue 82: Countryside Management 1Harris, S., Cresswell, P. & Jefferies, D. Surveying badgers. Mammal Society Publication No. 9, London (1989). Water vole Strachen & Moorhouse Water Vole Conservation Handbook (2006) Dean, et al., The Water Vole Mitigation Handbook (2016)
Otter Chanin, P Monitoring the Otter Lutra lutra. Conserving Natura 2000 Rivers Monitoring Series No. 10, English Nature, Peterborough (2003) Bat species Bat Conservation Trust Good Practice Guidelines: Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists (2016); Andrews, H. Bat Roosts in Trees A Guide to Identification and Assessment for Tree Care and Ecology Professionals (2018) Great crested English Nature Great crested newt mitigation guidelines (2001) newt
07339-100005-GRAETTTM-XXX-RPT-Z-0002 Type 176
Appendix 5.1 Ecological features and relevant survey guidance
Appendix 5.2 Ecological field survey methodologies
1 Introduction 2 Habitats 3 Aquatic ecology 4 Riparian mammals 5 Bat species 6 Badger 7 Amphibians 8 Birds
Ecological Field Survey Methodologies Rev 01 177
Appendix 5.1 Ecological features and relevant survey guidance
Introduction
This report outlines the scope, methodologies and programme of biodiversity field surveys to be conducted to inform the Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) for the proposed scheme. The baseline survey data will be used to inform avoidance measures, appropriate mitigation and any licensing requirements for legally protected species. Any alterations required to field survey methods described to reflect local conditions (e.g. as a result of health and safety considerations) will be reported within future biodiversity survey baseline reports. The Study Area is defined in section 5.3.2 of Chapter 5 Biodiversity. The study areas and field survey areas applied for each important ecological feature are detailed in section 2 to section 8 below. These will be kept under review as the design and consultation processes progress.
Ecological Field Survey Methodologies Rev 01 178
Appendix 5.2 Ecological field survey methodologies
Habitats
2.1 Background This section describes the desk and field survey methodologies that will be used to develop an ecological baseline for habitats. Habitats along the proposed scheme will be mapped using the protocols developed for UK Habitat Classification. Targeted field surveys will be undertaken to refine the baseline, as detailed below.
2.2 Survey guidance The following survey methodology guidance will be adhered to for habitats surveys:
• The UK Habitat Classification User Manual (The UK Habitat Classification Working Group, 2018); • Condition Assessment will be undertaken in accordance with DEFRA Biodiversity Metric 2.0 (Technical Supplement, Part 1) (Crosher et al., 2019); • National Vegetation Survey Classification User Handbook methodology (Rodwell, 2006); and • Hedgerow Survey Handbook (Defra, 2007).
2.3 Field surveys The Study Area for the habitat assessment is defined as the entire working footprint, plus a 250- metre buffer to either side. This is considered sufficient to inform assessment of habitat connectivity and is the maximum distance that potential effects on habitats and flora of the proposed scheme are likely to extend via hydrological pathways (given the assumptions set out below with regard to watercourse crossings).
The field survey area is defined as land within the entire working footprint plus a 50-metre buffer either side.
2.3.1 Field survey scoping General Approach Habitats will be mapped following the UK Habitat Classification methodology.
The initial categorisation of habitats will inform scoping for targeted field surveys, which will consist of ground-truthing of aerial and third-party data interpretation; further data gathering for those features where up to date or sufficiently detailed third-party data is not available; and collection of mandatory data (such as species composition) that cannot be assessed remotely.
The general assumptions which have informed the habitat assessment methodology are:
• All effects on habitats and flora to be within 50 metres of the working footprint, with the exception of potential adverse effects to designated sites connected to the works via downstream hydrological pathways; • All effects on habitats and flora to be temporary except on some hedgerows, trees and woodland;
Ecological Field Survey Methodologies Rev 01 179
Appendix 5.2 Ecological field survey methodologies
• Trenchless techniques for major river crossings; and • Minor river, stream, drain and hedgerow crossings will be constructed using cut and cover techniques with a maximum working width of 50 metres.
Habitat mapping Habitat mapping for the proposed scheme follows UK Habitats Classification system76.
UK Habitats classification will be mapped from CORINE77 biotope data; freely available, complete layer. In most instances CORINE classifications directly translate into UK Habitats Classification. Classification of CORINE defined polygons will be overridden where obvious errors are present, e.g. misclassification of urban or woodland habitat, undertaken using professional judgement informed by assessment of existing aerial photography.
UK Habitats Classification mapping based on CORINE classifications will be refined using data attained from Forestry Commission National Forest Inventory, Natural England Priority Habitat and Ancient Woodland Inventory data and OS waterbodies data. The Natural England Inventories classify a proportion of polygons to UK Habitats Classification level 3 or 4. Habitat polygons supplied in the Natural England datasets are spatially predefined by OS MasterMap boundaries. Within the Priority Habitat dataset, the classification of “No main habitat but additional habitats present” indicates that priority habitat types are present within the polygon but do not dominate. In these cases, the UK Habitats Classification will be mapped according to the “additional habitat” indicated within the dataset.
At the landscape scale of mapping, linear features will be mapped as lines. These comprise hedgerows, ditches and minor watercourses. Ditches and watercourses will be obtained from the OS watercourses dataset. Hedgerow locations that are wholly or partly within the working footprint will be manually mapped using pre-existing aerial photography.
All classified habitats will be assigned Primary Codes. Within the desk study mapping Secondary codes will only be applied where these are mandatory to assign habitat type, e.g. traditional orchard.
Within the desk study habitats mapping, the absence of level 4 and 5 classification will not imply that priority habitats and Annex II habitats are not present.
Data sources include:
• The Government’s MAGIC website for statutory designations, Natural England’s Priority Habitat Inventory and Natural England’s Ancient Woodland Inventory (accessed in April 2020); • Natural England website for descriptions of statutory designated sites (accessed in April 2020); • Biological Records Centre data for descriptions of non-statutory designated sites; • OS data layers; • CORINE Geographic Information System for CORINE biotope mapping; • Forestry Commission’s National Forest Inventory; and
76 UK Habitat Classification Working Group (2018). UK Habitat Classification User Manual at https://ecountability.co.uk/ukhabworkinggroup-ukhab/ 77 European Environment Agency (2018). CORINE Land Cover (CLC 2018) available at https://land.copernicus.eu/pan-european/corine-land-cover
Ecological Field Survey Methodologies Rev 01 180
Appendix 5.2 Ecological field survey methodologies
• The UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology’s (CEH) linear woody features dataset.
Protected, Notable and Invasive Species Species records will be obtained from the biological record centres (BRC) relevant to the proposed scheme (protected and notable flora, veteran trees, invasive non-native flora) and Woodland Trust (veteran trees).
Information on the status of wildflowers internationally, nationally and locally will be taken from:
• The Vascular Plant Red Data List for Great Britain published by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC)78; • A Vascular Plant Red List for England79; • The list of Nationally Rare and Nationally Scarce plants (species accounts) compiled by the Botanical Society of Britain and Ireland (BSBI) and available on their website80; and • The list of Species of Principal Importance in England in Section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 200681. Information on the national status of notable plants, taken from The Vascular Plant Red Data List for Great Britain, is based on the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List criteria. Under these criteria Least Concern is a category for species are described as widespread and abundant on the Red List and therefore will not be included as notable plants for this assessment.
For this assessment the definition of an ancient or veteran tree is taken from Annex 2 of the NPPF (glossary):
‘A tree which, because of its age, size and condition, is of exceptional biodiversity, cultural or heritage value. All ancient trees are veteran trees. Not all veteran trees are old enough to be ancient but are old relative to other trees of the same species. Very few trees of any species reach the ancient life-stage.’
Aerial Survey Purpose flown aerial imagery undertaken by AWS in 2020 comprises aerial photography (4 Band - RGB + NIR (Near Infrared) Nadir Stereo Imagery) and Digital Terrain Model (DTM; i.e. bare earth)/Digital Surface Model (DSM; including vegetation and buildings) outputs derived from LiDAR survey. These will be processed within ArcGIS to refine the habitats mapping. The Study Area for the aerial survey is a 500-metre corridor centred on the working footprint. Data processing will focus greatest effort on habitats within the working footprint and a 50-metre buffer to each side, which correlates with the zone for potential effects on habitats and flora.
78 Cheffings, C.M. & Farrell, L. (Eds), Dines, T.D., Jones, R.A., Leach, S.J., McKean, D.R., Pearman, D.A., Preston, C.D., Rumsey, F.J., Taylor, I. (2005), The Vascular Plant Red Data List for Great Britain. Species Status 7: 1-116. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough 79 Stroh, P.A., Leach, S.J., August, T.A., Walker, K.J., Pearman, D.A., Rumsey, F.J., Harrower, C.A., Fay, M.F., Martin, J.P., Pankhurst, T., Preston, C.D., Taylor I. (2014), A Vascular Plant Red List for England, Botanical Society of Britain and Ireland 80 Botanical Society of Britain & Ireland, BSBI species accounts, http://bsbi.org/species-accounts 81 Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 (Section 41) Biodiversity lists and action (England). London, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office
Ecological Field Survey Methodologies Rev 01 181
Appendix 5.2 Ecological field survey methodologies
The difference between the DSM and DTM indicates vegetation height and presence of buildings. Image classification will entail building up a rule set based on the habitat mapping created from desk study data and existing survey data.
The OS MasterMap data set will be used to provide the polygon data and the zonal statistics tool will be used to calculate the most common habitat class from the pixels in the classified image and assign that to the polygon dataset. The data will be manually checked via a visual review.
The ground truthing data set will then verify the habitat classification using a number of samples, dependent on the range of habitats detected and the differences with the original training set.
Field Survey Field surveys will be undertaken within the Field Survey Area for the following purposes:
• Ground truthing of desk study and aerial survey classification to inform UK Habitat Classification mapping; • Condition Assessment of moderate and high distinctiveness habitats (excludes majority of intensive arable land use areas unless within Environmental Stewardship including arable margin options) and National Vegetation Classification (NVC) survey sites, to inform DEFRA metrics for BNG calculations; • NVC survey of sites designated for botanical interest and Habitats of Principal Importance (HPI) where there is potential for adverse effects. This will be undertaken within field survey areas only except where there is potential for downstream hydrological connectivity in which case the need for NVC survey will be assessed on a case by case basis; and • Hedgerow survey to inform consenting of temporary hedgerow removal with regard to the Hedgerows Regulations.
2.3.2 Field survey methods
UK Habitats Classification Ground Truthing The UK Habitats Classification field surveys will prioritise features within the 50 metre buffer survey area. A list of standard secondary codes for each habitat will be provided. These will be used to provide spatial data for point features. i.e. veteran trees. Habitat boundaries are based on the 30/70 rule i.e. when a feature becomes 70% dominant then the classification will switch. There is an ecotone secondary code. Surveying is to be at the fine scale minimum mapping unit (MMU) i.e. 25m2 polygons and linear features greater than 1 metre in width. However, hedgerows and other linear features will be maintained as lines with their dimensions recorded.
Invasive and/or protected species will be mapped based on desk study data and incidental sightings, along the entire route.
Condition Assessment Condition Assessment will be undertaken in accordance with DEFRA Biodiversity Metric 2.0 (Technical Supplement, Part 1)82. Not all habitats require a condition assessment (usually those of low distinctiveness). Habitats may vary in condition, therefore where habitats can be classified as the
82 Crosher I, Gold S, Heaver M, Heydon M, Moore L, Panks S, Scott S, Stone D & White N (2019) The Biodiversity Metric 2.0: Auditing and accounting for biodiversity value: technical supplement (Beta version, July 2019). Natural England
Ecological Field Survey Methodologies Rev 01 182
Appendix 5.2 Ecological field survey methodologies
same habitat type but have different conditions they will be split into separate polygons. Condition Assessments are not part of UK Habitats Classification but in terms of survey methodology will be integrated into the survey forms/ tablet setup.
Condition assessment of aquatic features is to be undertaken during the aquatic ecology surveys.
Hedgerow Survey Native hedgerows are a habitat of principal importance. Hedgerows are to be surveyed in accordance with the Hedgerow Survey Handbook83. To be classified as ‘important’ under the Wildlife and Landscape criteria the hedgerow must be over 30 years old and meet the wildlife and landscape qualifying criteria within the Hedgerows Regulations (1997).
The entire length of hedgerow will be walked on both sides and surveyed for:
• Woody and ground flora species; • Features such as the presence of banks, walls, gaps, standard trees, ground flora, ditches; and • Evidence of legally protected plant or animal species.
National Vegetation Classification Survey Botanical surveys are to be undertaken in line with National Vegetation Classification (NVC) User Handbook methodology84. Locations scoped in for NVC survey are habitat areas within designated sites or those considered to be potentially importantError! Bookmark not defined. within the 50 metre buffer survey area or within the 250 metre buffer where there is downstream hydrological connectivity to the proposed pipeline route.
The identification of NVC plant communities is used to establish whether the habitats are Section 41 habitats of principal importance (NERC Act, 2006) or habitats included in Annex I of the Habitats Directive. NVC surveys also inform the identification of the presence of protected and threatened plant species.
At each site selected for NVC survey, habitats will be sampled using vegetation quadrats. Stands of homogenous vegetation are to be identified and sampled with a minimum of five quadrats, of a size appropriate to the vegetation being surveyed. A full list of species present within each quadrat will be recorded and abundance assessed using the DOMIN scale as detailed in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1: Assessment of percentage cover using DOMIN scale. Domin Scale Percentage cover 10 91-100 9 76-90 8 51-75 7 34-50 6 26-33
83 Defra (2007) Hedgerow Survey Handbook. A standard procedure for local surveys in the UK. Defra, London 84 Rodwell JS (2006) NVC Users' Handbook. JNCC, Peterborough
Ecological Field Survey Methodologies Rev 01 183
Appendix 5.2 Ecological field survey methodologies
5 11-25 4 4-10 3 <4 many individuals 2 <4 several individuals 1 4>few individuals
The nomenclature for vascular plants will follow Stace (2019)85 for both scientific and English names. The bryophyte nomenclature will follow Blockeel et al. (2015)86 for scientific names.
Each stand of homogenous vegetation will be assigned to a community and sub community type using the five-volume series titled British Plant Communities87. The relative abundances of the plant species in each plant community will be recorded using the DAFOR scale (Table 3.2).
Table 3.2: Assessment of species abundance and frequency using the DAFOR scale. DAFOR score Meaning D Dominant A Abundant F Frequent O Occasional R Rare
2.4 Programme of Surveys Table 3.3: Programme of habitat survey work Task Timing UK Habitats Classification Surveys April to August 2021 Condition Assessment Surveys April to August 2021 National Vegetation Classification Surveys May to August 2021 Hedgerow Surveys May to August 2021
85 Stace, C. A., New Flora of the British Isles, ed. 4. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2019 86 Blockeel, T.L, Bosanquet, S.D.S., Pescott, O.L. BBS Interim Census Catalogue 2015, 2015 87 Rodwell, J.S., National Vegetation Classification: User’s Handbook. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough, 2006; Rodwell, J.S., British Plant Communities. Volume 1. Woodlands and scrub. Cambridge University Press, 1991a; Rodwell, J.S., British Plant Communities. Volume 2. Mires and heath. Cambridge University Press, 1991b; Rodwell, J.S., British Plant Communities. Volume 3. Grassland and montane communities. Cambridge University Press, 1992; Rodwell, J.S., British Plant Communities. Volume 4. Aquatic communities, swamps and tall-herb fens. Cambridge University Press, 1995; Rodwell, J.S., British plant communities. Volume 5. Maritime communities and vegetation of open habitats. Cambridge University Press, 2000.
Ecological Field Survey Methodologies Rev 01 184
Appendix 5.2 Ecological field survey methodologies
Aquatic Ecology
3.1 Background This section outlines the aquatic ecology survey methodology and baseline assessment. This has been developed to deliver baseline assessments for watercourses primarily and recognises, where necessary, the need for further survey types; e.g. macroinvertebrates (including protected species), fish and macrophytes.
3.2 Survey guidance The aquatic survey approach is designed to identify habitats and aquatic communities sensitive to construction activities, known species of conservation value and to quantify the quality of aquatic ecology resource along the extent of the proposed pipeline route. The information collected will be used to avoid adverse effects where possible and to inform the mitigation strategy, to ensure that aquatic habitats are appropriately and proportionately protected during the construction phase of the proposed scheme. The methodology includes the following expectations: • Risk based assessment targeted to habitats of known sensitivity or unknown quality; • Utilisation of baseline data, where available; and • Using data collected by other survey teams.
3.3 Field surveys
3.3.1 Field survey scoping
Desk assessment Existing data will be requested from the EA and relevant Biodiversity Records Centres (BRC). The temporal and spatial availability of existing biological data along the proposed pipeline route will be assessed. The proposed pipeline route is narrow and it is therefore unlikely that ecological data will be identified immediately within the boundary of the proposed scheme. The following buffers for aquatic ecology data will be applied to aquatic receptors: • Fish – 10 kilometres (for migratory species), 1 kilometre (for non-migratory species); • Invertebrates - 1 kilometre; • Macrophytes - 1 kilometre; and • River Habitat - 5 kilometres These buffers are considered appropriate due to the low spatial resolution of aquatic data anticipated. The larger buffer zone for fish takes account of the mobility of migratory species that may not be present all year around, or have a low incident of recordings, but may otherwise be an important component of the ecological community. Characterisation of watercourses Owing to the large number of water crossings across the proposed scheme it is unrealistic to achieve detailed survey at all locations. There will be a wide range of watercourses crossed by the proposed
Ecological Field Survey Methodologies Rev 01 185
Appendix 5.2 Ecological field survey methodologies
scheme from large navigations, canals and rivers to ephemeral field drains. Each habitat type may support an ecological flora and fauna typical to that habitat and therefore broad assessments can be made on watercourse typology. A high-level assessment/characterisation will be undertaken during the desk review phase. This will include using OS Mapping and GIS systems to identify main rivers, tributaries, significant field drainage and ponds/lake features. Walkovers (described below under field methods) will also be used to determine sensitivity banding. It is proposed that four levels of sensitivity are identified, with survey effort being targeted to ensure a proportionate approach and sufficient representation of different habitat types. This will facilitate an accurate assessment of effects on aquatic receptors. Sensitivity will be assigned by an experienced aquatic ecologist taking cognisance of the sensitivity banding described below. Table 3.1: Sensitivity of aquatic ecological receptors
Sensitivity Description
High Permanently wetted sites supporting high flow and substrate diversity and ecological interaction with riparian areas/floodplain. Sites will be natural/semi natural sensitively settings or provide a resource to support important aquatic flora and fauna species. Sites will contain flow or water quality sensitive species, or those fauna
that undertake catchment wide migration.
Moderate Permanently wetted sites supporting flow and substrate diversity. Sites may not ecological support important aquatic receptors but habitat and community diversity will be sensitivity apparent and include some flow or water quality sensitive species. Migratory species may not be present but species undertaking localised movement within
the watercourses could be.
Low ecological Permanently wetted sites supporting poor flow and substrate diversity and sensitivity corresponding low species diversity. Examples will be watercourses in predominantly urban and agricultural settings, affected by habitat modification
and/or nutrient enrichment. May also include low quality drainage features, streams/rivers with homogenous habitat types and poor habitat diversity. Aquatic habitats and species likely to be ubiquitous or typical to the habitat type and of relatively low importance to overall biodiversity value.
Dry or Dry or semi-wetted channel that significantly diminishes under low flow ephemeral conditions. Likely to be agricultural field drains, drainage ditches or artificial channel drainage systems.
It is expected that designated Main Rivers (for example WFD classified waterbodies, navigations and watercourses over 10 metres in width) will be crossed using a trenchless methodology (bored tunnel or directional drilling). These watercourses are also more likely to hold historic data than the non- designated and minor water crossings. With no pathway to effect, any watercourses proposed for trenchless crossings will therefore not require field assessment. Channels that are known to be dry will also not be assessed further. Trenched/cut and cover crossings will be undertaken rapidly in most locations and dry watercourses do not represent an impact pathway to aquatic communities. Care will be taken in the assessment of naturally ephemeral (spring heads or
Ecological Field Survey Methodologies Rev 01 186
Appendix 5.2 Ecological field survey methodologies
groundwater fed) watercourses. Watercourses known to support important ephemeral habitats will be assessed as permanently wetted watercourses. Only ponds directly affected by the proposed scheme will be assessed. Ponds/lakes that are heavily stocked for angling purposes, are ornamental in nature or lined for other purposes (agricultural or industrial) will be assumed to be low ecological potential and not surveyed
Walkover surveys Walkover surveys of watercourse will be undertaken only on those sites for which the following criteria apply: • Trenched/cut and cover crossing method proposed; • Lack of available historic data from applied buffer; or • Permanently wetted sites with potential for moderate or high sensitivity habitat. It is acknowledged at this stage that this may not form a definitive list, and there may be other reasons why a crossing point may require survey, for example, specifically identified as a site of importance through consultation. A small selection of representative low sensitivity watercourses will also be visited to validate the desk review.
Further surveys Further aquatic ecology surveys will be carried out only on high and moderate ecological sensitivity watercourses where there is insufficient baseline data, and the information gained from the surveys would add significant understanding to the assessment.
3.3.2 Field survey methods
Walkover surveys The walkover survey will be undertaken by experienced aquatic ecologists. A rapid assessment walkover form will be completed at each crossing point or the nearest point to any proposed crossing that access provision allows. Completion of the form will take cognisance of the aquatic and riparian habitats for the working corridor and up to 50 metres up and downstream of the proposed crossing location and details recorded should accurately record the character of the crossing point and adjacent aquatic habitats. The rapid assessment form is designed to collect basic physical habitat data (estimated measurements of size, flows and substrates), habitat suitability for species of conservation interest, influence of anthropogenic stressors and riparian land use. The form will provide sufficient detail to complete characterisation as described above and identify locations that may require further data collection. Photos, a minimum of two, are required of the crossing point and general site character. As a rapid assessment tool, a large number of sites can be surveyed a day, with no more than 10-15 minutes required at each site to make an assessment of habitat suitability and record basic physical details. Multiple crossings of the same watercourse will be assessed independently. However, where these form a dense network of interconnecting ditches for example, a representative site will be chosen to assess the wider network. Using the precautionary principle this site may represent the highest quality habitat available.
Ecological Field Survey Methodologies Rev 01 187
Appendix 5.2 Ecological field survey methodologies
Walkover surveys can be undertaken at any time of the year. However, it is proposed that these surveys are completed between May and August to best assess the summer macrophyte growing season.
Further surveys High and moderate ecological sensitivity watercourses lacking sufficient baseline data will be targeted where it is considered that this information will add significant understanding to the assessment. Additional data collection will be undertaken using standard methods (WFD or EA) and completed within appropriate survey season windows as listed in the table below.
Table 3.2: Appropriate survey seasons for aquatic ecology Receptor Method Seasonality Macroinvertebrates 3 minute kick sample (1 minute hand search) – Spring (March – River Invertebrate Classification Tool May) Autumn (September – November) Fish 100 metre quantitative catch depletion OR Summer (June – Environmental DNA September) Macrophytes LEAFPACS2 Summer (June – September)
3.4 Programme of Surveys Table 3.3: Programme of aquatic ecology survey work Task Timing Aquatic ecology walkover surveys May – August Macroinvertebrates (if required) Spring (March – May) Fish (if required) Summer (June -August) Macrophytes (if required) Summer (June – August)
Ecological Field Survey Methodologies Rev 01 188
Appendix 5.2 Ecological field survey methodologies
Riparian mammals
4.1 Background This section outlines the survey methodology for riparian mammals. Riparian mammals are those that inhabit and are associated with freshwater habitats and where they border terrestrial (i.e. riparian) habitats. This section focuses on the riparian mammals otter (Lutra lutra) and water vole (Arvicola amphibius). Incidental records of other riparian mammals (e.g. bank vole (Myodes glareolus), brown rat (Rattus norvegicus) and American mink (Neovison vison) will be made where they are found during field surveys. The requirement for targeted mink surveys will be reviewed as surveys progress.
4.2 Survey guidance The Life in UK Rivers publication, Monitoring the Otter (Chanin, 2003)88 and the JNCC’s publication for the Common Standards Monitoring Guidance for Mammals (JNCC, 2004)89 provides guidance for otter surveys in the UK. These guidelines have been taken into account when designing the survey methodology and programme of survey work. Additionally, the methodology has been developed in line with advice provided by Natural England and the DEFRA on assessing the impacts of development on otters (Natural England and DEFRA, 2014),90 Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) guidance on otters and development,91 SNH guidance relating to protected species advice for developers92 and Basset and Wynn (2010) . The Water Vole Conservation Handbook (Strachan et al., 2011)93 is the main source of guidance for water vole survey methodology in the UK. The Water Vole Mitigation Handbook (Dean et al., 2016)94 provides a supplementary industry standard for those undertaking surveys, assessing impacts and designing mitigation for water voles in the context of development or construction activities. This guidance has been considered when designing the survey methodology and programme of survey work.
4.3 Field Surveys
4.3.1 Field survey scoping Desk based Habitat Suitability Assessment An initial desk-based habitat suitability assessment will be undertaken using aerial imagery and OS maps to identify survey locations for otter and water vole. The review of habitats will be supported by the collation of protected species records held by local biological records centres and a review of the
88 Chanin, P., Monitoring the Otter Lutra lutra. Conserving Natura 2000 Rivers Monitoring Series No. 10, English Nature, Peterborough, 2003 89 JNCC, Common Standards Monitoring Guidance for Mammals-August Version, August 2004 90 Natural England and Defra, Otters: surveys and mitigation for development projects https://www.gov.uk/guidance/otters-protection-surveys-and- licences 91 Scottish Natural Heritage, Scotland’s Wildlife: Otters and Development- Scottish Wildlife Series http://www.snh.org.uk/pdfs/publications/wildlife/ottersanddevelopment%20leaflet.pdf 92 Scottish Natural Heritage, Protected Species Advice for Developers-Otter https://www.nature.scot/sites/default/files/2017-07/A1959316%20- %20Species%20Planning%20Advice%20Project%20-%20otter%20-%20FINAL.pdf 93 Strachan, R., Moorhouse, T., Gelling, M., Water Vole Conservation Handbook 3rd Edition. Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, Oxford, 2011 94 Dean, M., Strachan R., Gow, D., Andrews, R., The Water Vole Mitigation Handbook (The Mammal Society Mitigation Guidance Series). Eds Fiona Matthews and Paul Chanin. The Mammal Society, London, 2016
Ecological Field Survey Methodologies Rev 01 189
Appendix 5.2 Ecological field survey methodologies
MAGIC website to identify the locations of any granted European Protected Species (EPS) mitigation licences with respect to otter.
Survey locations identified include:
• Water bodies and watercourses intersected by the proposed pipeline route working corridor; • Water bodies and watercourses within the proposed pipeline route working corridor with recent records of otter and/or water vole presence; • Water bodies and watercourses with no records within the working corridor, but with the potential to support these species due to the presence of suitable habitat and recent records of otter and/or water vole within 250 metres; and • Water bodies and watercourses with no recent records that have potential to support populations of otter and water vole due to presence of suitable habitat.
Field based Habitat suitability assessment An assessment of relative suitability of habitats for otter and water vole will be completed at all survey locations identified.
Suitable terrestrial habitat within 100 metres of the working corridor will also be targeted for otter field signs. Otter
Survey guidance has been taken from current best practice as described in section 4.2. Habitat suitability indices include;: • Otter food supply; • Cover along the watercourse; • Suitable terrestrial habitat within 100 metres of the proposed pipeline working corridor; • Dispersal barriers; • Connectivity to other areas of suitable habitat; and • Level of disturbance.
Targeted checks in areas of high suitability along main watercourses (e.g. reed beds, woods, scrubby areas etc) will also be made within the proposed pipeline working corridor and wider area (within a 100 metre buffer of works area) for holts and resting up areas where the potential for disturbance has been identified. If potential holts are recorded, then trail cameras may be used to check occupancy and activity levels, if appropriate. The resting status of these holts will be assessed as either low, moderate or high using the guidance for assigning status of otter resting sites95. Habitats along scoped in watercourses will be overall assessed as; • Commuting only;
95 Bassett, S. and Wynn, J. (2010). Otters in Scotland: How Vulnerable Are They to Disturbance? In Practice. No. 70, pp19-22.
Ecological Field Survey Methodologies Rev 01 190
Appendix 5.2 Ecological field survey methodologies
• Commuting and foraging; • Commuting, foraging and resting; • Commuting, foraging, resting and/or holt creation (within immediate bankside area); and • Commuting, foraging, resting and/or holt creation (within 100 metres of the working area). This will allow for an assessment of whether disturbance will likely occur or not. Water Vole
The water vole methodology will follow a method for assessing water vole habitat suitability, a technique of assessing habitat suitability based on eight habitat indices. This approach also follows current best practice. Habitat indices include; • Well-developed bankside and emerge vegetation cover; • Year-round availability of food sources; • Suitable refuge areas above extremes in water levels; • Steep banks suitable for burrowing; • Permanent open water; • Presence of berm; • Lack of disturbance; and • Nest building opportunities in vegetation above water level. Water vole habitat suitability will then be assessed based on the indices as either not suitable, sub- optimal, good and optimal for water vole. The HSA will inform the degree of risk of water vole being present in the proposed pipeline working corridor in the absence of any confirmed field signs. Extending the survey area into the 250 metre buffer will also inform the mitigation strategy by assessing displacement as an option. Limitations to water vole displacement will also be identified, such as barriers or partial barriers restricting movement between watercourses due to isolation from other water courses or small or blocked culverts.
4.4 Field Signs
4.4.1 Otter Surveys for otter field signs will take place along all scoped in watercourses. Focus will be given on prominent features such as logs and earth mounds by the watercourse. Checks for slides and mammal passes will be checked along the entire length of the watercourse where access is possible. Field signs that will be recorded include: • Natal holts; • Couches; • Spraints (dry disintegrated, dry intact and fresh);
Ecological Field Survey Methodologies Rev 01 191
Appendix 5.2 Ecological field survey methodologies
• Anal Jelly; • Tracks/footprints; and • Slides.
4.4.2 Water Vole Following the habitat suitability assessment, those water bodies and watercourses scoped in will be subject to field sign surveys. As far as is practical, the surveys will be undertaken in accordance with current good practice guidance (as detailed in section 4.2). Field signs include:
• Feeding remains; • Feeding stations; • Droppings; • Latrines; • Lawns; • Terrestrial nests; and • Burrows If water vole signs are recorded on the first visit, then a second survey visit will not be conducted. If water vole signs are not recorded on the first visit and the habitat is suitable, then a second visit will be completed. If there is suitable habitat within the proposed pipeline working corridor and the adjacent areas supports water vole, then it will be assumed water vole are present and no further surveys are required. Evidence of fluctuating water levels will be recorded as highwater levels may wash away any field signs leading to a reduction in survey accuracy. To minimise the effects of fluvial events in rivers and drainage systems, surveys will only be undertaken when there has been five days without heavy rain to minimise recording a false negative.
4.5 Programme of Surveys Good practice guidelines advise that two field signs surveys should be conducted during the water vole breeding season. The optimal period for surveying is between mid-April and the end of June, and between July and the end of September. Two visits are required in order to confirm likely absence of water vole. One survey visit is acceptable in the case where presence is confirmed during the first visit. For the proposed scheme conducting two visits will not be possible within the programme timescales. The single visit conducted will coincide with the peak period of activity for this species during its breeding season, which is considered to be mid-April to late-September.
Ecological Field Survey Methodologies Rev 01 192
Appendix 5.2 Ecological field survey methodologies
Table 4.1: Programme of water vole and otter survey work., Task Timing Desk-based Habitat Suitability Assessment January-February 2021 Water vole field-based habitat suitability April-August 2021 assessment and field sign survey Water vole field-based habitat suitability April-August 2021 assessment and field sign survey
Ecological Field Survey Methodologies Rev 01 193
Bat species
5.1 Background This section describes the field survey methodologies to be used to establish the ecological baseline for bat species. In line with CIEEM guidance (CIEEM, 2018), surveys will be focussed on those areas in which works associated with the proposed scheme could contribute to significant negative effects on bat populations or could result in contravention of the legislation protecting bats, this area was defined as the bat survey area. The survey methodology has been designed to identify roosts which could be lost or subject to disturbance, and by identifying key bat habitat, where direct or indirect effects could occur and aims to identify:
• Bat roosts within the footprint of the proposed scheme and surrounding 10 metres96; • Known bat roosts where associated core sustenance zones97 would fall within the proposed scheme footprint; and • The habitat likely to be used by each bat species within these areas. The information collected will be used to avoid impacts and to inform the EcIA and supporting mitigation strategy, to ensure that populations of bats potentially impacted by the scheme would be maintained at a favourable conservation status. It has been assumed that all underground sites will be avoided by the proposed scheme and therefore no surveys of these sites will be required.
5.2 Survey guidance The Bat Conservation Trust’s (BCT) Good Practice Guidelines (third edition)98, Bat Tree Habitat Key99, and additional applicable research100 have been used to inform the survey methodology and programme of survey work.
• Field surveys – roost identification
5.2.1 Building/built structures inspections A visual external and internal inspection of all buildings/built structures within the survey area (as described above) will be completed to assess their potential suitability to support roosting bats. Inspections will be completed by a team of two surveyors. Each team will be led by an experienced ecologist holding a Level 1 or higher Natural England survey licence for bats, or by an experienced
96 The identification of bat roosts within trees and buildings which may require removal, or may be affected by adjacent vegetation clearance, is required to ensure potential impacts to legally protected roosts are identified. Roosts more than 10 m from the proposed scheme are considered unlikely to be directly impacted by the proposed works. 97 Core sustenance zones are defined in the guidance issued by the bat conservation trust as “the area surrounding a communal roosts within which development work may impact the commuting and foraging habitat of bats using the roost”, and “the area within which it may be necessary to ensure no net reduction in the quality and availability of foraging habitat for the colony”. The guidelines can be downloaded from: https://cdn.bats.org.uk/pdf/Resources/Bat_Survey_Guidelines_2016_NON_PRINTABLE.pdf?mtime=20181115113931&focal=none 98 Collins, J. (ed.), Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines, 3rd edition. The Bat Conservation Trust, London, 2016 99 Andrews, H. et al., Bat Tree Habitat Key. AEcol, Bridgwater, 2013
100 McClean, B. 2018 A Study of Bat Roosts in Yew Trees Northern Bats Volume 3
Ecological Field Survey Methodologies Rev 01 194
ecologist accredited to work under their mentors Natural England bat survey licence. All surveys completed in winter will be done by surveyors holding or accredited on a Level 2 bat survey class licence or higher. All teams conducting building inspections will carry a high-powered torch, a head torch, close focusing binoculars, a camera, and the survey proforma and a means of updating it. Surveyors working under a Level 2 bat survey class licence may also carry and use an endoscope to aid the close inspection of features. The surveyors will fill out proformas identifying and grading the features suitable to support roosting bats. Assessments for all buildings, and structures will be recorded. A photograph will also be taken of each building. Initially each building/built structure will be assessed externally. The building/built structures will be described and potential roost features (PRFs) visible from the exterior will be identified. Each PRF will be graded as either a confirmed bat roost, or as having high, moderate, or low suitability to support roosting bats. Although not required, PRFs with negligible suitability to be used by roosting bats may also be recorded to demonstrate that they have been considered and ruled out. Internal inspections will be undertaken to determine the internal suitability of a building, structure and to check for bats or signs of bats. Where internal conditions are unsuitable (for example if light levels are high, or there is a lack of suitable roost locations) the building or structure may be downgraded. Conversely, if bats, or signs of bats are recorded, or if the internal conditions provide more suitable roosting potential than apparent from an external assessment, the suitability will be upgraded. Where bats or signs of bats are found, photographs will be taken and/or droppings collected (where possible) to confirm identification. Where droppings are collected, they will be sent for DNA testing to confirm species identification. A plan will be produced for each building, or structure subject to internal inspection. The location of all internal PRFs, bats, and signs of bats will be clearly marked. Where bats and signs of bats are present their abundance will be counted/accurately estimated. The potential suitability of buildings/structures will be assessed in line with the BCT Good Practice Guidelines21 as described in Table 5.1 below.
Ecological Field Survey Methodologies Rev 01 195
Table 5.1: Guidelines for assessing potential roosting suitability for bats, BCT 200921 Potential Roosting Description of roosting habitat Suitability Negligible A structure or tree with negligible features likely to be used by roosting bats. A structure with one or more potential roost sites that could be used by individual bats opportunistically. These roost sites would not provide enough space, shelter, protection, appropriate conditions, and/or suitable surrounding habitat to be used Low on a regular basis by larger numbers of bats. Trees of sufficient size and age to support potential roost sites/features but with none seen from the ground level or features seen with only very limited roosting potential. A structure or tree with one or more potential roost sites/features that could be Moderate used by bats due to their size, shelter, protection, conditions and surrounding habitat but are unlikely to support a roost type of high conservation status. A structure or tree with one of more potential roost sites that are obviously suitable for use by larger numbers of bats on a more regular basis and potentially for longer High periods of time due to their size, shelter, protection, conditions and surrounding habitat.
Ground-level tree inspections will be completed by a team of two surveyors. Each team will be led by a competent ecologist experienced in the survey and grading of PRFs. Competency would be defined as meeting the CIEEM capable (or above) level for the S1 and S2 Surveying criteria101. PRFs will be identified from the ground only. Surveyors will use high powered torches and binoculars to assist with the work. The surveyors will fill out proformas identifying and grading the features suitable to support roosting bats. Each PRF will be graded as either a confirmed bat roost, or as having high, moderate, or low suitability to support roosting bats. The categorisation of suitability to support roosting bats will be assessed in line with BCT Good Practice Guidelines102 as described in Table 1 above. A photograph will be taken of each tree with roosting potential. Photographs will be labelled with the tree id, and annotated to show the location of each PRF. Trees considered to have negligible potential to support roosting bats and/or trees with a diameter at breast height (DBH) less than 0.3 metres will not be recorded during the survey. However, PRFs with negligible suitability to be used by roosting bats may also be recorded where considered appropriate. This will demonstrate that they have been considered and ruled out.
5.2.2 Extension of field survey area Where possible impacts will be avoided, in line with the mitigation hierarchy. This identifies that impacts should be avoided where possible, mitigated to minimise impacts where avoidance isn’t possible, and compensated where any residual impacts remain. To help achieve this, the survey area may be extended by 60 metres around trees and buildings with moderate or high suitability to be used by roosting bats.
101 The CIEEM competency framework is available from: https://cieem.net/resource/competency-framework/ 102 The BCT good practice guidelines are available from: https://cdn.bats.org.uk/pdf/Resources/Bat_Survey_Guidelines_2016_NON_PRINTABLE.pdf?mtime=20181115113931&focal=none
Ecological Field Survey Methodologies Rev 01 196
When considering whether to extend the survey area surveyors will make an initial analysis of the benefits of completing the survey of an extended area while on site and if practical, will include this extended area in their survey. It is noted that it is unlikely to be practical to extend the survey area in all instances. Examples of instances where the surveyor would be unlikely to extend the survey area are: • the presence of buildings within the extended area; • the presence of woodland within the extended area; • the presence of an extensive number of additional features requiring survey in the extended area; and • the presence of additional land parcels (where access is not available on the day) within the extended area. Where surveyors decide against extending the survey area on the day, they will record the reasoning for their decision.
On completion of the bat roost inspection any identified constraints will be fed back to the EcIA lead for that section. Similarly, the presence of any underground sites identified will be flagged at the earliest opportunity. At this stage alternative routing options will be discussed with the project engineers to attempt to avoid potential impacts where feasible.
5.2.3 Climb and inspect survey – trees Trees identified as suitable to support roosting bats which require removal as part of the proposed scheme will be subject to further survey. The BCT survey guidelines recommend that trees with moderate suitability are subject to two separate visits, and that trees with high suitability are subject to three surveys. Although not explicitly stated in the BCT guidelines (Collins, 2016), it is now widely recognised that a climb and inspect survey where the feature can be thoroughly checked for the presence of bats would obtain as much information as an emergence /re-entry survey. The BCT guidance does state that, “it is accepted that departures from the guidelines (e.g. either increasing or decreasing the number of surveys carried out or using alternative methods) are often appropriate”. The proposed methodology, that a tree climb and inspect survey is a valid replacement for an emergence/re-entry survey, is based on there being sufficient evidence that circumstances warrant deviation: due to the numbers of trees requiring survey; and that the method can be proven to be appropriate (Andrews, 2018). It is recognised that where trees are located within woodland, or potential roost features are located high up within the tree, it can be hard to detect roosts using emergence/re-entry methods. There is potential for ground inspections to grade features with a higher potential than they should due to not being able to view them fully from the ground. Tree climb and inspect surveys allow additional information, such as evidence of the previous presence of roosting bats within the feature (through the identified presence of bat droppings or bat flies) to be collected during a climb and inspect survey. If a feature can be thoroughly checked then it is unlikely that any additional information would be obtained from an emergence/re-entry survey. Therefore, based on being fully able to inspect all features on a tree, a tree-climb inspection survey is an appropriate survey methodology.
Ecological Field Survey Methodologies Rev 01 197
Where bats or signs of bats are found, photographs will be taken and/or droppings collected (where possible) to confirm identification. Where droppings are collected, they will be sent for DNA testing to confirm species identification. Where it is not possible to fully inspect all features on a tree, or a climb and inspect survey is not possible, emergence/re-entry surveys would be carried out in line with the timings within the BCT guidance21.
5.2.4 Emergence and re-entry survey – trees, buildings, and structures Impacts to trees, buildings, and structures suitable to support roosting bats will be avoided where possible. Trees which cannot be thoroughly inspected and all buildings, and structures directly impacted by the proposed scheme will be subject to emergence and re-entry survey in line with the methods described in Chapter 7 of the BCT guidelines21.
5.3 Identification of impacts to bats away from their roosts Habitat continuity, particularly in linear features is known to be an important factor for bats as they use linear features not only for navigation purposes but also to obtain protection from predation, shelter from the wind, and as foraging microhabitats. BCT guidelines on landscape and habitat design, suggest the avoidance of opening up gaps of more than 10 metres in hedgerows and treeline, as many species of bats will avoid small gaps in linear features. Gaps of two meters or more in bat commuting routes can lead to individuals exhibiting a behaviour that sees them turn around and reverse their travel back down their commuting routes. The frequency of turning events increases as the size of the gap increased21. For large linear schemes such as this the impact of severance and partial fragmentation is an important consideration. To be able to predict the occurrence of these impacts, and those associated with habitat loss, knowledge of the distribution of each species across the length of the route is required, as is the distribution and extent of suitable habitat within the likely extent of regularly accessed areas around each roost (the core sustenance zone20). For schemes like this the sampling required to confidently identify the use of all habitats in a traditional manor would be prohibitively onerous and not proportionate to the largely temporary nature of the impacts predicted. The proposed solution is to use predictive Habitat Suitability Modelling (HSM) and known presence records, included in desk study data to predict bat-habitat suitability along the proposed route. HSM is a statistical technique that predicts the distribution of a species from environmental data and occurrence records. The models identify which of the environmental variables assessed (such as roads, the presence of woodland, or water) most affect the distribution of a species. The HSM model will extend to cover the surrounding seven kilometres to ensure any impact associated with these schemes is identified at the scale bats are likely to travel from a roost (on a regular basis in a single night).
5.3.1 Collection of environmental data Information about a range of environmental variables will be obtained and processed to produce values for every cell within a grid across the sampled area. The grid’s anticipated resolution will be 100m2. These values can be mapped as pixels to generate a visually descriptive plan showing areas with relatively high or low values for each variable. The variables which will be initially be used to generate the model are given in Table 5.2 below. Table 5.2 - variables to be used in HSM mapping
Ecological Field Survey Methodologies Rev 01 198
Variable type Variable description
Distance Distance to woodland edge
Distance Distance to water
Coverage Road cover (%) at a 100 metre scale
Coverage Road cover (%) at a 200 metre scale
Distance Distance to large road
Distance Distance to minor road
Coverage Water cover (%) at a 500 metre scale
Coverage Water cover (%) at a 1500 metre scale
Coverage Deciduous woodland cover (%) at a 200 metre scale
Structure Woodland edge density (km/km2) at a 300 metre scale
Structure Maximum woodland patch size km2 at a 500 metre scale
Topography Slope (o) at a 100 metre scale
Topography Altitude at a 300 metre scale
Average parcel size area bounded by woody linear features at a 200 Structure metre scale
Average parcel size area bounded by woody linear features at a 500 Structure metre scale
Coverage Average nighttime lighting level at a 50 metre scale
Climate Average annual temperature at a 10 kilometre scale
Climate Average spring temperature at a 10 kilometre scale
Climate Average summer temperature at a 10 kilometre scale
Climate Average annual rainfall at a 10 kilometre scale
Climate Average spring rainfall at a 10 kilometre scale
Climate Average summer rainfall at a 10 kilometre scale
5.3.2 Desk work – species data Data on species presence will be collected from bat groups and local environmental record centres for the seven-kilometre buffer around the proposed scheme. Initially this data will be filtered to
Ecological Field Survey Methodologies Rev 01 199
retain only records of bats in flight (rather than roost data) within the last 10 years, and for which accuracy is greater than or equal to the 100 x 100 metres resolution required by the proposed model. The distribution of the desk study records will then be mapped and considered for each species in turn. Species with too few records to model will be identified for further targeted survey. Where the distribution of existing records is not representative of the range shown for a variable this will also prompt the selection of additional sampling. For practical purposes all sample locations will lie within land ownership where access is already agreed.
5.3.3 Fieldwork – species data Full spectrum static detectors would be used to record bat activity at sample locations. The static detectors would initially be left in situ for a minimum of five nights within the bat activity season and during suitable weather. The static detector will then be collected, and the data analysed to confirm the presence of bat species or species groups recorded. If calls from all species or species groups known to be present in that area had been recorded, then the detector will not be deployed in that location again. If the detector had not recorded all species known to be present, it will be redeployed for a further five nights, or longer. Completing sampling in two blocks will potentially allow a reduced level of sampling to be completed in some areas and will also minimise the risk of data loss due to theft, vandalism, or equipment failure.
5.3.4 Desk - work modelling and mapping Once the sampling is complete a species distribution model will be created. The modelling will be completed using a presence only, maximum entropy species distribution modelling approach. The methodology used will be similar to the bat habitat suitability modelling completed for other large areas such as the Lake District National Park, and the Yorkshire Dales National Park with limited sampling (Bellamy, Scott & Altringham 2013103, Brown 2013104). The software will be used to create maps showing where habitat is predicted to be most and least suitable across the proposed scheme and its surrounding 7 kilometre buffer. This will be done for each species or species group where sufficient data has been recorded.
5.4 Programme of Surveys The suitable timing for each element of fieldwork is given in Table 5.3 below. Desk study work can be progressed without seasonal constraint.
Table 5.3: Programme of bat survey work Survey Timing Details element Internal Buildings suitable Building inspections can be completed at any time of year as and for maternity signs such as droppings should persist in dry areas. Prior to external roosts – June or any demolition any buildings which are particularly suitable to inspections July be used by hibernating bats which would be removed as part - Buildings of the proposed scheme will be prioritised for survey twice, Buildings suitable once in January and once in February. Similarly buildings for hibernating bats particularly suitable to be used as a maternity roost would be
103 Bellamy, C., Scott, C. & Altringham, J. (2013) Multiscale, presence-only habitat suitability models: fine resolution maps for eight bat species. Journal of Applied Ecology. Revision resubmitted. 104 Brown, E. (2013) Multiscale habitat suitability models for bats in the Yorkshire Dales. Are site-specific models more accurate than those transferred from other geographic regions. Dissertation. Leeds University.
Ecological Field Survey Methodologies Rev 01 200
Survey Timing Details element – January and inspected on at least one occasion between June and August February prior to any demolition (if required). All other buildings structures and underground sites will be subject to one Buildings internal inspection at any time of year (where safe to do so). unsuitable for maternity or hibernation - anytime Ground- Anytime but late Tree inspections can be completed at any time of year but level autumn to early late autumn to early spring is the preferred survey window inspections spring preferred. due to the lack of foliage which can obscure potential roost - trees features within the canopy. Climb and Anytime but March Bats are known to occupy roosts in trees throughout the year, inspect to December with some evidence of increased recording of roosts within surveys - preferred. the spring and autumn flux period (McClean, 2018; Andrews, trees 2018). The number of species present within trees also peaks at 13 in both the spring-flux and pregnancy seasons (Andrews, 2018). As climb and inspect surveys are not reliant on bats emerging from, or re-entering a feature, surveys will be completed when bats are most likely to be present, rather than when the bats are most likely to be active. Where thorough climb and inspect surveys are possible the survey season will include the autumn and spring-flux seasons (March, April, November and December). Multiple surveys of the same feature will be separated by a minimum of two weeks. Emergence May to September Emergence and re-entry surveys can be completed between and re- May and September. Multiple surveys of the same feature will entry be separated by a minimum of two weeks. survey – trees, buildings, structures Static March to Static detector fieldwork will be completed between March detector November (with and November where weather conditions comprise a fieldwork one five-night minimum sunset temperature of 10oC, low levels of wind and sample timed to less than 0.26 mm of rain per hour. Where two blocks of occur between monitoring are completed, one will be timed to occur May and between May and September inclusive. September).
Ecological Field Survey Methodologies Rev 01 201
5.5 Information Sources for HSM
5.5.1 Desk Study Records Presence and roost records will be collected from Biological Records Centres and bat groups.
5.5.2 Environmental Variables used for HSM Data from the following sources will be used to identify the most appropriate survey locations and will be used to build and test habitat suitability modelling: • OS Open Roads: https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/business-government/products/open- map-roads; • OS VectorMap District: https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/business- government/products/vectormap-district; • National Forest Inventory England 2018: http://data- forestry.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/295e0278dc2641e2935c411d28908be9_0; • OS Terrain 50: https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/business-government/products/terrain- 50; • World Clim Bioclimatic variables: https://www.worldclim.org/data/bioclim.html; • Landsat 8: https://www.usgs.gov/land-resources/nli/landsat/landsat-8; and • Woody linear features: https://www.ceh.ac.uk/services/woody-linear-features-framework.
Ecological Field Survey Methodologies Rev 01 202
Badger
6.1 Background This section describes the field survey methodology to be used to establish the ecological baseline for badger (Meles meles). The badger survey methodology has been designed to identify the distribution of badger activity within the field survey area. The purpose of the badger surveys will be to facilitate the avoidance of likely effects to badger as a result of the proposed scheme. This will ensure that populations potentially affected by the proposed scheme can be maintained at a favourable conservation status.
6.2 Survey guidance Natural England’s guidance ‘Badgers: surveys and mitigation for development projects’ (Natural England, 2015)105 and Scotland Natural Heritage’s ’Best Practice Badger Survey Guidance Note‘ (SNH, 2003)106 provide guidance on best practice for badger surveys. These guidelines, together with the publications by the CIEEM107 108, have been taken into account when designing the survey methodology and programme of works.
6.3 Field surveys Surveys for badger field signs will be undertaken along the length of the proposed schemes.
6.3.1 Field survey scoping Due to the nature of the proposed scheme, badger setts more than 30 metres from the construction footprint are not considered likely to be subject to direct impacts. Therefore, the extent of the field surveys for badger will take account of suitable habitats within the proposed pipeline working corridor plus a 30 metre buffer either side of this corridor. The following parameters will be recorded: • The suitability of habitat and topography for sett creation; and, • The suitability of the habitat for foraging and providing movement corridors. Where the proposed scheme covers habitats considered wholly unsuitable for the above, such as areas of made ground, sealed surfaces and buildings, the requirement for badger surveys will be scoped out.
6.3.2 Field survey methods A systematic walkover survey for badger field signs will be carried out throughout the field survey area, across habitats identified as being suitable for badgers from aerial photography. The systematic walkover survey will obtain records of the following: • Setts (a network of underground tunnels and chambers with entrances/holes); • Dung pits and latrines (collections of dung pits, often used to mark territory boundaries); • Paths and runs (well-worn paths in undergrowth or earth);
105 Natural England. Guidance Badgers: surveys and mitigation for development projects, 2015 https://www.gov.uk/guidance/badgers-surveys-and- mitigation-for-development-projects (accessed 03 May 2018) 106 Scottish Natural Heritage, Best Practice Guidance - Badger Surveys. Inverness Badger Survey 2003. Commissioned Report No. 096, 2003 107 CIEEM, Classification of badger setts Meles meles in the UK: A Review and Guidance for Surveyors. Richard Andrews published in CIEEM In Practice magazine, December 2013 108 Harris, S., Cresswell, P. and Jefferies, D., Surveying badgers. Mammal Society, 1989
Ecological Field Survey Methodologies Rev 01 203
• Foraging signs such as snuffle holes (holes in the ground where badgers have dug up roots or worms); • Hairs (distinctive guard hairs with an ovoid cross section); • Bedding material (dry vegetation visible at sett entrances that has been pulled out of underground chambers); • Footprints; and • Evidence of rabbit and fox activity. During the walkover survey the locations and orientations of all sett entrances (both active and non- active) will be mapped. Setts which do not appear to be in use by badger will still be recorded as they have the potential to be utilised by badger in the future. Locations of all setts and field signs of badger, and any other notable mammal species109, will be recorded using GPS-derived grid co- ordinates, accurate to at least 2 metres. The number of sett entrances will be recorded, alongside activity levels, (‘well used’, ‘partially used’ or ‘disused’), using the criteria set out in the SNH guidance and described in Table 6.1. Table 6.1: Badger sett activity level classification (SNH 2003) Activity level Definition Entrance with one or more of the following features: well-worn Well used entrance, freshly excavated soil, bedding material. Holes with leaves or twigs in entrance and/or mosses and other Partially used plants growing in or around entrance. Entrance partially or completely blocked, with considerable Disused amount of excavation required for reoccupation.
In addition to recording the activity level of all sett entrances, the status of each sett will be classified as either active or inactive overall. Badger setts will be classified by type, according to the criteria laid out in Harris et al.5 and CIEEM4, as described in Table 6.2. Table 6.2: Badger sett type classification (Harris et al.1989) Sett Type Definition Several holes with large spoil heaps and obvious paths emanating Main from and between sett entrances. Continuously used during breeding and over-winter. Normally less than 150 metres from main sett, comprising several Annexe holes. May not be in use all the time, even if main sett is very active. Linked to main sett by well-used paths. Usually at least 50 metres from main sett, often with no obvious Subsidiary paths connecting to other setts. May only be used intermittently or seasonally. Several entrances.
109 Fox dens and rabbit warrens will be recorded to ensure attribution of mammal activity
Ecological Field Survey Methodologies Rev 01 204
Sett Type Definition Small with one or two entrances only and little spoil outside holes. Outlier No obvious paths connecting to other setts and only used sporadically. May be used by foxes and rabbits.
Although outlier setts can be easily identified as standalone features, it is acknowledged that the classification of main, annexe and subsidiary setts may be less clear without an extended survey effort around setts. However, it is not considered that any potential lack of certainly on sett classification would undermine the survey effort. Findings of dung pits or latrines will also be assigned a classification of age, either fresh or old, to assist with the assessment of badger activity within the survey area.
6.3.3 Territory Analysis No bait marking surveys for territory analysis are planned. The construction programme and proposed scheme design aims to avoid impacts to badgers where territory analysis would be required to inform a mitigation strategy; specifically, no fragmentation of badger territories will occur.
6.4 Programme of Surveys The proposed programme for completing badger survey work for the proposed scheme is January to March 2021. Whilst badger surveys can be carried out at any time of year, autumn, winter and spring are considered to be the optimal survey periods. These coincide with periods when badgers are most active and field signs are most visible as vegetation growth (concealing signs of activity) is at its lowest (Natural England 2015).
Ecological Field Survey Methodologies Rev 01 205
Amphibians
7.1 Background This section aims to outline the assessment strategy for the proposed scheme in relation to all amphibians, but with particular focus on great crested newt Triturus cristatus. This section summarises relevant guidance, legislation, and licensing requirements for amphibians in relation to the proposed scheme. It will also explain the methodology including the desk study, scoping exercise, and field survey techniques used to create a baseline, as well as mandatory biosecurity protocols. This section assumes that works will not cause the loss of any waterbodies with confirmed GCN populations.
7.2 Survey guidance The survey approach is based on guidance provided within Great Crested Newt Mitigation Guidelines, Natural England’s European Protected Species Mitigation Licence (EPSML) application template and Government guidance relating to surveys and mitigation in relation to development projects. This section considers the above sources as well as the Herpetofauna Workers’ Manual and Great Crested Newt Conservation Handbook as best practice guidance. Surveyors undertaking both eDNA surveys and more traditional surveys are required to hold a Class 1 GCN survey licence. In some cases where an individual is appropriately experienced but does not hold a licence they may work as an accredited agent under another project member’s licence. If alternate survey methods such as pitfall trapping are required then surveyors must hold a Class 2 GCN survey licence permitting the activity and in some cases where they are suitably experienced but do not hold a licence individually may act as an accredited agent on another project member’s licence.
7.3 Desk study A desk-based scoping exercise will be conducted on all waterbodies to assess their likelihood of containing GCN and common amphibians. Data sources that will be used include: • Biological Records concerning GCN populations are to be sourced from Local Records Centres, local interest groups, Natural England licence returns, and nationally available datasets including government run MAGIC Maps where available; • European Protected Species licence applications will be identified within 2 kilometres of the proposed scheme through MAGIC Maps; and • Water bodies (including waterbodies, ditches, lakes and reservoirs) within the study area will be identified using the MAGIC website, satellite imagery, OS mapping and a photographic survey of the proposed pipeline route undertake by AWS in 2020. Additional waterbodies identified during walkover surveys for GCN as well as any other ecology surveys within the buffer zone will also be added to the assessment. Once this desk-based assessment has been completed, each waterbody will be allocated one of the following survey options:
• no survey required; • Habitat Suitability Index (HSI)/walkover only;
Ecological Field Survey Methodologies Rev 01 206
• HSI + presence/absence using either traditional methods or eDNA survey; or • HSI+ presence/absence using either traditional methods or eDNA + population size class assessment. Water bodies will be allocated to the “no survey required” category if they are: • Over 250 metres from the 40 metre working corridor; • Known to be stocked for fishing; • In use as agricultural effluent waterbodies, sewage treatment aeration tanks or swimming pools; and • Separated from the proposed pipeline route by significant barriers to dispersal. Barriers to dispersal are any habitat or feature that significantly reduces the ability of amphibians to cross it. These include the following: • Dual carriageways; • Main A-roads; • Main watercourses as listed in the EA website; and • Extensive areas of hardstanding such as car parks or industrial estates where other habitat options are available. It does not include the following: • Minor roads such as B roads with fewer than 20 vehicle movements per hour; • Non-flowing watercourses; • Railway lines; • Residential gardens; and • Opportunities for amphibians to cross barriers to dispersal such as bridges, culverts, or where vegetation crosses watercourses etc.
7.4 Field surveys
7.4.1 Field survey scoping All waterbodies that have been scoped in through the desk-based assessment will have a Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) assessment conducted on them. During this survey a visual assessment of the waterbody will be undertaken. In some instances, the waterbody will be scoped out from further survey if any of the following criteria are met:
• Waterbodies that are assessed as being permanently dry; • Waterbodies that are receiving discharge of pollutants at excessive levels or contain anoxic waters; and • Waterbodies with a constant flow of water through them that make part of a wider water system such as streams.
7.4.2 Field survey methods Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) Assessment:
Ecological Field Survey Methodologies Rev 01 207
Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) assessments will be generated using the method developed by Oldham et al. (2000)110, and adapted by the Amphibian and Reptile Conservation Trust. The HSI is a numerical index between 0 and 1, where 0 indicates unsuitable habitat and 1 represents optimal habitat for breeding GCN. A score is calculated based on the results of ten suitability indices, all of which are factors thought to affect GCN presence. The resulting score categorises the waterbody as: <0.5 = poor, 0.5-0.59 = below average, 0.6 0.69 = average, 0.7-0.79 = good, and >0.8 = excellent.
The result of the HSI score will inform the decision of further survey requirements. If the HSI determines that the waterbody is “Poor” (<0.5) and was not located within proximity of ponds with higher suitability to support newts, then the pond may be scoped out of the assessment. This will be conducted on a case by case basis by the Technical Lead using all available information.
It should also be noted that HSI is not intended for linear waterbodies as the methodology tends to under represent their potential.
Presence / Likely Absence Surveys - Environmental DNA (eDNA) All accessible water bodies that have not been scoped out will be surveyed for presence or likely absence using eDNA techniques. This technique can only give presence or likely absence of the species and does not indicate likely population numbers within a waterbody. This method (as per Natural England advice note111) requires one visit in the daytime by a great crested newt licenced surveyor, during the period when the newts are likely to be present (this depends on location and conditions like the weather) between 15 April and 30 June.
Samples collected will be stored within cool boxes during the day and transferred to a refrigeration unit until they are transferred to an accredited laboratory for testing. The testing procedure involves the use of the quantitative polymerase chain reaction procedure to match DNA extrapolated against known great crested newt DNA samples looking for a positive match. eDNA may not be a successful approach if any of the following apply:
• If the sample is contaminated it is possible for the sample to be returned as inconclusive; • If the collection of eDNA samples was limited due to dense vegetation around the waterbody margin; • If land access was not available during the eDNA survey window; • If the water level is less than 5cm deep at the time of survey; or • If the waterbody edge cannot be accessed due to health and safety issues In these instances an alternate presence/likely absence methodology will be used (traditional trapping surveys) or a positive result will be assumed.
110 Oldham R.S., Keeble J., Swan M.J.S. & Jeffcote M., Evaluating the suitability of habitat for the Great Crested Newt (Triturus cristatus). Herpetological Journal. 10 (4): 143-155, 2000
111 Biggs J, Ewald N, Valentini A, Gaboriaud C, Griffiths RA, Foster J, Wilkinson J, Arnett A, Williams P and Dunn F 2014. Analytical and methodological development for improved surveillance of the Great Crested Newt. Appendix 5. Technical advice note for field and laboratory sampling of great crested newt (Triturus cristatus) environmental DNA. Freshwater Habitats Trust, Oxford.
Ecological Field Survey Methodologies Rev 01 208
17.4 Population estimate surveys Due to the temporary, reversible and short-duration nature of the proposed scheme and emphasis on avoidance of sensitive habitats, it is considered that in most instances all impacts to GCN can be confidently predicted and appropriate mitigation can be implemented without the need to estimate population size.
Population estimate surveys will only be undertaken where a high impact is predicted to a metapopulation of great crested newt (water bodies to be directly affected), or if construction activity would affect ‘core’ great crested newt habitat. Core habitat is typically considered to be within 50 metres of a GCN pond, and to be of high value to a GCN for foraging or hibernating purposes. Areas within 50 metres of GCN ponds but separated by dispersal barriers or sub-optimal habitats, such as extensive areas of hardstanding or arable fields, will typically not be subject to population estimate surveys.
Where eDNA is not possible or a population class assessment is required, bottle trapping and torch light surveys may be used as per the method outlined in the Great Crested Newt Mitigation Guidelines112. These water bodies will be visited six times in spring (with two visits mid-April to mid- May), during which at least three of the following methods of surveying will be employed at each where it is safe to do so:
1. Bottle-trapping: bottle traps made from two-litre polyethylene bottles and held in place using a bamboo cane. The traps will be set at intervals of approximately one trap per two metres of shoreline around accessible areas of the water body margins. Each bottle trap will be positioned to retain an air bubble to prevent newts drowning. 2. Torchlight surveying: the entire margin of each water body (as far as possible) will be slowly walked once, whilst shining the light of a minimum 500,000 candle power torch into the water to search for amphibians. This method will be employed during the period between dusk and midnight. 3. Egg searching on marginal vegetation. 4. Refugia search: where conditions limit surveys within water bodies, additional searches under potential refugia (logs, tussocky grass etc.) around the edges of water bodies will be performed and numbers found associated with the nearest water body. 5. Sweep netting: the perimeter of each water body will be walked at dusk using a long-handled dip-net to sample the edge. Sampling effort; 15 minutes of netting per 50 metres of shoreline. In addition, if egg searching was a limited method on the first visit (e.g. poor access to vegetation or deep leaf litter), egg strips will be deployed to aid detection during searches. If eggs are found on any visit, this method will not be used again on subsequent visits as it causes mortality of the egg that is found. Weather conditions, survey times and other amphibian species seen will be recorded.
Population classes will be allocated in line with the great crested newt mitigation Guidelines 113as:
• Small population = <10 Individuals • Medium population = 10 - 100 Individuals
112 English Nature, Great Crested Newt Mitigation Guidelines. English Nature, Peterborough, 2001
113English Nature, Great Crested Newt Mitigation Guidelines. English Nature, Peterborough, 2001
Ecological Field Survey Methodologies Rev 01 209
• Large population = >100 Individuals If no GCN are found after four surveys, then GCN will be considered absent and no further survey visits completed. If GCN are found within the initial four visits, then two more survey visits will be conducted giving a total of six. The population assessment is allocated by noting the maximum number of GCN found within any one visit through any one technique (e.g. torching, trapping, netting etc).
7.5 Programme of Surveys Table 7.1: Programme of great crested newt survey work Task Timing Field Survey Scoping February-April 2021 HSI Assessments February-May 2021 Presence / Likely Absence Mid-April and end June 2021 eDNA analysis Presence / Likely Absence Mid-March to mid-June 2021 (two visits mid-April to mid- Traditional Surveys May), where required Population Size Class Mid-March to mid-June 2020 - 2022 (three visits mid- Assessments April to mid-May)
Ecological Field Survey Methodologies Rev 01 210
Birds
8.1 Background In accordance with CIEEM guidance on Ecological Impact Assessment (2018)37 “It is not necessary to carry out detailed assessment of features that are sufficiently widespread, unthreatened and resilient to project impacts and will remain viable and sustainable” (CIEEM, 2018, p.29)114. As such the approach to the detailed assessment of impact on birds will focus on those features that “are considered to be important and potentially affected by the project” (CIEEM, 2018, p.29)37. Ecological features can be important for a variety of reasons, for example, the quality or extent of designated sites or habitats, to habitat/species rarity, the extent to which they are threatened throughout their range, or their rate of decline (CIEEM, 2018, p.29)37. For bird species that are identified as important ecological features, the rationale to demonstrate a robust selection process is given below in Table 8.1. Table 8.1: Rationale for identifying birds as important ecological features. Important ecological feature Rationale Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act • Protected species; 1981 (as amended) • Often sensitive to disturbance; • Generally vulnerable populations; • Represents a legal constraint to the project if present in the project zone of influence; and • Regular presence may trigger designation of important hedgerow under Hedgerows Regulations 1997. Schedule ZA1 of the Wildlife and Countryside • Protected species; Act 1981 (as amended) • Sensitive to loss of nest site; • Vulnerable populations; and • Represents a legal constraint to the project if present in the project zone of influence. Section 41 of the Natural Environment and • Populations generally in long-term decline; Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 and • Represents a material consideration in planning. Local Biodiversity Action Plan priority species • Material consideration in planning in relation to policies within adopted Local Plans, including Neighbourhood Plans.
114 CIEEM, 2018. Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK and Ireland: Terrestrial, Freshwater, Coastal and Marine version 1.1. [pdf] Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management. Available at:
Ecological Field Survey Methodologies Rev 01 211
Species that are a reason for the designation of • Species protected from activities that a statutory nature conservation sites undermine the site’s conservation management objectives and favourable condition status; and • Material consideration in planning in relation to ladopted Local Plan policies. Species that are a reason for the designation of • Material consideration in planning in a non-statutory nature conservation sites relation to adopted Local Plan policies. (including Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas [IBAs]) Annex I of the Birds Directive • Requirement under Article 3(1) of the EIA Directive (2011/92/EU) (as amended) to assess direct and indirect significant effects on species protected under the Birds Directive (2009/147/EC). Species listed in Category 3 of the Red Data • Regular presence may trigger designation of Birds in Britain (Batten et al., 1990)115 important hedgerow under Hedgerow Regulations 1997. Regular, occasional and potential breeding • If present in the project zone of influence species meeting the Rare Breeding Birds Panel then likely to represent a significant selection criteria part of the population (>1%)*, especially at county scale.
*The ‘1% rule’ whilst not necessarily of biological relevance, has been used as a standard for identifying significant numbers of birds in relation to the designation of areas of conservation interest (Kuijken, 2006 116); originally for the identification of both wetlands of international importance (Ramsar sites) and Important Bird Areas (IBAs) in Europe.
The following sections describe the approach to identifying the important ecological features in relation to the proposed scheme.
8.2 Survey guidance The approach described below takes into account the ‘Standing advice for local planning authorities to assess the impacts of development on wild birds’ (Natural England and Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs, 2015)117. Surveys will be conducted by a suitably experienced or qualified person.
8.3 Field surveys Where required, surveys will take place within the zone of influence of the proposed scheme. The zone of influence includes the proposed scheme footprint plus the area within 500 metres of the
115 Batten, L.A., Bibby, C.J., Clement, P., Elliott, G.D. & Porter R.F. (Eds.), 1990. Red Data Birds in Britain. London: T & AD Poyser Limited.
116 Kuijken, E., 2006. A short history of waterbird conservation. In: Boere, G.C., Galbraith, C.A. & Stroud, D.A, eds., 2007. Waterbirds around the world. [pdf] The Stationery Office. Available at:
Ecological Field Survey Methodologies Rev 01 212
footprint. This zone includes the area in which disturbance to the most sensitive species is likely to occur (Forestry Commission Scotland118, 2006; Shawyer, 2011119; Taylor et al., 2007120; Whitfield et al., 2008121). Where high voltage transmission lines cross the proposed scheme, the zone of influence around the crossing point will be 750 metres. The 750-metre zone of influence around high voltage transmission lines takes into account the potential presence for nesting peregrine (Falco peregrinus), a species considered to potentially be disturbed by activities within this zone (Whitfield et al., 2008)42. Species specific field surveys within the zone of influence will take into account species sensitivity and local environmental conditions when defining the appropriate survey area. Breeding and winter bird survey data will be collected within 18 months of the commencement of the construction phase unless justification is provided based on good industry practice (CIEEM, 2019)122. Surveys within the zone of influence of the proposed scheme will focus on the important ecological features, in particular:
• Potentially suitable for species listed on Schedule 1, Schedule ZA1 and Annex 1 and those assessed by the Rare Breeding Birds Panel that are have breeding evidence in the 10 kilometre-squares overlapping the proposed scheme. Potentially suitable habitat may include transmission line towers suitable for peregrine and hobby (Falco Subbuteo), hedgerows with trees suitable for barn owl (Tyto alba), ditches with scrub suitable for Cetti’s warbler (Cettia cetti) and woodland suitable for red kite (Milvus milvus), goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) and hobby; • Designated sites within the zone of influence where there is a risk of a significant effect on the species that are the reasons for designation; and • Important supporting habitats such as High Nature Value (HNV) farmland, waterbodies and woodlands within the footprint of the proposed scheme.
8.3.1 Field survey scoping Field survey scoping will guide the proposed scheme towards what further survey effort is required. Scoping will: • Determine the type and quality of habitat present within the development footprint; and • Give an understanding of the typical bird species supported by the habitat. Scoping for field surveys will take the approach outlined below.
118 Forestry Commission Scotland, 2006. Forest operations and birds in Scottish forests - the law and good practice. [pdf] Forestry Commission Scotland. Available at:
121 A.1.1.1 Whitfield, D.P., Ruddock, M. & Bullman, R., 2008. Expert opinion as a tool for quantifying bird tolerance to human disturbance. Biological Conservation, 141(11), pp.2708–2717 122 CIEEM, 2019. On the lifespan of ecological reports & survey. [pdf] Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management. Available at:
Ecological Field Survey Methodologies Rev 01 213
Data from the British Trust for Ornithology (BTO) will be extracted from the Bird Atlas (2007–2011) archive for each OS 10 kilometre-square and each tetrad (2 x 2 kilometre square) overlapping the proposed scheme footprint plus the area within 500 metres of the proposed scheme. The Bird Atlas data will form a long list of breeding (possible, probable, confirmed) and winter species with the potential to be present in the proposed scheme and its zone of influence. The Bird Atlas data will also be used to identify notable species based on their range and/or abundance. A species will be considered notable if: 1 The 10 kilometre-squares associated with the proposed scheme account for at least 2% of all the 10 kilometre-squares the species is present in within Great Britain or 2% of the species’ abundance in Great Britain.
2 The species’ range or abundance in the 10 kilometre-squares associated with the proposed scheme accounts for at least twice the percentage of the species’ 10- kilometre squares associated with England, the relevant local government region(s), county(s) and vice- county(s).
For example, if the proposed scheme spans two 10- kilometre squares, and the it falls in a county of 20 10- kilometre squares, the proposed scheme's 10-kilometre squares account for 10% of the county and the threshold used to identify notable species will be 20%. If ‘Species X’ occurs in 15 10- kilometre squares in the county and one of these 10-kilometre square is associated with the proposed scheme it accounts for 6.7% of the species' county range. In this case the species is not notable. If ‘Species Y’ occurs in eight 10-kilometre squares, including both squares that span the proposed scheme it therefore accounts for 25% (2/8) of the species' county range. This exceeds the 20% threshold and so ‘Species Y’ is notable. Additional breeding season data will also be extracted from the BirdTrack archive for the previous five years, this includes breeding evidence and a measure of spatial precision. BirdTrack observers provide records with varying levels of spatial precision that may include large polygons that may span multiple Ordnance Survey grid squares. The spatial precision of records for each species is classified according to the certainty that the record came from a particular 10- kilometre square or tetrad overlapping the proposed scheme footprint plus the area within 500 metres of it. The BTO data will be used to identify the likely presence of the species within the 10-kilometre squares of the proposed scheme. These species will be considered to be important ecological features where they meet one or more of the selection criteria in Table 10.2 and where the species is associated with the broad habitat types the zone of influence. The broad habitats used in this approach largely follow those habitat types use to categorise wild bird populations for the purposes of national monitoring (DEFRA, 2019)123. The broad habitats are coastland, farmland, heathland, marine waters, wetland, woodland, upland and urban areas.
123 Defra, 2019. Wild Bird Populations in the UK, 1970 to 2018. [pdf] Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs. Available at:
Ecological Field Survey Methodologies Rev 01 214
Table 8.2: Important ecological feature selection criteria for birds within the 10-kilometre squares of a scheme. Important ecological feature Selection criteria Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act Presence with at least ‘possible’ breeding 1981 (as amended) evidence. Schedule ZA1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Presence with at least ‘possible’ breeding Act 1981 (as amended) evidence. Section 41 of the Natural Environment and Notable range and/or abundance. Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 Local Biodiversity Action Plan priority species Notable range and/or abundance. Species that are a reason for the designation of Site located in scheme zone of influence. a statutory nature conservation sites Species that are a reason for the designation of Site located in scheme zone of influence. a non-statutory nature conservation sites (including Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas [IBAs]) Annex I of the Birds Directive Notable range and/or abundance. Species listed in Category 3 of the Red Data Presence with at least ‘possible’ breeding Birds in Britain (Batten et al., 1990) evidence. Regular, occasional and potential breeding Presence with at least ‘possible’ breeding species meeting the Rare Breeding Birds Panel evidence. selection criteria All other wild bird species not listed above Notable range and/or abundance. (excluding introduced species)
All statutory and non-statutory designated sites will be identified within the zone of influence. Species that are the reason for site designation and that may interact with the proposed scheme will be identified by taking into account its distance from or relationship to the designated site and the intervening physical matters (Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government, 2019)124 as well as the characteristics and specific environmental conditions of the site concerned. In this respect only those reasons for designation for which the risk of a significant effect is “real” as opposed to hypothetical will be scoped into any impact assessment.
8.3.2 Field survey methods Where field survey scoping identifies that survey effort is required, survey methods will, where relevant, include:
• Species specific methods for Schedule 1, Schedule ZA1, Annex 1 and Rare Breeding Bird Panel species; including those described by Cowan (2017)125, Gilbert et al. (2012)126, Hardey
124 Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government, 2019. Guidance on the use of Habitats Regulations Assessment. [online] Available at:
Ecological Field Survey Methodologies Rev 01 215
et al. (2013)127 and Shawyer (2011). Surveys will avoid the need for project specific survey licences where this is possible (excluding stone-curlew (Burhinus oedicnemus)). Schedule 1 survey methods will include searches for potential nest sites outside the breeding season (November–February), e.g. suitable trees and buildings for barn owl and suitable existing nests for red kite and hobby; • Bioacoustic surveys for important ecological features where such an approach is a more efficient means of collecting primary or supporting baseline data will be based on the draft protocol described by Abrahams (2018)128. Recorders (AudioMoth or similar devices) will be set at a density of 16 per kilometre square, each located 1-2 metres from the ground avoiding branches/leaves around the unit as far as possible. Bioacoustic surveys will record activity daily between the first and last field surveys in species appropriate time periods; • Breeding bird surveys, consisting of five transect survey visits based on the BTO’s Common Bird Census (Marchant, 1983129; Vergeer et al., 2016130) methodology. Surveys will take place for designated sites and important supporting habitats within the footprint of the scheme within the breeding season survey period (1 April to 31 July) defined by Gillings et al. (2013)131. The first hour after sun rise will be avoided as there is generally heightened bird activity during this period that may lead to uneven coverage as a result of rapid changes in the detection of birds (Bibby et al., 2000132). One survey visit will be conducted in the evening in order to capture activity for crepuscular and nocturnal species (Vergeer et al., 2016); and • Winter bird surveys, consisting of three complete area search survey visits based on the winter farmland bird survey methodologies (Gillings et al., 2008133, Hancock & Wilson, 2003134). Surveys will take place for designated sites and important supporting habitats within the footprint of the scheme between 1 November and the end of February. Depending on weather conditions, surveying avoided the first and last hours of daylight (Gillings et al., 2008); Surveyors will not conduct surveys in heavy rain, reduced visibility or winds stronger than Beaufort force 4. Data will be collected in the field using Collector for ArcGIS and survey visit details and weather conditions will be recorded in the field using Survey123 for ArcGIS.
8.4 Programme of Surveys Table 8.3: Programme of bird survey work Task Timing Field survey scoping Any time prior to field surveys
127 Hardey, J., Crick, H., Wernham, C., Riley, H., Etheridge, B. & Thompson, D., 2013. Raptors: a field guide to survey and monitoring (3rd Edition). Edinburgh: The Stationery Office 128 Abrahams, C., 2018. Bird Bioacoustic Surveys – Developing a Standard Protocol. InPractice, 102, 20–23.
129 Marchant, J.H., 1983. Common Birds Census Instructions. Tring: British Trust for Ornithology. 12pp 130 Vergeer J.W., van Dijk A.J., Boele A., van Bruggen J. & Hustings F. 2016. Handleiding Sovon broedvo-gelonderzoek: Broedvogel Monitoring Project en Kolonievogels. [pdf] Sovon Vogelonderzoek Nederland. Available at:
133 Gillings, S., Wilson, A.M., Conway, G.J., Vickery, J.A. & Fuller, R.J., Beavan, P., Newson, S.E., Noble D.G. & Toms, M.P., 2008. Winter Farmland Bird Survey, BTO Research Report No. 494. [pdf] British Trust for Ornithology. Available at:
Ecological Field Survey Methodologies Rev 01 216
Breeding bird surveys 1 April–31 July Winter bird surveys 1 November–end of February Schedule 1 bird surveys 1 November–31 August
Ecological Field Survey Methodologies Rev 01 217
Appendix 5.3 Determining the importance of bats
Appendix 5.3 Determining the importance of bats
Determining the importance of bats Determining the importance of bat species will follow the methodology provided by Wray et al. (2010). As this approach includes the consideration of features associated with species population (e.g. supporting habitats), the approach will sit alongside the biodiversity EcIA assessment criteria (see Table 5.6 of Chapter 5: Biodiversity), rather than being incorporated into it.
Wray et al. (2010) developed the framework for assigning importance to enable a consistent approach across EcIAs and remove the risk of subjectivity which may arise through the use of professional judgement alone. The framework considers the distribution and status of the species concerned, rather than just legal protection, to reflect differences between species in distribution and rarity, and in recognition that not all roosts, commuting routes and foraging areas have the same level of importance for supporting bat populations.
The framework developed by Wray et al. (2010) for valuing bats in EcIA was published in 2010. It should be noted that since then CIEEM have published an update to their EcIA guidance. Key changes relevant to the application of the Wray et al framework are:
• Reference to ‘district and parish level’ has been removed and replaced with ‘local level’. For clarity these terms will also not be referred to within the assessment of bats for the proposed pipeline route; and • Assigning a geographic frame of reference now refers to the ‘importance’ of an ecological feature and the use of the term ‘value’ is no longer relevant. References to ‘value’ and ‘valuing’ of bats within Wray et al. (2010) are taken to correspond to the assignment of ‘importance’. Not all roosts will have the same level of importance in supporting a population of bats. The rarity of the species/population within a geographic context will be considered. Survey and desk study results will inform the assignment of importance to roost sites, which will then be applied to the criteria in Tables B.1 and B.2: Table B.1 Categorising bats by distribution and rarity Rarity within range England bat species Rarest (population Greater horseshoe, Bechstein’s, alcathoe, greater mouse eared, under 10,000) barbastelle, grey long eared.
Rarer (population Lesser horseshoe, whiskered, Brandt’s, Daubenton’s, Natterer’s, Leisler’s, 10,000-1000,000) noctule, Nathusius’ pipistrelle, serotine.
Common Common pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle, brown long-eared. (population over 100,000)
Table B.2 Assigning importance to bat roosts
Ecological Field Survey Methodologies Rev 01 218
Appendix 5.3 Determining the importance of bats
Geographic context Roost types Local Feeding perches (common species) Individual bats (common species) Small number of non-breeding bats (common species) County Maternity sites (common species) Small number of hibernating bats (common and rarer species) Feeding perches (rarer/rarest species) Individual bats (rarer/rarest species) Small number of non-breeding bats (rarer/rarest species or all species assemblages) Regional Mating sites (rarer/rarest species) including well-used swarming sites Maternity sites (rarer species) Hibernation sites (rarest species) Significant hibernation sites for rarer/rarest species or all species assemblages National/UK Maternity sites (rarest species) Sites meeting SSSI guidelines International SAC sites
Survey and desk study results will inform the assignment of importance of commuting and foraging habitats and a score then derived through the systems in Tables B.3, B.4 & B.5 below, which further consider the rarity of the species involved, the approximate numbers of bats using the routes/areas and the nature and complexity of the proposed pipeline route/area. Table B.3 Scoring system for importance of commuting and foraging bats Geographical Score context Not important 1-10
Local 11-20
County 21-30
Regional 31-40
National/UK 41-50
International >50
Table B.4 Scoring system for importance of bat commuting routes Species Number of bats Roosts/potential Type and complexity of linear roost nearby features Common Individual bats (5) None (1) Absence of (other) linear features (1) - - Small number (3) Unvegetated fences and large field sizes (2)
Ecological Field Survey Methodologies Rev 01 219
Appendix 5.3 Determining the importance of bats
Species Number of bats Roosts/potential Type and complexity of linear roost nearby features Rarer (5) Small number of bats (10) Moderate Walls, gappy or flailed number/Not known hedgerows, isolated well- (4) grown hedgerows and moderate field sizes. - - Large number of Well-grown and well- roosts, or close to a connected hedgerows, small SSSI for the species field sizes (4) (5) Rarest (20) Large number of bats (20) Close to or within a Complex network of mature SAC for the species well-established hedgerows, (20) small fields, and rivers/streams
Table B.5 Scoring system for importance of bat foraging areas Species Number of bats Roosts/potential Type and complexity of linear roost nearby features Common Individual bats (5) None (1) Industrial or other site without (2) established vegetation (1) - - Small number (3) Suburban areas or intensive arable land (2) Rarer (5) Small number of bats (10) Moderate Isolated woodland patches, less number/Not known intensive arable and/or small (4) towns and villages (3) - - Large number of Larger or connected woodland roosts, or close to a blocks, mixed agriculture and SSSI for the species small villages/hamlets (4) (5) Rarest (20) Large number of bats (20) Close to or within a Mosaic of pasture, woodlands, SAC for the species and wetland areas (5) (20)
Ecological Field Survey Methodologies Rev 01 220
Appendix 13.1 Land quality assessment detailed methodology
Appendix 13.1 Land quality assessment detailed methodology
Introduction This technical note presents the detailed methodology for the assessment of existing and historical potentially contaminated sites along the length of the proposed scheme. The methodology is based primarily on the assessment of potential sources of contamination identified from current and historical mapping, Envirocheck data, site inspections where deemed necessary and other documentary data made available (for example, information held by local authorities). It includes:
• Classification of sources of contamination through a screening assessment; • Identification of potential receptors; • Presentation/identification of potential pollutant linkages (whereby there are pathways linking sources to receptors); • Assessment of potential risks to sensitive receptors; and • Assessment of potential land quality effects within the Environmental Impact Assessment. The methodology includes an initial screening followed by a more detailed assessment for scoped-in sites within a combined geotechnical and geo-environmental desk study. The risk assessment uses a source-pathway-receptor (S-P-R) linkage approach to identify unacceptable risks in line with land contamination risk management (LCRM)135 guidance.
Screening assessment The initial screening assessment comprises five steps:
• Identify potentially contaminative land uses within the study corridor (500 metres from the centreline of the proposed pipeline) based on a review of Envirocheck data, historical and current mapping and other data sources (e.g. regulator data requests); • Assign a ‘Class’ rating based on contaminative potential (see Table 13.1); • Define proximity zones based on distance from the pipeline (see Table 13.2); • Assign a unique reference number to all potentially contaminated sites identified; and • Apply the screening matrix (see Table 13.2) and determine which sites to scope in for further qualitative assessment. Table 13.1 provides a list of common contaminative land uses but is not exhaustive. Where potentially contaminative land uses are identified but not listed, professional judgement will be used to agree the contaminative use terminology and Class, and the use recorded as “other” (with clarification or justification) in the listing.
Where sites present a similar contamination risk, they may be grouped and considered together. This may be the case in the more urban areas where, for example, an industrial estate may be considered as one site, rather than a number of individual sites.
Where a site may have more than one contaminative land use for the purposes of the screening process (for example, previously a chemical works, now a warehouse), the highest class category for type of contamination as set out in Table 13.1 will be used.
135 Environment Agency (October 2020), Land contamination risk management (LCRM). Available online at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/land-contamination-risk-management-lcrm
Ecological Field Survey Methodologies Rev 01 221
Appendix 13.1 Land quality assessment detailed methodology
Table 13.1: Potential Contaminative Land Uses Class Generic Description Land use Class 1 Low risk of potential Farms (i.e. ancillary buildings and areas for storing contamination – low chemicals, fuel etc.) likelihood of hazardous chemicals being present or Warehouses present in small quantities. Goods yards Hospitals
Builders’ yards Retail and Business Parks Light commercial industries, small businesses
Infilled ponds Borrow Pits Localised shallow mineral extraction Infilled Brick works/marl pits, quarries and claypits (less than 0.5 hectares and not listed as landfills)
Class 2 Medium risk of potential Other – use to be detailed contamination –light industrial or commercial Engineering workshops activities with a moderate Railways/disused Railway lines potential for hazardous chemicals to be present on a Rail goods yards, Engine sheds and workshops medium scale. Airports Dry cleaners (retail) Sewage works
Cement/asphalt works Car breakers Garage workshops
Waste transfer facilities Paper works
Power stations Glass works Timber treatment works
Foot and mouth and Anthrax burial sites Metal manufacturing and plating Depots
Ecological Field Survey Methodologies Rev 01 222
Appendix 13.1 Land quality assessment detailed methodology
Class Generic Description Land use Scrap yards Coal mining pit heads and spoil mounds
Industrial estates Cemeteries Mine entries - coal shafts; air shafts
Marshland/Peat deposits Infilled Brick works/marl pits (in excess of 0.5Ha), quarries and claypits (in excess of 0.5Ha and not listed as landfills) Other (use to be detailed)
Class 3 High risk of potential Gas and cokeworks contamination – industrial activities, hazardous Active landfills and historical landfills chemicals likely to be present Metal mining and spoil heaps on a large scale. Petrol filling stations Oil depots Iron and steel works
Historical foundries Chemical works
Tanneries Asbestos works Textiles and dye works
Animal processing and abattoirs Printers Evidence of fuel/storage tanks
Dry cleaners (industrial) Printers (industrial) MoD land/explosives/chemical weapons
Combination of heavy industrial sites Other (as detailed)
Ecological Field Survey Methodologies Rev 01 223
Appendix 13.1 Land quality assessment detailed methodology
The screening matrix set out in Table 13.2 is based on the type of potentially contaminative land use and the proximity of the site to the proposed scheme.
Table 13.2: Screening Assessment Matrix – Scope In/Out Criteria Zone Number Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Zone 1 – Working corridor + 10 metres In In In Zone 2 – All land within 50 metres of the edge of Zone 1 land Out In In Zone 3 – All land from between 50 and 250 metres from the Out Out In edge of Zone 1 land All land beyond the edge of Zone 3 land Out Out Out
The mapping and Envirocheck data sets are available in GIS format and the identification and screening of potentially contaminative sites will be undertaken digitally. The output will be the completion of a set of maps showing the location of land contamination sites identified by the screening process as scoped-in to the qualitative risk assessment phase and also the scoped-out site locations for completeness.
Sensitive receptor identification For each of the scoped-in sources/sites identified, relevant sensitive receptors will be identified based on data available. Human health, ecological and geological receptors shall be identified within a 50 metres radius of each of the sources. For controlled water receptors (surface water and groundwater) the radius will consider the Class of the source (i.e. the contaminative potential):
• Class 1 – 10 metre radius from the source; • Class 2 – 50 metre radius from the source (and within the study area); and • Class 3 – 250 metre radius from the source (and within the study area). Land quality assessment
A combined geotechnical and geo-environmental desk study will be produced for the proposed pipeline route. For each of the scoped-in sites, site-specific initial conceptual models (CM) will be produced representing conditions at the construction phase with basic health and safety and construction good practices in place (to be defined136). Sites of similar land use and history may be grouped where appropriate, with only one CM prepared for the grouped sites. The scoped-out sites will also be tabulated within the desk study for completeness, but CMs will not be completed for these sites.
Potential risks are determined and assessed based on the likelihood (or probability) and consequence (or severity) using the principles given in the National House Building Council (NHBC) and Environment Agency report R&D66137. This provides guidance on development and application of the consequence and probability matrix to risk assessment and broad definitions of consequence. The initial CM will present the risk level both with and without construction mitigation measures (including remediation where required) in place.
136 For example, including Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) but excluding ground-gas protection measures in enclosed spaces 137 Environment Agency & NHBC (2008) Guidance for the Safe Development of Housing on Land Affected by Contamination. R&D
Ecological Field Survey Methodologies Rev 01 224
Appendix 13.1 Land quality assessment detailed methodology
An output from the desk study will be the completion of a set of geotechnical and geo- environmental hazard maps showing the medium and high-risk hazards which could impact on the construction phase of the proposed pipeline. Geotechnical hazards will be RAG rated for display on the maps and for consistency, geo-environmental risks levels will also be RAG-rated as shown in Table 13.3. Only risks identified as medium and high will be shown on the maps.
Table 13.3: LQA Risk Rating / RAG Risk Rating Alignment LQA Risk Rating RAG Risk Rating Very high High (Red) High High (Red) Moderate Medium (Amber) Moderate/low Medium (Amber) Low Low (Green) Very low Low (Green)
For simplicity the highest risk identified for each site will be displayed (overall/worst case risk) on the geo-environmental maps. A break-down of the risks assessed for each S-P-R linkage may also be presented. Moderate/Medium risk and above will be assessed further through ground investigation and quantitative risk assessment, as necessary.
Environmental Impact Assessment
Where land contamination has been scoped in for Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), the geo- environmental aspects of the desk study will be used to compile the baseline and assessment of effects within the Soils, Geology and Hydrogeology ES chapter.
Only those sites that have been assessed during the Land Quality Assessment (LQA) as having a worst-case risk of Moderate/Low, Moderate, High or Very High (i.e. those with a RAG-rating of Medium (Amber) or High (Red)) will go forward for consideration in the EIA. All receptors considered during the LQA will be included in the EIA.
The CMs completed for the LQA will be used as a Construction Phase CM. Two more CMs will be completed for each identified potentially contaminated sites; one for Baseline Phase and one for Operational Phase. The Operational Phase CMs assume that appropriate mitigation and remediation has been undertaken where necessary. If site-specific ground investigation data is available at the time of preparing the ES, then this will be reviewed to inform the Baseline and Construction CMs. Data request information obtained during the EIA process will be used to develop the baseline conditions, for instance information on landfills obtained from the EA.
The change in risk level between the Baseline and Construction Phases and the Baseline and Operation Phases for each of the receptors determines the Magnitude of Impact (temporary and permanent impacts respectively) from each source on each receptor. That is, a change from a Baseline risk of Low to a Construction risk of High will be a change in risk of two levels; this equates to a Moderate Impact. A drop in risk level will equate to a beneficial impact, an increase in risk level will equate to an adverse impact as shown in Table 13.4.
Ecological Field Survey Methodologies Rev 01 225
Appendix 13.1 Land quality assessment detailed methodology
Table 13.4: Magnitude of Impact / CSM Risk Level Change Alignment Magnitude of Impact Baseline CSM risk level change Major Adverse - 3 risk levels Beneficial + 3 risk levels Moderate Adverse - 2 risk levels Beneficial + 2 risk levels Minor Adverse - 1 risk level Beneficial + 1 risk level Negligible Adverse No change in risk levels Beneficial No Change
Potential effects that are determined as being moderate or major are classed as ‘significant’ effects. Where an effect has been anticipated to be negligible or minor, these effects are classed as ‘not significant’. Predicted effects of minor or negligible significance are acceptable and do not require further consideration. It is only predicted effects of moderate or high that require a more detailed risk assessment and mitigation/remediation, if required.
Ecological Field Survey Methodologies Rev 01 226