Appendix E Habitats Risk Assessment

North Tees Remediation Limited Reclamation Pond – Phase 4 Waste Recovery Plan March 2019

HABITAT REGULATIONS ASSESSMENT REPORT

119300

RECLAMATION POND PHASE 4 DEVELOPMENT - HABITAT REGULATIONS ASSESSMENT

FINAL FOR CLIENT

28 JANUARY 2019

SWECO UK LIMITED

CHRIS RODGER, SENIOR ECOLOGIST

Sweco

Change list

VER. DATE STATUS REVIEWED APPROVED 1 06.11.2018 FOR COMMENT CH KR 2 03.01.2019 FINAL REPORT CH SL 2.1 28.01.2019 FINAL REPORT V2 CH SL

Summary

This Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) is undertaken by Sweco UK Ltd on behalf of North Tees Remediation Limited, who are developing Phase 4 of the Reclamation Pond, Huntsman Drive, Port Clarence, Stockton-on-Tees (‘the site’). The HRA is in support of the developer’s application for a bespoke Environmental Permit for these works The HRA process must be applied before a plan or project which may affect a European site can be lawfully undertaken or authorised. The European sites assessed for effects in this HRA are: • Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast Special Protection Area and Ramsar site; and • Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast potential Special Protection Area and Ramsar site. The HRA presented here undertakes the Stage One Screening, where designated features and conservation objectives of the European sites are assessed for Likely Significant Effects (LSE). Where these effects cannot be excluded, further assessment is required. Stage Two: appropriate assessment (AA), to be undertaken by a competent authority. This report provides the detail required to inform the AA stage of the HRA. For both sites, a proportion of qualifying interests are screened-out at Stage One, following a conclusion of No Likely Significant Effects (LSE) before mitigation. Those interests where LSE is concluded (in the absence of mitigation measures) are taken forward for AA. The Information to inform the AA section describes the mitigation measures that will be put in place. These measures are designed to ensure there are no significant effects affecting the integrity of the European sites (designated species and their habitats).

Table of contents

1 Introduction 1 1.1 Habitats Regulations Assessment 1 1.2 Report Structure 3

2 Background to the Development 3

3 Description of the Development 4 3.1 Proposed Development 4 3.2 The Site in relation to European Sites 7 3.3 Ecological and Hydrological Connectivity of the Site in Relation to European Sites 8

4 HRA Methodology 9 4.1 Introduction 9 4.2 Assessment Methodology 9 4.3 Mechanism for Identification of European Sites 10

5 HRA Screening: European Sites with Potential Effects 11 5.1 Identification of European Sites 11 5.2 Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast SPA and Ramsar 11 5.2.1 Designated Features: SPA 12 5.2.2 Designated Features: Ramsar 13 5.2.3 Associated SSSI 14 5.2.4 Conservation Objectives for SPA Interest Features 14 5.2.5 Site Vulnerability 15 5.3 Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast Potential SPA and Ramsar 15

6 HRA Screening: Potential Effects on European Sites 18 6.1 Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast SPA / Ramsar 18 6.1.1 Assessment of Direct Effects on Qualifying Features (bird species) 18 6.1.2 Assessment of Indirect Effects on SPA Habitats 22 6.2 Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast pSPA / Ramsar 23 6.2.1 Assessment of Direct Effects on Qualifying Features (bird species) 24 6.2.2 Assessment of Indirect Effects on pSPA/Ramsar Habitats 26 6.3 Cumulative Effects of Other Plans/Projects 26

7 HRA Screening: Conclusion 28

8 Information to Inform Appropriate Assessment 29 8.1 Introduction 29 8.2 Methodology 29 8.3 Avoidance and Mitigation Measures 29

8.3.1 Accidental Spillages 30 8.3.2 Run-off (silt) 30 8.3.3 Dust / particulates 30

9 Conclusions 31

10 Appendix A: Figures 32

11 Appendix B: Site Photographs 36

1 Introduction Sweco UK Ltd has been appointed by North Tees Remediation Limited to undertake a Habitat Regulations Assessment (HRA) for as part of the Environmental Permit Application for the infilling of Phase 4 of Reclamation Pond, Huntsman Drive, Stockton-On-Tees. This HRA specifically relates to the activities outlined in the Environmental Permit Application, and in particular the Waste Recovery Plan (WRP)1 for the infilling of Phase 4 (hereafter referred to as ‘the site’) of the reclamation pond site to form a similar development platform to the adjacent Phases 1 – 3 which were completed in 2010. The site is located approximately 6km east west of Billingham, at National Grid Reference NZ 520 231. The location is shown in Figure 1 (Appendix A).

1.1 Habitats Regulations Assessment This document provides the information required for the competent authority to meet statutory duties and responsibilities as defined in the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (‘the Habitats Regulations’), which transpose the European Habitats Directive 1992 and the Wild Birds Directive 2009 (’the Directives’) into English law. Under Regulation 61(1) of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017: ‘a competent authority, before deciding to undertake, or give any consent, permission or other authorisation for, a plan or project which: • is likely to have a significant effect on a European site or a European offshore marine site (either alone or in combination with other plans or projects), and • is not directly connected with or necessary to the management of that site, must make an appropriate assessment of the implications for that site in view of that site’s conservation objectives.’ For the purpose of this assessment, European sites are taken to include sites designated under the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) and are sites that have been adopted by the European Commission and formally designated by the government of each country in whose territory the site lies. The European sites are: • Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) - Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC). These sites are selected to conserve rare and vulnerable animals, plants and habitats (excluding birds) that are listed in Annexes I and II of the Directive (as amended). • Special Protection Areas (SPA) - Birds Directive (79/409/EEC). Aim to safeguard bird species and populations that are listed in Annexes I and II of the Directive.

1 Reclamation Pond – Phase 4 Development. Waste Recovery Plan. North Tees Remediation Ltd. January 2019

The requirement in England for an HRA also applies to the following sites: • Proposed Special Area of Conservation (pSAC) - These are sites undergoing public consultation prior to a decision on whether to formally submit it to the European Commission. • Candidate Special Area of Conservation (cSAC) - site which has been formally submitted to the European Commission following consultation, but not yet formally adopted by them. • Sites of Community Importance (SCI) - sites that have been adopted by the European Commission but not yet formally designated by the government of each country. (Once a site has been adopted as a SCI, it must be designated as a SAC as soon as possible and within six years at the most). • Potential Special Protection Area (pSPA) – sites that are treated as if formally classified. The Government has initiated public consultation on the scientific case for classification as a SPA. • Ramsar Sites - Wetlands of International Importance designated under the Ramsar Convention. • Proposed Ramsar Sites. The purpose of the assessments is to: • Describe the development • Describe avoidance/mitigation measures*; • Provide information on the ecological interests and features of the potentially affected European sites; • Describe the likely nature and scale of the impacts on the European sites from the development and any likely in-combination effects with other plans and/or projects; and • Consider the results to allow a decision on the information in this statement to be made by the Competent Authority. *A precedent has been set by a decision made by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) People Over Wind and Sweetman v Coillte Teoranta (C-323/17). The CJEU issued a judgement which ruled that Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive must be interpreted as meaning that mitigation measures (referred to in the judgment as measures which are intended to avoid or reduce effects) should be assessed within the framework of an appropriate assessment (AA) and that it is not permissible to take account of measures intended to avoid or reduce the harmful effects of the plan or project on a European site at the Screening stage. Therefore, this document contains a Screening Report which does not take into account mitigation measures. The Stage Two: Information to inform AA section describes the mitigation measures that will be put in place to ensure no adverse effects on site integrity. This is intended to provide the competent authority with sufficient information to undertake an AA.

1.2 Report Structure This HRA comprises the following sections: • Section 1: Introduction • Section 2: Background to the Development • Section 3: Description of the Development • Section 4: HRA Methodology • Section 5: HRA Screening: European Sites with Potential Effects Description of sites European site subject to HRA. Description of sites, conservation objectives and vulnerabilities. • Section 6: HRA Screening: Potential Effects on European Sites Description of potential effects and assessment of whether subject to Likely Significant Effects. Identification of potential pathways for impacts from the development, Assessment of significance of potential impacts. Within this section consideration is given to other plans in the area which might lead to an ‘in combination’ effect. • Section 7: HRA Screening: Conclusion Establishes whether an appropriate assessment is considered necessary, with rationale. • Section 8: Information to inform Appropriate Assessment Provides information sufficient for the competent authority to make an Appropriate assessment on the proposed development. Includes information on the mitigation measures that will be employed. • Section 9: Conclusions

2 Background to the Development The infilling of Phase 4 is the final phase of works to reclaim 66ha of land and industrial reservoir/balancing pond known as the Reclamation Pond, adjacent to North Tees Works, Huntsman Drive. Planning Permission for the reclamation of the ponds was issued by Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council in 2003 (01/2203/P). The consented works includes re-grading land around the Reclamation Pond and infilling the pond itself. To create a platform suitable for development, the level of the infilled ponds is to be raised (‘upfilled’) to the agreed development height of 6.01m AOD. The planning application also included the creation of 12ha of permanent wetland habitat south of the current Navigator Fuel Depot (known as Port Clarence Pool) and securing the protection of wetland habitat at Dorman’s Pool (adjacent to the Reclamation Pond) solely for nature conservation purposes. The Environmental Impact Assessment accompanying the planning application considers these measures to wholly mitigate any loss of habitat at the Reclamation Pond and create long-term conservation gain. Stockton-on-Tees Borough

Council planners concluded that the creation of Port Clarence Pools and protection of Dorman’s pool adequately compensated the loss of the Reclamation Pond as a nature conservation area. This compensation is strengthened by a separate but connected permission (02/1609/P) that will see the creation of wetland habitat at the site of the Cowpen Bewley Landfill site, approximately 3km north west of the site. At the time of the planning application, the Reclamation Ponds were adjacent to the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar site (the application pre-dated the pSPA/Ramsar designation). Therefore, a HRA, including appropriate assessment was carried out. This was undertaken by the competent authority (Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council) in order to assess effects on designated species and habitats. The conclusion of the appropriate assessment was that the integrity of SPA will be ensured by the creation of Port Clarence Pools, pools at Cowpen Landfill site and security of freshwater habitat at Dorman’s Pool. Figure 1, Appendix A shows the location of the Reclamation Pond, Dorman’s Pool, Port Clarence Pool and Cowpen Landfill site. This figure also shows the location of the following European sites, for which this HRA assesses likely significant effects; Teesmouth and Cleveland SPA/Ramsar and Teesmouth and Cleveland potential SPA/Ramsar. These sites shall be collectively referred to as the Teesmouth and Cleveland SPA/pSPA/Ramsar.

3 Description of the Development 3.1 Proposed Development Site location and features are presented in Figures 1-3, Appendix A. The site location (red- line boundary) in relation to European Sites and mitigation areas is shown in Figure 1, the development areas are presented in Figure 2 (infill area, culvert extension and drainage) and Figure 3 presents the proposed monitoring plan. The proposed works provide a stable development platform largely utilising recovered waste materials (soils etc). The formation of the development platform will: • mitigate flooding risk by raising the development platform to an agreed development level. • provide a suitable geotechnical foundation for the development platform. The infilling requires three distinct layers; • A starter layer comprising free draining materials which will be either imported or excavated from the existing site; • A bulk fill layer placed above the starter layer; and • A surfacing layer to provide a finished working layer. The materials specification for fill will comply with the Manual of Contract Documents for Highway Works, Volume 1: specification for Highways Works Series 600 Earthworks

(SHW) is used as a baseline document for the earthwork’s specification. Table 1 details the proposed infill. Table 1: Proposed infill

Layer Level Purpose /Design Material Comments Issues Specification

Surface 6.01- Surface SHW Class Thickness 0.5m Layer 5.51m protection / 1A1,1B,6F1,2,3,4,5 AOD running layer with control on maximum particle size for future service installation

Bulk fill 5.51-1.7m Selection of SHW General Fill As per SHW AOD material needs to Class 1A, B, C, 2A, specification no consider fill B, C and D restriction on use availability, if compliant with economics and SHW future earthworks specification platform properties

Starter Up to Provide a Stable SHW Class 6A Thickness may Layer 1.70m layer for vary on how far AOD subsequent fill the material punches into silt. May be inundated by Groundwater

Drainage works As well as infilling, drainage works are proposed, these comprise; • Extension to the existing culvert; and • Formation of a detention basin prior to discharge to the River Tees. Dorman’s Pool and Saltholme marshes lie to the west and are linked to the Reclamation Pond by a culvert. Beyond this a series of open ditches and culverts transmit water to the River Tees. The River Tees lies to the south and east of the site. Surface waters from Dorman’s Pool flow into the Reclamation Pond through a sluice near the western site boundary, and waters subsequently flow out to the River Tees through an outfall culvert in the southeast corner of the site. The water passing through the

Reclamation Pond is a non-saline water body isolated from the Tees by a non-return tidal flap valve within this outfall. At high tide the outlet culvert is closed, at the tide falls the culvert opens and the water discharges to the River Tees. The extent of the existing culvert and culvert extension is shown on Figures 2 and 3. Water currently pass along a ditch which is isolated from the Phase 4 Area. Rainfall onto Phase 4 drains to the south east of the site (see Drawing No RP-P4-04) and joins the drainage ditch from the culvert. This then continues to the outfall culvert. The drainage does not alter in principle. The installation of the culvert replaces the open ditch through the development platform area. It is also proposed to develop a detention basin to store water prior to discharge to the river tees. The location of the detention basin is shown on Figures 2 and 3. Further detailed information on site characteristics can be found in the WMP, including the existing topographical layout of the site (on Drawing No RP-P4-04) and site cross sections and construction details (on Drawing Nos RP-P4-07 and RP-P4-08 respectively).

3.2 The Site in relation to European Sites The site is surrounded by the Teesmouth and Cleveland SPA/pSPA/Ramsar in all directions. Below is a description of approximate minimum distances between the site Boundary and adjacent SPA/pSPA/Ramsar boundary, with a description of intervening land. The location of site in relation to European sites is shown in Figure 1, Appendix A. Table 2: Distances between the site and European sites Bearing Designation* Distance Description (m) West SPA 35 The nearest European site boundary (SPA) to the west comprises Dorman’s Pool; The pool is visually screened from the site by a high bund (Image B5). There is hydrological connectivity between Dorman’s Pool and the site. Surface waters from Dorman’s Pool flow into the Reclamation Pond through a sluice situated to the west and travel along a culvert and manmade channel. Waters from the Reclamation Pond subsequently flow out to the River Tees through an outfall channel to the south east of the site.

The sluice at Dorman’s Pools outfall allows the pool to be hydrologically isolated from the site (Image B6. See 3.5). Additionally, levels and culvert direction do not allow water flow from the site to Dorman’s pool. The proposed works do not make any changes to the levels within Dorman’s Pool. North SPA 367 The nearest European site boundary (SPA) to the north comprises the Seal Sands tidal mudflats within the Seaton-on-Tees Channel, an important foraging area for SPA-qualifying waders and wildfowl. The SPA is buffered from The Site by the Seal Sands Industrial Estate, the location of several large chemical industry plants. There is no visual or hydrological connectivity between the site and the mudflats.

Bearing Designation* Distance Description (m) East pSPA 723 The nearest European site boundary (pSPA) to the east comprises the River Tees. The pSPA is buffered from the site by the North Tees Works (oil refinery). There is no hydrological connectivity between the site and River Tees section of the pSPA (see 3.5.). South pSPA 464 The nearest European site boundary (pSPA) to the south comprises the River Tees. The majority of the site is buffered from the pSPA by the former Air Products energy-from- waste plant (developed on the southern part of the original Reclamation Pond footprint), the Port Clarence landfill Site, operated by Augean Plc for hazardous and non- hazardous waste and open ground Surface water flow out of Reclamation Pond to the River Tees are through an outfall channel to the south east of the site. The water passing through Reclamation Pond is a non-saline water body isolated from the Tees by a non-return tidal flap valve within this outfall.

*SPA: Teesmouth and Cleveland SPA/Ramsar and pSPA: Teesmouth and Cleveland potential SPA/Ramsar.

3.3 Ecological and Hydrological Connectivity of the Site in Relation to European Sites Although the site does not overlap the SPA/pSPA/Ramsar, the close proximity and mobility of the designated features (birds) leads to ecological connectivity. In addition, proximity and hydrological connectivity mean that the site has connectivity with the habitats of designated species, within the SPA/pSPA/Ramsar boundary. Section 3.1. describes the hydrological connectivity between the site and the SPA both upstream to Dorman’s Pool and downstream towards the River Tees).

4 HRA Methodology

4.1 Introduction This assessment considers potential effects on European sites as required under Section 61 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. The assessment has been conducted by Chris Rodger MSc MCIEEM (Senior Ecologist, Sweco) and reviewed by Claire Hopkins MSc MCIEEM (Principal Ecologist, Sweco). Sections 4-6 cover the Screening stage of the Habitat Regulations Assessment process and 7-8 provides detail on the possible effects and mitigation measures for species and habitats ‘screened-in’ for appropriate assessment by the competent authority. Professional judgement has been used to assess the potential for likely significant effects (LSE) on the integrity of any relevant European site, based on interpretation of the Waste Recovery Plan, historical data (e.g. WeBS counts), prior EIA and HRA undertaken to secure planning consent for the reclamation project and site assessment undertaken by Chris Rodger on October 23rd, 2018. Where there is uncertainty, the precautionary principle has been applied. For the purposes of this assessment, ‘integrity’ is defined as: the coherence of the site’s ecological structure and function, across its whole area, that enables it to sustain the habitat, complex of habitats and/or the favourable conservation status of populations of the species for which it was classified.

4.2 Assessment Methodology

Assessment methods used followed the guidance provided in European Commission (2001). The HRA process is described in Table 3: The four-stage process of the Habitats Regulations Assessment[1].

Table 3: The four-stage process of the Habitats Regulations Assessment Stage Steps to be Undertaken by the Developer (Unless otherwise stated)

Stage One: The identification of all Natura 2000 sites in and around the area. The Screening process which identifies the likely impacts upon a Natura 2000 site of a project or plan, either alone or in combination with other projects or plans and considers whether these effects of the impacts are likely to be significant. If significant effects are likely or uncertain, proceed to Stage 2.

[1] European Commission. (2001). Assessment of plans and projects significantly affecting Natura 2000 sites. Methodological guidance on the provisions of Article 6(3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC. Available online from: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/art6/natura_2000_ass ess_en.pdf (Accessed October 2018).

Stage Steps to be Undertaken by the Developer (Unless otherwise stated)

Stage Two: The consideration of the impact on the integrity of the Natura 2000 Appropriate site of the project or plan, either alone or in combination with other Assessment projects or plans, with respect to the site’s structure and function and its conservation objectives. Additionally, where there are adverse impacts, an assessment of the potential mitigation of those impacts.

Stage Three: The process which examines alternative ways of achieving the Assessment of objectives of the project or plan that avoid adverse impacts on the Alternative integrity of the Natura 2000 site. Solutions

Stage Four: An assessment of compensatory measures where, in the light of an assessment of imperative reasons of overriding public interest IROPI (IROPI), it is deemed that the project or plan should proceed (it is

important to note that this guidance does not deal with the assessment of imperative reasons of overriding public interest).

4.3 Mechanism for Identification of European Sites European sites should be considered for formal screening where there is a potential for a project to have any effects. The above identified European sites have been included for formal screening because they are within 2km of the site boundary, and because there is hydrological connection between the site and the project.

5 HRA Screening: European Sites with Potential Effects

5.1 Identification of European Sites European sites identified as potentially requiring assessment are set out below. European sites within 2km of the Development: • Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast Special Protection Area (SPA); • Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast Ramsar; • Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast potential Special Protection Area (pSPA); and • Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast potential Ramsar. The pSPA site includes all areas proposed by the Secretary of State as extensions to the existing SPA area. The pSPA was approved for formal consultation on the 31st of July 2018 and at this point the pSPA is to be treated as a fully designated European site, subject to protection under the EU Habitats Directive. The existing Ramsar site is also to be extended in the same terrestrial areas as the pSPA (up to Mean Low Water Level) and does extend outside the pSPA. Ramsar Sites are afforded the same level of protection as European sites. The pSPA extends the existing SPA to protect offshore foraging areas for little tern Sternula albifrons and common tern Sterna hirunda (which breed on the existing SPA). In addition, the pSPA/Ramsar is extended to include areas of wetland which provide important habitat for the wader and wildfowl assemblage.2 European sites designated for bats within 30km of the site: There are no European sites designated for bats within 30km of the site. European sites with hydrological connection: The only European sites with hydrological connectivity are those listed within 2km of the site. European sites where any other potential effect pathway exists: The only European sites with ecological or any other connectivity are those listed within 2km of the site.

5.2 Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast SPA and Ramsar The sections of the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast SPA surrounding the site is shown in Figure 1 Appendix A (with 2km and 5km radii shown) and described above in Table 2.

2 Marine Consultation Document for the Teesmouth and Cleveland coast Potential Special protection Area (pSPA). Natural England/Defra Consultation 2018. Downloaded from https://consult.defra.gov.uk/natural-england-marine/teesmouth-and-cleveland-coast-potential- sp/ (accessed October 24th 2018)

The general site character is predominately tidal rivers, estuary, mudflats and lagoons (including saltworks basins), collectively comprising 54% of land cover. Marshes and water fringed vegetation form 20% of cover, coastal sand dunes and beaches 14%, salt marsh 7%, inland water bodies 3% and built structures 2%.

5.2.1 Designated Features: SPA The bird populations of international significance, forming the qualifying features of the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast SPA are described in Table 4. Table 4: Qualifying features of the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast SPA Category Qualifying Features Population size % of Biogeographic (species) (5-year peak mean) Population

Internationally Little tern 40 pairs-breeding 1.7% GB population important Sternula albifrons (1995-1998) populations of regularly occurring Annex Sandwich tern 1,900 individuals - 6.8% GB population 1 species Thalasseus passage (1988-1992) sandvicensis

Internationally Red knot 5,509 individuals - 1.6% NE important Calidris canutus wintering (1991/92 - Canada/Greenland/Ic populations of islandica 1995/96) eland/UK regularly occurring Common redshank 1648 individual- 1.1% Eastern migratory bird Tringa totanus passage (1987-1991) Atlantic (non- species totanus breeding)

An Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast SPA supports large populations of internationally waterfowl (more than 20,000 individuals, with 21,312 individual birds important [1991/92-1995/96]). This includes the following in nationally important assemblage of numbers This includes the following in nationally important numbers waterfowl and/or greater than 2,000 individuals. Eurasian wigeon 2,660 individuals N/A but >2,000 Anas penelope (2011/12 – 2015/16) individuals

Gadwall 428 individuals 1.7% Anas strepera (2011/12 – 2015/16) GB population

Northern shoveler 180 individuals 1.0% Anas clypeata (2011/12 – 2015/16) GB population

Category Qualifying Features Population size % of Biogeographic (species) (5-year peak mean) Population

Northern lapwing 3,892 individuals N/A but >2,000 Vanellus vanellus (2011/12 – 2015/16) individuals

Sanderling 242 individuals 1.5% Calidris alba (2011/12 – 2015/16) GB population

Herring gull 3,243 individuals N/A but >2,000 Larus argentatus (2011/12 – 2015/16) individuals

Black-headed gull 2,273 individuals N/A but >2,000 Chroicocephalus (2011/12 – 2015/16) individuals ridibundus

Note: ringed plover is listed as a designated Annex II species in earlier SPA citations (634 individuals on passage, representing at least 1.35 of the European/Northern Africa winter populations (5 year mean spring passage 1991-95), however it is no longer included in the citation at the time of this report.

5.2.2 Designated Features: Ramsar The Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast Ramsar site qualifies as a wetland of international importance because; • It qualifies under criterion 5 as it is used regularly by over 20,000 wildfowl in any season. The site qualifies for this criteria on the wintering population%-year peak mean of 21,312 individual birds (1991/92-1995/96). • It qualifies under criterion 5 as it is used regularly by 1% or more of the biogeographic populations of the following bird species, in any season. The qualifying features of the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast Ramsar are described in Table 5.

Table 5: Qualifying features of the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast Ramsar Waterfowl species 5-year peak mean % Biogeographic Population Red knot Calidris canutus 5,509 individuals -wintering 1.6% NE islandica (1991/92 - 1995/96) Canada/Greenland/Icel and/UK Common Tringa totanus 1,648 individuals -passage 1.1% Eastern Atlantic redshank totanus (1987-1991) (wintering)

Waterfowl species 5-year peak mean % Biogeographic Population

Sandwich Thalasseus 1,900 individuals - passage 1.3% Western tern sandvicensis (1988-1992) Europe/Western Africa

5.2.3 Associated SSSI The SPA is underpinned by the following SSSI: • Cowpen Marsh (saltmarsh and grazing marsh); • Seal sands (intertidal mudflats); • Seaton Dunes and common (sand dunes and shoreline habitats); • South Gare and Coatham Sands (intertidal mud and sand, sand dunes, saltmarsh and freshwater marsh); and • Redcar Rocks (Geological interest of coastal rock exposures). These five SSSIs are part of seven SSSIs in the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast area. Natural England have recently notified an enlarged SSSI encompassing, linking and expanding (and ultimately replacing) the seven previous SSSIs. Included in this is the de- notification of Seal Sands SSSI as it is not considered to be of special interest. Natural England are currently seeking views of notification of a single SSSI by public consultation3.

5.2.4 Conservation Objectives for SPA Interest Features Under Regulation 33(2)(a) of the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations 1994, Natural England has a duty to advise other relevant authorities as to the conservation objectives for the European site. The conservation objectives of the existing SPA are listed below. Subject to natural change, maintain in favourable condition the habitats for the internationally important populations of the regularly occurring Annex 1 bird species, under the Birds Directive, in particular: • Sand and shingle, • Intertidal sandflat and mudflat; and, • Shallow coastal waters. Subject to natural change, maintain in favourable condition the habitats for the internationally important populations of the regularly occurring migratory bird species, under the Birds Directive, in particular: • Rocky shores,

3 https://consult.defra.gov.uk/natural-england-marine/teesmouth-and-cleveland-coast-potential- sp/

• Intertidal sandflat and mudflat; and, • Saltmarsh. Subject to natural change, maintain in favourable condition the habitats for the internationally important assemblage of waterbirds, under the Birds Directive, in particular: • Rocky shores, • Intertidal sandflat and mudflat; and, • Saltmarsh.

5.2.5 Site Vulnerability The vulnerabilities of the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast SPA are described in the Natura 2000 Data Form4 as follows; “The natural incursion of coarse marine sediments into the estuary and the eutrophication of sheltered mudflats leading to the spread of dense Enteromorpha beds may impact on invertebrate density and abundance, and hence on waterfowl numbers. Indications are that the observed sediment changes derive from the reassertion of natural coastal processes within the context of an estuary much modified by human activity. An extensive long-term monitoring programme is investigating the effects of the Tees Barrage, while nutrient enrichment from sewage discharges should be ameliorated by the planned introduction of improved treatment facilities and the Environment Agency's acceptance of Seal Sands as a candidate Sensitive Area to Eutrophication. Aside from the eutrophication issue, water quality has shown considerable and sustained improvement, leading to the re-establishment of migratory fish populations and the growth of cormorant and common seal populations. The future development of port facilities in areas adjacent to the site, and in particular of deep water frontages with associated capital dredging, has the potential to cause adverse effect; these issues will be addressed through the planning system/Habitats Regulations, as will incompatible coastal defence schemes. Other issues on this relatively robust site include scrub encroachment on dunes (addressed by Site Management Statements with owners) and recreational, bait-gathering and other disturbance/damage to habitats/species (addressed by WCA 1981, NNR Byelaws and the Tees Estuary Management Plan).”

5.3 Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast Potential SPA and Ramsar An extension to the existing SPA is proposed which will cover important foraging habitats for little tern and common tern Sterna hirunda. In addition to the current SPA qualifying species, the pSPA proposals include adding breeding common tern, breeding avocet Recurvirostra avosetta and non-breeding ruff Philomachus pugnax, while saltmarsh, wet

4 UK SPA Data Form: Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast SPA. Online http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/file/3209673 Accessed 28th January 2019

grassland and intertidal habitats are proposed as new qualifying features due to their importance for foraging and roosting birds. The proposed extensions will cover terrestrial habitats of importance to the qualifying waterbird assemblage, while the waters covered are of greatest importance to qualifying little tern and common tern colonies. The qualifying bird species of the pSPA are listed in Table 6. Of the seven-species listed for the pSPA, four are also features designated under the existing SPA. The three bird populations newly designated as features of the pSPA are little tern, common tern, pied avocet and ruff. The information for these features are highlighted bold in Table 6.

For the purposes of the HRA assessment that follows, discussion of the possible effects of the project on the species already designated by the existing SPA shall be discussed in the context of that European site. Therefore, only the effects of the project on the newly designated species (little tern, common tern, pied avocet and ruff) shall be assessed in the context of the pSPA.

Although the conservation objectives and site vulnerabilities are not yet published for the pSPA, this HRA shall assume that safeguarding the habitats important for the designated bird populations is the overriding conservation objective for the pSPA.

Table 6: Qualifying features of the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast pSPA Category Qualifying Population % of New Features size (5-year Biogeographical Feature (species) peak mean) Population Y/N

Internationally Sandwich tern 1,900 4.3% GB N important Thalasseus individuals - population1,1.3% populations of sandvicensis passage Western European regularly (1988-1992) / Western African1 occurring Annex 1 Little tern 81 pairs- 4.3% GB N species Sternula albifrons breeding population (2010-2014)

Pied avocet2 18 pairs- 1.2% GB Y Recurvirostra breeding population avosetta (2010-2014)

Common tern 399 4.0% GB Y Sterna hirunda individuals - population breeding (2010-2014)

Internationally Ruff 19 individuals 2.4% GB Y important Philomachus - non- population populations of pugnax breeding regularly (2011 - 2016) occurring

Category Qualifying Population % of New Features size (5-year Biogeographical Feature (species) peak mean) Population Y/N migratory bird Red knot 5,509 1.6% NE N species Calidris canutus individuals - Canada/Greenland/ islandica wintering Iceland/UK (1991/92 - 1995/96)

Common 1,648 1.1% Eastern N redshank individual- Atlantic (non- Tringa totanus passage breeding) totanus (1987-1991)

An Eurasian wigeon 2,660 N/A but >2,000 N internationally Anas penelope individuals individuals important (2011/12 – assemblage of 2015/16) waterfowl Gadwall 428 individuals 1.7% N Anas strepera (2011/12 – GB population 2015/16)

Northern shoveler 180 individuals 1.0% N Anas clypeata (2011/12 – GB population 2015/16)

Northern lapwing 3,892 N/A but >2,000 N Vanellus vanellus individuals individuals

Sanderling 242 individuals 1.5% N Calidris alba (2011/12 – GB population 2015/16)

Herring gull 3,892 N/A but >2,000 N Larus argentatus individuals individuals (2011/12 – 2015/16)

Black-headed gull 2,273 N/A but >2,000 N Chroicocephalus individuals individuals ridibundus (2011/12 – 2015/16)

1Note: this passage population of 1,900 individuals was expressed as equating to 6.8% of the GB breeding population of Sandwich terns (14,000 pairs) in The Natura 2000 Standard Data.

2Species in bold as pSPA designated species.

6 HRA Screening: Potential Effects on European Sites

6.1 Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast SPA / Ramsar The minimum distance between the site boundary and the boundary of the SPA/Ramsar is 0.035km. There is ecological connectivity between the site and SPA-qualifying features (bird species), leading to potential direct effects. These largely pertain to the possible effects of disturbance to SPA-qualifying birds. An assessment of these effects (prior to consideration of mitigation) and conclusion of whether these are significant is present in Section 6.1.1. There is hydrological connectivity between the site and SPA, at both intake and outflow. There are consequently possible effects through changes in hydrological regime, sedimentation and other pollution. There are also possible habitat effects arising from dust mobilisation during works. These possible effects may result in indirect effects on the habitats within the SPA, impacting conservation objectives of the SPA. An assessment of these effects and conclusion of whether or not these are significant is present in Section 6.1.2.

6.1.1 Assessment of Direct Effects on Qualifying Features (bird species) Table 7 summarises potential effects on SPA species and assessment of whether likely significant effects (LSE) can be concluded. With the exception of little tern, all qualifying species of the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast SPA comprise internationally important populations outside the breeding season (winter and passage seasons). Therefore, potential direct effects are limited to disturbance of feeding and roosting birds. For little tern, the potential for disturbance or displacement of breeding birds is deemed negligible, as the site does not offer suitable nesting habitat (this species nests exclusively on shingle beaches just above the high-water mark). The screening undertaken here shall asses the degree of disturbance on SPA-qualifying birds both within and outside the SPA boundary and assess whether this can be concluded to be a Likely Significant Effect (LSE). Table 7 summarises the assessment and conclusion for each of the SPA-qualifying species. Note that for this summary applies to both the SPA and pSPA for those species that qualify for both European sites. No LSE was concluded for all species and this is based on the following rationale; 1. Loss of potential habitat at Infill Area is not significant and alternative nearby habitat is sufficient • Following reclamation during Phases 1-3, the majority of the Reclamation Pond is largely unattractive to SPA species for either roosting or foraging. An exception is the Development Platform (infill) Area; at present this drained area comprises silt and shallow water with emergent vegetation and may be attractive to small numbers of certain wader species (e.g. redshank Tringa totanus totanus, ruff, lapwing Vanellus vanellus) and dabbling duck (e.g. teal Anas crecca, gadwall Mareca strepera, and includes shelduck Tadorna tadorna).

• At the request of Natural England (NE), bird counts were conducted after the site was drained by North Tees Ltd. The results of these counts were; 12th Nov 2017. 1030-1110. 2 mallard and 1 green sandpiper. 10th Dec 2017. 0800-0840. No birds. 14th Jan 2018. 1530-1610. No birds.

These counts were considered sufficient baseline for understanding use of the Infill Area and North Tees were advised by NE that they can cease counts after the January count5. • Based on these counts, NE were satisfied that bird usage of the Infill Area was not significant. When this was taken in conjunction with the creation of suitable alternative habitat at Port Clarence Pools, NE considered that the infilling shall not cause significant impacts. Therefore, NE instructed that the counts should cease and consented that the works continue6. • Planning Condition 077 for the consented reclamation works (01/2203/P) states that the applicant shall undertake monthly bird counts at Port Clarence (and Cowpen Landfill) for five years following completion of the habitat creation works at these two sites. This shall be undertaken to ensure that the development does not have an adverse effect on the on the habitats supporting the bird species and assemblage constituting the interest features of the SPA. • The screening undertaken here is in agreement with the NE position; that use of the remaining habitat within the Infill Area by SPA-qualifying species is likely to be of limited extent and there is sufficient alternative habitat nearby (much of which has been created in compensation for the loss of the Reclamation Ponds). 2. Nearby SPA areas are suitably buffered with regard noise and visual disturbance Table 2 (Section 3.2) describes the distances and landscape features between the site and SPA boundary. The conclusion of the screening is that all adjacent areas of SPA are buffered from the effects of noise and visual disturbance by intervening structures. With the exception of Dorman’s Pools, which are described below, the site and adjacent SPA are separated by distances of between 464m (north) and 723m (east), with these areas dominated by industrial structures and roads. Therefore, it is not foreseeable that the proposed works will impact on these areas of SPA in terms of disturbance. Dorman’s pool (within the Ramsar, SPA and pSPA) is separated by 35m from The Site. The nearest section is the undeveloped development platform which lies between Dorman’s Pool and the Infill Area. Material shall be won from this development platform for upfilling the Infill Area. Therefore, there shall be excavator and dumper truck activity within this area. Despite the short distance between the pools and the site, visual and noise

5 Email from Glyn Bateman, Senior Advisor, Stakeholder Engagement, NE and Chris Teasdale, North Tees ltd 16/01/18. 6 NE position confirmed in phone conversation between Elaine Young, Senior Marine Advisor, NE and Chris Rodger, Senior Ecologist, Sweco UK 05/11/18. 7 Stockton-on-Tees Council Approval Subject to Conditions, Application 01/2203/P (undated).

disturbance from the site shall be minimal. This is because the level of Dorman’s Pool is significantly lower than the Platform Area and the pools are effectively screened from the Platform Area by a high bund. This bund was constructed as a planning condition during earlier phases of the development, in order to screen Dorman’s Pool from the works. The height of the bund relative to the pools can be seen in Image B5, Appendix B. The conclusion of the screening is that there are no significant effects expected from disturbance by noise, sight and vibration, before consideration of mitigation. Despite this, the Waste Recovery Plan includes mitigation to ensure best practise and ensure that disturbance by noise and vibration is reduced as far as is practical. These are described in the Environmental Risk Assessment and include; • Speed limit restrictions. • Standoff between the works and Dorman’s Pool to limit any vibration. • Works will only utilise mobile plant which will generally not be located close to Dorman’s Pool. • Regular maintenance of machines to reduce noise levels. Therefore, screening concludes that for all qualifying bird populations the effect of disturbance to feeding or roosting individuals will be negligible. Therefore, the conclusion is of No LSE for all listed species and these should be screened out of the appropriate assessment.

Table 7: HRA screening for designated species of the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast SPA Designated Species Potential direct effect of Conclusion of feature Unmitigated Works of Likely affected Development Significant Effects (LSE)? Internationally Little tern Disturbance to nesting and foraging No LSE important Sternula birds not anticipated. populations of albifrons Reason: Coastal nesting species; regularly no disturbance to breeding area or occurring disruption to flight-lines for breeding Annex 1 birds. species Sandwich tern Possible disturbance to roosting No LSE Thalasseus birds not anticipated Reason: The sandvicensis site not attractive roosting habitat.

Disturbance to foraging birds not anticipated. Reason: forages offshore. Conclude effect not significant.

Internationally Red knot Disturbance to foraging birds not No LSE important Calidris anticipated. populations of canutus Reason: Strictly intertidal foraging regularly islandica Possible disturbance to high tide occurring roosts migratory bird Reason: May roost at Dorman’s species Pool (unlikely at the site).

Dorman’s Pool screened from disturbance. Low numbers (if any) using Infill Area with available alternative habitat: conclude effect not significant.

Common Possible disturbance to foraging No LSE redshank and/or roosting birds Tringa totanus Reason: May forage on mud/silt in totanus Infill Area / Dorman’s Pools. High tide roosts possible.

Dorman’s Pool screened from disturbance. Low numbers using Infill Area with available alternative habitat: conclude effect not significant.

Designated Species Potential direct effect of Conclusion of feature Unmitigated Works of Likely affected Development Significant Effects (LSE)? An See Table 6 Possible disturbance to foraging and No LSE internationally roosting birds important Reason: May forage on assemblage of mud/silt/surface water in Infill Area waterfowl and Dorman’s Pool. Dorman’s Pool screened from disturbance. Low numbers using Infill Area with available alternative habitat: conclude effect not significant.

6.1.2 Assessment of Indirect Effects on SPA Habitats The site is in close proximity to the SPA/pSPA/Ramsar boundary and is hydrologically connected at both the intake and discharge of water. Existing hydrological control isolates the site from the SPA at Dorman’s Pool. The development will not make any changes to the control (sluice) at the Dorman’s outfall and therefore shall have no effects on water levels within the SPA. The SPA area downstream of the site comprises the tidal River Tees. Therefore, water level considerations are not relevant for downstream areas of the SPA. The close proximity of the site to adjacent areas of SPA and potential hydrological pathway for impacts downstream means that mitigation is required to avoid significant air and water- borne impacts (and ensure No LSE). Due to the recent ‘People Over Wind’ precedent (See 1.1.), any impacts requiring mitigation must go forward for appropriate assessment. This is described in Table 8. Therefore, the assessment concludes Likely Significant Effects if no mitigation is put in place. An appropriate assessment of the impacts on habitats on which SPA- qualifying birds depend shall be undertaken.

Table 8: HRA screening for conservation objectives of the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast SPA Factors affecting Potential Effect of Unmitigated Conclusion of conservation objectives Works of Development Likely Significant (indirect effects on Effects (LSE)? habitats for designated species) Subject to natural change, Potential impacts on habitats, LSE on basis of maintain in favourable particularly through hydrological potential impacts on condition the habitats for the connectivity with the SPA. These habitats - Take internationally important include: forward to AA populations of the regularly

Factors affecting Potential Effect of Unmitigated Conclusion of conservation objectives Works of Development Likely Significant (indirect effects on Effects (LSE)? habitats for designated species) occurring Annex 1 bird • sedimentation and other species, under the Birds pollution of watercourses Directive Subject to natural change, • Potential impacts on LSE on basis of maintain in favourable habitats via airborne dust potential impacts on condition the habitats for the mobilisation habitats - Take internationally important forward to AA populations of the regularly occurring migratory bird species, under the Birds Directive. Subject to natural change, LSE on basis of maintain in favourable potential impacts on condition the habitats for the habitats - Take internationally important forward to AA assemblage of waterbirds, under the Birds Directive.

6.2 Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast pSPA / Ramsar The minimum distance between the site boundary and the boundary of the pSPA/Ramsar is 0.464km. There is ecological connectivity between the site and pSPA and Ramsar-qualifying features (bird species), leading to potential direct effects. These mainly pertain to the possible effects of disturbance to pSPA/Ramsar-qualifying birds and involve the same species and issues described in Section 6.1.1. It is indicated where the qualifying species, effects and conclusion of the screening is the same for the pSPA/Ramsar as undertaken above for the SPA. A significant difference between the SPA and pSPA/Ramsar qualifying interests is that the latter includes breeding species. Because the initial infilling of the lagoon will be initiated after the bird breeding season (September at earliest) there shall be no impacts on breeding birds. There is hydrological connectivity between the site and pSPA/Ramsar. As described in Section 6.1.2., the works present no potential for significant impacts on water levels, either upstream or downstream. Possible impacts from air and water borne impacts shall be mitigated and as such, these potential impacts are taken forward to Appropriate Assessment. An assessment of these effects and conclusion of whether these are significant is present in Section 6.2.2.

6.2.1 Assessment of Direct Effects on Qualifying Features (bird species) The reasons for concluding for No LSE for little tern, sandwich tern, red knot, common redshank and waterfowl assemblage is the same as described for the SPA (Section 6.1.1.). For ruff, the potential disturbance to non-breeding (passage) birds using Dorman’s Pools and/or the Infill Area is concluded to be non-significant. This is for the same reasons as for many of the other non-breeding qualifying species; low numbers are likely to use the Infill Area, with alternative habitat available and disturbance to birds using Dorman’s pool effectively screened by existing topography. A difference between the qualifying interests of the SPA and pSPA is that the latter designation includes breeding bird populations that may possibly nest within the site (in its current condition). This impact shall be avoided by the infilling of the lagoon occurring outside the birds breeding season (to start at earliest in September).

Table 9: HRA screening for qualifying features of the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast pSPA Designated Species Potential direct effect of Unmitigated Conclusion feature Works of Development of Likely affected Significant Effects (LSE)? Internationally Little tern As for SPA (Table 7) No LSE important Sternula populations of albifrons regularly Sandwich tern As for SPA (Table 7) No LSE occurring Thalasseus Annex 1 sandvicensis species Pied avocet Possible disturbance to nesting birds. No LSE Recurvirostra Reason: May nest on silt/sparsely avosetta vegetated pool edges of Infill Area

Infilling of lagoon works will not be undertaken during nesting season (to be initiated at earliest in September), so no possibility of disturbing nesting birds.

Possible disturbance to roosting birds. No LSE Reason: May roost in Infill Area.

Possible disturbance to foraging birds Reason: May forage on mud/silt in Infill Area.

Dorman’s Pool screened from disturbance. Low numbers using Infill Area with available alternative habitat: conclude impact not significant.

Common tern Possible disturbance to nesting birds. No LSE Sterna hirundo Reason: May nest within the site

Infilling of lagoon works will not be undertaken during nesting season (to be initiated at earliest in September), so no possibility of disturbing nesting birds.

Internationally Ruff Possible disturbance to foraging and No LSE important Calidris roosting birds populations of pugnax Reason: May forage on mud/silt/surface regularly water in Infill Area and Dorman’s Pools occurring migratory bird Dorman’s Pool screened from species disturbance. Low numbers using Infill

Designated Species Potential direct effect of Unmitigated Conclusion feature Works of Development of Likely affected Significant Effects (LSE)? Area with available alternative habitat: conclude impact not significant.

Red knot As for SPA (Table 7) No LSE Calidris canutus islandica Common As for SPA (Table 7) No LSE redshank Tringa totanus totanus An See Table 3 As for SPA (Table 7) No LSE internationally important assemblage of waterfowl

Therefore, screening concludes that for all qualifying breeding birds, disturbance to nesting birds will be entirely avoided. The effect of disturbance to feeding or roosting non-breeding individuals will be negligible. Therefore, all qualifying SPA bird species are screened-out of appropriate assessment.

6.2.2 Assessment of Indirect Effects on pSPA/Ramsar Habitats The site is in close proximity to the pSPA/Ramsar boundary and is hydrologically connected at both the intake and discharge of water. As described for the SPA (Section 6.1.2.) there is a risk of impacts on SPA habitats before mitigation measures are put in place. A description of these Likely Significant Effects is presented in Section 6.1.2. Therefore, the assessment concludes Likely Significant Effects if no mitigation is put in place. An appropriate assessment of the impacts on habitats on which pSPA- qualifying birds depend shall be undertaken.

6.3 Cumulative Effects of Other Plans/Projects The Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council planning portal was searched for other new plans and projects which could potentially impact upon the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast SPA/pSPA/Ramsar site and which may have cumulative or in-combination impacts with the site described here. The plans within 5km of the development over the last 12 months are presented in Table 9.

Table 10: Search results for plans listed on the Stockton-on-Tees planning portal within 5km of the development within last 12 months. Description of Location Conclusion of Ref No. Development Likely Significant Effects (LSE)? 18/1967/VARY Section 73 application to vary Reclamation No LSE condition(s) in relation to Pond Huntsman application 13/2185/VARY as Drive Seal Sands detailed in application TS2 1TT 11/0359/EIS (Conditions 2, 4, and 5). 13/2185/NMA Non-material amendment of Reclamation No LSE approval 13/2185/VARY- Pond Huntsman Application to vary condition Drive Seal Sands 2 (approved plans) of TS2 1TT 11/0359/EIS (Erection of 49MW renewable energy facility) 18/0218/FUL Erection of a 20-metre radio Ineos Nitriles No LSE mast with concrete base. Seal Sands Road Seal Sands Middlesbrough TS2 1UB 18/1777/FUL Application for the erection Subcoal No LSE 2.4 metres corrugated steel Production TSP fence. Ltd Huntsman Drive Seal Sands Middlesbrough TS2 1TT

A current project, older than 5 years but of relevance to the qualifying interests of the SPA and pSPA is the 02/1609/P: Proposed reprofiling of consented land fill area, extraction of clay and restoration and creation of water bodies and wildlife habitats. This project is for the restoration of wetland habitats at the site of the Cowpen Landfill site, roughly 3km from the site and as such shall benefit SPA-qualifying bird populations. Planning condition 5 of Permission 01/2203/P initially required that Phase 4 of the Reclamation Pond will not commence until the water bodies at Cowpen Landfill were completed. This condition has been amended to state that Phase 4 will not commence until the water bodies at Cowpen Landfill have commenced (01/2203/NMA: Non-material amendment to condition no. 5 of planning approval 01/2203/P [Approved 20/06/2017]). It is considered that the results above show that there will be No Likely Significant Effects from cumulative or in-combination impacts of other projects within a 2km radius of the development. These projects have not been considered further.

7 HRA Screening: Conclusion The screening exercise has shown that without mitigation, the proposed works may have Likely Significant Effects upon the habitats utilised by the qualifying bird species and therefore the conservation objectives of the SPA/Ramsar and pSPA/Ramsar. The Likely Significant Effects will require a Stage 2: appropriate assessment which will assess changes to the project, conditions or timing and mitigation that would avoid these effects.

8 Information to Inform Appropriate Assessment

8.1 Introduction The HRA Stage 1: Screening Assessment identified that the proposed works could potentially have significant adverse effects (Likely Significant Effects, LSE) on the following sites: • Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast SPA / Ramsar • Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast pSPA / Ramsar The screening assessment concluded that a Stage 2: appropriate assessment would be required to determine whether the proposed works would cause significant adverse effects after consideration of mitigation measures and any changes to the project. This includes the manner in which it is proposed to be carried out, or any conditions or restrictions subject to which the consent, permission or other authorisation should be given (mitigation measures necessary to avoid or reduce adverse effects). Where potential for LSE has been identified during screening, the nature and likely scale of effects on the integrity of the SPA/pSPA/Ramsar sites are reported, excluding those aspects that have been screened out. For the purposes of this assessment, ‘integrity’ is defined as: the coherence of its ecological structure and function, across its whole area, that enables it to sustain the habitat, complex of habitats and/or the levels of populations of the species for which it was classified. An appropriate assessment is a decision by the "Competent Authority" as to whether the proposed project can be determined as not having an adverse effect on the integrity of any European site. The Competent Authority in this case is Stockton-on Tees Borough Council.

8.2 Methodology The assessment has been conducted by Sweco Senior Ecologist Chris Rodger MSc MCIEEM and reviewed and approved by Sweco Principal Ecologist Claire Hopkins MSc MCIEEM. Professional judgement has been used to assess the potential for likely effects on the integrity of any relevant European site, based on interpretation of the results of surveys/desk study, potential impacts of the works, and having regard to good construction practices in implementation. Where there is uncertainty, the precautionary principle has been applied.

8.3 Avoidance and Mitigation Measures The sections below describe the mitigation measures that shall be put in place to address the Likely Significant Effects identified in the preceding Stage 1: Screening assessment. North Tees Remediation Limited have identified possible pathways whereby the works may affect the SPA/pSPA/Ramsar. The pathways identified were airborne dust and downstream effects of water-borne silt and other pollutants. Mitigation measures designed to address

these issues are described in Section 5 of the Waste Recovery Plan for Phase 4 of the Reclamation Pond8. These measures are described below.

8.3.1 Accidental Spillages The Waste Recovery Plan section 5.5.5 describes the following pollution control measures as follows:

• Safe handling of materials on level ground at a distance from watercourses;

• Storage of fuels and oils with secondary containment to capture spills and leaks;

• Spill kits available throughout site; and

• Storage maintained away from watercourses.

8.3.2 Run-off (silt) The Environmental Risk Assessment (Appendix B of the Waste Recovery Plan) describes the following mitigation measures: • Waste used to upfill the development platform to be compacted at time of delivery; and • Surface water catchments are in place to collect surface water and allow primary treatment of settlement to aid in removal of suspended solids. In addition, the Environmental Risk Assessment (Section 3.2.) details the following measures to ensure downstream impacts are prevented during culvert installation: • Water within the channel will be diverted and culvert construction will be undertaken in the dry; • To ensure any surface water remains uncontaminated a stone filter berm and straw bales will be constructed in downstream ditches to maintain water quality; • A detention basin prior to discharge will be formed to allow water to be stored prior to discharge; and • Water quality will be monitored throughout the operation. The proposed sediment control measures (detention basin layout) and hydrological monitoring locations are shown in Figure 3, Appendix A.

8.3.3 Dust / particulates The close proximity of the site and movement of vehicles presents a risk of dust/particulate drift from the site towards the European sites. The Environmental Risk Assessment (Appendix B of the Waste Recovery Plan) describes the following mitigation measures;

8 Reclamation Pond – Phase 4 Development. Waste Recovery Plan. North Tees Remediation Ltd. January 2019

• Dust suppression when required (e.g. periods of dry and windy weather); • Waste arriving on site to be visually inspected to assess for dusty loads and will be sprayed as when required before they are tipped; • Speed limit restrictions; and • Personnel to monitor and report any dust/particulate issues to site management for action.

9 Conclusions Mitigation detailed in Section 7 will avoid and reduce the all significant effects identified in the Stage 1: Screening assessment.

It is therefore concluded that with mitigation in place, there will be No Significant Effects upon the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast SPA/Ramsar and pSPA/Ramsar sites from the proposed development.

10 Appendix A: Figures

Figure 1: The site in relation to adjacent European sites Figure 2: The site Figure 3: Sediment control measures and hydrological monitoring areas

445000 450000 455000

Notes:- 1. Contains Ordnance Survey Data © Crown Copyright and Database Right 2017.

2. Accuracy of Map Image Not Guaranteed Due to Reproduction Methods.

3. Nearest Post Code TS2 1UE.

4. Waste Recovery Boundary and Area as Designed By Messrs "Oaklea Environmental Limited"

5. Drawing for Planning / Permit Purposes Only NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION.

Notes:- Site Boundary 2Km and 5Km From Boundary

Site Area

Mitigation Areas

Teesmouth and Cleveland Coastal Special Protection Area Proposed Special Protection Areas

20 Distances to Key Features (Metres)

525000 525000

Site Boundary 367

723

464 A 11/18 Addition of Cowpen habitat restoration area AS CR DORMANS POOL No. Date Revision By Chk

Drawn A Shepherd Date October 2018 PORT CLARENCE POOLS Checked C Rodger Date October 2018

Approved K Ross Date October 2018 2Km From 5Km From Site Boundary Site Boundary Client / Project

North Tees Remediation Limited

The Cube, Barrack Road, Newcastle Upon Tyne 520000 520000 NE4 6DB

Reclamation Pond Phase 4 Development

Habitat Regulations Assessment

Title

Figure 1:

Location of European Sites in relation to the Development Area

File Ref : RP-P4-HRA-01 Drawing No : RP-P4-HRA-01

Original Drawing Size: 841x594 - A1 Scale : 1:25 000 Rev : A

Sweco 2nd Floor Quay 2 139 Fountainbridge Edinburgh EH3 9QG Tel: +44 (0)131 550 6300 www.sweco.co.uk 445000 450000 455000 452 000

Notes:- 1. Contains Ordnance Survey Data © Crown Copyright and Database Right 2015. Data Obtained From Landmark "OS Detail" (12 Month Licence 100022432) October 2017.

2. Drawing Based Upon Survey Information Supplied by Messrs "GRIDMARK SURVEY LIMITED" Drawing Number "cjm1-1/9" Dated October 2017.

3. Site Boundary and Area as Designed By Messrs "Oaklea Environmental Limited". 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5

5.0 7.5

5.0 7.5 7.5 5.0 5.0

5.0 5.0 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 5.0 4. Drawing for Planning / Permit Purposes Only 7.5 5.0

2.5 2.5 7.5 2.5

2.5 2.5

2.5 2.5 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION.

2.5 5.0

7.5 5.0 2.5 2.5 7.5

7.5

2.5

7.5 2.5

2.5 2.5

2.5 5.0 2.5 7.5

7.5

2.5 2.5 7.5 5.0

7.5 7.5 7.5

7.5

2.5 5.0

10.0

5.0

2.5 2.5 Notes:- 5.0 2.5

5.0 7.5

7.5 Site Boundary

10.0 7.5

2.5

10.0 10.0 5.0

10.0 10.0 Overhead Power Lines

2.5

10.0

7.5

10.0 2.5 Existing Fence Lines

1.5

7.5 7.5

7.5

5.0

7.5 2.5 7.5 5.0 5.0 Site Area

7.5

10.0 7.5 5.0 10.0

7.5

7.5 Edge Bunds Removed

10.0

2.5 12.5

7.5 2.0 7.5 Phase 1-3 Area

7.5 7.5

10.0 12.5 2.0

10.0

12.5 7.5

2.5 7.5

5.0 2.5 7.5 Infill Area

10.0

7.5

10.0 7.5

7.5 SUDS Development Area

7.5 10.0

Phase 1-3 Area 7.5 Culvert Extension

10.0

2.5 2.5

7.5 7.5

5.0

2.0 Existing Drainage Areas Retained

7.5

7.5 10.0

7.5 1.5

7.5 7.5

1.5 2.5 10.0

7.5 2.5

1.5

5.0 1.5 1.5

7.5 10.0

2.5 2.5 2.5

10.0

7.5

2.5 2.5

2.5

2.5 1.5

5.0

7.5 2.5

2.5 10.0

2.5 2.5

7.5

10.0 1.5 2.5

2.5

INFILL

5.0 1.5 1.5

2.5

7.5 2.5

10.0 AREA 2.5

7.5

10.0 1.5

2.5 2.5 1.5 5.0

7.5

10.0

5.0

2.5

5.0 7.5

10.0

2.5 2.5 7.5

5.0

7.5

2.5

1.5

2.5

10.0

1.5 5.0

2.5 2.5

7.5

10.0

5.0 2.5

2.5

7.5 5.0

7.5

1.5 2.5

5.0

10.0

5.0 7.5

2.5

2.5 2.5 7.5

2.5

5.0

7.5 B 01/18 Client Changes AS CR

10.0 2.0 2.5 5.0

7.5 2.5

5.0 7.5 2.5 7.5 A 11/18 Client review AS CR

7.5

5.0 2.0

7.5 5.0

5.0 2.5 7.5

2.5 5.0 No. Date Revision By Chk

1.5 10.0 2.5 5.0

2.5 Edge Bunds Removed Culvert Extension

2.5

2.5 7.5 2.5

10.0

1.5 Drawn A Shepherd Date October 2018 2.5

2.5

5.0 5.0

7.5 2.5

10.0 5.0 5.0

2.02.0 2.5

2.5 Checked C Rodger Date October 2018 2.5

2.5 2.5

2.5

2.5 2.5 2.5

2.5 2.5

2.5 5.0

5.0 Approved Date

2.5

2.5 K Ross October 2018

2.5 2.5

2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5

2.5

5.0

5.0 5.0 5.0

5.0

7.5

7.5 7.5

7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5

523 000 7.5 523 000 7.5

7.5 2.5 2.5

7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5

5.0 Client / Project 5.0

7.5 North Tees Remediation Limited 7.5

5.0

5.0 The Cube, Barrack Road,

2.5 2.5

7.5 5.0

5.0 Newcastle Upon Tyne 2.5

2.5 NE4 6DB 5.0

5.0 7.5

5.0

2.5 5.0

2.5 5.0 Reclamation Pond 5.0

2.5 5.0

7.5 Phase 4 Development

2.5 Detention Basin

5.0

2.5 5.0

5.0

7.5 2.5 5.0 Habitat Regulations Assessment 5.0

2.5 5.0

2.5 7.5

2.5 5.0 5.0 Title

5.0

2.5

5.0

2.5 5.0

5.0 5.0 2.5

2.5

5.0 2.5

5.0 Figure 2:

5.0

5.0 5.0 5.0

5.0

2.5 2.5

5.0

5.0 5.0

5.0 Development Areas

5.0

7.5 7.5 7.5

7.5 7.5

7.5 7.5 File Ref : RP-P4-HRA-02 Drawing No : RP-P4-HRA-02

Original Drawing Size: 841x594 - A1 Scale : 1:2000 Rev : A

Sweco 2nd Floor Quay 2 139 Fountainbridge Edinburgh EH3 9QG Tel: +44 (0)131 550 6300 www.sweco.co.uk 452 000 452 000

2. Drawing Based Upon Survey Information Supplied by Messrs "GRIDMARK SURVEY LIMITED" Drawing Number "cjm1-1/9" Dated October 2017.

3. Site Boundary and Area as Designed By Messrs "Oaklea Environmental Limited". 8 78 8 7 6 6 45 5 67 4. Drawing for Planning / Permit Purposes Only

43 54 4 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION.

9 8 7 2 6 5 43

7 6 4 5 6 5

3 3 4 4 2

1 2

3 1 4

1 2 1 3

2 2 4

3 5

4 6

5 5

6 6 6

GW2 6 Notes:- GW3 Site Boundary Overhead Power Lines

6 Existing Fence Lines

6 66 6 54 GW1 6 4 Waste Recovery Area

5 Development Platform @ 6.01m AOD

4 SUDS Basin

DM303 Culvert Extension

Approximate Extent of Inspection Chamber

Development Platform 4 5

@ 6.01m AOD 6 Upgraded Access Road

6 Existing Culvert 5 4 Existing Inspection Chamber

DM101 Existing Drainage Areas Retained

GW6 Combined Gas & Groundwater Monitoring Borehole

5 6 Gas Monitoring Borehole

Surface Water Monitoring Location

GW4 4 DM601

4 4

5 6

GW7

6 B 01/18 Client Changes AS CR

A 11/18 Client Review AS CR

No. Date Revision By Chk

Drawn A Shepherd Date October 2018

6 Checked C Rodger Date October 2018 6

6 7 54

6 7 Approved K Ross Date October 2018

SW2 7 6 5 6

3 4

523 000 5 523 000 6

SW1 11 7 2

6 3 Client / Project

6 6

GW5

7 7 6 5 6 North Tees Remediation Limited 4 6 5 32 4 5 3 21 2 0 4 The Cube, Barrack Road,

6 5 4

3 2 2 7

0 1 Newcastle Upon Tyne 3 2

NE4 6DB 3 7

1 0

4 3

3 2

6 4

5 6

2 5 4

2 5 Reclamation Pond 46 3

5 6 6 5 6 4 7

3 7 Phase 4 Development

7 3 5 6 3 4

2 6

4 2 0 1 5

6 6 Habitat Regulations Assessment

5 5

1 0

3 2

5 6 4

5 6 5 5 6 Title 4 7

3 7

4 5 6 6 4 2 3 6 2 6 0 1 5

6 4 7

55 0 1 Figure 3:

2 2 6

5 4 6

4 2

0 3

1 4

2 Proposed Monitoring Plan 5

4 2 6

3 SW3

5 6

7 7 6 6 6 Detention Basin

6 6 File Ref : RP-P4-HRA-03 Drawing No : RP-P4-HRA-03

Original Drawing Size: 841x594 - A1 Scale : 1:2000 Rev : A

Sweco 2nd Floor Quay 2 139 Fountainbridge Edinburgh EH3 9QG Tel: +44 (0)131 550 6300 www.sweco.co.uk 452 000

11 Appendix B: Site Photographs

Photo Description Photographs Reference

Infill Area; area to be infilled. B1 Currently drained lagoon

Infill Area; area to be infilled. B2 Currently drained lagoon

Infill Area; area to be infilled. B3 Currently drained lagoon

Haulage track through site, looking west towards bund seperating Infill Area from the constructed development platform B4 (Platform Area) in northwestern quadrant. Note that level of upfill for Infill Area corresponds with low-point on bund.

Bund seperating Dorman’s Pool from the site. Note that Pool B5 level considerably lower than bund and effectively screened.

Drop-board sluice; controlling outflow of water from Dorman’s Pool into the site. When B6 closed, this effectively isolates Dorman’s (and SPA/pSPA/Ram sar) hydrologically from the site.

Outflow point for B7 drainage through the site.