Habitats Directive: Appropriate Assessment form for new applications Environment Agency record of Appropriate Assessment of adverse effect on site integrity of the European site (Stage 3) Part A: Technical consideration Permission, plan or project (PPP) details Type of PPP: Water Abstraction Licences (Licence renewal) Environment Agency reference no: NPS/WR/007223 (Plumsgate Road) NPS/WR/007224 (Ludham Road) National Grid Reference: TG 382 223 TG 386 206 Site reference: Plumsgate Road, Catfield, Norfolk Ludham Road, Catfield, Norfolk Note: Redactions have been made to remove any information that would allow for the location of public water supply abstraction to be identified. This is in line with guidance issued by DEFRA. If you wish to view the un-redacted documents which includes Figure 8.1 and Annex 1 of this document, these can be made available at either our Norwich or Ipswich offices. Please contact [email protected] to arrange an appointment. Contents: 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Appropriate Assessment 1.2 Decision Flow Chart 2.0 Summary of Proposal 2.1 Maps and Plans 3.0 The Broads SAC, Broadland SPA and Broadland Ramsar 3.1 Sensitive Features and Hazards 3.2 Overview and Conservation Objectives 3.3 Ant Broads and Marshes SSSI 3.3.1 Geological Setting 3.4 Overview of the Hydrological Sub Areas of the Ant Broads and Marshes SSSI 3.4.1 Sutton Broad 3.4.2 Sutton Fen Page 1 of 78 3.4.3 Barton Broad 3.4.4 Catfield Fen 3.4.5 Sharp Street 3.4.6 Crome’s Broad 3.5 Assessment Focus 4.0 Ecology and Sensitivity 4.1 H7210 SAC and Ramsar Feature: Calcareous Fens with Cladium mariscus and species of the Caricion davallianae 4.2 H7140 SAC Feature: Transition Mires and Quaking Bogs 4.3 H6410 SAC Feature: Molinia Meadows on calcareous, peaty or clayey-silt- laden soils (Molinion caeruleae) 4.4 S1903 SAC and Ramsar Feature: Fen Orchid (Liparis loeselii) 5.0 Previous Work 5.1 Reviews and Reports 5.1.1 Habitats Directive Review of Consents (2010) 5.1.2 Ecological Compendium (2011) 5.1.3 Catfield Fen Investigation (Amec, 2012) 5.1.4 Reports 1 - 4, Natural England (July - November 2013) 5.1.5 Reports 5 - 7, Natural England (September – November 2013) 5.1.6 Groundwater Summary Report (Environment Agency, 2014a) 5.1.7 Further Information 6.0 Observed Monitoring Data 7.0 Groundwater Modelling 7.1 North East Anglian Chalk (NEAC) Groundwater Model 7.2 Abstraction Scenarios 7.3 Water Chemistry: Water Balance Method 8.0 Assessment of the Potential Effect of Abstraction 8.1 Groundwater Abstraction In-combination 8.2 Hydrological Functioning and Decision Tables 8.3 Baseline for assessment 8.4 Conceptual Understanding of Groundwater Flow in the Area 8.5 Changes in Flow or Velocity Regime 8.5.1 Conclusion 8.6 Changes in Water Levels or Table 8.6.1 Conclusion 8.7 Changes in Water Chemistry 8.7.1 Conclusion Page 2 of 78 8.8 Habitat Loss 8.8.1 Conclusion 8.9 Summary of the Potential Effect of Abstraction Against Hazards 9.0 Other Plans, Permissions or Projects 9.1 Other Agency permissions 9.2 Other competent authority permissions 9.3 Other plans or projects 10.0 Other Potentially Contributing Factors 10.1 Water Level Management 10.2 Land Management 10.3 Rainfall 10.4 Air Quality 10.5 Climate Change 10.6 Summary of Other Contributing Factors 11.0 Environment Agency Conclusion . 12.0 Glossary 13.0 References Annex 1. Hydrological Monitoring and Licensed Abstractions in the Vicinity of Catfield Fen Annex 2. Site Designation Hierarchy Annex 3. Distribution of SAC Features across Ant Broads and Marshes SSSI Note: Hyperlinks have been used to link key documents and information to our webpage where they are already available. Unless otherwise stated, the use of ‘link’ takes the reader to the following webpage. http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/library/consultations/143536.aspx Please note, due to the convergence of the Environment Agency website to ‘.GOV’ on 01 April 2014, this link may redirect to a different address. Maps within this document are reproduced under © Crown copyright. All rights reserved. Environment Agency, 100026380, 2014. Page 3 of 78 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Appropriate Assessment Regulation 61 of The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 20101 (‘the Regulations’) requires all competent authorities to appraise new activities (plans, projects and permissions) for which they have responsibility (in line with Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive (‘the Directive)) and where these are deemed to have a likely significant effect on a Natura 2000 site and are not necessary for the management of the site, through an ‘Appropriate Assessment’. This process is preceded by a conclusion of likely significant effect. An Appendix 11 proforma (Environment Agency, 2013a) has been completed and agreed by Natural England on 22 August 2013. The Appendix 11 concluded a likely significant effect on the Ant Broads and Marshes component SSSI of The Broads SAC, see section 2.0. The Appropriate Assessment allows the competent authority to determine whether an activity, either on its own or in-combination with other plans and projects, would adversely affect the integrity of the site. The Habitats Directive does not set out a prescriptive procedure for an Appropriate Assessment, but the European Commission has issued general guidance, including checklists of what to consider in carrying out an assessment (European Commission, 2001). In the absence of detailed technical guidance, we have developed, tested and used our own technical procedures which are compliant with the Directive and Regulations. Our Appropriate Assessment procedure for new permissions (Environment Agency, 2010a) underpins this Appropriate Assessment. 1.2 Decision Flow Chart The key steps in the Appropriate Assessment for these renewal applications were: • Identify, obtain and review the information needed that describes the special conservation interest of the site (provided by Natural England, 2008) and the likely effect associated with the permit application (based on information provided by the applicant, Catfield Fen Investigation (Amec, 2012) and the Groundwater Summary Report (Environment Agency, 2014a)); • Establish the effects of the proposed abstraction by matching the predicted effects with the distribution of the most sensitive features known to be vulnerable to such changes; • Establish the risk to these features by predicting the most likely changes, if any, in the extent and distribution of the features, based on best available scientific knowledge; • Determine if any predicted changes would compromise the conservation status of the features, using Conservation Objectives and criteria for favourable condition status to inform that judgement; • Ensure that the judgement took full account of the effects of other activities already acting on the site and likely anticipated changes in the prevailing environmental conditions (either natural or influenced by humans); 1 The European Commission Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats & of Wild Flora & Fauna) passed in to domestic law by way of the Habitat Regulations (Conservation (Habitats &c) Regulations, 1994). This was superseded in April 2010 by the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 and subsequently amended 2012. Page 4 of 78 • Conclude, beyond all reasonable scientific doubt2 and taking account of uncertainties and assumptions made, whether or not the effects of the proposed permitted activity, acting alone or in-combination with others, would adversely affect the integrity of the site i.e. the structure and ecological functioning of the site. These steps and sources of information are summarised in Figure 1.1. Our overall conclusion was based on a sequential and systematic scrutiny of the predicted effects and likely ecological response. 2 This is defined as any doubts about the significance of impact on site integrity. These need to be removed as far as reasonably and practicable to do so and relies on the best available information. In practice, scientific doubts can be removed by being certain about the available scientific information and commissioning new research or studies if current knowledge is inadequate. This includes the quality of the data and the validity of assumptions and in particular predicted changes derived by surrogate means such as mathematical and ecological models (simulations). Where scientific knowledge is considered inadequate, expert judgement and local knowledge in particular are legitimate contributions to decision-making (Environment Agency, 2011). Page 5 of 78 START Applications submitted (December 2011) A compendium of ecological and eco-hydrological evidence from Catfield Fen, Norfolk at 31 January Likely significant effect 2011 (Natural England et al, 2011). assessment (LSE) through an Appendix 11 document Reviewof Consents outcomes and methodology. Based on the Yare & North Norfolk Groundwater First issue: 24/10/2012 Natural England & the Broads Authority consulted. Model Updated: 26/11/2012 Due regard given to their comments. LSE Finalised and agreed: conclusion agreed. 22/08/2013 Applications publicised 15/08/2012. Relevant information considered in assessment RSPB, Broads Authority, Nofolk Wildlife Trust & Collation of ecological Butterfly Conservation management plans evidence NE ecological advice via Reports 1 - 4 (Natural England, 2013 a-d). NE ecological advice via Pump test information and monitoring NE ecological advice via Reports 5 - 7 (Natural NE ecological advice viaEngland, Reports