Ecology and Nature Conservation · 2016-08-22 · ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT ABERNEDD POWER...

Annex C

Ecology and Nature Conservation

CONTENTS

C1 INTRODUCTION C-1

C1.1 TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THIS CHAPTER C-1 C1.2 BASIS OF ASSESSMENT INCLUDING REALISTIC WORST CASE SCENARIO C-1 C1.3 CONSULTATION C-2 C1.4 POLICY AND LEGISLATION C-3 C1.5 SUPPORTING INFORMATION FOR THIS CHAPTER C-6

C2 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY C-7

C2.1 DESK STUDY METHODOLOGY C-7 C2.2 BASELINE SURVEY METHODOLOGIES C-8 C2.3 IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY AND CRITERIA C-9

C3 BASELINE CONDITIONS C-11

C3.1 INTRODUCTION C-11 C3.2 ECOLOGICAL CONTEXT AND STUDY AREA C-11 C3.3 DESK STUDY RESULTS C-11 C3.4 FIELD SURVEY RESULTS C-16

C4 ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS C-20

C4.1 POTENTIAL IMPACTS C-20 C4.2 ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS DURING CONSTRUCTION C-C21 C4.3 ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS DURING OPERATION C-22 C4.4 MITIGATION MEASURES AND RESIDUAL SIGNIFICANCE OF EFFECTS C-24

C5 CONCLUSIONS C-26

APPENDIX A PRELIMINARY ECOLOGICAL APPRAISAL

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT ABERNEDD POWER COMPANY LTD

C-1

C1 INTRODUCTION

C1.1 TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THIS CHAPTER

This chapter presents an assessment of the likely significant ecological and nature conservation effects from construction and operation of the Proposed Development OCGT Option. The Proposed Development OCGT Option is the focus of this technical annex because it differs in a number of ways from the Consented Development. The assessment of effects for the Proposed Development CCGT Option is presented in Chapter 9 of this ES Addendum. The baseline nature conservation interests of the site for the Proposed Development OCGT Option are described, potential effects identified, proposed mitigation measures listed and an assessment of the significance of residual effects is made. Supporting ecological information is contained in Chapter 9 of the Abernedd Power Plant Environmental Statement-Final 27th August 2008 (1) (2008 ES) and Appendix A to this annex (Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) (Ecosulis, 2016 (2))). With regard to ecology, potential effects of the Proposed Development - OCGT Option as defined in Chapter 9 of the ES Addendum, include: secondary effects on statutory and non-statutory designated sites,

associated with emissions from combustion processes within the Proposed Development - OCGT Option;

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

effects on habitats in the Proposed Development - OCGT Option site area such as: open mosaic on previously developed land.

C1.2 BASIS OF ASSESSMENT INCLUDING REALISTIC WORST CASE SCENARIO

The ecological and nature conservation assessment made in this report is based on the following: the 2008 ES;

the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) conducted in July 2016

(Ecosulis, 2016);

the results of the modelling of emissions to air; and

the project layout as described in the Note on the Environmental Information to be provided for a Generating Station at Seaway Parade,

(1) Environmental Resources Management (2008) APCL – Abernedd Power Plant. (2) Ecosulis (2016) Abernedd Power Plant, Port Talbot: Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA).


C-2

Port Talbot, South Wales July 2016 (Abernedd Power Company ltd, July 2016) referred to throughout the rest of this ES Addendum as ‘the scoping note’. (The project layout dimensions detailed in the scoping note are indicative and potentially subject to change.)

For the purposes of assessment, permanent loss of all habitats is assumed for above ground operational components. For buried services (pipelines, cables etc.) it is assumed habitats in these areas will be temporarily lost for a period of one year, after which time they will be reinstated. In the case of construction laydown areas, it is assumed that habitat within these areas will be permanently lost as hardstanding areas will be retained after construction is concluded.

C1.3 CONSULTATION

The following statutory bodies were contacted in preparation of the 2008 ES to identify sites of nature conservation interest and any other habitats or species of note in proximity to the proposals: Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council (NPTCBC); Countryside Council for Wales (CCW); the Environment Agency (EA); the Bridgend and Vale of Glamorgan Reptile & Amphibian Group (BVGARG); the Glamorgan Badger Group; the Glamorgan Bat Group; the Glamorgan Bird Club; the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB); and the Wildlife Trust of South and West Wales. The following section summarises the key issues raised by these bodies. CCW raised concerns over the potential impacts of nitrogen deposition resulting from air emissions from the proposed development on European designated sites in the vicinity, including Crymlyn Bog Special Area of Conservation (SAC)(1) and Ramsar Site (2) and Kenfig SAC. CCW advised that, a Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) (under Regulations 48 of the Habitats Directive) will be required to determine whether these sites will be significantly adversely affected by the proposals, and advised the scope for the HRA. CCW also raised concerns of potential impacts on Crymlyn Bog by the abstraction of cooling water from Tennant Canal by the proposals, to which Crymlyn Bog is hydrologically linked. CCW reaffirmed that any likely

(1) Special Area of Conservation (SAC) is designated under the European Directive on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and Wild Flora and Fauna (92/43/EEC) (known as the Habitats Directive) to protect sites that are considered rare

because of their habit (2) Ramsar is a site that has been designated under the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as

Waterfowl Habitat (known as the Ramsar Convention) to protect internationally important wetlands


C-3

significant impacts on Crymlyn Bog SAC due to water abstraction may require a Habitats Regulations Assessment. Additionally, CCW requested consideration of potential impacts on the marine environment through waste water discharge of excess water via the Long Sea Outfall Discharge. The EA expressed a concern over the area of saltmarsh on the eastern bank of the River Neath at its mouth and stressed that the proposals should avoid any damage or disturbance to this area during all phases (construction and operational phases). The EA raised another potential issue regarding the vulnerability of Crymlyn Bog SAC to air pollution impacts through direct exposure and nitrogen deposition. The RSPB expressed a concern over potential impacts on breeding lapwings in the vicinity of the proposed CCGT power plant. Pre-application discussions with Neath Port Talbot Council, Natural Resources Wales (NRW) and the local community were undertaken and the results were submitted for consideration in the scoping note: Note on the Environmental Information to be provided for a Generating Station at Seaway Parade, Port Talbot, South Wales July 2016 (Abernedd Power Company ltd, July 2016). Further information relating to consultees comments on the scheme is provided in Annex A of the 2008 ES.

C1.4 POLICY AND LEGISLATION

C1.4.1 General Considerations

Relevant wildlife and countryside legislation has been referred to along with planning policy guidance and the Local Biodiversity Action Plans (LBAP) to inform this assessment. Legislation and guidance of relevance to the ecological impact assessment for the Proposed Development - OCGT Option is set out below.

C1.4.2 Policy

Policy relevant to the Proposed Development - OCGT Option is set out in the 2008 ES and as updated in Abernedd Power Company ltd, July 2016 scoping note. The table below identifies those policies that are relevant to ecology.


C-4

Table C1.1 Planning Policy relevant to the proposed development

Document Policy Summary

Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council

ENV4 –Proposals Affecting International and National Sites for

Nature Conservation

ENV5 – Nature Conservation

ENV10 – Coastal Protection

Neath Port Talbot Local Biodiversity Action Plan (NPT LBAP)

The aim of the NPT LBAP is to protect and enhance species and habitat found in the local area that are protected under legislation, listed as habitats or species of principal importance in Wales, or deemed to be of particular local importance.

C1.4.3 European Legislation

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

EC Council Directive 2009/147/EC on the Conservation of Wild Birds (the ‘Birds Directive’) provides a framework for the conservation and management of wild birds in Europe by introducing a general framework of protection. The Directive additionally provides for the identification and classification of Special Protection Areas (SPAs) for rare or vulnerable species listed in Annex I of the Directive, and for regularly occurring migratory species. EC Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora (The ‘Habitats Directive’)

In 1992 the then European Community adopted Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, known as the ‘Habitats Directive’. The main aim of this Directive is to promote the maintenance of biodiversity by requiring member states to introduce protection for these habitats and species of European importance. Included within the Directive is a requirement for the designation of Special Areas of Conservation (SAC), both for habitats listed under Annex I and for species listed within Annex II of the Directive. It also introduces a strict system of protection for species listed on Annex IV of the Directive (referred to as European Protected Species) irrespective of where they occur. Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, as amended (The ‘Habitats Regulations’)

In the UK, the ‘Habitats Directive’ was transposed into law by means of the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 (as amended). The Regulations came into force on 30th October 1994, and have been amended several times. Subsequently the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 were made which consolidate all the various amendments made to the 1994 Regulations in respect of England and Wales and is commonly known as the ‘the Habitats Regulations’. The Regulations contain five Parts and four Schedules, and provide for the designation and protection


C-5

of ‘European Sites’, the protection of ‘European Protected Species’, and the adoption of planning and other controls for the protection of European Sites. This legislation is the principal means by which the Birds Directive and ‘Habitats Directive’ are implemented in the UK.

C1.4.4 National Legislation

Table C1.2 below identifies the legislation relevant to ecology.

Table C1.2 Legislation Relevant to the Proposed Development

Legislation Section

The Environment (Wales) Act 2016

Part 1: Sustainable Management of Natural Resources:

Section 6.Biodiversity and resilience of ecosystems duty and Section 7.Biodiversity lists and duty to take steps to maintain and enhance biodiversity

Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015

Part 2: Improving Well-Being

Planning (Wales) Act 2015 Part 2: Sustainable Development

Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, as amended (WCA)

The WCA is the major legal instrument for wildlife protection in the UK; however the original act has been subject to significant modification by subsequent legislation. The WCA is the means by which the Bern Convention and the ‘Birds Directive’ are implemented in Great Britain. The WCA protects the most important habitats as Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs). Wild animals listed in Schedule 5 of the Act are subject to specific protection under Section 9, which make the following an offence: intentional killing, injuring and taking; possession or control; intentional or reckless damage to, destruction of, obstruction of access to

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

intentional or reckless disturbance of an animal occupying such a structure or place;

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

advertising for buying or selling. The WCA prohibits the intentional killing, injuring or taking of any wild bird (with certain exceptions) and the taking, damaging or destroying of a wild bird’s nest or eggs. Special penalties are given for offences related to birds listed on Schedule 1. It also provides a level of protection to plants listed in


C-6

Schedule 8 and makes it an offence to plant or otherwise cause to grow in the wild any plant that is included in Schedule 9 of the Act. Countryside and Rights of Way (CRoW) Act 2000 (as amended)

Part III of the CRoW Act deals specifically with wildlife protection and nature conservation. The CRoW Act amends the WCA, by strengthening the protection of designated SSSIs. In addition, it increases the legal protection of threatened species, by also making it an offence to ‘recklessly’ destroy, damage or obstruct access to a sheltering place used by an animal listed in Schedule 5 of the Act or ‘recklessly’ disturb an animal occupying such a structure or place. Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006

Section 40 of the act provides that every public authority, in exercising its functions, shall have regard, so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions, to the purpose of conserving biodiversity. Conserving biodiversity includes, in relation to a living organism or type of habitat, restoring or enhancing a population or habitat. A public authority includes a Minister of the Crown. It also requires the Secretary of State to publish a list of living organisms and habitat types which in his or her opinion are of principal importance for the purpose of conserving biodiversity. Before publishing that list, the Secretary of State is obliged to consult Natural Resources Wales. Protection of Badgers Act 1992

The Protection of Badgers Act 1992 was specifically put in place to protect the welfare of badgers (Meles meles) in the UK and protect them from persecution. The Act makes it an offence to: wilfully kill, take, possess or cruelly ill-treat a badger, or attempt to do so; interfere with a sett by damaging or destroying it; obstruct access to, or any entrance of, a badger sett; or disturb a badger when it is occupying a sett.

C1.5 SUPPORTING INFORMATION FOR THIS CHAPTER

Information on the results of baseline surveys and other studies is provided in Chapter 9 of the 2008 ES and Appendix A to this technical annex: Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) (Ecosulis, 2016).


C-7

C2 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

C2.1 DESK STUDY METHODOLOGY

A web-based desktop study was undertaken to inform the 2016 PEA (Ecosulis, 2016). The Bing Maps website was accessed for aerial views of the site and used as a visual aid to help put the site into context with its surroundings and to identify any potential features of interest in the surrounding land. The Multi-Agency Geographical Information for the Countryside (MAGIC) website was consulted for information on statutory site designations in the area. The local records centre was contacted for information on non-statutory site designations occurring on or within 2 km of the site and for records of protected/notable species occurring within 2 km of the site (5 km for bats). The desktop study was limited in that it could only provide information on species already recorded and could not be taken to represent a complete overview of all species present within the search area. Published sources of information were used to inform the 2008 ES and included: the Combined Heat and Power CCGT Power Station, Baglan Bay

Environmental Statement (ES) submitted in 1996;

Baglan Energy Park, Phase 2, Plot 6 Ecological Assessment (Pryce Consultant Ecologists, June 2006);

Neath Port Talbot Lapwing Surveys: 2006 to 2008, undertaken by Barry Stewart & Associates Consultant Ecologists on behalf of Neath Port Talbot Council;

National and Local Biodiversity Action Plans (UKBAP and LBAP) and National Biodiversity Network (NBN) Databases. The Neath-Port Talbot LBAP (NPTLBAP) reflects the aims and objectives of the national plans for the habitats and species found in the local area;

‘A report on the planning history and proposed developments affecting: Warm Wales Cymru Gynnes Ltd, BEP HQ Building, Baglan Energy Park, Seaway Parade, Port Talbot, West Glamorgan SA12 7AZ National Grid Reference (site): 273810 192250’ (Plansearch, 2002) was used in the 2008 ES assessment of cumulative impacts; and

The Neath Port Talbot County Borough Unitary Development Plan (NPTCBUDP), adopted in March 2008 which was reviewed to set the local policy context in terms of nature conservation (see the 2008 ES: Section 9.3.2).


C-8

C2.2 BASELINE SURVEY METHODOLOGIES

C2.2.1 Introduction

Ecological surveys were undertaken in 2007 and 2008 to inform the 2008 ES. These surveys included a Phase 1 Habitat Survey, great crested newt, reptile, breeding bird and bat surveys. During these surveys, incidental records of other fauna of potential interest were collected, including records of invertebrates and birds. A subsequent Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) was conducted in 2016 to update the Phase 1 information and identify if any further surveys were required. The full suite of surveys conducted in 2007 and 2008 have not been repeated as it was considered that the site of the Proposed Development - OCGT Option has undergone no significant change in the intervening time. These surveys broadly followed the standard survey guidance for habitats and species. The individual survey methodologies concerning the Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey of 2007 and PEA of 2016 are outlined below. Both surveys were based primarily on the Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey method.

C2.2.2 Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey

An initial Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey was undertaken by ERM consultants during April, May and June 2007. The adopted methodology followed the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey (2003) (1) as extended for use in Environmental Assessment (2). This involved classifying habitats within the proposed site area plus some areas within a 500 m buffer where access was available. These surveys determined the dominant plant species and compiled a species list for each habitat type. The site of the Proposed Development - OCGT Option was re-visited on the 6th July 2016 by the subcontractor, Ecosulis, who conducted a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal. The main development site was systematically walked and all habitats present and the dominant flora were recorded and mapped following the (JNCC) Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey (2003)(see Figure C3.2, Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey Map). The nomenclature of vascular plants occurring within the defined survey area followed Stace (2010) (3) during both the 2007 and 2016 surveys.

(1) Joint Nature Conservation Committee (2003) Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey - A Technique for Environmental

Audit, Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC), Peterborough. (2) Institute of Environmental Assessment (1995) Guidelines for Baseline Ecological Assessment, Spon, London. (3) Stace, C. (2010) New Flora of the British Isles. 3rd edition. UK. Cambridge University Press.


C-9

C2.3 IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY AND CRITERIA

C2.3.1 Overview

The EIA considers the likely effects of construction and operational activities on habitats and species of conservation interest. The assessment has been informed by a combination of desk based assessment and field based surveys and consultation, with further consultation to be continued with relevant statutory and non-statutory organisations as necessary. The significance of effects is determined using standard impact assessment methods and criteria, i.e. the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management’s (CIEEM) Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) in the UK and Ireland (2016). The assessment takes into account the magnitude of the impact and the nature conservation value of affected receptors. The residual effects are presented to make it clear to the decision maker and stakeholders the likely significance of the effects that will result from the Proposed Development - OCGT Option on nature conservation interest with all mitigation measures in places. Mitigation measures will be presented to avoid, minimise or reduce adverse effects; suitable opportunities to enhance the nature conservation interest of the site will also be developed. The ecological impact assessment and associated air quality assessment are intended to present sufficient information on the effects predicted on European designated sites to enable the competent authority to undertake, if required, a screening (1) or appropriate assessment (2) under the Habitat Regulations.

C2.3.2 Prediction of Impacts

The impacts of the Proposed Development - OCGT Option during construction and operation were assessed in relation to the findings of the ecological baseline surveys. In addition, possible impacts on designated sites in proximity to the Proposed Development - OCGT Option were considered.

C2.3.3 Significance Evaluation Criteria

The potential for ecological and nature conservation effects has been assessed in light of the habitats and the species that are likely to be affected by the Proposed Development - OCGT Option, taking into account the latest Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom published by the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM, 2016) (3).

(1) A determination as to whether a proposed development is likely to have a significant effect on a European site or

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

conservation objectives. (3) CIEEM (2016) Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom and Ireland: Terrestrial, Freshwater

and Coastal. CIEEM, Winchester.


C-10

As part of the assessment the significance of potential ecological effects has been evaluated taking into account the following factors: the magnitude of both positive and negative effects, as determined by

intensity, frequency and by the extent of the effect in space and time; the vulnerability of the habitat or species to the changes likely to arise

from the development;

the ability of the habitat, species or ecosystem to recover, considering both fragility and resilience;

the viability of component ecological elements and the integrity of ecosystem function, processes and favourable condition;

value within a defined geographic frame of reference (e.g. UK, national, regional or district);

the biodiversity value of affected species, populations, communities, habitats and ecosystems, considering aspects such as rarity, distinct sub-populations of a species, habitat diversity and connectivity, species-rich assemblages and species distribution and extent; and

designated site and protected species status including listing under section 42 of the NERC (2006) act, and as Priority Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) or Habitat Action Plan (HAP) status.

Effects are considered to be either significant or not significant in their residual effect on each ecological receptor, after taking into account criteria including the extent, magnitude and duration of the impact, zone of influence, mitigation measures and the confidence in predictions associated with the assessment.


C-11

C3 BASELINE CONDITIONS

C3.1 INTRODUCTION

This section sets out what is currently known about the baseline ecology and nature conservation interests of the Proposed Development - OCGT Option site.

C3.2 ECOLOGICAL CONTEXT AND STUDY AREA

The study area has been defined with reference to CIEEM guidance (2016), which requires that differing spatial sensitivities for different species and habitats are reflected in the zone of influence. The zone of influence for the Proposed Development - OCGT Option has been initially defined as: 10 km for statutory Designated sites these comprising Special Areas of

Conservation (SACs), Special Protection Areas (SPAs) and Ramsar sites, Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), National Nature Reserves (NNRs) and Local Nature Reserves (LNRs); 1 and

2 km for non-Statutory Designated sites; During the 2008 ES a buffer of up to 500 m was considered where access was available, and included areas on and adjacent to the pipeline that are not required for the proposed OCGT project. The PEA conducted in 2016 assessed the main development site with no buffer. Protected species recorded within 2 km of the Proposed Development - OCGT Option (5 km for bats) have been considered.

C3.3 DESK STUDY RESULTS

C3.3.1 Nature Conservation Designations

The Proposed Development - OCGT Option is not located within any statutory or non-statutory nature conservation designations. The closest designated sites are listed in Table C3.1.

Table C3.1 Ecological Designations

Ecological Designation

Name and Proximity to Proposed Development - OCGT Option Site

Ecological Qualifying Feature/s

SAC Crymlyn Bog (within 2km) Crymlyn Bog SAC comprises a floodplain-valley mire located within a lowland coastal context and is the most extensive wetland of its

1) For air quality assessment only European designated sites within 10km and SSSIs within 2km are considered in

accordance with Environment Agency H1 guidance


C-12




type in Wales. The site is primarily designated for supporting the Annex I habitats transition mires and quaking bogs, and calcareous fens with Cladium mariscus (great fen-sedge) and species of the Caricion davallianae. The Annex I habitat alluvial forests with Alnus glutinosa (alder) and Fraxinus excelsior (ash) (Alno-Padion, Alnion incanae, Salicion albae) forms a qualifying feature of the site but is not a primary reason for selection. The mire also features nationally rare species including Eriophorum gracile (slender cotton-grass) and a rich invertebrate fauna including many rare and highly localised species, such as the hornet robber fly and the blue-tailed damselfly. Some of the fen communities bear a close floristic affinity to certain floodplain mires in East Anglia. The presence of significant areas of Cladium mariscus is notable in extensive stands of this uncommon vegetation type, occurring at only three other sites in Wales.

Ramsar Crymlyn Bog (within 2km) Designated under Criterion 1 for the three Annex I habitat features as described for the SAC, Criterion 2 for supporting substantial population of the nationally rare Eriophorum gracile and a rich invertebrate fauna including many rare and highly localised species, and under Criterion 3 for supporting 199 vascular plant species including 17 regionally-uncommon and one nationally rare.

SSSI Crymlyn Bog (within 2km) A component of the Crymlyn Bog SAC/ Ramsar. Designated for similar ecological features as described above for the SAC/ Ramsar, principally areas of fen and wet woodland. In addition, this site also supports other habitats of interest including scrub, neutral grassland, marshy grassland, dry heath, open water and flushes and streams.

SSSI Crymlyn Burrows (within 2km)

This site is adjacent to Crymlyn Bog SAC/ Ramsar. It is one of the last remaining sections of the Swansea Bay Coastline which has remained largely unmodified by industrial development. It supports sand dunes intersected by areas of saltmarsh, which grade into wet dune slacks and carr woodland. These habitats support several locally important plant species such as Limonium binervosum (rock sea lavender), Lepidium lattifolium (dittander) and the rare Liparis loeselii (fen orchid) which occurs on the slacks.

SAC, Kenfig, (within 2km) Designated primarily for four Annex I habitats, comprising fixed dunes with herbaceous vegetation (‘grey dunes’), dunes with Salix repens spp argentea (creeping willow) (Silicion arenariae), humid dune slacks and hard oligomesotrophic waters with benthic


C-13




vegetation of Chara spp (stoneworts). The Annex I habitat Atlantic salt meadows (Glauco-Puccinellietalia maritimae) forms a qualifying feature of the site but is not a primary reason for selection as well as two Annex II species, Petalophyllum ralfsii (petalwort) and Liparis loeselii (fen orchid).

SSSI Kenfig, (within 2km) A component of the Kenfig SAC. Kenfig supports some of the most important and species-rich dune slack vegetation in the UK. Other habitats within the site include standing waters associated with the dune system together with a mixture of associated coastal habitats including saltmarsh, intertidal areas, swamp, woodland and scrub. The exceptional wetness of the Kenfig dune system is of national importance. In addition, the site is of special interest for the assemblages of plants, fungi and invertebrates that are associated with the sand dunes and standing waters. The following individual species are also of special interest: Petalophllum ralfsii (petalwort), Liparis loeselii (fen orchid), the medicinal leech, the shrill carder bee, the hairy dragonfly and a weevil.

SSSI Earlswood road cutting and ferryboat inn quarries (within 10km)

This SSSI is designated for its geological interest showing sections through the Carboniferous Rhondda Beds.

SSSI Eglywys Nunydd Reservoir (within 10km)

This site is designated for supporting the largest standing freshwater body in the county, which attracts a large number of wintering waterfowl and passage migrants.

SSSI Fforest Goch Bog (within 10km)

This site is designated as lowland raised bog and is considered to be the best site with the least disturbance in Wales.

SSSI Glais Moraine (within 10km)

This site is designated for its geological interest. It supports South Wales’ most spectacular end-moraine which is thought to represent a retreat stage of the Late Devensian ice sheet.

SSSI Margam Moorse (within 10km)

This site is the last remaining example of the once extensive coastal levels in West Glamorgan. It supports various habitats including dunes, meadows, mesotrophic marsh and fen meadow and ditch communities which support several plant species of interest including Butomus umbellatus (common name), Hydrocharis morsus-ranae (frogbit), Sagittaria sagittifolia (arrowhead), along with a nationally rare beetle and dragonfly and regionally rare beetle and water-bug, which occur along the ditches.

SSSI Pant y sais (within 10km) This site forms a component of the Crymlyn Bog SAC. This SSSI is mainly lowland fen located in a narrow valley, which supports a range of fen land communities and associated species, including Sphagnum and other bryophyte dominated areas of poorer fen vegetation, Molinia caerulea (purple moor-grass)


C-14




communities, swamps and developing fen carr. The Tennant Canal section acts as a refuge for aquatic plants, including locally-rare Butomus umbellatus (flowering-rush).

SSSI Blackpill (within 10km) Blackpill is designated as a wintering and passage site for many wading birds. Ringed plover and sanderling occur in excess of 1% of their British and Western European populations, making the Swansea Bay of international importance. Other species which occur here in local significance include oystercatcher, grey plover, bar-tailed godwit, knot and dunlin. The topography and seasonal remoteness of the foreshore at low tide is important for the maintenance of the site’s scientific interest.

NNR Crymlyn Bog and Pany y Sais (within 10km)

The site supports a large area of lowland fen and a number of unusual moth species.

NNR Kenfig Pool and Dunes (within 10km)

Overlaps the Kenfig SAC and SSSI. Designated for supporting one of the last remnants of a large sand dune system that once stretched along the coast from the river Ogmore to the Gower peninsula. The exceptional wetness of the Kenfig dune system is of national significance.

DRAWN: WBCHECKED: GTSAPPROVED: RE

PROJECT: 0350917

Figure C3.1Statutory Designated Sites Within 10 km

SSE

±0 1 2 3Kilometres

SCALE: See Scale Bar

PATH: \\ukbrsdc02\Data\Bristol\Projects\0350917 SSE Abernedd Powerstation.RE\GIS\MAPS\Ecology\P0350917_ProtectedAreasECO_A01.mxdSOURCE: © Crown copyright and database rights 2016Ordnance Survey 10034870; JNCC

PROJ

ECTIO

N: Br

itish N

ation

al Gr

id

Proposed OCGT SiteBoundaryRamsarSpecial Area of ConservationSite of Special ScientificInterestNational Nature Reserve DATE: 03/08/2016

VERSION: A01SIZE: A4

CRYMLYN BOG

CRYMLYNBURROWS

PANT-Y-SAISEARLSWOOD ROAD CUTTING

AND FERRYBOAT INN QUARRIES

MARGAM MOORS

EGLWYS NUNYDDRESERVOIR

KENFIG

KENFIG POOLAND DUNES

GLAIS MORAINE

FFORESTGOCH BOG


C-16

C3.4 FIELD SURVEY RESULTS

C3.4.1 Introduction

For ease of reference, key information from the individual field survey reports is summarised below and in the appendices to this document.

C3.4.2 Phase 1 Habitat Survey

The 2007 and 2016 surveys found no notable species of flora on the site, however a number of notable plant species were recorded in the surrounding area during the 2007 surveys. These species included the nationally Endangered Dianthus armeria (Deptford pink), Limonium binervosum agg (rock sea-lavender) and Juncus acutus (sharp rush), all of which were recorded within the surrounding areas of the proposed development areas and are listed on the UKBAP/ NPTLBAP. The 2016 PEA identified the site as dominated by bare ground and tall ruderals mosaic, concrete and tarmac area and recently disturbed areas with rubble piles. The area of mosaic of tall ruderals and bare ground is fenced, and as a result is subject to limited disturbance and no management. Ruderal habitat is low level and sparse, and has not become dense. The 2016 survey noted some areas of recently established semi-improved grassland in the south and north of the site. The dominant species being Yorkshire fog, fescue and perennial ryegrass. In the 2008 ES, the proposed site and much of the surrounding areas were noted to support habitats of low ecological value, including hard-standing, buildings and other man-made structures, along with areas of ephemeral/short perennial vegetation. Habitats within the site were assessed as having Site / Negligible ecological value in the 2016 PEA (Annex 5, CIEEM 2016) (1). (1) Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (2016) Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in

the United Kingdom Website. Accessed at www.cieem.co.uk

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! !

IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

| | | | | | | | | ||||||||||||||||||||

|||||||||||||||||||| || | || | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | || | | | |

| | | | || | | | |

| | | | || | | | |

| | | | || | | | |

| | | | || | | | |

| | | | || | | | |

| | | | || | | | |

| | | | || | | | |

| | | | || | | |

||||||||

||||||||

|||||||

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

| | | ||| | | | |

| | | | || |

||||||||||||| |

| | || || | | || | | | | || | | | |

| | | | || | | | |

| | | | || | | | |

| || | || | | | |

| | | | || || | |

| | ||||

||| |

!P

!P

!P

Rabbitburrows

Lapwing

Wet area-sporadicwater levels

DRAWN: WBCHECKED: GTSAPPROVED: RE

PROJECT: 0350917

Figure C3.2Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey Map

SSE

±0 100 200 300

Metres

SCALE: See Scale Bar

PATH: \\ukbrsdc02\Data\Bristol\Projects\0350917 SSE Abernedd Powerstation.RE\GIS\MAPS\Ecology\P0350917_Phase1Survey_A01.mxdSOURCE: © Crown copyright and database rights 2016Ordnance Survey 10034870

PROJ

ECTIO

N: Br

itish N

ation

al Gr

id

DATE: 03/08/2016

VERSION: A01SIZE: A4

!P Target NotePhase 1 Survey Data| | | | | | | | J2.4 - Fence

A1.1.1 - Broadleavedwoodland - semi-natural

! !

! !! ! !

! ! !A1.3.1 - Mixed woodland -semi-natural

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! A3.2 - Coniferous

parkland/scattered trees

! ! !

! ! !! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !A3.3 - Mixedparkland/scattered trees

IS IS ISIS IS IS B2.2 - Neutral grassland -

semi-improvedC3.1 - Other tall herb and fern- ruderalG1 - Standing waterJ3.6 - Buildings

! !

! !

! !

! !

! !

! !

J4 - Bare ground


C-18

C3.4.3 European Protected Species

The surveys conducted to inform the 2008 ES found low levels of bat activity on site and assessed three buildings as providing Low and Negligible suitability for roosting bats. Emergence surveys of these buildings recorded no emerging bats. The buildings on site were not accessible during 2016 for survey and if the buildings are to be affected, the PEA recommends that they are assessed for their potential for roosting bats and where possible internal inspections take place. The PEA notes that the habitats present do not offer foraging or commuting opportunities. The Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey of 2007 recorded no evidence of otter and dormice presence of on site and assessed the site as providing low suitability for these species. The 2016 survey indicates that there is no suitable habitat present on site to support these species. Water bodies in the surrounding area were found to offer some potential for great crested newts during 2007 and 2008 surveys, however no great crested newts were recorded during surveys for this species. No amphibians were recorded on site during the 2016 visit. The PEA notes the habitats present on site offering limited terrestrial opportunities for great crested newts. Two of the three ponds on site (the third was not accessible) were considered not suitable for great crested newts with Habitat Suitability Indices calculating the ponds as poor.

C3.4.4 Nationally Protected Species

The mosaic of habitats is representative of NERC Section 42 habitat “Open Mosaic Habitat on Previously Developed Land”. Such habitat may have invertebrate interest although no obvious evidence of this was present during the Phase 1 survey. Public record searches are outstanding and this will help inform the baseline assessment. If this indicates invertebrate potential pre-construction surveys may be required. The Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey of 2007 and 2016 PEA recorded no evidence of presence of badger or water vole on site and assessed as the site as providing low suitability for these species. No notable bird species were recorded on site during the 2007 and 2008 survey or the breeding bird survey. However, lapwing surveys in 2008 found three nests in the site boundary and lapwing using the site for foraging. Lapwing are recorded breeding in the surrounded area. Nesting lapwing were recorded on site during the 2016 survey and the potential for the site to support ground nesting birds was noted. During surveys to inform the 2008 ES, the site was assessed as having suitability for reptiles. No reptiles were recorded on site during the reptile surveys, however common lizard were recorded to the north-west of the site. The 2016 PEA noted the potential for the site to support reptiles with basking and refuge opportunities present. A preconstruction update reptile survey of


C-19

the site is recommended to assess the use of the site by reptiles, in particular common lizards.

C3.4.5 Other Species

Several rabbit burrows were noted during the 2016 surveys. No other signs of small mammals were recorded during the 2016 visit with limited suitable habitat to support such species. No further evidence of protected/notable species was recorded during the survey.

C3.4.6 Survey Limitations

The woodland to the north and north-west of the site and a number of buildings could not be fully accessed during the 2016 survey. This was partly due to a fenced section. The water body in the northwest of the site was not surveyed as it was not accessible.


C-20

C4 ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS

C4.1 POTENTIAL IMPACTS

Potential impacts that may arise from construction are addressed in the 2008 ES and include: permanent loss of habitat or species due to permanent or temporary land

take for the Proposed Development - OCGT Option;

disturbance to, or displacement/exclusion of, a species from foraging habitat due to construction and operational activities;

creation of barriers to the movement of animals and plants with limited power of dispersal;

disturbance or damage to adjacent habitats and species caused by movement of vehicles and personnel, artificial lighting, dust, spillage of fuels and chemicals, emissions and noise;

introduction or spread of invasive alien species during the construction works;

impacts on habitats caused by alterations to drainage regimes; and

creation of new habitat and introduction of species as a result of reinstatement works, habitat enhancement proposals and landscaping.

Potential impacts that may arise from operational activities include impacts on designated sites within 10 km of the Proposed Development - OCGT Option through air emissions resulting from operation of the proposed OCGT power plant alone and through ‘in-combination’ effects between the proposals and the existing Baglan Bay Power Station (as detailed in the 2008 ES, Chapter 2 Scheme Description and Chapter 12, Air Quality). Impacts on sensitive habitats and/or species and designated sites associated with decommissioning activities are predicted to be similar to those of construction. However, at present it is not possible to confirm what decommissioning measures will be undertaken. It is assumed that the technology and best practise techniques for decommissioning and demolition will have advanced by the time decommissioning is due and therefore potential negative effects will be minimised. The purpose of the following sections is to identify likely significant effects and mitigation. This includes effects linked to other EIA subjects, for instance the potential for air pollution to affect habitats and species.


C-21

C4.2 ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS DURING CONSTRUCTION

C4.2.1 Designated Sites

None of the designated sites listed in Table 1.2 of this ES Addendum or Section 9.5 of the 2008 ES will be directly or indirectly affected by construction activities (including any emissions to the atmosphere and discharges to watercourses) as they are all sufficiently distant from the development area (see the 2008 ES Chapter 12, Air Quality and Chapter 13, Water Quality).

C4.2.2 Habitats

The 2008 ES identified that construction activities will predominantly affect existing hardstanding areas, but will result in the permanent loss of small amounts of habitat including ephemeral/short perennial vegetation, lichen/bryophyte heath and introduced shrub. The habitats identified during the 2008 surveys that will be lost due to construction are considered to be of low ecological value and can be recreated relatively quickly and easily in this type of environment. The 2016 PEA noted that the habitats present would not offer potential sites suitable for notable or protected plant species. Adjacent habitats of higher ecological value will not be directly affected by construction. Therefore it is considered that construction activities will not have a significant impact on habitats within the site and its surrounds.

C4.2.3 Species

Species assessments incorporating the information gained from the 2016 PEA with that from the 2008 ES are as follows. There is no evidence of bats roosting within the two buildings identified as having negligible and low potential respectively within the site. Subsequent bat emergence surveys reported in the 2008 ES indicated very low levels of bat activity (1-2 common pipistrelles). The site is open, exposed and, as described in the 2016 PEA, is already subject to significant light spill from the adjacent power plant. The limited foraging habitat within and adjacent to the site is insufficient to allow bats to rear or nurture their young and its loss will not have a significant effect on bat populations. No significant effects are predicted for bats and no derogation licences in relation to the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 are required. No evidence of otter, water vole or dormouse were found in the survey area assessed in the 2008 ES or the 2016 PEA and it is concluded that the Proposed Development - OCGT Option will have no impact on these species. There was no evidence of great crested newt found during the surveys conducted in 2007, 2008 or 2016.The PEA of 2016 assessed the two accessible ponds as having a poor HSI with limited terrestrial opportunities for great crested newt. Although three further ponds accessed in 2008 were not subject


C-22

to HSI survey in 2016 due to access limitations there are no new recent records of great crested newt held by South East Wales Biodiversity Records Centre (SEWBReC). Given the low likelihood of colonisation (based on absence of known populations within 2 km), and poor quality habitat particularly in relation to HSI surveys in 2016 and presence absence surveys of a larger suite of waterbodies reported in the 2008 ES, it is reasonable to assume the species is absent. Therefore no impacts are predicted. The site contains an open mosaic of habitats which is potentially suitable for invertebrates. No protected or notable species were recorded during site visits, and data from the SEWBReC indicates the nearest recorded notable invertebrates are 0.8km from the site. Given the open and isolated nature of the site and limited suitability for the notable species identified colonisation is unlikely therefore it is currently considered that construction activities will not have a significant impact on invertebrates within the site. It is considered that construction activities will not have a significant effect on badgers. The 2008 and 2016 surveys did not identify any signs of badger on the site and the PEA noted that the existing fenceline surrounding the site could act as a barrier to badger movement although the surrounding area is not considered to provide suitable habitat for badger. The 2016 PEA and 2008 ES recorded the presence of Lapwing on site and that the Proposed Development - OCGT Option could result in the loss of breeding bird habitat. The 2008 ES considered the amount of habitat lost to be small and its quality as breeding habitat is considered to be low in relation to the amount of similar habitat in surrounding areas. With the mitigation measures described in C4.5 in place, it is considered that there will be no significant effect on lapwing. The 2008 ES identified suitable reptile habitat present in areas around the site and the 2016 PEA recorded suitable basking and limited foraging habitat within the site and potential refugia amongst an area of rubble. This area of rubble had recently been disturbed and no sightings of reptiles were recorded in either the surveys conducted to support the 2008 ES or during the 2016 PEA. Check surveys prior to construction were recommended in the 2008 ES and this mitigation will be retained. No significant adverse impacts on reptiles are anticipated as they are likely absent and check surveys prior to construction will be undertaken to confirm this. .

C4.3 ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS DURING OPERATION

C4.3.1 General Considerations

The main operational impacts identified relate to emissions to air leading to air quality, nitrogen and acid deposition impacts on designated sites. Annex B of this ES Addendum sets out the results of the dispersion modelling for the sensitive ecological receptors due to acid deposition, nutrient nitrogen deposition and contribution to ambient NOX concentrations.. Impacts on


C-23

sensitive ecological receptors have been quantified on the basis of the largest impacts arising at any point on the designated habitat within 10 km radius of the Proposed Development - OCGT Option. Ecological receptors sensitive to emissions to atmosphere were identified in line with Environmental Agency Guidance Note H1 (1) and comprise: European designated sites within 10 km of the Project, including the

Crymlyn Bog SAC and Ramsar Site, Kenfig SAC ; and

Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) including Crymlyn Burrows and Pant-y-Sais SSSIs, National Nature Reserves (NNRs), Local Nature Reserves (LNRs), local wildlife sites and ancient woodland within 2km of the location of the installation.

The modelling assumed that the new plant will be operating at maximum capacity for 8,760 hours per annum. This approach is conservative, as in practice the plant will not operate continuously but more likely less than 1,500 hours per annum. In addition a maximum allowed NOx concentration of 50 mg/Nm3 @ 15% O2 in the stack emissions has been assumed, whereas modern turbines are expected to perform well within this level. No consideration of different emissions during start-up and shutdown has been made. The results of the air quality modelling are assumed to be worst case and an assessment of their implications is provided within Annex B of this ES Addendum As cooling water supply from natural water courses will not be needed for the Proposed Development – OCGT Option potential operational impacts through water abstraction from the Neath and Tennant Canals addressed in the 2008 ES are not considered further. Air quality impacts are discussed below.

C4.3.2 Designated Sites and Air Quality Impacts

There is the potential for Crymlyn Bog SAC/ Ramsar Site, Kenfig SAC, Crymlyn Bog SSSI, Crymlyn Burrows SSSI and Pant y Sais Fen SSSI to be affected by air emissions. Kenfig SAC, Crymlyn Bog Ramsar and Pant y Sais support areas of sand dunes, flushes fens and swamps and transition mires and quaking bogs, along with several notable plant species. These features are vulnerable to Nitrogen and acid deposition. Increased nitrogen in the soil can potentially result in the invasion of more aggressive plant species, including Molinia caerulea (purple moor-grass) grasslands (2).

(1) The Environment Agency for England and Wales (2010) Horizontal Guidance Note H1: Annex F (2) Uta Friedrich, Goddert von Oheimb, Christoph Dziedek, Wolf-Ulrich Kriebitzsch, Katharina Selbmann, Werner Härdtle, Mechanisms of purple moor-grass (Molinia caerulea) encroachment in dry heathland ecosystems with chronic nitrogen

inputs, Environmental Pollution, Volume 159, Issue 12, December 2011, Pages 3553-3559


C-24

Given the worst case approach adopted, the actual annual NOx ground level concentrations, nutrient and acid depositions will be lower than those predicted. This is particularly important for Crymlyn Burrows where for annual mean NOx the potential for a ‘significant contribution’ has been identified. However, the PC is 1.11% of the critical level, and in practice this will not arise. This is due to the fact that the plant will not operate continually but is likely to operate for less than 1,500 hour per year, and that the turbine emissions will not be at 50mg/Nm3, and instead will likely be <30mg/Nm3. . The plant would need to operate for more than approximately 7890 hours per year or with emissions of >45mg/Nm3 for this impact to arise in practice. The contributions to daily mean NOx concentrations, nutrient and acid depositions at each of the sensitive habitats are considered not significant.

C4.3.3 Cumulative Effects

No significant cumulative impacts were recorded in the 2008 ES. The 2008 ES notes that the habitats lost as a result of the Proposed Development - OCGT Option are of low ecological value and are common and widespread in surrounding areas, with no significant impacts on species expected to occur. A number of new developments within 1km have been identified since 2008 and detailed in Chapter 4 Overview of Existing Conditions of this ES Addendum. Most are part of the Baglan Bay and Baglan Bay Energy Park regeneration and will occupy plots within the regeneration area. These areas are similar to those for the OCGT and likely to have low biodiversity value and with the exception of breeding lapwing no significant effects are expected. As any of these proposals will be required to address this issue, and it is already proposed to extend the mitigation area to accommodate displaced lapwing, significant cumulative effects will be avoided. In term of cumulative air quality effects on designated sites a number of additional power plants have been identified with varying levels of uncertainty relating to their eventual commissioning. These will be addressed at the Environmental Permit (EP) application stage when the detailed design is submitted.

C4.4 MITIGATION MEASURES AND RESIDUAL SIGNIFICANCE OF EFFECTS

In addition to the mitigation outlined in the 2008 ES the survey work and assessment undertaken as part of this ES Addendum has identified some further measures as summarised below: the retention of the commitment to extend the existing area of mitigation

for breeding lapwing as stated in the 2008 ES;

a nesting bird check to be carried out if works to clear an area of tall ruderal and bare ground mosaic are planned during the breeding bird


C-25

season;

a preconstruction update reptile survey of the site;

in line with the council’s duty to seek biodiversity enhancements, the incorporation of wildlife friendly features in the appropriate areas of the site (where they do not conflict with operations) is recommended, such as:

shelter belts

the planting of native plant species which provide benefits to wildlife, including fruit and nut bearing species;

green corridors to enable wildlife to disperse through the site post-development; and

refuge creation such as log or rubble piles for small mammals and invertebrates; and

the implementation of a Precautionary Method of Working (PMW) document during construction, to include measures for reptiles, and nesting birds.


C-26

C5 CONCLUSIONS

This ES Addendum informed by the PEA undertaken in July 2016 supports the 2008 ES conclusion that with the proposed mitigation in place, there will be no significant residual effects on any species of note from the proposed OCGT Abernedd Power Plant. The air quality assessment of 2016 concluded that there would be no significant effect on Crymlyn Bog Ramsar site, Kenfig SAC and Pant y sais SSSI, confirming the findings of the 2008 ES. A potential for a ‘significant contribution’ to annual ambient NOx

concentration has been identified at the Crymlyn Burrows SSSI. This effect will be avoided by operating the plant for no more than 1,500 hours per year.

Appendix A

Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

Experience Better

Ecosulis LtdThe Rickyard

Newton St LoeBath BA2 9BT

T: 01225 874 040E: [email protected]: www.ecosulis.co.uk

Company Registration Number: 372 4176VAT Number: 601216305

ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001Certificate Number 6745

Ecosulis Ltd (London Office)2 Sheen Road, Richmond TW9 1AETel: 020 8973 2428

Ecosulis Ltd (Exeter Office)The Innovation Centre, University of Exeter,Rennes Drive, Exeter, Devon EX4 4RNTel: 01392 247 906

Ecosulis Ltd (Chester Office)Herons Way, Chester Business Park,Chester CH4 9QR Tel: 01244 893 130

Ecosulis Ltd (Welsh Office)Britannia House, Caerphilly Business Park,Caerphilly CF83 3GGTel: 02921 679 141

ABERNEDD POWER PLANT,

PORT TALBOT

Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA)

Client: ERMReference: J006138

Date of Report: July 2016

Report Expiry: July 2017

Issue: Date: Written by: Reviewed by: Amended by: Approved by:One 13 July 2016 ENS SK ENS SKTwo 22 July 2016 - - ENS -

__________________________________________ Ecosulis ____

ABERNEDD POWER PLANT J006138

NON-TECHNICAL SUMMARY

Site name, location,grid reference and size

Abernedd Power Plant, Port Talbot; SS 733 922; 43 ha

Scope and Purpose ofWorks

Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, web-based desktopstudy and local records centre request for speciesrecords and site designations

To accompany and inform a planning application.

Dates of site visits andnames of surveyors

6 July 2016; Sara King BSc MCIEEM,Emma Northcote-Smith MRes

Overview The site is divided up into six Habitats:

A1.1.1 – Broad-leaved woodland – semi-natural

A1.3.1 - Mixed woodland - semi-natural

B2.2 - Neutral grassland - semi-improved

C3.1 - Other tall herb and fern - ruderal

G1 - Standing water

J3.6 - Buildings

J4 - Bare ground

The site supports opportunities for the followingnotable habitats/species:

Nesting birds

Reptiles

Small mammals

The site is dominated by bare ground and tall ruderalsmosaic, concrete and tarmac area and recentlydisturbed areas with rubble piles. There are someareas of recently established semi-improved grasslandin the south and north of the site. A number ofbuildings are present on site, located in the north-westof the site that were not accessible during the survey.

Nesting lapwing were recorded on site during thesurvey, as well as several rabbit burrows. No furtherevidence of protected/notable species was recordedduring the survey.

Action Required forPlanning and/or LegalCompliance

Lapwing were recorded on site and mitigation shouldfollow that outlined in the previous survey report(ERM, 2008). This includes an existing area ofmitigation for breeding lapwings and theimplementation of an additional area adjacent to this.

A nesting bird check should be carried out if tallruderal and bare ground mosaic is cleared during thenesting bird season (March to September inclusive).

An update reptile survey of the site is recommended toassess the use of the site by reptiles, in particularcommon lizards.

A Precautionary Method of Working (PMW) documentis recommended during construction, to include

__________________________________________ Ecosulis ____


measures for reptiles, small mammals, amphibiansand nesting birds.

Ecologicalenhancement

(Site ecologicalenhancement isrequired under currentplanning policy)

Ecological input will be provided into the sitemasterplan and landscaping scheme to ensure suitablegreen corridors are provided to enable wildlife todisperse through the site post-development and toensure optimal foraging opportunities are provided fora variety of faunal species/groups.

Refuge creation – deadwood, log, rubble or brash pilesfor small mammals /invertebrates.

If possible, the grassland in the south-east cornershould be retained and enhanced for wildlife.

__________________________________________________________________________ Ecosulis_____


Seasonal Constraints and Potential Risk to Programme

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Additional considerations

Reptile survey Reptile surveys require approximately fourweeks to complete

Nesting bird checkIf active nests are recorded, no works cantake place within these areas until chickshave fledged (usually three–four weeks).

Note: The timings of the nesting bird season and hibernation periods are indicative only (subject to local climatic conditions)

– Optimal Survey Season

- Sub-optimal Survey Season

_________________________________________ Ecosulis ______


CONTENTS

1 Introduction ...............................................................................................1

2 Baseline Ecological Conditions: Site and Habitat Descriptions ....................3

Figure 1 .................................................................................................................5

3 Baseline Ecological Conditions: Designated Sites .......................................6

4 Baseline Ecological Conditions: Protected/Notable Species........................8

5 Conclusion ................................................................................................13

References/Bibliography....................................................................................... I

Annex 1: Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Methodology...................................... II

Annex 2: Species List (species recorded on site).................................................IV

Annex 3: Legislation and National Planning Policy ............................................... V

Annex 4: Overall site evaluation – Ratcliffe criteria (1977).................................IX

Annex 5: Defining ecological values for component habitats – CIEEM (2016) .....XI

_________________________________________ Ecosulis ______

ABERNEDD POWER PLANT 1 J006138

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 In July 2016, Ecosulis was commissioned by ERM to undertake a Preliminary

Ecological Appraisal (PEA) of land at Abernedd Power Plant, Port Talbot. This is an

update assessment of ecological survey works undertaken in 2007 by ERM (report

reference APCL – ABERNEDD POWER PLANT).

1.2 The current proposals for the site include a proposed gas-fired combined cycle gas

turbine power station. The purpose of the survey is to accompany and inform a

planning application.

1.3 This report has been written in accordance with British Standard BS42020:2013.

Survey methodologies follow the JNCC 2010, CIEEM 2016 and Ratcliffe 1977

(Annex 1 gives full methodology). Plant names follow the nomenclature of

Stace (2010).

Objectives of Study

1.4 The objectives of this study are: to provide information on the existing ecological

conditions at the site; to identify potential constraints and opportunities that

ecology may pose to the development plans; and to identify further ecological

studies that may be required to ensure that ecology is fully considered within the

proposals.

General Site Description

1.5 The site is 43ha, centred on OS grid reference SS 733 922 and is situated near

Baglan in Port Talbot, Wales. It comprises bare ground and tall ruderal mosaic with

some areas of recently established semi-improved grassland. The site is

surrounded by fencing, and supports some small areas of mixed and broadleaved

woodland in the northern section of the site.

1.6 Baglan Power Station is located to the north-west of the site and Baglan Energy

Park is located to the north of the site. Baglan Bay is located to the south and

south-west of the site.

_________________________________________ Ecosulis ______


2 PREVIOUS SURVEY FINDINGS

2.1 ERM undertook an Extended Phase 1 survey in 2007, two great crested newt

surveys in 2007 and 2008, reptile surveys in 2007, breeding bird surveys in 2007,

and bat surveys in 2007.

2.2 The surveys found no notable species of flora on the site, however a number of

notable plant species were recorded in the surrounding area.

2.3 The surveys found low levels of bat activity on site and assessed three buildings as

providing Low and Negligible suitability for roosting bats. Emergence surveys of

these buildings recorded no emerging bats.

2.4 The Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey recorded no evidence of presence of badger,

otter, dormice and water vole on site and assessed as the site as providing low

suitability for these species.

2.5 No notable bird species were recorded on site during the survey or the breeding

bird survey. However, lapwing surveys in 2008 found three nests in the site

boundary and lapwing using the site for foraging. Lapwing are recorded breeding in

the surrounded area.

2.6 The site was assessed as having suitability for reptiles. No reptiles were recorded

on site during the reptile surveys, however common lizard were recorded to the

north-west of the site.

2.7 Water bodies in the surrounding area were found to offer some potential for great

crested newts, however no great crested newts were recorded during the surveys

for this species.

_________________________________________ Ecosulis ______


3 BASELINE ECOLOGICAL CONDITIONS: SITE AND HABITAT DESCRIPTIONS

Component Habitats

3.1 Species lists are provided in Annex 2. The location and extent of habitats are

shown on Figure 1.

A1.1.1 – Broadleaved Woodland – Semi-natural

3.2 There are small patches of broad-leaved woodland in the north of the site.

However, these were not accessible as access could not be granted to the fenced

section.

A1.3.1 – Mixed Woodland - Semi-natural

3.3 Small patches of semi-natural mixed woodland are also present in the north-west

section of the site, however these could not be fully accessed.

B2.2 – Neutral Grassland – Semi-improved

3.4 The south-west corner of the site is comprised of recently established semi-

improved grassland with a medium sward height (20-30cm). The dominant species

are Yorkshire fog, fescue and perennial ryegrass. Other species present include

bramble, common thistle, buddleia and ragwort. There is also an area of recently

established semi-improved grassland with similar species composition in the north

of the site. This area appears to be relatively undisturbed and subject to minimal

management.

C3.1 – Other Tall Herb and Fern – Ruderal

3.5 The site is dominated by a mosaic of tall ruderals and bare ground. Dominant

species include buddleia, ragwort, dandelion, willow herb, bramble, scarlet

pimpernel and bird’s foot trefoil. This habitat is fenced, and as a result is subject to

limited disturbance and no management. Ruderal habitat is low level and sparse,

and has not become dense.

G1 – Standing Water

3.6 A pond is located within the grassland in the north of the site. The pond is

dominated by bulrush and is very overgrown with little water showing. There are

orchids surrounding the pond. There is an area of standing water in the north-east

of the main block of the site, which looks to have varying sporadic water levels as

damp earth and bulrush are present in the surrounding area (target note 1). A

second waterbody located in the north-west of the site in an area that was not

accessible.

J3.6 – Buildings

3.7 There are a number of buildings on site. However, these were not accessible during

the survey. The buildings are all currently in use and associated with the power

plant.

_________________________________________ Ecosulis ______


J4 – Bare Ground

3.8 The south of the site features recently disturbed areas of bare ground with large

rubble heaps. The northern section of the site features concrete and tarmac car

parks, roads and areas surrounding buildings. These areas have recently been

disturbed and therefore do not support any vegetation.

Adjacent Habitats

Habitat Valuation Assessment

3.9 A habitat valuation assessment of the habitats present on site is included below

and detailed in Annex 3. This is based on the Defra metric and provides an

indication of the habitat value present on the site.

Habitats Area (ha) Habitat Value

Total existing area onsite 41.41 114.9

Linear features Length (km) Linear HabitatValue

Total existing length onsite 0.63 0

_________________________________________ Ecosulis ______


FIGURE 1

I

I

S

S

I

I

S

S

I

I

S

S

Not accessible

Site Boundary

Target Note

A1.1.1 Broadleaved woodland - semi-natural

A1.3.1 Mixed woodland - semi-natural

IS B2.2 Neutral grassland - semi-improved

C3.1 Tall herb and fern - tall ruderal

G1 Standing water

J3.6 Buildings

J4 Bare ground

J2.4 Fence

Key

Client: ERM

Project: Abernedd Power Plant

Title: Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

July 2016 Figure 1www.ecosulis.co.uk

The Rickyard, Newton St Loe, Bath BA2 9BT T: 01225 874 040 E: [email protected]

0 100 200 300 400 500 m

________________________________________________________________________ Ecosulis ______


4 BASELINE ECOLOGICAL CONDITIONS: DESIGNATED SITES

Feature Desk Study Relevance to the Site Action Required forPlanning/Legal Compliance(Annex 4 details legislation andplanning policy)

Statutory Sites

Statutorydesignations onsite

There are no statutory designationson site

N/A No recommendations

Statutorydesignationswithin 2km

Crymlyn Burrows SSSI is located 1kmwest of the site and is designated asit is one of the last unmodifiedsections of Swansea Bay Coastlineand contains several locallydistributed plant species and the rarestrandline beetle.

Earlswood Road Cutting andFerryboat Inn Quarries SSSI islocated 1.3km to the north of thesite. It is designated as it containsexposures of late carboniferous rocks.

The site does not feature similarhabitats to either SSSI. Thehabitats on site do not providesuitable opportunities for thelocally rare plant species or thestrandline beetle, which isassociated with beach habitat.

No recommendations

Statutorydesignationswithin 2.1km–5km

Pant-Y-Sais NNR and SSSI is located2.6km north-west of the site and isdesignated due to the habitatspresent including bogs, marshes andfens.

Crymlyn Bog NNR, SSSI, SAC andRamsar site is located 3.8km north-west of the site and is designated dueto the habitats present includingbogs, marshes and fens.

Cors Crymlyn SSSI and SAC islocated 4.6km north-west of the site

The site does not feature similarhabitats to the designated sites.

No recommendations

________________________________________________________________________ Ecosulis ______


Feature Desk Study Relevance to the Site Action Required forPlanning/Legal Compliance(Annex 4 details legislation andplanning policy)

and is designated due to the habitatspresent including bogs, marshes andfens.

Kenfig/Cynffig SAC is located 9.5kmsouth-east of the site and isdesignated due to the habitatspresent including coastal dunes withherbaceous vegetation.

Non-Statutory Sites

Non-statutorydesignations on-site

No non-statutory designations on site N/A No recommendations

Non-statutorydesignationswithin 2km

There are 16 SINCs within 2km of thesite. The closet of which are BaglanBay SINC which is located south-westof the site along the coast, PanhandleSINC is located south of the site andTriangular Pond SINC is locatednorth-east of the site.

The site does not feature similarhabitats to the designated sites.

No recommendations

Key to abbreviations

SAC – Special Area of Conservation

SSSI – Site of Special Scientific Interest

NNR – National Nature Reserve

SINC – Site of Importance for Nature Conservation

________________________________________________________________________ Ecosulis ______


5 BASELINE ECOLOGICAL CONDITIONS: PROTECTED/NOTABLE SPECIES

Species/speciesgroups

Nearest record and number ofrecords (last five years only)

Evidence of/suitability for Action Required for Planning/LegalCompliance (Annex 4 detailslegislation and planning policy)

Flora There are a number of records ofnotable species in the surroundingarea including basil thyme,bluebell, Deptford pink and viper’sbugloss. There are records from2011 of basil thyme in the southof the main block of the site.

No notable species of flora wererecorded within the site boundaryin the previous surveys. A numberof important plant species wererecorded in the surrounding area.

No notable or protected plantspecies were recorded on siteduring the visit. The habitatspresent on site offer fewopportunities for notable orprotected plant species. Howeverprevious records of Basil Thyme onsite suggest there is somesuitability for this species.

No non-native invasive species wererecorded during the survey

Any landscaping plans for the site shouldinclude the planting of native plantspecies which provide benefits to wildlife,including fruit and nut bearing species,mitigation for basil thyme should includeplanting this species in suitable areas ofretained habitat on providing a mitigationarea for planting.

Badgers There are records of badger 0.7kmnorth of the centre of the site.

No evidence of badger wererecorded during the previoussurveys and the site was assessedas having limited suitability forbadgers.

No badger setts or activity wererecorded within the site. The siteoffers limited opportunities forforaging badger due to the habitatspresent being dominated by amosaic of bare ground and tallruderals. In addition, the fence linearound the site acts as a partialbarrier to badger movement.

Given evidence of badger was notrecorded on site and that the surroundingarea offers few opportunities for badgers,a specific update badger survey is notrequired. It is recommended that anumber of precautionary measures beadopted during the works. Firstly, allexcavations should be covered up at theend of the working day, or include ameans of escape for badgers, such as aplank of wood. Secondly, any openpipework larger than 150mm outsidediameter must be covered at the end ofeach working day.

Ecological input is to be provided into thesite masterplan and landscaping schemeto ensure suitable green corridors areprovided to enable badgers to dispersethrough the site post-development and toensure optimal foraging opportunities are

________________________________________________________________________ Ecosulis ______





provided for this species.

Bats There are records of commonpipistrelle 0.6km east of the siteand lesser horseshoe bats 2.7kmnorth of the site. There are alsorecords of soprano pipistrelle,noctule and myotis species in thesurrounding area.

Previous survey work found lowlevels of bat activity on the site. Anumber of buildings were assessedfor their potential for roosting batsand found to offer Low andNegligible suitability. Emergencesurveys of the buildings did notrecord bats emerging from thebuildings.

The site offers limited opportunitiesfor foraging or commuting batsbased on the habitats present.Ruderal vegetation is likely tosupport some invertebrate prey, butthis is unlikely to be significant forlocal bat populations. The site islikely to be subject to light spillfrom the adjacent power plant.There are no features connectinghabitats on site to suitable habitatin the surrounding area.

The buildings on site were notaccessible and could not beassessed for their potential forroosting bats.

Due to the lack of suitable foraging andcommuting opportunities on site, noactivity surveys are required for the site.

The buildings on site may offer somepotential for roosting bats. However, theywere inaccessible during the survey. Ifbuildings are to be affected by thedevelopment, they should be assessed fortheir potential for roosting bats and wherepossible internal inspections should takeplace. Buildings assessed as offeringpotential for roosting bats should besurveyed further.

The site masterplan will include greencorridors within the site to enhanceopportunities for bats. This should alsoinclude a sensitive lighting scheme toretain some dark corridors.

Dormice There are no records of dormice inthe area

No signs of dormice were recordedduring the site visit. The site doesnot contain any suitable habitat fordormice and therefore it is unlikelythey are present on site.

Due to the habitat present on site nofurther surveys are deemed necessary.

Other smallmammals

There are records of Europeanhedgehog 0.7km north of the site.

Evidence of rabbits were foundthroughout the site during theprevious Extended Phase 1Survey.

Rabbit burrows and rabbits wererecorded during the site visit.Extensive burrows were present inthe south of the site (Target note 2,Figure 1) No signs of any othersmall mammals were recordedduring the site visit. The habitatspresent on site offer few

Given the habitats present on site nofurther survey work is considerednecessary. However, it is recommendedthat vegetation clearance works follow aPrecautionary Method of Working (PMW)to minimise potential impacts on smallmammals. These will include sensitivetiming of works to avoid hibernation

________________________________________________________________________ Ecosulis ______





opportunities for small mammals. season and directional clearance ofvegetation.

Ecological input is to be provided into thesite masterplan and landscaping schemeto ensure suitable green corridors areprovided to enable small mammals todisperse through the site post-development. If possible, the area ofgrassland in the south-west corner of thesite should be retained and enhanced forwildlife.

Birds There are a number of records ofnotable and protected bird speciesin the surrounding area, includingKestrel, linnet, peregrine, littleringed plover, skylark, starling,dunnock and lapwing. There arerecords of lapwing 60m south-eastof the main block of the site.

No notable bird species wererecorded on site in the previousExtended Phase 1 Habitat Surveysand Breeding Bird Surveys.However the additional breedinglapwing data from 2008 indicatedthat there were three pairs oflapwing nesting in the siteboundary. Areas within the sitewere also used for foraging bylapwing.

Lapwings were recorded in thenorthern end of the main block ofthe site (target note 3). They weredisplaying defensive behaviour,suggesting that they are nestingwithin this area. Lapwing are a RedList species and listed on the NeathPort Talbot LBAP. No other birdspecies were recorded during thesite visit. The site offers someopportunities for ground nestingbirds and limited opportunities forforaging birds.

Works should avoid the nesting birdseason (generally March–September)where possible. If this is not possible, anesting bird check should be undertakenprior to works commencing.

Lapwing were identified breeding on sitein 2008. An area of land was establishedfollowing the de-commissioning of the BPChemical works to provide a breedingarea for lapwings and mitigation fordevelopment in the Baglan area. Furthermeasures, outlined in the previous reportwill be implemented to include anextended area for lapwing mitigationadjacent to the existing mitigation site.This mitigation will provide alternativeopportunities for lapwings breeding withinthe site, therefore no further survey workor mitigation is required.

Reptiles There are records of commonlizard 1.3km north-west of thecentre of the site and records of

No reptiles were recorded on siteduring the visit. The bare groundand tall ruderal mosaic offers some

The habitats on site offer someopportunities for reptiles. Due to thesuitability of the site and the previous

________________________________________________________________________ Ecosulis ______





slow worm 1.5km north of thesite.

No reptiles were recorded on siteduring the previous surveys.However, colon lizard wererecorded to the north-west of thesite.

basking and limited foragingopportunities for reptiles. Rubblepiles on site provide refugeopportunities for reptiles. However,the areas of rubble in the south ofthe site are recently disturbed.Habitats surrounding the site offersimilar opportunities for reptiles.

records of common lizard to the north-west, an update reptile survey isrecommended. This should be undertakenin April, May or September, which areconsidered to be optimal survey months,where possible.

Amphibians There are no records of greatcrested newt in the surroundingarea.

Previous surveys noted that pondshad potential to support greatcrested newts, however thespecies was not recorded duringthe surveys.

No amphibians were recorded onsite during the visit. The habitatspresent on site offer limitedterrestrial opportunities for greatcrested newts. The pond located inthe northern end of the site isdensely vegetated and is notsuitable for great crested newts,Habitat Suitability Index calculatesthe pond as poor at 0.15. The waterbody in the north-east of the mainblock of the site has a varyingwater level and is not suitable forgreat crested newts, HabitatSuitability Index calculates the pondas poor at 0.14. The water body inthe north-west of the site was notassessed as it was not accessible.There are three water bodies and areservoir within 500m of the site.

It is unlikely that great crested newts arepresent on the site as it offers limitedopportunities for them. However, worksshould follow a Precautionary Method ofWorking (PMW) and include sensitivetiming of works and directional clearanceof vegetation.

Invertebrates There are a number of notableinvertebrates in the surroundingarea, including small blue, brown-banded carder-bee, shrill carder-bee and dingy skipper. The closestof which is small blue 0.8km north

No notable or protected specieswere recorded on site during thevisit. The bare ground and tallruderal mosaic habitat and thegrassland habitat on site do notoffer opportunities for notable or

Given the habitats present, no specificinvertebrate surveys are warranted at thesite. Nevertheless, it is recommendedthat a number of deadwood and brashpiles be provided for invertebrates as partof the proposals. Furthermore, it is

________________________________________________________________________ Ecosulis ______





of the site. protected invertebrates. Thereforeit is unlikely that they are presenton site.

recommended that ecological input beprovided into the landscaping scheme toensure a wide variety of suitable botanicalspecies for invertebrates areincorporated.

If possible, the area of grassland in thesouth-west corner of the site should beretained and enhanced for wildlife.

Key to abbreviations

PMW – Precautionary Method of Working

________________________________________________________________________ Ecosulis ______


6 CONCLUSION

6.1 The purpose of this report is to accompany and inform a planning application for

the land at Abernedd Power Plant, Port Talbot.

6.2 The site is dominated by bare ground and tall ruderals mosaic, concrete and

tarmac areas and recently disturbed areas with rubble piles. There are some areas

of recently established semi-improved grassland in the south and north of the site,

and a number of buildings.

6.3 Habitats within the site are assessed as having Site / Negligible ecological value

(Annex 5, CIEEM 2016). There were records of basil thyme on the site in 2011,

mitigation for this species should include planting this species in suitable retained

habitat or creating a mitigation area.

6.4 The bare ground and tall ruderal mosaic in the north of the main block of the site

offers opportunities for ground nesting birds due to being undisturbed. Lapwings

were observed in this area and were thought to be displaying breeding behaviour.

Mitigation measures should follow those outlined in the previous ERM report. These

include an existing area of land that was established following the de-

commissioning of the BP Chemical works for lapwing breeding, and the

implementation of a further area for mitigation adjacent to this land. A nesting bird

check is recommended before works commence if they take place during the

breeding bird season.

6.5 The habitats on site offer limited foraging opportunities for reptiles. However,

basking and refuge opportunities are present. An update reptile survey for the site

is recommended as previous surveys found common lizard to the north-west of the

site.

6.6 Habitats present on site do not offer opportunities for foraging and commuting

bats. Therefore no further surveys are required to assess the use of the site by

bats. Buildings on site may offer potential for roosting bats. However, they could

not be accessed during the survey. If buildings will be affected by the

development, they should be assessed for their potential for roosting bats and

surveyed as required.

6.7 Habitats present on site offer limited terrestrial opportunities for great crested

newts. Two of the water bodies on site are not suitable for great crested newts due

to varying water levels and very dense vegetation. The third water body on site

was not accessible during the survey. It is unlikely that great crested newts are

present on site due to the habitats present and limited opportunities. Works should

follow a Precautionary Method of Working (PMW) with sensitive timing of works and

directional clearance of vegetation.

6.8 A number of ecological enhancement measures will be included: ecological input

will be provided into the site masterplan and landscaping scheme to ensure

suitable green corridors are provided to enable wildlife to disperse through the site

________________________________________________________________________ Ecosulis ______


post-development and to ensure optimal foraging opportunities; sensitive lighting

scheme; and refuge creation of deadwood, log, rubble or brash piles for small

mammals and invertebrates.

________________________________________________________________________ Ecosulis ______

ABERNEDD POWER PLANT I J006138

REFERENCES/BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bat Conservation Trust (2012) Landscape and Urban Design for Bats and Biodiversity.

Bat Conservation Trust, London

Bing Maps Website Accessed at http://www.bing.com/maps/

British Standards (2013) BS42020: Biodiversity – Code of Practice for Planning and

Development

Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (2016) Guidelines

for Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom Website. Accessed at

www.cieem.co.uk

Department for Communities and Local Government (2012) National Planning Policy

Framework Department for Communities and Local Government. Accessed at

http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/2116950.pdf

Ecosulis (2012) Online interactive survey calendar. Accessed at:

www.ecosulis.co.uk/page/interactive-survey-calendar

Environmental Resources Management (2008) APCL – Abernedd Power Plant Chapter

9 – Ecology

Environmental Resources Management (2008) APCL – Abernedd Power Plant Annex C

– Ecology and Nature Conservation

HMSO (1981) Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (and subsequent amendments). HMSO

HMSO (1992) Protection of Badgers Act 1992. HMSO

HMSO (1995) Biodiversity. The UK Steering Group Report

HMSO (2000) The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000HMSO

Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) (2010) Handbook for Phase I Habitat

Survey – a Technique for Environmental Audit. JNCC Peterborough.

Mitchell-Jones A.J. & McLeish A.P. (3rd Edition, 2004) The Bat Workers’ Manual

Multi-Agency Geographical Information for the Countryside (MAGIC) Website

Accessed at www.magic.gov.uk

National Biodiversity Network (NBN) Website Accessed at www.nbn.org.uk

Ratcliffe, D. (1977) A Nature Conservation Review. Volume 1. CUP

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

TSO (2006) Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act TSO

TSO (2010) The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended)

TSO

________________________________________________________________________ Ecosulis ______

ABERNEDD POWER PLANT II J006138

Annex 1: PRELIMINARY ECOLOGICAL APPRAISAL METHODOLOGY

Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, Web-based Desktop Study and Local Records

Centre Request for Species Records and Site Designations

Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

Survey undertaken according to Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) (2010)

Handbook for Phase I Habitat Survey – a Technique for Environmental Audit. JNCC

Peterborough.

The site, as defined by the client, is systematically walked and all habitats present along

with their dominant flora are recorded and mapped. Where appropriate, target notes are

used to highlight potential features of interest, such as provisional signs of protected or

notable species, or habitat features of note. The survey considers the suitability of the

habitats on site and within the accessible surroundings to support such species. Habitats

are mapped using standard colour codes allowing rapid visual assessment of the extent

and distribution of different habitat types.

Limitations of the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal:

The survey will not record any plants or animals that may appear at other times of the

year and were therefore not evident at the time of visit. Some species that might use the

site or be apparent at other times of year, or only in certain years, would not have been

detected.

Web-based Desktop Study

The Bing Maps website was accessed for aerial views of the site and used as a visual aid

to help put the site into context with its surroundings and to identify any potential

features of interest in the surrounding land.

The Multi-Agency Geographical Information for the Countryside (MAGIC) website was

consulted for information on statutory site designations in the area.

The National Biodiversity Network (NBN) website was also consulted for information on

records of protected and notable species in the area.

Limitations of desktop study:

The desktop study can only provide information on species already recorded and cannot

be taken to represent a complete overview of all species present within the search area.

References:

Bing Maps website accessed at http://www.bing.com/maps/

MAGIC website accessed at www.magic.gov.uk

NBN Website Accessed at www.nbn.org.uk

Species Records and Site Designations Information Request to the Local Records Centre

________________________________________________________________________ Ecosulis ______

ABERNEDD POWER PLANT III J006138

South East Wales Biodiversity Records Centre (reference: 0167-257) was asked to

provide information on species records within 2km of the site (4km for bats) and site

designations within 2km of the site (within 4km for bats).

________________________________________________________________________ Ecosulis ______

ABERNEDD POWER PLANT IV J006138

Annex 2: SPECIES LIST (SPECIES RECORDED ON SITE)

Nomenclature according to Stace, C. (2010) New Flora of the British Isles 3rd Edition.

Cambridge University Press.

Flora

Common name Scientific name

Bird’s foot trefoil Lotus corniculatus

Bramble Rubus species

Buddleia Buddleja lindleyana

Bulrush Typha latufolia

Common thistle Onopordum acanthium

Dandelion Taraxacum officinale agg.

Fescue Festuca sp

Perennial ryegrass Lolium perenne

Ragwort Jacobaea vulgaris

Red clover Trifolium pratense

Scarlet pimpernel Anagallis arvensis

Willowherb Epilobium sp

Yorkshire fog Holcus lanatus

Fauna

Common name Scientific name

Lapwing Vanellus vanellus

________________________________________________________________________ Ecosulis ______

ABERNEDD POWER PLANT V J006138

Annex 3: HABITAT VALUATION ASSESSMENT CALCULATIONS

Table 1: Baseline Conditions - Habitats

Existing habitats on site Habitat distinctiveness Habitat condition Habitat Value Assessment

code Phase 1 habitat description Distinctiveness Score Distinctiveness Score Habitat area (ha) Existing value

n/a Built Environment:Buildings/hardstanding none 0 Moderate 2 0.22 0.00

A111 Woodland: Broad-leaved semi-naturalwoodland High 6 Poor 1 0.12 0.74

A131 Woodland: Mixed semi-naturalwoodland Medium 4 Poor 1 0.79 3.15

B22 Grassland: Semi-improved neutralgrassland Medium 4 Moderate 2 4.94 39.53

G1 Wetland: Standing water High 6 Poor 1 0.2 1.18C31 Other: Tall ruderal Low 2 Poor 1 27.07 54.14J4 Other: Bare ground Low 2 Poor 1 8.08 16.15

Total 114.90

Table 2: Baseline Conditions – Linear Habitats

Existing habitats on site Linear distinctiveness Linear condition Habitat Value Assessment

code Phase 1 habitat description Distinctiveness Score Distinctiveness Score Length (km) Existing value

J24 Boundaries: Fence None 0 Poor 0 0.15 0Total 0

_________________________________________ Ecosulis ______

ABERNEDD POWER PLANT VI J006138

Annex 4: LEGISLATION AND NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY

Bats

All British species of bat and their places of breeding and shelter are protected under the

Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and The Conservation of Habitats and

Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) from deliberate capture, injury and killing;

intentional or reckless disturbance; intentional or reckless obstruction of access to any

structure or place which any such animal uses for shelter or protection; and deliberate

damage or destruction of a breeding site or resting place. This includes buildings and

trees and applies throughout the year whether bats are present or not at the time of

survey or work being carried out.

Although foraging areas and commuting routes are not afforded direct legal protection,

the effects of development proposals on these are a material consideration in planning

(NPPF and TAN5) and should be considered when assessing the impact of the proposal on

the maintenance of favourable conservation status of bat species.

As protected species, bats are covered by NPPF, which states that the presence of a

protected species is a material consideration when considering a planning application.

All bat species (except Pipistrellus pipistrellus) are listed on both the Habitats Directive

1992 (transposed by The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as

amended)) and The Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural

Habitats (Bern Convention). The principal aims of the Convention are to ensure

conservation and protection of wild plant and animal species and their natural habitats, to

increase cooperation between contracting parties, and to regulate the exploitation of

those species (including migratory species). The Convention imposes legal obligations on

contracting parties, protecting over 500 wild plant species and more than 1000 wild

animal species.

There are 18 species of bat found in the UK (17 species are known to breed here) and all

are included in the UK BAP. Seven species are listed as priority species; priority species

are those that have been identified as being most threatened and in need of

conservation. It should be noted that the identification of these seven bat species as

priority species does not extend throughout Britain (seven are priority species in England

and three are priority species in Wales).

Of the seven species identified as priority species, five also have specific SAPs, which aim

to further encourage and help population numbers.

Abbreviations: BAP – Biodiversity Action Plan; SAP – Species Action Plan; NPPF –

National Planning Policy Framework; TAN – Technical Advice Note.

_________________________________________ Ecosulis ______

ABERNEDD POWER PLANT VII J006138

Birds

In Britain all wild birds are granted legal protection under the Wildlife & Countryside Act

1981 (as amended). This legislation protects birds, their eggs, dependant young, and

nests while being built or whilst in use.

Schedule 1 Bird Species

Schedule 1(1) of the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) affords full protection

to certain bird species. It is an offence to intentionally or recklessly disturb at or near an

active nest of species on this list.

Birds of Conservation Concern

The bird species found in the UK, Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are assigned a red,

amber or green category based on their conservation status:

Red List Species

Red List species are those that are globally threatened according to IUCN criteria; those

whose populations or range has declined or contracted rapidly in the last 25 years by

50% or more; and those that have declined historically (between 1800 and 1995) and not

shown a substantial recent recovery.

Amber List Species

Amber List Species are those with an unfavourable conservation status in Europe; those

whose breeding population or range has declined or contracted moderately (25 – 49%) in

recent years, or whose non-breeding populations have declined to a similar degree; those

whose population has declined historically but made a substantial recent recovery; and

those which are rare breeders or have internationally important or localised populations.

Green List Species

Species that fulfil none of the above criteria are green-listed.

Abbreviations: IUCN - International Union for Conservation of Nature

Reptiles

All British reptiles are partially protected under the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as

amended), under which it is an offence to intentionally kill or injure a reptile.

Sand lizard and smooth snake and their breeding and resting places are fully protected by

both the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and The Conservation of Habitats

and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended). It is an offence to deliberately capture,

injure or kill them or damage, destroy or obstruct their resting or breeding places. It is

also an offence to disturb sand lizard or smooth snake in their resting or breeding places.

This applies throughout the year whether sand lizard or smooth snake are present or not

at the time of survey or work being carried out. As protected species all British reptiles

are covered by NPPF, which states that the presence of a protected species is a material

consideration when considering a planning application.

_________________________________________ Ecosulis ______

ABERNEDD POWER PLANT VIII J006138

All six species of British reptiles are included in the UK BAP. All six of these species are

included as priority species in England, though not necessarily throughout the UK. Just

one of the six species, the sand lizard, is subject to a SAP.

Abbreviations: NPPF – National Planning Policy Framework; BAP – Biodiversity Action

Plan; SAP – Species Action Plan.

National Planning Policy References

Reference should be made to the following documents:

Wales

The Welsh Office (2009) Technical Advice Note (TAN) 5: Nature Conservation and

Planning TSO

Welsh Assembly Government (2011) Planning Policy Wales National Assembly for Wales

_________________________________________ Ecosulis ______

ABERNEDD POWER PLANT IX J006138

Annex 5: OVERALL SITE EVALUATION – RATCLIFFE CRITERIA (1977)

Ratcliffe, D. (1977) A Nature Conservation Review. Volume 1. CUP.

The criteria for evaluation have been adopted from the widely used set developed by

Ratcliffe (1977). These were originally conceived to provide a systematic framework for

the selection of Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) by the Nature Conservancy

Council (NCC), but have since been adopted and adapted widely by ecologists, for

example in Local Authorities and Wildlife Trusts.

These criteria provide a useful basis against which to evaluate the intrinsic ecological

quality of a site, but in an urban area it is also important to consider the value of an area

to the local people (GLC 1985). Thus the appeal of a site, its educational and amenity

value, as well as its accessibility as a wildlife area, need to be included in the evaluation.

Survey results are assessed and evaluated using these criteria as a guide. They are:

Size

In general, larger sites are more highly valued than smaller ones, all else being equal.

However, relative size to similar sites and other local sites should be considered. The

area of a site is also important in management terms, i.e. whether short-term

neglect/disturbance or any small changes would lead to the loss of a site’s interest.

Diversity

One of the most important site attributes is the variety of communities and species which

is largely dependent on diversity of habitats. Large numbers of species, particularly when

represented by large populations, are to be valued. Diversity can also be related to

habitat instability that may affect management prescriptions.

Naturalness

Ecosystems least modified by man tend to be rated more highly. However, most sites are

influenced by man, the degree and nature of which is important.

Fragility

This reflects the degree of sensitivity of habitats, communities and species to

environmental change. Fragile sites often represent ecosystems that are highly

fragmented, dwindling or difficult to re-create.

Typicalness

Sites/habitats that are unusual within the wider ecological unit are may be of value,

similarly sites/habitats that are typical and commonplace within a field of ecological

variation may also be of value.

Recorded History

The existence of a scientific record of long-standing adds considerably to the value of a

site.

_________________________________________ Ecosulis ______

ABERNEDD POWER PLANT X J006138

Permanence

A site that has been occupied by a semi-natural habitat for a long time is usually more

valuable than one that has only recently arisen. This is because they have had time to

acquire rich assemblages of plants and animals.

Lack of Modification

Adverse influences from humans, such as inappropriate management regimes and

pollution, will reduce the quality of an area.

Rarity

Rarity is concerned with communities and habitats as well as species. The presence of

rare species adds to overall ecological value especially when a habitat also ranks highly

on other criteria. The habitat type too may also be nationally or regionally rare.

Position in an Ecological Unit

In the event of two sites being of equivalent intrinsic value, the close proximity of one site

to a highly rated example of another type increases the value of the site. The presence of

other areas of semi-natural habitat adjacent or close to a site enhances the value of both

habitats.

Potential Value

Certain sites could, through appropriate management or even natural change, eventually

develop a nature conservation interest substantially greater than that existing at present.

Intrinsic Appeal

While science may view all creatures as equal, pragmatism dictates that in nature

conservation it is realistic to give more weight to the more popular appeal of some

species, groups or habitats than others.

_________________________________________ Ecosulis ______

ABERNEDD POWER PLANT XI J006138

Annex 6: DEFINING ECOLOGICAL VALUES FOR COMPONENT HABITATS – CIEEM (2016)

The examples contained in the table below are only for general guidance and other

considerations may apply, eg. features of low value in isolation but which are subject to

cumulative national decline may be afforded higher values in certain circumstances.

Level of EcologicalValue

Examples of Criteria

International An internationally designated site or candidate site (SPA,pSPA, SAC, cSAC, Ramsar site, Biogenetic Reserve)

A sustainable area of a habitat listed in Annex I of theHabitats Directive, or smaller areas of such habitat thatare essential to maintain the viability of a larger whole

A sustainable population of an internationally importantspecies, e.g. a UK Red Data Book species, species listedunder categories 1 or 2 of the UK BAP, or listed underAnnex IV of the Habitats Directive

Sites supporting a breeding population of internationallyimportant species or supplying a critical element of theirhabitat requirements

National A nationally designated site (SSSI, ASSI, NNR, MNR) or adiscrete area that meets the selection criteria for nationaldesignation (e.g. SSSI selection guidelines)

A sustainable area of a priority habitat identified in theUK BAP, or smaller areas of such habitat that areessential to maintain the viability of a larger whole

A sustainable population of a nationally important speciesor a site supporting such a species, i.e. a species listedon Schedules 5 and 8 of the W&CA (as amended) whichis a UK Red Data Book species that is not listed as beingof unfavourable conservation status in Europe, ofuncertain conservation status or of global concern in theUK BAP

A non-Red Data Book species that is listed as occurring in15 or fewer 10km squares in the UK (categories 1 and 2of the UK BAP). Also sites supporting a breedingpopulation of such a species or supplying a criticalelement of their habitat requirements

Regional Sustainable areas of key habitat identified in the relevantRegional BAP or smaller areas of such habitat that areessential to maintain the viability of a larger whole

Sustainable areas of key habitat identified as being ofRegional Value in the appropriate Natural Areas profile

A population of a species listed as being nationally scarce(i.e. occurring in 16 - 100 10km squares in the UK, or ina Regional BAP or relevant Natural Area on account of itsregional rarity or localisation. Sites supporting abreeding population of such a species or supplying acritical element of their habitat requirements

Sites, which exceed the County-level designations but fallshort of SSSI selection guidelines, where these occur

County/ Metropolitan Semi-natural ancient woodland greater than 0.25 ha

_________________________________________ Ecosulis ______

ABERNEDD POWER PLANT XII J006138

Level of EcologicalValue

Examples of Criteria

County/Metropolitan sites and other sites which meet theecological selection criteria for designation

A sustainable area of habitat identified in a county BAP

A population of a species that is listed in acounty/metropolitan ‘red data book’ or BAP on account ofits regional rarity or localisation. Also sites supporting abreeding population of such a species or supplying acritical element of their habitat requirements

District Semi-natural ancient woodland smaller than 0.25 ha

Sustainable areas of habitat identified in a sub-county(district/borough) BAP or in the relevant Natural Areaprofile

Sites/features that are scarce within the district/boroughor which appreciably enrich the district/borough habitatresource

A diverse and/or ecologically valuable hedgerow network

A population of a species that is listed in adistrict/borough BAP because of its rarity in the locality orin the relevant Natural Area profile because of its regionalrarity or localisation. Also sites supporting a breedingpopulation of such a species or supplying a criticalelement of their requirements

Local Areas of habitat considered to appreciably enrich thehabitat resource within the context of the Parish or localneighbourhood, e.g. isolated species-rich hedgerows

Site Small patches of poor semi-improved grassland, amenitygrassland not used by badgers

Negligible Areas of little current or potential ecological value

Date post:	27-May-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	3 times
Download:	0 times

Ecology and Nature Conservation · 2016-08-22 · ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT ABERNEDD POWER...

Documents