N T 8.1 - National Infrastructure Planning T Application Reference: ... 015 0 First Issue for Comment to RSPB First Issue ... (AGI) at Goxhill on the south bank of the Humber

8.1.6B

Signed SOCG with RSPB

River Humber Gas Pipeline Replacement Project

D O

C U

M E

N T

Application Reference: EN060004 Deadline 7 Submission: 17 February 2016

D O

C U

M E

N T

5.1

National Grid Gas


Statement of Common Ground - RSPB

The River Humber Gas Pipeline Replacement Project

The River Humber Gas Pipeline Replacement Project Page i

CONTENTS

Revision Status ......................................................................... iii

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

1.1 Purpose of the Document ......................................... 1

1.2 Matters Addressed within this Document ................. 1

2 Scheme Description .......................................................... 2

3 Matters of Agreement ....................................................... 4

4 Matters Not Concluded ................................................... 10

5 Signed Statement of Common Ground ........................... 11

Appendices

Appendix A

Record of Comments from RSPB

Appendix B

HRA Technical Note

Appendix C

Outline of the Marsh Harrier Mitigation Strategy

The River Humber Gas Pipeline Replacement Project Page ii

The River Humber Gas Pipeline Replacement Project Page iii

Revision Status

Approvals

Role Printed

Name Signed Name Date

Originated by Senior Environmental Consultant (Hyder Consulting)

Kate Burrows

08/09/2015

Checked by Technical Director (Hyder Consulting)

Nicky Hartley

08/09/2015

Approved by Technical Director (Hyder Consulting)

Jon Davies

30/10/2015

Revision History

Date Rev No. Summary of Changes Ref

Section Purpose of Issue

08/09/2015

0 First Issue for Comment to RSPB

First Issue

14/10/2015

1 Second Issue to RSPB for Comment following ongoing discussions

Second Issue

28/10/2015

2 Third issue to RSPB for Comment following ongoing discussion

Third Issue

30/10/2015

3 Fourth Issue to reflect comments received from the RSPB on 29/10/2015

Fourth Issue

15/02/2015

4 Updated for signing to reflect comments following ongoing discussions with the RSPB.

Fifth Issue

Distribution

To: Richard Barnard

cc:

Kba00342

Rectangle

The River Humber Gas Pipeline Replacement Project Page iv

The River Humber Gas Pipeline Replacement Project Page v

The River Humber Gas Pipeline Replacement Project Page 1

1 Introduction

1.1 Purpose of the Document

1.1.1 This document is a Statement of Common Ground (SoCG) between National Grid Gas (the Applicant) and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) for a Development Consent Order (DCO) for the River Humber Gas Pipeline Replacement Project (the Scheme).

1.1.2 This SoCG sets out the areas of agreement regarding the application documents between National Grid Gas and the RSPB.

1.2 Matters Addressed within this Document

1.2.1 Discussions and responses to consultation, to date cover the following topics which form the basis of this SoCG:

Ecology and Nature Conservation - birds.


2 Scheme Description

2.1.1 National Grid Gas is proposing to construct a replacement gas pipeline under the Humber Estuary to ensure the long term security of the Feeder 9 Gas Transmission Pipeline. The river bed cover over the existing No 09 Crossing is currently being eroded by the Humber Estuary. The Feeder 9 pipeline carries a high level of importance within the National Transmission System (NTS) as a strategic pipeline conveying significant volumes of natural gas away from the Easington Importation Terminal south towards the Hatton Compressor Facility.

2.1.2 The Scheme would comprise a new high pressure gas pipeline installed within a bored tunnel that would run beneath the Humber Estuary between the existing Above Ground Installation (AGI) at Goxhill on the south bank of the Humber Estuary within North Lincolnshire to the AGI at Paull on the north bank within East Riding of Yorkshire (refer to Figure 1).

Figure 1 Location of the Scheme

Humber Estuary


2.1.3 The total length of the pipeline route would be up to 6 kilometres (km) from the Goxhill AGI to the Paull AGI. The length of the tunnel would be approximately 5.03km based on the provisional drive and reception pit locations with the estuary crossing being 3km. Approximately 120m of new pipeline would be laid onshore at Goxhill from the Goxhill AGI to the start of the tunnelled section and approximately 400m would be laid onshore at Paull to connect the new pipeline into Paull AGI. The bored tunnel would have a minimum internal diameter of 3.65m and a maximum internal diameter of 4m. The pipeline would be laid at a depth of a minimum of 7m below the true bed of the Humber Estuary.

2.1.4 The RSPB is the largest wildlife conservation organisation in Europe and the stated focus of its work is on the conservation of threatened species and habitats. It operates at international, European, national, regional and local levels.

2.1.5 The RSPB’s work includes protecting, restoring and managing habitats for birds and other wildlife, researching the problems facing them and the environment, and working with decision makers on their behalf.

2.1.6 The RSPB has been consulted at the required stages by National Grid Gas throughout the development of the Scheme. They were consulted between September and October 2014 as part of the statutory consultation for the Scheme in accordance with the Planning Act.


3 Matters of Agreement

3.1.1 Table 3-1 outlines the matters of agreement between National Grid Gas and the RSPB.


Table 3-1 Matters of Agreement Ecology and Nature Conservation

Matters of Agreement DCO Document Reference

National Grid Gas in Agreement

RSPB in Agreement

Survey Methodology

A series of bird surveys were undertaken between September 2013 and October 2014. Details of survey methodologies were agreed with Natural England and survey results are presented in Appendix 7.1: Technical Appendix.

Whilst there is disagreement over the sufficiency of nocturnal surveys all outstanding concerns have been addressed through adopting a more precautionary approach and agreeing an additional mitigation package.

Chapter 7: Ecology and Nature Conservation (DCO Document Reference 6.7)

Appendix 7.1: Technical Appendix and Appendix 7.2: Potentially Excepted Information (DCO Document Reference 6.7.1 and 6.7.2).

Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) (DCO Document Reference 5.4)

Works Plans (DCO Document Reference 2.2C

Agreed Agreed

The scope of the noise monitoring has been agreed in consultation with Natural England, and extensive noise modelling has been undertaken as part of the impact assessment for the Scheme (as detailed in Sections 8.3 and Figures 12 and 13 of the HRA (DCO Document Reference 5.4). Further noise modelling has been undertaken to present a more realistic interpretation of the predicted noise levels during the construction phase, rather than a worst case scenario. This

HRA (DCO Document Reference 5.4)

Agreed The RSPB are in agreement with the findings of the predicted likely noise contours presented in the Technical Note (refer to Appendix B), and agree that noise disturbance beyond the construction footprint would be unlikely to




RSPB in Agreement

is presented in a Technical Note which was submitted to RSPB in early October 2015 (refer to Appendix B).

have a significant effect upon the SPA bird populations.

Baseline Information

Section 7.4 of Chapter 7: Ecology and Nature Conservation and Section 5 of the HRA summarise the existing bird resources identified during the desk study, consultations and field surveys. Full details of the field survey results and raw data are provided in Appendix 7.1: Technical Appendix and Appendix 7.2: Potentially Excepted Information.

The baseline reported in Chapter 7: Ecology and Nature Conservation and associated appendices clearly presents a summary of the existing ecological conditions.


Appendix 7.1: Technical Appendix and Appendix 7.2: Potentially Excepted Information (DCO Document Reference 6.7.1 and 6.7.2).


Agreed Agreed

Environmental Design Measures / Mitigation Measures

Environmental design measures / mitigation are considered in Section 7.7 of Chapter 7: Ecology and Nature Conservation, Sections 3.4 and 9 of the HRA and within the Initial CEMP.

Further ecological mitigation has been agreed with the RSPB and secured through the DCO, Requirement 18 (DCO Document Reference 3.1D) and the initial CEMP to supplement those already proposed in Chapter 7: Ecology and Nature



Agreed Agreed. The RSPB are in agreement that embedded environmental design measures for ecological receptors presented in Chapter 7: Ecology and Nature Conservation together with the additional mitigation measures proposed for SPA birds




RSPB in Agreement

Conservation. Initial CEMP (DCO Document Reference 7.3D)

Works Plans (DCO Document Reference 2.2C)

Draft DCO (DCO Document Reference 3.1D)

(associated with loss of habitat under the footprint of the construction works) are appropriate. This combination of measures also addresses the RSPB’s concerns over the assessment of impacts on Assemblage species by providing mitigation suitable for all relevant Assemblage species.

Assessment Findings and Conclusions

Although marsh harrier were recorded attempting to breed when the Ground Investigation (GI) works were being carried out, an updated assessment is not required. The basis for the current assessment was the previous summer of surveys (including both vantage point and transect surveys), which did not record marsh harriers attempting to breed. Whilst the observation from the GI work is an important record, we do not believe it would materially affect the assessment, as the nesting area is over 500m from the works and behind the sea wall – therefore, should marsh harriers attempt to nest again, they would not be affected by the works.

Pre-construction surveys for breeding marsh harrier would, nevertheless, be carried out to determine if marsh harrier are attempting to breed within the reedbed prior to the construction phase. Depending on the results of the pre-construction survey, it may be necessary to produce a mitigation strategy in consultation with Natural England to avoid adverse effects on

Initial CEMP (DCO Document Reference 7.3C)

Agreed Agreed.

During a discussion with Natural England and the RSPB on 22/9/15 it was agreed that an outline mitigation strategy for marsh harriers will be drafted (in consultation with the RSPB), depending upon the results of pre-construction surveys. The requirement for this strategy will be included in the initial Construction Environmental Management Plan.

A brief outline of the mitigation strategy is presented in Appendix C (as requested during the teleconference on




RSPB in Agreement

this species (although as stated above, we do not believe that these birds would be significantly affected).

the 21st October 2015).

The installation of the hoses for the tunnel flooding would include up to three people walking out onto the intertidal habitat to place the pipeline, and associated pumps, into the Humber Estuary. It is envisaged that this would only take up to 2-3 hours to complete. A vehicle would be used to take out and retrieve the hoses and associated pumps at the edge of the Humber Estuary. Given the small-scale, and temporary nature of the tunnel flooding (approximately two weeks), it is not anticipated that any short, or long-term significant effects from visual disturbance would affect birds using the adjacent intertidal habitat. Section 3.3 and 6.2 of the HRA (DCO Document Reference 5.4). It is not considered that the tunnel flooding exercise would be detrimental to the fulfilment of the conservation objectives for the SPA. Nor would this affect the ability of the populations of SPA species to survive at their current conservation status.


Agreed

There will be two visits: one visit to install hoses and one to retrieve. The visits would be undertaken at low tide, and the work would not be carried out in adverse weather conditions.

Agreed.

Other

The HRA provides an assessment of in-combination effects with other plans and schemes; and concludes that there would be no significant in-combination effects.

Habitats Regulations Assessment (DCO Document Reference 5.4)

Agreed. Agreed. The RSPB is in agreement with the conclusions reached in the HRA now that additional measures proposed for SPA birds (associated with loss of habitat under the footprint of the construction works, referenced above under




RSPB in Agreement

‘Environmental Design Measures / Mitigation Measures’) have been agreed.

The RSPB have no further comment to make on other issues as listed in the Rule 6 letter (published by PINS), such as water voles, badgers etc.

N/A Agreed Agreed.


4 Matters Not Concluded

4.1.1 There no unresolved issues between the RSPB and National Grid Gas.


5 Signed Statement of Common Ground

5.1.1 This Statement of Common Ground has been prepared by Hyder Consulting on behalf of National Grid Gas and agreed by the RSPB.

Table 5-1 Signatures

Organisation Name and Title Signature Date

RSPB Peter Robertson, Regional Director

17/02/2015

National Grid Gas Carl Simms 17/02/2016

Kba00342

Rectangle


Appendix A


Kba00342

Rectangle


Revision Status

Approvals

Role Printed Name

Signed Name Date

Originated by Environmental Consultant (Hyder Consulting)

Kate Burrows

28/09/2015

Checked by Technical Director

(Hyder Consulting)

Nicky Hartley 28/09/2015


Jon Davies 30/10/2015

Revision History



14/10/2015 0 Responses to comments from RSPB



Kba00342

Rectangle

Kba00342

Rectangle

Kba00342

Rectangle

Comments from RSPB

Table 1-1 RSPB comments received 18/09/15 – response/comment column includes outcomes of discussion with NE and RSPB on 22/9/15 (note that some of the issues have been further resolved – refer to Table 1-2)

No Response from RSPB National Grid Gas Response / Comment

1 Please note that the RSPB will not be agreeing to what has or has not been agreed with Natural England; that is for the SoCG with them.

7.2.49 of Appendix 7.1 states that “Surveys were undertaken twice a month, normally with a two week gap between surveys, during the winter period (October to March) and autumn passage period (August and September) and once a month during the spring passage period/breeding season (April to July).” Similar info is in 7.2.53. Paragraph 5.3.3 of the HRA Part 1 states that “spring passage surveys were carried out in April and June 2014”, i.e. suggesting no visits in May. This seems to contradict the information provided here and is the source of the RSPB’s concerns over the coverage of spring passage.

We recognise that nocturnal surveying is not straightforward but there are a number of methods available (e.g. night vision equipment, radar, etc.), and these have been used successfully for other schemes around the Humber without evidence of undue disturbance. As indicated, dawn/dusk surveys give only an inference at best, and evidence from studies of nocturnal plover activity in Norfolk has shown no relationship

The information provided below is correct, the paragraphs referred to in the Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) and Environmental Statement (ES) contain minor errors.

The survey effort undertaken during the spring migration period (March to mid-May) was the same as for the other bird surveys undertaken during the winter and autumn migration periods. Surveys carried out during the spring migration period included two visits in March, two visits in April and one visit in May to cover the March to mid-May survey window. Surveys carried out during the autumn migration period included one visit in July, two visits in August and two visits in September to cover the late-July to September survey window. Surveys undertaken in winter included two visits per month between October and March. It is considered that the level of survey effort during the spring migration period was sufficient and robust to inform the assessment of impacts on migratory birds using the Humber Estuary SPA.

During the discussion of 22/9/15, the RSPB agreed that this survey effort was acceptable (given that there had been minor errors in the reporting).

In terms of night vision equipment, Hyder has used this in the past and it has not been successful. The surveys are inferred from dusk/dawn surveys, not surveys done during the day. The methodology was agreed with Natural England. During the


between day and night counts, such that day counts cannot be used as substitutes for nocturnal surveys. This work also demonstrated a number of other key factors showing the importance of nocturnal foraging to plovers, which demonstrates that this is a significant omission from the survey programme. Additional nocturnal surveying would be the most appropriate approach but it may be possible to address this point through a more precautionary approach to mitigation.

discussion of 22/9/15, it was explained by Hyder that whilst there are methods that could potentially allow data to be collected at night, this was not possible owing to health and safety considerations. It was therefore agreed that the focus of ongoing discussions would be on addressing this issue via the Technical Note and potentially a more precautionary approach to mitigation.

2 As in our relevant representation, we recognise that modelling has been provided. We are unclear though whether this incorporates the effects of the noise management measures (mainly the bund), as the pattern of the noise plots (Figs 12 & 13 of the HRA) indicate otherwise.

It is important to be clear that our concern is not that the noise levels are underestimated but the potential impacts on birds. Part of this concern relates to the locations of the noise monitors (on the floodbanks, distant from the noise sources and potentially in the “shadow” of the banks”) and, in part related to this, the baseline noise levels. The lack of clarity over the regularity of the peak noise levels is also an issue.

These concerns apply to both the Goxhill and Paull Holme Strays sides where the figures indicate significant

The effects of the bunding have been taken into consideration in the noise modelling.

The noise monitors are positioned in three locations: one at Goxhill adjacent to the estuary (on the seawall), and two at Paull - one adjacent to the estuary (on the old seawall), the second adjacent to Paull Holme Strays (on the new seawall).

Please see the answer to point 3, below, which addresses the issue of noise impact in detail.


increases in both maximum and average noise levels at points during the year.

3 The RSPB continues to have concerns over the impacts of the presence of the development, and its associated noise and visual impacts, in previously open landscapes used by SPA birds and in proximity to parts of the SPA. In particular, we are concerned by the potential impacts on the fields between the Goxhill compound and the Estuary, and on the Paull Holme Strays managed realignment. These areas are used by significant numbers of SPA birds and their functional loss therefore has the potential to impact on both fitness of individual birds and distributions of birds within the SPA (all of relevance to the Conservation Objectives).

While the noise increases at Goxhill can potentially be offset by provision of alternative habitat, this is not possible for Paull Holme Strays given its status as part of the SPA. Ensuring that the noise levels reaching the intertidal at PHS are not significantly greater than baseline will therefore be essential for the PHS element.

The surveys have shown that these fields are not used by significant numbers of birds on a regular basis, and therefore that they are part of a wider foraging and roosting resource. Farmland is not a limiting resource in the local area, so we consider that removing a very small proportion of the farmland for a small amount of time would not have a significant effect on the integrity of the SPA. National Grid Gas also has extensive embedded measures in place to mitigate for the potential noise impacts.

Notwithstanding these points (and National Grid Gas’s broader position, as set out in the HRA), during the discussion with Natural England and the RSPB on 22/9/15 it was clear that both organisations remained uncertain regarding noise impacts on SPA birds, both on the Goxhill and Paull sides of the Humber Estuary.

It was therefore agreed that a supplementary HRA technical note will be prepared to clarify details of the noise assessment and how the mitigation attenuates noise.

It was agreed that potential further mitigation (which National Grid Gas does not believe is required) did not need to be long-term creation of valuable habitat (e.g. wet grassland). Instead, it would only need to involve short term proposals (i.e. for the duration of construction) for the retention of a certain area of arable land, outside of the predicted elevated noise environment, which would then be managed in order optimise its value for foraging, roosting and/or loafing SPA birds.


The total area to be needed (if any) would be based on the amount of land affected, as determined by the updated ‘likely scenarios’ (as described in the supplementary HRA technical note). However, significant impacts are not expected and it is not envisaged that this mitigation would be required.

Finally, it was agreed that an alternative method of mitigation for noise impacts could be to implement additional noise attenuation using portable noise fencing/screens within the site. National Grid Gas will consider such measures, but only if required, and assuming that it does not significantly adversely affect the efficient management of the construction site. Given that close-board fencing is to be erected directly around the most noise-producing areas (i.e. the drive shaft on the Goxhill side and the reception pit on the Paull side), such temporary/mobile fencing may not be necessary.

4 While stubbles/set-aside are undoubtedly of wider value, they are of limited/variable value to the species in question (golden plover, curlew, black-tailed godwit).

Figures 12 and 13 indicate that Work No. 11 will experience noise levels significantly higher than baseline levels and therefore will be impacted upon by both the presence of the compound itself and the noise it will generate.

The area of Work No.11 is considerably less than the area of habitat likely to be impacted upon by the works and the

Please refer to the detailed answer to point 3, above.


noise generated and therefore it is insufficient to offset the likely impacts.

The principle of managing habitat, over the lifetime of the project, to provide an alternative for displaced birds (and to draw birds away from the works areas) is sound. However, such an approach must include sufficient improvements in habitat quality over a large enough area to demonstrably offset the impacts for the relevant species and numbers. There are a number of potential options to deliver such an approach but our view is that it will require more active management over a larger area than is currently proposed.

5 The NPPF protection of PHS as a compensation site needs to be specifically referenced.

Paragraph 8.3.13 confirmed that Paull Holme Strays was considered as part of the SPA for the purposes of the Appropriate Assessment.

The worst case assessment presented in the Appropriate Assessment concluded that there would not be significant effects on Paull Holme Strays. The supplementary HRA technical note will provide further clarity on the noise assessment and the effects on Paull Holme Strays.

6 Breeding site fidelity in marsh harriers is strong, although nest locations are not usually in the exact same location but in the same area. There is therefore potential for the birds to nest closer, potentially in the arable depending on the crop.

The commitment to pre-construction surveys is welcomed. However, given the known presence of breeding in the area and the points above, it is still our view that at least

It was agreed during the discussion with Natural England and the RSPB on 22/9/15 that an outline mitigation strategy for marsh harriers will be drafted (in consultation with the RSPB).


an outline mitigation strategy should be developed now. This is to provide the necessary confidence that any nesting will be dealt with appropriately and in a timely manner and that significant impacts on this species will be avoided.

7 It is a flawed approach to disregard an area as not being valuable simply because records are less frequent than other areas (either within or outside the designation). Usage of terrestrial areas is driven by a complex range of factors including tides, weather, prey availability, other disturbance, etc. and so it is important that the matrix of sites used by these species is maintained, as the availability of a given site at a given time can be more important than a simple counting of records might indicate. In this context, it is also important to note that any survey programme only gives a series of snapshots and clearly there are large periods of time not covered when birds can and will be using the areas in question. This is especially the case, as here, for plovers when no nocturnal surveying has been undertaken (research shows fields are used on average 3 times more often at night than during the day).

Broadly, there is evidence for curlew, both from the Humber and more widely, that the ability to undertake supplementary feeding may be critical to maintaining overwinter survival rates in curlew. The potential impacts of interference with this should therefore not be underestimated.

National Grid Gas considers that the detailed answer to point 3, above, addresses the key issues here, and that the ‘likely case’ noise contours (to be set out in the supplementary HRA technical note) will render these points redundant.

National Grid Gas also has the following comments (which were also discussed in the teleconference on 22/09/15):

National Grid Gas does not consider it has ‘disregarded any areas as not being valuable simply because records are less frequent than other areas’ - National Grid Gas has determined their relative value based on detailed surveys (agreed with Natural England).

Whilst surveys clearly do only provide a snapshot, they provide enough of a snapshot (as agreed with Natural England through scoping, and as suggested by the survey guidelines which set out the requisite survey effort) to determine the relative importance of the different fields for SPA birds.

National Grid Gas do not agree that ‘no nocturnal surveying has been undertaken’ (see point 1).


While the species in question clearly do move more widely than the survey and project area here, the key issue is that the project is introducing additional disturbance events, as acknowledged by the statement “on occasion, relatively large numbers of birds might be disturbed and potentially displaced from the fields close to the scheme”. Contrary to the information in the left-hand column, the RSPB does not agree that there is sufficient evidence to support this not being detrimental to the Conservation Objectives (see our points above on fitness and distributions). Fundamentally, this is an impact on the birds that can and should be addressed via mitigation and therefore our view continues to be that mitigation is required and that currently proposed is insufficient.

The RSPB disagrees with the approach taken to the treatment of SPA assemblage species. The SPA assemblage is protected both for its overall numbers and its species diversity, i.e. all species which contribute to the assemblage. Therefore, assemblage species should be given consideration on a species-by-species basis, as their contribution to the assemblage both in terms of numbers and diversity must be protected.

With regard the last paragraph on the SPA assemblage, whilst the final assessment of the implications for the assemblage species considered these as a group, the HRA did describe the implications for each of the individual assemblage species, with reference to the WeBS population counts. Therefore, National Grid Gas considers it has assessed these species effectively, whilst at the same time affording greater emphasis in the assessment to the ‘true’ (i.e. non-assemblage) qualifying species of the SPA. National Grid Gas believes this to be a proportionate approach). This approach was agreed with Natural England during the discussions on the 22/09/2015, however, the RSPB’s position on this issue would be dependent on the ongoing discussions over mitigation requirements.

8 Please can you clarify:

Will only 2 visits be needed? One to put out the pipe and pumps and one to retrieve.

Presumably the visits will be undertaken at low tide?

There will be only two visits: one visit to install the pumps and one to retrieve them.

Visits would be undertaken at low tide.


What time of the year are these visits expected? Clearly, avoiding key wintering/passage periods would be preferable. A particular concern would be if there is potential for them to take place in freezing or other severe weather conditions.

The work would not be done in adverse weather conditions. In order to provide further reassurance the ecological clerk of works would be on site during the installation / removal of the pumps within the Humber Estuary.

Table 1-2 RSPB Outcome of discussion with Natural England and RSPB on 21/10/15

Response from RSPB/Natural England National Grid Gas Response / Comment

Both the RSPB and Natural England were happy with the revised noise contours presented in the Technical Note (refer to Appendix B). The RSPB and Natural England are also in agreement that noise disturbance beyond the construction boundary would not be significant.

The SoCG has been updated to reflect this agreement.

The main concern of RSPB and Natural England was the loss of foraging habitat for Humber Estuary SPA species under the footprint of Scheme.

Natural England and the RSPB stated that mitigation would be required to off-set the temporary loss of Fields 5 and 6 during the construction phase, and that the retention of the remainder of Field 5 as set-aside land would not achieve this. Instead, a similar area of arable and/or pasture land to that being lost from Fields 5 and 6 would need to be managed for golden plover, curlew and black-tailed godwit to compensate for this loss of foraging habitat.

National Grid Gas maintain that the temporary loss of these fields would not have a significant effect on the integrity of the SPA. National Grid Gas are currently exploring the options for the temporary provision of further mitigation land outside the order limits for the duration of the construction works. Please note, this would also be subject to approval from OFGEM under National Grids funding arrangements

Response from RSPB/Natural England National Grid Gas Response / Comment

Even if the loss is not significant, the RSPB and Natural England still feel that National Grid Gas should mitigate for this loss as part of their NERC biodiversity duty. For clarity, the RSPB and Natural England are of the view that the loss is significant.

The RSPB and Natural England confirmed that if National Grid Gas can provide compensation land for the duration of the construction phase, this would resolve all outstanding concerns of the two organisations.

The RSPB and Natural England consider that the area of mitigation land would need to constitute one or two large areas (rather than small fields). The management of the retained fields could include changing the farmer’s cropping regime, and the possibility of creating scrapes within these fields for the duration of the construction phase.

National Grid Gas are currently exploring the options for the temporary provision of further mitigation land outside the order limits (please note, this would also be subject to approval from OFGEM under National Grids funding arrangements). Once an agreement has been reached, National Grid Gas would provide further information on the proposed management of these fields. The management would be agreed in consultation with the RSPB and Natural England.

The RSPB and Natural England requested that National Grid Gas provide some further information on the proposed marsh harrier mitigation strategy. At this stage the RSPB and Natural England would be happy with a document which sets out and commits to the principles for a marsh harrier mitigation strategy with a commitment to get the detailed strategy signed off by Natural England / RSPB prior to commencement of the Scheme.

National Grid Gas have put together an outline of the marsh harrier mitigation strategy (refer to Appendix C).


Appendix B

HRA Technical Note

Kba00342

Rectangle

National Grid Gas


Addendum - Supplementary HRA Technical Note

The River Humber Gas Pipeline Replacement Project

The River Humber Gas Pipeline Replacement Project Page i

CONTENTS

Revision Status ......................................................................... iii 1 Introduction ....................................................................... 1

1.1 Purpose of the Document ......................................... 1 2 Noise Modelling ................................................................ 2

2.1 Background .............................................................. 2 2.2 Noise Modelling Methodology .................................. 2 2.3 Noise Modelling Results and Discussion .................. 3 2.4 Conclusion ............................................................... 5

3 Bird Survey Methodology .................................................. 6 Figures ...................................................................................... 7

Figure 1: Noise modelling results (LAeq), predicted likely noise contours (Month 26 - October) - Goxhill Figure 2: Noise modelling results (LAeq), predicted likely noise contours (Month 26 - October) - Paull Figure 3: Noise modelling results (LAmax), predicted likely noise contours (Month 26 - October) - Goxhill Figure 4: Noise modelling results (LAmax), predicted likely noise contours (Month 26 - October) - Paull

The River Humber Gas Pipeline Replacement Project Page ii

The River Humber Gas Pipeline Replacement Project Page iii

Revision Status

Approvals

Role Printed Name

Signed Name Date

Originated by Senior Environmental Consultant (Hyder Consulting)

Liz Turley 30/09/2015

Checked by Technical Director (Hyder Consulting)

Jon Davies 07/10/2015


Nicky Hartley 07/10/2015

Revision History



14/10/2015

0 First issue to Natural England and the RSPB

28/10/2015

1 Minor amendments at the request of the RSPB

Distribution

To: Natural England (NE) / Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB)

cc:

Kba00342

Rectangle

The River Humber Gas Pipeline Replacement Project Page iv


1 Introduction

1.1 Purpose of the Document

1.1.1 This document is an Addendum to the Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) which was submitted as part of the Development Consent Order (DCO) application for the River Humber Gas Pipeline Replacement Project (the Scheme) (DCO Document Reference 5.4).

1.1.2 This Addendum has been prepared in response to comments made by Natural England (NE) and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) as part of the consultation process for the Scheme (refer to the Statements of Common Ground for NE and RSPB (DCO Document References 8.16 and 8.14)).

1.1.3 The Addendum comprises:

Further discussion of the noise modelling undertaken; and

Further discussion of the nocturnal bird survey methodology.


2 Noise Modelling

2.1 Background

2.1.1 As part of the consultation process, the RSPB and NE raised questions in relation to potential noise impacts of the Scheme on bird species associated with the Humber Estuary Special Protection Area (SPA) / Ramsar site (refer to the Statements of Common Ground for NE and RSPB (DCO Document References 8.16 and 8.14). Following a teleconference held on 22nd September 2015, it was agreed that noise contours would be prepared to present the predicted ‘likely’ noise levels during the construction period, rather than the ‘worst case’ scenario that was presented in the HRA (DCO Document Reference 5.4).

2.2 Noise Modelling Methodology

2.2.1 Noise modelling was undertaken as part of the HRA for the Scheme (refer to Section 8 of the HRA (DCO Document Reference 5.4)). This modelled a worst case scenario based on draft plant inventories and the indicative work programme. The noise modelling parameters are set out in Appendix 10.2 of Chapter 10 – Noise and Vibration (DCO Document Reference 6.10.2).

2.2.2 The bunding and fencing around the construction site (shown on Site Layout Plans (DCO Document Reference 2.4B) constitutes embedded mitigation within the Scheme (i.e. part of the Scheme design) and was therefore taken into consideration when carrying out the noise modelling.

2.2.3 The noise model assumed noise propagation over hard ground, minimal sound attenuation from the bunding and fencing around the construction site, and a receptor height of 1.5m above ground level (amongst other parameters), and therefore produced a worst case scenario. In addition to this worst case, the consultees (in the teleconference on 22nd September 2015) requested noise contours representative of a ‘likely’ case scenario to reflect the actual predicted situation.

2.2.4 To present a ’likely’ interpretation of the noise effects due to the Scheme, noise contours have therefore been prepared to assume noise propagation over soft ground, taking into consideration close board fencing around the drive pit, and using a default height of 0.1m (to represent the height above ground at which a roosting or foraging bird would experience noise from the Scheme). This was considered to represent a ‘likely’ scenario in relation to potential impacts on birds.

2.2.5 No other parameters of the noise model were changed. The methodologies used to undertake the modelling are contained within British Standard BS 5228-1:2009+A1:2014 ‘Code of practice for noise and vibration control on construction and open sites. Noise’. (refer to Chapter 10: Noise and Vibration (DCO Document Reference 6.10)).

2.2.6 Noise contours for the worst case construction month at both Goxhill and Paull were used when re-running the model to produce contours (i.e. Month 26 (October)). This was the month within the winter period (i.e. between October and March), where the combination of activities on site would be expected to generate the most noise (based on the indicative programme and draft plant inventories


(refer to Appendix 10.2 of Chapter 10 – Noise and Vibration (DCO Document Reference 6.10.2)).

2.3 Noise Modelling Results and Discussion

2.3.1 The results of the ‘likely’ scenario contours are shown on Figures 1 to 4. These take into consideration the revised parameters, as set out in Section 2.2. Contours for both the LAeq and LAmax are provided, as in the HRA (DCO Document Reference 5.4).

LAeq

2.3.2 LAeq, also known as the Equivalent Continuous Level can be defined as follows: "when a noise varies over time, the LAeq is the equivalent continuous sound which would contain the same sound energy as the time varying sound". It thus represents an average noise measure, where noisy events have a significant influence.

2.3.3 The ‘likely’ contours show that even in the noisiest month during the winter period, the average noise levels reaching the adjacent fields would be comparable to the background existing noise levels recorded during the noise monitoring exercise carried out in 2014 (refer to the HRA, DCO Document Reference 5.4). Whilst only a single month was re-modelled, this reduction in noise levels experienced outside of the construction area would be experienced across the remaining construction months.

2.3.4 Table 1 shows the background LAeq between 07:00 and 19:00 (the time when the construction site would be active) to which birds would be habituated (this is a duplicate of Table 7 presented in the HRA (DCO Document Reference 5.4)).

Table 1: Baseline (i.e. existing) LAeq levels at the three sample locations

Measurement location Average measured noise level (daytime 07:00 to 19:00)

Measurement position 1 (Goxhill) 43.8dB

Measurement position 2 (Paull) 46.3dB


2.3.5 At both Paull and Goxhill, average construction-phase noise levels of between 40dB LAeq and 55dB LAeq would reach the adjacent fields and estuarine habitat. Levels of 55dB relate to areas directly adjacent to the boundary of the construction site, and levels of 40-45dB LAeq relate to the positions of the noise monitors at the edge of the Humber Estuary (refer to Figures 1 to 4). Based on these figures, birds using the adjacent fields and estuarine habitat during the construction phase would be experiencing average noise levels similar to those which they are currently habituated to (i.e. between 43.8dB and 44.7dB LAeq).

2.3.6 At Paull, Figure 2 shows that average noise levels of less than 40-45dB LAeq would reach Paull Holme Strays. Given that the noise monitoring indicated that birds are already experiencing average noise levels between 44.7dB LAeq and 46.3dB LAeq, birds using Paull Holme Strays during the construction phase


would be experiencing average noise levels similar to those to which they are currently habituated.

2.3.7 During the teleconference on 22nd September 2015, it was suggested that the Scheme would need to ‘fit in’ with the existing varying noise environment, and that the assessment would need to demonstrate ‘no significant increase over baseline’. [Note: whilst a figure of 10% over baseline was suggested as a threshold, percentages cannot be applied to modelled noise calculation figures (i.e. dB)]. National Grid Gas believe that the revised noise contours do demonstrate this.

LAmax

2.3.8 The LAmax simply represents the highest noise level reached in a given time period. The updated, ‘likely’ contours show that even in the noisiest months during the winter period, the LAmax levels reaching the adjacent fields and estuarine habitat would be comparable to, or less than, the background existing maximum loud noise levels recorded during the noise monitoring exercise.

2.3.9 Table 2 shows the background LAmax between 07:00 and 19:00 (the time when the construction site would be active) to which birds using this area would be habituated (this is a duplicate of Table 8 presented in the HRA).

Table 2: Baseline (i.e. existing) LAmax levels at the three sample locations

Measurement location Average measured noise level (daytime 07:00 to 19:00)

Measurement position 1 (Goxhill) 75.1dB



2.3.10 At both Paull and Goxhill, the revised modelling shows that LAmax of up to 75dB could reach adjacent fields during the construction phase (see Figures 3 and 4, respectively); this is comparable to the LAmax which the birds are currently habituated to. Levels of less than 55-60dB would reach the estuarine habitat at Goxhill and less than 60-65dB LAmax at Paull Holme Strays; again these levels are comparable to, or less than, the LAmax which the birds are currently experiencing from background noise levels.

2.3.11 In terms of the frequency of loud noises, from the data collected during the noise monitoring, it appears that the birds could be experiencing up to ten loud noises (i.e. single loud noises above 70dB) over a 12-hour daytime period (although this is a broad estimate based on only a small sample size, and therefore any extrapolation from this should be treated with caution).

2.3.12 The types of activities which would be taking place during the construction phase of the Scheme would not generate regular or frequent single loud noises. Such high LAmax levels on site are usually associated with percussive piling methods; however, these methods would not be employed on the Scheme. The majority of the work for the Scheme would be undertaken with continuous flight auger piling (with a small amount of sheet vibro-piling around the reception/drive pits) which


would not generate high LAmax levels compared to percussive piling.

2.3.13 The events which could generate a high LAmax would be unexpected incidents which result in loud noises, for example when slurry presses are cleaned there may be a need to dislodge material which could create ad-hoc noise as it drops. However, National Grid Gas would manage the site in a way that reduces, or even avoids such unexpected incidents. Therefore, these incidents would happen infrequently, if at all, and would thus barely contribute to the background occurrence of such noises. Notwithstanding this, the ‘likely’ contours have shown that even if LAmax is generated from the construction site, the levels of noise reaching adjacent habitats would be comparable to, or less than, those that the birds are currently habituated to.

2.3.14 Therefore, in terms of potential impacts on SPA bird species, the effects of single loud noises as a result of the construction works are considered to be negligible (Refer to Section 8.3 of the HRA (DCO Document Reference 5.4)). As for the LAeq assessment, the intermittent noise generation from the Scheme has thus been shown to ‘fit in’ with the existing varying noise environment and would not represent a significant increase over baseline.

2.4 Conclusion

2.4.1 Based on the, ‘likely’ contours, the assessment and conclusions reached by the HRA (DCO Document Reference 5.4) remain the same. It is considered that the potential for significant noise disturbance to birds using the fields adjacent to the construction site, and the estuarine habitat (in particular Paull Holme Strays) during the construction phase of the Scheme is negligible on both sides of the Humber Estuary.

2.4.2 It is concluded that there would be no effects resulting from noise disturbance that would be significantly detrimental to the fulfilment of the conservation objectives for the SPA, or that would affect the ability of the populations of SPA species to survive at their current conservation status. It is thus considered that no further mitigation measures, additional to those already set out in the Environmental Statement (ES) (DCO Document Reference 6.7) and HRA (DCO Document Reference 5.4), would be required. As such, it is not deemed necessary to consider additional mitigation measures (outside of the red line boundary), such as managing land for foraging/ roosting SPA bird species away from the construction area.

2.4.3 Any potential works to Field 5 (Work No. 11) (DCO Document Reference 2.2A) to improve its suitability for SPA birds would be considered to be either enhancement or mitigation for a non-significant impact.


3 Bird Survey Methodology 3.1.1 In relation to the bird surveying carried out for the ES (DCO Document Reference

6.7) and HRA (DCO Document Reference 5.4), the RSPB raised the issue of a perceived lack of surveying at night to identify foraging waders.

3.1.2 Given the difficulties associated with surveying at night, both in terms of identifying the presence (and species identity) of birds (past experience of surveys undertaken by Hyder has not found night surveys to be successful), and in terms of increased health and safety risks, a survey methodology using consecutive dusk and dawn surveys was used to enable the nocturnal presence of golden plover, lapwing and other species to be inferred. This survey approach was agreed in consultation with Natural England, and is considered to be proportionate to the size and scale of the Scheme.

3.1.3 The nocturnal surveys were undertaken consecutively, i.e. dusk surveys at one Vantage Point were followed by dawn surveys at the same Vantage Point the next day. If birds were observed to be ‘flying in’ at dusk, or were observed at dawn, they were deemed likely to be feeding/roosting on site. The nocturnal surveys identified the presence of golden plover, lapwing and curlew (refer to Appendix 5 of the HRA (DCO Document Reference 5.4)). The potential impacts on all three of these species was considered in the impact assessment (refer to Section 8.3 of the HRA (DCO Document Reference 5.4).

3.1.4 Therefore, even if night time surveys using night vision equipment had been undertaken (as proposed in the teleconference 22nd September 2015 by RSPB), given that the nocturnal surveys had already identified the presence of these species, this would not have changed the assessment. Hence, using dawn/dusk surveys (rather than night time surveys) has provided sufficient information to inform the impact assessment; and as such the conclusion remains valid that there would be no significant impacts on SPA bird species roosting or feeding close to the Scheme as a result of visual or noise disturbance at night.

3.1.5 Therefore, whilst additional potential mitigation measures were suggested by RSPB in the teleconference (22nd September 2015), it is considered that these would not be required.


Figures

1

>..-35

>35-40

>40-45

>45-50

>50-55

>55-60

>60-65

>65-70

>70-75

>75-80

>80-..

ECOLOGICAL NOISE

MONITORING LOCATIONS

Day

Level

dB(A)

1

3

2

>..-35

>35-40

>40-45

>45-50

>50-55

>55-60

>60-65

>65-70

>70-75

>75-80

>80-..

ECOLOGICAL NOISE


Day

Level

dB(A)

2

1

>..-35

>35-40

>40-45

>45-50

>50-55

>55-60

>60-65

>65-70

>70-75

>75-80

>80-..

ECOLOGICAL NOISE


Day

Level

dB(A)

1

3

2

>..-35

>35-40

>40-45

>45-50

>50-55

>55-60

>60-65

>65-70

>70-75

>75-80

>80-..

ECOLOGICAL NOISE


Day

Level

dB(A)

2


Appendix C


Kba00342

Rectangle



All birds, their nests and eggs in the UK are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981 (as amended) during the breeding season. Precautions will therefore be required to avoid any birds which could be nesting within and adjacent to the Scheme. Certain bird species, listed on Schedule 1, are also afforded additional protection in law associated with disturbing these birds at or near their nests, or their dependent young; such species include marsh harrier (Circus aeruginosus), which are a qualifying feature of the adjacent Humber Estuary Special Protection Area (SPA) and Humber Estuary Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).

The following list outlines the information which will be provided in the marsh harrier mitigation strategy for mitigating the potential impacts of the works on breeding marsh harrier, should they be present in the vicinity of the construction works at Goxhill. This will ensure that no birds are incidentally disturbed or harmed during the proposed works.

Pre-construction marsh harrier surveys would be carried within 500m of the construction site. This would comprise the following:

1. Three visits between mid-April and mid-May to local possible nesting locations (six-hour vantage point surveys from two vantage points, and three-hour walking transect within the red line boundary).

2. A further two visits between mid-May to mid-June to confirm nesting (same survey effort as above).

3. Depending on the results of the spring visits, a further two visits would be carried out between July and August to confirm fledging (same survey effort as above).

Making habitat within the order limits, but outside of the designated sites, unsuitable for nesting marsh harrier to discourage nesting leading up to, and for the duration of the construction works.

Should a nesting marsh harrier be identified within or adjacent to the construction works, bespoke mitigation measures may be required. The specific mitigation measures would be determined by the location of the nest in relation to the Scheme and the proposed works which could be undertaken in the vicinity of the nest. The mitigation measures would be discussed in consultation with National England/RSPB prior to any mitigation measures being implemented. Mitigation measures could comprise a combination of the following:

1. Undertaking further vantage point surveys (from a suitable distance so as not to disturb the birds) to confirm the exact location of the nest (if possible).

2. Implementing a suitable exclusion zone around the nest location. The distance of any exclusion zone would be determined by the nest location and the amount of natural screening from features such as hedgerows, trees and the seawall. However, no works would take place within at least 300m of a known marsh harrier nest site, unless with the agreement of Natural England (NB this is very unlikely if Point 2 is implemented before the works).

3. Installing extra screening to reduce visual disturbance, if appropriate.


4. Providing a watching brief to ensure that no marsh harrier, or their fledglings, were disturbed by the Scheme.

5. In addition to the measures outlined above, a tool-box talk would be provided to the construction team in advance of proposed works, detailing the procedure to be followed should they encounter marsh harrier at any point during the works.

6. In certain rare circumstances, it is accepted that the only means to avoid disturbance may be cessation of certain works elements. However, following the successful implementation of specific mitigation measures outlined above this highly unlikely to be required for the Scheme.

Documents

N T 8.1 - National Infrastructure Planning T Application Reference: ... 015 0 First Issue for Comment to RSPB First Issue ... (AGI) at Goxhill on the south bank of the Humber