A Sense of Proportion: Proportionate Approaches to Assessment and Mitigation of Largescale, Low-impact Transport Infrastructure Schemes WSCP 1

Transcription

1 A Sense of Proportion: Proportionate Approaches to Assessment and Mitigation of Largescale, Low-impact Transport Infrastructure Schemes WSCP 1

2 Proportionate Approaches to Assessment of Large-scale, Low-impact Transport Infrastructure Schemes Mike Gibbs CEcol MCIEEM Senior Ecologist 01 July 2016 WSCP 2

3 Introduction Ecological specialists play a crucial role alongside engineers in the design and construction of transport infrastructure renewals and upgrades. This presentation outlines an approach to proportionate Preliminary Ecological Appraisal of large-scale, linear transport infrastructure projects where impacts are localised within the transport corridor. 01 July 2016 WSCP 3

4 The Proportionate Approach The work involved in preparing and implementing all ecological surveys and impact assessments should be proportionate to the predicted degree of risk to biodiversity and to the nature and scale of the proposed development. The proportionate approach is in line with guidance set out in BS42020:2013. Reiterated by CIEEM Professional Standards Committee (In Practice 91). 01 July 2016 WSCP 4

5 The Precautionary Principle Needs to be applied in a reasonable and proportionate way. A view can be taken accepting a reasonable level of uncertainty. It should be possible to make a reasonable assessment based on incomplete survey information using experience and professional judgement. HE Interim Advice Note 125/15 Environmental Assessment Update 01 July 2016 WSCP 5

6 CASE STUDY M23 Junctions 8-10 Smart Motorway 01 July 2016 WSCP 6

7 Smart Motorways All lane running Enhanced technology ERAs Central barrier M25, M42 etc. 01 July 2016 WSCP 7

8 Safety Issues The risk of accident is very real if safety is not taken seriously. To visit highway infrastructure requires appropriate training, authorisation and safety planning. Access to some locations may require road closures, often at night when a visual ecological survey is difficult. There can be difficult terrain to access. 01 July 2016 WSCP 8

9 Desk Study and Remote Sensing Wildlife records OS maps MAGIC Old OS maps 01 July 2016 WSCP 9

10 Aerial Photos and Street View Imagery 2016 Infoterra Ltd & Bluesky. Map data 2016 Google WSCP 10

11 Ground Truthing and Habitat Mapping The next step is to ground-truth potentially important ecological features identified during the desk study. Confirm during walkovers the presence of potentially important features. Undertaken from outside the highway boundary, using public rights of way, thereby avoiding safety issues. Is traditional Phase 1 Habitat Survey appropriate? 01 July 2016 WSCP 11

12 Building a Database GIS is beneficial as the results can be viewed at various scales. The background database is easily edited. Data built up and corrected for accuracy over time. Data presented in electronic format for consultation by the client or a contractor. Data will feed into BIM. 01 July 2016 WSCP 12

13 Localised Constraints Survey The final stage is targeted Localised Constraints Survey. Based on a preliminary assessment of the impacts of the works. Survey for ecological features that cannot be identified remotely. Target locations where the most significant effects are anticipated. Relatively minor works do not usually have a significant ecological effect. Target locations where designated sites, notable habitats, or protected species are present or adjacent. 01 July 2016 WSCP 13

14 Conclusion A proportionate approach to PEA for large-scale, low-impact linear transport schemes. Based on a prediction of potential ecological constraints formulated during a desk study, supplemented by groundtruthing, and confirmed during localised survey. This method should only be carried out by experienced ecological surveyors. There may be situations where this approach is not appropriate, where more detailed survey is required in order to accurately assess the impacts. 01 July 2016 WSCP 14

15 WSCP 15

16 CASE STUDY The Midland Mainline Electrification Scheme: Project-wide Protected Species Licencing Matt Oakley Principal Ecologist 01 July 2016 WSCP 16

17 The Midland Mainline Electrification Scheme Electrification of the existing railway line between Bedford and Sheffield Scope of works includes: Ground Investigations; Installation of Overhead Line Equipment (piled foundations and gantries every 50m); Replacement of cabling; Compounds and access points; Renovation and Replacement of bridges/ structures. 01 July 2016 WSCP 17

18 Phase 1 Bedford to Kettering 38km of existing railway line Habitat mosaic of grassland, scrub and woodland along the embankments Numerous ditches, streams and rivers adjacent to or crossed by the railway 136 waterbodies situated within 500m of the railway 01 July 2016 WSCP 18

19 WSCP 19

20 WSCP 20

21 What is the Problem/ Risk? The geographical extent of large-scale linear schemes like MML results in a high probability that a multitude of protected species will be encountered during the works 7 different populations of great crested newts were recorded between Bedford and Kettering Most of the works are low-impact. Is it appropriate/ proportionate to install fencing and trap and translocate newts? The risk of finding newts in any one area is low, but the risk of encounter is high when the scale of the works is considered (1000 s of gantries and km s of cabling. Could the works be done under Precautionary Methods of Working? 01 July 2016 WSCP 21

22 What is the Problem/ Risk? Large-scale linear schemes can take a number of years to construct. Species can move around and be encountered in areas where they were previously unrecorded. 4 badger setts recorded on MML in May By August 2015 the number of active setts was 10. Construction works on rail and road schemes are limited by H&S and timing requirements. Most works have a small window to complete. Cost and Programme risk of encountering species in areas they are unexpected (or during PMW). 01 July 2016 WSCP 22

23 WSCP 23

24 How were the Problems/ Risks Addressed? After discussion with Natural England, Project-wide mitigation licences for great crested newts and badgers were obtained for the MML in The licences covered the GI works, installation of OLE and replacement of cabling along the MML between Bedford and Kettering. According to Natural England, this was the first time such a licence was issued for a European Protected Species. 01 July 2016 WSCP 24

25 What do the Licences allow? Mitigation can be implemented along the entire length of the MML between Bedford and Kettering. Mitigation isn t dependent on whether a species has been recorded previously in a particular area. Mitigation can be implemented as and when a species is encountered during the works. Great Crested Newts can be captured from the footprint of the works and moved to adjacent areas without the need for fencing/ trapping. Badgers setts can be disturbed/ closed as required. 01 July 2016 WSCP 25

26 WSCP 26

27 Advantages Greater Certainty Over Programme Delivery - licences grant consent to deal with protected species, as and when they are encountered during the works even if the protected species was not previously recorded in a particular location. The MML great crested newt licence gives permission in certain circumstances to move great crested newts in the winter if required. The badger licence allows setts to be disturbed during winter and spring. Standard licencing procedures do not normally permit these actions. 01 July 2016 WSCP 27

28 Advantages Reduced Survey Requirements - the MML great crested newt licence was obtained without undertaking population assessments. It could have been obtained with edna surveys only. Reduced Risk the licences remove the risks of undertaking works under a Precautionary Method of Working, a process which requires works to stop if such species are found during works. Reduced Costs - costs associated with delays incurred during railway gantry installation or cable trough renewals due to finding protected species without a licence could be 10,000 to 20,000 per night 01 July 2016 WSCP 28

29 Disadvantages Currently, the Project-wide licence can only be used to cover low impact works such as ground investigations, installation of gantries and renewal of cables. High impact works still need to be covered under a standard mitigation licence. No standard way of obtaining such a licence it has only been done once for EPS. 01 July 2016 WSCP 29

30 Similarities with Class Licencing? It may be possible for the class licencing system to cover the requirements of a Project-wide licence for a linear scheme. Currently very limited numbers of consultants will be registered for example 40 at the moment for great crested newts. Class licencing requires the registered consultant to undertake the licensable works is this realistic on a large-scale linear scheme with a construction phase duration of many years? 01 July 2016 WSCP 30

31 Conclusion Richard John, Environment Manager, Network Rail Alan Law, Natural England Chief Officer for Strategy and Reform 01 July 2016 WSCP 31

32 Thank you If you d like to find out more contact: Mike Gibbs Mike.Gibbs@atkinsglobal.com Matt Oakley Matt.Oakley@atkinsglobal.com Atkins Limited except where stated otherwise. The Atkins logo, Carbon Critical Design and the strapline Plan Design Enable are trademarks of Atkins Limited. 01 July 2016 WSCP 32