Greatham Managed Realignment Environmental Statement

Transcription

1 Greatham Managed Realignment Environmental Statement Greatham Managed Realignment Environmental Statement submitted for Full Planning Permission Hartlepool Borough Council Environment Agency Title

2 We are The Environment Agency. It's our job to look after your environment and make it a better place - for you, and for future generations. Your environment is the air you breathe, the water you drink and the ground you walk on. Working with business, Government and society as a whole, we are making your environment cleaner and healthier. The Environment Agency. Out there, making your environment a better place. Published by: Environment Agency Rio House Waterside Drive, Aztec West Almondsbury, Bristol BS32 4UD Tel: enquiries@environment-agency.gov.uk Environment Agency All rights reserved. This document may be reproduced with prior permission of the Environment Agency. Environment Agency Greatham Managed Realignment

3 Non-Technical Summary Introduction and Background We (the Environment Agency) are responsible for the management of flood risk throughout England and Wales. Our Tees Tidal Flood Risk Management Strategy (the Strategy), completed in 2009, recommended raising and/or improving existing flood defences throughout much of the Tees Estuary in recognition of the nationally important industries and residential areas potentially at risk from tidal flooding. Significant parts of the Tees Estuary and surrounding land are designated as being of international and national nature conservation importance, including the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar site which is, in part, designated for its internationally important bird populations. We have identified that implementation of our Strategy will result in the loss of intertidal habitats which form part of the SPA and Ramsar site. Further coastal defence works necessary as part of the Redcar Flood Alleviation Scheme also have the potential to cause a loss of SPA habitats. We have a legal requirement to deliver at least 20 hectares of intertidal habitat as compensation for the impact predicted as part of the Strategy and Redcar FAS, and this will be achieved by the Greatham Managed Realignment scheme within the Tees Estuary. We have purchased 77 hectares of land alongside Greatham Creek (part of the Greatham North flood cell) to fulfil this purpose. Further detail of what this managed realignment will involve is described in the following sub-sections. The purpose of this Environmental Statement is to document the steps taken and findings made during the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) undertaken for the Greatham Managed Realignment scheme. This Environmental Statement accompanies a planning application for the project, submitted to the local planning authority, Hartlepool Borough Council, and also an application to the Marine Management Organisation for a Marine Licence for works within the marine environment. The Existing Environment Much of the Greatham North flood cell was reclaimed from the intertidal zone in the midto late s by the construction of flood embankments and bunds. Historic land uses have given rise to a number of potential sources of contamination, principally from a refuse / spoil heap on-site and abandoned salt mining operations (brine wells). Existing historic salt mounds (salterns) located within the proposed realignment are also of archaeological significance. A public footpath runs through the site along the top of the present flood embankment along Greatham Creek. The potential effects of the scheme on water flow and movement of sediments within Greatham Creek have been subject to detailed investigation to determine both the extent of flooding possible within the proposed realignment site and other potential impacts, including sediment transport, current flows and channel shape and behaviour. Environment Agency Greatham Managed Realignment

4 The Scheme The scheme comprises construction of a new embankment alongside the A178 and at the back of the managed realignment area. The new embankments will be approximately 2.5m high with 1 in 3.5m to 1 in 4m side slopes dependant upon ground conditions, and the width across the top, or crest, will be approximately 3m. Material for the construction of the embankments will, in part, be obtained from a borrow site within the existing area of land that we have purchased. Once we have finished construction of the embankments, the area of the borrow pits will be restored to freshwater and grassland habitats. Two breaches will be constructed within the present flood embankment along Greatham Creek. The breaches will allow tidal flooding to create a new area of inter-tidal habitat. This area will be contained by the new embankments, and the current flood defence Standard of Protection will be maintained. Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures The creation of compensatory intertidal habitats will allow the implementation of the Tees Tidal Flood Risk Management Strategy and also the Redcar Flood Alleviation Scheme. This will result in a significant benefit to the habitats and birds of the Tees Estuary, whilst allowing for the flood protection of important residential and economic assets. In total it is estimated that the scheme will generate approximately: 22 hectares of intertidal habitat (mudflat and saltmarsh) hectares of fresh water / grassland (from the restoration of the borrow pit area) 8 hectares of additional Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) habitat including brackish pools and grassland The implementation of the managed realignment has been shown not to have the potential for a significant impact on the water flow and movement of sediments within the Tees Estuary. The location and dimensions of breaches have been designed to minimise erosion of existing saltmarsh and mudflat habitats. The excavation of the borrow pit area during construction will have visual impacts and is likely to result in some short term noise disturbance to local residents and those using the public footpath. Workings will be screened and operations will comply with acceptable hours of working which will be agreed with Hartlepool Borough Council prior to commencement. This area will be restored as part of the works to a new area of freshwater and grassland habitats. Impacts on habitats and species of international and national importance during construction works have been managed through timing of works to avoid sensitive periods, and will be implemented through the provision of an Environmental Action Plan (EAP) that will be produced after planning permission and agreement of any planning conditions. Bird deflectors will be placed on existing pylons that cross the managed realignment site to reduce the risk of bird collisions with the electricity cables. Breaching of the embankment along Greatham Creek will require the diversion of an existing public footpath around the perimeter of the site. Whilst this has the potential to lessen public enjoyment of the path, the newly realigned path will be of superior grade and will still be possible to view wildlife at Greatham Creek. The realigned path will also minimise disturbance to birds and seals within Greatham Creek, and being along top of Environment Agency Greatham Managed Realignment

5 the new embankment, will provide elevated views of the newly created habitat and the birds that will use it. Construction traffic is low in proportion to the existing traffic flows on the A178 (an estimate of an additional 3 vehicles per day during the construction period). Construction traffic will access the compound via the A178. Construction traffic will not pass through the village. Features of historic significance, such as the salterns, will be returned to their status prior to construction of the embankments, reducing current pressures from erosion by burrowing and grazing animals. The scheme will have a positive impact upon the landscape character of the Tees, enhancing it thought the replacement of low value rough grazing land with the creation of more natural intertidal areas, including saltmarsh. Pre-works as part of the project include decommissioning of brine wells, regrading and capping of the spoil heap at the western end of the site. This will reduce any pollution risks. No major adverse cumulative or in combination effects with other proposed plans or projects have been identified or are predicted for the scheme. A Water Framework Directive assessment has been completed. The scheme has the potential to contribute to a number of aims and objectives we have for restoring the hydromorphological (physical characteristics) and ecological status of the Tees Estuary water body to obtain Good Ecological Potential within the timeframe established in the River Basin Management plan The Indicative Landscape Plan which shows that describes the environmental impacts, mitigation and enhancement is provided in Appendix A of the Environmental Statement. Environmental Enhancements The following enhancements will be possible as a result of the scheme: Creation of Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) habitats; Creation of other habitats of conservation value; Remediation of historical land use/contamination; Economic opportunities (through increase tourism) Opportunities for increased recreation and public access; Integrated management of the managed realignment site. We have worked closely with an Environmental Steering Group including Natural England, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), Hartlepool Borough Council and Teesmouth Bird Club to develop the proposals for the managed realignment scheme and to ensure that the final scheme is designed in such a way as to provide the maximum environmental benefits whilst also satisfying the requirements of the Strategy. We have also held several public consultants and the views of local people have been incorporated into the final design. Environment Agency Greatham Managed Realignment

6 Conclusion The Greatham Managed Realignment scheme will provide the necessary compensatory habitat for that predicted to be lost as a result of implementation of the Tees Tidal Flood Risk Management Strategy and the coastal flood defences at Redcar. Completion of the scheme will therefore allow future work to the tidal flood defences of the Tees Estuary to ensure that people, properties and industry are adequately protected in the future. The scheme will be of long-term environmental benefit to the Tees Estuary, conserving the integrity of the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar site. The scheme will create a range of complementary habitats of benefit to a variety of wildlife, and ensures there will be better access to for the public to experience the wildlife of the new site. Environment Agency Greatham Managed Realignment

7 Contents 1 Introduction Purpose of this report Legislative and consenting framework Environment Agency contact details Structure of this report 4 2 Background Nature and Background to the Project Project objectives Location and Site Description Study area Strategic context Flood Risk Assessment Requirements 9 3 Proposed Scheme Background Alternative options for the Greatham site Preferred option Construction details Post-construction Details 16 4 Consultation To Date Environmental Steering group External Consultation 18 5 Methodology Introduction Scoping Assessment and evaluation 21 6 Hydrodynamic and sedimentary regime Introduction Methodology Predicted effect of Managed Realignment 28 7 Flora and fauna Introduction 40 Environment Agency Greatham Managed Realignment

8 7.2 Methodology Environmental baseline Assessment of effects Mitigation and Residual Impacts 70 8 Industry, Transport and Infrastructure Introduction Methodology Environmental baseline Assessment of effects Mitigation and residual impacts 78 9 Geology, soils and hydrogeology Introduction Methodology Environmental baseline Assessment of effects Mitigation and residual impacts Historic Environment Introduction Methodology Environmental baseline Assessment of effects Mitigation and residual impacts Water and marine sediment quality Introduction Methodology Environmental baseline Assessment of effects Mitigation and residual impacts Landscape and visual amenity Introduction Methodology Environmental baseline Assessment of effects Mitigation and residual impacts 107 Environment Agency Greatham Managed Realignment

9 13 Noise Introduction Methodology Environmental baseline Assessment of effects Mitigation and residual impacts Recreation, access and amenity Introduction Methodology Environmental baseline Assessment of effects Mitigation and residual impacts Summary of environmental impacts Summary Environmental enhancements Introduction Creation of BAP habitat Creation of other habitats of conservation value Remediation of historical land use/contamination Economic opportunities Footpath and public use Integrated management of managed realignment site Cumulative Effects Introduction Other proposed plans and projects within the Tees Estuary Potential for cumulative effects Conclusions Summary of key impacts Management and monitoring plan 135 Environment Agency Greatham Managed Realignment

10 Appendix List for Planning ES Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Appendix E Appendix F Appendix G Appendix H Appendix I Appendix J Appendix K Appendix L Appendix M Appendix N Appendix O Figures Appropriate Assessment Water Framework Directive Assessment Hartlepool Borough Council Screening and Scoping Response Summary of Consultation Responses HR Wallingford Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transfer Studies Phase 1 Habitat Survey Great Crested Newt Survey Historic Trends Analysis and Initial Geomorphological Assessment Ornithological Data, Teesmouth Bird Club Otter and Water Vole Survey Ecological Niche Monitoring Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment Archaeological Monitoring Report Noise Assessment Report Environment Agency Greatham Managed Realignment

11 1 Introduction We (the Environment Agency) are responsible for the management of flood risk throughout England and Wales. The Tees Tidal Flood Risk Management Strategy (the Strategy) completed in 2009 recommended a hold-the-line approach which involves raising and/or improving existing flood defences throughout much of the Tees Estuary. This is in recognition of the national economic importance of the industries, and residential areas, potentially at risk from tidal flooding. Under the Habitats Regulations we must however, take account of the impact of our strategy on the Teesmouth & Cleveland Coast Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar site. A Strategic Appropriate Assessment (saa) (Environment Agency 2008) was produced to support the Tees Strategy and to obtain support from Natural England for its recommendations. The saa determined that certain projects proposed by the strategy could have an affect on the integrity of the SPA through coastal squeeze and direct losses through improvements in defences. The direct effects of these projects were considered to be short-term and could be managed through mitigation at project level. However, it was recognised that climate change, our own flood defences and other privately owned defences, along with potential natural erosion losses, could also affect the designated site(s). Modelling has been undertaken for the worst case scenario over the next 100yrs at various intervals and losses of designated habitat attributable to the Environment Agency defences in the next 100yrs was estimated at 12.8ha. In addition to the projected losses as a result of the Tees Strategy a section 106 agreement with the planning permission for the Redcar Flood Alleviation Scheme (FAS) requires creation of a further 7 ha of inter-tidal habitat, due to coastal squeeze losses of SPA habitat arising from the Redcar scheme. We have purchased a 77ha site at Greatham, Hartlepool for the purpose of inter-tidal habitat creation to provide compensation for losses identified in the saa and as a consequence of the Redcar FAS works. The proposed site is located to the north of Greatham Creek and immediately adjacent to Seal Sands in the Tees Estuary, approximately 2km southeast of Greatham village and 6km northeast of Billingham. All figures are contained in Appendix A, Figure 1.1 provides a location plan. 1.1 Purpose of this report The purpose of this Environmental Statement (ES) is to document the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process undertaken for the Greatham Managed Realignment site The EIA has been carried out in parallel with the outline design of the scheme. This ES presents comprehensive details of the environmental baseline, key receptors, potential environmental impacts during construction and operational phases, proposed mitigation measures, and residual impacts. This ES accompanies a planning application for the project, to be made to Hartlepool Borough Council (HBC) (the local planning authority), and will also satisfy the requirements of the Marine Management Organisation (MMO) regarding licensing of operations within the marine environment (below Mean High Water Spring (MHWS) tidal levels). 1 Environment Agency Greatham Managed Realignment

12 1.2 Legislative and consenting framework The project involves a range of consents and legislative requirements including EIA, Permitted Development, Land Drainage Consent, Water Framework Assessment and Habitat Directive Requirements. These are discussed below. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA): Town and Country Planning Following an internal screening exercise we determined that the works are likely to give rise to significant environmental effects. We therefore issued a combined formal screening and scoping request to HBC and also the MMO. Through this process it has been determined that the works for the managed realignment will require planning permission supported by an EIA. The proposals fall within Schedule 2, Part 10 (Infrastructure Projects), Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulation 2011 (hereafter referred to as the EIA Regulations). Parts of the works also fall under the requirements of the Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2007, Annex II 10(k). Discussions between HBC and MMO have determined that only one ES need be produced which will satisfy the requirements of both pieces of EIA legislation. Our methodology for the EIA is outlined in further detail in Chapter 5 of this report. To enable the managed realignment to be progressed pre-works have been undertaken. These works have been discussed with Hartlepool Borough Council and undertaken under our Permitted Development rights under Schedule 2, Part 15 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 95/418. Works include the remediation of a spoil heap and the capping of the brine wells across the site. The scheme requires material for the construction of new embankments and adjacent fields will by used for borrow pits to provide some of this material. Hartlepool Borough Council (HBC) has agreed that a separate minerals application is not required and the one planning application will cover the construction of the borrow pits, embankments and breaches. EIA: Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 From 6th April 2011 the Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 replaced the 2007 Marine Works (EIA) Regulations. The updated Regulations transpose Council Directive 85/337/EC (the EIA Directive ) into UK law in relation to Marine Licences, to be issued under Part 4 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act Such licences are administered and granted by the MMO. An application for the breaches will be made to the Marine Management Organisation. Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 consolidate all the various amendments made to the original Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 in respect of England and Wales. The 1994 Regulations transposed Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (EC Habitats Directive) into national law. Under Regulation 48(1) of the Habitats Regulations, an appropriate assessment must be undertaken in respect of any plan or project which: Either alone or in combination with other plans or projects would be likely to have a significant effect on a European Site, and 2 Environment Agency Greatham Managed Realignment

13 Is not directly connected with the management of the site for nature conservation. As the project is located directly adjacent to the SPA and Ramsar sites, the Competent Authority (Hartlepool Borough Council) will be required to undertake an assessment of the proposals in accordance with the Conservation of Species and Habitats Regulations 2010 (the Habitats Regulations). Information to inform the Appropriate Assessment, to be produced by HBC, is contained in Appendix B. Footpath Diversion Once the planning application has been approved, application to permanently divert Seaton Carew Public Footpath No. 11 will be made to Hartlepool Borough Council. Flood Defence Consents In addition, to planning permission, internal flood defence consent will be required, despite the works being promoted by the Environment Agency itself. Consent will be obtained post planning, but the information provided within this Environmental Statement will support the application. Water Framework Directive (WFD) The Water Framework Directive (WFD) establishes a legal framework to protect and restore clean water across Europe and ensure its long-term, sustainable use. The proposed scheme must be compliant with the overall aims and objectives of the WFD, with no deterioration to the existing status of the water body. This assessment includes the impact (if any) of the scheme on the implementation of the objectives and mitigation measures established in the River Basin Management Plan (RBMP). An assessment of compliance with the WFD is contained in Appendix C. Permitted Development Decommissioning of the brine wells on site are being undertaken pre-works to the main construction works described in this Environmental Statement. These works are being completed Part 15 of the General (Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended). 1.3 Environment Agency contact details This ES will be made publicly available to inform both statutory and non-statutory bodies, interested parties and the general public. The Environment Agency Project Manager for this scheme is: Charles Forman, Project Manager, Environment Agency, Phoenix House, Global Avenue, Leeds. LS11 8PG Tel: mailto:charles.forman@environment-agency.gov.uk 3 Environment Agency Greatham Managed Realignment

14 1.4 Structure of this report Schedule 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 and Schedule 3 of the Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2007 detail the required contents of an ES under each piece of legislation. The structure used in this ES, and also where information can be found in relation to certain topics, is outlined in Table 1.1. Table 1.1: Structure of this ES Chapter Title Description - Non-Technical Summary 1 Introduction Purpose of this report and applicable Legislative Framework. 2 Background This section discusses the need for the proposed scheme. 3 Proposed scheme Detailed description of the scheme and the alternatives considered. 4 Consultation Outlines consultation we have undertaken to date. 5 Methodology Details the methodology adopted for use within the EIA. 6 to 14 Impact assessment and evaluation sections Technical assessment of the proposed scheme, including a description of the baseline environment and identification of the potential impacts associated with scheme implementation (both positive and negative). Where appropriate, mitigation measures are proposed. 15 Summary of environmental impacts Summary of potential impacts and mitigation measures. 16 Environmental enhancements Summary of potential environmental enhancements possible. 17 Cumulative effects Summary of the potential cumulative impacts from the proposed scheme and those other proposed and potential developments for which adequate publicly available information exists. 18 Conclusions Conclusions and recommendations based upon the findings of the EIA process. Figures Appendices These contain supporting information. Glossary References & Bibliography 4 Environment Agency Greatham Managed Realignment

15 2 Background 2.1 Nature and Background to the Project The Strategy we produced in 2009 identified the need for improvement to/raising of existing flood defences within the Tees Estuary, whilst also recognising the potential for such activities to have an adverse impact upon designated sites (primarily through the coastal squeeze of intertidal habitats) and the requirement for the creation of compensatory habitat. The Greatham Managed Realignment scheme is one of the projects identified by the Strategy and is a critical project in the context of the Strategy, in that it aims to provide the compensatory habitat that is required in light of the predicted effect on the SPA, as a consequence of our flood defences within the Tees Estuary. The scheme is described in more detail in Section 3. In addition to providing compensatory habitat for the predicted effect of our flood defences within the Tees Estuary (approximately 13ha) including coastal squeeze, we also aim to deliver the following: 7ha of habitat to compensate for the predicted effects of the Redcar FAS on the SPA (long term coastal squeeze intertidal habitat losses); and 1.5ha of habitat through a third party agreement with HBC. The Strategy divides the Tees Estuary into flood cells. The Greatham North flood cell consists of two elements: Greatham North East and Greatham North West. The strategy identifies the Greatham North West site for managed realignment to provide compensatory habitat for the Strategy area. The managed realignment will be achieved by constructing a new flood defence embankment along the west side of the A178 and south of the existing ConocoPhillips containment bund. Two breaches will be created by partially removing sections of the existing defence along the north bank of Greatham Creek. Local borrow pits will also be required to supply material for the creation of the new embankments. These are located in the arable fields to the north-west of the Managed Realignment site and will be restored to freshwater habitat. In summary, therefore, the aim of the managed realignment scheme is to deliver at least 22ha of compensatory intertidal habitat through managed realignment at Greatham. 2.2 Project objectives The Strategic Appropriate Assessment (saa) that supports the strategy recommended that a mosaic of intertidal mudflat, saltmarsh, sandflat and shallow coastal water habitats should be sought from any potential habitat creation scheme. The managed realignment element of the Greatham Managed Realignment scheme aims to create 22ha of compensatory intertidal habitat. There may also be the opportunity to create further habitat types (e.g. freshwater pools, grazing areas for birds) on our land and adjacent to the managed realignment site and as part of the restoration of the borrow pits areas. We have worked closely with both Natural England, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) and other parties to develop the managed realignment/habitat creation aspects of the scheme. 5 Environment Agency Greatham Managed Realignment

16 The creation of a mosaic of mudflats and saltmarsh is beneficial as the two habitat types complement each other within the Tees Estuary; mudflats support highly productive invertebrate communities which in turn represent an important food source for many birds and fish; and saltmarsh provides roosting and additional feeding habitats at high tide. We have set up an Environmental Steering Group (ESG) to advise on scheme design and aspirations for habitat creation. The Steering Group is described further in Chapter Location and Site Description Greatham Creek is the tidal section of the North Burn and its tributaries and discharges into the Tees at Seal Sands on the west side of Teesmouth, Figure 1.1. The creek forms the boundary between Hartlepool and Stockton-on-Tees Borough Councils. The limit of tidal influence is to the west of the Hartlepool to Billingham railway embankment. Much of the land either side of the creek relies on flood defences to prevent tidal inundation. Mean High Water Spring (MHWS) tidal levels at the mouth of the Tees Estuary are +5.50m above Chart Datum (CD) and +2.65m Above Ordnance Datum (AOD). Much of the land bordering Greatham Creek was reclaimed from the intertidal zone in the mid- to late-1800 s by the construction of flood embankments and bunds. The present embankments along Greatham Creek were built during the late 19th/early 20th century. A twin bank construction was used for the Greatham Creek North embankment. A single bank defence was constructed to the west of the road bridge. Iron works slag was used in their construction, though confined to the outer banks of the twin bank defences. Single bank defences, and the inner bank of the twin bank defences, were constructed of sand with a pitched stone facing or clay. The Greatham Creek embankment is located along the north (left) bank of Greatham Creek to the west of the A178, tying into the bridge abutments which cross the watercourse. In the early 1990s the National Rivers Authority (now Environment Agency) deemed the existing defences to be insufficient to provide the required future levels of protection and the embankments were re-modelled to their current status. The embankment along Greatham Creek has a minimum crest elevation of 4.14m AOD, with an afforded standard of protection (SoP) of 1 in 30 (3.33%AEP), as determined from the strategy. To the west, the site is confined by natural high ground at Marsh House Farm and to the north by earth bunds around the ConocoPhillips Petroleum Storage Depot. Typical ground levels are between 2m and 3m AOD. The land is currently used as sheep grazing pasture with some arable cultivation. 2.4 Study area The study area for the EIA comprises the area over which the proposed scheme has the potential to have direct and indirect impacts. This varies for each of the environmental receptors addressed, though in general terms the wider Tees Estuary is an appropriate scale for the Greatham Managed Realignment study area. With regards to the hydrodynamic and sediment transport modelling exercise, the study area encompasses the entire tidal Tees Estuary and extends offshore into Tees Bay. 2.5 Strategic context Tees Tidal Flood Risk Management Strategy (the Strategy) Given that the recommendations made within the Strategy were considered likely to have a significant effect on the SPA (and Ramsar site) we undertook a Strategic Appropriate 6 Environment Agency Greatham Managed Realignment

17 Assessment (saa) of the Strategy. The saa predicted that the Strategy would impact on intertidal habitats and would have an adverse effect on the integrity of the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast SPA. In cases where a plan or project is predicted to result in an adverse effect on the integrity of a European site (i.e. an SPA or Special Area of Conservation (SAC)), the Conservation of Species and Habitats Regulations 2010 (the Habitats Regulations) state that the plan or project can only proceed if there are no alternative solutions, a case for imperative reasons of overriding public interest can be demonstrated, and appropriate compensatory measures can be provided. In this case, the Secretary of State (SoS) for Environment has determined that the first two tests have been satisfied and, therefore, that the Strategy could be implemented subject to securing the necessary compensatory measures Relevant national, regional and local plans and policies Relevant national, regional and local plan policies are discussed in the accompanying planning statement. The Development Plan comprises: Hartlepool Local Plan incorporating mineral and waste policies Adopted Plan April 2006 The North East of England Plan Regional Spatial Strategy to 2021 (2008) The Hartlepool Borough Council Local Development Framework is in preparation, the Core Strategy being published as a Preferred Options document in November 2010 and owing to the advanced stages of preparation is capable of being a material consideration in the determination of planning applications. It is recognised that with the recent change in Government there is a political desire to remove the regional tier of plans, through the enactment of the Localism Bill the Localism Act 2011 which gained Ascent on the 15 November At this time the RSS remains part of the statutory development plan and it is not clear at what stage the regional level of plans will be revoked. Key National planning policies include: PPS 1 Delivering Sustainable Development (2005) sets out the overarching planning policies on the delivery of sustainable development through the planning system. It stresses the importance of community involvement in the decision making process and that any new development should be of a quality appropriate to the area and respect any historic architectural characteristics. PPS5 Planning for the Historic Environment (2010) provides the aims and objectives for the conservation and enjoyment of heritage assets. The overarching aim stated in paragraph 7 is that the historic environment and its heritage assets should be conserved and enjoyed for the quality of life they bring to this and future generations. The document goes on to state the objectives for planning for the historic environment summarised as being to: deliver sustainable development; to conserve England s heritage assets in a manor appropriate to their significance and to contribute to our knowledge and understanding of our past by ensuring that opportunities are taken to capture evidence from the historic environment and to make this publicly available, particularly where a heritage asset is to be lost. PPS7 Sustainable Development in Rural Areas (2004) confirms the Government s objectives for rural areas. Amongst other objectives the relevant objectives set out on page 6 of the PPS are to raise the quality of life and the environment in rural areas 7 Environment Agency Greatham Managed Realignment

18 through the promotion of: - good quality, sustainable development that respects and, where possible, enhances local distinctiveness and the intrinsic qualities of the countryside; and the continued protection of the open countryside for the benefit of all, and it goes on to state providing appropriate leisure opportunities to enable urban and rural dwellers to enjoy the wider countryside. PPS7 also provides the approach to local landscape designation, the countryside around urban areas as well as confirming that the presence of the best and most versatile agricultural land should be taken into account alongside other sustainability considerations. PPS9 - Biodiversity and Ecological Conservation (2005) advises that plan policies and planning decisions should aim to maintain, and enhance, restore or add to biodiversity and geological conservation interests. Appropriate weight should be attached to designated sites of international, national and local importance, protected species and to biodiversity and geological interests within the wider environment. Proposals should recognise the contributions that sites, areas and features, both individually and in combination, conserve these resources. PPS 23 Planning and Pollution Control sets out the considerations for development proposals on land which is contaminated, where contamination is suspected and the methods by which pollution related issues should be handled in the development management system. PPS 25 Development and Flood Risk (2010) deals with the approach to development within areas of flood risk. It reflects the general direction set out in the Making Space for Water (Defra, 2004), which is the evolving new strategy to shape flood and coastal erosion risk over the next years. The 2010 edition has been amended to include the application of the policy to essential infrastructure, including water and sewage treatment works, emergency services facilities, bulk storage facilities, wind turbines and the identification of functional floodplains. PPS25 sets out policies for planning authorities to ensure flood risk is properly taken into account at all stages in the planning process, as well as preventing inappropriate development in areas at high risk of flooding and directing development away from areas at highest risk. It has particular regard for the impact of climate change on the frequency of flooding from rivers and tidal water and represents a major shift in focus to the impact of climate change. PPS25 also sets out the criteria for requirement and the preparation of Flood Risk Assessments aims to ensure proposed developments do not add to and, where possible, reduce flood risk. PPS25 confirms that reducing risk involves: safeguarding land from development that is required for current and future flood management e.g. conveyance and storage of flood water, and flood defences; Reducing flood risk to and from new development through location, layout and design, incorporating sustainable drainage systems (SuDs); Using opportunities offered by new development to reduce cause and impacts of flooding e.g. surface water management plans; making the most of the benefits of green infrastructure for flood storage, conveyance and SuDs; re-creating functional floodplain; and setting back defences 8 Environment Agency Greatham Managed Realignment

19 PPS 25 Supplement: Development and Coastal Change (2010) sets out the objectives for development proposals, the considerations that should be taken when setting out plan and development management policies for coastal locations. It is particularly focused on managing risk against the impending impacts of climate change in coastal areas. Page 4 of the document sets out the Government s aim which is to ensure that our coastal communities continue to prosper and adapt to coastal change. This means planning should: ensure that policies and decisions in coastal areas are based on an understanding of coastal change over time prevent new development from being put at risk from coastal change by: 1. avoiding inappropriate development in areas that are vulnerable to coastal change or any development that adds to the impacts of physical changes to the coast, and 2. directing development away from areas vulnerable to coastal change ensure that the risk to development which is, exceptionally, necessary in coastal change areas because it requires a coastal location and provides substantial economic and social benefits to communities, is managed over its planned lifetime, and ensure that plans are in place to secure the long term sustainability of coastal areas. Consideration of the national, regional and local planning issues have been considered in throughout this Environmental Statement. 2.6 Flood Risk Assessment Requirements The proposal lies within Flood Zone 3. Development within an indicative floodplain will not be permitted by the Environment Agency unless a satisfactory Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) is undertaken to show that the development will not: Be itself at an unacceptable risk from flooding; Inhibit the capacity of the flood plain to store water; Impede the flow of flood water; Increase the risks of flooding both on site and elsewhere; or Impede access to a watercourse for maintenance. A FRA has been produced and submitted separately in support of the planning application which shows that the scheme fulfils the criteria above. The proposed defences will be constructed within Flood Zone 3; this is however accepted by Table D3 of PPS25 as appropriate development. Flood Risk Assessment results are discussed in Chapter 8. 9 Environment Agency Greatham Managed Realignment

20 3 Proposed Scheme 3.1 Background The Strategy identified a need to provide compensatory habitat for our proposed flood defences. This could be achieved through realignment of the defences in the Greatham North West Flood Cell. An alternative site to the proposed was considered within the Greatham South flood cell, however to provide a comparable area of habitat an additional length of embankment would be required. Alternative sites were also considered as the Redcar FAS was progressed and no other suitable locations currently available were identified that were suitable to compensate for the habitat losses at Redcar. The proposed site proposed site will provide a minimum of 22ha of intertidal habitat and has physical characteristics that adapt itself well to managed realignment. 3.2 Alternative options for the Greatham site As part of the development of the managed realignment a screening exercise was undertaken that considered a number of alternative options to provide the required compensatory habitat. A summary of these options is provided in Table 3.1. Table 3.1: Options considered for providing compensatory habitat. Option Name GNW-1 GNW-2 GNW-3 GNW-4 Description Do Nothing and wait for the breach to occur naturally Removal of the full length of the Greatham North West embankment (as proposed in the Tees Tidal Strategy) Breaching of existing embankment Regulated Tidal Exchange (RTE) Screening Conclusion Compensatory habitat required by 2015, (106 requirement), natural breach unlikely to occur by this date with no guarantee of delivery of compensatory habitat..increases risk of contamination from spoil heap Screened out due to uncontrolled timescales and additional risks. Technically feasible and will maximise intertidal habitat opportunities from the site. Passed on to next stage for further consideration. This option would deliver the required area of habitat with minimal work and disturbance on site in comparison to total removal. Passed on to next stage for further consideration. This option would be unable to transfer the required volume of water through the embankment to provide the necessary area of compensatory habitat. There would be no direct connectivity to Greatham Creek. Screened out on technical grounds. 10 Environment Agency Greatham Managed Realignment

21 Following the screening exercise two options were selected for more detailed appraisal: GNW-2 (full removal of the Greatham North West Embankment); and, GNW-3 (breaching of the Greatham North West embankment). Detailed 2-dimensional hydrodynamic tidal modelling of four different breach scenarios based upon the two selected options above was undertaken. A fifth scenario representing the existing situation was produced to provide a baseline case. Table 3.2 provides a summary of the breach modelling results. Breach widths have been determined to be sufficiently wide to reduce flow velocities and prevent excessive scour. Breach options are illustrated in Figure 3.1. Table 3.2: Summary of modelled breach scenario and selection of preferred option. Option Description Assessment Outcome GNW-2 GNW-3A GNW-3B GNW-3C Full removal of the existing embankment along Greatham Creek Single breach, at east sluice location Double breach, at east and west sluice locations Double breach with excavated channel Not necessary to achieve full inundation of realignment site. Full removal would generate large volumes of material that may require removal off site. Not progressed on economic grounds Achieves full inundation and produces saline lagoon which is considered to be less preferable (to mudflats) as advised by Environmental Steering Group. Not progressed on technical and environmental grounds. Achieves full inundation and produces additional mudflats habitats but concerns over breach proximity to contaminated spoil heap. Not progressed on environmental grounds. Achieves full inundation and produces additional mudflats habitats without risk of contamination. Preferred Option GNW-3C (double breach with excavated channel) was selected as the preferred option as it delivers the objectives of the scheme without the potential risk of causing contamination. It is also supported by the Environmental Steering Group because it delivers an increased area of mudflat habitat. The option has been taken to Public Consultation during 2010 and With the breaching of the embankment along Greatham Creek, the A178 requires a new embankment to prevent regular flooding. The current minimum elevation of this embankment is at 4.14m AOD, which provides protection equivalent to the 1 in 30 (3.33% annual exceedance probability - AEP) current day flood or the 1 in 5 (20% AEP) event in It was originally proposed to use the existing large oil containment bund around the ConocoPhillips site to provide the protection at the rear of the site and this preferred option which was presented in the Scoping Consultation Document (SCD). However, the scoping responses received highlighted the presence of a 500mm diameter high pressure water main which forms part of Hartlepool Water Limited s (HWL) strategic ring main. This supplies potable water to a large number of domestic and industrial consumers in the Hartlepool area including the Nuclear Power Station and the Huntsman Tioxide Plant. The 11 Environment Agency Greatham Managed Realignment

22 water main is also covered by a deed of grant of easement with Hartlepool Water Ltd and ourselves, as land owner, requiring dry access for maintenance. The HWL water main could not therefore to be situated within the proposed area to be flooded or beneath an embankment. A further constraint was identified due to the presence of two 132Kv electricity pylons within the floodable part of the site. The pylons link to the existing substation at Greatham which supplies over 1100 customers, including the Huntsman Tioxide plant. Diverting or burying these cables would be economically prohibitive. Finally the existing public footpath is carried on the crest of Greatham Creek embankment. With the breaching of the existing embankment the public footpath would need to be diverted. ConocoPhillips did not wish the footpath to be diverted along the top of its embankment for security reasons. Saline lagoons were originally planned within the managed realignment; however the ESG stated a preference towards mudflat and salt marsh, especially where tidal interchange could create brackish water bodies behind the water main embankment. Given these constraints a further embankment has been proposed towards the rear of the managed realignment site that will now run to the south of the water main and around the electricity pylons before tying into higher ground to the south east of Marsh House Farm. 3.3 Preferred option The proposed scheme comprises approximately 1.2km of new embankments and two breaches within the existing embankment; these are described in detail below. Material for the embankments will be sourced partly from site from a borrow pit to the north-west of the managed realignment site. The proposed scheme is shown in Figure Embankment parallel to the A178 road It is proposed that this embankment will be aligned along the existing road embankment that runs parallel to the A178. The proposed new embankment will be approximately 410m long. Based on the lowest ground levels the embankment will be up to 2.5m high (approximately 4.4m AOD). This will tie into the existing Greatham Creek embankment at its southern end. The embankment will be constructed to the standard design parameters of a 1 in 4 side slope and 3m crest width. The same standard of protection (1 in 30, 3.33% - AEP) offered by the existing embankment along the left bank of Greatham Creek will be provided. However, the new embankment will be constructed to a much higher design standard than the existing embankment along the creek. There is an existing drain located on the western side of the existing embankment which will remain. The embankment will typically be at the same level as the passing road. The road embankment containing the A178 will not be affected as part of the scheme Embankment around the northern perimeter of the realignment site The proposed embankment at the rear of the managed realignment site follows a similar alignment to the water main going directly westwards across the site from the A178 embankment but remains outside the required easement (for both the water main and the pylons), Figure 3.2. However the new embankment will be located south of the water main to prevent it being located within a flooded area. At the corner of the ConocoPhillips containment bund the new embankment will extend around the electricity pylon providing the required easement access for the pylons and allowing them to be protected from the tidal inflows. The new embankment then turns north eastwards to tie into higher ground between the ConocoPhillips containment bund and Manor House Farm. 12 Environment Agency Greatham Managed Realignment

23 This embankment will be approximately 800m long with an average height of 2.5m. The embankment will be constructed to the standard design parameters of a 1 in 3.5 side slope and 3m crest width. As for the A178 road embankment, the embankment is to be protected with a layer of geotextile to prevent scour on inundation of the site. The area between the new embankment and the existing ConocoPhillips containment bund will be used to create a range of habitats including grassland and water habitat features. There are a number of small drains which pass through the ConocoPhillips containment bund which will need to be culverted under the new embankment. Flows through these drains are low (with small local catchments and attenuating storage ponds within the ConocoPhillips site. There may be opportunities to allow tidal exchange between the managed realignment site and the area between the containment bund and the new embankment. This would provide additional brackish water habitat Borrow Pits Material requirement for the construction of the embankment has been estimated at approximately 44,000m 3. Within our ownership are two arable fields associated with Manor House Farm, which is currently tenanted. Site Investigation has indicated that suitable clay material for the construction of the new embankments can be obtained from the northern arable field. It is assumed that at least 50% of the material required can be supplied by the borrow areas, it is also envisaged that only the northern field will be utilised as our preliminary estimates show that this field can provide all the material required. The quantity of the clay that can be sourced on-site is subject to the quality of the clay which will be determined during later SI. Other sources of material are available to us and we therefore propose to import some material from Able UK s site at Seaton Meadows, approximately 3km to the north of the site. Clay for mid-1990s embankment infill works at Greenabella/Greatham Creek was sourced from here. The borrow pits will be restored to provide a range of freshwater habitat and species-rich grassland. The specific design of the reinstatement will be determined during the detailed design stage and will be undertaken in consultation with the Environmental Steering Group to maximise the environmental benefits Design of the proposed breaches It is proposed that two breaches, each 50m wide at the base increasing to 100m at the crest, are the preferred approach for the realignment site. The breaches will be excavated as a two-stage trapezoidal channel to allow a main low flow channel with wider higher channel section. The breach will initially be roughly cut to allow the regular tidal influx and outflow to scour the breach which will ensure that the breach will find its own balance. The existing concrete sluice structure that passes through the embankment in the location of the most easterly breach would be excavated and removed. The existing relic creek system will be excavated and deepened across the site to carry tidal flows to the areas on site that have been identified for mudflats. Works within the existing saltmarsh will be necessary for the western breach the relic creek system has in-filled. The material excavated from the breach could be used elsewhere on site potentially for creation of small islands within areas of habitat creation. Initial categorisation has identified this as non-hazardous, however further analysis needs to be completed to confirm its suitability for re-use on the embankments in terms of both physical and chemical aspects. 13 Environment Agency Greatham Managed Realignment

24 3.3.5 Habitat creation Regrading and significant excavation of the managed realignment site is not proposed as part of the habitat creation, with the exception of the re-connection of the relic creek system discussed above and minor excavation in the mudflat area. Modelling results suggested that the site topography would allow for the entire site to be inundated by a MHWS tide with only one breach of approximately 50-70m width (HRW, 2010). Most of the site allows drainage of ebbing tidal waters, although a low-lying area adjacent to the spoil heap may retain some saline water after a spring tide. Spatial calculations indicate that the site provides a minimum of 22ha of inter-tidal habitat, given the topography of the site 17ha are considered to have potential develop towards saltmarsh and the remaining low-lying areas as mudflat (5ha). Following research (CEH, 2008) no artificial planting or seeding of saltmarsh vegetation within the managed realignment is proposed. Natural colonisation of plants from adjacent habitat will be promoted. There will be no clearance of vegetation as it has been illustrated that remnants of terrestrial vegetation will encourage the colonisation of saltmarsh vegetation (CEH, 2008). However, areas that have been compacted by construction traffic will be lightly cultivated prior to inundation as compacted soils restrict plant colonisation. Breaching of the embankment is programmed during September 2012 in order to take advantage of the peak in dispersal of saltmarsh species in the first year after breaching. There are additional areas of habitat creation proposed between the A178 and the new embankment (rough grassland) and behind the water main embankment (brackish pools and grassland) in addition to the areas proposed following restoration of the borrow pits. Further information on habitat creation is provided in Chapter 7. An Indicative Landscape Plan (ILP) has been produced for the scheme, which shows a summary of the environmental baseline and constraints associated with the site (Figure 3.3) Regrading / remediation of the spoil heap Works completed as part of the decommissioning of the brine wells on the site will include the regrading of the spoil heap on the western boundary of the managed realignment site. After regrading the area will be capped with a layer of locally won (non-contaminated) material along with a layer of geotextile and possibly small rock armour or additional clay material. 3.4 Construction details The works will require the set-up of a site compound area, storage area and the establishment of a construction access route. These are described below and are shown on Figure Construction compound The construction compound will be located within the eastern part of the site between the embankment parallel to the A178 and the A178 itself. This area is also proposed to be used for the storage of some materials. The construction compound will be security fenced and will be solely for the use of the contractor. Additional stockpile of earth and clay will be located within the borrow pit areas, from which material will be transferred to areas around the site. This will ensure vehicle movements will be contained within the site. 14 Environment Agency Greatham Managed Realignment

25 After construction, it is proposed that part of the compound area will be used for off-road parking for visitors to the site. The surfacing of the car park is to be confirmed but is likely to be a rough surface gravel car park. Access will be required from this car park to the footpath on the crest of the embankment; this will be achieved through the construction of a ramp, the details of which will be determined during the detailed design Proposed access route It has been confirmed with HBC that the preferred construction access point for the site is from the A178, rather than through Greatham village. No other access from the public highway will be allowed. Approximately 10,000m 3 of earth and clay will be imported to site by road (via the A178). It is estimated that around 1300 deliveries will be required over the duration of the works Vehicles and Vehicle Movements This is discussed in section Timing of works Pre-works including the decommissioning of the brine wells and regrading of the spoil heap are being undertaken under the Environment Agency s permitted development rights and are programmed to start in January 2012 for a period of approximately 3 month. Construction is anticipated to commence in spring 2012, with works being carried out for approximately 6 months. The approximate programme is as follows: Excavation / material mixing sorting at borrow pits May 2012 onwards Embankment construction June September 2012 Site creek system excavated September 2012 Breaching September / October 2012 Reinstatement (demobilisation of the compound, etc) October 2012 Natural regeneration is proposed for the inter-tidal areas. The breach timing is linked to the most beneficial time for inundation of the site to help establish the salt-marsh community. Other elements of the work may be carried out simultaneously, this will minimise the duration of the construction. For example habitat creation to restore the borrow pit areas will commence once the embankment construction is completed. Creation of the grassland and freshwater/brackish habitats between the new embankment and the ConocoPhillips containment bund will commence following the construction of the embankments. Construction activities will be timed to avoid significant adverse impacts on the local community and wildlife. Works will be agreed in advance with HBC. Work on Sundays or on Bank Holidays will be avoided, except in circumstances that have been prior agreed with HBC Residues and emissions Material will be obtained from borrow areas within the site (3.3.3). In addition, earth, clay, stone and concrete will be imported to the site. The earth and clay will be delivered to site by lorries and will be stored in the storage area at the site compound off the A178 or deposited directly within the site, depending upon requirements. It is estimated that a minimum of 10,000m 3 of earth and clay will be imported (although an estimate of 50% import has been used to provide a worst case scenario) and a total of 44,000m 3 required for the embankment construction. 15 Environment Agency Greatham Managed Realignment

26 Concrete will also be required for the construction of the culverts under the embankments to allow drainage to continue. It is estimated only small quantities of concrete will be required, however this is a potentially polluting material and precautionary measures will be taken to prevent it entering controlled waters if culverts are cast in-situ, however it is likely that pre-cast concrete units will be imported to site. These works are also to be completed prior to inundation of the site and therefore the risk of a pollution incident is considered to be very low. Stone or other suitable surfacing material will be required for the works, such as for footpath surfacing to form the track along the top of the new embankments. Stone may initially be required for the temporary works to construct the haul road within the site. Siting the compound area and site entrance off the A178 to the east of the site utilises areas away from residential properties in Greatham village which will remove the need for delivery vehicles to enter the village, therefore, minimising the disturbance to the local community. Noise will be caused by the use of construction equipment, which will be reduced by the use of silenced exhausts. However, there will remain some disruption to wildlife from site operations. Piling is not proposed for the permanent works; however sheet piling may be required by the contractor for the temporary works. The impacts associated with noise and vibration from construction activities is assessed in Section 13. Heat and light radiation will not be an issue during these works. Risks to the water environment have been considered in Section 11. This section also documents the mitigation required for how the risks will be managed during construction. 3.5 Post-construction Details Reinstatement Prior to the commencement of works all accesses and land to be used for the project, including access routes, compound and storage areas will be surveyed and their condition photographically recorded. On completion of the works or part of the works, where appropriate, these areas will be re-surveyed and a schedule of remedial works prepared Sustainability The proposal has intrinsic sustainable qualities as it aims to provide a functional area of inter-tidal habitat. Site will be managed for nature conservation purposes by a management team determined by the Environmental Steering Group. The Environment Agency supports the Government s focus on sustainable development and is currently undertaking actions to promote changes in construction performance in line with the strategy. The Environment Agency promotes the following aspects within the construction industry to help achieve sustainable development: being profitable and competitive; delivering buildings and infrastructure that provide customer satisfaction and value; respecting and treating its stakeholders fairly; enhancing and protecting the environment; and minimising its impact on the consumption of energy and natural resources. 16 Environment Agency Greatham Managed Realignment

27 The proposed scheme has been designed taking environmental considerations into account at all stages. In the promotion of Environment Agency policies, sustainability principles will be promoted in the design and construction of the scheme in the following ways: Reusing material that has been won elsewhere within the site. Waste, which cannot be reused or recycled, will be disposed of to appropriate landfill sites, as close to the site as possible. Wood procurement will be in line with Environment Agency policy which states that all wood and wood products must be obtained from a legal and/or sustainable source and must come with a Chain of Custody. Energy use during construction will be minimised by the use of good practice and materials being imported from local sources wherever possible. Site construction practices will adhere to Environment Agency Pollution Prevention Guidelines to minimise the risk of pollution of the water bodies during the works. Trees and shrubs that are felled will be dealt with in an appropriate sustainable manner (for example, mulching/bark chipping). The contractor will define the use of felled trees, prior to the works, in consultation with the Environmental Clerk of Works and in accordance with Environment Agency Guidance. Relevant environmental constraints will be identified within the Contract Documents. Using the Environment Agency s carbon calculator tool to assess the sustainability of the scheme Carbon calculator for construction activities The Environment Agency s carbon calculator is an Excel spreadsheet that calculates the embodied carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) of materials plus CO 2 associated with their transportation. It also considers personal travel, site energy use and waste management. The carbon calculator is used to help make decisions that can contribute to improving resource efficiency and reducing carbon emissions on Environment Agency major construction projects, such as managed realignment schemes. It will be undertaken as part of the detailed design process, prior to construction, to assist the Environment Agency in meeting its sustainability targets Monitoring Programme This is discussed in Section Environment Agency Greatham Managed Realignment

28 4 Consultation 4.1 To Date Consultation with key partners and local communities has been ongoing for more than two years. Consultation has been an integral part of the development of the Greatham Managed Realignment proposals, from the inception of the scheme and will continue to be an essential element of the development, even after construction is completed. To date, there has been consultation on the scope of the environmental assessment with, external statutory consultees, key organisations and Environment Agency internal functional specialists via a Scoping Consultation Document (SCD). 4.2 Environmental Steering group An environmental steering group (ESG) for the scheme was established at the beginning of 2010, with the purpose of providing expertise and technical input to the development of the design of the managed realignment / habitat creation scheme. The ESG has met during key stages of the design process in February 2010, September 2010 and October The environmental steering group comprises representatives from the Environment Agency, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), Natural England, Hartlepool Borough Council and Teesmouth Bird Club. Through the input of the environmental steering group, changes to scheme design have been incorporated to maximise the wider benefits of the scheme wherever possible, as well as to minimise any potential local adverse environmental and community impacts. 4.3 External Consultation We have carried out extensive consultation with external organisations over the years, throughout the refinement of the Tees Strategy and saa. As such, many of the interested parties are fully aware of the key issues associated with the Tees Estuary and our proposed schemes, including Greatham managed realignment. The statutory consultees for the scheme are: Hartlepool Borough Council- the Local Planning Authority English Heritage- cultural heritage and archaeology Natural England- nature conservation; recreation and landscape issues Crown Estate Marine Management Organisation (MMO) Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) PD Teesport Tees Archaeology Internal consultation with Environment Agency with the relevant functions was undertaken during various stages of the project development. 18 Environment Agency Greatham Managed Realignment

29 Non-statutory consultees include landowners, local industries, local organisations, utility companies and individuals with an interest in the scheme. As well as formal communications through letter-drops, one to one meetings and media coverage a public drop-in event was also held in Greatham Village in November 2010 and October We also held an Exhibition at Saltholme RSPB Reserve outlining the proposals during October Further information is provided in the Planning Statement and Design and Access Statement Consultation through the EIA Process Throughout the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process, consultation has taken place with key interested parties, whose views have influenced both the issues that we have covered within the EIA and the design of the managed realignment scheme itself. This has included pre-application discussions with the relevant departments within Hartlepool Borough Council as well as the inputs from the ESG. On the 23 March 2010 a combined formal screening and scoping request for the proposed scheme was made to both HBC (the local planning authority) and the MMO. A Scoping Consultation Document (SCD) accompanied this request. The purpose of the SCD is to identify the main predicted environmental effects of the scheme, which then allows the assessment and evaluation stages of the scheme to focus on those issues that are deemed likely to be significant. The SCD was issued to a number of key external stakeholders and statutory consultees via HBC and the MMO, to facilitate early input into the development of the Greatham Managed Realignment scheme. We also actively identified and issued the SCD to a number of additional stakeholders and non-statutory consultees in addition to those contacted by HBC and the MMO. Table 4.1 lists all consultees who received the SCD. Table 4.1: Consultees that received the SCD either directly or via HBC and the MMO Hartlepool Borough Council Internal Consultees HBC Traffic and Transport Officer HBC Estates Officer HBC Ecologist HBC Environmental Health Officer HBC Engineering Consultancy HBC Parks and Countryside Officer HBC Development Control Marine Management Organisation External Consultees Hartlepool Water Company Tees Archaeology Natural England RSPB Teesmouth Bird Club Tees Valley Joint Strategy Unit (TVJSU) OneNorthEast Northumbrian Water Ltd Consultee list not provided, but includes many of the above external consultees. Internal Environment Agency Departments Additional Consultees/Stakeholders NEAS (Principal Environmental Project ConocoPhillips UK Ltd 19 Environment Agency Greatham Managed Realignment

30 Hartlepool Borough Council Internal Consultees Manager PEPM; Landscape Architect and Archaeology) Ncpms Planning Liaison Fisheries Recreation Biodiversity (FRB) Environment Management Marine Technical Officer Area Flood Risk Management (FRM) Groundwater and Contaminated Land Technical Officer External Consultees Greatham Parish Council Huntsman Petrochemicals (UK) Ltd Huntsman Tioxide ICI Chemicals & Polymers Ltd Industry Nature Conservation Association (INCA) INEOS Chlor Northern Electric Distribution Ltd (NEDL) SABIC Tees Valley Wildlife Trust (TVWT) All responses received from the consultation have been recorded and taken into consideration during the EIA process. Key issues during consultation included: Protection of Critical Infrastructure (pylons and buried assets). Maximising Habitat Gain (Intertidal Habitat mudflat and salt marsh over saline lagoons). Footpath and Recreation provision. Protection of Groundwater Assets. Managing construction impact on over-wintering birds. Impact of over-head cables on bird strikes. The responses received from the SCD and the outcome of the various consultations over the duration of the scheme development to planning submission is summarised in Appendix E. These issues that directly influenced the scheme that has been presented for planning. 20 Environment Agency Greatham Managed Realignment

31 5 Methodology 5.1 Introduction This section details the generic methodology adopted for the impact assessment. Where a specific assessment methodology has been used (e.g. for Flora and fauna), this has been stated in the relevant section. 5.2 Scoping A Scoping Consultation Document (SDC) has been produced as part of scheme EIA. One of the aims of the SCD was to identify those topics and environmental receptors requiring further detailed consideration during the EIA, and also to scope out those which would not be significantly affected by the proposals and hence not require further detailed consideration. Following the scoping process, and taking into account those responses received, Table 5.1 details those topics scoped in and out of the EIA. Table 5.1: Topics scoped 'in' and 'out' of the EIA Scoped in to EIA Industry, transport and infrastructure Flora and fauna Geology, soils and hydrogeology Historic environment Water and marine sediment quality Landscape and visual amenity Noise and climate Recreation, access and amenity Cumulative assessment Scoped out of EIA Air quality Whilst the proposed scheme may have some short term, localised impacts with regards to air quality (i.e. dust during construction operations), this was scoped out of the EIA as we believe it does not have the potential to have a significant environmental effect due to a lack of human receptors, the location of the scheme and the relatively short duration of the proposed works. Guidance regarding Managed Realignment apprasial and techniques has followed Coastal and estuarine managed realignment design issues (Leggett, D J; Cooper, N; Harvey, R, 2004). CIRIA ISBN RP Assessment and evaluation Assessment structure The assessment structure adopted throughout this ES is outlined in Table Environment Agency Greatham Managed Realignment

32 Table 5.2: EIA assessment structure Sub-section Introduction Methodology Environmental baseline Assessment of effects Mitigation and residual impacts Description Topic description and main points of interest identified in SCD and scoping responses Specific methodology adopted, consultation, data sources Description of baseline environment Findings of assessment and identification of any significant environmental effects during both the construction and operational phases of the scheme. Effects can be both positive and negative. Summary of the mitigation measures proposed (if required) to reduce adverse effects, and any remaining effects once mitigation has been implemented Assessment methodology Impact assessment is a fundamental element of the EIA process and the results of this are presented in this ES. Impacts can be positive or negative, and can result directly or indirectly from project activities or events. Potential impacts are then assessed for their likely significance. In determination of the significance of an impact, it is important to apply a number of criteria (see Table 5.3). Table 5.3: Criteria for the determination of impact significance Effect criteria Receptor criteria Other criteria Spatial extent (local, regional or national) Magnitude (high, medium or low large change or small change) Duration (short or long term) Frequency Vulnerability Sensitivity/intolerance (high, medium, low) Recoverability (low, medium, high) Importance (rarity, conservation value, commercial value) Reversibility Probability of occurrence Confidence in the prediction Margins by which values are exceeded In general terms, throughout the following sections it is assumed, unless otherwise stated, that the impacts are: Short term, if impacts are only experienced during the construction phase. Long term, if impacts are experienced during the operational phase. A typical matrix for the determination of significance is shown in Table 5.4. Table 5.4: Significance Matrix Magnitude of effect Value and sensitivity of feature High Medium Low High Major Major Moderate Medium Major or Moderate Moderate Minor Low Moderate or Minor Minor Minor or None/Negligible 22 Environment Agency Greatham Managed Realignment

33 In order to classify significance, and also to provide a consistent framework for the consideration and evaluation of impacts on different environmental parameters, the terminology in Table 5.5 has been adopted throughout this ES. Table 5.5: Terminology for defining and classifying environmental impacts Impact Major adverse Moderate adverse Minor adverse Negligible Minor beneficial Moderate beneficial Major beneficial Definition The impact gives rise to serious concern; it should be considered as unacceptable The impact gives rise to some concern but it is likely to be tolerable (depending on its scale and/or duration) The impact is undesirable, but of limited concern The impact is not of concern The impact is of minor significance but has some environmental benefit The impact provides some gain to the environment The impact provides a significant positive gain The potential environmental impacts of the proposed scheme upon receptors are discussed in Chapters 6 to 14, and summarised in Chapter 15. Where significant adverse impacts have been identified, potential mitigating measures have been examined and recommended in order to reduce potential impacts, as far as possible, to environmentally acceptable levels. Residual impacts are then stated. Mitigation measures can be defined as the measures taken to avoid or reduce negative impacts. This can include such measures as changes to design, timing or working practices, all with the aim of minimising and reducing potential impacts. 23 Environment Agency Greatham Managed Realignment

34 6 Hydrodynamic and sedimentary regime 6.1 Introduction This section describes the studies undertaken to define the changes to the hydrodynamic and sediment regime of the Tees estuary arising from the proposed scheme. This section describes the predicted changes to the physical regime of the estuary (e.g. flow regime, sediment transport pathways, etc). These changes have been described in terms of the impacts to the hydrodynamic and sedimentary regime, where possible these predicted changes have been quantified. However, the significance of these impacts may be more relevant to other environmental receptors. The implications of the predicted changes to the physical regime of the estuary are then assessed in terms of the significance of the potential impact on various environmental parameters (e.g. marine ecology, water quality, etc) in the relevant section of the ES. Similarly, any mitigation measures that may be required in order to mitigate a potential impact on a receptor arising from a predicted effect on the physical regime of the estuary are described in the relevant section. Full details of the coastal modelling undertaken for this study are provided in Appendix F. Characteristics of the catchment Historic Trend Analysis (HTA) was undertaken to support the scheme. The full report is provided in Appendix I. This study involved a review of historic data and available records that relate to the Greatham Creek area and the broader context of the Tees Estuary. The HTA also provides an analysis of the historic behaviour of the system, from which an assessment can be made of potential future change. Prior to the mid 19 th Century the Tees Estuary was a wide, shallow estuary bordered by extensive wetlands and had tidal ingress for approximately 44km from its mouth. Over the past 200 years the catchment has changed markedly, the main physical changes are summarised (from Royal Haskoning Appendix I): Engineered cuts were made through meanders in the upper reaches of the estuary (e.g. Mandale Loop) in the early 19th Century. to increase the ease of navigation. Extensive reclamation along the foreshore through the dumping of blast furnace slag occurred from the mid 19th to early 20th Century. In the mid 19th Century. the Tees Conservancy Commissioners constructed training walls to divert the flow of the Tees through its southern channel, shutting off flows through the northern and mid-channels. The Tees estuary began to change from a wide, braided channel to a single, deep channel. Parts of Greatham Creek have reportedly been reclaimed (most likely to the south by Cowpen Marsh). In the mid 19th Century. Mean High Water along the northern estuary shoreline is marked approximately along the line of current A178. A high tide sea wall begins at Greenabella Farm and continues south to Greatham Creek, where it forms the current earthen embankment within the NW site, and the current embankments on the northern banks of the creek to Cote Hill. 24 Environment Agency Greatham Managed Realignment

35 By the mid-19th Century Greatham Creek was partially trained with embankments constructed along both its north and south banks, though the mouth of the creek was believed to be relatively close to its original position and was quite open. The creek drained into the estuary eastwards through a fairly wide, gently meandering tidal channel across the north of Seal Sands before joining the main Tees channel. A further advancement into the intertidal area was made in the latter 19th Century, when the main Tees river channel was trained. The Mean High Water line was advanced into the estuary through construction of a new sea wall along the northern estuary shoreline, from the estuary mouth to Port Clarence in the south. Seal Sands was also surrounded by slag embankments to its northeast, east and south. Due to the advancement of the new sea wall, Greatham Creek s lower reaches were cannalised prior to discharging at Seal Sands (approximately 0.75 km east of its original mouth and similar to present day). The relatively wide creek mouth was now narrowed significantly, creating a narrow channel where the creek discharged into Greatham Fleet, the tidal channel to the west and north of Seal Sands. By the early 20th Century the Tees river channel was fully trained. Seal Sands was also surrounded by a training wall (also know as a half-tide embankment ). The Creek drained into a relatively large, straight tidal channel which followed the line of the sea wall (present day Greenabella Sea Wall) northwards and then to the east skirting the north of Seal Sands. 6.2 Methodology Flow modelling Flow modelling was undertaken using an existing TELEMAC-3D flow model of the Tees Estuary and Bay. The established model covers the whole of the tidal area of the Tees Estuary with a landward limit at the Tees Barrage at Blue House Point and seaward limit into Tees Bay. The model domain is illustrated in Figures 6.1 and 6.2. The full modelling report (HR Wallingford, 2011) is provided in Appendix D. 25 Environment Agency Greatham Managed Realignment

36 Greatham MR Site Greatham MR Site Figure 6.1 Model domain for the flow modelling 26 Environment Agency Greatham Managed Realignment

37 Figure 6.2 Model mesh and bathymetry in the vicinity of the proposed managed realignment site The calibrated model was re-validated against observed spring and neap tide conditions in Greatham Creek. Once validated, the model was run for four representative tide/river flow combinations. These conditions are spring and neap tides, each for typical high and low freshwater flow conditions. These conditions cover a suitable range of conditions to study the effects of the proposed scheme on the estuary flows and provide results to drive the sediment transport and morphological change studies. The model was run for these representative conditions for existing (baseline) conditions and for the proposed scheme. 27 Environment Agency Greatham Managed Realignment

38 Changes to near-surface and near-bed current speeds throughout the study area at times of peak flow at a series of selected locations adjacent to Seal Sands and in Greatham Creek were predicted. Changes to tidal propagation were also predicted Sediment transport modelling Baseline conditions are described in greater detail in Appendix F. The driving forces for sediment transport are tidal flows, density-driven currents, wave-induced currents and resuspension by dredging activities/vessel movements. Marine material comes into the estuary on the flood tide, particularly during storm events when seabed sediments in Tees Bay are re-suspended. Coarser material (sand) settles out in the lower parts of the estuary. Cohesive sediment (mud) transport studies were undertaken to define the potential changes to the sediment transport regime of the Tees Estuary, Seaton Channel and Greatham Creek as a consequence of the proposed scheme. This modelling used the DELWAQ sediment transport module within the TELEMAC system. DELWAQ was run for existing (baseline) conditions and for the proposed scheme. The model was run for the same four conditions as the flow model (spring and neap tides for high and low freshwater flow conditions) to provide an estimation of the change to the overall annual deposition rates in the lower Tees Estuary and Seaton Channel, (approaches and berth pockets) with the proposed scheme in place. Locally generated suspended sediments from the exchange of sediments with nearby intertidal areas (both within Greatham Creek and from Seal Sands) were not included in the modelling, to focus on the effect of the main long term source of sediment to the area, material entering the Tees Estuary from offshore. Suspended sediment concentrations entering the creek are not large, being less than 25mg/l from tidal sources and on average 10-15mg/l on spring tides and only a few mg/l on neap tides Morphology Morphological change studies were undertaken to demonstrate the effect of the realignment site on the morphology of the Greatham Creek channel and to inform the morphological development of the site itself. Morphological assessment is described in full in the accompanying modelling report (Appendix E). Following a desk based qualitative assessment, a quantitative assessment of the changes were made through preparation of a numerical model (ASMITA). The footprint and magnitude of erosive areas in Greatham Creek were also defined by the desk assessment. The model results were used to predict the supply of sediment into the realignment site and indicate the location and rate of sediment build up. 6.3 Predicted effect of Managed Realignment Introduction The 3D modelling provided predictions of changes to current speeds in Greatham Creek associated with the implementation of the preferred option. This section provides a summary of the results from the modelling. All current speeds discussed in this section relate to maximum predicted flow velocities on spring tides (i.e. the results are the maximum predicted effect on current speeds; results for neap tides would show lower changes to current speeds). Predictions are provided for changes to current speeds at the surface of the water column and at the bed, for both flood and ebb tides. 28 Environment Agency Greatham Managed Realignment

39 Predictions of changes in current speeds are reported at the following locations: 1. The eastern breach location; 2. At the A178 road crossing; 3. At the entrance to Greatham Creek (adjacent to Seal Sands). Table 6.1 Predicted maximum changes in peak surface current speeds at various cross sections Location Predicted peak current speed (flood) Predicted peak current speed (ebb) Existing Scheme Change Existing Scheme Change Eastern breach A (18%) (35%) Seal Sands (19%) (41%) Peak HAT surface current speeds at the A178 location under existing conditions (i.e. no scheme in place) are 0.82ms -1 (flood) and 0.69ms -1 (ebb), demonstrating that the increases in currents as a result of the scheme do not exceed those presently occurring on larger tidal ranges. Existing HAT current speeds for flood and ebb tides at Seal Sands also exceed those predicted with the scheme in place. Figures 6.4 and 6.5 illustrate the results presented in Table 6.1 and show the predicted variation in flow across the modelled cross sections. Flood conditions only are illustrated as the current speeds under both the existing conditions and with the scheme in place are greater under flood conditions. The x-axis (distance) refers to distance across the cross section from north to south. Table 6.2 summarises the predicted maximum changes in near bed current speeds at the above locations. The results presented are the maximum predicted speed under existing conditions and with the scheme in place that are predicted at any point across the modelled cross section. Table 6.2 Predicted maximum changes in near bed current speeds at various cross sections Location Predicted peak current speed (flood) Predicted peak current speed (ebb) Existing Scheme Change Existing Scheme Change Eastern breach A (28%) (41%) Seal Sands (21%) (40%) Figures 6.6 and 6.7 illustrate the results presented in Table 6.2 and show the predicted variation in flow across the modelled cross sections. Flood conditions only are illustrated 29 Environment Agency Greatham Managed Realignment

40 as the current speeds under both the existing conditions and with the scheme in place are greater under flood conditions. The x-axis (distance) refers to distance across the cross section from north to south. The results presented in Figures 6.3 and 6.5 (A178 road bridge) also predict the changes in peak current speeds in the vicinity of the bridge piers. Table 6.3 summarises the results at this location. Table 6.3 Predicted changes in peak current speeds at the surface and near bed near the northern abutment of the A178 road bridge Location Predicted peak current speed (flood) Predicted peak current speed (ebb) Existing Scheme Change Existing Scheme Change Surface (312%) (75%) Bed (62.5%) (60%) A178 cross-section Spring tide, peak flood Existing Scheme surface speed (m/s) distance (m) Figure 6.4 Surface current speed, at the A178 bridge 30 Environment Agency Greatham Managed Realignment

41 Seal Sands cross-section Spring tide, peak flood Existing Scheme surface speed (m/s) distance (m) Figure 6.5 Surface current speed, at Seal Sands A178 cross-section Spring tide, peak flood Existing Scheme bed speed (m/s) distance (m) Figure 6.6 Near bed current speed, at the A178 bridge 31 Environment Agency Greatham Managed Realignment

42 Seal Sands cross-section Spring tide, peak flood Existing Scheme bed speed (m/s) distance (m) Figure 6.7 Near bed current speed, Seal Sands Changes in depth-average velocity 3 hours after high water are provided in Figures 6.8 and 6.9 for the baseline and a post breach scenario. Option 7 represents the preferred option (double breach). A full range of tidal conditions is provided in the accompanying modelling report (Appendix E). Figure 6.8: Depth-averaged velocity 3 hours after high water: Baseline situation, spring tide (HR Wallingford, 2011). 32 Environment Agency Greatham Managed Realignment

43 Figure 6.9: Depth-averaged velocity 3 hours after high water: Post breaching (at two locations), spring tide (HR Wallingford, 2011). The peak current along Greatham Creek for the spring tide conditions is predicted to be m/s. The effect of the managed realignment is consistent for both spring tide cases with increases of m/s mid-channel and 0.2m/s towards the side of the channel. With the scheme in place the highest flow speeds occur in the western breach where they exceed 0.9m/s. Flow speeds in the eastern breach reach around 0.8m/s. Summary of Results The preferred breach option has been predicted to have the following effects on the hydrodynamic regime: As the proposed realignment site sits relatively high in the tidal frame, tidal volume is only significantly increased during spring tides. Only the drainage channels within the realignment site are inundated during neap tides, therefore the scheme has a negligible effect on neap tide hydrodynamics. Currents are predicted to increase along the narrow canalised section of Greatham creek and around the A178 road bridge ( m/s mid-channel, 0.2m/s at channel edges). High current speeds are predicted in the breaches. It is anticipated that these high flow speeds will lead to the erosion of the breaches (see Section 6.6) which will allow flow speeds to decline over time. Although increased currents are predicted as a result of scheme implementation, these do not exceed those presently occurring during larger range tides (e.g. HAT events), though there will be higher than existing current speeds for a greater proportion of time. Erosion at the breaches has been predicted. Erosion of the defunct existing embankment after breaching at the western breach will not be managed, however protection at the eastern breach where the new A178 embankment ties in to the existing embankment has been included in the design. 33 Environment Agency Greatham Managed Realignment

44 6.3.2 Mud transport modelling Under baseline conditions, the highest concentrations of suspended solids are shown during the late flood tide, just before high water, Figures 6.10 and The examples provided are 3 hours before high water. A full section of tidal cycles is provided in Appendix E. During the high water slack period, material is deposited and suspended sediment levels decline. A proportion of this material is re-eroded, producing a second concentration peak during the ebb tide. Deposition is generally along the edges of the channel, though ebb currents are strong enough to re-erode any material deposited. Figure 6.10: Near-bed suspended sediment concentration 3 hours before high water: Baseline scenario, spring tide (HR Wallingford, 2011). Figure 6.11: Near-bed suspended sediment concentration 3 hours before high water: With managed realignment in place (HR Wallingford, 2011). Figures 6.12 and 6.13 show that on spring flood tides it is predicted that a concentration of between 10 and 20 parts per million (ppm) enters the realignment site via the breaches, with considerably less suspended sediment exiting the site on the ebb, suggesting that most of the sediment is deposited and remains within the realignment site. As neap tides only fill the internal channels within the site, relatively little material will be deposited within the site on neap tides. 34 Environment Agency Greatham Managed Realignment

45 Figure 6.12: Time series of suspended sediment concentrations at western breach (HR Wallingford, 2011). Figure 6.13: Time series of suspended sediment concentrations at eastern breach (HR Wallingford, 2011). Figure 6.14 shows baseline levels of accretion both within and out with the realignment site. Figure 6.15 illustrates that, compared to baseline conditions, erosion of sediments along the canalised channel of the creek, at the existing mudflats (e.g. seal haul-out) and at the breach locations is predicted (up to 20mm annually), with accretion predicted to occur within the realignment site. Between the eastern breach location and the A178 road bridge it is predicted that there will be an increase in current speeds and an associated loss of approximately 0.2ha of saltmarsh in the first 10 years after breaching, with an associated gain in the area of the channel. As water levels in this channel drop markedly at low tide, this gain in channel can be seen as a gain in mudflat, therefore this is not a loss of habitat but a change, from saltmarsh to mudflat. Figure 6.15 shows the predicted annual accretion at the site. The greatest accretion rates are predicted to be approximately 20mm/year, in lower areas to the northwest of the site and also within the channel linking the two breach locations. Locally, wind-induced waves may redistribute some of this deposited sediment within the site, though the site is not inundated for long periods of time and therefore there is limited time for waves to have this effect. 35 Environment Agency Greatham Managed Realignment

46 Figure 6.14: Pattern of annual accretion in Greatham Creek: baseline (HR Wallingford, 2011). Figure 6.15: Pattern of annual accretion in Greatham Creek: Following the managed realignment. (HR Wallingford, 2011). A small increase in deposited material in Seaton Channel (approximately 1.5%) is predicted as a result of the scheme, though this is considered to fall well within the limits of yearly natural variability and will not be noticeable. This increase is attributable to a small redistribution in the fate of mud entering the Tees Estuary from offshore. The main predicted effect of the managed realignment will be to increase the tidal volume of, and current speeds within, Greatham Creek (by up to 0.17m/s. This will lead to localised erosion within the channel seawards of the breach locations, resulting in loss of some saltmarsh adjacent to the A178 road bridge. Limited loss of habitat could occur between the A178 and Seal Sands as there is limited mudflat present along this stretch. 36 Environment Agency Greatham Managed Realignment

47 Accretion within the realignment area is predicted to be at an average rate of approximately 1cm/year, based upon an average concentration of suspended solids of 10-15mg/l in the water column in the Greatham Creek area. This accretion will reduce the tidal volume of the realignment area over time although the site would be expected to stabilise around the level of mean high water spring tides (the normal level for saltmarshes). The reduction in tidal volume of the site coupled with the predicted expansion of the Greatham Creek channel will act to reduce flow speeds within Greatham Creek so that they are more similar to pre-scheme levels. This will however be a long term process taking tens of years. There may also be small beneficial effects on habitats upstream of the breaches through increased sediment deposition due to changes in current speeds (Figure 6.10). Summary of results Mud transport modelling has indicated the following effects of the proposed scheme: An increased import of sediment into the Greatham Creek area due to the greater tidal volume introduced by the managed realignment site. A small increase in the deposition rate within Seaton Channel (though this is within levels of natural variability). A negligible effect on suspended sediment concentrations upstream of the breach site. Increased localised erosion in Greatham Creek near to the breach sites. A rate of sediment accretion within the realignment site of approximately 1cm/year, with highest accretion rates predicted in lower areas in the west of the site. The site is expected to accrete by approximately 10cm of sediment in 10 years, representing 10% of the volume of the site (measured at high water spring tides). The surface of the site is expected to stabilise around the level of mean high water springs since this is the natural level for saltmarsh development. 37 Environment Agency Greatham Managed Realignment

48 6.3.3 Morphological change The main effect of the managed realignment will be to increase tidal volume and hence current spends (as discussed in the previous sections). This will lead to erosion of bed and banks of the channel and loss of the existing saltmarsh between the embankment and the channel. This erosion will reduce over time as a new equilibrium is reached. Further information is provided in Appendix E. The morphological assessment has predicted the following changes as a result of scheme implementation: The managed realignment is expected to cause some minor erosion (approximately 0.2ha) of saltmarsh and deepening of the channel between the breach location and the A178 road bridge. The effects of the managed realignment on the creek upstream of the breach locations are predicted to be minor and potentially beneficial to habitats. The managed realignment is predicted to accrete at a rate of around 1cm/year. This should be a sufficiently high rate of accretion to enable the elevation of the site to keep pace with sea level rise, though it will take time (1 to 2 years) for terrestrial sediments to convert adequately to marine conditions to support growth of saltmarsh. The degradation of the terrestrial soil structure may lead to the creation of an impermeable layer which will impede drainage within the site. Due to relatively low sediment input and drainage-related issues, site (and saltmarsh) development is likely to be slow. Saltmarsh will be dominated by the pioneer species Salicornia and low/mid marsh species Puccinellia maritima and Aster tripoleum even though elevations in much of the site correspond to higher marsh species. The breach cross-sections are expected to in width and depth. These changes will be greatest following the opening of the scheme and will decline over a period of years until a new equilibrium is reached. Seal Sands will also experience increases in current speed of up to 0.17m/s at the Bailey Bridge and minor increases at the fringes of the Seal Sands intertidal area. This will result in some deepening and widening of the existing channel between these two points. Predicted peak currents at the western breach (approximately 1m/s) are in excess of those seen throughout the creek ( m/s on average), Figure This suggests the western breach location will widen significantly from the design breach parameters as the peak spring tide discharge is in the order of 30m 3 /s (roughly equivalent to larger crosssections of the actual creek upstream of the breach location). The actual breach equilibrium cross-section may be around 4 times larger (double the width and height) than the design breach. It has not been possible to quantify the exact change in habitat from saltmarsh to mudflat at the breach locations, however some localised scour and habitat change is expected as the breaches and the channels leading from them into Greatham Creek widen and deepen in response to natural processes. 38 Environment Agency Greatham Managed Realignment

49 Figure 6.16: Predicted peak spring tide velocity, Greatham Creek following breaching Scour Assessment Scour is a physical process related to the movement of sediment by the flow of water away from a structure. A high-level scour assessment has been undertaken and predicted the following impacts upon the central piers and abutments at the A178 road bridge: Changes in scour at central piers: 20 to 30% increase in scour depth. Change in local scour at abutments: 1 to 6% increase in scour depth. With regards to the central piers, this represents a change in scour around a single pile from approximately 1.2 to 1.4m depth to 1.5 to 1.8m depth. The central piers are believed to be piled directly into the underlying bedrock; therefore such an increase should have no impact upon these structures. At the abutments, scour is predicted to increase from approximately 2.3m (baseline) to 2.4m depth. As such no significant structural impacts are predicted upon the A178 road bridge. However, it is noted that the existing scour protection for the bridge consisting of plastic rock gabions is in a poor state of repair and it is recommended that this is improved prior to undertaking the realignment scheme. Scour is predicted at the breach locations resulting in an increase in their size overtime. Scour protection is proposed at the tie-in location between the existing embankment and the new A178 embankment 39 Environment Agency Greatham Managed Realignment

50 7 Flora and fauna 7.1 Introduction This section discusses the flora and fauna interests of the study area and the assessment of the potential effects of the proposed scheme on such interests, including on designated sites. Breeding, overwintering and migratory bird species are one of the key ecological interests in the Tees Estuary, and this is reflected in the reasons for the various conservation designations. Areas landward of the flood defences are noted for their brackish, freshwater and terrestrial habitats and associated orchid, invertebrate and bird species. The presence of some terrestrial, freshwater and brackish sites (e.g. Greenabella Marsh) is due to the existing flood defences that prevent tidal inundation. As identified during the scoping stage, the main potential impacts that are considered in this section include: Impacts upon designated sites and cited bird species, including disturbance and displacement of birds from roosting and feeding grounds; Potential disturbance to passage and wintering SPA waterbirds during the construction phase of the development, Potential impacts of construction on breeding birds; Impacts upon seal populations and haul-out sites, including disturbance and displacement; Impacts upon protected species; Impacts upon fish species; The potential for physical habitat loss or degradation. 7.2 Methodology Data Sources The following data sources have been consulted to inform this section: Conservation designations: Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast European Marine Site Management Scheme; 40 Environment Agency Greatham Managed Realignment

51 Natural England website and SSSI citations; Hartlepool Borough Council Local Wildlife Site information. Overwintering Bird Survey (October 2009 March 2010 inclusive); Wetland Bird Survey (WeBS)1 data; Teesmouth Bird Club data and publications. Fish: Environment Agency rod catch data for salmon and sea trout in the Tees; Environment Agency screen catch data for Hartlepool Power Station; Environment Agency seine and trawl catch data for the Tees Estuary; Tees Salmon Action Plan; Internal Environment Agency fisheries advice. Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) habitats: Environment Agency saltmarsh condition monitoring data; Environment Agency extent of saltmarsh in England and Wales: ; Phase 1 Habitat Survey and report; Huntsman Tioxide Greatham Site - Biodiversity Action Plan. Protected species: Great Crested Newt (GCN) Survey, Spring 2010; Otter and Water Vole Survey, Spring Assessment Methodology Impacts to fauna and flora have been assessed using the Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) (IEEM, 2006) with emphasis being placed on species of particular conservation importance. Furthermore, the importance of habitats that have the potential to be impacted by the proposed scheme have also been addressed. In the context of EIA, 1 A partnership between the British Trust for Ornithology (BTO), RSPB and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (the latter on behalf of the Council for Nature Conservation and the Countryside, the Countryside Council for Wales, Natural England and Scottish Natural Heritage) in association with the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust (WWT). 41 Environment Agency Greatham Managed Realignment

52 the significance of an effect is determined by the interaction of two factors; firstly, the value, importance or sensitivity of the receptor being affected, and secondly, the magnitude, scale or severity of the effect or change. The criteria for determining the importance/value of the receptors with regards to flora and fauna are described in Table 7.1 below. Table 7.1: Descriptions of receptor importance/value Importance/Value International/National Regional/County District/Local Unspecified Description Internationally designated or proposed sites, e.g. Ramsar, SPAs, SACs etc or nationally designated sites SSSIs, NNRs etc. Species or habitats protected or otherwise deemed to be significant at the international or national level. Sites containing viable areas of threatened habitats that are significant at a regional scale or areas that comfortably exceeding Local Wildlife Site (LWS) criteria, but not meeting SSSI selection criteria. Species or habitats protected or otherwise deemed to be significant at the regional or county level. Designated LWS, local plan designations or undesignated sites of varied quality containing habitat types of local interest. Species or habitats protected or otherwise deemed significant at the local level. Low grade and widespread habitats. Once the impact has been characterised, its magnitude can be assessed. Impact magnitude is the degree of change that the impact causes or is considered to cause compared to the baseline. In order to determine this, an indication of the existing baseline level and its variations (temporal and spatial) are required. The sensitivity of a feature relates to the level of intolerance of the receptor to the effect being considered, or the degree to which the specific aspects that give the feature its value are altered. Table 7.2 provides a description of the three levels of quantification of magnitude with a general description of the meaning of each level of magnitude as well as a description of its definition in terms of feature sensitivity. Table 7.2: Description of magnitude of effects Magnitude of effects High Medium Low Description A large change A change that is noticeable A change which may only just be noticeable The species/population is likely to be killed/ destroyed by the effect under consideration Some individuals of a species/population may be killed/destroyed by the effect under consideration and the viability of a species/population may be affected Some individuals of a species/population may be killed/destroyed/displaced by the effect under consideration but the viability of a species/ population will not be affected The determined level of magnitude (Table 7.2) combined with the value/importance of the receptor (Table 7.1) enables the significance of the impact to be determined (Table 7.3). 42 Environment Agency Greatham Managed Realignment

53 Table 7.3: Significance of impact for qualitative receptors Magnitude of Effects (Pressures) Receptor Importance/Value of Feature International/ National Regional/ County District Local Unspecified High Major Major Major Moderate Minor Medium Major Moderate Moderate Minor Minor Low Moderate Minor Minor Negligible Negligible The requirement for an HRA has been discussed with both Natural England and the RSPB. The AA will focus on the bird species in the SPA citation and Ramsar designation and also assess impacts upon the waterbird assemblage and component species. Information to inform Hartlepool Borough Council in the preparation of the AA is presented in Section 19 of this report. 7.3 Environmental baseline Nature Conservation Designations Areas adjacent to Greatham Managed Realignment (MR) Site include sites of international and national nature conservation importance. Figure 7.1 and the following sections summarise the designations within and adjacent to Greatham MR Site. Statutory designated sites include SPAs, Ramsars, NNRs and SSSIs, for which Natural England is the government s statutory adviser. Sites which are listed as Local Wildlife Sites (LWS) are non-statutory, and implemented through Hartlepool Borough Council s Local Plan, with the aim of encouraging sympathetic management by the land owner. Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast SPA/Ramsar Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast SPA/Ramsar Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast SPA/Ramsar is adjacent to the southern application boundary. The value of the Tees Estuary for internationally important numbers of bird species is recognised by the designation of 1,247ha of the estuarine and coastal habitats as the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast SPA and Ramsar site. Designated under the Wild Birds Directive (Directive 2009/147/EC 2 ), the SPA includes both marine (i.e. land either continuously or intermittently covered by tidal waters) and terrestrial areas. The marine component of the site is also termed a European Marine Site (EMS) (INCA, 2 Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament, and of the Council, on the conservation of wild birds (the codified version of Council Directive 79/409/EEC as amended) ( the Birds Directive ). 43 Environment Agency Greatham Managed Realignment

54 2009a). Natural England has developed conservation objectives for the SPA which aim to maintain, in favourable condition, the quality, distribution and extent of the designated habitats which support the cited bird species (Natural England, 2000). Designated interest features of the SPA and Ramsar site(s) are provided in Table 7.4. Table 7.4 Designated interest features of the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast SPA 3 and Ramsar site 4 Interest feature Qualifying feature Further information Populations of European importance of regularly occurring Annex 1 bird species (Under Article 4.1 of Directive 2009/147/EC) Little Tern Sterna albifrons Sandwich Tern Sterna sandvicenis At least 1.5% of British breeding population (4-yr mean ) At least 5.2% of British population (5-yr mean ) 37 pairs (breeding) 2,190 individuals (passage season) Populations of European importance of regularly occurring migratory bird species (Under Article 4.2 of Directive 2009/147/EC) Ringed Plover Charadrius hiaticula Knot Calidris canutus Redshank Tringa totanus At least 1.3% of European/N African wintering population (5-yr spring mean ) At least 1.2% of wintering NE Canada/ Greenland/ Iceland/NW Europe population At least 1.1% of Eastern Atlantic population 634 individuals during passage periods 4,190 individuals during winter (5-yr peak mean 1991/2-1995/6) 1,648 individuals during winter (5-yr peak mean ) An internationally important assemblage of birds (under Article 4.2 of Directive 79/409/EEC) The area regularly supports over 20,000 waterfowl 21,406 individual waterfowl (5-yr peak mean 1991/2-1995/6). Includes sanderling Calidris alba, lapwing Vanellus vanellus, shelduck Tadorna tadorna, cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo, redshank and knot. Other Designations 3 Based on the Natura 2000 Standard Data Form (updated 1999) and the SPA Review site account (published 2001) which lists potential qualifying species that are, according to government policy, fully protected in the SPA.. 4 Ramsar features covered by the SPA designation. 44 Environment Agency Greatham Managed Realignment

55 There are currently 1,563.4ha of land designated as SSSI around the Tees Estuary. Table 7.5 lists and provides details of SSSIs, Ramsar sites, NNRs and LWSs relevant to the Greatham MR Site. Figure 7.1 summarises the baseline status of the site and its locality. 45 Environment Agency Greatham Managed Realignment

56 Table 7.5 Other conservation designations relevant to the scheme Designation Site name Overview of designation Distance from Red Line Boundary Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) Tees and Hartlepool Foreshore and Wetlands The site comprises several coastal areas which are an integral part of the complex of wetlands, estuarine and maritime sites supporting the internationally important populations of wildfowl and waders on the Tees Estuary. In winter the site supports nationally important numbers of purple sandpiper Calidris maritima, sanderling Calidris alba and shoveler Anas clypeata. Parts of the site also support a nationally important assemblage of breeding birds, including shoveler, pochard Aythya ferina, little ringed plover Charadrius dubius, great crested grebe Podiceps cristatus and little grebe Tachybaptus ruficollis. Parts of the arable field identified for borrow pit are within the red line. However, SI has indicated that this area is highly unsuitable for construction material and very unlikely to be used. Unit 3 of this SSSI encompasses Greenabella Marsh, located within the Greatham NE flood cell. This is notified solely for its ornithological interest with non-breeding populations of redshank Tringa totanus, curlew Numenius arquata, teal Anas crecca and shelduck Tadorna tadorna all contributing to the SPA bird assemblage. Cowpen Marsh Cowpen Marsh includes the largest saltmarsh between Lindisfarne and the Humber Estuary and together with adjacent coastal grazing marshes and mudflats it provides an important wintering site for migratory wildfowl and wading birds. Along the southern side of Greatham Creek the saltmarsh community is dominated by common saltmarsh grass Puccinella maritima with sea aster Aster tripoleum. Thrift Armeria maritima also occurs here, close to the northern range of its extent in eastern Britain. North of Greatham Creek, pioneer communities of glasswort Salicornia spp. and annual seablite Suaeda maritima on the intertidal mud are succeeded by saltmarsh-grass and sea aster. Adjacent Greatham Creek and Cowpen Marsh together provide important roosting and feeding grounds for large numbers of migratory wildfowl and wading birds which also feed on intertidal mudflats around the Tees estuary. Species feeding and roosting at this site include widgeon Anas penelope, teal, curlew, redshank, bar-tailed godwit Limosa lapponica, lapwing Vanellus vanellus, golden plover Pluvialis apricaria, dunlin Calidris alpina, mallard Anas platyrhyncos, moorhen Gallinula chloropus, coot Fulica atra, snipe Gallinago gallinago, reed bunting Emberiza schoeniclus and yellow wagtail Motacilla flava. 46 Environment Agency Greatham Managed Realignment

57 Designation Site name Overview of designation Distance from Red Line Boundary Seal Sands This site is the only extensive area of intertidal mudflats with tidal channels on the East coast of England between the Lindisfarne National Nature Reserve to the north and the Humber Estuary to the south. These mudflats support large numbers of migratory wildfowl (approximately 4,000) and wading birds (approximately 24,000), especially during the winter months, including internationally important numbers of shelduck, knot Calidris canutus and redshank. When the mudflats are inundated at high tide their use as a feeding ground is complemented by adjacent areas of reclaimed land which also serve as roosting sites. 740m east National Nature Reserve (NNR) Teesmouth The reserve covers two areas: Seal Sands and North Gare. Seal Sands is a large area of intertidal mud and sand-flats with populations of common and grey seals as well as nationally and internationally important bird populations. North Gare comprises sand dune and saltmarsh habitat supporting a wide variety of plants and birds, including large populations of knot and birds of prey, such as merlin Falco columbarius, which hunt over the dunes. The reserve boundaries including parts of both Seal Sands SSSI and Seaton Dunes and Common SSSI. 740m east Local Wildlife Sites (LWS) Former Sharwoods Brinefield Site of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCI) Much of the site is currently a SNCI in the Local Plan based upon its wetland bird interest and the remnants of saltmarsh vegetation associated with the former creeks across the site, for which it meets the criteria for designation as a LWS. The site boundary has been extended beyond the SNCI boundary to include an additional area containing saltmarsh vegetation and creeks. Within the red line boundary There is also significant ornithological interest associated with the site. In combination with part of the adjacent Phillips Tank Farm site it supports approximately 3.7% of total SPA bird numbers (five year mean ) and is an important site for breeding lapwing. Phillips Tank Farm See above Adjacent Greenabella Marsh Greenabella Marsh is an extensive area of saltmarsh and rough grassland lying to the north of Greatham Creek and east of the A178 Tees Road. The area is excellent for wildfowl, waders, terns and, in winter, small birds such as twite Carduelis flavirostris, goldfinch Carduelis carduelis and linnet Carduelis cannabina. 25m east 47 Environment Agency Greatham Managed Realignment

58 Designation Site name Overview of designation Distance from Red Line Boundary Greatham Creek North Bank Greatham Creek is a saltmarsh in Teesside running from the North bank of the river Tees at Middlesbrough North through Billingham. 80m south-east 48 Environment Agency Greatham Managed Realignment

59 7.3.2 Desk Study Habitats The Greatham MR site contains the former SNCI Sharwoods Site, designated as a LWS by HBC (Ian Bond, pers comm.). This site holds remnants of saltmarsh vegetation in tidal creeks and is of significant ornithological interest, supporting 3.7% of total SPA bird species in combination with parts of the Phillips Tank Farm LWS to the north (Hartlepool Borough Council, 2009a). It is also an important site for breeding lapwing (Vanellus vanellus), categorised as a Red List species (in decline/globally threatened) by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB, 2009). Specialist ecological surveys for the protected species Great Crested Newt (GCN) Triturus cristatus, otter Lutra lutra and water vole Arvicola amphibius have been undertaken, none of which were found to be present at the site (for further details see Appendices K). ConocoPhillips has recently completed the Greatham Meadows site, a compensatory habitat creation scheme required due to the construction of an LNG Terminal on land adjoining Seal Sands (Phil Moppet, pers.comm.) Separated from the proposed managed realignment site by a large earth bund, over 30ha of land will be managed to encourage curlew and other SPA species, including flooding and creation of a short sward height in winter to maximise the value of the site for roosting and feeding. The creation of this site will contribute to increased bird numbers in this area, in particular curlew. The site is currently grazed under guidance from Natural England and it is the intention that the area will continue to be managed in this way. Greatham Creek, which forms the southern boundary of Greatham MR site, forms part of Cowpen Marsh SSSI which supports the largest area of saltmarsh between Lindisfarne and the Humber Estuary. Together with adjacent coastal grazing marshes and mudflats it provides an important wintering site for migratory wildfowl and wading birds and also forms an integral part of the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast SPA and Ramsar site. An 8ha area of saltmarsh to the north of Greatham Creek is currently owned by the RSPB. Saltmarsh is an important feeding habitat for migrating and overwintering bird species, and supports a specialised invertebrate community. Saltmarsh around the Tees Estuary occurs in fragmented areas, with historic land claim having reduced this habitat to key sites including Greatham Creek, Seal Sands and Greenabella Marsh (Tees Valley Biodiversity Partnership, 2010). Saltmarsh, along with associated mudflat, is a UK BAP priority habitat, and has been subject to significant decline in area throughout the UK. Natural England monitors the condition of saltmarsh vegetation at Greatham Creek as part of its statutory duties with regards to the management of SSSIs. In the most recent assessment, Greatham Creek (Unit 1 of the Cowpen Marsh SSSI) was reported to be in favourable condition, with no net decrease in habitat area and pioneer communities occurring as part of a transition to other saltmarsh communities (Natural England, 2009). However, evidence of recent saltmarsh erosion was observed during a site visit in February 2010 (see Plates 1 and 2). Through interrogation of historic aerial photography it is clear that different areas of this saltmarsh have undergone both erosion and accretion over the past 70 years, with erosion most prominent on the outside bends of meanders (Royal Haskoning, 2010a). 49 Environment Agency Greatham Managed Realignment

60 Plate 1 Saltmarsh erosion, Greatham Creek, 03/02/10 (view southeast) Plate 2 Saltmarsh erosion, Greatham Creek, 03/02/10 (view northwest) Along the southern side of Greatham Creek the saltmarsh was reported as being dominated by common saltmarsh grass with sea aster. Higher levels of the marsh support species-rich associations of red fescue Festuca rubra, sea plantain Plantago maritima, sea arrowgrass Triglochin maritima, greater sea-spurry Spergularia media and sea milkwort Glaux maritima and an unusual community of common sea-lavender with thrift Armeria maritima which occurs here close to the northern edge of its range in eastern Britain (Natural England, 2009). Saltmarsh is also reported as developing independently of tidal influence due to saline seepage from the existing spoil heap within Greatham MR site. The spoil heap itself has also been identified as of local nature conservation importance. Waterbird populations Bird usage of the Tees Estuary varies seasonally, with different areas being favoured over others at certain times of the year. For feeding waders and wildfowl, the major intertidal areas of the estuary system comprise North Tees mudflat, Seal Sands, Bran Sands and North Gare Sands. These areas are of importance for various species of waterbirds that contribute to the overall assemblage of the SPA and Ramsar site. In addition, other areas around the estuary (primarily those areas designated as SSSI, such as Seaton Dunes and Common, Greenabella Marsh and Cowpen Marsh) represent important high tide roosts which support waterbirds that are part of the SPA populations. 50 Environment Agency Greatham Managed Realignment

61 Little tern (an Annex I species 5 and a designated interest feature of the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast SPA and Ramsar site) breeds within the estuary from early May and is present until early autumn, nesting on shingle habitats and feeding in shallow coastal waters on small fish (particularly sprat and sandeels). Colonies are located at Hart Warren Dunes, South Gare & Coatham Sands, and at Seaton Dunes (INCA, 2009a). Sandwich tern (also an Annex I species) does not breed in the Tees estuary but is present on passage in the lower estuary in large numbers in late summer/early autumn (>1,500 individuals). North Gare Sands, Seal Sands, Bran Sands and Coatham Sands constitute key roosting and loafing sites for sandwich tern during the post-breeding period (July and August) and prior to their autumn migration (INCA, 2009a). Sandwich tern, also a designated interest feature of the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast SPA and Ramsar site, also feed almost exclusively on small fish and sandeels in shallow coastal waters. Knot occurs in internationally important numbers in winter and is included within the wintering waterfowl assemblage for the site. Knot feed on both rocky shores (e.g. Redcar Rocks, Seaton Snook) for common mussel (Mytilus edulis) and intertidal sand/mud flats (e.g. Seal Sands, Hartlepool North Sands) for other invertebrate prey, such as mud snails (Hydrobia sp.), cockles (Cerastoderma edule), ragworm (Hediste diversicolor) and mud shrimp (Corophium volutator). Knot roost both on rocky shores, such as Seaton Snook, and at higher tide levels on North Gare Sands, Bran Sands and Hartlepool North Sands (INCA, 2009a). Redshank occurs in internationally important numbers during moult and migration in late summer and autumn, with a small proportion of the population utilising grazing marsh habitats (including brackish and freshwater pools) outside the European Marine Site (INCA, 2009a). Redshank also utilise rocky shores but in smaller numbers than knot, with the majority of feeding activity focussed upon intertidal sand/mud flat at sites such as Seal Sands, North Tees mudflats and Greatham Creek. Enclosed saltmarsh areas at Greatham Creek and within Seal Sands also provide roosting opportunities, as do surrounding grazing marshes. Ringed plover occur on migration, though in smaller numbers than knot or redshank. Ringed plover prefer rocky and sandy coastlines rather than estuaries, and feed mostly upon polychaete worms, crustaceans and molluscs, taken from on or near the surface (BTO, 2003). Designated interest features of the SPA and Ramsar site(s) are summarised in Section In order to allow a robust assessment of the potential impacts of the proposed scheme on waterbird populations and their habitats, it is necessary to describe their current usage of the study area, in particular the use of habitats that may be directly or indirectly impacted by the scheme. A number of sources of data have been used to describe waterbird usage, namely: 5 Annex 1 of Directive 2009/147/EC that lists birds in danger of extinction, rare, vulnerable to specific changes in their habitat or requiring particular attention for reasons of the specific nature of their habitat. 51 Environment Agency Greatham Managed Realignment

62 Wetland Bird Survey (WeBS) 6 ; A targeted overwintering bird survey (October 2009 March 2010 inclusive); Teesmouth Bird Club and its publications. The WeBS data were obtained from the British Trust for Ornithology (BTO), covering both Core Counts and Low Tide Counts. The Core Count data for the most recent five available years (i.e. 2004/05 to 2008/09) were obtained for the following count sectors (see Figure 7.2): Tees Estuary (52901); Greatham Tank Farm (52415); and Greatham Creek Channel (52416). These Core Count data concentrate primarily on the winter period, but at selected sites (including the Tees Estuary); counts are made once per month throughout the year. Counts are usually made at high tide when birds are most easily counted at roosts (BTO, 2010). The Greatham Tank Farm count sector covers the proposed Greatham NW realignment site (formerly part of the Sharwoods Brinefield SNCI), as well as the ConocoPhillips Tank Farm (Phillips Tank Farm LWS), located to the north. These sites are not currently subject to statutory nature conservation designation. To put counts from these sectors into an estuary-wide context, equivalent summary count data were obtained for the entire Tees Estuary. WeBS Low Tide Counts are conducted at most large estuaries at least one winter every six years, with up to four counts being made through the period November to February, and they are designed to complement the Core Count data. They are principally concerned with illustrating bird foraging distributions, allowing the identification of those parts of estuaries, inlets or bays which are important for birds (BTO, 2010). The most recent counts for the Tees Estuary are from the winter of 2006/07 and data were obtained for two Low Tide Count sectors, D009 and D010 (see Figure 7.3). Overwintering bird surveys of the specific project study area were commissioned during September 2009 to March 2010 (Ecosurveys Ltd, 2010). The methodology and area of coverage for the surveys was agreed with Natural England in advance and the results of these surveys are presented in the following sections (see Figure 7.4). WeBS Core Count data Greatham Tank Farm: Five year peak means for waterbird species using the Greatham Tank Farm sector were compared with those for the Tees Estuary as a whole and presented in Tables 7.6 and 7.7. This is based on the convention used by WeBS for ranking sites in terms of their importance using the five-year mean peak (actually covering five winters or six calendar years), in line with recommendations of the Ramsar 6 A partnership between the British Trust for Ornithology (BTO), RSPB and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (the latter on behalf of the Council for Nature Conservation and the Countryside, the Countryside Council for Wales, Natural England and Scottish Natural Heritage) in association with the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust (WWT) 52 Environment Agency Greatham Managed Realignment

63 Convention 7. The data shows that during the winter period, the Greatham Tank Farm count sector represents up to 3% of total Tees waterbird populations. 7 Holt, C., Austin, G., Calbrade, N., Mellan, H., Thewlis, R., Hall, C., Stroud, D., Wotton, S. & Musgrave, A. (2009) Waterbirds in the UK 2007/08: The Wetland Bird Survey. BTO/WWT/RSPB/JNCC, Thetford. 53 Environment Agency Greatham Managed Realignment

64 Table 7.6 Summary of peak monthly totals and seasonal peaks in waterbird populations at Greatham Tank Farm and Tees estuary 2004/05 to 2008/09 Greatham Tank Farm Tees Estuary Year Month Peak Monthly Total 1 Autumn Winter Spring Seasonal peak 2 Month Peak Seasonal peak 2 Monthly Total 1 Autumn Winter Spring 2004/05 Feb Feb /06 Dec Feb /07 Jan Dec /08 Jan Jan /09 Dec Dec MEAN Peak monthly total = maximum of the sum of the counts of all species within each month 2 Seasonal peak = sum of the maximum counts of all species within each season Table 7.7 The relative usage of Greatham Tank Farm and the Tees estuary by waterbirds over the period 2004/05 to 2008/09 (based upon data presented in Table 7.6) Year Greatham Tank Farm as % of Tees Peak Monthly Autumn Winter Spring 2004/05 1% 1% 1% 2% 2005/06 2% 1% 2% 1% 2006/07 1% 1% 1% 2% 2007/08 3% 0% 2% 1% 2008/09 1% 1% 2% 1% The predominantly terrestrial nature of the Greatham Tank Farm count sector, which includes the proposed realignment area, means usage by species of wader, waterfowl 54 Environment Agency Greatham Managed Realignment

65 and divers is limited. Species which utilise areas of grassland for feeding and roosting were however recorded, with wigeon, teal and mallard most numerous during the winter months (see Table 7.8). Up to 4% of the Tees curlew population were also present during this period. During the spring, up to 12% of the Tees lapwing population (a Red List species) and 14% of the Tees black-tailed godwit populations were present. Black-tailed godwit is a Schedule 1 species protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) 8. Table 7.8 Species The relative usage of Greatham Tank Farm and the Tees estuary by individual waterbird species over the period 2004/05 to 2008/09 Autumn Winter Spring Greatham Tank Farm Tees Estuary % Greatham Tank Farm Tees Estuary % Greatham Tank Farm Tees Estuary % Mute Swan % % % Greylag Goose (reestablished) % % % Canada Goose % % % Shelduck % % % Wigeon % % % Gadwall % % % Teal % % % Mallard % % % Shoveler % % % Tufted Duck % % % Grey Heron % % % Moorhen % % % Coot % % % 8 In addition to the protection given to all bird species, it is an offence to disturb a Schedule 1 species at the nest, or while nest building, or to disturb the dependent young of such a bird. 55 Environment Agency Greatham Managed Realignment

66 Species Autumn Winter Spring Greatham Tank Farm Tees Estuary % Greatham Tank Farm Tees Estuary % Greatham Tank Farm Tees Estuary % Oystercatcher % % % Lapwing % % % Snipe % % % Black-tailed Godwit % % % Curlew % % % Redshank % % % Black-headed Gull % % % Lesser Black-backed Gull % 0 3 0% % Herring Gull % % % Great Black-backed Gull % % % 1 Note that only those species recorded within the Greatham Tank Farm sector over the period 2004/05 to 2008/09 are included within the table Greatham Creek Channel: Five year peak means for waterbird species using the Greatham Creek Channel sector are compared with those for the Tees Estuary as a whole and presented in Table 7.9. The Greatham Creek Channel sector holds up to 8% of the Tees waterbird population in winter, though it is also of equal importance during the autumn period (Table 7.10). Table 7.9 Summary of peak monthly totals and seasonal peaks in waterbird populations at Greatham Creek Channel and in the Tees estuary over the period 2004/05 to 2008/09 Greatham Creek Channel Tees Estuary Year Month Peak Monthly Total 1 Autumn Winter Spring Seasonal peak 2 Month Peak Seasonal peak 2 Monthly Total 1 Autumn Winter Spring 2004/05 Dec Feb /06 Dec Feb /07 Jan Dec /08 Nov Jan /09 Jan Dec MEAN Peak monthly total = maximum of the sum of the counts of all species within each month 2 Seasonal peak = sum of the maximum counts of all species within each season 56 Environment Agency Greatham Managed Realignment

67 Table 7.10 The relative usage of Greatham Creek Channel and the Tees estuary by waterbirds over the period 2004/05 to 2008/09 (based upon data presented in Table 7.9) Year Greatham Creek Channel as % of Tees Peak Monthly Autumn Winter Spring 2004/05 7% 7% 8% 4% 2005/06 5% 5% 6% 5% 2006/07 4% 5% 5% 3% 2007/08 5% 4% 6% 3% 2008/09 5% 5% 6% 3% Table 7.11 details the relative usage of Greatham Creek Channel compared with the Tees Estuary. Table 7.11 Species The relative usage of Greatham Creek Channel and the Tees estuary by individual waterbird species over the period 2004/05 to 2008/09 Autumn Winter Spring Greatham Creek Channel Tees Estuary % Greatham Creek Channel Tees Estuary % Greatham Creek Channel Tees Estuary % Pink-footed Goose 0 3 0% % % Greylag Goose (reestablished) % % % Canada Goose % % % Shelduck % % % Wigeon % % % Gadwall % % % Teal % % % Mallard % % % Pintail % % 0 9 0% Shoveler % % % Red-breasted Merganser % % % Little Grebe % % % Cormorant % % % Little Egret % % % Grey Heron % % % 57 Environment Agency Greatham Managed Realignment

68 Species Autumn Winter Spring Greatham Creek Channel Tees Estuary % Greatham Creek Channel Tees Estuary % Greatham Creek Channel Tees Estuary % Oystercatcher % % % Avocet 0 4 0% 0 0 0% % Little Ringed Plover % 0 0 0% 0 5 0% Ringed Plover % % % Golden Plover % % % Grey Plover % % % Lapwing % % % Knot % % % Dunlin % % % Black-tailed Godwit % % % Bar-tailed Godwit % % % Whimbrel % 0 0 0% % Curlew % % % Spotted Redshank % 0 1 0% 0 1 0% Greenshank % 0 0 0% 0 1 0% Redshank % % % Turnstone % % % Black-headed Gull % % % Herring Gull % % % Great Black-backed Gull % % % Common Tern % 0 0 0% % Redshank and curlew are the species recorded in highest numbers during autumn, with 17% and 19% of the total Tees populations, as well as 13% of the dunlin population, Table Wigeon and lapwing were also present, though numbers of these species greatly increased during the winter months to 24% and 9% respectively. Black tailed godwit (41%) and teal (15%) also showed increased numbers during the winter. During spring, gulls, curlew and shelduck (13%) were most numerous, with curlew and redshank decreased in numbers compared with winter but still present (8% and 6% respectively). The sector also played host to two species of relatively rare occurrence: little egret and avocet (a Schedule 1 species). In 2009, 10 breeding pairs of avocet were recorded on a saline lagoon located to the south of the A178 Greatham Creek Bridge, with a total of 39 young birds raised (Teesmouth Bird Club, 2010). Though currently located on the 58 Environment Agency Greatham Managed Realignment

69 southern side of the creek and outwith the Greatham Managed Realignment scheme boundaries, it is possible that this species will begin to colonise Greenabella Marsh and other surrounding areas in the near future should the breeding population be maintained (Teesmouth Bird Club, 2010). Overwintering Bird Surveys Greatham Tank Farm: These surveys confirmed the most common species recorded by WeBS counts as the most commonly recorded using the area, primarily for feeding (by wigeon, curlew and lapwing), and to a lesser extent roosting, especially on the ungrazed rough grassland areas to the north of the ConocoPhillips bund. Black-tailed godwit Limosa limosa (11 individuals) and green sandpiper Tringa erythropus (one individual), also a Schedule 1 species, were also recorded north of the ConocoPhillips bund (see Figure 7.2). Greatham Creek Channel: Whilst the overwintering bird survey area for Greatham Creek Channel did not extend to cover the upper creek areas adjacent to the railway embankment (as per the WeBS count sector), the data have confirmed that the area is important for both feeding and roosting overwintering waterbirds with peak counts of wigeon (2,769 individuals), redshank (1,016), lapwing (360), teal (282), curlew (170) and shelduck (134) the most commonly recorded species. Dunlin (39) and little egret (4) were also recorded, as was one record of green sandpiper. No clear patterns of bird usage were evident between surveys undertaken at low tide and those undertaken at high tide, with species showing both feeding and roosting activity during all tidal states. Low Tide Count Data Low tide distribution maps were collated from counts undertaken during four months from the winter of (BTO, 2003). These showed the highest densities of total principal interest species (waders - lapwing, knot, sanderling and redshank, wildfowl - shelduck and other species characteristic of wetland habitats, e.g. cormorant) could be found on Seal Sands and Greatham Creek, and upstream along the River Tees. Lapwings were highly concentrated at Greatham Creek, and along the half-tide embankment surrounding the northern part of Seal Sands. Redshank was also present in Greatham Creek in large numbers, as well as spread across the entire Seal Sands. Knot and shelduck were also concentrated on Seal Sands, through knot were also prominent users of the Redcar foreshore, as were sanderling and to a lesser extent redshank. Low tide count data was obtained for winter 2006/07 for intertidal and non-intertidal areas (Table 7.12). Table 7.12 WeBS Low tide count data (Winter ) Species Preferred habitat Mean site count Mean site density (birds/hectare) DT009 DT010 Tees Estuary DT009 DT010 Tees Estuary Wigeon All Teal All Curlew Redshank Intertidal and non-intertidal Intertidal and non-intertidal Environment Agency Greatham Managed Realignment

70 Species Black-tailed Godwit Preferred habitat Intertidal and non-intertidal Mean site count Mean site density (birds/hectare) DT009 DT010 Tees Estuary DT009 DT010 Tees Estuary Data obtained for the intertidal and non-intertidal areas (57ha) of the Greatham Creek Channel sector (DT009) show that this sector hosted a mean count of 12 redshank (peak count = 27), equating to a mean site density of 0.21 birds/ha. This compares with a mean count of 461 birds for the entire Tees Estuary area (400ha), and a mean site density of 1.15 birds/ha. Teal showed a mean density of 0.38 birds/ha, compared with 0.06 birds/ha, with wigeon showing a mean density of 2.36 birds/ha compared to 0.23 birds/ha for the Tees as a whole. Curlew showed a mean density of 0.57 birds/ha, compared to 0.67 birds/ha for the Tees. Data for the canalised channel section (DT010), between the Bailey bridge and the A178 road bridge (5ha), show that it is of equal importance in relation to its size for teal and black-tailed godwit, but of relatively low importance in the overall context of the Tees Estuary for redshank and curlew. DT009 is of importance for wigeon, teal and curlew, and less so for redshank. Teesmouth Bird Club: Breeding Birds Data obtained from Teesmouth Bird Club for two tetrads covering the site of the entire Greatham North flood cells (and surrounding areas) indicate that five Schedule 1 species have been recorded as breeding: garganey, avocet, little ringed plover, little tern and barn owl. Red list breeding species recorded include grey partridge, lapwing, herring gull, cuckoo, skylark, yellow wagtail, song thrush, house sparrow, linnet and yellowhammer. It should be noted that these tetrads also include areas such as Cowpen Marsh, located to the south of Greatham Creek, and it is not possible to separate out individual records for the Greatham Managed Realignment site. In addition, it has been confirmed by Natural England that the Greatham Managed Realignment scheme does not have the potential to cause likely significant effect to the SPA population of breeding little tern, owing to the habitats involved and distance from breeding colonies (Natural England, pers. comm.). However, the overall picture remains of an area of significant ornithological interest for breeding birds, as well as those wintering and on passage. Of particular note with regard to the proposed scheme is the population of breeding avocet. In 2009, 10 breeding pairs of avocet were recorded on a saline lagoon located to the south of the A178 Greatham Creek Bridge (outwith of the immediate study area), with a total of 39 young birds raised (Teesmouth Bird Club, 2010). In 2010 avocets arrived in mid-march with up to 30 individuals present by the end of May and 14 pairs breeding, utilising improved habitats on the islands (enhanced through the import of cockle shells). The first chicks arrived on 5 th May and 18 had hatched by early June, though predation and natural losses were high (INCA, 2010d). Birds remained near to Greatham Creek until early July, when they dispersed to other sites, with all avocet having left the area by early October (Teesmouth Bird Club, unpublished). Shelduck, which used to nest in cavities the slag sea walls (prior to them being encased in clay in the mid-1990 s) have been observed on the slag heap on the Greatham NW site, possibly looking for suitable nesting sites, such as rabbit burrows (Geoff Barber, pers comm.). 60 Environment Agency Greatham Managed Realignment

71 Fish The Tees Estuary and Tees Bay provide important habitats for a number of fish species which feed on benthic invertebrates found in subtidal and intertidal sediments. The lower Tees Estuary supports many fish, some of which are estuary-dependant (e.g. flounder Platichthys flesus) and some temporary residents (e.g. plaice Pleuronectes platessa), which use the estuary as a nursery ground, with herring Clupea harengus and sprat Sprattus sprattus also recorded. Herring and plaice are identified as BAP species and priority species by the grouped plan for commercial marine fish (UK BAP, 2009). Sandeels Hyperoplus sp. are also abundant and though there is no commercial fishery, they are an important food source for bird populations. Migratory fish species are also present within the Tees Estuary, including salmon Salmo salar, sea trout S. trutta, european eel Anguilla anguilla, river lamprey Lampetra fluviatilis and sea lamprey Petromyzon marinus. Improvements in water quality in recent years have enabled the numbers of salmonids to steadily increase, and the River Tees is now recognised as a main salmon river in England and Wales, for which we enforce the Tees Salmon Action Plan (SAP) as part of our management responsibilities. There are upstream movements of salmon from May onwards through summer to peak movement in September/October, with the downstream smolt run peaking in May. The fish numbers for the Tees are monitored through the collation of records of salmon and sea trout caught on rod and line. The fishing season for sea trout starts in March followed by June for salmon, with the season ending for both species on the last day of August. Fishing for salmon within the estuary and Tees Conservation Area is prohibited. Although the salmon and trout rod catches have generally increased over recent years, the catch is limited in the context of other estuaries. For example, in 2009, 61 salmon were caught in the Tees, compared to 3,735 in total for all north-east rivers, representing a total of less than 1%. Sea trout catches for 2009 in the Tees represented only 1.8% of the total catch in north-east rivers. Graph 7.1 and 7.2 illustrate the number of migratory fish (salmon and sea trout) caught using a rod on the River Tees. Graph 7.1: Salmon caught in the Tees Estuary (Environment Agency, 2010b) No. Salmon Caught Year 61 Environment Agency Greatham Managed Realignment

72 Graph 7.2: Sea trout caught in the Tees Estuary (Environment Agency, 2010b) No. Sea Trout Caught Year For the Greatham Creek catchment itself, there are known obstructions on the watercourse upstream of the Billingham Seaton Carew railway line that mean it is therefore not possible for migratory fish to pass upstream of this point. There is considerable usage by bait collectors of the section of Greatham Creek between the A178 and Seal Sands (which carries no statutory SPA or SSSI designation). On the NNR portion of Seal Sands itself, two permits are currently issued on an annual basis for summer crab-trapping; all other bait collection is illegal, and Natural England polices this rigorously (a minimum of one low tide patrol per week) (Mike Leakey, pers.comm.). Seals Seal Sands and Greatham Creek support populations of harbour (common) seal Phoca vitulina and grey seal Halichoerus grypus. Harbour seals are a characteristic species of estuaries and sandflats. The resident harbour seal colony in the Tees Estuary has a population of approximately 60 to 70 individuals. A maximum of 25 grey seals were recorded in the estuary on the 9 th September 2009 (INCA, 2010b). The most popular seal haul-out sites are shown on Figure 7.1. Only harbour seals breed within the Tees Estuary, having their pups at Seal Sands between late June and early July. Twelve harbour seal pups were born and weaned successfully in 2008, the largest number since recording began in 1989 (INCA, 2009b). A further 12 pups were born during the 2009 breeding season, however three were stillborn, with no clear reason identified (INCA, 2010b). Indications from the 2010 breeding season have been good, with 11 pups successfully born by August (INCA, 2010d). The grey seal does not breed at Seal Sands as conditions are unsuitable (i.e. there are no suitable areas permanently above high water). Mainly harbour seals have been observed using the Greatham Creek mudflats haul-out site at low tide, with only six grey seal individuals counted hauling-out in 2009 (grey seals prefer to haul-out on Seal Sands). Simultaneous studies undertaken during 2009 at both Greatham Creek and Seal Sands have indicated that the haul-out site at Greatham Creek contributes significantly to the overall low-tide count of harbour seals. The Greatham Creek site was previously known as a high-tide haul-out only. This discovery suggests 62 Environment Agency Greatham Managed Realignment

73 either a change in haul-out behaviour over the low-tide period, or that harbour seal numbers may have been undercounted within the estuary prior to 2009 due to the importance of this site not having been previously recognised (INCA, 2010b). A maximum of 52 harbour seal were observed at the Greatham Creek haul-out on the 29 th August Where the daily harbour seal maximum was supplemented by seals simultaneously hauling out at Seal Sands and Greatham Creek, this was mostly 2 hours before low tide. Data shows that Greatham Creek is used during all tidal states. During monitoring, seals were observed in Greatham creek on 85% of occasions, showing that this location contributes significantly to the low tide count of harbour seals in the Tees Estuary Field Surveys Phase 1 Habitat Survey A Phase I Habitat Survey of the Greatham MR site (excluding borrow fields) was undertaken in August 2008 (Royal Haskoning, 2008). Habitat mapping of the additional borrow fields was undertaken using aerial photographs. The Phase 1 survey is provided in Appendix G. Greatham MR site is currently grazing land containing some scarce plants such as strawberry clover Trifolium fragiferum and sea wormwood Artemesia maritime. Much of the proposed realignment site meets the criteria for designation as a Local Wildlife Site (LWS) based upon its wetland bird interest and the remnants of saltmarsh vegetation associated with the former creeks across the site, for species such as weeping alkali grass Puccinellia distans, glasswort Salicornia sp., lesser sea spurrey Spergularia marina and sea milkwort Glaux maritima (HBC, 2009a; Ian Bond, pers comm.). In combination with part of the adjacent ConocoPhillips site it supports approximately 3.7% of total SPA bird numbers (five year mean ) and is an important site for breeding lapwing. Our overwintering bird survey also confirmed usage of the degraded marsh/grazing land by curlew, redshank, lapwing and wildfowl. The areas identified for borrow material are currently arable with poorly defined field boundaries and not established hedges. The Phase 1 is summarised on Figure 7.5 Great Crested Newt Great crested newt Triturus cristatus is protected under the UK under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 and The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations The nearest known breeding population of great crested newt to the proposed realignment site is on the ConocoPhillips Tank Farm, some 1.2km north of the Greatham sea wall and separated from the MR site by the large ConocoPhillips earthen screening bund. Great crested newt surveys were undertaken by Royal Haskoning in 2010, Appendix H. Great crested newt was not recorded during any of the surveys, although smooth newt Lissotriton vulgaris and numerous frogs, spawn and tadpoles and toad tadpoles were observed. Many of the water bodies on the Greatham MR site itself became very shallow or dried out during the survey period and as such became inhospitable to amphibians. Water bodies located around the spoil heap were more suitable for amphibians, as demonstrated by the 63 Environment Agency Greatham Managed Realignment

74 presence of smooth newt and toad larvae. The area of the spoil heap is unmanaged and provides long grass which is ideal foraging for amphibians. The material of the spoil heap itself and the tussocky grass also provide suitable areas for hibernation in which animals will over-winter. The habitat in that area is, therefore, suitable for all life stages of amphibians (INCA, 2010c). There is a high degree of confidence that great crested newt are not present at the site as surveying conditions were good and evidence of their presence would have been observed. Otter and Water Vole Otters Lutra lutra are listed in Annexes II and IVa of the EC Habitats Directive, which is transposed into UK law by the Conservation Regulation Otters are also protected by the Wildlife and Countryside Act of 1981 (as amended). The water vole Arvicola amphibius received legal protection in 1998 through its inclusion on Schedule 5 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), Section 9(4). This provided protection for the water vole s places of shelter or protection, but did not protect the animals themselves. Protection was extended in 2008 to give the species full protection. A combined otter and water vole survey was undertaken by Royal Haskoning in May 2010, Appendix K. The aim of this survey was to assess otter and water vole use of the whole of the Greatham North flood cell. No signs of otters or water voles were found in Greatham MR Site or along the northern bank of Greatham Creek. There are no continuous water courses within the site and suitable water vole habitat was isolated and restricted to small areas surrounded by closely grazed grassland or waste ground. It is therefore considered that otters and water voles are not using the MR site. 7.4 Assessment of effects Summary of seasonal constraints related to flora and fauna The key time periods for sensitive ecological receptors within the Tees Estuary are summarised in Table These constraints, together with knowledge of the most favourable periods for establishment of intertidal vegetation, have been used to programme the proposed works (especially construction) and reduce potential impacts. Table 7.13 Key time periods for sensitive ecological receptors within the Tees Estuary Species Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Proposed construction period (X = breach by early Sept at latest) X X Harbour seal (breeding, Seal Sands) Overwintering/passage bird species (SPA) (Both sites) Breeding birds 64 Environment Agency Greatham Managed Realignment

75 7.4.2 Construction The following activities associated with the construction of the Greatham MR Scheme have the potential to have impacts upon the flora and fauna: Noise associated with the construction works necessary to raise new defences, dig borrow pits and remove culverts across the site which may cause disturbance to birds and seals, including passage and wintering SPA species, with potential displacement. Visual presence of construction plant, construction workers and machinery on existing defences designated intertidal areas in Greatham Creek, which may cause disturbance to birds and seals, including passage and wintering SPA species, with potential displacement. Loss and disturbance of existing habitats across the site which may impact breeding birds. Potential impacts from construction activities on the Greatham MR Site will be mainly a result of preparatory works for the breaching of the embankment, such as the removal of drains and culverts across the realignment site and the construction of new defences. Construction operations will take place outwith of the main bird overwintering and passage seasons as it is proposed to commence in May 2012 for a duration of 5-6 months. Disturbance to Breeding Birds All wild birds are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). Potential impacts to breeding bird species during construction activities are likely to include: The trampling of nests, eggs and young birds. Increased visual presence of workers and vehicle activity, increased noise and increased lighting, resulting in disturbance. Loss of potential breeding and feeding habitat. The area covered by the proposed scheme is recognised for its value for breeding birds, some of which are specifically listed under Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act Other species of note include the recent establishment of breeding avocet near to the site, to the east of the A178 road. Any construction and associated activities undertaken during the breeding season have the potential to have a moderate adverse impact upon breeding birds, as works will be taking place in close proximity to where these species breed, and during the breeding season. Elements of construction have the potential to impact upon bird species within the site during the summer (breeding) months through noise and visual disturbance both from machinery and people. There is evidence to suggest that wildlife, including birds, adjust to increased noise levels, with habituation of birds to noise, light and traffic disturbance reported to be considerable (Hocken et al, 1992). Birds may however be temporarily displaced from the site to other areas within the estuary during construction operations. A worst-case scenario was used to predict the levels of noise generated by construction equipment for the scheme. A noise survey was conducted to assess and characterise the existing noise levels at the site (see Section 13.2 for methodology adopted). This survey found that existing unweighted background noise levels (where the noise level was 65 Environment Agency Greatham Managed Realignment

76 exceeded for 90% of the survey period) measured around both sites were within the range of 34.7 to 47.7 db(l 90 ), whilst 'ambient' noise levels were found to be between 77.8 and 84.1 db(l Leq ). Ambient noise includes many types of noise and can be measured directly with an integrating sound level meter, whereas background noise represents only those noise levels which are exceeded for 90% of a specified measurement period. This explains why ambient noise level values are greater than background noise levels. Noise associated with the proposed construction activities is predicted to be within the range of 41 to 75 db(l Leq ), depending upon distance of the receptor from the noise source (Royal Haskoning, 2010d). The main receptor areas are expected to be at locations within Greatham Creek. The predicted construction noise is below the range of ambient noise levels for this heavily industrialised area of the Tees Estuary. However, it is likely that construction activities will initially give rise to sudden noise, which will cause more disturbance in the short term than noise related to ambient levels, to which birds and other species will gradually adjust over time. There are no piling operations proposed as part of the works, works at the spoil heap comprise regrading and clay capping rather than piling of a low embankment as toe-protection. It is therefore predicted that wildlife in the site and adjacent areas will have acclimatised to the existing significant ambient noise from the refineries and many other commercial and industrial uses on the banks of the Tees. Impacts of noise on birds as a result of activities during the construction phase are therefore anticipated to be of minor adverse significance for the majority of species. Disturbance to Passage and Overwintering Birds The construction works will commence in April 2012 with the breaching undertaken by early September 2012, outwith the main autumn passage and overwintering period for wildfowl and waders to be present within the Tees Estuary. Species passing through the site are of national and international importance. However, as the counts show, birds are very mobile around the site and the surrounding area, and it is likely that birds will be temporarily displaced to other areas of the site, including areas and local surroundings during construction works. To minimise impact on the overwintering ornithological interest, the works will be timed outwith the overwintering period to avoid the period when wading birds and wildfowl at the site are present in highest numbers. It is intended that this approach will limit the level of disturbance to foraging birds over the works footprint. It is expected that the duration of the construction works will be approximately 6 months and their impact will be of a low magnitude. However, given the international significance of the bird species which may be adversely affected, the potential impact is predicted to be of moderate adverse significance. Should there be slippage in the construction programme into the overwintering period (October to March) this impact assessment could need to be reviewed. However, this scenario would significantly affect the objective to breach the embankment during September in order to take advantage of the peak in dispersal of seeds from saltmarsh species in the first year after breaching and it therefore highly undesirable. Fish Construction works at Greatham MR site will comprise the excavation of channels to connect relic creeks with existing channels on the seaward side of the embankment. This could cause some short-term disturbance to habitats frequented by juvenile and adult fish, through excavations required to widen existing saltmarsh creeks to enhance connectivity through the breaches between Greatham Creek and the realigned site. As such, these 66 Environment Agency Greatham Managed Realignment

77 activities are predicted to have a negligible impact upon fish species, with longer term positive gains through the creation of additional feeding and nursery habitat. Seals The presence of construction machinery and plant on the sea walls may lead to the avoidance of the immediate area by seals. The harbour seals use of the canalised channel of Greatham Creek to access a favoured haul-out site ( Seal Haul-out 1 ), located at mudflats and saltmarsh on the southern bank of the creek to the west of the A178 road bridge, and directly opposite the proposed breach location, is relevant. Increased activity on the sea walls may lead to the avoidance of the area by seals, at least until they become habituated to the presence and noise of the machinery. In addition, noise levels associated with construction activities are predicted to be below existing ambient levels. The main construction periods including excavation at the borrow pits will be undertaken prior to breaching of the existing front embankment, which is likely to provide some element of screening for the creek. The potential impact upon seals using the creek channel and subsequent haul-out site within Greatham Creek is therefore predicted to be of moderate adverse significance. The seal colony at this location already suffers from episodic disturbance by members of the public or workers/vessels, therefore it will be important to minimise this disturbance where possible. This will especially be important between late June and early July, when harbour seals usually have their pups (INCA, 2010b). Great Crested Newt No great crested newts were recorded on or adjacent to the Greatham MR Site during surveys. Therefore no impact on this species is predicted. Ponds will be protected from damage by construction traffic. Otter and Water Vole No otters or water voles were recorded on or adjacent to the Greatham MR site during surveys. Therefore no impact on these species is predicted Operation Designated Sites The Hydrodynamic and Sedimentary Regime Chapter (Chapter 6) predicts that Seal Sands SSSI will experience increases in current speed of approximately 20% at the Bailey Bridge and minor increases (less than 5%) at the fringes of the Seal Sands intertidal area. This will result in some deepening and widening of the existing channel between these two points. Habitats Tidal inundation of the Greatham MR site will result in the permanent loss of existing terrestrial and freshwater habitats within the floodable area (approximately 21.5ha). The ponds around the spoil heap do support amphibian populations and have some nature conservation value. The ponds on site will not drained prior to breaching, but will be inundated by tidal flooding. This will adversely affect the long-term suitability of the ponds for amphibians. Where practical, translocation opportunities will be considered, although this needs to be considered with regard to any bio-security risk. The reinstatement of a tidal regime over the site will have little or no affect on amphibian populations in the wider 67 Environment Agency Greatham Managed Realignment

78 area. New ponds will be constructed as part of the restoration of the borrow pits compensating for the loss of these water bodies. It is considered that the loss of terrestrial and freshwater habitat therefore represents an impact of minor adverse significance on the existing fauna and flora. The main indirect impact that may arise as a result of the scheme is potential erosion of existing saltmarsh and mudflat habitats within Greatham Creek and erosion at the entrance to the canalised section of Greatham Creek, opposite Seal Sands. The potential morphological change to, and loss of, such habitats is an unavoidable impact associated with the implementation of the scheme. The Hydrodynamic and Sedimentary Regime Chapter (Chapter 6) predicts an increase in the tidal volume of, and current speeds within, Greatham Creek (by up to 20%). This will lead to localised erosion within the channel seawards of the breach locations, resulting in loss of some saltmarsh adjacent to the A178 road bridge. Limited loss of habitat will occur between the A178 and Seal Sands as there is limited mudflat present at this location. It is considered that the loss of saltmarsh habitat therefore represents an impact of minor adverse significance. The loss of the arable field (identified as the borrow pits) and restoration to freshwater and grassland habitat is considered of moderate benefit to the ecology of the area. Intertidal Habitat Creation Following the breach in the embankment, the site will revert to intertidal habitat and on high spring tides the entire floodable site area will be immersed, apart from some higher areas (e.g. salterns and the spoil heap). Whilst this may adversely affect some current ornithological usage of the site, it will provide habitats to help maintain the overall integrity of the European sites through the provision of compensatory feeding and roosting areas (in particular for SPA-notified species such as redshank, knot and ringed plover). There remains the risk however that in the short-term, water logging of sediments may occur and Enteromorpha sp. may initially colonise, with the potential for adverse impacts upon colonisation of the sediments by both saltmarsh pioneer species and invertebrates. Ecological Niche Modelling (ENM) was undertaken to determine the suitability of the site for colonisation by saltmarsh species (see also Appendix L). This technique uses published data to assess the likely distribution of certain saltmarsh species vertically within the tidal frame, in relation to the Mean High Water Neap (MHWN) tidal level. This simple modelling exercise has demonstrated that the existing topographic levels at the site were conducive to saltmarsh formation (Figure 7.6). Based upon current tidal levels (i.e. not accounting for projected sea level rise) and topography, the following habitats and communities might be expected to colonise and establish across the Greatham MR Site: Below 1.45m OD these areas will be inundated more than 450 times per year and consequently will convert to intertidal mudflat, possibly with some pioneer marsh present closer to 1.45m OD (e.g. Salicornia sp.). Between 1.45m and 2.05m OD these areas are expected to be dominated by pioneer and low- to mid-marsh communities (e.g. Salicornia sp., Puccinellia maritima, Suaeda maritima, Aster tripoleum). Between 2.05m and 2.65m OD these areas are expected to be dominated by mid- and upper-marsh communities (e.g. Armeria maritima, Festuca rubra, Limonium vulgare). Above 2.65m OD transitional communities will dominate, with species such as Elytrigia atherica and Seriphidium maritimum present. Above 3.25m OD it could be expected that freshwater species with a tolerance of brackish conditions may become established, such as Phragmites australis. 68 Environment Agency Greatham Managed Realignment

79 Figure 7.7 illustrates those areas expected to develop into mudflat and saltmarsh in the short to medium term. As much of the Greatham MR Site lies below MHWS, it is likely that pioneer and low- to mid marsh species tolerant to frequent tidal inundation (e.g. Salicornia sp, Puccinellia) will dominate in the short to medium term. The establishment of these species will therefore lead to the stabilisation of newly accreted sediments, and, as further accretion occurs, its surface will begin to move upwards in the tidal frame and the frequency of tidal inundation will be reduced. This may, in turn, allow upper marsh species to develop in suitable areas. The rate of sedimentation across the newly realigned site will be key to invertebrate colonisation and subsequent suitability for birds. It may be some time before knot utilise the site for feeding, given their reliance on certain mollusc prey species such as Macoma and Cerastoderma. It is likely however that Hydrobia will be fairly quick to colonise any suitable new intertidal sediments across the site, allowing for limited feeding opportunities. Other invertebrate species expected to colonise the site include polychaete worms such as Hediste, which will provide additional food for ringed plover and redshank and other species which prey on small polychaetes. In addition, the construction of additional saline lagoon habitat by digging down 1m between the level of MHWS and HAT at higher elevations within the site (e.g. borrow pits) will provide additional ecological benefits. Birds The presence of pylons crossing the site pose a significant threat to bird flight paths, potentially increasing bird strikes without mitigation. This risk is increased as the area most suitable for mudflat generation is directly below the alignment of the pylons. Discussions have been undertaken with NEDL regarding adding bird deflectors to the pylon cables and a suitable approach has been identified. Further discussions are underway with NEDL to ensuring that the deflectors are installed prior to breaching of the embankments. The creation of a new area of grassland and freshwater ponds on the north-east side of the site, and another area in the borrow pit field (see section 3.3.3), will be beneficial to a range of bird species. Although the design of these areas has not yet been finalised, there is potential for them to provide feeding and breeding habitats for wildfowl such as gadwall, teal and shoveler, as well as high tide roost sites for some of the SPA species, especially shelduck, lapwing and redshank. Ground nesting land birds like skylark may also use the grassland areas. This would be likely to have an impact of major beneficial significance for bird species. It may be desirable to incorporate burrows for shelduck into the final scheme design, and it may also be possible to provide increased nesting habitat for common tern through the provision of suitable shell-topped islands within high-tide lagoon features. Fish After breaching, there is the potential for an impact upon fish species within Greatham Creek as tidal inundation into the previously grazed terrestrial areas will invariably provide access to for fish to the newly flooded areas of the realigned site. There is a possible risk of stranding of fish within pools and lower areas on site, however the existing relic creek channels will act as conduits for the flooding and ebbing tidal flows and it is likely that fish would not leave these areas initially as they provide the deepest water and will hence 69 Environment Agency Greatham Managed Realignment

80 provide the most protection from predators. There may therefore be an initial impact of minor adverse significance, due to the unavoidable occurrence of limited stranding, however it is likely that the site will be inundated frequently enough to allow these fish to be remobilised into the estuary on the next suitable tide in all but the most extreme low tides. Seals The scheme may increase current speeds within Greatham Creek, with surface currents predicted to increase by between 0.13 and 0.22 ms -1 (at Seal Sands) after scheme implementation, though only up to 0.17 ms -1 at the A178 cross section. Near bed current speeds are also predicted to increase, but by a lesser amount (between 0.12 and 0.17ms - 1 ). These increases are not expected to have a detrimental effect upon seals accessing and leaving the creek and haul-out site, and therefore an impact of negligible significance is predicted. There is the potential for some localised scouring of existing mudflats opposite the breach locations, including the mudflat favoured as the Greatham Creek seal haul-out. Modelling results for three hours after high water on a spring tide show depth-averaged current speeds could be greater than 0.9ms -1 on exiting the site at the western-most breach. It is expected however that as water levels within the main creek will also have fallen correspondingly such flows will be attenuated by the greater flows of the creek before they reaching the opposite bank (and mudflats). The potential for such scouring is therefore likely to be of negligible significance. Great Crested Newts No great crested newts were recorded on or adjacent to the Greatham MR site during surveys. Therefore no impact on great crested newts is predicted. Otter and Water Vole No otters or water voles were recorded on or adjacent to the Greatham MR site during surveys. Therefore no impact on these species is predicted. 7.5 Mitigation and Residual Impacts Construction Habitat Creation It is recommended that existing vegetation is left on the site prior to inundation as this provides the best surface for initial trapping of saltmarsh plant seeds or propagates. Areas compacted by construction plant should also be lightly cultivated as compacted soils can inhibit plant colonisation. Following breaching at the Greatham NW site, no deliberate planting or seeding of saltmarsh vegetation on the realignment site will occur. Instead, natural colonisation of plants from adjacent habitat will be relied upon. Breaching of the embankment should ideally be undertaken prior to September (with an aim for early September) in order to take advantage of the peak in dispersal of seeds from saltmarsh species in the first year after breaching. No residual impacts are predicted as a consequence of the works. 70 Environment Agency Greatham Managed Realignment

81 Breeding Birds The Greatham MR site is not currently noted for its breeding birds, though construction activities may directly impact upon nesting birds due to activities carried out across the site, such as the removal of culverts and digging of borrow pits/high-level saline lagoon features across the existing grazed grassland. It would be preferable to avoid work in the breeding season, from March to August inclusive, to avoid any damage / destruction of birds nests. However, as operations are expected within this period, it is recommended that any tall vegetation in the proposed borrow pit field and other working areas, is cut short or ploughed before the start of the breeding season and maintained short until the work is completed. This would discourage nesting by most species but not necessarily all, although ground nesting birds may be deterred from nesting by ensuring constant disturbance on the site. The area should then be checked by a competent ornithologist prior to the commencement of the works, and the positions of any nests in the working area should be brought to the attention of the operations staff. Should an active nest be found during construction, works, the Ecological Clerk of Works shall be contacted to develop appropriate mitigation. Works that may cause disturbance in the immediate vicinity of the nest should be stopped. If the species is a Schedule 1 species, then work should cease and the Environmental Site Representative be consulted with regard to an appropriate course of action to avoid disturbance to this species. It may be necessary to strip shrubs and bushes from the site in advance of the breeding season and outside of nesting periods. With the adoption of the mitigation measures as outlined above, it is predicted that the residual impact of construction activities on breeding birds will be of minor adverse significance. Passage and Overwintering Birds A number of mitigation measures will be implemented with respect to minimising disturbance associated with the overall noise from construction works, namely: Machines should only be switched on when necessary, and shut down when not in use to avoid unnecessary disturbance. Plant machinery should be chosen to be as quiet as possible, where appropriate. This could include choosing sound reduced compressors, lined with acoustic covers or silencers. Machinery should be well maintained to ensure that noise levels are kept to a minimum. Machinery should be sensitively sited and well maintained. It is predicted that the residual impact will be of negligible significance. Other Fauna Breaching should be undertaken during neap tides to allow the existing fauna inhabiting the site to migrate progressively to new habitats as the tide rises through the Neap-Spring cycle. If the breach is undertaken on a spring tide, the next high tide event will inundate most of the site near-instantly, providing little time for migration (Environment Agency, 2010). Low-lying areas may be subject to rapid flooding/inundation regardless of the number and positioning of breaches, however surveys undertaken to determine the presence within the realignment site of the protected species great crested newt and 71 Environment Agency Greatham Managed Realignment

82 water vole confirmed that existing habitats were unsuitable for these species. Measures may be required to consider the potential impacts upon other amphibians. Contractors will have to adhere to an Environmental Action Plan (EAP) for all construction activities Operation Birds (especially over-wintering and SPA / Ramsar species) Detailed consultations are underway to install Bird Deflectors to the Pylon cables that cross the site. We are committed to manage the impact of potential bird strikes on the resident bird population and will maintain consultation with the utility company and Natural England and RSPB to resolve this issue. Loss and Change to Current Habitats It has been possible to determine the ranges of occurrence of existing saltmarsh species at Greatham Creek through extraction of height/level data from the digital ground model (DGM). The Greatham MR site lies at a lower elevation than existing saltmarsh within the creek and this will lead to sediment accretion in lower areas during the years following the breach. Mud deposition modelling has predicted that the MR site will accrete at a relatively slow rate of around 1cm/yr (HR Wallingford, 2011). Whilst this should be sufficient to prevent the site drowning in response to sea level rise, it will take time for terrestrial sediments to convert adequately to marine conditions to support growth of saltmarsh. This may also mean that there is less likelihood of the sediments becoming colonised by burrowing in fauna (such as the rag worm Hediste diversicolor or the mud snail Hydrobia ulvae). Such infauna can restrict the establishment of saltmarsh vegetation, leading to the persistence of mudflat areas. Tall living plants in higher marsh succession may begin to dominate and suppress those species of smaller stature, with an associated loss in diversity. Annual and biennials are therefore most likely to benefit from a grazing regime. If soil salinities are high, vegetation establishment can be impeded. However, as it is likely that vegetation will only be able to establish in newly accreted sediments this is unlikely to be of concern at the Greatham MR site. Fish A channel will be excavated to connect the relic creek system to the lower lying areas to the east of the land raise, where it has been predicted that mudflats will form due to the predicted frequency of tidal inundation. The MR site will ultimately have an impact of major beneficial significance through the creation of additional mudflat and saltmarsh habitats, both of which are extensively used by a number of fish species for nursery and feeding areas, though it may be necessary to ensure that the channel is excavated to the depth of the lowest area within the site to ensure hydraulic continuity. Seals As it is proposed to divert the route of the existing footpath, this may help to decrease the likelihood of sporadic disturbance to the seals by members of the public. Some such cases were viewed as intentional disturbance by the INCA observers in 2009 (INCA, 2010b). Realignment of the footpath to a more landward position behind the Greatham MR site could therefore lead to decreased disturbance to seals over the longer term, 72 Environment Agency Greatham Managed Realignment

83 whilst still offering opportunities to view the seals and waterbirds from the remaining section of embankment adjacent to the eastern breach area. Other Protected Species No impact on protected species is predicted from the functioning of the realigned site as intertidal habitat. Details of the monitoring proposal are provided in Section Environment Agency Greatham Managed Realignment

84 8 Industry, Transport and Infrastructure 8.1 Introduction This section discusses the industry, transport and infrastructure of the Greatham area and wider Tees Estuary and the assessment of the likely effects of the proposed scheme on such interests. The scheme also summarised the Flood Risk Assessment completed as part of this study. We have consulted widely with industries and utility companies during scoping and throughout the EIA process. As identified during the scoping stage, the main issues of concern include: Nationally important industry and infrastructure must be protected to the existing or higher standard of protection, as must the A178 road, which is important for both industry and the public. Electricity pylons located within the proposed managed realignment area. A high pressure water main which crosses the north of the realignment site. The EIA process has investigated these key issues as well as additional potential impacts of the Greatham Managed Realignment scheme relating to industry, transport and infrastructure during construction and operation activities. Impacts have been assessed with regards to both long term effects and short term and localised effects. 8.2 Methodology The following data sources have been consulted to inform this section: Service drawings provided by utility companies; Consultation with land owners, government bodies and local councils; Data collected during site visits and investigations; Internet resources; Tees Valley Green Infrastructure Strategy; Tees Valley Industrial Programme; and, North and South Tees Industrial Development Framework. An independent traffic assessment / statement has not been completed as part of this study. Given the nature of the study (habitat creation) no traffic modelling / surveys have been undertaken as part of the study. Traffic issues as a consequence of the construction have been considered this Chapter and the Design and Access Statement. A qualitative assessment has been made based on the predicted traffic volumes and the nature of the construction activities. 8.3 Environmental baseline Industry and critical infrastructure The Tees Estuary contains the largest heavy industrial complex in the United Kingdom. There is a significant amount of industrial operations surrounding the Greatham Managed Realignment site. To the immediate north of the managed realignment site is the ConocoPhillips Petroleum Tank Farm and to the north east, on the opposite side of the 74 Environment Agency Greatham Managed Realignment

85 A178 is the Huntsman Tioxide Plant. Further north east is Hartlepool Nuclear Power Station. Critical infrastructure is shown in Figure Transport The A178 road runs in a north-south direction on the eastern edge of the site and crosses Greatham Creek via a road bridge, which will be unaffected by the works (see Plate 8.1 below). There is no pavement for pedestrians along the A178 as it runs past the managed realignment site. This road provides access to the nationally important Seal Sands industries located to the east of the A178.The road is located upon a raised embankment across Greatham Creek and is maintained by Hartlepool Borough Council and Stockton Borough Council. Greatham Creek forms the border between Hartlepool Borough Council and Stockton Borough Council Plate 8-1: View from road bridge looking northwards along the A178, Conoco Phillips Petroleum Tank Farm and the managed realignment site visible on the left side of the road. The site contains a number of access tracks associated with Marsh House Farm and former brine well workings on the site. There is currently limited public car parking at the Teesmouth NNR car park, located to the south of the creek, this is used by visitors who visit the area to view the seal haul outs within the creek. The Stockton-on-Tees to Hartlepool railway line runs to the north west of the site of the proposed borrow pits and Marsh House Farm. The former Greatham Station was located on this line. Public buses run between Hartlepool and Middlesbrough via Port Clarence along the A178 (Stagecoach service number 1) this is the preferred route for construction traffic. Bus stops are located along the A178 adjacent to the managed realignment site. Buses also run along the A689 between Hartlepool and Stockton via Greatham village (Stagecoach service number 36). 75 Environment Agency Greatham Managed Realignment