Corporate report

Appendix A: Detailed comments for review

Published 7 May 2024

Applies to England

We consider the following detailed issues should be addressed when preparing your DCO application. To help you, where possible, we have laid out our comments in the following format:

• Issue – indicating a particular area of concern

• Comment – which discusses that issue in greater detail and the potential impact

• Suggested solution – which presents a potential solution to the issue in the form of information, or evidence that - if provided - might ensure that no adverse impact will arise or identifies a potential mitigation measure for you to consider

1. Consultation Overview

1.1 Overarching Comment

Issue

There are many references to the impact on fish being very small and hardly significant with references back to the number of trawlers this represents. Also that 20% of commercial stocks can be exploited without detriment to the population. These references are potentially misleading. Fish species like shad are a designated feature and protected in a geographic area. They are also not commercially exploited so any pressure is above a commercial fishing pressure.

Comment

This potentially may give a false impression regarding the impact assessment.

Suggested solution

Such references should be removed from formal submissions.

1.2 Section 1.4

Issue

Size of saltmarsh compensation stated as 340 hectares (ha) whereas other documentation states 313ha.

Comment

Uncertainty of extent of compensation to be achieved.

Suggested solution

Clarification is required.

1.3 Paragraph 3.2.4

Issue

In discussing the design of the buckets in the FRR system, design information states that “The FRR system will have buckets that are designed to retain all fish including eels and lamprey…” We want to highlight that the final design of the buckets was not included in the CW1 P1 design document and has yet to be signed off.

Comment

HPC needs to ensure that the final bucket design is appropriate for all fish species and is signed off in good time for operation.

Suggested solution

Please provide a schedule or further information as to when the bucket design will be finalised.

1.4 Paragraph 5.6.10

Issue

In Table 7, it is unclear why salmon, sea trout and eel do not get a check for socio-economic value.

Comment

Fishing (rod and line) for salmon and sea trout have a significant value to local economies for the Wye, Usk and Severn. The glass eel (elver) also retains a significant value and is still a commercial fishery in operation. The commercial salmon and sea trout fishery (nets and putchers) is closed under byelaw or restricted by habitats regulation assessment (HRA). However, the byelaw finishes in September 2031.

Suggest solution

Needs to be registered as this could influence compensatory measures and should not be undervalued.

1.5 Paragraph 5.6.22 - Table 9

Issue

The numbers in this table do not match the Statement of Harm and have been taken from different rows of Table 23 in TR583. The Comprehensive Impingement Management Programme (CIMP) 1 figure (45.8 tonnes, t) is the subtotal of the weight of the top 99% of species while the CIMP2 figure (18.1t) is the total weight of all species. The CIMP2 total weight of all species is less than the total weight of 99% of the predicted.

Comment

There are inconsistencies in figures upon which the compensation was initially proposed as set out in the Statement of Harm and those put forward in the shadow Habitats Regulation Assessment (sHRA) and overview document. While the numbers are not very different, the total predicted weight of all species should be used as they appear to have been included in the July 2023 Statement of Harm at least for the CIMP1 data. The CIMP2 figures in the Statement of Harm are different.

Suggested solution

Please fix the error in TR583 for the total CIMP2 biomass and use the total biomass numbers not the 99% weight numbers in the DCO estimates of harm. This would include the Overview document as well as the HRA and TR592. The changes in the calculations and methods should be agreed with the Environment Agency and other statutory nature conservation bodies (SNCBs) before the DCO submission.

1.6 Paragraph 5.6.27 - Table 11

Issue

Equivalent adult values (EAVs) have been calculated for the CIMP1 and CIMP2 data for the marine species and we have not yet agreed them. We also have not seen the latest population estimates. There is also no mention of the ICES “no take” recommendation for cod, herring, and whiting.

Comment

We need more time and a technical discussion to agree these calculations.

Suggested solution

Work with the Environment Agency and other SNCBs to fully understand all values and calculations that are included in the documents.

1.7 Paragraph 5.6.27 - Fact Box

Issue

This “Fact Box” provides the biomass of fish landed by the entire UK fishing vessels in 2022 without providing any context to the Severn Estuary special area of conservation (SAC) or to the latest ICES advice which includes zero take for cod, herring and whiting (3 of the species of concern for HPC).

Comment

This “Fact Box” is potentially misleading as it follows a table of predicted entrapment impact and implies that the HPC “catch” is small relative to fishing without highlighting either the Severn Estuary SAC or the specific advice for the species of concern.

Suggested solution

Consider either removing or amending this “Fact Box” to be more relevant to the Severn Estuary SAC and provide reference to the ICES advice for the species of concern.

1.8 Paragraph 6.6.4

Issue

Table 13 sets out the qualifying features of concern for the Severn Estuary SAC however it only lists cod as a qualifying habitat feature (via its typical fish species assemblage). There are 4 species of concern within the typical fish species assemblage - European seabass, Atlantic cod, whiting and Atlantic herring.

Comment

Four species of concern were identified within the typical fish species assemblage of the Severn Estuary SAC for which it is not possible to conclude no adverse effect on site integrity. This table is not reflective of that conclusion.

Suggested solution

Ensure all species of concern are included in Table 13.

1.9 Paragraph 6.6.10

Issue

‘The site is expected to be inundated according to the Environment Agency’s shoreline management plan (SMP).’

Comment

The SMP is not the Environment Agency’s document but is owned by Coastal Groups – in this case the North Devon and Somerset Group. It may be misleading to state that Pawlett Hams is expected to be inundated without considering the many factors that may influence this approach.

Suggested solution

Should be corrected to reflect that the 2010 SMP policy at Pawlett Hams is ‘hold the line’, but that there is potential for ‘managed realignment’ dependent upon the implications for flood risk, geomorphology and the freshwater sites of special scientific interest (SSSI).

1.10 Paragraph 6.6.10 to 6.6.18

Issue

No mention of flood risk assessment (FRA) or flood modelling and no discussion of other projects in the area.

Comment

In order to ensure we have sufficient time and resource to review the FRA and hydraulic model and to avoid a potential delay to the project, we need to have a clear understanding of timescales for the submission of the FRA and hydraulic modelling.

Suggested solution

Details regarding timescales for the submission of FRA and hydraulic model to be provided at the earliest opportunity.

1.11 Paragraph 6.6.21

Issue

Discusses importance of seagrass meadows on carbon sequestering and cites a project that showed 15,000t of carbon being sequestered. However, the size of this project was 1,715ha of seagrass restoration compared to a planned 5ha of seagrass compensatory habitat.

Comment

Actual benefit from carbon sequestering of the proposed seagrass compensation is not provided - this could be viewed as misleading or over-valuing the compensatory habitat.

Suggested solution

Ensure that any claims on wider benefits of the proposed compensatory habitat is scaled to the size of habitat being proposed.

1.12 Paragraph 6.6.24

Issue

Provides commentary on the benefit of kelp forests for attenuation of wave energy and velocity, acting as a buffer against storm surges, but does not relate this to the small scale of the proposed kelp forest (15ha) compared to the scale of the estuary, or the tidal regime of the estuary.

Comment

Actual benefit from wave attenuation from the proposed 15ha of kelp forest compensation is not provided - this could be viewed as misleading or over valuing the compensatory habitat. Will the impact of storm surges be mitigated by 15ha of kelp?

Suggested solution

Ensure that any claims on wider benefits of the proposed compensatory habitat is scaled to the size of habitat being proposed and the tidal regime of the estuary.

1.13 Paragraph 6.7

Issue

Discusses the removal of weirs to increase fish passage on the Severn, Usk, Lugg and Towy. No information is included on any habitat restoration that would be required as part of these works. Works to provide passage at weirs or to remove them can damage habitats and make them unusable for spawning or rearing downstream. There is the risk that measures proposed could be increasing access to habitat upstream but losing habitat downstream.

Comment

Not fully considering the impact from works needed for easement/removal of weirs or associated habitat restoration.

Suggested solution

Creation or improvement of spawning habitat, nursery habitat and removal of barriers to migration are all appropriate options and should be considered as part of the compensation package. It is equally important to identify and assess where habitat might be lost as a result of compensatory weir removal or easement works.

1.14 Paragraph 6.7.4

Issue

Table 16 - in constraints there is no mention of maintenance.

Comment

This will be an important factor to consider including how or who will be resourced to do this. It will also influence final options and designs or overall preference for removal. Technical fish passes which are not maintained or do not have a maintenance programme soon become compromised.

Suggested solution

Include proposed maintenance of the weirs in early discussion. Documented maintenance programmes must be in place for the life of the structure.

1.15 Paragraph 6.7.8

Issue

Environmental Considerations - no mention of the River Severn being functionally linked to the designated sites of the Severn Estuary.

Comment

HRAs will be required for any permissions required for the proposed weir works.

Suggested solution

Include the Severn Estuary SAC and Ramsar and acknowledge that HRAs will be required for any permissions required for the proposed weir works.

1.16 Paragraph 6.7.12

Issue

States “it is upstream of the tidal limit, so is unaffected by tides”. This statement is incorrect.

Comment

The weir is drowned out by high spring tides, but not every occasion.

Suggested solution

Statements need to reflect this as it has a bearing on best options.

1.17 Paragraph 6.7.17 and 6.7.19

Issue

States “The Environment Agency is currently considering the functional removal of Mousenatch, Eyton and Coxall”.

Comment

This statement is incorrect and may be misleading to stakeholders and landowners in the area.

Suggested solution

EA have optioned out removal due to flood risk and other impacts. EA work to date has considered functional reduction.

1.18 Paragraph 6.8.5

Issue

States that on the basis that the CWS will be operational for 60 years the compensation will be ‘fully established and permanent, self-sustaining features’.

Comment

No information is provided as to when in the 60-year timeframe of HPC the compensatory habitats will be established and functioning. There is no information on any measures that could be put in place as a compensatory measure while the habitats are established.

Suggested solution

Provide more robust information on the compensatory measures and the role of the adaptive monitoring and management plan advisory group (AMMPAG) in ensuring the compensation will be fully established, permanent and self-sustaining within an acceptable time frame.

2. PEIR Non Technical Summary

2.1 Paragraph 3.4

Issue

A programme of monitoring and maintenance is required covering the impacts to Pawlett Hams and The Island.

2.2 Comment

If maintenance is not carried out there is risk of failure and increased flood risk to third party land/properties/communities.

Suggested solution

Refer to the Flood Risk section of our response for details of the suggested solution.

2.3 Table 6-1

Issue

This table scopes Pawlett Hams into further assessment for a likely significant effect on ecology (terrestrial and freshwater) and ornithology. But no mention is made about compensation for any potential damage to protected freshwater features at Pawlett Hams, which is part of the Bridgwater Bay SSSI.

Comment

As Pawlett Hams has designated SSSI freshwater features which will be impacted by the inundation of tides and saltmarsh creation, HPC needs to consider how and where they will provide compensation for these features at Pawlett Hams as part of the Bridgwater Bay SSSI.

Suggested solution

Please provide details of compensation plans for Pawlett Hams freshwater SSSI features.

3. PEIR Volume 1

3.1 Paragraph 1.4.8

Issue

This paragraph relates to NNB’s derogation case and states that “under the Habitats Regulations, it would be open to the Environment Agency and Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero to vary the WDA Permit and DCO, respectively, to remove the requirement to fit an AFD system even if they cannot exclude the possibility that there could be an adverse effect on the integrity of the relevant protected marine habitats”.

There are 2 issues, the first being that in Section 1.4 of the PEIR it is clearly set out that the water discharge activity (WDA) permit has been varied to remove “all references and conditions (or parts of condition)” relating to the acoustic fish deterrent (AFD), there is therefore no requirement for the WDA to be varied or considered as part of the derogation case. The second issue is that it is not just relevant marine habitats that are being considered as part of the HRA and derogation case for the material change.

Comment

This paragraph does not follow on from the previous section on the inquiry and decision in relation to the WDA permit. The WDA permit is no longer relevant as it has been varied and no longer contains any reference or conditions relating to the AFD. The Marine Licence is relevant yet is not listed as being required to undergo a habitats regulations assessment in line with the DCO.

Suggested solution

Only include the material change to the DCO in paragraph 1.4.8 or discuss the DCO and Marine Licence as being the remaining consents/licences with conditions and references related to the AFD. Both of which would be subject to the requirements of the Habitats Regulations. Acknowledge that migratory and marine species are also relevant for the derogation, not just marine habitats.

3.2 Paragraph 1.4.11

Issue

Lists the species of fish that were of concern for the WDA permit inquiry as set out in the Statement of Common Ground (SoCG). Paragraph 1.4.11 does not recognise that the Atlantic salmon, twaite shad and allis shad are also part of the Severn Estuary Ramsar as listed in Table 3A of the appeal SoCG.

Comment

Not consistent with the SoCG for the appeal, or the sHRA submitted as part of the DCO material change consultation.

Suggested solution

Include Ramsar in paragraph 1.4.11.

3.3 Paragraph 3.1.10

Issue

States that the iterative development of an AMMP is an important element of a compensation package to i. quantify impacts relative to predictions, ii, provide evidence on its success and to iii, set out a framework for additional monitoring and potential adaptive management. As the AMMP is in development no further information is available to set out how these points will be addressed. A key principle deriving its development (3.1.12) would be that fish population numbers are influenced by many factors.

Comment

There is concern that the AMMP could result in a monitoring and assessment loop without a real mechanism to increase or improve the compensation measures or ‘potential adaptive management’ (point iii. informing point i. and ii.)

Suggested solution

Ensure that a mechanism is put in place in the AMMP that ensures action is taken should monitoring indicate that impacts are greater than predicted, where success cannot be evidenced with a framework that includes compensation adaptive management (including improvements to or increasing it)

4. PEIR Volume 2

4.1 Paragraph 5.5.28 and 5.5.34

Issue

States that most of the diadromous species were rarely recorded in the baseline data set (CIMP1) and subsequent CIMP2 data set. However, this does not acknowledge that the monitoring programme was not designed to sample for diadromous species.

Comment

There is uncertainty in numbers of diadromous fish reported at HPB due to inadequate sampling.

Suggested solution

Acknowledge the limitations in the CIMP datasets.

4.2 Paragraph 5.5.95

Issue

Incomplete list of relevant waterbodies for required WFD Assessment relating to removal of AFD. Only 2 water bodies are cited but the scoping of the required water framework directive (WFD) assessment should include all freshwater waterbodies that the impacted fish species occupy as part of their life cycle.

Comment

Potential significant underestimation of potential impacts on freshwater WFD waterbodies fish populations and ecological status.

Suggested solution

Include all potentially impacted freshwater waterbodies in required WFD scoping assessment.

5. PEIR Volume 3 – Offsite Changes

5.1 Figure 6,7,8 & 9

Issue

An existing industrial effluent discharge at ‘The Island’ currently exists (Landfill Leachate from Walpole Landfill Site) and is believed to be up to 800 cubic metres (m³) per day. There are also considerations to be made at the new Gravity site, as there is some consideration as to whether they are to use the same effluent disposal route as previous (Royal Ordance Factory - ROF site), this would mean that a discharge would be directly into the proposed habitat creation (The Island). There is also a Wessex Water storm and emergency outfall from Sloway pumping station that discharges within the tidal River Parret through the proposed habitat compensation site. There is also the potential that the land is contaminated from previous ROF discharge. This land would need to be assessed.

Comment

There is the potential for 3 very large discharges directly into the proposed habitat site, one being an intermittent discharge.

Suggested solution

Consideration of these discharges. Potentially part of the habitat creation scheme in this area would require that these discharges be relocated away from the habitat creation scheme.

5.2 Table 5-17

Issue

No mention of increase in water levels only changes to flow dynamics

Comment

Increased flood risk to third party land/properties/communities.

Suggested solution

Water levels will need to be assessed within the model.

5.3 Table 5-18

Issue

Whilst we welcome the summary of coastal hydrodynamics and geomorphology elements being scoped into the assessment, further detail is required upfront to ensure that the hydrological modelling covers all aspects of concern.

Comment

Hydrological model is insufficient and flood risk not assessed correctly, potentially increasing flood risk to third party land.

Suggested solution

Refer to the Flood Risk section of our response for details of the suggested solution.

5.4 Paragraph 5.1.5

Issue

States that “no conventional waste generation and management relating to operation of the proposed compensation measures at Pawlett Hams have been identified. It is therefore proposed they are scoped out (of the environmental impact assessment - EIA).” However, to create the saltmarsh and remove the existing flood banks, significant waste will be generated.

Comment

Potential issues relating to excess waste not considered.

Suggested solution

Provide clarity regarding the removal of flood banks and associated infrastructure and if necessary, scope waste management into the EIA. West Clyce is not operational but Cobbs Leace Clyce, Gaunts Clyce and New Close Cylce are functioning at some level. If the banks are being removed the associated outfall structures will need to be fully decommissioned therefore will need to be included within the waste management plans.

5.5 Paragraph 5.2 and 6.2

Issue

The River Parrett has an active elver fishery with authorised elver fishermen.

Comment

The elver fishermen could be impacted through reduced catches and/or reduced opportunity to fish.

Suggested solution

The elver fishermen and businesses should be consulted and considered as part of the scheme.

5.6 Paragraph 5.9.31

Issue

“The study area is within close proximity to the surface water receptors and we welcome the assessment that the potential impacts could be significant”. However, it is unclear how this is going to be addressed/managed.

Comment

If not managed appropriately it could result in increased flood risk to third party land, properties, and communities.

Suggested solution

Internal drainage board (IDB) and lead local flood authority (LLFA) will need to be consulted. A drainage network assessment would be expected.

5.7 Paragraph 5.10.24

Issue

“Creation of saltmarsh will help regulate water levels and reduce flood risk.” However, this cannot be an assumption.

Comment

There is potential for increased flood risk to third party land/properties/communities, hence the importance of the modelling.

Suggested solution

Evidence will need to be submitted.

5.8 Paragraph 5.10.30

Issue

Hydrodynamics - no mention of potential impact on the tidal prism and therefore wider impacts on water levels and sediment regimes beyond the Pawlett Hams realignment site itself.

Comment

Incomplete assessment of spatial extent of impacts.

Suggested solution

Include consideration of tidal prism change in assessment of Pawlett hams realignment proposal.

5.9 Paragraph 5.10.35

Issue

“Within this interim assessment, it is considered that climate change/sea level rise will not have a significant effect on the impact assessment presented.” This contradicts 5.11.16 and 5.20 which state coastal saltmarshes are sensitive to climate change/sea level rise.

Comment

If climate change and sea level rise is not represented correctly in the model, future flood risk may not be assessed correctly.

Suggested solution

Modelling to include climate change allowances and sensitivity testing agreed with the Environment Agency.

5.10 Paragraph 5.11.17

Issue

The Barrier is not ‘allowing’ inundation as part of the scheme.

Comment

Contradictory Information regarding the Bridgwater Tidal Barrier (BTB) scheme.

Suggested solution

The online flood banks are being maintained but it is likely that water will spill into the floodplain on the left bank more frequently in the future with sea level rise, this is why secondary banks are being constructed on the margins of the floodplain.

5.11 Paragraph 5.12.16 and 6.12.15

Issue

The report states that “Specific data relating to the fish fauna of the Parrett are not available”. Historic freshwater and transitional fish survey data is available for the River Parrett catchment and the Parrett Estuary from the Environment Agency at: https://environment.data.gov.uk/ecology/explorer/.

Comment

The fish fauna of the River Parrett and Parrett Estuary can be provided.

Suggested solution

Review the Environment Agency’s fish survey data and include relevant data in the report.

5.12 Table 10-1

Issue

Coastal Hydrodynamics and Geomorphology - concludes “effects will be minor (not significant) in nature”. This contradicts 5.10.32 which states that significant effects could arise.

Comment

Impact of coastal hydrodynamics and geomorphology is underestimated.

Suggested solution

Modelling to investigate effects of coastal hydrodynamics and geomorphology.

5.13 Figure 4

Issue

Figure 4 suggests that the existing flood banks are to be removed with the exception of the section at the end of pylon or access track.

Comment

Increased flood risk due to changes in tidal prism. Potential erosion issues.

Suggested solution

If they are removed, it could upset the tidal balance within the estuary and would need to be modelled accordingly.

5.14 Figure 4

Issue

In Figure 4, the new flood banks are termed embankments.

Comment

The new embankments are part of the critical infrastructure and must be designated as ‘flood banks’ accordingly. If not designed correctly could increase flood risk to third party land.

Suggested solution

The new flood banks will need to be designed in consultation with the Environment Agency.

5.15 Figure 8

Issue

The Island. We query why the track going to Slowway Lane is included and are HPC intending to do anything to the existing tidal banks in this area?

Comment

This may impact on increased flood risk due to changes in tidal prism and cause erosion impacts.

Suggested solution

Provide further details on the proposals in this location.

6. PEIR Volume 4 (Cumulative and In Combination Effects)

6.1 Paragraph 2.2.24

Issue

States “The Bridgwater Tidal Barrier is 3.7km upstream.”

Comment

However it is important that the associated works of the scheme are considered and not just the main gated element – downstream defences extend as far as Brickyard Farm, Pawlett and Combwich with bank raising around Tucketts Clyce and downstream towards the wharf.

Suggested solution

The complete BTB scheme needs to be considered as a whole and not just the main gated element.

7. Shadow Habitats Regulation Assessment

7.1 Paragraph 3.7.33, 12.3.10 and 12.3.11

Issue

States that at the time of writing the locations of marine habitats is not confirmed and that these habitats will be subject to trials within identified study areas to determine the most suitable locations for their development and they will be subject to ongoing studies. No indication is given as to how long these trials might go on for before the habitat is established and if they will be completed, or whether locations for the compensatory habitat will be identified and secured before HPC is operational. The AMMP (para 12.6.15) addresses monitoring of habitats once created or restored. This requirement is quoted in section 12.2.14 of the HRA.

Comment

There is uncertainty in the delivery of the compensatory habitats within the marine environment and whether the studies will be advanced enough to inform the DCO material change submission. It is possible that this phase of the compensation package is not completed prior to the operation of HPC, or that this phase is completed but compensatory habitat is not secured or in place in time to provide fully the ecological functions that they are intended to compensate for and the requirement to maintain the coherence of the National Site Network.

Suggested solution

Provide more certainty on the delivery of the compensatory habitat, further investigations needed should they not be completed in advance of DCO submission, options should the trials not be successful, and timescales to expected ecological functioning of the habitats and how this will ensure the coherence of the National Site Network. Where delivery ‘in time’ is not fully achievable consider additional measures for the period between HPC becoming operational and the ecological functioning of the compensatory habitat.

7.2 Paragraph 3.7.4

Issue

Barrier removal or easement will be restricted to 3 barriers from the 5 options provided. There is no justification as to why 3 barriers provide sufficient compensation for diadromous fish. Section 12.7.22 of the HRA acknowledges that it is unlikely that Manorafon weir and weirs on the River Lugg would significantly enhance the access of shad to spawning habitat.

Comment

There is the potential that insufficient compensation could be provided for the shad population if not all weirs proposed in the long list form part of the compensation package, and they provide limited benefit to shads.

Suggested solution

Justification of why only 3 weirs will form part of the compensation package and why this provides sufficiency for the shad and salmon populations must be included in the derogation package particularly if Manorafon weir or a weir on the River Lugg form part of the compensation package.

7.3 Paragraph 4.1.3

Issue

Table 4-1. Incorrectly sites the Draft Principles document as being produced by the Environment Agency and Natural Resources Wales. This guidance was produced by Natural England and Natural Resources Wales to inform HPC’s compensation package.

Comment

Natural England and Natural Resources Wales are the lead bodies to provide HRA advice.

Suggested solution

Update Table 4-1 to remove the Environment Agency and add Natural England.

7.4 Paragraph 6.1.1

Issue

It is stated that there is a need to assess changes in hydrodynamics and sediment transport due to their compensation measures.

Comment

Discussions have not been held about how these changes will be assessed.

Suggested solution

Discussions with the Environment Agency and other relevant bodies should be started at the earliest opportunity if the work is to be completed in time for the DCO application.

7.5 Paragraph 7.2.9

Issue

Outlines that “most of the diadromous species were rarely recorded in the baseline data set”. However, this statement is not presented in the context that sampling methods for diadromous fish through CIMP and the Routine Impingement Monitoring Programme (RIMP) was not appropriate - the inspector and SoS agreed with the Environment Agency on this point raised through the appeal. Results may therefore not be representative of actual populations within the estuary and associated risk from the removal of the requirement for an AFD. There is no mention of shad tagging as best available data for the baseline now.

Comment

Diadromous fish potentially being under-represented in assessments with a greater risk to their population and integrity of the relevant Habitats Sites, which in turn would reduce the sufficiency of the compensatory measures.

Suggested solution

Use the shad tagging data from the location of the intake heads as best available information on population and potential for impingement and address how the conclusions of the SoS have been considered in concluding the HRA and development of compensatory measures to ensure coherence of site network

7.6 Paragraph 8.3.4 and 8.6.5

Issue

The zone of influence used in the screening stage of the sHRA is defined as 120km as used in the 2013 DCO, which screens in a large number of European sites where there is no potential for connectivity with the activities being applied for as part of the material change. Guidance on carrying out a HRA on GOV.UK states that ‘you only need to carry out an HRA if the proposal might affect a European site’

Comment

Using a screening distance of 120km in addition to the screening used in the Environment Agency’s 2020 HRA is disproportionate to the risks from the activities being applied for under the DCO material change and brings in sites with no connectivity to HPC. Paragraph 8.6.5 states that “SACs with habitat qualifying features beyond 10km from the nearest element of the Project are considered to have no potential for the Project to cause any effect”. Sites with no connectivity to the activities are being inappropriately screened in for assessment, resulting in excessively large tables being included in the sHRA.

Suggested solution

Use a more appropriate and proportionate zone of influence based on the activities being applied for.

7.7 Paragraph 8.5.1

Issue

Table 8-2 lists the conservation objectives for the sites being considered in the sHRA. The River Wye SAC is a cross-border site yet only the English conservation objectives have been provided. For a number of sites, the reader is directed to core management plan documents for the sites rather than being provided with the conservation objectives.

Comment

It is a requirement of the Habitats Regulations that the assessment of likely significant effect, appropriate assessment and integrity test are all made against the site’s conservation objectives. This cannot be done if they are not provided within a standalone HRA.

Suggested solution

Provide the relevant conservation objectives for all sites that are relevant for assessment to ensure the legal requirements of the Habitats Regulations are met.

7.8 Paragraph 8.6.7

Issue

Table 8-3 states that there is no pathway alone to the reefs qualifying feature of the SAC from the fish recovery and return (FRR) system discharge, so a conclusion of no likely significant effect (LSE) is reached. There is no evidence to back up this claim. Section 9.4.107 of the HRA assesses the potential for smothering effects on the Estuaries feature of the SAC, with particular reference to Sabellaria reef. The reef feature of the SAC and sub-feature of the Estuaries feature are the same as shown in Fig.1 of the Severn Estuary EMS Regulation 33 package, as replicated in Figure 12-1 (page 723) of the sHRA.

Comment

There are inconsistencies in the screening for LSE with no justification as to why the Reef feature is discounted due to lack of connectivity but is then considered specifically in the appropriate assessment (AA) under the Estuaries feature of the SAC. The reef feature of the Ramsar is also considered at AA stage.

Suggested solution

Ensure that all features are appropriately screened and assessed.

7.9 Paragraph 8.6.7

Issue

Table 8-3 The formatting of this table and the colours used, coupled with the number of sites included in the initial ‘relevance’ screen make it difficult to read. There are inconsistencies in the terminology used, some features are screened in due to a risk of significant effect (SE), some due to a risk of LSE.

7.10 Comment

Using SE and LSE could result in the reader concluding that significant effects are expected for some features, rather than being ‘likely’ and the coloured format makes the table difficult to access.

Suggested solution

Ensure that wording used is consistent with the requirements of the Habitats Regulations and that the table is accessible.

7.11 Paragraph 8.6.7

Issue

Table 8-3 The aquatic plant features of the River Usk SAC are screened out from habitat loss and physical damage from compensatory works (weir removal) “due to scale of habitat loss by comparison to scale of suitable habitat being available and therefore the absence of risk of any effect”. However, no information is provided to back up these claims.

Comment

The impact pathway and associated risk is not assessed fully to enable a conclusion of no likely significant effect alone. No information has been provided on the scale of the in-river works on the SAC, the location of the feature, or the extent of the feature within the SAC.

Suggested solution

Consider taking this risk and impact pathway through to appropriate assessment or provide more evidence to back-up the no LSE conclusion.

7.12 Paragraph 9.4.56

Issue

What evidence is there that twaite shad breed in the Solway Firth? The only reference found is in Maitlands Freshwater Fishes book which mentioned that one adult was caught in the Solway Firth.

Comment

This statement suggests that shad breeding is more widely distributed than the designated rivers.

Suggested solution

Further evidence should be provided.

7.13 Paragraph 9.4.59

Issue

Various figures are given for the predicted shad losses at HPC based on HPB data of between 48 to 104 adults based on the juvenile EAV. Shad numbers have been increased to reflect CIMP2 data, they should now also change to take into account the latest adult tracking data from receivers in the vicinity of HPC that suggest that a minimum of 49% of the River Severn emigrating adult population is in the vicinity, 46% of Wye adults and 33% of Tywi fish.

Comment

The scale of impact in the sHRA of 104 adults is likely to be underestimated.

Suggested solution

Update the sHRA and associated technical documents to reflect the latest adult tracking data.

Paragraphs 9.4.61, 9.7.46, 9.8.38

Issue

Tables 9.3, 9.12 and 9.14 do not relate the predicted losses of the CIMP2 data to a Severn Estuary, Wye or Usk population, this can be done with some level of confidence based on the Unlocking the Severn counts for 2020 and 2022 (2021 estimate is unreliable as it was an extremely wet spring making counting difficult).

Comment

No assessment of CIMP2 predicted losses within the sHRA for the Severn, Usk or Wye.

Suggested solution

Update the assessment to include the population as set out here:

River Severn run estimate in 2020 = 13,780 and 2022 = 3082, mean of these two years = 8,431. Therefore Severn = 8,431, Usk = 8,431, and Wye = 16,861 based on spawning area, so Severn Estuary population estimate = 33,724. So, the CIMP2 predicted losses could be compared to 33,724 in table 9.3. Equally, as the shad EAV cannot be attributed to a particular stock (section 9.4.60) then the total impact should be assessed against the smallest stock 8,431.

7.14 Paragraph 9.4.62

Issue

Notes the recent decline in the shad population but concludes that as no population estimates is available for 2021 to compare CIMP2 data against, it has not been possible to show impact.

Comment

The sHRA does not include an assessment against NNB’s level of harm for the shad. An assessment could have been made for 2021 using 2020 and 2022 run estimates.

Suggested solution

Ensure that impacts on populations of shad are fully assessed using population data for CIMP2 and the tagging data.

7.15 Paragraph 9.6.64 to 9.6.69

Issue

We welcome these paragraphs acknowledging the fact that there is new data around adult shad use of Bridgwater Bay in the immediate vicinity of HPC and there is no need to alter the conclusions of the WDA permit inquiry. However, we believe the new evidence suggests that the level of impact on shad could be significantly larger now and it is our belief that adults are at far greater risk than previously believed.

Comment

Impacts on shad populations could be underestimated and significantly larger than those presented in the sHRA.

Suggested solution

Ensure that the most up to date information is used to fully assess impacts on shad and that this forms the basis of any compensatory package.

7.16 Paragraph 9.4.86

Issue

It will take significantly longer than 4 months to deliver passage improvements at Maisemore or Upper Lode. Unlocking the Severn passes took 2 years to construct each. Also, migration pathways during construction will need more than a flume to maintain.

Comment

Time taken for compensatory measures to be in place underestimated, extending the time for benefits on the diadromous fish populations to be seen.

Suggested solution

Properly reflect timescales to deliver passage improvements with sHRA.

7.17 Paragraph 9.4.149

Issue

States that ‘freshwater species are uncommonly impinged at HPC due to the location in the outer Estuary and high salinity environment’.

Comment

HPC is not operational so must be an expectation?

Suggested solution

Amend to reflect that this is a prediction or expectation.

7.18 Paragraph 9.4.191

Issue

States “timing activities such as breaking sea defences or lowering ground levels to avoid low tide” is incorrect.

Comment

This would increase impact on the Atlantic salt meadows.

Suggested solution

Change wording to avoid “high” tide

7.19 Paragraph 9.4.20

Issue

States that works at Pawlett Hams will be completed under a Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP) which allows a conclusion of no adverse effect. This is also repeated in for example 9.4.25 and 9.4.32.

Comment

Conclusions on adverse effect for the construction of the compensatory habitat is being reached using best practice measures that have not been assessed to determine if they would mitigate for adverse effects on the Severn Estuary SAC and Ramsar.

Suggested solution

Carry out a full Habitats Regulations Assessment of the compensatory habitat construction considering mitigation at the appropriate stage in the process in line with caselaw (People Over Wind). The adoption of best practice such as CEMP does not mean that there could not be adverse effects on site integrity.

7.20 Paragraph 9.6.22

Issue

Table 9-11. In the assessment for salmon, it is stated “an additional year of intensive CIMP sampling and two additional years of RIMP” has been carried out, however this sampling was not designed for salmon. No acknowledgement is provided on the limitation of the sampling regimes for salmon, with the conclusion that “annual impingement estimates are uncertain and driven by stochastic events”. These impingement estimates are also driven by the quality of sampling at HPB. This was recognised by the Secretary of State in Paragraph 17 of their decision on the appeal.

Comment

There is uncertainty in numbers of salmon sampled at HPB due to inadequate sampling which is not designed to sample for salmon runs, this is compounded by the location of the intake heads for HPC being positioned in the mid-channel of the estuary. The risk to salmon could be greater than predicted with the potential that the compensation measures provided will not be adequate.

Suggested solution

Acknowledge that there are limitations in the CIMP and RIMP programmes for assessing impacts on salmon in addition to the difference in the location of the intake heads for HPC compared with HPB. This adds to uncertainty and inability to exclude absences of adverse effects and could also impact upon the sufficiency of the level of compensation proposed for salmon for the Severn Estuary SAC and Ramsar, River Wye SAC and River Usk SAC.

7.21 Paragraph 9.7.112

Issue

States that “it is considered that there will be impacts on populations of Atlantic salmon as result of works at either Pawlett Hams or The Island”.

Comment

It is assumed that this is an error and that there will be no impacts on populations.

Suggested solution

Amend or provide further clarification on adverse effects from compensatory saltmarsh habitats.

7.22 Paragraph 9.7.2

Issue

States that throughout the assessment for the River Usk SAC particular attention has been paid to the conservation objectives as described in Table 8-2. Table 8-2 does not contain the conservation objectives for the SAC but directs the reader to a separate Natural Resources Wales document. There are statements throughout the AA for the River Usk SAC (for example 9.7.19) that conclusions have been drawn ‘in view of the conservation objectives’. There is no information as to which conservation objectives the likely significant effects have been assessed against. This is repeated for all features and risks assessed for all European sites in the appropriate assessment.

Comment

It is not possible to determine which conservation objective is relevant to the risks and features that are being assessed and how they were considered in reaching the AA conclusion and integrity test. Assessing against the conservation objectives is a requirement of the Habitats Regulations.

Suggested solution

Include all conservation objectives in Table 8-2 rather than directing the reader to look up objectives in separate documents and state the actual objective being assessed against in the appropriate assessment, rather than just a non-specific ‘in view of the sites conservation objectives’ statement. Conservation objectives should also be considered in the LSE stage of an HRA.

7.23 Paragraph 12.4.4

Issue

Fish passage improvements are to be undertaken at only three sites. An understanding of how the long list of compensation measures was reduced to the current short list of compensation measures would be useful to aid this understanding, as well as to understand why only three weirs are now being considered for fish passage improvements.

Comment

Further information should be provided detailing how proposals have gone from the long-list of weirs proposed to the short-list of options and how this will ensure the coherence of the national site network

Suggested solution

If it cannot be demonstrated that the actions proposed maintain the coherence of the national site network for salmon and shad, potentially other measures outside of the SACs of concern could be provided such as on the Wessex rivers.

7.24 Paragraph 12.7.8

Issue

In the paragraph it states that the “The risk of adverse effect on integrity arising from HPC is not permanent.”. However, if fish populations within the Estuary that are currently at risk, are impacted by the abstraction to a level where the population is no longer sustainable, then the impacts to that population could be permanent and that population may not recover after the HPC abstraction ceases.

Comment

The impact to certain at-risk species is not accurately discussed and if those species are impacted to a greater level by the abstraction, then that population may no longer be sustainable. Therefore, stating that the risk of adverse impact is not permanent could be untrue. A long-term deterioration of a feature would be likely to be considered as an adverse effect upon the integrity of the site. The conservation objectives for the SACs require that the population of the features are sustainable or increasing over the long-term - this satisfies the requirement to maintain at, or restore habitats sites to, favourable condition. It is questionable as to whether impacts on the SACs will be reversible after a period of 60 years.

Suggested solution

Further consideration is required for the impacts to at risk species and an accurate description of the outcome should be reported.

8. Shadow HRA Evidence Report Appendix 13-1 TR592

8.1 Paragraph 3.3

Issue

The bottom paragraph on this page says: “The weighted P:B, calculated to take account of the relative contribution of each species to the total biomass (using the highest results for the juvenile stages reported in Table 3), is less than 2 in both CIMP1 (1.94) and CIMP2 (1.52).”

Comment

Information has not been provided on how P:B is calculated, as a result we are unable to confirm whether we are able to agree to the calculations and outputs.

Suggested solution

Please provide the details of this calculation.

8.2 Paragraph 27

Issue

State that it should be noted that compensatory habitats would be restored within existing estuarine habitat and as such would enhance production rather than provide entirely new production.

Comment

Benefit calculated in Table 4 is based on providing entirely new production rather than enhancing current production.

Suggested solution

Once habitat locations are decided, determining a baseline production for the current habitat first and then recalculating production based on the difference between production from the enhanced habitat and the baseline.

9. Shadow HRA Evidence Report Appendix 13-2 TR595

9.1 Overarching Comment

Issue

We do not believe that just scaling the monitoring RIMP/CIMP1/2 results for HPB to HPC is an appropriate method to quantify the risk to adult shad. The latest evidence suggests that adult shad are more likely to be impinged at HPC than the scaled results from HPB suggest.

Comment

The current prediction of impact at 104 EAV of adult shad is likely to be a significant underestimation of the impact of the operation of HPC

Suggested solution

Evaluate the latest tracking data of adult shad around HPC and model, using realistic assumptions, the numbers of adults from the 4 Severn Estuary shad populations that are likely to be impacted. Use this figure in the HRA and proposed compensation package.

9.2 Overarching Comment

Issue

New shad tracking data needs to be considered.

Comment

Without agreed impact figures it will not be possible to agree on the outputs of the shadow HRA.

Suggested solution

Evaluate the latest tracking data of adult shad around HPC and model, using realistic assumptions, the numbers of adults from the 4 Severn Estuary shad populations that are likely to be impacted. Use this figure in the HRA and proposed compensation package.

9.3 Overarching Comment

Issue

New impact figures for shad based on the CIMP2 data have not been quantified in the tables of the shadow HRA, only the estimates from 2020 data are given. It is stated that this is because no population estimate is available for 2021.

Comment

The current population is now considered to be much smaller than used in the appeal and the percentage impact is therefore proportionally higher as a result.

Suggested solution

Take an average of the best available population size based on 2020 and 2022 (Unlocking the Severn data) and extrapolate up to a modelled Severn Estuary population to undertake this task.

9.4 Paragraph 2.1.2

Issue

This section provides the evidence for salmon benefit from the target weirs. The section for the River Lugg estimates the amount of additional habitat that would be opened up from the weir improvements.

Comment

It would be much easier to compare the benefits of improvements on the different weirs if the same (or as close as possible) methodology were presented for each.

Suggested solution

Could this same estimate be provided for the other proposed weir improvements? Please provide estimates of habitat area provided for each of the weir improvement schemes.

9.5 Paragraph 2.1.2

Issue

States that recent declines in Atlantic salmon abundance and catches in the River Severn have led to the catchment’s population being classified as “Probably at Risk” (Environment Agency, 2021).

Comment

This classification is incorrect. Since 2021 the Severn salmon conservation limit is classified as “At Risk” and predicted to be at risk in 5 years.

Suggest solution

More recent evidence needs to be used such as the Salmon Stocks and Fisheries in England and Wales in 2022, preliminary assessment prepared for ICES, March 2023 jointly compiled by Cefas.

9.6 Paragraph 2.1.2.2

Issue

States salmon populations in the River Usk are also regarded as “Probably at Risk”.

Comment

This classification is incorrect. The Usk salmon conservation limit is classified as “At Risk” and predicted to be at risk in 5 years.

Suggested solution

More recent evidence needs to be used such as the Salmon Stocks and Fisheries in England and Wales in 2022, preliminary assessment prepared for ICES, March 2023 jointly compiled by Cefas.

9.7 Paragraph 2.1.2.3

Issue

States Wye being considered the weakest stock component in the Severn Estuary mixed-stock fishery (Environment Agency, 2021).

Comment

This has changed and ought to be verified. The referenced documents are out of date.

Suggested solution

More recent evidence needs to be used such as the Salmon Stocks and Fisheries in England and Wales in 2022, preliminary assessment prepared for ICES, March 2023 jointly compiled by Cefas.

9.8 Paragraph 2.1.2.4

Issue

States the total riverine wetted area of the River Wye SAC (Figure 2) has been estimated at 1,327ha. The wetted area of the River Lugg (outside the SAC) is 159ha, 77ha of which is upstream of the identified weirs.

Comment

This is the only catchment that has been quantified, provided 5% available habitat. Where is this information from and how is it calculated?

Suggested solution

Provide references and information on how this is calculated.

9.9 Paragraph 2.2.2.3

Issue

River Lugg is unlikely to yield a significant effect on twaite shad production in this catchment, due to this stretch of river being far upstream, outside of twaite shads’ usual spawning habitats.

Comment

Barriers with fish passage solutions exist on the River Lugg. These passes are not suitable for shads, lamprey, or eel.

Suggested solution

Existing fish pass solutions could be considered to improve potential.

9.10 Paragraph 2.3.3

Issue

This paragraph mentions that the need to include risk assessments for invasive species in UK rivers and streams should be considered as part of the feasibility studies for weir removal/improvement. But it does not provide an indication of how and when these studies will be carried out.

Comment

Detail is needed to understand how and when these studies will be carried out such that the fish passage improvements will be in place in time for the operation of HPC.

Suggested solution

Please provide the details of these planned studies.

9.11 Paragraph 5

Issue

Further upstream at Upper Lode Weir, where reduced salinity may preclude movements of all but the most euryhaline marine species, such as gobies and flounder from further passage, management measures would also increase interconnectivity for freshwater species.

Comment

Flounder are present upstream of Upper Lode (as far as Diglis and Powick R Teme). Grey mullet have been observed in camera monitoring in the Diglis viewing gallery

Suggested solution

It must be considered if the weirs downstream at the tidal limits were addressed then more of these species would be able to access up stream habitats.