Ecology. Xxxxxxxxxx ML (1995) Species Diversity in Space and Time (Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge, UK).
Ecology. 7.1 For bat surveys, access is required to all loft spaces and other areas as detailed in the Fee Quote. If access is not possible to all areas, the assessment may be incomplete, and the local authority may require further surveys to be undertaken. If TMA must visit the Site a second time because full access was not available on the first visit, an additional charge will be made.
7.2 If TMA consider that a potential wildlife crime has been committed or believe a crime may be about to the committed, this will be brought to the Client’s attention immediately. There are certain circumstances in which TMA will be mandated to notify the relevant authorities if a crime has been committed or is about to be committed. TMA reserve the right to communicate with the relevant authorities directly at any stage should it be considered that this is necessary to prevent the commission or continued commission of a crime.
7.3 Occasional access to third party land may be required, for instance to assess off-Site ponds for the presence of great-crested newts where this is relevant to a development site. Where such access is required, access must be formally arranged by the Client with the relevant landowner and provided free of charge to TMA. TMA may require evidence of formal access permission having been granted. TMA reserve the right not to enter third-party land where clear access permission cannot be demonstrated or is permitted on unreasonable terms. TMA will not be held liable for any delays to surveys, or limitations to the conclusions of surveys, due to lack of access.
7.4 Where stated within the Fee Quote, TMA will record evidence of invasive plant species within or adjacent to the Site. Although invasive plant species will be recorded if observed, TMA does not carry out invasive plant searches and does not guarantee that all occurrences will be found. TMA cannot be held liable for later discovery of invasive plant species, nor any financial implications of their presence.
Ecology. The scheme is supported by an ecological appraisal that demonstrates there to be no major constraints on site. A planning condition is however necessary requiring a detailed biological and ecological enhancement scheme to be submitted for approval in accordance with the requirements of Core Strategy Policy CSD4 and to ensure that adequate protection is afforded to protected species in accordance with Natural England’s standing advice.
Ecology. Table 4.8 – Ecology Ref Description of Matter Applicant – Current Position SDC and NYCC – Current Position Position
4.8.1 ES Study Area and Methodology The ES Study Area and Methodology are set out in Sections 8.4 and 8.5 of Chapter 8 (Ecology) of the Environmental Statement (ES) (document reference APP-044). The Applicant considers the methodology described therein remains appropriate. The Authorities are satisfied that the DCO application includes an adequate ecological impact assessment and biodiversity net gain assessment. Agreed
4.8.2 ES Baseline The scope of surveys and their results are summarised in Sections 8.5, 8.6, and 8.7 of Chapter 8 (Ecology) of the Environmental Statement (ES) (document reference APP-044). Further details are provided in the supporting survey information set out in Appendices 8.1 to 8.13 (document references APP- 136 to APP-148). Other sources of data utilised are set out in Chapter 6 (Air Quality), Chapter 7 (Noise and Vibration) and Chapter 12 (Water Environment) of the ES (document reference APP-044). The Applicant considers that the scope of ecological surveys, including use of survey data gathered for the Drax Repower scheme, is commensurate with the scale and scope of the Proposed Scheme. The Authorities are satisfied with the scope of ecological survey undertaken to inform the ES and HRA and that alongside the use of existing data sources set out in the ES, that the characterisation of the ecological baseline is sufficient. Agreed
4.8.3 Habitats Regulation Assessment The Applicant has produced a Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) Report, which sets out the Applicants assessment of potential The Authorities agree with the scope of sites that have been screened into the Habitats Regulations Assessment Agreed Ref Description of Matter Applicant – Current Position SDC and NYCC – Current Position Position effects on European Sites (document reference 6.8.1). As set out in the HRA Report, the Applicant has concluded that the Proposed Scheme would not lead to adverse effects on the integrity of any European Site, subject to the securing of the mitigation measures identified in the HRA Report. documentation; and that the Habitats Regulations Assessment undertaken is sufficient. To date no agreement with the conclusions of the HRA have been made by NYCC or SDC. NYCC would defer to Natural England for their expert opinion on the findings of the HRA.
4.8.4 Predicted Impacts The Applicant has set out their assessment of impact...
Ecology. Avoidance of any identified sensitive sites will be the preferred mitigation measures. The water quality impact mitigation measures proposed in Section 5.1.7 and Section 5.1.8 of this Project Profile will also help to minimize impacts to ecological sensitive receivers. Subject to investigation, the following mitigation measures during construction phase will be considered to minimize the impact. Avoid using marine-based transportation for the transport of construction material and workers.
Ecology. The science and information used in the CCA was based heavily on the 2005 Gunnison Sage-Grouse Rangewide Conservation Plan (RCP) and the 2010 USFWS Determination for the Gunnison sage-grouse. The CCA is designed not to replace the RCP, but to build on the RCP conservation strategies with a plan of action and a mechanism for implementation.
Ecology. The demonstration advanced treatment plant and the associated facilities will all be located within the boundary of the SWHSTW. The alignment of the temporary reclaimed water distribution piping would be along existing foot path/roads. No habitat with ecological values was identified either within the site for the pilot plant or the boundary of the associated distribution network. No adverse ecological impact is therefore anticipated for the proposed Scheme.
Ecology. 3.1.6.1. The Project site is located within a disturbed vegetated area, construction activities may result in direct habitat loss.
3.1.6.2. There may be potential indirect impact to the surrounding natural habitats (e.g. a soft shore about 30m away from the site) and the associated wildlife due to construction activities such as surface runoff.
Ecology. 3.2.6.1. No adverse impact on ecology is expected during normal operation of the pumping station. Given emergency situation would occur that sewage overflow via the nearby stormwater drainage system into the Tolo Harbour and Channel Water Control Zone, there would be potential indirect ecological impact. Precautionary measure would be incorporated into the design of the pumping station to xxxxx water quality impact under emergency situation and thus alleviate the potential ecological impacts.
Ecology. 5.6.1 To minimise the Project’s impact to natural habitats and sites of conservation importance and its consequential ecological impacts on the flora and fauna species associated with these habitats, appropriate mitigation measures (e.g. on water quality) would be implemented to mitigate the potential ecological impacts. For instance, it is proposed to install sand/silt removal facilities during construction stage and to set up an emergency storage capacity during operation stage.
