Liverpool 2 and River Mersey Approach Channel Dredging · Demand for the new facility is quite clear. Around 4 million TEU’s (50%+) of cargo enter or leave the British Isles for

Copyright© Haskoning UK Ltd. 2012

Liverpool 2 and River Mersey Approach Channel Dredging

Environmental Statement Non-Technical Summary

Mersey Docks and Harbour Company

September 2012

Final Report

9X0787

Copyright© Haskoning UK Ltd. 2012

A company of Royal HaskoningDHV

Document title Liverpool 2 and River Mersey Approach Channel Dredging

Environmental Statement

Non-Technical Summary

Status Final Report

Date September 2012

Project name Liverpool 2 and River Mersey Approach Channel Dredging

Project number 9X0787

Client Mersey Docks and Harbour Company

Reference 9X0787/5/010/303659/Newc

Stanley Hall

Edmund Street

Liverpool L3 9NG

United Kingdom

+44 151 236 2944 Telephone

Fax

www.royalhaskoning.com E-mail

Internet

HASKONING UK LTD.

WATER

Drafted by Steven Rayner & Jamie Gardiner

Checked by Jamie Gardiner

Date/initials check …………………. ………………….

Approved by Matt Simpson

Date/initials approval …………………. ………………….

Copyright© Haskoning UK Ltd. 2012 Environmental Statement: Non-Technical Summary

Final Report - i - September 2012

CONTENTS Page

1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Non-Technical Summary 1 1.2 Project background 1 1.3 Statement of Need 5 1.4 Approach to the EIA 5

2 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED SCHEME AND ALTERNATIVES 7 2.1 Overview 7 2.2 Description of the construction phase 7 2.3 Description of operational phase 8 2.4 Changes to the proposed scheme to that presented in the 2005

ES 9 2.5 Decommissioning 9

3 THE EIA PROCESS 10 3.1 Overview 10 3.2 Consultation, screening and scoping 10 3.3 The Environmental Statement 11

4 RECEPTORS REQUIRING NO FURTHER ASSESSMENT 13 4.1 Coastal processes 13 4.2 Navigation 13 4.3 Road traffic 13 4.4 Noise and Vibration 14 4.5 Air quality 14 4.6 Landscape and visual 14

5 OVERVIEW OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FOR RECEPTORS REQUIRING FURTHER ASSESSMENT 16 5.1 Physical processes 16 5.2 Marine sediment and water quality 16 5.3 Nature conservation and aquatic ecology 17 5.4 Fish and fisheries 18 5.5 Marine archaeology 18

6 POTENTIAL FOR CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 19

7 IMPLICATIONS FOR DESIGNATED STATUS OF EUROPEAN SITES 20

8 ASSESSMENT UNDER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE 21

9 REFERENCES 22


Final Report - ii - September 2012


Final Report - 1 - September 2012

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Non-Technical Summary

This document provides a Non-Technical Summary (NTS) of the Liverpool 2 and River Mersey Approach Channel Dredging Environmental Statement (ES) produced by Royal HaskoningDHV on behalf of Mersey Docks and Harbour Company Ltd (MDHC). The ES presents the findings of the Environmental Impact Assessment1 (EIA) undertaken for the proposed Liverpool 2 and River Mersey Approach Channel Dredging scheme (see Figures 1.1 and 1.2 for the proposed location of Liverpool 2 and the location of the Mersey approach channel respectively, and Figure 1.3 for the proposed operational layout of Liverpool 2). The ES was produced in accordance with the requirements of The Marine Works (EIA) Regulations 2007 (as amended) (the 2007 Regulations). This NTS provides a summary of the main potential environmental impacts likely to occur as a result of the proposed scheme. The EIA process is detailed in Section 3.

1.2 Project background

In 2005, an ES (ABPmer, 2005) (hereafter referred to as the 2005 ES) was produced to support a Harbour Revision Order (HRO) application to give MDHC powers to construct terminal in the Mersey. Additional information was provided in 2006 to supplement the 2005 ES (ABPmer, 2006). The scope of the 2005 ES comprised the terminal construction and operation and dredging of the approach channel. The HRO was granted in May 2007 following a public inquiry in 2006. Prior to the granting of the HRO, a total of 63 agreements and obligations were drafted or entered into by MDHC with various groups and organisations. The ES specifically addresses the requirements of an application for a marine licence under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 for the proposed works below Mean High Water Spring (MHWS), i.e. construction, reclamation, dredging and disposal of dredged material to a licensed offshore disposal site, and other uses. As such, the ES presents the findings of further assessment work conducted by Royal HaskoningDHV on behalf of MDHC for Liverpool 2 and the deepening of the Mersey approach channel. Its purpose is to re-assess the potential environmental effects associated with the proposed scheme, which have arisen from changes in legislation and scheme design, as well as any new information on the baseline environment since the production of the 2005 ES was produced. Furthermore, the assessment aims to identify any additional measures required to avoid or minimise potential impacts.

1 EIA draws together, in a systematic way, an assessment of a project's likely significant environmental effects. This helps to ensure that the importance of the predicted effects, and the scope for reducing them, are properly understood to inform the decision making process.

Crosby Road

A5036

A5058

A565

A59

NewBrighton

Figure:

Date: Scale at A4:

Title:

Client:

Project:

1.1

Location Plan (Seaforth Triangle)

Liverpool 2

Mersey Docks and HarbourCompany

September 2012

F:\

Pe

el_

Po

rt\T

5_

GIS

\Pro

jects

\Fig

ure

s\F

igu

re1

-1_

Lo

ca

tio

n_

Pla

n.m

xd

Drawn: Checked:

JVGTC

1:50,000

¯

0 1,000 2,000500Metres

Reproduced from Ordnance Survey digital map data OS50K. Crowncopyright 2012. All rights reserved. Licence number 0100031673

Site Location

Site Y

Site Z

Figure:

Date: Scale at A4:

Title:

Project:

1.2

Location Plan (River Mersey Approach Channel and DisposalSites Y and Z)

Liverpool 2 and ApproachChannel Dredging

September 2012

F:\

Pe

el_

Po

rt\T

5_

GIS

\Pro

jects

\Fig

ure

s\F

igu

re1

-2_

Lo

ca

tio

n_

Pla

n.m

xd

Drawn: Checked:

JVGTC

1:180,000

¯

0 2 41Kilometres

Reproduced from Ordnance Survey digital map data OS50K. Crowncopyright 2012. All rights reserved. Licence number 0100031673

Client:Mersey Docks and HarbourCompany

Site Location

Sites Y & Z

LAYOUT PLAN

SCALE 1:1000

QS1 QS2

QS3

SUSPENDED DECK TO

ACCOMMODATE ROAD

TUG CHANGE

OVER AREA

TUG REFUELLING

STATION

SMALL AMENITIES

BUILDING

0 20 40 60m20m

SCALE IN METRES

1:1000

NOTES

AUTOCAD REF.

DRAWING No.

DRAWN CHECKED PASSED

DATE CLIENT'S REF.

SCALE AT A0

TITLE

REVISIONS

REV DATE DESCRIPTION CHK APP

REVISION

DRG No.

BY

Haskoning UK Ltd.

c

PROJECT

MARITIME AND WATERWAYS

Stanley Hall

Edmund Street

Liverpool L3 9NG

+44 (0)151 2362944

+44 (0)151 2362944

[email protected]

9X0787/

9X0787/

LIVERPOOL 2

REPRODUCED FROM ORDNANCE SURVEY MAPS WITH PERMISSION

FROM THE CONTROLLER OF HM STATIONERY OFFICE. CROWN

COPYRIGHT RESERVED. LICENCE No. 100023422 2012.

LAYOUT PLAN

DD

19.04.12

AS SHOWN

DP RP

Figure 1.3

Fig 1.3

T1

TERMINAL LAYOUT DERIVED

FROM TBA DRAWING



1.3 Statement of Need

Demand for the new facility is quite clear. Around 4 million TEU’s (50%+) of cargo enter or leave the British Isles for regions in the Midlands or Northwards. However, 90% of the UK’s deep-sea containers are handled through ports in the Greater South-East region of the UK. This puts a huge strain on the land-based transport infrastructure, creating congestion as well as adding to the cost of supply chains and the carbon emitted. Due to the limited vessel size that Liverpool can accommodate, cargo to / from most of the world needs to first tranship at ports like Rotterdam or Southampton, before arriving in Liverpool in smaller “feeder” ships. This adds both time and cost to the journey, limiting the cargo that is moved through this route. A further driver for the scheme is the limited land bank available to the Port, which occupies a ‘ribbon’ of land, between 500m and 1km wide, ‘sandwiched’ between the Mersey and established commercial, industrial and residential developments along the A565 corridor. The area of foreshore that is the subject of the present scheme will provide an increase to the operational land contained within the Port boundary, and will constitute the back-up land necessary for the operation of the deep-water river berth. This need was acknowledged in May 2007 when the Secretary of State for Transport granted the HRO for the project and has not changed. The project was progressed after the HRO was granted until the economic downturn hit in 2008. The result of the recession was for a significant reduction in the number of containers handled by UK ports and the project was subsequently put on hold until 2010. During 2010, the market case was re-evaluated and it became clear that despite the economic situation, there was a clear demand for a facility that could handle larger ships in the Northern half of the UK.

1.4 Approach to the EIA

The findings of the Liverpool 2 and River Mersey Approach Channel Environmental Scoping Report (Royal Haskoning, 2012) and scoping opinion identified that, for the purposes of the marine licence, further assessment work was required for some receptors, and in particular for marine receptors, including:

Physical processes;

Marine sediment and water quality;

Nature conservation and aquatic ecology;

Fisheries; and,

Marine archaeology. Receptors that have been identified as not requiring any further assessment (beyond that provided for the project in the 2005 ES) relate to coastal defences, navigation and land-side environment (road transport, noise and vibration, air quality, and landscape and the visual environment). The assessments undertaken on these receptors during the production of the 2005 ES are considered to remain valid and as such these issues, with the relevant agreements and obligations in place, are considered to have been given due consideration. Information has been provided in Section 3 that sets out why



the findings of the impact assessments presented within the 2005 ES remain valid for these receptors. An exception to the above is noise; whilst the findings of the previous noise survey are considered to remain valid, it was determined that the impact assessment of airborne noise on waterbirds and underwater noise on fish (as presented in the 2005 ES) are unlikely to meet current expectations. In the preparation of the 2005 ES a number of other terrestrial receptors were identified as having no potential to be affected by the proposed scheme (including terrestrial archaeology, soils and geology, hydrology, recreation and amenity value) and, as such, were scoped out of the assessment. The exception to the above is the proposed closure of the public right to use the river wall as a promenade and the effect that the proposal would have, in particular, on fishing from the dock. This matter was resolved during the public inquiry, with relevant agreements and obligations put place. As the Liverpool 2 scheme is, in general, the same as that presented in the 2005 ES, these receptors will not be affected by the works proposed and, as such, have also been scoped out of this EIA. This approach was confirmed by the 2012 scoping opinion which did not identify any issues related to these receptors.



2 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED SCHEME AND ALTERNATIVES

2.1 Overview

A range of alternative options were considered by MDHC, including do-nothing. None of the alternatives were considered viable in terms of achieving the required economic objectives or minimising environmental effects, which led to the identification of the preferred option.

2.2 Description of the construction phase

The construction of the terminal will involve the following elements:

1. The construction of a quay wall, 854m long, with a quay surface at 12.7m aCD, between the south-west corner of the Royal Seaforth Container Terminal (RSCT) and along the low water edge of an intertidal area known as ‘Seaforth Triangle’;

2. Capital dredging in front of the proposed terminal (to 16.5m below Chart Datum (bCD)) to create a 62m wide berth pocket that will allow post-Panamax vessels to berth in this area;

3. Extension of the Bootle northern sewer outfall to the proposed new quay face; and,

4. Reclamation of approximately 12ha of intertidal area behind this new wall (using approximately 2.2Mm3 of material dredged from the berth pocket and approach channel deepening works).

Two alternative methods are being considered for the construction of the quay wall. These involve either the use of reinforced concrete caissons (filled with imported granular material or, possibly, dredge arisings) or a piled steel structure (again possibly infilled with granular/dredged material, supporting a reinforced concrete superstructure). The potential environmental impacts from both of these alternative approaches have been assessed within the ES and will be used to inform the final decision on which construction method is taken forward. Regardless of the form of construction of the quay wall, dredging will be required for the formation of the berthing pocket and for the deepening of the approach channel. For the berth pocket in front of the quay wall, dredging will be carried out to achieve a base pocket width of 62m at a target depth of 16.5m bCD. The design of the landward side of the pocket will differ depending upon the particular construction method that is adopted, i.e. either steel piles or caissons. Should the caisson approach be adopted, then the landward side of the berth pocket will also need to be dredged to at least 16.5m bCD to receive the rubble mound foundations for the caissons. For the piled construction approach, no dredging of foundations will be required, other than the removal of soft alluvial material over a width of 40m behind the quay wall. In both cases, the wall construction will be undertaken before dredging of the berth pocket. The approach channel, areas that are shallower than 8.0m bCD will be dredged down to this depth. The total area proposed for approach channel deepening is 3.71km2, with the average depth of dredge across these areas being approximately 1.1m. Allowing for



an expected amount of over-dredge of 0.35m and a side slope of 1:10, the estimated volume of material to be dredged will be around 5Mm³. In general, a Trailing Suction Hopper Dredging will remove soft silts while a cutter suction dredger would be used to dredge coarser granular materials. Areas of rock and firm (‘stiff’) clay will be excavated by backhoe. Options for the use of dredged arisings and disposal were considered as part of a disposal options study. The preferred approach to the use and disposal of the dredged material is as follows:

all material dredged during the deepening of the berthing pocket will be used in the reclamation works, where possible;

arisings from the dredging of the approach channel will also be used in the reclamation works, as required. Depending on the construction method, it is anticipated that there will be an excess of material in the region of 3.65Mm3 to 4.30Mm3;

up to 150,000m3 of material is proposed to be deposited to the north of the training walls at Formby Point (at the gap between the training walls). This forms part of a deed of agreement with Natural England to maintain the sediment budget of the Mersey. There is a requirement for monitoring of this deposition (e.g. within the weeks following the disposal to verify whether the material is dispersing and not accumulating on the seabed);

placement of 375,000m3 of material is proposed along the rear of Taylor’s Bank training wall to improve the integrity of the walls. This placement also forms part of the deed of agreement with Natural England to maintain the sediment budget of the Mersey; and,

between 3.13Mm3 and 3,78Mm3 is proposed to be deposited at the two offshore licenced disposal Sites Z and Y (see Figure 1.2). It is known that Site Z currently accepts maintenance dredged material and Site Y capital dredged material. Based upon the findings of the marine geotechnical and geo-environmental site investigation it is proposed that between approximately 2,625,000m3 and 3,275,000m3 would be deposited at Site Y and 500,000m3 of material at Site Z.

The existing wind turbine closest to Liverpool 2 will be decommissioned as its proximity to a berthed vessel would result in a safety issue.

2.3 Description of operational phase

The terminal will be a container ‘lift on/lift off’ facility, with the containers being handled by ‘ship to shore’ (STS) cranes similar to those currently in operation at the RSCT. The length of the quay wall will permit up to two large vessels to berth simultaneously. The terminal will handle containers using eight STS cranes similar to those currently in operation at RSCT, although at this site they will be taller and provide a greater out-reach and greater vertical hoist travel. The proposed operational layout of the terminal is presented in Figure 1.3. It is anticipated that once the proposed terminal is operational, there will be a steady growth in the number of containers handled until equality is reached with the number



currently handled at the existing RSCT. This growth is anticipated to occur each year from an initial base of 200,000 TEU (twenty-foot equivalent units) containers per year in 2016 (the first full year of operation), increasing to 295,000 TEU by 2017. Parity with the current RSCT operation suggests that the maximum throughput of the terminal would be approximately 600,000 TEU per year by 2018. As part of the operational activities, there will also be a need for on-going maintenance dredging to maintain the established water depth within the berth as well as at critical positions within the approach channel. The annual maintenance dredging requirement of the deepened berthing pocket is considered to be up to the 100,000m³/yr. For the approach channel deepening areas, the amount of sand depositing was predicted to increase by approximately 50%. Based on this estimate, the revised and approximate values for the total annual maintenance requirements in each of the main MDHC approach channel dredging areas are as follows:

Crosby Shoal is likely to increase to approximately 127,000m³/yr;

Askew Spit is likely to increase to approximately 111,000m³/yr; and,

Formby Bar is likely to increase to approximately 1,237,000m³/yr.

2.4 Changes to the proposed scheme to that presented in the 2005 ES

The proposed scheme is the same as that presented and assessed within the 2005 ES, with the following exceptions:

The previous proposed height of the new quay wall was 12m aCD. The proposed increase in height, of 0.7m, which takes into account changes in water level and sea level rise, is within the vertical limit of deviation (3m) allowed for in the HRO and, as detailed within the EIA, does not have any significant implications for the findings of the 2005 ES;

the proposed use of eight ship to shore (STS) cranes rather than five on the river berth (plus two in the inner berth);

Cantilevered rail mounted gantries (c-RMGs) are proposed to be used rather that rail mounted gantries (RMGs); and,

the previously proposed depth of the berthing pocket was 15m bCD with a width of 40m at its base. The increased depth, of 1.5m, and width, of 22m, will allow the terminal to accommodate vessels with a larger draft.

2.5 Decommissioning

The proposed project is to construct an operational container terminal within the Port of Liverpool. As such, there are currently no plans to decommission the terminal and, therefore, there is no decommissioning phase.



3 THE EIA PROCESS

3.1 Overview

The EIA process is a tool for systematically examining and assessing the potential impacts of a proposed development on the environment. The process is outlined in Table 3.1 below. The following main stages are typically included within the EIA:

Screening (i.e. determination of whether an EIA is required);

Scoping (i.e. determination of what must be provided within an ES);

Preparation of the ES (i.e. establishing baseline data, evaluating impacts etc.); and,

Submission of ES and formal consultation with statutory consultees, the public and other interested parties.

Impact assessment is a fundamental element of the EIA process and the results of this process are presented in the ES. Impacts can be positive or negative, and can result directly or indirectly from project activities or events. Each identified potential impact is then assessed for its likely significance. In addition to the determination of potential impacts from the proposed scheme, an assessment must also be made of the potential for cumulative effects, which considers the impacts from the proposed works with potential impacts from other proposed projects in the wider vicinity.

3.2 Consultation, screening and scoping

Given that the proposed scheme was considered to be an EIA development when the HRO was applied for, it is considered that this remains the case. This opinion was confirmed by the receipt of the scoping opinion from the MMO, which states that an EIA is required under the 2007 Regulations. To determine the scope of the information required to support a marine licence application, a formal scoping opinion was sought from the Marine Management Organisation (MMO) in April 2012. The scoping opinion, received in July 2012, confirmed that proposed works fall within the specifications of the 2007 Regulations and, therefore, a formal EIA was required. This ES has been submitted to the MMO in support of a marine licence application made under Part 4 of Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 and produced in accordance with the requirements of the 2007 Regulations. Consultation with the Regulating Authorities and Licencing Bodies has been on-going throughout the EIA process. In particular, a consultation meeting was held on 28 March 2012 as part of the scoping exercise, with a further meeting held on 25 June 2012. Attendees included the MMO, Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council, Natural England, the Environment Agency and the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas).



Table 3.1 The Environmental Impact Assessment process

Stage Task Aim/objective Work/output

(examples)

Screening

report

Screening To formally confirm route for EIA and

lead responsible authority

Appropriate level of

information on

proposals and

approach.

Scoping study Scoping To identify the potentially significant

direct and indirect impacts of the

proposed development

Preliminary

consultation with key

consultees

Targets for specialist

studies (e.g. benthic

ecology survey)

EIA

Consultation Consult with statutory and non-statutory

organisations and individuals with an

interest in the area and the proposed

development

Local knowledge and

information

Primary data

collection

To characterise the existing

environment

Background data

including existing

literature and specialist

studies

Specialist

studies

To further investigate those

environmental parameters which may

be subject to potentially significant

effects

Specialist reports

Impact

assessment

To evaluate the existing environment, in

terms of sensitivity

To evaluate and predict the impact (i.e.

magnitude) on the existing environment

To assess the significance of the

predicted impacts

Series of significant

adverse and beneficial

impacts

Mitigation

measures

To identify appropriate and practicable

mitigation measures and enhancement

measures

The provision of

solutions to minimise

adverse impacts as far

as possible

Feedback into the

design process, as

applicable

Environmental

Statement

Production of the Environmental

Statement in accordance with EIA

guidance

Environmental

Statement

3.3 The Environmental Statement

The ES presents the findings of the EIA process. For the proposed scheme, this ES is submitted in support of a marine licence application to the MMO. There are a number of other relevant consents and legislative considerations which may be required to allow



the proposed scheme to proceed, and the ES will assist in these considerations, as follows:

Opinion from Natural England on requirement for AA under Regulation 35 of the Conservation of Species and Habitats Regulations 2010.

Advice from Natural England under Section 28 of the WCA, for works within or adjacent to SSSIs.

Consultation with the Environment Agency to ensure that the development is compliant with the WFD.



4 RECEPTORS REQUIRING NO FURTHER ASSESSMENT

Information is provided below that sets out why the findings of the impact assessments presented within the 2005 ES, and the HRO (which received consent in 2007), are considered to remain valid and given due consideration.

4.1 Coastal processes

To take into account changes in water levels, the proposed height of the quay wall has been increased to 12.7m aCD (previously the wall was to be constructed to 12m aCD). The HRO allows for a vertical deviation in quay wall height of up to 3m and, therefore, the proposal is within the tolerance allowed by the HRO. In addition further hydrodynamic modelling was carried out in 2012 that showed a negligible change to water levels and tidal currents, which is consistent with the findings of the previous modelling work undertaken to inform the 2005 ES. As such, the findings of the impact assessment presented in the 2005 ES on coastal defences are considered to remain valid and no new issues have been identified.

4.2 Navigation

The previous studies to inform the navigation impact assessment as presented in the 2005 ES took into consideration the predicted increase in vessel movements during the operational phase of the proposed scheme above the higher baseline that informed the studies at the time, as vessel traffic has fallen by approximately 50% since 2005. Whilst maximum throughput of the terminal is expected to be reached in 2015 (i.e. within three years), rather than in 2016 (within eight years) as presented in the 2005 ES, the predicted overall increase in vessel movements remains the same, but will initially contribute to a lower baseline. Consequently, the findings of the navigation impact assessment presented in the 2005 ES are considered to remain valid and no new issues have been identified.

4.3 Road traffic

A detailed traffic assessment was undertaken in 2005 to inform the assessment of potential impacts on road traffic presented in the 2005 ES. The maximum predicted throughput of the terminal remains the same as that assessed by the 2005 ES. A review of recent road traffic data showed that the 2005 traffic predictions, in general, agree with the predictions made by the 2005 traffic assessment. Furthermore, the 2005 traffic assessment used a worst case scenario, whereby the proposed terminal would operate at maximum predicted throughput upon opening; therefore, the change in the rate of increase of throughput predicted and the year in which this will be achieved do not affect the findings of the traffic assessment. Furthermore, the measures agreed in the Deed of Agreement with the Highways Agency were put in place to be able to manage any observed changes to the predicted traffic flows. As such, the findings of the traffic assessment presented in the 2005 ES are considered to remain valid. No new issues have been identified and, taken together with the Deed of Agreement, relevant controls are in place.



4.4 Noise and Vibration

A baseline review of the noise conditions in and around the site of the proposed terminal was undertaken to inform the noise impact assessment presented within the 2005 ES. A review of current available noise data indicated that noise levels at Brunswick Parade have not changed significantly since 2005. No inferences could be made regarding changes to the baseline conditions at other locations where noise levels were measured as part of the 2005 noise impact assessment, as no new data were available. In terms of those aspects of the construction phase that have the most potential to influence the noise environment (such as piling), the proposed construction methodology is consistent with that assessed within the 2005 ES. The new computational noise modelling exercise, undertaken to re-assess the potential effects to birds, showed that operational noise levels are predicted to be approximately 6dB LAeq lower than those predicted and presented in the 2005 ES, due to changes to the proposed equipment to be used (in particular, electric c-RMGs rather than diesel powered RMGs). Consequently, the predicted noise from the operations at the terminal will be within the envelope of the predictions made within the 2005 ES. Hence the findings of the noise impact assessment for operational noise as presented in the 2005 ES are considered to remain valid. Furthermore, a Section 106 Agreement between Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council and MDHC includes measures to reduce noise levels, including a requirement to install noise attenuation measures to reduce the noise levels in residential premises to 60dB LAmax, upon commencement of construction operations.

4.5 Air quality

A detailed baseline review of air quality conditions at the proposed location of the terminal was undertaken to inform the assessment of the potential effects of dust generation during the construction phase, as well as traffic-induced air quality impacts (informed by the traffic assessment), presented in the 2005 ES. As the proposed construction methodology is consistent with that assessed within the 2005 ES, the findings of the road traffic assessment remain valid and there is no predicted increase in vessel movement, no new issues are apparent with regards to air quality. Hence the findings of the air quality impact assessment as presented in the 2005 ES are considered to remain valid.

4.6 Landscape and visual

A landscape and visual impact assessment (LVIA) was undertaken in 2005 to assess the potential impact of the proposals on landscape character and visual setting. The landscape character and visual setting of the study area in 2012 is considered to be the same as that assessed by the 2005 LVIA. Changes to the proposed scheme that have the potential to affect the LVIA include:

the proposed increase in the height of the quay wall, from 12m aCD to 12.7m aCD;

the proposed use of eight STS cranes rather than five on the river berth (plus two in the inner berth); and,



the proposed used of c-RMG cranes and terminal trucks rather than RMGs. The proposed site for the terminal is surrounded by land that is industrial and maritime in nature, and all of the activities associated with Liverpool 2 will be in keeping with this environment. The proposed site is also screened by surrounding port related structures and buildings from areas on the east side of the Mersey, such as Bootle and Crosby. The development is more than 1.5km from urban areas on the west side of the estuary, such as New Brighton. Overall the likely landscape and visual effects area were assessed as negligible in 2005. The HRO allows for a vertical deviation of up to 3m for the physical structure of the quay and, therefore, as described above the proposed increase in height of the quay wall is within the tolerance allowed by the HRO and will not affect the conclusions drawn in the LVIA. Moreover, taking into account the existing landscape character and restricted views of the proposed terminal, the proposed increase in number of STS cranes is also predicted to have a negligible effect on the findings of the LVIA. In terms of potential effects on the landscape character and visual setting, c-RMGs are considered have the same influence as RMGs, albeit that they produce less noise. Given the above, the findings of the existing LVIA are considered to remain valid and no further assessment work is considered necessary.



5 OVERVIEW OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FOR RECEPTORS REQUIRING FURTHER ASSESSMENT

5.1 Physical processes

The 2005 ES presented the potential impacts of the proposed scheme on physical processes using hydrodynamic, wave and sediment modelling and a detailed review of coastal processes. The hydrodynamic modelling was repeated to inform this EIA in order to determine whether changes in bathymetry and design of the berthing pocket have affected the validity of the previous modelling work. This demonstrated that the conclusions of the original ES remain valid, as the predicted effects on the water levels and tidal currents due to the proposed development remain negligible. Indeed, the spatial scale and magnitude of effects with the updated bathymetry in the model generally is lower than previously identified from the earlier modelling work. As such, it was considered that there was no requirement to repeat the wave and sediment modelling work, as the effects on water levels remain negligible and sediment transport is driven by the underlying hydrodynamics, especially tidal currents and their associated bed shear stresses. The impact assessment on physical processes identified that the dredging works are predicted to have negligible impacts on water levels and tidal currents, with the proposed scheme also having a negligible effect on the surrounding coastal defences and training walls. The proposed scheme is predicted to have a minor adverse impact on tides and waves at New Brighton, MDHC has agreed to place a wave / current meter to monitor any changes in these parameters which could affect this frontage. This measure forms part of a Deed of Agreement between MDHC and Natural England. Potentially adverse effects have been predicted to result from changes in erosion and accretion patterns, in particular along the Blundellsands coastline and also from the redistribution of sediments resulting from the dredging and disposal activities. Measures to reduce these effects comprise the depositing of the dredged material at licenced deposit sites where a proportion of the sediment is known to be transported to the Sefton coast. In addition, trial placements and monitoring of dredged material off Formby Point and to the rear of Taylor’s Bank training wall are proposed, with the aim of providing a supply of material to this stretch of coastline. These trial placements form part of the Deed of Agreement with Natural England.

5.2 Marine sediment and water quality

In order to provide up-to-date information on marine sediment and water quality, a marine geotechnical and environmental site investigation was undertaken of the reclamation area and approach channel. In addition, recent water quality data was obtained from the Environment Agency. The impact assessment identified a minor beneficial impact as a result of ‘locking up’ the contaminated sediments within the reclamation area. The dredging of the approach channel and the predicted changes to hydrodynamics are considered to have a negligible effect on sediment and water quality. Potential minor adverse impacts were considered to arise from the dredging of the berth pocket and placement of material in



the reclamation area. Whilst no mitigation measures are considered necessary for the dredging of the berth pocket, the approach to placing material in the reclamation area will be discussed and agreed with the Environment Agency. A further minor adverse impact is deemed to arise from the disposal of material at the deposit sites. Measures to minimise this include a zoned disposal operation, whereby material is deposited on a grid arrangement to avoid the potential for excessive shallowing at one particular location within the disposal site. Accidental leaks and spillages are considered to have the potential to cause adverse impacts during the construction and operational phases of the proposed scheme. This risk will be minimised by following standard best practice measures and adherence with the MDHC’s existing operational ‘Codes of Practice’.

5.3 Nature conservation and aquatic ecology

A marine benthic ecology survey has been undertaken to provide up-to-date information on the ecology of the reclamation area and approach channel. Furthermore, the computational noise model was re-run to provide information on the likely noise levels affecting ornithological receptors at and around the proposed Liverpool 2 container terminal. The impact assessment identified a number of potential minor adverse impacts during the construction phase resulting from the loss of habitat from the dredging and reclamation works. In general, mitigation measures were either deemed not necessary or impracticable. The marine benthic ecology survey identified large numbers of honeycomb worm (Sabellaria alveolata) within the proposed berthing pocket area. This species forms biogenic reefs and whilst not legally protected, it is of national conservation importance. Based upon the known abundance of this species in the area, in particular Hilbre Island, and the small area affected (approximately 10ha, which comprises 0.006% of the Mersey Narrows), this impact is considered to be minor adverse. Whilst no mitigation measures are considered practicable for this loss, the construction of the berth pocket will provide a hard substrate that could be colonised by this species, possibly reducing the significance of this impact. The potential impacts of underwater noise also have the potential to have a minor adverse impact on marine mammals. Measures to minimise these impacts include implementing soft start procedures. In addition, due to the hardness of the sea bed the construction strategy will reduce underwater noise as initial drilling/boring of the pile may be adopted. Similar to this, a sensitive site and directional lighting regime will be implemented to reduce unnecessary light spill during construction to minimise any adverse impacts to birds, in particular on the North East Wirral coast. Construction noise is considered to have a minor adverse impact on birds, in particular at the Seaforth nature Reserve; however, as noise levels are within current background noise levels at this site, no mitigation measures are considered necessary. The disposal of material from the dredging of the approach channel at Site Y is considered to have a beneficial effect due to its potential to feed the Sefton coast.



During the operational phase of the proposed scheme, adverse impacts have been identified from changes in erosion / accretion patterns along the Blundellsands frontage and to benthic communities from the increased disposal of maintenance dredged arisings. Whilst no mitigation measures are considered practicable for the latter, monitoring of Blundellsands foreshore, using hydrographic surveys, is proposed, along with beach nourishment if required. These measures form part of the Deed of Agreement with Natural England. In addition, the proposed trial placements off Formby Point and Taylor’s Bank, as described previously, are considered to have the potential to minimise any adverse impacts. The maintenance dredging of the berth pocket is considered to have an adverse impact on the sediment budget of the estuary, should the dredged material be disposed of outside of the system. As such, it is proposed that the dredged material is placed in the centre of the channel next to the pocket and allowed to disperse naturally. This approach forms part of the Deed of Agreement with Natural England. However, consultation during the EIA identified that the existing disposal site – Mid-River – may be a more suitable location to deposit the material; however, the potential effects of this on the surrounding environment would need to be understood.

5.4 Fish and fisheries

Up-to-date information on fish populations was obtained from the Environment Agency and the North West Inshore Fisheries Conservation Authority (NW IFCA). During the construction phase, the potential impacts of underwater noise are considered to have a moderate adverse effect on fish. Measures to minimise any effects are the same as those for marine mammals described previously. With the implementation of these measures the residual impact is predicted to be minor adverse. Minor adverse impacts were identified from habitat loss during the dredging of the approach channel and berthing pocket. No measures are considered possible for this loss. Construction and operational lighting has the potential to result in a minor adverse impact to fish, in particular to migratory fish. Measures to prevent / minimise light spillage onto the river will reduce this potential impact.

5.5 Marine archaeology

A geoarchaeological assessment of the sediments of the reclamation area and approach channel was undertaken to determine the presence of any features of archaeological interest. The potential impacts of the scheme on the key archaeological features were assessed and appropriate mitigation measures put forward to reduce the level of these impacts. For the key features identified the impact following mitigation is considered to be negligible. Mitigation measures comprise the development of a protocol for archaeological finds to be agreed with English Heritage and a Stage 3 assessment is to be performed on core sample V-R07, the results of which will determine any requirement for an archaeological watching brief to be conducted in the area from which this core was taken. All mitigation will be in accordance with appropriate Institute for Archaeologists guidelines and approved in advance with statutory consultees through a Written Scheme of Investigation.



6 POTENTIAL FOR CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

In addition to the identification of the potential impacts from the proposed scheme in isolation, the EIA Regulations require that an assessment must be made of the potential for cumulative effects to arise. This considers the potential impacts from the proposed scheme cumulatively with other plans or projects that are within the planning / marine licencing processes. Based upon the available information at the time of writing the ES, no potentially significant cumulative effects were identified.



7 IMPLICATIONS FOR DESIGNATED STATUS OF EUROPEAN SITES

Information presented in various sections of the ES has been prepared to inform Natural England (as the statutory advisor to Government on nature conservation and the implications of development on European sites) as to the potential of the proposed scheme to affect designates sites. Section 12 of the ES draws this information together and presents an assessment of the potential impact with respect to the interest features of the relevant sites. The information presented in this section is intended to assist the Competent Authority and Natural England in their considerations of the implications of the scheme under the Habitats Regulations. Under the Conservation of Natural Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, it is also necessary to assess the potential for in combination effects of the proposed plan or project with other plans or projects when considering the implications of development on a European site. The assessment has shown that with the proposed mitigation measures in place the proposed scheme is considered unlikely to result in a likely significant effect on the interest features of the designated sites in-isolation, or in-combination with planned/proposed developments within the surrounding area.



8 ASSESSMENT UNDER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE

The Water Framework Directive (WFD) establishes a legal framework to protect and restore clean water across Europe to ensure its long-term, sustainable use. If applies to waters out to one nautical mile from the baseline from which territorial waters are drawn. The Environment Agency is the competent authority for the WFD in England and Wales. The WFD assessment identified a number of potential impacts to WFD parameters. Where necessary, mitigation measures have been identified which are considered to prevent any deterioration in status. As such, it is concluded that all of the WFD Environmental Objectives have been met for the proposed scheme.



9 REFERENCES

ABPmer (2005). Seaforth River Terminal and Channel Deepening: Environmental Statement. Report produced for Mersey Docks and Harbour Company. Reference R/3398/7. July 2005 ABPmer (2006). Seaforth River Terminal and Channel Deepening: Environmental Statement Supplementary Information. ABPmer report No. R.1255a March 2006 Royal Haskoning (2012). Liverpool 2 and River Mersey Approach Channel Dredging Environmental Scoping Report. A report for the Mersey Docks and harbour Company. April 2012.

Documents

Liverpool 2 and River Mersey Approach Channel Dredging · Demand for the new facility is quite clear. Around 4 million TEU’s (50%+) of cargo enter or leave the British Isles for