Ecology Clause Samples

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. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ML (1995) Species Diversity in Space and Time (Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge, UK).

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. The ecological resources recorded within the Study Area include secondary woodland, shrubland, stream, channel, pond, ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ with backshore vegetation, village/modified area, mangrove, ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ and artificial/ disturbed shoreline, as well as subtidal soft and hard bottom and associated wildlife. Of these habitats, mangrove has high ecological value, secondary woodland has moderate to high ecological value and shrubland has moderate ecological value. The remaining habitats are of low to low to moderate ecological value. A total of 3 coral species (including Oulastrea crispate, Cyphastrea serailia and Psammocora superficialis), which considered as common species in Hong Kong and 20 terrestrial species of conservation interest were recorded within the Study Area, including 2 plant species (Red Azalea and Incense Tree), 4 bird species (Black Kite, White-bellied Sea Eagle, Osprey and Created Goshawk), 13 uncommon butterfly species (▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇, Common Nawab, Danaid Egg- fly, Dark Evening ▇▇▇▇▇, Great Swift, Indian Palm ▇▇▇, Painted Jezebel, Plain Tiger, Silver Streak Blue, South China ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇, Tailed Sulphur, White-edged Blue Baron and Yellow Orange Tip) and one reptile species (Common Rat Snake). The Proposed Beach Development will be located mainly in low quality habitats, including village/modified area, ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ with backshore vegetation and channel. The potential construction and operational impacts on the natural habitats are considered to be low. The corals within the Study Area and area in the vicinity would not subject to any direct loss (due to construction works) or indirect loss (due to change of water quality). No adverse residual impacts are expected after the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures. The measures include the adoption of good cons truction practices and provision of mangrove seedling planting. These measures will reduce potential disturbance to the surrounding environment. Environmental monitoring and audit measures in form of regular checks as part of the site inspections will also be undertaken.

Ecology. ‌ 9.1.1 In accordance to EIA report findings, within the project area there is no recognized sites of conservation importance, or important habitats, and no species of conservation importance is identified. Thus, it is concluded from the EIA Report Chapter 10 that the ecological impacts arose from the project would be negligible. 9.1.2 Some tree felling and transplantation will be required in areas of urban parkland or amenity plantation, but these will be mitigated by compensatory planting as described in details in the Landscape and Visual Impacts section (EIA Report Chapter 8) of the EIA report. The EM & A requirements are mentioned in Chapter 8 of this manual.

Ecology. As the existing land use and environmental setting of the works area is highly urbanised with no natural habitat, no ecological impact is anticipated.

Ecology. Ecological surveys of the proposed works area and adjacent areas (the Study Area) were conducted on 3rd April, 2nd July and 19th November 2002. The surveys consisted of the following aspects:

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. The site for the effluent reuse facilities and the associated distribution system has been covered by the ecological field survey and ecological impact assessment conducted for Ngong Ping STP and Sewerage Environmental Impact Assessment (EIAO Register No. AEIAR- 065/2002) approved in November 2002. The effluent reuse facilities would all be located within the boundary of the Ngong Ping STP site and the alignment of the associated distribution piping would be along existing roads. No habitat with ecological values was identified within the site for the effluent reuse facilities and the associated distribution