< > Glossary & References / Book List / B93 Wetlands, Industry & Wildlife - a manual of principles and practices / Text Sections:

Wetlands, Industry & Wildlife - a manual of principles and practices
Click here for CONTENTS Page - or use the arrows above to flick through the book

No part of this publication may be reproduced without the prior written permission of the publisher;
for contact details see Title Page -

Chapter 17 - Non-operational land

17.1 Potential constraints associated with non-operational land
17.1.1 Future land requirements
17.1.2 Staff perception of non-operational land
17.1.3   Contamination
17.2 Attracting wildlife to non operational land
Feature 17.1
Feature 17.2
Feature 17.3

All but the smallest industrial sites include areas, which have no operational functions and could be enhanced or managed to encourage wildlife. Interim uses, such as nature conservation, are particularly appropriate on areas of land retained to act as buffers from potentially conflicting land-uses and on areas for which there are no plans for development in the medium term. Areas where development is difficult, such as awkwardly shaped corners, poorly drained sites, derelict sites and the periphery of a site, are all potentially suitable for wildlife. Nature conservation should be seen as a means of putting these often forgotten corners to good use. The very fact that land has no functional use may suggest to some that it should be sold off, but the PR benefits gained from converting it into a wildlife area may well outweigh its value as real estate. Industrial sites often have the advantage of being enclosed by security fences, limiting human disturbance, and offering a safe haven, even for shy wildlife.

Return to top of page

17.1 Potential constraints associated with non-operational land

The constraints associated with non-operational land vary from site to site. Some will have none of consequence, offering the wetland designer a free rein to create something of real value to wildlife.

Return to top of page

17.1.1 Future land requirements

As discussed in section 2.5 (Chapter 2 - Industry, wetlands and wildlife), probably the main factor inhibiting companies from encouraging wildlife on their land is the fear that this may in some way jeopardise future operational use. Many companies will produce five, ten or even twenty-year development plans which indicate the likely need to utilise particular areas of land. Such plans can be used as an indication of the time-span over which an interim use can be applied and therefore the appropriate level of investment. On some sites local conditions might make the creation of wetlands a simple affair, such as where water-tables are very close to the surface or the substrate is composed of an impermeable clay. In such cases it may be legitimate to create wetlands even if their future prospects cannot be guaranteed beyond five years. If, however, the additional expense of a liner is required, it may be unrealistic to create anything more than a small pond unless its future can be guaranteed for a longer period.

Of greater concern than expense are the implications of potentially having to destroy a wetland of wildlife interest if operational requirements change. If the site in question is within view of the public, then the PR message should be carefully considered. It will obviously be important to gain the support of potential lobbying groups, such as the county wildlife trust, before embarking upon such a project (see Feature 17.1). Support and understanding will be greatest where there are likely to be opportunities in the local area to create alternative wetlands if the site in question is needed for operational purposes. The ethics of creating habitats which, possibly have only a temporary life-span should also be considered. The creation of wetlands for less mobile species, such as amphibians, should not be promoted unless there is a good chance that an alternative habitat can be provided for them if necessary. Mobile species such as migratory birds, by contrast, are better adapted to cope with changes in habitat distribution. See also 2.5.(Chapter 2 - Industry, wetlands and wildlife).

Return to top of page

17.1.2 Staff perception of non-operational land

Corners of sites that have no operational use and are generally out of view are often used as dumping grounds. It is, therefore, important that everyone involved with a site is informed when such areas are adopted as wildlife areas so that they respect them as such. Several areas within Shell's 720 ha Stanlow complex have recently been designated as wildlife areas and will be identified on the ground by signs, while margins bordering roads are to be defined with post and rail fencing. Noticeboards and corporate magazines and news-sheets are other obvious means of bringing such changes to the attention of the workforce.

Return to top of page

17.1.3 Contamination.

As discussed in 16.1.1(c) (Chapter 16 - Reclaiming industrial land), derelict sites might be contaminated, in which case treatment of the contaminants and the ethics of attracting wildlife must be considered.

Return to top of page

17.2 Attracting wildlife to non-operational land

Theoretically, an area of non-operational land is like any other land being considered for wetland creation or enhancement. Flat and low-lying sites, in particular, should offer the potential to create a wide range of wetlands. Industrial complexes are often located on flat land by the coast or adjacent to rivers. In such situations there are often associated wetland habitats, such as ditches and saltmarshes, that can act as reservoirs from which wetland plants and animals can colonise new habitats. Chapters 3 to 10 should help to guide any discussion of the potential options.

When judging the suitability of an area of non-operational land for wetland creation, certain factors should be given particular attention:

1) Technical considerations.

The ease and expense associated with creating a wetland.

2) Operational considerations.

The current use of the site and surrounding areas. Implications of any medium and long-term plans for the site.

3) Wildlife considerations.

Existing wildlife interest. The likely potential for creating good wildlife habitat and the implications of any constraints.

4) Other benefits.

The ease with which the public could be allowed onto the site to appreciate, at first hand, the company's good work. Potential benefits from improved visual amenity for staff, visitors and people viewing the site from outside. Accessibility to staff who might wish to. visit during lunch hours.

There are many examples of companies with wetlands, from small ponds to intricately designed wader scrapes, occupying their non-operational land. The two sites featured in this section demonstrate admirably how, with a little forethought, wildlife can be encouraged without interfering with operational requirements. The ICI Brinefields (Feature 17.2) illustrate an industrial process which is spread over a large area, and supports a matrix of areas available to wildlife amongst the operational structures. Tophill Low (Feature 17.3) illustrates how a company has converted the neglected corners of a site into features of wildlife interest which the public are encouraged to come and admire.

Return to top of page

Feature 17.1 Portrack Sewage Treatment Works, Cleveland (Northumbrian Water)

Portrack Sewage Treatment Works lie on a 24.8 ha site adjacent to the River Tees that has historically been occupied by marshland. The potential wildlife value of the non-operational part of the site was recognised not long after the construction of the works began in 1980. There was a series of shallow pools on this land, ideally suited to a variety of waders and other waterbirds. The wildlife interest of this site has been promoted by Northumbrian Water Limited (NWL) since the early 1980s, with appropriate site management undertaken by the Tees Ringing Group with the help of other local conservation groups.

In the early 1990s a more rigorous discharge consent was applied to the site, requiring the works to be up-graded. The necessary additional secondary treatment facilities required extra land which meant encroaching upon the marshland area. At about the same time the northern margin of this spare land was given to one of NWL's subsidiary companies to develop as the site for an incinerator (which, in the event, has not received planning permission on the grounds that the facility is not required). The combined effect of these two proposals was to reduce the size of the wildlife area from c.13.5 ha to c.4.5 ha. However, the company were keen that the remnant land should be used to retain the existing wildlife interest. The design of the modified works was very compact and arranged such that the loss of open water was minimised. In addition, new areas of open water were excavated elsewhere on the remaining area of non-operational land to compensate for the losses; the total area of standing water may now actually be larger than it had been prior to the improvements, while the inclusion of islands in the main Pool A (see Figure 17.1) should make them more attractive to breeding waterfowl. Some of the spoil resulting from this excavation work has been used to create an earth platform and screened approach for a viewing hide.

While the recent conservation works are likely to raise the profile of the site's wildlife interest, NWL has retained the option to develop the site. The company uses a number of mechanisms to ensure that other interested parties are aware of their attitude towards the site. On the ground, interpretative signs are to be elected at strategic points where the public can view the site. In addition, the company has actively involved local organisations with an interest in nature conservation. A 'Wildlife Advisory Group' has been set up, consisting of representatives of organisations such as Cleveland Wildlife Trust, Cleveland INCA (see 2.5 (Chapter 2 - Industry, wetlands and wildlife)) and English Nature. The terms of reference of this group are specified as set out below:

i) to advise on the development and management of Portrack Marsh;

ii) to formulate and update a Conservation Management Plan for Portrack Marsh;

iii) to advise on the implementation of the Conservation Management Plan;

iv) to report annually to NWL.

The members of the group have endorsed a management plan that clearly states: "Much of the area may be required.for future extension of the treatment works to comply with any new water quality standards". In addition, NWL can use the forum to keep members aware of any proposals that might affect the site. Thus, should the need to develop the site arise, all parties should be sympathetic to NWL's requirements.

Figure 17.1 The layout of Portrack Marshes before and after a major modernisation scheme implemented at Portrack Sewage Treatment Works during 1992-93.
Click Illustration for full-page view

Return to top of page

Feature 17.2 North Tees Brinefields, Cleveland (ICI)

ICI has been extracting salt in the Teesside area since about 1950, for use in its chemical plants. Its current operation extends over c.151 ha of low-lying land that has been reclaimed from the Tees Estuary over the last hundred years. The salt deposits, c.300 m below the surface, are abstracted by pumping in water and removing saturated brine (26% sodium chloride). Up to 1.3 million m³ of brine is removed annually from the field. Some of the underground cavities left by this process are used to store hydrocarbons which are pumped from the nearby chemical plants and refineries. Some of the brine is stored in reservoirs to provide a displacement medium for retrieval of the hydrocarbons.

The infrastructure associated with the brining operations occupy only a small proportion of the total area; the flat, low-lying land is crisscrossed with pipelines and access tracks and dotted with occasional well-heads. Amongst these man-made structures is a variety of wetland habitats: pools of various sizes, reedbeds, swards rich in orchids, ditches and extensive areas of grazing marsh. Of particular interest are the scattered pools, which tend to vary in salinity from brackish to highly saline, owing to brine spilling from the well-heads. These pools support a rich saltmarsh community; 20 different species of halophytic plant have been recorded on brinefields 4 and 5, having colonised presumably from the nearby Tees Estuary. The pools are also very attractive to waders; thirty-five species have been recorded. The wader species found feeding on pools vary according to their salinity. Some pools are hyper-saline and support a very limited range of invertebrates confined to chironomids and brineflies (Ephydra, Diptera). However, these insects are very abundant during the summer months and can provide a valuable food source for some of the smaller waders, such as Ringed Plover, Dunlin and Little Stint. Larger wader species generally prefer larger prey which can be found on less saline pools, thus reducing competition between species. Good numbers of waders nest on the site; surveys in the late 1980s found maxima of 8 pairs of Redshank, 25 pairs of Lapwing, 22 pairs of Ringed Plover, a single pair of Oystercatcher and occasional pairs of Snipe (83 (Appendix 11 - Selected references and further reading)). The site is the most important in Cleveland for Ringed Plover which nest on a variety of artificialsites, including bare, stony areas around pools, hardcore around the well-heads, and unsurfaced gravel roads. As well as supporting a high density of Ringed Plovers, studies suggest that nest survival is higher than average, presumably owing to the lack of human disturbance and the absence of tidal flooding which are a feature of many more natural sites.

The extraction of the brine makes the land liable to subsidence (which is the source of some of the pools) and consequently unsuitable for building development. In recognition of this constraint, together with the site's wildlife interest, ICI have started to implement active conservation measures in line with the broad ranging Company Environmental Standards. Based on the various ecological studies undertaken on the brinefields, a range of conservation action points have been drawn up:

1) Wherever possible, operations are planned to avoid damaging or disturbing the important saltmarsh flora.

2) Wetlands and salinity gradients are maintained by controlled releases of fresh water and brine. New wetlands have been designed to maximise the benefits of having a variety of salinities.

3) Roads and hard core areas are kept to a minimum to limit the loss of habitat.

4) Where access roads and hard core are essential, they are left unsurfaced and with a substrate chosen to maximise their attractiveness to nesting Ringed Plovers, Oystercatchers and Common Terns.

5) All nests found on the site are marked to prevent them from being accidentally destroyed.

6) Grading and road maintenance are carried out in late summer in order to minimise disturbance to nesting birds.

7) Opportunities are sought to add features for wildlife (e.g. islands were created for breeding Common Terns in 1993).

Since 1990, a further brinefield (Number 6) has been developed, which has enabled the company to consider the ecological implications of the process right through from the design stages. An ecologically-based management plan was drawn up for the field prior to development, in consultation with various outside organisations. Not only has this ensured that the new field will be of maximum value to wildlife, it has also avoided costly planning delays and enhanced the Company's environmental reputation. The new brinefield contains a greater area of wetlands than existed before development started. The latest innovation associated with this enlightened scheme has been to re-establish a tidal regime around the well-heads in one operational area, providing valuable additional habitat for waders. In the longer term, the intention is to turn over large areas of this land to nature conservation once the brining operations cease. In 1993, ICI was presented an award by the Royal Town Planning Institute for its environmental work associated with the development of Number 6 Brinefield.

View across part of ICI's North Tees Brinefields showing the matrix of infrastructure and wetland habitats
Click Photo for full-page view

Return to top of page

Feature 17.3 Tophill Low Water Treatment Works, East Yorkshire (Yorkshire Water Services)

Tophill Low Water Treatment Works not only supply water to the City of Hull but now also offer an excellent wetland nature reserve. The 110 ha site occupies a narrow strip of low- lying land sandwiched between the Barniston Drain and the River Hull. The main features of the site are two concrete-walled reservoirs, which were completed in 1959. Two filter washwater lagoons (described in Feature 12.4 (Chapter 12 - Silt storage lagoons)) and some clay pits provided, until very recently, the only other wetland habitat on the site.

The wildlife interest of Tophill Low has been recognised for many years. Lying close to the east coast of England, the expanse of open water has proved a magnet for migrant birds; a total of over 240 bird species has been recorded. The potential appeal of the site to migrant birds is amply demonstrated by a concentration of over 250 feeding Ruff that took advantage of the bed of a drained reservoir in September 1993. The reservoirs, despite their artificial walls and contours, have, in fact, been notified as a SSSI in recognition of their wildfowl interest. The extensive arable farmland surrounding the site provides feeding for dabbling ducks that roost on the reservoirs, while the shallower 'D' reservoir (c.3.8 m deep) provides a feeding area for large numbers of diving ducks (including up to 800 Tufted Duck). The extent and variety of the wetland complex also makes it of value for other groups of wildlife. An area used for small scale, ad hoc clay extraction, known as East Pond, supports 13 species of Odonata, including the scarce Red-eyed Damselfly and Black Darter, while two locally scarce water plants Greater Spearwort and Nodding Bur-marigold - grow in the South Marshes and washwater lagoons.

In the 1970s a member of staff from Yorkshire Water, together with keen volunteers, formed the Tophill Low Wildlife Group to encourage the development of the site for wildlife. Early projects carried out by the group included flooding a marginal area by blocking a drain and modifying the washwater lagoons. After many years of volunteer input by the Wildlife Group, Yorkshire Water decided that nature conservation should be given a higher profile on the site.

The opportunity to carry out a major habitat creation project presented itself when the NRA came to Yorkshire Water needing clay to carry out flood defence works along the adjacent river. It was agreed that the NRA could extract clay from specified areas within the site and, in lieu of payment, they would re-grade the excavations to form new wetland wildlife habitats. Various fairly large, but irregular-shaped blocks of land towards the periphery of the site were chosen as they offered little potential from an operational standpoint and little value in terms of real estate. The work was carried out between 1990 and 1993, resulting in the formation of the North Marsh, the re-design and enlargement of the South Marsh and further improvements to the filter washwater lagoons. The largest component of these works was the excavation of the two blocks that make up the large, shallow South Marsh. The East block lies on a peaty substrate which made excavation and land-forming difficult. Around the edge is a ring-fence ditch, c.2m deep and c.4 m wide, which prevents the planted Common Reed on the fringe from spreading, while the shallow centre has been formed into a system of ridges and furrows. The value of this new habitat to birds soon became apparent; in 1993 it supported about five pairs of breeding Pochard, at least six pairs of Tufted Duck and a pair of Shelduck. The West block was created in an area that had previously been tipped with clay spoil and planted up with conifers that were of little value to wildlife. This shallow scrape still retains a clay bed over much of its surface area; straw has been introduced to help to develop an organic layer in order to increase the density of invertebrate prey for waders, such as the breeding Little Ringed Plovers. The deeper North Marsh should provide additional habitat for Odonata as well as nesting birds.

Wanting to capitalise on the wildlife potential of the improved site, Yorkshire Water sought the advice of the RSPB on visitor access and facilities, and wardening requirements. As a result of these recommendations, Yorkshire Water increased the quota of hides around the site to nine and, early in 1993, took the enlightened step of appointing a full-time warden to look after the, wildlife habitats and deal with visitors. Schools will be encouraged to visit and the general public allowed to purchase permits giving them access to the trails and hides and helping to offset the cost of employing a warden. In October of that year a splendid new nature reserve was opened.

Aerial view of Tophill Low Water Treatment Works showing how wetlands have been incorporated into most of the marginal areas of the site.
Click Photo for full-page view

Return to top of page