barnby moor quarry - nottinghamshire county council

Prepared by

AECOM Royal Court Basil Close

Chesterfield Derbyshire

S41 7SL

January 2017

Barnby Moor Quarry

Environmental Scoping Report

NCC RECEIVED 09/01/2017

AECOM Barnby Moor Quarry

Environmental Scoping Report January 2017

Revision Schedule

Barnby Moor Quarry

Project: 60522418

Rev Date Details Prepared by Reviewed by Approved by

01 January 2017 Submission Chris Nicoll Principal Planner (Minerals and Waste)

Imogen Scotney Planning Consultant (Minerals and Waste)

Chris Nicoll Principal Planner (Minerals and Waste)


AECOM Barnby Moor Quarry ii


1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Preamble ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Referencing ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) ........................................................................................................................ 1 1.4 Purpose of this Report ..................................................................................................................................................... 1

2 Site and Surroundings........................................................................................................................................................... 3

2.1 Location and Land Use.................................................................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Topography ..................................................................................................................................................................... 3 2.3 Site & Planning History .................................................................................................................................................... 3 2.4 Geology ........................................................................................................................................................................... 3 2.5 Designations .................................................................................................................................................................... 3

3 Proposed Development ......................................................................................................................................................... 6

3.1 Scheme Outline ............................................................................................................................................................... 6 3.2 Reserves & Timescales ................................................................................................................................................... 6 3.3 Site Access ...................................................................................................................................................................... 6 3.4 Operational Works ........................................................................................................................................................... 7 3.5 Traffic Generation ............................................................................................................................................................ 7 3.6 Backfilling with Silt ........................................................................................................................................................... 7 3.7 Hours of Operation .......................................................................................................................................................... 7 3.8 Restoration ...................................................................................................................................................................... 7 3.9 Employment .................................................................................................................................................................... 8 3.10 Use of Resources ............................................................................................................................................................ 8 4 Baseline Environmental Conditions ..................................................................................................................................... 9

4.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................................... 9 4.2 Agriculture and Soils ....................................................................................................................................................... 9 4.3 Landscape and Visual ..................................................................................................................................................... 9 4.4 Transport ....................................................................................................................................................................... 10 4.5 Natural Heritage (Ecology) ............................................................................................................................................ 10 4.6 Noise & Vibration ........................................................................................................................................................... 13 4.7 Archaeology and Cultural Heritage ................................................................................................................................ 13 4.8 Air Quality/Dust ............................................................................................................................................................. 13 4.9 Hydrology and Hydrogeology ........................................................................................................................................ 13

5 Potential Environmental Effects of the Scheme ................................................................................................................ 14

5.1 General.......................................................................................................................................................................... 14 5.2 Soil Resources .............................................................................................................................................................. 14 5.3 Landscape and Visual ................................................................................................................................................... 14 5.4 Transport ....................................................................................................................................................................... 14 5.5 Natural Heritage (Ecology) ............................................................................................................................................ 14 5.6 Noise & Vibration ........................................................................................................................................................... 14 5.7 Archaeology and Cultural Heritage ................................................................................................................................ 15 5.8 Hydrology (including Flood Risk) ................................................................................................................................... 15 5.9 Hydrogeology ................................................................................................................................................................ 15 5.10 Air Quality (Dust) ........................................................................................................................................................... 15 5.11 Community, Socio Economic and Amenity Considerations ........................................................................................... 15 5.12 Cumulative and Combined Effects ................................................................................................................................ 16

6 Proposed Weighting of EIA Topics .................................................................................................................................... 17 6.1 General.......................................................................................................................................................................... 17

Table of Contents


AECOM Barnby Moor Quarry iii


7 Proposed EIA Methodology ................................................................................................................................................ 19

7.1 General.......................................................................................................................................................................... 19 7.2 Environmental Assessment (topic by topic) ................................................................................................................... 19 7.3 Landscape and Visual ................................................................................................................................................... 19 7.4 Transport ....................................................................................................................................................................... 19 7.5 Natural Heritage (Ecology) ............................................................................................................................................ 20 7.6 Noise ............................................................................................................................................................................. 20 7.7 Archaeology and Cultural Heritage ................................................................................................................................ 20 7.8 Air Quality (Dust) ........................................................................................................................................................... 21 7.9 Hydrology (including Flood Risk) ................................................................................................................................... 21 7.10 Hydrogeology ................................................................................................................................................................ 21 7.11 Natural Heritage (Geology) ............................................................................................................................................ 21 7.12 Agriculture and Soils ..................................................................................................................................................... 21 7.13 Community, Socio Economic and Amenity Considerations ........................................................................................... 21 7.14 Cumulative and Combined Effects ................................................................................................................................ 22 7.15 Risk of Accidents ........................................................................................................................................................... 22 7.16 Transboundary Effects .................................................................................................................................................. 22

8 Environmental Statement .................................................................................................................................................... 23

8.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................... 23 8.2 Non-Technical Summary ............................................................................................................................................... 23 8.3 Main ES Text ................................................................................................................................................................. 23

Figures List of Appendices

Appendix A. Soils Baseline Survey Appendix B. Phase 1 Habitat Survey


AECOM Barnby Moor Quarry 1


1.1 Preamble

Hanson Quarry Products Europe Ltd (Hanson) is proposing the development of a new sand and gravel quarry on farmland at College Farm, Barnby Moor, north-west of Retford, Nottinghamshire as indicated on Figure SR.001.

The land has been identified as a potential extraction only site within the context of the emerging Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan. That is there will be no mineral processing facility, the mineral will be dug and loaded onto lorries for processing elsewhere.

Hanson has appointed AECOM to prepare and submit to Nottinghamshire County Council (NCC) a formal request for an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Scoping Opinion. This Scoping Report provides the background information to accompany that request.

1.2 Referencing

For referencing purposes the following definitions have been adopted and are utilised from this point onwards:

− “the Site” comprises the proposed red line planning application area of c. 43.7ha;

− the “proposed access” is the proposed new junction with the A638 via which all traffic would enter and exit the Site;

− “College Farm” (also referenced as Trinity College Farm) means the farm buildings and structures lying on the east side of the A638;

− “ECML” means the East Coast Main Line railway that runs close to the eastern boundary of the Site;

− “Main Drain” is the surface drainage ditch that lies in the eastern half of the Site which drains from south to north along a straight and apparently engineered route.

All these features are identified on Figures SR.002 or SR.003.

1.3 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)

The proposed application area falls above the 25ha threshold specified in Category 19 of Schedule 1 of the 2011 Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, making it likely for any forthcoming planning application to be accompanied by an Environmental Statement (ES).

Schedule 4 of the EIA Regulations requires an EIA to describe the ‘likely significant effects of the development on the environment’. The Planning Practice Guidance reiterates the submitted ES should consider only the main effects stating:

“[the ES] should be proportionate and not be any longer than is necessary to assess properly those effects. Where, for example, only one environmental factor is likely to be significantly affected, the assessment should focus on that issue only. Impacts which have little or no significance for the particular development in question will need only very brief treatment to indicate that their possible relevance has been considered.”

1.4 Purpose of this Report

Regulation 13 of the 2011 EIA Regulations allows a prospective applicant to request a formal EIA Scoping Opinion from the relevant planning authority. This scoping report therefore includes the information required to describe or explain:

− the Site and its surrounding;

1 Introduction




− the proposed development;

− the potential environmental effects of the proposed development;

− the matters which AECOM considers need to be included in the EIA (and the weighting to be attached to each) and those issues which can be “scoped out” because significant environmental effects are unlikely;

− the EIA methodology which AECOM proposes to adopt in relation to each matter to be assessed; and

− content and structure of the ES proposed by AECOM,

in order for NCC (and its consultees) to provide a suitable basis for the EIA Scoping Opinion to be adopted by the Authority.




2.1 Location and Land Use

The Site lies wholly within Bassetlaw District, Nottinghamshire, approximately 3.5km north-west of the town of Retford with its centre at Ordnance Survey Grid Reference (OSGR) SK 665854 (see Figure SR.001).

The Site occupies land adjacent College Farm and lies between the A638 Great North Road to the west and the ECML to the east. Land use is principally agricultural but also includes over 7ha used to grow willow coppice. College Farm includes a large number of farm buildings used for rearing pigs.

2.1.1 Proposed Planning Application Area

The Site includes a new access route off the A638, within the boundary of College Farm.

Other than the proposed access, the Site is defined by existing field boundaries comprising hedgerows or fencing, and includes the whole or part of nine arable fields. Mineral extraction is only proposed within the Proposed Mineral Extraction Boundary (black dashed line) inside the red line boundary with non-working standoffs from each boundary as indicated on Figure SR.002. Minimum standoffs of 150m between the limit of extraction and the closest residential properties are included.

Although the Ordnance Survey and historical maps make reference to a coppice named Bull Wood in the north of the Site no woodland now exists there. The land has the appearance of large scale arable agriculture with some horticulture, grazing and biofuel production (coppice wood). Some field boundaries include relatively sparse hedgerows that are species poor, others are mature and include significant numbers of trees.

Main Drain is the principle hydrological feature of the Site.

2.2 Topography

The Site lies at approximately 15m AOD along the western boundary with a gradual gradient falling towards the east and north to a low point around 5m AOD along the ECML. Average ground level is about 12m AOD.

2.3 Site & Planning History

There is no known relevant (minerals) planning history for the Site.

The Barnby Moor site has been allocated as a potential future mineral allocation in the Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan Submission Draft, with the adoption of the Plan scheduled to take place during 2017.

2.4 Geology

The sand and gravel deposit forms part of the flood plain of the River Idle and its tributaries which have been worked extensively for construction aggregates. Hanson reports that the area was prospected by drilling and sampling in the 1990s with a good quality resource identified.

2.5 Designations

Figure SR.003 shows land designations and features within the vicinity of the Site.

2 Site and Surroundings




2.5.1 Landscape

The Site is not located within any national or locally protected landscape designation.

2.5.2 Historic Environment

There are no World Heritage Sites, Scheduled Monuments, Registered Parks and Gardens or Historic Battlefields within 2 km of the Site. The nearest listed building is Ye Olde Bell Hotel in Barnby Moor, at a distance of 300m south of the Site. There are 8 listed buildings within 1.5km. Neither Barnby Moor nor Torworth are Conservation Areas.

Daneshill Lakes to the north-east of the ECML is a legacy feature of extensive sand and gravel extraction that took place in the 1980s along much of the eastern side of the railway known as the Tolworth and Steetley Ponds (amongst others). The Lakes are on land that comprised part of Ranskill Royal Ordnance Factory developed in WW2 and demolished in the late 1970s. Daneshill landfill site lying east of the LNR also occupies former sand and gravel workings.

2.5.3 Ecology

None of the Site is afforded statutory protection for habitats or wildlife.

Sites Afforded Statutory Protection in the Local Area

There are four statutory designated sites within 5 km of the Site. Three of these are sites of special scientific interest (SSSI) and are listed in Table 1 below. Scrooby Top SSSI is designated solely for geological reasons and is over 3 km from the Site and so does not need to be considered further in this report.

The other two SSSIs are designated for their wetland interest but are located more than 1 km from the Site; Sutton and Lound Gravel Pits SSSI is an extensive (over 300ha) wetland network of worked out and active sand and gravel pits; Mattersey Marsh SSSI is a lot smaller (4.9ha) but again former sand and gravel workings.

The fourth site is the Daneshill Lakes (Gravel Pit) Local Nature Reserve (LNR) and is located immediately east of the north east of the Site on the other side of the ECML. The Lakes are divided into two areas north and south.

Site name Designation Reason for Designation Relationship to Site

Mattersey Hill Marsh SSSI Fine example of neutral marsh and related plant communities on former sand and gravel workings

1.5km to the north east

Sutton and Lound Gravel Pits

SSSI Extensive areas of open water and margins which support an exceptionally rich assemblage of breeding wetland birds and a nationally important population of wintering gadwall. The site supports an exceptional diversity of breeding, wintering and passage birds.

2km to the south east

Scrooby Top Quarry SSSI Geological site only 3km to the north Daneshill Lakes (Gravel Pit) LNR Lakes are the dominant habitat with

associated wetlands important for over-wintering waterfowl. Range of other species groups; birds, amphibians, grass snake, bats, dragonflies and butterflies, other invertebrates, mosses and liverworts

50m to the east

Table 1. Statutory Designated Sites

Sites with Non-Statutory Protection in the Local Area

There is only one non-statutory site within 1 km of the Site boundary. This is Daneshill Lakes and Woodland Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) and its southernmost point is located immediately east of the north-east of the Site on the other side of the ECML. The southern part of the SINC is also the Daneshill Lakes (Gravel Pit) LNR described above and the northern part is managed by Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust as a Nature Reserve.




The SINC is described as a very rich mosaic of woodland, marsh and aquatic habitats on old sand and gravel workings. It is of note for both its plant and animal communities, particularly aquatic beetles and bugs.

Geological

There are no statutory designated sites of geological importance within 2 km of the Site.

2.5.4 Water Environment

There are no natural rivers or streams within the Site; the Main Drain is the only water feature within the Site. A long narrow linear water body lies on the west side of the ECML (within its fenced boundary) and outside the Site.

The Environment Agency (EA) website identifies that the Site falls mainly within Flood Zone 1 (flooding is very unlikely), with the route of Main Drain identified as Flood Zone 3 (at risk from flooding).

The sand and gravel deposit is identified by the EA website as a Secondary A aquifer (capable of supporting supplies locally rather than strategically).

The underlying Nottingham Castle Sandstone Formation is part of the Sherwood Sandstone Group and is a principal aquifer.

2.5.5 Air Quality

The Site does not fall within an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA).

2.5.6 Green Belt

The Site does not fall within the Green Belt.

2.5.7 Recreation

There are no known public rights of way (PRoW) across the Site or close to the boundary. The Great North Road includes a footpath on its western side.

2.5.8 Planning

The Barnby Moor site has been allocated as a potential future mineral allocation in the Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan Submission Draft.




3.1 Scheme Outline

For EIA purposes the scheme will include:

− construction of a new access ‘T’ junction with the A638 Great North Road (to appropriate highway standards) and access road into the quarry;

− siting of portable office;

− development of the quarry in a phased manner to minimise the area of disturbance, based on an extraction of sand and gravel at a rate of up to 250,000 tonnes per annum (tpa);

− soils stripping and on-site storage of all soils in temporary perimeter screening bunds (banks);

− no on-site mineral processing or ancillary development other than potentially dry screening (e.g. no mineral washing, concrete batching plant, etc.);

− no dewatering undertaken, with some excavation below the water table by use of a long reach excavator;

− all departing HGVs carrying sand and gravel to depart northwards;

− progressive restoration including soil placement to agriculture and biodiversity, and

− a 5 year period of aftercare;

3.2 Reserves & Timescales

Site investigation has identified the sand and gravel to average over 2m thick overlain by a soil and overburden horizon of about 0.4m. Preliminary assessment identifies the resource amounts to a potential 975,000 million tonnes. An average annual extraction rate of up to 250,000 tpa is predicted, therefore it is likely that extraction will take place over 4-5 years, followed by aftercare (initiated on a phase by phase basis).

3.3 Site Access

A number of access options off the A638 have been considered including traversing through College Farm or constructing a new access and haul route across the open fields to the south or north of College Farm. A route through College Farm is considered to have the lowest overall level of impact (following mitigation) in terms of visibility, landscape, ecology and archaeology.

All departing mineral traffic will travel to the north to Hanson’s Auckley processing site. Therefore all such HGV traffic would only turn left into and right out of the access.

Although it attracts only a low density of traffic, an assessment of the design standard (width and sightlines) of the existing access into College Farm, indicates that it does not meet modern highway junction requirements for the speed limit on the road and the type of use proposed (The Highways Agency Design Manual for Roads and Bridges requires a 215m by 2.4m sightline in each direction and width for two way HGV traffic). Although the A638 is relatively straight, a slight bend in the carriageway some 200m to the north creates a small impediment to meeting the required standard due to the proximity of the hedgeline to the kerb.

Upgrading the junction would require widening and removal (and replanting) of up to 100m of hedgerows and the felling of some mature trees, in particularly a group of three significant oak and sycamore adjacent the existing access junction.

3 Proposed Development




The draft scheme therefore proposes to construct a new access off the A638 in the location indicated on Figure SR.002. A preliminary design indicates an access can be provided to standard with lesser impacts on hedgerows and trees. The area around the new access will be landscape planted to screen views into College Farm.

The access haul road would thereafter be routed to the east avoiding the pig rearing sheds and passing to the north of the large manure silo. The route will be landscape planted to provide visual screening and improve habitat diversity..

3.4 Operational Works

It is expected all excavation and site works will be undertaken with the standard range of earth moving equipment employed at sand and gravel sites, e.g. loading shovels and dump trucks.

Soil stripping will be undertaken to separate topsoil from subsoils for appropriate reuse in restoration. Temporary soil storage bunds will be formed progressively along sensitive boundaries (those in the direction or adjoining residential properties) to aid visual and noise screening. No advance planting (ahead of planning determination) is proposed at this stage.

Groundwater monitoring data collected to date (see section 4.9) suggests the majority of the mineral can be worked dry. It is not anticipated that localised groundwater dewatering will be undertaken, a long reach excavator will be utilised where required.

3.5 Traffic Generation

All excavated mineral output will leave the Site by lorry northwards for delivery to Hanson’s Auckley site east of Doncaster for processing and onward sale.

Based on an output of 250,000 tpa the expected trip generation would amount to about 38 departures per day (76 movements) Monday to Friday and 19 on a Saturday (assuming a 50 week working year).

No lorries will be parked at the Site outside working hours.

Employee, contractors and maintenance vehicle numbers are expected to be minor, e.g. 2-6 per day.

3.6 Backfilling with Silt

Mineral processing (washing and screening) will only take place at Hanson’s Auckley quarry. The processing produces silt that is stored in lagoons and allowed to dry. The silt material will then occasionally be returned by HGV to the Site for use in backfilling the worked out void and otherwise in restoration.

By utilising a return load system the transport of silt materials will not generate any additional lorry traffic.

3.7 Hours of Operation

The proposed hours of working are:

− 07.00 to 17.30 hours, Mondays to Fridays; and

− 07.00 to 13.00 hours on Saturdays,

with no working to take place at any time on Sundays or Public Holidays.

Water pumping will be required to take place when needed on a 24hrs, 365 days per year basis.

3.8 Restoration

Like many of the sand and gravel quarries in Nottinghamshire, restoration of the Site will create great potential for biodiversity and local amenity gain. The existing open arable land will be fully restored to a mix of agriculture and biodiversity afteruses, including the provision of one or more waterbodies and wet woodland. The scale and detail of the restoration scheme will be




subject to detailed consideration of the ecological and hydrogeological information collected through the EIA data collection and scheme drafting stage and from consultation with stakeholders.

The biodiversity proposals will take account of the NCC Idle Lowlands County Landscape Character Area list of common local tree and shrub species and will be progressed through consultation with NCC and other consultees at the pre-application stage.

Areas of completed restoration will be managed by Hanson for a minimum 5 year aftercare period as required by mineral planning policy. An extension of the period is likely to be the subject of negotiation with NCC, Hanson and landowners.

3.9 Employment

The Site is predicted to employ 2-3 full time staff plus contracted hauliers for the transport of mineral off-site.

3.10 Use of Resources

The use of resources is anticipated to be limited to:

− the construction of the proposed access;

− functioning of the office facility; and

− fuel used by mobile plant.




4.1 Introduction

This section provides an overview of the baseline environmental conditions of the Site. The known environmental features and characteristics of the Site and its surrounding area are summarised below. The likely environmental effects and proposed weighting are described in Section 5. The proposed weighting of individual EIA topics and the proposed scope of the EIA methodology is detailed in Sections 6 and 7 respectively.

4.2 Agriculture and Soils

An Agricultural Land Classification (ALC) and Soil Resource Survey has been undertaken on behalf of Hanson in April 2014 including hand auger sampling following a one hectare grid pattern, and trial pits of representative profiles (see Appendix A).

Two soil types have been mapped comprising 32-36 cm of well drained slightly stony sandy loam topsoils over sandy, stony and sometimes clayey subsoils of varying thickness but at least 50 cm. Some lower subsoils are almost undifferentiated from the underlying sand and gravel mineral.

In conclusion the ALC grading is restricted by droughtiness with sub-grades 3a and 3b present across the Site in roughly equal extent. Both soils types were found in the ALC sub-grade 3a and 3b areas.

4.3 Landscape and Visual

4.3.1 Landscape Character

The A638 forms the boundary between landscape character areas, but it falls within National Character Area (NCA) 39 Humberhead Levels and Idle Lowlands Policy Zone (IL PZ) 10 - Ranskill.

The relevant key characteristics of the Humberhead Levels are as follows:

− a low-lying, predominantly flat landscape, with large, regular and geometric arable fields without hedges but divided by ditches and dykes, many of which form important habitats and key corridors for species movement.

− much of the land is at or below mean high-water mark and maintained by drainage, with fertile soils giving rise to one of the most productive areas for root crops and cereals.

− variations in underlying deposits create differences within the overall flat farmed landscape, including lowland raised mires and lowland heathland, many of which are of international ecological and historical importance.

− sandy deposits give rise to remnant lowland heaths which in places support remnant birch and oak woodlands, with some conifer plantations.

− widespread evidence of drainage history, in particular the extensive drainage from the 17th century, revealed through canalised rivers, dykes, old river courses, canals, bridges and pumping stations.

− views to distant horizons are often long and unbroken, with big expansive skies, and vertical elements like water towers, power stations and wind turbines are very prominent.

− floodplains, washlands and traditionally grazed alluvial flood meadows (or Ings) associated with the major rivers and canals that cross the Levels give rise to important wetland habitats, supporting large numbers of wetland birds and wildfowl, especially over winter.

− the waterlogged soils hold internationally important archaeological and palaeo-archaeological deposits.

− despite settlements, motorways and main roads, there is still a sense of remoteness to be experienced on the Levels, in particular on Thorne and Hatfield Moors and along the lower Derwent valley.

4 Baseline Environmental Conditions




The relevant key characteristics of Idle Lowlands Policy Zone 10 are as follows:

− open arable farmland with some pastoral; divided by hedgerows with interlocking woodland.

− reclaimed extraction pits; now valuable wildlife and recreational resources.

− isolated farmsteads; farmhouses of red brick construction.

− Doncaster to Newark railway.

Mineral extraction is recognised as a force for change in the area by NCA 39; an opportunity is identified for restoration of these sites (existing and future) in order to make a positive contribution to local landscape character and biodiversity.

4.3.2 Views

In the absence of PRoW across or near to the Site the principle views of the Site will likely be obtained from:

− residential properties around the boundary (most likely from first floor windows because the majority of the development will be at ground level or below);

− passing views from the A638;

− passing views from trains on the ECML;

− the potential for views from the southern end of Daneshill Lakes LNR.

4.4 Transport

In the absence of a technical assessment at this stage The Great North Road at this point appears to meet appropriate highway design standard, is in a good state of repair and to operate well below design capacity limits.

4.5 Natural Heritage (Ecology)

On behalf of Hanson, AECOM has undertaken a baseline ecological assessment of the Site and immediate surrounding area including desk based review and Phase 1 habitat survey based on walkover survey (see Appendix B).

The main findings of the desk based review and Phase 1 habitat survey work are:

− the habitats most likely to be sensitive to the scheme are the mature hedgerows and drainage ditches, some of which will be removed;

− the arable land and improved grassland is considered of low biodiversity value; and

− there is the potential for some protected and notable species to be present as summarised in Table 2 below.

4.5.1 Protected and Notable Species

Desk study records of protected or notable species within 1km of the boundary of the Site are summarised in Table 2 below. Based on the records and the habitats present, it assesses the likelihood of species occurring on the Site. Where a species is considered likely or probable, the requirement for further survey to identify the presence or absence of the species on Site is recommended (see section 7).




Species

Hab

itat R

eqs

UK

Prio

rity

spp.

W&

C A

ct

Loca

l BA

P

Spe

cies

Oth

er N

otab

le

spp.

Like

lihoo

d on

Site

Like

lihoo

d w

ithin

50

0m

Comments

Great crested newt + + + + 3 3 No records within 1km; four large ponds outside to the north former coarse fishery; large linear pond in the south east alongside ECML.

Bats (roosting) + + + + 3 3 No records within 1km; small number of houses alongside Site and number of trees bounding and within Site assessed to have roosting potential.

Bats (Foraging/commuting)

+ + + + 2 2 No records within 1km; mature hedgerows with ditches provide foraging and commuting; pig farm next to Site suitable foraging.

Otter + + + + 4 3 No records within 1km; drain and ditches not particularly suitable and more than 3km from the nearest river.

Water Vole 3 1 Record within 1km from Nature Reserve other side of railway; suitable habitat on site including the same ditch (Main Drain) within Nature Reserve but it is culverted under ECML; water vole seen on the day of the walkover in one of the former coarse fishery ponds.

Reptiles + + + 3 1 There are records of grass snake, slow worm and adder within 1km but the records are more than 20 years old, the records were from Daneshill LNR; suitable habitat on site for grass snake and possibly slow worm.

White clawed crayfish + + + + 4 4 No records within 1km; county-wide surveys of rivers in 2011 did not record WCC this far north in the county; Main drain has some suitability but no records from Daneshill LNR, immediately to the north east.

Other amphibians + + 3 2 There are records of common toad and common frog from within 1km but the records are 10 years or older; suitable habitat immediately adjacent to site in former coarse fishery and linear pond along railway; ditches on site less suitable.

Birds + + + 1&3 1 Records of sixteen species of bird within 1km of the Site. All but four records are from Daneshill LNR to the north east. Three of the four records not within the Nature Reserve are from within the Site; buzzard, golden plover and corn bunting; suitable habitat on site for a range of breeding (hedgerows, willow coppice) and wintering species (arable land and grassland).

Dingy skipper + + 4 1 Record from Daneshill Nature Reserve within 1km; no suitable habitat within site but potentially along railway forming eastern boundary.

Other invertebrates + 3 1 Record of a number of notable aquatic beetle and waterbug species from Daneshill LNR




and particularly the Main Drain within 1km; Suitable habitat within site including the Main Drain from which most of the records were obtained from within the Reserve.

Badger* 4 3 No records within 1km; none found.

Table 2. Protected and Notable Species

Notes to Table 2: Key to likelihood of species presence: 1 = confirmed, 2 = likely, 3 = possible, 4 = unlikely

Key to conservation status: * Protection of Badgers Act 1992

Habitat Regs: Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. Species protected under Annex II of the EU Habitats Directive. The Regulations make it an offence (subject to exceptions) to deliberately capture, kill, disturb, or trade in the animals listed in Schedule 2, or pick, collect, cut, uproot, destroy, or trade in the plants listed in Schedule 4.

UK Priority spp.: species listed as a priority species, from Section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 - Habitats and Species of Principal Importance in England; 943 species in England identified for conservation action under UK Post 2010 Biodiversity Framework (2012).

W&C Act Sch 1, 5, 8: Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended); species protected under Schedule 1 (birds), 5 (other animals), 8 (plants).

National Red List: on UK Red Data Book List for groups of species, with conservation status of Threatened or Rare

Nationally Rare/Scarce: species which are found in 15 or fewer hectads.

Nationally Notable: species which are found in between 16 and 100 hectads.

Local BAP species: Species in Local Nottinghamshire Biodiversity Action Plan

BoCC Red/Amber: Birds of Conservation Concern, R – Red list, A - Amber list

4.5.2 Species Surveys

The following species surveys have also been undertaken to inform the project and for inclusion in the ES:

− tree surveys of two trees directly affected for bats (tree climbing and emergence) -no roosts were recorded in the trees, overall bat activity was highest along the railway corridor and central east west hedgerow, with lower activity levels detected elsewhere within the site;

− otter and water vole surveys - no signs of either species;

− aquatic invertebrates - overall diversity of invertebrates in the Main Drain was relatively high, however the overall abundance of species was low;

− great crested newt DNA sampling - survey results came back negative; and

− wintering and nesting birds -

o wintering birds: a number of resident passerine species were recorded as well as occasional flocks of wildfowl (mainly gulls and geese) most likely from Daneshill Lakes and Lound; a large flock of lapwing noted on one occasion but not on a regular basis;

o nesting birds: 23 species were recorded within the fast rotation coppice areas attracting willow warblers and whitethroat, a number of red and amber list species were recorded breeding in the site in small numbers including skylark, song thrush and wood warbler.




4.6 Noise & Vibration

Ambient noise levels are expected to be generally typical of a rural area, with road and rail traffic and agricultural operations audible to at least some degree at all the closest sensitive receptors (within 400 m).

No baseline assessments have been done to date.

4.7 Archaeology and Cultural Heritage

There are no known cultural heritage or archaeological assets located within the Site.

An archaeological appraisal has been carried out by Andrew Josephs Associates including a review of the local Historic Environment Records (HER) and aerial photography. This allowed an informed discussion to be held with the County Archaeological Officer. It was agreed that the site was located in an area of moderate archaeological potential, based in particular on cropmarks to the west of the Site, and that a detailed geophysical survey would be an appropriate first stage of evaluation.

The geophysical survey revealed no anomalies of archaeological interest even though the conditions were good and borehole logs show that there is no blanket of alluvium that could have masked anomalies. It was concluded that the Site held low potential.

4.8 Air Quality/Dust

The Site is not located within an Air Quality Management Zone (where improvements in local air quality would be required). The general air quality standard is therefore considered to be fair to good.

4.9 Hydrology and Hydrogeology

4.9.1 Hydrology & Flood Risk

The EA website identifies that with the exception of Main Drain the Site lies entirely within Flood Zone 1 and is therefore classed as at low risk from fluvial flooding. There are no named natural water courses within the Site or in the neighbourhood identified on OS plans.

Other than rainfall falling directly onto the Site, there appears to be little surface runoff from the surrounding area entering the Site.

4.9.2 Hydrogeology

The surface sand and gravel is a local groundwater resource and the underlying Sherwood Sandstone Group is a principal aquifer, therefore the Site is within a known groundwater source protection zone (SPZ).

Hanson installed groundwater monitoring points around the periphery of the Site in 2013. Results to date show that groundwater levels are up to 5m below ground level in the south west corner shallowing to 1.5m below ground level in the north east (where land levels are at their lowest).

A single abstraction borehole has been identified in Barnby Moor about 1km south of the Site boundary.




5.1 General

The main potential environmental effects of the scheme are considered to be those described in this section.

It should be noted that the following is intended to highlight the potential environmental effects of the proposed development. Schedule 4 of the EIA Regulations requires the EIA to only consider the likely significant effects of the proposed development on a proportionate basis.

Following the assessment of significant effects, appropriate mitigation measures would be incorporated into the design of the scheme to avoid or reduce as far as possible any such effects.

5.2 Soil Resources

The scheme has the potential for the soil resource to be lost through inappropriate handling or reuse in restoration. The soil resources of sub-grade 3a are considered best and most versatile and will require particular handling and appropriate reuse. Where possible such soils should be reused for agricultural restoration.


For the purpose of the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) the potential environmental effects resulting from the scheme can be summarised as:

− the temporary effect of mineral extraction on landscape character and visual impact;

− the impact and benefit of any proposed landscaping; and

− the long term effect of an alternative restoration scheme (than the existing agricultural use) on landscape character.

5.4 Transport

The main potential traffic and highways effects resulting from the scheme are considered to be:

− construction of the proposed access; and

− the subsequent impact of any traffic issues on capacity, safety, etc.


The main potential effects in terms of natural heritage resulting from the scheme can be summarised as:

− the impact on protected species within and adjacent the Site;

− the indirect impact on Daneshill LNR as a consequence of impacts on the local hydrological regime; and

− the impact of the restoration scheme, which may be substantially positive.

5.6 Noise & Vibration

The potential environmental effects resulting from the scheme are noise being audible at receptors in the vicinity of the proposed scheme boundary due to:

− extraction;

5 Potential Environmental Effects of the Scheme




− any stockpiling and/or landscaping works; and

− restoration operations.

No blasting will be undertaken at the Site, and no heavy plant used for piling, etc. therefore ground vibration is unlikely to be an issue.


If present the scheme has the potential to affect unknown archaeological assets preserved within the undisturbed soil horizons (below ploughing depth) through soil stripping.

5.8 Hydrology (including Flood Risk)

With regard to hydrology, the Site is at a generally low risk from flooding outside the curtilage of Main Drain. Works that will directly affect drainage flows in Main Drain could have a local or wider implication on flooding. Mitigation should be relatively simple to include e.g. temporary diversion or interim settlement ponds (commonly used on sand and gravel sites) therefore it is unlikely that significant effects will occur. However, since the area proposed for development is greater than 1 ha, it will be necessary to carry out a flood risk assessment as part of the EIA, in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

5.9 Hydrogeology

In respect of hydrogeology, it is anticipated most of the excavation will be above the water table and therefore there should be no impact from the proposed operation on groundwater.

Due to the SPZ designation, water abstraction borehole in the vicinity of the Site and the status of Daneshill LNR, the potential for effects from changing levels of groundwater due to the scheme will need to be included within the EIA. The risk of contamination is considered minor because of the absence of storage of fuels and oils (and the modern requirements for storage of temporary supplies if required).

5.10 Air Quality (Dust)

The potential effects of the scheme in terms of air quality and dust have been identified as emissions from the scheme with the potential to cause impacts on local air quality. These may result from fugitive dust emissions in relation to:

− extraction activities;

− materials handling;

− screening operations; and

− site vehicle movements.

5.11 Community, Socio Economic and Amenity Considerations

5.11.1 Residential Amenity

The potential considerations in terms of residential amenity are considered to be effects relating to landscape and visual, noise, air quality and traffic. However, these matters are detailed in the appropriate sections above and therefore do not require further additional assessment.

5.11.2 Economy/Employment

The Site has the potential to beneficially affect the local as well as regional economy through its role in providing raw materials to the construction sector and various direct and indirect employment opportunities. However, these benefits are likely to be marginal.




5.11.3 Lifestyle and Recreation

Effects upon lifestyle and recreation are predominately through changes due to the landscape and visual impacts of the scheme. This may include:

− views of the site; and

− restored landscape.

5.12 Cumulative and Combined Effects

5.12.1 Cumulative

Cumulative effects will arise from developments within the vicinity which are certain, and may include issues relating to noise and/or air quality upon sensitive receptors in close proximity to the Site. AECOM is not aware of any known developments which will result in cumulative effects.

5.12.2 Combined

There may be some combined effects from the scheme; these aspects where relevant will be considered in each relevant section of the ES.

5.12.3 Risk of Accidents

The potential risk from accidents of a magnitude that would require assessment within the formal context of EIA is considered very small (i.e. industrial scale accidents with a wider consequence), therefore it is proposed this element can be ‘scoped out’.

5.12.4 Alternatives

Guidance published by ODPM in February 2001 “EIA Guide to Procedures” states that ESs should include, in the information describing the project, an account of the main alternative sites and processes considered, where appropriate, and the reasons for the final choice. Consideration will therefore be given to alternative processes and working methods for the Site itself.




6.1 General

Based on:

− the information as to the Site and its surroundings given in Section 2;

− the nature of the proposed scheme - as summarised in Section 3;

− AECOM’s present understanding of the relevant baseline environmental conditions; and

− the potential environmental effects described in section 5,

AECOM proposes to assign different weighting to the assessment of individual topics and to exclude (i.e. ‘scope out’) other topics - as set out in Table 3 below.

Table 3 has been prepared with reference to Schedule 4, Part II, Paragraph 3 of the EIA Regulations and covers the aspects of the environment which are likely to be significantly affected by the development, including in particular: population, fauna, flora, soil, water, air, climatic factors, material assets, including the architectural and archaeological heritage, landscape and the inter-relationship between the above factors.

It is proposed to undertake the EIA in relation to the effects of the Scheme during both the operational phase and the restoration phase of the development.

Receptors Potential Effects

Weight to be given in the EIA

(where 1 is high and 3 is low and 4 is scoped out) 1 2 3 4

Population

Change in population

Levels and effects of emissions

Levels and effects of noise

Effects on local roads and transport

Socio-economic effects (e.g. employment)

Flora, Fauna, Geology and Soil Loss of and damage to habitats and plant and animal species

Loss of and damage to geological and physiographic features

Other ecological consequences

Effects on soil resources, agricultural land, etc.

6 Proposed Weighting of EIA Topics




Receptors Potential Effects

Weight to be given in the EIA

(where 1 is high and 3 is low and 4 is scoped out) 1 2 3 4

Physical effects (e.g. stability)

Water

Drainage pattern

Hydrographic characteristics, e.g. groundwater and water courses

Effect of pollutants on water quality

Flood risk assessment

Air and Climate Particulate matter

Offensive odours

Other climatic effects

Landscape and Visual

Landscape effects

Visual effects

Material Assets Archaeology and built heritage

Other Matters (including Inter-relationships)

Traffic and highways

Extraction and consumption of materials, water, energy, etc.

Risk of accidents

Association with other existing or proposed development (no known, relevant committed developments)

Combined effects (considered in each of the relevant ES sections)

Table 3 Proposed Weighting of Assessment by Topic




7.1 General

AECOM proposes to adopt the following EIA methodologies in relation to each topic.

Each proposed methodology is based on:

− the information as to the Site and its surroundings given in Section 2 above;

− the nature of the proposed development - as summarised in Section 3 above;

− AECOM’s present understanding of the relevant baseline environmental conditions;

− the potentially significant environmental effects described in section 5 above,

and the proposed weighting and inclusion/exclusion set out in the preceding section.

7.2 Environmental Assessment (topic by topic)

The assessment methodologies outlined below are not definitive and may be modified where considered appropriate by the individual specialists as the EIA progresses on a case by case basis in light of the results of preliminary assessment.

All the assessments will establish the baseline conditions, identify and assess the potential impact of the scheme and propose further avoidance, mitigation and/or compensation measures if necessary in addition to the measures already incorporated in the design. The likely effectiveness of such measures will be considered and the significance of any remaining residual effects will be evaluated. Consideration will also be given to cumulative and/or combined effects (where appropriate).


A chartered landscape architect will undertake a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) for the scheme, which will entail (in brief) examining the site in respect of close by and selected distant views and the effectiveness of terrain, landscaping and vegetation to screen any detrimental views of the proposed scheme.

The LVIA would be based on:

− Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (GLVIA), Third Edition, IEMA/LI 2013; and

− Landscape Character Assessment, (Guidance for England & Scotland) 2002 (CA/SNH 2002).

The LVIA would be undertaken using a combination of on-site survey and 3d modelling to identify visibility of the individual elements of the proposed scheme and assess the significance of this on visual amenity, as well as demonstrating appropriate mitigation.

The ES will include a written report of site context within its local landscape character and setting and the impact of the proposals and likely effects of any mitigation proposals included in the scheme.

The LVIA would identify both adverse and beneficial effects and assess their significance on landscape character and visual amenity by comparison of the magnitude of impact with sensitivity of the “receptor”.

7.4 Transport

It is considered unlikely that the proposed Barnby Moor Quarry will have significant detrimental effects in terms of road transport, since:

7 Proposed EIA Methodology




− the number of lorry movements generated will be less than a significant addition to the baseline flow of the A638;

− the design capacity of the A638 is likely to be far greater than the cumulative level of traffic generated and baseline flows; and

− the A638 is a very straight highway so that the proposed access need only be designed to standard design principles (Highways Agency Design Manual for Roads and Bridges - DMRB).

Therefore a Transport Statement (TS) is considered satisfactory.

A TS will be prepared, which will focus on the proposed new site access as described in section 3.3 for a period of 10 years. The TS will be prepared in conformity with the guidelines set out in ‘Guidance on Transport Assessment’ (DfT, March 2007) and the IEMA ‘Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic - Guidance Note No. 1’ (IEMA, 1993).

The TS will include:

− brief analysis of traffic generation and routing taking into account the predicted movement of vehicles entering and exiting the Site;

− highway impact analysis (through percentage analysis) on the A638; and

− design parameters for the proposed new access.

The TS will identify both adverse and beneficial effects of the Scheme and assess their significance on the highway.


Subject to discussions with the County Ecologist, the following surveys are proposed to inform the project and for inclusion in the ES:

− hedgerow survey (to meet the requirements of the Hedgerow Regulations 2007); and

− arboriculture survey of trees likely to be lost or directly affected.

7.6 Noise

The scheme will introduce new sources of noise from mobile plant and equipment within 400m of residential properties therefore a noise impact assessment will be carried out to meet the requirements of the NPPF.

The noise assessment will include:

− identification of nearest noise sensitive receptors;

− determination of appropriate noise criteria based upon the NPPF (in full) and associated guidance, as well as relevant local guidance/criteria;

− baseline noise monitoring at sensitive receptors;

− prediction of noise levels at receptor locations as a result of the Scheme;

− brief assessment of predicted noise levels at the nearest noise sensitive receptors based upon criteria contained within the NPPF and associated guidance, as well as relevant local guidance/ criteria; and

− suggested use of good practice guidance to mitigate noise impacts.


The geophysical survey revealed no anomalies of archaeological interest even though the conditions were good and borehole logs show that there is no blanket of alluvium that could have masked anomalies. It has therefore been concluded that the site holds low potential. This may need to be verified by trenching, but, given the low potential, it is considered this can be carried out post-consent/pre-development. If this too provides negative results further mitigation is unlikely to be required. Should archaeology be revealed, set-piece excavation or a watching brief may be appropriate, but based on information to date, it is extremely unlikely that there will be any archaeology of such importance as to require preservation in situ.




The ES will summarise the baseline information and describe the proposed mitigation. The effect (if any) on the setting of designated heritage assets will also form part of the ES.

7.8 Air Quality (Dust)

Since the nearest residential properties are located approximately 150m from the proposed mineral extraction boundary, an air quality impact assessment will be undertaken in accordance with Paragraph 25 of the Planning Practice Guidance to the NPPF, using a qualitative methodology based on guidance published by the Institute of Air Quality Management (IAQM). The methodology uses a source-pathway-receptor approach to evaluate the risk of dust impacts occurring at sensitive receptors. The resulting effects are classified as ‘significant’ or ‘not significant’, and where a potentially significant effect is identified mitigation measures may need to be considered to reduce impacts to a level considered acceptable by the mineral planning authority.

Dust management measures would be applied at the Site and it is anticipated that appropriate condition(s) relating to dust emissions would be part of any consent of planning permission for the proposed development.

7.9 Hydrology (including Flood Risk)

Since the Site is greater than 1 ha, a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) will be undertaken, in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

The FRA should show that the development is safe from flooding from all sources, does not increase flood risk elsewhere and, if possible, reduces flood risk overall.

The FRA will consider the risk of flooding from surface water, groundwater, sewers and overland flow, and will evaluate appropriate mitigation measures.

7.10 Hydrogeology

The assessment of impacts to groundwater (quality, quantity and flow) from the proposed development will be informed by a review of relevant sources including Envirocheck, BGS geological maps and available groundwater monitoring data to derive baseline information on groundwater resources and the likely significance of effect due to the scheme. The assessments will consider impacts within the Site and outside the Site to the extent considered appropriate for the scheme and sensitivity of likely receptors. The potential for contamination of water resources as a result of the proposed development will also be considered.

7.11 Natural Heritage (Geology)

Since significant effects are not anticipated, detailed consideration of impacts relating to geology has been scoped out.

7.12 Agriculture and Soils

An agricultural land and soil resources assessment will be included within the EIA. The ES will include a written report of the soil classification and if necessary include any mitigation required in relation to specialist soil handling and preservation through restoration.

7.13 Community, Socio Economic and Amenity Considerations

The ES will include a summary of socio-economic impacts and any impacts on public rights of way. In terms of residential amenity, effects relating to landscape and visual, noise, air quality and traffic will be dealt with in the appropriate sections listed above.




7.14 Cumulative and Combined Effects

7.14.1 Cumulative

Unless advised of relevant schemes in the locality in the EIA Scoping Opinion adopted by the Authority, AECOM proposes to scope out assessment of potential cumulative effects.

7.14.2 Combined

The assessment of combined effects will be limited to cases where two or more effects (e.g. noise and air quality) are near the threshold of acceptability in respect of the same receptor - after taking mitigation into account.

7.15 Risk of Accidents

Unless advised of evidence as to the existence of relevant materials in the EIA Scoping Opinion adopted by the Authority, AECOM proposes to scope out assessment of the risk of accidents.

7.16 Transboundary Effects

Transboundary effects relate to projects that have the potential to impact on more than one EU member state e.g. through air or water pollution across a national border. This will not apply and therefore transboundary effects will not be considered.




8.1 Introduction

The ES and associated Non-Technical Summary (NTS) will be prepared in accordance with Schedule 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011.

8.2 Non-Technical Summary

The NTS will be produced as a separate document and will include a brief description of the development, including information on the Site and scheme drawings and brief summaries of:

− the EIA process;

− the main impacts assessed, the likely effectiveness of the mitigation proposed and the significance of any residual effects; and

− the alternatives considered and the reasons for Hanson’s choices, taking into account environmental effects.

8.3 Main ES Text

The main ES text will comprise the following sections, summaries of the assessments made of the main topics and the assessments made of other topics considered in less detail.

8.3.1 Introduction

The introduction to the ES will comprise:

− a brief introduction to the scheme;

− a description of the scheme objectives;

− a description of the requirement for an EIA, with reference to this Environmental Scoping Report and the adopted EIA Scoping Opinion; and

− an outline of the general approach to the assessment.

Further details of specific issues will be provided under the relevant topic headings - as set out below.

8.3.2 Site and Its Surroundings

This section of the ES will include descriptions of:

− the Site;

− nearby land uses and topography; and

− site history.

8.3.3 Description of the Scheme

The next section of the ES will set out a description of the proposed scheme, structured in terms of:

− the operational phase; and

− the restoration phase.

8 Environmental Statement




8.3.4 Planning Policy Issues

The ES will summarise the relevant planning policies and related issues by reference to the legislation, plans and policies applicable to the scheme.

8.3.5 Topic Assessments

The remaining sections of the ES will summarise the assessments made of the main topics.

8.3.6 ES Appendices

The appendices to the ES will comprise the technical assessments made of the main topics in full.




SR.001 - Site Location

SR.002 - Proposed Planning Application Area and Access

SR.003 - Land Designations and Features

Figures


KEY

SITE LOCATION

REPRODUCED FROM ORDNANCESURVEY DIGITAL MAP DATA ©CROWN COPYRIGHT 2016.ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.LICENCE NUMBER 0100031673

Drawing Number

RevDate

ApprovedCheckedDrawn

Scale @ A4

Drawing Title Purpose of issue

AAO DJ CN

12/16

BARNBY MOORSITE LOCATION


21.7m

Trinity College Farm

FalconLodge

San Diego

12

8

Cottages

4

GR

EAT NO

RTH

RO

AD

Trinity College Farm

14.9m

HousePump M

ain Drain

20.7m

Fieldside

Drain

Main Drain

Pond

Woodholme

Stage

Drain

15.8m

MP .25

MP .75

El Sub Sta

DrainDrain

The Woodlands

Tank

Track

Landing

Track

Drain

Tank

18.0m

Path (um)

SL

Pond

A 638

A 638

Dra

in

MP .50

Ponds

Mast

Mast

FB

FB

Track

FB

Tank

1

MILESTO

NE

CT

1.22m RH

1.22m FF

1.22

m R

H

1.22m FF

CD

Def

1.22m FF

Def

1.22m RH

Ward Bdy

Def

Path (um)

A 638

Ponds

Drain

Drain

Def

385000N

385100N

385200N

385300N

385400N

385500N

385600N

385700N

385800N

385900N

386000N

384900N

4657

00E

4658

00E

4659

00E

4660

00E

4661

00E

4662

00E

4663

00E

4664

00E

4665

00E

4666

00E

4667

00E

4668

00E

4669

00E

4670

00E

386100N

4671

00E

COLLEGE FARM

MAIN DRAIN

EAST COAST MAIN LINE

A638GREATNORTHROAD

EXISTING FARMACCESS

PROPOSED NEWACCESS AND

HAUL ROAD

KEY

PROPOSED PLANNING APPLICATION AREA

PROPOSED MINERAL EXTRACTION BOUNDARY

Plot

Date

:Fil

e Nam

e :SR

.002 -

LAND

OW

NERS

HIP

AND

PLAN

NING

BOU

NDAR

Y 20

16-1

2-14

12/16

/2016

2:24

PM

THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN PREPARED PURSUANT TO AND SUBJECT TO THE TERMS OF AECOM'APPOINTMENT BY ITS CLIENT. AECOM ACCEPTS NO LIABILITY FOR ANY USE OF THIS DOCUMENTOTHER THAN BY ITS ORIGINAL CLIENT OR FOLLOWING AECOM' EXPRESS AGREEMENT TO SUCH

USE, AND ONLY FOR THE PURPOSES FOR WHICH IT WAS PREPARED AND PROVIDED.

Drawing Number Rev

DateApprovedCheckedDrawn

AECOM Internal Project No.

Drawing Title

Project Title

Client

Scale @ A3

Purpose of issue

Designed

AECOM

Royal Court, Basil CloseChesterfieldDerbyshire. S41 7SLTelephone. (01246) 209221Fax. (01246) 209229www.aecom.com

DJ IS CN 12/16

1: 5,000 60522418

BARNBY MOOR

PROPOSED PLANNING APPLICATION AREA

AND ACCESS

REPRODUCED FROM ORDNANCESURVEY DIGITAL MAP DATA ©CROWN COPYRIGHT 20 16.ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.LICENCE NUMBER 0100031673


REPRODUCED FROM ORDNANCESURVEY DIGITAL MAP DATA ©CROWN COPYRIGHT 20 16.ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.LICENCE NUMBER 0100031673

SITE OF SPECIAL SCIENTIFIC INTEREST

PROPOSED PLANNING APPLICATION BOUNDARY

PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY

LISTED BUILDING

LOCAL NATURE RESERVES

SR.00

3 - LA

ND D

ESIG

NATI

ONS

AND

FEAT

URES

2016

-12-

14

THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN PREPARED PURSUANT TO AND SUBJECT TO THE TERMS OF AECOM'SAPPOINTMENT BY ITS CLIENT. AECOM ACCEPTS NO LIABILITY FOR ANY USE OF THIS DOCUMENTOTHER THAN BY ITS ORIGINAL CLIENT OR FOLLOWING AECOM'S EXPRESS AGREEMENT TO SUCH

USE, AND ONLY FOR THE PURPOSES FOR WHICH IT WAS PREPARED AND PROVIDED.

Drawing Number Rev

DateApprovedCheckedDrawn

AECOM Internal Project No.

Drawing Title

Project Title

Client

Scale @ A3

Purpose of issue

Designed

AECOM

Royal Court, Basil CloseChesterfieldDerbyshire. S41 7SLTelephone. (01246) 209221Fax. (01246) 209229www.aecom.com

DJ IS CN 12/16

1:20,000 60522418

BARNBY MOOR

LAND DESIGNATIONSAND FEATURES




Appendix A. Soils Baseline Survey




Appendix B. Phase 1 Habitat Survey


Ecology Survey Report

December 2015

47069568

Prepared for:

Hanson Aggregates

BARNBY MOOR: SPECIES SURVEY REPORT


Hanson Aggregates — Barnby Moor

ECOLOGY SURVEY REPORT December 2015 2

REVISION SCHEDULE

Rev Date Details Prepared by Reviewed by Approved by

1 October 2015

Draft SC

Ecologist

Paul Benyon

Associate

Paul Benyon

Associate

The Report has been prepared and provided in accordance with the Code of Professional Conduct of the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management. We confirm that the opinions expressed are our professional bona fide opinions. AECOM 12 Regan Way Chetwynd Business Park Chilwell Nottinghamshire NG9 6RZ United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0) 115 9077000 Fax: +44 (0) 115 9077001 AECOM Infrastructure and Environment UK Ltd AECOM Infrastructure & Environment UK Limited (“AECOM”) is a wholly owned subsidiary through which AECOM operates in the UK.




Limitations

AECOM Infrastructure & Environment UK Limited (“AECOM”) has prepared this Report for the sole use of Hanson Aggregates (“Client”) in accordance with the Agreement under which our services were performed. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice included in this Report or any other services provided by AECOM. This Report is confidential and may not be disclosed by the Client nor relied upon by any other party without the prior and express written agreement of AECOM.

The conclusions and recommendations contained in this Report are based upon information provided by others and upon the assumption that all relevant information has been provided by those parties from whom it has been requested and that such information is accurate. Information obtained by AECOM has not been independently verified by AECOM, unless otherwise stated in the Report.

The methodology adopted and the sources of information used by AECOM in providing its services are outlined in this Report. The work described in this Report was undertaken between June 2014 and June 2015 and is based on the conditions encountered and the information available during the said period of time. The scope of this Report and the services are accordingly factually limited by these circumstances.

Where assessments of works or costs identified in this Report are made, such assessments are based upon the information available at the time and where appropriate are subject to further investigations or information which may become available.

AECOM disclaim any undertaking or obligation to advise any person of any change in any matter affecting the Report, which may come or be brought to AECOM’S attention after the date of the Report.

Certain statements made in the Report that are not historical facts may constitute estimates, projections or other forward-looking statements and even though they are based on reasonable assumptions as of the date of the Report, such forward-looking statements by their nature involve risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from the results predicted. AECOM specifically does not guarantee or warrant any estimate or projections contained in this Report.

Where field investigations are carried out, these have been restricted to a level of detail required to meet the stated objectives of the services. The results of any measurements taken may vary spatially or with time and further confirmatory measurements should be made after any significant delay in issuing this Report.

Copyright

© This Report is the copyright of AECOM Infrastructure & Environment UK Limited. Any unauthorised reproduction or usage by any person other than the addressee is strictly prohibited.




TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................... 5 2 BAT SURVEYS ................................................................. 6

2.1 Methods ............................................................................ 6

2.1.1 Activity Surveys ............................................................... 6

2.1.2 Automated Detector Surveys ......................................... 7

2.1.3 Inspection of trees ........................................................... 7

2.2 Results .............................................................................. 8

2.2.1 Activity surveys ............................................................... 8

2.2.2 Automated surveys .......................................................... 8

2.2.3 Tree Inspections ............................................................ 10

3 BIRDS .............................................................................. 11

3.1 Methods .......................................................................... 11

3.1.1 Breeding Birds ............................................................... 11

3.1.2 Wintering Birds .............................................................. 12

3.2 Results ............................................................................ 12

3.2.1 Breeding Birds ............................................................... 12

3.2.2 Wintering Birds .............................................................. 14

4 GREAT CRESTED NEWTS ............................................ 17

4.1 Methods .......................................................................... 17

4.1.1 Limitations ...................................................................... 17

4.2 Results ............................................................................ 17

5 OTTER AND WATER VOLE ........................................... 18

5.1 Methods .......................................................................... 18

5.1.1 Otter................................................................................. 18

5.1.2 Water Vole ...................................................................... 18

5.2 Results ............................................................................ 19

6 AQUATIC INVERTEBRATES ......................................... 20

6.1 Methods .......................................................................... 20

6.2 Results ............................................................................ 21

FIGURES APPENDICES




1 INTRODUCTION

AECOM Infrastructure & Environment UK Ltd (AECOM), formerly URS Infrastructure & Environment UK Ltd (URS), was instructed by Hanson Aggregates in 2014 to carry out a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal of land near Retford, Nottinghamshire.

The land is a site of approximately 50 ha proposed for extraction of sand and gravel and the proposed boundary is shown on Figure 1. The survey and report was commissioned to identify whether there are known or potential ecological features (receptors) relevant to future development.

The aim of the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal was to:

identify habitats on the Site and any areas outside the Site where there may be potential for direct or indirect effects;

carry out an appraisal of the potential of the habitats present to support protected or notable species of fauna and flora;

to advise on the potential opportunities and constraints for development.

Recommendations were provided to address the implications of the ecological receptors.

The report was intended to identify any significant ecological constraints to inform the design of the proposed development prior to submission of a planning application and identify the scope of further work required to inform a planning application.

The following species-specific surveys were recommended:

Bats - activity surveys; tree climb and inspection of two trees within the Site

Birds - breeding and wintering bird surveys within the proposed Site

Great crested newt - eDNA sampling of water bodies immediately adjacent to the Site

Otter and water vole - survey for signs of the species along the Main Drain that flows south to north through the Site

Aquatic invertebrate sampling - at locations along the Main Drain based on records received from the desk study that showed the Main Drain north of the Site has a diverse aquatic beetle and bug assemblage

These surveys were recommended based on the habitats present and the likelihood/risk that they could be present on or adjacent to the Site and represent a constraint to the proposed development as a sand and gravel quarry. This report describes the methods and results of the surveys undertaken.




2 BAT SURVEYS

2.1 Methods

2.1.1 Activity Surveys

The number of survey visits was determined through consideration of the size of the Site and its relative quality, in line with the Bat Conservation Trust guidance1. This led to the conclusion that the development area generally comprised low quality habitat and was medium size and therefore one visit each season (spring, summer and autumn- three visits) and two automated detectors per season was an appropriate level of survey with which to determine the level of use by foraging and commuting bats from the area. The Site does not stand out as being of particular importance for bats, comprising habitats typical of the wider area with limited good quality bat foraging habitat. All surveys conducted were dusk surveys.

Each activity survey involved two suitably experienced surveyors walking a transect route through the Site, which included a series of ‘listening points’ located at potentially important features with regard to bats e.g. hedgerow junctions, tree lines. At each ‘listening point’, surveyors recorded bat activity for three minutes using bat echolocation detectors. Any additional activity encountered whilst walking between points was also noted. The survey route was designed to include potential flight paths or foraging areas within the Site, and mature trees, which offer potential roost sites. The starting point and direction of the transect was varied at each survey visit, to ensure all areas of the transect were walked close to dusk. The transect route is shown on Figures 2 - 4.

Surveyors carried echolocation detectors (Bat Box Duet) to help determine which species were present. In accordance with the Guidelines, dusk surveys were carried out from quarter of an hour before dusk to at least 2 hours after dusk. The time, location, number, species (where possible) and direction of flight were recorded for each bat pass (discrete burst of echolocation heard, or bat activity observed) encountered during the survey. One surveyor recorded the echolocation calls detected to an Edirol digital recorder to allow use of Batsound analysis software to verify bat calls where required.

A single survey visit was conducted in June, August and September where weather conditions allowed, with surveys scheduled to avoid nights with cold, wet or windy conditions.

All surveys were undertaken during favourable weather conditions and these are summarised in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Bat Activity Survey Conditions

Survey Date Temperature °C Weather Conditions

18/06/2014 17°C 20% cloud cover, dry and mild

13/08/2014 12°C Little cloud cover, dry and mild

15/09/2014 14°C Light rain for first 10 minutes, mild and full cloud cover

1 Hundt, L (2012) Bat Surveys, Good Practice Guidelines 2nd ed. Bat Conservation Trust, London




Limitations

No constraints were encountered during the surveys. All surveys were conducted within the optimum survey period and within suitable weather conditions.

2.1.2 Automated Detector Surveys

To provide supplementary information to the bat activity surveys two SM2BAT+ automated bat detectors were placed out each month at locations within the Site and were set up to record bat echolocation over the following periods. The locations of the detectors are shown on Figures 2 - 4.

June Survey: 18th - 21st

Location A - under alder tree along the northern boundary hedge line of the Site

Location B - under willow adjacent to railway line

August Survey: 14th - 19th

Location C - under alder in centre hedge line of Site adjacent to broadleaved plantation:

Location D under willow along eastern boundary, adjacent to railway line

September Survey: 15th - 18th

Location E - north end of site next to Main Drain

Location F - adjacent to railway next to pylon pole

The detectors recorded bat calls in zero crossing format to an SD card for later analysis using Analook software (v 3.7.20).

Limitations

No constraints were associated with these surveys.

2.1.3 Inspection of trees

Two trees, T18 and T26 (Figure 2) were climbed and inspected on the 11th November 2014 by two tree climbers, one of who was also a licenced bat worker. All suitable features to support roosting bat species were inspected using an endoscope. No signs of bats or signs of use by bats of any of the features were found.

Limitations

There were no limitations to the survey; all features suitable for roosting bats could be fully inspected.




2.2 Results

2.2.1 Activity surveys

The results of the walked transect activity surveys are summarised in Table 2. The survey results are shown in Figures 2 - 4.

Table 2: Bat Activity Survey Results

Date Survey Results

18/06/2015 Dusk The first bat recorded was a foraging a common pipistrelle 57 minutes after sunset. A second foraging common pipistrelle was recorded shortly afterwards at 66 minutes after sunset. Individual common pipistrelle, bats were recorded sporadically along the northern most hedge line and western boundary of the Site. A soprano pipistrelle bat was recorded 103 minutes after sunset and a noctule bat along the western boundary of the Site adjacent to Trinity Farm.

13/08/2015 Dusk The first bat recorded foraging was an unknown pipistrelle species 49 minutes after sunset. Individual common pipistrelles were recorded frequently, predominantly along the southern hedgerow boundary of the Site and the centre hedge line adjacent to the broadleaved plantation. All bats were recorded foraging along hedge lines.

15/09/2015 Dusk The first bat recorded was a common pipistrelle bat 57 minutes after sunset. A second bat species, a leisler’s, was recorded 61 minutes after sunset (two passes) with a second leisler's bat recorded 81 minutes after sunset. Individual common pipistrelles and a single soprano pipistrelle were recorded foraging along the hedge lines predominately on the eastern side of the Site along the railway corridor and adjacent field boundary. Two Myotis species were recorded along the hedgerow to the south of the Site adjacent to the broadleaved plantation and a single Myotis species was also detected along the hedge line boarding broadleaved plantation woodland in the center of the site.

2.2.2 Automated surveys

The two SM2bat+ detectors placed out following each activity survey recorded bat passes over three nights for detectors A, B, E, F and five nights for detectors C and D. Twenty-two nights of recordings were obtained and registrations of bats were made on all nights apart from the 16th August at Detector C.

Species recorded by the static automated detector monitoring comprised common pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle, Nathusius pipistrelle noctule, Myotis species, brown long-eared bat and leisler’s bat.

The number of bat passes recorded on each detector (Detector A to F) is presented in Appendix 3 and a brief summary is provided below.

June 2014

Detector A – under alder tree along the northern boundary hedge line of the site: Low number of bat passes (>10 per hour) recorded throughout the three nights. Species included common and soprano pipistrelle and a small number of calls by an unidentified Myotis species.




The maximum number of registrations recorded on any one night was 22 by common pipistrelle bats on the 20th June 2014.

Detector B – under willow adjacent to railway corridor: Moderate number of bat calls (10-50 passes per hour) detected across the three nights by common pipistrelle and soprano pipistrelle. Low number of calls (>10 passes per hour) recorded from an unidentified Myotis species and brown long-eared bat (based on the known geographical range of the Plecotus species). The maximum number of registrations on any one night was 86 by common pipistrelle species on the 18th June 2014. Based on the walked transect, static results and spacing of calls across the night it is likely that bats are using the railway corridor as a commuting feature as well as to forage.

August 2014

Detector C – under alder in centre hedge line of site adjacent to broadleaved plantation: High numbers of bat calls (50-100 passes per hour) were detected on the first night by common pipistrelle and soprano pipistrelle. Low number of calls (>10 passes per hour) recorded from an unidentified Myotis species and brown long-eared bat (based on the known geographical range of the Plecotus species) and noctule bat. The maximum number of registrations on any one night was 175 by common pipistrelle bats on the 14th August 2014. Based on the walked transect, static results and spacing of calls across the night it is likely that bats are using the hedgerow which runs to the south of the broadleaved plantation as a foraging feature and commuting route.

Detector D – under willow along eastern boundary, adjacent to railway line: Low number of bat passes (>10 per hour) were recorded throughout the three nights. Species included common pipistrelle and a small number of calls by an unidentified Myotis species only. The maximum number of registrations on any one night was two by an unidentified Myotis species.

September 2014

Detector E – north end of site next to main drain: Moderate number of bat calls (10-50 passes per hour) detected across the three nights by common pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle and unidentified Myotis species. Low number of calls (>10 passes per hour) recorded from a noctule bat and nathusius pipistrelle. The maximum number of registrations on any one night was 86 by common pipistrelle species on the 18th June 2014. Based on the walked transect, static results and spacing of calls across the night it is likely that bats are using the railway corridor as a commuting feature as well as to forage.

Detector F – Adjacent to railway next to pylon pole: Moderate number of bat calls (10-50 passes per hour) detected across the three nights by common pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle, unidentified Myotis species, brown long-eared bat (based on the known geographical range of the Plecotus species) and leisler's bat. Low number of calls (>10 passes per hour) recorded from a noctule bat and nathusius pipistrelle. The maximum number of registration on any one night was 90 passes by leisler's bat on the 17th September 2014. Based on the walked transect static results and spacing of calls across the night it is likely that bats are using the railway corridor as a commuting feature as well as to forage.




2.2.3 Tree Inspections

No signs of bats or signs of use by bats of any features within trees T18 and T26 were found.




3 BIRDS

3.1 Methods

3.1.1 Breeding Birds

To determine the value of the Site to breeding birds a survey was undertaken during April and June 2015 (Table 3). A survey transect was devised that allowed observation of all major areas of habitat within the Site. All surveys were conducted under suitable weather conditions and at appropriate times of day for breeding bird surveys (Table 3). The Site was visited on four occasions and all bird activity was recorded using Common Bird Census2 territory mapping methodology, whereby all birds within the Site were identified and recorded on a map using standard British Trust for Ornithology (BTO) species codes. The activity of each bird was also recorded so that birds could be classified as; confirmed breeding, probably breeding, possibly breeding or non-breeding. During the first visit, an attempt was made to plot the locations of all birds encountered onto the visit maps. On later visits more emphasis was placed on obtaining breeding evidence of species already recorded, especially those of conservation importance.

Once all the visits were completed, locations of all species of conservation importance that were breeding or likely to be breeding on or near the Site were mapped. An estimate of their numbers (pairs/territories) was then derived from the maps.

The conservation status of recorded birds was assessed against the following criteria:

EC Birds Directive 2009 Annex 1;

Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (As Amended) Schedule 1;

Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (2006) Section 41 and

Red and Amber lists of Birds of Conservation Concern3

Table 3: Dates and Weather of Survey Visits

Visit Date Times Weather conditions

1 29/04/2015 05:30 7°C light rain, full cloud cover with a light breeze

2 13/05/2015 05:15 20% cloud cover, no wind and dry

3 10/06/2015 04:50 4°C misty, no wind, dry and 10% cloud cover

4 16/06/2015 04:50 13°C, 90% cloud cover, dry with good visibility

2 Bibby, C.J., Burgess, N.D., Hill, D.A. and Mustoe, S. (2007) Bird Census Techniques. 2nd Edition. Academic Press, London. 3 Eaton M.A, Aebischer N.J, Brown A.F, Hearn R.D, Lock L, Musgrove A.J, Noble D.G, Stroud D.A and Gregory R.D (2015) Birds of Conservation Concern 4: the population status of birds in the United Kingdom, Channel Islands and Isle of Man. British Birds 108, 708–746.




Limitations

No limitations to the survey were encountered; all parts of the Site were accessible.

3.1.2 Wintering Birds

Five wintering bird survey visits were undertaken by a suitably experienced ornithologist November 2014 to March 2015 inclusive. The surveys follow an adaptation of the British Trust for Ornithology’s (BTO) Winter Farmland Bird Survey methodology (http://bto.org/sites/default/files/u31/downloads/details/wfbs.pdf).

Surveys were undertaken in suitable weather conditions (see Table 4) of good visibility and avoiding heavy rain and/or strong winds, fog or heavy snow, when bird behaviour may be atypical, or when surveying may be impractical.

A survey transect was devised that allowed observation of all major areas of habitat within and adjacent to the Site. All birds identified by sight and/or call and recorded using standard BTO species codes4. A survey was undertaken monthly between November - March inclusive.

Table 4: Survey Conditions Record

Date Time Temperature (oC)

Weather Wind Speed

17/11/2014 08:00 9°C 100% cloud cover Moderate breeze

22/12/2014 08:30 13°C 100% cloud cover Strong breeze gusts dropping to gentle breeze.

26/01/2015 08:30 4°C 100% cloud cover clearing with sun Gentle breeze

26/02/2015 07:00 6°C 100% cloud cover Light breeze

19/03/2015 07:30 4°C 100% cloud cover Light breeze

Limitations

There were no limitations to the survey; access was available across the whole site and, the surveys were monthly, so periods of bad weather could be avoided.

3.2 Results

3.2.1 Breeding Birds

The survey indicates that the site supports good numbers of passerine bird species of scrub and woodland edge; however numbers of breeding arable species were low (Table 5) . Twenty-three species were recorded across the Site with areas of fast rotation willow coppice being grown for fuel, supporting good numbers of willow warbler (Phyloscopus trochilus) and

4 http://www.bto.org/sites/default/files/u16/downloads/forms_instructions/bto_bird_species_codes.pdf


http://www.bto.org/sites/default/files/u16/downloads/forms_instructions/bto_bird_species_codes.pdf



whitethroat along with good numbers of wren (Troglodytes troglodytes). Numbers of arable birds were low and may be a result of a lack of management across those areas not given to willow coppice (see Figures 5 - 8).

Fifteen species recorded have some form of conservation designation with nine of those recorded breeding on or near the site (Table 5). The remaining six species were recorded flying over or foraging on rare occasions.

Five species listed on the Red List of Birds of Conservation Concern (BoCC)5 and S41 of the NERC Act 2006 were recorded breeding on or close the site: lapwing (Vanellus vanellus), skylark (Aluada arvensis), song thrush (Turdus philomelos), wood warbler (Phylloscopus

sibilaltrix), and yellowhammer (Emberiza citrinella). Of these, lapwing was recorded breeding in fields outside the site boundary. Starling (Sturnus vulgaris), which is also listed under the EC Wild Birds Directive Annex 1 was recorded foraging but not breeding on the Site. A further red list species, mistle thrush (Turdus viscivorus), was recorded breeding off-site.

BoCC Amber listed species recorded breeding on Site; Dunnock (Prunella modularis), meadow pipit (Anthus pratensis), reed bunting (Emberiza schoeniclus) and willow warbler (Phylloscopus

trochilus). Dunnock and reed bunting are also listed on S41.

Amber listed species recorded in flight or foraging only were, greylag goose (Anser anser) and mallard (Anas platyrhynchos).

Barn owl is listed in Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended).

Table 5: Breeding Bird Survey Results, Barnby Moor 2015

Vernacular and Scientific Name Conservation Status Breeding Status

Numbers of Pairs/

Territories Barn owl (Tyto alba) Foraging only Blackbird (Turdus merula) Breeding 11 Blackcap (Sylvia atricapilla) Breeding 8 Blue tit (Cyanistes caeruleus) Breeding 11 Carrion crow (Corvus corone) Foraging only - Chaffinch (Fringilla coelebs) Breeding 8 Chiffchaff (Phylloscopus collybita) Breeding 2 Collared dove (Streptopelia decaocto) In Flight - Coot (Fulica atra) Breeding off site - Cormorant (Phalacrocorax carbo) In Flight - Dunnock (Prunella modularis) NERC S41 Breeding 7 Great tit (Parus major) Breeding 7 Grey heron (Ardea cinerea) In Flight - Greylag goose (Anser anser) Foraging only - Goldfinch (Carduelis carduelis) Breeding 3 Jackdaw (Corvus monedula) Breeding off site - Jay (Garrulus glandarius) Breeding off site - Lapwing (Vanellus vanellus) NERC S41 Breeding off site 3 Lesser whitethroat (Sylvia curruca) Possible breeding 1 Magpie (Pica pica) Breeding 3

5 Eaton MA, Aebischer NJ, Brown AF, Hearn RD, Lock L, Musgrove, AJ, Noble DG, Stroud DA and Gregory RD (2015) Birds of Conservation Concern 4: the population status of birds in the United Kingdom, Channel Islands and Isle of Man. British Birds 108, 708–746.




Table 5: Breeding Bird Survey Results, Barnby Moor 2015

Vernacular and Scientific Name Conservation Status Breeding Status

Numbers of Pairs/

Territories Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) Foraging only - Meadow pipit (Anthus pratensis) Breeding 3 Mistle thrush (Turdus viscivorus) Breeding off site - Pheasant (Phasianus colchicus) None Foraging only - Pied wagtail (Motacilla alba) Breeding 1 Reed bunting (Emberiza schoeniclus) NERC S41 Breeding 2 Reed warbler (Acrocephalus scirpaceus) Breeding 2 Robin (Erithacus rubecula) Breeding 9 Skylark (Alauda arvensis) NERC S41 Breeding 4 Song thrush (Turdus philomelos) NERC S41 Breeding 3 Starling (Sturnus vulgaris) NERC S41 Foraging only - Swallow (Hirundo rustica) In Flight - Whitethroat (Sylvia communis) Breeding 11 Willow warbler (Phylloscopus trochilus) Breeding 17 Woodpigeon (Columba palumbus) Breeding 6 Wood warbler (Phylloscopus sibilatrix) NERC S41 Breeding 3 Wren (Troglodytes troglodytes) Breeding 19 Yellowhammer (Emberiza citrinella) NERC S41 Breeding 1

An assemblage of twenty-three species of breeding bird means the Site, as measured by Fuller’s breeding diversity criteria (Table 6), is just below the threshold to be classed as having local significance. Under agricultural management this would likely increase as farmland birds, including lapwing were observed breeding in adjacent, cultivated fields.

3.2.2 Wintering Birds

Species recorded included large flocks (>50 birds) of a number of wetland and wildfowl species (see Figures 9 - 12), which will be flocks that are associated with the large wetland (Daneshill Lakes) immediately on the east side of the railway and the even larger wetland complex (Lound) situated approximately 3km to the east. Both Daneshill Lakes and in particular Lound are known for attracting large flocks of wintering wetland and wildfowl species. Sutton and Lound Gravels pits is designated as a site of special scientific interest (SSSI) for its exceptionally rich assemblage of breeding wetland birds; nationally important population of wintering gadwall and overall an exceptional assemblage of breeding, wintering and passage birds. The site at Barnby Moor is within a much larger agricultural landscape that provides seasonal foraging and loafing areas for the species based at Daneshill and Lound. The site also provides wintering ground for a number of resident passerine species such as blackbird, great tit, chaffinch, meadow pipit and reed warbler. The fast rotation coppice willows provides additional habitat to the general hedgerow and field margin habitats for such species.

Table 6: Fuller’s Breeding Bird Site Importance Index

National Regional County Local

85+ species 84-70 species 69-50 species 49-25 species




Table 7. Wintering Bird Survey Results

Species (code) November 2015

December 2014

January 2015

February 2015

March 2015

Conservation Status

Barnacle Goose (BY) 4 Blackbird (B.) 6 15 6 20 27 Black-headed gull (BH) 20 2 100+ 33 72 Black tern (BJ) 1 Blue tit (BT) 6 5 10 22 16 Bullfinch (BF) 2 NERCS41 Buzzard (BZ) 1 Canada goose (CG) 57 240+ 2 Carrion crow (C.) 5 13 10 16 11 Chaffinch (CH) 11 6 4 7 8 Coal tit (CT) 1 Common Sandpiper (CS) 1

Coot (CO) 1 1 2 Cormorant (CA) 1 Dunnock (D.) 2 2 3 5 2 NERCS41 Eider (E) 1 Fieldfare (FF) 1 25 W&CA Garden warbler (GW) 2 3 Goldfinch (GO) 21 7 3 Goosander (GD) 6 2 Great Black-backed gull (GB) 2 100+

Great tit (GT) 2 2 10 13 17 Grey wagtail (GL) 1 Greylag goose (GJ) 4 12 Heron (H.) 1 1 1 Herring gull (HG) 1 50+ 1 Jackdaw (JD) 5 4 1 Jay (J.) 3 1 2 Lapwing (L.) 25 140 10 NERCS41 Lesser black-backed gull (LB) 3 4 50+

Lesser Redpoll (LR) 1 Long-tailed tit (LT) 14 9 1 Magpie (MG) 1 9 2 4 4 Mallard (MA) 2 19 37 Marsh harrier (MR) 1 Marsh tit (MT) 2 2 2 Meadow pipit (MP) 10 3 9 5 7 Mistle thrush (M.) 5 Pheasant (PH) 5 7 3 2 None Pied wagtail (PW) 4 4 3 1 6 Red legged partridge (RL) 1 1 None

Reed Warbler (RW) 24 7 2 1 Robin (R.) 1 6 14 12 23 Rook (RO) 1 4 Skylark (S.) 7 4 2 NERCS41 Snipe (SN) 61 5 2 1 Song thrush (ST) 1 1 3 3 NERCS41




Table 7. Wintering Bird Survey Results

Species (code) November 2015

December 2014

January 2015

February 2015

March 2015

Conservation Status

Sparrow hawk (SH) 1 Starling (SG) 30 46 25 6 NERCS41 Wigeon (WN) 7 Wood pigeon (WP) 24 37 24 18 43 Wren (WR) 2 4 7 6 10




4 GREAT CRESTED NEWTS

4.1 Methods

The E-DNA technique to detect the presence/probable absence of great crested newts came about following research funded by DEFRA. The research, now published, can be found here: http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&ProjectID=18650&FromSearch=Y&Publisher=1&SearchText=wc1067&SortString=ProjectCode&SortOrder=Asc&Paging=10#Description

In response to the results of the research; 99% detection rate compared to 95% for conventional survey techniques, Natural England (NE) issued a position statement in April 2014 that stated they would accept the results of E-DNA testing for presence/likely absence provided that the sampling and analysis complied with the methods and protocols detailed in the Technical Note attached to the DEFRA report and sampling was undertaken between 15th April and 30th June. Compliance would have to be demonstrated in reports and method statements that include E-DNA results.

The test can only be used for presence/absence and not population estimates. This means that when positive, six surveys using bottle trapping and torchlight techniques would still required to provide an estimate of population size for impact assessment, mitigation and licensing including 3 within the period mid-April to mid-May.

In 2014 only a very limited number of laboratories were approved by NE, one of these was the ADAS laboratory used to analyse the samples taken at Barnby Moor.

There are no ponds within the proposed site but the extended phase 1 survey identified a flooded depression alongside the railway in the southeast and there is a group of four fishing lakes outside the proposed site to the North West. These were visited on the 4th June 2104 by a suitably experienced ecologist. A search was made of vegetation for great crested newt eggs and if none were found then a water sample was taken for analysis for the presence of E-DNA. Sampling was carried out according to the prescribed protocol using the equipment provided by the laboratory undertaking the analysis; ADAS Veterinary Laboratory based on the University of Nottingham Agricultural Campus at Sutton Bonington, Nottinghamshire.

4.1.1 Limitations

There were no limitations to collection of the water samples on the day.

4.2 Results

Both E-DNA samples taken on the 4th June 2014; one from a standing water body to the south-east of the Site adjacent to the railway line and a second sample taken from one of the carp breeding ponds to the north west of the Site (see Figure 1), came back negative for great crested newts (Appendix 4).


http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&ProjectID=18650&FromSearch=Y&Publisher=1&SearchText=wc1067&SortString=ProjectCode&SortOrder=Asc&Paging=10#Description





5 OTTER AND WATER VOLE

5.1 Methods

5.1.1 Otter

The otter survey was undertaken on the 21st November 2014 by a suitably experienced ecologist and was based on current best practice methods6 and evidence of use by otters searched for included: spraints/latrines; anal jelly; places of refuge; footprints, trails and slides; and foraging evidence.

The location of all field signs was mapped.

For the purposes of recording types of otter refuge in this report, the following terms are used:

a ‘holt’ means a well-enclosed refuge, including excavated tunnels (often in steep banks amongst tree roots) and cavities in rocks or man-made structures;

A ‘laying-up area’ or ‘lie-up’ is a partially enclosed or screened refuge;

Birth of cubs may occur at a ‘natal holt’, typically above normal flood levels and occupied for up to three months, or in a ‘couch’ constructed in reeds; they are difficult to locate or recognise and may be some distance from main water bodies and other otters.

Limitations

At the time of the survey, the ditch had been recently dredged by the internal drainage board (IDB), removing large areas of vegetation within the waterbody and on the banks. Therefore, any likely evidence of otters was removed with the vegetation.

5.1.2 Water Vole

The survey was undertaken at the same time as that for otter and the methodology used was in accordance with the Water Vole Conservation Handbook7. This consisted of identifying the extent and distribution of water vole activity through searches of the banks of the Main Drain and other smaller seasonal drains for field signs indicating recent activity (e.g. feeding stations, latrines, footprints) as well as signs of past and potentially present activity (e.g. burrows).

Limitations

At the time of the survey, the ditch had been recently dredged by the IDB removing large areas of vegetation within the waterbody and on the banks. Therefore, any likely evidence of water voles was removed with the vegetation but any burrows present should still have been evident.

6 Chanin, P. (2003). Monitoring the Otter Lutra lutra. Conserving Natura 2000 Rivers Monitoring Series No. 10, English Nature, Peterborough. 7 Strachan, R., Moorhouse, T. and Gelling, M: 3rd edition (2011) Water Vole Conservation Handbook. Edition 3. The Wildlife Conservation Unit.




5.2 Results

No evidence of otter or water vole were encountered during the surveys, however prior to the surveys being conducted the Main Drain had been cleared by the IDB, removing much of the vegetation and bank side habitat. This appears to be undertaken regularly to maintain the flow of the watercourse; the banks are engineered and generally, steep sided.




6 AQUATIC INVERTEBRATES

6.1 Methods

The Main Drain flows south to north through the proposed site. Once it exits the proposed site in the north, it flows under the railway and flows through the Dansehill Lakes Local Nature Reserve. It was from this section of Drain and the LNR that a number of notable aquatic beetle and bugs have been recorded. This was the reason it was decided to sample the macro-invertebrate fauna as it flows through the proposed site.

A survey was undertaken at points along the Main Drain and in the heavily shaded impoundment alongside the railway track on the 21st November 2014. Aquatic macro-invertebrate samples were taken at the following locations (Figure 13):

Site 1 - SK 66453 85975 – Channel 1.5 m deep in steep sided, engineered channel, flat bottom to channel, recent clearing works. Water depth 10-15cm. Flow-rate 5-10 cms-1 sand/gravel substrate with heavy silt in places, patches of fool's watercress (Apium nodiflorum) growing in channel.

Site 2 - SK 66442 85889 – Channel 1.5 m deep in steep sided, engineered channel, flat bottom to channel, recent clearing works. Water depth 10-15cm. Flow-rate 5-10 cms-1 sand/gravel substrate with heavy silt in places, small patches of fool's watercress growing in channel.

Site 3 - SK 66424 85767 - Channel 1.5 m deep in steep sided, engineered channel, flat bottom to channel, recent clearing works. Water depth 10-15cm. Flow-rate 5-10 cms-1 sand/gravel substrate with heavy silt in places, small patches of fool's watercress growing in channel.

Site 4 - SK 66778 85406 – Shaded pond. No flow, water depth 20 – 25cms, high level of organic matter (leaves)

Site 5 - SK 66496 85619 - Channel 1.5 m deep in steep sided, engineered channel, flat bottom to channel, recent clearing works. Water depth 10-15cm. Flow-rate 5-10 cms-1 sand/gravel substrate with heavy silt in places, small patches of fool's watercress growing in channel.

The instream habitats were ‘kick sampled’ for three minutes followed by a one - minute hand search of larger substrates.

A proportion of each sample (one minute’s worth of net sampling) was initially ‘site-sorted’ on the banks of the watercourse. Each sub-sample was examined in a white plastic tray for live and dead specimens, for approximately 15 minutes. The complete sample was then preserved in isopropyl alcohol 70% v/v for laboratory processing. Detailed sorting of the entire samples was carried out in the laboratory (for approximately two hours/ sample) by a trained and experienced aquatic biologist, to gain comparable lists of taxa in line with Environment Agency guidance8. The animals were identified to family level using a stereomicroscope under low power and with use of appropriate identification keys, with higher-level identification to species.

8 Environment Agency (2014) Freshwater macro-invertebrate analysis of riverine samples. Operational instruction 024_08




The invertebrate data were analysed using Biological Monitoring Working Party (BMWP) scores and Average Score per Taxon (ASPT) values9. An explanation of BMWP scores and ASPT is provided as Appendix 4. Scores are derived based on the sensitivity of particular taxa (families) of invertebrates to organic pollution (see Appendix 4 for scores of each taxon). BWMP and ASPT values provide an indication of ecological quality of a watercourse.

6.2 Results

Thirty-four aquatic invertebrate species were recorded during the survey. The list of species is presented in Table 8. The number of scoring families BMWP scores and ASPT scores are presented in Table 9.

Overall diversity of invertebrates was relatively high within the Main Drain despite it having been recently cleared by the IDB but the overall abundance of species was low. Beetle diversity in the channel was high with seventeen species being recorded.

Table 8: Invertebrate Species Recorded

Coleoptera (Beetles) Agabus sturmii (Gyllenhall, 1808) Agabus bipustulatus (L., 1767) Agabus didymus (Olivier, 1795) Agabus paludosus (Fabricius, 1801) Anacaena globules (Paykull, 1798) Anacaena limbata (Fabricius, 1792) Hydrobius fuscipes (L. 1758) Hydroporus palustris (L., 1751) Hydroporus planus (L., 1781) Ilybius fuliginosus (Fabricius, 792) Ilybius ater (De Geer, 1774) Hygrotus impressopunctatus (Schaller, 1783) Laccobius bipunctatus (Fabricius, 1781) Laccophilus hyalinus (De Geer, 1774)

Laccophilus minutus (L., 1758) Ochthebius spp _prob minimus

Gyrinus substriatus (Stephens, 1829) Hemiptera (Bugs) Sigara dorsalis (Leach, 1817) Sigara striata (L., 1758) Gerris lacustris (L., 1758) Notonecta glauca (L., 1758) Notonecta viridis (L., 1758) Velia caprai (Tamanini, 1947) Corixa punctata (Illiger, 1807) Gammaridae (Freshwater shrimp) Gammarus pulex (L., 1758)

9 Hawkes H.A. (1997) Origin and Development of the Biological Monitoring Working Party Score System. Water Research, 32 (3), 964-968.




Table 8: Invertebrate Species Recorded

Asellidae (Water hog louse) Asellus aquaticus (L. 1758) Ephemeroptera (Mayfly) Baetis spp.

Mollusca (Snails) Sphaeridae spp. Physa fontinalis (L., 1758) Lymnaea stagnalis (Linnaeus, 1758) Planorbis planorbis (Linnaeus, 1758) Bithynia tentaculata (Linnaeus, 1758) Radix balthica (Linnaeus, 1758)

The BMWP scores for all but Site 4 (Table 9) indicate a Moderate water quality, whilst Sample 4 was very poor. The ASPT scores for all but Sample 4 indicate Poor water quality and Sample 4, very Poor. However, it must be considered that the drains had been recently cleared by the IDB and so many good quality in-channel habitats and features (debris, rocks/stones, emergent and submerged macrophytes, and riparian vegetation) were absent though fool’s water cress was beginning to recolonise the channel in places. This lack of good quality in-channel habitat could have caused a negative skew to the species present in the samples.

Table 9: BMWP and ASPT Scores

Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 Number of scoring families 15 16 16 3 14

BMWP Score 56 59 61 7 51 ASPT 3.73 3.69 3.81 2.33 3.64

Sample point 4 was from the linear impoundment alongside the railway outside of the proposed site in the south east. This impoundment was in heavy shade with no aquatic, emergent or marginal vegetation and with lots of decaying leaf fall at the base of the pond. The water level was very low in summer and this combination has led to the poor macro-invertebrate fauna present.

The other found samples were from the Main Drain and despite it being managed regularly through removal of the build-up of vegetation and silts, the macro fauna reflected the habitats present despite its largely engineered course. Many of the species recorded would easily recolonise either from drift from upstream or by emerging from the dredged material and re-entering the watercourse.

Only one of the species recorded has a recognised status; Agabus didymus, a water beetle that is regarded as being (Nationally Notable) B - species found in between 31 and 100 hectads (10km x 10km squares) in Great Britain. It has been recorded from Daneshill Lakes, as have most of the other species recorded in this survey.




FIGURES


LEGEND

Project Title: Barnby Moor

Drawing Title: Phase 1 Vegetation & Habitats

Client: Hanson Aggregates This document has been prepared in accordance with the scope of AECOMs’ appointment with its client and is subject to the terms of that appointment. AECOM accepts no liability for any use of this document other than by its client and only for the purposes for which it was prepared and provided. Only written dimension shall be used © AECOM Infrastructure & Environment UK Limited

Drawing Number: FIGURE 1

Rev Original

Purpose of issue: Inform Constraints to Development

Check date

F

I I

I I I

A

I I

I

A

A

A

I

T1 T4

T2 T5

T3

T6 T7 T8 T9

T10 T11 T12

T14 T13

T15

T16

T17

T18 T19 T20 T21 T23

T22 T24 T25

T26

T27 T28

T29

T30

T31

T32

T33 T34

T35 T36

T37 T38

T39

T41

T42

T43 T44 T45

T46 T47

T50

T49

T48 T51

H1

H2 H2a

H3

H4

H5

H6

H7

H8

H9

H11

H10

H12

H13

H13a

H14 H15

H16

H17

H18

D1 D2

D3

D4

D5

D6 D7

D9

D8

D10

D11

D12

N

H1

F

I

D1 Proposed Application Boundary

Revision details

by Suffix

Copyright: Reproduced from O.S. mapping by kind permission of the Ordnance Survey® on behalf of the Controller of HMSO. © Crown Copyright All rights reserved. Licence number AL1000 18890

Drawn PB

Checked MH

Date: 06/05/14

Broadleaved Plantation

Dense Scrub

Hedgerow

Tree

Sparse grassland

Tall Ruderal

Recently Felled Coppice

Improved Grassland

A Arable

A

Ditch

Dry Ditch

Fence

Habitat Boundary

Track

H13b H13c

H13d

H13e

T40

AECOM Infrastructure & Environment UK 12 Regan Way Chetwynd Business Park Chilwell Nottingham NG9 6RZ United Kingdom

ApprovedPB

AECOM Project No. 47069568 Scale: NTS


LEGEND


Drawing Title: Bat Transect June 2014



Rev

Purpose of issue:

Check date

Revision details

by Suffix


Drawn PB

Checked MH

Date: 06/10/15PB


1

Transect walk

SM2 Location

Bat Pass

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

A

B

T18 T26

Approved



LEGEND


Drawing Title: Bat Transect August 2014


Drawing Number: Rev

Purpose of issue:

Check date

Revision details

by Suffix


Drawn PB

Checked MH

Date: 06/10/15PB


1

2

3

4

5

1

Transect walk

SM2 Location

Bat Pass

6

8

8

7

C

D

Approved

AECOM Project No. 47069568 Scale: NTSFIGURE 3


LEGEND


Drawing Title: Bat Transect September 2014



Rev

Purpose of issue:

Check date

Revision details

by Suffix


Drawn PB

Checked MH

Date: 06/10/15


1

8

5

4

3 2

6

7

10

9

12

11

1

Transect walk

SM2 Location

Bat Pass

E

F

ApprovedPB



(

(──

(──

((

(((

((

(( (

(

((((

((((

─

─

─

─

───

──

────

(((

((

(( (

((((

((

( ─

─(

─(

(─

( (

((

((((

─

───

(( ── B

D

B C

S

RR

C

C

B

B

R

BB

B

B

DB

B

S

WRCH

2C

MG

GT

SG

SGWPCH

CDBT

WR CT

MPMP

STGT

GTCHWW

BCWR

WP

BCMA WP

MG

WRWRWW

CCWR

WPBC

WR

ST

WW

GT

WR

WRGT

BTMA2C

GT

GT

BT

WR

BC

WRWW

WR WWBC WW

WW

WWWRST

WRCH

WP

JD

WPWP

WR BCST

GT

STWRGO

GTGT

CA

RL

MP

3SG2WP

2ST

4WP 2SC3MA2JD 2MA

6GJ

2BC

2MA2BT

2MA

4CH

3SG2MP

2MA

12SGPurpose of Issue

Project Title

Drawing Title

Drawn Checked

12 Regan Way, Chetwynd Business Park, Nottingham, NG9 6RZ

www.aecom.com

AECOM

DateApproved

RevDrawing Number

FIGURE 5 .

THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN PREPARED PURSUANT TO AND SUBJECT TO THETERMS OF AECOM'S APPOINTMENT BY ITS CLIENT. AECOM ACCEPTS NO LIABILITY

FOR ANY USE OF THIS DOCUMENT OTHER THAN BY ITS ORIGINAL CLIENT ORFOLLOWING AECOM' EXPRESS AGREEMENT TO SUCH USE, AND ONLY FOR THE

PURPOSES FOR WHICH IT WAS PREPARED AND PROVIDED.

AECOM Internal Project No. Scale @ A360470460 1:5,000GSB SC PB 27/11/2015

Client

File Na

me:J:\

Derby

-Jobs\

Hanso

n Aggr

egates

\47069

568 Ha

nson 2

014\Te

chnica

l\Barnb

y Moor

\GIS\p

roject_

files\B

reedin

g Bird

survey

s\Barn

by Mo

or BBS

April 2

015.mx

d

±

100 0 100 200 300 400 500 Metres

LEGENDSite boundary

─ Calling( Singing── Aggressive interaction

FlightSpecies Conservation status(RSPB 2009)! No status

! Green

! Amber

! Red

BREEDING BIRD SURVEY29 APRIL 2015

BARNBY MOOR

FINAL

HANSON AGGREGATES

THIS DRAWING IS TO BE USED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OFISSUE THAT IT WAS ISSUED FOR AND IS SUBJECT TO AMENDMENT

Copyright© Crown copyright and database rights 2015Ordnance Survey 0100031673

BBCBTCCACCCDCHCTDGJGOGTJDMAMGMPRRLSSCSGSTWPWRWW

- Blackbird- Blackcap- Blue tit- Carrion crow - Cormorant- Chiffchaff- Collared dove - Chaffinch- Coal tit - Dunnock- Greylag goose - Goldfinch- Great tit- Jackdaw- Mallard- Magpie- Meadow pipit- Robin- Red-legged partridge- Skylark- Stonechat- Starling - Song thrush- Woodpigeon- Wren- Willow warbler


((

((

((((

(

(( ( (

(

((

(

(

((

(

──

(

(

(

((((

(

((

(((

((

─

─

(

(

───── (

((

(

──

─ ─

((

(

((

──

(

─(

((((

( ((

( (((((

((

(──

─

(K

B

B

C

B

CB

RDR

C

D

R

R

S

S

S

BS

BD

BBB

DR

RBB

BB

B

R

R

D

WH2D

BT

JD JDWW WP WR

SG

BTBTBT

SG

WP

SG

WPWPSG

JD

CCWW

WRCH

WRWR

WOBC

MGMP

2C

RB

WR WW WR

MP

MGWR

CO

GT

WRGT

L.L.

WR

L.BT

CA

BT

MP

GO

STWR

STGTBT

GT BTGT

MAMG

WHSTBT

WR

GT WP 3DGO

WWBC

WWGT

WR

WR

WWWOWR

WW

WH

MG

WP

SG

MG

GO WR

WW

BCWH

WW

CC

WW

WR

CCBCBCGT

ST

WWLW

WW

WHWW

WWWW

2GD

2WP

4SG

3MA

4MP

2WP

4GJ

3L.

2MA2MP2MA 2MA 2WP

4MA2SG 2WH

2WP

2MA 8GJ25SG Purpose of Issue

Project Title

Drawing Title

Drawn Checked


www.aecom.com

AECOM

DateApproved

RevDrawing Number

FIGURE 6 .





Client

File Na

me:J:\

Derby

-Jobs\

Hanso

n Aggr

egates

\47069

568 Ha

nson 2

014\Te

chnica

l\Barnb

y Moor

\GIS\p

roject_

files\B

reedin

g Bird

survey

s\Barn

by Mo

or BBS

13 Ma

y 2015

.mxd

±

100 0 100 200 300 400 500 Metres

LEGENDSite boundary


FlightConservation status

! No status

! Green

! Amber

! Red

BREEDING BIRD SURVEY13 MAY 2015

BARNBY MOOR

FINAL

HANSON AGGREGATES



BBCBTCCACCCHCODGDGJGOGTJDKLLWMAMGMPRRBSSGSTWHWOWPWRWW

- Blackbird- Blackcap- Blue tit- Carrion crow - Cormorant- Chiffchaff- Chaffinch- Coot- Dunnock- Goosander- Greylag goose - Goldfinch- Great tit- Jackdaw- Kestrel- Lapwing- Lesser whitethroat- Mallard- Magpie- Meadow pipit- Robin- Reed bunting - Skylark- Starling - Song thrush- Whitethroat- Wood warbler- Woodpigeon- Wren- Willow warbler


(

(

(

(

(

((

(

(((

(((((

((

((

(((

((

((((

(

( (

(

(

(

(((

((( ( (

(

(((( (

((((((

(

(((

((

(((

(((

((

(

((

───(

─

(

─

─(

─

─

─

───

B

CB

SC

C

D

R

C

B

RB

B

R

B

R

R

CC

CC

BR

C

BB

B

CS

RR

Y

B

R

DR

R

D

S RR

BB

S

Y

L.

GT

GTGJ

MP

H.

L.

WW

MA

WR

WWMA

MACO

MA

WW

BT

BT

BCBTGT

WW MGBTGTWP

BTWRBT

GTBT

WHGT

WPGT

BT

WPWPBT

CHBT

H.WPWP

WW

WP

RB

L.BTWH

WR

WR

WR WW CC

WP CH

WWWW

WWWW

CC

CC

WRCH

WHCHRB

WWBC

WRBCBC

BCGTWRWW

WR

ST

WR

WH

BC

WW

WWWR

WHWW

CC CCWW

BCBC ST

RBWWWR

WRWR

WR

STCH

BC

BC

2RB

2MA2GT

3WP

2GO

2WP

2WP 4BT 6WP

3CH

2BC

Purpose of Issue

Project Title

Drawing Title

Drawn Checked


www.aecom.com

AECOM

DateApproved

RevDrawing Number

FIGURE 7 .





Client

File Na

me:J:\

Derby

-Jobs\

Hanso

n Aggr

egates

\47069

568 Ha

nson 2

014\Te

chnica

l\Barnb

y Moor

\GIS\p

roject_

files\B

reedin

g Bird

survey

s\Barn

by Mo

or BBS

10 Ju

ne 201

5.mxd

±

100 0 100 200 300 400 500 Metres

LEGENDSite boundary



! No status

! Green

! Amber

! Red

BREEDING BIRD SURVEY10 JUNE 2015

BARNBY MOOR

FINAL

HANSON AGGREGATES



BBCBTCCCCHCODGJGOGTH.L.MAMGMPRRBSSTWHWPWRWWY

- Blackbird- Blackcap- Blue tit- Carrion crow - Chiffchaff- Chaffinch- Coot- Dunnock- Greylag goose - Goldfinch- Great tit- Grey heron- Lapwing- Mallard- Magpie- Meadow pipit- Robin- Reed bunting - Skylark- Song thrush- Whitethroat- Woodpigeon- Wren- Willow warbler- Yellowhammer


((( (

──

(

─

──

(

((

(

((

(

((((

(((

((

(((((

(

(((

((

(

( (

──

─

─

──

─

──

((

(

( (

(

(((

(

─ ─((

(

── ─

─(

(( (

(((

(

((── ─(

(

(

((

(─

(

(

(

(

(

D

S

R

K

B

C

HB

YRB

C

C

R

R

C

B

B

CC

B

RB

BB

B

B

C

D

R

BR

B

R

BD

SS

S

WP

WR

BCGO

WRBC

BC

MP

WR

SLST

MP

BT

WPMG

BT

HM

WRWR

WHWWWW

WWCHWW

BTWPWP PH

WWBT

BTGT

WR WHGT

WRWR

WR

BCST

WWWR

WWWP

GO

BTSL

WP

WPWR

BT

MP

BTBT

WH

GT

BT

BTBT

WHWH

WPMP

ROWH

BTBT

GTMA

BCBCWWGT

RB2C

WP

WRWP

BT

2C

SL

WH

WWWH

WWWW

WH BC

OC

BTWHWWWW

WRWW

WHSTSTBC

WW

WHBCWHST

BC

MT

PW

WP

WPPWCHMAGO

CH

MPMP

MP

BC

COMGMG

4RW

8SG

2JD

2GT

2BT

4GO

4WW

4WW

2BT2WP

2GT

3BT

3MP

2MP24MA

WW

2WW

Purpose of Issue

Project Title

Drawing Title

Drawn Checked


www.aecom.com

AECOM

DateApproved

RevDrawing Number

FIGURE 8 .





Client

File Na

me:J:\

Derby

-Jobs\

Hanso

n Aggr

egates

\47069

568 Ha

nson 2

014\Te

chnica

l\Barnb

y Moor

\GIS\p

roject_

files\B

reedin

g Bird

survey

s\Barn

by Mo

or BBS

16 Ju

ne 201

5.mxd

±

100 0 100 200 300 400 500 Metres

LEGENDSite boundary


FlightConservation status! No status

! Green

! Amber

! Red

BREEDING BIRD SURVEY16 JUNE 2015

BARNBY MOOR

FINAL

HANSON AGGREGATES



BBCBTCCHCODGOGTHHMJDKMAMGMPMTOCPHPWRRBRORWSSGSLSTWHWPWRWWY

- Blackbird- Blackcap- Blue tit- Carrion crow - Chaffinch- Coot- Dunnock- Goldfinch- Great tit- Grey heron- House martin- Jackdaw- Kestrel- Mallard- Magpie- Meadow pipit- Marsh tit- Oystercatcher- Pheasant- Pied wagtail- Robin- Reed bunting - Rook- Reed warbler- Skylark- Starling - Swallow- Song thrush- Whitethroat- Woodpigeon- Wren- Willow warbler- Yellowhammer


───

─

─

─ ──

──((

((((

──

───

──

──

──

────

──D

B

B

R

R

B

BB

C

R

B

J C

C

CC B B

R

RR

DB R

C

D

BR

WR

WP

MS CO

CH

GJCG

BH

WP

WP BZ

ST

MG

BTWP

WPWP

WP

BT

WP

WR4C

2C

MG

BZ

BTCH

CH

CH

WR

PW

PW

GTPW

PW

BFBF

WR

BHCS

CH

PHCH

SNSN

MP

SN

MG

2GB

2SG

2SN

4LB 2SG

5SG

4MG6WP

3SG

??? 8LT

2MA

2WP

2MG3PH

4SG2MP

56CG

12WP

10WP

35CG

150+ Geese

WR

Purpose of Issue

Project Title

Drawing Title

Drawn Checked


www.aecom.com

AECOM

DateApproved

RevDrawing Number

FIGURE 9 .





Client

File Na

me:J:\

Derby

-Jobs\

Hanso

n Aggr

egates

\47069

568 Ha

nson 2

014\Te

chnica

l\Barnb

y Moor

\GIS\p

roject_

files\W

intering

bird s

urveys

\Barnb

y Moor

Winte

ring su

rvey D

ec2014

.mxd

±

100 0 100 200 300 400 500 Metres

LEGENDSite boundary



! No status

! Green

! Amber

! Red

WINTERING BIRD SURVEY22 DECEMBER 2014

BARNBY MOOR

FINAL

HANSON AGGREGATES



BBFBHBTBZCCGCHCOCSDGBGJGTJLBLTMAMGMPMSPHPWRSGSNSTWPWR

- Blackbird- Bullfinch- Black-headed gull - Blue tit- Buzzard- Carrion crow - Canada goose - Chaffinch- Coot- Common sandpiper- Dunnock- Great black-backed gull- Greylag goose - Great tit- Jay- Lesser black-backed gull- Long tailed tit - Mallard- Magpie- Meadow pipit- Mute swan - Pheasant- Pied wagtail- Robin- Starling - Snipe- Song thrush- Woodpigeon- Wren


──── ───

─

─

─ ───

─

──

─

─

─

──

──

(((

(

(

((

(( (──

──

──

─

─

──

(

─

──

RR

R

RB

BB

RRR

C

C

B

B

D

J

CC

R R

D

R

R R

C C

WR

MPMPWR

OLMD

PW MPMP GL

CHPW BT

PW

CS

MP

RW

MG

CHBH

MG

GT

BT

CH

GT

BT

BT

WR

PW

GT

MP

JD

WR

WR WRMP

MP

GT

GT WR

BTBT BT

GW

2SN

3PH

6RW

2BT

2WP

2WP

4WP

4GO

2GO 2JD 2BH

4JD

3GT

6SG

2LB

2GJ

3BT

140L

10SG25FF

20WP

30SG

50GB25LB25CM

100BH100HG

Purpose of Issue

Project Title

Drawing Title

Drawn Checked


www.aecom.com

AECOM

DateApproved

RevDrawing Number

FIGURE 10 .





Client

File Na

me:J:\

Derby

-Jobs\

Hanso

n Aggr

egates

\47069

568 Ha

nson 2

014\Te

chnica

l\Barnb

y Moor

\GIS\p

roject_

files\W

intering

bird s

urveys

\Barnb

y Moor

Winte

ring su

rvey J

an2015

.mxd

±

100 0 100 200 300 400 500 Metres

LEGENDSite boundary



! No status

! Green

! Amber

! Red

WINTERING BIRD SURVEY26 JANUARY 2015

BARNBY MOOR

FINAL

HANSON AGGREGATES


Copyright© Crown copyright and database rights 2015Ordnance Survey 0100031673B

BHBTCCHCMCSDFFGBGJGLGOGTGWHGJJDLLBMDMGMPPHPWRRWSGSNWPWR

- Blackbird- Black-headed gull - Blue tit- Carrion crow - Chaffinch- Common gull- Common sandpiper- Dunnock- Fieldfare- Great black-backed gull- Greylag goose - Grey wagtail- Goldfinch- Great tit- Garden Warbler- Herring gull- Jay- Jackdaw- Lapwing- Lesser black-backed gull- Mandarin duck- Magpie- Meadow pipit- Pheasant- Pied wagtail- Robin- Reed warbler- Starling - Snipe- Woodpigeon- Wren


───

─

((

(

(

(

(

(

(((

(

(

(

(

─

──

─

─

─ ───

───

─

─

─

─

──((

(

(

───

(((((

(

H

R

CB BB

DBR

RD

RR H

S

R

BB

D

B

C

B

B

B

C

D

H

DB

B

L

C

DR

B

B

RB

BB

B

B

R

C

R

S

S

S

RR

CB

MGWP

BTGT

CH

GT

WR

WP

BH

BT

CH GTCH

BT

GT

BT

LBWR

2CWN

PW

WP

JD

GFBT

BT2C

GT

MA

BZ

BTWP

CS

WR

MP

SN SN

RL

BH

4C

BT

BT GT

BTGT

ST

GT

WR

WRGOGT

WR

CH

ST

ST

CT GF

CH

GT

BTGT BT

2GT

3MA

2MA 2BT

2MA

3JD

2CH2GT2BT

3MA

2BT

6MP

4WP

2GO

2WP4GO3HG

3GW

4MA

2GT

2MP

2MA 2MD

2MA

4BY

3WN

4BT2GJ

2BT

3BT

2RW

30BH

25SG

GO

3JD

3WN

Purpose of Issue

Project Title

Drawing Title

Drawn Checked


www.aecom.com

AECOM

DateApproved

RevDrawing Number

FIGURE 11 .





Client

File Na

me:J:\

Derby

-Jobs\

Hanso

n Aggr

egates

\47069

568 Ha

nson 2

014\Te

chnica

l\Barnb

y Moor

\GIS\p

roject_

files\W

intering

bird s

urveys

\Barnb

y Moor

Winte

ring su

rvey F

eb2015

.mxd

±

100 0 100 200 300 400 500 Metres

LEGENDSite boundary



! No status

! Green

! Amber

! Red

WINTERING BIRD SURVEY26 FEBRUARY 2015

BARNBY MOOR

FINAL

HANSON AGGREGATES



BBHBTBYBZCCBCHCSCTDGFGJGOGTGWHHGJDLLBMAMDMGMPPWRRLRWSSGSNSTWNWPWR

- Blackbird- Black-headed gull - Blue tit- Barnacle goose- Buzzard- Carrion crow - Corn bunting- Chaffinch- Common sandpiper- Coal tit - Dunnock- Golden pheasant- Greylag goose - Goldfinch- Great tit- Garden Warbler- Grey heron- Herring gull- Jackdaw- Lapwing- Lesser black-backed gull- Mallard- Mandarin duck- Magpie- Meadow pipit- Pied wagtail- Robin- Red-legged partridge- Reed warbler- Skylark- Starling - Snipe- Song thrush- Wigeon- Woodpigeon- Wren


──

((

(

(

──

((

(

(

(

(

(─ ──

(─

──

(

((

(

(

(

(

(

((

──

((─ ─

───((

(((

( ((

(

(

(

(

(

──

─

(

B

B

C

B C

R

R

RB

RBCJ

B

BBB

B

R

B

H

T

B

R

S

S

B

R

BR

B

B R

R

R

D

B

RB

R BB

BB

C

L D

BBB

B

B

CHCH

GT

WR

MPSC

WPBTCH

GT CH

CHGT MG

5CMG

WPMG

WP

CH

CH

WPPHGT

MPMP GT

BTRLBTBTCH

GT

WP

BZ

COMG CO

CA

SNBH

MP

SN

WR

WRWR

WRPH

RWJD

WP PHRO

PW

HG

WR

WRCH

BT

GTBT

ST

BT

WRWR

BT

BT

ST ST

WRRO

RO BTBH

2B

WP

LT

MP

GTSH

3C

2GT

3MA

2GT

2WP2WP

2MA

2MP

2WP2MA

2RO

3BT2MT

2MA

2WP

2CG

3GO 2PH4SG

2SG2PW2CH

2MA

4BH

2GT

2MA

2BH

2RO

3GT

3MA

2MA

2WR2MA

8MA

2MA4BT

2MA

2MA

12BH

12GJ

10BH

25WP 12BH

30+BH

T

2MA

Purpose of Issue

Project Title

Drawing Title

Drawn Checked


www.aecom.com

AECOM

DateApproved

RevDrawing Number

FIGURE 12 .





Client

File Na

me:J:\

Derby

-Jobs\

Hanso

n Aggr

egates

\47069

568 Ha

nson 2

014\Te

chnica

l\Barnb

y Moor

\GIS\p

roject_

files\W

intering

bird s

urveys

\Barnb

y Moor

Winte

ring su

rvey M

arch20

15.mx

d

±

100 0 100 200 300 400 500 Metres

LEGENDSite boundary



! No status

! Green

! Amber

! Red

WINTERING BIRD SURVEY19 MARCH 2015

BARNBY MOOR

FINAL

HANSON AGGREGATES



BBHBTBZCCACGCHCODGJGOGTHHGJJDLLTMAMGMPMTPHPWRRLRORWSSCSGSHSNSTTWPWR

- Blackbird- Black-headed gull - Blue tit- Buzzard- Carrion crow - Cormorant- Canada goose - Chaffinch- Coot- Dunnock- Greylag goose - Goldfinch- Great tit- Grey heron- Herring gull- Jay- Jackdaw- Lapwing- Long tailed tit - Mallard- Magpie- Meadow pipit- Marsh tit- Pheasant- Pied wagtail- Robin- Red-legged partridge- Rook- Reed warbler- Skylark- Stonechat- Starling - Sparrow hawk - Snipe- Song thrush- Teal- Woodpigeon- Wren


LEGEND


Drawing Title: MACRO-INVERTEBRATE SAMPLE POINTS



Rev

Purpose of issue:

Check date

Revision details

by Suffix


Drawn PB

Checked MH

Date: 06/10/15

Approved PB

URS Project No. 47069568 Scale: NTS


Sample Point 1

Sample Point 2

Sample Point 3

Sample Point 4

Sample Point 5




APPENDIX 1 - Bat Activity Records




Results of Transect Walks 2014

Date 18th June 2014 Surveyors PB & EN

Bat Species Location Time↓ 45 Pip 55 Pip Noctule

Start:21:33 Passes Passes Passes 1 22:30 1 2 22:34 1 3 23:17 2 4 23:18 1 5 23:19 1 6 23:21 1 7 23:24 1 8 23:35 1 End:23:38


Date 13th August 2014 Surveyors PB & EN

Bat Species Location Time↓ 45 Pip 55 Pip

Start: 20:50

Passes Passes

1 21:19 1 2 21:46 1 3 21:49 1 4 21:52 1 5 21:55 1 6 21:56 1 7 21:59 1 8 22:03 1 9 22:23 1 End: 23:00





Date 15th September 2014 Surveyors PB & DS

Bat Species

Location Time↓ 45 Pip Myotis Start: 19:00 Passes Passes

1 20:15 1 2 20:31 1 3 20:41 1 4 20:44 1 5 20:54 1 6 21:09 1 7 21:13 1 8 21:15 1 9 21:23 1

10 21:29 1 11 21:41 1 12 21:48 1

End: 22:00




APPENDIX 2 - Remote Bat Detector Records




Detector A – under alder tree along the Northern boundary hedge line of the site

Time Number of passes

Pip 45 Pip 55 Noc My. BLE DATE: 18.06.14 First bat P45 01:12 20:00 – 21:00 21:00 – 22:00 22:00 – 23:00 23:00 – 00:00 00:00 – 01:00 01:00 – 02:00 2 02:00 – 03:00 03:00 – 04:00 2 04:00 – 05:00 05:00 – 06:00 06:00 – 07:00 DATE: 19.06.14 First bat P45 22:27 20:00 – 21:00 21:00 – 22:00 22:00 – 23:00 2 23:00 – 00:00 00:00 – 01:00 1 01:00 – 02:00 2 1 1 02:00 – 03:00 1 03:00 – 04:00 4 04:00 – 05:00 05:00 – 06:00 06:00 – 07:00 DATE: 20.06.14 First bat P45 22:28 20:00 – 21:00 21:00 – 22:00 22:00 – 23:00 7 2 23:00 – 00:00 9 00:00 – 01:00 1 1 01:00 – 02:00 2 02:00 – 03:00 1 2 03:00 – 04:00 2 3 1 04:00 – 05:00 05:00 – 06:00 06:00 – 07:00 04:00 – 05:00




Detector B – under willow adjacent to railway corridor

Time Number of passes Pip 45 Pip 45 Pip 45 Pip 45 Pip 45

DATE: 18.06.14 First bat: 22:26 P45 20:00 – 21:00 21:00 – 22:00 22:00 – 23:00 2 23:00 – 00:00 9 2 1 00:00 – 01:00 13 4 1 01:00 – 02:00 8 5 2 02:00 – 03:00 10 1 03:00 – 04:00 46 2 1 04:00 – 05:00 05:00 – 06:00 06:00 – 07:00 DATE: 19.06.14 First bat: 22:16 P45 20:00 – 21:00 21:00 – 22:00 22:00 – 23:00 3 23:00 – 00:00 1 2 00:00 – 01:00 1 2 01:00 – 02:00 3 1 1 1 02:00 – 03:00 14 1 4 03:00 – 04:00 31 1 3 1 04:00 – 05:00 05:00 – 06:00 06:00 – 07:00 DATE: 20.06.14 First bat 22:21 P45 20:00 – 21:00 21:00 – 22:00 22:00 – 23:00 3 1 1 23:00 – 00:00 1 3 00:00 – 01:00 1 3 01:00 – 02:00 2 02:00 – 03:00 1 03:00 – 04:00 7 1 04:00 – 05:00 05:00 – 06:00 06:00 – 07:00




Detector C – under alder in centre hedge line of site adjacent to broadleaved plantation

Time Number of passes Pip 45 Pip 55 Noc My. BLE

DATE: 14/08/2014 First bat 21:11 – P45 20:00 – 21:00 21:00 – 22:00 2 22:00 – 23:00 3 1 4 1 23:00 – 00:00 3 1 8 00:00 – 01:00 55 1 7 01:00 – 02:00 32 5 1 02:00 – 03:00 79 50 03:00 – 04:00 1 3 04:00 – 05:00 05:00 – 06:00 06:00 – 07:00 DATE: 15/08/2014 First bat 21:26 P45 20:00 – 21:00 21:00 – 22:00 2 2 22:00 – 23:00 10 5 1 23:00 – 00:00 1 2 1 00:00 – 01:00 01:00 – 02:00 02:00 – 03:00 03:00 – 04:00 04:00 – 05:00 05:00 – 06:00 06:00 – 07:00 DATE: 16/08/2014 – No calls recorded DATE: 17/08/2014 First bat 21.10 P55 20:00 – 21:00 21:00 – 22:00 2 22:00 – 23:00 23:00 – 00:00 1 00:00 – 01:00 1 1 01:00 – 02:00 02:00 – 03:00 03:00 – 04:00 1 04:00 – 05:00 1 2 05:00 – 06:00 5 1 1 06:00 – 07:00 DATE: 18/08/2014 first bat 21:59 P55 20:00 – 21:00 1 21:00 – 22:00 1 6 2 22:00 – 23:00 23:00 – 00:00 00:00 – 01:00 01:00 – 02:00 2 1 02:00 – 03:00 1 1 03:00 – 04:00 04:00 – 05:00 05:00 – 06:00 06:00 – 07:00




Detector D – under willow along eastern boundary, adjacent to railway line


Pip 45 Pip 55 Noc My. BLE DATE: 14/08/2014 First bat 21.15 P55 20:00 – 21:00 21:00 – 22:00 1 22:00 – 23:00 23:00 – 00:00 00:00 – 01:00 1 01:00 – 02:00 02:00 – 03:00 03:00 – 04:00 04:00 – 05:00 05:00 – 06:00 06:00 – 07:00 DATE: 15/08/2014 first bat 23:52 P55 20:00 – 21:00 21:00 – 22:00 22:00 – 23:00 1 23:00 – 00:00 00:00 – 01:00 01:00 – 02:00 02:00 – 03:00 03:00 – 04:00 04:00 – 05:00 05:00 – 06:00 06:00 – 07:00 DATE: 16/08/2014 First bat 00:53 P45 20:00 – 21:00 21:00 – 22:00 22:00 – 23:00 23:00 – 00:00 1 00:00 – 01:00 01:00 – 02:00 02:00 – 03:00 03:00 – 04:00 04:00 – 05:00 05:00 – 06:00 06:00 – 07:00 DATE: 17/08/2014 First bat 21.17 P45 20:00 – 21:00 21:00 – 22:00 1 22:00 – 23:00 23:00 – 00:00 00:00 – 01:00 01:00 – 02:00 1 02:00 – 03:00 03:00 – 04:00 04:00 – 05:00 05:00 – 06:00 06:00 – 07:00





Pip 45 Pip 55 Noc My. BLE DATE: 18/08/2014 first bat 21:49 Myo. 20:00 – 21:00 21:00 – 22:00 1 22:00 – 23:00 23:00 – 00:00 00:00 – 01:00 01:00 – 02:00 02:00 – 03:00 03:00 – 04:00 04:00 – 05:00 1 05:00 – 06:00 06:00 – 07:00

Detector E – north end of site next to main drain

Time Number of passes Pip 45 Pip 55 Noc My. Nath pip

DATE: 15/09/2014 first bat 22:00 – 23:00 3 23:00 – 00:00 1 00:00 – 01:00 2 1 01:00 – 02:00 02:00 – 03:00 1 03:00 – 04:00 1 04:00 – 05:00 1 05:00 – 06:00 1 DATE: 16/09/2014 first bat 20:00 – 21:00 12 1 1 21:00 – 22:00 1 3 22:00 – 23:00 5 1 23:00 – 00:00 2 2 2 00:00 – 01:00 1 01:00 – 02:00 1 4 02:00 – 03:00 9 2 03:00 – 04:00 5 1 04:00 – 05:00 2 05:00 – 06:00 1 DATE: 17/09/2014 first bat 19:00 – 20:00 5 1 1 20:00 – 21:00 31 2 21:00 – 22:00 3 22:00 – 23:00 23:00 – 00:00 3 00:00 – 01:00 1 01:00 – 02:00 6 1 02:00 – 03:00 1 3 03:00 – 04:00 2 2 04:00 – 05:00 1 04:00 – 05:00 2 2 1




Detector F – Adjacent to railway next to pylon pole

Time Number of passes Pip 45 Pip 55 Noc My. BLE Nath pip Leisler

DATE: 15/09/2014 first bat 21:00 – 22:00 3 6 3 1 1 22:00 – 23:00 3 2 1 23:00 – 00:00 1 2 4 00:00 – 01:00 1 1 01:00 – 02:00 02:00 – 03:00 4 03:00 – 04:00 3 04:00 – 05:00 1 4 05:00 – 06:00 DATE: 16/09/2014 first bat 19:00 – 20:00 4 72 20:00 – 21:00 6 19 1 2 21:00 – 22:00 6 15 6 2 22:00 – 23:00 1 7 2 3 2 23:00 – 00:00 7 18 1 8 2 00:00 – 01:00 7 12 9 6 01:00 – 02:00 21 15 2 02:00 – 03:00 10 23 10 03:00 – 04:00 7 12 6 04:00 – 05:00 9 3 2 05:00 – 06:00 7 2 2 06:00 – 07:00 2 3 DATE: 17/09/2014 first bat 19:00 – 20:00 2 3 2 52 20:00 – 21:00 2 6 5 1 21:00 – 22:00 4 5 5 4 22:00 – 23:00 1 2 4 1 23:00 – 00:00 1 11 3 2 1 00:00 – 01:00 6 2 3 01:00 – 02:00 1 25 1 10 20 02:00 – 03:00 1 7 4 7 03:00 – 04:00 5 8 2 6 04:00 – 05:00 2 9 1 4 04:00 – 05:00 4 2 1 2




APPENDIX 3 - E-DNA Results




APPENDIX 4 - Biological Monitoring Working Party (BMWP) and Average Score/Taxon (ASPT)




BIOLOGICAL MONITORING WORKING PARTY (BMWP) SYSTEM

There are about 4,000 species of aquatic macro-invertebrates in the British Isles. To simplify the analysis of the samples and provide broad categorisation of diversity, there is no requirement to identify individual species but only the major types (Taxa), mostly at the Family level. A key piece of information is the number of different Taxa at a site. A fall in the number of Taxa indicates ecological damage, including pollution (organic, toxic and physical pollution such as siltation, and damage to habitats or the river channel).

For consistency, only Taxa used in the BMWP (Biological Monitoring Working Party) system are recorded (see below). Some Taxa are more susceptible to organic pollution than others are and the presence of sensitive species indicates good water quality. This fact is taken into account by the BMWP System.

The BMWP system assigns a numerical value to about 80 different Taxa (known as the BMWP-scoring Families) according to their sensitivity to organic pollution. The average of the values for each Taxon in a sample, known as ASPT (average score per Taxon) is a stable and reliable index of organic pollution. Values lower than expected indicate organic pollution.

The most useful way of summarising the biological data is one that combines the number of Taxa and the ASPT. The least affected waterbodies are indicated by a diverse variety of Taxa, especially those that are sensitive to pollution. Poorer quality is indicated by a smaller than expected number of Taxa, particularly those that are sensitive to pollution. Organic pollution sometimes encourages an increased abundance of a few tolerant Taxa.

The biotic scores can be interpreted by following the guidelines in the table below (taken from Armitage et al.10, 1983; Chapman, 199611; Mason, 200212). However, these categories are for guidance only and it should be remembered that maximum achievable values vary between geological regions.

For example, pristine lowland streams in East Anglia will always score lower than pristine Welsh mountain streams, as they are unable to support many of the high-scoring Taxa associated with fast flowing habitat. BMWP scores and ASPT for different types of watercourse are dependent on the quality and diversity of habitat, natural water chemistry (associated with geology, distance from source etc.), altitude, gradient, time of year the sample was taken and other factors. The table below provides a broad categorisation of the scores.

10 Armitage, P.D., Moss, D., Wright, J.F. and Furse, M.T. (1983) The performance of a New Biological Water Quality Score System based on Macroinvertebrates over a wide range of unpolluted running-water sites. Water Research 17(3), 333 – 347. 11 Chapman, D. (1996) Water Quality assessments: a guide to the use of biota, sediments and water in environmental monitoring. 2nd Edition. UNESCO, London 12 Mason, C.F. (2002) Biology of Freshwater Pollution, Fourth Edition. Prentice Hall, London.




BMWP score ASPT Interpretation

0-10 <3.0 Very poor, heavily polluted

11-40 3.0-4.3 Poor, polluted or impacted

41-70 4.3-4.8 Moderate, moderately impacted

71-100 4.8-5.4 Good, clean but slightly impacted

>100 >5.4 Very good, unpolluted, un-impacted

The table below lists all the scoring Taxa with their original score, revised score and habitat specific score.

Common Name Family Original BMWP Score

Revised BMWP Score

Habitat Specific Scores

Riffles Riffle/Pools Pools

Flatworms Planariidae 5 4.2 4.5 4.1 3.7

Dendrocoelidae 5 3.1 2.3 4.1 3.1 Snails Neritidae 6 7.5 6.7 8.1 9.3

Viviparidae 6 6.3 2.1 4.7 7.1

Valvatidae 3 2.8 2.5 2.5 3.2

Hydrobiidae 3 3.9 4.1 3.9 3.7

Lymnaeidae 3 3 3.2 3.1 2.8

Physidae 3 1.8 0.9 1.5 2.8

Planorbidae 3 2.9 2.6 2.9 3.1 Limpets and Ancylidae 6 5.6 5.5 5.5 6.2 Mussels Unionidae 6 5.2 4.7 4.8 5.5 Sphaeriidae 3 3.6 3.7 3.7 3.4

Worms Oligochaeta 1 3.5 3.9 3.2 2.5 Leeches Piscicolidae 4 5 4.5 5.4 5.2

Glossiphoniidae 3 3.1 3 3.3 2.9

Hirudididae 3 0 0.3 -0.3

Erpobdellidae 3 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.6 Crustaceans Asellidae 3 2.1 1.5 2.4 2.7

Corophiidae 6 6.1 5.4 5.1 6.5

Gammaridae 6 4.5 4.7 4.3 4.3

Astacidae 8 9 8.8 9 11.2 Mayflies Siphlonuridae 10 11 11

Baetidae 4 5.3 5.5 4.8 5.1

Heptageniidae 10 9.8 9.7 10.7 13

Leptophlebiidae 10 8.9 8.7 8.9 9.9

Ephemerellidae 10 7.7 7.6 8.1 9.3

Potamanthidae 10 7.6 7.6





Revised BMWP Score



Ephemeridae 10 9.3 9 9.2 11

Caenidae 7 7.1 7.2 7.3 6.4 Stoneflies Taeniopterygidae 10 10.8 10.7 12.1

Nemouridae 7 9.1 9.2 8.5 8.8

Leuctridae 10 9.9 9.8 10.4 11.2

Capniidae 10 10 10.1

Perlodidae 10 10.7 10.8 10.7 10.9

Perlidae 10 12.5 12.5 12.2

Chloroperlidae 10 12.4 12.5 12.1 Damselflies Platycnemidae 6 5.1 3.6 5.4 5.7

Coenagriidae 6 3.5 2.6 3.3 3.8

Lestidae 8 5.4 5.4

Calopterygidae 8 6.4 6 6.1 7.6 Dragonflies Gomphidae 8

Cordulegasteridae 8 8.6 9.5 6.5 7.6

Aeshnidae 8 6.1 7 6.9 5.7

Corduliidae 8

Libellulidae 8 5 5 Bugs Mesoveliidae * 5 4.7 4.9 4 5.1

Hydrometridae 5 5.3 5 6.2 4.9

Gerridae 5 4.7 4.5 5 4.7

Nepidae 5 4.3 4.1 4.2 4.5

Naucoridae 5 4.3 4.3

Aphelocheiridae 10 8.9 8.4 9.5 11.7

Notonectidae 5 3.8 1.8 3.4 4.4

Pleidae 5 3.9 3.9

Corixidae 5 3.7 3.6 3.5 3.9 Beetles Haliplidae 5 4 3.7 4.2 4.3

Hygrobiidae 5 2.6 5.6 -0.8 2.6

Dytiscidae 5 4.8 5.2 4.3 4.2

Gyrinidae 5 7.8 8.1 7.4 6.8

Hydrophilidae 5 5.1 5.5 4.5 3.9

Clambidae 5

Scirtidae 5 6.5 6.9 6.2 5.8

Dryopidae 5 6.5 6.5

Elmidae 5 6.4 6.5 6.1 6.5

Chrysomelidae * 5 4.2 4.9 1.1 4.1

Curculionidae * 5 4 4.7 3.1 2.9





Revised BMWP Score



Alderflies Sialidae 4 4.5 4.7 4.7 4.3 Caddisflies Rhyacophilidae 7 8.3 8.2 8.6 9.6

Philopotamidae 8 10.6 10.7 9.8

Polycentropidae 7 8.6 8.6 8.4 8.7

Psychomyiidae 8 6.9 6.4 7.4 8 Caddisflies Hydropsychidae 5 6.6 6.6 6.5 7.2

Hydroptilidae 6 6.7 6.7 6.8 6.5

Phryganeidae 10 7 6.6 5.4 8

Limnephilidae 7 6.9 7.1 6.5 6.6

Molannidae 10 8.9 7.8 8.1 10

Beraeidae 10 9 8.3 7.8 10

Odontoceridae 10 10.9 10.8 11.4 11.7

Leptoceridae 10 7.8 7.8 7.7 8.1

Goeridae 10 9.9 9.8 9.6 12.4

Lepidostomatidae 10 10.4 10.3 10.7 11.6

Brachycentridae 10 9.4 9.3 9.7 11

Sericostomatidae 10 9.2 9.1 9.3 10.3 True flies Tipulidae 5 5.5 5.6 5 5.1

Chironomidae 2 3.7 4.1 3.4 2.8

Simuliidae 5 5.8 5.9 5.1 5.5 Notes * These families are now excluded from the list used for the calculation of the score.

A blank indicates that there were insufficient records for the calculations.

The Revised BMWP Scores are based on the analysis of frequency of occurrence of the families recorded in approximately 17,000 samples.

The Habitat Specific Scores are based on the following substrate compositions:

Riffles: >= 70% boulders and pebbles Pool: >= 70% sand and silt Riffle/Pool: the remainder


barnby moor quarry - nottinghamshire county council

Documents