Hydrogeological Impact Assessment Minerals Assessment Sites: U3: Cox’S Farm, Marston Meysey U4: Blackburr Farm, Marston Meysey U5: North Farm, Castle Eaton

Hydrogeological Impact Assessment Minerals Assessment Sites: U3: Cox’s Farm, Marston Meysey U4: Blackburr Farm, Marston Meysey U5: North Farm, Castle Eaton

Final Report December 2011

Prepared for

Wiltshire Council Sites U3, U4 and U5 – Hydrogeological Impact Assessment

Revision Schedule

Hydrogeological Impact Assessment December 2011

Rev Date Details Prepared by Reviewed by Approved by

01 November Draft Tom Hargreaves Steve Cox Jane Sladen 2011 Principal Senior Hydrogeologist Technical Director Hydrogeologist

William King Hydrogeologist

02 November Final Tom Hargreaves Steve Cox Jane Sladen 2011 Principal Senior Hydrogeologist Technical Director Hydrogeologist

03 December Final v2 Tom Hargreaves Steve Cox Jane Sladen 2011 Principal Senior Hydrogeologist Technical Director Hydrogeologist

URS Scott Wilson Ltd Scott House Alençon Link Basingstoke Hampshire RG21 7PP

Tel. +44 (0)1256 310 200 Fax. +44 (0)1256 310 201

www.scottwilson.com

Hydrogeological Impact Assessment December 2011 i Wiltshire Council Sites U3, U4 and U5 – Hydrogeological Impact Assessment

Limitations URS Scott Wilson Ltd (“URS Scott Wilson”) has prepared this Report for the sole use of Wiltshire Council (“Client”) in accordance with the Agreement under which our services were performed as set out in proposal P828378 dated 19 July 2011. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice included in this Report or any other services provided by URS Scott Wilson. 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 URS Scott Wilson.

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 URS Scott Wilson has not been independently verified by URS Scott Wilson, unless otherwise stated in the Report.

The methodology adopted and the sources of information used by URS Scott Wilson in providing its services are outlined in this Report. The work described in this Report was undertaken between August and November 2011 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.

URS Scott Wilson 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 URS Scott Wilson’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. URS Scott Wilson specifically does not guarantee or warrant any estimate or projections contained in this Report.

Unless otherwise stated in this Report, the assessments made assume that the sites and facilities will continue to be used for their current purpose without significant changes.

Hydrogeological Impact Assessment December 2011 ii Wiltshire Council Sites U3, U4 and U5 – Hydrogeological Impact Assessment

Table of Contents 1 Introduction...... 7 1.1 Background ...... 7 1.2 Policy and Legislative Context ...... 8 1.2.1 Legislation...... 8 1.2.2 National Policy ...... 9 1.2.3 Local Policy...... 11 2 Assessment Method...... 14 3 Baseline Conditions ...... 17 3.1 Site Description...... 17 3.2 Surface Water and Drainage...... 18 3.2.1 River Thames...... 18 3.2.2 Thames and Severn Canal...... 19 3.2.3 Marston Meysey Brook and Tributary ...... 19 3.2.4 Ponds ...... 19 3.2.5 Water Framework Directive Status ...... 20 3.3 Geology...... 21 3.4 Hydrogeology ...... 23 3.4.1 Hydrogeological Units ...... 23 3.4.2 Aquifer Properties ...... 23 3.4.3 Groundwater Level Elevation and Fluctuations ...... 23 3.4.4 Piezometry and Groundwater Movement...... 26 3.4.5 Groundwater Flow Magnitude...... 27 3.4.6 Water Framework Directive Status ...... 28 3.5 Land Designations...... 29 3.5.1 Source Protection Zones...... 29 3.5.2 Historic Land Use and Pollution Incidents...... 30 3.5.3 Protected Areas ...... 31 3.5.4 Discharge Consents, Abstraction Licences and Other Abstractors ...... 31 4 Hydrogeological Risk Assessment ...... 33 4.1 Review of Activities Proposed and the Potential Impacts...... 33 4.1.1 Site Operation and Post Extraction Plan...... 33 4.1.2 Dewatering Activities...... 34 4.1.3 Changes to the Recharge Characteristics and the Unsaturated Zone ...... 35 4.1.4 Water Quality ...... 35 4.2 Receptors ...... 36 4.3 Identification of Pathways ...... 36 4.4 Appraisal of Magnitude of Impact on Receptors...... 37 4.4.1 Impacts during Construction/Gravel Extraction ...... 37 4.4.2 Impacts during Post Operation Land Use ...... 38 4.5 Assessment of Significance of Effects ...... 40 4.6 Mitigation Measures...... 41 4.6.1 Elevated Levels of Suspended Solids...... 41 4.6.2 Contamination from Chemicals and Fuel Stored on Site ...... 41 4.6.3 Dewatering...... 41

Hydrogeological Impact Assessment December 2011 iii Wiltshire Council Sites U3, U4 and U5 – Hydrogeological Impact Assessment

4.6.4 Post Operation Groundwater Levels...... 42 4.7 Residual Effects...... 42 5 Site Investigations and Monitoring ...... 43 6 Conclusions ...... 44 7 References ...... 45

List of Drawings

Drawing 1 Study Area Location Map Drawing 2 Study Area Geological Map

List of Figures

Figure 1 Site U3, U4, U5 Location Map 7 Figure 2 Contour map detail for U3 site with river terrace 17 Figure 3 Main Rivers and EA Flood Zones in the vicinity of the sites 18 Figure 4 Main Rivers and EA Flood Zones, detail at U3, U4 & U5 sites. 20 Figure 5 Site U3 Superficial Geology Map 22 Figure 6 Site U3, U4 & U5 Borehole Locations 24 Figure 7 RTD Groundwater Level Hydrographs from 2003 to 2011 25 Figure 8 RTD Groundwater Level Response to Rainfall (Recharge) During 2010 26 Figure 9 Surface Water Flow/Stage Response to Rainfall During 2010 26 Figure 10 Water Level Piezometry (maOD) for the minimum levels in 2010 27 Figure 11 Source Protection Zones near U3, U4 and U5 29 Figure 12 Pollution incidents near U3, U4 and U5 30 Figure 13 Landfill sites near U3, U4 and U5 31

List of Tables

Table 1 Importance of Water Resource 15 Table 2 Magnitude of Impact 16 Table 3 Significance of Effect 16 Table 4. WFD assessment of surface water bodies in proximity of U3, U4 & U5 site 21 Table 5 Geological succession in the area site U3 Cox’s Farm 21 Table 6 Groundwater levels at RTD monitoring locations near site U3 Cox’s Farm 24 Table 7 RTD saturated aquifer thickness near site U3 Cox’s Farm 25 Table 8 Groundwater Flow Though River Terrace Deposits 28 Table 9 WFD assessment of groundwater bodies in proximity to U3, U4 & U5 sites 28 Table 10 Discharge consents within 3 km of the U3 site 32 Table 11 Groundwater Abstraction Licences for the RTD Aquifer within 3 km of U3 site 32 Table 12 Possible Private unlicensed abstractions from RTD within 3 km of U3 site 32 Table 13 Extent of Effect and Magnitude of Dewatering 35 Table 14 Importance of water receptors in proximity of the U3, U4 & U5 sites 36 Table 15 Summary of Impacts of mineral extraction at U3, U4 and U5 sites 39 Table 16 Summary of significance of effects (before mitigation) 40

Hydrogeological Impact Assessment December 2011 iv Wiltshire Council Sites U3, U4 and U5 – Hydrogeological Impact Assessment

Glossary of Terms and Acronyms Aquifer A geological formation that can store and transmit groundwater in significant quantities

A/HMWB Artificial and Heavily Modified Water Body. Acronym used in the morphological classification of waters by the Environment Agency

BAP Biodiversity Action Plan

BGS British Geological Survey

CFMP Catchment Flood Management Plans

Darcy’s Law Describes the flow of water through a porous medium: the rate of flow of water is proportional to both the hydraulic conductivity and the hydraulic gradient

DPD Development Plan Document

EA Environment Agency

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

FRA Flood Risk Assessment

GWD Groundwater Directive 1980

GWR Groundwater Regulations

GWDD Groundwater Daughter Directive 2006

HRA Hydrogeological Risk Assessment

Hydraulic Conductivity A constant of proportionality in Darcy’s law that allows the calculation of the rate of groundwater flow from the hydraulic gradient. For a unit hydraulic gradient, the higher the hydraulic conductivity the higher the rate of groundwater flow

Hydraulic gradient In an aquifer this is the rate of change of groundwater level per unit distance in a given direction. Groundwater flows in the direction of the decline in hydraulic gradient maOD Metres above ordnance datum. Units to measure elevations of, for example, water level or ground level. The ordnance datum is a reference level at Newlyn in Cornwall. It is equivalent to level above sea level.

Hydrogeological Impact Assessment December 2011 v Wiltshire Council Sites U3, U4 and U5 – Hydrogeological Impact Assessment

MCS Minerals Core Strategies

MDC Mineral Development Control

NGR National Grid Reference

RTD River Terrace Deposits

SPZ Source Protection Zone

Transmissivity A measure of the ease at which water moves through a porous medium.

UKTAG United Kingdom Technical Advisory Group

WFD Water Framework Directive 2000

Hydrogeological Impact Assessment December 2011 vi Wiltshire Council Sites U3, U4 and U5 – Hydrogeological Impact Assessment

1 Introduction 1.1 Background The current report provides a hydrogeological risk assessment for the proposed mineral (sand and gravel) extraction site U3 at Cox’s Farm, alone and in combination with proposed sites U4 at Blackburr Farm and U5 at North Farm. The U3 site occupies an area of approximately 106 hectares and is located between the villages Marston Meysey and Dunfield, to the north of Swindon in the county of Wiltshire at National grid reference SU 135 971. The location and extent of the site is shown in Figure 1. The study area of this report is the U3, U4 and U5 sites together with the territory up to 3 km from the site boundaries. The study area is shown in Drawing 1, which is at the end of this report.

This report provides an assessment of the potential impacts on water resources as a result of the proposed construction and operation of a sand and gravel quarry at the U3 site, alone and in combination with the proposed U4 and U5 sites. In the context of this report, the term ‘Hydrogeology' covers the assessment of impacts on:

• Groundwater and surface water which is interconnected; and • Water quality;

The following report sections introduce the assessment method and present the baseline conditions, potential impacts and mitigation measures. The assessment method follows the

Hydrogeological Impact Assessment December 2011 7 Wiltshire Council Sites U3, U4 and U5 – Hydrogeological Impact Assessment

Environment Agency (EA) guidance Annex (j)1 and the site specific comments raised by the EA to the Wiltshire and Swindon Aggregates Minerals Site Allocations DPD – August 2010. A copy of the EA letter dated 29 Oct 2010 is provided in Annex A. 1.2 Policy and Legislative Context There is a very wide range of legislation and policy pertaining to water resources; however, this section only refers to water resources related legislation and policy that is directly relevant to the proposed development and the range of potential impacts identified.

1.2.1 Legislation

Water Framework Directive

The Water Framework Directive (WFD)2 establishes a framework for a European wide approach to action in the field of water policy. Its ultimate aim is to ensure all inland and near shore watercourses and water bodies (including groundwater) are of ‘Good’ status or better, in terms of ecological, but also chemical, biological and physical parameters, by the year 2015. Therefore, any activities or developments that could cause detriment to a nearby water resource, or prevent the future ability of a water resource to reach its potential status, must be mitigated so as to reduce the potential for harm and allow the aims of the Directive to be realised.

A water body is assessed for Ecological Status and Chemical Status as part of the WFD, the methodology for determining status has been set out by the UK Technical Advisory Group (UKTAG) on the WFD. The Environment Agency is responsible for monitoring and ensuring that the targets are met. Water Bodies are classed as either: High, Good, Moderate, Poor or Bad.

The Ecological Status is based on biological quality which includes invertebrates, fish and macrophytes; physicochemical quality which includes temperature, dissolved oxygen, salinity, pH and nutrients; and hydromorphological quality which assesses the range of available habitats.

Chemical Status is assessed on the presence and concentration of Priority Substances for which standards have been established. A full list is located in the UKTAG advice for classification. UKTAG has also proposed water quality, ecology, water abstraction and river flow standards to be adopted in order to ensure that water bodies in the UK (including groundwater) meet the required status.

The Groundwater Directive (80/68/EEC) and Groundwater Regulations 2009

The Groundwater Directive aims to protect groundwater from pollution by controlling discharges and disposal of certain dangerous substances to groundwater. In the UK, the Directive is implemented through the Groundwater Regulations. The Directive aims to protect groundwater under these Regulations by preventing or limiting the inputs of polluting substances into groundwater. Substances controlled under these Regulations fall into two categories:

• Hazardous substances are the most toxic and must be prevented from entering groundwater. Substances in this list may be disposed of to the ground, under a permit, but

1 Environment Agency publication. “How to comply with your environmental permit Additional guidance for: H1 – Technical Annex to Annex (j): Hydrogeological Risk Assessments for Landfills and the Derivation of Groundwater Control Levels and Compliance Limits”. v2.0 April 2010. 2 Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the Community action in the field of water policy, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/index_en.html

Hydrogeological Impact Assessment December 2011 8 Wiltshire Council Sites U3, U4 and U5 – Hydrogeological Impact Assessment

must not reach groundwater. They include pesticides, sheep dip, solvents, hydrocarbons, mercury, cadmium and cyanide. Hazardous substances replace the previous List 1 substances which came under the 1998 Groundwater Regulations (GWR). • Non-hazardous pollutants are less dangerous, and can be discharged to groundwater under a permit, but must not cause pollution. Examples include sewage, trade effluent and most wastes. Non-hazardous pollutants include any substance capable of causing pollution and the list is much wider than the previous List 2 substances. For example, nitrate is included as a pollutant but it was excluded from List 2 in the 1998 GWR.

The Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010 SI 2010:675

The Regulations replace those parts of the Water Resources Act 1991 that relate to the regulation of discharges to controlled waters (including groundwater). Under the Regulations, groundwater activities relate to inputs of pollutants to groundwater. The Regulations also replace the Groundwater Regulations 2009 which in turn recently replaced the Groundwater Regulations 1998.

The Regulations transpose the Groundwater Directive 1980 (hereafter GWD)3, the Water Framework Directive 2000 and Groundwater Daughter Directive 2006 (hereafter GWDD)4. The changes from the requirements of the GWD to the GWDD involve a period of transition. This is necessary partly because the GWD remains in force until it is repealed in December 2013 and meanwhile runs in parallel with the new Directive. It is clear from the wording of the Water Framework Directive that a level of protection at least equal to that in the GWD should be retained on repeal of that Directive. The Regulations therefore need to ensure that essential requirements of the GWD are not lost whilst facilitating a change from the old to the new Directives.

Floods and Water Management Act, 2010

The Act provides for a comprehensive management of flood risk for people, homes and businesses, helps safeguard community groups from unaffordable rises in surface water drainage charges and protects water supplies to the consumer.

Serious flooding can happen any time. Climate projections suggest extreme weather will happen more frequently in the future. This Act is central to reducing the flood risk associated with extreme weather.

1.2.2 National Policy

Groundwater Protection: Policy and Practice (GP3)

The Environment Agency’s core groundwater policy5 is

‘To protect and manage groundwater resources for present and future generations in ways that are appropriate for the risks that we identify’.

The Environment Agency’s framework for regulation and management of groundwater is provided in a set of documents, collectively known as Groundwater Protection: Policy and Practice (GP3). These describe their aims and objectives for groundwater, their technical

3 Directive 80/68/EEC on the protection of groundwater against pollution caused by certain dangerous substances (the Groundwater Directive – GWD) 4 Directive 2006/118/EC on the protection of groundwater against pollution and deterioration (the Groundwater Daughter Directive – GWDD) 5 www.environment-agency.gov.uk

Hydrogeological Impact Assessment December 2011 9 Wiltshire Council Sites U3, U4 and U5 – Hydrogeological Impact Assessment

approach to its management and protection and policies and approach to the application of legislation.

In Source Protection Zone (SPZ) I, the Environment Agency will object to proposals for new developments such as waste treatment facilities (Policy P3-2 Planning). In all other areas, the Environment Agency apply a risk-based approach to management of non-landfill waste operations that present a risk to groundwater. Where necessary, activities are controlled via permits.

The EA for this site has emphasised particular policies; Policy P6-7 and P6-11

P6-7 Planning

Developers proposing schemes that pose a risk to groundwater resources, quality or abstractions must provide an acceptable hydrogeological risk assessment (HRA) to us and the planning authority. Any activities that can adversely affect groundwater must be considered including physical disturbance of the aquifer. If the HRA identifies unacceptable risks then the developer must provide appropriate mitigation. If this is not done or is not possible we will recommend that the planning permission is conditioned or object to the proposal.

P6-11 Planning Influencing

For any proposal which would physically disturb aquifers, lower groundwater levels, or impede or intercept groundwater flow, we will seek to achieve equivalent protection for water resources and the groundwater-dependent environment as if the effect were caused by a licensable abstraction.

Catchment Flood Management Plans

Catchment Flood Management Plans (CFMPs) have been prepared by the EA to give an overview of the flood risk across each river catchment. They recommend ways of managing those risks now and over the next 50-100 years.

CFMPs consider all types of inland flooding, from rivers, ground water, surface water and tidal flooding, but not flooding directly from the sea, (coastal flooding). They also take into account the likely impacts of climate change, the effects of how the EA use and manage the land, and how areas could be developed to meet present day needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs.

This Impact Assessment the covers an area designated in the CFMP has a low to moderate flood risk where the EA will take action with others to store water or manage run-off in locations that provide overall flood risk reduction or environmental benefits This policy will tend to be applied where there may be opportunities in some locations to reduce flood risk locally or more widely in a catchment by storing water or managing run-off. The policy has been applied to an area (where the potential to apply the policy exists), but would only be implemented in specific locations within the area, after more detailed appraisal and consultation.

Draft National Planning Policy Framework

The draft policy was published in July 2011 and sets out the Government’s economic, environmental and social planning policies for England. Taken together, these policies articulate the Government’s vision of sustainable development, which should be interpreted and applied locally to meet local aspirations. Local development plans must aim to achieve the objective of sustainable development. Relevant sections of the draft document include:

Hydrogeological Impact Assessment December 2011 10 Wiltshire Council Sites U3, U4 and U5 – Hydrogeological Impact Assessment

Mineral requirements

Local planning authorities should use the best available information to develop and maintain an understanding of the extent and location of mineral reserves in their areas and assess the projected demand for their use.

Environmental assessment

Planning policies and decisions should be based on up-to-date information about the natural environment and other characteristics of the area. A sustainability appraisal should be an integrated part of the plan preparation process, and should consider all the likely significant effects on the environment, economic and social factors.

Local Plans may require a variety of other environmental assessments, including under the Habitats Regulations where there is a likely significant effect on a European wildlife site (which may not necessarily be within the same local authority area) and Strategic Flood Risk Assessment. Wherever possible, assessments should share the same evidence base and be conducted over similar timescales, but local authorities should take care to ensure that the purposes and statutory requirements of different assessment processes are respected.

Assessments should be proportionate to the plan. They should not repeat the assessment of higher level policy. Wherever possible the local planning authority should consider how the preparation of any assessment will contribute to the plan’s evidence base. The process should be started early in the plan-making process and key stakeholders should be consulted in identifying the issues that the assessment must cover.

1.2.3 Local Policy

The Minerals and Waste Core Strategy Policies

The Minerals and Waste Core Strategy Policies were adopted in 2009 and they form part of the Local Development Framework for Wiltshire Council and Swindon Borough Council. The document sets out the visions, objectives and strategic spatial approach for managing minerals and waste developments over the period 2006 - 2026.

There are three core strategy policies that are relevant to this hydrogeological impact assessment:

MCS 1 (B): Generic Criteria for Guiding the Location of Minerals Development

In all cases, the process of identifying, appraising, designing and implementing proposals for new or extended sites for minerals extraction and / or recycling of construction and demolition wastes will be guided by the policies of the Minerals Core Strategy, other relevant DPDs and the following indicative criteria:

• the need for the mineral within the broad locations outlined in Section (A) or the need for recycling capacity within the broad locations identified in the Waste Core Strategy;

• likely effects on designated sites and other environmentally valuable features;

• likely effects on designated habitats and priority species;

• proximity to a defined flood zone and / or groundwater Source Protection Zone, and other water interests;

• proximity to local communities and the need to maintain and enhance the local landscape character and setting of settlements;

Hydrogeological Impact Assessment December 2011 11 Wiltshire Council Sites U3, U4 and U5 – Hydrogeological Impact Assessment

• proximity to primary end-use market(s);

• proximity to the Wiltshire HGV route network as defined in the County Freight Strategy and / or alternative transport modes; and

• the ability for a site or sites to deliver significant contributions to local, regional and national BAP targets for habitat creation and priority species as well as geodiversity gains where applicable.

MCS 7: Flooding.

Development proposals must avoid or mitigate any aspect of the development that could potentially lead to an increase in a likelihood of flooding, and where appropriate provide additional flood storage capacity to increase protection for vulnerable land uses, taking into account the impacts of climate change where an opportunity / need is identified through the SFRA / FRA process.

MCS 10: Strategic Approach to Restoration and After-use of Mineral Sites

The restoration, after-care management and future after-use of mineral sites will be primary considerations in the process of planning for all new minerals development in Wiltshire and Swindon. Proposals for the restoration and management of mineral workings should be addressed at the earliest opportunity within the planning process.

Restoration schemes must be designed to prevent increased risks associated with flooding and / or bird strike and should include long-term environmental enhancement, in accordance with the Wiltshire, Swindon and Cotswold Water Park Biodiversity Action Plans and the South West Nature Map where appropriate.

The Minerals Development Control Policies

The Minerals Development Control Policies has three policies of relevance:

MDC1: Criteria for sustainable minerals development.

The Proposals for minerals development must contribute to the delivery of sustainable development in Wiltshire and Swindon by ensuring that the social, economic and environmental benefits of minerals development are maximised, and adverse impacts - including cross- boundary and cumulative impacts - are kept to an acceptable minimum.

MDC3: Managing the impact on surface water and groundwater resources

Proposals for minerals development will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that appropriate controls will be made available to protect and, where appropriate, enhance the water environment. This includes making provisions to ensure the protection and maintenance of: The quality of groundwater, water courses and other surface water; and the volume / levels of groundwater, water courses and other surface water

Flood Risk Assessments (FRA) will be required for minerals development proposals in areas at risk of flooding or likely to contribute to flooding elsewhere, as appropriate to the nature and scale of the development, and must take into account cumulative effects with other existing or proposed development. Where a risk of flooding is identified through FRA, proposals must include measures to ensure the avoidance of and / or mitigation of that risk.

Where appropriate, development proposals will also be required to include provisions for the efficient use of water resources on site and the use of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS).

Hydrogeological Impact Assessment December 2011 12 Wiltshire Council Sites U3, U4 and U5 – Hydrogeological Impact Assessment

MDC9: Restoration, aftercare and after-use management of minerals development

Proposals for minerals development will be permitted where it can be demonstrated that a high quality and appropriate restoration scheme will enable the long term maintenance and enhancement of the environment after the minerals development has ceased and at the earliest practicable opportunity.

Hydrogeological Impact Assessment December 2011 13 Wiltshire Council Sites U3, U4 and U5 – Hydrogeological Impact Assessment

2 Assessment Method The assessment has been undertaken using the Source-Pathway-Receptor model, which is in line with the EA Horizontal Guidance Note H1 – Annex (j). This model identifies the potential sources or ‘causes’ of effect as well as the receptors (water resources) that could potentially be affected. However, the presence of a potential effect source and a potential receptor does not always infer an effect, there needs to be a clear mechanism or ‘pathway’ via which the source can have an effect on the receptor.

The first stage in utilising the Source-Pathway-Receptor model is to identify the causes or ‘sources’ of potential impact. The sources have been identified through a review of the details of the proposed development, including the size and nature of the development, potential construction methodologies and timescales. This has been undertaken in the context of local conditions relative to water resources near the site, such as topography, geology, climatic conditions and potential sources of contamination.

The next stage is to undertake a review of the potential receptors, that is, the water resources themselves that have the potential to be affected. The identification of potential water resource receptors has been undertaken through a review of baseline data.

The last stage is to determine if there is an exposure pathway or a ‘mechanism’ allowing an effect to potentially occur between source and receptor.

Once potential effects on water resources are identified, it is necessary to determine how significant the effects are likely to be, to enable the identification of potential mitigation measures that can counteract negative effects. The effect on the receptors depends largely on the sensitivity of the receptor and the magnitude of effect experienced.

An assessment of the significance of each effect has been undertaken based on the methodology provided in the Web-based Transport Analysis Guidance; specifically the Water Environment Sub-Objective WebTAG Unit 3.3.11. This provides an appraisal framework for taking the outputs of the Environmental Impact Assessment process and analysing the key information of relevance to the water environment. The guidance is based on guidance prepared by the Environment Agency and builds on the water assessment methodology in Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) 11:3:10. Although this method was designed primarily for transport projects it is applicable to and widely used for other development types.

Hydrogeological Impact Assessment December 2011 14 Wiltshire Council Sites U3, U4 and U5 – Hydrogeological Impact Assessment

Receptor Sensitivity

The sensitivity or importance of each water resource (the receptor) is based on its considered value, for example its value as an ecological habitat, as a source of drinking water or as a recreational resource (see Table 1).

Table 1 Importance of Water Resource

Importance Criteria Examples Very high Water resource - A water resource making up a vital component of a with an importance protected Special Area of Conservation (SAC) or Special and rarity at an Protection Area (SPA) under the EC Habitats Directive international level - A water body achieving a status of ‘High status or with limited potential’ under the WFD potential for - Principal aquifer providing potable water to a large substitution. population - EC designated Salmonid fishery High Water resource - A water resource designated or directly linked to a Site of with a high quality Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). and rarity at a - Principal aquifer providing potable water to a small national or regional population level and limited - A river designated as being of ‘Good status’ or with a potential for target of Good status or potential under the WFD substitution. - A water body used for national sporting events such as regattas or sailing events - EC designated Cyprinid fishery Medium Water resource - Secondary aquifer providing potable water to a small with a high quality population and rarity at a local - An aquifer providing abstraction water for agricultural and scale; or Water industrial use resource with a medium quality and rarity at a regional or national scale. Low Water resource - A non ‘main’ river or stream or other water body without with a low quality significant ecological habitat and rarity at a local scale.

Magnitude of Impact

The magnitude of a potential impact is then established based on the likely degree of impact relative to the nature and extent of the proposed development (see Table 2). It is important to consider at this stage that potential impacts can be beneficial as well as adverse and it is the purpose of an EIA to highlight the full spectrum of potential impacts from a proposed development. The derivation of magnitude is carried out independently of the importance of the water resource.

Hydrogeological Impact Assessment December 2011 15 Wiltshire Council Sites U3, U4 and U5 – Hydrogeological Impact Assessment

Table 2 Magnitude of Impact Magnitude Criteria Examples of Impact

High Impact results in a - Loss of EU designated Salmonid fishery shift in a water - Change in WFD classification of a water body. bodies potential - Compromise employment source attributes. - Loss of flood storage/increased flood risk - Pollution of potable source of abstraction Medium Results in impact - Loss / gain in productivity of a fishery. on integrity of - Contribution / reduction of a significant proportion of the attribute or loss of effluent in a receiving river, but insufficient to change its part of attribute. WFD classification - Reduction / increase in the economic value of the feature. Low Results in minor - Measurable changes in attribute, but of limited size and / impact on water or proportion. bodies attribute. Very Low Results in an - Physical impact to a water resource, but no significant impact on attribute reduction / increase in quality, productivity or biodiversity. but of insignificant - No significant impact on the economic value of the magnitude to affect feature. the use / integrity. - No increase in flood risk

Significance of Effect

Once the magnitude of an impact is derived, the significance of the potential effect can then be derived by combining the assessments of both the importance of the water resource and the magnitude of the impact in a simple matrix (see Table 3 below).

Effects which are assessed to be major or moderate are considered to be significant; those that are minor and negligible are not considered to be significant.

Table 3 Significance of Effect Sensitivity of Magnitude of Impact Receptor High Medium Low Very Low Very High Major Major / Moderate Moderate Moderate / Minor High Major / Moderate Moderate Moderate / Minor Minor Medium Moderate Moderate / Minor Minor Negligible Low Moderate / Minor Minor Negligible Negligible

Hydrogeological Impact Assessment December 2011 16 Wiltshire Council Sites U3, U4 and U5 – Hydrogeological Impact Assessment

3 Baseline Conditions 3.1 Site Description The application site occupies an area of approximately 106 hectares and is located between the villages Marston Meysey and Dunfield, to the north of Swindon in the county of Wiltshire, (National grid reference SU 135 971). The site lies within the (former) flood plains of the River Thames that flows eastwards about 500 m to the south. Along the southern boundary of the site the land is 76 mAOD and rises to the northern boundary at 83 mAOD. The ground level contours are shown on a detailed 0.25m contour interval; the topographic changes are very subdued over the site.

Figure 2 Contour map detail for U3 site with river terrace Contours on the east of the site are not available. Pale yellow = Alluvium, Green = 1st Terrace, Pale brown = 2nd Terrace, Orange = 3rd Terrace There are four river terraces identified in the area. These were formed as the flood plain of the rivers that formerly flowed across the area during the Quaternary when the sea level was higher relative to the land surface. Changes in land and sea level due to the glaciations of the Quaternary have resulted in the distinct lowering of the river level. This has eroded the former flood plains leaving four identifiable terraces within the landscape. The highest terrace, known as the fourth terrace, has a level of 105 m and occurs on isolated hills such as Horcott Hill and Marston Hill. The third terrace is at about 85 m and is found at the western end of RAF Fairford. The second terrace is at around 80 m; the villages of Marston Meysey, Down Ampney, Kempsford and Castle Easton have all been built on this terrace. The first, youngest and lowest

Hydrogeological Impact Assessment December 2011 17 Wiltshire Council Sites U3, U4 and U5 – Hydrogeological Impact Assessment

terrace has an elevation of approximately 75 m and forms an almost continuous strip about 2 km wide adjacent to the current rivers.

The Cox’s Farm site lies mainly in the first river terrace. In the north western corner the land rises to the second terrace while in the north eastern boundary with the airfield is the third terrace. 3.2 Surface Water and Drainage The main rivers and flood zones as defined by the EA are shown in Figure 3 and Figure 4.

River Coln Ampney Brook

Marston Meysey Brook

River Thames

River Key River Ray

Figure 3 Main Rivers and EA Flood Zones in the vicinity of the sites

3.2.1 River Thames

The study area is located in the upper reaches of the River Thames catchment. The river flows broadly from west to east, although it meanders through the floodplain.

The River is located about 500 m south of U3 and is immediately adjacent to the northern/western margins of U5 and southwest/southeastern margins of U4. Both the River and the River Terrace Deposits (RTD) aquifer are assumed to be in hydraulic conductivity, although Alluvium may limit the interaction of these two water bodies.

Hydrogeological Impact Assessment December 2011 18 Wiltshire Council Sites U3, U4 and U5 – Hydrogeological Impact Assessment

3.2.2 Thames and Severn Canal

The Thames and Severn Canal is a historic feature, the remnants of which can still be observed in the study area. Where isolated ponds exist within the course of the Canal to the west near Eysey Manor Farm, they are believed to be formed on puddled clay and are therefore largely hydraulically separated from the RTD aquifer (Tarmac Quarry Products Ltd, 1999), and are scoped out of the existing study.

The Thames and Severn Canal is not assessed within this Hydrogeological Risk Assessment, as it is not a currently a water body in the near vicinity of the proposed quarry sites. However, there is a general requirement to confirm the need for preservation of this historic feature.

3.2.3 Marston Meysey Brook and Tributary

The Marston Meysey Brook is around 100 m to the west of the U3 site, flowing south and then joining the River Thames.

A tributary of the Marston Meysey Brook flows eastwards from the existing minerals site at Eysey Manor Farm, to a confluence with the Brook adjacent to the existing minerals site at Round House Farm. It is noted that on the Environment Agency website (November 2011), this tributary is included within part of the Ampney and Poulton Brooks water body.

3.2.4 Ponds

There are seven ponds identified as potential receptors:

• Pond within U3 (east of Marston Meysey); • Pond 100 m west of U3, adjacent to Marston Meysey; • Pond immediately adjacent to U3 at Cox’s Farm; and • Four ponds lie between 200 and 1000 m to the east of the U3 site.

Hydrogeological Impact Assessment December 2011 19 Wiltshire Council Sites U3, U4 and U5 – Hydrogeological Impact Assessment

Ponds

Existing quarry

Figure 4 Main Rivers and EA Flood Zones, detail at U3, U4 & U5 sites. Red lines = Site outline; Hatched area = Existing gravel quarry areas; Blue pentagon = Pond location Note: There are no EA marked flood defences in the vicinity of the site. (c) Environment Agency copyright and database rights 2011. (c) Ordnance Survey Crown copyright. All rights reserved. Environment Agency. 100026380.

3.2.5 Water Framework Directive Status

The WFD sets a target of achieving overall ‘Good status’ in all water bodies (including rivers, streams, lakes, transitional and coastal water bodies, and groundwater) by 2027. For surface waters, Good status has an ecological and a chemical component; Good ecological status is measured on the scale High, Good, Moderate, Poor and Bad. Chemical status is measured as ‘Good’ or ‘Fail’.

Some surface water bodies are designated as ‘artificial’, this is because they may have been created or modified for a particular use such as water supply, flood protection, navigation or urban infrastructure. By definition, artificial and heavily modified water bodies are not able to achieve natural conditions. Instead the classification and objectives for these water bodies, and the biology they represent, are measured against ‘ecological potential’ rather than status.

The WFD status of surface water bodies of interest to the current study is provided in Table 4.

Hydrogeological Impact Assessment December 2011 20 Wiltshire Council Sites U3, U4 and U5 – Hydrogeological Impact Assessment

Table 4. WFD assessment of surface water bodies in proximity of U3, U4 & U5 site 2015 2015 Hydromor- Current Current Water body Name / Predicted Predicted phological Ecologic Chemical ID Ecological Chemical Status al Quality Quality Quality Quality River Thames Not Poor Does not Poor Does not (Churn to Coln) designated require require 6 GB106039022990 A/HMWB assessment assessment Thames and Severn Artificial Good Does not Good Does not canal Potential require Potential require GB70610060 assessment assessment Marston Meysey Not Good Does not Good Does not Brook designated require require GB106039023860 A/HMWB assessment assessment

3.3 Geology The superficial geology of the study area is illustrated in Figure 5 and Drawing 2. A summary of the geological formations and their approximate thickness is presented in Table 5. The geological information is based on the BGS 1:50,000 geology map, geological logs, information supplied by the EA, and previous hydrogeological reports conducted in the area; Eysey Manor Farm (Tarmac, 1999) and Roundhouse Farm Quarry (Hyder 2000). There are no known site investigations for the U3, U4 or U5 sites. Oxford Clay occurs over almost all the study area, either at surface outcrop (where superficials are absent) or below the River Terrace Deposits.

Table 5 Geological succession in the area site U3 Cox’s Farm Geological Formation Approximate Thickness Age (m) Pleistocene & Recent Alluvium Up to 1.5 River Terrace Deposits Up to 6.2 Upper Jurassic Oxford Clay Formation 20 to 72 Kellaways Formation 12 to 20 Middle Jurassic Cornbrash Formation 4 Forest Marble Formation 27 Great Oolite Limestone Formation 45

6 A/HMWB = Artificial and Heavily Modified Water Body

Hydrogeological Impact Assessment December 2011 21 Wiltshire Council Sites U3, U4 and U5 – Hydrogeological Impact Assessment

Figure 5 Site U3 Superficial Geology Map Pale yellow = Alluvium, Green = 1st RTD Terrace, Pale brown = 2nd RTD Terrace, Orange = 3rd RTD Terrace, Brown = Head. Note the whole map is underlain by Oxford Clay Formation which outcrops in the white area. The youngest geological deposit is the recent Alluvium (clay, silt, sand and gravel). This lies within the current flood plain of the River Thames and some of the tributary streams forming a strip, in this area of up to 500 m width.

The River Terrace Deposits (RTD) consist of four terraces and are described as being made up of sub-rounded platy and tabular gravels and sands with flints, shells and coral fragments. The gravels are comprised of sub-angular to sub rounded cobbles of limestone and quartzite and flint, while the sands consist of sub-rounded limestone grains and ooliths with coarse quartz and sub-rounded ironstone. The RTD form a thin drape of material forming an infill to broad shallow valleys and isolated deposits on hillsides.

The RTD lie over the much older bedrock or solid geology. These rocks comprise mainly limestone, claystone and some sandstone of Jurassic age. Structurally the bedrock is part of the dip slope of the Cotswold Hills and as such there is a shallow regional dip to the south east. Immediately underlying the RTD at the U3 site (and also U4 and U5) is the Oxford Clay Formation, a sequence of clays and shales described as a stiff to firm calcareous mudstone. The extensive faulting in the area results in a highly variable thickness of Oxford Clay Formation with a thickness range of between 30 and 80 m (Sen and Abbott, 1991).

A borehole within Marston Meysey village (location SU 1294 9754, BGS reference SU19/69A) drilled in 1982 to a depth of 168 m passes through 54 m of Oxford and Kellaways Clay before penetrating the Great and Inferior Oolite series.

Hydrogeological Impact Assessment December 2011 22 Wiltshire Council Sites U3, U4 and U5 – Hydrogeological Impact Assessment

3.4 Hydrogeology 3.4.1 Hydrogeological Units

The superficial deposits (RTD and Alluvium) in the area are water bearing and are defined as a “Secondary A” aquifer by the EA. The aquifer constitutes a secondary aquifer on account of its limited thickness and lateral heterogeneity. The aquifer is unconfined and of importance for local abstraction. It is likely to contribute to surface water base flow. Where it is present, the Alluvium is likely to be in hydraulic continuity with the surface water and the RTD.

The Oxford Clay has a low permeability (an aquiclude) and acts as a hydraulic barrier between the superficial deposits and the principal aquifer at depth. The Middle Jurassic formations are classified as Major or Minor aquifers (Allen et al 1997) and as Principal aquifers by the EA. The deeper aquifers are not considered in detail in this report, as in the general area of the site they are unlikely to be hydraulically connected with the sand and gravel aquifer due to the presence of the Oxford Clay Formation.

3.4.2 Aquifer Properties

The publications regarding the major and minor aquifers in England and Wales (Allen et al 1997 and Jones et al 2000) do not provide any aquifer property data for the River Terrace Deposits aquifer. Estimates of hydraulic conductivity have been obtained from previous hydrogeological reports. These have compiled a range of theoretical aquifer properties that can broadly describe the hydrogeological conditions occurring beneath site.

The key information was collated by Eysey Manor Farm (Tarmac, 1999). The reports document a range of hydraulic conductivities, which were derived from the particle size distribution using the Hazen formula. Hydraulic conductivities ranged from 2 to over 7000 m/d with a median of 19 m/d. The variability of values indicates that the deposits are heterogeneous. Hydraulic conductivity values for RTD aquifer typically range between 1 and 100 m/d and therefore a representative value, for the purposes of the current evaluation, is considered to be 20 m/d, although the higher value of 100 m/d per day is also used to indicate the upper range of likely aquifer response.

3.4.3 Groundwater Level Elevation and Fluctuations

Manual and data logger information from the EA monitoring network demonstrates the range of water level fluctuations in the RTD aquifer. The details of the monitoring locations are provided in Table 6. The tabulated data relates to the year 2010 for all sites except TW05/07, where the levels are for 2005. The annual water level fluctuations in the RTD aquifer are typically 1.5 m, as shown by Figure 7 for the period 2003 to 2011. The water level in the gravels varies rapidly over the period of a few days and thus only the monitoring locations that have continuously measured water levels (SU19/84 and SU19/85) can record the true groundwater level variability.

Hydrogeological Impact Assessment December 2011 23 Wiltshire Council Sites U3, U4 and U5 – Hydrogeological Impact Assessment

Table 6 Groundwater levels at RTD monitoring locations near site U3 Cox’s Farm Groundwater Level Borehole NGR Reference Minimum Maximum Fluctuation (maOD) (maOD) (m) TW05/07 416050,195780 73.41 74.26 0.85 TW05/08 414390,196250 74.17 75.48 1.31 TW05/09 412910,195004 74.82 76.06 1.24 SU19/84 412830,196690 74.78 76.46 1.68 SU19/85 415090,196160 74.19 75.54 1.35

SU19NW19

SU19NW30

SU19NW28 U3 TW05/08

SU19NE6 SU19/84 U4

SU19NW32

RH 35

RH 31 RH 34 SU19/85 TW05/07 RH 33 U5 RH 32

SU19NW29 TW05/09

Figure 6 Site U3, U4 & U5 Borehole Locations NB Only boreholes known to BGS are marked with a symbol The groundwater levels in the RTD aquifer respond rapidly to recharge caused by rainfall during autumn and winter periods (Figure 8). The flow in the River Thames as it passes to the south of the U3 site responds to rainfall during both the summer and winter seasons, as seen in Figure 9.

The saturated thickness of the aquifer varies over the area and through the seasons. The greatest thickness of saturated deposits occurs in the vicinity of the streams at times when the aquifer is fully saturated, where the saturated thickness ranges from 0.6 to 4.3 m. At the edge of the aquifer the deposits may be dry for all or part of the year. The observation boreholes are, for the most part, located in the first river terrace. This terrace is the youngest and at the lowest elevation. The second, third and fourth river terraces are at progressively higher levels and are progressively older. The terrace deposits may be dry or contain a groundwater table that is isolated from the groundwater table in the other terraces.

Hydrogeological Impact Assessment December 2011 24 Wiltshire Council Sites U3, U4 and U5 – Hydrogeological Impact Assessment

Table 7 RTD saturated aquifer thickness near site U3 Cox’s Farm Ground Base of Saturated Borehole Depth to NGR Level RTD Thickness Reference Water (m) (maOD) (maOD) (m) SU19NW28 412960,196900 78.6 74.6 2.8 1.2 SU19NW29 413530,196060 75.6 73.0 1.8 0.8 SU19NW30 413980,196410 75.6 72.8 1.1 1.7 SU19NW32 412760,196490 n/k n/k 0.9 2.6 SU19NW19 414130,197240 n/k n/k 1.8 1.5 SU19NE6 415570,196730 74.7 71.8 1.5 1.4 RH31 413230,195890 75.72 73.62 1.0 0.9 RH32 413740,196100 75.56 73.66 1.3 0.6 RH33 413550,196380 76.17 74.17 1.4 0.6 RH34 413210,196280 76.27 73.27 1.6 1.4 RH35 412820,196435 76.69 72.69 1.3 2.7 TW05/09 412910,195004 76.21 73.09 0 to 1.28 1.84 to 3.1 SU19/84 412830,196690 77.36 73.06 0 to 2.59 1.71 to 4.3 SU19/85 415090,196160 75.80 72.80 0 to 1.72 1.28 to 3.0 Note: Borehole reference beginning RH are from Roundhouse Farm; these are not in the BGS geoindex.

Water Level (maOD)

TW05/07 TW05/08 [Castle Eaton North] 73 TW05/09 [ALEX FARM] SU19/85 [Castle Easton STW] SU19/84 [Spotted Cow]

72 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Figure 7 RTD Groundwater Level Hydrographs from 2003 to 2011

Hydrogeological Impact Assessment December 2011 25 Wiltshire Council Sites U3, U4 and U5 – Hydrogeological Impact Assessment

Figure 8 RTD Groundwater Level Response to Rainfall (Recharge) During 2010

100 60

Rainfall at Fairford

Sum of Thames+Ray+Ampney Brook+Marston Mersy Brook 50

10 40 /s) [log scale] 3 30

1 20 Daily RainfallTotal (mm) River Flow (m Flow River

0.1 0 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 01/01/2010 01/02/2010 01/03/2010 01/04/2010 01/05/2010 01/06/2010 01/07/2010 01/08/2010 01/09/2010 01/10/2010 01/11/2010 01/12/2010 01/01/2011

Figure 9 Surface Water Flow/Stage Response to Rainfall During 2010

Hydrogeological Impact Assessment December 2011 26 Wiltshire Council Sites U3, U4 and U5 – Hydrogeological Impact Assessment

3.4.4 Piezometry and Groundwater Movement

Groundwater in the RTD aquifer occurs at a shallow depth and is anticipated to be unconfined. Due to the heterogeneous nature of interbedded sands, gravels and lower permeability layers in the Alluvium, there may be some areas where groundwater is locally confined. Groundwater flow in this type of aquifer will be via intergranular flow in the voids between the particles.

Groundwater flows in the RTD to the east in the study area, and is likely to be convergent on the Thames; this is also the direction of surface water flow. A map illustrating the groundwater flow direction in the vicinity of the site is shown in Figure 10. The hydraulic gradient as determined from levels in 2010 from SU19/84 and TW05/08 was 0.00044; this did not vary between high and low groundwater level conditions. The hydraulic gradient over the area of U3, U4 and Round House Farm, (an existing quarry) is lower than that in the area immediately to the west of Marston Meysey Brook towards Down Ampney.

SU19/84 74.9

TW05/08 77.0 74.5 74.2 76.0 75.0 74.0

SU19/85 TW05/07 74.2 73.4 (est)

TW05/09 74.8

Figure 10 Water Level Piezometry (maOD) for the minimum levels in 2010

3.4.5 Groundwater Flow Magnitude

A calculation of the groundwater flow through the RTD aquifer has been undertaken based on the site hydrogeology. The values can only be considered a broad estimate of magnitude given the variability of hydraulic parameters and the extent of the available knowledge. The

Hydrogeological Impact Assessment December 2011 27 Wiltshire Council Sites U3, U4 and U5 – Hydrogeological Impact Assessment

calculation uses the Darcy formula, for which any set of consistent units may be used. In this case the units of metres and days are used within the formula:

Q = KiA (Darcy formula) where Q flow [m3/d] K hydraulic conductivity of the material [m/d] i hydraulic gradient [-] A cross sectional area perpendicular to flow direction [m2]

The calculation has been undertaken for the whole width of the aquifer in the vicinity the site and for the site alone. Determinations are made for maximum and minimum flow conditions that occurred in 2010. The hydraulic conductivity is taken as 20 m/d and 100 m/d, the saturated thickness from 0.6 to 4.3 m, the hydraulic gradient as 0.00044, the saturated width of the aquifer 600 m at the U3 site and 1600 m between Castle Eaton and Cox’s Farm which includes both the U3 and U4 sites. The result of the calculation is presented in Table 8. For comparison the surface water flow in the River Thames is several orders of magnitude greater than the groundwater flow.

Table 8 Groundwater Flow Though River Terrace Deposits Groundwater Flow Groundwater Flow Assumed RTD during periods of low during periods of high Location Hydraulic groundwater levels groundwater levels Conductivity (m/d) 3 3 (m /d) (m /d) U3 Site 20 3.1 22.6 U3 Site 100 15.5 113 Whole Valley 20 8.4 60 Whole valley 100 42 301 River n/a 80,000 600,000 Thames

Note: m/d = metres per day; m3/d = cubic metres per day.

3.4.6 Water Framework Directive Status

The WFD sets a target of achieving overall ‘Good status’ in all water bodies (including rivers, streams, lakes, transitional and coastal water bodies, and groundwater) by 2027. For groundwaters, Good status has a quantitative and a chemical component; status is measured on the scale High, Good, Moderate, Poor and Bad.

The WFD status of groundwater bodies of interest to the current study is provided in Table 9.

Table 9 WFD assessment of groundwater bodies in proximity to U3, U4 & U5 sites 2015 2015 Current Current Predictive Predicted Waterbody Name / ID Quantitative Chemical Quantitative Chemical Quality Quality Quality Quality Superficial deposits (Upper Good Poor Good Poor Thames Gravels) GB40603G000200

Hydrogeological Impact Assessment December 2011 28 Wiltshire Council Sites U3, U4 and U5 – Hydrogeological Impact Assessment

3.5 Land Designations 3.5.1 Source Protection Zones

Source Protection Zones (SPZ) are areas that have been designated by the EA. There are three zones; an inner or zone 1, outer or zone 2 and total catchment or zone 3. The zones have been determined to represent a 50 day travel time, a 400 day travel time, and the whole groundwater catchment for public water supply groundwater sources, respectively. These zones show the risk of contamination from any activities that might cause pollution in the area. The closer the activity to the source, then the greater the risk will be.

The SPZ map for the U3, U4 and U5 sites and surrounding area is shown in Figure 11. The U3 site lies in an inner zone, U4 lies in an outer zone while U5 is not within an SPZ. The U3 site’s SPZ stretches from Down Ampney to Fairford. The actual locations of the public water sources are not shown on the maps and their location cannot be given in documents that may be in the public domain.

The SPZ relate to groundwater abstractions from the Jurassic strata that lie below the Oxford Clay Formation. These aquifers (principal and secondary) outcrop to the north of Meysey Hampton and are also shown on the SPZ map as an additional overlay. It is normal convention to show at the surface location of inner and outer zones irrespective as to whether the aquifer occurs at the surface. The total catchment is only usually shown where recharge from the surface can contribute to the source.

Figure 11 Source Protection Zones near U3, U4 and U5

Hydrogeological Impact Assessment December 2011 29 Wiltshire Council Sites U3, U4 and U5 – Hydrogeological Impact Assessment

3.5.2 Historic Land Use and Pollution Incidents

Immediately adjacent to the northern boundary of the U3 site is RAF Fairford. This is an airfield that was in operation between 1944 to 2010. It is now a standby airfield and not in everyday use. The site could be a potential source for contamination.

The EA does record a significant pollution incident on the airfield land. A discrete event is documented as a significant spillage of oils and fuel on site during 2009 (incident number 656862). This pollution incident was considered to have a minor impact to both water and air.

There are no authorised or historic landfill sites within 1 km of the application site. The term historic landfill is used by the EA to designative a site that is no longer used. There are two active landfill sites and two historic landfill sites between 1 and 3 km from the site. The two historic landfill sites are the RAF Fairford and Stubbs Farm. The active landfills, as shown on Figure 13, are Rhymes Quarry and Kempsford Quarry Landfill (previously known as Stubbs Farm).

Current quarry sites at Roundhouse Farm and Eysey Manor Farm accept inert waste for restoration purposes. These sites however do not feature on the EA database of landfill sites.

Date: 25 Feb 2009 Pollutant: Oils & Fuel Impact to Water: Minor

Date: 5 Jul 2007 Pollutant: Organic Chemicals/Products Impact to Water: Major

Date: 23 Sep 2004 Pollutant: Not known Impact to Water: Major

Releases to air from intensive farming U3

Figure 12 Pollution incidents near U3, U4 and U5

Hydrogeological Impact Assessment December 2011 30 Wiltshire Council Sites U3, U4 and U5 – Hydrogeological Impact Assessment

Name: Rhymes Quarry Name: Whelford Road South Status: active Status: historic Waste: construction, demolition, Waste: inert dredgings

Name: Claydon Pike Gravel Pit Status: active Name: RAF Fairford Waste: construction, demolition, Status: historic dredgings Waste: all types Name: Stubbs Farm Status: historic Type: inert

U3 U4

Name: Kempsford Quarry Landfill Status: active Type: non-biodegradeable wastes U5 (not construction)

Figure 13 Landfill sites near U3, U4 and U5

3.5.3 Protected Areas

There are no Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) or other designated locations with 3 km of the U3, U4 and U5 sites.

3.5.4 Discharge Consents, Abstraction Licences and Other Abstractors

A listing of all discharge consents issued by the EA within 3 km of the U3 site are given in Table 10 and details of the abstraction licences for the RTD aquifer in the same area are provided in Table 11. A more precise location of the abstraction licences cannot be provided for confidentiality reasons.

Abstractions of less than 20 m3/d do not require an abstraction licence. There may be some water users who abstract from a well or borehole. However, an enquiry with Wiltshire Council did not reveal that there are any such water users in the vicinity known to the public heath department. A list of locations with wells/boreholes that may be used as a water supply from the RTD has been compiled from BGS records of water wells. A list of locations is given in Table 12, and of these, the borehole at Cox’s Farm was almost certainly originally used for an agricultural and or domestic supply. A windpump tower exists near to an outbuilding which is probably the location of the borehole.

Hydrogeological Impact Assessment December 2011 31 Wiltshire Council Sites U3, U4 and U5 – Hydrogeological Impact Assessment

Table 10 Discharge consents within 3 km of the U3 site Operator Location Discharge Type Castle Eaton Castle Eaton Sewage disposal works RAF Fairford Fairford Domestic Horcott Pit Fairford Extraction of stone, gravel, etc Totterdown Cottages Fairford Domestic Fairford Sewage Treatment Wks Fairford Sewage disposal works Kempsford Sewage Treatment Wks Fairford Sewage disposal works Manor Farm Kempsford Extraction of stone, gravel, etc Stubbs Farm Kempsford Extraction of stone, gravel, etc Down Ampney House Down Ampney Domestic Eysey Manor Farm Quarry Cricklade Extraction of stone, gravel, etc Fosse Farm (Store) Driffield Domestic Eysey Manor Farmhouse Eysey Domestic Hunt Kennels Meysey Hampton n/k

Table 11 Groundwater Abstraction Licences for the RTD Aquifer within 3 km of U3 site Licence Distance Use Licence Number Holder from Site Direction (km) The Cooperative 28/39/04/008 Wholesale Society 1.9 West Agricultural Ltd The Cooperative 28/39/05/0014 Wholesale Society 1.45 South Agricultural Ltd Moreton C Cullimore Mineral washing & dust 28/39/05/0046 0.2 South (Gravels) Ltd suppression Water supply & general 28/39/05/0001 F G Barker 2.56 South east agricultural Hanson Quarry 28/39/06/0086 2.2 North east Mineral Washing Products Europe Ltd

Table 12 Possible Private unlicensed abstractions from RTD within 3 km of U3 site Location NGR Distance from U7 Site BGS Ref Depth (km) Manor Farm Castle SU19/20 413040,195120 n/k 1.5 Eaton SU19/14 Cox’s Farm Dunfield 414430,197240 4.0 within site

Hydrogeological Impact Assessment December 2011 32 Wiltshire Council Sites U3, U4 and U5 – Hydrogeological Impact Assessment

4 Hydrogeological Risk Assessment 4.1 Review of Activities Proposed and the Potential Impacts 4.1.1 Site Operation and Post Extraction Plan

The identification of the potential sources of impact of a development is undertaken by a review of the details of the scheme. This includes the size, nature, time scale, construction methods and post extraction land use.

The development for consideration at the U3, U4 and U5 sites is the excavation of a sand and gravel mineral resource. The U3 site is considered in combination with the proposed U4 and U5 site and the existing Roundhouse Farm Quarry site (between U3 and U5). At the detailed planning application stage the applicant will set out a proposed method by which the mineral resource is to be exploited; the current Hydrogeological Risk Assessment (HRA) precedes the planning application stage and therefore detailed plans have not been formulated. For the purpose of the HRA the sources of potential impact have been selected based upon typical gravel extractive industry practice.

It is assumed that the extractive phase of the mineral working will be done in a series of discrete cells. The topsoil and the overburden will be stripped from the area to be worked. Existing drains that cross the cell will be diverted and a new boundary drain excavated. The water level in the gravel is lowered by pumping during the initial excavations. Once an excavated area has been established the sides that are not being extended may be sealed with overburden or the underlying Oxford Clay to reduce inflow to the works and the need for dewatering. Water is required for various processes in the mineral extraction including dust suppression and mineral washing. Often this water is obtained from groundwater abstraction. Settlement lagoons are required on site to control the turbidity of surface water.

Discharge of excess water from the site may form part of the site plan and a consent to carry out this activity will be required from the EA. The operator will need to ensure that water can achieve the water quality limits that are stipulated by the EA.

Once the mineral extraction of an exploited cell is complete, dewatering of that cell will cease. During the post extraction phase the clay seal of the working cells is broken. The quarry sites will be changed into a series of small lakes, wet woodland, agricultural land and natural grassland. Water levels are expected to recover to around their original level, and where this is greater than the ground level, lakes or ponds will form. In this HRA it is assumed that following the mineral extraction phase the quarry voids will not be backfilled with imported landfill material of any kind.

The potential sources of impact on the water environment for evaluation can include:

• Removal of existing ponds/wetlands within the site area; • Diversion of surface water drains; • Removal of soil surface (Site recharge); • Temporary changes to groundwater levels within the River Terrace Deposits (Dewatering); • Removal of aquifer sand and gravel and replacement with a void (Site recharge); • Filling of quarry void with extensive lake or lakes, and conversion of existing groundwater resource to a surface water resource (site recharge & regional flow);

Hydrogeological Impact Assessment December 2011 33 Wiltshire Council Sites U3, U4 and U5 – Hydrogeological Impact Assessment

• Spillage/Loss of pollutants to surface and groundwater; • Long term modification of groundwater regime in the RTD; and • Modification of surface water regimes.

The impacts caused by the quarrying can be broadly negative, positive or neutral with respect to any particular attribute. For example the creation of managed water bodies can have a positive impact by reducing the frequency of flood events.

There will be other impacts of the development including surface water flood risk, permanent loss of high value arable land, transport/roads, visual impact, habitats, biodiversity, economic, social issues and recreation/tourism. These aspects are not covered by this report.

4.1.2 Dewatering Activities

The development of the mineral extraction will necessitate the control of groundwater. The works are assumed to be carried out in the dry by artificially lowering the groundwater levels in the aquifer and the prevention/limiting of groundwater inflows to the works.

It is assumed that the lowering of groundwater levels will be achieved by dewatering pumping. At all the sites the water table lies less than 2 m below the ground surface. At U3 the depth to water is from zero, when occasionally fully saturated, to 2.5 m depth. Single levels at U4 and U5 have depths of 1.1 and 1.8 m to water table respectively. The maximum depth of the workings is estimated to be 4.5 m at U3 and may be up to 3 m at U4 and U5. The estimated saturated thickness will range between 1.7 and 4.3 m at U3 and is likely to be similar at the two adjacent sites. The volume of groundwater inflow during dewatering and the influence of dewatering on groundwater levels beyond the workings are estimated below. These estimated dewatering rates are considerably greater than the natural flow under the site.

It is assumed that limiting of flow into the workings will be achieved by continued dewatering pumping and probably by the use of temporary bunds. The bunds could be made from the low permeability Oxford Clay Formation that underlies the site. The bunds would be arranged around the perimeter of the workings to limit groundwater ingress, and reduce the potentially adverse drawdown effects of dewatering spreading from the site.

Estimation of the Distance of Influence and Magnitude of Dewatering

The relationship between distance of influence, drawdown and hydraulic conductivity is given in the empirically established Sichardt formula, CIRIA Report 113 p148. The quantity of dewatering has been estimated using a version of the Theim equation for unconfined and steady state aquifer conditions. These assumptions are considered to be appropriate for the hydrogeological conditions at the site. In the assessment the depressed water level at the

excavation (hw) is assumed to be zero, that is the RTD aquifer is completely dewatered, thus the saturated thickness (H) and drawdown are the same. The equation gives flows into an excavation. The table shows inflow from just one side of the excavation by division by two.

Hydrogeological Impact Assessment December 2011 34 Wiltshire Council Sites U3, U4 and U5 – Hydrogeological Impact Assessment

0.5 Lo = C . s . K (Sichardt formula) where Lo distance of influence (m) C constant, taken as 1750 for planar flow s drawdown (m) K hydraulic conductivity (m/s) (taken as 2.3x10-4 m/s = 20 m/d or 1.163x10-3 m/s = 100 m/d)

2 2 Q = K.w.(H – hw ) / L0 (Theim equation)

where Q Flow or Pumping rate (m3/d) K hydraulic conductivity (m/d), taken as 20 or 100 m/d w width of strip evaluated, taken as 100m H initial water level in the aquifer (m) hw lowered water level in the aquifer (m) taken as 1m Lo distance of influence (m)

Table 13 Extent of Effect and Magnitude of Dewatering Drawdown Distance of influence (m) Inflow (m3/d) per 100 m of working

[H-hw] (m) K = 20 m/d K = 100 m/d K = 20 m/d K = 100 m/d 1.5 40 90 56 125 2.0 53 119 76 168 2.5 66 150 95 208 3.0 80 179 112 251 3.5 93 209 131 293

4.1.3 Changes to the Recharge Characteristics and the Unsaturated Zone

The quarrying activity will result in the removal of the vegetation, topsoil and clay rich subsoil (in combination known as overburden in the quarrying industry). For periods the Oxford Clay may be exposed. The land is currently used as arable farmland with some small wooded areas. The removal of the vegetation will reduce the water uptake by plants and hence evapotranspiration from the land. Where land surface is replaced by open water then evaporation will increase from the site area. It is not expected that these changes will result in any significant change of recharge to the secondary RTD aquifer.

4.1.4 Water Quality

The risk to groundwater quality can arise from the introduction of pollutants to the ground or by the mobilisation of existing contamination or sediment. At the U3, U4 & U5 sites there is neither evidence nor expectation of groundwater contamination. This risk factor is therefore not carried forward into the risk assessment matrix. There remains a possibility that once quarrying activities have removed an overburden from the sand and gravel deposits any pollutant that is accidentally spilt on the site can rapidly move though the unsaturated zone, contaminate groundwater and result in a pollution plume from the site that may then reach surface water bodies.

Hydrogeological Impact Assessment December 2011 35 Wiltshire Council Sites U3, U4 and U5 – Hydrogeological Impact Assessment

Activities will result in mobilisation of sediment which has the potential to affect surface water quality. 4.2 Receptors The assessment of Baseline Conditions, as identified in Section 3, has identified the surface water and groundwater receptors presented in Table 14.

The Middle Jurassic aquifers are not linked to the surface by virtue of the thick layer of Oxford Clay that separates them from the surface and the RTD aquifer. There is no anticipation that the development will construct through the Oxford Clay or that there will be a need to abstract water from the Middle Jurassic aquifers. Therefore, the Middle Jurassic aquifers and associated groundwater abstractions are excluded from the list of receptors to be evaluated in this HRA.

The water features that lie in different catchments to the proposed mineral sites, that is, they drain to a tributary that joins the main river down stream of the sites (e.g. Dudgrove Brook), are not considered to have a pathway, and are therefore excluded from this HRA. The key potential surface water receptors are those that are within the estimated zone of influence for dewatering (around 200 m).

Table 14 Importance of water receptors in proximity of the U3, U4 & U5 sites Feature Importance Reasons for Classification River Thames High Regionally important river system Marston Meysey Brook High A water body with ‘Good’ status under the WFD. Ponds Low Non-main river or stream or other water body with no significant ecological habitat. • Pond within U3 (east of Marston Meysey); • Pond 100 m west of U3, adjacent to Marston Meysey; and • Pond immediately adjacent to U3 at Cox’s Farm.

RTD aquifer Medium A secondary aquifer providing abstraction water for agricultural use and private water supply. The containing water supports the River Thames. There are 5 abstraction licences within 3 km and multiple discharge consents.

4.3 Identification of Pathways The pathway or mechanism provides a route or a method by which the potential source of impact could impact the receptors.

The assessment of baseline conditions in Section 3 indicates that the RTD aquifer and Alluvium deposits form a pathway between the identified surface water receptors and the proposed quarry development. Therefore, the RTD aquifer is both a pathway and a receptor.

Hydrogeological Impact Assessment December 2011 36 Wiltshire Council Sites U3, U4 and U5 – Hydrogeological Impact Assessment

A second pathway is artificial, and related to the operation of the scheme outlined in Section 4.1. It is assumed that dewatering will be required, and therefore it is likely there will be an associated discharge to a surface water course i.e. the River Thames or Marston Meysey Brook. 4.4 Appraisal of Magnitude of Impact on Receptors The proposed development has the potential to impact water resource features within the area. The significance of any effect will depend on the sensitivity of the water resource and the current conditions of the resources, the magnitude of any impact and the implementation of any mitigation measures during construction and operation.

Impacts arising as a result of the development, both positive and negative, are likely to affect the proposed development’s ability to satisfy the criteria outlined within relevant local, national and international planning policy and legislation.

It has been assumed that any quarrying phase effects are temporary and any post extraction phase effects are permanent.

4.4.1 Impacts during Construction/Gravel Extraction

The assessment of impact is based on an assumed gravel extraction scheme. The predicted potential impact is highly uncertain as a result of lack of information and design details. The impact assessment does however identify those elements of any future design where mitigation will be desirable to reduce the impact upon water features.

Impacts on surface water receptors

The main impact that may result from the site operation is the generation of a surface water discharge containing a high suspended sediment load. The operation of the site will generate turbid waters as a result of removal of excess rainwater and seepage water from the quarry area and other exposed areas. Mineral washing to remove fines from the product also creates waste water with a high suspended sediment load. Turbid water may also arise from pumped groundwater that will be created by the lowering of groundwater levels. The waste water will have an adverse impact upon local surface water bodies. The magnitude of this impact is considered to be High on the Marston Meysey Brook (for site U3), as the ‘Good Status’ of this water body could be compromised. The magnitude of the impact is considered to be Medium (not high) for the River Thames (for sites U4 and U5) owing to the magnitude of the river flow compared to estimated dewatering volumes.

Washout facilities (washing of tools, plant and equipment), storage and use of various liquids and soluble solids and fuel storage and handling all have the potential to result in pollution of watercourses. If stored material is in liquid form or comes into contact with water, there is potential for runoff into nearby water bodies, or percolation into the substrate, which could contaminate groundwater. Activities in close proximity to the water bodies pose a risk to the direct spillage of contaminants into water bodies. The magnitude of this impact is considered to be High on the Marston Meysey Brook (for site U3), as the ‘Good Status’ of this water body could be compromised. The magnitude of the impact is considered to be Medium (not high) for the River Thames (for sites U4 and U5) owing to the magnitude of the river flow and potential for dilution.

Throughout the operation of the proposed development, there will be vehicles passing in and out of the site. Runoff containing elevated suspended sediment levels from these activities poses a possible risk by potentially increasing sediment loads in nearby watercourses should

Hydrogeological Impact Assessment December 2011 37 Wiltshire Council Sites U3, U4 and U5 – Hydrogeological Impact Assessment

this sediment enter surface water drains or runoff directly to watercourses. High sediment input can have direct adverse effects on adjacent surface watercourses by increasing turbidity and reducing dissolved oxygen levels. Other effects include reduced light penetration and plant growth, smothering of vegetation and bed substrates, impacting invertebrate and fish communities, and destruction of feeding areas, refuges and breeding/ spawning areas. The magnitude of the above impacts is considered to be Medium on the Marston Meysey Brook (for site U3), as the impacts could be significant, but are unlikely to change the WFD status of the water body. The magnitude of the impact is considered to be Low for the River Thames (for sites U4 and U5) owing to the magnitude of the river flow.

Dewatering activities can impact upon surface water within the distance of influence. For the aquifer conditions this is assessed to be up to 200 m. If a watercourse lies within the distance of influence it is likely that surface water will be lost to the ground. Such conditions exist in those sections of U4 and U5 that are adjacent to the River Thames and in the section of U3 near to Marston Meysey Brook. The impact on the Marston Meysey Brook is assessed to be High, as the flow loss caused by dewatering activities could be significant compared to typical summer low flows. The magnitude of the impact is considered to be Low for the River Thames owing to the magnitude of the river flow. The impact on the ponds could be High, as the habitats that exist could be damaged by the dewatering activities.

Impacts on groundwater receptors

The main impact on groundwater is expected to arise from the dewatering activities associated with sand and gravel extraction. To enable removal of sand and gravel under dry conditions the water level in the RTD aquifer will be lowered by pumping around the perimeter of the excavation. The impact of dewatering extends to the distance of influence calculated in Table 13. The greatest distance is assessed to be about 200 m from the line of dewatering points.

The nearest abstraction licence is held by Moreton Cullimore, associated with the existing Round House Farm minerals site to the south of U3, and used for mineral washing. The variability of the hydraulic properties is such that the impact of dewatering may impact upon the utility of the existing licence holder. It is also possible that a private unlicensed abstraction exists at Cox’s Farm, and this may also be impacted. The result of lowering of water levels in the RTD aquifer is thus assessed as potentially having a Medium impact.

4.4.2 Impacts during Post Operation Land Use

Impacts on surface water receptors

The post quarrying land use is assumed to restore the sites to a series of small lakes, wet woodland, agricultural land and natural grassland. The active dewatering of surface water from the quarry voids will stop and they will backfill with groundwater and rainfall. The difference to the hydrological system post operation compared with before the development is twofold. There will be an increase in open water in the environment, and this will result in a greater evaporative loss and thus a marginal reduction of baseflow to the River Thames. Secondly the open water will result in a more rapid response to rainfall events, thus making the rivers more prone to flooding if the lakes are directly connected to the river.

The overall contribution of these effects from the sites is considered to be Very Low when compared to the flows in the River Thames at this point in the river catchment.

Hydrogeological Impact Assessment December 2011 38 Wiltshire Council Sites U3, U4 and U5 – Hydrogeological Impact Assessment

Impacts on groundwater receptors

The removal of the RTD aquifer over a section of the river valley will modify the groundwater flow regime. If the perimeter of the post operation surface water bodies is less permeable than the RTD aquifer they replace, then it is possible an increase in groundwater levels up-gradient (to the west) of the quarry sites may occur. There will be an associated decrease in groundwater levels down-gradient of the quarry sites.

The impacts on the groundwater abstraction licence owned by Moreton Cullimore (associated with the existing Round House Farm site to the south of U3), and the possible private unlicensed abstraction at Cox’s Farm, are considered to be Low.

Table 15 Summary of Impacts of mineral extraction at U3, U4 and U5 sites Impact Source Receptors Magnitude Quarry Operation/Excavation Elevated levels of Quarry Marston Meysey Brook High (U3) suspended solids in Very Low (U4 & U5) run-off River Thames Low (U3) Medium (U4 & U5) Ponds Very Low (U3, U4, U5) Contaminants in site Quarry Marston Meysey Brook High (U3) run-off Very Low (U4 & U5) River Thames Low (U3) Medium (U4 & U5) Ponds Very Low (U3) Very Low (U4 & U5) Elevated levels of Roads outside River Thames Low (U3) suspended solids in quarry Medium (U4 & U5) run-off Dewatering Quarry Ponds High (U3) Very Low (U4 & U5) Quarry RTD aquifer Medium (U3) GW abstractors Very Low (U4 & U5) Quarry Marston Meysey Brook High (U3) Very Low (U4 & U5) Quarry River Thames Low (U3, 4 & 5) Post Construction Land Use Surface water flows Former Quarry Marston Meysey Brook Very Low (U3, U4, U5) and water quality River Thames Groundwater Level Former Quarry RTD aquifer Low (U3, U4, U5) GW abstractors

Hydrogeological Impact Assessment December 2011 39 Wiltshire Council Sites U3, U4 and U5 – Hydrogeological Impact Assessment

4.5 Assessment of Significance of Effects As described in Section 2.1, the significance of effects is a product of the magnitude of the impact and the importance of the receptor. Table 16 shows the significance of the impacts on the receptors identified in Table 14.

Table 16 Summary of significance of effects (before mitigation) Receptor Importance or Magnitude of Significance of Potential Impact Water Feature Sensitivity of potential impact effect before water feature mitigation Quarry Operation/Excavation Very Low (U3) Negligible Ponds Low Very Low (U4, U5) Negligible Major / Moderate Marston Meysey High (U3) Elevated levels of High Adverse Brook suspended solids in Very Low (U4, U5) Minor Adverse run-off Moderate / Minor Low (U3) Adverse River Thames High Moderate Medium (U4, U5) Adverse Very Low (U3) Negligible Ponds Low Very Low (U4, U5) Negligible Major / Moderate Marston Meysey High (U3) High Adverse Brook Contaminants in run-off Very Low (U4, U5) Minor Adverse Moderate / Minor Low (U3) Adverse River Thames High Moderate Medium (U4, U5) Adverse Moderate / Minor Low (U3) Suspended solids on Adverse River Thames High roads Moderate Low (U4, U5) Adverse Moderate / Minor High (U3) Ponds Low Adverse Very Low (U4, U5) Negligible Moderate / Minor RTD Aquifer Medium (U3) Medium Adverse GW abstractors Very Low (U4, U5) Negligible Dewatering Major / Moderate Marston Meysey High (U3) High Adverse Brook Very Low (U4, U5) Minor Adverse Moderate / Minor Low (U3) Adverse River Thames High Moderate / Minor Low (U4, U5) Adverse Post Construction Land Use Very Low (U3) Minor Adverse River Thames High Surface water flows and Very Low (U4, U5) Minor Adverse water quality Marston Meysey Very Low (U3) Minor Adverse High Brook Very Low (U4, U5) Minor Adverse RTD Aquifer Low (U3) Minor Adverse Groundwater Level Medium GW Abstractors Low (U4, U5) Minor Adverse

Hydrogeological Impact Assessment December 2011 40 Wiltshire Council Sites U3, U4 and U5 – Hydrogeological Impact Assessment

4.6 Mitigation Measures The summary of significance of effects is provided in Table 16. The effect of some of the potential impacts on the receiving water bodies is potentially significant (moderate or major) and may cause pollution and adverse impacts. The most significant effects are those associated with the Marston Meysey Brook.

Mitigation measures will be required for significant impacts to minimise their effects or reduce the likelihood of an impact occurring. These measures will need to be embedded within the design, once the proposed scheme has been defined in greater detail. However, an outline of the mitigation measures that can guard against the impacts is provided in the following Sections. The measures are all good practice within the aggregate extractive industry.

4.6.1 Elevated Levels of Suspended Solids

The generation of surface water from the site with elevated turbidity and /or contaminants poses the most significant potential effect before mitigation. Mitigation measures required in any scheme will include:

• Lagoons of sufficient size and mode of operation to permit the fine material to settle out of suspension; • The levels of the site drains to be organised so that surface water runoff from working areas does not immediately leave the site; and • Vehicle and wheel washing facilities and mineral washing are required to ensure that fine material is not transferred to public roads from tyres.

4.6.2 Contamination from Chemicals and Fuel Stored on Site

The mitigation measures to reduce the significance of the effect should include:

• Fuel to be stored in tanks sited on an impervious base surrounded by bunds; • Limit vehicle servicing to be undertaken on areas of hardstanding in the aggregate processing plant site area; • Lubricants to be limited to a small supply to be kept on drip trays in a locked container in the aggregate processing plant area; • A supply of materials to ensure a rapid clear up of any fuel or oil spillage must be maintained on site in readiness for use; • Should any spillage occur then the affected area of ground shall be excavated and removed from the site to an appropriately constructed licensed waste site.

4.6.3 Dewatering

The potential impact of dewatering may be minimised by working the area in phases and cells. The influence of dewatering is not expected to extend for more than two hundred metres from the site. This impact can be reduced or mitigated against by returning the water upstream of the site in recharge trenches.

The quarrying plans should be designed to include a zone with no dewatering structures (stand-off) in close proximity to the watercourses. A stand-off from the rivers would particularly impact the design of the U4 and U5 sites that are adjacent to the River Thames. The use of

Hydrogeological Impact Assessment December 2011 41 Wiltshire Council Sites U3, U4 and U5 – Hydrogeological Impact Assessment

clay bunds or seals within the working cells will reduce the groundwater seepage into the site and can thus reduce the dewatering that will be required.

The scheme for site operation will need to have mitigation in place to control the turbidity of waters that leave the site. The use of settlement lagoons to mitigate against this impact is necessary.

The impact of groundwater lowering caused by dewatering may have an impact upon other users of the RTD aquifer. There is only one existing abstraction licence of concern, associated with the existing Round House minerals site, although there is also a potential unlicensed abstraction at Cox’s Farm. The configuration of the dewatering scheme should be arranged to minimise the predicted drawdown for these users. Should the drawdown be such that the ability of the licence holder to maintain the authorised quantity of abstraction then an alternative supply could be provided for the duration of the derogation.

4.6.4 Post Operation Groundwater Levels

The design of the site restoration for U3, U4 and U5 should plan to create a series of carefully managed small lakes, wet woodland, agricultural land and natural grassland at different levels and the use of bund material to form features. These could be arranged so that the final surface water levels are similar to the pre-development groundwater levels in the area. With these measures in place the groundwater levels in the adjacent parts of the RTD aquifer that are not extracted will be unaffected. The changes to the groundwater regime outside of the sites as a result of the quarrying and post operational plan are anticipated to be insignificant with no adverse impacts predicted. 4.7 Residual Effects Once mitigation measures have been implemented the major and moderately significant impacts can be reduced so that they become insignificant.

It is noted that the Thames and Severn Canal has not been included within the current HRA, as it is not considered to be a functioning water body within the study area. However, the need to preserve the remnants of this historic feature across the U4 site should be assessed, and if necessary included within the HRA at a planning application stage to ensure mitigation measures are satisfactory.

Hydrogeological Impact Assessment December 2011 42 Wiltshire Council Sites U3, U4 and U5 – Hydrogeological Impact Assessment

5 Site Investigations and Monitoring Prior to commencement of the quarry scheme, a site investigation and associated monitoring will be required to establish the baseline conditions, including:

• Distribution and thickness of sand and gravel within the superficial deposits • Hydraulic properties of the aquifer from in-situ testing • Groundwater levels and water quality across the sites; • Surface water flows, levels and water quality; and • Identification of aquatic ecology in the ponds (and historic Thames and Severn Canal).

The data will be used to:

• Assess hydraulic relationships between surface water bodies and the RTD aquifer and gain an improved understanding of the groundwater flow regime; • Identify the levels of any existing contamination in the RTD aquifer and surface water bodies (and implications for dewatering and discharge consents); • Determine if there is aquatic ecology of importance within the ponds (and historic Thames and Severn Canal); and • Understand the potential for subsidence issues at properties and roads along the boundary of the proposed mineral sites.

The location of monitoring points and the frequency of monitoring will need to be agreed with the Environment Agency.

Following data collection, the Hydrogeological Impact Assessment along with mitigation measures must be reviewed.

Hydrogeological Impact Assessment December 2011 43 Wiltshire Council Sites U3, U4 and U5 – Hydrogeological Impact Assessment

6 Conclusions A hydrogeological risk assessment has been undertaken for the proposed sites U3, U4 and U5 to identify whether the development of an aggregate quarry is likely to have significant residual effects upon water features.

The water features that could be potentially adversely impacted by a development are the River Thames, Marston Meysey Brook and users of the River Terrace Deposits aquifer. The deeper Oolitic Limestone Principal Aquifer that is used for public water supply and has source protection zones has been scoped out of the risk assessment owing to the thickness of the Oxford Clay Formation.

There are potential significant effects due to dewatering activities and turbid waters entering the surface watercourses. Mitigation measures, most of which can be embedded into the design of the quarry, can be designed to ensure that the residual effects are insignificant.

The hydrogeological risk assessment will need to be reviewed once baseline monitoring data have been collected. In addition, the need to include the remnants of the Thames and Severn Canal within the assessment should also be confirmed.

Hydrogeological Impact Assessment December 2011 44 Wiltshire Council Sites U3, U4 and U5 – Hydrogeological Impact Assessment

7 References Allen DJ, Brewerton LJ, Coleby LM, Gibbs BR, Lewis MA, MacDonald AM, Wagstaff SJ and Williams AT. 1997. The physical properties of major aquifers in England and Wales. BGS Tech.Rep. WD/97/34 – EA R&D Pub. 8

CIRIA.2000. Report C515 - Groundwater Control - Design and Practice.

Hyder Consulting, May 2000. Roundhouse Farm Quarry Hydrological and Hydrogeological Assessment.

Jones HK, Morris BL, Cheney CS, Brewerton LJ, Merrin PD, Lewis MA, MacDonald AM, Coleby LM, Talbot JC, McKenzie AA, Bird MJ, Cunningham J and Robinson VK. 2000. The physical properties of minor aquifers in England and Wales. BGS Tech.Rep. WD/00/4 – EA R&D Pub. 68

Sen and Abbott, 1991. Hydrogeological investigation of a fault in clay. QJEG v24 pp413-425.

Tarmac Quarry Products Ltd - Hydrogeology Unit, July 1999. Eysey Manor Farm: An assessment of the potential impacts upon the water environment of the proposed extraction of sand and gravel and restoration to agriculture, lakes and nature conservation after-uses.

Hydrogeological Impact Assessment December 2011 45 Wiltshire Council Sites U3, U4 and U5 – Hydrogeological Impact Assessment

ANNEX A

Hydrogeological Impact Assessment December 2011