By NCC PLACE at 12:06 pm, Nov 21, 2017

Ecological Impact Assessment

Proposed Eastern Extension to Bestwood Quarry II, Papplewick in Nottinghamshire.

Produced by Crestwood Environmental Ltd.

Document Reference: CE-BS-1034-RP07 - Final

10 November 2017 Ecological Impact Assessment Proposed Eastern Extension - Bestwood Quarry II

CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ...... 3 1.1 PREAMBLE ...... 3 1.2 REPORT STRUCTURE ...... 4 1.3 TERMINOLOGY ...... 5 2 METHODOLOGY AND METHODS OF ASSESSMENT ...... 5 2.1 SCOPE OF THE ASSESSMENT...... 5 2.2 BASELINE CONDITIONS ...... 6 2.3 DESK STUDY ...... 6 2.4 FIELD SURVEYS ...... 7 2.5 SCOPING OPINION CONSULTEE RESPONSES ON ECOLOGICAL MATTERS ...... 9 2.6 LIMITATIONS TO THE BASELINE SURVEYS ...... 10 2.7 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY ...... 10 2.8 ECOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY ...... 12 2.9 CLASSIFYING IMPACTS AND EFFECTS ...... 12 3 THE BASELINE SITUATION AND EVALUATION...... 14 3.1 DESK STUDY - LEGISLATIVE CONTEXT ...... 14 3.2 DESK STUDY - POLICY CONTEXT ...... 15 3.3 DESIGNATED SITES ...... 17 3.4 ECOLOGICAL WALKOVER SURVEY ...... 19 3.5 SUMMARY OF EVALUATION ...... 30 4 ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ...... 30 4.1 INTRODUCTION AND GENERAL APPROACH ...... 30 4.2 DESIGNATED SITES AND OTHER SITES OF CONSERVATION INTEREST ...... 32 4.3 SPECIES AND SPECIES-GROUPS...... 36 4.4 Other Mammals ...... 40 4.5 SUMMARY OF ASSESSMENT AND MITIGATION MEASURES ...... 41 5 STATEMENT OF RESIDUAL AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ...... 42 5.1 RESIDUAL EFFECTS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ...... 42 5.2 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ...... 42 6 COMPENSATION, ENHANCEMENT AND MONITORING ...... 42 6.1 COMPENSATION ...... 42 6.2 MONITORING ...... 42 7 CONCLUSIONS ...... 43 7.1 OVERALL ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF THE SCHEME ...... 43 7.2 COMPLIANCE WITH LEGISLATION AND POLICY ...... 43 7.3 MECHANISMS TO SECURE DELIVERY ...... 43

CE -BS-1034-RP07 - Final Page 1 10/11/2017

Ecological Impact Assessment Proposed Eastern Extension – Bestwood Quarry II

LIST OF TABLES: Table 1 Categorisation of Pond Suitability ...... 8 Table 2 Criteria for Evaluation ...... 11 Table 3 Impact/Effect Parameters ...... 12 Table 4 Classification of Impact/Effect Parameters ...... 13 Table 5 Classification of Significance and Nature of Effect ...... 13 Table 6 Non-Statutory Wildlife Sites and Other Sites ...... 18 Table 7 Approved Restoration Scheme - Habitats ...... 19 Table 8 Bat Activity Survey Results: 5th May 2017 ...... 24 Table 9 Bat Activity Survey Results: 9th August 2017 ...... 24 Table 10 Transect Survey Results - 13th September 2017 ...... 24 Table 11 Automated Monitoring Period Weather Conditions ...... 25 Table 12 Automated Survey Results - May 2017 ...... 26 Table 13 Automated Survey Results - August 2017 ...... 26 Table 14 Automated Survey Results - September 2017 ...... 27 Table 15 National status and population trends of bat species ...... 28 Table 16 Summary of Baseline Conditions and Evaluation ...... 30 Table 17 Changes in Habitat Quantity ...... 35 Table 18 Summary of Assessment and Mitigation Measures ...... 41

LIST OF APPENDICES:

APPENDIX E1 Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey Report

APPENDIX E2 GCN, Invertebrate and NVC Report

APPENDIX E3 Relevant Local Policy Details

APPENDIX E4 Bat Activity Report

APPENDIX E5 Badger and Reptile Survey Report

APPENDIX E6 Breeding Bird Survey Report

CE -BS-1034-RP07 - Final Page 2 10/11/2017

Ecological Impact Assessment Proposed Eastern Extension – Bestwood Quarry II

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PREAMBLE

1.1.1 This report assesses the ecological effects of a proposed eastern extension of an existing sand and gael ua Bestood Qua II the Proposed Development, east of Bestood II Qua, Papplewick, Nottingham - eted at Natioal Gid ‘efeee NG‘ “K the Site.

1.1.2 The primary subject of the sue aea is efeed to as the Site which can be split into two distinct areas; the existing permitted qua deelopet aea is efeed to as the Existing Quarry Area; for the Proposed Development site infrastructure will be retained and a conveyor will be extended to reach the new Proposed Extraction Area. For the purpose of this report, the woodland within the red line boundary on Figure E1 will e efeed to as the Proposed Eastern Extension.

1.1.3 The Site is located to the east of Mansfield Road, approximately 1.2km to the northeast of Papplewick, Nottinghamshire and the Proposed Eastern Extension area is located within the Longdale Plantation Local Wildlife Site.

1.1.4 The Existing Quarry Area covers an area of c. 25.2ha and the Proposed Eastern Extension is c. 5.9 ha. The Additional Mineral Extraction Area is c. 4.7ha (excluding existing operational working).

1.1.5 In summary, the Proposed Development consists of:

 Extension of the area of mineral working to cover an additional extraction area and extend the life of sandstone quarry (with restoration being completed over a ten year period.

 Clearance of existing woodland habitat prior to mineral extraction.

 Extraction of the mineral reserve in the southeast corner of the Site, working no deeper than the existing permitted quarry base levels (85mAOD). Extraction will not occur below the water table.

 Backfilling the void with material arising on Site to achieve the satisfactory restoration (in terms of final landform and restoration soil profile requirements).

 Provision of a revised and improved restoration scheme with mixed land-uses and habitats.

1.1.6 The assessment has been carried out in line with Schedule 4 of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations 2011 (HMSO, 2011) which states that an Environmental Statement E“ should describe the aspects of the environment likely to be significantly affected by the development, including, in particular, population, fauna, flora, soil, water, air, climatic factors, material assets, including the architectural and archaeological heritage, landscape and the inter- relationship eteen the aoe fators. The assessment is termed an Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA).

1.1.7 Cestood Eioetal Ltd. CEL as appoited JPE Holdig Ltd. the Client and Applicant) to undertake this assessment. This assessment has been prepared by Lucy Cash, Principal Ecologist at CEL. Lucy is a full member of the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM) and has been an ecologist for 19 years.

CE-BS-1034-RP07 - Final Page 3 10/11/2017

Ecological Impact Assessment Proposed Eastern Extension – Bestwood Quarry II

1.2 REPORT STRUCTURE

1.2.1 The report will follow the structure below:

 Section 2 - Methodology and Methods of Assessment: A description of the basis for the survey techniques used and of how the desk study, surveys and impact assessment has been undertaken, clarifying criteria, where appropriate;

 Section 3 - The Baseline Situation and Evaluation: Details the results of the desk study and field surveys and sets the basis against which the assessment is undertaken. Provides an evaluation of the existing habitats and species present at the Site and in the Zone of Influence (ZoI), against criteria set out in Section 2;

 Section 4 - Assessment of Effects and Mitigation Measures: Details the potential direct impacts of the Proposed Development, assesses the effects of these impacts on the ecological receptors at the Site and off-site, describes the additional incorporated effect avoidance and minimisation measures (mitigation) and identifies any residual effects after mitigation has been applied;

 Section 5 - Statement of Residual and Cumulative Effects: Summarises any residual effects of the Proposed Development and the details of any Cumulative effects with other relevant Developments;

 Section 6 - Compensation, Enhancement and Monitoring: Identifies need for any additional measures to address residual effects, over and above mitigation; and

 Section 7 - Conclusion: An overall statement of the significant effects, relating this to policy and legislation, as applicable.

1.2.2 References are listed, and Appendices (containing the additional information and Figures) are located at the end of this report.

CE-BS-1034-RP07 - Final Page 4 10/11/2017

Ecological Impact Assessment Proposed Eastern Extension – Bestwood Quarry II

1.3 TERMINOLOGY

1.3.1 The key fundamental terms used in this assessment follow the definitions given below:

Impact effect Impacts and efes to a atio eig take ad a is the hage esultig fo that atio. The Effects poess of assessig effets aisig fo deelopet is ool efeed to as ipat assesset. Directive 2011/92/EU (The assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment) requires member states to assess the likely significant effects of a project (e.g. development) on the environment before determining whether consent should be given. This requirement has been transposed via Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations. This Significant assessment refers to significance (or level) of effects in the wider sense, to mean positive Effect (beneficial) or negative (adverse) environmental effects that are important (material) considerations in the decision-making process, whether assessed as part of an EIA or otherwise. This is directly related to set criteria and terminology as set out within the assessment process. Significant effects may, on balance with other considerations, be acceptable or unacceptable in overall planning terms. Ecological A feature which could be a habitat or species that is present at the Site or surrounding area which Receptor has the potential to be significantly affected by the Proposed Development. Ecological The (non-monetary) value of an ecological receptor in terms of its value in its own right, based on Importance certain criteria detailed in Section 2.

1.3.2 Site area references are provided in Section 1.1.

1.3.3 Other general definitions are provided at the end of this this report.

1.3.4 Abbreviations are at the end of this this report.

2 METHODOLOGY AND METHODS OF ASSESSMENT

2.1 SCOPE OF THE ASSESSMENT

2.1.1 This assessment has been undertaken in accordance with The Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom, the Guidelies pulished Jaua the Chateed Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM, 2016).

2.1.2 The assessment process aims to:

 Provide a clear and understandable assessment of the potential ecological effect(s) of the Proposed Works for stakeholders;

 Determine the potential impact(s) of the Proposed Works in relation to: international, national, regional and local nature conservation and biodiversity policies; and

 Outline the processes the Proposed Works must undertake, in relation to designated sites and controlled species, in order to comply with legal requirements.

2.1.3 The main sources of information for this assessment are:

 Biological Records (obtained from the relevant Local Biological Records Centre and online);

 Review of legislation and land-use policies; and

 Field Survey.

CE-BS-1034-RP07 - Final Page 5 10/11/2017

Ecological Impact Assessment Proposed Eastern Extension – Bestwood Quarry II

Zone of Influence

2.1.4 The potential impact of a development is not always limited to the boundaries of the site concerned. The development may also have the potential to impact on ecologically valuable sites, habitats or species beyond the site boundaries. The area over which a development may impact ecologically valuable receptors is known as the Zone of Influence (ZoI).

2.1.5 The ZoI is determined by the source/type of impact, a potential pathway for that impact and the location and sensitivity of the ecologically valuable receptor beyond the boundary. For the majority of (unmitigated) impacts identified as part of the Proposed Development, the ZoI is generally considered to be the application site and immediately adjacent areas.

2.1.6 There are no watercourses at the Site connecting to other habitats, therefore the ZoI does not have the potential to extend outside the Site boundary with regard to any impacts from Hydrology. The unmitigated impacts of Dust are expected to reach a maximum of 250m from the Site therefore the ZoI for sensitive receptors for Dust is set at 250m.

2.1.7 In ecological terms, the ZoI can also vary considerably depending upon the species potentially affected by the proposed development. For example, some species may be confined to a specific location whilst others, such as birds and Bats, are more mobile and can occupy larger territories or home ranges. The ZoI is also likely to be influenced by the presence of dispersal barriers, such as roads and hardstanding, which either stop or reduce the likelihood of animals crossing it. As a consequence this could isolate areas of potentially suitable habitat within the application site due to fragmentation.

2.1.8 The ZoI for species or species groups has been determined by research and the professional judgement of the ecologist. For example, Common Lizard (Zootoca vivipara) has restricted mobility and generally occupies smaller home ranges (up to 700m2) (Langton & Beckett, 1995). The ZoI for each species or species-group is identified in the relevant sections.

2.2 BASELINE CONDITIONS

2.2.1 Using a combination of desk study and field survey work the Baseline Situation of the Proposed Development has been established. This provides a transparent basis from which assessment results have been determined and against which professional judgements have been made.

2.2.2 During the field survey, the flora, fauna and other notable ecological features of the Site were recorded.

2.2.3 As recommended in the Guidelines (CIEEM, 2016) the value of features, habitats and species (flora and fauna), both within and surrounding the Proposed Works, will be considered from international to Site value scales.

2.3 DESK STUDY

2.3.1 Prior to the field survey visit, a desktop data-gathering exercise was undertaken using available online resources (DEFRA, 2017) as well as information from the Nottinghamshire Biological and Geological Records Centre (Nottinghamshire Biological and Geological Record Centre, 2016) – requested 26-04-2016.

2.3.2 The desk study was undertaken to search for statutory and non-statutory designated sites within

CE-BS-1034-RP07 - Final Page 6 10/11/2017

Ecological Impact Assessment Proposed Eastern Extension – Bestwood Quarry II

the following ranges of the red line boundary based on the estimated ZoI for the particular ecological feature:

 2 km for sites of International/European nature conservation importance, which comprise: Special Areas of Conservation (SAC); Special Protection Areas (SPA); and Ramsar sites, as well as all sites proposed for designation as such (candidate sites);

 2 km for sites of national nature conservation importance, which comprise: Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI); and National Nature Reserves (NNR);

 2km for other statutory and non-statutory designated sites of nature conservation importance, comprising: Local Nature Reserves (LNR); Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC), Site of Local Importance for Nature Conservation (SLINC); Potential Sites of Importance (PSI); and Wildlife Corridors (Black Country Nature Conservation Strategy); and

 250m for Habitats of Principal Importance (HPI) and Ancient Woodland.

2.3.3 Using a combination of aerial imagery (Google Earth) and OS mapping, the surrounding 500m was investigated for any presence of ponds, or other water bodies, which may be suitable for Great Crested Newts and connected to the Site by suitable habitat.

2.3.4 The Nottinghamshire Biological and Geological Records Centre (Nottinghamshire Biological and Geological Record Centre, 2016) provided Desk Study Reports with the following information:

 Legally protected and notable species records within 2km;

 Designated wildlife sites within 2km; and

 Schedule 9 species within 2km.

2.4 FIELD SURVEYS

2.4.1 The “ue Aea fo eah of the sues listed elo aies ad is sho o the assoiated Figure within the Appendix E1 of that report.

Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey

2.4.2 An Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey (Appendix E1) was undertaken on 16th May 2016. The method used for the Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey is based on guidelines provided by JNCC (JNCC, 2010) and CIEEM (CIEEM, 2013). During the survey visit, any vegetation types or signs of protected species or fauna were recorded and mapped using specific standard mapping colours, where possible.

2.4.3 The following protected species surveys and assessments below were also carried out during the Phase 1 survey.

CE-BS-1034-RP07 - Final Page 7 10/11/2017

Ecological Impact Assessment Proposed Eastern Extension – Bestwood Quarry II

Badger Survey

2.4.4 A survey for Badger was carried out during the Phase 1 Survey on the 16th May 2016, following guidelines set out by Harris et al 1989, (Harris et al, 1989). All potential habitats within the Site plus 30m (where accessible) were surveyed for evidence of Badger activity, and specifically for the presence of setts. Field signs searched for included active or inactive setts, Badger pathways, latrines, hair, discolouring of and damage to fencing, signs of foraging and feeding remains.

Preliminary Assessment for Roosting Bats

2.4.5 The survey undertaken on the 16th June 2016 included a survey of any suitable trees at the Site from ground level, recording any evidence of bat roosts, droppings, staining, scratch marks and feeding remains, or any Potential Roost Features (PRF) within the trees themselves in accordance with best practice methodology (Collins, 2016).

Invasive Plant Species

2.4.6 The site visit included recording the presence of invasive plant species listed on Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended).

Pond Assessment

2.4.7 A Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) Assessment was conducted on 16th May 2016 on any ponds within the red line boundary of the Site and within 500m of the Site (as determined by the desk study (where accessible)) to assess their suitability for Great Crested Newt (Oldham, et al., 2000). The HSI assesses factors such as pond area, water quality and macrophyte coverage. Each factor is then assigned a value between 0.01 and 1 (1 indicating an optimum habitat).

2.4.8 Folloig alulatio of the H“I soe, eah pod is the gie a Pod “uitailit atig ased o the following categories:

Table 1 Categorisation of Pond Suitability

HSI Score Pond Suitability <0.5 Poor 0.5-0.59 Below Average 0.6-0.69 Average 0.7-0.79 Good >0.8 Excellent

Phase 2 Surveys

2.4.9 To further inform the Baseline, the following Phase 2 surveys have been undertaken at the Site in 2017 after recommendations from the Phase 1 Habitat Survey and comments received from the LPA through scoping:

 Great Crested Newt eDNA survey for presence/likely absence;

 Bat activity survey;

CE-BS-1034-RP07 - Final Page 8 10/11/2017

Ecological Impact Assessment Proposed Eastern Extension – Bestwood Quarry II

 Reptile Presence/Likely Absence survey;

 Updated Badger survey;

 Breeding Bird survey;

 Invertebrate Scoping survey; and

 Natioal Vegetatio Classifiatio NVC sue.

2.4.10 The survey reports for each of these surveys can be found in the appendices of this report. Each report details the purpose and scope of the survey, the methodologies used and the results only. Each survey was based on standard best practice guidance available at the time of the surveys, with any deviations justified in the relevant survey report.

2.4.11 The Appendices containing survey reports are set out as follows:

 Appendix E1: Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey - (Report Reference: CE-BS-1037-RP01);

 Appendix E2: Great Crested Newt, Invertebrates and NVC Survey - (Report Reference: CE- BS-1037-RP03);

 Appendix E4: Bat Activity Survey - (Report Reference: CE-BS-1037-RP04);

 Appendix E5: Badger and Reptile Survey - (Report Reference: CE-BS-1037-RP05); and

 Appendix E6: Breeding Bird Survey - (Report Reference: CE-BS-1037-RP06).

2.5 SCOPING OPINION CONSULTEE RESPONSES ON ECOLOGICAL MATTERS

2.5.1 A Scoping Opinion request was submitted to Nottinghamshire County Council regarding the Proposed Development and a response was received on 14th October 2016.

2.5.2 The following ecological surveys were requested

 Phase 1 Habitat Survey;

 Phase 2 Botanical Survey – National Vegetation Classification;

 Bat Survey;

 Badger Survey;

 Great Crested Newt Survey;

 Reptile Survey;

 Invertebrate Survey; and

 Breeding Bird Survey.

2.5.3 Advice regarding ecology included the following:

 The Extension Area is located within an area of Broad-Leaved Woodland designated as a Local Wildlife Site (Longdale Plantation LWS 2/363) and is of County Level importance, this will need to be given particular consideration in the assessment process.

CE-BS-1034-RP07 - Final Page 9 10/11/2017

Ecological Impact Assessment Proposed Eastern Extension – Bestwood Quarry II

 Restoration - ‘eoedatios to aopa atual egeeatio ith targeted creation of heathland across a larger part of the extension area (perhaps as pockets amongst the natural regeneration area). It should be ensures that micro-topographic features are incorporated into both heathland restoration and natural regeneration areas.

2.6 LIMITATIONS TO THE BASELINE SURVEYS

2.6.1 The limitations to the survey were as follows:

 Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey and Pond Assessment:

∙ The presence of ponds within 500m was determined using OS mapping and aerial imagery therefore the presence of recently created or very small waterbodies (e.g. within a garden) may not have been detected.

∙ HSI assessment is used as a tool to evaluate the suitability of a pond to support Great Crested Newt and is not a substitute for amphibian surveys. Some indices can only be calculated at certain times of the year (Oldham, et al., 2000).

∙ The HSI for Great Crested Newt is a measure of habitat suitability. It is not a substitute for newt surveys. In general, ponds with high HSI scores are more likely to support Great Crested Newt than those with low scores. However, the system is not sufficiently precise to allow the conclusion that any particular pond with a high score will support newts, or that any pond with a low score will not do so.

 The limitations to the Badger Survey were that due to the time of year, the ground vegetation in certain areas was very dense and may have potentially obscured some Badger evidence from view.

2.7 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

Criteria

2.7.1 The wildlife value of the existing habitats at the Site was evaluated following established principles as set out in Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom (CIEEM, 2016).

2.7.2 In assessing the value of a receptor, consideration has been given to the criteria adapted from Ratcliffe (1977), namely naturalness, size, rarity, diversity and fragility as well as position within the ecological unit, potential value and intrinsic appeal. The evaluation of the importance of individual species groups also considers lists of County and nationally prepared Red Data Books where available.

2.7.3 All species and populations of species, including those with statutory protection, are evaluated on the same basis. An example of this would be a small population of a protected species at the Site, where the species is widespread, will not rank highly. Table 2details the Criteria for Evaluation.

CE-BS-1034-RP07 - Final Page 10 10/11/2017

Ecological Impact Assessment Proposed Eastern Extension – Bestwood Quarry II

Table 2 Criteria for Evaluation

Level of Species Habitat Importance An internationally designated site, i.e. SAC, A regularly occurring population of an internationally SPA, Ramsar, or one proposed for important species, which is threatened or rare in the designation. International UK, where the population is a critical part of a wider Sites supporting areas of priority habitats population or where a species is at a critical phase in which are scarce at an international level or its life cycle at this scale. where it is needed to maintain the viability of a larger area at that level. A regularly occurring population/number of a nationally important species which is threatened or A nationally designated site, i.e. SSSI or one rare, where the population is a critical part of a wider that meets the published criteria. population or where a species is at a critical phase in National Sites supporting areas of priority habitats its life cycle at this scale. A regularly occurring which are scarce at a national level or where it population of a nationally important species on the is needed to maintain the viability of a larger edge of its natural range. A species assemblage of area at that level. national significance. A regularly occurring, locally significant population of a species listed as being nationally scarce. A regularly occurring, locally significant number of a regionally Sites supporting a viable area of a priority habitat which is scarce at a regional level or Regional important species or where the population is a critical part of a wider population or where a species is at a where it is needed to maintain the viability of critical phase in its life cycle at this scale. a larger area at that level. A species assemblage of regional significance. Any regularly occurring, locally significant population A County designated site or one that meets of a species which is listed in a county Red Data Book published criteria. or BAP on account of its rarity. Sites supporting a viable area of a priority A regularly occurring, locally significant number of a habitat which is scarce at a county level or County county important species or where the population is a where it is needed to maintain the viability of critical part of a wider population or where a species a larger area. is at a critical phase in its life cycle at this scale. Local Wildlife Sites/potential Local Wildlife A species assemblage of county significance. Sites. A population of a species that is listed in a district BAP because of its rarity in the locality. A species assemblage of district significance. Sites/features that are scarce within the District A regularly occurring, locally significant number of district. district importance or where the population is a Areas of Semi Natural Ancient Woodland. critical part of a wider population or where a species is at a critical phase in its life cycle at this scale. Areas of habitat considered to enrich Populations or species assemblages considered to appreciably the habitat resource within the Local enhance the local ecological resource, e.g. a breeding context of the locality or which buffer those of bird assemblage. a more important nature. Po pulations or species assemblages insufficient to be Habitats or areas of habitat insufficient to be Site considered in the wider context. considered in the wider context. Habitat or areas of habitat of insignificant Negligible Not applicable. ecological value.

CE-BS-1034-RP07 - Final Page 11 10/11/2017

Ecological Impact Assessment Proposed Eastern Extension – Bestwood Quarry II

2.8 ECOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

2.8.1 In line with recognised assessment guidance (CIEEM, 2016), the ecological impacts and effects are assessed using surveys and research to identify ecological receptors which will be affected as a result of the Proposed Development as follows:

 Determine the severity of the impact and effect without specific mitigation measures;

 Outline a potential mitigation strategy which would be implemented to avoid or reduce undesirable impacts and effects;

 Assess the likelihood that the mitigation strategy will be successful;

 Establish areas of potential environmental improvement; and

 Assess the Significance of the residual impact of the Proposed Development, assuming the mitigation strategy has been fully implemented and that suggested areas of potential environmental improvement have been acted upon.

2.9 CLASSIFYING IMPACTS AND EFFECTS

2.9.1 A description of parameters that are considered when assessing the degree and type of change are provided in Table 3. Criteria to assess, on a scale of Low to High, the degree and type of change are provided in Table 1, and an overall level of effect determined.

2.9.2 In conjunction with consideration of the evaluation of the ecological receptor, an assessment of the Significance of the residual effect (for the type/nature of change), is provided in accordance with the criteria in Table 5 and described together.

Table 3 Impact/Effect Parameters

Parameters Definition

Nature of Dietio of hage. Positive changes are given equal merit to Negative changes in relation to the Change overall biodiversity outcome. No overall change would be Neutral.

The size, sale o aout of hage, deteied o a uatitatie asis hee possile. Includes consideration of: The geographical extent (area) over which change occurs. The Duration of time over which the assessed change is expected to last. This is based on ecological Magnitude characteristics not human timeframes and may be Temporary, Short Term, Medium Term or Long- Term. The Frequency of a Negative impact must also be considered; A single impact may have no effect but a number of repeating same impacts may create a Negative effect. Irreversible changes are negative changes from which recovery is not possible within a reasonable timescale or for which there is no reasonable change of action being taken to reverse it. Reversibility Reversible changes are negative changes from which spontaneous recovery is possible or for which effective mitigation is both possible and an enforceable commitment is proffered. Timing of a Negative impact may be important in understanding the effect of that impact, e.g. if it Timing coincides with critical life-stages or seasons.

CE-BS-1034-RP07 - Final Page 12 10/11/2017

Ecological Impact Assessment Proposed Eastern Extension – Bestwood Quarry II

Table 4 Classification of Impact/Effect Parameters

Parameter Degree of Impact Aspect LOW MEDIUM HIGH

Magnitude Minimal Change <------> Substantial Change

Extent Limited / Small Area <------> Widespread Change

<18 months >8 years Duration <------> (Temporary) (Long-term) Single or seldom Numerous, regular Frequency <------> occurring event occurring events

Timing Non-Critical Timing <------> Critical Timing

Table 5 Classification of Significance and Nature of Effect

Classification Criteria Likely to create a Significant negative effect, including loss, or long-term or irreversible Negative (Significant) damage on the integrity / status of a valued ecological receptor. Negative (Not Likely to create a negative effect without causing long-term or irreversible damage to the Significant) integrity / status of an ecological receptor. Neutral (Not Effects are either absent or such that no overall net change to the ecological receptor Significant) occurs. Positive (Not Likely to create a beneficial effect on an ecological receptor, or providing a new (lower Significant) value) ecological feature, without improving its conservation status markedly. Activity is likely to create a Significant beneficial effect, including long-term enhancement Positive (Significant) and favourable condition of an existing valued ecological receptor, or creation of a new valued ecological feature.

2.9.3 Residual effects are then considered alongside legal requirements, nature conservation policies and overall effects on biodiversity.

CE-BS-1034-RP07 - Final Page 13 10/11/2017

Ecological Impact Assessment Proposed Eastern Extension – Bestwood Quarry II

3 THE BASELINE SITUATION AND EVALUATION

3.1 DESK STUDY - LEGISLATIVE CONTEXT

International Legislation

3.1.1 Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora the Haitats Dietie ad Couil Dietie //EC o the Coseatio of Wild Bids the Bids Dietie. These Dieties poide potetio to floa ad faua hih ae osideed to e of European importance, as well as providing protection to the habitats which support them through establishing a network of protected sites (the Natura 2000 network) such as Special Areas for Conservation (SACs) or Special Protection Areas (SPAs).

EU Regulation 1143/2014 on Invasive Alien Species

3.1.2 The Regulation 1143/2014 on invasive alien species entered into force on 1 January 2015. This Regulation seeks to address the problem of invasive alien species in a comprehensive manner so as to protect native biodiversity and ecosystem services, as well as to minimize and mitigate the human health or economic impacts that these species can have.

3.1.3 The Regulation foresees three types of interventions: prevention; early detection and rapid eradication; and management.

3.1.4 A list of invasive alien species of Union concern will be drawn up and managed with Member States using risk assessments and scientific evidence.

National Legislation

The Coseatio of Haitats & “peies ‘egulatios the Haitat ‘egulatios 3.1.5 This piece of legislation transposes into UK law the Habitats and Birds Directives. The Habitat Regulations protect numerous wild plants and animals (European Protected Species (EPS) (as well as the habitats which support them) from activities such as destruction, disturbance, killing, collection (for private use or sale) and several other activities. The Regulations also sets out measures to control operations which could potentially damage the Natura 2000 network.

The Natual Eioet ad ‘ual Couities At the NE‘C At 3.1.6 Section 40 of the NERC Act places a duty on public authorities (such as planning authorities) to have regard to the purpose of conserving biodiversity which includes, in relation to a living organism or type of habitat, restoring or enhancing a population or habitat.

3.1.7 Section 41 of the NERC Act requires the Secretary of State to publish a list of the living organisms ad tpes of haitat hih i the “eeta of “tates opiio ae of piipal ipotae fo the purpose of conserving biodiversity – the list was drawn up in consultation with Natural England.

CE -BS-1034-RP07 - Final Page 14 10/11/2017

Ecological Impact Assessment Proposed Eastern Extension – Bestwood Quarry II

The Protection of Badgers Act 1992

3.1.8 This act sets out offences relating to badgers, these offences involve taking, injuring or killing badgers, cruelty, interfering with badger setts and other offences.

The Wildlife and Countryside Act (WCA) 1981

3.1.9 This legislation implements the Birds Directive, providing protection for wild birds, their nests and eggs, as well as certain mammals. It also sets out the protection of UK designated sites such as Sites of Species Scientific Interest (SSSIs).

3.1.10 The WCA lists additional flora and fauna which are not protected under The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, but are afforded protection under the WCA. The WCA also includes provision for preventing the spread of invasive plant and animal species.

The Countryside and Rights of Way (CRoW) Act 2000

3.1.11 The Countryside and Rights of Way (CRoW) Act amended the WCA by increasing the maximum pealt fo a fie to ipisoet, as ell as addig ekless ats to offees as opposed to solel itetioal ats.

3.1.12 Schedule 12 of the Act amends the species provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, strengthening the legal protection for threatened species. The provisions make certain offences 'arrestable', create a new offence of reckless disturbance, confer greater powers to police and wildlife inspectors for entering premises and obtaining wildlife tissue samples for DNA analysis, and enable heavier penalties on conviction of wildlife offences.

3.2 DESK STUDY - POLICY CONTEXT

National Planning Policy

3.2.1 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) Section 11 - Conserving and enhancing the Natural Environment, contains relevant policy in Paragraphs 109-125.

3.2.2 The Goeets ojetie, as stated i the NPPF is that planning should help to deliver a healthy natural environment for the benefit of everyone and safe places which promote wellbeing. To achieve this objective, the NPPF states that the planning system should aim to conserve and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting valued landscapes, minimise impacts on biodiversity and provide net gains where possible. The NPPF also makes the statement that planning permission should be refused if significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided, adequately mitigated, or as a last resort, compensated for.

3.2.3 The NPPF goes on to support the Lawton Review (Lawton, 2010) and the White Paper (HMSO, 2011) with its goals to minimise impacts on biodiversity by stating that planning policy should take into account the need to plan for biodiversity at a landscape-scale as well as identify and map components of the local ecological networks, including international, national and local sites. In line with EU targets, the NPPF states that planning will promote the preservation, restoration and re- creation of priority habitats, ecological networks and the recovery of priority species populations.

CE -BS-1034-RP07 - Final Page 15 10/11/2017

Ecological Impact Assessment Proposed Eastern Extension – Bestwood Quarry II

Local Planning Policy

3.2.4 The local planning policies which relate to the Proposed Development are detailed within the Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan - Adopted January 2005 (Nottinghamshire County Council, 2005) and are detailed below:

POLICY M3.17 BIODIVERSITY:

Planning permission will not be granted for minerals development which will adversely affect the integrity or continuity of habitats or features identified as priorities in the UK and/ or Nottinghamshire Local Biodiversity Action Plan, unless an overriding need for development is demonstrated which outweighs the nature conservation importance of the feature. If the loss of the habitat or feature cannot be avoided, provision will be made, where practicable, for the creation of an equivalent habitat or feature, either on the development site or under the terms of a voluntary agreement on a suitable alternative location within the county.

POLICY M3.20 REGIONAL AND LOCAL DESIGNATED SITES:

Planning permission for minerals development in areas which are regional or local designated sites will only be granted where it can be demonstrated that the importance of the development outweighs the regional or local value of the site, taking into account measures to mitigate/compensate against any adverse impact.

UK Biodiversity Action Plan

3.2.5 The UK BAP was originally published in 1994 as a response to the Convention on Biological Diversity, which the UK signed up to in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. The UK BAP set out plans to conserve biological resources within the UK, and also devised action plans for priority species (1,150 listed) and habitats (65 listed) which were considered to be most threatened.

3.2.6 The UK BAP listed 59 broad targets for the Government and nature conservation agencies to conserve and where possible, enhance wild species and habitats over a 20 year period.

3.2.7 In 2012 the UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework was published, this framework contains priorities specific to the UK for the Convention on Biological Diversity, which were agreed upon by the Environment Departments of all UK governments.

3.2.8 The UK Post- Biodiesit Faeok Biodiesit - “tateg fo Eglads Wildlife ad Ecosystems Services encompasses the period from 2011-2020 and is now supported by Local Biodiversity Action Plans (LBAPs) which are usually devised by county councils. The guidance now concentrates on Species and Habitats of Principal Importance which are listed under Schedule 41 of the NERC Act. Whilst the overlap from the former UK BAP and Local BAP is not fully completed, for the purpose of this document and ecological assessment, both Species and Habitats of Principal Importance (SPI and HPI respectively) listed within Schedule 41 will be referred to only.

Local Biodiversity Information

3.2.9 Information on the Local Biodiversit Atio Pla as otaied fo the Nottighashie Biodiesit Atio Goup esite (Nottinghamshire Biodiversity Action Group, 2017) which provided information on HPI and SPI within the county.

CE -BS-1034-RP07 - Final Page 16 10/11/2017

Ecological Impact Assessment Proposed Eastern Extension – Bestwood Quarry II

Birds of Conservation Concern (BoCC)

3.2.10 Produced in 2015 by a number of bird conservation organisations, Birds of Conservation Concern 4 (Eaton, et al., 2015) updated previous quantitative reviews of the status of 246 bird species that occur regularly in the UK, Channel Islands and Isle of Man.

3.2.11 Birds are placed into one of three lists - red, amber or green and although these listings offer no legal protection, they are meant to guide conservation action for the individual species. The listings reflect an indiidual speies gloal ad Euopea oseatio status as ell as that ithi the UK and additionally measure the importance of the UK population in international terms. Further details on these listings are provided in Appendix E6.

3.2.12 In addition to the BoCC, an annual report on numerous surveys and monitoring by leading governmental and non-governmental conservation organisations in the UK is produced. This report is called The state of the UK’s irds (Hayhow, et al., 2015) and identifies trends for species grouped into four main habitats: farmland, woodland, wetland and coastal/marine. Where relevant to this assessment the results of the report are referenced.

3.3 DESIGNATED SITES

3.3.1 Designated Sites are areas that are considered to be of high value for nature conservation (on either international, national, regional, county or local scales), which have been protected to varying extents by international conventions or local planning authority controls:

3.3.2 Generally, the priority for the protection of statutorily designated sites is as follows:

 International/European/National/Local statutory designated sites (such as SACs/SSSIs/Local Nature Reserves);

 County or Local non-statutory designated sites – includes Local Wildlife Sites (LWS) and other sites of conservation interest.

Statutory Designated Sites

3.3.3 No statutory designated sites were identified within 2km of the Site. However the Site is within 2km of the prospective boundary for the Sherwood Forest Special Protection Area. The primary reason for the proposed designation is for Nightjar (Caprimulgus europaeus) and Wood Lark (Lullula arborea). The potential SPA site has been prospective only for years there has been no definite updates from Natural England

3.3.4 The potential boundaries of the prospective SPA are yet to be determined. However an indicative boundary has been proposed from two datasets for Important Bird Areas (IBA) for Night Jar and Wood Lark. These provide a good indication of the areas which are likely to be included.

3.3.5 For the purpose of this assessment the impacts of the Proposed Development will be assessed on impacts to the two species of bird and their core habitat as the boundaries are not yet defined.

CE -BS-1034-RP07 - Final Page 17 10/11/2017

Ecological Impact Assessment Proposed Eastern Extension – Bestwood Quarry II

Non-Statutory Designated Sites and Other Sites

3.3.6 There are nine non-statutory wildlife sites within 2km of the Site, designated as Local Wildlife Sites LWS; these are detailed in Table 6.

Table 6 Non-Statutory Wildlife Sites and Other Sites

Grid Distance and direction Site Name Area (ha) Description Reference from Site Newstead Park 1400mm to the west of (including River SK 545538 233 A variety of habitats. the Site boundary. Leen System) Trumpers Park A valuable area of young deciduous 740m to the north of SK 565536 4. Wood woodland. the Site boundary. 1440m to the south of Seven Mile Railway SK 564506 5 A mineral line in a deep acidic cutting. the Site boundary. 1050m to the Herb-rich grassy track providing a good Break Lane SK 557519 0.5 southwest of the Site habitat. boundary.

Adjacent to the A covered reservoir supporting heath and Longdale Heath SK 573522 1.5 southern Site acidic grassland. boundary.

Longdale SK 573525 28.0 A notable area of deciduous woodland. Within Site boundary. Plantation Longdale Lane An extensive, predominantly coniferous, 820m to the east of SK 590528 354 Plantation plantation. the Site boundary. 1350m to the A substantial area of mixed plantation Appleton Dale SK 581538 7.5 northeast of the Site around notable unmanaged acidic grassland. boundary. 1595m to the north of Ravenhead Knoll SK 570541 0.4 Acidic grassland with characteristic species. the Site boundary.

3.3.7 Part of the Site is located within the Longdale Plantation Local Wildlife Site (LWS), designated for its botanical interest as being a notable area of deciduous woodland (Nottinghamshire Biological and Geological Record Centre, 2016).

3.3.8 Longdale Heath LWS is also situated immediately to the South of the Site. This is a covered reservoir which supports acid grassland and heathland.

3.3.9 The non-statutory sites Listed in Table 6 are assessed to be of County Importance in accordance with Table 2.

3.3.10 Any Wildlife corridors are assessed as being Local Importance in accordance with Table 2 .

CE -BS-1034-RP07 - Final Page 18 10/11/2017

Ecological Impact Assessment Proposed Eastern Extension – Bestwood Quarry II

Habitats of Principal Importance and Ancient Woodland

3.3.11 According to the Nottinghamshire LBAP there are 19 Habitat Action Plan (HAP) and there are 13 Species Actions Plans (SAP) (Nottinghamshire Biodiversity Action Group, 2017).

3.3.12 Based on the Priority Habitats Inventory provided by MAGIC (Natural England, 2017), there are three HPI within 250m of the Site: Deciduous Woodland situated within the Site boundary, Lowland Heath located adjacent to a section of the southern boundary and several Hedgerows surrounding the Site.

3.3.13 No areas of Ancient Woodland were found.

3.3.14 The HPI are assessed as being of District Importance in accordance with Table 2.

Protected Species and Species of Principal Importance

3.3.15 Nottinghamshire Biological and Geological Records Centre (Nottinghamshire Biological and Geological Record Centre, 2016) provided records of several protected species and SPI within 2km of the Site. Where relevant to the Site and Proposed Development, these records are summarised within the species accounts in section 3.4.

3.3.16 It should be noted that the dates of some of the records are more than 10 years old. The ecology of a Site can change rapidly and although a historical record indicates the presence of a protected species within 2km, these records cannot be relied upon wholly in the evaluation of a Site.

3.4 ECOLOGICAL WALKOVER SURVEY

Habitats

3.4.1 The following table shows the details of habitat creation Approved Restoration Scheme for the Eastern Extension only:

Table 7 Approved Restoration Scheme - Habitats

Habitat Type Quantity of Habitat (Upon restoration) Hectares Marshy Areas 0.31 Proposed Heathland/Acid Grassland 0.49 Existing Areas of Natural Regeneration 3.14 Existing Woodland 0.88 Proposed Woodland 0.47 Sandstone Faces 0.65 Total Area 5.93

3.4.2 These habitats form part of the overall restoration program for the existing quarry at Bestwood Quarry, which is already permitted.

CE -BS-1034-RP07 - Final Page 19 10/11/2017

Ecological Impact Assessment Proposed Eastern Extension – Bestwood Quarry II

3.4.3 The Proposed Eastern Extension area comprises Broad-Leaved Woodland (Plantation) habitat.

3.4.4 The description and location of this habitat is shown on the Phase 1 Habitat Plan of (Figure E1) of the Extended Phase 1 Habitat Report in Error! Reference source not found. of this report.

3.4.5 The NVC determined did not results did not fit any specific NVC Woodland classification type. The structure of the woodland was poor and is unmanaged.

Evaluation

3.4.6 The habitats of the Approved Restoration Scheme are common and widespread. The value of the Woodland, Lowland Heathland/Acid Grassland and Marshy Grassland are higher due to their classification as Habitats of Principal Ipotae HPIs. The HPIs ae of Local Importance.

3.4.7 The habitats at the Site are typical of the surrounding rural landscape and are common and widespread. The value of the Woodland habitat is higher due to their classification as HPI. The habitats at the Site are therefore of Site Importance, with the exception of the deciduous woodland, which are of Local Importance.

Plants

3.4.8 The ZoI for plants was determined to be the habitats within and adjacent to the red line boundary of the Site. This was determined based on the presence of similar habitats bordering/surrounding the Site, an assessment of the potential effects of the Proposed Development on flora, along with information from the desk study and field surveys.

3.4.9 No notable or rare floral species were found at the Site and floral diversity was low for the Site overall. The habitats present and the likely management of the habitats mean they are unlikely to support rare or notable plant species. The Site is therefore of Site Importance for notable or rare plant species.

3.4.10 No Invasive plant species were recorded within the red line boundary during the survey.

Invertebrates

3.4.11 Using a combination of information from the desk study and field surveys and an assessment of the potential effects of the Proposed Development on invertebrates, the ZoI for Invertebrates was determined to be the Site and bordering habitats.

3.4.12 The majority of records of Terrestrial Invertebrates provided by the local biological record centre were of moth species dated most recently from 2008, located approximately 1.7km southwest of the Site associated with a small area of Woodland.

3.4.13 Four records of butterfly species were also recorded within 2km of the Site. The records are dated from 2015 and associated with the Longdale Lane Plantation Woodland designated as a Local Wildlife Site located approximately 920m east of the Site as its closest point.

3.4.14 No records of aquatic Invertebrates within 2km of the Site were provided by the local biological record centre.

3.4.15 An Invertebrate assessment was undertaken within the Proposed Extension Area in 2017 (see

CE -BS-1034-RP07 - Final Page 20 10/11/2017

Ecological Impact Assessment Proposed Eastern Extension – Bestwood Quarry II

Report Reference: CE-BS-1034-RP03).

3.4.16 Overall the Site is considered to be of Low suitability for Invertebrates due to the limited microclimatic features present and the low heterogeneity of the Site as well as the presence of better quality habitat in the wider area.

3.4.17 Based on this information, the Proposed Eastern Extension area therefore provides habitat of Site Importance only.

Amphibians

3.4.18 The ZoI for Great Crested Newts and other amphibians was determined using a combination of information from the desk study and field surveys, an assessment of the potential effects of the Proposed Development on amphibians plus information of the dispersal abilities of Great Crested Newts (Cresswell & Whitworth, 2004) and other amphibians (Langton & Beckett, 1995). The ZoI for Great Crested Newts was determined to be the Site and ecologically connected habitats within 500m. The ZoI for other amphibians was determined to be the Site and surrounding habitats within 500m.

3.4.19 There are no ponds within the Site boundary and four ponds within 500m of the Site, three of which are separated from the Site by significant barriers to dispersal for amphibians.

3.4.20 Three of the ponds (Ponds 1-3) are located on the area of active quarry at Bestwood II Quarry (outside the Proposed Eastern Extension Area boundary). The layout of the Site including the sheer cliff faces surrounding the ponds and adjacent to the area of Broad-Leaved Woodland in the east, as well as the active working areas within the quarry makes the likelihood of Great Crested Newt dispersal from these ponds to the Site and the Proposed Extension Area highly unlikely.

3.4.21 Pond 4 is located approximately 260m northwest of the Proposed Extension Area at its closest point and is considered to be ecologically connected via interlying areas of Woodland to the north of the Proposed Extension Area. This pond was to be subject to the eDNA survey in 2017.

3.4.22 The local biological records showed no records of Great Crested Newts within 2km of the Site.

Pond Assessment for Great Crested Newt

3.4.23 The desk study identified 4 waterbodies within 500m of the Site boundary, as shown in Appendix E2.

3.4.24 Three Ponds (Ponds 1, 2 and 3) were excluded from further assessment due to being separated from the Site by significant barriers to dispersal.

3.4.25 Pond 4 was to be subject to HSI assessment and eDNA survey for the presence of GCN in 2017, however the Pond was found to be dry at the time of the survey.

3.4.26 The locations of the Ponds are shown in Plate 1.

CE -BS-1034-RP07 - Final Page 21 10/11/2017

Ecological Impact Assessment Proposed Eastern Extension – Bestwood Quarry II

Plate 1 Great Crested Newt Survey Area – Pond Location Plan

3.4.27 There are no ponds within the Proposed Eastern Extension area. One of the ponds within 500m of the Proposed Eastern Extension area boundary was dry at the time of the survey.

3.4.28 The terrestrial habitat of the Proposed Eastern Extension Area is considered to be of Low suitability for Great Crested Newt; it does provide opportunities for foraging, shelter and hibernation however the lack of varied habitat structure and other suitable accompanying such as grassland and hedgerows etc., contributes to the Proposed Extension Area being of lower suitability for the species.

3.4.29 The eDNA sampling and analysis of Pond 4 could not be conducted due to being dry at the time of the survey and Ponds 1, 2 and 3 are considered to be separated from the Site by significant barriers to dispersal, the Proposed Eastern Extension area is therefore of Negligible Importance for Great Crested Newt.

3.4.30 There are no waterbodies suitable for other Amphibians such as Common Toad within the Proposed Eastern Extension area and no evidence of their presence was found during any of the surveys. The Proposed Eastern Extension area is therefore of Negligible Importance for other Amphibians.

Reptiles

3.4.31 Using a combination of information from the desk study and field surveys, an assessment of the potential effects of the Proposed Development on reptiles plus information on the dispersal abilities of common UK Reptile species (Langton & Beckett, 1995), the ZoI for Reptiles was determined to be the Site and ecologically connected habitats within 1km.

3.4.32 Several records for Common Lizard (Zootoca vivipara) within 2km of the Site were provided by the local biological record centre. The majority of records are dated from 2012 and associated with a small area of woodland located approximately 910m north of the Site.

CE -BS-1034-RP07 - Final Page 22 10/11/2017

Ecological Impact Assessment Proposed Eastern Extension – Bestwood Quarry II

3.4.33 The most recent record is dated from 2013 and is located approximately 1.4km southeast of the Site at its closest point.

3.4.34 A Reptile survey of the Proposed Eastern Extension was undertaken between July and October 2017 by Crestwood Environmental Ltd. (see 0). No Reptiles were recorded in seven survey visits and none was recorded during the Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey visit in May 2016.

3.4.35 The Proposed Eastern Extension offers some areas of suitable habitat for Reptiles in the form of glades within the woodland area where Reptiles can bask, forage and take shelter.

3.4.36 The Proposed Eastern Extension area is located within habitat of a homogenous structure which is generally considered to be less suitable for Reptiles. The Proposed Eastern Extension area therefore provides habitat of Negligible Importance for Reptiles.

Birds

3.4.37 Using a combination of information from the desk study and field surveys, and an assessment of the potential effects of the Proposed Development on birds, the ZoI for birds was determined to be the Site and surrounding area within 2km.

3.4.38 The loal iologial eods ete poided eods of id speies that ae ‘ed listed as Bids of Conservation Concern (Eaton, 2015) within 2km of the Site. Species include: Whinchat (Saxicola rubetra), Spotted Flycatcher (Muscicapa striata), Linnet (Cardeulis cannabina), Tree Pipit (Anthus trivialis), Woodcock (Scolopax rusticola), Cuckoo (Cuculus canorus) and Fieldfare (Turdus pilaris).

3.4.39 Additioall, id speies that ae Ae listed as Bids of Coseatio Coen have been recorded within 2km of the Site. Species include: Eurasian Wigeon (Anas penelope), Shoveller (Anas clypeata), Oystercatcher (Haematopus ostralegus) and Tawny Owl (Strix aluco).

3.4.40 ‘eods of fou id speies listed o “hedule of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) have also been recorded within 2km of the Site. Species include: Hobby, Common Crossbill (Loxia curvirostra) and Brambling.

3.4.41 Birds recorded at within the Proposed Eastern Extension area during the Breeding Bird Survey ilude to Bids listed o “hedule of the WCA, fou ‘ed list ad see Ae list BOCC ad species listed as SPI. No LBAP species were recorded at the Site during the surveys.

3.4.42 Although significant populations of Nightjar (Caprimulgus europaeus) are recorded in the wider area, this species was not recorded at the Site or within the Proposed Eastern Extension during the surveys and the habitats within the Proposed Eastern Extension are considered to be unsuitable for the species.

3.4.43 The Proposed Eastern Extension area provides favourable habitat for a variety of bird species, including species of conservation concern such as farmland bird indicators, some of which were recorded during the Breeding Bird Survey in 2017. The habitats within the Proposed Eastern Extension area are connected to habitats of similar suitability. Therefore the habitats within the Proposed Eastern Extension area are considered to be of Site Importance for Breeding Birds.

CE -BS-1034-RP07 - Final Page 23 10/11/2017

Ecological Impact Assessment Proposed Eastern Extension – Bestwood Quarry II

Bats

3.4.44 Using a combination of information from the desk study and field surveys, and an assessment of the potential effects of the Proposed Development on Bats, the ZoI for Bats was determined to be the Site and habitats within 2km.

3.4.45 Several records of Bat species within 2km of the Site were provided by the local biological records centre. Four species have been recorded including: Common Pipistrelle Bat (Pipistrellus pipistrellus), Soprano Pipistrelle Bat (Pipistrellus pygmaeus), Noctule Bat (Nyctalus noctula) and Brown Long- Eared Bat (Plecotus auritus).

3.4.46 Several records of Bat roosts were provided by the local biological record centre. The most recent record is dated from 2001 and is located approximately 1.7km south of the Site. The two closest roost records are of Brown Long-Eared roosts dated from 2002 and 2004 located approximately 880m and 1km east of the Site respectively.

3.4.47 The results of the 2017 Bat Surveys are detailed in 3.4.47. A plan of the survey site and transect route can be found in Figure E1 of Report CE-BS-1034- RP04 (Appendix E4).

Table 8 Bat Activity Survey Results: 5th May 2017

Time Location Species Activity 21:29 1-2 Common Pipistrelle Heard not seen, faint 21:33 2 Soprano pipistrelle 1 pass 21:52 4 Common Pipistrelle 1 pass and foraging 21:53 4 Myotis sp. 1 pass 22:02 4-5 Common Pipistrelle 1 pass 22:16 - 22:21 6 Common Pipistrelle Foraging 22:29 6-7 Common Pipistrelle x2 Foraging 23:09 8 Common Pipistrelle 1 pass

Table 9 Bat Activity Survey Results: 9th August 2017

Time Location Species Activity 21:19 3 Co mmon Pipistrelle 1 pass 21:46 5 Common Pipistrelle 1 pass and foraging 21:57 5 Common Pipistrelle 1 pass 22:14 6 Common Pipistrelle 1 pass and foraging

Table 10 Transect Survey Results - 13th September 2017

Time Location Species Activity 05:05 1 Soprano Pipistrelle Several passes and foraging 05:10 1 Soprano Pipistrelle 1 pass 05:45 4 Common Pipistrelle 1 pass and foraging

3.4.48 Three Bat species were recorded during the activity surveys; Common Pipistrelle Bat, Soprano Pipistrelle Bat and unidentified Myotis sp. Bat. The highest levels of activity were recorded during

CE -BS-1034-RP07 - Final Page 24 10/11/2017

Ecological Impact Assessment Proposed Eastern Extension – Bestwood Quarry II

the activity survey conducted in May.

Automated Surveys

3.4.49 In line with best practice for habitat of low suitability, an automated Bat detector (AnaBat Express) was installed at the Site at a single location along the transect, which recorded activity on five consecutive nights per season in May, August and September 2017.

3.4.50 The detector was scheduled to record all Bat activity from sunset until sunrise throughout the monitoring period. The weather conditions during this time can be found in Table 11.

Table 11 Automated Monitoring Period Weather Conditions

Sunset Sunrise Overnight temp. Wind speed Month Date Precipitation time time range (°C) (Beaufort scale) 23 rd 21:09 04:54 12 - 10 None 2 24 th 21:10 04:53 13 - 11 None 2 May 2017 25 th 21:12 04:52 17 - 15 None 1 26 th 21:13 04:51 17 - 13 None 3 27th 21:14 04:49 14 - 12 None 2 12th 20:37 05:40 16 - 14 None 2 13th 20:35 05:42 11 - 8 None 2 August 2017 14th 20:33 05:44 14 - 12 None 1 15th 20:31 05:45 15 - 13 None 2 16 th 20:29 05:47 12 - 11 None 1 12 th 19:27 06:33 11 - 10 None 2 13 th 19:24 06:35 14 - 11 None 3 September 14 th 19:22 06:37 9 8 None 2 2017 – 15 th 19:19 06:38 9 - 6 None 2 16 th 19:17 06:40 9 - 8 None 1

3.4.51 The majority of activity was Common Pipistrelle Bat and unidentified Myotis species. Soprano Pipistrelle Bat and Noctule Bat were also recorded.

3.4.52 The results of the automated surveys are shown in 3.4.51, Table 13 and Table 14. The location of the automated survey equipment can be found on Figure E4 in Appendix E4 of Report Reference: CE-BS-1034-RP04.

CE -BS-1034-RP07 - Final Page 25 10/11/2017

Ecological Impact Assessment Proposed Eastern Extension – Bestwood Quarry II

Table 12 Automated Survey Results - May 2017

Date Species Number of Passes Common Pipistrelle 39 23 rd May Soprano Pipistrelle 9 Myotis sp. 16 Common Pipistrelle 24 24 th May Soprano Pipistrelle 9 Myotis sp. 32 Common Pipistrelle 19 25 th May Soprano Pipistrelle 9 Myotis sp. 30 Common Pipistrelle 28 26 th May Soprano Pipistrelle 9 Myotis sp. 24 Common Pipistrelle 12 27 th May Soprano Pipistrelle 11 Myotis sp. 15

3.4.53 A total of 286 Bat passes were recorded throughout the monitoring period in May.

Table 13 Automated Survey Results - August 2017

Date Species Number of Passes Common Pipistrelle 38 12 th August Soprano Pipistrelle 7 Myotis sp. 21 Common Pipistrelle 48 13 th August Soprano Pipistrelle 16 Myotis sp. 28 Common Pipistrelle 46 14 th August Soprano Pipistrelle 18 Myotis sp. 6 Common Pipistrelle 49 15 th August Soprano Pipistrelle 5 Myotis sp. 22 Common Pipistrelle 33 Soprano Pipistrelle 22 16 th August Myotis sp. 1 Noctule 3

3.4.54 A total of 363 Bat passes were recorded throughout the monitoring period in August.

CE -BS-1034-RP07 - Final Page 26 10/11/2017

Ecological Impact Assessment Proposed Eastern Extension – Bestwood Quarry II

Table 14 Automated Survey Results - September 2017

Date Species Number of Passes 12 th September Soprano Pipistrelle 1 Soprano Pipistrelle 3 13 th September Myotis sp. 25 Common Pipistrelle 2 Soprano Pipistrelle 9 14 th September Myotis sp. 18 Noctule 1 Common Pipistrelle 8 15 th September Soprano Pipistrelle 6 Myotis sp. 12 16 th September Soprano Pipistrelle 1

3.4.55 A total of 86 Bat passes were recorded throughout the monitoring period in September.

3.4.56 The majority of activity was Common Pipistrelle Bat and unidentified Myotis species. Soprano Pipistrelle Bat and Noctule Bat were also recorded.

3.4.57 Five Bat species were recorded during the surveys:

 Common Pipistrelle Bat;

 Soprano Pipistrelle Bat;

 Myotis sp.;

 Myotis sp. likely to be considered Nattees Bat; and

 Noctule Bat.

3.4.58 Overall, activity was recorded across the entire Site. The majority of activity was foraging in open glades of the woodland and where woodland edge habitat was present.

3.4.59 The Site offers suitable habitat for foraging and commuting Bats. Habitat adjacent to the Site considered suitable for foraging and commuting Bats includes arable fields and hedgerows. In the wider area, the large areas of woodland provide further habitat for Bats.

CE -BS-1034-RP07 - Final Page 27 10/11/2017

Ecological Impact Assessment Proposed Eastern Extension – Bestwood Quarry II

3.4.60 Table 15 provides the conservation status of each bat species recorded at the Site.

Table 15 National status and population trends of bat species

Population Current trend (Bat UK Status (Bat IUCN status Survey Species name estimate (Harris, Conservation Trust, Conservation (IUCN, 2010) method et al., 1995) 2014) Trust, 2014)

Common pipistrelle Significant upward Least concern NBMP Field 2,430,000 Common Pipistrellus pipistrellus trend* (2008) Survey *

Soprano pipistrelle Least concern NBMP Field 1,300,000 Increasing* Common Pipistrellus pygmaeus (2008) Survey *

Noctule No significant overall Least concern NBMP Field 50,000 Uncommon Nyctalus noctula change, stable (2008) Survey*

Natterer s Bat Least concern NBMP Field 70,000 Increasing* Common Myotis nattereri (2008) Survey* * = NBMP Field Survey count provides a better reflection of population change (BCT, 2011)

3.4.61 Based on the type of Bat activity recorded at the Site, the species assemblage and habitat quality, the Site is assessed as being of Site Importance for Bats, since no Bat roosts are present at the Site and the habitats are generally of low quality for Bats. The Site would therefore be unlikely to fall within the criteria for higher value (based on Table 2).

Badger

3.4.62 Using a combination of information from the desk study and field surveys and an assessment of the potential effects of the Proposed Development on Badger, the ZoI for Badger was determined to be the Site and bordering habitats within a 30m radius.

3.4.63 Four Badger records within 2km of the Site were provided by the local biological records centre. Three records were road casualties and one record was of a Badger sett. The Badger sett record dated from 2015 and was located approximately 1.8km south of the Site.

3.4.64 Four potential Badger holes were identified during the survey. Three were situated close together and the fourth was a solitary hole.

3.4.65 The cluster of potential Badger holes were considered to be inactive at the time of the survey as there was no fresh spoil present, all three entrances were filled with debris (sticks, leaves and some rocks) and some cobwebs were present.

3.4.66 The solitary hole of was considered to be partially-active at the time of the survey as the entrance was free of debris and the spoil outside the entrance appeared recently disturbed.

3.4.67 No other evidence of Badger, such as prints or hairs, was found within the potential Badger holes or within close proximity to any of the holes.

3.4.68 No other evidence of Badger (i.e. digging, latrine, hair etc.) was found to be present at or within 30m of the Site (where accessible) at the time of the survey.

3.4.69 No Badgers were recorded using any of the holes throughout the monitoring period.

CE -BS-1034-RP07 - Final Page 28 10/11/2017

Ecological Impact Assessment Proposed Eastern Extension – Bestwood Quarry II

3.4.70 The Site supports suitable foraging habitat for Badgers, however no confirmed evidence of any sett building was recorded within the Site boundary. The Site is considered to be of Site Importance for Badger.

Other Mammals

Otter and Water Vole

3.4.71 Using a combination of information from the desk study and field surveys, and an assessment of the potential effects of the Proposed Development on otters, the ZoI for Otter (Lutra lutra) and Water Vole (Arvicola amphibius) was determined to be the Site and ecologically connected habitats within 500m.

3.4.72 No records of Otter or Water Vole within 2km of the Site were provided by the local biological records centre. The lack of suitable aquatic habitat and relative isolation with poor connectivity to suitable water courses in the wider area suggest that the Site is unsuitable for either species.

3.4.73 There are no records of Otter or Water Vole within 2km of the Site. There was no evidence of use of the Site by Otter or Water Vole. There is no suitable habitat at the Site for Otter and Water Vole and are considered to be absent from the Site.

3.4.74 Otter and Water Vole are therefore considered to be absent from the ZoI of the Proposed Development.

Dormouse

3.4.75 Using a combination of information from the desk study and field surveys, information on the dispersal abilities of dormice (Bright, et al., 2006) and an assessment of the potential effects of the Proposed Development on Dormice (Muscardinus avellanarius), the ZoI was determined to be the Site and ecologically connected habitats within 500m.

3.4.76 There are no records of Dormouse in the surrounding 2km area. There is no suitable habitat at the Site for Dormouse. Dormice are considered to be absent from the Site and are considered to be absent from the ZoI of the Proposed Development.

Mammal Species of Principal Importance

3.4.77 Using a combination of information from the desk study and field surveys and an assessment of the potetial effets of the Poposed Deelopet o aal “PIs eoded within 2km, the ZoI was determined to be the Site and ecologically connected habitats within 500m.

3.4.78 Maal “PIs othe tha those speies alead etioed aoe eoded ithi the k seah radius comprise; Hedgehog (Erinaceus europaeus), Brown Hare (Lepus europaeus) and Harvest Mouse (Micromys minutus).

3.4.79 Although no specific surveys for these species were carried out, no evidence of activity by any of these species was found during the Phase 1, or other surveys. The habitats at the Site are not considered to provide high quality or extensive coverage of potentially suitable habitat.

CE -BS-1034-RP07 - Final Page 29 10/11/2017

Ecological Impact Assessment Proposed Eastern Extension – Bestwood Quarry II

3.5 SUMMARY OF EVALUATION

3.5.1 Table 16 summarises the Baseline Conditions and Value of each receptor within the potential Zone of Influence of the Proposed Development:

Table 16 Summary of Baseline Conditions and Evaluation

Within Site Within Zone Level of Ecological Receptor boundary of Influence* Importance International/European Statutory Designated Sites No Yes International (proposed Special Protection Area) National Statutory Designated Sites No No Regional Non-Statutory Designated Sites Yes Yes County Other Sites and CTA No No Local - District Habitats of Principal Importance Yes Yes Local Protected/Rare/Notable Species & Species Groups Plants No No None Invertebrate assemblage Yes Yes Site Great Crested Newts No No Negligible Other Amphibians No No Negligible Reptiles No No Negligible Birds Yes Yes Site Bats Yes Yes Site Badgers No No Local Otters No No None Water Voles No No None Dormice No No None Other Species of Principal Importance No No None

* = Presence within ZoI determined by desk study and/or field survey.

4 ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

4.1 INTRODUCTION AND GENERAL APPROACH

4.1.1 This section considers the direct and indirect effects of the Proposed Development on ecological receptors. For each receptor included in the assessment, the likely significant effects are identified and appropriate mitigation described. Where no significant effect is likely this is stated and justified.

4.1.2 The operational and restoration design for the Site has taken into account the requirement to mitigate against any effects of any of the Proposed Development as far as possible – aiming to avoid them in the first instance and, if this is not possible, to minimise the adverse effects and then off-setting/compensating for any residual effects during the operational period, with opportunities considered to provide enhancement where practical/applicable.

CE -BS-1034-RP07 - Final Page 30 10/11/2017

Ecological Impact Assessment Proposed Eastern Extension – Bestwood Quarry II

4.1.3 With any mineral developments, avoidance of all impacts is often difficult to achieve, as existing habitat is always likely to temporarily removed, wherever extraction occurs. Peripheral features and habitats can be retained and the soil resource can be retained for use in on-site and off-site habitat recreation.

4.1.4 A phased programme of operations (extraction), coupled with progressive restoration, will minimise the net habitat losses at any one moment in time. This mitigation will help to maximise retention of ecological value during the operational period.

4.1.5 Valued habitats, lost during the operational period, will be incorporated into the restoration scheme like-for-like, to demonstrate a status quo of ecological value on a comparable basis. Where this is not possible, different habitats and features of at least equal ecological value will be provided. Where the provision of these provides ecological value over and above that already present (or part of the baseline), it would be considered to be enhancement (benefit), but may off- set other unavoidable negative effects (e.g. temporal effects) that may be present from operational working.

4.1.6 When considering the mitigation for the likely loss of ecological value present within the Site, local and national policies and legislation have been considered.

Project Design Targets

4.1.7 The following is a list of proposed achievable targets used in the design of the Proposed Development in respect of mitigation, restoration and enhancement:

 No net loss in biodiversity;

 Positive improvement of retained habitats;

 Maintain (in the short term) and enhance (in the longer term) the local wildlife corridors and other Green Infrastructure;

 Use opportunities on-site to restore habitats where possible; and

 Continued monitoring programme.

4.1.8 A summary table is provided, identifying any residual effects of the project as a whole and mitigation measures required. Cumulative effects are also considered.

Assumptions

4.1.9 The Do Nothig “eaio at the “ite ould e that the eistig oodlad otiues to e pat of the Longdale Plantation LWS and that the Existing Quarry is worked and restored as per the existing approved scheme.

4.1.10 There are a number of assumptions made prior to this assessment, which are as follows:

 The overall extension in terms of time to complete the works at the Site will be 10 years longer than currently permitted for the Existing Quarry;

 Initial preparation works prior to mineral extraction in the Proposed Eastern Extension area will take no more than 3 months;

CE -BS-1034-RP07 - Final Page 31 10/11/2017

Ecological Impact Assessment Proposed Eastern Extension – Bestwood Quarry II

 Phased restoration is progressive and the final restoration being completed within 2 years of the completion of the operations at the Site;

 Aftercare would last a minimum of 5 years after the completion of restoration.

Likely Biophysical Changes

4.1.11 The biophysical changes likely to occur (in an absence of mitigation) as a result of the Proposed Development are as follows:

 Loss of Broad-leaved woodland;

 Existing site infrastructure to remain in place for longer;

 Existing levels of human activity and vehicle movements to be prolonged;

 Existing levels in noise, vibrations and dust from extraction activities to be prolonged; and

4.1.12 The impact of dust and hydrology were scoped out at the initial stages of the consultation process during the scoping period for this assessment and are not considered to be significant impacts on sensitive ecological features. However the effects of dust have been included within this assessment for completeness.

4.1.13 The ZoI for dust on sensitive ecological features has been set at 250m for the purpose of this assessment.

4.2 DESIGNATED SITES AND OTHER SITES OF CONSERVATION INTEREST

Designated Sites

Assessment of Effects

4.2.1 The proposed Sherwood Special Protection Area (pSPA) is within 2km of the Site. The reason for this designation is because of the core breeding areas of Nightjar and Woodlark. The boundaries of the potential SPA are based on datasets for Important Bird Areas in Nottinghamshire.

4.2.2 The Breeding Bird Survey established that the Site does not contain any suitable habitat for breeding or foraging for Nightjar and Woodlark. They were also not present at the Site. The loss of Woodland is not considered to have any likely significant effects upon the potential SPA site, specifically with regards to Nightjar and Woodlark. The loss of habitat is not considered to have any likely Significant Effects upon these species.

4.2.3 Due to the distance of the Site from the assumed potential boundaries of the pSPA and the lack of habitat connectivity to the Site, No Likely Significant Effects are anticipated from the Proposed Development.

Other Sites

Assessment of Effects

4.2.4 Nine Local Wildlife Sites are situated within 2km of the Site with one being present within the

CE -BS-1034-RP07 - Final Page 32 10/11/2017

Ecological Impact Assessment Proposed Eastern Extension – Bestwood Quarry II

Proposed Eastern Extension boundary (Longdale Plantation).

4.2.5 The proposed development will result in the loss of 4.85 hectares of Broadleaved woodland which is designated as an LWS.

4.2.6 In an absence of mitigation there is potential for the Woodland HPI at the Site to be directly affected by the Proposed Development by habitat loss, accidental damage from machinery/vehicles during the site preparation and extraction phases. Such effects may combine with the indirect effects of dust deposition therefore effects are assessed as being Negative (Significant), long-term but reversible.

4.2.7 Longdale Heath LWS is adjacent to the southern boundary of the Site within the ZoI for Dust. The unmitigated effects of dust on the LWS are considered to be Negative (Not Significant), due to the size of the area to be extracted.

Mitigation Measures

Habitat Loss

4.2.8 The Proposed Development would result in the loss of 4.85 hectares of plantation deciduous woodland within the LWS. Longdale Plantation LWS is 28 hectares . The majority of the LWS will not be directly effected by the Proposed Development.

4.2.9 The proposed restoration scheme has included recommendations from the Local Authority Ecologist and will restore this area back to a mosaic of acid grassland/heathland habitats with natural succession, to include topographical features to create microclimates. This restoration will provide a range of habitats and species diversity.

Dust

4.2.10 A Dust Management Plan is currently in place for the existing quarry. Any effects of dust from the Proposed Development on the LWS can be reduced or avoided if the existing Dust Management Plan is also implemented for the Proposed Development.

Significance of Residual Effects

4.2.11 The embedded mitigation within the proposed restoration scheme across the Site will create a range of habitat types to compliment the wider area. Upon completion of the proposed restoration at the Site the residual effect will be Neutral (Not Significant).

4.2.12 If the Dust Management Plan and protective protection measures are implemented and monitored throughout the key periods during the operational period, the residual effect on Longdale Heath LWS at the Site and within the ZoI will be Neutral (Not Significant).

Habitats of Principal Importance and Ancient Woodland

Assessment of Effects

4.2.13 There is no Ancient Woodland within 250m of the Site boundary therefore no likely significant effects are expected.

CE -BS-1034-RP07 - Final Page 33 10/11/2017

Ecological Impact Assessment Proposed Eastern Extension – Bestwood Quarry II

4.2.14 The desk study identified three HPI within 250m of the Site: Broadleaved Woodland, Lowland Heath and Hedgerows.

4.2.15 The unmitigated effects of dust are expected to extend to approximately 250m around the Site.

4.2.16 Therefore indirect effects of dust deposition on the Deciduous Broadleaved Woodland would be Negative (Not Significant).

4.2.17 Indirect effects of dust deposition on the Woodland HPI at the Site would be Negative (Not Significant).

Mitigation Measures

Dust

Direct damage by machinery/vehicle movements

4.2.18 All woodland and other vegetative habitats, along with a minimum of a 1m buffer outside the working area will be retained and protected throughout the working period by the installation of temporary protection measures.

Significance of Residual Effects

4.2.19 If the Dust Management Plan and protective protection measures are implemented and monitored thoughout the ke peiods duig the opeatioal peiod, the esidual effet o HPIs at the “ite and within the ZoI will be Neutral (Not Significant).

Habitats

Assessment of Effects

4.2.20 The Site is 5.93 hectares in total (area within the Extension Application Boundary).

4.2.21 The Proposed Development includes a phased scheme of working and progressive restoration. Restoration proposals consist of infill of the extraction area with inert material and restoration to mixed uses and habitats. There will be changes in habitat, as shown in Table 17

CE -BS-1034-RP07 - Final Page 34 10/11/2017

Ecological Impact Assessment Proposed Eastern Extension – Bestwood Quarry II

Table 17 Changes in Habitat Quantity

(Total Proposed Change in Degree of Baseline) Restoration quantity effect Level of Habitat Existing Scheme (Hectares) Importance Site Hectares (Hectares) -0.45 Negative- Not Site 0 Bare Ground 0.45 Significant Broadleaved Negative – Local 1.35 - 3.5 Woodland/Scrub 4.85 Significant Negative- Not - 0 -0.9 Buildings 0.09 Significant Negative- Not - 0 -0.52 Quarry 0.52 Significant -0.3 Negative- Not Site 0 Tall Ruderal 0.03 Significant Positive- Not Site 0 +0.31 Marshy Areas 0.31 Significant

Proposed Positive – Not Heathland/Acid Local 0 +0.49 Significant Grassland 0.49 Existing Areas of Positive- Not Natural Site 0 +3.14 Significant Regeneration 3.14 Positive- Not Site 0 0.65 +0.65 Sandstone Faces Significant Total Site - 5.93

Mitigation Measures

4.2.22 In addition to the proposed restoration, enhancements have also been incorporated to the habitat regeneration areas for Nightjar and Woodlark to include the habitat preferences of both species which include:

 Nesting in lowland heath;

 They prefer areas with scrubby vegetation and the occasional taller tree to 'churr' from;

 Adult pairs need a minimum of 2 hectares to nest, but they may fly 2-3 kilometres to feed;

 Forestry plantations, nesting on 'clear fell' sites - where all the trees have been cut down - and on replanted areas, until the trees are around 15 years old. These new heaths provide good nesting cover, plenty of perches and an abundant food supply;

 They prefer areas with mainly short and open vegetation, with the occasional taller tree for a singing post

4.2.23 Embedded mitigation measures have ensured that the Proposed Development area is kept to the smallest practical area.

CE -BS-1034-RP07 - Final Page 35 10/11/2017

Ecological Impact Assessment Proposed Eastern Extension – Bestwood Quarry II

4.2.24 The loss of woodland will be mitigated for by the creation of an acid grassland/ heathland mosaic with areas of natural regeneration which would provide a wider range of habitat available for protected species in the local area, rather than the existing woodland.

Significance of Residual Effects

4.2.25 The embedded mitigation and phased restoration will ensure that the effects of habitat loss are considered to be Neutral (Not Significant) Overall, the restoration scheme with enhancements provides a Positive (Not Significant) effect with an overall increase in HPI Habitats and habitat suitable for Nightjar and Woodlark which will increase overall suitable habitat available for these species in the local area and improve the habitat connectivity and diversity.

4.2.26 Dust deposition on retained habitats is likely to be minimised through the continuing application of the Dust Management Plan and residual effects are assessed as being Neutral due to the common and widespread nature of the habitats present. Any effects from dust are expected to be short- term and reversible.

4.3 SPECIES AND SPECIES-GROUPS

Plants

Assessment of Effects

4.3.1 There are no rare, notable or invasive plant species at the Site therefore no likely significant effects are expected.

Invertebrates

Assessment of Effects

4.3.2 No specific Invertebrate assessment was undertaken however numerous common and widespread species and a number of nationally scarce/rare species are present within the local area.

4.3.3 The Proposed Eastern Extraction area largely comprises of Woodland with Low value for Invertebrates, due to the limited microclimatic features present and the low heterogeneity of the Site as well as the presence of better quality habitat in the wider area.

4.3.4 In the absence of mitigation the effects of habitat loss are considered to be Negative (Not Significant).

4.3.5 In an absence of mitigation, the effects of dust deposition have the potential to indirectly affect Invertebrate populations by causing damage to vegetation used by Invertebrates for foraging and shelter. Since the majority of Invertebrate species present are likely to be widespread and common, the indirect effects of dust deposition on Invertebrates at the Site would be Negative (Not Significant). Effects would be long-term but potentially reversible.

Mitigation Measures

4.3.6 Habitat Loss - The proposed restoration scheme will create habitat suitable for a wide range of

CE -BS-1034-RP07 - Final Page 36 10/11/2017

Ecological Impact Assessment Proposed Eastern Extension – Bestwood Quarry II

invertebrates and include microclimatic features including sandstone cliffs and areas of bare ground with natural succession.

4.3.7 Dust - The implementation of the Dust Management Plan previously referred to will minimise the effect of dust deposition on retained vegetation at the Site.

Significance of Residual Effects

4.3.8 Retention of habitat and implementation of a Dust Management Plan will mean any residual effect will be Neutral (Not Significant).

Great Crested Newts and Other Amphibians

Assessment of Effects

4.3.9 It is unlikely that amphibian species are present at the Site therefore no likely Significant effects are expected.

Reptiles

Assessment of Effects

4.3.10 It is unlikely that reptile species are present at the Site therefore no likely Significant effects are expected.

Birds

Assessment of Effects

4.3.11 Birds recorded at within the Proposed Eastern Extension area during the Breeding Bird Survey include to Bids listed o “hedule of the WCA, fou ‘ed list ad see Ae list BOCC ad species listed as SPI. No LBAP species were recorded at the Site during the surveys.

4.3.12 In an absence of mitigation, there is potential for the following effects:

 Direct effects on nesting Birds, their nests, eggs and chicks from damage/destruction of habitat;

 Indirect effects of dust deposition on vegetation, resulting in a reduction in food availability (invertebrates and fruit/seeds); and

 Indirect effect of disturbance on Bird activity from increased human activity, noise and vibrations.

4.3.13 In an absence of mitigation, the combined direct and indirect effects on Birds are assessed as being Negative (Not Significant) due to the availability of alternative habitat within the surrounding area and the high mobility of Birds. Effects are assessed as being short-term and reversible.

CE -BS-1034-RP07 - Final Page 37 10/11/2017

Ecological Impact Assessment Proposed Eastern Extension – Bestwood Quarry II

Mitigation Measures

4.3.14 Nesting Birds - Embedded mitigation has minimised the amount of potential nesting habitat to be removed, by retaining trees, shrubs and hedgerows where possible.

4.3.15 To reduce any impact upon nesting Birds, avoid any breach in wildlife legislation and maintain the local breeding populations, any vegetation suitable for nesting should be removed outside the Bird breeding season (March - September inclusive for most species). If this is not possible then vegetation should be checked by a suitably qualified ecologist and a suitable buffer maintained until the nest is no longer in use.

4.3.16 Habitat Loss – A variety of open-fronted and hole nesting boxes should be incorporated in to the quarry management plan to enhance the opportunities for breeding birds across the site. These boxes should be erected onto trees within the scrub edge habitats around the site buildings and in the northern parts of the existing quarry. In addition, any long-term management of the site should allow breeding bird habitats to naturally regenerate including areas of scrub and Silver Birch woodland which would benefit a range of species of conservation concern including Song Thrush, Dunnock, Linnet and Bullfinch.

4.3.17 Dust - The implementation of a Dust Management Plan will minimise the indirect effects of dust deposition on habitat features for foraging Birds.

4.3.18 Enhancements specific to Nightjar and Wood Lark have been previously discussed in 4.2.22.

Artificial Lighting

4.3.19 Controls on artificial lighting at the Site will minimise any potential disturbance effect. These controls will include the following measures:

 Use of artificial lighting only where required for security, health and safety purposes, within the vicinity of the Site access;

 Lighting to be used only where the hours of darkness coincide with operating hours, specifically early mornings and late afternoons during the winter period; and

 Light spill to be controlled and minimised by the use of hoods, cowls, timers and luminaire design.

Significance of Residual Effects

4.3.20 The implementation of mitigation measures outlined above are expected to reduce any negative effect to Neutral (Not Significant).

Bats

Assessment of Effects

4.3.21 In an absence of mitigation, the Proposed Development may affect Bats in the following ways:

 Fragmentation effect of foraging habitat by the removal of woodland;

 Disturbance effect from artificial lighting; and

CE -BS-1034-RP07 - Final Page 38 10/11/2017

Ecological Impact Assessment Proposed Eastern Extension – Bestwood Quarry II

 Indirect effects of dust deposition on vegetation, resulting in reduction of prey availability (Invertebrates).

Mitigation Measures

4.3.22 Bat species recorded foraging at the Site along are Common Pipistrelle and Soprano Pipistrelle. The effect of loss of this foraging habitat in the absence of any mitigation is considered to have a Negative (Not Significant) but reversible.

4.3.23 There is potential for artificial light spill at the Site to temporarily disturb foraging Bats flying within the Site. In the absence of as mitigation, effects are assessed as being Negative (Not Significant) due to the availability of alternative foraging habitat in the vicinity of the Site and the high mobility of the Bat species recorded at the Site. Effects are considered to be Temporary in Nature and reversible.

4.3.24 The potential indirect effect of dust in the availability of prey for foraging Bats is assessed as be Neutral (Not Significant) due to the availability of alternative foraging habitat in the vicinity of the Site and the high mobility of the bat species recorded at the Site.

Mitigation Measures

4.3.25 Fragmentation/Loss of Foraging and Artificial Lighting - The combination of habitat loss and fragmentation will be mitigated by:

 Creation of acid grassland/heathland mosaic habitat with areas for natural regeneration will create a more structured habitat range for prey;

 Retention and protection of trees to retain connectivity to woodland where possible;

 Lighting will only be used when necessary and out of the main bat activity season.

4.3.26 Dust - The implementation of a Dust Management Plan will minimise any potential negative effect on prey availability for foraging Bats.

Significance of Residual Effects

4.3.27 The implementation of mitigation measures for the effects of light spill, dust, fragmentation and disturbance are expected to reduce residual effects to Neutral (Not Significant).

Badger

Assessment of Effects

4.3.28 Four potential Badger Holes were recorded at the Site, however after a survey no holes were found to be active or being used by Badger. The Site is suitable for sett building and foraging

4.3.29 It is unlikely that Badger is present at the Site currently therefore no likely Significant effects are expected.

4.3.30 However, as a precautionary measure an update Badger survey should be undertaken prior to commencement of the Proposed Development.

CE -BS-1034-RP07 - Final Page 39 10/11/2017

Ecological Impact Assessment Proposed Eastern Extension – Bestwood Quarry II

4.4 OTHER MAMMALS

Assessment of Effects

4.4.1 No evidence of Otter, Water Vole, Dormouse or other notable mammals was recorded at the Site. It is considered likely that they are absent from the Site and therefore No Likely Significant Effects are anticipated.

Species of Principal Importance

4.4.2 The habitats at the Site are suitable for a number of mammal Species of Principal Importance (not including those species already detailed in relevant sections above) however no evidence of activity was recorded during any of the field surveys conducted at the Site. No likely significant effects are expected.

4.4.3 No specific mitigation measures are required. In the unlikely event these species are present but remained undetected during the field surveys, embedded mitigation and precautionary measures in relation to other species and habitats will also benefit SPI.

CE -BS-1034-RP07 - Final Page 40 10/11/2017

Ecological Impact Assessment Proposed Eastern Extension – Bestwood Quarry II

4.5 SUMMARY OF ASSESSMENT AND MITIGATION MEASURES

4.5.1 A summary of the assessment of effects, mitigation measures and residual effects is provided in Table 18. For ease of reference, ecological receptors are only included in Table 18 where an effect has been identified; where no effect is anticipated the receptor has not been included.

Table 18 Summary of Assessment and Mitigation Measures

Likelihood, Significance Level of and Nature Mitigation/ Precautionary Significance of Ecological Receptor Effect Importance of Effect Measures Residual Effect Prior to Mitigation 3.5 Hectares of Langdale Plantation lost. Retain 23.5 Non-statutory Hectares of LWS. Restored Designated Sites: Certain Habitat with a range of habitats Neutral ( Not Longdale County Loss/Dust Negative including acid Significant Plantation/Longdale Significant grassland/heathland and Heath LWS natural regeneration areas. Dust Management Plan 4.5Hectares of woodland lost. Retain 23.5 Hectares of LWS. Restored with a range Habitats of Principal Certain of habitats including acid Importance within Habitat Loss Negative Neutral (Not Local grassland/heathland and Site: /Dust (Not Significant) natural regeneration areas. Woodland/Heathland Significant) Dust Management Plan, new planting as part of embedded mitigation. Habitats of Principal Probable Importance within Dust Management Plan, new Negative Neutral (Not ZoI: Woodland, Local Dust planting as part of (Not Significant) Lowland Heath and embedded mitigation. Significant) Hedgerows 3.5 Hectares of poor quality plantation woodland lost. Certain Proposed Restoration to Habitats within Site: Loss/Change of Negative Positive (Not Site create a range of HPI Woodland Habitat (Not Significant) Habitats and enhanced Sign ificant) habitat for Nightjar and Wood Lark. Dust Management Plan and Probable creation of habitat suitable Habitat Loss, Negative Neutral (Not Invertebrates Site for Invertebrates including Dust (Not Significant) acid grassland/heathland Significant) and sandstone faces Probable Avoidance/embedded Habitat Loss, Negative mitigation, protect retained Neutral (Not Birds Site Direct (Not habitats, Dust Management Significant) killing/harming Significant) Plan.

CE -BS-1034-RP07 - Final Page 41 10/11/2017

Ecological Impact Assessment Proposed Eastern Extension – Bestwood Quarry II

Likelihood, Significance Level of and Nature Mitigation/ Precautionary Significance of Ecological Receptor Effect Importance of Effect Measures Residual Effect Prior to Mitigation Probable Avoidance/Embedded Habitat loss, Negative mitigation, Habitat Neutral (Not Bats Site Dust (Not replacement, Dust Significant) Significant) Management Plan

4.5.2 Overall, the restoration scheme provides a Positive (Not Significant) effect through increased contribution of habitats of principal importance (increased acid grassland, and heathland) with a slight decrease in woodland. Additional habitat, in the form of retained inland cliffs have been incorporated to provide additional benefit over the baseline situation. Specific habitat creation and management of habitat for Nightjar and Woodlark is also a focus of this area.

5 STATEMENT OF RESIDUAL AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

5.1 RESIDUAL EFFECTS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

5.1.1 The measures proposed above have mitigated all significant negative effects to a level that is not considered to be significant in terms of Environmental Impact Assessment. Upon restoration there should be no adverse residual effects.

5.2 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

5.2.1 The mitigation and impact avoidance measures proposed should be secured using planning condition or obligation. If these measures are implemented successfully there will be no significant adverse effects that could combine with effects from other consented developments to create significant cumulative effects.

6 COMPENSATION, ENHANCEMENT AND MONITORING

6.1 COMPENSATION

6.1.1 Since no likely significant residual or cumulative effects are anticipated, compensatory measures are not required.

6.2 MONITORING

6.2.1 If works have not begun within two years of the date of the ecological surveys it is recommended that update surveys be carried out to assess whether baseline conditions have changed.

6.2.2 Monitoring of mitigation measures should be carried out at the beginning of each new phase of extraction and throughout the course of the Proposed Development. The responsibility of monitoring and rectifying of issues will lie with the Site Manager.

CE -BS-1034-RP07 - Final Page 42 10/11/2017

Ecological Impact Assessment Proposed Eastern Extension – Bestwood Quarry II

7 CONCLUSIONS

7.1 OVERALL ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF THE SCHEME

7.1.1 The Site has been subject to a series of habitat surveys and species-specific surveys. The surveys identified a number of different habitats at the Site, which ranged from Site to Local Level of Ecological Importance.

7.1.2 The faunal surveys identified suitable habitat for invertebrates and Breeding Birds and identified Bats using the Site for foraging.

7.1.3 No other protected species were identified at the Site and, overall the protected species recorded and the suitability of the habitat present indicates that the Proposed Eastern Extension area is of Local Level of ecological Importance.

7.1.4 Habitat change was considered to be the largest direct impact of the Proposed Development. This impact was considered to be Negative (Not Significant) in nature prior to any mitigation, but after completion of restoration will result in a Positive (Not Significant) effect.

7.1.5 The extraction activities will be undertaken over a period up to 10 years. The impact of habitat change will be gradual, due to be phased in progress and restoration will also be progressive.

7.1.6 The proposed restoration scheme is to restore site to acid grassland/heathland mosaic with areas for natural regeneration with measures specifically for Nightjar and Woodlark.

7.1.7 To avoid direct impact to protected species, species-specific mitigation measures with regards to the Proposed Development will be implemented including:

 Checks of vegetation by and ecologist for breeding birds nests prior to removal; or timing constraints on vegetation removal to avoid breeding season; and

 Update Badger Surveys

7.2 COMPLIANCE WITH LEGISLATION AND POLICY

7.2.1 The mitigation proposals detailed in Section 4 have addressed the potential impacts from the Proposed Development to comply with both wildlife legislation and Policy.

7.2.2 After all mitigation proposals and species-specific precautionary measures are implemented, the effects of the Proposed Development are not considered to trigger any wildlife legislation detailed in Section 3.1.

7.2.3 After all mitigation proposals, species-specific precautionary measures and enhancement measures are implemented, the effects of the proposed development are considered to comply with National and Local Policy detailed in Appendix E3.

7.3 MECHANISMS TO SECURE DELIVERY

7.3.1 The proposed site design, operating procedures, precautionary and mitigation measures are all key to ensuring no significant residual effects are expected from the Proposed Development. All measures associated with the operation and restoration of the Site could be secured using planning obligation or conditions.

CE -BS-1034-RP07 - Final Page 43 10/11/2017

Ecological Impact Assessment Proposed Eastern Extension – Bestwood Quarry II

REFERENCES:

. Bat Conservation Trust, 2014. The National Bat Monitoring Programme. Annual Report 2014, London: Bat Conservation Trust. . Bat Conservation Trust, 2014. The State of the UK's Bats, London: Bat Conservation Trust. . Bright, P., Morris, P. & Mitchell-Jones, T., 2006. The Dormouse Conservation Handbook. 2nd ed. Peterborough: English Nature. . CIEEM, 2013. Technical Guidance Series: Guidelines for Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, Winchester: CIEEM. . CIEEM, 2016. CIEEM Glossary. [Online] Available at: http://www.cieem.net/glossary [Accessed February 2016]. . CIEEM, 2016. Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK and Ireland: Terrestrial, Freshwater and Coastal, Winchester: Chartered Institute for Ecology and Environmental Management. . Collins English Dictionary, 2016. Collins English Dictionary. [Online] Available at: http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/protected-species [Accessed 19 February 2016]. . Collins, J., 2016. Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines 3rd Edition, London: Bat Conservation Trust. . Cresswell, W. & Whitworth, R., 2004. An assessment of the efficiency of capture techniques and the value of different habitats for the great crested newt Triturus cristatus English Nature Research Reports No. 576, Peterborough: English Nature. . DEFRA, 2017. MAGIC. [Online] Available at: http://magic.defra.gov.uk/website/magic/ [Accessed 2017]. . Eaton, M. A. N. B. A. H. R. L. L. M. A. N. D. S. D. a. G. R., 2015. irds of Conservation Concern 4: Tthe Population Status of Birds in the UK, Channel Iislands and Isle of Man. British Birds, Volume 108, pp. 708 - 746. . Eaton, M. et al., 2015. Birds of Conservation Concern 4: the population status of birds in the United Kingdon, Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. British Birds, Volume 108, pp. 708-746. . Encyclopaedia Brittanica, 2016. Encyclopaedia Brittanica. [Online] Available at: http://www.britannica.com/ [Accessed 19 February 2016]. . English Nature, 1993. Linear features: linear habitats and wildlife corridors, London: English Nature. . Harris et al, 1989. Surveying Badgers, s.l.: Mammal Society. . Harris et al, 1989. Surveying Badgers, London: Mammal Society. . Harris, S., Morris, P., Wray, S. & Yalden, D., 1995. A review of British mammals: population estimates and conservation status of British mammals other than cetaceans, Peterborough: JNCC. . Hayhow, D. et al., 2015. The state of the UK's birds 2015, Sandy, Bedfordshire: RSPB, BTO, WWT, JNCC, NE, NIEA, NRW and SNH. . HMO, 1992. Protection of Badgers Act , London: HMO. . HMO, 2010. The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations, London: HMO. . HMO, 2011. UK National Ecosystem Assessment, London: HMO. . HMO, 2012. Planning Practice Guidance. [Online] Available at: http://planningguidance.communities.gov.uk/blog/policy/achieving-sustainable-development/delivering- sustainable-development/11-conserving-and-enhancing-the-natural-environment/ [Accessed 20 June 2016]. . HMO, 2016. European protected species: apply for a mitigation licence. [Online] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/european-protected-species-apply-for-a-mitigation-licence [Accessed 19 February 2016].

CE -BS-1034-RP07 - Final Page 44 10/11/2017

Ecological Impact Assessment Proposed Eastern Extension – Bestwood Quarry II

. HMSO, 2011. The Natural Choice: Securing the Value of Nature, s.l.: HMSO. . HMSO, 2011. Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011, s.l.: HMSO. . IUCN, 2010. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. [Online] Available at: http://www.iucnredlist.org/ [Accessed 27 January 2016]. . JNCC, 2010. Handbook for Phase 1 habitat survey - a technique for environmental audit. s.l.:s.n. . JNCC, 2016. UK BAP Priority Hbaitats. [Online] Available at: http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-5718 [Accessed 19 February 2016]. . Langton, T. & Beckett, C., 1995. Home range size of Scottish amphibians and reptiles. Scottish Natural Heritage Review, Volume 53. . Lawton, J., 2010. Making “pae for Nature: a reie of England’s ildlife sites and eologial netork, s.l.: DEFRA. . Natural England, 2016. Standing Advice Species Sheet: Great crested newts. [Online] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ce7lHJirqkEwww.biodiversityplanningtoolkit.com/stylesheet.asp?file=212_natural_e ngland_s_standing_advice [Accessed 19 February 2016]. . Natural England, 2017. Priority Habitat Inventory (England), s.l.: Natural England. . Nottingham Biodiversity Action Group, 2016. Nottinghamshire Local Biodiversity Action Plan. [Online] Available at: http://www.nottsbag.org.uk/projects.htm#bap [Accessed 9 June 2016]. . Nottinghamshire Biodiversity Action Group, 2017. Nottinghamshire Biodiversity Action Plan. [Online] Available at: http://www.nottsbag.org.uk/projects.htm#bap [Accessed 2017]. . Nottinghamshire Biological and Geological Record Centre, 2016. Biological Records, s.l.: Nottinghamshire Biological and Geological Record Centre. . Nottinghamshire County Council, 2005. Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan, s.l.: s.n. . Oldham, R. S., Keeble, J., Swan, M. & Jeffcote, M., 2000. Evaluating the suitability of habitat for Great Crested Newt (Triturus cristatus). Herpetological Journal, Volume 10, pp. 143-155. . Oxford Dictionary, 2016. Oxford Dictionary. [Online] Available at: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/ [Accessed 19 February 2016]. . Stone, 2013. Bats and lighting: Overview of current evidence and mitigation guidance, London: Bat Conservation Trust.

CE -BS-1034-RP07 - Final Page 45 10/11/2017

Ecological Impact Assessment Proposed Eastern Extension – Bestwood Quarry II

ABBREVIATIONS / ACRONYMS:

For the avoidance of confusion, abbreviations used have the meanings given below:

AONB Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty NPPF National Planning Policy Framework AoSP Area of Special Protection NVC National Vegetation Classification BAP Biodiversity Action Plan PPG Planning Policy Guidance BBS Breeding Bird Survey PRA Preliminary Roost Assessment BRC Biological Records Centre PSI Potential Site of Importance BoCC Birds of Conservation Concern The DAFOR Scale: D=Dominant, A=Abundant, Regionally Important Geological and DAFOR RIGS F=Frequent, O=Occasional, R=Rare Geomorphological Sites Department for Environment, Food and Rural DEFRA RSPB Royal Society for the Protection of Birds Affairs EcIA Ecological Impact Assessment SAC Special Areas of Conservation Site of Importance for Nature EIA Environmental Impact Assessment SINC Conservation Site of Local Importance for Nature EMP Environmental Management Plan SLINC Conservation EPS European Protected Species SNCI Site of Nature Conservation Interest Ha Hectare sp. Species (Singular) HAP Habitat Action Plan spp. Species (Multiple) HSI Habitat Suitability Index SPA Special Protection Area International Union for the Conservation of IUCN SSSI Site of Special Scientific Interest Nature JNCC Joint Nature Conservation Committee SuDS Sustainable Drainage Systems LBAP Local Biodiversity Action Plan TPO Tree Protection Order LDF Local Development Framework WBS Wintering Bird Survey LNR Local Nature Reserve WCA (Act) Wildlife and Countryside Act LWS Local Wildlife Site WFD Water Framework Directive MCZ Marine Conservation Zone MS Method Statement MNR Marine Nature Reserve MPA Marine Protected Area NBN National Biodiversity Network NCC Nature Conservancy Council Natural Environment and Rural Communities NERC (Act) Act NGO Non-Governmental Organisation NGR National Grid Reference NNR National Nature Reserve

CE -BS-1034-RP07 - Final Page 46 10/11/2017

Ecological Impact Assessment Proposed Eastern Extension – Bestwood Quarry II

GLOSSARY:

For the avoidance of confusion, the terms used in this report follow the definitions given below:

Assemblage A group of species found in the same location (CIEEM, 2016). BAP Habitat Biodiversity Action Plan Habitat: Natural and semi-natural priority habitats identified as being the most threatened and requiring conservation action under the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (JNCC, 2016). BAP Species A Biodiversity Action Plan Species identified as being the most threatened and requiring conservation action under the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (JNCC, 2016). Biodiversity The iologial diesit of the eaths liig esources. The total range of variability among systems and organisms at the following levels of organisation: bioregional, landscape, ecosystem, habitat, communities, species, populations, individuals, genes and the structural and functional relationships within and between these different levels (CIEEM, 2016). Buffer Zone An area (human-made or natural) that helps to protect a habitat from damage, distuae o pollutio. It is aaged to potet the itegit of the valued habitat and/or the conservation status of species that it supports (CIEEM, 2016). Compensation Measures taken to make up for the loss of, or permanent damage to, biological resources through the provision of replacement areas. Any replacement area should be similar to or, with appropriate management, have the ability to reproduce the ecological functions and conditions of those biological resources that have been lost or damaged (CIEEM, 2016). Commuting The activity of flying between the roost and foraging area (Stone, 2013). Connectivity A measure of the functional availability of the habitats needed for a particular species to move through a given area. Examples include movements of migratory fish from feeding grounds to spawning grounds or linking areas of appropriate habitat needed by some slow colonising species if they are to spread (CIEEM, 2016). Conservation The protection, preservation, management or restoration of the natural environment and wildlife (Oxford Dictionary, 2016). Dispersal The dissemination, or scattering, of organisms over periods within a given area or over the Earth (Encyclopaedia Brittanica, 2016). Dominant (Habitat/Species) Denoting the predominant species in a plant (or animal) community (Oxford Dictionary, 2016). Ecological Impact Assessment Ecological Impact Assessment is the process of identifying, quantifying and (EcIA) evaluating the potential impacts of defined actions on ecosystems or their components. If properly implemented it provides a scientifically defensible approach to ecosystem management (CIEEM, 2016). Ecological Stepping Stones Discontinuous patches of habitat and natural features that enable wildlife to dispese ad igate hae soeties ee alled steppig stoes, Thee is a gradation between a seies of steppig stoes ad hat ight e thought of as a wildlife corridor (English Nature, 1993). Ecosystem A dynamic complex of plant, animal and micro-organism communities and their non-living environment interacting as a functional unit. Systems in which species evolve (CIEEM, 2016). Effect This report uses the word impact rather than effect when referring to how ecological resources might be affected by a project (CIEEM, 2016). European Protected Species Schedule 2 lists those species of animals listed in Annex IV(a) to the Habitats Directive (Habitats Regulations) which have a natural range which includes any area in Great Britain (HMO, 2010).

CE -BS-1034-RP07 - Final Page 47 10/11/2017

Ecological Impact Assessment Proposed Eastern Extension – Bestwood Quarry II

Enhancement The genuine enhancement of the natural heritage interest of a site or area because the project includes improved management or new habitats or features, which are better than the prospective management, or the habitats or features present there now. There is, therefore, a net or new benefit to the natural heritage (CIEEM, 2016). Environmental Impact This is an assessment carried out under the EIA Regulations (CIEEM, 2016). Assessment (EIA) European Protected Species A license issued by Natural England that allows for the mitigation of impacts on a (EPS) License European Protected Species that would otherwise be illegal. Based on (HMO, 2016). Fauna The animals of a particular region, habitat, or geological period (Oxford Dictionary, 2016) . Flora The plants of a particular region, habitat, or geological period (Oxford Dictionary, 2016) . Foraging The activity of searching for food (Oxford Dictionary, 2016). Fragmentation The breaking up of a habitat, ecosystem or biotope into smaller parcels with a consequent impairment of functioning (CIEEM, 2016). Habitat A place in which a particular plant or animal lives. Often used in the wider sense referring to major assemblages of plants and animals found together (CIEEM, 2016). Hibernation The condition or period of an animal or plant spending the winter in a dormant state (Oxford Dictionary, 2016). Impact The way in which an ecological resource/receptor is affected by a project (see effect) (CIEEM, 2016). Invasive Species Species introduced outside its normal distribution (HMO, 2011). Keystone Species A species that has a disproportionately large effect on the communities in which it occurs. Such species help to maintain local biodiversity within a community either by controlling populations of other species that would otherwise dominate the community or by providing critical resources for a wide range of species (Encyclopaedia Brittanica, 2016). Latrine Dung pit (Harris et al, 1989). LBAP Habitat Local Biodiversity Action Plan Habitat: Priority habitats identified as being the most threatened, within a local area, and require conservation action under Local Biodiversity Action Plan (JNCC, 2016). LBAP Species Local Biodiversity Action Plan Species: Priority species identified as being the most threatened, within a local area, and require conservation action under Local Biodiversity Action Plan (JNCC, 2016). Meta-population A regional group of connected populations of a species (Encyclopaedia Brittanica, 2016). Mitigation Measures taken to avoid or reduce negative impacts. Measures may include: locating the development and its working areas and access routes away from areas of high ecological interest, or timing works to avoid sensitive periods (CIEEM, 2016). Native Species An animal or plant species indigenous to a place (Oxford Dictionary, 2016). Net Ecological Gain The point at which the quality and quantity of habitats or species improves compared to their original condition, i.e. improvements over and above those required for mitigation/compensation (CIEEM, 2016). No Net Loss The point at which habitat or biodiversity losses equal their gains, both quantitatively and qualitatively (CIEEM, 2016). Non-Statutory Sites No-statuto sites of atue oseatio alue that hae ee desigated loall i.e. eludig “““Is, A““Is, “PAs, “ACs, ad ‘asa “ites. Loal Natue Reserves are included as they are a designation made by the Local Authority not statutory country conservation agencies. These are often called Wildlife Sites, Sites

CE -BS-1034-RP07 - Final Page 48 10/11/2017

Ecological Impact Assessment Proposed Eastern Extension – Bestwood Quarry II

of Importance for Nature Conservation or other similar names (CIEEM, 2016). Population A collection of individuals (plants or animals), all of the same species and in a defined geographical area (CIEEM, 2016). Protected Species A species of animal or plant which it is forbidden by law to harm or destroy (Collins English Dictionary, 2016). “ee also Euopea Poteted “peies. Receptor Any ecological or other defined feature (e.g. human beings) that is sensitive to or has the potential to be affected by an impact (CIEEM, 2016). Restoration The active re-establishment of a damaged or degraded system or habitat to a close approximation of its pre-degraded condition (CIEEM, 2016). Riparian Something related to, living on, or located at the banks of a watercourse, usually a river or stream (HMO, 2011). Roost A structure (either natural or man-made) where Bats congregate to rest during the day (Oxford Dictionary, 2016). Protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act ad the Coseatio of Haitats ad “peies ‘egulatios The Haitat ‘egulatios (HMO, 2010). Sett Any structure or place which displays signs indicating current use by a badger (HMO, 1992). Protected under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992. Significant Barrier A natural or man-made obstacle that prevents the dispersal of species e.g. a major road or fast flowing river. Based on (Natural England, 2016). Species A group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding (Oxford Dictionary, 2016). Statutory Sites Statutory sites of nature conservation value that have been designated nationally i.e. “““Is. Also iluded ae “ites that ae desigated iteatioall i.e. “PAs, “ACs ad ‘asa “ites. Based o (CIEEM, 2016). Wildlife Corridor A wildlife corridor is used to refer to linear features that are used for migration and dispersal or otherwise act to link habitats in ways that reduce the isolation of populations (English Nature, 1993). Zone of Influence The areas/resources that may be affected by the biophysical changes caused by activities associated with a project (CIEEM, 2016).

CE -BS-1034-RP07 - Final Page 49 10/11/2017

LIST OF APPENDICES:

APPENDIX E1 Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey Report

APPENDIX E2 GCN, Invertebrate and NVC Report

APPENDIX E3 Relevant Local Policy Details

APPENDIX E4 Bat Activity Report

APPENDIX E5 Badger and Reptile Survey Report

APPENDIX E6 Breeding Bird Survey Report

APPENDIX E1: EXTENDED PHASE 1 HABITAT SURVEY REPORT

Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey for:

Proposed Eastern Extension of Bestwood II Quarry, Papplewick, Nottingham

Report Reference: CE-BS1034-RP01-Final

Produced by Crestwood Environmental Ltd.

15 September 2016 Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey Bestwood II Quarry Eastern Extension

Crestwood Report Reference: CE-BS1034-RP01-Final:

Version & Date Survey Licence No. Written / Updated by: Checked & Authorised by: Status Produced (If applicable)

Final 15/09/16 Lucy Cash (Principal Ecologist) N/A Karl Jones (Director)

The information which we have prepared and provided is true, and has been prepared and provided in accordance with the Chartered Institute of Ecology ad Eioetal Maageets Code of Pofessioal Codut. We ofi that the opiios epessed ae ou true and professional bona fide opinions.

This report has been prepared in good faith, with all reasonable skill, care and diligence, based on information provided or known available at the time of its preparation and within the scope of work agreement with the client.

We disclaim any responsibility to the client and others in respect of any matters outside the scope of the above.

The report is provided for the sole use of the named client and is confidential to them and their professional advisors. No responsibility is accepted to others.

Crestwood Environmental Ltd. 1 & 2 Nightingale Place Pendeford Business Park Wolverhampton West Midlands WV9 5HF

Tel: 01902 229 563

Email: [email protected] Web: www.crestwoodenvironmental.co.uk

CE -BS1034-RP01-Final Page 2 15/09/2016

Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey Bestwood II Quarry Eastern Extension

CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ...... 7 1.1 INSTRUCTION AND BRIEF...... 7 1.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE ...... 7 1.3 SITE LOCATION AND CONTEXT ...... 7 1.4 SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS ...... 8 1.5 OTHER RELEVANT INFORMATION ...... 8 1.6 GENERAL LIMITATIONS ...... 9 2 METHODOLOGY AND APPROACH ...... 9 2.1 DEFINING THE )ONE OF INFLUENCE )oI ...... 9 2.2 DETERMINING THE LEVEL OF ECOLOGICAL IMPORTANCE ...... 10 2.3 DESK STUDY ...... 11 2.4 FIELD SURVEY ...... 11 2.5 IMPACTS AND EFFECTS METHOD OF ASSESSMENT ...... 13 3 RESULTS AND EVALUATION ...... 13 3.1 PLANNING POLICY...... 13 3.2 DESIGNATIONS...... 14 3.3 HABITATS AND FLORA ...... 15 3.4 FAUNA ...... 16 4 ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS ...... 22 4.1 INTRODUCTION...... 22 4.2 SCREENING OF ECOLOGICAL FEATURES ...... 22 4.3 ASSUMPTIONS ...... 23 4.4 IDENTIFICATION AND ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND LIKELY EFFECTS .... 23 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 25 5.1 HABITATS AND FLORA ...... 25 5.2 FAUNA ...... 25 5.3 OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS ...... 26

LIST OF APPENDICES:

APPENDIX E1 Figure E1 – Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey Plan

APPENDIX E2 Definitions, Abbreviations and Glossary

APPENDIX E3 Policy Commentary

APPENDIX E4 HSI Factors and Scores

APPENDIX E5 Biological Records

CE -BS1034-RP01-Final Page 3 15/09/2016

Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey Bestwood II Quarry Eastern Extension

LIST OF TABLES: Table 1 Situation Rating Summary Definitions ...... 5 Table 2 Summary Table of Survey Results and Recommendations ...... 5 Table 3 Criteria of Assessment for Assigning a Level of Ecological Importance ...... 10 Table 4 Desk Study Information ...... 11 Table 5 Weather Conditions during the Survey ...... 11 Table 6 Categorisation of HSI (Oldham, et al., 2000) ...... 12 Table 7 HSI Results Summary ...... 17 Table 8 Ecological Importance of Habitats at the Site ...... 22 Table 9 Screening of Ecological Features ...... 22 Table 10 Summary of Impacts and Likely Affects ...... 24

CE -BS1034-RP01-Final Page 4 15/09/2016

Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey Bestwood II Quarry Eastern Extension

SUMMARY

The Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey detailed in this report was commissioned by D L Walker on behalf of Tarmac Ltd. in support of a planning application for an eastern extension to Bestwood II Quarry. The following work was carried out:

 A desk study of relevant ecological data for the locality;

 An Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey;

 A Preliminary Bat Roost Assessment of trees and buildings at the Site;

 A survey 30m outside of the Site boundary (where accessible) for Badger setts; and

 A Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) was conducted on ponds at the Site and on well-connected ponds within 500m of the Site, where publicly accessible.

The Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey identified that the habitats at the Site were of Negligible - Moderate ecological value.

The tables below outline the results of the survey, potential impacts, and any recommendations. They also assign a level of urgency to address the overall situation arising from the results.

Table 1 Situation Rating Summary Definitions

Code Situation Rating Example Situation (as described in Table 2)

Requires urgent attention / To prevent (otherwise likely) breach of legislation from current activities or to action prevent delays to the planning submission or project.

Requires attention / action, but Awareness of potential future issues / considerations such that future action will be not necessarily urgently required (e.g. pre-commencement surveys).

Currently no further urgent No current issues, but future action may be required, e.g. survey results may action required eoe out-of-date.

Table 2 Summary Table of Survey Results and Recommendations

Protected Potential Implications of Situation Survey Results Recommendation Species Impact Rating National Vegetation Classification (NVC) survey of The eastern section of the the Woodland (in first Non-permanent, long-term Protected and Site is part of the available spring) required to loss of part of a Local Wildlife / or Priority Longdale Plantation which determine habitat value of Site of County level Habitats is classed as a Local vernal ground flora for soil importance. Wildlife Site. conservation / restoration detailing, undertaken as a reserved matter. Pr esence/Absence surveys of Loss of potential Reptile suitable habitat only, required Woodland edge habitat habitat Moderate negative at least 6 months prior to (specifically bracken and – Reptiles effect. Potential direct commencement of works in scrub) suitable for Reptile injury/killing of Reptiles the vicinity of those habitats to species. – Potential breach of the law. allow RAMs to be devised and implemented.

CE -BS1034-RP01-Final Page 5 15/09/2016

Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey Bestwood II Quarry Eastern Extension

Protected Potential Implications of Situation Survey Results Recommendation Species Impact Rating Bat activity surveys required Habitats at the Site of low to assess Bat activity within the suitability for roosting Direct loss of potential Bat Woodland in accordance with Bats. Woodland edge roosts Potential breach of – guidance to confirm potential Bats habitat features at the the law. Potential loss of roosts as being inactive/not Site are suitable for foraging / commuting habitat present, as a precautionary foraging and commuting (potential adverse effect). measure, prior to removing any Bats. trees. Habitat Suitability Index Loss of suitable terrestrial assessment of one pond habitat – Moderate negative within 500m required with Suitable terrestrial effect. further presence / likely Great Crested habitat present at the absence surveys if suitable. Newt Direct injury/killing/ Site. disturbance of Great Crested Timing to be such that surveys

Newts – Potential breach of can be undertaken before the law. works commence in the extension area. Suitable foraging habitat Loss of suitable habitat No further surveys required at Invertebrates for Terrestrial – Negligible negative effect. this stage. Invertebrates. Time vegetation removal outside of the Bird Breeding Season (Generally, March- Loss of habitat - Negligible September). Broad-Leaved Woodland negative effect. Breeding Birds habitat suitable for If vegetation removal is carried Direct loss of active nests - Breeding Bird species. out during breeding bird Potential breach of the law. season advise that an ecologist checks for active nests beforehand. * Invasive plant No invasive plant species No important effect. No further surveys required. * species present at the Site.

Habitats at the Site are Loss of suitable foraging Badgers suitable for foraging habitat – Negligible negative No further surveys required. * Badgers. effect.

*If the Proposed Development does not commence within 2 years of the date of this report then update surveys at the Site are recommended.

Providing the recommendations are followed in this report, there are not considered to be any likely breaches of legislation or likely important adverse effects on ecology from the Proposed Development.

CE -BS1034-RP01-Final Page 6 15/09/2016

Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey Bestwood II Quarry Eastern Extension

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 INSTRUCTION AND BRIEF

1.1.1 Cestood Eioetal Ltd. Crestwood, a multidisciplinary environmental consultancy based in Wolverhampton, has been appointed by the Client to undertake the following surveys at Bestwood II Quarry and land east of Bestwood II Quarry, Papplewick, Nottingham - centred at National Grid Reference (NGR) SK 56920 52502 the Site:

 An Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey;

 A Peliia ‘oost Assesset PRA fo Bats;

 A Haitat “uitailit Ide HSI of pods at the Site and publicly accessible well-connected ponds within 500m of the Site for Great Crested Newts (Triturus cristatus); and

 An initial walkover survey for Badgers (Meles meles).

1.1.2 Crestwood Environmental Ltd. has been appointed by DL Walker on behalf of Tarmac Ltd. the Client to udetake an Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey.

1.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE

1.2.1 The purpose of the surveys, assessment and report is to provide ecological advice in respect of the design and implementation of the Proposed Development and to identify ecological constraints to the Proposed Development which may be a relevant consideration from a planning and/or a legislative perspective.

1.2.2 The scope of the surveys included within the brief are detailed below:

 Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey: To record the presence and extent of habitats and the likelihood of protected species being present within the Site. The survey area for this survey is the Site.

 Preliminary Roost Assessment: To determine the suitability of mature trees and buildings at the Site for roosting Bats. The survey area for this particular survey is the Site.

 Habitat Suitability Index Assessment: To determine the suitability of ponds to support Great Crested Newts. The survey area for this survey is the Site and publicly accessible ponds which are well-connected to the Site within 500m of the Site boundary.

 Initial Badger Survey: To check the Site and within 30m of the Site boundary for the presence of Badger setts or evidence of Badgers.

1.2.3 The description of the Site and the results of the survey relate to the findings at the time of the field survey only, 16th May 2016.

1.3 SITE LOCATION AND CONTEXT

1.3.1 The Site is located at land east of Mansfield Road, Papplewick in Nottingham. The Site is based within and adjacent to an active sand and gravel quarry, comprising a small section of that quarry

CE -BS1034-RP01-Final Page 7 15/09/2016

Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey Bestwood II Quarry Eastern Extension

as well as an area of woodland to the east. The majority of the surrounding land is used primarily for agricultural purposes and is interspersed with several scattered areas of woodland.

1.3.2 The red line shown on Figure E1 (see Appendix E1) indicates the extent of the Site and Survey Area.

1.3.3 In the local area the main habitat wildlife corridors present are: the disused railway line which runs southeast to southwest of the Site and is located approximately 1km from the Site at its closest point. Additionally, numerous hedgerows in the local area also act as corridors for wildlife.

1.3.4 Fragmented areas of woodland within the local area and scattered trees may act as ecological steppig stoes to poide soe oetivity within the wider landscape.

1.4 SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS

1.4.1 The Client is applying for planning permission to carry out extraction of sand and gravel into a woodland area to the immediate east of Bestood II ua the Proposed Development; site infrastructure will be retained and a conveyor will be extended to reach the Proposed Extraction Area. For the purpose of this report, the woodland within the red line boundary on Figure E1 will be efeed to as the Proposed Extraction Area.

1.4.2 Information provided by the client at the time of survey included:

 Plans of the Proposed Extraction Area;

 Planning application boundary;

 Proposed Restoration Scheme; and

 Topographic survey of the Site.

1.4.3 The current restoration proposals for the Site include areas of acid grassland and heathland, sandstone cliffs, areas regeneration woodland and marshy grassland, this will include the retention of areas of the existing woodland.

1.5 OTHER RELEVANT INFORMATION

1.5.1 In addition to those listed within paragraph 1.4.2 , the following information is also referred to within this report:

 Planning policies (inc. references);

 Biological Records Report (Nottinghamshire Biological and Geological Record Centre, 2016); and

 Local Biodiversity Action Plan (Nottingham Biodiversity Action Group, 2016).

Definitions

1.5.2 Definitions, abbreviations and legislative context detailed within this report are provided in Appendix E2.

CE -BS1034-RP01-Final Page 8 15/09/2016

Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey Bestwood II Quarry Eastern Extension

1.6 GENERAL LIMITATIONS

1.6.1 The “ites ouda elates to plans of the Proposed Development provided by D L Walker on 2nd February 2016. Any subsequent amendments to the boundary may alter recommendations made in this report if amended plans are provided following the survey.

1.6.2 Other applications or non-implemented consents within the local area have not been considered, and therefore the assessment of impacts and effects pertains solely to those associated with the Proposed Development and not cumulative effects arising from impacts arising from other developments in the local area.

1.6.3 Several areas surrounding the Site were privately owned which restricted full access to certain areas outside of the Site boundary.

1.6.4 Limitations regarding specific species surveys have been detailed in subsequent methodology limitations sections.

2 METHODOLOGY AND APPROACH

2.1 DEFINING THE ZONE OF INFLUENCE )OI 2.1.1 The potential impact of a development is not always limited to the boundaries of the site concerned. The development may also have the potential to impact on ecologically valuable sites, habitats or species beyond the site boundaries. The area over which a development may impact ecologically valuable receptors is known as the Zone of Influence (ZoI).

2.1.2 The ZoI is determined by the source/type of impact, a potential pathway for that impact and the location and sensitivity of the ecologically valuable receptor beyond the boundary. For the majority of (unmitigated) impacts identified as part of the Proposed Development, the ZoI is generally considered to be the application site and immediately adjacent areas.

2.1.3 In ecological terms, the ZoI can also vary considerably depending upon the species potentially affected by the proposed development. For example, some species may be confined to a specific location whilst others, such as birds and bats, are more mobile and can occupy larger territories or home ranges. The ZoI is also likely to be influenced by the presence of dispersal barriers, such as roads and hardstanding, which either stop or reduce the likelihood of animals crossing it. As a consequence this could isolate areas of potentially suitable habitat within the application site due to fragmentation.

2.1.4 The ZoI for species or species groups has been determined by research and the professional judgement of the ecologist. For example, Common Lizards (Zootoca vivipara) have restricted mobility and generally occupy smaller home ranges (up to 700m2) (Langton & Beckett, 1995). The ZoI for each species.

CE-BS1034-RP01-Final Page 9 15/09/2016

Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey Bestwood II Quarry Eastern Extension

2.2 DETERMINING THE LEVEL OF ECOLOGICAL IMPORTANCE

2.2.1 Certain species (flora or fauna) and habitats present at a site are assessed for their ecological importance. It is important that ecological features of high importance; such as those that are of high biodiversity value or significantly contribute to ecosystem services should be protected and enhanced where possible.

2.2.2 Table 3 details the criteria for assessment of ecological importance.

2.2.3 It should be noted that ecological importance is assessed on a site by site basis, and includes a variety of factors (e.g. abundance); therefore the criteria for assessment may change (e.g. the presence of a rare declining species in relation to a rare stable species).

2.2.4 Furthermore, there may be some cross-over between habitats and species which could alter the assessment of the level of ecological importance of a particular feature (i.e. poor quality habitat supporting protected species); therefore the criteria for assessment detailed below should be used as a general guide only.

Table 3 Criteria of Assessment for Assigning a Level of Ecological Importance

Level of Ecological Indicative Criteria for Assessment Importance Species Habitats  Internationally designated sites.  Very rare/rare species present.  Features very rare/rare species. Very High  Species of very high biodiversity  Habitat of very high biodiversity value. value.  Highly suitable for protected species.  Very high floral diversity.  Nationally designated sites.  Rare species present.  Features rare species.  Species of high biodiversity value. High  Several features of high value for  Abundant species present of biodiversity (i.e. numerous features suitable moderate biodiversity value. to support protected species).  High floral species diversity.  Locally designated sites.  BAP/HPI species.  BAP/HPI Habitat. Moderate  Species of moderate biodiversity  Features of moderate value for biodiversity. value. Reasonable floral species diversity.  Potential to support protected species.  Habitat of low biodiversity value.  Species of low biodiversity value Low  Low floral species diversity. present.  Unlikely to support protected species.

 Species of negligible biodiversity  Very low/no species diversity present. Very Low value present.  Of little to no biodiversity value.

2.2.5 Reasons for the assessment of the level ecological importance of certain features are detailed in the relevant sections of this report.

CE-BS1034-RP01-Final Page 10 15/09/2016

Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey Bestwood II Quarry Eastern Extension

2.3 DESK STUDY

2.3.1 Table 4 below identifies sources of information for the desk study, as well as detailing any third parties who were contacted for information.

Table 4 Desk Study Information

Search Distance Source of Information Information Sought Use of Information from the Site NBN Gateway (NBN, 2016) Protected species 2k m To inform the field survey only Protected species Notable/Priority Nottinghamshire species Biological and Geological Records Centre Statutory sites (Nottinghamshire 2km Local Wildlife/Non- Biological and Geological To inform the field survey and report Statutory Wildlife Record Centre, 2016) – recommendations Sites requested 26-04-16 Schedule 9 Invasive Species Statutory sites 2km Priority Habitats 2km (NERC Act) To determine whether any ponds within MAGIC Map Ponds 500m 500m of the Site boundary require Great Crested Newt surveys. Granted European To inform the field survey and report Protected Species 1km recommendations. Licences To determine whether any ponds within 500m of the Site boundary/development Google Earth Ponds 500m footprint require surveys for Great Crested Newts. Nottinghamshire Local Local Priority Species To inform the field survey and report N/A BAP and Habitats recommendations.

2.4 FIELD SURVEY

2.4.1 The field surveys were carried out on 16th May 2016; survey methods are detailed below. The weather conditions at the time of survey are shown in Table 5.

Table 5 Weather Conditions during the Survey

Parameter Recorded Figure Temperature (°C) 21 Cloud Cover (in Octas) 0 Precipitation None Wind Speed (Beaufort Scale) 1

CE-BS1034-RP01-Final Page 11 15/09/2016

Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey Bestwood II Quarry Eastern Extension

Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey

2.4.2 The method used for the Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey is based on guidelines provided by JNCC (JNCC, 2010) and CIEEM (CIEEM, 2013). During the survey visit, habitat types and signs of protected or notable species were recorded and mapped using specific standard mapping colours and target notes.

Preliminary Roost Assessment of Trees and Buildings for Bats

2.4.3 The survey included a survey of mature trees at the Site from ground level, recording any evidence of Bat roosts, droppings, staining, scratch marks and feeding remains, or any potential roost sites within the trees and buildings themselves in accordance with the Bat Survey Good Practice Guidelines 3rd Edition (Collins, 2016).

2.4.4 Buildings at the Site were surveyed both externally and internally (where accessible) for suitability for and evidence of the presence of roosting Bats.

Habitat Suitability Index (HSI)

2.4.5 A HSI was conducted on ponds at the Site and within 500m of the Site to assess the suitability for Great Crested Newts, according to methodologies developed by (Oldham, et al., 2000).

2.4.6 A HSI is a measure of habitat suitability for Great Crested Newts. Factors such as pond area, water quality and macrophyte coverage are assessed and assigned a value between 0 and 1 (0 indicating an unsuitable habitat and 1 indicating an optimum habitat).

2.4.7 It should be noted that the HSI score is used to predict the presence of Great Crested Newts within a pond based on published guidance (Oldham, et al., 2000). For example, in ponds with a HSI score of 0.2 (Below Average) the proportion of ponds occupied by Great Crested Newts was found to be 20%.

2.4.8 It is important to note that the HSI is not a substitute for newt surveys and the HSI score can change throughout the year due to factors such as hot/wet spells resulting in ponds drying out or flooding, growth of terrestrial and aquatic vegetation etc.

2.4.9 Each pond will be categorised using the scores and categories outlined in Table 6.

Table 6 Categorisation of HSI (Oldham, et al., 2000)

HSI Score Pond Suitability <0.5 Poor 0.5-0.59 Below Average 0.6-0.69 Average 0.7-0.79 Good >0.8 Excellent

CE-BS1034-RP01-Final Page 12 15/09/2016

Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey Bestwood II Quarry Eastern Extension

Limitations

2.4.10 One pond within 500m of the Site was not included in the survey due to access restrictions as the pond is located on privately owned land. This is considered to be a significant limitation to the survey as a full assessment of well-connected ponds within 500m could not be carried out.

Badger Survey

2.4.11 A survey for Badgers was carried out following recognised guidance (Harris et al, 1989). All potential habitats within the Site, plus 30m outside of the Site boundary where accessible, were surveyed for evidence of Badger activity, and specifically for the presence of setts. Field signs searched for included active or inactive setts, Badger pathways, latrines, hair, discolouring of and damage to fencing, signs of foraging and feeding remains.

Limitations

2.4.12 Not all areas within 30m of the Site boundary could be accessed due to being privately owned land. However, most areas within 30m of the Site boundary were surveyed visually from boundaries and no other evidence of Badger activity was found leading from the Site boundary; therefore this is not considered to be a significant limitation to the survey.

Invasive Plant Species

2.4.13 The Site visit included recording the presence of invasive plant species listed on Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended).

2.5 IMPACTS AND EFFECTS METHOD OF ASSESSMENT

2.5.1 To help inform the design of the Proposed/Permitted Development and to inform the planning and decision making process, an assessment of the likely impacts and effects on ecological features has been made taking into account the following impact/effect types in line with relevant guidance (CIEEM, 2013), (CIEEM, 2016):

 Positive/Negative;

 Direct/Indirect;

 Cumulative; and

 Temporary/Permanent.

3 RESULTS AND EVALUATION

3.1 PLANNING POLICY

3.1.1 The determining planning authority is Nottinghamshire County Council. Relevant national and local planning policies are detailed below.

CE-BS1034-RP01-Final Page 13 15/09/2016

Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey Bestwood II Quarry Eastern Extension

National Planning Policy Framework

3.1.2 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) Section 11 - Conserving and enhancing the Natural Environment, contains relevant policy in Paragraphs 109-125 (HMO, 2012).

3.1.3 The Goeets ojetie, as stated i the NPPF is that plaig should help to delie a health natural environment for the benefit of everyone and safe places which promote wellbeing. To achieve this objective, the NPPF states that the planning system should aim to conserve and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting valued landscapes, minimise impacts on biodiversity and provide net gains where possible. The NPPF also makes the statement that planning permission should be refused if significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided, adequately mitigated, or as a last resort, compensated for.

3.1.4 The NPPF goes on to support the Lawton Review (Lawton, 2010) and the White Paper (HMSO, 2011) with its goals to minimise impacts on biodiversity by stating that planning policy should take into account the need to plan for biodiversity at a landscape-scale as well as identify and map components of the local ecological networks, including international, national and local sites. In line with EU targets, the NPPF states that planning will promote the preservation, restoration and re- creation of priority habitats, ecological networks and the recovery of priority species populations.

Local Planning Policy

3.1.5 Relevant policies detailed in the Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan 2005 (Nottinghamshire County Council, 2005) are listed below;

 Policy M3.17 – Biodiversity; and

 Policy M3.20 – Regional and Local Designated Sites.

3.1.6 Commentary in relation to these policies on the Proposed Development are provided in Appendix E3.

3.2 DESIGNATIONS

Statutory Wildlife Sites

3.2.1 There are no statutory wildlife sites within 2km of the Site.

Non-Statutory Wildlife Sites

3.2.2 There are 9 Non-Statutory Wildlife Sites within 2km of the Site boundary. These sites (details of which are provided in Appendix E5) are categorised as Local Wildlife Sites.

3.2.3 Part of the Site is located within the Longdale Plantation Local Wildlife Site (LWS), designated for its otaial iteest as eig a notable area of deciduous woodland (Nottinghamshire Biological and Geological Record Centre, 2016).

3.2.4 Longdale Heath LWS is also situated immediately to the South of the Site. This is a covered reservoir which supports acid grassland and heathland.

CE-BS1034-RP01-Final Page 14 15/09/2016

Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey Bestwood II Quarry Eastern Extension

3.3 HABITATS AND FLORA

General Description of Habitats within the Site

3.3.1 The habitat types identified at the Site, as listed below, relate to the guideline habitats listed within the Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey (JNCC, 2010). These habitats are recorded on Figure E1 in Appendix E1 and are described in more detail below.

Bare Earth/Quarry

3.3.2 Bare Earth is present in the form of an access track that runs through the entirety of the central and western extent of the Site; some of this habitat is associated with the active quarry. No species are present within this habitat.

Broad-Leaved Woodland

3.3.3 Broad-Leaved Woodland is the dominant habitat and is located in the eastern area of the Site (see Plate 1). The Woodland is semi-mature plantation woodland dominated by Silver Birch (Betula pendula) and Common Oak (Quercus robur); other species include Holly (Ilex aquifolium), Hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna) and Honeysuckle (Lonicera periclymenum) which is infrequent in the habitat.

3.3.4 The ground flora features Scattered Scrub, some patchy areas of Wavy Hair Grass (Deschampsia flexuosa) and Tall Ruderal vegetation such as Common Nettle (Urtica dioica) other forb species are patchily distributed throughout the Woodland. The dominant species present in the ground layer include Bracken (Pteridium aquilinum) and Bramble (Rubus fruticosus agg.).

Plate 1 Broad-Leaved Woodland

CE-BS1034-RP01-Final Page 15 15/09/2016

Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey Bestwood II Quarry Eastern Extension

Buildings

3.3.5 Two Buildings are present in the western extent of the Site. The Buildings are used as offices and equipment storage. Each building has a flat roof and appears to be made of corrugated metal. The locations of the Buildings are shown on Drawing E1, in Appendix E1.

Fence

3.3.6 A post and wire fence is present around the entire area of Broad-Leaved Woodland habitat in the eastern section of the Site.

Tall Ruderal

3.3.7 A small area of Tall Ruderal vegetation is present in the eastern area of the Site, adjacent to the area of Broad-Leaved Woodland. Common Nettle and Rosebay Willowherb (Chamerion angustifolium) are the dominant species within this habitat.

Plant Species

3.3.8 No rare or protected plant species were found at the Site.

Invasive Plant Species

3.3.9 No invasive floral species were found at the Site.

3.4 FAUNA

General

3.4.1 It should be noted that unless otherwise stated within the brief, no species-specific surveys were carried out as part of the Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey and the information provided below is based solely on incidental observations.

Amphibians and Reptiles

Great Crested Newt

3.4.2 According to OS mapping and aerial photography, there are no ponds within the Site and four ponds outside, but within 500m, of the Site, three of which are separated from the Site by significant barriers to dispersal for amphibians.

3.4.3 Three of the ponds (Ponds 1-3) are located on the area of active quarry at Bestwood II Quarry (outside the Site boundary) and were accessed as part of the HSI assessment. The layout of the Site including the sheer cliff faces surrounding the ponds and adjacent to the area of Broad-Leaved Woodland in the east, as well as the active working areas within the quarry makes the likelihood of Great Crested Newt dispersal from these ponds to the Site highly unlikely.

3.4.4 Pond 4 is located approximately 260m northwest of the Site at its closest point and is considered to be ecologically connected via interlying areas of woodland to the north of the Site. This pond was

CE-BS1034-RP01-Final Page 16 15/09/2016

Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey Bestwood II Quarry Eastern Extension

not subject to HSI assessment as access to this pond was restricted due to being on privately owned land.

3.4.5 The local biological records showed no records of Great Crested Newts within 2km of the Site.

3.4.6 The habitat suitability index score for Pond 1-3 is provided in Table 7 below and location of the Ponds on the Site can be found on Figure E1, Appendix 1. The respective scores for each factor of the HSI can be found within the table in Appendix E5.

Table 7 HSI Results Summary

Pond Grid Reference HSI Score HSI Category 1 SK 56714 52735 0.28 Poor 2 SK 56906 52686 0.28 Poor 3 SK 56977 52631 0.28 Poor

3.4.7 There is no aquatic habitat present at the Site. The dominant habitat of Broad-Leaved Woodland at the Site is considered to provide suitable terrestrial habitat for Great Crested Newts. This habitat provides both shelter and foraging opportunities.

Other Amphibians

3.4.8 Several records of Common Frog (Rana temporaria), two records of Common Toad (Bufo bufo) and one record of Smooth Newt (Lissotriton vulgaris) within 2km of the Site were provided by the local biological records centre.

3.4.9 The most recent record for each species was dated from 2014 and associated with a pond located approximately 1.1km southeast of the Site at its closest point.

3.4.10 No evidence of other Amphibians was found at the Site during the field survey.

3.4.11 The Site is considered to provide suitable terrestrial habitat for other amphibians to forage and shelter.

Reptiles

3.4.12 Several records for Common Lizard (Zootoca vivipara) within 2km of the Site were provided by the local biological record centre. The majority of records are dated from 2012 and associated with a small area of woodland located approximately 910m north of the Site.

3.4.13 The most recent record is dated from 2013 and is located approximately 1.4km southeast of the Site at its closest point.

3.4.14 No evidence of Reptiles was found at the Site during the survey.

3.4.15 The area of Broad-Leaved Woodland at the Site is considered to be suitable for Reptile species, especially when associated with Bracken and Scrub. The Woodland features several open glades where sunlight reaches the ground layer which provides good opportunities for basking Reptiles. The ground flora also provides some opportunities for Reptiles to forage and shelter.

3.4.16 The Bracken present in the Woodland may also provide suitable breeding areas for Reptile species,

CE-BS1034-RP01-Final Page 17 15/09/2016

Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey Bestwood II Quarry Eastern Extension

particularly Grass Snake (Natrix natrix) and Slow Worm (Anguis fragilis) which are known to utilise decomposing Bracken to incubate their eggs.

Mammals

Badgers

3.4.17 Four Badger records within 2km of the Site were provided by the local biological records centre. Three records were road casualties and one record was of a Badger sett. The Badger sett record dated from 2015 and was located approximately 1.8km south of the Site.

3.4.18 No evidence of Badger activity was found at the Site or within 30m of the Site (where accessible) during the survey.

3.4.19 The area of Broad-Leaved Woodland at the Site is considered to provide suitable foraging and sett building habitat for Badgers.

Bats

3.4.20 Several records of Bat species within 2km of the Site were provided by the local biological records centre. Four species have been recorded including: Common Pipistrelle Bat (Pipistrellus pipistrellus), Soprano Pipistrelle Bat (Pipistrellus pygmaeus), Noctule Bat (Nyctalus noctula) and Brown Long- Eared Bat (Plecotus auritus).

3.4.21 Several records of Bat roosts were provided by the local biological record centre. The most recent record is dated from 2001 and is located approximately 1.7km south of the Site. The two closest roost records are of Brown Long-Eared roosts dated from 2002 and 2004 located approximately 880m and 1km east of the Site respectively.

3.4.22 The dominant habitat of Broad-Leaved Woodland, in the eastern extent of the Site, is considered to be of low suitability for roosting Bats. The majority of the trees are semi-mature and therefore provide few opportunities for roosting; however some trees do provide limited roosting opportunities in the form of holes in the trunk, lifted bark and split limbs as shown in Plate 2.

CE-BS1034-RP01-Final Page 18 15/09/2016

Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey Bestwood II Quarry Eastern Extension

Plate 2 Potential Bat Roost Tree

3.4.23 The Broad-Leaved Woodland habitat is considered to provide suitable habitat for foraging Bats; specifically the more common species associated with woodland habitats such as Brown Long- Eaed Bat ad Nattees Bat Myotis nattereri). This habitat also provides good commuting habitat for Bat species which may allow dispersal in to the wider area.

3.4.24 No evidence of roosting Bats was found either in the Buildings or in the Woodland at the Site during the survey.

3.4.25 The Buildings present at the Site are not considered to be suitable for roosting Bats as they are utilised for plant operations which significantly increases levels of regular disturbance. Additionally, they are considered to be structurally insufficient in providing roosting opportunities to Bats as they appear to be made of corrugated panels with no roof void or suitable access points for Bats.

3.4.26 Furthermore, the Buildings are to be retained as part of the Proposed Development and they are located within an active quarry Site; therefore any protected species using these Buildings (however unlikely) will likely be unaffected by the eastern extension as they will already be acclimated to the disturbance of the working quarry.

Other Mammals

3.4.27 Several records of Hedgehog (Erinaceus europaeus), Harvest Mouse (Micromys minutus) and Brown Hare (Lepus europaeus) within 2km of the Site were provided by the local biological record centre.

3.4.28 The most recent Hedgehog records are dated from 2015 and the closest record is located approximately 390m east of the Site. The most recent Brown Hare record is dated from 2005 and located approximately 180m northwest of the woodland section of the Site. Two records for Harvest Mouse exist, however both records are more than 20 years old.

3.4.29 The presence of Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes) faeces indicated that the Site is used by this species. Additionally, several small areas of the fence located in the eastern extent of the Site were pushed through indicating that the Site is also utilised by Rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus).

CE-BS1034-RP01-Final Page 19 15/09/2016

Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey Bestwood II Quarry Eastern Extension

3.4.30 The dominant habitat of Broad-Leaved Woodland, located in the eastern part of the Site, is considered to be suitable habitat for other mammal species.

3.4.31 No records of Otter (Lutra lutra) or Water Vole (Arvicola amphibius) within 2km of the Site were provided by the local biological records centre. The lack of suitable aquatic habitat and relative isolation with poor connectivity to suitable water courses in the wider area suggest that the Site is unsuitable for either species.

Birds

3.4.32 The local biological records centre provided records of 7 bird species that ae ‘ed listed as Bids of Conservation Concern (Eaton, 2015) within 2km of the Site. Species include: Whinchat (Saxicola rubetra), Spotted Flycatcher (Muscicapa striata), Linnet (Cardeulis cannabina), Tree Pipit (Anthus trivialis), Woodcock (Scolopax rusticola), Cuckoo (Cuculus canorus) and Fieldfare (Turdus pilaris).

3.4.33 Additionally, 4 bird species that ae Ae listed as Bids of Coseatio Coe hae ee recorded within 2km of the Site. Species include: Eurasian Wigeon (Anas penelope), Shoveller (Anas clypeata), Oystercatcher (Haematopus ostralegus) and Tawny Owl (Strix aluco).

3.4.34 Records of fou id speies listed o “hedule of the Wildlife ad Coutside At as amended) have also been recorded within 2km of the Site. Species include: Hobby, Common Crossbill (Loxia curvirostra) and Brambling.

3.4.35 Several Bird species were recorded at the Site during the survey, species include: Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus), Raven (Corvus corax), Blue Tit (Cyanistes cyanistes), Long-Tailed Tit (Aegithalos caudatus), Goldfinch (Carduelis Carduelis), Swift (Apus apus), Wren (Troglodytes troglodytes), Blackcap (Sylvia atricapilla) and Blackbird (Turdus merula).

3.4.36 The dominant habitat of Broad-Leaved Woodland in the eastern part of the Site is considered to be suitable for Breeding Bird species.

Invertebrates (Aquatic and Terrestrial)

3.4.37 The majority of records of Terrestrial Invertebrates provided by the local biological record centre were of moth species dated most recently from 2008, located approximately 1.7km southwest of the Site associated with a small area of woodland.

3.4.38 Four records of butterfly species were also recorded within 2km of the Site. The records are dated from 2015 and associated with the Longdale Lane Plantation Woodland designated as a Local Wildlife Site located approximately 920m east of the Site as its closest point.

3.4.39 Due to the generally low species diversity of the dominant habitat of Broad-Leaved Woodland at the Site, it is considered unlikely the Site will support rare Terrestrial Invertebrate species.

3.4.40 No records of aquatic invertebrates within 2km of the Site were provided by the local biological record centre.

Invasive Animal Species

3.4.41 No records of invasive animal species were provided by the local biological record centre.

CE-BS1034-RP01-Final Page 20 15/09/2016

Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey Bestwood II Quarry Eastern Extension

3.4.42 No evidence of invasive animal species was found at the Site during the survey.

OVERALL HABITAT EVALUATION

3.4.43 The habitat types detailed above are evaluated against the Local Biodiversity Action Plan and habitats of Principal Importance according to Section 41 of the NERC Act 2006 in Table 1. They are also assessed for their suitability to support protected species. The overall value of the habitats is then assessed to Site, Local, Regional, National or International value.

CE-BS1034-RP01-Final Page 21 15/09/2016

Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey Bestwood II Quarry Eastern Extension

Table 8 Ecological Importance of Habitats at the Site

LBAP Section 41 Overall Ecological Importance (incorporating floral diversity of habitat Habitat Habitat HPI (NERC Importance and suitable habitat for protected species) Type Act 2006) Level Bare Negligible No floral species present and unsuitable for N N – Site only. Earth/Quarry protected species. Broad-Leaved Moderate Low floral species diversity, but suitable for Local Y Y – Woodland Breeding Birds, Bats and Reptiles importance. Very Low No floral species diversity, Unlikely to support Building N N – Site only. protected species. Very Low This area of habitat is very small and has low floral Tall Ruderal N N – Site only. species diversity. Unlikely to support protected species.

3.4.44 The habitats are of Negligible – Moderate ecological importance. Floral species diversity is low and the overall value of the Site is increased by its moderate suitability for protected species and partial designation as a Local Wildlife Site (see Section 3.4 above for further details regarding protected species).

4 ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS

4.1 INTRODUCTION

4.1.1 This section provides an assessment of the impacts and effects (see Glossary) on ecological features as a result of the Proposed Development.

4.2 SCREENING OF ECOLOGICAL FEATURES

4.2.1 Table 9 identifies ecological features which will not be considered further in this report and provides justification for their exclusion from the assessment process.

Table 9 Screening of Ecological Features

Ecological Feature Justification for Exclusion from Further Assessment The Site does not contain or border any Statutory sites, and there are no Statutory Statutory Wildlife Sites Wildlife Sites within 2km of the Proposed Development; therefore Statutory Wildlife Sites are highly unlikely to be affected by the Proposed Development. Protected Floral Species No protected floral species were found at the Site.

Ancient Woodland and There are no veteran trees at the Site. Veteran Trees The Site does not contain and is not within 30m of any Ancient Woodland. White Clawed Crayfish The Site supports no suitable aquatic habitat for the species. (Austropotamobius pallipes) The Woodland at the Site is considered to be unsuitable for this species due to low Hazel Dormouse floral diversity, immaturity of the trees, poor structure and limited ground flora. (Muscardinus avellanarius) Additionally, no records of Hazel Dormouse within 2km of the Site were provided by the local biological records centre.

CE-BS1034-RP01-Final Page 22 15/09/2016

Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey Bestwood II Quarry Eastern Extension

Ecological Feature Justification for Exclusion from Further Assessment The Site is considered to be unsuitable for this species due to the lack of flowing water at the Site. The Woodland habitat may provide opportunities for shelter for this Otter species, however the isolation of this habitat from any suitable water courses suggest that it is highly unlikely the Site is used by this species. Additionally, no records for this species within 2km of the Site were provided by the local biological records centre. The Site is considered to be unsuitable for this species due to the lack of flowing water at the Site. Similarly the terrestrial habitat at the Site is unsuitable for this Water Voles species and there is poor connectivity to suitable water courses in the local area. Additionally, no records for this species within 2km of the Site were provided by the local biological records centre. Outside the typical geographic range of the species. Smooth Snake, Sand Lizard and Natterjack Toad No sites known to support the species in the local area based on information from LRERC (LRERC, 2015).

4.3 ASSUMPTIONS

4.3.1 It is assumed that vegetative habitats such as the woodland will be retained and protected where possible, and that the Proposed Development will follow good practice environmental guidelines to avoid any breach of wildlife legislation during the construction period and be aware of the potential presence of protected species.

4.3.2 It is assumed that the Proposed Development will commence within two years of the date of survey. Should the Proposed Development not commence within this timeframe then update ecological surveys may be required.

4.4 IDENTIFICATION AND ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND LIKELY EFFECTS

4.4.1 Table 10 below identifies the potential impacts and effects (see Glossary) arising from activities relating to the construction and operational phases of the Proposed Development. Notes are also provided where further context is required.

4.4.2 Recommendations for mitigation of any adverse effects (as identified prior to mitigation) are detailed in section 5.

HABITATS

4.4.3 The loss of the Broad-Leaved Woodland habitat present in the eastern extent of the Site is a long- term temporary loss of habitat designated as part of the Longdale Plantations Local Wildlife Site. According to the Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan 2005 (Nottinghamshire County Council, 2005), Local Wildlife Sites are designated as being of Regional/County level importance.

4.4.4 The overall effects of the temporary loss of the dominant habitat of Broad-Leaved Woodland at the Site cannot accurately be determined until further botanical surveys have been conducted within this habitat in order to determine its importance for biodiversity.

The woodland is also considered to provide suitable habitat for a range of protected species; specifically Breeding Birds, Reptiles, Bats and Great Crested Newts which therefore increases the biodiversity importance of the habitat.

CE-BS1034-RP01-Final Page 23 15/09/2016

Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey Bestwood II Quarry Eastern Extension

Table 10 Summary of Impacts and Likely Affects

After Ecological Feature to be Negatively Affected Without Mitigation Mitigation Level Importance Level Importance Sites of County County Sites of Breeding Birds Birds Breeding Great Crested Crested Great Activity / Invertebrates Are Reptiles Reptiles Badger Badger

Newt Newt Notes Source of Bats Important Impact Potential Impact on Feature Potential Effects Arising from Potential Impact Residual Effects Likely?

Direct disturbance to/injury/killing of Breeding Birds and their eggs. Creation of Temporary loss of suitable nesting habitat; and     Reduction in populations of Breeding Birds, due to habitat loss and direct No Access Temporary increase in noise levels at the Site. harm.

Direct disturbance to/injury/killing of protected species. Further surveys Movement of recommended for Reptiles Physical ground impact of heavy plant machinery; and Reduction in populations of affected species (specifically Reptiles and Plant    No and Great Crested Newts Great Crested Newts), due to habitat loss and direct harm. Machinery Temporary increase in noise levels at the Site. prior to commencement of Damage to habitat of County level importance. works. Temporary loss of suitable terrestrial habitat for protected species; Direct disturbance to/injury/killing of protected species and removal of their habitat. Site Clearance Temporary loss of suitable foraging and commuting habitat Further surveys required for (including Reduction in populations of affected species (specifically Reptiles and Botany, Reptiles, Bats and        for protected species; No felling) and Great Crested Newts), due to habitat loss and direct harm. Great Crested Newts prior to Temporary increase in noise levels at the Site; soil stripping Damage to and temporary partial loss of habitat of County level commencement of works. Loss of (unconfirmed) bat roosts; and importance. Temporary loss of part of a site of County level importance.

Excavation of Loss of suitable foraging and commuting habitat for Direct disturbance to/injury/killing of protected species. Further surveys sand and protected species; Reduction in populations of affected species (specifically Reptiles and recommended for Botany, gravel and        Temporary increase in noise levels at the Site; and Great Crested Newts), due to habitat loss and direct harm. No Reptiles and Great Crested regrading Temporary long-term loss of part of a site of County level Damage to and temporary partial loss of habitat of County level Newts prior to works importance. importance. commencement of works.

CE -BS1034-RP01-Final Page 24 15/09/16

Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey Bestwood II Quarry Eastern Extension

5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 HABITATS AND FLORA

5.1.1 The Broadleaved Woodland is classed as a Habitat of Principal Importance in the Nottinghamshire Local Biodiversity Action Plan and is assessed as being of Moderate ecological value. Where present outside the development footprint, these habitats should be retained and protected during works using B“ 5: Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction – Recommendations (British Standards Institution, 2012) as guidance.

5.1.2 Due to the majority of the Site falling within a Local Wildlife Site (County level importance), a National Vegetation Classification (NVC) survey is recommended for the Broad-Leaved Woodland at the Site, during the Spring. This will help identify the important ecological features present in more detail, and inform the detailed stripping, handling, conservation and reallocation of the woodland soils for use in restoration, specifically for the re-establishment of (at least an equivalent area) of native broadleaved woodland and associated edge habitats at the Site and can be used as a basis to monitor establishment of the ground flora and inform aftercare management to maximise the ecological value of the restored areas. Conserving deadwood for use in the woodland restoration areas will also be beneficial.

5.2 FAUNA

Bats

5.2.1 Several trees within the Broad-Leaved Woodland were identified as having limited potential to support roosting Bats and the woodland edge habitat features is considered to be suitable for foraging Bats; therefore further activity surveys are recommended for Bats, during which time the trees with limited potential to provide bat roosts can be confirmed as not being used as roosts, prior to commencement of works. The existing length of woodland edge is circa 410m and the residual woodland edge of the retained woodland is longer (circa 520m) providing circa 110m additional woodland edge habitat length to that currently afforded. This length also links from the same start/end points providing continuity of commuting/foraging habitat.

5.2.2 Opportunities for additional enhancement include the provision of bat boxes on suitable retained trees.

Birds

5.2.3 To reduce any adverse effects upon breeding birds, avoid any breach in wildlife legislation and maintain the local breeding populations, any vegetation should be removed outside the bird breeding season (March-September inclusive for most species). If this is not possible then vegetation should be checked by a suitably qualified ecologist prior to removal.

5.2.4 Bird boxes should be erected on suitable retained trees, where possible, immediately prior to removal of the woodland in order to provide mitigation against the loss of suitable nesting habitat at the Site and otherwise provide enhancements at the Site for Birds, whilst new woodland and other habitats establish.

CE -BS1034-RP01-Final Page 25 15/09/2016

Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey Bestwood II Quarry Eastern Extension

Great Crested Newts

5.2.5 Due to suitable terrestrial habitat being present at the Site and one pond being ecologically connected to and within 500m of the Site, it is recommended that a HSI assessment be conducted on Pond 4 prior to commencement of works at the Site. Reasonable Avoidance Measures can then be devised to avoid any potential breach of legislation.

Reptiles

5.2.6 Due to the suitability of the Broad-Leaved Woodland habitat for Reptiles, further surveys for Reptiles are recommended in suitable habitat only, 6 months prior to any works being undertaken . Reasonable Avoidance Measures can then be devised to avoid any potential breach of legislation.

Invertebrates (Aquatic and Terrestrial)

5.2.7 No protected or rare Terrestrial Invertebrate species were recorded during the survey, however, should the results of the NVC survey of the Broad-Leaved Woodland habitat find that this habitat is particularly suitable for Terrestrial Invertebrates then further surveys may be necessary and/or specific detailed habitat features and aftercare management can be devised to provide for these species.

5.3 OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS

5.3.1 Providing the recommendations are followed in this report, there are not considered to be any likely breaches of legislation or likely important adverse effects on ecology from the Proposed Development.

CE -BS1034-RP01-Final Page 26 15/09/2016

Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey Bestwood II Quarry Eastern Extension

REFERENCES:

. British Standards Institution, 2012. Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction - Recommendations, s.l.: British Standards Institution. . CIEEM, 2013. Technical Guidance Series: Guidelines for Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, Winchester: CIEEM. . CIEEM, 2016. CIEEM Glossary. [Online] Available at: http://www.cieem.net/glossary [Accessed February 2016]. . CIEEM, 2016. Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK and Ireland: Terrestrial, Freshwater and Coastal. 2nd ed. Winchester: Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management. . Collins English Dictionary, 2016. Collins English Dictionary. [Online] Available at: http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/protected-species [Accessed 19 February 2016]. . Collins, J., 2016. Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines. 3rd ed. London: The Bat Conservation Trust. . Eaton, M. A. N. B. A. H. R. L. L. M. A. N. D. S. D. a. G. R., 2015. irds of Conservation Concern 4: Tthe Population Status of Birds in the UK, Channel Iislands and Isle of Man. British Birds, Volume 108, pp. 708 - 746. . Encyclopaedia Brittanica, 2016. Encyclopaedia Brittanica. [Online] Available at: http://www.britannica.com/ [Accessed 19 February 2016]. . English Nature, 1993. Linear features: linear habitats and wildlife corridors, London: English Nature. . Environment Agency, 2013. The Knotweed Code of Practice, Bristol: Environment Agency. . Harris et al, 1989. Surveying Badgers, s.l.: Mammal Society. . Harris et al, 1989. Surveying Badgers, London: Mammal Society. . HMO, 1992. Protection of Badgers Act , London: HMO. . HMO, 2010. The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations, London: HMO. . HMO, 2011. UK National Ecosystem Assessment, London: HMO. . HMO, 2012. Planning Practice Guidance. [Online] Available at: http://planningguidance.communities.gov.uk/blog/policy/achieving-sustainable-development/delivering- sustainable-development/11-conserving-and-enhancing-the-natural-environment/ [Accessed 20 June 2016]. . HMO, 2016. European protected species: apply for a mitigation licence. [Online] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/european-protected-species-apply-for-a-mitigation-licence [Accessed 19 February 2016]. . HMSO, 2011. The Natural Choice: Securing the Value of Nature, s.l.: HMSO. . JNCC, 2010. Handbook for Phase 1 habitat survey - a technique for environmental audit. s.l.:s.n. . JNCC, 2016. UK BAP Priority Hbaitats. [Online] Available at: http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-5718 [Accessed 19 February 2016]. . Langton, T. & Beckett, C., 1995. Home range size of Scottish amphibians and reptiles. Scottish Natural Heritage Review, Volume 53. . Lawton, J., 2010. Making Space for Nature: a reie of England’s ildlife sites and ecological netork, s.l.: DEFRA. . LRERC, 2015. Biological records, s.l.: Leicestershire and Rutland Ecological Records Centre. . Natural England, 2016. Standing Advice Species Sheet: Great crested newts. [Online] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ce7lHJirqkEwww.biodiversityplanningtoolkit.com/stylesheet.asp?file=212_natural_e

CE -BS1034-RP01-Final Page 27 15/09/2016

Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey Bestwood II Quarry Eastern Extension ngland_s_standing_advice [Accessed 19 February 2016]. . NBN, 2016. NBN Interactive Map. [Online] Available at: http://data.nbn.org.uk/imt/ [Accessed 2016]. . Nottingham Biodiversity Action Group, 2016. Nottinghamshire Local Biodiversity Action Plan. [Online] Available at: http://www.nottsbag.org.uk/projects.htm#bap [Accessed 9 June 2016]. . Nottinghamshire Biological and Geological Record Centre, 2016. Biological Records, s.l.: Nottinghamshire Biological and Geological Record Centre. . Nottinghamshire County Council, 2005. Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan, s.l.: Nottinghamshire County Council. . Oldham, R. S., Keeble, J., Swan, M. & Jeffcote, M., 2000. Evaluating the suitability of habitat for Great Crested Newt (Triturus cristatus). Herpetological Journal, Volume 10, pp. 143-155. . Oxford Dictionary, 2016. Oxford Dictionary. [Online] Available at: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/ [Accessed 19 February 2016]. . Stone, 2013. Bats and lighting: Overview of current evidence and mitigation guidance, London: Bat Conservation Trust.

CE -BS1034-RP01-Final Page 28 15/09/2016

Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey Bestwood II Quarry Eastern Extension

APPENDICES:

Appendix E1 Figure E1 –Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey Plan

Appendix E2 Definitions, Abbreviations and Glossary

Appendix E3 Policy Commentary

Appendix E4 HSI Factors and Scores

Appendix E5 Local Wildlife Sites

CE -BS1034-RP01-Final Page 29 15/09/2016

Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey Bestwood II Quarry Eastern Extension

Appendix E1: Figure E1 – Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey Plan

CE -BS1034-RP01-Final Page 30 15/09/2016

457400E 457200E 457000E 456800E 456600E N Legend:

W E Site Boundary

S Greendales 30m Distance Marker

Broad-Leaved Woodland Kingswood Tall Ruderal

Q Quarry

352800N 352800N Bare Ground

Buildings

Fence

Ponds

1 Pond No.

2

1 Notes: 3 Aerial Imagery may not be up to date. 352600N 352600N

0m 60m 150m

Q - - - --

- - - --

Final Revision: Date: Description: By: Chk:

Consultant: Crestwood Environmental Ltd Units 1 & 2 Nightingale Place Pendeford Business Park Wolverhampton WV9 5HF

Tel: 01902 229563 Crestwood 352400N 352400N [email protected] www.crestwoodenvironmental.co.uk environmental

Mansfield Road Client:

Woodland Grange

Site: BESTWOOD II QUARRY

Drawing Title: Phase 1 Habitat Plan

Date: Scale: Paper Size: 16 Sep 2016 1:3,000 A3 (420×297 mm) 352200N 352200N Drawn By: Checked By: Status: Final Revision: 457400E 457200E 457000E 456800E 456600E JD KJ/LC FINAL -

CAD Ref: Drawing No: Google Earth. © 2016 Google. Image © 2016 Getmapping plc. CE-BS1034-DW01 - FINAL Figure E1 Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey Bestwood II Quarry Eastern Extension

Appendix E2: Abbreviations and Glossary

For the avoidance of confusion, abbreviations used within the report have the meanings detailed below:

AONB Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty NGR National Grid Reference AoSP Area of Special Protection NNR National Nature Reserve BAP Biodiversity Action Plan NPPF National Planning Policy Framework BBS Breeding Bird Survey NVC National Vegetation Classification BRC Biological Records Centre PPG Planning Policy Guidance The DAFOR Scale of Abundance: DAFOR D=Dominant, A=Abundant, F=Frequent, PRA Preliminary Roost Assessment O=Occasional, R=Rare Department for Environment, Food and DEFRA PSI Potential Site of Importance Rural Affairs Wetland sites of international importance EcIA Ecological Impact Assessment RAMSAR designated under the Ramsar Convention. Regionally Important Geological and eDNA Environmental DNA RIGS Geomorphological Sites EIA Environmental Impact Assessment RSPB Royal Society for the Protection of Birds EMP Environmental Management Plan SAC Special Areas of Conservation EPS European Protected Species SINC Site of Importance for Nature Conservation Site of Local Importance for Nature ES Environmental Statement SLINC Conservation Ha Hectare SNCI Site of Nature Conservation Interest HAP Habitat Action Plan sp. Species (Singular) HRA Habitat Regulations Assessment spp. Species (Multiple) HSI Habitat Suitability Index SPA Special Protection Area International Union for the Conservation of IUCN SSSI Site of Special Scientific Interest Nature JNCC Joint Nature Conservation Committee SuDS Sustainable Drainage Systems LBAP Local Biodiversity Action Plan TPO Tree Protection Order LDF Local Development Framework WBS Wintering Bird Survey LNR Local Nature Reserve WCA (Act) Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 LWS Local Wildlife Site WFD Water Framework Directive MCZ Marine Conservation Zone ZoI Zone of Influence MS Method Statement MNR Marine Nature Reserve MPA Marine Protected Area NBN National Biodiversity Network NCC Nature Conservancy Council NERC Natural Environment and Rural

(Act) Communities Act NGO Non-Governmental Organisation

CE -BS1034-RP01-Final Page 31 15/09/2016

Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey Bestwood II Quarry Eastern Extension

Glossary:

For the avoidance of confusion, the terms used in this report follow the definitions given below:

Assemblage A group of species found in the same location (CIEEM, 2016). Biodiversity Action Plan Habitat: Natural and semi-natural priority habitats identified as being BAP Habitat the most threatened and requiring conservation action under the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (JNCC, 2016). A Biodiversity Action Plan Species identified as being the most threatened and requiring BAP Species conservation action under the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (JNCC, 2016). The biologial diesit of the eaths liig esoues. The total range of variability among systems and organisms at the following levels of organisation: bioregional, landscape, Biodiversity ecosystem, habitat, communities, species, populations, individuals, genes and the structural and functional relationships within and between these different levels (CIEEM, 2016). An area (human-made or natural) that helps to protect a habitat from damage, disturbance or Buffer Zone pollution. It is maaged to potet the itegit of the alued haitat ad/o the oseatio status of species that it supports (CIEEM, 2016). Measures taken to make up for the loss of, or permanent damage to, biological resources through the provision of replacement areas. Any replacement area should be similar to or, with Compensation appropriate management, have the ability to reproduce the ecological functions and conditions of those biological resources that have been lost or damaged (CIEEM, 2016). Commuting The activity of flying between the roost and foraging area (Stone, 2013). A measure of the functional availability of the habitats needed for a particular species to move through a given area. Examples include movements of migratory fish from feeding grounds to Connectivity spawning grounds or linking areas of appropriate habitat needed by some slow colonising species if they are to spread (CIEEM, 2016). The protection, preservation, management or restoration of the natural environment and Conservation wildlife (Oxford Dictionary, 2016). The dissemination, or scattering, of organisms over periods within a given area or over the Earth Dispersal (Encyclopaedia Brittanica, 2016). Dominant Denoting the predominant species in a plant (or animal) community (Oxford Dictionary, 2016). (Habitat/Species) - Genetic material obtained directly from environmental samples (soil, eDNA Eioetal DNA sediment, water, etc.) without any obvious signs of biological source material. Ecological Impact Assessment is the process of identifying, quantifying and evaluating the Ecological Impact potential impacts of defined actions on ecosystems or their components. If properly Assessment (EcIA) implemented it provides a scientifically defensible approach to ecosystem management (CIEEM, 2016). Discontinuous patches of habitat and natural features that enable wildlife to disperse and Ecological Stepping Stones igate hae soeties ee alled steppig stoes, Thee is a gadatio etee a seies of steppig stoes ad hat might be thought of as a wildlife corridor (English Nature, 1993). A dynamic complex of plant, animal and micro-organism communities and their non-living Ecosystem environment interacting as a functional unit. Systems in which species evolve (CIEEM, 2016). This report uses the word impact rather than effect when referring to how ecological resources Effect might be affected by a project (CIEEM, 2016). European Schedule 2 lists those species of animals listed in Annex IV(a) to the Habitats Directive (Habitats Protected Species Regulations) which have a natural range which includes any area in Great Britain (HMO, 2010). The genuine enhancement of the natural heritage interest of a site or area because the project Enhancement includes improved management or new habitats or features, which are better than the prospective management, or the habitats or features present there now. There is, therefore, a

CE -BS1034-RP01-Final Page 32 15/09/2016

Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey Bestwood II Quarry Eastern Extension

net or new benefit to the natural heritage (CIEEM, 2016). Environmental Impact Assessment This is an assessment carried out under the EIA Regulations (CIEEM, 2016). (EIA) European A license issued by Natural England that allows for the mitigation of impacts on a European Protected Species Protected Species that would otherwise be illegal. Based on (HMO, 2016). (EPS) License Fauna The animals of a particular region, habitat, or geological period (Oxford Dictionary, 2016). Flora The plants of a particular region, habitat, or geological period (Oxford Dictionary, 2016). Foraging The activity of searching for food (Oxford Dictionary, 2016). The breaking up of a habitat, ecosystem or biotope into smaller parcels with a consequent Fragmentation impairment of functioning (CIEEM, 2016). A place in which a particular plant or animal lives. Often used in the wider sense referring to Habitat major assemblages of plants and animals found together (CIEEM, 2016). The condition or period of an animal or plant spending the winter in a dormant state (Oxford Hibernation Dictionary, 2016). The way in which an ecological resource/receptor is affected by a project (see effect) (CIEEM, Impact 2016). Invasive Species Species introduced outside its normal distribution (HMO, 2011). A species that has a disproportionately large effect on the communities in which it occurs. Such species help to maintain local biodiversity within a community either by controlling Keystone Species populations of other species that would otherwise dominate the community or by providing critical resources for a wide range of species (Encyclopaedia Brittanica, 2016). Latrine Dung pit (Harris et al, 1989). Local Biodiversity Action Plan Habitat: Priority habitats identified as being the most threatened, LBAP Habitat within a local area, and require conservation action under Local Biodiversity Action Plan (JNCC, 2016). Local Biodiversity Action Plan Species: Priority species identified as being the most threatened, LBAP Species within a local area, and require conservation action under Local Biodiversity Action Plan (JNCC, 2016). Measures taken to avoid or reduce negative impacts. Measures may include: locating the Mitigation development and its working areas and access routes away from areas of high ecological interest, or timing works to avoid sensitive periods (CIEEM, 2016). Native Species An animal or plant species indigenous to a place (Oxford Dictionary, 2016). The point at which the quality and quantity of habitats or species improves compared to their Net Ecological Gain original condition. i.e. improvements over and above those required for mitigation/compensation (CIEEM, 2016). The point at which habitat or biodiversity losses equal their gains, both quantitatively and No Net Loss qualitatively (CIEEM, 2016). No -statuto sites of atue oseatio alue that hae ee desigated loall i.e. excluding SSSIs, ASSIs, SPAs, SACs, and Ramsar Sites). Local Nature Reserves are included as they Non-Statutory Sites are a designation made by the Local Authority not statutory country conservation agencies. These are often called Wildlife Sites, Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation or other similar names (CIEEM, 2016). A collection of individuals (plants or animals), all of the same species and in a defined Population geographical area (CIEEM, 2016). A species of animal or plant which it is forbidden by law to harm or destroy (Collins English Protected Species Dictionary, 2016). “ee also Euopea Poteted “peies.

CE -BS1034-RP01-Final Page 33 15/09/2016

Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey Bestwood II Quarry Eastern Extension

Any ecological or other defined feature (e.g. human beings) that is sensitive to or has the Receptor potential to be affected by an impact (CIEEM, 2016). The active re-establishment of a damaged or degraded system or habitat to a close Restoration approximation of its pre-degraded condition (CIEEM, 2016). Something related to, living on, or located at the banks of a watercourse, usually a river or Riparian stream (HMO, 2011). A structure (either natural or man-made) where Bats congregate to rest during the day (Oxford Roost Dictionary, 2016). Protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Conservation of Habitats and Speies ‘egulatios The Haitat ‘egulatios (HMO, 2010). Any structure or place which displays signs indicating current use by a Badger (HMO, 1992). Sett Protected under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992. A natural or man-made obstacle that prevents the dispersal of species e.g. a major road or fast Significant Barrier flowing river. Based on (Natural England, 2016). A group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or Species interbreeding (Oxford Dictionary, 2016). “tatuto sites of atue oseatio alue that hae ee desigated atioall i.e. “““Is. Statutory Sites Also included are “ites that ae desigated iteatioall i.e. “PAs, “ACs ad ‘asa “ites. Based on (CIEEM, 2016). A wildlife corridor is used to refer to linear features that are used for migration and dispersal or Wildlife Corridor otherwise act to link habitats in ways that reduce the isolation of populations (English Nature, 1993). The areas/resources that may be affected by the biophysical changes caused by activities Zone of Influence associated with a project (CIEEM, 2016).

CE -BS1034-RP01-Final Page 34 15/09/2016

Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey Bestwood II Quarry Eastern Extension

Appendix E3: Policy Implications

Policy Policy Number and Statement Implications for Proposals Document POLICY M3.17 BIODIVERSITY: Planning permission will not be granted for minerals development which will adversely affect the integrity or continuity of habitats or features identified as priorities in the UK and/ or Nottinghamshire Local Biodiversity Action Plan, unless an overriding need for development is The Site is considered to provide suitable habitat demonstrated which outweighs the nature for protected species, therefore Policy M3.17 conservation importance of the feature. If the applies to the Proposed Development. loss of the habitat or feature cannot be avoided, provision will be made, where practicable, for The Site is also located within the Longdale Plantation which is classed as a Local Wildlife Site Nottinghamshire the creation of an equivalent habitat or feature, and considered to be of County level importance. Minerals Local either on the development site or under the Plan 2005 terms of a voluntary agreement on a suitable The recommendations in this report will provide alternative location within the county. for the protection of protected species and for the ongoing retention of suitable habitat and POLICY M3.20 REGIONAL AND LOCAL features of at least equivalent ecological DESIGNATED SITES: importance, via the restoration scheme, which Planning permission for minerals development has been devised with ecological inputs. in areas which are regional or local designated sites will only be granted where it can be demonstrated that the importance of the development outweighs the regional or local value of the site, taking into account measures to mitigate/compensate against any adverse impact.

CE -BS1034-RP01-Final Page 35 15/09/2016

Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey Bestwood II Quarry Eastern Extension

Appendix E4: HSI Factors and Scores

Pond Number HSI Factor Pond 1 Pond 2 Pond 3 Pond Grid Reference SK 56714 52735 SK 56906 52686 SK 56977 52631 SI 1 1 1 1 SI 2* Omitted Omitted Omitted SI 3 0.9 0.9 0.9 SI 4 0.01 0.01 0.01 SI 5 1 1 1 SI 6 0.67 0.67 0.67 SI 7 0.67 0.67 0.67 SI 8 0.39 0.39 0.39 SI 9 0.67 0.67 0.67 SI 10 0.01 0.01 0.01 HSI Score 0.28 0.28 0.28 *For ponds larger than 2,000m2 omit this factor from the HSI calculation as there is no data for such large ponds (Oldham, et al., 2000).

CE -BS1034-RP01-Final Page 36 15/09/2016

Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey Bestwood II Quarry Eastern Extension

Appendix E5: Local Wildlife Sites

CE -BS1034-RP01-Final Page 37 15/09/2016

There are nine Local Wildlife Sites (were called Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation - SINCs) in your search area. The Nottinghamshire Natural History Site Alert Schedule describes these sites as follows:-

No. Name Area District Grid Ref. Description Interest 1/34 Newstead Park 232.889 Gedling SK 545538 An variety of habitats Botanical, (including River ha District Moth Leen System) 2/356 Trumpers Park 4.01 ha Gedling SK 565536 A valuable area of young Botanical Wood District deciduous woodland 2/359 Seven Mile 4.57 ha Gedling SK 564506 A mineral line in a deep Botanical Railway District acidic cutting 2/360 Break Lane 0.492 Gedling SK 557519 A herb-rich grassy track Botanical ha District providing a good habitat 2/361 Longdale Heath 1.451 Gedling SK 573522 A covered reservoir Botanical ha District supporting heath and acidic grassland 2/363 Longdale 28.346 Gedling SK 573525 A notable area of Botanical Plantation ha District deciduous woodland 2/364 Longdale Lane 354.146 Gedling SK 590528 An extensive, Botanical, Plantation ha District, predominantly Butterfly, Newark and coniferous, plantation Amphibian Sherwood and/or District Reptile 2/666 Appleton Dale 7.499 Gedling SK 581538 A substantial area of Bo tanical ha District mixed plantation around a notable unmanaged acidic grassland 5/280 Ravenhead 0.417 Gedling SK 570541 An acidic grassland with Botanical Knoll ha District characteristic species

SK 56877 52561 2/78

2/662

5/280

2/666

1/34 2/356

2/364

2/363

2/361 5/1296

2/360 1/35 2/364

2/353

2/87 2/359 2/77

5/2208

2/75

2/362 2/74

© Crown copyright and database right 2015. Ordnance Survey Licence number 100019317. Meters Key Produced by Peter Acton NBGRC Team 26/04/2016. 0 205 410 820 I

Local Wildlife Site

APPENDIX E2: GCN, INVERTEBRATE AND NVC SURVEY REPORT

Proposed Eastern Extension to Bestwood Quarry II, Papplewick, Nottingham.

Great Crested Newt, Invertebrate and NVC Surveys

Report Reference: CE-BS-1034-RP03 - FINAL

Produced by Crestwood Environmental Ltd.

19 September 2017

Crestwood Report Reference: CE-BS-1034-RP03 - FINAL:

Version & Date Survey Licence No. Written / Updated by: Checked & Authorised by: Status Produced (If applicable)

Jaclyn Walker (Ecologist) Lucy Cash (Principal Ecologist)

This report has been prepared in good faith, with all reasonable skill, care and diligence, based on information provided or known available at the time of its preparation and within the scope of work agreement with the client.

All of our ecologists are members of the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management, and are therefore required to adhere to the Institute’s Code of Professional Conduct.

We disclaim any responsibility to the client and others in respect of any matters outside the scope of the above.

The report is provided for the sole use of the named client and is confidential to them and their professional advisors. No responsibility is accepted to others.

Crestwood Environmental Ltd. 1-2 Nightingale Place Pendeford Business Park Wobaston Road Pendeford West Midlands WV9 5HF

Fax: 01902 229 563

Email: [email protected] Web: www.crestwoodenvironmental.co.uk Great Crested Newt, Invertebrate and NVC Surveys Proposed Eastern Extension of Bestwood Quarry II, Papplewick, Nottingham

CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ...... 4 1.1 BACKGROUND ...... 4 1.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE ...... 4 1.3 SITE DESCRIPTION ...... 5 2 LEGAL CONTEXT...... 6 2.1 GREAT CRESTED NEWT ...... 6 2.2 INVERTEBRATES ...... 6 2.3 NATIONAL VEGETATION CLASSIFICATION (‘NVC’) ...... 7 3 METHODOLOGY ...... 7 3.1 DESK STUDY ...... 7 3.2 GREAT CRESTED NEWT ...... 7 3.3 INVERTEBRATES ...... 8 3.4 NATIONAL VEGETATION CLASSIFICATION (‘NVC’) ...... 8 3.5 WEATHER CONDITIONS ...... 9 3.6 LIMITATIONS ...... 9 4 RESULTS AND EVALUATION ...... 9 4.1 DESK STUDY ...... 9 4.2 GREAT CRESTED NEWT ...... 10 4.3 INVERTEBRATES ...... 11 4.4 NATIONAL VEGETATION CLASSIFICATION (‘NVC’) ...... 13 5 CONCLUSIONS ...... 14

LIST OF APPENDICES:

APPENDIX E1 Figure E3 – NVC Survey Location Plan

LIST OF TABLES: Table 1 Weather Conditions Ecology Surveys ...... 9 Table 2 NVC Survey Results ...... 13

CE-BS-1034-RP03 - FINAL Page 2 19/09/17

Great Crested Newt, Invertebrate and NVC Surveys Proposed Eastern Extension of Bestwood Quarry II, Papplewick, Nottingham

SUMMARY

Ecological surveys were carried out by Crestwood Environmental Ltd. as requested by DL Walker (‘the Planning Co-ordinators’) on behalf of Tarmac Ltd. (‘the Client’) at land to the east of Bestwood Quarry II, east of Mansfield Road, Papplewick in Nottingham (‘the Site’).

The following ecological surveys were carried out at the Site in June 2017 and are detailed within this report:

• Great Crested Newt Environmental DNA Survey (‘eDNA’);

• Invertebrate Survey; and

• National Vegetation Classification (‘NVC’) Survey.

No further surveys are recommended for Great Crested Newt, Invertebrates and flora; however if the Proposed Development does not commence within two years, update surveys are recommended to be undertaken at the Site.

CE-BS-1034-RP03 - FINAL Page 3 19/09/17

Great Crested Newt, Invertebrate and NVC Surveys Proposed Eastern Extension of Bestwood Quarry II, Papplewick, Nottingham

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND

1.1.1 Crestwood Environmental Ltd. (CEL) has been appointed by DL Walker Ltd. (‘the Planning Co- ordinators’) on behalf of Tarmac Ltd. (‘the Client’) to undertake ecological surveys at land to the east of Bestwood Quarry II, Papplewick, Nottingham centred at National Grid Reference (NGR) SK 57335 52483 (‘the Site’).

1.1.2 The Client is applying for planning permission for a proposed eastern extension of mineral extraction operations (‘the Proposed Development’) from the existing sand and gravel quarry (‘the Site) into land to the east of the Existing Quarry Site (‘The Proposed Extension Area’).

1.1.3 The need for the surveys was identified during an Extended Phase 1 Habitat survey/desk study carried out by CEL in May 2016 (Crestwood Environmental, 2016). The survey/desk study recorded the presence of habitats suitable for protected species at the land comprising the Proposed Extension Area, as shown by the red line boundary in Figure E1 in the Extended Phase 1 Habitat Report (report ref: CE-WQ-0992-RP01) (Crestwood Environmental, 2016).

1.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE

1.2.1 The purpose of the surveys, assessment and report is to provide ecological advice in respect of the design and construction of the Proposed Development.

1.2.2 The scope of the survey is:

• To determine the presence/likely absence of Great Crested Newt within one pond within 500m of the Site;

• To assess the suitability of the habitat at the Proposed Extension Area for Invertebrates; and

• To identify floral species present in order to determine the plant communities present at the Proposed Extension Area.

1.2.3 The description of the Site and the results of the survey relate to the findings at the time of the field survey visits only; June 2017.

CE-BS-1034-RP03 - FINAL Page 4 19/09/17

Great Crested Newt, Invertebrate and NVC Surveys Proposed Eastern Extension of Bestwood Quarry II, Papplewick, Nottingham

1.3 SITE DESCRIPTION

1.3.1 The Site is located at land east of Mansfield Road, Papplewick in Nottingham. The Site is based within and adjacent to an active sand and gravel quarry. The Site comprises a small section of the existing quarry as well as an area of Woodland to the east. The majority of the surrounding land is used primarily for agricultural purposes and is interspersed with several scattered areas of Woodland.

1.3.2 The red line shown on Plate 1 below indicates the extent of the Site; the Survey Area for the Invertebrate and National Vegetation Classification (‘NVC’) Surveys was located within Woodland of the Proposed Extension Area in the eastern extent of the Site. The Survey Area for Great Crested Newt is detailed within the relevant sections of this report.

1.3.3 In the local area the main habitat wildlife corridors present are: the disused railway line which runs southeast to southwest of the Site and is located approximately 1km from the Site at its closest point. Additionally, numerous hedgerows in the local area also act as corridors for wildlife.

Plate 1 Site Location

CE-BS-1034-RP03 - FINAL Page 5 19/09/17

Great Crested Newt, Invertebrate and NVC Surveys Proposed Eastern Extension of Bestwood Quarry II, Papplewick, Nottingham

2 LEGAL CONTEXT

2.1 GREAT CRESTED NEWT

2.1.1 Great Crested Newts (Triturus cristatus) have suffered major declines over the last century in the UK. A combination of factors are thought to have influenced this decline including:

• Loss of Great Crested Newt breeding and terrestrial habitat;

• Inappropriate/intensive/neglected habitat management;

• Habitat fragmentation and isolation;

• Barriers to dispersal; and

• Pollution from agriculture, industry and roads.

2.1.2 Great Crested Newt are considered to be an internationally important species; they are fully protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) (HMSO, 1981) and under Schedule 2 of Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) (HMSO, 2010), making them a European Protected Species.

2.1.3 It is an offence to knowingly kill, harm, injure or disturb a Great Crested Newt. It is also an offence to damage, destroy or obstruct access to any structure or place used for shelter, protection or breeding by the species; or to disturb it while it is occupying such a structure or place.

2.2 INVERTEBRATES

2.2.1 Invertebrates are fundamental to most ecosystems and are therefore an important consideration in relation to development projects which may affect suitable habitat. The following Invertebrates are European Protected Species (‘EPS’) and protected under European legislation in the UK:

• Large Blue Butterfly (Maculinea arion) (eggs, caterpillars, chrysalises and adults);

• Fisher’s Estuarine Moth (Gortyna borelii) (eggs, caterpillars, chrysalises and adults); and

• Little Ramshorn Whirlpool Snail (Anisus vorticulus).

2.2.2 Sites supporting these species can be designated as a Sites of Special Scientific Interest (‘SSSI’) and Special Areas of Conservation (‘SAC’). It is an offence to:

• Damage or destroy a breeding or resting place (even accidentally);

• Obstruct access to their resting or sheltering places (on purpose or by not taking enough care); and

• Possess, sell, control or transport live or dead protected Invertebrates, or parts of them.

2.2.3 In the UK, in addition to EPS species, there are c.400 Invertebrate species listed on, and protected under, Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), such as the Roman Snail (Helix pomatia) and/or listed as Species of Principal Importance (‘SPI’) under the NERC Act 2006; which protects them under local authority legislation.

CE-BS-1034-RP03 - FINAL Page 6 19/09/17

Great Crested Newt, Invertebrate and NVC Surveys Proposed Eastern Extension of Bestwood Quarry II, Papplewick, Nottingham

2.3 NATIONAL VEGETATION CLASSIFICATION (‘NVC’)

2.3.1 While there is no legal requirement for a National Vegetation Classification (‘NVC’) survey to be conducted, this survey can help to identify important floristic communities. Furthermore, the NVC survey can identify the presence of any Habitats of Principal Importance (‘HPI’) which are protected habitats under the NERC Act 2006.

3 METHODOLOGY

3.1 DESK STUDY

3.1.1 As part of the desk study carried out during the Extended Phase 1 Habitat survey (Crestwood Environmental, 2016), records were requested from the local biological records centre. A summary of this information is provided where relevant.

3.1.2 The desk study also included use of aerial photography and OS mapping to identify suitable habitat for protected species within the Site and the Proposed Extension Area.

3.2 GREAT CRESTED NEWT

Environmental DNA Analysis (‘eDNA’)

3.2.1 The presence of Great Crested Newt in one pond within 500m of the Site was to be determined through the use of Environmental DNA Analysis (‘eDNA’).

3.2.2 According to good practice guidelines (DEFRA, 2014), 20 water samples were to be taken from the margins of the pond included in the survey (where accessible) by an appropriately experienced and licensed surveyor using the correct methodology and equipment. The samples were to be taken during the optimum survey period of 15th April - 30th June according to Natural England protocol (Natural England, 2015) on 29th June 2-17.

3.2.3 The samples were to be taken from evenly spaced locations around the pond margins and all areas of the pond were to be surveyed (where accessible) in order to provide a complete overview of the diversification of the pond in the analysis. The water samples were to be mixed together in a plastic bag, c.15ml of the combined sample was extracted using a pipette and inserted into each of the 6 sterile tubes containing 35ml of ethanol in order to preserve the sample. The six tubes containing the combined ethanol and water samples were to be shaken vigorously in order to mix the sample and the preservative.

3.2.4 The samples were to be stored in a refrigerator between 2-4oC prior to analysis. The samples were to be sent to Crestwood Environmental Ltd. laboratories for eDNA analysis to determine the presence or absence of Great Crested Newt in the sampled water body.

3.2.5 The weather conditions and sedimentation levels were to be considered for sampling.

CE-BS-1034-RP03 - FINAL Page 7 19/09/17

Great Crested Newt, Invertebrate and NVC Surveys Proposed Eastern Extension of Bestwood Quarry II, Papplewick, Nottingham

3.3 INVERTEBRATES

3.3.1 The assessment follows current guidance available for Invertebrate Assessment including Drake et al (Natural England, 2007) and Heaver and Key. (UK Common Standards Monitoring Guidance/Natural England, 2008).

3.3.2 The Invertebrate assessment included an assessment of Invertebrate habitat features, including recording the presence of microhabitats such as:

• Small hydrological features/seepages;

• Condition of old trees/ accumulation of deadwood;

• Warm microclimatic features; and

• Accumulation of Dead Leaf litter.

3.3.3 The survey also assessed the heterogeneity of the vegetation structure and topography of the Site and relation to any ISIS Broad Assemblage Types that may be present.

3.3.4 No specific Invertebrate sampling was undertaken as part of this survey.

3.4 NATIONAL VEGETATION CLASSIFICATION (‘NVC’)

3.4.1 The method used for the NVC Survey is based on guidelines provided by the National Vegetation Classification: User’s Handbook (JNCC, 2006).

3.4.2 Five samples were collected in a random manner using a 2m² quadrat. All the vascular plants rooted or attached within the quadrat were identified accurately and recorded.

3.4.3 For each species recorded, an estimate of its percentage cover within the quadrat was also recorded; this percentage is then converted to the corresponding figure on the DOMIN scale by Modular Analysis of Vegetation Information Systems (‘MAVIS’) software (Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, 2015) which was used to characterise the NVC vegetation types from the results by calculating the percentage match to NVC floristic tables.

3.4.4 Information obtained from quadrats were grouped together and subsequently analysed to assign an overall percentage match to NVC floristic tables for that specific habitat. The percentage match to NVC floristic tables is provided in the results section of this report.

CE-BS-1034-RP03 - FINAL Page 8 19/09/17

Great Crested Newt, Invertebrate and NVC Surveys Proposed Eastern Extension of Bestwood Quarry II, Papplewick, Nottingham

3.5 WEATHER CONDITIONS

3.5.1 Table 1 details the weather conditions at the Site during the ecological surveys.

Table 1 Weather Conditions Ecology Surveys

Weather Survey Date Temperature Cloud Cover Wind Speed Precipitation (°C) (in Octas) (Beaufort scale) Invertebrates 22nd June 19 4 1 None NVC Great Crested Newt 29th June 16 3 1 None

3.6 LIMITATIONS

3.6.1 There were considered to be no significant limitations to the surveys.

4 RESULTS AND EVALUATION

4.1 DESK STUDY

Great Crested Newt

4.1.1 According to OS mapping and aerial photography, there are no ponds within the Site boundary and four ponds within 500m of the Site, three of which are separated from the Site by significant barriers to dispersal for amphibians.

4.1.2 Three of the ponds (Ponds 1-3) are located on the area of active quarry at Bestwood II Quarry (outside the Proposed Extension Area boundary). The layout of the Site including the sheer cliff faces surrounding the ponds and adjacent to the area of Broad-Leaved Woodland in the east, as well as the active working areas within the quarry makes the likelihood of Great Crested Newt dispersal from these ponds to the Site and the Proposed Extension Area highly unlikely.

4.1.3 Pond 4 is located approximately 260m northwest of the Proposed Extension Area at its closest point and is considered to be ecologically connected via interlying areas of Woodland to the north of the Proposed Extension Area. This pond was to be subject to the eDNA survey.

4.1.4 The 500m Great Crested Newt Survey Area and the location of Pond 4 in relation to the Site boundary and the Proposed Extension Area are shown in Plate 2 overleaf.

CE-BS-1034-RP03 - FINAL Page 9 19/09/17

Great Crested Newt, Invertebrate and NVC Surveys Proposed Eastern Extension of Bestwood Quarry II, Papplewick, Nottingham

Plate 2 Great Crested Newt Survey Area – Pond 4

4.1.5 The local biological records showed no records of Great Crested Newt within 2km of the Site.

4.1.6 The terrestrial habitat at the Proposed Extension Area is considered to be of Low suitability for Great Crested Newt as it provides opportunities for foraging, shelter and hibernation. The lack of varied habitat structure and other suitable accompanying habitats being present for Great Crested Newt, such as grassland and hedgerows etc., contributes to the Proposed Extension Area being of lower suitability for the species.

Invertebrates

4.1.7 The majority of records of Terrestrial Invertebrates provided by the local biological record centre were of moth species dated most recently from 2008, located approximately 1.7km southwest of the Site associated with a small area of Woodland.

4.1.8 Four records of butterfly species were also recorded within 2km of the Site. The records are dated from 2015 and associated with the Longdale Lane Plantation Woodland designated as a Local Wildlife Site located approximately 920m east of the Site as its closest point.

4.1.9 No records of aquatic Invertebrates within 2km of the Site were provided by the local biological record centre.

4.2 GREAT CRESTED NEWT

4.2.1 The pond was found to be dry at the time of the survey (see Plate 3) and therefore water samples could not be taken for analysis. Due to the lack of water within this pond, it is considered that Great Crested Newt are likely absent from this pond.

CE-BS-1034-RP03 - FINAL Page 10 19/09/17

Great Crested Newt, Invertebrate and NVC Surveys Proposed Eastern Extension of Bestwood Quarry II, Papplewick, Nottingham

Plate 3 Pond 4 (Within 500m of the Site)

4.3 INVERTEBRATES

4.3.1 The Site is dominated by an unmanaged Woodland plantation, which is dominant with Oak (Quercus robur) and Silver Birch (Betula pendula). There were a few fallen trees and standing deadwood within the Woodland. The Site is considered to include a number of microclimates including:

• Standing Deadwood; and

• Accumulation of Leaf Litter.

CE-BS-1034-RP03 - FINAL Page 11 19/09/17

Great Crested Newt, Invertebrate and NVC Surveys Proposed Eastern Extension of Bestwood Quarry II, Papplewick, Nottingham

Plate 4 Standing Dead wood within Woodland plantation

4.3.2 It has been considered that the trees within the Woodland will support an intrinsic level of Invertebrate interest. Several of the trees are in particular, likely to support saproxylic Invertebrates.

4.3.3 Saproxylic Invertebrates are those that are dependent, during at least some part of their life-cycle, upon dead or dying wood of usually over-mature, damaged or dead trees (standing or fallen), upon wood-inhabiting fungi or upon other species associated with this habitat or upon microhabitats associated with the process of decay of wood, including sap-runs, rot-holes, fungal hyphae and others.

4.3.4 There are over 1,700 species of Invertebrate in the UK which depend to a lesser or greater extent on decaying wood habitat for the successful completion of their lifecycle; this number represents 6% of the total UK Invertebrate fauna. Coleoptera form a major component of this number, and the 700 or so species of saproxylic beetle constitute 17% of the total UK beetle fauna.

4.3.5 The heterogeneity of the Site is uniform, the topography of the Site is relatively flat within the Woodland and the Woodland habitat is considered to be uniform with limited microclimatic

CE-BS-1034-RP03 - FINAL Page 12 19/09/17

Great Crested Newt, Invertebrate and NVC Surveys Proposed Eastern Extension of Bestwood Quarry II, Papplewick, Nottingham

features suitable for Invertebrates.

4.3.6 Overall the Site is considered to be of Low suitability for Invertebrates due to the limited microclimatic features present and the low heterogeneity of the Site as well as the presence of better quality habitat in the wider area.

4.4 NATIONAL VEGETATION CLASSIFICATION (‘NVC’)

4.4.1 The results of the NVC survey are detailed within Table 2 below.

Table 2 NVC Survey Results

Habitat Type NVC % Match to NVC Habitat Description (Non-NVC) Classification Standard Habitat Quercus robur - Pteridium aquilinum - Rubus fruticosus W10d 36.72 Woodland, Holcus lanatus sub-community. W25 32.45 Pteridium aquilinum - Rubus fruticosus underscrub. Mixed Pteridium aquilinum - Rubus fruticosus underscrub, Woodland W25b 30.35 Teucrium scorodonia sub-community. Quercus robur - Pteridium aquilinum - Rubus fruticosus W10c 30.2 Woodland, Hedera helix sub-community.

4.4.2 When analysed, the majority of the habitats did not show a good percentage match to any NVC habitats when compared to the NVC floristic tables. The MAVIS analysis infers some degree of similarity between the species recorded and the NVC floristic tables; however none of the quadrats could be classified as a specific NVC habitat with the results obtained.

4.4.3 The nearest match was W10d – ‘Quercus robur - Pteridium aquilinum - Rubus fruticosus Woodland, Holcus lanatus sub-community’, with a percentage match of 36.72%.

4.4.4 Both W10 and W25 Woodland and scrub communities are common and widespread in lowland Britain and are not known to contain rare plant species. The Woodland is a plantation created approximately 30-40 years ago with no evidence of regular Woodland management. This has been considered within the analysis results from the NVC data, they are indicative only.

CE-BS-1034-RP03 - FINAL Page 13 19/09/17

Great Crested Newt, Invertebrate and NVC Surveys Proposed Eastern Extension of Bestwood Quarry II, Papplewick, Nottingham

5 CONCLUSIONS

5.1.1 Due to the lack of water within Pond 4, it is considered that Great Crested Newt are likely absent from Pond 4, the Site and the Survey Area. The Proposed Extension Area is considered to provide habitat of low suitability only for Great Crested Newt due to the lack of habitat diversity present.

5.1.2 With regards to Invertebrates the Site is considered to be of low suitability for terrestrial Invertebrate species The Site has limited heterogeneity and limited microclimatic features suitable for terrestrial Invertebrates. . Species from the following ISIS Broad Assemblage Types (Natural England, 2007) may be present at the Site :

• Arboreal Canopy (A11);

• Wood Decay (A21);

• Bark and sapwood decay (A212); and

• Fungal fruiting bodies (A213).

5.1.3 Due to the low number of Invertebrate interest features present at the Site an intrinsic assemblage of Invertebrates are likely to be present, in particular Beetles, alongside two winged flies and wasps. Due to the age and size and quality of habitat within the Woodland plantation the species assemblage is not expected to be extensive and common and widespread.

5.1.4 With regards to NVC survey of the Woodland, the results of the analysis did not identify a strong correlation with any specific Woodland and Scrub Vegetation type. The results indicated that the Woodland is common and widespread in lowland Britain.

5.1.5 The impact and effects of the Proposed Development, and associated recommendations, on Great Crested Newt, Invertebrates and flora at the Site is detailed within the EcIA chapter (Report Reference: CE-BS-1034-RP07).

CE-BS-1034-RP03 - FINAL Page 14 19/09/17

Great Crested Newt, Invertebrate and NVC Surveys Proposed Eastern Extension of Bestwood Quarry II, Papplewick, Nottingham

REFERENCES:

° Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, 2015. Modular Analysis of Vegetation Information System (MAVIS). s.l.:Natural Environment Research Council. ° Crestwood Environmental, 2016. Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey Report, s.l.: Crestwood Environmental. ° DEFRA, 2014. Analytical and methodological development for improved surveillance of the Great Crested Newt. Appendix 5. Technical advice note for field and laboratory sampling of Great Crested Newt (Triturus cristatus) environmental DNA” , s.l.: DEFRA. ° HMSO, 1981. The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). London: HMSO. ° HMSO, 2010. The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended). London: HMSO. ° JNCC, 2006. National Vegetation Classification: Users' handbook. s.l.:s.n. ° Natural England, 2007. Surveying Terrestrial and freshwater invertebrates for Conservation Value, s.l.: s.n. ° Natural England, 2015. Great crested newts: surveys and mitigation for development projects, s.l.: Natural England. ° UK Common Standards Monitoring Guidance/Natural England, 2008. Invertebrates, s.l.: s.n.

APPENDICES:

Appendix E1 Figure E3- NVC Survey Location Plan

CE-BS-1034-RP03 - FINAL Page 15 19/09/17

Great Crested Newt, Invertebrate and NVC Surveys Proposed Eastern Extension of Bestwood Quarry II, Papplewick, Nottingham

Appendix E1: Figure E3 – NVC Survey Location Plan

CE-BS-1034-RP03 - FINAL Page 16 19/09/17

APPENDIX E3: POLICY DETAILS

Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan 2005 POLICY M3.17 BIODIVERSITY: Planning permission will not be granted for minerals development which will adversely affect the integrity or continuity of habitats or features identified as priorities in the UK and/ or Nottinghamshire Local Biodiversity Action Plan, unless an overriding need for development is demonstrated which outweighs the nature conservation importance of the feature. If the loss of the habitat or feature cannot be avoided, provision will be made, where practicable, for the creation of an equivalent habitat or feature, either on the development site or under the terms of a voluntary agreement on a suitable alternative location within the county. POLICY M3.20 REGIONAL AND LOCAL DESIGNATED SITES: Planning permission for minerals development in areas which are regional or local designated sites will only be granted where it can be demonstrated that the importance of the development outweighs the regional or local value of the site, taking into account measures to mitigate/compensate against any adverse impact.

APPENDIX E4: BAT ACTIVITY SURVEY REPORT SURVEY REPORT

Proposed Eastern Extension to Bestwood Quarry II, Papplewick, Nottingham.

Bat Activity Survey

Report Reference: CE-BS-1034-RP04 - FINAL

Produced by Crestwood Environmental Ltd.

12 October 2017

Crestwood Report Reference: CE-BS-1034-RP04 - FINAL

Version & Date Written / Updated by: Checked & Authorised by: Status Produced

FINAL 12/10/17 Jaclyn Walker (Ecologist) Lucy Cash (Principal Ecologist)

This report has been prepared in good faith, with all reasonable skill, care and diligence, based on information provided or known available at the time of its preparation and within the scope of work agreement with the Applicant.

All of our ecologists are members of the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management, and are therefore required to adhere to the Institute’s Code of Professional Conduct.

We disclaim any responsibility to the Applicant and others in respect of any matters outside the scope of the above.

The report is provided for the sole use of the named client and is confidential to them and their professional advisors. No responsibility is accepted to others.

Crestwood Environmental Ltd. 1 & 2 Nightingale Place Pendeford Business Park Pendeford Wolverhampton WV9 5HF

Tel: 01902 229 563

Email: [email protected] Web: www.crestwoodenvironmental.co.uk Bat Activity Survey Proposed Eastern Extension at Bestwood Quarry II, Papplewick, Nottingham

CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ...... 4 1.1 BACKGROUND ...... 4 1.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE ...... 4 1.3 THE SITE AND SURROUNDING CONTEXT ...... 4 1.4 LEGAL CONTEXT ...... 5 2 METHODOLOGY AND APPROACH ...... 5 2.1 BACKGROUND ...... 5 2.2 DESK STUDY ...... 5 2.3 HABITAT SUITABILITY ...... 6 2.4 BAT ACTIVITY SURVEYS ...... 7 2.5 LIMITATIONS ...... 8 3 RESULTS ...... 9 3.1 DESK STUDY RESULTS/SUMMARY ...... 9 3.2 HABITAT SUITABILITY ASSESSMENT ...... 9 3.3 BAT ACTIVITY SURVEYS ...... 9 4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 13

LIST OF APPENDICES:

Appendix E1 Figure E4: Bat Activity Survey Plan

LIST OF TABLES: Table 1 Habitat Suitability ...... 6 Table 2 Weather Conditions During Activity (Transect) Surveys ...... 7 Table 3 Automated Monitoring Period Weather Conditions ...... 8 Table 4 Transect Survey Results - 5th May 2017 ...... 10 Table 5 Transect Survey Results - 9th August 2017 ...... 10 Table 6 Transect Survey Results - 13th September 2017 ...... 10 Table 7 Automated Survey Results - May 2017 ...... 11 Table 8 Automated Survey Results - August 2017 ...... 12 Table 9 Automated Survey Results - September 2017 ...... 12

CE-BS-1034-RP04 - FINAL Page 2 12/10/2017

Bat Activity Survey Proposed Eastern Extension at Bestwood Quarry II, Papplewick, Nottingham

SUMMARY

The Bat activity survey detailed in this report was carried out under instruction from DL Walker Ltd. (‘the Planning Co-Ordinator’) on behalf of Tarmac Ltd. (‘the Client’) to assess the levels of Bat activity in order to inform and support a planning application for the Proposed Eastern Extension at land east of Bestwood Quarry II, Papplewick, Nottingham (‘the Site’).

An Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey was carried out by Crestwood Environmental Ltd. (‘CEL’) in May 2016, which identified habitats present at the Site considered to be suitable for use by Bats. Bat activity surveys were recommended based on the potential of the Proposed Development to affect Bats and their habitat.

One static detector was deployed at one point along the transect (for 5 consecutive days each season (Spring: May, Summer: August and Autumn: September 2017) in order to gain information on species of Bats and the levels of Bat activity at the Site.

Five Bat species were recorded at the Site during the surveys. The majority of the activity at the Site was Common Pipistrelle Bat.

No roosting Bat activity was recorded at the Site and the levels of activity were concentrated within the Proposed Extension Site.

CE-BS-1034-RP04 - FINAL Page 3 12/10/17

Bat Activity Survey Proposed Eastern Extension at Bestwood Quarry II, Papplewick, Nottingham

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND

1.1.1 Crestwood Environmental Ltd. has been appointed by DL Walker Ltd. (‘the Planning Co-Ordinator’) on behalf of Tarmac Ltd. (‘the Client’) to undertake Bat Activity Surveys at land at, and land to the east of, Bestwood II Quarry, Papplewick, Nottingham - centred at National Grid Reference (NGR) SK 56920 52502 (‘the Site’).

1.1.2 The Client is applying for planning permission for a proposed extension of mineral extraction operations with associated vegetation clearance (‘the Proposed Development’) east of the existing sand and gravel quarry, Bestwood Quarry II (‘the Existing Quarry Site’). The Proposed Development is land east of the Existing Quarry Area (‘the Proposed Extension Area’).

1.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE

1.2.1 The purpose of this survey, assessment and report was to provide ecological advice specifically relating to Bats in respect of the Proposed Development:

1.2.2 The main scope of the survey was to:

• To identify the level of Bat activity at the site; and

• To identify the habitats used by Bats at the Site.

1.2.3 The results of the surveys relate to the findings at the time of the field surveys only (between May and September 2017). Weather conditions for each survey can be found in Table 2 in Section 0.

1.3 THE SITE AND SURROUNDING CONTEXT

1.3.1 The Site is located at land east of Mansfield Road, Papplewick in Nottingham. The Site is based within and adjacent to an active sand and gravel quarry, comprising a small section of that quarry as well as an area of woodland to the east. The majority of the surrounding land is used primarily for agricultural purposes and is interspersed with several scattered areas of woodland.

1.3.2 The red line shown on Figure E4 (see Appendix E1) indicates the extent of the Site and Survey Area.

1.3.3 In the local area the main habitat wildlife corridors for Bats are: the disused railway line which runs southeast to southwest of the Site and is located approximately 1km from the Site at its closest point. Additionally, numerous hedgerows in the local area also act as corridors for Bats and other wildlife.

CE-BS-1034-RP04 - FINAL Page 4 12/10/17

Bat Activity Survey Proposed Eastern Extension at Bestwood Quarry II, Papplewick, Nottingham

1.4 LEGAL CONTEXT

1.4.1 Bats and their roosting sites are strictly protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) (HMSO, 1981), which makes it an offence to disturb a Bat while it is occupying a structure or place which it uses for shelter or protection. The Act also makes it an offence to obstruct access to any structure or place which a Bat uses for shelter or protection.

1.4.2 Bats are also protected under The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) (HMSO, 2010); these Regulations make it an offence to deliberately capture, injure, kill or disturb a Bat. It is also an offence under the Regulations to damage or destroy a breeding site or resting place of a Bat; and to impair their ability to survive, breed, reproduce, hibernate or migrate.

1.4.3 Under Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 (HMSO, 2006), all public authorities have a duty to have regard for conserving biodiversity in the exercise of its functions. Section 41 of the Act provides a list of habitats and species of principal importance for the for the purpose of conserving biodiversity.

1.4.4 Of the twelve species of Bat regularly recorded in Nottinghamshire, four are also listed in Section 41 of the NERC Act 2006 as priority species: Noctule Bat (Nyctalus noctula); Soprano Pipistrelle Bat (Pipistrellus pygmaeus); Brown Long-Eared Bat (Plecotus auritus) and Barbastelle Bat (Barbastella barbastellus).

2 METHODOLOGY AND APPROACH

2.1 BACKGROUND

2.1.1 Based on industry standard best practice, activity surveys were carried out to determine the type and level of Bat activity at the Site. A combination of transect and automated surveys were carried out. An Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey was conducted at the Site during May 2016 that identified habitats present at the Site that were suitable for Bats.

2.1.2 The habitats were assessed as being of Low suitability for foraging and commuting Bats according to the guidelines set out in Table 1 in Section 2.3.

2.1.3 The surveys were led by Lucy Cash (Principal Ecologist) of Crestwood Environmental who holds a Class 1 and Class 2 Bat survey licence (Ref. Number: 2015-14841-CLS-CLS).

2.2 DESK STUDY

2.2.1 A desk study was carried out as part of the initial Extended Phase 1 Habitat survey, which included a search of existing Bat records for the Site and a 2km radius from the centre of the Site. The results of the desk study are summarised in this report where relevant.

2.2.2 National and local planning policy relating to nature conservation and the Proposed Development has been detailed in report: (CE-BS-1034-RP01).

CE-BS-1034-RP04 - FINAL Page 5 12/10/17

Bat Activity Survey Proposed Eastern Extension at Bestwood Quarry II, Papplewick, Nottingham

2.3 HABITAT SUITABILITY

2.3.1 A desk study and assessment of habitats was carried out for their suitability for Bats to classify the Site to a level of Bat suitability following industry-standard survey guidelines (Collins, 2016).

2.3.2 All habitats within the Site and ecologically connected habitats in the wider area were assessed in accordance with industry-standard best practice (Collins, 2016). Based on the results of this assessment, the habitats were categorised according to their potential suitability for foraging and commuting Bats as follows in Table 1 below (based on (Collins, 2016)).

Table 1 Habitat Suitability

Suitability Commuting and Foraging Habitats Negligible Negligible habitat features on Site likely to be used by commuting or foraging Bats. Low Habitat that could be used by small numbers of commuting Bats such as a gappy hedgerow or un- vegetated stream, but isolated, i.e. not very well connected to the surrounding landscape by other habitat. Suitable, but isolated habitat that could be used by small numbers of foraging Bats such as a lone tree (not in parkland situation) or a patch of scrub. Moderate Continuous habitat connected to the wider landscape that could be used by Bats for commuting such as lines of trees and scrub linked back gardens. Habitat that is connected to the wider landscape that could be used by Bats for foraging such as trees, scrub, grassland or water. High Continuous, high-quality habitat that is well connected to the wider landscape that is likely to be used regularly by commuting Bats such as river valleys, streams, hedgerows, lines of trees and woodland edge. High-quality habitat that is well connected to the wider landscape that is likely to be used regularly for foraging Bats such as broad-leaved woodland, tree-lines watercourses and grazed parkland. Site is close to and connected to known roosts.

CE-BS-1034-RP04 - FINAL Page 6 12/10/17

Bat Activity Survey Proposed Eastern Extension at Bestwood Quarry II, Papplewick, Nottingham

2.4 BAT ACTIVITY SURVEYS

Transect/Point Count Surveys

2.4.1 In line with current guidance for habitat of low suitability one survey visit comprising a walked transect/spot count survey was undertaken each season; spring - April/May, summer - June/July/August and autumn - September/October 2017.

2.4.2 The transect routes covered all habitats likely to be impacted by the Proposed Development, with particular focus on the higher quality habitats present, such as woodland within the Site.

2.4.3 One transect was undertaken at the Site, using a number of spot/point counts within key habitats at the Site along each transect route. This involved surveyors remaining stationary at a maximum of 7 points along the walked transect where features of higher habitat quality and habitat corridors for Bats were found. The locations of the points were determined during the desk study and Phase 1 habitat survey.

2.4.4 The Transect route is detailed on Figure E4 in Appendix E1. Weather details are provided in Table 2.

Table 2 Weather Conditions During Activity (Transect) Surveys

Cloud Survey Sunset/Sunrise Temperature Wind speed Date Precipitation Cover (in Type time ( C) (Beaufort scale) ° Octas) 5th May 2017 Dusk 20:40 20 None 4 1 9th August 2017 Dusk 20:44 16 None 0 1 13th September Dawn 06:35 14 None 6 6 2017

2.4.5 Dusk transect surveys commenced at sunset, continuing for two hours after sunset. Dawn surveys commenced two hours before sunrise and ended at sunrise, or if Bats still active after sunrise, when Bat activity was no longer observed.

Automated Surveys

2.4.6 In line with best practice for habitat of low suitability, an automated Bat detector (AnaBat Express) was installed at the Site at a single location along the transect, which recorded activity on five consecutive nights per season in May, August and September 2017.

2.4.7 The detector was scheduled to record all Bat activity from sunset until sunrise throughout the monitoring period. The weather conditions during this time can be found in Table 3.

CE-BS-1034-RP04 - FINAL Page 7 12/10/17

Bat Activity Survey Proposed Eastern Extension at Bestwood Quarry II, Papplewick, Nottingham

Table 3 Automated Monitoring Period Weather Conditions

Sunset Sunrise Overnight temp. Wind speed Month Date Precipitation time time range (°C) (Beaufort scale) 23rd 21:09 04:54 12 - 10 None 2 24th 21:10 04:53 13 - 11 None 2 May 2017 25th 21:12 04:52 17 - 15 None 1 26th 21:13 04:51 17 - 13 None 3 27th 21:14 04:49 14 - 12 None 2 12th 20:37 05:40 16 - 14 None 2 13th 20:35 05:42 11 - 8 None 2 August 14th 20:33 05:44 14 - 12 None 1 2017 15th 20:31 05:45 15 - 13 None 2 16th 20:29 05:47 12 - 11 None 1 12th 19:27 06:33 11 - 10 None 2 13th 19:24 06:35 14 - 11 None 3 September 14th 19:22 06:37 9 – 8 None 2 2017 15th 19:19 06:38 9 - 6 None 2 16th 19:17 06:40 9 - 8 None 1

2.5 LIMITATIONS

2.5.1 Other applications or non-implemented consents within the local area have not been considered, and therefore the assessment of impacts and effects pertains solely to those associated with the Proposed Development and not cumulative effects arising from impacts from other developments in the local area.

CE-BS-1034-RP04 - FINAL Page 8 12/10/17

Bat Activity Survey Proposed Eastern Extension at Bestwood Quarry II, Papplewick, Nottingham

3 RESULTS

3.1 DESK STUDY RESULTS/SUMMARY

3.1.1 Several records of Bat species within 2km of the Site were provided by the local biological records centre. Four species have been recorded including: Common Pipistrelle Bat (Pipistrellus pipistrellus), Soprano Pipistrelle Bat, Noctule Bat and Brown Long-Eared Bat.

3.1.2 Several records of Bat roosts were provided by the local biological record centre. The most recent record is dated from 2001 and is located approximately 1.7km south of the Site. The two closest roost records are of Brown Long-Eared roosts dated from 2002 and 2004 located approximately 880m and 1km east of the Site respectively.

3.2 HABITAT SUITABILITY ASSESSMENT

3.2.1 The habitats at the Site were assessed as being of Low suitability for foraging and commuting Bats during the Extended Phase 1 Habitat survey conducted on 16th May 2016.

3.2.2 The habitats at the Site suitable for foraging and commuting Bats are primarily located within the woodland, particularly the open spaces and woodland edge habitat.

3.2.3 It was considered that, given the surrounding habitats of the Site and the features within the Site, the Site is of Low suitability for Bats, in accordance with the guidelines in Table 1.

3.3 BAT ACTIVITY SURVEYS

Transect/Point Count Surveys

3.3.1 Overall, activity was recorded across the entire Site. The majority of activity was foraging in open glades of the woodland and where woodland edge habitat was present.

3.3.2 The Site is primarily used by foraging Bats. The results for each survey are shown in Table 4, Table 5 and Table 6 overleaf.

3.3.3 A map of the transect route and location of the point counts is shown in Figure E4 in Appendix E1.

CE-BS-1034-RP04 - FINAL Page 9 12/10/17

Bat Activity Survey Proposed Eastern Extension at Bestwood Quarry II, Papplewick, Nottingham

Table 4 Transect Survey Results - 5th May 2017

Time Location Species Activity 21:29 1-2 Common Pipistrelle Heard not seen, faint 21:33 2 Soprano pipistrelle 1 pass 21:52 4 Common Pipistrelle 1 pass and foraging 21:53 4 Myotis sp. 1 pass 22:02 4-5 Common Pipistrelle 1 pass 22:16 - 22:21 6 Common Pipistrelle Foraging 22:29 6-7 Common Pipistrelle x2 Foraging 23:09 8 Common Pipistrelle 1 pass

Table 5 Transect Survey Results - 9th August 2017

Time Location Species Activity 21:19 3 Common Pipistrelle 1 pass 21:46 5 Common Pipistrelle 1 pass and foraging 21:57 5 Common Pipistrelle 1 pass 22:14 6 Common Pipistrelle 1 pass and foraging

Table 6 Transect Survey Results - 13th September 2017

Time Location Species Activity Several passes and 05:05 1 Soprano Pipistrelle foraging 05:10 1 Soprano Pipistrelle 1 pass 05:45 4 Common Pipistrelle 1 pass and foraging

3.3.4 Three Bat species were recorded during the activity surveys; Common Pipistrelle Bat, Soprano Pipistrelle Bat and unidentified Myotis sp. Bat. The highest levels of activity were recorded during the activity survey conducted in May.

CE-BS-1034-RP04 - FINAL Page 10 12/10/17

Bat Activity Survey Proposed Eastern Extension at Bestwood Quarry II, Papplewick, Nottingham

Automated Surveys

3.3.5 The majority of activity was Common Pipistrelle Bat and unidentified Myotis species. Soprano Pipistrelle Bat and Noctule Bat were also recorded.

3.3.6 The results of the automated surveys are shown in Table 7, Table 8 and Table 9. The location of the automated survey equipment can be found on Figure E4 in Appendix E1.

Table 7 Automated Survey Results - May 2017

Date Species Number of Passes Common Pipistrelle 39 23rd May Soprano Pipistrelle 9 Myotis sp. 16 Common Pipistrelle 24 24th May Soprano Pipistrelle 9 Myotis sp. 32 Common Pipistrelle 19 25th May Soprano Pipistrelle 9 Myotis sp. 30 Common Pipistrelle 28 26th May Soprano Pipistrelle 9 Myotis sp. 24 Common Pipistrelle 12 27th May Soprano Pipistrelle 11 Myotis sp. 15

3.3.7 A total of 286 Bat passes were recorded throughout the monitoring period in May.

CE-BS-1034-RP04 - FINAL Page 11 12/10/17

Bat Activity Survey Proposed Eastern Extension at Bestwood Quarry II, Papplewick, Nottingham

Table 8 Automated Survey Results - August 2017

Date Species Number of Passes Common Pipistrelle 38 12th August Soprano Pipistrelle 7 Myotis sp. 21 Common Pipistrelle 48 13th August Soprano Pipistrelle 16 Myotis sp. 28 Common Pipistrelle 46 14th August Soprano Pipistrelle 18 Myotis sp. 6 Common Pipistrelle 49 15th August Soprano Pipistrelle 5 Myotis sp. 22 Common Pipistrelle 33 Soprano Pipistrelle 22 16th August Myotis sp. 1 Noctule 3

3.3.8 A total of 363 Bat passes were recorded throughout the monitoring period in August.

Table 9 Automated Survey Results - September 2017

Date Species Number of Passes 12th September Soprano Pipistrelle 1 Soprano Pipistrelle 3 13th September Myotis sp. 25 Common Pipistrelle 2 Soprano Pipistrelle 9 14th September Myotis sp. 18 Noctule 1 Common Pipistrelle 8 15th September Soprano Pipistrelle 6 Myotis sp. 12 16th September Soprano Pipistrelle 1

CE-BS-1034-RP04 - FINAL Page 12 12/10/17

Bat Activity Survey Proposed Eastern Extension at Bestwood Quarry II, Papplewick, Nottingham

3.3.9 A total of 86 Bat passes were recorded throughout the monitoring period in September.

3.3.10 The majority of Bat passes were recorded in August and the fewest were recorded in September.

3.3.11 Some of the Myotis sp. calls are considered likely to be attributed to Natterer’s Bat (Myotis nattereri).

3.3.12 Noctule Bat was recorded using the static detector in August, which was not recorded throughout the monitoring period for May or September.

4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1.1 Although suitable PRF’s were identified on several trees present at the Site, no trees were identified as Bat roosts during the surveys.

4.1.2 Numerous Bat records within 2km of the Site were provided by the local biological records centre, as well as several Bat roosts in the local area.

4.1.3 The Site offers suitable habitat for foraging and commuting Bats. Habitat adjacent to the Site considered suitable for foraging and commuting Bats includes arable fields and hedgerows. In the wider area, the large areas of woodland provide further habitat for Bats.

4.1.4 Five Bat species were recorded during the surveys:

• Common Pipistrelle Bat;

• Soprano Pipistrelle Bat;

• Myotis sp.;

• Myotis sp. likely to be considered Natterer’s Bat; and

• Noctule Bat.

4.1.5 The most Bat activity was recorded during May and August. The automated surveys recorded a higher number of Bat species than the walked transects, including Noctule Bat.

4.1.6 It is recommended that any post-construction lighting should be directional, avoiding illumination of edge habitats, particularly woodland, and be installed following best practice guidance.

4.1.7 Updated Bat activity surveys should be carried out if the Proposed Development does not commence within two years of the date of this report.

4.1.8 Further analysis of the results and recommendations for mitigation measures are detailed in the EcIA report (Report Reference: CE-BS-1034-RP07).

CE-BS-1034-RP04 - FINAL Page 13 12/10/17

Bat Activity Survey Proposed Eastern Extension at Bestwood Quarry II, Papplewick, Nottingham

REFERENCES:

° Collins, J. (., 2016. Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines. 3rd ed. London: The Bat Conservation Trust. ° HMSO, 1981. The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). London: HMSO. ° HMSO, 2006. Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. London: HMSO. ° HMSO, 2010. The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. London: HMSO.

APPENDICES:

Appendix E1 Figure E4 – Bat Activity Survey Plan

CE-BS-1034-RP04 - FINAL Page 14 12/10/17

Bat Activity Survey Proposed Eastern Extension at Bestwood Quarry II, Papplewick, Nottingham

Appendix E1: Figure E4 - Bat Activity Survey Plan

CE-BS-1034-RP04 - FINAL 12/10/17

0m 60m 150m

See bar scale

Final

APPENDIX E5: BADGER AND REPTILE SURVEY REPORT

Proposed Eastern Extension to Bestwood Quarry II, Papplewick, Nottingham.

Badger and Reptile Surveys

Report Reference: CE-BS-1034-RP05 - FINAL

Produced by Crestwood Environmental Ltd.

12 October 2017

Crestwood Report Reference: CE-BS-1034-RP05 - FINAL:

Version & Date Survey Licence No. Written / Updated by: Checked & Authorised by: Status Produced (If applicable)

FINAL 12/10/17 Jaclyn Walker (Ecologist) Lucy Cash (Principal Ecologist)

This report has been prepared in good faith, with all reasonable skill, care and diligence, based on information provided or known available at the time of its preparation and within the scope of work agreement with the client.

All of our ecologists are members of the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management, and are therefore required to adhere to the Institute’s Code of Professional Conduct.

We disclaim any responsibility to the client and others in respect of any matters outside the scope of the above.

The report is provided for the sole use of the named client and is confidential to them and their professional advisors. No responsibility is accepted to others.

Crestwood Environmental Ltd. 1-2 Nightingale Place Pendeford Business Park Wobaston Road Pendeford West Midlands WV9 5HF

Fax: 01902 229 563

Email: [email protected] Web: www.crestwoodenvironmental.co.uk Badger and Reptile Surveys Proposed Eastern Extension of Bestwood Quarry II, Papplewick, Nottingham

CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ...... 4 1.1 BACKGROUND ...... 4 1.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE ...... 4 1.3 SITE DESCRIPTION ...... 5 2 LEGAL CONTEXT...... 6 2.1 BADGER ...... 6 2.2 REPTILES ...... 6 3 METHODOLOGY ...... 6 3.1 DEFINING THE ZONE OF INFLUENCE (‘ZoI’) ...... 6 3.2 DESK STUDY ...... 7 3.3 BADGER ...... 7 3.4 REPTILES ...... 8 3.5 WEATHER CONDITIONS ...... 9 3.6 TERMINOLOGY ...... 9 3.7 LIMITATIONS ...... 9 4 RESULTS AND EVALUATION ...... 10 4.1 DESK STUDY ...... 10 4.2 BADGER ...... 10 4.3 REPTILES ...... 11 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 11

LIST OF APPENDICES:

APPENDIX E1 Figure E2 – Reptile Mat and Potential Badger Hole Location Plan

LIST OF TABLES: Table 1 ZoI of Ecological Features ...... 7 Table 2 Weather Conditions Ecology Surveys ...... 9

CE-BS-1034-RP05 - FINAL Page 2 12/10/17

Badger and Reptile Surveys Proposed Eastern Extension of Bestwood Quarry II, Papplewick, Nottingham

SUMMARY

Ecological surveys were carried out by Crestwood Environmental Ltd. as requested by DL Walker (‘the Planning Co-Ordinator’) on behalf of Tarmac Ltd. (‘the Client’) at land east of Bestwood Quarry II, Mansfield Road, Papplewick in Nottinghamshire (‘the Site’).

The following ecological surveys were carried out at the Site throughout 2017 and are detailed within this report:

• Badger Survey; and

• Reptile Presence/Likely Absence Survey;

Several potential Badger holes were found at the Site during the survey. The potential Badger holes were monitored using a trail camera between 9th August and 4th October 2017.

No Badgers were recorded using the holes throughout the monitoring period and no other evidence of Badger at or within 30m of the Site was found during the survey.

No Reptiles were recorded at the Site during the surveys.

No further surveys are recommended for Badger or Reptiles, however if the Proposed Development does not commence within two years, update surveys are recommended to be undertaken at the Site.

CE-BS-1034-RP05 - FINAL Page 3 12/10/17

Badger and Reptile Surveys Proposed Eastern Extension of Bestwood Quarry II, Papplewick, Nottingham

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND

1.1.1 Crestwood Environmental Ltd. (CEL) has been appointed by DL Walker on behalf of Tarmac Ltd. (‘the Client’) to undertake ecological surveys at land to the east of Bestwood Quarry II, Papplewick, Nottingham centred at National Grid Reference (NGR) SK 57335 52483 (‘the Site’).

1.1.2 The Client is applying for planning permission for a proposed eastern extension of mineral extraction operations (‘the Proposed Development’) from the existing sand and gravel quarry (‘the Existing Quarry Site’) into land to the east of the Existing Quarry Site (‘The Proposed Extension Area’).

1.1.3 The need for the surveys was identified during an Extended Phase 1 Habitat survey/desk study carried out by CEL in May 2016 (Crestwood Environmental, 2016). The survey/desk study recorded the presence of habitats suitable for protected species at the land comprising the Proposed Extension Area, as shown by the red line boundary in Plate 1 overleaf which will be referred to as ‘the Site’ for the remainder of this report.

1.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE

1.2.1 The purpose of the surveys, assessment and report is to provide ecological advice in respect of the design and construction of the Proposed Development.

1.2.2 The scope of the survey is:

• To assess the suitability of the habitat at the Site for Badger;

• To determine the use of the Site by Badger;

• To assess the suitability of habitat at the Site for Reptiles; and

• To determine the presence/likely absence of Reptiles at the Site.

1.2.3 The description of the Site and the results of the survey relate to the findings at the time of the field survey visits only between May and October 2017.

CE-BS-1034-RP05 - FINAL Page 4 12/10/17

Badger and Reptile Surveys Proposed Eastern Extension of Bestwood Quarry II, Papplewick, Nottingham

1.3 SITE DESCRIPTION

1.3.1 The Site is located at land east of Mansfield Road, Papplewick in Nottingham (see Plate 1). The Site is based within and adjacent to an active sand and gravel quarry, comprising a small section of that quarry as well as an area of woodland to the east. The majority of the surrounding land is used primarily for agricultural purposes and is interspersed with several scattered areas of woodland.

1.3.2 The red line shown on Figure E2 (see Appendix E1) indicates the extent of the Site and Survey Area.

1.3.3 In the local area the main habitat wildlife corridors present are: the disused railway line which runs southeast to southwest of the Site and is located approximately 1km from the Site at its closest point. Additionally, numerous hedgerows in the local area also act as corridors for wildlife.

Plate 1 Site Location

CE-BS-1034-RP05 - FINAL Page 5 12/10/17

Badger and Reptile Surveys Proposed Eastern Extension of Bestwood Quarry II, Papplewick, Nottingham

2 LEGAL CONTEXT

2.1 BADGER

2.1.1 Badgers (Meles meles) and their setts are protected in the UK under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 (HMSO, 1992) making it an offence to:

• Attempt or wilfully kill, injure or take a Badger;

• Cruelly ill-treat a Badger, dig for Badgers, using Badger tongs, using a firearm other than the type specified under the exceptions within the Act;

• Damage, destroy, obstruct access to or otherwise interfere with a Badger sett, causing a dog to enter a sett, disturbing an occupied sett - either by intent or by negligence;

• Selling or offering for sale a live Badger, having possession or control of a live Badger; and

• Marking a Badger or attaching any ring, tag, or other marking device to a Badger.

2.2 REPTILES

2.2.1 All six native UK Reptile species are protected from injury and/or killing by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) (HMSO, 1981 ). In addition two of these species (Sand Lizard (Lacerta agilis) and Smooth Snake (Coronella austriaca)) are also protected from injury, killing, capture and disturbance, and damage or destruction of their habitat under The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) (HMSO, 2010). All six native Reptile species are listed in Section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 as Species of Principal Importance.

3 METHODOLOGY

3.1 DEFINING THE ZONE OF INFLUENCE (‘ZOI’)

3.1.1 The potential impact of a development is not always limited to the boundaries of the site concerned. The development may also have the potential to impact on ecologically valuable sites, habitats or species beyond the site boundaries. The area over which a development may impact ecologically valuable receptors is known as the Zone of Influence (ZoI).

3.1.2 The ZoI is determined by the source/type of impact, a potential pathway for that impact and the location and sensitivity of the ecologically valuable receptor beyond the boundary. For the majority of (unmitigated) impacts identified as part of the Proposed Development, the ZoI is generally considered to be the application site and immediately adjacent areas.

3.1.3 In ecological terms, the ZoI can also vary considerably depending upon the species potentially affected by the proposed development. For example, some species may be confined to a specific location whilst others, such as birds and Bats, are more mobile and can occupy larger territories or home ranges. The ZoI is also likely to be influenced by the presence of dispersal barriers, such as roads and hardstanding, which either stop or reduce the likelihood of animals crossing it. As a consequence this could isolate areas of potentially suitable habitat within the application site due to fragmentation.

CE-BS-1034-RP05 - FINAL Page 6 12/10/17

Badger and Reptile Surveys Proposed Eastern Extension of Bestwood Quarry II, Papplewick, Nottingham

3.1.4 The ZoI for species or species groups has been determined by research and the professional judgement of the ecologist. For example, Common Lizards (Zootoca vivipara) have restricted mobility and generally occupy smaller home ranges (up to 700m2) (Langton & Beckett, 1995).

3.1.5 The ZoI for the ecological features at the Site has been assessed using a combination of desk study, current survey guidance, survey results and dispersal capabilities for species present, or potentially present within the ZoI of the Proposed Development as shown in Table 1. These are based on professional judgement only and are subject to change depending on type and scale of development.

Table 1 ZoI of Ecological Features

Ecological Feature ZoI Reptiles 1km Badger 30m

3.1.6 Site specific zone of influence is referred to in terms of suitable habitat for protected species within the relevant sections of this report.

3.2 DESK STUDY

3.2.1 As part of the desk study carried out during the Extended Phase 1 Habitat survey (Crestwood Environmental, 2016), records were requested from the Nottinghamshire Biological and Geological Records Centre (Nottinghamshire Biological and Geological Records Centre, 2016). A summary of this information is provided where relevant.

3.2.2 The desk study also included use of aerial photography and OS mapping to identify suitable habitat for Badger and Reptiles at the Site.

3.3 BADGER

Field Survey

3.3.1 A survey for Badger was carried out following recognised guidance (Harris et al, 1989). All potential habitats within the Site, plus 30m outside of the Site boundary, where accessible, were surveyed for evidence of Badger activity, and specifically for the presence of setts. Field signs searched for included active or inactive setts, Badger pathways, latrines, hair, discolouring of and damage to fencing, signs of foraging and feeding remains.

Badger Monitoring

3.3.2 Any potential Badger holes found during the initial field survey were monitored using trail cameras to determine the use of the holes by Badger or other wildlife at the Site.

3.3.3 The monitoring period was between 9th August and 4th October 2017.

CE-BS-1034-RP05 - FINAL Page 7 12/10/17

Badger and Reptile Surveys Proposed Eastern Extension of Bestwood Quarry II, Papplewick, Nottingham

3.4 REPTILES

Habitat Suitability Assessment

3.4.1 An assessment of the suitability of the habitats present at the Site for Reptile was conducted through the use of the MAGIC map (DEFRA, 2017) and aerial photography prior to the field survey in order to identify potential habitats of high suitability for Reptiles. The results of this desk based assessment were used to inform the field survey.

3.4.2 Prior to the commencement of the field surveys, a site walk over survey was conducted and the habitats were assessed for their suitability for Reptiles.

3.4.3 Habitats features which are suitable for Reptiles can vary depending on the species, however general habitat characteristics which are suitable for all Reptiles include:

• Variable vegetation structure;

• Sufficient size and connectivity;

• Sheltered areas for refuge;

• Foraging opportunities; and

• Basking areas.

Field Survey

3.4.4 The chosen survey methods were based on guidelines provided by Froglife Advice Sheet 10 (Froglife; 1999). 50 0.5m x 0.5m Reptile mats made from roofing felt were initially laid out within suitable Reptile habitat at the Site (as identified by the habitat suitability assessment). During the survey visit the refugia were numbered and their locations were marked on a map (see Appendix E1).

3.4.5 After an appropriate ‘bedding in’ period, typically one week, the refugia were then checked seven times in suitable weather conditions (see Table 2) for Reptiles taking shelter beneath them or basking on/nearby in order to establish the relative abundance of Reptiles at the Site.

3.4.6 Good practice guidelines provided by Froglife (Froglife, 1999) recommend if Reptiles are found to be present within the first seven visits, then a total of 20 visits should be conducted to establish an estimated population size.

3.4.7 Any Reptiles found at the Site were identified to species level, mapped and counted.

CE-BS-1034-RP05 - FINAL Page 8 12/10/17

Badger and Reptile Surveys Proposed Eastern Extension of Bestwood Quarry II, Papplewick, Nottingham

3.5 WEATHER CONDITIONS

3.5.1 Table 2 details the weather conditions at the Site during the ecological surveys.

Table 2 Weather Conditions Ecology Surveys

Weather Survey Date Time Temperature Cloud Cover Wind Speed Precipitation (°C) (in Octas) (Beaufort scale) Badger - Field Survey 22/06/2017 - 19 4 1 None 12/07/2017 AM 18 4 1 None 04/08/2017 AM 17 1 2 None 29/08/2017 PM 17 6 0 None Reptile 06/09/2017 PM 15 7 1 None 12/09/2017 AM 15 3 0 None 19/09/2017 PM 14 1 1 None 05/10/2017 PM 13 4 1 None

3.6 TERMINOLOGY

3.6.1 The term ‘Potential Badger Hole’ refers to a hole in the ground that is considered suitable for use by Badger, however cannot be confirmed to be actively used by Badger at the time of the survey, due to lack of physical evidence such as footprints, hair, fresh bedding within the entrance etc. The hole is approximately the right size and shape (broader than they are tall) typically made by Badger.

3.7 LIMITATIONS

3.7.1 At the time of the Badger survey the ground flora was very dense and dominated by Bramble (Rubus fruticosus) and Bracken (Pteridium aquilium) which may have potentially obscured some evidence of Badger from view.

3.7.2 Due to the time of year, as the Reptile survey went on, the vegetation at the Site developed (both ground flora and woodland canopy) which resulted in some shading and therefore cooling of the Reptile mats at certain times of day, mats were relocated if necessary.

CE-BS-1034-RP05 - FINAL Page 9 12/10/17

Badger and Reptile Surveys Proposed Eastern Extension of Bestwood Quarry II, Papplewick, Nottingham

4 RESULTS AND EVALUATION

4.1 DESK STUDY

Badger

4.1.1 Four Badger records within 2km of the Site were provided by the local biological records centre. Three records were road casualties and one record was of a Badger sett. The Badger sett record was dated from 2015 and was located approximately 1.8km south of the Site.

Reptiles

4.1.2 Several records for Common Lizard (Zootoca vivipara) within 2km of the Site were provided by the local biological record centre. The majority of records are dated from 2012 and associated with a small area of woodland located approximately 910m north of the Site.

4.1.3 The most recent record is dated from 2013 and is located approximately 1.4km southeast of the Site at its closest point.

4.2 BADGER

Field Survey

4.2.1 Four potential Badger holes were identified during the survey. Three were situated close together and the fourth was a solitary hole.

4.2.2 The cluster of potential Badger holes were considered to be inactive at the time of the survey as there was no fresh spoil present, all three entrances were filled with debris (sticks, leaves and some rocks) and some cobwebs were present.

4.2.3 The solitary hole of was considered to be partially-active at the time of the survey as the entrance was free of debris and the spoil outside the entrance appeared recently disturbed.

4.2.4 No other evidence of Badger, such as prints or hairs, was found within the potential Badger holes or within close proximity to any of the holes.

4.2.5 No other evidence of Badger (i.e. digging, latrine, hair etc.) was found to be present at or within 30m of the Site (where accessible) at the time of the survey.

4.2.6 Two Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes) were observed at the Site during the survey close to the single hole. It is considered that the holes could potentially be occupied by Red Fox even though no distinctive scent was detected near any of the holes.

Badger Monitoring

4.2.7 No Badgers were recorded using any of the holes throughout the monitoring period.

CE-BS-1034-RP05 - FINAL Page 10 12/10/17

Badger and Reptile Surveys Proposed Eastern Extension of Bestwood Quarry II, Papplewick, Nottingham

4.3 REPTILES

Habitat Suitability Assessment

4.3.1 Suitable Reptile habitat was identified at the Site during the desk study through the use of OS maps and aerial photography (DEFRA, 2017). The presence of suitable Reptile habitat was confirmed during the Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey conducted in 2016 (Crestwood Environmental, 2016).

4.3.2 These habitats were limited to the woodland, specifically the open glades. The glades within the woodland at the Site provide opportunities for Reptiles to bask and the woodland itself provides opportunities for Reptiles to forage and take shelter.

4.3.3 For the survey the refugia mats were placed within the glades (see Figure E2 in Appendix E1).

Field Survey Results

4.3.4 No Reptiles were found at the Site during the surveys.

4.3.5 It is considered the limited structure of the woodland and the development of the woodland canopy and ground flora throughout the Reptile active period reduces the suitability of the Site for Reptiles due to a lack of sunlight reaching the woodland floor for basking.

5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1.1 The Site was considered to provide suitable habitat for foraging and sett building Badger.

5.1.2 Several potential Badger holes were found at the Site during the initial field survey in June 2017. These holes were monitored through the use of trail cameras throughout August to October 2017. No Badgers were recorded using the holes at the Site throughout the monitoring period and no other evidence of Badger (i.e. latrines, foraging activity, Badger pathways etc.) was found at the Site.

5.1.3 The Site offers some areas of suitable habitat for Reptiles in the form of glades within the woodland area where Reptiles can bask, forage and take shelter. No Reptiles were recorded at the Site during the surveys.

5.1.4 It is considered that Badger and Reptiles are likely absent from the Site. If the Proposed Development does not commence within two years then update surveys for these species are recommended at the Site.

5.1.5 Further information regarding Badger and Reptiles at the Site will be detailed within the EcIA Chapter (Report Reference: CE-BS-1034-RP07).

CE-BS-1034-RP05 - FINAL Page 11 12/10/17

Badger and Reptile Surveys Proposed Eastern Extension of Bestwood Quarry II, Papplewick, Nottingham

REFERENCES:

° Crestwood Environmental, 2016. Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey Report, s.l.: Crestwood Environmental. ° DEFRA, 2017. MAGIC. [Online] Available at: http://www.magic.gov.uk/magicmap.aspx [Accessed 30 April 2017]. ° Froglife, 1999. Froglife Advice Sheet 10 - Reptile Survey: An Introduction to planning, conducting and interpreting surveys for snake and lizard conservation, Halesworth: Froglife. ° Harris et al, 1989. Surveying Badgers, s.l.: Mammal Society. ° HMSO, 1981 . The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). London: HMSO. ° HMSO, 1992. Protection of Badgers Act, London: HMSO. ° HMSO, 2010. The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. London: HMSO. ° Langton, T. & Beckett, C., 1995. Home range size of Scottish amphibians and reptiles. Scottish Natural Heritage Review, Volume 53. ° Nottinghamshire Biological and Geological Records Centre, 2016. Biological Records Report, s.l.: Nottinghamshire Biological and Geological Records Centre.

APPENDICES:

Appendix E1 Figure E2- Reptile Mat and Potential Badger Hole Location Plan

CE-BS-1034-RP05 - FINAL Page 12 12/10/17

Badger and Reptile Surveys Proposed Eastern Extension of Bestwood Quarry II, Papplewick, Nottingham

Appendix E1: Figure E2 – Reptile Mat and Potential Badger Hole Location Plan

CE-BS-1034-RP05 - FINAL Page 13 12/10/17

APPENDIX E6: BREEDING BIRD SURVEY REPORT

Proposed Eastern Extension to Bestwood Quarry II, Papplewick in Nottingham

Breeding Bird Survey

Report Reference: CE-BS-1034-RP06 - FINAL - Public Version

Produced by Crestwood Environmental Ltd.

12/10/2017

Crestwood Report Reference: CE-BS-1034-RP06 - FINAL - Public Version:

Version & Date Survey Licence No. Written / Updated by: Checked & Authorised by: Status Produced (If applicable) Mark Gash (Consultant Ornithologist) FINAL 10/10/17 Jaclyn Walker (Ecologist – Crestwood Lucy Cash (Principal Ecologist) Environmental)

This report has been prepared in good faith, with all reasonable skill, care and diligence, based on information provided or known available at the time of its preparation and within the scope of work agreement with the client.

All of our ecologists are members of the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management, and are therefore required to adhere to the Istitutes Code of Professioal Codut.

We disclaim any responsibility to the client and others in respect of any matters outside the scope of the above.

The report is provided for the sole use of the named client and is confidential to them and their professional advisors. No responsibility is accepted to others.

Crestwood Environmental Ltd. 1-2 Nightingale Place Pendeford Business Park Wobaston Road Pendeford West Midlands WV9 5HF

Tel: 01902 229 563 Fax: 01902 229 563

Email: [email protected] Web: www.crestwoodenvironmental.co.uk Breeding Bird Survey Proposed Extension of Bestwood Quarry II, Papplewick in Nottingham

CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ...... 3 1.1 BACKGROUND ...... 3 1.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE ...... 4 1.3 DEFINITIONS AND LEGISLATIVE CONTEXT ...... 4 1.4 LEGISLATION ...... 4 1.5 NOMENCLATURE ...... 5 2 METHODOLOGY ...... 5 2.1 BREEDING BIRD SURVEY ...... 5 2.2 CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION ...... 5 2.3 INTERPRETATION OF SURVEY RESULTS ...... 6 3 RESULTS ...... 8 3.1 BREEDING BIRD SURVEY ...... 8 4 CONCLUSIONS ...... 10

LIST OF APPENDICES:

APPENDIX E1 Full Species List, Conservation Status and Breeding Status

APPENDIX E2 Nottinghamshire Local Wildlife Site Handbook

LIST OF TABLES: Table 1 Weather Details of Breeding Bird Survey Visits ...... 5 Table 2 Schedule 1 Species Recorded ...... 8 Table 3 Red Listed Birds of Conservation Concern (BoCC) Species Recorded ...... 9 Table 4 Amber Listed Birds of Conservation Concern (BoCC) Species Recorded ...... 10

CE -BS-1034-RP06 - FINAL - Public Version Page 1 12/10/2017

Breeding Bird Survey Proposed Extension of Bestwood Quarry II, Papplewick in Nottingham

SUMMARY

The Breeding Bird assessment ('the Survey') detailed in this report was carried out by Turnstone Ecology as instructed by Crestwood Environmental Ltd. on behalf of Tarmac (the Client).

It is concluded that after the three survey visits, Breeding Birds are present and using the Survey Area for breeding.

37 Bird species were recorded within the Survey Area, 7 of the species were confirmed to be breeding.

Two Schedule 1 Bird species was recorded, four speies are ‘ed listed as Birds of Conservation Concern, seven species are listed as Aer ad the remaining are listed as Gree.

The Survey Area is considered to have a Bird breeding assemblage typical of the habitat available.

Due to the lack of registrations od breeding birds within the survey area and the sensitivity of 2 of the species recorded, no maps od survey results have been included within this report.

No further surveys for Breeding Birds are required, however if the Proposed Development does not commence within two years, an update survey is recommended to be undertaken.

CE -BS-1034-RP06 - FINAL - Public Version Page 2 12/10/2017

Breeding Bird Survey Proposed Extension of Bestwood Quarry II, Papplewick in Nottingham

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND

1.1.1 Crestwood Environmental Ltd. has been appointed by Tarmac the Client to udertake a Breeding Bird survey at and at land east of Bestwood Quarry II, Papplewick, Nottingham, centred at National Grid Reference (NGR) SK 56920 52502 the Survey Area. The surveys were led by Mark Gash a Consultant Ornithologist on behalf of Crestwood Environmental Ltd.

1.1.2 The Client is applying for planning permission to carry out extraction of sand and gravel into a woodland area to the immediate east of Bestwood Quarry II the Proposed Development; current infrastructure will be retained and a conveyor will be extended from the existing quarry area Eisting Quarr) to reach the area of woodland to the east of the Existing Quarry the Proposed Extension Area).

1.1.3 For the purpose of this report, the woodland within the red hatched area on Plate 1 below will be referred to as the Proposed Etension Area for the remainder of this report. Both the Existing Quarry (Purple hatched area) area and the Proposed Extension Area (red hatched area) were surveyed for the presence of breeding Birds, these areas will collectively be referred to as the Surve Area (red and purple hatched areas) for the remainder of this report.

Plate 1 Survey Area Location

1.1.4 An Extended Phase 1 Habitat survey was carried out by Crestwood Environmental Ltd. on 16th May 2016. The survey identified suitable habitat for Breeding Birds within the Survey Area.

CE -BS-1034-RP06 - FINAL - Public Version Page 3 12/10/2017

Breeding Bird Survey Proposed Extension of Bestwood Quarry II, Papplewick in Nottingham

1.1.5 The Existing Quarry is a large, open sand quarry, a single waterbody is present in each of the north and north-western parts of the Existing Quarry, one of which is supports a small Common Reed dominated reedbed. The north-western area also supports dense areas of Silver Birch (Betulus pendula) scrub which is also present around the quarry buildings, on the edges of the quarry as well as being scattered throughout the Existing Quarry area.

1.1.6 The Proposed Extension Area is an area of plantation, secondary broad-leaved woodland located to the east of the Existing Quarry which also extends around the eastern side of the Survey Area.

1.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE

1.2.1 The purpose and scope of the Breeding Bird survey was to to;

 Identify the distribution of Breeding Birds across the Survey Area;

 Locate the presence of Birds proteted uder Shedule 1 of The Wildlife ad Coutryside Act 1981 (as amended);

 Locate any presence of Species of Conservation Concern; and

 Identify any species which may require specific mitigation during construction and throughout the life of the development.

1.2.2 The description of the Survey Area and the results of the survey relate to the findings at the time of the field surveys only between May and July 2017.

1.3 DEFINITIONS AND LEGISLATIVE CONTEXT

1.3.1 The Bird species present and the combined assemblage are evaluated with special emphasis on:

 Species listed on Schedule 1;

 Species of Principal Importance SPI;

 Local Biodiversity Action Plan (LBAP) species; and

 Birds of Conservation Concern.

1.4 LEGISLATION

1.4.1 All breeding Birds are protected under Section 1 of The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) (HMO, 1981). This protection extends to intentionally killing and injuring of wild Birds, and to the destruction of nests, eggs and dependent young. The only exceptions are with certain game species (listed in Schedule 2 of the Act), which can be killed during specific seasons, and to certain species, which can be controlled under licence.

1.4.2 Additional protection is offered to Bird speies listed o Shedule 1 of The Wildlife ad Countryside Act 1981 (HMO, 1981), which are protected from disturbance whilst nesting, including from nest construction through to when dependant young have completely left the site. The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (HMO, 2000) added reckless disturbance to intentional disturae of Shedule 1 speies as a offee. The aoe is a suary of the legislatio ad the original Acts and Schedules should be referred to for the precise wording.

CE -BS-1034-RP06 - FINAL - Public Version Page 4 12/10/2017

Breeding Bird Survey Proposed Extension of Bestwood Quarry II, Papplewick in Nottingham

1.5 NOMENCLATURE

1.5.1 The nomenclature for common and scientific names and the taxonomic ordering of species aouts follos that otaied i The British List: A Checklist of Birds of Britai (Harrop, 2013) and any subsequent updates.

2 METHODOLOGY

2.1 BREEDING BIRD SURVEY

2.1.1 Breeding Bird surveys were completed during Spring/Summer 2017 and consisted of three surveys between May and July. Each of the survey visits were separated by at least two weeks and surveys started within 1 hour of sunrise.

2.1.2 The survey methodology is based on a combination of the Common Bird Census methodology, deised y the British Trust for Orithology BTO, ad atioal Breedig Bird Survey techniques, jointly devised by the BTO, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds RSPB ad the Joit Nature Coseratio Coittee JNCC.

2.1.3 All Birds seen or heard during each visit were recorded on to maps using BTO standardised codes and symbols representing each species present and activity. Special attention was given to identifying the presence of specially protected and nationally declining Bird species.

2.1.4 Full weather details of the survey visits are provided in Table 1.

Table 1 Weather Details of Breeding Bird Survey Visits

Visit Date Start Time Weather (Cloud = Octas, Wind = Beaufort Scale) 1 18/05/17 06:15 Cloud cover: 2/8, Wind: 2, Dry, 10 o C 2 09/06/17 05:30 Cloud cover: 0/8, Wind: 1, Dry, 11 o C 3 06/07/17 05:30 Cloud cover: 8/8, Wind: 1, Dry, 14 o C

2.2 CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION

2.2.1 A number of criteria are available to determine the conservation status of those Bird species recorded as well as attributing a value to the overall breeding Bird assemblage. The most appropriate of these are:

 Shedule 1 of the Wildlife ad Coutryside Act (HMO, 1981);

 Birds of Conservation Concern 4 (Eaton, 2015); and

 Species of Principal Importance (HMO, 2006).

Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countrside Act 2.2.2 The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) (HMO, 1981) affords greater protection to certain breeding species that are considered appropriately at risk nationally and are as such listed as speially proteted uder Shedule 1.

CE -BS-1034-RP06 - FINAL - Public Version Page 5 12/10/2017

Breeding Bird Survey Proposed Extension of Bestwood Quarry II, Papplewick in Nottingham

Birds of Conservation Concern 4

2.2.3 Under this approach, UK Bird populations are assessed using quantitative criteria, to determine the population status of each species and then placed on one of three lists; Red, Amber or Green.

 Red list species are of high conservation concern, being either globally threatened, having historical UK population declines between 1800 and 1995 or a rapid population decline or breeding range contraction by 50% or more in the last 25 years.

 Amber list species are of medium conservation concern due to a number of factors, for example having suffered between 25% and 49% contraction of UK breeding range or a 25- 49% reduction in breeding or non-breeding populations over the last 25 years. Species which have a five year mean of 1-300 breeding pairs (bp) in the UK or an unfavourable European conservation status or for which the breeding population in the UK represents 20% or more of the European breeding populations are also listed on the Amber list.

 Green list species have a favourable conservation status.

Species of Principal Importance

2.2.4 Species of Principal Importance (SPI) included under Section 41 (England) of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 as well as those for which specific Local Biodiversity Action Plans have been prepared.

Local Biodiversity Action Plan

2.2.5 The results of the survey as well as conservation status of the species recorded will be broadly assessed against species listed within the Local Biodiversity Action Plan (Nottinghamshire Biodiversity Action Group, 2017) and the Nottinghamshire Local Wildlife Sites Handbook. Guidelines for the selection of Local Wildlife Sites in Nottinghamshire. Part 2 – Local Wildlife Sites selection criteria: Species (Crouch, 2014 ) (see Appendix E2) to assist in the valuation of the combined Breeding Bird assemblage.

2.3 INTERPRETATION OF SURVEY RESULTS

General

2.3.1 Conservation status is defined with special emphasis on species on Schedule 1, Birds of Conservation Concern, species included in Section 41 of the NERC Act 2006 and Local BAP species.

2.3.2 Breeding status is defined using criteria devised by the European Ornithological Atlas Committee (EOAC) and is presented below.

CE -BS-1034-RP06 - FINAL - Public Version Page 6 12/10/2017

Breeding Bird Survey Proposed Extension of Bestwood Quarry II, Papplewick in Nottingham

EOAC Criteria for Categorisation of Breeding Status

2.3.3 The results of the breeding Bird surveys are assessed against the EOAC criteria for breeding Bird status, as follows:

Confirmed breeding (C)

 Distraction-display or injury feigning;

 Used nest or eggshells found (occupied or laid within period of survey);

 Recently fledged young (nidicolous species) or downy young (nidifugous species);

 Adults entering or leaving nest-sites in circumstances indicating occupied nest (including high nest or nest-holes, the contents of which cannot be seen) or adult seen incubating;

 Adult carrying faecal sac or food for young;

 Nest containing eggs; or

 Nest with young seen or heard.

Probable breeding (PR)

 Pair observed in suitable nesting habitat in breeding season;

 Permanent territory presumed through registration of territorial behaviour (e.g. song) on at least two different days a week or more apart at the same place;

 Courtship and display;

 Visiting a probable nest site;

 Agitated behaviour or anxiety calls from adults;

 Brood patch on adult examined in the hand; or

 Nest building or excavating nest-hole.

Possible breeding (PO)

 Species observed in breeding season in possible nesting habitat; or

 Singing male(s) present (or breeding calls heard) in breeding season.

Non-breeding (NB)

 A species present during the survey but considered to be not breeding within the survey. Recorded simply as a Bird flying over the site or are present within the site but considered to be a non-breeding species due to a lack of suitable breeding habitat or lack of behaviour characteristic of breeding.

CE -BS-1034-RP06 - FINAL - Public Version Page 7 12/10/2017

Breeding Bird Survey Proposed Extension of Bestwood Quarry II, Papplewick in Nottingham

3 RESULTS

3.1 BREEDING BIRD SURVEY

General

3.1.1 A total of 37 species of Bird were recorded over the three survey visits. Of these:

 7 were confirmed to be breeding on or immediately adjacent to the Survey Area;

 19 were probable breeding species;

 7 were possible breeding species; and

 4 are considered to be non-breeding species.

3.1.2 There are No notable species breeding within the Proposed Extension Area and due to the sensitivities surrounding some of the breeding Bird species present within the wider survey area a map of results is therefore not provided.

Schedule 1 Species

3.1.3 Two Shedule 1 Bird species were recorded within the Existing Quarry area (non-active areas) during the surveys (see Table 2) both species are considered not to have bred within the Survey Area in 2017.

3.1.4 Hobby (Falco subbuteo) was only recorded on one occasion on Visit 3. This registration related to an adult Bird that flew across the Existing Quarry area. It settled on a tree for approximately three minutes before flying off again.

Table 2 Schedule 1 Species Recorded

EOAC Species of Principal Common Name Scientific Name Status Importance? Hobby Falco subbuteo NB N

CE -BS-1034-RP06 - FINAL - Public Version Page 8 12/10/2017

Breeding Bird Survey Proposed Extension of Bestwood Quarry II, Papplewick in Nottingham

Birds of Conservation Concern

Red Species

3.1.5 Four Red Listed Birds of Conservation Concern (BoCC) species were recorded during the surveys (see Table 3).

3.1.6 A single adult Willow Tit (Poecile montanus) was recorded within the Proposed Extension Area on Visit 1 (May 2017) however this species was not recorded on either Visit 2 or 3.

3.1.7 Starling (Sturnus vulgaris) were regularly recorded flying over the Proposed Extension Area and are considered to be a non-breeding Bird within the Survey Area.

3.1.8 Song Thrush (Turdus philomelos) is considered to have probably bred within the Survey Area within the woodland and scrub areas along the northern edge of the Existing Quarry. Two singing males were recorded in different locations however activity to confirm breeding effort was not observed. This species was not recorded within the Proposed Extension Area.

3.1.9 Linnet (Linaria cannabina) was recorded on all surveys within the scrub areas regenerating around the Existing Quarry and it is considered that this species probably bred in these areas.

Table 3 Red Listed Birds of Conservation Concern (BoCC) Species Recorded

EOAC Species of Principal Common Name Scientific Name Status Importance? Willow Tit Poecile montanus PO Y Starling Sturnus vulgaris NB Y Song Thrush Turdus philomelos PR Y Linnet Linaria cannabina PR Y

Amber Species

3.1.10 Seven Amber Listed BoCC species were recorded (see Table 4).

3.1.11 Both Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) and Coot (Fulica atra) were confirmed as breeding in both lagoons located in the northern part of the Existing Quarry. Adults were observed with dependant young on Visits 1 and 2.

3.1.12 A single adult Stock Dove (Columba oenas) was recorded on Visit 1 in the north-eastern part of the Existing Quarry.

3.1.13 House Martin (Delichon urbicum) was recorded foraging over the Proposed Extension Area on Visits 2 and 3. There are no buildings present at the Proposed Extension Area that would be suitable breeding habitat for this species.

3.1.14 Up to five breeding pairs of Willow Warbler (Phylloscopus trochilus) are considered to have bred within the Survey Area within the extensive areas of scrub that are regenerating across the Existing Quarry. Activity was not recorded to confirm breeding status.

CE -BS-1034-RP06 - FINAL - Public Version Page 9 12/10/2017

Breeding Bird Survey Proposed Extension of Bestwood Quarry II, Papplewick in Nottingham

3.1.15 Dunnock (Prunella modularis) were recorded on all visits across the whole of the Survey Area. It is considered that up to two breeding pairs are present within the Proposed Extension Area.

3.1.16 Two pairs of Bullfinch (Pyrhulla pyrhulla) were recorded on Visits 2 and 3 in suitable breeding habitat along the northern edge of the Existing Quarry.

Table 4 Amber Listed Birds of Conservation Concern (BoCC) Species Recorded

EOAC Species of Principal Common Name Scientific Name Status Importance? Mallard Anas platyrhynchos C N Coot Fulica atra C N Stock Dove Columba oenas PO N House Martin Delichon urbicum NB N Willow Warbler Phylloscopus trochilus PR N Dunnock Prunella modularis PR Y Bullfinch Pyrhulla pyrhulla PR Y

Species of Principal Importance (NERC Act 2006)

3.1.17 A total of six Species of Principal Importance (as listed on the NERC Act 2006) were recorded during the course of the breeding Bird surveys, as noted in Table 3 and Table 4.

Local Biodiversity Action Plan Species

3.1.18 Two Bird species are listed of the Nottinghamshire BAP and these are Barn Owl (Tyto alba) and Nightjar (Caprimulgus europaeus). Neither of these species was recorded within the Proposed Extension Area or Survey Area and habitats with the Proposed Extension Area and Existing Quarry areas are considered to be unsuitable for both species.

4 CONCLUSIONS

4.1.1 The results of the breeding Bird survey indicate that the habitats within the Survey Area support typical assemblages for the habitat types present with widespread and ubiquitous Bird species distributed across the Proposed Extension Area and Survey Area.

4.1.2 No species of conservation concern were recorded breeding within the Proposed Extension Area during any of the survey visits.

4.1.3 The Proposed Development will result in the loss of an area of secondary broadleaved woodland which supports a typical breeding Bird assemblage for this habitat type. The assemblage consists of commonly occurring woodland and wood edge species of Bird which, with the exception of Dunnock, are of no conservation concern.

4.1.4 The habitat supports a widespread and typical (for the location and habitats present) assemblage of lowland breeding birds. Based on the assessment criteria it is considered that the Proposed Extension Area is of Local value only for its breeding bird species and numbers.

CE -BS-1034-RP06 - FINAL - Public Version Page 10 12/10/2017

Breeding Bird Survey Proposed Extension of Bestwood Quarry II, Papplewick in Nottingham

4.1.5 It is considered that the loss of the Proposed Extension Area will not result in a significant negative impact to the assemblage of Bird species within the Survey Area.

Schedule 1 Species

4.1.6 Two Schedule 1 species were recorded within the Survey Area.

4.1.7 Hobby did not breed within the Survey Area. It is possible that this species could breed within or adjacent to the quarry in future years.

Red List Birds of Conservation Concern

4.1.8 Four Red listed BoCC species were recorded of which three were considered to be probable or possible breeding species. An individual Willow Tit was recorded on one occasion and is considered to have possibly bred within woodland habitats on the edge of the Existing Quarry as did Song Thrush and Linnet.

4.1.9 No Red listed BoCC species were recorded breeding within the Proposed Extension Area.

Amber List Bird of Conservation Concern

4.1.10 The only Amber listed BoCC species considered to have bred within the Proposed Extension Area is Dunnock which is common and widespread species in Nottinghamshire and is typical of the woodland habitat within this area.

4.1.11 All other Amber listed BoCC species that are confirmed or probable breeding species were recorded in habitats outside of the Proposed Extension Area.

Other Notable or Interesting Species

4.1.12 Raven (Corvus corax) are confirmed as breeding within the Existing Quarry and the nesting site will not be impacted by the Proposed Development and continued breeding attempts within the Survey Area are expected in future years. Ultimately the extended quarry could increase the amount of suitable breeding habitat on the Proposed Extension Area by creating new quarry faces.

4.1.13 The Existing Quarry area supports a colony of about 40 breeding pairs of Sand Martin (Riparia riparia). The colony is currently using an un-quarried sand bank that is likely to remain in place for at least the next 15 years. Sand Martin are an opportunistic breeding species and take advantage of breeding habitats when they become available and it is possible that continued quarrying operations at the Proposed Extension Area will create further habitats suitable for breeding.

Local Wildlife Proposed Extension Area Selection Guidelines

4.1.14 Taking in to consideration the Selection Guidelines for Local Wildlife Sites in Nottinghamshire, the Existing Quarry or Proposed Extension Area, does not meet any of the criteria for breeding Birds ands i therefore considered not to be of importance for breeding birds at a County Level.

CE -BS-1034-RP06 - FINAL - Public Version Page 11 12/10/2017

Breeding Bird Survey Proposed Extension of Bestwood Quarry II, Papplewick in Nottingham

REFERENCES:

. Crouch, 2014 . Nottinghamshire LWS Handbook. Guidelines for the selection of Local Wildlife Sites in Nottinghamshire. Part 2 – Local Wildlife Sites selection criteria: Species, Nottingham: Nottinghamshire Biological and Geological Records. . Eaton, 2015. Birds of Conservation COncern 4: The Population Status of Birds in the UK, Channel Islands and Isle of Mann. British Birds, Volume 108, pp. 708 - 746. . Harrop, C. D. K., 2013. The British List: A Checklist of Birds of Britain (8th edition). IBIS: Internation Journal of Avian Science, 155(3), pp. 635 - 676. . HMO, 1981. Wildlife and DCountryside Act, s.l.: HMO. . HMO, 2000. Countryside and Rights of Way Act, s.l.: HMO. . HMO, 2006. Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act, s.l.: HMO. . Nottinghamshire Biodiversity Action Group, 2017. Projects and Publications. [Online] Available at: http://www.nottsbag.org.uk/projects.htm#lbaps [Accessed 9 October 2017].

APPENDICES:

Appendix E1 Full Species List, Conservation Status and Breeding Status

Appendix E2 Nottinghamshire Local Wildlife Site Handbook

CE -BS-1034-RP06 - FINAL - Public Version Page 12 12/10/2017

Breeding Bird Survey Proposed Extension of Bestwood Quarry II, Papplewick in Nottingham

Appendix E1: Full Species List, Conservation Status and Breeding Status

WCA 1981 NERC Common Name Scientific name and BoCC EOAC Status Notes Species Status Mallard Anas platyrhynchos Amber N Confirmed Adults with young birds seen on all surveys in north-western quarry pools Tufted Duck Aythya fuligula Green N Probable Up to four adults seen on all surveys in the pool in north-western corner of quarry Tachybaptus Little Grebe Green N Probable One pair seen in smaller pool in north-western corner of quarry ruficollis Coot Fulica atra Amber N Confirmed Up to two pairs one in each of the north-western quarry pools Hobby Falco subbuteo Sch1, N Non- breeding Single adult flew over the site on Visit 3. Stock Dove Columba oenas Amber N Possible Single adult seen on Survey 1 Woodpigeon Columba palumbus Green N Probable Adult birds seen on all surveys Great Spotted Dendrocopos major Green N Possible Single bird seen in northern area of quarry extension woodland on Visit 1. Woodpecker Magpie Pica pica Green N Probable Birds seen on all visits throughout the quarry area Jay Garrulus glandarius Green N Possible Single bird heard within the quarry extension woodland on Visit 3. Carrion Crow Corvus corone Green N Probable Birds seen on all visits throughout the survey area Raven Corvus corax Green N Confirmed Single pair breeding on cliffs in active quarry area Goldcrest Regulus regulus Green N Possible Singing birds recorded once in different locations Blue Tit Cyanistes caeruleus Green N Probable Adults seen all surveys and recently fledged juveniles seen in June and July Great Tit Parus major Green N Probable Adults seen all surveys and recently fledged juveniles seen in June and July Coal Tit Periparus ater Green N Possible Adult heard singing on Visit 3 from conifers along track on eastern edge of woodland area Willow Tit Poecile montanus Red Y Possible Single adult seen within woodland area on Visit 1 Confirmed colony in sand bank in active quarry area. Approximately 40 active nesting Sand Martin Riparia riparia Green N Confirmed holes

CE -BS-1034-RP06 - FINAL - Public Version Page 13 12/10/2017

Breeding Bird Survey Proposed Extension of Bestwood Quarry II, Papplewick in Nottingham

WCA 1981 NERC Common Name Scientific name and BoCC EOAC Status Notes Species Status Adults seen in flight over the quarry on Visits 2 & 3. No suitable on-site nesting House Martin Delichon urbicum Amber N Non-breeding opportunities Aegithalos Long-tailed Tit Green N Probable Single birds recorded in different locations, small family parties recorded in July caudatus Phylloscopus Chiffchaff Green N Probable 4 6 pairs, including one within the woodland extension area collybita – Phylloscopus 3 5 pairs in scrub edges within active and dis-used quarry area. Adults heard singing on all Willow Warbler Amber N Probable – trochilus visits

Blackcap Sylvia atricapilla Green N Probable 2 – 3 pairs including one in the quarry extension area Acrocephalus Single pair in small pool / reeds seen on Visits 1 & 2. Adults seen feeding recently fledged Reed Warbler Green N Confirmed scirpaceus young on Visit 3 Treecreeper Certhia familiaris Green N Possible Single adult bird seen and heard within the quarry extension woodland on Visit 1 Troglodytes Recorded across the site in areas of suitable woodland and dense scrub habitat areas. Wren Green N Probable troglodytes Likely to between 5 – 8bp within quarry extension area Starling Sturnus vulgaris Red Y Non-breeding Individual birds seen on all visits flying over the site

Blackbird Turdus merula Green N Probable Adults seen and heard on all visits. Likely to be 2 – 3bp in quarry extension 1 2 pair within dense scrub / woodland fringe areas of dis-used quarry areas. Not Song Thrush Turdus philomelos Red Y Probable – recorded within the quarry extension area Several territories recorded across the site including up to two bp within the quarry Robin Erithacus rubecula Green N Confirmed extension Several territories recorded across the site including up to two bp within the quarry Dunnock Prunella modularis Amber Y Probable extension One bp within the quarry. Adults seen on all visits and adults seen feeding recently fledged Pied Wagtail Motacilla yarrellii Green N Confirmed juveniles in June. Family party seen in July

Chaffinch Fringilla coelebs Green N Probable 1 – 2 pairs within quarry extension area. Adults seen and heard singing / calling on all visits

CE -BS-1034-RP06 - FINAL - Public Version Page 14 12/10/2017

Breeding Bird Survey Proposed Extension of Bestwood Quarry II, Papplewick in Nottingham

WCA 1981 NERC Common Name Scientific name and BoCC EOAC Status Notes Species Status Goldfinch Carduelis carduelis Green N Probable Possibly breeding within scrub habitats in disused areas of the quarry Probable 2 4pairs across active and disused areas of the quarry. Adults seen on all Linnet Linaria cannabina Red Y Probable – surveys 1 2 pairs along northern edge of quarry in scrubby / woodland edge habitats. Adults seen Bullfinch Pyrrhula pyrrhula Amber Y Probable – on Visits 2 and 3.

CE -BS-1034-RP06 - FINAL - Public Version Page 15 12/10/2017

Breeding Bird Survey Proposed Extension of Bestwood Quarry II, Papplewick in Nottingham

Appendix E2: Nottinghamshire Local Wildlife Site Handbook

CE -BS-1034-RP06 - FINAL - Public Version Page 16 12/10/2017

Nottinghamshire LWS Handbook

Guidelines for the selection of Local Wildlife Sites in Nottinghamshire

Part 2A – Local Wildlife Sites selection criteria: species

Produced by the Nottinghamshire Local Sites Panel

1st Edition - March 2014

0

Nottinghamshire Biological and Geological Records Centre Wollaton Hall Nottingham NG8 2AE

Tel: 0115 876 2188 Email: [email protected]

Author: Nick Crouch Date of publication: March 2014

Recommended citation:

Crouch, N.C. (2014) Nottinghamshire LWS Handbook – Guidelines for the selection of Local Wildlife Sites in Nottinghamshire. Part 2A – Local Wildlife Sites selection criteria: species. Nottinghamshire Biological and Geological Records Centre, Nottingham.

Produced in conjunction with:

1

CONTENTS Page no.

Local Wildlife Site selection criteria: species 3

1. Introduction 4

2. Species selection criteria 4 2.1 Amphibians and reptiles 5 2.2 Bats 9 2.3 Birds 13 2.4 Butterflies 28 2.5 Dragonflies and damselflies 34 2.6 Fish 38 2.7 Mammals (excluding bats) 41 2.8 Moths 45 2.9 Water beetles and water bugs 53 2.10 White-clawed Crayfish 62 2.11 Grassland fungi 65 2.12 Rare plants 68

2

LOCAL WILDLIFE SITES SELECTION CRITERIA: SPECIES

3

1. INTRODUCTION

This document sets out the criteria used in Nottinghamshire for the selection of Local Wildlife Sites, based on their importance for individual species or species groups. It should be read in conjunction with Part 1 – An overview of Local Wildlife Sites in Nottinghamshire.

2. SPECIES SELECTION CRITERIA

The following criteria will be used for the selection of Local Wildlife Sites, based on their importance for individual species or species groups.

4

2.1 Amphibians and Reptiles

These criteria were accepted by the NEGDP on 18/03/2014

Originators: Dr Sheila Wright (Nottingham Museums Service and joint county recorder for herpetofauna) & John Osborne (joint county recorder for herpetofauna)

Introduction

Amphibians and reptiles are struggling to survive in an increasingly hostile environment in Britain today. Ponds have been lost, isolated or polluted, whilst suitable terrestrial habitat (heathland in particular) has been lost or fragmented. Increasing urbanisation, disruption of migration routes and reductions in the numbers of their invertebrate prey has caused serious declines amongst even the more common herpetofauna. Nottinghamshire is no exception - several of our amphibians and reptiles (our herpetofauna) are already very localised within the county, and one species, the Adder, seems to be on the verge of extinction. Garden ponds have been a lifeline for the Frog Rana temporaria and Smooth Newt Lissotriton vulgaris, but even these familiar species have declined greatly in the wider countryside - and good breeding ponds are now few and far between. Declines in our herpetofauna populations impact upon other species, too, as they are important prey items in diet of many mammals and birds, some aquatic invertebrates, and even of each other. There is therefore an urgent need to conserve all nine of our native Nottinghamshire herpetofauna species, and for this reason the LWS criteria detailed below have been produced to help protect their habitats.

Because of the difficulty of proving breeding for reptiles (due to their shy and elusive nature), sites where they are "present and considered likely to be breeding", rather than "known to be breeding", will be considered for recognition as sites of importance for herpetofauna. Ideally, however, there should be an attempt to prove breeding at such sites. For amphibians, the presence of spawn or larvae at a breeding site will usually be obvious throughout the spring and summer months, and so proof of breeding should be obtained at potential sites of importance for amphibians in the county. Ponds in private gardens will be excluded from LWS designation, but ornamental ponds can be included where they occur in areas that would not ordinarily be considered a private garden. Sites where the animals are likely or known introductions will also be excluded from consideration, except where these have been sanctioned as part of an official translocation.

Criteria

Sites in Nottinghamshire holding amphibians and/or reptiles will be designated as LWSs where they meet one or more of the following criteria; 5

Criterion 1: Any site where Adder Vipera berus or Slow-worm Anguis fragilis is present and considered likely to be breeding. The area of importance will include all known or likely breeding, foraging and hibernating habitat

Justification: The Adder is currently (2013) known from a single verified site in the county, and it is a Species of Principal Importance. Slow-worms are Nottinghamshire rarities that are recorded from fewer than 50 1km squares in the county, and are also a Species of Principal Importance.

Criterion 2: Any site where Great Crested Newt Triturus cristatus or Palmate Newt Lissotriton helveticus is present and breeding. The area of importance will include all contiguous semi-natural habitat (suitable for terrestrial foraging and hibernating) within a 250m radius of the water body

Justification: Great Crested Newts are rare at a European level, and the UK is a stronghold in Europe for these threatened amphibians. Even though they have been recorded in more than 30 1km grid squares in Nottinghamshire, and are legally protected in the UK, this criterion has been developed because of their European rarity and their status as a Species of Principal Importance. Palmate Newts are very rare in Nottinghamshire, and although they may have been native to Nottinghamshire in the past, in modern times those at all but one site are known to have been introduced – the latter site has recently been under investigation and is now thought to be native. Should any breeding Palmate Newt population be discovered in the future and confirmed to be native, the site concerned will be recognised as of importance for herpetofauna. For both species, all contiguous semi-natural habitat within 250 metres of the breeding pond will be included within the LWS. This figure has been adopted as an appropriate distance within which foraging and hibernating habitat for these species can be protected, although it is recognised that Great Crested Newts can move greater distances.

Criterion 3: Any site where a significant population size for Nottinghamshire of Grass Snake Natrix natrix or Common Lizard Zootoca vivipara (as determined by reference to Annex 1) is present and considered likely to be breeding. The area of importance will include all known or likely breeding, foraging and hibernating habitat

Justification: Although not rare, these species have suffered a considerable decline in numbers in the Nottinghamshire countryside over the last century due to habitat degradation and loss. Both are Species of Principal Importance.

6

Criterion 4: Any site where a significant population size for Nottinghamshire of Common Frog Rana temporaria, Common Toad Bufo bufo, or Smooth Newt Lissotriton vulgaris (as determined by reference to Annex 1) is present and breeding. The area of importance will include all contiguous semi-natural habitat (suitable for terrestrial foraging and hibernating) within a 250m radius of the water body

Justification: Although not rare, these species have suffered a considerable decline in numbers in the Nottinghamshire countryside over the last century due to habitat degradation and loss. Common Toad is a Species of Principal Importance.

Criterion 5: Any site where an assemblage of four or more species of amphibian or reptile native to Nottinghamshire are present and considered likely to be breeding (reptiles), or are known to be breeding (amphibians). The area of importance will include all known or likely breeding, foraging and hibernating habitat for any reptiles present, and all semi-natural habitat (suitable for terrestrial foraging and hibernating) within a 250m radius of a water body where amphibians are present and breeding

Justification: Such sites account for fewer than 4% of the 300+ known herpetofauna sites in the county (excluding gardens and ornamental ponds), making them exceptional.

Site mapping

• Sites will be mapped in line with the mapping rules for habitats set out section 7(d) of Part 1. • When mapping sites within a 250m radius of a waterbody, traditional management unit boundaries will still be used to set the boundary of the LWS. Therefore, where part of a traditional management unit is within the 250m radius, and part is outside it, the land outside will be mapped as part of the LWS, up to the traditional management unit boundary.

Site survey and resurvey

• Sites will initially be designated on the basis of survey results not more than 10 years old. • Designated sites will be resurveyed every 10 years. When a site cannot be surveyed within the specified survey programme, it will be assumed that the site still qualifies and will remain designated until it can be ascertained that it does not.

7

Annex 1 - population thresholds

Species Threshold number of adults noted on a single visit to a site taken to indicate a significant population size for Nottinghamshire Common Lizard 4

Grass Snake 3

Smooth Newt 25

Common Frog 50 (or 25 clumps of spawn)

Common Toad 100

In the absence of any detailed long-term monitoring of populations, existing data held by the county herpetofauna recorders was examined for all sites at which observations have so far been made (other than private gardens and ornamental ponds). From these, the top 10% of sites for each species were identified (in terms of those supporting the largest populations); these population sizes were then used to set the threshold at or above which such populations are deemed to be ‘significant’.

8

2.2 Bats

These criteria were accepted by the NEGDP on 18/03/2014

Originators: Janice Bradley (Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust), Nick Crouch (Nottinghamshire County Council) and Michael Walker (Nottinghamshire Bat Group and Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust)

Introduction

The decline in bat numbers in the UK has been well documented; for example, pipistrelle numbers were estimated to have dropped by over 70% in the 15 year period between 1978 and 1993 (Entwistle et al. 2001). Consequently, a number of species are identified as national conservation priorities by virtue of listing as Species of Principal Importance, four of which occur in Nottinghamshire (see Annex 1).

The loss of roost sites, persecution and the destruction and fragmentation of habitat are all major factors contributing to this decline. Roost sites have been protected by law since 1981 but continue to be lost. Bats require good quality habitat close to their roosts for foraging or to commute to good feeding areas nearby, and loss of this local habitat can have a significant impact on a roost and ultimately lead to its abandonment.

Female bats in summer nursery colonies will forage over much shorter distances during this period making good local habitat as important as the roost site itself. For pipistrelle species this could be as little as 1km from the roost and even less for brown long-eared bats who generally forage within 0.5km. These LWS criteria allow for the designation of sites close to significant roosts to reflect their importance for successful breeding.

There are a few areas in the county that provide roosting and foraging opportunities for a number of species and are therefore considered to be extremely important. The criteria below will identify these multi-species areas and ensure their protection. Criteria to identify important hibernation sites, which are extremely rare in Nottinghamshire, are also included.

Criteria

Sites in Nottinghamshire holding bats will be designated as LWSs where they meet one or more of the following criteria;

Criterion 1: All semi-natural habitat (including linear linking habitat) used by bats where (with reference to Annex 1) it occurs within 500 metres of:

9

a) any maternity roost of a bat species in Nottinghamshire where the roost size exceeds the ‘significance’ threshold for the species in question and it can be shown by appropriate survey that bats of the same species are using the habitat for foraging or commuting

b) any maternity roost comprising 2 or more species where there are at least 5 individuals of each species and it can be shown by appropriate survey that bats of the same species are using the habitat for foraging or commuting

Justification: To reflect local scarcity and vulnerability and national conservation status, and to protect the integrity of important maternity roost sites; however, given that bats can forage over considerable distances, the distances used above are considered likely to protect ‘core’ foraging areas and as such are considered a minimum area of importance. The rarity categories and maternity roost ‘significance’ thresholds given in Annex 1 are based on current knowledge and might be subject to change in the future as our knowledge of these species improves.

Criterion 2: Any contiguous area of a semi-natural habitat used by foraging bats that scores a combined total of 7 points, where (with reference to Annex 1) appropriate survey has demonstrated the presence of:

• any rare* species, which scores 5 points • any scarce species, which scores 3 points • any less scarce species, which scores 2 points • any common species, which scores 1 point • any Nyctalus bat (where it has not been possible to assign to species)**, which scores 1 point • any Myotis bat (where it has not been possible to assign to species)**, which scores 1 point

* for Nathusius Pipistrelle Pipistrellus nathusii (a migratory species not know to be permanently resident in the county at this time), this only applies where either a) the species has been recorded on at least two surveys during a six week period between mid-June and the end of July in the same year, or b) the species has been recorded on at least two surveys at least 14 days apart in 2 years out of 5. ** this only applies where it has not been possible to assign any of the Nyctalus/Myotis bats encountered during a survey to a particular species; where at least some of the Nyctalus/Myotis bats encountered have been assigned to a particular species, then any additional unassigned Nyctalus/Myotis bats do not score an additional point.

Justification: To reflect local scarcity and vulnerability and national conservation status, and to protect the integrity of important foraging sites. The rarity categories and maternity roost ‘significance’ thresholds given in Annex 1 are 10

based on current knowledge and might be subject to change in the future as our knowledge of these species improves.

Criterion 3: All semi-natural habitat (including linear linking habitat) within 250 metres of:

a) any hibernation roost hosting 3 or more species b) any hibernation roost containing 10 or more bats of 1 or more species

Justification: To reflect local scarcity and vulnerability and national conservation status, and to protect the integrity of important hibernating sites.

Site mapping

• Sites will be mapped in line with the mapping rules for habitats set out section 7(d) of Part 1. • When mapping sites within 250m of a hibernation roost or within 500m of maternity roost, traditional management unit boundaries will be used to set the boundary of the LWS. Therefore, where part of a traditional management unit is within 250m/500m, and part is outside it, the land outside will be mapped as part of the LWS, up to the traditional management unit boundary. • Mapping of sites will include semi-natural habitat (such as a hedgerows or watercourse) which is known to (or is likely to) provide linkages between the roost site and the foraging habitat. • Private gardens will not be included within the mapped LWS boundary, so where a roost is within an urban/suburban area the LWS may not lie immediately adjacent to the roost site. • Habitats of importance for foraging which cannot be linked to a known roost site (criterion 2) will only include that habitat from which the ‘scoring’ species have been recorded, and no inferences will be made about linkages to other sites or habitats, unless these can be proven.

Site survey and resurvey

• Sites will initially be mapped on the basis of survey results not more than 10 years old. • Designated sites will be resurveyed every 10 years, to account for the generally low level of amateur surveying and the difficulties involved in surveying for bats. When a site cannot be surveyed within the specified survey programme, it will be assumed that the site still qualifies and will remain designated until it can be ascertained that it does not.

11

References

Entwhistle, A.C., Harris, S., Hutson, A.M., Racey, P.A., Walsh, A., Gibson, S.D., Hepburn, I. & Johnston, J. (2001) Habitat management for bats - A guide for land managers, land owners and their advisors. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough.

Annex 1 – bat species in Nottinghamshire

Species Species of of Species Principal Importance in Status Nottinghamshire roost Maternity ‘significance’ threshold* Serotine (Eptesicus serotinus) Rare 1 Nathusius’s Pipistrelle (Pipistrellus Rare 1 nathusii) Barbastelle (Barbastella barbastellus) Yes Rare 1 Brandt’s Bat (Brandt’s bat) Scarce 20 Leisler’s Bat (Nyctalus leisleri) Scarce 15 Natterer’s Bat (Myotis nattereri) Less scarce 20 Whiskered Bat (Myostis mystacinus) Less scarce 20 Common Pipistrelle (Pipistrellus More common 150 pipistrellus) Soprano Pipistrelle (Pipistrellus Yes More common 200 pygmaeus) Brown Long-eared Bat (Plecotus auritus) Yes More common 30 Daubenton’s Bat (Myotis daubentonii) More common 20 Noctule (Nyctalus noctule) Yes More common 15 * The number of individual adult bats using the roost

Rarity categories and maternity roost ‘significance thresholds’ were assigned based on input from specialist bat workers operating within the county, using local data sources.

12

2.3 Birds

These criteria were accepted by the NEGDP on 18/03/2014

Originators: Carl Cornish (RSPB), David Parkin (Nottinghamshire Birdwatchers) and Craig Howat (Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust)

Introduction

The bird species used for the selection of LWSs are based upon the list of Nottinghamshire Birds of Conservation Concern (Notts BoCC) (Cornish, Parkin & Crouch (2010), which updates an earlier list (Parkin & Cornish 2004) and is shown in Annex 1. This includes species on the UK Red and Amber Birds of Conservation Concern lists (Eaton et al. 2009) that regularly occur in the county for breeding, wintering or on passage, along with a small number of Green listed species that are of local significance.

Species are regarded as having a ‘regular’ presence on a site if they use it to nest, roost, feed or over-winter and have been recorded at least once in the previous five years. Sites can be selected on the basis of their importance for breeding or wintering species. The minimum evidence for a ‘breeding record’ follows the standard for national breeding bird surveys as: 1. The presence of a male bird displaying territorial behaviour in appropriate habitat in the breeding season, and/or; 2. Repeated sightings of the species displaying behaviour that is acknowledged as likely to be associated with breeding for this species, in suitable habitat during the breeding season.

A ‘site’ should include all areas that are critical for nesting, foraging, roosting or territorial use. Sites are selected on the basis of eleven key habitats. These are; • Broad-leaved woodland in Sherwood Forest • Broad-leaved woodland elsewhere in Nottinghamshire • Coniferous woodland • Scrub • Parkland • Heathland • Dry grassland • Riverine grassland • Lakes & gravel pits • Reedbed • Post-industrial (sites such as disused quarries, former colliery pit tips, etc.)

Some sites, such as arable farmland where the bird interest changes from field to field over time, are not suitable to be LWSs. Consequently, arable farmland has

13

not been included in the selection criteria for habitat-based LWSs for breeding or wintering birds.

Six methods have been used for the selection criteria of LWSs: • If the site has a rare UK breeding bird; • If the site has a colony of a colonial breeding species on Notts BoCC; • If the site has two or more species of breeding waders; • If the site has an important breeding bird assemblage; • If the site has an important wintering bird assemblage; • If the site supports a significant proportion of the UK wintering population of a species.

Broad-leaved woodland in the Sherwood Forest (taken to be the Sherwood Natural Area) is dealt with separately since it includes some species that are rarely encountered elsewhere in the county.

Criteria

Sites in Nottinghamshire holding birds will be designated as LWSs where they meet one or more of the following criteria;

Criterion 1: Any site that regularly supports a species monitored by the Rare Breeding Birds Panel

Justification: Species monitored by the Rare Breeding Birds Panel (Rare Breeding Birds Panel, 2013) are nationally rare as a breeding species (Category A) or less scarce as a breeding species (Category B) within the United Kingdom. Their rarity is because: 1. Specific habitat requirements limit their range and numbers; 2. They are on the edge of their range; 3. They are a recent colonist; 4. A combination of the above three.

Nottinghamshire has populations of several rare breeding birds that comprise a significant proportion of the United Kingdom population. In addition, breeding populations of rare species warrant designation since their small size or isolation means that they are vulnerable to extinction, at least locally. They are also often sensitive to changes in habitat. Only species that breed regularly in the county are considered, so sporadic breeders such as Common Quail, Garganey and Black Redstart, have been omitted from consideration. Irregular breeders such as European Honey-buzzard and Common Crossbill are retained since their breeding sites are predictable. Hobby has been omitted because it usually moves nest site each year and is dependent on crow nests, and will often nest up to 3km from feeding areas.

14

The species to which this criterion should be applied are; Black-necked Grebe; Eurasian Wigeon; Gadwall; Shoveler; Common Pochard; European Honey- Buzzard; Northern Goshawk; Marsh Harrier; Water Rail; Avocet; Little Ringed Plover; Kingfisher; Woodlark; Cetti’s Warbler; Hawfinch; Common Crossbill.

Criterion 2: Any site that regularly supports a colony of a colonial species on the Notts BoCC list

Justification: Colonial species are those that form a discernable cluster of breeding individuals, making them especially vulnerable to disturbance and destruction of their breeding habitat. Two colonial species, Swift and House Martin, are excluded from this criterion because they normally nest in or on private residential properties and the conservation of these species is therefore best achieved by other means, whilst for Sand Martin, sites only apply where they are not located in active sand quarries subject to ongoing excavation works. For the purposes of this criterion, a colony is regarded as three or more pairs of a colonial species within a patch of habitat, or two if the habitat is effectively ‘full’.

The species to which this guideline should be applied are; Grey Heron; Black- headed Gull; Common Tern; Sand Martin; Reed Warbler.

Criterion 3: Any site that regularly has two or more breeding species of waders

Justification: The decline of breeding waders in the county has been well- documented. Loss of habitat (especially flood plain meadows, marshes and grasslands), changes in farming practices and hydrological changes have all contributed to the declines. Assemblages of breeding waders are now reliant on fragmented habitats and temporary sites at working aggregate quarries and disused brown-field sites, so are very vulnerable to further losses. Woodcock has been excluded from the list because it breeds in woodland, a habitat which is not used by other breeding wader species in Nottinghamshire.

The species to which this guideline should be applied are: Oystercatcher; Avocet; Little Ringed Plover; Great Ringed Plover; Northern Lapwing; Common Snipe; Eurasian Curlew; Common Redshank; Common Sandpiper.

In addition, two species are potential colonisers of the county, and if they start to breed in the county will immediately be added to the above list. These two species are: Ruff and Black-tailed Godwit.

Criterion 4: Any site that has a regular breeding bird assemblage with a score that is equal to or exceeds the threshold value for the site’s habitat

15

Justification: This criterion highlights sites that are important for their breeding bird assemblages in the county. A conservation weighting score is attributed to each species on the Notts BoCC list, taking into account national population size and conservation status. The methodology for this is shown in Annex 2, and the resultant score for each species is listed in Annex 3 (Summer LWS Score column). For each habitat, these scores of species which use the habitat are summed, and a theoretical ‘high’ score obtained. A threshold value is then set at one third of this theoretical high score, and any site exceeding this threshold for the habitat in question qualifies as an LWS. This level was set at a level to reflect county significance, after review of Natural England’s national SSSI guidelines and after consultation with the Nottinghamshire Birdwatchers and Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust. These thresholds are shown in Annex 4, and below. The score of the bird assemblage present should exceed the threshold value at least once every five years.

Habitat Assemblage score Threshold value Broad-leaved woodland (Sherwood) 117 39 Broad-leaved woodland 73 24 Coniferous woodland 46 15 Scrub 67 22 Parkland 76 25 Heathland 51 14 Grassland 75 25 Riverine grassland 92 31 Lakes & gravel pits 147 49 Reedbed 42 14 Post-industrial 77 29

Criterion 5: Any site that has a regular wintering bird assemblage with a score that is equal to or exceeds the threshold value for the site’s habitat

Justification: This criterion highlights sites that are important for their wintering bird assemblages. A conservation weighting score is attributed to each species on the Notts BoCC list, taking into account national population size (Baker et al. 2006) and conservation status. The methodology for this is shown in Annex 2, and the resultant score for each species is listed in Annex 3 (Winter LWS Score column). For each habitat, these scores of species which use the habitat are summed, and a theoretical ‘high’ score obtained. A threshold value is then set at one third of this theoretical high score, and any site exceeding this threshold for the habitat in question qualifies as an LWS. These thresholds are shown in Annex 5, and below. The score of the bird assemblage present should exceed the threshold value at least once every five years. For the purposes of LWS criteria, winter is defined as the period from November through to March. 16

Habitat Assemblage score Threshold value Broad-leaved woodland (Sherwood) 89 30 Broad-leaved woodland 58 19 Coniferous woodland 30 10 Scrub 50 19 Riverine grassland 81 27 Heathland 42 13 Parkland 72 24 Wet riverine grassland 95 32 Lakes & gravel pits 159 53 Reedbed 50 17 Post-industrial 36 12

Criterion 6: Any site* that regularly supports 0.5% or more of the UK wintering population of a water bird or wading bird species

Justification: This criterion highlights important sites for wintering water birds and waders in the county, and is set below the 1% threshold used for identifying important wintering sites for waders and wildfowl at a national level. For the purposes of LWS criteria, winter is defined as the period from November through to March. The species to which this criterion applies, and the relevant wintering population size, are shown below. The population figures are taken from Kershaw & Cranswick (2002).*Excludes arable farmland, on the basis that cropping patterns, and hence utilisation by birds, changes on an annual basis.

Species 0.5% threshold Little Grebe 39 Great Crested Grebe 80 Black-necked Grebe 1 Great Cormorant 115 Great Bittern 1 Bewick’s Swan 40 Whooper Swan 29 Eurasian Wigeon 2030 Gadwall 86 Common Teal 960 Northern Shoveler 74 Common Pochard 298 Coot 625 European Golden Plover 1550

17

Site mapping

• Sites will be mapped in line with the mapping rules for habitats set out section 7(d) of Part 1.

Site survey and resurvey

• Sites will initially be designated on the basis of survey results not more than 5 years old. • Designated sites will be resurveyed every 5 years. When a site cannot be surveyed within the specified survey programme, it will be assumed that the site still qualifies and will remain designated until it can be ascertained that it does not.

References

Baker, H., Stroud, D.A., Aebischer, N.J., Cranswick, P.A., Gregory, R.D., McSorley, C.A., Noble, D.G. & Rehfisch, M.M. (2006). Population estimates of birds in Great Britain and the United Kingdom. British Birds 99: 25-44.

Cornish, C., Parkin, D.T. & Crouch, N.C. (2010). Nottinghamshire’s Birds of Conservation Concern (Revised and Updated). The Birds of Nottinghamshire Annual Report for 2009. Nottinghamshire Birdwatchers.

Eaton, M.A., Brown, A.F., Noble, D.G., Musgrove, A.J., Hearn, R., Aebischer, N.J., Gibbons, D.W., Evans, A. and Gregory, R.D. (2009). Birds of Conservation Concern 3: the population status of birds in the United Kingdom, Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. British Birds 102: 296-341.

Kershaw, M. & Cranswick, P.A. (2002). Numbers of wintering waterbirds in Great Britain, 1994/1995 – 1998/1999: I. Wildfowl and selected waterbirds. Biological Conservation 111: 91-104.

Parkin, D.T. & Cornish, C. (2004). Nottinghamshire’s Birds of Conservation Concern. The Birds of Nottinghamshire Annual Report for 2003. Nottinghamshire Birdwatchers.

Rare Breeding Birds Panel (2013) RBBP Species List [online] Available at: http://www.rbbp.org.uk/ [Accessed 10 January 2014]

Annex 1 - List of Birds of Conservation Concern for Nottinghamshire

This list was produced for the Biodiversity Action Group by the Nottinghamshire Birdwatchers, Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust and RSPB. The derivation of the list is provided elsewhere (Parkin & Cornish 2004) and the list itself was revised in 2010 (Cornish, Parkin & Crouch 2010) following changes to the national Red and 18

Amber lists. Essentially, it includes those species on the national Red or Amber lists (Eaton et al. 2009) which occur regularly within Nottinghamshire. Additionally, species are included if they are not so designated, but are rare or scarce in the county or the wintering population in the county is 1% of the national total. These include: Grey Heron, Little Egret, Northern Goshawk, Hobby, Coot, Avocet, Little Ringed Plover, Black-tailed Godwit, Tawny Owl, Long-eared Owl, Raven, Cetti’s Warbler, Reed Warbler and Common Crossbill.

Breeding Winter National UK BAP Scarce, rare, Species Red or Target >1% Scarce Species restricted or Amber species national or rare declining 1 Bewick's Swan Yes Amber Yes 2 Whooper Swan Amber Yes 3 Shelduck Amber Scarce 4 Wigeon Amber Yes 5 Gadwall Amber Yes 6 Teal Amber Yes 7 Mallard Amber Declining 8 Garganey Amber Rare 9 Shoveler Amber Scarce Yes 10 Pochard Amber Yes 11 Tufted Duck Amber Declining 12 Goldeneye Amber Yes 13 Smew Amber Yes 14 Grey Partridge Yes Red Declining 15 Quail Amber Restricted 16 Cormorant Amber Yes 17 Great Bittern Yes Red Yes 18 Grey Heron Green Restricted 19 Little Egret Amber Yes 20 Little Grebe Amber Yes 21 Great Crested Grebe Green Yes 22 Black-necked Grebe Amber Rare 23 Honey Buzzard Amber Rare 24 Red Kite Amber Rare 25 Marsh Harrier Amber Rare 26 Hen Harrier Red Yes 27 Goshawk Green Rare 28 Osprey Amber Yes 29 Kestrel Amber Declining 30 Hobby Green Scarce 31 Peregrine Amber Rare Yes 32 Water Rail Amber Rare 33 Coot Green Yes 34 Oystercatcher Amber Scarce 35 Avocet Amber Rare 19

36 Little Ringed Plover Green Scarce 37 Ringed Plover Amber Scarce 38 Golden Plover Amber Yes 39 Northern Lapwing Yes Red Declining 40 Ruff Red Yes 41 Jack Snipe Amber Yes 42 Snipe Amber Rare 43 Woodcock Amber Declining 44 Black-tailed Godwit Yes Red Yes 45 Eurasian Curlew Yes Amber Rare 46 Redshank Amber Rare 47 Black-headed Gull Amber Restricted 48 Herring Gull Yes Red Yes 49 Common Tern Amber Restricted 50 Stock Dove Amber Declining 51 European Turtle Dove Yes Red Declining 52 Common Cuckoo Yes Red Declining 53 Barn Owl Amber Scarce 54 Tawny Owl Green Declining 55 Long-eared Owl Green Scarce Yes 56 Short-eared Owl Amber Yes 57 European Nightjar Yes Red Scarce 58 Swift Amber Declining 59 Kingfisher Amber Scarce 60 Green Woodpecker Amber 61 Lesser Spotted Woodpecker Yes Red Declining 62 Raven Green Rare 63 Bearded Tit Amber Yes 64 Marsh Tit Yes Red Declining 65 Willow Tit Yes Red Declining 66 Woodlark Yes Amber Scarce 67 Skylark Yes Red Declining 68 Sand Martin Amber Declining 69 Swallow Amber Declining 70 House Martin Amber Declining 71 Cetti’s Warbler Green Rare 72 Willow Warbler Amber Declining 73 Lesser Whitethroat Green Declining 74 Common Whitethroat Amber Declining 75 Grasshopper Warbler Yes Red Declining 77 Reed Warbler Green Restricted 78 Common Starling Yes Red Declining 79 Song Thrush Yes Red Declining 80 Mistle Thrush Amber Declining 81 Nightingale Amber Rare 82 Black Redstart Amber Rare 83 Redstart Amber Scarce 20

84 Whinchat Amber Rare 85 Stonechat Green Rare 86 Northern Wheatear Amber Yes 87 Spotted Flycatcher Yes Red Declining 88 Pied Flycatcher Amber Yes 89 Dunnock Yes Amber Declining 90 House Sparrow Yes Red Declining 91 Tree Sparrow Yes Red Declining 92 Yellow Wagtail Yes Red Declining 93 Grey Wagtail Amber Scarce 94 Tree Pipit Red Declining 95 Meadow Pipit Amber Declining 96 Common Linnet Yes Red Declining 97 Lesser Redpoll Yes Red Declining 98 Common Crossbill Green Scarce 99 Common Bullfinch Yes Amber Declining 100 Hawfinch Yes Red Scarce 101 Yellowhammer Yes Red Declining 102 Reed Bunting Yes Amber Declining 103 Corn Bunting Yes Red Declining

Annex 2 - Derivation of conservation weighting scores

To determine the conservation weighting score for each Nottinghamshire BoCC, the following system is used: • Breeding bird score = UK population score (breeding) + weighting for conservation status • Wintering bird score = UK population score (winter) + weighting for conservation status

The UK population scores are as follows:

UK population Score estimate > 1 million 0 100,000 – 1,000,000 1 10,000 – 100,000 2 1,000 – 10,000 3 100 – 1,000 4 10 – 100 5 1 – 10 6

N.B. Population estimates come from Baker et al. (2006). The breeding population is taken as the number of pairs. Where winter population estimates are available, these are used (number of individuals), but in the absence of this

21

data, the breeding population estimate is used as a proxy. In both cases, where a range is given by Baker et al., the mid-point is used.

The weightings for conservation status are as follows:

Green list BoCC on Notts list of + 1 BoCC Amber list BoCC on Notts list of + 2 BoCC Red list BoCC on Notts list of + 3 BoCC

Annex 3 - Conservation weighting scores for all species (summer and winter)

Species Conservation weighting score score score Score WinterLWS Summer LWS Breeding score Winteringscore

1 Bewick's Swan 2 3 5 2 Whooper Swan 2 3 5 3 Shelduck 2 2 4 2 4 4 Wigeon 2 4 6 1 3 5 Gadwall 2 4 6 2 4 6 Teal 2 3 5 1 3 7 Mallard 2 2 4 1 3 8 Garganey 2 5 7 9 Shoveler 2 3 5 2 4 10 Pochard 2 4 6 2 4 11 Tufted Duck 2 3 5 2 4 12 Goldeneye 2 2 4 13 Smew 2 4 6 14 Grey Partridge 3 2 5 2 5 15 Quail 2 4 6 16 Cormorant 2 3 5 2 4 17 Bittern 3 5 8 4 7 18 Grey Heron 1 2 3 2 3 19 Little Egret 2 4 6 4 6 20 Little Grebe 2 3 5 3 5 21 Great Crested Grebe 1 3 4 2 3 22 Black-necked Grebe 2 5 7 4 6 23 Honey Buzzard 2 5 7 24 Red Kite 2 4 6 4 6 25 Marsh Harrier 2 4 6 4 6 26 Hen Harrier 3 4 7 27 Goshawk 1 4 5 4 5 28 Osprey 2 4 6 22

29 Kestrel 2 2 4 2 4 30 Hobby 1 3 4 31 Peregrine 2 3 5 3 5 32 Water Rail 2 4 6 4 6 33 Coot 1 2 3 1 2 34 Oystercatcher 2 1 3 1 3 35 Avocet 2 4 5 36 Little Ringed Plover 1 4 5 37 Ringed Plover 2 3 5 2 4 38 Golden Plover 2 1 3 39 Lapwing 3 1 4 0 3 40 Ruff 3 5 8 41 Jack Snipe 2 2 4 42 Snipe 2 2 4 1 3 43 Woodcock 2 3 5 3 5 44 Black-tailed Godwit 3 5 8 2 5 45 Curlew 2 1 3 1 3 46 Redshank 2 2 4 1 3 47 Black-headed Gull 2 1 3 0 2 48 Herring Gull 3 1 4 49 Common Tern 2 2 4 50 Stock Dove 2 1 3 1 3 51 Turtle Dove 3 2 5 52 Cuckoo 3 2 5 53 Barn Owl 2 3 5 3 5 54 Tawny Owl 1 2 3 2 3 55 Long-eared Owl 1 3 4 3 4 56 Short-eared Owl 2 3 5 3 5 57 Nightjar 3 3 6 58 Swift 2 2 4 59 Kingfisher 2 3 5 3 5 60 Green Woodpecker 2 2 4 2 4 61 Lesser Spotted Woodpecker 3 3 6 3 6 62 Raven 1 2 3 2 3 63 Bearded Tit 2 4 6 4 6 64 Marsh Tit 3 2 5 2 5 65 Willow Tit 3 3 6 3 6 67 Woodlark 2 3 5 3 5 68 Skylark 3 0 3 0 3 69 Sand Martin 2 1 3 70 Swallow 2 1 3 71 House Martin 2 1 3 72 Cetti’s Warbler 1 4 5 4 5 73 Willow Warbler 2 0 2 74 Lesser Whitethroat 1 2 3 75 Common Whitethroat 2 1 3 77 Grasshopper Warbler 3 2 5 78 Reed Warbler 1 2 3 79 Starling 3 1 4 1 4 80 Song Thrush 3 0 3 0 3 81 Mistle Thrush 2 1 3 1 3 82 Nightingale 2 3 5 83 Black Redstart 2 5 7 23

84 Redstart 2 1 3 85 Whinchat 2 2 4 86 Stonechat 1 3 4 3 4 87 Northern Wheatear 2 2 4 88 Spotted Flycatcher 3 2 5 89 Pied Flycatcher 2 2 4 90 Dunnock 2 0 2 0 2 91 House Sparrow 3 0 3 0 3 92 Tree Sparrow 3 2 5 2 5 93 Yellow Wagtail 3 2 5 94 Grey Wagtail 2 2 4 2 4 95 Tree Pipit 3 2 5 96 Meadow Pipit 2 0 2 0 2 97 Linnet 3 1 4 1 4 98 Lesser Redpoll 3 2 5 2 5 99 Common Crossbill 1 3 4 3 4 100 Bullfinch 2 1 3 1 3 101 Hawfinch 3 3 6 3 6 102 Yellowhammer 3 1 4 1 4 103 Reed Bunting 2 1 3 1 3 104 Corn Bunting 3 2 5 2 5

Annex 4 - Calculation of scores for summer species assemblages in the major habitat types in Nottinghamshire

Pits

Species Scrub Riverine Conifers Conifers Parkland Parkland Reedbed Reedbed Broadleaf Sherwood Heathland Grassland Grassland Conservation Lakes Gravel &

weighting score Post-industrial site Shelduck 4 4 4 Wigeon 6 6 Gadwall 6 6 6 Teal 5 5 Mallard 4 4 4 Shoveler 5 5 Pochard 6 6 Tufted Duck 5 5 Grey Partridge 5 5 5 5 Quail 6 5 5 Cormorant 5 5 Bittern 8 8 Grey Heron 3 3 3 5 Little Egret 6 5 Little Grebe 5 5 Great Crested Grebe 4 4 Black-necked Grebe 7 7 Honey Buzzard 7 7 Red Kite 6 Marsh Harrier 6 6 24

Goshawk 5 5 5 5 Osprey 6 Kestrel 4 4 4 4 Hobby 4 4 4 Peregrine 5 Water Rail 6 6 6 Coot 3 3 3 Oystercatcher 3 3 3 Avocet 5 5 5 Little Ringed Plover 5 5 5 Ringed Plover 5 5 5 Lapwing 4 4 4 4 4 Ruff 8 Snipe 4 4 4 Woodcock 5 5 5 5 Black-tailed Godwit 8 Curlew 3 3 3 3 Redshank 4 4 4 4 Black-headed Gull 3 4 Common Tern 4 4 Stock Dove 3 3 3 3 3 3 Turtle Dove 5 5 5 3 Cuckoo 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Barn Owl 5 5 5 Tawny Owl 3 3 3 3 Long-eared Owl 4 4 4 4 4 Short-eared Owl 5 5 5 Nightjar 6 6 6 6 Swift 4 Kingfisher 5 5 Green Woodpecker 4 4 4 4 4 4 Lesser Spotted Woodpecker 6 6 6 6 Raven 3 Bearded Tit 6 6 Marsh Tit 5 5 5 Willow Tit 6 6 6 6 6 6 Woodlark 5 5 5 5 Skylark 3 3 3 3 3 Sand Martin 3 3 Swallow 3 3 3 House Martin 3 Cetti’s Warbler 5 5 Willow Warbler 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Common Whitethroat 3 3 3 Lesser Whitethroat 3 3 Grasshopper Warbler 5 5 5 5 5 Reed Warbler 3 3 3 Starling 4 4 4 Song Thrush 3 3 3 3 3 3 Mistle Thrush 3 3 Nightingale 5 5 5 Black Redstart 7 7 Redstart 3 3 3 3 Whinchat 4 4 25

Stonechat 5 5 Northern Wheatear 4 4 Spotted Flycatcher 5 5 5 5 Dunnock 2 2 2 2 2 2 House Sparrow 3 3 Tree Sparrow 5 5 5 Yellow Wagtail 5 5 5 5 Grey Wagtail 4 5 4 Tree Pipit 5 5 5 5 5 Meadow Pipit 2 2 2 2 2 2 Linnet 4 4 4 4 4 4 Lesser Redpoll 5 5 5 Common Crossbill 4 4 4 Bullfinch 3 3 3 3 Hawfinch 6 6 6 6 Yellowhammer 4 4 4 4 4 Reed Bunting 3 3 3 3 3 3 Corn Bunting 5 5 5 Possible high score 117 73 46 67 76 51 75 92 147 42 77 Threshold value 39 24 15 22 25 14 25 31 49 14 29

Annex 5 - Calculation of scores for winter species assemblages in the major habitat types in Nottinghamshire

Pits

Species Scrub Riverine Conifers Parkland Reedbed Broadleaf Sherwood Heathland Grassland Grassland Conservation LakesGravel & weighting score Post-industrial site Bewick's Swan 5 5 5 Whooper Swan 5 5 5 Shelduck 4 4 Wigeon 3 3 3 Gadwall 4 4 Teal 3 3 3 Mallard 3 3 3 Shoveler 4 4 Pochard 4 4 Tufted Duck 4 4 Goldeneye 4 4 Smew 6 6 Grey Partridge 5 5 5 Cormorant 4 3 Bittern 7 7 7 Grey Heron 3 3 3 3 Little Egret 6 6 6 Little Grebe 5 5 Great Crested Grebe 3 3 Black-necked Grebe 6 6 Red Kite 6 6 26

Marsh Harrier 6 6 6 Hen Harrier 7 7 7 7 Goshawk 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Kestrel 4 4 4 4 4 4 Peregrine 5 5 5 5 5 Water Rail 6 6 6 6 Coot 2 2 2 Oystercatcher 3 3 Ringed Plover 4 4 Golden Plover 3 3 3 Lapwing 3 3 3 3 3 Jack Snipe 4 4 4 Snipe 3 3 3 Woodcock 5 5 Curlew 3 3 3 Redshank 3 3 3 Black-headed Gull 2 2 2 2 Herring Gull 4 4 Stock Dove 3 3 3 3 Barn Owl 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Tawny Owl 3 3 3 3 3 Long-eared Owl 4 4 4 4 4 4 Short-eared Owl 5 5 5 5 5 Kingfisher 5 5 Green Woodpecker 4 4 4 4 4 4 Lesser Spotted Woodpecker 6 6 6 6 Raven 3 3 3 Bearded Tit 6 6 Marsh Tit 5 5 5 5 Willow Tit 6 6 6 6 6 6 Woodlark 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Skylark 3 3 3 3 3 3 Cetti’s Warbler 5 5 5 5 Starling 4 4 4 4 Song Thrush 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Mistle Thrush 3 3 3 3 Stonechat 4 4 4 Dunnock 2 2 2 2 2 House Sparrow 3 3 Tree Sparrow 5 5 5 Grey Wagtail 4 4 4 Meadow Pipit 2 2 2 2 2 Linnet 4 4 4 4 Lesser Redpoll 5 5 5 5 Common Crossbill 4 4 4 4 Bullfinch 3 3 3 3 3 Hawfinch 6 6 6 6 6 Yellowhammer 4 4 4 Reed Bunting 3 3 3 3 3 Corn Bunting 5 5 Possible high score 89 58 30 50 81 42 72 95 159 50 36 Threshold value 30 19 10 19 27 13 24 32 53 17 12

27

2.4 Butterflies

These criteria were accepted by the NEGDP on 18/03/2014

Originators: Barry Prater (Butterfly Conservation East Midlands); updated by Richard Penson (County Butterfly Recorder)

Introduction

There are 59 species of butterfly which breed in the UK, of which 56 are resident and three are regular migrants, although in varying annual numbers. Nottinghamshire currently has 32 species, ranging from widespread and numerous ones to some which are only known to occur at single sites in the county. Going back to the nineteenth century there would have been around a dozen more species present in the county, all of which have become locally extinct as a result of changes in agricultural and forestry practices and other environmental factors. The county thus has a relatively impoverished butterfly fauna.

However, this region of the country is also witnessing the northerly spread of some species, perhaps associated with climate change, and this is enhancing the biodiversity of some sites, although it is not known whether these range expansions will be sustained in the long term. The distribution of many of those species requiring more specialised habitats appears to be changing quite rapidly, either contracting or spreading and this dynamic situation poses problems for the conservation of individual colonies as these may be short-lived. Habitat conservation on a larger scale is likely to be more effective, with corridors allowing the free movement of species between sites with suitable habitat. However, the site-based approach embodied in the LWS process is valuable because it allows close focus on known sites of importance for butterflies and can therefore contribute significantly to their conservation in the medium term.

Ideally, a site should be accepted as holding a species if that butterfly is known to breed there. However, proof of breeding will often not be evident from records received and all of the species which are of particular concern in the county tend to be relatively sedentary and so their presence will normally imply breeding. All of the species in Nottinghamshire which are more wide-ranging in their activities are also widespread and numerous and hence are less important in terms of their conservation needs. For these reasons, the criteria have been developed on the assumption that if a butterfly is present at a site then that site holds the species concerned. The number of individual butterflies of a particular species at a site, or the size of a colony, will also not be used for identifying important sites. This is because for many species the number of individuals in a population varies considerably from year to year as a normal to weather and other environmental and ecological factors. Records of butterflies known to stem from introductions

28

will not be used to select LWSs, unless that introduction has been carried out through official channels.

The following factors have been taken account of in drawing up the criteria in this document: 1. Whether a site holds a Species of Principal Importance 2. Whether a site holds a species of conservation priority in Nottinghamshire 3. The total number of species held by a site (site assemblage) 4. The number of species held by a site which are considered to be characteristic of a particular habitat in Nottinghamshire (site assemblage - characteristic species)

Conservation priority in Nottinghamshire is based on Butterfly Conservation’s Regional Action Plan (RAP) for the East Midlands (Ellis & Bourn 2000), following a detailed analysis of its application at the county level (Prater 2004), with minor amendments made in 2011 based upon the county recorder’s knowledge.

Criteria

Sites in Nottinghamshire holding butterflies will be designated as LWSs where they meet one or more of the following criteria;

Criterion 1: Any site that supports a Species of Principal Importance, as shown in Annex 1, excluding the two species listed only as priorities for research and monitoring

Justification: To reflect national conservation priorities. Most Species of Principal Importance occurring in Nottinghamshire have very limited distributions and are restricted to particular habitats at a small number of sites. White-letter hairstreak, although more widespread, often occurs in very small, isolated colonies.

Criterion 2: Any site that supports a species of high conservation priority in Nottinghamshire or two species of medium conservation priority in Nottinghamshire as shown in Annex 1

Justification: To reflect local conservation priorities. With one exception, all ‘high’ species are Species of Principal Importance. The exception, Green Hairstreak, remains widespread in southern Britain but has a patchy distribution across the Midlands, and is very rare in Nottinghamshire.

Criterion 3: Any site with a total species assemblage exceeding 20 from the species shown in Annex 1

Justification: To reflect a diverse assemblage of butterflies in the county. The threshold represents two-thirds of the total number of species occurring in the

29

county, and any site holding this number of species would be exceptional and would also be likely to support high and/or medium priority species.

Criterion 4: Any deciduous woodland site with at least two species characteristic of that habitat as shown in Annex 2

Justification: To reflect an important assemblage of butterflies associated with woodland. Two out of three characteristic species is considered to represent a notable site.

Criterion 5: Any lowland heathland site with at least three species characteristic of that habitat as shown in Annex 2

Justification: To reflect an important assemblage of butterflies associated with heathland. Three out of four characteristic species is considered to represent a notable site.

Criterion 6: Any brownfield site with at least three species characteristic of that habitat as shown in Annex 2

Justification: To reflect an important assemblage of butterflies associated with brownfield habitats. Three out of five characteristic species is considered to represent a notable site. In this context, a ‘brownfield’ site is an area of previously developed land, which is normally attributable to the LBAP habitat Open Mosaic Habitat on Previously Developed Land.

Site mapping

• Sites will be mapped in line with the mapping rules for habitats set out section 7(d) of Part 1. • For species occurring in linear features such as hedgerows, road verges, or disused railway lines, areas that are 50 metres either side of a record from a single location will be mapped as part of the LWS. Where multiple records come from a length of linear habitat, the site will be mapped as a single LWS where records occur within 50 metres of each other, and the LWS will be mapped to extend for 50 metres beyond the outermost records.

Site survey and resurvey

• Sites will initially be designated on the basis of survey results not more than 10 years old. • Designated sites will be resurveyed every 10 years, to account for generally low levels of surveying and vagaries in population sizes and distributions due to annual weather patterns. When a site cannot be surveyed within the specified survey programme, it will be assumed that the site still qualifies and will remain designated until it can be ascertained that it does not. 30

References

Ellis, S. & Bourn, N. (2000) Butterfly Conservation Regional Action Plan East Midlands of England. East Midlands Branch BC and Lincolnshire Branch BC. (http://butterfly-conservation.org/files/ap-east_midlands.pdf)

Prater, B. (2004) Nottinghamshire Local Biodiversity Action Plan - Revised Criteria for Selecting Butterfly Species of Conservation Concern (Unpublished).

Annex 1 - Conservation status of Butterflies in Nottinghamshire

Species of PrincipalSpecies Importance? LBAP species? Regional BC Priority PriorityBC for Nottinghamshire Small Skipper Thymelicus sylvestris Essex Skipper Thymelicus lineola Large Skipper Ochlodes sylvanus Dingy Skipper Erynnis tages Yes Yes Medium High Grizzled Skipper Pyrgus malvae Yes Yes High High Clouded Yellow Colias croceus Brimstone Gonopteryx rhamni Large White Pieris brassicae Small White Pieris rapae Green-veined White Pieris napi Orange-tip Anthocharis cardamines Green Hairstreak Callophrys rubi Yes Medium High Purple Hairstreak Neozephyrus quercus Yes Medium White-letter Hairstreak Satyrium w-album Yes Yes Medium Medium Small Copper Lycaena phlaeas Brown Argus Aricia agestis Yes Medium Common Blue Polyommatus Icarus Holly Blue Celastrina argiolus White Admiral Limenitis camilla Yes Yes Medium High Red Admiral Vanessa atalanta Painted Lady Cynthia cardui Small Tortoiseshell Aglais uticae Peacock Inachis io Comma Polygonia c-album

31

Speckled Wood Pararge aegeria Wall Lasiommata megera (Yes) Yes Medium Gatekeeper Pyronia tithonus Meadow Brown Maniola jurtina Small Heath Coenonympha pamphilus (Yes) Yes Ringlet Aphantopus hyperantus

Notes: • Brown Hairstreak Thecla betulae is not included in the list as its recent presence in the county was due to an unauthorised release which only persisted for between one and three years before dying out (there have been no records since 2007). It was, however, present in the county during Victorian times. • Marbled White Melanargia galathea is not included in the list as it has been widely introduced across many sites in the county since 2006, none of which appear to have persisted beyond the first year; the only exception is an established population at a site near Mansfield where it has been recorded for a number of years. Nevertheless, this population is thought also to have stemmed from an unauthorised introduction. • The Species of Principal Importance listed “(Yes)” are priorities for research and monitoring only. • Green Hairstreak Callophrys rubi has been upgraded from ‘Medium’ to ‘High’ BC Priority for Nottinghamshire, due to the small number of colonies in the county and lack of recent records from several of these. • The presence of Silver-washed Fritillary Argynnis paphia in the county will be kept under review, as the origins and breeding status of individuals recorded since 2007 is as yet unknown. • The status of Wall Lasiommata megera will be kept under review due to recent declines, but its ‘Medium’ BC Priority for Nottinghamshire is retained for the time being.

Annex 2 - Characteristic Species Assemblage

Species Deciduous Woodland* Lowland Heathland** Brownfield Sites*** Dingy Skipper Erynnis tages V Grizzled Skipper Pyrgus malvae V Purple Hairstreak Neozephyrus quercus V White-letter Hairstreak Satyrium w-album V Small Copper Lycaena phlaeas V V Brown Argus Aricia agestis V V 32

Common Blue Polyommatus Icarus V White Admiral Limenitis camilla V Wall Lasiommata megera V Small Heath Coenonympha pamphilus V

Notes: • * Any deciduous woodland, including the LBAP habitats Mixed Ash- dominated Woodland and Oak-birch Woodland • ** Lowland heathland includes the LBAP habitats Lowland Heathland and Lowland Dry Acid Grassland • *** Previously developed land, which is normally attributable to the LBAP habitat Open Mosaic Habitat on Previously Developed Land

33

2.5 Dragonflies and damselflies

These criteria were accepted by the NEGDP on 18/03/2014

Originator: David Goddard (Nottinghamshire county recorder for odonata)

Introduction

Odonata - dragonflies and damselflies - are conspicuous invertebrates recognised as being good biological indicators of habitat quality, especially the aquatic habitats that they breed in. The conservation of all odonata is very closely tied to the management and water quality of water bodies such as ponds, pools, lakes, canals and rivers. The larval stages of odonata remain within the water body for a long period, typically ranging in time from one to three years depending upon species. The presence of a good assemblage of odonata or the presence of a notable species is therefore a good indication that the water bodies concerned are in good condition.

The threats that are faced by odonata are primarily associated with the loss of their breeding sites due to changes in farming practises where water bodies are no longer required and are either filled in or left unmanaged, and from development which also results in the loss of water bodies. Other important issues relate to the pollution of water bodies (especially from nutrient run-off from farmland), along with the lack of management or mismanagement of the water body and its immediate surrounding habitats.

Recently, there have been a number changes in the odonata fauna of the British Isles, with a number of species recently colonising to form breeding colonies, along with an increase in the number and range of migrant species from continental Europe. Within Nottinghamshire, this has been reflected by the Small Red-eyed Damselfly Erythromma viridulum being recorded breeding at a number of sites. There has also been an increase in the number of records of species such as the Ruddy Darter Sympetrum sanguineum over the last ten years or so, along with the number of migrant species being recorded such as the red-veined darter and lesser emperor. These changes appear to be due to changes in climate.

For the selection of LWS sites based on their assemblage, only species showing evidence of confirmed or probable breeding are included (Taylor 2003);

• Confirmed breeding - exuvia present (presence of an exuvia constitutes absolute proof that at least one specimen has completed a cycle from egg to adult at the site). • Probable breeding - larva present or female ovipositing or teneral (newly emerged adult) or regular presence of both sexes (normally annual presence in reasonable numbers or a repeated period consistent with the 34

species' life-cycle length). All records to be at, or adjacent to, a suitable water body.

Evidence of possible breeding is not sufficient (e.g. pair copulating or a female seen at a water body suitable for the species where at least one male has been observed to be engaged in some form of reproductive behaviour (such as territoriality or pursuing females) or the presence of adult(s), but with none of the above breeding evidence or behaviour observed).

The five most outstanding Nottinghamshire sites have, in addition, been designated as Key Sites for Odonata by the British Dragonfly Society. They are all sites which contain established populations of Grade 1 or Grade 2 Nottinghamshire species (as listed in Annexes 1 and 2), or where an outstanding assemblage of odonata has been recorded. An outstanding assemblage for Nottinghamshire has been defined as 11 or more species recorded since 2000.

Criteria

Sites in Nottinghamshire holding dragonflies and damselflies will be designated as LWSs where they meet one or more of the following criteria;

Criterion 1: Any site that supports a Grade 1 species (as shown in Annex 1) or Grade 2 species (as shown in Annex 2)

Justification: To reflect national conservation status. This is based upon the criteria for determining key Odonata sites in Great Britain (French & Smallshire, 2008).

Criterion 2: Any site with a total assemblage of 11 or more species, even if the assemblage does not include any Grade 1 or Grade 2 species

Justification: To reflect a diverse assemblage of characteristic species.

Site mapping

• All contiguous lengths of watercourse with multiple records of qualifying species will be mapped as LWSs with the site boundary set 100 metres either side of the first up-stream and last down-stream record (or a lesser distance, where suitable habitat ceases to exist). • Where a single record of a qualifying species comes from a watercourse, all habitat 100 metres up- and down-stream of that record will be mapped as an LWS. • Any single or linked waterbodies with a record(s) of qualifying species will be mapped as an LWS.

35

Site survey and resurvey

• Sites will initially be designated on the basis of survey results not more than 10 years old. • Designated sites will be resurveyed every 10 years, to account for generally low levels of surveying. When a site cannot be surveyed within the specified survey programme, it will be assumed that the site still qualifies and will remain designated until it can be ascertained that it does not.

References

Daguet, C.A., French, G.C. and Taylor, P. (2007). The Odonata Red Data List for Great Britain. Species Status 11; 1-34. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough.(http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/pdf/pub08_speciesstatus11.pdf)

French, G. & Smallshire, D. (2008) Criteria for determining key odonata sites in Great Britain. Journal of the British Dragonfly Society 24(2):54-60. British Dragonfly Society.

Taylor, P. 2003. DCG Special Report - criteria for Proof of Breeding in dragonflies. Dragonfly News, 43: 26-27

Annex 1 - Grade 1 species

These are species occurring in Nottinghamshire which have an IUCN conservation status of Near Threatened (NT) (Daguet et al. 2007). There is one Odonata species of IUCN NT status in Nottinghamshire:

• Variable Damselfly Coenagrion pulchellum

This species has been also been recorded from three or fewer 10Km squares in Nottinghamshire since 2000. However, the Grade 1 Nottinghamshire status has been assigned on the basis of its high national conservation status, and not on the number of 10Km squares in Nottinghamshire in which it has been recorded. Consequently, even if it was to be recorded from more than three 10Km squares in Nottinghamshire, it would remain a Grade 1 Nottinghamshire species for as long as its IUCN conservation status remained Near Threatened or greater.

Annex 2 - Grade 2 species

These are species occurring in Nottinghamshire which are classified as IUCN Least Concern (LC) status, but which have been recorded from three or fewer 10Km squares in Nottinghamshire since 2000. There are four Odonata species of Grade 2 status in Nottinghamshire:

• Beautiful Demoiselle Calopteryx virgo 36

• Golden-ringed Dragonfly Cordulegaster boltonii • Hairy Dragonfly Brachytron pratensis • Black Darter Sympetrum danae

Annex 3 - Other Odonata species recorded within Nottinghamshire

These are species occurring in Nottinghamshire which are classified either as IUCN Least Concern (LC) or Not Evaluated (NE), and which have been recorded from more than three 10Km squares in Nottinghamshire since 2000 or are migrants to Nottinghamshire. At present 21 such species are known to occur in Nottinghamshire, these are:

LEAST CONCERN (LC) • Banded Demoiselle Calopteryx splendens • Emerald Damselfly Lestes sponsa • Azure Damselfly Coenagrion puella • Red-eyed Damselfly Erythromma najas • Large Red Damselfly Pyrrhosoma nymphula • Common Blue Damselfly Enallagma cyathigerum • Blue-tailed Damselfly Ischnura elegans • Southern Hawker Aeshna cyanea • Brown Hawker Aeshna grandis • Common Hawker Aeshna juncea • Migrant Hawker Aeshna mixta • Emperor Dragonfly Anax imperator • Broad-bodied Chaser Libellula depressa • Four-spotted Chaser Libellula quadrimaculata • Black-tailed Skimmer Orthetrum cancellatum • Yellow-winged Darter Sympetrum flaveolum * • Red-veined Darter Sympetrum fonscolombii * • Ruddy Darter Sympetrum sanguineum • Common Darter Sympetrum striolatum

NOT EVALUATED (NE) • Small Red-eyed Damselfly Erythromma viridulum ** • Lesser Emperor Anax parthenope

Note: * - Migrant species which occasionally breed but have not formed permanent populations. ** - A recent colonist which now breeds.

37

2.6 Fish

These criteria were accepted by the NEGDP on 18/03/2014

Originators: Steve Lawrie, Joel Rawlinson, Kathy Hughes and Anja Randeria (Environment Agency)

Introduction

Fish are fundamental biological components of aquatic environments and play a vital role in sustaining healthy ecosystems. Their presence or absence, species composition, population density and relative biomass are commonly used as a key indication tool to accurately assess and infer the biological health status of a given aquatic ecosystem.

The county boasts a broad array of aquatic ecosystems that support a diverse composition of native salmonid and coarse fish species. Historically the county’s watercourses would have supported substantial populations of migratory Atlantic Salmon Salmo salar and Sea Trout Salmo trutta whilst also providing excellent habitat for European Eels Anguilla anguilla, lamprey and coarse fish. Increased anthropogenic perturbations over past centuries saw Burbot Lota lota become extinct, whilst other fish species underwent significant declines; Atlantic Salmon and Sea Trout are not currently known to spawn within Nottinghamshire and European Eel populations have reduced.

Conservation efforts are now seeking to reverse these declines, and have seen the removal of artificial barriers to fish migration, improvements to water quality, and habitat creation undertaken. As a result the status of some aquatic ecosystems is beginning to improve. Brown Trout are now commonly found in the upper reaches of many watercourses and through reintroductions, Grayling Thymallus thymallus have also successfully re-established in sections of the River Erewash. However, it is vital that appropriate sections of watercourse within the county are protected so that very specific and limited aquatic habitat types and their fish communities can be conserved.

In order to be considered and selected as an LWS for fish, a site must contain optimum habitat requirements (including foraging and spawning areas) for the fish species covered by the criteria below. Potentially suitable habitat will initially be identified through an assessment of the habitat. If suitable habitat is identified, presence/absence of the species will then be determined by carrying out electric-fishing surveys or fyke netting (for eels). These surveys are not expected to create a population density estimate, and a species is not required to reach a specific population level in order for the designation to take place; for non-salmonid species of fish there are no published population density targets used by the Environment Agency (for salmonids there is ‘habscore’).

38

Criteria

Sites in Nottinghamshire holding fish will be designated as LWSs where they meet one or more of the following criteria;

Criterion 1: Any site where any of the species listed in Annex 1-3 is present and considered likely to be breeding

Justification: To reflect national conservation status; all the species in Annex 1 are Species of Principal Importance; species in Annex 2 are Annex II species under the EU Habitats Directive; and species in Annex 3 are uncommon and/or localised in Nottinghamshire.

Criterion 2: Any site where European Eel Anguilla anguilla is regularly present

Justification: To reflect national conservation status and local rarity. European Eel is Species of Principal Importance.

Site mapping

• All contiguous of lengths of qualifying watercourse will be mapped as LWSs, with the site boundary set 250 metres either side of the first up-stream and last down-stream record (or a lesser distance, where suitable habitat ceases to exist). • The area of importance will include all areas of known or likely breeding and foraging habitat. • Any qualifying single or linked waterbodies will be mapped as an LWS in their entirety. • Ornamental ponds can be included within LWSs where they are outside what would ordinarily be considered a private garden.

Site survey and resurvey

• Sites will initially be mapped on the basis of survey results not more than 10 years old. • Designated sites will be resurveyed every 10 years, to account for the specialised nature of fish surveying. Where a site cannot be surveyed within the specified survey programme, it will be assumed that the site still qualifies and will remain designated until it can be ascertained that it does not. • In the case of European Eel (Criterion 2), regular presence must be confirmed by at least two records from the same site in any one year, or at least three records from the same site in a 10 year period.

39

Annex 1 - Species of Principal Importance

Atlantic Salmon Salmo salar Brown Trout Salmo trutta Spined Loach Cobitis taenia Sea Lamprey Petromyzon marinus River Lamprey Lampetra fluviatilis

Annex 2 – Species listed in Annex II species of the EU Habitats Directive

Bullhead Cottus gobio Brook Lamprey Lampetra planeri

Annex 3 - Uncommon/localised species in Nottinghamshire

Grayling Thymallus thymallus Nine-spined Stickleback Pungitius pungitius

40

2.7 Mammals (excluding bats)

These criteria were accepted by the NEGDP on 18/03/2014

Originators: John Ellis (County Mammal Recorder) and Janice Bradley (Head of Conservation Policy and Planning for Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust)

Introduction

Nottinghamshire hosts a diverse range of mammals, including some of our nationally most threatened species, such as Water Voles Arvicola amphibius. Many mammals rely on a complex range of habitat features to be able to breed and feed successfully, and so can be a good indicator of the health of a habitat. Several of our mammals that are indigenous to the County are protected by law and/or are UK BAP priority species, reflecting their vulnerability to habitat loss, deliberate killing and also a variety of indirect impacts, which have resulted in significant decreases in their populations over the last century. Conversely, some species, such as Otters Lutra lutra, are gradually increasing in the County and slowly re-colonising their former natural range, due to a combination of habitat conservation measures and legal protection. Others species, such as polecats are also doing so, largely in the absence of specific conservation measures, but aided by protection from persecution.

These patterns of population change have been taken into account when formulating these criteria, including the role that habitat loss has played for those species that are in decline. A distinction has also been made between those species protected by law because they are rare or declining, and Badgers Meles meles, which are protected by law because they are vulnerable to persecution, rather than because they are rare, and so LWS status is not required to protect their habitats. In addition, it should be noted that two mammal species listed as Species of Principal Importance, Hedgehog Erinaceus europaeus and Brown Hare Lepus europaeus, have not been included in these criteria as although they have suffered declines, they remain widespread in the county and protection of sites through the LWS system is not considered likely to have any meaningful impact on their conservation status.

A record of a species is based on evidence of either a sighting of the animal itself, or a field sign associated with territorial/breeding activity by that animal (such as latrines and grazing lawns for Water Voles, spraints for Otters and nests for Harvest Mice Micromys minutus). Species are generally regarded as having a ‘regular’ presence on a site if they used it to nest/breed or feed and have been recorded at least once in the previous ten years on the last time they were surveyed in that location, as most areas will have been surveyed only once in that period. This is a precautionary approach based on the evidence that many mammals use the same sites each year, in the absence of any significant habitat 41

change and/or increase in predation, thus it is likely that they will occur in the same locations and would be recorded again, were surveys to be undertaken. It is intended that the LWS system will complement the legislation for those species protected by law, by providing some degree of protection for the habitat that supports them. It should be noted that for some species it has been decided that an alert map would be more helpful to indicate to planners, developers and landowners that the species has been recorded at that point and therefore that an up-to-date survey is required.

Criteria

Sites in Nottinghamshire holding mammals will be designated as LWSs where they meet one or more of the following criteria;

Criterion 1: Any site with breeding Water Vole Arvicola amphibius or Otter Lutra lutra

Justification: To reflect national conservation status (both are Species of Principal Importance). Water Voles have declined dramatically across the UK and are now extinct in at least two counties. The Nottinghamshire population is thought to be important in the East Midlands, although there have still been dramatic reductions in both range and numbers over recent decades as a result of habitat loss and degradation. Otters are slowly expanding both range and population size in the County, however they remain vulnerable to habitat loss and degradation, and are vulnerable to collisions with cars, a number of substantial gaps in distribution remain in the county, and breeding sites are rare.

Criterion 2: Any site with breeding Red Deer Cervus elaphus (excluding parkland populations)

Justification: To reflect local scarcity and vulnerability. Although not a national conservation priority, wild red deer in Nottinghamshire are believed to be of a unique genotype, displaying an unusual antler formation, and have a restricted distribution.

Criterion 3: Any site where Harvest Mouse Micromys minutus, Dormouse Muscardinus avellanarius or Polecat Mustela putorius are present and considered likely to be breeding

Justification: To reflect national conservation status (all are Species of Principal Importance). Harvest Mice are scarcely distributed in the county and believed to have undergone significant decline, persisting in a few strongholds (mainly on nature reserves). Whilst historically native to the county, Dormice are currently found in only one woodland in Nottinghamshire, where they were reintroduced (but have now persisted for over 15 years and may colonise other areas over

42

time). Polecats have returned to the County in recent years but still have very limited distribution and remain a rare mammal.

Criterion 4: Any site where Yellow-necked Mouse Apodemus flavicollis is present and considered likely to be breeding

Justification: To reflect local rarity. This species is very rare in the Midlands and the North, and records from Nottinghamshire are currently unproven; however this species is included as there is a likelihood that it will be recorded in the future, particularly in response to the effects of climate change, as it is likely to spread northwards.

Criterion 5: Any site where three or more of the species listed in criteria 1- 5 above are recorded but have not been proven to be breeding

Justification: To reflect sites with important assemblages of mammals.

Site mapping

• Sites will be mapped in line with the mapping rules for habitats set out section 7(d) of Part 1. • For Water Vole, all contiguous lengths of watercourse holding evidence of breeding will be mapped as LWSs with the site boundary set 50 metres either side of the first up-stream and last down-stream record (or a lesser distance, where suitable habitat ceases to exist). The LWS will extend to 5m from the top of the bank and will cover both banks, and the intervening water. • Where Water Voles are using standing waterbodies, those that are less than 2ha in size (ponds) will be included within the LWS boundary in their entirety, whilst in the case of those larger than 2ha in size (lakes), only those parts of the periphery used by Water Voles, to a distance of 50m either side of the outermost records, will be included within the LWS boundary (although where records occur all the way around a lake, then all peripheral areas will be included). In both cases, the LWS will extend to 5m from the water’s edge. • For Otter, all contiguous of lengths of watercourse either side of natural or artificial holts which are in use will be mapped as LWSs with the site boundary set 200 metres either side of the first up-stream and last down- stream record (or a lesser distance, where suitable habitat ceases to exist), or from a holt. The LWS will extend to 5m from the top of the bank and will cover both banks. Where holts are located within areas of woodland or scrub, these areas will be included within the LWS boundary.

Site survey and resurvey

• Sites will initially be mapped on the basis of survey results not more than 10 years old.

43

• Designated sites will be resurveyed every 10 years, to account for the generally low level of amateur surveying. Where a site cannot be surveyed within the specified survey programme, it will be assumed that the site still qualifies and will remain designated until it can be ascertained that it does not.

44

2.8 Moths

These criteria were accepted by the NEGDP on 18/03/2014

Originator: Dr Sheila Wright (Nottingham Museums Service)

Introduction

A wide-ranging study conducted by the Rothamstead Experimental Research Station over the 35 years between 1968 and 2003 (Fox et al 2006) revealed that two-thirds of British moth species had undergone a significant decline in population levels over that period, with half of these found to be in steep decline. The total number of moths was found to have declined by a third over the period of the study. Furthermore, there is anecdotal evidence to suggest that moths had already seriously declined prior to 1968 when the study began - due to the agricultural intensification that took place in much of the UK between the 1940's and early 1960's.

Together with other insects, moths are an important part of the ecosystem as food for insectivorous birds and mammals, as well as being important in their own right. Many species of moth are also excellent indicators of good habitat - the rarer ones often occurring only in areas that are valuable for other wildlife, too. Moths are also very vulnerable to the effects of isolation - those populations that remain only in isolated pockets of habitat surrounded by inhospitable land are prone to local extinction - and because of this isolation and the rarity of the species involved, they are unlikely to recolonise an area once lost. For these reasons, sites where rare moth species occur, and sites where a good assemblage of moth species occur, are covered by the designation criteria given below.

A total of 633 resident species of moth have been recorded from Nottinghamshire; of these, there are no post-1990 records for 68 species. All species of macro moth for which there are post-1990 records for Nottinghamshire (excluding migrants and vagrants) have been assigned a Nottinghamshire conservation status, in accordance with an assessment based upon a combination of their national conservation status and their recorded distribution within Nottinghamshire (Wright 2011). An extract from this publication, showing the grading system which has been devised, is given in Annex 1, and the moths to which the gradings apply are shown in Annexes 2 to 4.

Criteria

Sites in Nottinghamshire holding moths will be designated as LWSs where they meet one or more of the following criteria;

45

Criterion 1: Any site where at least one Grade 1 species has been recorded since 1990, and the site is considered likely to be supporting a resident breeding population of the species concerned

Justification: To reflect national and/or local rarity.

Criterion 2: Any site where at least two Grade 2 species have been recorded since 1990, and the site is considered likely to be supporting resident breeding populations of the species concerned

Justification: To reflect national and/or local rarity.

Criterion 3: Any site where at least ten Grade 3 (or one Grade 2 and at least nine Grade 3) species have been recorded since 1990, and the site is considered likely to be supporting resident breeding populations of the species concerned

Justification: To reflect national and/or local rarity.

Criterion 4: Any site where at least 275 resident UK species (including Nottinghamshire "Ungraded” species) have been recorded since 1990, and the site is considered likely to be supporting breeding populations of the species concerned

Justification: To reflect a diverse assemblage of moths.

Site mapping

• Sites will be mapped in line with the mapping rules for habitats set out section 7(d) of Part 1.

Site survey and resurvey

• Sites will initially be designated on the basis of survey results not more than 30 years old. • Designated sites will be resurveyed at least once every 30 years, to account for the generally low level of amateur surveying and the fact that some species have short flight periods. When a site cannot be surveyed within the specified survey programme, it will be assumed that the site still qualifies and will remain designated until it can be ascertained that it does not.

References

Bradley, J.D. (2000). Checklist of Lepidoptera Recorded from the British Isles. Second Edition (Revised). 46

Fox, R., Conrad, K.F., Parsons, M.S., Warren, M.S. & Woiwod, I.P. (2006) The state of Britain’s larger moths. Butterfly Conservation and Rothamsted Research, Wareham, Dorset. (http://butterfly-conservation.org/files/sobm-final-version.pdf)

Wright, S. (2011) The Conservation Status of Larger Moths in Nottinghamshire (3rd edition). Nottingham Natural History Museum, Wollaton Hall, Nottingham.

Annex 1 - The conservation grading system for the larger moths of Nottinghamshire

The assessment of the conservation status of each of the species of larger moth resident in Nottinghamshire takes into account both their national conservation status and their local rarity. This is because it is probably at least as important for us to protect nationally rare/local species which happen to be common in Nottinghamshire as it is to protect nationally common species which are nevertheless scarce in this county (many of our Nottinghamshire moths are both nationally and locally rare, of course).

Resident species have thus been assigned a Grade 1, 2, 3 conservation status in the county, or left ungraded, according to a combination of their national status and the frequency of their known occurrence within Nottinghamshire, as detailed below. Frequency is determined by the number of 10km squares in the county from which they have been recorded since 1990. Migrants have been excluded from consideration for conservation status, since it is probably safe to assume that their occurrence at a particular site will be casual and have no real bearing on the conservation value of that site. Further information relating to national conservation statuses can be found on the Joint Nature Conservation Committee website (http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-3425).

Grade 1: Includes all Red Data Book and Nationally Notable Group A species recorded in Nottinghamshire since 1990, together with all Nationally Notable Group B species recorded from five or fewer 10km squares in Nottinghamshire since 1990.

Grade 2: Includes all Nationally Notable Group B species recorded from more than five 10Km squares in Nottinghamshire since 1990, together with all Nationally Local species recorded from five or fewer 10km squares in Nottinghamshire since 1990.

Grade 3: Includes all Nationally Local species recorded from more than five 10km squares in Nottinghamshire since 1990, together with all Nationally Common species recorded from five or fewer 10km squares in Nottinghamshire since 1990.

Ungraded: Includes all nationally common species recorded from more than five 10km squares in Nottinghamshire since 1990. (Although moths in this category 47

have no conservation status as individual species, they may still be important in conservation terms as part of the overall assemblage of moths at a site).

It should be noted that the current list of Grade 1, 2 and 3 moths is taken from Wright (2011), updated with small number of species recorded since 2011 (namely Goat, Poplar Lutestring, Small Seraphim, White-marked, Haworth’s Minor, Silver Hook and Minor Shoulder-knot). A fully revised list of Grade 1, 2 and 3 moths will be produced in mid-2014.

Annex 2 - Grade 1 species

Ref.* Common name Scientific name National Status 0374 Yellow-legged Clearwing Synanthedon vespiformis Nb 0376 Welsh Clearwing Synanthedon scoliaeformis RDB 3 0379 Red-belted Clearwing Synanthedon myopaeformis Nb 0380 Red-tipped Clearwing Synanthedon formicaeformis Nb 0381 Large Red-belted Clearwing Synanthedon culiciformis Nb 0162 Goat Cossus cossus Nb 1633 Small Eggar Eriogaster lanestris Nb 1679 False Mocha Cyclophora porata Nb 1721 Balsam Carpet Xanthorhoe biriviata Na 1822 Marsh Carpet Perizoma sagittata Na 1820 Pinion-spotted Pug Eupithecia insigniata Nb 1821 Valerian Pug Eupithecia valerianata Nb 1822 Marsh Pug Eupithecia pygmaeata Nb 1824 Pauper(Fletcher's)Pug Eupithecia egenaria RDB 3 1836 Campanula Pug Eupithecia denotata Na 1863 Dentated Pug Anticollix sparsata Na 1943 Great Oak Beauty Boarmia roboraria Nb 1983 Broad- bordered Bee Hawk-moth Hemaris fuciformis Nb 2017 Small Chocolate-tip Clostera pigra Nb 2025 Scarce Vapourer Orgyia recens RDB 2 2131 Square-spotted Clay Xestia rhomboidea Nb 2152 White Colon Sideridis albicolon Nb 2211 The Wormwood Cucullia absinthii Nb 2465 The Four-spotted Tyta luctuosa Na 2475 Waved Black Parascotia fuliginaria Nb

Annex 3 - Grade 2 species

Ref.* Common name Scientific name National Status 0163 The Forester Adscita statices Local 0373 Currant Clearwing Synanthedon tipuliformis Nb 0382 Six-belted Clearwing Bembecia ichneumoniformis Nb 1647 Barred Hook-tip Drepana cultraria Local 1655 Poplar Lutestring Tethea or Local 48

1660 Frosted Green Polyploca ridens Local 1661 Orange Underwing Archiearis parthenias Local 1667 Blotched Emerald Comibaena bajularia Local 1673 Small Emerald Hemistola chrysoprasaria Local 1677 Birch Mocha Cyclophora albipunctata Local 1692 Lesser Cream Wave Scopula immutata Local 1739 Wood Carpet Epirrhoe rivata Local 1740 Galium Carpet Epirrhoe galiata Local 1761 Autumn Green Carpet Chloroclysta miata Local 1779 Ruddy Highflyer Hydriomena ruberata Local 1788 Scarce Tissue Rheumaptera cervinalis Local 1790 The Tissue Triphosa dubitata Local 1791 Brown Scallop Philereme vetulata Local 1807 Grass Rivulet Perizoma albulata Local 1813 Haworth's Pug Eupithecia haworthiata Local 1823 Netted Pug Eupithecia venosata Local 1826 Triple-spotted Pug Eupithecia trisignaria Local 1828 Satyr Pug Eupithecia satyrata Local 1831 Ling Pug Eupithecia f.goossensiata Local 1840 Shaded Pug Eupithecia subumbrata Local 1842 Plain Pug Eupithecia simpliciata Local 1874 Dingy Shell Euchoeca nebulata Local 1882 Small Seraphim Pterapherapteryx sexalata Local 1889 Peacock Moth Semiothisa notata Local 1897 The V-moth Semiothisa wauaria Local 1918 Lunar Thorn Selenia lunularia Local 1925 Small Brindled Beauty Apocheima hispidaria Local 1964 The Annulet Gnophos obscurata Local 1970 Grass Wave Perconia strigillaria Local 1996 Alder Kitten Furcula bicuspis Local 2010 Scarce Prominent Odontosia carmelita Local 2014 Marbled Brown Drymonia dodonaea Local 2033 Black Arches Lymantria monacha Local 2035 Round-winged Muslin Thumatha senex Local 2037 Rosy Footman Miltochrista miniata Local 2038 Muslin Footman Nudaria mundana Local 2039 Red-necked Footman Atolmis rubricollis Local 2059 Clouded Buff Diacrisia sannio Local 2085 Archer's Dart Agrotis vestigialis Local 2104 Northern Rustic Standfussiana lucernea Local 2105 Dotted Rustic Rhyacia simulans Local 2113 Stout Dart Spaelotis ravida Local 2121 Barred Chestnut Diarsia dahlii Local 2140 White-marked Cerastis leucographa Local 2156 Beautiful Brocade Lacanobia contigua Local 2159 Dog's Tooth Lacanobia suasa Local 2162 Glaucous Shears Papestra biren Local 2171 Marbled Coronet Hadena confusa Local 49

2185 Lead-coloured Drab Orthosia populeti Local 2196 Striped Wainscot Mythimna pudorina Local 2204 Obscure Wainscot Mythimna obsoleta Local 2214 Chamomile Shark Cucullia chamomillae Local 2229 Brindled Ochre Dasypolia templi Local 2235 Tawny Pinion Lithophane semibrunnea Local 2241 Red Swordgrass Xylena vetusta Local 2252 Large Ranunculus Polymixis flavicincta Local 2275 Dusky-lemon Sallow Xanthia gilvago Local 2291 Coronet Craniophora ligustri Local 2313 Angle-striped Sallow Enargia paleacea Nb 2316 Lesser-spotted Pinion Cosmia affinis Local 2319 Lunar-spotted Pinion Cosmia pyralina Local 2357 Large Ear Amphipoea lucens Local 2358 Saltern Ear Amphipoea fucosa Local 2362 Butterbur Hydraecia petasitis Local 2367 Haworth’s Minor Celaena haworthii Local 2371 Brown-veined Wainscot Archanara dissoluta Local 2379 Small Rufous Coenobia rufa Local 2391 Silky Wainscot Chilodes maritimus Local 2394 The Anomalous Stilbia anomala Local 2399 Bordered Sallow Pyrrhia umbra Local 2412 Silver Hook Deltote uncula Local 2418 Cream-bordered Green Pea Earias clorana Nb 2476 Beautiful Snout Hypena crassalis Local 2484 Pinion-streaked Snout Schrankia costaestrigalis Local

Annex 4 - Grade 3 species

Ref.* Common name Scientific name National Status 0016 Gold Swift Hepialus hecta Local 0018 Map-winged Swift Hepialus fusconebulosa Local 0371 Lunar Hornet Moth Sesia bembeciformis Common 1665 Grass Emerald Pseudoterpna pruinata Common 1680 Maiden's Blush Cyclophora punctaria Local 1681 Clay Triple-lines Cyclophora linearia Local 1693 Cream Wave Scopula floslactata Local 1705 Dwarf Cream Wave Idaea fuscovenosa Local 1712 Small Scallop Idaea emarginata Local 1715 Plain Wave Idaea straminata Local 1726 Large Twin-spot Carpet Xanthorhoe quadrifasciata Local 1754 The Phoenix Eulithis prunata Common 1756 Northern Spinach Eulithis populata Common 1766 Blue-bordered Carpet Plemyria rubiginata Common 1775 Mottled Grey Colostigia multistrigaria Common 1781 Small Waved Umber Horisma vitalbata Common 1782 The Fern Horisme tersata Common 50

1789 Scallop Shell Rheumaptera undulata Local 1792 Dark Umber Philereme transversata Local 1804 Barred Rivulet Perizoma bifaciata Local 1812 Maple Pug Eupithecia inturbata Local 1835 White-spotted Pug Eupithecia tripunctaria Local 1851 Golden-rod Pug Eupithecia virgaureata Local 1875 Small White Wave Asthena abulata Common 1879 The Seraphim Lobophora halterata Local 1883 Yellow-barred Brindle Acasis viretata Local 1885 Clouded Magpie Abraxas sylvata Local 1888 Scorched Carpet Ligdia adustata Local 1904 Scorched Wing Plagodis dolabraria Local 1910 Lilac Beauty Apeira syringaria Local 1912 August Thorn Ennomos quercinaria Local 1944 Pale Oak Beauty Serraca punctinalis Common 1978 Pine Hawk-moth Hyloicus pinastri Local 1992 Small Elephant Hawk-moth Deilephila porcellus Local 1998 Poplar Kitten Furcula bifida Local 2019 Chocolate-tip Clostera curtula Local 2020 Figure of Eight Diloba caerulecephala Common 2031 White Satin Leucoma salicis Local 2043 Orange Footman Eilema sororcula Local 2047 Scarce Footman Eilema complana Local 2049 Buff Footman Eilema deplana Local 2078 Least Black Arches Nola confusalis Local 2114 Double Dart Graphiophora augur Common 2135 Heath Rustic Xestia agathina agathina Local 2136 The Gothic Naenia typica Local 2142 Beautiful Yellow Underwing Anarta myrtilli Common 2167 Tawny Shears Hadena perplexa perplexa Common 2197 Southern Wainscot Mythimna straminea Local 2225 Minor Shoulder-knot Brachylomia viminalis Common 2227 The Sprawler Asteroscopus sphinx Common 2236 Pale Pinion Lithophane socia Local 2250 Dark Brocade Mniotype adusta Common 2279 Sycamore Acronicta aceris Local 2281 Alder Moth Acronicta alni Local 2300 Old Lady Mormo maura Local 2301 Bird's Wing Dypterygia scabriuscula Local 2312 The Olive Ipimorpha subtusa Local 2268 The Suspected Parastichtis suspecta Local 2314 Dingy Shears Parastichtis ypsillon Local 2333 Large Nutmeg Apamea anceps Local 2338 Rufous Minor Oligia versicolor Local 2368 The Crescent Celaena leucostigma Local 2370 Twin-spotted Wainscot Archanara geminipuncta Local 2377 Fen Wainscot Arenostola phragmitidis Local 2384 Vine's Rustic Hoplodrina ambigua Local 51

2397 Small Yellow Underwing Panemeria tenebrata Local 2421 Scarce Silver-lines Bena bicolorana Local 2444 Gold Spangle Autographa bractea Common 2423 Oak Nycteoline Nycteola revayana Local 2449 Dark Spectacle Abrostola trigemina Common 2466 The Blackneck Lygephila pastinum Local 2473 Beautiful Hook-tip Laspeyria flexula Local

*Reference numbers are those used in Bradley, J.D. (2000).

52

2.9 Water beetles and water bugs

These criteria were accepted by the NEGDP on 18/03/2014

Originator: Robert Merritt (county recorder for water beetles and water bugs)

Introduction

Water beetles (Coleoptera), as a group, possess a range of attributes that make them well-suited for the evaluation of the conservation status of wetlands: they occupy an almost complete range of wetland habitats, and distinct ecological communities can be identified; they are a relatively large group of insects but with not so many species as to hamper investigation; adult beetles of most species can be found throughout the year; a modern key to identification is available (Foster & Friday 2011); the biology and distribution of most species is well- understood, and they include many predators - a fact considered by some authors to be an important indicator of environmental quality. The presence of certain species of water beetle can reveal conservation interest in places where there is little floristic diversity and from which more conspicuous insects such as dragonflies are rare or absent.

Whilst water bugs (Hemiptera) lack many of the attributes outlined above for water beetles, they are nevertheless an important component of the invertebrate fauna of many wetland sites. Some species of water bug can be extremely abundant at individual sites, particularly in shallow open water, and must play a significant role in the food chain. Other species are ecologically important for being keystone predators, especially when they occupy small, enclosed waterbodies.

The designation of LWSs for water beetles and water bugs is based on the extensive field-work of Bob Merritt, both before and after the publication of his Atlas by the Sorby Natural History Society (Merritt 2006). At that time, the JNCC national statuses for both these groups were very out of date and the author devised an unofficial system to identify “noteworthy” sites based on counts of hectad occupancy in Britain as shown on the NBN Gateway. It is emphasised here that the published lists of noteworthy sites also included sites which had been mentioned in the text of the publication. The lists should not be interpreted as being candidate LWSs. It should be noted that there are two species of water beetle that have been found in Nottinghamshire by the author since the publication of the Atlas, namely Acilius canaliculatus and Agabus labiatus, both at a Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust reserve on former MOD land in the north of the county.

Since the publication of the Atlas, JNCC has published a set of revised national statuses for water beetles (Foster 2010). Where applicable, these will be used in the designation of LWSs along with the unofficial criteria referred to above. A 53

justification for continuing to use these unofficial criteria may be found in JNCC’s latest review in which Foster states, referring to certain species which fell outside the scope of the Review: “Nevertheless many of these species have a conservation value as indicators of good quality sites. Development of a new system of scoring sites, or upgrading of existing systems… is desirable to take advantage of the extensive recording of such species.”

The official statuses applicable to Nottinghamshire’s rarer water beetles, taken from the latest national Review, are:

1) Near Threatened. This category is used to identify species that need to be kept under review to ensure that they have not become vulnerable to extinction, and applies to species for which a potential threat, natural habitat dependency or range change demand frequent review of status.

2) Nationally Scarce. This category is used for species recorded from 16 to 100 hectads of the Ordnance Survey national grid in Great Britain since 1980, and which qualify for neither a Threatened status nor a Near Threatened status.

The unofficial statuses to be used in LWS designation of water beetles and water bugs are: • Rare = a species recorded in 30 hectads or fewer (water bugs only) • Scarce = a species recorded in 31-100 hectads (water bugs only) • Local A = a species recorded in 101-200 hectads • Local B = a species recorded in 201-400 hectads • Common = a species recorded in 401+ hectads

To ensure that the distributions shown on the Gateway are accurate and reliable, only a few of the datasets available for selection were selected when compiling the lists in Annex 1 and Annex 2, namely that of the Balfour-Browne-Club (which ran the water beetle national recording scheme for BRC, and now renamed the Aquatic Coleoptera Conservation Trust), the Aquatic Heteroptera Recording Scheme’s Aquatic Heteroptera Dataset, and the Biological Records Centre’s Water Bug Data for Britain. Records were chosen for the 25-year period immediately preceding the year of the most recent national update of data for that dataset. (NB. The species’ statuses published in the Atlas have been updated in this document). It is the author’s opinion that many of the datasets posted on the NBN Gateway contain data that have been insufficiently validated, including those from some national institutions, e.g. Natural England’s Invertebrate Site Register.

Criteria

Sites in Nottinghamshire holding water beetles and water bugs will be designated as LWSs where they meet one or more of the following criteria:

54

Criterion 1: Any site at which a Near Threatened or Nationally Scarce species of water beetle, or a Rare or Scarce species of water bug, has been recorded (with reference to Annex 1 and Annex 2)

Justification: To reflect national rarity and/or threat.

Criterion 2: Any site at which at least 3 Local A and 5 Local B species of water beetle or 2 Local A and 4 Local B species of water bug have been recorded (with reference to Annex 1 and Annex 2)

Justification: To reflect an assemblage of nationally local species, some of which have a high local conservation interest.

Criterion 3: Any site possessing a Local A or Local B species which has been found at 4 or fewer sites in Nottinghamshire (with reference to Annex 1 and Annex 2)

Justification: To reflect county rarity.

Criterion 4: Any site at which at least 32 species of water beetle or 15 species of water bug have been recorded (with reference to Annexes 1 to 4)

Justification: To reflect a diverse water beetle/bug assemblage.

Site mapping

• Sites will be mapped in line with the mapping rules for habitats set out section 7(d) of Part 1. • For species occurring in watercourses, all contiguous lengths of watercourse with multiple records will be mapped as LWSs, with the site boundary set 100 metres either side of the first up-stream and last down-stream record (or a lesser distance, where suitable habitat ceases to exist). • Where a single record comes from a watercourse, all habitat 100 metres up- and down-stream of that record will be mapped as an LWS.

Site survey and resurvey

• Sites will initially be designated on the basis of survey results not more than twenty years old. • Designated sites will be resurveyed every ten years, to account for the specialised nature of water beetle and water bug surveying. The resurvey should entail a minimum of two visits in one year, at least three months apart (preferably four). When a site cannot be surveyed within the specified survey

55

programme, it will be assumed that the site still qualifies and will remain designated until it can be ascertained that it does not. • Resurveyed sites where a single individual of a Near Threatened or Nationally Scarce water beetle or of a Rare or Scarce water bug (see criterion 1), or of a county rarity of either water beetle or water bug (see criterion 3), was recorded on a single date only, and for the first time, should be revisited prior to redesignation in order to confirm a regular presence. For such species recorded as singletons during the initial survey prior to the original designation, the presence of a single individual during the resurvey will be taken as confirmation of a regular presence. • Sites that are clearly of a temporary nature will not be considered for designation (e.g. puddles, some pools) even though they may be host to certain pioneer species listed in Annex 1 or Annex 2.

References

Foster, G.N. (2010). A review of the scarce and threatened Coleoptera of Great Britain Part (3): Water beetles of Great Britain. Species status 1. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough. (http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/PDF/JNCC_WEB_Waterbeetle%20Review%20No1%20 Part3%20Aug%202010_2.pdf)

Foster, G.N. & Friday L.E. (2011) RES Handbook Volume 4, Part 5: Keys to adults of the water beetles of Britain and Ireland (Part 1). Royal Entomological Society, St Albans.

Merritt, R. (2006). Atlas of the Water Beetles (Coleoptera) and Water Bugs (Hemiptera) of Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire, and South Yorkshire, 1993 – 2005. Sorby Record Special Series 14. Sorby Natural History Society, Sheffield.

Annex 1 - Water beetles (Coleoptera) relevant to criteria 1-4

Species National status Acilius canaliculatus Nationally Scarce Acilius sulcatus Local B Agabus affinis Local B Agabus biguttatus Nationally Scarce Agabus conspersus Nationally Scarce Agabus didymus Local B Agabus labiatus Near Threatened Agabus uliginosus Near Threatened Agabus unguicularis Local A Anacaena bipustulata Local B Berosus signaticollis Local A Brychius elevatus Local A

56

Cercyon bifenestratus Nationally Scarce Cercyon convexiusculus Local B Cercyon marinus Local A Cercyon sternalis Local A Cercyon tristis Local B Cercyon ustulatus Local B Chaetarthria seminulum Nationally Scarce Coelostoma orbiculare Local B Cymbiodyta marginellus Local B Dryops ernesti Local A Dytiscus circumcinctus Nationally Scarce Dytiscus circumflexus Local A Dytiscus semisulcatus Local B Enicocerus exsculptus Nationally Scarce Enochrus halophilus Nationally Scarce Enochrus melanocephalus Local A Enochrus quadripunctatus Nationally Scarce Enochrus testaceus Local B Graptodytes granularis Local A Graptodytes pictus Local B Gyrinus distinctus Nationally Scarce Gyrinus marinus Local B Gyrinus paykulli Nationally Scarce Gyrinus urinator Local A Haliplus confinis Local B Haliplus flavicollis Local B Haliplus fulvus Local B Haliplus heydeni Local A Haliplus laminatus Local A Haliplus lineolatus Local B Haliplus mucronatus Nationally Scarce Haliplus obliquus Local B Helochares lividus Local B Helochares punctatus Nationally Scarce Helophorus arvernicus Local A Helophorus dorsalis Nationally Scarce Helophorus griseus Local B Helophorus longitarsis Nationally Scarce Helophorus nanus Nationally Scarce Helophorus strigifrons Nationally Scarce Hydraena britteni Local A Hydraena nigrita Local A Hydraena testacea Local B Hydrochus elongatus Near Threatened

57

Hydroglyphus geminus Local B Hydroporus melanarius Local B Hydroporus neglectus Nationally Scarce Hydroporus obsoletus Nationally Scarce Hydroporus striola Local B Hygrobia hermanni Local B Hygrotus confluens Local B Hygrotus nigrolineatus Nationally Scarce Hygrotus quinquelineatus Nationally Scarce Hygrotus versicolor Local B Ilybius chalconatus Local A Ilybius fenestratus Local A Ilybius montanus Local B Ilybius quadriguttatus Local B Ilybius subaeneus Nationally Scarce Laccobius colon Local B Laccobius sinuatus Local B Laccobius striatulus Local B Laccophilus hyalinus Local B Limnebius nitidus Local A Limnebius papposus Near Threatened Liopterus haemorrhoidalis Local B Nebrioporus assimilis Local B Noterus crassicornis Nationally Scarce Ochthebius bicolon Local A Ochthebius dilatatus Local B Orectochilus villosus Local A Oulimnius major Nationally Scarce Oulimnius rivularis Nationally Scarce Porhydrus lineatus Local A Rhantus exsoletus Local B Rhantus grapii Local A Rhantus suturalis Local B Riolus subviolaceus Nationally Scarce Scarodytes halensis Nationally Scarce Strictonectes lepidus Near Threatened Suphrodytes dorsalis Local B

Annex 2 - Water bugs (Hemiptera) relevant to criteria 1-4

Species National status Aphelocheirus aestivalis Local B Arctocorisa germari Local A Corixa dentipes Local A Corixa panzeri Local B 58

Cymatia bonsdorffii Local B Cymatia coleoptrata Local B Gerris lateralis Local A Mesovelia furcata Scarce Micronecta poweri Local A Micronecta scholtzi Local A Notonecta maculata Local B Notonecta obliqua Local B Notonecta viridis Local B Paracorixa concinna Local B Ranatra linearis Local B Sigara limitata Local A Sigara scotti Local B Sigara semistriata Local A Sigara venusta Local A

Annex 3 - Water beetles (Coleoptera) relevant only to criterion 4

Species National status Agabus bipustulatus Common Agabus guttatus Common Agabus nebulosus Common Agabus paludosus Common Agabus sturmii Common Anacaena globulus Common Anacaena limbata Common Anacaena lutescens Common Colymbetes fuscus Common Dryops luridus Common Dytiscus marginalis Common Elmis aenea Common Gyrinus substriatus Common Haliplus fluviatilis Common Haliplus immaculatus Common Haliplus lineatocollis Common Haliplus ruficollis Common Haliplus sibiricus Common Helophorus aequalis Common Helophorus brevipalpis Common Helophorus flavipes Common Helophorus grandis Common Helophorus minutus Common Helophorus obscurus Common Hydraena gracilis Common Hydraena riparia Common 59

Hydrobius fuscipes Common Hydroporus angustatus Common Hydroporus discretus Common Hydroporus erythrocephalus Common Hydroporus gyllenhalii Common Hydroporus incognitus Common Hydroporus memnonius Common Hydroporus nigrita Common Hydroporus palustris Common Hydroporus planus Common Hydroporus pubescens Common Hydroporus tessellatus Common Hydroporus tristis Common Hygrotus impressopunctatus Common Hygrotus inaequalis Common Hyphydrus ovatus Common Ilybius ater Common Ilybius fuliginosus Common Laccobius bipunctatus Common Laccobius minutus Common Laccophilus minutus Common Limnebius truncatellus Common Limnius volckmari Common Nebrioporus elegans Common Noterus clavicornis Common Ochthebius minimus Common Oreodytes sanmarkii Common Oulimnius tuberculatus Common Platambus maculatus Common Stictotarsus duodecimpustulatus Common

Annex 4 - Water bugs (Hemiptera) relevant only to criterion 4

Species National status Callicorixa praeusta Common Corixa punctata Common Gerris lacustris Common Gerris odontogaster Common Gerris thoracicus Common Hesperocorixa linnaei Common Hesperocorixa sahlbergi Common Hydrometra stagnorum Common Ilyocoris cimicoides Common Limnoporus rufoscutellatus Migrant Microvelia reticulata Common 60

Nepa cinerea Common Notonecta glauca Common Plea minutissima Common Sigara distincta Common Sigara dorsalis Common Sigara falleni Common Sigara fossarum Common Sigara lateralis Common Sigara nigrolineata Common Velia caprai Common

N.B. These annexes (1-4) comprise all species which have been reliably recorded in Nottinghamshire since 1950.

61

2.10 White-clawed Crayfish

These criteria were accepted by the NEGDP on 18/03/2014

Originator: Dr David Holdich (Crayfish Survey & Research, Peak Ecology Ltd., Bakewell)

Introduction

The White-clawed Crayfish Austropotamobius pallipes is considered endangered at both national and European level due to the impact of alien crayfish of North American origin (especially the Signal Crayfish Pacifastacus leniusculus). Not only do these out-compete the White-clawed Crayfish but they harbour a fungal disease, crayfish plague, which is lethal to all European crayfish. For this reason the White-clawed Crayfish is protected through the European Habitats Directive, and the UK Wildlife & Countryside Act, and it is a Species of Principal Importance.

Populations in the UK have been declining in England since the 1980s and they now occupy fewer 10 km2 squares than the alien crayfish. The strongholds for the remaining populations are central and northern England but many of these are under threat. It is therefore important to protect all remaining sites.

In Nottinghamshire, the White-clawed Crayfish is common in a number of sites north of the River Trent, particularly in the catchment of the River Leen, e.g. Newstead Abbey (including the Garden Lake) and Papplewick, and it is common in Bestwood Ponds (Holdich & Jackson 2011). It has also been recorded in the outflowing stream (Nethergreen Brook) of Moorgreen Reservoir; in Beauvale Brook, Eastwood; and in some streams in and around Hucknall. A berried female was found in the upper River Erewash in 2009. In the River Maun catchment it is found in Cauldwell Brook and some associated ponds. It has also been found in the River Ryton catchment but records have not been confirmed in recent years. It does not occur south of the River Trent in Nottinghamshire but is common in parts of Leicestershire.

White-clawed Crayfish habitat is very variable. Crayfish are usually associated with small to medium sized streams and rivers with plenty of refuges in the form of rocks and boulders, tree roots and organic debris, and moderately-sized lakes with plenty of refuges in the form of tree roots, rocks, logs, piers etc., and in small, medium and large reservoirs with similar habitat. They can also occur in deep, flooded quarries. They usually do not occur in water bodies that could be considered as ponds. They are also found associated with muddy habitats in some canals, and occasionally they are found burrowing into clayey riverbanks. Recently, White-clawed Crayfish have been found capable of occupying very muddy streams/rivers as long as there is plenty of cover in the form of tree roots.

62

As far as alien crayfish are concerned only two are know from Nottinghamshire, the Signal Crayfish and the Spiny-cheek Crayfish Orconected limosus, both from North America. Both of these can carry crayfish plague and are serious competitors for resources with the White-clawed Crayfish. Spiny-cheek Crayfish are so far only known from Clifton Pond at the Attenborough Nature Reserve. The Spiny-cheek Crayfish are likely to spread into other ponds at Attenborough and into the R. Trent, either naturally or human-mediated means. Signal Crayfish are present in the east of the county, where they have been known since the mid-1980s. Populations mainly occur in the River Greet (Southwell), but are also found around Lowdham, Halam, Kelham, Syerston and Newark. Dead individuals have been found in the R. Trent at Farndon. One of unknown origin was found near Papplewick in 2009.

Criteria

Sites in Nottinghamshire holding White-clawed Crayfish will be designated as LWSs where they meet the following criteria:

Criterion 1: Any site where White-clawed Crayfish Austropotamobius pallipes are present and considered likely to be breeding

Justification: to reflect national and local rarity and threatened status. White- clawed Crayfish is also a Species of Principal Importance.

Site mapping

• All contiguous of lengths of watercourse with multiple White-clawed Crayfish records will be mapped as LWSs, with the site boundary set 250 metres either side of the first up-stream and last down-stream record (or a lesser distance, where suitable habitat ceases to exist) • Where a single White-clawed Crayfish record comes from a watercourse, all habitat 250 metres up- and down-stream of that record will be mapped as an LWS • Any single or linked waterbodies with White-clawed Crayfish records will be mapped as an LWS

Site survey and resurvey

• Sites will initially be designated on the basis of survey results not more than 10 years old. • Designated sites will be resurveyed every 10 years to account for the specialised nature of crayfish surveys. When a site cannot be surveyed within the specified survey programme, it will be assumed that the site still qualifies and will remain designated until it can be ascertained that it does not.

63

References

Holdich, D.M. & Jackson, C. (2011) The Crayfish of Nottinghamshire, in Rees, M., Nightinghale J. & Holdich D.M. (eds) Species Survival: Securing white- clawed crayfish in a changing environment. Proceedings of a conference held on 16th and 17th November 2010 in Bristol, UK. (http://www.nottsbag.org.uk/pdfs/CrayfishofNottinghamshire_HoldichandJackson _2011website.pdf)

64

2.11 Grassland fungi

These criteria were accepted by the NEGDP on 18/03/2014

Originators: Steve Clifton (Natural England) & the Nottinghamshire Fungi Group

Introduction

Fungi form a rich and varied part of our natural history but many species of grassland fungi are rare or endangered and require conservation action to ensure their survival. Many traditionally-managed grasslands have a rich fungal flora, but changes to land management practices means that grasslands that are important for their fungi have become very scarce on a European scale and it is increasingly being recognised that the UK is of exceptional importance for grassland fungi.

Some of the most distinctive and characteristic fungi found in these habitats are the waxcaps (Hygrocybe), which are usually brightly coloured including species that are pink, green, violet and every shade from yellow through to deep crimson. They have thick waxy gills, moist brittle flesh and a waxy, sticky or slimy cap. For this reason these sites are commonly known as ‘waxcap-grasslands’. Some other species that often occur alongside the waxcaps in these habitats include the fairy clubs (Clavariaceae), the earth tongues (Geoglossaceae) and the pink- gills (Entolomataceae).

Almost without exception the best grassland sites for fungi are well drained, have a short turf, a well-defined bryophyte layer and a low availability of nitrogen. Old agriculturally unimproved pastures, traditionally managed old lawns and sympathetically managed churchyards can all be potentially good sites. Fungi- rich pastures are typically well-grazed whilst the turf of old lawns, churchyards and parks may be kept short by regular mowing. Neutral, acid and calcareous grasslands, as well as grass-heaths, may all have a rich waxcap-grassland flora.

Often fungi-rich grasslands are botanically poor and sometimes appear to be of low conservation value when looking at their associated plants and animals. Unless the importance of the fungi is known at these sites there is a danger that they may be lost or irreversibly damaged as a result of changes in management, such as the application of fertilisers, lawn treatments and moss killers, and insufficient grazing or mowing. These sites may also be inadvertently damaged in an attempt to improve their value for other biodiversity. Once damaged, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to restore these habitats. Very few county- wide surveys have been undertaken for this type of grassland and as a result, important sites for grassland fungi are often overlooked and rarely recognised in the Local Wildlife Site series. The development of LWS selection criteria for this group seeks to address this.

65

Several different systems have been developed to date to help determine the relative mycological value of fungi-rich grassland. It is generally accepted that the number of waxcap species recorded can be used as an indication of site value. Additionally, the value of a site can be measured by the presence of rare or endangered species, belonging to the groups mentioned above, and by a diverse range of rare and/or characteristic species that are likely to be good habitat quality indicators. The criteria presented below use a combination of these attributes.

Criteria

Sites in Nottinghamshire holding grassland fungi will be designated as LWSs where they meet one or more of the following criteria;

Criterion 1: Any site supporting any grassland-associated fungus that is: a) listed in the Provisional and Preliminary Red Data Lists of British Fungi b) listed in Schedule 8 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended); or c) listed as a Species of Principal Importance

Justification: To reflect national rarity. The relevant Red Lists are contained in Ing (1992) and Evans et al (2006), whilst Schedule 8 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act is available on the Joint Nature Conservation Committee website (http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/PDF/waca1981_schedule8.pdf).

Criterion 2: Any site supporting at least 5 species of Hygrocybe listed in Annex 1, or a total of at least 8 species from the four key groups listed in Annex 1

Justification: To reflect a diverse assemblage of characteristic species.

Criterion 3: Any site supporting a grassland-associated fungus known from 3 or fewer localities in the county according to the Nottinghamshire Fungi Group database

Justification: To reflect local rarity.

Site mapping

• Sites will be mapped in line with the mapping rules for habitats set out section 7(d) of Part 1.

66

Site survey and resurvey

• Sites will initially be designated on the basis of survey results not more than 10 years old. • Designated sites will be resurveyed every 10 years, to account for the unpredictability of fungal fruiting and for the specialised nature of fungi surveying. When a site cannot be surveyed within the specified survey programme, it will be assumed that the site still qualifies and will remain designated until it can be ascertained that it does not.

References

Evans, S., Henrici, A. & Ing, B. (2006) Preliminary Assessment: The Red Data List of Threatened British Fungi. British Mycological Society, Manchester. (http://www.britmycolsoc.org.uk/index.php?cID=472)

Ing, B. (1992) A Provisional Red Data List of British Fungi. Mycologist 6: 124- 128.

Annex 1 - key groups and species strongly indicative of a rich grassland fungi assemblage

The Fairy clubs (Clavariaceae) H. nitrata Clavaria rosea H. ovina C. fumosa H. phaeococcinea C. zollingeri H. punicea Clavulinopsis umbrinella H. pratensis var. pallida H. quieta The Waxcaps (Hygrocybe) H. radiata Hygrocybe aurantiosplendens H. spadicea H. calciphila H. splendidissima H. calyptriformis H. vitellina H. citrinopallida H. xanthochroa H. citrovirens H. colemanniana The Pink Gills (Entolomataceae) H. constrictospora Entoloma bloxamii H. flavipes E. incanum H. fornicata E. porphyrophaeum H. glutinipes E. pratulense H. helobia E. prunuloides H. intermedia E. roseum H. irrigata H. ingrata The Earth Tongues (Geoglossaceae) H. lacmus All species

67

2.12 Rare plants

These criteria were accepted by the NEGDP on 18/03/2014

Originator: Dave Wood (Nottinghamshire BSBI recorder & NBGRC)

Introduction

Vascular plants include flowering plants, grasses and ferns. Assemblages of vascular plants have been used to describe and assess the quality of habitats in Section B of Part 2 of this Handbook. These criteria only consider the presence of individual rare species, and their application is based on the criteria used for the identification of species to include in the Nottinghamshire Rare Plant Register (RPR) (Wood & Woods 2012), which follows those recommended by the Botanical Society for the British Isles (BSBI) (Ellis & Pearman 2005) and are based on national and local categories.

Any site that supports a Nottinghamshire RPR species can be considered for selection for LWS status. All of the species included in the RPR are classified as either ‘native species’ or ‘archaeophytes’ (plants which were introduced to the British Isles prior to 1492 AD). Plants arriving after that date are known as ‘neophytes’, and are excluded from use in these criteria. ‘Microspecies’ are also excluded, as their recording is incomplete and often their distribution may reflect the activity of specialist recorders rather than a true distribution. The same is true of hybrids, although some hybrids may be included under a national criteria or if they are of conservation importance (e.g. Potamogeton, Ranunculus etc.).

LWS selection will be based on records of plant species that occur naturally in Nottinghamshire. Records will not be used for site selection in instances where:

• A species native to the UK has been introduced to the county • A species previously occurring in the county has become extinct, and has subsequently been reintroduced

In addition:

• Species (such as Columbine Aquilegia vulgaris, Galingale Cyperus longus) are commonly grown as garden plants and occur frequently as casuals, and a population of such species will only be considered for LWS selection if it is considered to be native.

A species will be regarded as extinct if it has not been recorded at a site in the last 40 years. A recent survey should be undertaken before any site de- notification at an appropriate time of year or under suitable conditions in order to confirm the status of the species since, in some cases a species may not have been seen for a long period of time. 68

It should be noted that the lists used in the RPR may be incomplete, e.g. for rarities not yet discovered in Nottinghamshire or in instances where plants thought to be extinct are re-found. Consequently, new additions should be considered accordingly.

Criteria

Sites in Nottinghamshire holding rare plants will be designated as LWSs where they meet one or more of the following criteria;

Criterion 1 Any site that supports a plant that is identified as being Endemic to Britain or Internationally Rare

Justification: To reflect international rarity and threat.

Criterion 2 Any site that supports a plant having full protection under Schedule 8 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), or that is identified as being Nationally threatened by virtue of inclusion in the vascular Plant Red Data List

Justification: To reflect national rarity and threat. Schedule 8 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act is available on the Joint Nature Conservation Committee website (http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/PDF/waca1981_schedule8.pdf), and the Vascular Plant Red Data List is provided in Cheffings et al (2005).

Criterion 3 Any site that supports a plant that is identified as being Nationally Rare (found in 1-15 hectads in Britain) or Nationally Scarce (found in 16-100 hectads in Britain)

Justification: To reflect national rarity and threat. A number of ‘rare’ plants are actually widespread in Nottinghamshire and will only be considered if their populations are especially significant, (occurring across an area of greater than 2ha). These species are listed in Annex 1.

Criterion 4 Any site that supports a plant that is identified as a Species of Principal Importance

Justification: To reflect national rarity and threat. Species of Principal Importance which occur in Nottinghamshire are listed in Annex 2. A number of these Species of Principal Importance are actually widespread in Nottinghamshire, and are excluded from this criterion. These species are highlighted in Annex 2.

Criterion 5 Any site that supports a population of a plant that is identified as being County Rare (present in 1-3 sites) or County Scarce (present at 4-10 sites)

69

Justification: To reflect local rarity and threat. A list of species qualifying under this criterion will be updated annually and made available on the NBGRC website.

Criterion 6 Any site that supports an ‘Archeophyte’ which is of particular cultural, historical or ecological interest, excluding plants recorded as ‘casuals’.

Justification: Archeophytes are considered to be ‘honorary natives’, and in many cases have cultural or historical interest, as well as ecological value. Such species are listed in Annex 3.

Site mapping

• Sites will be mapped in line with the mapping rules for habitats set out section 7(d) of Part 1.

Site survey and resurvey

• Sites will initially be designated on the basis of survey results not more than 5 years old. • Designated sites will be resurveyed every 5 years. When a site cannot be surveyed within the specified survey programme, it will be assumed that the site still qualifies and will remain designated until it can be ascertained that it does not.

References

Cheffings, C.M. & Farrell, L. (Eds.), Dines T.D., Jones, R.A., Leach, S.J., McKean, D.R., Pearman, D.A., Preston, C.D., Rumsey, F.J. & Taylor, I. (2005) The vascular plant red data list for Great Britain. Species Status 7: 1-116. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough. (http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/pdf/pub05_speciesstatusvpredlist3_web.pdf)

Ellis, B. & Pearman, D. (2005) County rare plant registers. Botanical Society of the British Isles, Bristol. (http://www.bsbi.org.uk/CRPR_Guidelines.pdf)

Preston, C.D., Pearman, D.A. & Dines, T.D. (Eds.) (2002) New atlas of the British and Irish flora. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Wood, D. & Woods, M. (2013) Nottinghamshire Vice County 56 Rare Plant Register. Nottingham City Council, Nottingham. (http://www.bsbi.org.uk/Nottinghamshire_Rare_Plant_Register_2013.pdf)

70

Annex 1 – Widespread ‘rare plants’ species occurring in Nottinghamshire

Common name Scientific name Common Cudweed Filago vulgaris Field Garlic Allium oleraceum Loose Silky-bent Apera spica-venti Water-starwort Callitriche truncata Hound's-tongue Cynoglossum officinale Dwarf Spurge Euphorbia exigua Round-fruited Rush Juncus compressus Wild Pansy Viola tricolor Corn Marigold Glebionis segetum Prickly Poppy Papaver argemone Corn Spurrey Spergula arvensis

Annex 2 – Species of Principal Importance occurring in Nottinghamshire

Common name Scientific name Flat-sedge Blysmus compressus Basil Thyme Clinopodium acinos Frog Orchid Coeloglossum viride Deptford Pink Dianthus armeria English Sticky Eyebright Euphrasia anglica Chalk Eyebright Euphrasia pseudokerneri Red Hemp-nettle Galeopsis angustifolia Fine-leaved Sandwort Minuartia hybrida Yellow Bird’s-nest Monotropa hypopitys Tubular Water-dropwort * Oenanthe fistulosa Fly Orchid Ophrys insectifera Shepherd’s Needle Scandix pecten-veneris Annual Knawel * Scleranthus annuus Marsh Stitchwort Stellaria palustris Spreading Hedge-parsley Torilis arvensis

* Widespread species in Nottinghamshire which are excluded from Criterion 4.

Annex 3 – Archeophytes relevant to Criterion 6

Common name Scientific name Autumn Crocus Crocus nudiflorus Spring Crocus Crocus vernus

71