o XXXX indicates where information has been redacted under exemptions / exceptions in the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and / or Environmental Information Regulations 2004.

SERVICE ORDER

This Service Order specifies the requirements necessary for the completion of an agreement for the purchase of Services for undertaking the Headwaters (SSSI) River Restoration Feasibility Study & Optional Appraisal

CONTRACT REFERENCE NUMBER: 24851

DATE: 09 November 2012 PURCHASE ORDER NUMBER: to follow Tbc FROM: Natural TO: xxxxxxxxxxxx Foundry House, 3 Millsands, Riverside JBA Consulting Exchange, Sheffield S3 8NH Salts Mill Project Officer: xxxxxxxxxx Victoria Road Job Title: Lead Adviser: East Saltaire 4th Floor, Foss House, King’s Pool, 1-2 Shipley Peasholme Green, York, YO1 7PX BD18 3LF

Telephone No: xxxxxxxxxxx Tel. xxxxxxxxxxxxxx E-mail Address xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED AT: INVOICE ADDRESS: Outputs to: Natural England, DFSSD Accounts Payable, Natural England PO Box 92, Lion House 4th Floor, Foss House Willowburn Trading Estate King’s Pool Alnwick Peasholme Green Northumberland York YO1 7PX NE66 9AR SERVICES: To undertake a feasibility study of the restoration options on Lowthorpe Beck (TA087604) just upstream and downstream and including Lowthorpe Weir and the Upsteam Sluice (left hand bank) on the Lowthorpe Beck, part of the River Hull Headwaters SSSI, in the . CONTRACT PERIOD: Commencement Date: w/c 12th November 2012 Duration: For completion by 15 March 2013 CONTRACT PRICE EXCLUDING VAT: CONTRACT PRICE INCLUDING VAT: £12,933.04 £15,519.65 DESRIPTION OF SERVICES and TIMETABLE (specification): The work should be supplied in accordance with:  The specification (see attached at Annex A).  JBA tender proposal dated 23rd October 2012.  Clarification response e-mails from xxxxxxxx to xxxxxxxxxx dated 05 November 2012 (including price revision) and 07 November 2012 1

Timetable – contract to commence as soon as possible. Completion by 15 March 2013.

PAYMENT PROFILE, RATES AND CHARGES: See breakdown of costs below:

Item of work/task Total cost exclusive of VAT

Project Management inc. start up meeting

Investigation & analysis of removing the weir/s & subsequent channel restoration

Assess and evaluate societal importance

Investigate options and produce detailed designs for preferred options

Definition of potential delivery mechanisms and costings

Preparation of final report

Production of stakeholder consultation material

Expenses

Total £12,933.04

Payment on submission of monthly invoices in arrears for work completed and expenses incurred subject to the satisfaction of the Natural England Project Officer.

NATURAL ENGLAND RESPONSIBILITIES: As set out in the specification at Annex A.

MANAGEMENT INFORMATION: If requested under clause 15 of the General Terms following action note 06/10 5March 2010 issued by OGC, the Supplier may need to supply management information to Natural England or the GPS (Government Procurement Service) formally OGC. The final scope of these requirements may vary according to the category of spend and will be agreed with the supplier at the time of engagement but may consider the following: line item amount; invoice line descriptions; invoice line number; currency code; order date; VAT inclusion flag; VAT rate; list price; number of items; unit of purchase; unit of purchase quantity; price per unit; supplier product/service code; product description; product/service level (product or service name); UNSPSC code; taxonomy code; taxonomy name; geographical; project code; project description; project start date; project delivery date (estimate and actual); total project cost and project stage. SPECIAL TERMS:

Natural England General Terms and Conditions (see copy at Annex B) shall apply to this Service Order together with Special Terms for the Purchase of Services (see copy at Annex 2

C). With regard to the Special Terms for the Purchase of Services clause 2.3 will be disapplied for this contract.

SIGNATURE: Signed on behalf of Natural England: Signed on behalf of the Contractor: Authorised Signatory: Authorised Signatory:

……………………………………………… ………………………………………………

Print name: xxxxxxxxxx Print name:

Job title: Lead Adviser, Procurement Team Job title:

Date: 09 November 2012 Date:

3

Annex A

Specification

Project Reference No: 24851

Project Title: River Hull Headwaters Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) River Restoration Feasibility Study & Options Appraisal

Lowthorpe Beck

About Natural England

Natural England is the government’s advisor on the natural environment. We provide practical advice, grounded in science, on how best to safeguard England’s natural wealth for the benefit of everyone.

Our remit is to ensure sustainable stewardship of the land and sea so that people and nature can thrive. It is our responsibility to see that England’s rich natural environment can adapt and survive intact for future generations to enjoy. We work with farmers and land managers; business and industry; planners and developers; national, regional and local government; interest groups and local communities to help them improve their local environment.

1) Introduction

Many river SSSIs, or sections of river SSSIs, have had physical modifications to the channel that affect their optimal functioning as habitats for characteristic wildlife communities. These are recognised as reasons for ‘Unfavourable Condition’ - e.g. inappropriate dredging; inappropriate weirs, dams or other channel structures; and inland flood defence works. Natural England’s SSSI Remedies programme includes ‘river restoration projects’ as a mechanism for achieving ‘favourable condition’. Our objectives for ‘Favourable Condition’ in SSSIs designated for river habitat have been set out in Common Standards agreed by the UK conservation agencies. They apply equally to European Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) and SSSI designations and relate to the ability of the river (as a representative of its type) to provide favourable habitat conditions for the characteristic biological community, rather than conditions which might favour a particular species. In‐channel structures such as weirs and sluices can have a fundamental effect on the physical character of a river, altering physical habitat provision for characteristic flora and fauna. There are three main effects that structures can have:

1. Alterations to the geomorphology and hydraulics of the channel through water impoundment and altering sediment transfer; 2. Alterations to flow regime; 3. Interruption of biological connectivity, including the passage of fish and invertebrates.

Natural England and the Environment Agency recognise the impacts of the many artificial in‐channel structures on English rivers, and the need to remove as many of these structures as possible (where feasible). The need to do this is heightened by climate change, for which restoring natural river processes, habitats and connectivity are vital adaptation measures. However, we also recognise that some of these artificial structures may have important functions or historic/cultural associations, which need to be considered carefully.

4

The Joint Natural England/Environment Agency River Hull Headwaters SSSI Restoration Plan, Royal Haskoning (June 2010) (see attached) identifies use of an adjacent channel, thought to be a historic natural channel of the river and/or modification or removal of the weir at Lowthorpe as two possible options to reduce the impacts on geomorphology, hydraulics and biological connectivity.

Options Appraisal

We require a contractor to complete a feasibility study of the restoration options on Lowthorpe Beck (TA087604) just upstream and downstream and including Lowthorpe Weir and the Upsteam Sluice (left hand bank) on the Lowthorpe Beck, part of the River Hull Headwaters SSSI, in the East Riding of Yorkshire. This feasibility study will involve an investigation and detailed analysis of options to reduce the impact of the structure on geomorphology, hydraulics and biological connectivity. Options to be assessed include potential use of a side channel to the East of the current river channel (thought to be a historic river channel) removing or modifying the weir, and subsequent and associated channel restoration. Following consultation, detailed designs for the preferred option should be produced. This investigation will include assessing the benefits associated with removing the barriers to the geomorphology and ecology of the river and adjacent areas, as well as the potential impacts such as sediment release, changes to channel depth and flow rates, changes to the ecology of adjacent wetland habitats (including adjacent SSSI fen, wet grassland & wet woodlands upstream of the site), fishery management, weed management, structural stability of adjacent buildings and banks, river management and flood risk, historic environment, and measures to reduce these potential impacts.

2) Objectives

The objectives of the project are:

1. To undertake a feasibility study and options appraisal to evaluate whether the in channel structures could be mitigated, removed or deemed to be immovable, taking into account technical, ecological and societal constraints, this should then be submitted to Natural England, detailing potential options. Potential use of the side channel at Lowthorpe should be considered as part of this evaluation.

2. To identify likely delivery mechanisms for all options and provide approximate costings.

3. Produce detailed designs for the preferred option e.g. re-instatement of natural side channel, full or partial removal of the weir structure and associated mitigation, Natural England and partners will confirm preferred options after receipt of (1).

4. To assist Natural England, the Environment Agency and partners in a consultation exercise with stakeholders including Landowners and tenants, Fishing Clubs and the East Yorkshire Chalk Rivers Trust.

5. To produce a technical report incorporating (1), (2), (3) and (4).

5

Supporting Information

The site has been studied as part of development of the River Hull Headwaters SSSI restoration plan, and a follow up sediment dynamics modelling study. The existing relevant information and references for the site are as follows, and have been supplied as Annexes to this specification.

See Annex 3 for details.

The River Hull Headwaters SSSI Restoration Technical Report and Appendices (Royal Haskoning, 2010)

The River Hull Headwaters SSSI Restoration Plan and Appendices (Royal Haskoning, 2010)

The Hull Headwaters Sediment Modelling Report (Royal Haskoning, 2011) This study looked at sediment transport at the site currently and under a couple of broad restoration scenarios, but did not consider the options in any further detail, or suggest associated channel change requirements. As a result of this work a 1D ISIS sediment model exists for the site.

The Environment Agency has a 1D ISIS model of the River Hull catchment that it uses to assess flood risk. This model is available to this study. This model was originally constructed by Halcrow in 2006 to inform the River Hull Flood Risk Management Strategy. Subsequently, a number of iterations and model updates were carried out for the FRM strategy between 2006 and 2010.

Modelling Methodology

The detailed modelling methodology is described in Appendix B of the full Sediment Modelling Report. In summary, the following process was used:

1. Relevant flow events (Q50 and QMED) were run through the updated ISIS model.

2. Boundary conditions, upstream and downstream of each of the weirs, were extracted from the ISIS model.

3. Topographic survey data and LiDAR was used to create a 2D representation of the channel bed for limited sections of the river, around each of the structures. (LIDAR is not thought to exist for the Lowthorpe stretch)

4. The 2D representation was imported to MIKE21 along with the modelled boundary conditions.

5. The MIKE21 model was run and bed shear stresses plotted to show the sediment transport pattern for the existing situation.

6. Modifications were made to each of the weir structures, such as reducing weir height or removing weirs entirely, and the MIKE21 model was rerun. Revised bed shear stress patterns were extracted and compared with the existing situation.

7. Sediment tracking analysis was then carried out, using Royal Haskoning inhouse software, to investigate how eroded sediment would deposit within the model domain or transport further beyond the model domain following weir

6

removal. A range of particle sizes were modelled (from 0.1 mm to 1 mm), to assess how different types of sediment might behave when weirs are removed. All of the 2D and sediment tracking model outputs are shown in Appendix E of the full report. This Appendix also includes summary sheets for each of the sites showing key points to note in respect of the model results.

The successful contractor should outline how they will get the most from the existing models and what additional data is likely to be needed to update the sediment and flood risk model. Methodology for how this will gathered and costed in the tender should also be submitted. This additional information will need to be identified based on flood risk and the likely zone of influence of any potential restoration options.

The East Yorkshire Chalk Rivers Trust has also provided an issues document which is available to help contractors tap into local knowledge and experience. – Annex 4

3) Work Programme

3.1 Addressing Objective 1

Options Appraisal

The Contractor should undertake an assessment of the effect of the impoundments on geomorphological processes including sediment transfer, hydraulics and flow dynamics, alterations to the flow regime, influence on in-river and adjacent wetland habitats and interruption of biological connectivity including the passage of fish and invertebrates.

It is critically important that all impacts, both positive and negative to the River Hull Headwaters SSSI Notified Features, not only the river but up and downstream terrestrial habitats within the SSSI should be thoroughly considered.

This work should consider an assessment of the suspected historic course of river to the East of the Lowthorpe Mill structure.

Assess and evaluate societal importance (flood risk, abstraction, fishery management, heritage etc). Whilst seeking to restore habitat and natural hydromorphological processes wherever possible, constraints such as flood risk, potential impacts on habitats and species, historic environment, landscape, water supply, including abstraction, and the stability of buildings and infrastructure must be recognised and considered.

The feasibility study should seek to evaluate whether the weir structure could be removed, mitigated or deemed to be immovable (taking into account technical and societal constraints). The first option to be considered should be full removal of the structures. In the event that the structure cannot be removed due to valid societal constraints, options to mitigate its impact should be considered. Mitigation options should consider partial removal, bypassing or lowering, improved weir management by putting in place an operating protocol, or making the structure as permeable as possible to characteristic biota.

The approach for considering the historic environment is outlined below, with the following principles applying: 1) the significance of designated and non‐designated assets and landscapes will be assessed and appropriate mitigation agreed with local authority archaeologists. 2) Mitigation options will include design modification to minimise impacts, consolidation/enhancement of surviving heritage features, or archaeological recording in advance of or during removal/modification of a structure.

7

This technical assessment should then be submitted to Natural England and Stakeholders for confirmation of preferred options for deatield design (Objective 2).

3.2 Addressing objective 2

Detailed designs for all preferred options (provided by Natural England after receipt of (1) and mitigation should be produced and included within the technical report. There is a need to ensure that all options (including more major modifications) are explored and presented in a open minded and positive way.

3.3 Addressing objective 3

All options and mitigation should be broadly costed. The delivery mechanisms likely to be most appropriate should also be given.

3.4 Addressing objective 4

The technical report will include all an evaluation of options, mitigation measures, advantages, disadvantages, effectiveness, net environmental effects and estimated costs of each option.

3.5 Addressing objective 5

A package of consultation material, including a PowerPoint presentation describing the key findings of the feasibility studies, providing an illustrative vision of the river restoration options and how the river would look and behave post restoration, highlighting benefits and addressing potential drawbacks.

4) Outputs

Standard outputs should be provided in digital and hard copy format.

1. A technical report detailing options and detailed design for preferred option of river restoration, identifying alternative solutions, impacts (including on flood risk) mitigation measures, potential delivery mechanisms and costs.

2. A package of consultation material including a PowerPoint presentation describing the key findings of the feasibility study, providing an illustration of the river for all options, highlighting the benefits and addressing potential impacts.

5) Timescales The timetable for work tasks is given in below. Work task Completion date (months elapsed)

1. Start up meeting to consider existing data and agree 1 details of approach to contract 2. Investigation and analysis of reinstating natural 2 channel to East of Lowthorpe Mill, removing/modification the weir and associated channel restoration. 3. Assess and evaluate societal importance and potential 2 impacts. 8

4. Investigate options 3

5. Produce detailed designs for preferred options 4

6. Definition of potential delivery mechanisms and 4 costings

7. Preparation of final report 5

8. Production of Stakeholder consultation material 5

The timetable for outputs is given below Output Completion date (months elapsed)

1. Investigation/ appraisal 3

2. Technical report incorporating (1), proposed 3 restoration options and assessment of benefits, potential impacts and mitigation, broad costings outline designs

3. Detailed designs and costings of preferred options 4

4. Finalised report 5

5. Consultation material (PowerPoint presentation, maps 5 and illustrative vision)

6) Project management The Nominated Officer for the project is: xxxxxxxxxx, Lead Conservation Adviser, Natural England, 4th Floor, Foss House, 1-2 Peasholme Green, York YO1 7PX TEL: xxxxxxxxxx E-mail: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.

The project will be overseen by a steering group consisting of members of Natural England and the Environment Agency. The group will include xxxxxxxx, NE/EA river restoration specialist, xxxxxxxxx NE local adviser, xxxxxxxxx , Catchment Sensitive Farming Officer and xxxxxxxx EA Biodiversity officer, Trentside). The Nominated Officer and steering group will be responsible for organising the consultation process.

The project steering group will provide details of owner/occupiers as necessary in order for the Contractor to arrange access to the site.

9

Annex 1

Over view Map

10

Annex 2

Lowthorpe Weir Map

11

Annex 3 – see separate attachments for documents listed below

Relevant References The River Hull Headwaters SSSI Restoration Technical Report and Appendices (2010) Royal Haskoning

Key Sections

p19 (status/condition of Kelk Beck), pp37-38 (milling activities along Kelk Beck/Lowthorpe Mill), p41 (description of Lowthorpe Mill Weir), pp111-112 (solutions: installation/modification of weirs/fish pass), Appendix D, pp11-12 (weir Information sheets for Lowthorpe Mill), Appendix E, pp5-6 (previous river restoration initiatives for Lowthorpe Mill), Appendix I (weir assessment tables – inc. Lowthorpe Mill).

The River Hull Headwaters SSSI Restoration Plan and Appendices (2010 Royal Haskoning

Key Sections

p21 (description of Lowthorpe Weir), pp41-45 (removal/modification of weir/sluice and addition of fish pass), pp81-82 (potential restoration measures for Kelk Beck/Lowthorpe Weir).

The River Hull Headwaters Sediment Modelling Report (2011 Royal Haskoning)

Key Sections (see contents) ppv-v1, pp16-17, pp46-51, p59. The River Hull Headwaters SSSI Conservation Objectives - Consultation Draft: Lowthorpe Beck:

Relevant sections

p63-65.

Paper of the St Quintin Family (Ref: DDSQ)

Held at Hull History Centre www.hullhistorycentre.org.uk This collection is rich in medieval title deed material and, as a general rule, the papers largely relate to the property and estates of this very long-established East Riding family.

U DDSQ3 has much the same composition as U DDSQ2 only is richer in estate correspondence and miscellanous papers. In detail, the estate papers are as follows: Burton Agnes (1759-1858) being about tithes on corn and hay; Foston (1808-1857) including papers on the mill and the 1850s letting to a brewery company; Gransmoor (1701) being a letter about the pre-enclosure survey; Great Kelk (1841-1857) being papers about enclosure; Haisthorpe (1831-1857) including papers about rates paid for tithes; (1714-1760) including a 1714 survey, estimates for repairing the house in 1831, some notices to quit and tenancy agreements and a memorandum about the interment of a St Quintin family member in their vault; Langton (1850) being the rules of the cricket club; Lowthorpe (1780-1898) including papers about and plans of Lowthorpe mills and lodge.

12

Annex 4

Lowthorpe Mill Issues Paper (2012) East Yorkshire Chalk Rivers Trust

The river upstream of the mill to the SSSI limit is approximately 1.5 kms. From the upstream limit to Newroad Bridge (235mtrs) the river meanders through an area of very friable soils as it flows through a designated sedge fen. (Water level management plan to protect this area?)

The substrate along this section is a combination of deep silt, sand with some areas of compacted gravel. Only in the last 50 metres can a gravel bed be seen, although this gravel is on top of silt.

From Newroad Bridge downstream the river substrate varies from silt, compacted gravel and silt above clay bed.

The varying substrate types have no relationship with the proximity of the small weirs.

Changes in management practices over 35years.

The changes in plant communities, growth potential and total plant biomass could all be affected by the year on year management.

The Yorkshire Water Authority maintained the weed and banks as with all other rivers within the Hull headwaters. This entailed the use of a weed cutting system known as ‘Jingle blades’. The blades were made up of several steel blades hinged together to form a long flexible cutting edge. Gangs of men were employed pulling ropes attached to each end of the set of blades and with a see- sawing motion moved upstream cutting all weed in the channel as they progressed upstream. As the blades worked along the stream bed little or no weed was left.

In the early 1980’s due to financial constraints and progress with hydraulic cutters this method of managing weed growth was abandoned. From personal experience I found that an overenthusiastic approach was made to clearing weed. This was proven by the fact that gravel was found on the riverbanks along with the cut weed. As a former fisheries officer I was appalled by this action and tried to educate our Flood Defence colleagues. Approximately 25 years ago I was informed that the then NRA did not have resources to maintain the weed on several of the Hull headwaters. Foston Beck was amongst those mentioned.

In consultation with many owners and fisheries I was successful in getting weed traps built on 3 sites. One of which is Lowthorpe Mill leat. The Foston Fishing Club have over the last 25 years been advised on the management of the weed growth. The method used is to selectively cut weed to maintain water levels through the summer and remove about 50% of the growth. Prior to winter a higher percentage of the weed is cut to prevent risk of flooding at high flows. Hand cutting helps retain the important invertebrates in the river which machine cutting was known to remove. (weed removal to be addressed if weir is changed)

13

Sources of silt The section upstream of Newroad Bridge was subject to very heavy cattle trampling up until 2009-10 when a capital farm scheme was undertaken supported by the EYCRT, RPA & NE. A large section of the river was fenced and old fencing upgraded. The scheme provided drinking troughs to all riverside fields. Since this time stock have been excluded from the river. The silt in the river is deemed to have come from this cattle trampling and breaking down banks although this is purely anecdotal. Not discussed here is the nutrient enrichment derived from the animals as they stood in the river. Aluvial silt issues from springs in Neat Holmes wood. It can be identified by its sandy colour on the river bed downstream of the Keld. The stream also receives runoff from the road at Bracey Bridge.

(Finger printing of the sediment source needs investigation)

In trying to approach this study with an open mind I am conscious of the fact and opinions gained in my initial meetings with the Lowthorpe estate interests last November

Removal of the weir. Lowering the riverbed by 1.2 metres will increase the bed flow excessively, this was indicated in the Sediment Report. In an attempt to slow this flow, a meandering channel will have to be incorporated through the mill pool section and possibly as far as 150 -200 metres upstream. This may take more land from either the wooded side or the adjacent field. For this new meandering course to be stable and not subject to continuing channel change the soils need to be of a robust clay type not believed to be present in the immediate area.

If the mill leat is used as part of the new channel below the pool it will dewater 240 metres of the SSSI from the mill to its confluence with the Beck. The small culvert on this channel was discussed.

The river channel would need to be taken via a new course through the field and back towards the mill. This would have an effect of isolating a section of the field and a farm crossing would be required. (What is the soil type within this field? Would the same problem of friable soils be encountered?)

The whole site needs investigation using a grid of core samples.

Xxxxxxxxxxxx 29.8.2012

14