Otter, Water Vole and Crayfish Survey - Proposed Mineral Extraction at Land South of Alrewas Road (A513), Alrewas, Burton-on-Trent in ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Otter, Water Vole and Crayfish Survey
Proposed Mineral Extraction at Land South of Alrewas
Road (A513), Alrewas, Burton-on-Trent in Staffordshire
Report Reference: CE-AW-1225-RP11 - FINAL
Produced by Crestwood Environmental Ltd.
21/02/2020
Crestwood Report Reference: CE-AW-1225-RP11 - FINAL:
Survey Licence
Version & Date
Written / Updated by: No. (If Checked & Authorised by:
Status Produced
applicable)
Amy Berry (Assistant Ecologist) /
FINAL 21/02/2020 Lucy Cash (Associate Director)
Jaclyn Walker (Senior Ecologist)
The information which we have prepared and provided is true, and has been prepared and provided in accordance with the Code of
Professional Conduct of the author’s relevant professional body. We confirm that the opinions expressed are our 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 this report.
The report is provided for the sole use of the named client and is confidential to them and their professional advisors unless otherwise
stated in an accompanied ‘letter of reliance’ with an official Crestwood Environmental Limited letterhead. No responsibility is accepted
to others.
Should any part of the report be altered or tampered, with in any way, after being issued to the Client then this will invalidate the
entire document.
Crestwood Environmental Ltd.
1-2 Nightingale Place
Pendeford Business Park
Wobaston Road
Pendeford
West Midlands
WV9 5HF
Tel: 01902 229 563
Email: info@crestwoodenvironmental.co.uk
Web: www.crestwoodenvironmental.co.uk
Otter, Water Vole and Crayfish Survey
Proposed Mineral Extraction at Alrewas in Staffordshire
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................3
1.1 BACKGROUND................................................................................................................ 3
1.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE .................................................................................................... 3
1.3 SITE DESCRIPTION .......................................................................................................... 3
2 LEGISLATION ............................................................................................................................4
2.1 PROTECTION FOR OTTER ............................................................................................... 4
2.2 PROTECTION FOR WATER VOLE .................................................................................... 5
2.3 PROTECTION FOR WHITE-CLAWED CRAYFISH ............................................................... 5
3 METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................................................6
3.2 DESK STUDY ................................................................................................................... 6
3.3 OTTER SURVEY ............................................................................................................... 6
3.4 WATER VOLE SURVEY .................................................................................................... 7
3.5 WHITE-CLAWED CRAYFISH SURVEY ............................................................................... 8
4 RESULTS AND EVALUATION ......................................................................................................8
4.1 DESK STUDY ................................................................................................................... 8
4.2 FIELD SURVEY RESULTS .................................................................................................. 8
5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................... 12
5.1 FAUNA............................................................................................................................ 12
5.2 FLORA............................................................................................................................. 13
5.3 RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................... 13
5.4 OVERALL CONCLUSION .................................................................................................. 14
LIST OF APPENDICES:
APPENDIX E1 Figure E11 – Watercourse Location Plan
LIST OF TABLES:
Table 1 Situation Rating Summary Definitions..............................................................................2
Table 2 Summary Table of Survey Results and Recommendations ..............................................2
Table 3 Recommendations for Faunal Species..............................................................................13
CE-AW-1225-RP11 - FINAL Page 1 21/02/2020
Otter, Water Vole and Crayfish Survey
Proposed Mineral Extraction at Alrewas in Staffordshire
SUMMARY
The Otter, Water Vole and White-Clawed Crayfish assessment ('the Survey') detailed in this report was carried
out by Crestwood Environmental Ltd. (‘Crestwood’) as requested by Cemex (‘the Client’) at land south of
Alrewas Road (A513), Alrewas, Burton-on-Trent in Staffordshire (‘the Site’).
Ashby Sitch, the watercourse running through the Application Site, is considered to be of Negligible suitability
for Otter, Water Vole and White-Clawed Crayfish.
The Pyford Brook and associated riparian habitat, is considered to be of Moderate suitability for Otter,
particularly as a wildlife corridor. It is concluded that Otter is likely absent from the Application Site and the
Survey Area.
The Pyford Brook and associated riparian habitat, is considered to be of Low suitability for Water Vole and
White-Clawed Crayfish and it is concluded that Water Vole and White-Clawed Crayfish is likely absent from the
Application Site and the Survey Area.
As suitable habitats for these protected species are present at the Application Site, recommended mitigation
has been proposed to ensure no important adverse effects are caused by the Proposed Development. These
include implementation of a minimum 8m standoff from the Pyford Brook and a Sensitive Lighting Scheme.
Parrot-feather (Myriophyllum aquaticum), an invasive non-native floral species listed under Schedule 9 of the
Wildlife and Countryside Act, was recorded within the Pyford Brook.
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)
To prevent (otherwise likely) breach of legislation from current activities or to
Requires urgent attention / action
prevent delays to the planning submission or project.
Requires attention / action, but not Awareness of potential future issues / considerations such that future action
necessarily urgently will be required (e.g. pre-commencement surveys).
Currently no further urgent action No current issues, but future action may be required, e.g. survey results may
required become ‘out-of-date’.
Table 2 Summary Table of Survey Results and Recommendations
Protected Potential Implications Situation
Survey Results Recommendation
Species of Impact Rating
Ashby Sitch Negligible
Otter, Suitability for all three species. Minimum 8m stand-off from the
Water Vole Loss of suitable habitat
Pyford Brook Moderate Pyford Brook and
and White- – negligible negative
Suitability for Otter and Low implementation of a Sensitive
Clawed effect.
Suitability for Water Vole and Lighting Scheme.
Crayfish
White-Clawed Crayfish.
If the Proposed Development does not commence within 18 months, an update survey is recommended to be
undertaken at the Application Site.
CE-AW-1225-RP11 - FINAL Page 2 21/02/2020
Otter, Water Vole and Crayfish Survey
Proposed Mineral Extraction at Alrewas in Staffordshire
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
1.1.1 Crestwood Environmental Ltd. (‘Crestwood’) has been appointed by Cemex (‘the Client’) to
undertake an Otter (Lutra lutra), Water Vole (Arvicola amphibious) and White-Clawed Crayfish
(Austropotamobius pallipes) Presence/Likely Absence Survey at land south of Alrewas Road (A513),
Alrewas, Burton-on-Trent in Staffordshire – centred at National Grid Reference (NGR) SK 14895
15280 (‘the Site’).
1.1.2 The Client is applying for planning permission for mineral extraction operation of sand and gravel
(‘the Proposed Development’) with associated vegetation clearance and restoration.
1.1.3 The surveys were undertaken throughout 2019; however, since undertaking the surveys, the Site
boundary has been altered to occupy a smaller area within the original Site boundary. The updated
Site boundary, and the focus of this ecological assessment will be referred to as the ‘Application Site’
and the area in which the surveys were undertaken, where this now extends outside of the
Application Site, will be referred to as ‘Wider Survey Area’.
1.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
1.2.1 The purpose of the survey, assessment and report is to provide ecological advice, specifically with
regards to Otter, Water Vole and White-Clawed Crayfish in respect of the design and construction of
the Proposed Development and to prevent a potential breach in wildlife legislation.
1.2.2 The scope of the survey is:
• To assess the suitability of running waterbodies at the Application Site for Otter, Water Vole
and White-Clawed Crayfish; and
• To record the presence/likely absence of Otter, Water Vole and White-Clawed Crayfish at the
Application Site and within 30m of the Site (where accessible).
1.2.3 The description of the Application Site and the results of the survey relate to the findings at the time
of the field survey only; 20th August 2019.
1.3 SITE DESCRIPTION
1.3.1 The Application Site is located land south of Alrewas Road (A513), Alrewas, Burton-on-Trent in
Staffordshire. The Site is currently comprised of agricultural fields and associated field boundary
hedgerows with an area of Mix Plantation Woodland present and several ditches. The majority of
surrounding land use is agriculture. The red line boundary on Plate 1 indicates the extent of the
Application Site and the blue line indicates the Wider Survey Area.
1.3.2 The Pyford Brook runs directly adjacent to the southern boundary of the Application Site and
connects to the River Trent to the east of the Application Site. The ‘Ashby Sitch’ drain system runs
through the centre of the Application Site and connects to the Trent and Mersey canal to the east
and west of the Application Site.
CE-AW-1225-RP11 - FINAL Page 3 21/02/2020
Otter, Water Vole and Crayfish Survey
Proposed Mineral Extraction at Alrewas in Staffordshire
Plate 1 Site Location
2 LEGISLATION
2.1 PROTECTION FOR OTTER
2.1.1 In the UK Otters receive legal protection under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations
2017 (as amended) (HMSO, 2017) and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) (HMSO,
1981). Under the Regulations it is an offence to:
• Deliberately capture or kill an Otter;
• Deliberately disturb an Otter in such a way as to be likely significant to affect:
∙ i) the ability of any significant group of Otters to survive, breed or nurture their young;
or
∙ ii) the local distribution or abundance of Otters; or
• Damage or destroy a breeding site or resting place of any Otter (this does not necessarily
need to be intentional or deliberate).
2.1.2 Under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (HMSO, 1981), (which includes extended
provisions by the Countryside and Rights of Way (CRoW) Act 2000) (HMSO, 2000), it is an offence to:
• Intentionally damage, destroy or obstruct access to any place that an Otter uses for shelter
or protection; and
• Intentionally or recklessly disturb an Otter while it is occupying a structure or place that it
uses for shelter or protection.
CE-AW-1225-RP11 - FINAL Page 4 21/02/2020Otter, Water Vole and Crayfish Survey
Proposed Mineral Extraction at Alrewas in Staffordshire
2.1.3 The Otter is also listed as a Species of Principal Importance (SPI) in England under the Natural
Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 (HMSO, 2006).
2.2 PROTECTION FOR WATER VOLE
2.2.1 Water Vole are protected in England and Wales under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as
amended) (HMSO, 1981). Water Voles are listed on Schedule 5 of the Act and are protected under
Section 9 which make it an offence to:
• Intentionally kill, injure or take a Water Vole (Section 9 (1));
• Intentionally or recklessly damage or destroy a structure or place used for shelter or
protection by a Water Vole (Section 9 (4a));
• Intentionally or recklessly disturb a Water Vole while it is occupying such a place (Section 9
(4b)); or
• Intentionally or recklessly obstruct access to any structure or place a Water Vole uses for
shelter or protection (Section 9 (4c)).
2.2.2 There are additional offences in relation to possessing, controlling (Section 9 (2)), as well as buying
and selling (Section 9 (5)) any live or dead Water Vole or anything derived from them; however these
are largely irrelevant in respect of the potential impacts of the Proposed Development.
2.2.3 The Water Vole is also listed as a Species of Principal Importance in England under the Natural
Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 (HMSO, 2006).
2.2.4 According to the Standing Advice Species Sheet (Natural England, n.d.), there is no provision under
the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (HMSO, 1981) for issuing licences for activities which would
otherwise cause an offence under the Act (including ‘Development’). Any activities which may cause
an offence have to be covered by the defence in the Act which permits otherwise illegal actions “if
they are the incidental result of a lawful operation and could not have been avoided”.
2.2.5 Technical Information Note TIN042 (Natural England, 2011) states that “if Water Voles are present in
the area that consideration should be given to whether proposals can be amended in such a way that
the work does not result in an offence, i.e. does not result in disturbance to Water Voles or loss of
their burrows”. Every effort should be made to ensure that any potential impact(s) to Water Voles
can be reasonably avoided.
2.3 PROTECTION FOR WHITE-CLAWED CRAYFISH
2.3.1 White-Clawed Crayfish are protected in England and Wales under the Wildlife and Countryside Act
1981 (as amended) (HMSO, 1981). White-Clawed Crayfish are listed on Schedule 5 of the Act and are
protected in part under Section 9 which make it an offence to:
• Intentionally kill, injure or take a White-Clawed Crayfish (Section 9 (1)); and
• Sells, offers or exposes for sale, or has in his possession or transports for the purpose of sale,
any live or dead wild animal included in Schedule 5, or any part of, or anything derived from,
such an animal (Section 9 (5).
CE-AW-1225-RP11 - FINAL Page 5 21/02/2020Otter, Water Vole and Crayfish Survey
Proposed Mineral Extraction at Alrewas in Staffordshire
2.3.2 The White-Clawed Crayfish is also listed as a Species of Principal Importance in England under the
Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 (HMSO, 2006).
2.3.3 This species also has full protection within European legislation under the Habitats Directive 1992,
transposed into UK legislation as part of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017
(as amended) (HMSO, 2017) under:
• Annex II – Core areas of habitat for listed species can be designated as Special Area of
Conservation (‘SAC’); and
• Annex V – Member states are required to ensure that favourable conservation status of
listed species are maintained.
2.3.4 The habitat of the White-Clawed Crayfish can also be indirectly protected under the Water
Framework Directive. The handling of White-Clawed Crayfish is also only permitted by a person
issued with a licence under the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975.
3 METHODOLOGY
3.1.1 The survey was undertaken on all running water courses at the Application Site, as well as a distance
of 30m either side of the Application Site boundary (where accessible). The location of these water
courses is shown in Figure E11 in Appendix E1.
3.1.2 The additional 30m survey area outside of the Application boundary was included to check for the
presence/likely absence for Otter, Water Vole and Crayfish within the immediate vicinity of the
Application Site boundary.
3.1.3 The weather conditions during and prior to the surveys was considered to be suitable.
3.2 DESK STUDY
3.2.1 Prior to the survey visit, a desktop data gathering exercise was undertaken. Records were obtained
from Staffordshire Ecological Record (SER) (Staffordshire Ecological Record, 2019).
3.3 OTTER SURVEY
3.3.1 Otter surveys can be carried out throughout the year and record field signs along rivers and streams
to determine activity levels and patterns of behaviour over a predetermined area of suitable habitat
(RSPB, 1995).
3.3.2 Field signs of Otter activity include footprints, spraints (Otter droppings), feeding remains, slides
(where Otters pass back and forth to the waters’ edge), lying-up areas and holts. The presence of
such signs can be used to determine Otter usage of particular stretches of a river and its tributaries.
3.3.3 There are a number of different resting places used by Otters. Below is a brief description of the
terminology used in this report.
Holts
3.3.4 Otter holts are places/structures used by Otters for shelter on a ‘permanent’ basis. Holts are covered
structures, usually a hole or burrow along the riverbank amongst riparian vegetation and the root
CE-AW-1225-RP11 - FINAL Page 6 21/02/2020Otter, Water Vole and Crayfish Survey
Proposed Mineral Extraction at Alrewas in Staffordshire
system of river side trees, or behind boulders set into the bank. Usually a holt will also have other
associated Otter field signs such as footprints or an accumulation of spraint. Holts may also be
connected to lying-up areas and have more than one entrance as with Badger setts.
Lying-up areas/couches
3.3.5 Lying-up areas or couches are ‘temporary’ areas used by Otters for resting, grooming or feeding
whilst on the move. Lying-up areas usually do not form a full covered structure, rather they are
partially hidden bankside shelves amongst riparian vegetation, or ‘nest-like’ structures amongst
reeds and grasses. As with holts, lying up areas usually have other field signs to demonstrate use by
Otters.
Natal Dens
3.3.6 Natal dens are holts which are used by Otters to give birth and rear their young, natal dens usually
have inconspicuous entrances and have little or no evidence of Otter activity around the entrance.
Natal dens can be located some distance from the watercourse, sometimes being set back in
woodland amongst log piles, tree roots, rubble or even amongst reed beds.
Monitoring Survey
3.3.7 The Pyford Brook was split into three sections within the bounds of the Application boundary
(Sections 1, 2 and 3) and Sections A and B are the 30m sections of brook that extend east and west
of the Application boundary respectively.
3.3.8 Figure E11 in Appendix E1 of this report shows the locations of the watercourses and sections of the
Pyford Brook.
3.3.9 Section 2 of the Pyford Brook was monitored using two trail cameras to determine the
presence/likely absence of Otter within the Pyford Brook at the Application Site.
3.3.10 The monitoring period was between 24th July 2019 and 20th August 2019.
3.4 WATER VOLE SURVEY
3.4.1 The Water Vole survey was carried out in accordance with guidance in the Water Vole Conservation
Handbook (Strachan, 2016) and included searches for:
• Latrines (regularly used places where faeces are deposited, usually on ledges or prominent
mud-banks along the waters’ edge);
• Tracks/footprints and droppings (individual faeces on pathways or ledges used by the
animals);
• Feeding stations (areas where food is cut into short lengths and laid side by side on ledges
by the waters’ edge), paw-prints, nest holes, tunnels/runways and lawns; and
• Potential burrows (shelter used by Water Voles – often have an entrance below the water/at
the water’s edge as well as an additional entrance above ground).
3.4.2 The optimum survey period for Water Vole is between mid-April and the end of June (inclusive) and
between July and September (inclusive) (Strachan, 2016).
CE-AW-1225-RP11 - FINAL Page 7 21/02/2020Otter, Water Vole and Crayfish Survey
Proposed Mineral Extraction at Alrewas in Staffordshire
3.4.3 The survey was undertaken on a single visit on 20th August 2019. The weather conditions were
suitable at the time of survey. A single survey visit was conducted at the Application Site, which is
considered to provide sufficient information to inform the impacts and effects of the Proposed
Development on Water Vole at the Application Site.
3.5 WHITE-CLAWED CRAYFISH SURVEY
Habitat Assessment
3.5.1 The habitat was assessed for its suitability for White-Clawed Crayfish. This species inhabits
freshwater habitats such as rivers, streams and lakes. Indicators of suitable White-Clawed Crayfish
habitat can include:
• Highly oxygenated good quality water;
• Rocky substrate;
• Refuge areas;
• Variable flow rates creating microclimates; and
• Overhanging branches providing food sources through falling leaf litter.
Field Survey
3.5.2 The optimum survey period for White-Clawed Crayfish is between mid-July and mid-September
(inclusive) (HMSO, 2014).
3.5.3 A manual search for the presence of White-Clawed Crayfish was undertaken in areas identified as
having suitable characteristics to support White-Clawed Crayfish through the habitat assessment.
3.5.4 The manual search included hand searches of suitable refuges for any White-Clawed Crayfish
sheltering underneath, such as: rocks, debris, vegetation etc.
4 RESULTS AND EVALUATION
4.1 DESK STUDY
4.1.1 The local biological records centre provided the following records:
• Several Otter records within 2km of the Application Site. The records dated from 1999 - 2015
and include records of Otter spraints (droppings) and observational sightings of up to three
individuals. The records are all associated with the River Trent and Coventry Canal corridors;
• A single record of Water Vole within 2km of the Application Site dated 2002; and
• Several records of White-Clawed Crayfish within 2km of the Application Site, the most recent
dated 2007.
4.2 FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
4.2.1 A description of the watercourses included in the survey is detailed below. Figure E11 (Appendix E1)
CE-AW-1225-RP11 - FINAL Page 8 21/02/2020Otter, Water Vole and Crayfish Survey
Proposed Mineral Extraction at Alrewas in Staffordshire
of this report shows the locations of the watercourses and sections of the Pyford Brook surveyed.
Ashby Sitch
4.2.2 The Ashby Sitch is part of the local drain network flows east to west through the centre of the
Application Site (see Plate 2).
Plate 2 Watercourse 1 – Ashby Sitch
Western Extent
4.2.3 The channel of the western extent of the Ashby Sitch was circa 50cm in width, with a water depth of
circa 5 – 10cm and a steep, densely vegetated profile. The water was very slow flowing and appeared
to be of poor water quality. The banks vegetation included; Bramble (Rubus fruticosus agg.),
Yorkshire Fog (Holcus lanatus), Lesser Celandine (Ficaria verna), Cleavers (Galium aparine) and White
Dead-Nettle (Lamium album).
4.2.4 The channel contained minimal aquatic vegetation, featured a muddy substrate and was shaded by
adjacent hedgerows.
Eastern Extent
4.2.5 The channel of the eastern extent of the Ashby Sitch was circa 1m in width, with a water depth of
circa 15cm and a steep bank profile. The water was very slow flowing and appeared to be of poor
quality. The substrate featured some small areas of gravel. Bank vegetation was similar to that in the
western extent of the watercourse.
4.2.6 The eastern extent featured aquatic vegetation within the channel including Water Mint (Mentha
aquatica) and Floating Sweet-Grass (Glyceria fluitans).
CE-AW-1225-RP11 - FINAL Page 9 21/02/2020Otter, Water Vole and Crayfish Survey
Proposed Mineral Extraction at Alrewas in Staffordshire
Pyford Brook
4.2.7 The Pyford Brook flowed west to east, located immediately adjacent to the south of Application
boundary (see Plate 3). The water was slow flowing and contained aquatic vegetation along its length.
The channel width was on average circa 3m and featured a water depth of circa 50cm. The water
appeared to be of good water quality.
Plate 3 Watercourse 2 – Pyford Brook
Section 1
4.2.8 Section 1 was located towards the eastern extent of the Application Site adjacent to the southern
boundary. The channel was circa 3m in width, with a water depth of circa 50cm deep and silty
substrate. The bank profile was steep on both sides with dense vegetation dominated by Common
Nettle (Urtica dioica); other species include Mugwort (Artemisia vulgaris) and Common Hogweed
(Heracleum sphondylium).
4.2.9 The vegetation within the channel was dense and dominated by Parrot-feather (Myriophyllum
aquaticum), other species include Water Starwort (Callitriche stagnalis), Common Reed (Phragmites
australis) and Horsetail species (Equisetum sp.).
Section 2
4.2.10 Section 2 was located centrally to the Application Site adjacent to the southern boundary. The
channel was circa 3m in width with a water depth of circa 50cm and silty substrate. The bank profile
was gently sloped on both sides.
4.2.11 The banks were densely vegetated and dominated by Common Nettle. The northern bank elevation
towards the western extent of the Application Site was dominated by a stand of immature Aspen
(Populus tremula). The channel vegetation contained dense Parrot-feather and patches of Horsetail.
Section 3
4.2.12 Section 3 was located in the western extent of the Application Site adjacent to the southern
CE-AW-1225-RP11 - FINAL Page 10 21/02/2020Otter, Water Vole and Crayfish Survey
Proposed Mineral Extraction at Alrewas in Staffordshire
boundary. The channel was circa 3m in width with water depth of circa 15cm - 50cm and a sandy/silty
substrate with some areas of gravel and small stones. The water flow was slightly faster in this
section.
4.2.13 The bank profile on both sides was gently sloping at the base becoming steep at the top. The bank
vegetation was dominated by Common Nettle, with areas of False Oat Grass (Arrhenatherum elatius)
and Lesser Celandine. The channel vegetation contained dense Parrot-feather (Myriophyllum
aquaticum), some Water Starwort and Horsetail.
4.2.14 A small bridge is present at the westernmost corner of Section 3 which adjoins to Section A south-
east of the Application Site boundary (see Section 4.2.15). No ledges were present underneath this
bridge.
Section A (30m)
4.2.15 Section A is the 30m stretch of the Pyford Brook located to the south-east of the Application
boundary. The channel width was circa 3m in width, with a water depth of circa 50cm. The bank
profile was steep on both sides with dense bank and channel vegetation similar to that of Section 1
(see Section 4.2.8).
Section B (30m)
4.2.16 Section B is the 30m stretch of the Pyford Brook located to the south-west of the Application
boundary. The channel width was circa 1m, with a water depth of circa 50cm. The bank profile was
gently sloped to steep with dense bank and channel vegetation similar to that of Section 3 (see
Section 4.2.12).
Otter Survey
4.2.17 Due to the limited channel size, poor water quality and shallow water within the Ashby Sitch drain,
it is considered this watercourse is of Negligible suitability for Otter.
4.2.18 The Pyford Brook is considered to provide foraging opportunities as it likely supports fish and
amphibian prey. The Brook is also likely to act as a wildlife corridor as it provides ecological
connectivity to watercourses in the local and wider areas.
4.2.19 Suitable terrestrial habitat for Otter was present along the length of Pyford Brook included within
the Survey area, as the roots of the trees provide cover and good opportunities for the creation of
holts and couches.
4.2.20 The Pyford Brook and the associated riparian habitats provide good quality habitat and opportunities
for foraging, shelter and dispersal. Therefore, it is considered the Pyford Brook is of Moderate
suitability for Otter.
4.2.21 No evidence of Otter (such as couches, holts, spraints, feeding remains etc.) was recorded at the
Application Site during the survey.
Monitoring Survey
4.2.22 No evidence of Otter was recorded at the Application Site through the use of the trail cameras
throughout the monitoring period.
CE-AW-1225-RP11 - FINAL Page 11 21/02/2020Otter, Water Vole and Crayfish Survey
Proposed Mineral Extraction at Alrewas in Staffordshire
Water Vole Survey
4.2.23 Due to the limited channel size, poor water quality and shallow water within the Ashby Sitch drain,
it is considered this watercourse is of Negligible suitability for Water Vole.
4.2.24 The Pyford Brook is considered to provide some opportunities for Water Vole to take shelter from
predators. The bank vegetation was dense along the length of the Pyford Brook providing sufficient
cover and opportunities for burrowing; however, Common Nettle, the dominant bankside
vegetation, is not the preferred food source for the species. Therefore, the Pyford Brook is considered
to be of overall Low suitability for Water Vole.
4.2.25 No evidence of Water Vole was found within the survey area.
White-Clawed Crayfish Survey
4.2.26 Due to the poor water quality, shallow water and lack of variable water flow rates and lack of suitable
substrate within the Ashby Sitch drain, it is considered this watercourse is of Negligible suitability
for White-Clawed Crayfish.
4.2.27 The Pyford Brook featured overhanging bankside vegetation providing a food source with areas of
rocky and gravelly substrate present which is preferred by the species. The areas of suitable habitat
were isolated between habitats of lower suitability due to more consistent flow rates.
4.2.28 It is therefore considered the Pyford Brook is of overall Low suitability for White-Clawed Crayfish.
4.2.29 No evidence of White-Clawed Crayfish was found within the survey area.
Other Species
Invasive Floral Species
4.2.30 Parrot-feather was recorded along the majority of the length of the Pyford Brook channel included
within the Survey Area. The species is an invasive non-native floral species listed on Schedule 9 of the
Wildlife and Countryside Act (as amended) 1981 (HMSO, 1981).
5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 FAUNA
5.1.1 The Ashby Sitch drain is considered to be of Negligible suitability for Otter, Water Vole and Crayfish.
5.1.2 The Pyford Brook is considered to provide Moderate suitability for Otter and Low suitability for Water
Vole and White-Clawed Crayfish at the Application Site.
5.1.3 The results of the Survey indicate that Otter is likely absent from the Application Site and the Survey
Area. The habitat at the Application Site offers some opportunities for foraging, commuting and
shelter and is therefore considered to be of Moderate suitability for Otter.
5.1.4 The results of the Survey indicate that Water Vole is likely absent from the Application Site and the
Survey Area. The habitat at the Application Site offers some opportunities for burrowing and foraging
and is therefore considered to be of Low suitability for Water Vole.
CE-AW-1225-RP11 - FINAL Page 12 21/02/2020Otter, Water Vole and Crayfish Survey
Proposed Mineral Extraction at Alrewas in Staffordshire
5.1.5 The results of the Survey indicate that White-Clawed Crayfish is likely absent from the Application
Site and the Survey Area. The aquatic habitat at the Application Site offers some opportunities for
foraging and protection from predators and is therefore considered to be of Low suitability for White-
Clawed Crayfish.
5.1.6 The retention of the Pyford Brook and associated riparian habitat with an appropriate stand-off
(minimum 8m) will maintain habitat for all three species, as well as ecological connectivity.
5.1.7 Restoration of the Application Site (as shown on Drawing Number: 20-01-ALREW-P1-1222-RES) will
provide two large lakes as well as associated mid-successional plant communities (reeds etc.) which
will provide additional habitat and benefits for all three species within the Application Site.
5.2 FLORA
5.2.1 Parrot-feather, an invasive non-native floral species, was recorded within the Pyford Brook
immediately adjacent to the southern Application Site boundary.
5.2.2 No further recommendations for further survey or mitigation are considered to be required in
relation to the presence of Parrot-feather within the Pyford Brook. The retention of the habitat as
well as a minimum 8m stand-off will prevent the disturbance of this species from the Proposed
Development as well as prevent a potential breach in wildlife legislation.
5.3 RECOMMENDATIONS
5.3.1 Recommendations for fauna at the Application Site are detailed in Table 3.
Table 3 Recommendations for Faunal Species
Records Suitable Species
Species within Habitat Evidence in Further Survey/Mitigation Recommended
2km Present Survey Area
Otter ☒ ☒ ☐ No further surveys or mitigation required.
Water Vole ☒ ☒ ☐ A minimum 8m standoff from the river for all works
regarding the Proposed Development should be
White- implemented (Environment Agency, 2016).
Clawed ☒ ☒ ☐ Implementation of a Sensitive Lighting Scheme (see Section
Crayfish 5.3.2 - 5.3.4).
Sensitive Lighting Scheme
5.3.2 A sensitive lighting scheme should be implemented at the Application Site to prevent unnecessary
light spill into naturally dark wildlife corridors currently used by nocturnal species. The Institution of
Lighting Professional’s “Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Obtrusive Light GN01:2011” document
should be used as a design reference.
CE-AW-1225-RP11 - FINAL Page 13 21/02/2020Otter, Water Vole and Crayfish Survey
Proposed Mineral Extraction at Alrewas in Staffordshire
5.3.3 To avoid post-construction impacts from increased artificial light levels, the following guidelines
(Fure, 2006) (Jones, 2000) (Bat Conservation Trust/Institute of Lighting Engineers, 2018) can be used
to minimise adverse impacts from lighting on nocturnal wildlife, including Otter:
• Type of lamp: using low- or high-pressure sodium instead of mercury or metal halide lamps;
• Use of UV filters/glazing;
• Light levels: Within standards for safety and security, light levels should be at the minimum
required;
• Timing: Use of timers and/or movement sensors to ensure lighting is only used when required;
• Minimising light spill by design of luminaire and use of accessories such as hoods, cowls louvres
and shields; and
• Use directional lighting to avoid illuminating important commuting corridors and foraging
habitat, as well as potential bat roost features within trees.
5.3.4 Of particular importance will be lighting in proximity to the Pyford Brook as well as any retained
habitats as well as along the periphery of the Application Site boundary, where lighting should avoid
illumination of vegetative habitats. It is anticipated that a lighting scheme would be submitted in
response to a planning condition, should planning permission be granted. This would be designed in
conjunction with an ecologist.
5.4 OVERALL CONCLUSION
5.4.1 Providing the recommendations are adhered to it is considered that there would be no important
adverse effect from the Proposed Development on Otter, Water Vole and White-Clawed Crayfish.
5.4.2 If protected species are found to be present within the Application Site during construction of the
Proposed Development, then appropriate surveys, mitigation and compensation measures should be
devised and implemented prior to any construction work taking place; including the production of
European Protected Species licences for submission to Natural England if applicable.
5.4.3 NOTE: If the Proposed Development does not commence within 18 months of the original survey
date, it is recommended that update surveys are undertaken.
CE-AW-1225-RP11 - FINAL Page 14 21/02/2020Otter, Water Vole and Crayfish Survey
Proposed Mineral Extraction at Alrewas in Staffordshire
REFERENCES:
▪ Bat Conservation Trust/Institute of Lighting Engineers, 2018. Bats and Lighting in the UK – Bats and the Built
Environment Series, s.l.: s.n.
▪ Environment Agency, 2016. Guidance - Flood risk activities: environmental permits. [Online]
Available at: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/flood-risk-activities-environmental-permits
[Accessed 12 September 2019].
▪ Fure, A., 2006. Bats and Lighting. The London Naturalist, Volume 85.
▪ HMSO, 1981. The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). London: HMSO.
▪ HMSO, 2000. Countryside and Rights Of Way Act. s.l.:HMSO.
▪ HMSO, 2006. Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act. London: HMSO.
▪ HMSO, 2014. White-clawed crayfish: surveys and mitigation for development projects. [Online]
Available at: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/white-clawed-crayfish-protection-surveys-and-licences
[Accessed 2017].
▪ HMSO, 2017. The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended). London: HMSO.
▪ Jones, J., 2000. Impact of Lighting on Bats, s.l.: s.n.
▪ Natural England, 2011. Water Voles and Development: Licencing Policy. [Online]
Available at: http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/file/95002
[Accessed 14 September 2017].
▪ Natural England, n.d.. Standing Advice Species Sheet: Water vole. Peterborough: Natural England.
▪ RSPB, R. a. R., 1995. The New Rivers and Wildlife Handbook, s.l.: Aquatic Conservation.
▪ Staffordshire Ecological Record, 2019. Biological Records Report, s.l.: Staffordshire Ecological Record.
▪ Strachan, 2016. Water Vole Mitigation Handbook, s.l.: s.n.
APPENDICES:
Appendix E1 Figure E11 - Watercourse Location Plan
CE-AW-1225-RP11 - FINAL Page 15 21/02/2020Otter, Water Vole and Crayfish Survey
Proposed Mineral Extraction at Alrewas in Staffordshire
Appendix E1:
Figure E11 – Watercourse Location Plan
CE-AW-1225-RP11 - FINAL 21/02/2020You can also read
