SITE NAME:

Staverton Hydro Staverton Devon

TITLE:

Updated Terrestrial Ecology – Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Report

FOR:

Staverton Hydro Community Benefit Society (SHCBS)

July 2018 (Updated January 2019)

Colmer Ecology ltd The Senate – 3 rd Floor Southernhay Gardens Exeter Devon EX1 1UG

T: 01392 758 325 E: [email protected] W: www.colmer-ecology.co.uk

CONTENTS Page Summary 1 1.0 Introduction 2 2.0 Methodology 4 3.0 Results 8 4.0 Evaluation and Recommendations 19 5.0 Ecological Mitigation, Enhancements and Monitoring 27 6.0 Conclusion 31 References 32

Figures Figure 1 – 3: Habitat survey map and tree locations. Figure 4: Annotated photographs of the Site – Zone 1 to 4 (March 2018). Figure 5: Annotated photographs of the Site – Zone 5 (November 2018). Figure 6: Photographs of trees assessed in the preliminary ground level bat tree roost assessment – March 2018. Figure 7: Photographs of trees assessed in the preliminary ground level bat tree roost assessment – November 2018. Figure 8: Moss sampling locations. Figure 9 – 14: Moss identification photos Figure 15: Annotated photographs of the Site – Depleted reach (January 2019)

Appendices Appendix 1: Location of survey areas originally agreed with client in March 2018. Appendix 2: Indicative Latin names. Appendix 3: Wildlife checklist.

Reference: Staverton Hydro – Ecology Report Surveyed by: Mr H. Colmer BSc (Hons) Position: Director/Associate Ecologist Dip MCIEEM FLS Report Prepared by: Dr J. Rabineau BSc (Hons) Position: Senior Ecologist PhD ACIEEM Report Reviewed by: Mr H. Colmer BSc (Hons) Position: Director/Associate Ecologist Dip MCIEEM FLS Report Issue No: 6 – FINAL UPDATED File Reference: 2018-14_R_Staverton Hydro – Ecology Report

© The content and layout of this report are subject to copyright owned by Colmer Ecology ltd. This report may not be copied or used without our prior written agreement for any purpose other than the purpose indicated in this report. This report was prepared by Colmer Ecology ltd at the instruction of, and for use by, our client named on the front of the report. We disclaim any responsibility to the client and others in respect of any matters outside the scope of the above. We accept no responsibility of whatsoever nature to third parties to whom this report, or any part thereof, is made known. Any such party relies on the report at their own risk.

2018-14 Staverton Hydro – Ecology Report Colmer Ecology ltd 1

Summary A preliminary ecological appraisal together with a desk study of a rural riparian location in Staverton, Devon, was undertaken in March 2018 in relation to the construction of a new hydroelectric turbine, cable route, leat channel works and fish pass, with associated engineering works. The preliminary ecological appraisal initially concentrated on four zones, and originally confirmed with the client via email communication in March 2018. An additional bryophyte assessment of the remaining leat was carried out in November 2018 to address comments from a statutory consultee (Environment Agency) and at the request of the client.

In January 2019, Colmer Ecology was provided (by the client) with the Environment Agency’s response to a pre-application advice (dated 3rd December 2015), which originally requested a bryophyte survey. Therefore, an additional bryophyte assessment of the remaining depleted reach was carried out in January 2019, for which this updated report relates to.

Limited evidence of protected species was noted during the original March 2018 survey, updated November 2018 and January 2019 surveys. Some of the habitats, including woodland and species-rich hedgerows, provided suitable habitat for breeding birds, dormouse and commuting/foraging/roosting bats. Of the trees assessed for their potential to support bat roosts, one was considered to provide ‘high’ potential for roosting bats although unlikely to be impacted. No evidence of otter was noted during both surveys, although suitable precautionary measures during development works have been suggested. No evidence of multi-fruited river-moss was recorded at the time of the spot check surveys.

Based on the plans provided, it is understood that the proposed development will not impact the woodland or hedgerows. The potential ecological impacts were considered low, however, should any of these features require removal, recommendations for mitigation/further surveys were proposed. Suitable precautionary methods have been recommended and will be adopted in relation to the potential for impacting any protected fauna and flora. In additional, general development best practice has been suggested, along with ecological mitigation, monitoring and enhancements considered suitable for the scale of development proposed.

2018-14 Staverton Hydro – Ecology Report Colmer Ecology ltd 2

1.0 Introduction 1.1 Colmer Ecology was commissioned by Staverton Hydro Community Benefit Society (SHCBS) to undertake a preliminary ecological appraisal (PEA) of four distinct zones located in a rural riparian location in Staverton, Devon, hereinafter referred to as the Site. The PEA comprised a walkover phase 1 habitat survey assessing habitats and potential for protected species to occur. An ecological desk study was also performed, with biological data obtained from the Devon Biological Records Centre and also using web-based resources. Proposals for the Site include the construction of a new hydroelectric turbine, cable route, leat channel works and fish pass, with associated engineering works. Initially, the PEA concentrated on these four distinct zones, as confirmed with the client via email communication in March 2018 (Appendix 1). An additional bryophyte assessment of the remaining leat was carried out in November 2018 and also the depleted reach in January 2019, to address comments from a statutory consultee (Environment Agency) and at the request of the client.

1.2 The PEA provides information relating to the habitats within the Site and the land immediately adjacent. It also identifies potential for and, if apparent, evidence of use by protected species. In addition, it provides recommendations for further surveys if deemed necessary

Site Description 1.3 The Site lay in a rural location to the south-west of Staverton village and consisted of part of the River Dart, a leat gate and associated channel east to Town Mills, an existing fish pass, adjacent riparian and woodland habitats as well as agricultural land. The wider landscape consisted of arable and pastoral fields, interconnected by mature hedgerows, small woodlands and agricultural complexes. The town of Totnes was located approximately 2.7 km south-east, and the A38 was located approximately 6 km to the west of the Site.

Scope of Surveys 1.4 The objectives were to: • Carry out a biological desk study; • Survey and map all habitat types within the Site and immediately adjacent (where possible); • Carry out a protected species assessment; • Carry out a preliminary ground level bat tree roost assessment; • Habitat evaluation and impact assessment; and • Establish the need for further surveys and/or mitigation where necessary.

2018-14 Staverton Hydro – Ecology Report Colmer Ecology ltd 3

Caveat 1.5 It should be noted that a PEA does not aim to identify all botanical species within a site, or constitute a full contaminated land/invasive species assessment. In addition, although a preliminary ground level bat tree roost assessment aims to evaluate each tree present, it can sometimes be difficult to locate roosts within trees (Collins, 2016). This is largely due to the behaviour of bats using tree roosts (for example switching between roosts, limited echolocation or varying emergence and re-entry patterns), as well as lack of persistent bat evidence. This assessment does not include an assessment of tree condition, or any arboricultural assessment. Although it was undertaken at an optimal time of the year and visibility of tree features was good, it was not possible to access all parts of the Site in March 2018 due to high water levels and/or unstable weir structures, but were later assessed in January 2019. Considering the time of year the survey was conducted, some botanical species may not have been recorded or easily visible above ground.

Nomenclature 1.6 For ease, common names were used throughout this report. However, where no common name existed or it was not possible to identify to species level, genus/family names were used. Details of indicative Latin names were provided in Appendix 2.

2018-14 Staverton Hydro – Ecology Report Colmer Ecology ltd 4

2.0 Methodology 2.1 Preliminary Ecological Appraisal – Desk Study 2.1.1 Records of statutory and non-statutory designated habitats and protected or noteworthy species were sought from Devon Biodiversity Records Centre (DBRC – enquiry number 8711) within a 1 km desk study area. The 1 km desk study area was used following guidance produced by the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM). Additional ecological designation were reviewed on the government website Magic Map and Devon County Council Environment Viewer within a 2 km desk study area, based on the central grid reference SX 79382 63674. Additional European Protected Species Licence (EPSL) application data were also reviewed on Magic Map.

2.2 Preliminary Ecological Appraisal – Habitat Survey 2.2.1 The Site was subject to a PEA on 27th March 2018 by Mr H. Colmer BSc (Hons) Dip MCIEEM1 FLS2 and consisted of four main zones of impact: Zone 1 – Town Mills, Zone 2 – leat channel, Zone 3 – fish pass and Zone 4 – pipeline location. Each habitat present within and surrounding the Site was mapped in accordance with the, ‘Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey – a Technique for Environmental Audit’ (Joint Nature Conservation Committee, 2010). Habitats and features of interest were described by way of numbered Target Notes (TN), with botanical species recorded. In addition, colour coded habitat maps were produced (Figures 1 – 3). Non-native invasive species were also identified (where possible) and mapped where appropriate. The proposed cable route was walked along its whole length for a thorough and complete assessment. An additional assessment of the remaining leat was carried out on 28th November 2018 to address comments from a statutory consultee (Environment Agency), and at the request of the client. This area was referred to as Zone 5.

2.3 Preliminary Ecological Appraisal – Protected Species Assessment 2.3.1 During the walkover PEA, an assessment of the potential for the Site to support protected species due to the habitat types present was carried out. However, it did not include any specific survey methods designed to demonstrate presence/likely absence.

2.3.2 With regard to badgers, individual setts and any holes or scrapes likely to be used by or indicate the presence of badgers were searched for together with any other field signs such as latrines, pushes and hairs.

2.3.3 A specific assessment of the potential for the Site to support otter was carried out in both March 2018 and November 2018, with habitats within each zone searched both up and

1 Full Member of the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (MCIEEM). 2 Fellow of the Linnean Society of London (FLS).

2018-14 Staverton Hydro – Ecology Report Colmer Ecology ltd 5

downstream (to approximately 100 m where possible and within a 15 m buffer) surveyed for holts, lie-ups, couches, spraints, feed remains, slides, footprints and individual otters themselves. During this assessment, evidence of water vole in the form of droppings, cut vegetation, footprints and burrows were also searched for.

2.3.4 Furthermore, great crested newts are under recorded in Devon and due to the presence of a pond close proximity to the fish pass proposal, a Habitat Suitability Assessment (HSI) survey was carried out. In addition, a search for great crested newt efts and eggs was also conducted, with assessment carried out by a great crested newt licensed surveyor3. The HSI assessment followed guidance published by Oldham, R.S et al. (2000), more commonly referred to as the Oldham Criteria, together with an update to the Oldham Criteria produced by the Kent Amphibian and Reptile Group (KRAG, 2010).

2.3.5 The HSI survey is a field and desk based assessment of water bodies for their potential to support great crested newts. It consists of examining ten factors, which are subsequently calculated and given a Suitability Index (SI). These ten factors include: SI 1: Location (in Britain); SI 2: Pond area; SI 3: Desiccation rate (years out of ten that a pond dries); SI 4: Water quality (subjective assessment); SI 5: Percentage of pond shaded; SI 6: Number of waterfowl; SI 7: Fish population (subjective assessment); SI 8: Number of ponds within 1 km; SI 9: Terrestrial habitat quality; SI 10: Percentage macrophyte cover.

2.3.6 Once each factor and accompanying SI score were ascertained, a simple geometric mean was calculated giving a value between 0.00 and 1.00. This final HSI score for the pond was then used against a categorical scale to establish the potential of encountering great crested newts: 1. HSI value of < 0.5 = Poor 2. HSI value of 0.5 – 0.59 = Below Average 3. HSI value of 0.6 – 0.69 = Average 4. HSI value of 0.7 – 0.79 = Good 5. HSI value of > 0.8 = Excellent

3 Mr H. Colmer BSc (Hons) Dip MCIEEM FLS – GCN Licence No. 2016-19344-CLS-CLS

2018-14 Staverton Hydro – Ecology Report Colmer Ecology ltd 6

2.3.7 It is generally considered that ponds with high HSI score are more likely to support great crested newts compared to those with low scores (Oldham et al., 2000). However, great crested newts have been recorded in poor scoring ponds and absent in high scoring ponds (Oldham et al., 2000). Therefore, professional judgement has also been used to establish suitability of a pond/surrounding habitat to support the species.

2.3.8 Multi-fruited river-moss was searched for during both the initial PEA in March 2018 and the additional assessment of the remaining leat channel in November 2018. The November assessment included surveying six distinct sampling points along the leat from the upstream leat entrance down to Town Mills road and railway bridges, with a habitat suitability assessment also conducted. Bryophyte field identification at these six sampling points followed the suggested keying system within Atherton et al. (2010) with all samples later taken for laboratory identification at Exeter University to confirm species and absence of multi-fruited river-moss. Cell structure was reviewed at various magnifications (x 100 – x 400) with reference to Smith (1980). Furthermore, on 16th January 2019, Colmer Ecology (at the request of the client) consulted with Mr N. Whatley (Environment Agency) to agree an additional bryophyte assessment of the depleted reach. It was confirmed that spot checks of suitable habitat would occur from 50 m above the weir crest, down to the confluence with the leat below Town Mills. Both banks of the depleted reach, any side channel and areas around Southford Woods Local Wildlife Site (LWS), were searched via spot checks for multi-fruited river-moss. The spot check search occurred within the riparian zone up to 2 m above summer flows, and was specifically targeted at multi-fruited river-moss and its habitat preferences only. This included searching rocks and simple bark trees, such as sycamore, ash and hazel. As with the assessment of the leat, bryophyte field identification followed the suggested keying system within Atherton et al. (2010), and where necessary, samples were taken for identification using a microscope. Collecting of non multi-fruited river-moss samples followed the Botanical Society of Britain and Ireland (BSBI) Code of Conduct, with moss sampling following methods outlined within Atherton et al. (2010).

2.4 Preliminary Ecological Appraisal – Preliminary Ground Level Bat Tree Roost Assessment 2.4.1 With regards to bat tree roosts, any tree likely to be impacted by the proposed works was subject to a preliminary ground level bat tree roost assessment by Mr H. Colmer (accredited agent under licence 2015-9933-CLS-CLS) following methodology described in Bat Conservation Trust (BCT), Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines 3rd Edition (Collins, 2016) as well as the Bat Tree Habitat Key (Andrews et al., 2016). Each tree within the likely zone of impact was searched for any potential bat roosting features including cracks (from catastrophic fractures or tears), extending holes,

2018-14 Staverton Hydro – Ecology Report Colmer Ecology ltd 7

partially detached ivy (> 50 mm), cankers with cavities, and splits or flaking bark that may be suitable for roosting bats. Other field signs searched for included dark streaking below holes and cracks, droppings and staining, as well as bat themselves.

2.4.2 Any potential roost feature (PRF) was assessed and inspected where possible using high powered LED torches and Leica 8 x 32BA binoculars only at this stage. Where a suitable PRF was present, a general description, height above ground, orientation and location with respect to the stem (Collins, 2016) was recorded.

2.4.3 The potential of each tree to support roosting bats was decided based on the presence, number and suitability of each PRF. Trees of ‘Low’ potential were considered to be, ‘a tree of sufficient size and age to contain PRF but with none seen from the ground’ (Collins, 2016). Trees of ‘Moderate’ potential were defined as, ‘trees with one or more potential roost sites that could be used by bats…but unlikely to support a roost of high conservation status’ (Collins, 2016). Finally, trees with ‘High’ potential were defined as, ‘trees with one or more potential roost sites that are obviously suitable for usage by large numbers of bats…’ (Collins, 2016).

2.5 Survey Constraints 2.5.1 The PEA was undertaken at a suitable time of year and under good weather conditions with methodology proposed following industry standards. Some parts of the Site could not be accessed in March 2018 due to high water levels and/or unstable weir structures but were later assessed in January 2019. Areas of private gardens along the leat were not accessible in November 2018, however, they was viewed from high banks where possible. Although a close inspection was not possible in some instances, the restricted access was not considered a significant constraint.

2018-14 Staverton Hydro – Ecology Report Colmer Ecology ltd 8

3.0 Results 3.1 Preliminary Ecological Appraisal – Desk Study Statutory Designated Sites 3.1.1 According to data held by DBRC and Magic Map, the Site was not located within any statutory designated sites but appeared to be within several Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) impact risk zones including Torbryan Caves SSSI, Buckfastleigh Caves SSSI and Bulkamore Iron Mine SSSI.

Other Designated Sites/Information 3.1.2 A total of two County Wildlife Sites (CWS) were present within the 1 km desk study area. These included North Wood CWS, which was ancient replanted woodland and located approximately 220 m south-east of the Site at its closest point and designated for its parkland with veteran and ancient trees, area of unimproved calcareous grassland and bat interest. Several Unconfirmed Wildlife Sites (UWS) were identified within the desk study area with the closest being Town Mills, located approximately 63 m west of the Site. Unconfirmed Wildlife Sites are those identified as having possible wildlife interest, but have not been fully surveyed. In addition, an ‘Other Site of Wildlife Interest’ (OSWI, DBRC) and several Plantations on Ancient Woodland Sites (PAWS) were also located within 1 km of the Site. It should be noted that OSWI are; ‘sites of significant wildlife interest within a local context that have been surveyed but do not reach the criteria for County Wildlife Sites’ (DBRC, 2018).

3.1.3 The Site was located within/close to several biological consultation zones, including the South Hams Special Area of Conservation (SAC) greater horseshoe bat sustenance zone and strategic flyway, the Devon great crested newt consultation zone (the closest great crested newt record being from 2005 and located 1.4 km from the Site – DBRC, 2018), the cirl bunting consultation zone and an area in which barn owls have been recorded.

Ancient Woodland 3.1.4 Several areas of ancient and semi-natural and ancient replanted woodland were noted within the 2 km Magic Map desk study area, with the closest being North Wood located 300 m west and also designated as a CWS. Parsonage Wood was located approximately 740 m east at its closest point and Chacegrove Wood was located approximately 390 m south at its closest point.

European Protected Species Licence (EPSL) Applications 3.1.5 A single granted European Protected Species Licence (EPSL) for common pipistrelle and soprano pipistrelle was noted approximately 1.7 km south west of the Site (granted in April 2016 and valid until April 2023). No further EPSLs were noted within the Magic Map desk

2018-14 Staverton Hydro – Ecology Report Colmer Ecology ltd 9

study area.

Protected/Noteworthy Species Data 3.1.6 In total, 130 records for 60 species/families of protected or notable fauna and flora were provided by the DBRC within the 1 km desk study area. Records spanned a date range from 1960 to 2016.

Amphibians 3.1.7 No records of amphibians were provided within the desk study area.

Bats 3.1.8 A total of 17 records between 1985 and 2016 for common pipistrelle, whiskered, brown long-eared, greater horseshoe, lesser horseshoe, an unknown Myotis sp. and three unknown Chiroptera were provided. No records were noted within the locations to be impacted by the proposed works, although brown long-eared and lesser horseshoe records were noted in close proximity.

Birds 3.1.9 In total, 35 records for 30 species of birds were received from 1983 to 2013. Of these records, six species were listed on Schedule 1 and three were listed on Schedule 9 of the Wildlife or Countryside Act (as amended) 1981. There were also 26 records of Red or Amber status Birds of Conservation Concern 4 (Eaton, MA. et al., 2015), and several were on the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UKBAP) or Devon Biodiversity Action Plan (DBAP). Several of these records were noted within the leat channel system.

Flowering Plants/Botanical Records 3.1.10 A total of 25 flowering plant records for six species from 1983 to 2013 were provided. Of these, 11 were for Japanese knotweed, six were for Indian (Himalayan) balsam, one was for Crocosmia and one for Rhododendron, all of which are on Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (as amended) 1981. Furthermore, five records were for primrose (listed on the DBAP) and one for spurge-laurel (listed as a Devon Notable 2 species). Several of these records were in close proximity to the River Dart and leat channel system.

Additional Species 3.1.11 In total, 21 records of non-native/invasive species (listed on schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (as amended) 1981) for six species from 1997 to 2013 were provided. The majority of these were for Indian (Himalayan) balsam and Japanese knotweed, with single records of night heron and bar-headed goose. Several of these records were in close proximity to the River Dart and leat channel.

2018-14 Staverton Hydro – Ecology Report Colmer Ecology ltd 10

Invertebrates 3.1.12 Records of 14 invertebrates of 11 species from 1960 to 2011 were provided, with eight species listed under Section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (NERC) 2006 (and also listed on the UKBAP, noted as in local decline in Devon and/or nationally notable), and a three further species noted as in local decline, on the DBAP or nationally notable. While six of these records were not within the proposed Site, eight of these records were provided as four figure grid references and it was not possible to establish whether these species were recorded within the Site or not.

Reptiles 3.1.13 No reptile records were noted within the Site, however, two grass snake records (both in 2001) were provided within the 1 km desk study area.

Terrestrial Mammals (excluding bats) 3.1.14 In total, 37 records between 1983 and 2017 of five species of terrestrial mammal were provided. These included roe deer (19 records), otter (8 records, with the closest located approximately 140 m south-east of the central grid reference), badger (8 records), hazel dormouse (1 record) and water shrew (1 record). Several of these records were located along the River Dart and leat channel, including otter, badger and roe deer.

3.2 Preliminary Ecological Appraisal – Habitat Survey 3.2.1 During the March 2018 survey, the Site consisted of four main zones of impact: Zone 1 – Town Mills, Zone 2 – leat channel, Zone 3 – fish pass and Zone 4 – pipeline location. The habitats present within and immediately adjacent to these zones were identified and described below with target notes (TN) corresponding to Figures 1 to 4. During the November 2018 survey, a fifth zone was incorporated (Zone 5) which was the remaining leat channel not originally requested to be surveyed.

Zone 1 – Town Mills 3.2.2 The leat running to the south-east of the residential property Town Mills was the proposed location for a hydroelectric turbine, and therefore habitats on both banks approximately 40 m upstream and 70 m downstream of the property were assessed. This was based on an initial outline of survey parameters provided to the client in March 2018. Target notes correspond to Figure 1 with photographs on Figure 4.

3.2.3 Dense Scrub: An area of dense bramble scrub was located on top of the true left bank, south of Town Mills (TN1 – Figure 1).

2018-14 Staverton Hydro – Ecology Report Colmer Ecology ltd 11

3.2.4 Improved Grassland: Improved grassland was present on the true left bank and dominated by perennial rye grass, with rough meadow-grass, creeping bent, ground ivy, dock species, clover, common nettle, buttercup species, lesser celandine and dandelion (TN2 – Figure 1).

3.2.5 Tall Ruderal: An area of tall ruderal dominated by common nettle was noted within the leat channel and behind a fence on the true left bank (TN3 – Figure 1).

3.2.6 Inundation Vegetation: Several areas of inundation vegetation were present upstream and downstream of Town Mills and within the leat channel (TN4 – Figure 1). Although no access was possible down into the leat channel at this location, species noted from the raised banks included common nettle, immature willow saplings, willowherb species, dandelion, dock species, fern species, hemlock, daffodil (introduced) and bulrush species. Indian (Himalayan) balsam was considered likely.!

3.2.7 Running Water: The leat channel was relatively dry but with a low flow of water under Town Mills and between a central area of raised (above the leat) amenity grassland (TN5 – Figure 1).

3.2.8 Amenity Grassland: A small area of amenity grassland was present on a raised section of wall, immediately upstream and downstream of Town Mills (TN6 – Figure 1).

3.2.9 Ephemeral Community: A community of ephemeral vegetation was present on top of a concrete baffle within the leat and downstream of Town Mills. This habitat was located just before the leat re-joined the main River Dart, however, this could not be accessed (TN7 – Figure 1).

3.2.10 Fence: A wooden post and barbed wire fence was located downstream and upstream of Town Mills and on both banks, providing no ecological interest.

3.2.11 Wall: A concrete wall was present on both banks and lining the leat channel, with a stone wall section present on the true right bank downstream of Town Mills. These walls afforded no ecological interest.

3.2.12 Buildings: The residential property Town Mills covered part of the leat channel, however, the property will not be impacted by the proposed works (TN8 – Figure 1).

3.2.13 Other Habitat: A hard standing road bridge over the leat linking to a driveway to Town Mills on the true right bank was present, together with a smaller concrete footbridge

2018-14 Staverton Hydro – Ecology Report Colmer Ecology ltd 12

beside Town Mills. A concrete baffle was present within the leat downstream of Town Mills, immediately before the point at which the leat re-joined the main River Dart.

Zone 2 – Leat Channel 3.2.14 The leat channel was located approximately 410 m north-west of Town Mills and approximately 190 m east of the weir adjacent to the railway line. Target notes correspond to Figure 2 with photographs on Figure 4.

3.2.15 Broad-Leaved Woodland: The leat channel was surrounded by broad-leaved woodland, consisting of willow, alder, hazel, sycamore and pedunculate oak. Numerous Devon ancient woodland indicator species were noted including wood anemone, wood sorrel, hart’s-tongue fern, wild garlic and wood rush with additional botanical species comprising lesser celandine, dog’s mercury, herb-robert, common dog violet, daffodil (introduced), dock species, cleavers, common primrose, common nettle, bracken and bramble (TN1). There were also two areas dominated by scattered sycamore on both banks immediately upstream of the railway line (TN2 – Figure 2).

3.2.16 Inundation Vegetation: An area of inundation vegetation with rocks was present within the leat channel adjacent to the railway line, consisting of willowherb species, hemlock, wood rush, yellow archangel, meadowsweet, marsh marigold, reed sweet-grass, bramble and common nettle (TN3 – Figure 2). Indian (Himalayan) balsam was considered likely.!

3.2.17 Running Water: Water was running through the leat channel under the railway line towards Town Mills (TN4 – Figure 2).

3.2.18 Fence: A wooden fence was present along the leat channel on both banks upstream of the sluice gates and concrete path.

3.2.19 Wall: Stone and concrete walls were located along both banks of the leat downstream of the concrete path and sluice gates towards the railway line.

3.2.20 Bare Ground: A mud path was present on both sides of the leat channel, linking the broad- leaved woodland to the concrete path across the leat.

3.2.21 Other Habitat: A concrete path above the sluice gates was present across the leat channel, with a further small concrete area immediately upstream of the path on the true right bank. A railway line was present downstream of the concrete path (TN5 – Figure 2).

2018-14 Staverton Hydro – Ecology Report Colmer Ecology ltd 13

Zone 3 – Fish Pass 3.2.22 Approximately 185 m upstream of Zone 2 was an existing fish pass within the main River Dart. Target notes highlighted correspond to Figure 3 with photographs on Figure 4.

3.2.23 Scattered Trees: A fringe of scattered trees was present on both sides of the fish pass, consisting of hazel, alder, pedunculate oak and sycamore, with additional herbaceous ground species including bramble, daffodil, wood anemone, common ivy, dock species, wood rush and herb-robert (TN1 – Figure 3 and some areas were not accessible).

3.2.24 Dense Scrub: An area of dense scrub and bracken was present adjacent to the weir within the broad-leaved woodland on the true right bank (TN2 – Figure 3).

3.2.25 Poor Semi-Improved Grassland: An area of poor semi-improved grassland was present adjacent to the true right bank, consisting of perennial rye-grass, annual meadow-grass, creeping bent, common daisy, dandelion species, lesser celandine, soft rush and common nettle (TN3 – Figure 3).

3.2.26 Standing Water: A pond was present within the poor semi-improved grassland (TN4 – Figure 3). The pond was assessed for its potential to support great crested newts via a HSI.

3.2.27 Running Water: The main habitat type within the Site was the River Dart (TN5 – Figure 3).

3.2.28 Other Habitats: A concrete fish pass (TN6 – Figure 3) was present on top of the steel weir (access was not possible to this area due to high water and the instability of the weir).

Zone 4 – Cable Route 3.2.29 The proposed route for the new hydroelectric cable was walked and habitats assessed, starting east of Dartington Hall on Upper Drive, through grazed fields and intersecting the main channel of the River Dart approximately 195 m west of Town Mills. As no topographical plan was provided for the proposed cable route, no accompanying figure has been provided.

3.2.30 Broad-Leaved Woodland: The proposed intersection of the pipeline to the main channel of the River Dart was located within broad-leaved woodland dominated by beech with botanical ground later species very similar to Zone 3 (Section 3.2.23).

3.2.31 Improved Grassland: The proposed route was largely through improved grassland of little ecological interest and consisting of perennial rye-grass, annual meadow-grass, creeping

2018-14 Staverton Hydro – Ecology Report Colmer Ecology ltd 14

bent, common ivy, dock species, herb-robert, clover species, dandelion and thistle species.

3.2.32 Defunct Species-Poor Hedge: A defunct species-poor hedge dominated by recently planted hawthorn with a double stock-proof fence was present. Common nettle was also recorded with the hedgerow.

3.2.33 Intact Species-Rich Hedge and Trees: An intact species-rich hedge and trees with stock- proof fence was present along the field boundaries and consisting of hawthorn, blackthorn, ash, elder, hazel, sycamore and holly. Additional botanical ground species included cleavers, herb-robert, willowherb species, dock species, hogweed, dog’s mercury, bramble, common nettle, lords-and-ladies and hart’s-tongue fern.

3.2.34 Fence: Stock fences were present along the field boundaries and hedgerows with gates in places, neither providing any ecological interest.

Zone 5 – Remaining Leat Channel (Surveyed in November 2018) 3.2.35 At the request of the client and based on comments from a statutory consultee, the remaining leat channel was assessed from the leat gates down to Town Mills road and railway bridges. The habitats within and surrounding this zone were surveyed by walking down the leat channel (Figure 5).

3.2.36 Broad-Leaved Woodland: The leat channel was surrounded by broad-leaved woodland, consisting of willow, alder, hazel, sycamore, pedunculate oak and ornamental cypress trees towards Town Mills road bridge. Evident tree canopy closure was noted along the length of the leat, creating a dark, shaded and relatively bare ground layer with occasional areas of exposed bare earth. Shade tolerant bankside shrub layer species comprised bramble and ivy, with occasional holly. Some areas on the true left bank of the leat showed signs of high nutrient or disturbed ground, due to large stands of common nettle dominated tall ruderal.!Areas of Japanese knotweed were noted within this Zone, with one stand on the true right bank adjacent to the railway line (some distance south of the leat) and above Town Mills road bridge. Approximately 25 m downstream of the railway bridge closest to the leat gates, a second stand of Japanese knotweed was noted above the leat and on the true left bank. Indian (Himalayan) balsam, although not observed in November, was considered likely.!

3.2.37 Inundation Vegetation: The leat channel indicated seasonal inundation. At the time of the survey, water was slowly flowing down the leat, with a large accumulation of silt and leaf litter within. Slow flows increase the likelihood of long-term eutrophication, with bankside

2018-14 Staverton Hydro – Ecology Report Colmer Ecology ltd 15

habitat largely comprising areas of leaf litter, silt and only occasional small areas of rocks. Ivy, common nettle and bramble were frequently recorded adjacent to the leat, with alder saplings. !

3.2.38 Running Water: Water was running through the leat channel towards Town Mills.

3.2.39 Wall: Stone and concrete walls were located along both banks of the leat downstream of the concrete path and sluice gates towards the railway line. Additional supporting walls were noted above Town Mills road bridge and running down to where it meets the River Dart.

3.2.40 Bare Ground: Exposed mud/bare earth was present on both sides of the leat channel, with areas of standing wet water.

3.3 Preliminary Ecological Appraisal – Protected Species Assessment 3.3.1 Badgers: The Site and surrounding habitats (where possible) were searched for signs of badgers. A single badger footprint was found in mud at a field margin to the south of the proposed cable route. No further signs of badgers were noted in any of the zones of impact.

3.3.2 Bats (Foraging Habitat and Potential Bat Roosting Opportunities – Excluding Trees): The Site was assessed for its suitability to support bats using guidance within BCT Guidelines (Collins, 2016) and also professional judgement. The river, surrounding trees and grassland were considered to provide suitable foraging and commuting habitat for bats. The wider landscape was likely to support a varied assemblage of invertebrates and provide a good food source for foraging bats.

3.3.3 The residential property Town Mills within Zone 1 was not proposed to be impacted by the development, however, it was considered to have high bat roost potential. The railway and road bridge near Town Mills were assessed (in both March and November 2018) and both found to be generally tight, although with some gaps but these were filled with large amounts of old cobwebs and detritus. The railway bridge within Zone 2 was again re- assessed in November 2018 (it was initially surveyed in March 2018) with some gaps, but these were also filled with heavy cobwebbing and considered to have negligible bat roost potential. The concrete sided leat walls from the access road bridge above Town Mills down to the confluence with the River Dart were unsuitable for bats, with no cracks noted.

2018-14 Staverton Hydro – Ecology Report Colmer Ecology ltd 16

3.3.4 Breeding Birds: Evidence of old dipper nests was present under the railway bridge over the leat within Zone 2. There was also potential for breeding birds within the bramble scrub area of Zone 1 as well as the leat channel railway bridge under Town Mills (Zone 5), particularly for dipper. The broad-leaved woodland surrounding Zones 1 – 3 and the hedgerows in Zone 4 also provided suitable breeding bird resources. Although no potential for breeding kingfisher was recorded with the zones of impact, foraging habitat was noted throughout. Individual kingfishers were observed foraging during the survey.

3.3.5 Crayfish (Atlantic/White-clawed) and Freshwater Pearl Mussel: Although an assessment of the aquatic ecosystem was outside the remit of this report, the concrete walls and lack of suitable mud bank habitat within the zones of impact provided no suitable habitat for this species. Furthermore, the Site was outside the known range of these species and no freshwater pearl mussel or white-clawed crayfish records were received from the DBRC, although it is appreciated this does not constitute absence.

3.3.6 Dormice: Suitable dormouse habitat was present in the broad-leaved woodland in all zones of impact as well as the species-rich hedgerow and trees in Zone 4.

3.3.7 Great Crested Newt Habitat Suitability Index (HSI): The pond in Zone 3 was assessed for its suitability to support great crested newts following the updated Oldham Criteria (2010). The geographical location of the Site was within Zone B (marginal), with the pond being approximately 840 m2. It was considered that the pond would never dry due to its close proximity to the River Dart and high water table, with flooding in winter considered likely. At the time of the survey, water quality was considered to be good. Shading was estimated at 50 %, with no fish or waterfowl present at the time of the survey but a possibility that they could be present. No additional ponds (when reviewing an Ordnance Survey map at 1:25,000) were noted within 1 km of the Site (not including those on the opposite side of distal barriers, for example roads/rivers/ditches) and the surrounding terrestrial habitat was considered to be good. Macrophyte cover was estimated at 50 %. The resulting HSI Score of 0.66 classified the pond as average for its suitability to support great crested newt.

3.3.8 Invertebrates: While several terrestrial and aquatic habitats were present on Site and could potentially support a varied assemblage of invertebrates, these were likely to be common and widespread. It should be noted an assessment of the aquatic assessable is outside the remit of this report.

3.3.9 Multi-fruited river-moss: During the March 2018 survey, no evidence of this species was recorded within Zones 1, 2 and 3. Zone 4 was excluded, as it was not considered suitable

2018-14 Staverton Hydro – Ecology Report Colmer Ecology ltd 17

for this species. An additional search for this species was also conducted within Zone 5 in November 2018 of six distinct sampling areas, from the upstream end of the leat (leat gates) down to Town Mills road and railway bridges. During the six sampling points taken along the leat (Figure 8), no evidence of multi-fruited river-moss was recorded. In addition, very few rocks were noted within the leat considered suitable for this species, with few suitable simple bark tree species also recorded within the leat. Trees noted on the banks but above the splash line were searched within each sampling point, but no evidence of multi-fruited river-moss was recorded. The leat channel had a reduced flow, with some areas of standing or no water, heavily silted with eutrophic water. Moss species identified within the six sampling points were largely dominated by the Hypnales order, including fox-tail feather moss, unidentified feather-moss and greater water-moss. To confirm the identification of some species (that were not considered to be multi-fruited river-moss during the field identification), samples were taken for identification under a high-powered microscope at Exeter University. Cell structure was reviewed at various magnifications (x 100 – x 400) with reference to Smith (1980), which confirmed initial field observations and the absence of multi-fruited river-moss within the sampling sites. An additional spot check search for this species was also conducted along the depleted reach in January 2019, with the survey method previously agreed with the EA (Colmer Ecology and Mr N. Whatley [EA], pers. comm. January 2019). This search occurred from 50 m upstream of the weir crest, downstream to the confluence with the leat channel at Town Mills, including any side channel and areas around Southford Woods LWS. During the spot check search, multi-fruited river-moss was not recorded. A large proportion of moss species were from the Hypnales order including feather moss and greater water-moss. Of note, lateral Cryphaea, a species of similar characteristics to multi-fruited river-moss (and considered to be the only fruiting plants that can be confused with multi-fruited river- moss [Atherton et al., 2010]) was noted in several locations, and predominately growing on trees. It was identified under field conditions with samples collected and identification confirmed under microscope.

3.3.10 Otters: No direct evidence of otters was recorded within any of the zones of impact (in both the March and November surveys). This included no signs of holts, lie-ups, couches, spraints, feed remains, slides, footprints or individual otters themselves.

3.3.11 Reptiles: None of the zones of impact were considered to be suitable for reptiles due to the habitats in these locations being mainly riparian and/or highly managed, with a lack of vegetation structure. In addition, due to flooding events, areas for rest and shelter were likely to be regularly inundated therefore reducing their suitability for reptiles.

2018-14 Staverton Hydro – Ecology Report Colmer Ecology ltd 18

3.3.12 Water Vole: No evidence of water vole was noted, but potential habitat was present in vegetated bank areas of the leat channel and River Dart. However, the concrete and stone walls limited potential burrowing opportunities in Zones 1 and 2.

3.4 Preliminary Ecological Appraisal – Preliminary Ground Level Bat Tree Roost Assessment 3.4.1 Bats (Roosting Potential Including Trees): Based on the plans provided, six trees were assessed in Zone 2 (Tree T1 – T6: Figures 2 and 6). These comprised an immature sycamore, a mature multi-stem willow species, two mature multi-stem sycamores with limited young ivy coverage, a multi-stem sycamore with additional alder with young ivy coverage and an immature alder. None of these trees had any significant bat roosting features and were considered to provide no/negligible bat roost potential.

3.4.2 An additional two trees were assessed in Zone 3 (Tree T7 – T8: Figures 3 and 6). These comprised a mature multi-stem sycamore with limited ivy coverage, considered to offer negligible potential (T7). A mature pedunculate oak (T8) contained ivy coverage low down on the stem, a tear out with an extending east-facing fissure (at a height of > 10 m) and a further tear out with an east-facing extending knothole at a height of approximately 8 m. Due to these features, tree T8 was assessed as having ‘high’ bat root potential.

3.4.3 During the survey of Zone 5 in November 2018, all trees within or immediately adjacent to the leat were assessed for their bat roost potential. A large proportion were multi- stemmed alder, with no bat roost potential and no further assessment carried out. Only trees that initially appeared suitable (mature with potential for roosting, ivy coverage for example) were assessed further. A group (G1 – Figure 7) of trees above Town Mills road bridge were assessed, including a large mature multi-stemmed (at base) cypress tree and a standing dead tree. No features for roosting bats was recorded in any of the trees in G1. An additional mature multi-stemmed (at base) cypress (T9 – Figure 7) was noted overhanging the leat, with the tree creating significant riparian shading. No suitable features for roosting bats were noted on this tree. Additional groups of alder with ivy coverage were noted along the leat, but on closer inspection the ivy was not significantly thick (< 50 mm) or substantial to provide suitable bat roosting opportunities.

3.4.4 From the plans provided, no trees along the cable route will be impacted by the proposed works and therefore, were not assessed for their bat roost potential.

2018-14 Staverton Hydro – Ecology Report Colmer Ecology ltd 19

4.0 Evaluation and Recommendations 4.1 Summary 4.1.1 The current proposals for the Site include the construction of a new hydroelectric turbine, cable route, leat channel works and fish pass, with associated engineering works. A biological desk study and preliminary ecological appraisal including protected species assessments and preliminary ground level bat tree roost assessment were completed for all five zones of impacts.

4.1.2 In order to evaluate impacts on biodiversity and protected species that may be present within or adjacent to the Site, the location, the proposed development and likely level of works have been reviewed (where possible) against current standing advice and legislation. In addition, professional judgment has also been used. Furthermore, recently submitted (October 2018) and updated reports written by Fishtek Consulting have been reviewed to assess ecological impacts. It should be noted, this report assesses terrestrial ecology only and not the aquatic ecosystem.

4.2 Preliminary Ecological Appraisal – Desk Study and Habitat Survey 4.2.1 The Site was not within any ecologically designated sites, although appeared to be within several SSSI impact risk zones and within the (current) South Hams SAC greater horseshoe bat sustenance zone and strategic flyway. The significance of the Site being within the South Hams SAC greater horseshoe sustenance zone and strategic flyway is discussed in detail within Section 4.3.2, as this specifically relates to greater horseshoe.

4.2.2 The Site was approximately 7.2 km due south-east (straight line) from Dartmoor (including South Dartmoor Woods) SAC. The habitats and species of this SAC include Annex I (primary reason) Northern Atlantic wet heaths with Erica tetralix, European dry heaths, blanket bogs, old sessile oak woods with Ilex and Blechnum in the British Isles, Annex II (primary reason) southern damselfly and Annex II (qualifying feature) Atlantic salmon and otter.

4.2.3 It is considered that the proposed works will not impact any of the Dartmoor SAC Annex I primary reason habitats or Annex II primary reason species. Furthermore, the proposed works will not impact otter using, or trying to use, the Dartmoor SAC or have an impact on their ecological functionality. It is not the purpose of this terrestrial ecological report to discuss impacts from the proposed works on Atlantic salmon. However, the Local Planning Authority (LPA) will need to review the proposed development against the SSSI impact risk zone criteria to ascertain potential effects (if any) from the proposed development. When evaluating impacts to habitats from the proposed level of work,

2018-14 Staverton Hydro – Ecology Report Colmer Ecology ltd 20

consideration to the actual area of impact should be measured, which in this case was relatively small.

4.2.4 The dominant habitats within and adjacent to the Site were running water (the River Dart), inundation habitat, broad-leaved woodland, poor semi-improved and improved grasslands (cable route) with all collectively considered to be of local nature conservation importance. Based on the impacts of the development being restricted to five main locations (Zones 1 – 5) and a small working footprint with a large proportion of the associated engineering works undertaken in poor semi-improved and improved grassland, ecological impacts were considered low in this instance.

4.2.5 It was noted that the statutory consultee (Environment Agency) commented, ‘Since the weir has collapsed, the river habitat has restored to a more natural state including creating numerous informal breaches in the existing weir crest. At higher flows these maintain small streams and wet wood habitat on the island within the weir. Decreasing the flow in the deprived reach and increasing the impoundment could reduce natural river processes and features, adversely affecting the ecology’. However, reviewing a recently supplied and submitted report entitled Gauged Flow in Staverton Side Channel (Fishtek Consulting, October 2018, unpublished report code: SHCBS IA.PG.18), the flow in the side channel was just over 500 l/s (Fishtek Consulting) and 11 % of the main channel flow. The supplied report concluded that flow within the side channel upon installation of the proposed hydropower abstraction regime and Larinier fish pass would be maintained at the existing level (Fishtek Consulting, 2018). Based on the supplied report that the existing flow would be maintained, it is considered that there would be no change in existing flow rate within the island habitat and no decrease in the flow in the side stream. Any increase in river flow due to flooding or storm events would of course continue to be variable, with the wet wood habitat and splash zone riparian features maintained both upstream and downstream and within the island habitat. Based on the supplied Fishtek Consulting report, it is considered that no reduction in flow will occur, or change in ecological functionality of adjacent habitats or impact to designated sites with wet areas maintained.

4.2.6 When reviewing impacts to the leat channel, the statutory consultee (Environment Agency) commented, ‘As the leat has been disused for some time with a reduced flow, it has developed into an undisturbed, stream-like habitat containing gravels and woody debris’. Referred to as Zone 5 within this terrestrial ecology report, it was surveyed for its ecological value and assessment of ecological impacts. The leat has indeed become disused and undisturbed, but with only occasional areas of gravels and natural woody debris recorded. Of note, between the leat gate and upstream from Town Mills road bridge, several trees had fallen across the leat but due to the elevated sides of the leat

2018-14 Staverton Hydro – Ecology Report Colmer Ecology ltd 21

channel, these trees had fallen across but not in contact with the water or creating woody in-stream debris. Furthermore, the reduced flow rate/sluice gate leakage existing within the leat had caused a significant amount of leaf litter and silt to accumulate throughout the leat due to low flows. Leat edge habitat was largely a thick layer of leaf litter and silt with evident eutrophication during the assessment. Natural banks were largely intact, but with tree canopy closure creating a dark stream environment, with very little in-stream vegetation recorded. Significant shading was evident under the two cypress trees noted above Town Mills road bridge. Areas of bankside common nettle also indicated levels of high nutrient content and/or disturbed ground.

4.2.7 Increasing water flow/velocity down the leat will impact the existing habitats within the leat, however, these were largely silt and leaf litter accumulation that were considered to be of low ecological value with evidence of eutrophication. Due to heavy shading, little bankside vegetation occurred with areas of bare earth recorded. The actual bankside vegetation would be maintained, based on Fishtek Consulting Staverton leat hydropower site condition survey report (Fishtek Consulting, unpublished report April 2018) with hand removal of silt accumulation and leaf litter. In addition, an increase in flow/velocity will flush any superficial silting and debris from the leat (Fishtek Consulting, April 2018).

4.2.8 During recent discussions with Fishtek Consulting (pers. comm. December 2018), the leat will be permanently filled with water, with the velocity varying from, ‘very slow when the turbine is shut down (10 % of the year) with a sweetening flow maintained to ensure water quality’ (Fishtek Consulting, pers. comm. December 2018). Increasing water flow within the leat should maintain clean gravels compared to the areas of silt and leaf litter currently existing. This would result in a positive ecological benefit by improving quality. In addition, selective clearance of bankside trees would allow an increase in light reaching the ground layer and reduce the dominance of shade tolerate shrub and ground layer species such as bramble and common nettle.

4.2.9 It should be noted that Fishtek Consulting have confirmed that there would be no change to the splash zone or boundary perimeter of the leat, simply an increase in the velocity of water entering the leat from 0.1 m/s to 0.7 m/s (Fishtek Consulting, pers. comm. December 2018). It is therefore considered that this minor increase in water velocity will have a negligible impact on splash zone species, existing habitats, their ecological functionalities, or impact to the wider environment. Additional ecological enhancements to the leat were proposed in Section 5.

4.2.10 It should be noted that several records of Indian (Himalayan) balsam and Japanese knotweed were provided by the DBRC and located in close proximity to the zones of

2018-14 Staverton Hydro – Ecology Report Colmer Ecology ltd 22

impact. Furthermore, during the assessment of Zone 5, two stands of Japanese knotweed were recorded but not within the zone of impact or likely to be impacted by the increase in water flow/velocity going through the leat. Considering the location of the Site and familiarity with the River Dart and local catchments, it was considered highly likely that Indian (Himalayan) balsam would be present to some extent within the development footprints. Both Indian (Himalayan) balsam and Japanese knotweed are listed under Schedule 9, part II of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (as amended) 1981, making it an offence to plant or otherwise cause these species to grow in the wild. Therefore, suitable precautionary measures were suggested in Section 5, however, it should be for a suitably qualified specialist to address invasive species issues.

4.3 Preliminary Ecological Appraisal – Protected Species Assessment 4.3.1 Badgers: At the time of the survey a single badger footprint was found within the improved grassland in Zone 4. No further badger evidence was noted during the walkover survey. Several records of badgers were provided within the desk study area, and it was considered that no impact to this species will occur based on the plans provided and therefore no further surveys were necessary. However, suitable precautionary measures were proposed in Section 5 below.

4.3.2 Bats (Foraging Habitat and Potential Bat Roosting Opportunities – Excluding Trees): While the habitats within and adjacent to the Site was considered to provide suitable conditions for foraging and commuting bats, the proposed development and general works were relatively small, with no additional lighting or significant changes to the connectivity of the habitats to the wider landscape likely to occur. It was noted that the Site was within the South Hams Special Area of Conservation (SAC) greater horseshoe bat sustenance zone and strategic flyway, however, following the flowchart from the Natural England South Hams Guidance (2010), the Site was: 1) Not a wind turbine; 2) Not greater than 10 houses or meet the criteria for a Schedule 1 or 2 development; 3) Not located within a ‘pinch point’ (i.e. River Dart at Totnes, Buckfastleigh roost, Berry Head roost and Newton Abbot); 4) Created no additional luminance to the existing lighting regime; or 5) Removal of trees and/or hedgerows.

4.3.3 Therefore, based on the plans provided, no further bat surveys were required under the current South Hams guidance (Natural England, 2010).

4.3.4 Breeding Birds: At the time of the survey old dipper nests were recorded under the railway bridge over the leat in Zone 2, although the railway bridge itself would not be affected by

2018-14 Staverton Hydro – Ecology Report Colmer Ecology ltd 23

the proposed works. The Town Mills railway bridge in Zone 5 also provided suitable nesting opportunities for dipper. Several areas of suitable breeding bird habitat were noted within and adjacent to the Site, including broad-leaved woodland and scattered trees surrounding Zones 1 – 3, the dense scrub and the leat channel under Town Mills in Zone 1, and the hedgerows in Zone 4. It should be noted that under Section 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (as amended) 1981, wild birds (with exceptions) are protected from being killed, injured or captured, while their nests and eggs protected from being damaged, destroyed or taken while in use. Any removal of breeding bird habitat will be undertaken following the mitigation and precautionary measures provided in Section 5.

4.3.5 Crayfish (Atlantic/White-clawed) and Freshwater Pearl Mussel: Although an assessment of the aquatic ecosystem was outside the remit of this report, there were no known records of these species within the Site or the surrounding area. As a result, no further surveys were recommended in this instance.

4.3.6 Dormice: Dormice are protected under the same legislation as bats and otters and although suitable dormouse habitat was present in the form of woodland, scrub and species rich hedgerows linking habitats, these will not be impacted. Based on plans provided, the proposed cable route will go through existing hedgerow gates and no hedgerow removal was proposed. Therefore, no further dormouse surveys were considered necessary in this instance. Should any suitable dormouse habitat require removal, a presence/likely absence dormouse survey would be necessary.

4.3.7 Great Crested Newt: Although the pond in Zone 3 was assessed as ‘average’ potential to support great crested newts, it was largely isolated, with the River Dart and several roads acting as distal barriers to other ponds and therefore limiting dispersal. Great crested newts rely on a network of ponds within their home range for genetic variation and the lack of any additional waterbodies within 1 km of the pond reduced its suitability for this species. Furthermore, it was not proposed to impact the pond or the broadleaved woodland, and in this instance no further great crested newt surveys were considered necessary.

4.3.8 Invertebrates: The habitats within the Site were likely to support a range of invertebrates, however, it was considered that impacts were likely to be low and no further surveys considered necessary.

4.3.9 Multi-fruited river-moss: During the March 2018 survey, assessment of Zone 5 in November 2018 and survey of the depleted reach and surrounding habitats in January 2019, multi-fruited river-moss was not recorded. Sampling points were carried out within

2018-14 Staverton Hydro – Ecology Report Colmer Ecology ltd 24

Zone 5 in November 2019, with laboratory identification of species not considered to be multi-fruited river-moss during field identification. Furthermore, the presence of lateral Cryphaea compared to multi-fruited river-moss was also confirmed. Although multi- fruited river-moss is under recorded, it is a UK Biodiversity Action Plan ‘priority’ species, a ‘Vulnerable’ British Red Data Book species with protection under Schedule 8 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (as amended) (1981). Although the surveys did not reveal its presence within the zones of impact, it has previously been identified from Austins Bridge on the River Dart, 5.95 km upstream of the Site’s northern most boundary. Furthermore, a precautionary approach has been suggested within Section 5 along with ecological enhancements to improve habitat suitability for this species. It should again be noted that Fishtek Consulting have confirmed that there would be no change to boundary perimeter of the leat, simply an increase in the velocity of water entering the leat from 0.1 m/s to 0.7 m/s and increase in water depth (Fishtek Consulting, pers. comm. December 2018). Furthermore, it has been confirmed that raising the weir crest will restore it back to its previous state prior to weir damage in ca. 2014 (pers. comm. Mr A. Clayton, Mann Power Hydro Ltd to Ms A. Parker, Tresoc). During the spot check survey of the depleted reach in January 2019, trees on the true right bank were largely coniferous, however, a small band of deciduous trees was present. The bank was also steep above the confluence with the leat, with areas of exposed and unstable banks with earth/spoil lacking in suitability for multi-fruited river-moss. Research by Hollyoak (2001) on the distribution of multi-fruited river-moss suggested that, ‘regular flooding is a feature of all its sites and its populations are often located where a rocky gorge or bridge narrows the river floodplain and causes deep flooding’. A rocky gorge or narrowing of the river was not noted 50 m above the weir or those areas surveyed downstream to the confluence with the leat. In addition, this species is invariably within a zone subject to regular inundations during high flows (Hollyoak 2001), however, Mr A. Clayton (Mann Power Hydro Ltd to Ms A. Parker) has confirmed that the proposed works will not be significantly modifying high/flood levels. It was therefore considered that the proposed works would have a negligible impact to bryophytes based on the information provided.

4.3.10 Otters: Otters are protected under the same legislation as bats and dormice and at the time of the March survey (as previously reported) and survey of the leat in November 2018, no otter holts or any direct evidence of otter presence were recorded within the development zones of impact. However, dog otters have a large home range (30 km or more) and taking into account the otter records provided by DBRC, several of which were noted within the leat channel and the main river channel in close proximity to the zones of impact, it was considered possible that they forage/commute through the Site. Therefore, precautionary measures should be taken during construction to avoid any potential impacts to otters (and other mammals), as highlighted in Section 5.

2018-14 Staverton Hydro – Ecology Report Colmer Ecology ltd 25

4.3.11 Reptiles: The habitats within the zones of impact were not considered suitable for reptiles as they were highly managed with little vegetation structure and/or likely to be inundated by running (flood) water. Therefore, no further reptile surveys were considered necessary.

4.3.12 Water Vole: No evidence of water vole was noted within the Site, with limited suitable habitat recorded within the zones of impact. Based on the ecological assessment conducted, no further surveys were considered necessary.

4.4 Preliminary Ecological Appraisal – Preliminary Ground Level Bat Tree Roost Assessment 4.4.1 Bats (Roosting Potential Including Trees): Bats are fully protected under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 and the Wildlife and Countryside Act (as amended) 1981 and even post EU referendum, are still currently referred to as European Protected Species. The protection afforded to bats is such that the animals, their roosts (used for rest or shelter) are legally protected. Therefore, unlicensed works that may cause disturbance, killing, injury or blocking access to a place of rest and shelter has the potential to cause an offence. Following the withdrawal of Planning Policy Statement 9 (PPS9): Biodiversity and Geological Conservation, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published as its replacement in 2012. Although Circular ODPM 06/2005: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation – Statutory Obligations and their impact within the Planning System, was a guidance document that accompanied PPS9, it is still valid in its interpretation by local planning authorities on the impact a development may have on protected species. Circular 06/2005 stated that the presence of a protected species is a, ‘material consideration when a planning authority is considering a development proposal that, if carried out, would be likely to result in harm to the species or its habitat’ (ODPM 06/2005).

4.4.2 During the preliminary ground level bat tree roost assessment, one tree (T7) within Zone 3 was considered to provide ‘High’ bat roost potential. Based on the information provided, this tree was considered unlikely to require removal or be impacted by the proposed works, and therefore no further surveys were required. However, should proposals be altered and this tree became likely to be impacted, further recommendations were proposed in Section 5.

4.4.3 During the survey of Zone 5 in November 2018, all trees within or immediately adjacent to the leat were assessed for their bat roost potential with a large proportion being multi- stemmed alder with no bat roost potential. A group of trees above Town Mills road bridge, including a large mature multi-stemmed (at base) cypress tree, had no features for roosting bats. An additional mature multi-stemmed (at base) cypress was noted

2018-14 Staverton Hydro – Ecology Report Colmer Ecology ltd 26

overhanging the leat, but with no suitable features for roosting bats recorded. Additional groups of alder with ivy coverage were noted along the leat, but on closer inspection the ivy was not significantly thick or substantial to provide suitable bat roosting opportunities. At this stage, no further bat tree roost assessment or bat surveys were proposed for Zone 5.

2018-14 Staverton Hydro – Ecology Report Colmer Ecology ltd 27

5.0 Ecological Mitigation, Enhancements and Monitoring 5.1 In accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF, 2018), consideration should be sought to creating new habitats or features of biodiversity gain within a sustainable development or managing existing features for ecological and biodiversity gain. The installation of a fish pass would be a significant ecological enhancement for the passage of salmonid species, along with the creation of renewable energy form the installation of a hydro turbine. However, in order to avoid any adverse impacts to habitats or potential for protected species on and/or in the vicinity of the Site, the following ecological mitigation, enhancements and monitoring were made: 1. Contractors should work in accordance with the Environment Agency pollution prevention for businesses guidance (Defra and Environment Agency, 2016) and follow guidelines for preventing adverse dust levels, minimising run off and using bunded storage, for example when refuelling vehicles and storing oil and fuel. It is the responsibility of the applicant and their contractors to supply appropriate information and monitoring for the LPA to review; 2. It is the responsibility of the applicant and their contractors to supply appropriate information in relation to preventing the spread/disturbance of Indian (Himalayan) balsam and Japanese knotweed. Guidance within the Environment Agency ‘Managing Invasive Non-Native Plants’ (Environment Agency, 2010) must be followed and where necessary, a specific mitigation strategy employing biosecurity measures provide by a suitable experienced invasive species specialist. This may comprise ‘No go’ areas and all contractors made aware of the risks of spreading these invasive species. This report does not provide information in relation to invasive species method statements; 3. In order to prevent any ground works exposing tree roots of retained trees/hedgerows, a tree root protection zone will be implemented in accordance with BS5837:2012 Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction. The tree root protection zone(s) will be monitored throughout the construction phase and with appropriate signage in place. In addition, any trees that require pruning to facilitate the delivery of materials should be carried out following good silvicultural practices, following consultation with a qualified arboriculturist where appropriate and only where the lack of any Tree Preservation Order has been confirmed; 4. During construction, any open dug trenches will be covered overnight to prevent any mammals (such as badgers or otters) from being trapped. If this was not possible, suitable mammal ladders, in the form of simple wooden planks with a maximum gradient of 1:2 must be provided. In addition, any piping with the potential to entrap badgers or other mammals will be capped at the end of each working day. The contractor shall implement an auditing system, documenting

2018-14 Staverton Hydro – Ecology Report Colmer Ecology ltd 28

mammal ladder installation or the capping of pipes. Details should be made available to an ecologist on request, although monitoring during or post construction is not proposed; 5. Should tree T8 require removal, a qualified (and bat licensed) ecologist with the assistance of an arborist (under the instruction of a bat licensed ecologist) will undertake an initial aerial inspection of the tree in order to thoroughly inspect any PRF. This may be useful to confirm suitability of the identified PRFs, which were either too high or concealed during the ground level assessment to be fully evaluated; • Should the PRF have ‘Moderate’ to ‘High’ potential once closely inspected, then further aerial inspection and/or bat activity surveys would be required. Bat activity surveys would also be required should the PRF not be fully accessible, for example the feature is too long for an endoscope or on a dead branch likely to break under force. It should be noted that bat activity surveys are only possible between the months of May – August/September, should they be required; • Any PRF inspected closely from height as having ‘Negligible’ or ‘Low’ potential would not require further surveys and the tree would be downgraded to ‘No/Negligible’ or ‘Low’ potential; and • If a bat roost was identified and the tree still required removal to facilitate works, a derogation EPSL form Natural England will be required to permit legal destruction of a roost. 6. If external lighting was required during construction, this will be kept to a minimum and consist of LED luminaries, ideally of a warm white spectrum (< 2700 Kelvin), upward light ratio of 0 % and with good optical control, with any external security lighting to be set on motion-sensors and short (1 minute) timers (Institution of Lighting Professionals and Bat Conservation Trust, 2018). No lighting onto the River Dart during construction or permanent lighting following construction permitted. An ecologist shall visit the Site during construction to provide auditing services and advise where necessary. However, no long-term lighting, or an increase than that already existing, was proposed and no post construction monitoring was necessary; 7. Should any suitable breeding bird habitat within or in close proximity to the Site require removal to facilitate works (i.e. scrub, woodland, hedgerows, trees) during the bird breeding season of 1st March – 31st August inclusive, a suitably qualified individual would need to undertake an inspection for breeding birds prior to any clearance. If breeding birds were identified, these must remain in place until breeding has ceased with a suitable exclusion zone implemented where necessary. No inspection or supervised clearance would be required for removal

2018-14 Staverton Hydro – Ecology Report Colmer Ecology ltd 29

of breeding birds habitat between 1st September – 28th February. With regard to dipper nest noted under railway bridges, these will also require an inspection if works were envisaged under the bridge OR in close proximity between 1st March – 31st August inclusive. If the nests were occupied, an ecologist will implement a suitable exclusion zone, as this species can be prone to disturbance. The advising ecologist will periodically monitor any occupied nest, until young have fledged. No evidence of kingfisher nests or suitability for breeding was recorded within the zones of impact and no further precautions were proposed. No additional nest box provision was proposed in this instance or long term post construction monitoring necessary; 8. Should the species-rich hedgerow in Zone 4 or any of the woodland/tree line require removal, a presence/likely absence dormouse survey will be required. Dormouse surveys should be conducted following current guidance within the Dormouse Conservation Handbook (Bright et al., 2006). This provides a point scoring ‘Index of probability’ whereby individual points are provided for each month dormice are active (March – November). In order to achieve a thorough survey, 20 points or more need to be achieved and may entail a whole season of surveying; 9. If otter(s) (or evidence of) were discovered prior to or during works, construction activity must cease immediately. Where necessary, further surveys and/or a European protected species licence application may be required. A pre- construction otter presence/likely absence survey must be implemented; 10. Any tree currently over the leat within Zone 5 and requiring removal shall be section cut by chainsaw. However, section cuts will not occur through any existing bryophyte community growing on the fallen timber. Timber sections will then be stacked and pinned adjacent to the leat, within the splash zone but also further up the bank to provide a varying habitat community for bryophytes. Any tree felling proposed to increase light entering the ground layer, shall be carried out sympathetically. This advice does not include removing all trees from the leat channel, simply selective thinning to provide a varied riparian fringe habitat; 11. Where possible, locally sourced rocks should be installed along sections of the leat and within the splash zone to provide potential colonization habitat for multi- fruited river-moss. Currently, very few suitable stones were noted within the leat; 12. A suitably experienced ecologist must monitor (or conduct themselves) any work highlighted in Points 10 to 11; 13. Although this report does not propose habitat improvements for fish (or assess impacts), improving in-stream features for fish should be considered. These would likely include the addition of refuges/large woody debris, and where necessary these could also be installed within the leat. Any fish habitat improvement should

2018-14 Staverton Hydro – Ecology Report Colmer Ecology ltd 30

follow that proposed by the Wild Trout Trust and should be appropriately monitored; and 14. Ecological enhancements for bats will be implemented, and comprise a minimum of two Schwegler 2FN bat boxes installed on suitable tree. Boxes should only be installed where agreement has been obtained. Bat boxes shall provide a long-term ecological benefit, with the suggested box being self-cleaning with no monitoring proposed.

2018-14 Staverton Hydro – Ecology Report Colmer Ecology ltd 31

6.0 Conclusion 6.1 A preliminary ecological assessment was undertaken in relation to the construction of a new hydroelectric turbine, cable route, leat channel works and fish pass, with associated engineering works in Staverton, Devon. No rare or nationally scarce botanical species were identified during the preliminary ecological appraisal.

6.2 All habitat types have been mapped, with the Site dominated by running water (the River Dart), inundation habitat, broad-leaved woodland, poor semi-improved and improved grasslands (cable route). Based on the impacts of the development being restricted, with a large proportion of the associated engineering works undertaken in poor semi-improved and improved grasslands, ecological impacts were considered low in this instance. In addition, working areas were relatively small with impacts considered negligible to habitats, potential for protected specie and adjacent designated habitats. Suitable precautionary methods have been recommended and will be adopted in relation to the potential for impacting any protected fauna and flora. In additional, general development best practice has been suggested, along with ecological mitigation, monitoring and enhancements considered suitable for the scale of development proposed.

2018-14 Staverton Hydro – Ecology Report Colmer Ecology ltd 32

References Amphibian and Reptile Groups (ARG) of the United Kingdom (ARG UK), 2010. Great Crested Newt Habitat Suitability Index, ARG UK Advice Note 5.

Andrews, H. et al., 2016. Bat Tree Habitat Key (3rd Edition). AEcol, Bridgwater. Available from: http://battreehabitatkey.co.uk/?page_id=43

Atherton, I., Bosanquet, S. and Lawley, M. 2010. Mosses and Liverworts of Britain and Ireland – a Field Guide. British Bryological Society.

British Standards Institution (BSI) BS42020:2013. 2013. Biodiversity – Code of Practice for planning and Development. London, UK.

Collins, J. (ed.), 2016. Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines (3rd edn). The Bat Conservation Trust, London.

Defra and Environment Agency, 2016. Pollution prevention for businesses. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/pollution-prevention-for-businesses#construction-inspection- and-maintenance (accessed 1st May 2018).

Environment Agency, 2010. Managing Invasive Non-Native Plants. Environment Agency, Bristol.

Institution of Lighting Professionals and Bat Conservation Trust, 2018. Guidance note 08/18 Bats and Artificial Lighting in the UK.

Hollyoak, D. T. 2001. Multi-fruited River Moss Cryphaea lamyana: Report to Plantlife on work carried out during 2000 and 2001. Back from the Brink report. English Nature and Plantlife.

Joint Nature Conservation Committee. (JNCC). 2010. Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey. A technique for Environmental Audit. JNCC, Peterborough, UK.

ODPM Circular 06/2005, 2005. Biodiversity and Geological conservation – Statutory Obligations and their Impact Within the Planning System.

Oldham, R.S., Keeble, J., Swan, M.J.S., and Jeffcote, M. 2000. Evaluating the Suitability of Habitat for the Great Crested Newt Triturus cristatus. Herpetological Journal, Vol. 10(4), pp. 143-155.

Smith, A. J. E. 1980. The Moss flora of Britain and Ireland. Cambridge University Press.

2018-14 Staverton Hydro – Ecology Report Colmer Ecology ltd 33

Stace, C. 1997. New Flora of the British Isles. 2nd Edition. Cambridge University Press.

Sterry, P. 2006. Collins Complete Guide to British Wildflowers. Harper Collins Publishers Ltd.

Sterry, P. 2007. Collins Complete British Trees. Harper Collins Publishers Ltd.

Websites: Magic Map. www.magic.defra.gov.uk Devon Biological Records Centre (DBRC) Record Search Results: Results of data search within 1 km of SX7938263674 Enq no. 8711 (1).

2018-14 Staverton Hydro – Ecology Report Figures

Figure 4: Annotated photographs of the Site – Zone 1 to 4 (March 2018)

Zone 1: Leat running through Town Zone 1: Inundation vegetation within Zone 2: Dipper nests under railway Zone 2: Sluice gates within the leat Mills, with improved grassland on bank the leat channel bridge channel with inundation vegetation

Zone 3: Current fish pass with broad- Zone 3: Pond within semi-improved Zone 4: Defunct species-poor planted Zone 4: Broad-leaved woodland leaved woodland on the true left bank grassland adjacent to the river hedge within improved grassland bordering the main river channel Figure 5: Annotated photographs of the Site – Zone 5 (November 2018)

Zone 5: Typical leat bankside cover Zone 5: Additional photo of poor Zone 5: View of leat looking upstream Zone 5: Common nettle bankside comprising leaf litter and silt bankside vegetation with heavily shaded banks communities within the leat

Zone 5: Tree over leat but not Zone 5: Town Mills road bridge, no Zone 5: Town Mill railway bridge, no Zone 5 (and 1): Leat gate, no potential creating wood in-stream debris cracks or features for roosting bats cracks or features for roosting bats for bats

Figure 6: Photographs of trees assessed in the Preliminary Ground Level Bat Tree Roost Assessment (March 2018)

T2: Multi-stemmed willow sp. – T3 and T4: Multi-stemmed willow T5: Multi-stemmed sycamore T6: Immature alder – negligible negligible potential sp. – negligible potential and alder – negligible potential potential

T7: Sycamore – negligible T8: Mature oak – high potential T8: Tear out which appears to T8: Knot hole and tear out which potential from multiple features extend, facing downstream appear to extend Figure 7: Photographs of trees assessed in the Preliminary Ground Level Bat Tree Roost Assessment (November 2018) Group 1: Group including multi- Group 1: Additional photo Group 1: Additional photo of T9: Multi-stemmed cypress tree stemmed cypress tree and standing cypress dead tree Figure 8: Moss sampling locations (plan provided by Fishtek Consulting)

S1 Sample number and location

S6 S5

S1 S2 S3 S4 Figure 9: Moss identification photos

Zone 5: Moss sample 1 – Greater water-moss Fontinalis antipyretica. Sharply keeled leaf noted under hand lens field identification conditions, reconfirmed under microscope. Note cell structure at x 400 magnification. Figure 10: Moss identification photos

Zone 5: Moss sample 2 – Thamnobryum species. Note serrated leaf edge, which is not evident in multi-fruited rover-moss. Figure 11: Moss identification photos

Zone 5: Moss sample 3 – Thamnobryum species. Note elongated leaf and cell structure, which are not evident in multi-fruited rover-moss. Figure 12: Moss identification photos

Zone 4: Moss sample 4 – Thamnobryum species. Note serrated leaf edge, which is not evident in multi-fruited rover-moss.

Figure 13: Moss identification photos

Zone 5: Moss sample 5 – Thamnobryum species. Note serrated leaf edge, which is not evident in multi-fruited rover-moss. Figure 14: Moss identification photos

Zone 5: Moss sample 6 – Thamnobryum species. Note serrated leaf edge, which is not evident in multi-fruited rover-moss. Figure 15: Annotated photographs of the Site – Depleted reach (January 2019)

Areas of eroded bank on true left bank Large accumulation of flood debris, Sandy banks with inundation and above weir – not suitable for multi- Bare and exposed rocks on true left within central island and below weir tall ruderal communities fruited river-moss bank above weir

Area of silt accumulation and tall ruderal at leat confluence with River Dart. Poor habitat quality Appendices Appendix 1 Appendix 1: Location of survey areas originally agreed with client in March 2018. Plans provided by Fishtek Consulting.

Appendix 2 Appendix 2 - List of Indictive Fauna and Flora Latin Names

Fauna Flora

Adder Vipera berus Bindweed Calystegia sepium Goose grass Galium aparine Badger Meles meles Bird's-foot-trefoil Lotus corniculatus Greater birds-foot trefoil Lotus peduncuulatus Barbastelle Barbastella barbastellus Blackthorn Prunus spinosa Greater burdock Arctium lappa Bechstein Myotis bechsteini Bluebell Hyacinthoides non-scripta Ground ivy Glechoma hederacea Brandt Myotis brandtii Borage Borago officinalis Guilder rose Viburnum opulus Brown long-eared Plecotus auritus Bracken Pteridium aquilinum Hart's tongue fern Asplenium scolopendrium Common frog Rana temporaria Bramble Rubus fruticosus sp. agg. Hawkbit Leontodon sp. Common lizard Zootoca vivipara Bugle Ajuga reptans Hawthorn Crataegus monogyna Common pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus Buttercup Ranunculus sp Hazel Corylus avellana Common toad Bufo bufo Butterfly bush Buddleja davidii Hemlock water-dropwort Oenanthe crocata Daubenton Myotis daubentonii Camomile Matricaria chamomilla Hemp-agrimony Eupatorium cannabinum Dormouse Muscardinus avellanarius Canadian pondweed Elodea canadensis Herb Robert Geranium robertianum Grass snake Nartix natrix Chickweed Stellaria media Himalayan balsam Impatiens glandulifera Great crested newt Triturus cristatus Cleavers Galium aparine Hogweed Heracleum sphondylium Greater horseshoe Rhinolophus ferrumequinum Clover species Trifolium Holly Ilex aquifolium Grey long-eared Plecotu austriacus Cob nut Corylus species Honeysuckle Lonicera periclymenum Leisler Nyctalus leisleri Cock's-foot Dactylis glomerata Horse chestnut Aesculus x carnea Lesser horseshoe Rhinolophus hipposideros Comfrey Symphytum officinale Ivy Hedera helix Nathusius pipistrelle Pipistrellus nathusii Common chickweed Stellaria media Japanese knotweed Fallopia japonica Natterer Myotis nattereri Common marsh-bedstraw Galium palustre Laurel Lauraceae Noctule Nyctalus noctula Common nettle Urtica dioica Lavender Lavandula officinalis Otter Lutra lutra Common sorrel Rumex acetosa Lesser bulrush Typha angustifolia Palmate newt Triturus helveticus Common violet Viola riviniana Leyland cypress Leylandii sp Serotine Eptesinus serotinus Cotoneaster Cotoneaster sp Lime Tilia sp. Slow worm Anguis fragilis Cottongrass Eriophorum angustifolium March marigold Caltha palustris Smooth newt Triturus vulgaris Cow parsley Anthriscus sylvestris Meadow buttercup Ranunculus acris Soprano pipstrelle Pipistrelly pygmaeus Creeping bent Agrostis stolonifera Meadow fescue Festuca pratensis Water vole Arvicola amphibius Creeping buttercup Ranunculus repens Meadow foxtail Alopecurus pratensis Whiskered Myotis mystacinus Crested Dogstail Cynosurus cristatus Meadow sweet Filipendula ulmaria Daisy Bellis perennis Navelwort Umbilicus rupestris Flora Dandelion Taraxacum officinale agg. New Zealand pigmy weed Crassula helmsii Dock sp Rumex sp Oxeye daisy Leucanthemum vulgare Agrimony Agrimonia sp Dog rose Rosa canina Pedunculate oak Quercus robur Alder Alnus glutinosa Dog's mercury Mercurialis perennis Perennial rye-grass Lolium perenne Annual meadow-grass Poa annua Elder Sambucus nigra Periwinkle Vinca sp. Apple Malus domestica Elm Ulmus minor var. vulgaris Pine Pinus species Ash Fraxinus excelsior Field bindweed Convolvulus arvensis Pond weed Potamogeton Aspen Populus tremula Field maple Acer campestre Poplar speceis Populus sp Bay laurel Laurel nobilis Forget-me-not Myosotis scorpioides Poppy Papaver species Beech Fagus sylvatica Foxglove Digitalis purpurea Privet Ligustrum sp Bell heather Erica cinerea Germander speedwell Veronica chamaedrys Purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria Ragwort Senecio jacobae Yew Taxus baccata Red campion Silene dioica Red clover Trifolium pratense Reed canary grass Phalaris arundinacea Reed sweet grass Glyceria maxima Ribwort plantain Plantago lanceolata Rosemary Rosmarinus officinalis Rough hawkbit Leontodon hispidus Rough meadowgrass Poa trivialis Russian vine Fallopia bauldschuanica Silver birch Betula pendula Silverweed Potentilla anserina Soft rush Juncus effusus Stinking iris Iris foetidissima Spindle Euonymus europaeus Sumac Rhus sp. Sycamore Acer pseudoplatanus Teasel sp Dipsacus sp Thistle sp Cirsium sp Timothy Phleum pratense Walnut Juglans regia Water crowfoot Ranunculus aquatilis Water forget-me-not Myosotis scorpiodes Water mint Menta aquatica Water plantain Alisma plantago-aquatica Wayfaring-tree Viburnum lantana White campion Silene latifolia White clover Trifolium repens White deadnettle Lamium album White melilot Melilotus albus Wild geraniums Geranium maculatum Willow herb Epilobium species Willow species Salix species Wood sorrel Oxalis acetosella Wood spurge Euphorbia amygdaloides Wood mellick Melica uniflora Woundworts Stachys species Wych elm Ulmus glabra Yarrow Achillea millefolium Appendix 3 Appendix 3 – Wildlife Checklist

A.1 Protected and priority species (relates to question 13a in the planning application form).

A tick or cross must be placed in all boxes in column two and then, where there is a tick, all other boxes in that row. The final column only needs to be filled in where this clarifies the location of a species on a large site e.g. location of a great crested newt pond or bat roost. Where species are present this information will be sent to Devon Biodiversity Records Centre.

Location: Staverton Hydro Grid reference for centre of site (6 digit): SX 793 636 Planning Application reference: Not Known Name of surveyor: Mr H. Colmer Year that surveys carried out: 2018

Species - terrestrial, Walkover shows Detailed Detailed Species Impact on Detailed NE licence Grid intertidal, marine that suitable Survey survey Present or species? Conservation required? reference for habitat present? needed? carried out Assumed to Action Statement specific Tick or cross and be present on included? location of included? site Indicate species (if with P or A and Sets out actions required for name the needed in relation to large sites) species avoidance / mitigation / compensation / enhancement Bats (roost) ü ü ü A No if tree left Yes No if tree left intact intact Bats (flight line / foraging ü X X Likely Present Negligible Yes No habitat) Dormice ü X X A No – if Yes No – if hedgerow/ hedgerow/ woodland woodland NOT NOT impacted impacted significantly significantly Otters ü ü ü Likely Present Negligible Yes No Great crested newts ü X X No No No (no impact to No (*check consultation pond) zone) Cirl buntings (*check ü X consultation zone) Barn owls ü X Other Schedule 1 birds X Breeding birds ü X X Likely Present Negligible Yes No Reptiles X Native crayfish X Water voles X Badgers ü X X Other protected species X e.g. tentacled lagoon worm, native oyster, seahorse, fan mussels Species of principal X importance Invasive species X

A.2 Designations / important habitats / sites of geological importance (relates to questions 13 b & c in the planning application form) A tick or cross must be placed in all boxes in column two and then, where there is a tick, all other boxes in that row.

Designation Within site Name of site / Detailed Conservation Relevant organisation or habitat Action Statement consulted & response Terrestrial, intertidal, marine potential included in report? included in the impact. application? Tick or cross Statutory designations

European designations - Special Area of Within South Hams No No Conservation (SAC), Special Protection Area greater (SPA) and RAMSAR site or within Greater horseshoe Horseshoe consultation zone SAC consultation zone Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) X Marine Conservation Zone (MCZ) (not X before 2012) Local Nature Reserve (LNR) X Non statutory wildlife designations

County Wildlife Site (CWS) X Ancient woodland X Special Verge X Habitat of Principal Importance / BAP X habitat Local Biodiversity Network (mapped by X Devon Wildlife Trust / through Green Infrastructure work) Non statutory geological designation

County Geological Site (CGS or RIGS) X

Colmer Ecology ltd | The Senate – 3rd Floor | Southernhay Gardens | Exeter | Devon | EX1 1UG T: 01392 758 325 E: [email protected] W: www.colmer-ecology.co.uk

Colmer Ecology ltd Registered in England: No 7876750 Registered Office: Castle Street Studios | 14 Castle Street – First Floor | Exeter | Devon | EX4 3PT