ECOLOGY 12

CONTENTS

Introduction ...... 1 Guidance and Industry Good Practice` ...... 1 Sources of Information ...... 1 Assessment Approach ...... 2 Baseline Conditions ...... 5 Habitats ...... 5 Predicted Trends ...... 12 Nature Conservation Evaluation ...... 12 Designated Sites ...... 12 Non-designated Sites ...... 12 Species ...... 12 Evaluation of Habitats within the Application Site ...... 15 Evaluation of Designated Sites ...... 18 Identified Ecological Receptors ...... 18 Ecological Impact Assessment ...... 19 The Proposed Development ...... 20 Identification of Predicted Impacts – Construction ...... 20 Identification of Predicted Impacts – Operation ...... 26 Mitigation Measures ...... 30 Magnitude and Significance of Residual Impacts ...... 35 Conclusion ...... 41

APPENDICES

Appendix 12-3 Rev 1 Botanical Survey and Assessment (November 2013)

Appendix 12-4 Rev 1 Bat Survey and Assessment (November 2013)

Appendix 12-8 Rev 1 Dormouse Survey and Assessment (November 2013)

Appendix A Ecological Mitigation Plan (EMP)

Appendix B Aerial Deposition Information

ECOLOGY 12

INTRODUCTION

12.1 This section of the ES describes the ecological baseline conditions of the application site and assesses potential impacts that the proposed development could have upon flora and fauna. It then details appropriate mitigation measures required to reduce, compensate or avoid these impacts.

12.2 The approach to ecological impact assessment (EcIA) has been undertaken as follows:

 definition of the existing ecological baseline conditions, including a review of the application site in its local and regional ecological context;  determination of the existing ecological value of the application site and surrounding areas;  identification of the potential ecological effects of the proposed development;  identification of required mitigation measures for significant adverse ecological effects;  demonstration that these activities would meet the legal requirements relating to species and habitats; and  assessment of the significance of any residual ecological effects; i.e. those still remaining following mitigation and if required, identification of compensation measures required to offset these.

GUIDANCE AND INDUSTRY GOOD PRACTICE`

12.3 The scope of this EcIA, collection of baseline data, evaluation of ecological resources, description and assessment of the significance of impacts follows guidelines set out by the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM) and references therein1.

12.4 Current best practice guidelines have been used to plan surveys for specific fauna. Any deviation from these guidelines is highlighted and the reasoning for the deviation explained; both in the Technical Appendices and in this chapter. Sources of Information

12.5 Information on statutory and non-statutory sites and the presence of protected species within and near the application site has been sought through consultation with Hampshire Biodiversity Information Centre (HBIC). The results of this data search are included in Appendix 12-1. Designated sites are shown on Drawing MD12/2, which is taken from the protected sites plan received from HBIC.

1 Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (2006) Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom (version 7 July 2006). http://www.ieem.org.uk/ecia/index.html

Land Adjacent to Micheldever Rail Sidings P a g e | 12-1 SLR Consulting Limited

ECOLOGY 12

Assessment Approach

Area of Survey

12.6 The application site is shown edged in red on Drawing MD12/1. The application site is approximately 3ha in extent. Habitats outside this were also surveyed where applicable for specific fauna; for example plants, in accordance with best practice guidelines.

Scoping Survey

12.7 An initial scoping assessment of the application site was undertaken in February 2012. On the basis of that survey it was assessed that an initial desk top study and a detailed ‘Extended’ Phase I Habitat survey would be required.

Collection of Baseline Data – Field Survey

12.8 The scope and detail of the surveys undertaken for this assessment follow recommendations made by the former Institute of Environmental Assessment2. The methods used for the ecological survey are in accordance with established and generally accepted methodologies for field survey, as published by the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM)1 and others.

12.9 A preliminary ecological appraisal of the application site was undertaken by an environmental scientist from Pell Frischmann Limited on March 9th 2012. A preliminary Phase I habitat survey report was produced at this stage and this is presented in Appendix 12-2 (no Phase I habitat plan was produced with this report). (A botanical site walkover was subsequently undertaken by SLR botanists and a detailed Phase I Habitat plan was produced at this stage; this is presented at Drawing MD12-3).

12.10 On the basis of the preliminary ecological appraisal, it was assessed that the following additional work was necessary to fully evaluate the ecological value of the application site:

 Botany including bryophytes and lichens (Appendix 12-3);  Bats (Appendix12-4);  Reptiles (Appendix 12-5);  Birds (Appendix 12-6);  Invertebrates (Appendix 12-7); And  Dormouse Muscardinus avellanarius (Appendix 12-8)

2 Institute of Environmental Assessment (1995) Guidelines for Baseline Ecological Assessment. E. & F.N. Spons.

Land Adjacent to Micheldever Rail Sidings P a g e | 12-2 SLR Consulting Limited

ECOLOGY 12

Constraints to Surveys

12.11 No constraints to the surveys undertaken for this assessment have been identified. Where available best practice guidelines have been followed for all survey work undertaken at the application site.

12.12 With respect to the survey for bats in trees, best practice guidelines10 do not contain specific survey methodology for trees in relation to development. Professional judgement was therefore used in order to determine appropriate survey effort, proportionate to the likely impacts of the proposals.

12.13 A ground based inspections of all trees was undertaken in 2012 and updated in 2013. This was followed in 2013 by an elevated inspection of trees with definite bat roost potential and dusk and dawn emergence surveys where trees identified to be subject to potential impacts (felling, surgery or disturbance) could not be comprehensively inspected.

Evaluation and Impact Assessment

12.14 It is impractical and inappropriate for an assessment of the ecological effects of a proposed scheme to consider every species and habitat that may be affected. It is also contrary to the requirements of the EIA Regulations. This ecological assessment instead focuses upon identifying ‘ecological receptors’ (habitats and species) present within the zone of influence (considered to be a 1km radius around the application site for the purposes of this assessment) of the proposed scheme that are of sufficiently high value that an effect upon them as a result of the proposed scheme could be considered to be significant.

12.15 The value of sites, populations of species, species assemblages and habitats have been evaluated with reference to their importance in terms of ‘biodiversity conservation’ value (which relates to the need to conserve representative areas of different habitats and the genetic diversity of species populations), and their legal status.

12.16 The ecological receptors identified during the desk and field based studies were evaluated according to their geographical frame of reference, as follows:

 International;  UK;  National (England);  Regional (South-east);  County (Hampshire);  District (Winchester);  Parish (Micheldever); and/or  Site (immediate zone of influence only).

12.17 The assessment of ecological impacts also follows the process summarised below as:

Land Adjacent to Micheldever Rail Sidings P a g e | 12-3 SLR Consulting Limited

ECOLOGY 12

 identification of the range of potential impacts that may arise resulting from the proposed development;  consideration of the systems and processes in place to avoid, reduce or mitigate possible effects of these impacts;  identification of opportunities for ecological enhancement associated with the proposals;  assessment of residual impacts, following consideration of the success of avoidance, mitigation and enhancement measures; and  where necessary, identification of compensation measures required to offset significant residual effects.

12.18 Evaluation and impact assessment has been carried out in accordance with current IEEM guidelines (2006)1.

Policy and Legislation

12.19 The final sub-section deals with the implication of any anticipated ecological impacts from a legal and policy perspective. Predicted impacts are considered in line with the following relevant policy documents and legislation:  National Planning Policy Framework (2007)  Hampshire: Minerals and Waste Core Strategy (2007)3;  Hampshire Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP)4;  Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations (2010)(as amended)5; and  Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended)6 (WCA).

12.20 The relevant section of these policies and Acts are also provided in Technical Appendix 12-9, Policy & Legislation, of this report.

3 Hampshire, Portsmouth, Southampton & New Forest National Park Minerals and Waste Core Strategy – Development Plan Document 2007 Hampshire County Council 4 http://www.hampshirebiodiversity.org.uk/vol-two.html 5 ODPM. Statutory Instruments 2010 No. 490 The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. 6 Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (1981 Chapter 69)

Land Adjacent to Micheldever Rail Sidings P a g e | 12-4 SLR Consulting Limited

ECOLOGY 12

BASELINE CONDITIONS

12.21 Drawing MD 12/3 shows the distribution of habitat-types within the application site and a summary of these is provided below. Detailed habitat descriptions are presented in Appendix 12-3, Botanical Survey.

Habitats

12.22 The majority of habitats within the application site are heavily influenced by the sites former use as an oil terminal. Floral species have recolonised over bare chalk, concrete and loose aggregate, which has created a mosaic of calcareous grassland, scrub and bare ground.

Within the Application Site

12.23 The application site is approximately 3ha in area includes much of the northern end of Micheldever Oil Terminal Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC), which is approximately 5.2ha in extent (note – the citation within Appendix 12-1 states that this SINC site is approximately 12ha in area, although measurements made from OS data record this site as being 5.2ha). This SINC was designated in 1992 for its unimproved calcareous grassland communities. The grassland present in 2012 is a well-developed, herb-rich, calcareous grassland that occurs across much of the application site.

12.24 The application site comprises a former oil terminal, resulting in a concrete and chalk substrate which has recolonised with grassland comprising typical calcareous indicator species and patches of scrub, which in places are dense and continuous. Habitats are shown on Drawing 02 of Appendix 12-3. Two distinct unimproved calcareous grassland communities were confirmed from the field data, with little difference between stands within the application site and proposed mitigation area. The middle terrace and bank supported very species-rich grassland clearly referable to CG7 Festuca ovina-Hieracium pilosella-Thymus praecox/pulegoides grassland. The abundance of Wild Strawberry Fragaria vesca and several other preferentials would tentatively place it within CG7d Fragaria vesca – Erigeron acer sub-community but MATCH analysis of the two datasets did not fully support this conclusion

12.25 Grassland and pioneering vegetation occupied several different terraces within the site, set in a mosaic of calcicolous scrub. A prominent steep west- facing bank several metres high separated the uppermost terrace from an extensive area of rabbit-grazed calcareous grassland below. A disused ballast track dissected the middle terrace from the gated site entrance, terminating in the ballast circle on the lower terrace. Other parts of the lower terrace appeared to be of more recent secondary origin than the remainder of the application site, and were rendered visually distinctive by abundant brownish-green cushions of the moss Trichostomum crispulum and the large greyish lichen Cladonia rangiformis.

Land Adjacent to Micheldever Rail Sidings P a g e | 12-5 SLR Consulting Limited

ECOLOGY 12

12.26 Parts of the application site were found to be very rich in bryophytes, with species of nutrient-poor unimproved calcareous grassland very well represented; a full species list is provided in Appendix 12-3. The most characteristic grassland species included Homalothecium lutescens, Trichostomum crispulum, Ctenidium molluscum, Ditrichum gracile, Pseudoscleropodium purum, Hypnum cupressiforme var. lacunosum and Entodon concinnus.

Within the Immediate Surroundings

12.27 The area south of the application site comprises the southern section of Micheldever Oil Terminal SINC. The habitats present in this area are a continuation of those present within the application site. The southern boundary of the SINC is marked by a steep concrete slope which leads down to the rail sidings and the village of Micheldever Station, some 0.6km to the south.

12.28 A bare chalk cliff face around 18m in height, which is colonised at its base with scrub, is located immediately north of the application site. To the north east of the application site is an area of mature trees and scrub. Both of these habitats serve to separate the application site from the A303 dual carriageway. Further north of the A303 is Micheldever Spoil Heaps Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), which is also designated on the basis of its calcareous grassland habitat.

12.29 A line of mature beech trees (Fagus sylvatica) run along the outside of the eastern boundary of the application site, between the application site and Overton Road. Further east the land is dominated by arable farmland and Black Wood, an Ancient Semi Natural Woodland (ASNW) comprising a mix of coniferous and deciduous trees.

12.30 A concrete bank associated with the former rail sidings runs adjacent to the western boundary of the application site and separates the application site from the south-west main railway line from London Waterloo to Southampton.

Flora

12.31 The 2013 surveys confirmed the presence of a very substantial population of spring cinquefoil Potentilla tabernaemontani distributed across most of the SINC with particularly high numbers of plants on the middle and lower terraces, but almost wholly absent from the more coarsely structured chalk grassland above the bank, where creeping cinquefoil P. reptans was frequent.

12.32 Cut leaved germander Teucrium botrys, a legally protected plant listed on Schedule 8 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) was confined to the ballast circle on the lower terrace, where most individuals were growing in a very small area (approximately 3m by 2m). This population was estimated to number 300-400 plants, few of which had flowered or seeded. Several other lone individuals were found in the same area of ballast within a 10m radius of the main population. Despite a careful

Land Adjacent to Micheldever Rail Sidings P a g e | 12-6 SLR Consulting Limited

ECOLOGY 12

search of suitable habitats elsewhere (especially the lower terrace and the ballast track) no other plants were found.

12.33 Several other vascular plants of conservation significance were found in the course of the survey. Wall Bedstraw Galium parisiense (nationally scarce and Vulnerable) was thinly but widely scattered across much of the northern part of the application site, where hundreds of plants were seen in species-rich chalk grassland and across the lower terrace. In North Hampshire, it is regarded as a locally scarce native and/or neophyte and they state that ‘sites at Old Basing and at Micheldever Spoil Heaps may perhaps be native.’

12.34 Several ant-hills among scrubby chalk grassland below the bank in the application site supported a small number of plants of Mat-grass Fescue Vulpia unilateralis. This nationally scarce native species has been known from Micheldever Spoil Heaps SSSI since 1964 (Rand and Mundell 2011) and may be another species to have crossed the A303.

12.35 A small population of Basil Thyme Clinopodium acinos also grew in the ballast very close to the population of Teucrium botrys. Though not uncommon in barish calcareous places, it has declined greatly and is listed as Red List Vulnerable. It is also a Section 41 and UK BAP Priority Species.

12.36 Populations of two nationally scarce mosses were also found. Abietinella abietina var. hystricosa was found across much of the site where it favoured short, rabbit-grazed turf on the terraces and bank.

12.37 The second nationally scarce moss was much more restricted and only two populations were confirmed, both of which were in sunny, species-rich chalk grassland on the bank. Didymodon acutus strongly resembles D. fallax, a closely related species that was found to be widespread on barish ground on the terraces and ballast communities and was confirmed using microscopic characters, so it is possible that other small colonies could be present elsewhere in the SINC. This is also a scarce species in North Hampshire.

12.38 Other species likely to be of more local note include small populations of the moss Microbryum floerkeanum, Ditrichum flexicaule, Weissia brachycarpa var. obliqua, and Tortula protobryoides. All of these species were found in short, rich rabbit-grazed chalk grassland on the middle terrace and on south and west-facing banks.

12.39 A number of lichen species licence of national interest were recorded including : Toninia sedifolia Nb (S41): confined to the middle terrace and the slopes above Agonimia gelatinosa Nb (NS): mainly in the middle terrace but also on one site on the lower terrace Polycoccum peltigerae [NR]: recorded from two colonies of Peltigera rufescens on the lower and upper terraces.

12.40 No pest species listed on Schedule 9 of the WCA, were recorded from within the application site during the extended Phase 1, botanical or faunal surveys.

Land Adjacent to Micheldever Rail Sidings P a g e | 12-7 SLR Consulting Limited

ECOLOGY 12

Fauna

12.41 Specific surveys for bats, reptiles, dormice and birds were undertaken at the application site in 2012 and 2013. Details of the survey methodology and results are presented in Appendices 12-4 to 12-8 and are summarised below.

Mammals

Bats

12.42 Full details of the bat survey results are presented in Appendix 12-4 and are summarised below.

12.43 Records for common pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pipistrellus) and brown long- eared bat (Plecotus auritus) were provided by HBIC. Both records are located approximately 0.7km south of the application site, within the village of Micheldever Station. No further information regarding type of record (i.e. roost, grounded bat etc) was provided by HBIC.

12.44 A number of mature trees (largely beech) along the outer eastern boundary were assessed for their potential to support roosting bats from a ground- based visual assessment. Seven trees were categorised as having definite potential to support bats. Elevated inspections and dusk emergence and dawn swarming activity surveys in 2012 and 2013 identified no roosts however as tree roosts are typically used ephemerally by bats it is impossible to preclude occasional use of trees by individual bats and a number of trees retain Category 1 or 1* roost potential status.

12.45 Activity surveys across the site in 2012 recorded low numbers of soprano pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pygmaeus) and a single Myotis bat foraging and commuting along the scrub which edges the north-western boundary of the application site during one of the two activity surveys. No other bat activity was recorded. Surveys in 2013 to assess the value of Overton Road and the eastern site boundary for commuting and foraging bats recorded small numbers of common pipistrelle, serotine Eptesicus serotinus and Myotis sp bats but no activity indicative of regular or important commuting routes.

Badgers

12.46 Records provided by HBIC, contain two records for badger (Meles meles), the location of which is marked as confidential by HBIC (only the 1km grid square in which the record was taken was provided). In 2008, badger was recorded in the same 1km grid square as that which the application site is located and in 1997, badger was recorded in the 1km grid square to the south-west of the square in which the application site is located.

12.47 Despite their presence locally, no badgers or evidence of their presence was recorded from the application site during the Phase I habitat survey or any other surveys at the application site.

Dormice

Land Adjacent to Micheldever Rail Sidings P a g e | 12-8 SLR Consulting Limited

ECOLOGY 12

12.48 Full details of the dormouse survey undertaken in 2013 are presented in Appendix 12-8 and are summarised below.

12.49 Several records of dormouse were provided by HBIC, but no details were supplied regarding record type (e.g. nest, sighting etc). The closest record for dormouse is along the northern boundary of the application site, adjacent to the A303. Further records for dormouse have been recorded within the 1km grid square in which the application site is located, as well as the squares immediately east, north-east and south-west.

12.50 The nest tube survey undertaken in 2013 confirms that dormouse utilise the scrub habitats within the site. Evidence of dormouse was recorded within scrub along the upper terrace of the application site and as well as in contiguous habitat immediately east and south of the site. Whilst the shrub species mix present on the central slope is not considered to be ‘optimal’ for dormouse, as this area is contiguous with habitat where dormouse was recorded there is an assumption that all well connected scrub habitat within the site is classified as potential dormouse habitat.

Other Mammals

12.51 Numerous records of brown hare (Lepus europaeus) were provided by HBIC, three of which were located within 0.5km of the application site, in arable land to the south. This species was not recorded within the application site during any of the surveys and the habitat was considered rather unsuitable, being either very cropped turf or heavy scrub.

12.52 Roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) were recorded on site during almost all of the surveys, by surveyors from both Pell Frishmann and SLR. Only female hinds were recorded, with a maximum of three during any one survey.

12.53 A single fox (Vulpes vulpes) was recorded by Pell Frishmann during the initial Phase I Habitat survey in March 2012 and by an SLR surveyor in June. An ‘earth’ is present in the north of the application site.

12.54 Large numbers of rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus) occur across the application site and grazing is evident throughout.

12.55 No other mammal species were recorded during any of the surveys although the habitats present are likely to support common small mammals such as field vole (Microtus agrestis) and common shrew (Sorex araneus). Reptiles

12.56 Full details of the reptile survey results are presented in Appendix 12-5 and are summarised below.

12.57 Three records for slow worm (Anguis fragilis) were provided by HBIC for the area around the application site. All three were from Black Wood to the east, with two being located within the woods at 1.2km and 1.4km east; the remaining recorded was located 1.5m north east of the site, on the boundary of the woodland with the A303.

Land Adjacent to Micheldever Rail Sidings P a g e | 12-9 SLR Consulting Limited

ECOLOGY 12

12.58 Slow worm were recorded in two locations during the reptile surveys; one in the northern end of the application site in a grassland scrub mosaic at the top of the embankment and the second just outside the southern boundary application site in a grassland scrub mosaic. A peak count of only two slow worms was recorded; males, females and juveniles were all recorded, confirming a small breeding population is present.

12.59 No other reptile species or evidence of them (such as sloughed skins) was recorded during the surveys.

Birds

12.60 The bird survey results are presented in Appendix 12-6 and are summarised below.

12.61 Numerous bird records were provided by HBIC as part of the background data search. These are presented in Appendix 12-1. Records provided included those species listed on Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Action (1981) as amended (WCA), and those listed on the Birds of Conservation Concern7 (BoCC) red list. The closest record was some 0.5km from the site.

12.62 A pair of peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) was recorded nesting on the chalk cliff face immediately north of the application site during the breeding bird surveys in 2012 and again during dormouse surveys undertaken in 2013. Peregrine is a Schedule I species, which means that it receives additional protection under the WCA, preventing disturbance of this species and its nest during the nesting season

12.63 Yellowhammer (Emberiza citrinella) and song thrush (Turdus philomelos), are both listed on the BoCC7 red list and were recorded within and around the site, as was dunnock (Prunella modularis), which is listed on the BoCC7 amber list.

12.64 Sixteen other species of bird were recorded from within and around the application site, most of which were holding territory, and all of which are listed as abundant or numerous in Hampshire8, including wren (Troglodytes troglodytes) and blackbird (Turdus merula). Invertebrates

12.65 Records for invertebrates provided by HBIC are numerous and contain mainly records for moths and butterflies collected from Micheldever Spoil Heaps SSSI and Black Wood.

7 Eaton, M.A., Brown, A.F., Noble, D.G., Musgrove, A.J., Hearn, R.D., Aebisher, N.J., Gibbons, D.W., Evans, A., & Gregory, R.D. (2009) Birds of Conservation Concern 3 The population status of birds in the United Kingdom, Channel Islands and Isle of Man. British Birds 102: 296-341 8 Cox, A. (2011) Hampshire Bird Report 2010. Hampshire Ornithological Society

Land Adjacent to Micheldever Rail Sidings P a g e | 12-10 SLR Consulting Limited

ECOLOGY 12

12.66 For the purpose of the survey carried out at the application site in June 2012, the application site was split into two (as shown on Figure 1 in Appendix 12- 7), with the area west of and including the embankment in the ‘lower compartment’ and the area to the east of the embankment in the ‘upper compartment’. The remaining habitat within the parcel of land, but outside the application site is referred to as the ‘southern compartment’.

12.67 The invertebrate survey recorded the presence of 127 different species, 14 of which are defined as ‘key species’9, as well as two UK BAP species and glow worm, which although not subject to any classification, is indicative of a healthy invertebrate community. The species, their classification and recorded location are shown in Table 12-1

Table 12-1 Key Invertebrate Species recorded at Micheldever

Species Common Classification Upper Lower Southern name Campiglossa malaris Fruit fly RDB1 X Cnemacantha muscaria Lauxanid fly RDB3 X Stephensia brunnichella Moth X X Scythris picaepennis Moth X Omaloplia ruricola Chafer beetle X Nationally Scarce Longitarsus dorsalis Beetle X Mogulones geographicus Weevil X Sphecodes crassus Cuckoo-bee X Trachysiphonella Fruit fly X scutellata Sapromyza albiceps Lauxanid fly X X Homoneura thalhammeri Yellowish fly X Nationally Scarce Pipizella virens Hoverfly X Micromorphus species C Dolichopodid X fly Platypalpus incertus Hybotid fly X X Coenonympha pamphilus Small heath UK BAP X Tyria jacobaeae Cinnabar moth X X X Lampyris noctiluca Glow-worm None X

Other fauna

12.68 A single record for common toad (Bufo bufo) was provided by HBIC, located in the 1km grid square, 2km north of the application site. No other records for amphibians exist for the search area. The application site contains no waterbodies, and none are recorded within 500m of the application site. Whilst rough ground, scrub and grassland provide suitable terrestrial habitat for this faunal group, no amphibians were recorded during any surveys.

9 Key species are defined as ‘British Red Data Book (RDB) and Nationally Scarce species (including statuses from JNCC texts which are published, ‘in press’ or ‘in prep.), species formerly regarded as either RDB or Nationally Scarce but recently downgraded and Species proposed for national status by Butterfly Conservation.

Land Adjacent to Micheldever Rail Sidings P a g e | 12-11 SLR Consulting Limited

ECOLOGY 12

Predicted Trends

12.69 There was no evidence of any recent site management but the site bore strong evidence of a large population of rabbits, which maintained the grassland of the lower terraces as a very tight, short sward with locally disturbed patches where they had been foraging.

12.70 The site does not appear to have altered significantly in species composition since its original designation in 1992, although it is likely that the scrub cover has increased in extent in some areas, in particular on the embankment. The presence of residual grassland plants below scrub indicates that the scrub had invaded previously open grassland and is not of any great age.

12.71 It is likely that in the absence of development or active conservation management, and given the continuation of grazing, the application site would continue to support calcareous grassland / scrub mosaic for at least the medium term.

NATURE CONSERVATION EVALUATION

12.72 To evaluate the significance of impacts from a development it is important to establish the value, or sensitivity, of the site and the features upon which the effect is predicted to occur. Designated Sites

12.73 Natural England notifies sites that are of international or National importance for nature conservation as Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) (although some sites that are of National importance for certain species have not been so designated). Internationally important sites may also be designated as Special Areas of Conservation (SAC), Special Protection Areas (SPA) or Ramsar sites. Designated non-statutory wildlife sites in this area are known as Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) of County or Parish importance and are designated by Hampshire County Council. Non-designated Sites

12.74 For features that have not been designated in such a way, SLR has undertaken an evaluation based upon guidelines published by IEEM. In this way the features being evaluated are considered in the context of the site and the locality and thus it is possible to provide a more accurate assessment of the impacts of the proposed development on these features. Species

12.75 Species are evaluated based on rarity, population size and whether they are especially important to the functioning of an ecosystem. Though they may not be protected or particularly rare, consideration is also given to those species listed in National and local Biodiversity Action Plans.

Land Adjacent to Micheldever Rail Sidings P a g e | 12-12 SLR Consulting Limited

ECOLOGY 12

12.76 The criteria used to determine biodiversity value of a species or habitat- features that may support a species include the following general considerations:

 rarity at a defined geographical level (international, National or local);  endemism and locally distinct varieties or sub-species;  species on the edge of their geographic range;  size of populations in a local geographical context;  species-rich assemblages of a larger taxonomic grouping, e.g. herpetofauna or wintering birds;  plant communities, ecosystems or habitat mosaics/associations that provide habitat for any of the above species or assemblages; and  populations of species considered significant in a Hampshire context, as described in the UK Biodiversity Action Plan, Hampshire BAP, or other relevant documents.

12.77 Legal protection of certain species is considered in a later section and does not specifically form part of the biodiversity evaluation.

12.78 Table 12-2 lists sites and features of ecological value within the application site. Table 12-2 Features of ecological value within the zone of influence of the application site

Geographical Site/Feature at Location Reason For Importance Frame of this Value Reference International River Itchen SAC 9km south east of The Itchen is a classic example of a sub-type 1 application site chalk river, dominated throughout by aquatic Ranunculus spp. It also supports good populations of southern damselfly and bullhead, as well as otter, brook lamprey, Atlantic salmon and white clawed crayfish. Micheldever Spoil SU 520440 A site of exceptional botanical interest which has Heaps SSSI North of A303, within developed on chalk spoil heaps. Some 150 floral 100m application site species were recorded in 1969. River Test SSSI 5.5km west of site at The River Test is a classic chalk stream. It is one closest point. Entire of the most species-rich lowland rivers in England, SSSI is approx 50km supports a high diversity of invertebrate species long and is especially rich in aquatic molluscs. Bere Mill Meadows SU 475477 A group of damp, unimproved herb-rich neutral SSSI 5.5km to the north- grassland on the flood plain of the upper Test west of the valley, representing a particularly valuable for National application site. birds and invertebrates. The meadows are a type of vegetation that was formerly widespread in the chalk stream valleys. Bransbury SU 409413 This site lies on the flood plain of the upper Test Common SSSI 9km west of the valley and consists of disused flood meadows and application site a common (comprising peat over gravel) which supports grassland and grass/sedge communities, probably unparalleled in southern England.

Peregrine falcon On cliff face to north One of 1400 breeding pairs present Nationally.

Land Adjacent to Micheldever Rail Sidings P a g e | 12-13 SLR Consulting Limited

ECOLOGY 12

Geographical Site/Feature at Location Reason For Importance Frame of this Value Reference of application site Only 5 successful breeding attempts were recorded in Hampshire in 2010. Notable flora Within site Schedule 8 plant Teucrium botrys confined to the ballast circle on the lower terrace. Very substantial population of nationally scarce Potentilla tabernaemontani and several other vascular plants of conservation significance Regional- comprising Galium parisiense (nationally scarce and Vulnerable) Vulpia unilateralis nationally scarce species, and Clinopodium acinos listed as Red List Vulnerable. It is also a Section 41 and UK BAP Priority Species. Lichen Assemblage Within site The 2013 lichen survey found one BAP/ NERC Act, Section 41 lichen, Toninia sedifolia, one Nationally Scarce lichen Agonimia gelatinosa s. str.. The Nationally Rare, but certainly under recorded, fungal parasite Polycoccum peltigerae found on Peltigera rufescens,

Micheldever Oil Within site This site is designated for its species-rich Terminal SINC unimproved calcareous grassland, which has established in the past on exposed / excavated chalk and also includes Pioneering Calcareous Grassland and Calcicolous scrub. Black Wood SINC 0.8km west An outstanding assemblage of notable Lepidoptera and other invertebrates. Freefolk Beech 1.2km east No information provided. Break SINC Black Wood North 1km east No information provided. SINC Cobley Wood 1km north east No information provided. South SINC County Cobley Wood 1.2 km north east No information provided. Middle SINC Cobley Wood North 1.6km north east No information provided. SINC Oaken Copse SINC No information provided. Round Wood SINC 1.3km north west No information provided. Laverstoke Wood 1.7km north west No information provided. SINC Freefolk Wood 1.8km north-west No information provided. SINC Field Near Freefolk 1.5km west Presence of Nationally rare ground pine (Ajuga Wood SINC chamaepitys) and Nationally scarce Green- flowered helleborine (Epipactis phyllanthes). Cranbourne Wood 1.8km west No information provided. SINC Upper 1.5km south west Presence of Stone curlew (Burhinus oedicnemus) Cranbourne/Hunton recorded. Down Farms SINC Bryophyte Within site Very rich bryophyte assemblage, with species of Community nutrient-poor unimproved calcareous grassland including Populations two nationally scarce and

Land Adjacent to Micheldever Rail Sidings P a g e | 12-14 SLR Consulting Limited

ECOLOGY 12

Geographical Site/Feature at Location Reason For Importance Frame of this Value Reference other species likely to be of more local note

Dormouse Within site Dormouse has been confirmed as present within the application site. Dormouse is a UK BAP/ NERC Act, Section 41 species and is widespread and locally abundant throughout Hampshire. Slow worm Within site A low population of this species breed within the District application site and to the south. Could be ecologically isolated within Micheldever SINC. Trees with bat roost beech trees outside Seven trees assessed as being of Roost Potential potential eastern boundary of Category 1 were located along outer eastern application site boundary. Whilst survey identified no bats, trees retain potential for roosting bats.

Within site A generally common breeding species Breeding bird assemblage, including two red list species and an Parish assemblage amber list species, two of which are UK and Hampshire BAP priorities. Invertebrate Within site A large and varied assemblage that includes 2 assemblage RDB species, 12 Nationally scarce species and two UK BAP species. Site/Within Commuting bat Within site Low numbers of common bat species use the immediate assemblage north western edge of the site for commuting and zone of foraging. No roosts confirmed. influence Common mammal Within site Species common and widespread within the (Less than species including County of Hampshire and Nationally. Parish value) fox and roe deer

Evaluation of Habitats within the Application Site

12.79 As detailed in Appendix 12-3, the application site is 3ha in extent and comprises calcareous grassland, scrub, bare ground and a small section of woodland.

12.80 The application site lies entirely within the Micheldever Oil Terminal SINC, within which the grassland habitats are herb-rich and the habitat mosaic complex. Whilst the scrub on the embankment is becoming dominant in places and is beginning to shade out the calcareous grassland locally, the application site contains a number of calcareous grassland indicator species and the habitat quality is sufficient to meet the Hampshire criteria for SINC status for calcareous grassland. Because of its relatively small size, neither the application site nor the entire SINC would meet the SSSI selection criteria for lowland grassland. The lichen assemblage in the Micheldever Oil Terminal SINC is of regional importance using the definition of Gilbert (1993); and would qualify as a SINC on its lichen interest alone.

12.81 The presence of populations of two nationally scarce bryophytes (Abietinella abietina var. hystricosa and Didymodon acutus) would not score sufficiently highly to merit SSSI selection. However, the whole SINC should certainly be

Land Adjacent to Micheldever Rail Sidings P a g e | 12-15 SLR Consulting Limited

ECOLOGY 12

regarded as a fine example of a rich chalk grassland bryophyte assemblage and of high county importance.

12.82 As such, the entire application site and the habitats which it supports are assessed as being an ecological receptor of Regional value.

Evaluation of Habitats for Protected and Notable Flora and Fauna within the Application Site

12.83 Cut-leaved Germander Teucrium botrys was confined to the ballast circle on the lower terrace, where most individuals were growing in a very small area (approximately 3m by 2m). This population was estimated to number 300- 400 plants, few of which had flowered or seeded. As detailed in Append 12-3, the status T.botrys of in the British Isles is uncertain, although it is a legally protected plant listed on Schedule 8 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). Preston, Pearman & Dines (2002) describe it as a ‘neophyte, cultivated in Britain by 1633 and first recorded in 1844 at Box Hill (Surrey); it has sometimes been considered to be native.’ Large populations have been recorded from Micheldever Spoil Heaps SSSI which lies on the far side of the A303 and is almost certainly the original source of the population of Teucrium botrys within the application site and therefore the population within the site it is contributing to a nationally important populations partially enclosed and protected by the SSSI. This plant has been evaluated as an ecological receptor of Regional value.

12.84 10 of the 93 trees along the eastern boundary of the application site have been assessed as Category 1 or 1* trees (containing features with bat roost potential as defined by the BCT guidelines, page 60)10. Detailed elevated inspections, dusk emergence and dawn swarming surveys in 2013 found no evidence of roosts and for the purposes of assessment it is assumed that there are no active bat roosts. However, as the potential roost features identified within the trees could be used by bats in the future, precautionary measures to confirm absence of roosts prior to any works which could affect roosts are recommended in paragraph 12.150. The roost potential has been evaluated as an ecological receptor of District value.

12.85 The northern and eastern site boundary were found to support a very low number of foraging and commuting bats during the 2012 and 2013 activity surveys. Assessment methodology devised by Wray et al11 has been used to evaluate the foraging and commuting habitat present at the site. The result of this evaluation defines the commuting and foraging habitat to be an ecological receptor of Parish value.

12.86 The results of the survey undertaken in 2013 confirm that dormouse utilise the scrub habitats within the site. Evidence of dormouse was recorded within scrub along the eastern margin of the application site and in contiguous habitat immediately east and south of the site. Whilst the shrub species mix present on the central slope is not considered to be ‘optimal’ for dormouse,

10 Hundt, L. (2012) ‘Bat Surveys: Good Practice Guidelines’ 2nd Edition. Bat Conservation Trust 11 Wray, S., Wells, D., Long, E. and Mitchell-Jones, T. Valuing Bats in Ecological Impact Assessment December 2010. IEEM In Practice. Vol 70. Pages 23-25.

Land Adjacent to Micheldever Rail Sidings P a g e | 12-16 SLR Consulting Limited

ECOLOGY 12

as this area is contiguous with habitat where dormouse was recorded there is an assumption that all well connected scrub habitat within the site is classified as potential dormouse habitat.

12.87 Whilst listed as a Species of Principal Importance under the NERC Act 2006 and a Biodiversity Action Plan priority species in the national BAP, dormouse is widespread and locally abundant throughout Hampshire12 and the county is located within the southerly stronghold of the UK range of the species. Given that the site contains strong habitat connections to substantial areas of habitat resource in the wider area and, as there are records of dormouse in the local area, it is reasonable to assume that the application site represents a small part of a wide ranging and well connected dormouse population The presence of this species within the application site would be considered to be an ecological receptor of District value.

12.88 A small population of slow worm are present within the application site and the wider SINC. The grassland habitats present in the eastern habitats the SINC are suitable for this species, although the habitats in the western and central area of the application site are less suitable, supporting a less well developed grassland sward than the habitats in the east. The population is assessed as an ecological receptor of Parish value.

12.89 Peregrine falcon nested on the chalk cliff just north of the application site in 2012 and 2013. This species is specially protected via its listing on Schedule 1 of the WCA and there are only 1400 breeding pairs in the UK. The presence of nesting peregrine is considered to be an ecological receptor of National value.

12.90 The invertebrates recorded comprise 14 key species. Of these key species, 10 are considered to be more common than their classification suggests, having grown in population size and/or distribution. However, the chafer Omaloplia ruricola and the weevil Mogulones geographicus are genuinely uncommon, especially in north Hampshire where there are few other records. Although not having official status, the two micromoths Stephensia brunnichella & Scythris picaepennis have only recently been put forward for classification and are therefore considered to deserve their classification. Only Stephensia brunnichella occurs within the application site, with the other three species being recorded from the southern compartment. Nevertheless, the assemblage present within the application site includes two RDB species and two UK BAP species within a large and varied invertebrate community and as such the assemblage at the application site is considered to be an ecological receptor of Parish value.

12.91 The site supports fox, rabbit and roe deer and is likely to support a suite of common species of small mammal. All are common and widespread in their distribution and populations, both within Hampshire and Nationally. The presence of such species within the application site is considered to an ecological receptor of site value.

12 Ewald N (2004) Distribution and status of Dormouse Muscardimnus avellanarius in Hampshire. Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust, Eastleigh

Land Adjacent to Micheldever Rail Sidings P a g e | 12-17 SLR Consulting Limited

ECOLOGY 12

12.92 No other protected or notable species are likely to be present within or supported by, the application site. Evaluation of Designated Sites

12.93 A single internationally designated site is located within 10km of the application site. This site, the River Itchen SAC, is located approximately 9.5km to the south-east at its closest point. The river flows south-west away from this point and then continues south through Winchester and Southampton where it flows out into Southampton Water. The river is designated as a good example of a sub type 1 chalk river, which is defined as a river on chalk substrates, with a community characterised by pond water-crowfoot Ranunculus peltatus in spring-fed headwater streams (winterbournes), stream water-crowfoot R. penicillatus ssp. pseudofluitans in the middle reaches, and river water-crowfoot R. fluitans in the downstream sections. The River Itchen SAC is separated from the application site by the M3 motorway, the A33 dual carriageway, Micheldever Wood and arable farmland. The SAC is an ecological receptor of international value.

12.94 Four SSSIs are located within 10km of the application site; the closest of which is Micheldever Spoil Heaps SSSI, which is located some 100m to the north of the application site beyond the A303, which separates the SSSI from the application site. The SSSI is designated due to its ‘exceptional’ botanical interest which has established on the chalk spoil heaps. The River Test SSSI is located 4km south-west of the application site and is designated due to it being one of the most species-rich lowland chalk rivers in the south of England and for the important invertebrate assemblage which it supports. All four SSSI’s are ecological receptors of National value.

12.95 The Micheldever Oil Terminal SINC encompasses the entire application site as well as approximately 2ha of land south of the application site. The SINC is designated for its species-rich unimproved calcareous grassland. Full details of the species mix and habitat evaluation are presented in the botanical report in Appendix 12-3. The SINC is an ecological receptor of County value.

Identified Ecological Receptors

12.96 Designated sites identified as potential ecological receptors within the zone of influence of the proposed development are outlined in Table 12-1. In total, one SAC and four SSSI’s are present within 10km of the application site, and the application site lies within a SINC. A further 14 SINC sites are present within 2km of the application site.

12.97 The principal non-designated ecological receptors that have been identified through survey within the application site and the surrounding zone of influence are:

 nesting Peregrine falcon;  population of T. botrys and other notable flora  bryophyte community

Land Adjacent to Micheldever Rail Sidings P a g e | 12-18 SLR Consulting Limited

ECOLOGY 12

 lichen Community  low population of slow worm;  trees with bat roost potential (no roosts identified in 2013 surveys)  part of wide ranging dormouse population;  commuting and foraging bats;  breeding bird assemblage; and  invertebrate assemblage.

12.98 All other ecological receptors of Parish value or below within the zone of influence of the application site are highly unlikely to be affected by the proposed development and are therefore not considered further in this chapter.

12.99 Ecological receptors of below Parish value are not considered further in this ecological assessment, in line with IEEM (2006)2, except where they are legally protected. ECOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

12.100 This sub-section assesses the impacts arising from the proposed development and describes how these impacts may adversely or positively affect the flora and fauna of the application site.

12.101 The assessment of ecological impacts follows the process described by the IEEM, which is summarised as:

 identification of the range of potential impacts that may arise from the proposed development;  consideration of the systems and processes in place to avoid, reduce or mitigate the possible effects of these impacts;  identification of opportunities for ecological enhancement associated with the proposals;  assessment of residual impacts, following consideration of the success of avoidance, mitigation and enhancement measures; and  where necessary, identification of compensation measures required to offset significant residual effects.

12.102 As highlighted in the first part of this chapter, the significance of residual impacts is assessed on three separate levels. These are summarised as:

 impacts upon biodiversity resources;  consequences in terms of National and local nature conservation planning policy; and  the legal requirements relating to species and habitats.

12.103 To assess the effects of a proposed development on a receptor it is essential that the range of potential impacts that could arise is identified. The range of impacts that require consideration in the ecological impact assessment are based upon knowledge of the proposed development and knowledge of the receptors (features of ecological sensitivity). This can only be undertaken

Land Adjacent to Micheldever Rail Sidings P a g e | 12-19 SLR Consulting Limited

ECOLOGY 12

with a thorough understanding of ecological processes and how flora and fauna react to the range of impacts that could occur.

12.104 This sub-section also outlines the mitigation and compensation measures that have been incorporated into the scheme and, where appropriate, it provides recommendations for further mitigation or compensation that may reduce impacts, or the effects of impacts, further. The final part of this sub- section analyses the significance of the effects of the scheme following mitigation - i.e. the residual impacts. The significance of the residual impacts of the proposed scheme is analysed using methods outlined by the IEEM (2006)1. The Proposed Development

12.105 The proposed development comprises the construction of an Advanced Conversion Technology (ACT) and an Anaerobic Digestion (AD) plant, with associated access road and retaining walls, weighbridge, offices, gasometers, emergency flare, electricity substation, stacks and digestion tanks. The development comprises a land take of some 1.5ha in total.

12.106 Specific details relating to the construction and operation of the proposed development are detailed in Chapter 3 Identification of Predicted Impacts – Construction

12.107 The following potential construction impacts have been identified and are discussed below:  habitat loss, fragmentation and isolation through land-take;  direct and indirect effects upon fauna as a result of habitat loss, fragmentation and isolation, including effects upon protected and notable species;  alterations to groundwater regime and surface water flow and quality;  noise disturbance;  dust deposition on sensitive habitats and fauna; and  indirect construction impacts on designated sites within the zone of influence.

Habitat Loss, Fragmentation and Isolation through Land-take

12.108 Habitat loss involves direct destruction of, alteration of or physical removal of vegetation, or other structures of conservation interest, such as aquatic habitats, grasslands or some types of bare ground. Habitat loss can result in direct loss of individuals or populations of plant or animal species, or cause other populations to become demographically unstable or unsustainable, due to loss of prey species or habitat niches.

Land Adjacent to Micheldever Rail Sidings P a g e | 12-20 SLR Consulting Limited

ECOLOGY 12

12.109 The proposed development would result in habitat loss or change in habitat type of approximately 1.5ha of the 3ha present within the application site. In total the following areas of each habitat would be lost to the proposals:

 Calcareous grassland 0.75ha  Scrub 0.4ha  Bryophyte dominated sward 0.1ha  Woodland/Tree belt 0.015ha  Bare sand 0.2ha

TOTAL 1.465ha

12.110 The proposed development is largely confined to the lower levels of the application site and the westernmost third would be developed on habitats developed recently over concrete substrate. The access route enters the application site through the narrow woodland belt approximately 1/3 of the way up the eastern boundary (from the southern end) and cuts across the eastern upper grassland, before running down the embankment in a diagonal line to the north of the development site. In order to minimise habitat loss as far as possible, it is proposed to construct retaining walls either side; these would continue around the northern footprint of the development, as defined in Chapter 2 of this document

12.111 The habitats that would be lost to the proposed development comprise calcareous grassland, scrub, bryophyte sward and bare ground; the overall mosaic and species composition which is considered of Regional value. The focus of the development on the lower levels in the western half the application site generally avoids the more diverse grassland swards on the upper embankment and in the eastern section of the application site and save for the line of the access route, the majority of the most diverse habitats could be retained within the development. Despite this, loss of habitats without mitigation would still be considered to be a negative impact on a receptor of Regional value.

12.112 The designated sites within 2km of the application site are sufficiently well separated from the development and would not be affected by any land take. There would be a neutral impact on ecological receptors of up to International value.

Direct and Indirect Effects upon Flora and Fauna through Habitat Loss, Fragmentation & Isolation

12.113 Unavoidable loss of individual specimens of notable plant, lichen and bryophyte species identified within the site is likely to occur during clearance of 0.75 ha of calcareous grassland however, a substantial proportion of the vegetation resource including areas known to support many of these species would be retained and protected within the development site and it is considered that the majority of species identified would be retained (further mitigation measures including translocation of key species are outlined in the following sections). As well as retention of suitable habitat for these species within the development site, further areas of suitable habitat and known

Land Adjacent to Micheldever Rail Sidings P a g e | 12-21 SLR Consulting Limited

ECOLOGY 12

populations of these species are present across the wider Micheldever Oil Terminal SINC outside of the application site and Micheldever Spoil Heaps SSSI in close proximity to the site. The impacts of loss of sections of grassland are therefore not considered to affect the distribution of notable species beyond the site.

12.114 With respect to the lichen and bryophyte floras, the main mitigation measure proposed is that of the management and enhancement of existing retained habitats and this alone will assist with the conservation of at least three of the five notable species lichen recorded. Where such colonies will be lost to the development the translocation method, as set out in the EMP be employed to ‘inoculate’ retained areas with propagules from these species. Again, a minimum target area for transfer is 10m2.

12.115 The application site is confirmed as supporting part of a wide ranging dormouse population, very small numbers of slow worm, small numbers of commuting bats and a (mainly common) breeding bird assemblage. Nesting peregrine has also been recorded on the cliff face just outside of the northern boundary of the application site. .

12.116 Slow worm is present in two distinct locations, neither of which falls within the development footprint. These locations, on the upper eastern levels of the application site, support diverse and dense grassland with a good build up of thatch. The proposed access route cuts through the eastern part of the application site and therefore also through the suitable habitat, and would remove approximately 0.01ha of suitable grassland sward. The habitats within the main development footprint (buildings and digestion tanks) are considered to be sub optimal for this species, supporting bare ground, bryophytes and a less well established grassland sward. The loss of approximately 0.01ha of suitable grassland sward is considered to be a slight negative impact upon an ecological receptor of Parish value. Slow worm are protected under the WCA from reckless or intentional killing or injury; the clearance of habitat also has the potential to cause an offence under this legislation.

12.117 Construction work would require clearance of 0.4ha of scrub from the development footprint, including 0.3 ha on the western lower levels and on part of the embankment. Whilst no evidence of dormouse was recorded in this area during surveys, it is considered to be potential dormouse habitat due to links to areas of confirmed presence. The small area of scrub (0.1 ha) under the footprint of the proposed access route was confirmed as dormouse habitat. The clearance of the scrub could therefore result in loss of habitat for this species and in the absence of mitigation, possible killing and injury of animals which would be considered a negative impact upon a receptor of County value.

12.118 The proposed new entrance would result in a breach of up 9 m (visibility splays adjacent to Overton Road will be wider) through the woodland belt forming the eastern boundary of the site. The resulting gap is not expected to represent a barrier to dormouse movement or result in the fragmentation or isolation of the population. Survey work along sections of the duelled A30 in Cornwall, the M4 in Wales and elsewhere in Europe have found dormouse

Land Adjacent to Micheldever Rail Sidings P a g e | 12-22 SLR Consulting Limited

ECOLOGY 12

are able and willing to cross wide and busy roads1314 representing a much greater barrier to movement and it is therefore considered that dormouse would continued to move through the landscape unrestricted.

12.119 As this species is a European Protected Species (EPS), the removal of habitat would require an EPS licence from Natural England (See paragraph 12.152).

12.120 Whilst the detailed surveys undertaken in 2013 did not identify the presence of any bat roosts, the access route construction would require removal of a small number of mature beech trees which were assessed as suitable for supporting bat roosts and it is not possible to rule out the potential for roosting bats to be present at the time of works. The proposed access route enters the site in the vicinity of tree T623 and the removal of T622 – T624 would be required, none of which are Cat 1 trees. To facilitate the visibility splay pruning works to beech trees either side of the access route would be required. Where these works would affect trees identified as supporting bat roost potential, precautionary survey is proposed as set out in Paragraph 12.150. The loss of these trees, if supporting bats, at the time of works would be a negative impact upon an ecological receptor of up to District value. All species of British bats are EPS and as such, if their presence is confirmed, the removal of any trees supporting bat roosts would require an EPS licence issued by Natural England.

12.121 The remainder of habitats within the application site are not assessed as being important for local populations of bats with only low numbers of foraging bats recorded. It is not considered that the narrow breach in the woodland along the eastern boundary to create a new access point would result in fragmentation of commuting routes as only very small numbers of bats were identified commuting along this feature and, in the experience of the surveyor and author of this chapter, previous monitoring of hedgerow gaps (up to 20m) created for pipeline construction found the species recorded here were not affected by such a breach (where unlit). In light of the survey results and as a proportion of the habitat and the majority of the woodland along the eastern boundary will be retained, a neutral impact upon an ecological receptor of Parish value would be predicted.

12.122 There are no plans to directly affect the cliff face north of the application site and the nesting peregrines would not be directly affected by habitat loss. Peregrines feed on medium sized birds, which are taken in the air, and as such do not require areas of open grassland for hunting. The loss of the grassland and the scrub mosaic to development would not therefore directly affect this species. As such a neutral impact upon an ecological receptor of National value would be anticipated, in respect of habitat loss.

12.123 The nesting bird assemblage within and around the application site was largely recorded from habitats along and outside the application site perimeter, with only a few species being recorded nesting within scrub in the

13Chanin P (2012) Why didn’t the dormice cross the gaps? Dormouse Monitor Issue 1 2012 p4-5 14 Chanin P & L Gubert (2012) Common dormouse (Muscardinus avellanarius) Movements in a landscape fragmented by roads. Lutra 2012 55 (1): 3-15

Land Adjacent to Micheldever Rail Sidings P a g e | 12-23 SLR Consulting Limited

ECOLOGY 12

central part of the application site. In total 0.3ha of the available 1ha of scrub would be removed as part of the development proposals. Suitable nesting habitat for common bird species is abundant in the locality and it is considered overall that loss of 0.3ha of nesting habitat would be a neutral to minor negative impact upon an ecological receptor of Parish value. All nesting birds are protected under the WCA during the nesting season (generally considered to be from March – August), from killing, injury, taking and destruction of nests. The removal of nesting habitat during the nesting bird season would therefore not be permitted under the WCA.

12.124 Only two of the fourteen key species and one of the UK BAP species of invertebrate were recorded solely from the lower compartment, where the majority of development is proposed. These species are the RDB1 fruit fly Campiglossa malaris, the Nationally scarce Micromorphus species C Dolichopodid fly and the UK BAP Small Heath. Although only recorded during this survey in the lower compartment, the upper and southern compartments have the potential to support this species given the presence of suitable larval and adult food plants and the mosaic of grassland and scrub habitats, required to support these three species. The loss of habitat to the proposed development would be a minor negative impact upon an ecological receptor of Parish value.

Alterations to Ground Water Regime and Surface Water Flow and Quality

12.125 This assessment has not identified any changes to the groundwater or surface water regime which would adversely affect habitats or species within the application site.

12.126 The substrate of the land within the application site is concrete on the lower levels of the western half of the application site which is already generally impermeable to water. As such, alterations to ground water are likely to be minimal. Notwithstanding this, good practice measures to minimise risk of surface and groundwater contamination would be implemented during construction, including use of oil spillage kits and appropriate storage of construction materials. Further information is presented in Chapter 9 Water Environment.

Noise and Visual Disturbance

12.127 Different types of disturbance could potentially affect a number of species that occur within the application site. The effects of disturbance upon species are complex, because species show differing responses to disturbance and in many cases they are able to habituate to low levels of disturbance. In general, proximity to source, intensity, duration and frequency of disturbance are the main factors that will affect the severity of an impact.

12.128 Increased levels of noise and visual disturbance (caused by increased traffic or the construction of buildings within bird and bat flight lines, for example) have potential to have an adverse negative effect on the existing wildlife

Land Adjacent to Micheldever Rail Sidings P a g e | 12-24 SLR Consulting Limited

ECOLOGY 12

value of the application site. This is likely to be most significant for disturbance to sensitive species, notably birds.

12.129 The proposed development has the potential to cause disturbance to nesting peregrine falcon. This species is already nesting in an area subject to continuous / intermittent noise and visual disturbance, caused by traffic movements along the A303 as well as sporadic movement of trains along the railway line. The species has therefore already accommodated some disturbance and has nested in close proximity to the sources of disturbance despite this. However, it is considered unlikely that the noise and visual disturbance caused as a result of the proposed development, including the disturbance caused by the excavation of foundations, presence of humans and vehicles in closer proximity to the nest than currently experienced, as well as the use of cranes, would be accommodated by this species and the potential exists for the nest to be abandoned as a result or for the nest site not to be reused in future. Although impacts are predicted as a result of construction, these are considered to be temporary and would cease when construction is completed. This would be considered as a temporary negative impact upon an ecological receptor of National value. As peregrine is a Schedule 1 species under the WCA, it would also be a criminal offence to disturb this species or its dependent young whilst nesting.

12.130 Potential also exists for disturbance to the wider nesting bird assemblage and this would be considered to be a temporary negative impact upon an ecological receptor of Parish value.

12.131 A full assessment of potential noise impacts has been undertaken and is presented in Chapter 8 Noise.

Dust deposition on sensitive habitats and fauna

12.132 The closest part of the River Itchen SAC is located 9.5km west of the application site. Although construction of the proposed development has the potential to create dust and other wind blown particles, it is considered that this SAC is sufficiently well separated from the site by distance, development and semi-natural habitats, whilst also being outside the line of prevailing south-westerly winds; thus a neutral impact upon this ecological receptor of international value is anticipated.

12.133 Micheldever Spoil Heaps SSSI is located within 100m of the northern boundary of the application site. Again, the potential exists for dust created from the construction of the proposed development to impact upon this SSSI; however the SSSI is located to the north, away from the prevailing winds which would minimise the amount of dust blown towards it. Between the two are other structure and land uses likely to intercept the majority of fugitive dusts should it be generated. Therefore it is considered unlikely that dust created during the construction would significantly impact upon the SSSI and as such a neutral impact upon an ecological receptor of National value would be predicted. No impacts are predicted upon the other three SSSI’s located within 10km of the application site.

Land Adjacent to Micheldever Rail Sidings P a g e | 12-25 SLR Consulting Limited

ECOLOGY 12

12.134 The application site lies within Micheldever Oil Terminal SINC. The dust created during construction of the proposed development has potential to impact negatively upon retained habitats within the application site (calcareous grassland) as well as the area of SINC located outside the application site. Although impacts are predicted as a result of construction, these are considered to be temporary and would cease when construction is completed. As such this would be considered to be a temporary negative impact upon an ecological receptor of County value.

12.135 Although dust suppression methods significantly reduce the deposition of dust in the locality they cannot wholly eliminate it. The main period of dust generation arising from the development proposals would be during the construction period when standard suppression techniques would be used to reduce any effect that may occur over this short time period. Dust suppression techniques are further discussed in Section 7 Air Quality.

Indirect construction impacts on designated sites within the zone of influence

12.136 Indirect construction impacts upon Micheldever Oil Terminal SINC have been discussed in the relevant section above.

12.137 No indirect impacts upon designated sites as a result of the construction of the proposed development have been identified. Identification of Predicted Impacts – Operation

12.138 The following potential operational impacts have been identified and are discussed below:  noise and visual disturbance;  alterations to ground and surface water quality;  dust and litter arising from the transportation of waste;  dust and aerial contaminants arising from the operation the facility; and  indirect operational impacts on designated sites within the zone of influence.

Noise and Visual Disturbance

12.139 From the noise assessment the operation of the proposed facility would produce noise levels below that of the current level of background noise at the application site. Although the plant would operate for 24 hours a day and therefore produce noise during the hours of darkness, the application site is located in close proximity to the railway line and A303, which both produce noise levels 24 hours a day. As such, the level of noise created is considered unlikely to impact upon any features of ecological value within and around the application site, and as such, no impact as a result of noise is predicted. The noise created by the proposed development is further discussed in Chapter 8 Noise.

Land Adjacent to Micheldever Rail Sidings P a g e | 12-26 SLR Consulting Limited

ECOLOGY 12

12.140 Operation of the facility would be a 24 hour process and it is likely that, due to the presence of members of staff 24 hours a day, the level of artificial lighting during the hours of darkness may increase, from its current low level (which is already experienced at the application site as a result of the adjacent rail sidings). An increase in artificial lighting during the hours of darkness is most likely to have an impact upon nocturnal species, particularly bats, but possibly also on species such as nesting Peregrine.

12.141 No roosts or important commuting routes for bats were identified during the baseline surveys and it is highly unlikely that the application site is ever important or critical for local populations of bats (the trees and woodland along the north eastern edge of the application site are confirmed as supporting occasional commuting routes for only small numbers of common and widespread species of bats). All artificial lighting, particularly that along the eastern and northern edge of the proposed facility would be restricted to the minimum required for health and safety and utilise low level, directional sodium lamps so as to reduce the amount of light spill. In this way, a darkened commuting corridor along the woodland edges would be maintained for bats and thus a neutral impact upon an ecological receptor of less than Parish value would be maintained.

12.142 Peregrine are well documented to show a strong bond with a successful breeding site and territory, and they are showing increasing tolerance of man and his activities, with successful breeding attempts recorded within the urban environment on pylons, bridges, church spires and other tall buildings15. At this site, the peregrines nest in close proximity to an active rail line. As such, it is anticipated that should Peregrine chose to return to the nest site on the cliff face, that the level of noise and visual disturbance would likely be tolerated by this species, provided that the cliff face is not directly illuminated. A neutral impact upon a receptor of National value is anticipated. Alterations to ground and surface water quality

12.143 The site is designed such that all storage of waste and residues would take place within the confines of the building, the floor of which would be impervious and positively drained. The drained floor would be designed to flow into the overall site drainage system associated with the proposed development. There would be no effect on groundwater and surface water quality. This is considered further in Chapter 9, Water Environment.

Dust and litter arising from the transportation of waste

12.144 Waste streams to be treated in the facility would be transported to the site in enclosed or covered vehicles and stored within the building. The likelihood of any release of waste into the surrounding habitats is considered highly unlikely.

15 Dixon, N. 2000. A new era for Peregrines – Buildings, bridges and pylons as nest sites. BTO News 229.

Land Adjacent to Micheldever Rail Sidings P a g e | 12-27 SLR Consulting Limited

ECOLOGY 12

12.145 The habitats within the application site and wider study area including calcareous grassland and scrub would therefore not be subject to contamination from the haulage of either the waste or residues/recyclate resultant from the process; a neutral impact upon receptors of up to Regional value has therefore been predicted.

Dust and aerial contaminants arising from the operation the facility

12.146 During the operational life of the facility, the main dust generating activities would be confined to the shedding of waste in the waste reception area. This would take place within the building with active measures in place to prevent dust escaping from the building, as described in Chapter 3. Habitats within the application site and wider study area would not therefore be subject to any wind-blown dust. This would result in a neutral impact upon ecological receptors of up to Regional value in the surrounding area.

12.147 Any dust created as a result of the treatment of waste would be filtered out of the air released from the flue stack. No significant particulate matter would be released from the facility. The habitats within the application site would not therefore be subject to impacts from wind-blown dust. This would result in a neutral impact upon ecological receptors of up to Regional value.

12.148 Numerous stages of emissions filtration would be put in place to reduce gases and other aerial contaminants released from the ACT flue, including a fabric filter, to below minimum threshold values and therefore habitats within the application site and wider study area would be unlikely to suffer detrimental impacts as a result of any gases or particulates released, resulting in a neutral impact upon receptors of Regional value.

Indirect operational impacts on designated sites within the zone of influence

12.149 The deposition of gases resulting from the facility has been modelled and no measurable impact upon Nationally designated sites, located within the 10km area around the application site are anticipated. The closest statutorily designated site to the proposed development is Micheldever Spoil Heaps SSSI. The predicted emissions from the facility are less than 1% of the applied critical level for NOx and less than 2% critical level for SO2 (which is less than 20% of the critical load for habitats in the SSSI) when typical operating hours and emissions are considered. Further information regarding this dispersion model is presented in Section 7: Air Quality. A neutral impact upon features of National importance is therefore predicted.

12.150 The deposition of gases upon the Micheldever Oil Terminal SINC has also been modelled. The predicted emissions from the facility are less than 1% of the applied critical level for NOx and less than 3% critical level for SO2 (which is less than 50% of the critical load for habitats in the SINC) when typical operating hours and emissions are considered. A neutral impact upon a receptor of Regional value is therefore predicted.

Land Adjacent to Micheldever Rail Sidings P a g e | 12-28 SLR Consulting Limited

ECOLOGY 12

12.151 The potential exists for indirect impacts upon Micheldever Oil Terminal SINC as a result of the operation of the facility. These impacts are largely associated with the human presence at the site.

Land Adjacent to Micheldever Rail Sidings P a g e | 12-29 SLR Consulting Limited

ECOLOGY 12

Mitigation Measures

12.152 This sub-section outlines the suite of mitigation measures to be adopted, in addition to a range of further recommendations for practical and reasonable enhancement measures. Further detail is supplied in the Ecological Management Plan (EMP)

Compensation for Habitat Loss

12.153 In total, approximately 1.5ha of the 3ha habitat within the application site is due to be retained and protected during construction and operation of the proposed facility. Where the loss of habitat is unavoidable within the development footprint, it is proposed that habitat relocation is undertaken in order to maintain the sward and species mix

12.154 With reference to the Micheldever Oil Terminal SINC designation from 1992; it is clear that the existing grassland is contracting in area, having suffered from scrub encroachment over the past 20 years. The landscape strategy plan sets out a scheme which retain and protects areas of the existing grassland habitat and this shall be subject to enhancement and management works as detailed in the EMP. The long term management scheme will be instigated at the commencement of construction for new and retained habitat to enhance habitats for the range of species identified during baseline survey work. This will include control of invasive and undesirable species and creation of colonisation niches together with notable species translocation as set out in Section 12.160.

12.155 A vegetated roof has been included within the design of the main building to contribute to the compensation measures for loss of calcareous grassland. The green roof would be established using the existing seed bank, containing propagules and root fragments to form the basis for the new plant community. A specific methodology for this feature would be prepared in due course and in outline, this would comprise collection and application of substrate from those areas of the development site with a diverse and valued assemblage of calcicolous species and it is anticipated that approximately 0.5ha of calcareous grassland could be reinstated upon the green roof.

12.156 The calcareous grassland communities that occupy the application site are typical of those across the wider Micheldever Oil Terminal SINC and nearby Micheldever Spoil Heaps SSSI. These have not arisen as a result of traditional land management practices such as livestock grazing but in this setting the substrate and landform has arisen from more industrial activities with the vegetation community establishing through the slow (particularly in such a stressed environment) process of succession on a stressed soil free substrate. The natural process of succession will ultimately, without any intervention or other forms of incidental interference (grazing, erosion, disturbance, fires etc) result in further colonisation of plants and a shift towards a vegetation community with more ground cover and biomass (coarse grassland and scrub). Such successional processes would be to the detriment of those plant and lichen species of conservation concern. The

Land Adjacent to Micheldever Rail Sidings P a g e | 12-30 SLR Consulting Limited

ECOLOGY 12

EMP includes details of procedures to ensure that the retained areas of calcareous grassland are maintained in favourable status for key species and would result in a positive impact upon an ecological receptors of County value.

12.157 In addition to on site habitat management, initial discussions have been held with Natural England (Harold Makant, Nov 2013) about some of the management issues facing the Micheldever Spoil Heaps SSSI . This has identified a number of potentially beneficial compensation and enhancement measures within the SSSI which cannot be delivered though the standard management agreements that Natural England make with land owners and occupiers. The measures discussed which would have beneficial effects upon key calcareous grassland communities and the species of conservation importance that they support including removal of invading scrub and creation of new bare areas through physical disturbance.

12.158 Such measures could provide significant enhancements within the SSSI for the key species associated with the spoil heaps. Discussions about delivery mechanisms for such measures are being discussed with Hampshire Wildlife Trust.

Surface Water Contamination

12.159 The risk of accidental spillages would be mitigated through off-site storage, inspections, maintenance of vehicles and pumps, and the formulation of a spill response plan.

12.160 Mitigation measures relating to surface water contamination are discussed fully in Chapter 9.

Mitigation and Avoidance for Protected and Notable Species Flora

12.161 Based upon the known biology of the Cut-leaved Germander it is proposed that the translocation strategy focuses primarily on collecting and moving the seed bank of the colony and the substrate in which the plant is known to grow. By translocating the substrate where the plant grows there is added surety that the growth medium has suitable chemistry and structure for germination and if there are any essential mychorrizal associations required for germination and establishment these will be moved along with the materials.

12.162 The objective of the strategy is based upon the plant’s life cycle and is designed to provide conditions to maintain a viable colony of the species on site rather than seeking to move every single plant which has a very short lifespan. An outline of the proposed translocation procedures are set out in the EMP and the exact details of this methodology along with an appropriate aftercare and monitoring plan would be subject to agreement with Natural England under a ‘Conservation licence’. In practice, measures would comprise re-assessment of the cut-leaved germander colony location and

Land Adjacent to Micheldever Rail Sidings P a g e | 12-31 SLR Consulting Limited

ECOLOGY 12

extent prior to site clearance and selection of areas of greatest plant density for targeted stripping of the top layer of substrate. At least 50m2 of 100- 150mm of the top surface of chalk would be skimmed from areas where this species has been recorded and moved to a pre prepared receptor area. The receptor areas would be in a range of suitable locations throughout the undeveloped part of the site where land is proposed to be managed for its nature conservation interests.

12.163 Under the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) licences for Schedule 8 species (cut leaved germander) can be issued by Natural England for specific purposes only, such as science and education or conservation purposes. There is no provision for licensing the above actions for development operations under the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and as such the translocation of cut-leaved germander would need to be undertaken under a ‘conservation’ licence after evidence is provided that the 'incidental result of a lawful operation 'incidental result of a lawful operation and could not reasonably have been avoided'.

12.164 The translocation procedures set out above and detailed within the EMP are equally applicable to the colony of Wall Bedstraw Galium parisiense, a Nationally Scarce and Vulnerable species, in this instance it is proposed that the same method be applied but a target of a minimum of 10m2 be set for this species to ensure it is redistributed within the safeguarded areas of the site. Given that approximately half of the area where Spring Cinquefoil Potentilla neumanniana is recorded as being Frequent to Abundant is to be retained and put into a scheme of suitable management no further translocation is proposed for this species.

12.165 With respect to the lichen and bryophyte floras, the main mitigation measure proposed is that of the management and enhancement of existing retained habitats and this alone will assist with the conservation of at least three of the five notable species lichen recorded. Where such colonies will be lost to the development the translocation method, as set out in the EMP be employed to ‘inoculate’ retained areas with propagules from these species. Again, a minimum target area for transfer is 10m2.

Slow worm

12.166 In order to minimise the potential for impacts upon individual slow worms, it is proposed that a scheme of habitat modification is introduced prior to any ground preparation works. Habitat modification would comprise the phased removal of suitable habitats, namely grassland, by or under the direction of a suitably qualified ecologist. Modification would be carried out from within the development footprint towards the eastern grassland habitats, in order to encourage slow worms to migrate in this direction. Modifications would ideally be timed to be undertaken during periods of the day and weather conditions where slow worms would be most active (notably the middle part of the day during warm sunny weather). Where slow worms are recorded in habitat to be modified, their movement by hand may also be necessary.

Land Adjacent to Micheldever Rail Sidings P a g e | 12-32 SLR Consulting Limited

ECOLOGY 12

12.167 No enhancements for slow worm are proposed at this stage as the habitats to be retained already support a breeding population of this species. However, in order to aid the movement of slow worms across the proposed access route, to maintain connectivity, it is recommended that dropped kerbs be installed at regular intervals under the access road and that there is at least one corridor through the development which supports re-instated calcareous grassland, enhanced with rubble and reptile refugia. Bats

12.168 The small number of trees required to be removed to facilitate the access route / visibility splay would be subject to a further precautionary inspection by a licensed bat ecologist prior to felling. In the event that roosts are found at the time of works, bats would need to be first excluded prior to felling / surgery under the aegis of an EPS mitigation licence and an appropriate method statement. Mitigation for roost loss would be determined by the nature of the roost and could include such measures as exclusion devices prior to felling; provision of appropriate alternative roost features (bat boxes) and retention of the original roost feature by strapping cut sections to retained trees within the tree belt.

12.169 Use of artificial lighting would be controlled in the vicinity of semi-natural habitats including the woodland belt along the eastern boundary of the site. Lighting in these parts of the site would be cowled and/or directional to minimise spill. Security lighting would be motion triggered.

Dormouse

12.170 As confirmed dormouse habitat and other contiguous habitat of some value for dormouse would be lost, an EPS Mitigation licence would be required. The Licence application would require planning consent to be in place and would include a detailed Mitigation strategy to guide works such that the risk of adverse impacts are minimised and that ensure proposals would not be detrimental to the maintenance of the dormouse population concerned at a favourable conservation status in their natural range.

12.171 As set out in the EMP and in accordance with best practice guidance, the mitigation strategy for dormice for development will comprise five main strands:  Creation of areas of suitable habitat on and adjacent to the site using species of value for dormouse,  Retention, protection and strengthening of habitat links to prevent isolation or fragmentation of habitat,  Sensitive habitat clearance, ensuring availability of habitat for displaced animals  Provision of nest tubes to increase the carrying capacity of the wider Site in advance of habitat clearance and  Long-term management and monitoring of new/ retained dormouse habitat on Site

Land Adjacent to Micheldever Rail Sidings P a g e | 12-33 SLR Consulting Limited

ECOLOGY 12

12.172 A balance would have to be struck between replanting of dormouse habitat and measures for the existing calcareous grassland (see above) Breeding Birds

12.173 Construction activities likely to disturb nesting peregrine falcon would commence outside the nesting season, which is typically February to July, so as to avoid disturbance during the breeding season. If the birds then choose to nest at the cliff face to the north of the application site following start of works it would be assumed that disturbance levels are tolerable to this species.

12.174 It is proposed to incorporate at least three artificial Peregrine nest sites within the development. Two of which would be attached to the western aspect of the main building, one at each end. The third would be attached to the flue stack in a south east facing direction. The box in this location would be attached in such a way that it was not directly touching the chimney stack, to minimise the transfer of any fluctuations in heat from the chimney to the nest box. This would provide alternative nesting sites, in addition to the cliff face already present.

12.175 To avoid destruction of any wild bird nests, scrub or trees would be removed outside the breeding season (March to August) where possible. If active bird nests are observed in any habitat scheduled for destruction, operations within that area would cease immediately and would not recommence until the breeding attempt has concluded to avoid committing an offence. Invertebrates

12.176 The creation of a green roof utilising the existing substrates and seed bank from the application site would serve to re-instate the majority of invertebrate habitat due to be lost to the proposed development. The introduction of the ecological management plan would also be of benefit to the invertebrate assemblage present, increasing the available habitat for colonisation. Overall, this would be a positive impact upon an ecological receptor of Parish value.

12.177 In addition, features designed to support solitary bees would be installed within the retaining wall at the northern end of the development. Such features can be purchased ready made, or constructed from wooden blocks sunk into the wall in which holes measuring between 2 – 10 mm have been drilled.

Potential Additional Ecological Enhancements

12.178 Installation of information boards, detailing the wildlife present and the ecological value of the habitats around the application site would be installed as part of the development. This would serve to further explain the reasoning for preventing public access to the remaining SINC habitats by staff or visitors to the site.

Land Adjacent to Micheldever Rail Sidings P a g e | 12-34 SLR Consulting Limited

ECOLOGY 12

MAGNITUDE AND SIGNIFICANCE OF RESIDUAL IMPACTS

12.179 The predicted impacts of the proposed development, following mitigation, i.e. the residual impacts, are assessed using the following criteria, based upon current IEEM guidance. In order to provide an objective assessment of the nature of each impact, descriptors set out in Table 12/3 are used.

12.180 To fully evaluate the effects of a predicted impact upon valued ecological receptors it is necessary to assess the significance of the impact upon that feature. Significance is assessed at the geographical scale at which the feature is considered important. For instance, the loss of the majority of a hedgerow resource within a site, which is assessed as being of local value, would be significant at the local scale. The loss of a small area of a nationally designated site may not be significant at a National level if the loss did not affect the integrity of the site. However, the loss may be significant at the County or local scales, if the features lost were rare in that geographical context. In most cases, the range of significance levels is determined by careful consideration of factors such as existing baseline, ecological context of the proposed development, predicted trends (ecological succession and factors affecting it), probability of effects occurring and the likely effectiveness of the proposed mitigation measures.

12.181 Residual effects are only considered for those ecological features assessed as being of Parish or greater value. Features of less than Parish value are excluded from the assessment.

12.182 Table 12/4 shows the predicted residual effects of the proposed development of the application site.

Table 12/3 – Key Considerations when Characterising Impacts Descriptor Definition4 I Direction of impact Positive or negative impact II Probability of occurring Broadly defined on 3 levels: Certain, Probable or Unlikely III Complexity Direct, Indirect or Cumulative IV Extent and Context Area/number affected and % of total V Magnitude Describe severity of effect in words VI Duration Permanent or Temporary in ecological terms (e.g. within the lifetime of the species affected) VII Reversibility Whether or not the effect can be reversed in an meaningful timescale

4 Definitions for these terms and further information relating the methods of assessment are given in Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment (IEEM, 2006)

Land Adjacent to Micheldever Rail Sidings P a g e | 12-35 SLR Consulting Limited

ECOLOGY 12

Table 12/4 Residual Impact Assessment

Important Ecological Feature Description of Potential Characterisation of Ecological Significance of Mitigation and Compensation Residual Impact Impact Impact Impact if unmitigated Proposals following Mitigation and Significance River Itchen SAC Indirect effects caused by I Neutral Neutral National None required Not significant dust, aerial pollutants and II Unlikely particulate matter III Indirect IV one V Low VI Temporary and permanent VII Reversible and irreversible

Micheldever Spoil Heaps SSSI Indirect effects caused by I negative Minor negative Regional Implementation of Air quality management Not significant and three other SSSI’s within dust, aerial pollutants and II Unlikely plan. 10km particulate matter III Indirect IV up to 4 Potential contribution to management of V Low to high SSSI units. VI Temporary VII Reversible and irreversible

Lichen Assemblage Direct effects as a result of I minor negative Minor negative Regional Protection of retained habitat. Minor negative - habitat loss II Certain reduction in distribution III Direct Translocation of habitat turfs containing of species within site IV populations within notable lichens application site V medium VI Permanent VII Reversible

Land Adjacent to Micheldever Rail Sidings P a g e | 12-36 SLR Consulting Limited

ECOLOGY 12

Important Ecological Feature Description of Potential Characterisation of Ecological Significance of Mitigation and Compensation Residual Impact Impact Impact Impact if unmitigated Proposals following Mitigation and Significance Bryophyte Communities Direct effects as a result of I minor negative Negative at County level Protection of retained habitat. Minor negative - habitat loss II Certain reduction in distribution III Direct Translocation of habitat turfs containing of species within site IV populations within notable bryophytes application site V medium VI Permanent VII Reversible Notable flora Direct effects as a result of I minor negative Negative National Translocation of Teucrium botrys (under Minor negative - Overall habitat loss II Certain conservation licence method statement) reduction of established III Direct and turfs containing other notable flora populations within the IV populations within species. site which is unlikely to application site affect distribution within V medium Retention, creation and management of wider area with SSSI as VI Permanent suitable habitat core habitat for these VII Reversible species.

Micheldever Oil Terminal SINC Direct effects as a result of I Negative Negative at County level Retention of remaining habitats and Minor negative - Overall habitat loss II Certain management to increase calcareous loss of approximately III Direct grassland 0.25ha of calcareous IV 0.75ha of 1.4ha Re-instatement of grasslands on green grassland (not including within the application roof and implementation of conservation potential areas re- site management plan to remove and instated through scrub V High manage encroaching scrub to aid management) VI Permanent grassland re-instatement throughout VII Irreversible application site. Restriction of public access to retained habitats

Land Adjacent to Micheldever Rail Sidings P a g e | 12-37 SLR Consulting Limited

ECOLOGY 12

Important Ecological Feature Description of Potential Characterisation of Ecological Significance of Mitigation and Compensation Residual Impact Impact Impact Impact if unmitigated Proposals following Mitigation and Significance Indirect effects caused by I Negative Negative at County value Dust suppression techniques Not significant dust, aerial pollutants and II Probable particulate matter III Direct IV entire of remaining site V low VI Permanent or temporary VII Reversible or irreversible

Slow Worm Removal and fragmentation I Negative Negative at Parish level Slow worm habitat displacement Not significant of habitat which supports low II Probable Habitat management to enhance retained population of slow worm III Direct habitats IV Approx 0.01ha of Creation of grassland wildlife corridor suitable habitat through site V medium VI permanent VII Irreversible

Bats (trees with roost potential) Removal of Cat 1 trees with I Negative Negative at Parish level Re-inspection prior to felling. Not significant potential bat roost features II Probable Relocation of suitable roost features onto (no roosts identified during III Direct retained trees baseline surveys) IV definitely 1 of 7, Installation of 20 bat boxes potentially 3 of 7 V low VI permanent VII Irreversible

Installation of artificial I Negative Negative at Parish level Installation of cowled directional lighting, Not significant lighting II Probable angled away from semi-natural habitats. III Direct Security lighting triggered by movement

Land Adjacent to Micheldever Rail Sidings P a g e | 12-38 SLR Consulting Limited

ECOLOGY 12

Important Ecological Feature Description of Potential Characterisation of Ecological Significance of Mitigation and Compensation Residual Impact Impact Impact Impact if unmitigated Proposals following Mitigation and Significance IV small bat population V low VI temporary or permenant VII Reversible

Dormouse Loss of nesting habitat I Negative Negative on a District level Implementation of EPS licence and Not significant II Certain mitigation strategy to include unavoidable III Direct habitat removal at least-sensitive time of IV approx 0.4ha of year (winter) and replacement habitat suitable habitat within provision. well connected area of habitat V high VI permanent VII Reversible

Peregrine falcon Disturbance of nesting I Negative Negative on a National level Commencement of development outside Not significant peregrines II Probable of peregrine nesting season III Direct Installation of 3 artificial nest sites to IV one breeding pair secure nesting pair on site in long term V high VI permanent VII Irreversible

Nesting birds Removal of habitat with the I Negative Negative at Parish level Removal of habitat outside of nesting Not significant potential to support nesting II Likely season or following survey and fencing birds III Direct off nest sites if required by a suitably IV 0.3ha of available qualified ecologist. 1ha scrub V Low to high Reinstatement of green roof

Land Adjacent to Micheldever Rail Sidings P a g e | 12-39 SLR Consulting Limited

ECOLOGY 12

Important Ecological Feature Description of Potential Characterisation of Ecological Significance of Mitigation and Compensation Residual Impact Impact Impact Impact if unmitigated Proposals following Mitigation and Significance VI permanent VII Reversible Invertebrates Removal of habitat known to Negative Negative at Parish level Introduction of conservation management Not significant to minor support invertebrate II Likely programme to improve retained habitats positive assemblage III Direct for use by invertebrate assemblage IV 1.5ha of available Installation of solitary bee habitat within 3ha northern retaining wall V Low VI permanent VII Reversible

Land Adjacent to Micheldever Rail Sidings P a g e | 12-40 SLR Consulting Limited

ECOLOGY 12

CONCLUSION

12.183 This section presents an ecological impact assessment, following guidelines published by IEEM (2006), on the likely effects upon flora and fauna for the proposed development of an ACT and AD facility at Micheldever Station, Hampshire.

12.184 In 2012, an Extended Phase I Habitat survey of the application site was undertaken. The application site was surveyed using the extended Phase I methodology, as recommended by the former IEA and IEEM. In addition, a detailed survey of the grassland botanical resource was undertaken, along with work on bats, reptiles, birds and invertebrates. Adaptations of best practice guidelines for bat have been identified in the relevant locations within the EcIA and Technical Appendix. Best practice guidelines were followed for all other survey work undertaken at the site.

12.185 The application site is wholly contained within Micheldever Oil Terminal SINC and comprises calcareous grassland, scrub and bare ground mosaics.

12.186 The ecological evaluation identified the following receptors of ecological importance within the application site:

 Micheldever Oil Terminal SINC supports species-rich calcareous grassland plant, bryophyte and lichen communities;  Slow worm;  trees with bat roost potential;  commuting / foraging bats;  Dormouse present within onsite habitats;  Nesting peregrine falcon;  Nesting birds; and  Invertebrate assemblage

12.187 The habitat receptors have been identified for the range of functions they provide to fauna species as well as their inherent value as semi-natural habitats.

12.188 The assessment of impacts upon receptors within and around the application site have identified a range of potential impacts, i.e. habitat loss, fragmentation, hydrological, dust, noise and visual impacts; that could result from the construction and operation of the proposed development. The ecological receptors have been assessed against these impacts to identify the likelihood of significant ecological effects.

12.189 Mitigation measures have been devised to avoid, minimise or compensate for potential impacts upon plant communities, slow worms, bats, dormouse, invertebrates, peregrine falcon and birds, specifically in regard to habitat loss and noise and visual disturbance.

12.190 The implementation of operational good practice with regard to dust suppression, protection of surface water, minimisation of noise and visual

Land Adjacent to Micheldever Rail Sidings P a g e | 12-41 SLR Consulting Limited

ECOLOGY 12

disturbance would ensure that there would be no significant adverse effects upon flora and fauna associated with the site whilst the development is being constructed or operated

12.191 Residual impacts of the proposed development have been highlighted with specific regard to habitat loss from the Micheldever Oil Terminal SINC. Residual habitat loss associated with Micheldever Oil Terminal SINC has been quantified at 0.25 ha of calcareous grassland, although this does not take into account areas of calcareous grassland which could potentially be re-instated as part of the proposed conservation management programme, which at this stage are not quantifiable. The implementation of the conservation management plan would help to secure the presence of calcareous grassland at the SINC into the long term. At present this residual impact is considered to be of minor significance in the short term.

Land Adjacent to Micheldever Rail Sidings P a g e | 12-42 SLR Consulting Limited

ECOLOGY 12

Appendix 12-3 Rev 1

Botanical Survey and Assessment (November 2013)

Land Adjacent to Micheldever Rail Sidings P a g e | 12-43 SLR Consulting Limited

Land adjacent to Micheldever Rail Siding

Appendix 12-3: Botanical Survey and Assessment SLR Ref: 402-03620-00004

November 2013

Version: Rev 1

Clean Power Properties Ltd i 402.03620.00004 App 12-3: Botanical Survey and Assessment November 2013

CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Background ...... 1 1.2 SINC Criteria ...... 1 1.3 Survey Aims ...... 1 2.0 SURVEY METHODOLOGY ...... 3 2.1 Survey Area ...... 3 2.2 Ecological Data Collection ...... 3 2.3 Field Survey Methods ...... 3 2.4 Personnel ...... 6 2.5 Survey Constraints ...... 6 3.0 SURVEY RESULTS ...... 7 3.1 Bryophytes ...... 7 3.2 Vascular Plants ...... 7 3.3 Vegetation Communities ...... 8 3.4 Lichens ...... 11 4.0 DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION ...... 14 4.1 Botanical ...... 14 4.2 Lichens ...... 15 REFERENCES ...... 17 FIGURES ...... 19 APPENDIX A: CRITERIA USED TO DEFINE VASCULAR PLANTS AND BRYOPHYTES OF CONSERVATION SIGNIFICANCE ...... 24 APPENDIX B: CRITERIA USED TO DEFINE LICHENS OF CONSERVATION SIGNIFICANCE RARITY & THREAT ...... 26 APPENDIX C: BRYOPHTE SPECIES LIST ...... 29 APPENDIX D VASCULAR PLANT SPECIES LIST - APPLICATION SITE ...... 31 APPENDIX E: NVC FLORISTIC TABLES – APPLICATION SITE ...... 34 APPENDIX F: NVC FLORISTIC TABLES – AREA TO SOUTH OF APPLICATION SITE . 38 APPENDIX G: LICHEN & ASSOCIATED FUNGI SPECIES LIST ...... 42 APPENDIX H: LICHEN SURVEY TARGET NOTES ...... 44

TABLES

Table 1 survey undertaken in 2013 Table 2 lichen names and synonyms

DRAWINGS

Drawing 01 Distribution of notable vascular plants Drawing 02 Distribution of vegetation communities Drawing 03 Distribution of lichen communities Drawing 04 Lichen target note locations

SLR Clean Power Properties Ltd 1 402.03620.00004 App 12-3: Botanical Survey and Assessment November 2013

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report presents the findings of a botanical and lichen surveys undertaken at Micheldever in 2013.

It has been prepared by SLR Consulting Limited (SLR) on behalf of Clean Power Properties Limited to provide further information in support of a planning application and environmental impact assessment.

1.1 Background

The application site at Micheldever is wholly contained within the larger Micheldever Oil Terminal Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC). This SINC, following a botanical survey,was designated in 1992 by Hampshire County Council. This was due to the presence of calcareous grassland over formerly exposed chalk substrate. A copy of the designation details are presented in Appendix 1.

Micheldever Oil Terminal SINC measures 12ha in size. Of this, approximately 3ha of the northern part of the SINC falls within the application site boundary.

Following provisional survey in 2012, a detailed botanical survey of the application site was undertaken in 2013 in order to assess the calcareous grassland habitat and to determine the distribution of the following rare and scare plants which have been recorded on the site:;  cut-leaved germander Teucrium botrys; and  spring cinquefoil Potentilla tabernaemontani.

1.2 SINC Criteria

The Hampshire criteria for Neutral/Acid/Calcareous grassland imply that only long- established grasslands should be designated. The criteria are as follows:

 2A - Agriculturally unimproved grassland;  2B - Semi-improved grasslands which retain a significant element of unimproved grassland; and  2D - Grasslands which have become impoverished through inappropriate management but which have retained sufficient elements of relict unimproved grassland to enable recovery.

Hampshire Biodiversity Partnership’s Habitat Action Plan (HAP) for Lowland Calcareous Grassland also describes the characteristics of this national BAP habitat type and its distribution and extent. It also describes important chalk grassland stands having developed on old quarries and chalk spoil heaps, as well as on roadsides, banks and verges and along railway lines. In this, the HAP implies that important chalk grasslands can also establish on secondary sites.

1.3 Survey Aims

The objectives of the study were to:  undertake a detailed classification of grassland/open vegetation communities within and adjacent to the application site ;

SLR Clean Power Properties Ltd 2 402.03620.00004 App 12-3: Botanical Survey and Assessment November 2013

 undertake surveys of the population size and distribution of Potentilla tabernaemontani and Teucrium botrys and any other nationally or locally rare/scarce or threatened vascular plants;  undertake baseline survey of bryophytes and mapping of any populations of notable species.  undertake baseline survey of lichens within the application site and mapping of any populations of notable species.  evaluate the findings of the surveys in a local, regional and national context.  Determine potential mitigation and compensations measures to address any impacts identified

The results of the study are presented within this report.

SLR Clean Power Properties Ltd 3 402.03620.00004 App 12-3: Botanical Survey and Assessment November 2013

2.0 SURVEY METHODOLOGY

2.1 Survey Area

The application site boundary is marked by a red line boundary on Drawing 01. The survey area included the application site and land surrounding the application site.

2.2 Ecological Data Collection

Records of SINCs and notable and protected plant species within 2km of the application site were sought from Hampshire Biological Information Centre (HBIC). Where appropriate these records are reproduced below. Data received from HBIC is presented in Appendix 12- 1 of Chapter 12 of the Environmental Statement.

2.3 Field Survey Methods

To obtain the most meaningful results, the surveys were undertaken at the optimal times of year for the species of interest and, where important, in appropriate weather conditions. Table 1 sets out the date and purpose of the visits made in 2013.

Table 1. Surveys undertaken in 2013

Survey Purpose Location Remarks date Moist ground ensured optimal Baseline survey of bryophytes conditions for survey of ground Application site (though dwelling mosses and liverworts. species of note within Estimate the size and map the 08.05.13 adjacent areas were also extent of the population of P. tabernaemontani late into flower due mapped more generally) Potentilla tabernaemontani to cold spring weather but plants in flower at time of survey. NVC description and mapping – chalk grassland and pioneering vegetation. Optimal timing for survey of chalk Application site only 18.06.13 grassland. Survey for any notable early summer-flowering plants. Application site (though 15.07.13 & Baseline survey of lichens species of note within Conditions were very hot and dry. 17.07.13 adjacent areas were also mapped more generally) Map the size and extent of the population of Teucrium botrys. Within flowering period of T.botrys. Application Site and Adjacent Vegetation of lower terrace dried up 30.08.13 Undertake NVC description and areas to assess potential following prolonged hot and dry mapping of vegetation mitigation weather in July communities in possible mitigation area.

2.3.1 Bryophyes

Spring is the most productive time of year for surveying bryophytes of chalky ground as at that time many bear the capsules that are required for certain identification. The survey approach was to identify sub-habitats that might support notable species and carefully search for species, whilst recording common species within the wider area. Of particular interest in the application site were:

SLR Clean Power Properties Ltd 4 402.03620.00004 App 12-3: Botanical Survey and Assessment November 2013

 short, rabbit-grazed chalk grassland on the terraces and bank;  a former ballast track from the gated entrance to the ballast circle;  pioneering calcareous vegetation dominated by mosses and lichens on the lower terrace.

Bryophytes on trees and scrub, on concrete infrastructure and on the ground in stands of calcicolous scrub were also recorded for completeness. All species of moss and liverwort found in the survey were identified in the hand where possible whilst small samples of a few species were collected to be confirmed by microscopic means later. Site-specific abundance was assigned to each using the DAFOR scale. Locations of populations of bryophytes of conservation significance were recorded using a hand-held GPS receiver (Garmin Etrex Vista HCX linked to Anquet Outdoor Map Navigator software, displaying locations to a minimum accuracy of 10m.

2.3.2 Vascular Plants

All grassland and semi-vegetated habitat within the application site (and contiguous habitat to the south) was searched during the May site visit for plants of Potentilla tabernaemontani. Non-flowering plants of this species can strongly resemble the very common Creeping Cinquefoil P. reptans, a later-flowering species which also grows in parts of the SINC, so the presence of flowers was considered critical in estimating the numbers and distribution of P. tabernaemontani. The great majority of plants were in flower at the time of survey, enabling the population to be mapped with confidence.

Following the NVC survey in June, a search of the whole application site (including scrub habitats where accessible) was made to locate any additional vascular plants of conservation significance and to provide a full species list for the site. In the August survey for Teucrium botrys, plants were geo-referenced and numbers estimated in the ballast habitat where they had been seen by HBIC in 2012. A thorough search was also made of other potentially suitable habitat for this species, including broken ground on the lower terrace and within the disused ballast track.

2.3.3 Vegetation Communities

Calcareous grassland communities in the application site were surveyed and classified following the standard approach of the National Vegetation Classification (NVC) (Rodwell 2006). The sampling also included the bryophyte and lichen-dominated lower terrace community, although it was considered that this vegetation would probably not have strong affinities with any of the published calcareous grassland communities (Rodwell 1992).

Before any quadrats were sampled, the entire application site was walked over to assess the grassland communities visually and to tentatively define different stands of vegetation by means of floristics and physiognomy.

Several grassland stands were identified and in each, five 1m x 1m quadrats were sampled in representative vegetation. The frequency and aerial cover of every species of vascular plant, bryophyte and lichen (where identifiable) seen in each quadrat was recorded and the data were subsequently combined to produce a floristic table for each stand. MATCH software (University of Lancaster) was used to analyse the data to produce coefficients of similarity with published NVC communities/sub-communities. Surveyor experience and detailed grassland community/subcommunity descriptions provided within the British Plant Communities series (Rodwell, 1992) were then used to assign each grassland to the most appropriate NVC community/sub-community. The sparsely vegetated circle of ballast where

SLR Clean Power Properties Ltd 5 402.03620.00004 App 12-3: Botanical Survey and Assessment November 2013

Teucrium botrys was seen in 2012 would not be appropriate to survey in NVC terms. Instead, an inventory of species was drawn up specific to this area (Appendix D).

The same approach was taken to surveying the communities of the area of habitat to the immediate south of the application site, which included two discrete areas of chalky ground where there had been recent gross disturbance. A set of quadrats within the calcicolous scrub community present on banks and other places around the SINC in a mosaic with the open vegetation was also sampled and would be representative of similar mature scrub within the applicable site as well.

2.3.4 Lichens

Areas Surveyed

The area of open chalk grassland habitat was walked and the lichen species recorded. Target notes were located as GPS waypoints which were numbered MD001 et seq. The target notes are listed in Appendix H. The scrub was surveyed where it could be penetrated.

For recording the lichens within the downland habitats the site was divided into three areas:  Lower terrace: the very open grassland with abundant flints on the roof of the oil tanks.  Middle terrace and slope above: the somewhat more closed grassland on the terrace created by cutting into the chalk.  Top terrace: the mainly tall closed sward on the upper terrace, which appears to be, other than some disturbed patches, the original land surface.

The lichens recorded in these areas were those found on the soils and mosses, flints, chalk and the woody bases of Thyme and rabbit bitten down Hawthorn stubs as well as introduced limestone and concrete. The substrate was recorded, allowing separation between downland lichens found on soil, flints chalk and browsed down shrubs and those only found on introduced materials. The epiphytes on shrubs and trees were recorded separately across the site.

The lichen rich vegetation was mapped in the field and with reference to the waypoints and the 2008 aerial photograph on Google Earth

Data Analysis

Nomenclature

The nomenclature follows Woods & Coppins (2012) for lichens. Woods & Coppins (2012) and the new flora Smith et al (2009) introduces considerable changes from the previous checklist (Coppins, 2002) and very many from the original edition of the flora (Purvis et al, 1992). To avoid confusion the new names and synonyms are listed in Table 2. For lichenicolous fungi (fungi parasitic on lichens) the nomenclature follows Hawksworth (2003).

SLR Clean Power Properties Ltd 6 402.03620.00004 App 12-3: Botanical Survey and Assessment November 2013

Table 2. Lichen names and synonyms

New Names Old Names Bilimbia sabuletorum Bacidia sabuletorum, Myxobilimbia sabuletorum Melanelixia subaurifera Melanelia subaurifera, Parmelia subaurifera Placidium squamulosum Catapyrenium squamulosum

2.4 Personnel

The botanical and bryophyte surveys were undertaken by Sharon Pilkington MSc C Env MCIEEM of Vegetation Survey and Assessment on behalf of SLR Consulting. Lichen surveys were conducted by Neil Sanderson MSc of Botanical Survey and Assessment.

2.5 Survey Constraints

Several weeks of exceptionally hot and dry weather in July 2013 meant that the bryophyte/lichen dominated pioneering vegetation of the lower terrace had dried up and could not be sampled for higher plants with any degree of confidence in late August. However, this vegetation was considered to be very similar to the community that dominates most of the lower terrace, sampled in the application site in June.

SLR Clean Power Properties Ltd 7 402.03620.00004 App 12-3: Botanical Survey and Assessment November 2013

3.0 SURVEY RESULTS

3.1 Bryophytes

Parts of the application site were found to be very rich in bryophytes, with species of nutrient-poor unimproved calcareous grassland very well represented; a full species list is provided as Appendix C. The most characteristic grassland species included Homalothecium lutescens, Trichostomum crispulum, Ctenidium molluscum, Ditrichum gracile, Pseudoscleropodium purum, Hypnum cupressiforme var. lacunosum and Entodon concinnus.

Populations of two nationally scarce mosses were also found. Abietinella abietina var. hystricosa was found across much of the site, as well as in parts of the adjacent mitigation area, where it favoured short, rabbit-grazed turf on the terraces and bank.

The second nationally scarce moss was much more restricted and only two populations were confirmed, both of which were in sunny, species-rich chalk grassland on the bank. Didymodon acutus strongly resembles D. fallax, a closely related species that was found to be widespread on sparsely vegetated (mainly bare) ground on the terraces and ballast communities and was confirmed using microscopic characters, so it is possible that other small colonies could be present elsewhere in the SINC. This is also a scarce species in North Hampshire, where it is currently known from a few sites including Porton Down (pers. comm Fred Rumsey, BBS Regional Recorder Vc12). The distribution of both species within the SINC is given in Drawing 01.

Other species likely to be of more local note include small populations of the moss Microbryum floerkeanum, Ditrichum flexicaule, Weissia brachycarpa var. obliqua, and Tortula protobryoides. All of these species were found in short, rich rabbit-grazed chalk grassland on the middle terrace and on south and west-facing banks.

3.2 Vascular Plants

Grassland and ballast habitats on the banks and the middle terrace were very rich in species typical of dry, semi-natural calcareous vegetation in southern England. Descriptions of the floristics of the vegetation communities are given in Section 3.3, and a list of all vascular plants recorded within the Application Site is given as Appendix D.

3.2.1 Spring Cinquefoil

The visit to the site in May confirmed the presence of a very substantial population of Potentilla tabernaemontani. It was distributed across most of the SINC (Drawing 01) with particularly high numbers of plants on the middle and lower terraces, but almost wholly absent from the more coarsely structured chalk grassland above the bank, where P. reptans was frequent.

The growth form of this plant (many plants coalesce to form large clonal patches) and the size of the survey area made it very difficult to estimate numbers but conservatively, it is likely that the population numbers at least many hundreds of plants. The population extended into the proposed mitigation area, including a high density of plants in a small area of the former track between gate and middle terrace.

SLR Clean Power Properties Ltd 8 402.03620.00004 App 12-3: Botanical Survey and Assessment November 2013

3.2.2 Cut-leaved Germander

This plant was confined to the ballast circle on the lower terrace, where most individuals were growing in a very small area (approximately 3m by 2m) at SU51904358 (Drawing 01). This population was estimated to number 300-400 plants, few of which had flowered or seeded. Several other lone individuals were found in the same area of ballast within a 10m radius of the main population. Despite a careful search of suitable habitats elsewhere (especially the lower terrace and the ballast track) no other plants were found.

The status of Teucrium botrys in the British Isles is uncertain, although it is a legally protected plant listed on Schedule 8 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). Preston, Pearman & Dines (2002) describe it as a ‘neophyte, cultivated in Britain by 1633 and first recorded in 1844 at Box Hill (Surrey); it has sometimes been considered to be native.’ It has been recorded in a total of 12 hectads (10km OS squares), half of these between 1987 and 1999. Rand and Mundell (2011) regard it as locally rare in Vc12. Historically, large populations have been recorded from Micheldever Spoil Heaps SSSI which lies on the far side of the A303 and is almost certainly the original source of the population of Teucrium botrys within the application site.

3.2.3 Other Species

Several other vascular plants of conservation significance were found in the course of the fieldwork. Wall Bedstraw Galium parisiense (nationally scarce and Vulnerable) was thinly but widely scattered across much of the northern part of the application site, where hundreds of plants were seen in species-rich chalk grassland and across the lower terrace. Preston, Pearman & Dines (2002) describe it as ‘an annual of old walls and bare ground on calcareous or neutral substrates. It is intolerant of competition, and is susceptible to nutrient- enrichment. It may occasionally occur as a casual or short-term introduction well outside its normal range’. In North Hampshire, it is regarded by Rand and Mundell (2011) as a locally scarce native and/or neophyte and they state that ‘sites at Old Basing and at Micheldever Spoil Heaps may perhaps be native.’

Several ant-hills among scrubby chalk grassland below the bank in the application site supported a small number of plants of Mat-grass Fescue Vulpia unilateralis. This nationally scarce native species has been known from Micheldever Spoil Heaps SSSI since 1964 (Rand and Mundell 2011) and may be another species to have crossed the A303.

A small population of Basil Thyme Clinopodium acinos also grew in the ballast very close to the population of Teucrium botrys. Though not uncommon in sparsely vegetated (mainly bare) calcareous places, it has declined greatly and is listed as Red List Vulnerable. It is also a Section 41 and UK BAP Priority Species.

3.3 Vegetation Communities

The application site includes much of the northern end of Micheldever Oil Terminal SINC, falling short of a high chalk cliff marking the northern boundary and excluding an extensive stand of mature planted Beech Fagus sylvatica trees at upper levels adjacent to the minor Micheldever Station - Overton road. Its western edge is marked by a high near-vertical west- facing wall which separates the SINC from the railway land below.

Grassland and pioneering vegetation occupied several different terraces within the site, set in a mosaic of calcicolous scrub. A prominent steep west-facing bank several metres high separated the uppermost terrace from an extensive area of rabbit-grazed calcareous grassland below. A disused ballast track dissected the middle terrace from the gated site entrance, terminating in the ballast circle on the lower terrace. Other parts of the lower

SLR Clean Power Properties Ltd 9 402.03620.00004 App 12-3: Botanical Survey and Assessment November 2013 terrace appeared to be of more recent secondary origin than the remainder of the application site, and were rendered visually distinctive by abundant brownish-green cushions of the moss Trichostomum crispulum and the large greyish lichen Cladonia rangiformis.

There was no evidence of any recent site management but the site bore strong evidence of a large population of rabbits, which maintained the grassland of the lower terraces as a very tight, short sward with locally disturbed patches where they had been foraging. In the proposed mitigation area two disturbed areas indicated where former structures (including a reservoir) had probably been removed; these areas had been colonised by a suite of common ruderals and advancing scrub.

Drawing 02 illustrates the distribution of the respective vegetation communities within the SINC, excluding the mature Beech woodland on the eastern/northern boundaries. Floristic tables assembled from quadrat data showing the results of MATCH community analysis are presented in Appendix E (Application site) and Appendix F (area to south of application site).

3.3.1 Unimproved Calcareous Grassland

Two distinct unimproved calcareous grassland communities were confirmed from the field data, with little difference between stands within the application site and proposed mitigation area. The middle terrace and bank supported very species-rich grassland clearly referable to CG7 Festuca ovina-Hieracium pilosella-Thymus praecox/pulegoides grassland. The abundance of Wild Strawberry Fragaria vesca and several other preferentials would tentatively place it within CG7d Fragaria vesca – Erigeron acer sub-community but MATCH analysis of the two datasets did not fully support this conclusion.

Lying over a skeletal chalky rendzina with numerous exposed flints, the sward was herb-rich, wiry and grazed very low. Vegetation typically attained 50% to 90% cover, with flints and bare ground exposed by rabbits comprising the remainder. The rabbits had selectively grazed off many grasses, which were subordinate to mosses and herbs. Prominent species included Salad Burnet Poterium sanguisorba, Wild Thyme Thymus polytrichus, Sheep’s- fescue Festuca ovina, Fairy Flax Linum catharticum, Common Centaury Centaurium erythraea, Mouse-ear Hawkweed Pilosella officinarum, Hairy Violet Viola hirta and Fragaria vesca. Potentilla tabernaemontani was also frequent in parts of the community.

Bryophytes were an integral part of the CG7, achieving high cover across much of the community. Characteristic species included Homalothecium lutescens, Trichostomum crispulum and Hypnum cupressiforme var. lacunosum, whilst locally there were populations of Ditrichum gracile, Fissidens dubius, Entodon concinnus, Encalypta streptocarpa and Pseudoscleropodium purum. Certain lichens were also quite prominent, Cladonia rangiformis being the most frequent. The majority of the most diminutive chalk grassland bryophytes (including both populations of Didymodon acutus) seen in the May survey were found in this habitat, often in small bare patches created by rabbits within the turf.

CG7 is a nationally rare and declining type of lowland calcareous grassland that is restricted to dry, impoverished chalk soils in southern and eastern England, with outliers on the chalk of the Yorkshire Wolds and Carboniferous Limestone in the Mendip Hills (Somerset) and in Derbyshire. Rodwell (1992) describes it as ‘characteristically a vegetation type of thin, stony, very free-draining and highly oligotrophic calcareous soils developed under more open continental climatic conditions, with heavy rabbit grazing and sometimes, a history of past disturbance. The floristics and structure of the CG7d sub-community are thought to be strongly influenced by the activities of large numbers of rabbits.

Also within the stand of CG7, but of particularly high botanical importance, was the disused ballast track previously described. This was less vegetated than the CG7 of the surrounding

SLR Clean Power Properties Ltd 10 402.03620.00004 App 12-3: Botanical Survey and Assessment November 2013 grassland and rich in bryophytes, including strong populations of Abietinella abietina var. hystricosa and the moss Encalypta vulgaris. Potentilla tabernaemontani was also locally prominent on the track but somewhat surprisingly, Teucrium botrys was not found here, despite the suitability of the substrate.

Scrub encroachment appeared to be gathering momentum in the CG7, with seedlings of e.g. Hawthorn Crataegus monogyna and Dog-rose Rosa canina frequent and checked only by herbivore browsing. Encroachment of scrub onto the bank had evidently caused substantial loss of species-rich grassland and was a threat to populations of notable species such as Didymodon acutus.

East of the bank, the uppermost terrace supported a coarse, moderately diverse form of chalk grassland. Analysis of quadrats sampled in the application site in June and in the proposed mitigation area in August referred the community to CG6 Avenula pubescens grassland, despite the lack of certain definitive grasses e.g. Downy Oat-grass Avenula pubescens and Meadow Oat-grass A. pratensis. No sub-community could be confidently assigned to either stand of the vegetation.

Structurally, the community was closed and dense and 10cm or more in height. Grasses were sparse and browsed off by rabbits and the community was dominated by several herbs and bryophytes. Chief among these were Common Bird’s-foot-trefoil Lotus corniculatus, Viola hirta, Fragaria vesca and the large turf moss Rhytidiadelphus squarrosus. The constant or near-constant presence of certain species suggested the presence of a more mesotrophic and moisture-retentive soil; these included Red Fescue Festuca rubra, False Brome Brachypodium sylvaticum, Yorkshire-fog Holcus lanatus, Germander Speedwell Veronica chamaedrys, Ground-ivy Glechoma hederacea and Ribwort Plantain Plantago lanceolata.

There was considerable scrub invasion of this grassland, which was less intensively grazed by rabbits. In places the grassland was reduced to small glades within stands of dense calcicolous scrub and at the northern end most of the CG6 had been lost to advancing woody vegetation.

CG6 grassland typically occurs over relatively mesotrophic and moister calcareous soils on flat or gently-sloping sites on chalk and other kinds of limestone, sometimes where there is a past history of gross disturbance (Rodwell 1992). Because most soils capable of supporting CG6 have passed into agricultural management, the community is relatively scarce.

3.3.2 Pioneering Calcareous Grassland

The vegetation of the lower terrace was quite different in floristics and physiognomy to the well-established CG7 nearby and analysis of quadrats sampled there (application site only) in June indicated that whilst it could not be regarded as a good example of CG7, it would probably be most appropriately considered to be pioneering vegetation gradually developing into CG7 over time. The substrate appeared to be chalk with a thin upper horizon of silt and flints.

Together, Trichostomum crispulum and Cladonia rangiformis were co-dominant across the terrace, reaching as much as 50% ground cover in places. Potentilla tabernaemontani was also more abundant in this vegetation community than anywhere else in the application site, forming dense clonal patches a metre or more in diameter in places. Exposed flints and patches of bare soil were also frequent and overall the cover of vascular species was sparse. Constant and/or preferential species included many of those in the adjoining CG7 community including Viola hirta, Poterium sanguisorba, Centaurium erythraea, Self-heal Prunella vulgaris and the mosses Didymodon fallax and Abietinella abietina var. hystricosa.

SLR Clean Power Properties Ltd 11 402.03620.00004 App 12-3: Botanical Survey and Assessment November 2013

Scrub invasion of the lower terrace comprised a swarm of scattered young bushes of Wild Privet Ligustrum vulgare, Dogwood Cornus sanguinea and Bramble Rubus fruticosus aggregate. At the northern end of the terrace and along the edge of cutting wall to the west scrub invasion was well advanced, swallowing up areas of open ground. Ant-hills within the scrub did however provide sheltered habitat for a small population of Vulpia unilateralis.

3.3.3 Calcicolous Scrub

Scrub was widespread across the SINC, where it formed a mosaic with the chalk grassland and other open vegetation communities. Well-grown stands occupied parts of the bank, much of the upper terrace and the steep chalky wall of the railway cutting at the southern end.

It comprised rich mixtures of such calcicolous species as Cornus sanguinea, Ligustrum vulgare and Wayfaring-tree Viburnum lantana, together with Crataegus monogyna, Rubus fruticosus agg., Rosa canina and Blackthorn Prunus spinosa. Occasionally, Silver Birch Betula pendula or Sycamore Acer pseudoplatanus occurred within the scrub. Underneath, residual grassland plants such as Fragaria vesca, Agrimony Agrimonia eupatoria and the moss Homalothecium lutescens indicated that the scrub had invaded previously open grassland and was not of any great age. A stand of scrub on the northfacing bank in the proposed mitigation area supported a population of the local moss Seligeria calycina, growing directly on chalk fragments in deep shade. Several common epiphytic bryophytes were also frequent on the branches of some of the bushes.

Analysis of quadrats sampled in scrub on the banks in the proposed mitigation area confirmed that the community, when well-grown at least, could be classified as W21 Crataegus monogyna- Hedera helix scrub, Viburnum lantana (d) sub-community. Rodwell (1991) describes this as the most distinctive sub-community of W21 scrub, most commonly found on dry, oligotrophic chalk and limestone rendzinas in southern and eastern Britain.

3.4 Lichens

3.4.1 Lichen Assemblage

The lichens and associated fungi recorded in 2013 are listed in Appendix G. A total of 46 taxa were recorded, including one non-lichenised associated fungi and two obligate fungal parasites of lichens (lichenicolus fungi). Of these 33 were found on natural downland habitats and 11 were epiphytes, the rest were confined to artificial substrates such as concrete and imported limestone hardcore. The upper terrace proved to be very species poor, while the middle terrace was the richest downland habitat, with 32 taxa on natural substrates and 36 in total. The lower terrace proved to be a little less rich with 25 taxa recorded on natural substrates and 27 in total.

The assemblage on the open chalk habitats included one species listed in Section 41 of the NERC Act, Toninia sedifolia Nb (S41), one Nationally Scarce species Agonimia gelatinosa Nb (NS) and one rarely recorded lichen fungal parasite Polycoccum peltigerae [NR]. As well as these uncommon species, several more widespread species are characteristic calcicolous grassland species, including: Agonimia tristicula, Bacidia bagliettoana, Bilimbia sabuletorum, Cladonia furcata subsp. subrangiformis, Diploschistes muscorum, Leptogium pulvinatum, Leptogium schraderi, Peltigera rufescens and Placidium squamulosum.

SLR Clean Power Properties Ltd 12 402.03620.00004 App 12-3: Botanical Survey and Assessment November 2013

3.4.2 Lichen Communities

The distribution of lichen rich vegetation is shown on Drawing 03, with the target note location shown on Drawing 04 and the notes listed in Appendix H.

The upper terrace proved to be lichen poor with a few patches of Cladonia furcata subsp. subrangiformis and Cladonia rangiformis in shorter patches in the long swards and some Peltigera rufescens on the disturbed track by the entrance.

The short, open and rabbit grazed grassland of the lower and middle terraces and the slope above were very different, with lichen rich vegetation widespread (Drawing 03). Lichens occur in the grasslands in open patches where the bryophyte cover is lower and on the frequent flints scattered across the grassland.

The most distinctive assemblages, with many downland species, are found on the more open areas of the grasslands, with the large False Reindeermoss species Cladonia furcata (mainly as the form distorted by calcium oxalate crystal called Cladonia furcata subsp. subrangiformis) and Cladonia rangiformis widespread and sometimes dominant along with patches of the Dogtooth Peltigera rufescens. The medium sized Pixiecup Cladonia pocillum, also widespread but is largely overgrown and parasitised by Diploschistes muscorum, which starts life as a Cladonia parasite but later it becomes an independent lichen. The smaller bluegreen algae containing lichens Collema auriforme and Leptogium schraderi are also widespread. These species are found across the lower and middle terraces, but the middle terrace is much richer in small terricolous species. Of these Agonimia gelatinosa Nb (NS), Bacidia bagliettoana and Placidium squamulosum are much less frequent on the lower terrace than on the middle terrace, while Agonimia tristicula, Placynthium nigrum and Toninia sedifolia Nb (S41) were only recorded on the middle terrace or the slope above. The smaller species are found on patches of soil crust, free of bryophyte cover, which have been stabilised by a biocrust. This is best developed in the more closed vegetation of the middle terrace. In contrast, the more open lower terrace has large patches of bare ground, which are very disturbed and churned on small scale, probably by frost heave, which are not stabilised by biocrusts. The larger lichen Leptogium pulvinatum was also only found on the middle terrace and the slope above.

A distinctive feature on the slope above the middle terrace is the exposed woody root stocks of Thyme and some bitten down stumps of Hawthorn, where exposed by slope erosion. These are dominated by the characteristic Bilimbia sabuletorum but with the local Bacidia arceutina also recorded on a Hawthorn stump.

The flints are also quite rich but lack any distinctive uncommon species. The most abundant species were Verrucaria nigrescens f. nigrescens and Protoblastenia rupestris, species of base and nutrient enriched situations, along with typical species of such habitats, including Aspicilia contorta subsp. contorta, Candelariella vitellina f. vitellina, Catillaria chalybeia var. chalybeia, Lecania erysibe s. str., Lecidella scabra, Lecanora dispersa, Verrucaria muralis and Xanthoria parietina. Species confined to siliceous rocks are much less prominent but included Buellia ocellata, Lecidea grisella, Rhizocarpon reductum and Porpidia soredizodes.

Hard chalk pebbles can be a significant lichen substrate in some downlands but the chalk at Micheldever is too soft and the chalk pebbles exposed on the slope above the middle terrace has only a limited lichen assemblage.

The epiphytic lichen assemblage on the shrubs and trees is very limited and typical of recently colonised twigs in nutrient rich habitats.

SLR Clean Power Properties Ltd 13 402.03620.00004 App 12-3: Botanical Survey and Assessment November 2013

In terms of the vascular plants present the grassland is referable to the Festuca ovina – Pilosella officinalis – Thymus polytrichus/pulegioides Grassland, Fragaria vesca – Erigeron acer sub-community (CG7d) as described by Ralfs (2012). This is rare community of formerly cultivated low nutrient status soils on the chalk, which have run down to rabbit grazed downland after abandonment. This community does not typically have a rich lichen assemblage, however, and the lichen assemblage recorded here is similar that of the Festuca ovina – Pilosella officinalis – Thymus polytrichus/pulegioides Grassland, Ditrichum flexicaule s. lat. – Diploschistes muscorum sub-community (CG7d) NVC community but lacks the rarest characteristic species. The NVC community CG7d is a very rare one confined to the Brecklands where it has degraded and declined in recent decades.

3.4.3 Species of Interest

The following species of national interest were recorded (Drawing 04):

Toninia sedifolia Nb (S41): a widespread but local and declining species limestone and chalk, listed as a BAP and Schedule 41 species. Noted as declining on the chalk (Gilbert, 1993), with few records for Hampshire (Sandell & Rose, 1994), where the Micheldever Spoil Heaps SSSI is a noted site. Toninia sedifolia was confined to the middle terrace and the slopes above (Drawing 03). It occurred rarely in open areas in the sward, with larger colonies along the track, where stable open areas within the swards are more widespread.

Agonimia gelatinosa Nb (NS): a tiny nationally scarce lichen of calcareous soils. The species as previously recorded has recently been split into Agonimia gelatinosa s. str. and Agonimia globulifera (also Nb (NS)). The latter is thought to be more widespread in the lowlands, with most confirmed records of Agonimia gelatinosa s. str. from submontane and montane habitats (Smith et al, 2009). In Hampshire Agonimia globulifera has been recently confirmed from base enriched soils within heathland in the New Forest, but all six old records of Agonimia gelatinosa s. lat. were from the chalk (Sandell & Rose, 1994). There was no record from the Micheldever area. In 2013 Agonimia gelatinosa s. str. was found in established biocrusts mainly in the middle terrace but also on one site on the lower terrace (Drawing 03). It is possible that this is the only site for this mainly upland Agonimia gelatinosa s. str. from Hampshire; the other old chalk records could be of Agonimia globulifera.

Polycoccum peltigerae [NR]: a rarely recorded fungal parasite of Dogtooths Peltigera species, usually Peltigera rufescens. The BLS database has scattered records for fungi from Northern England, Scotland and Wales and a single record from south west England. Most are from dunes and limestone grasslands, where its host is most frequent. This database had no records for southern England and the record is new to Hampshire. This lichenicolous fungi is likely to be much under recorded but is probably confined to good quality sites with high populations of Peltigera species, especially Peltigera rufescens. In 2013 it was recorded from two colonies of Peltigera rufescens (on the lower and upper terraces.

Most species characteristic of high quality downland are found throughout the lichen rich grasslands but some more localised species are mapped on Drawing 03. These are Leptogium pulvinatum, previously only known from Micheldever Spoil Heaps SSSI in Hampshire, but possibly recorded as Leptogium gelatinosum on other downlands and Placynthium nigrum. The latter lichen is a common species of hard limy rocks but is uncommon on soil.

SLR Clean Power Properties Ltd 14 402.03620.00004 App 12-3: Botanical Survey and Assessment November 2013

4.0 DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION

4.1 Botanical

Evaluation of species and assemblages follows guidelines set out by the Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (2006)1.

When Micheldever Oil Terminal SINC was surveyed and described by HBIC in 1992, the rich chalk grassland communities were cited as the primary reason for its notification as a SINC (Appendix VI). Twenty years on, unimproved calcareous grassland remains a major feature of the site, affirming its status as a SINC, but natural succession and lack of management have catalysed significant changes. The CG7d Festuca-Hieracium-Thymus community has spread outward from the bank (where it is still well represented) and has replaced CG2 Festuca ovina-Avenula pratensis grassland across the middle terrace. This change may have been driven most significantly by continuous high levels of grazing by the large rabbit population that is present there.

CG7 is one of the richest and rarest of the lowland unimproved calcareous grassland communities, with significant stands remaining at Porton Down, in Wiltshire, and in the Breckland. It is also, along with CG6 Avenula pubescens grassland, one of the qualifying communities of the Lowland Calcareous Grassland UKBAP Priority Habitat type.

At the time of notification as a SINC the lower terrace was described as supporting a ‘disturbed sward’ which shares many of the floristic indicators still seen there in 2013 in the pioneering CG7. The presence of Potentilla tabernaemontani was noted there at that time but the present distribution of this species suggests that the population across all suitable habitats in the SINC has increased considerably in the last 20 years.

Scrub invasion, soil accumulation and other edaphic changes linked to natural succession are likely to have promoted changes to the floristics and vegetation structure of the upper terrace, which no longer supports an extensive stand of CG2 grassland. Instead, it has been replaced by the more mesotrophic CG6 Avenula pubescens grassland. Rodwell (1992) cites CG2 as one of the precursors to CG6 grassland, describing how coarse grasses can spread outwards into the sward from ant-hills. Some of the variants of CG6 are also known to progress rapidly to scrub without management, as appears to be currently happening.

The parched, highly alkaline and oligotrophic nature of the bank, middle and lower terrace (including the ballast circle and former track) provides a rare combination of conditions that provide habitat for the suite of notable plants and bryophytes now present in the application site and elsewhere in the SINC. Given that Micheldever Spoil Heaps SSSI supports similar habitats and is only 300m away, it is unsurprising that the two sites share most of the notable species, including Abietinella abietina var. hystricosa, Potentilla tabernaemontani, Teucrium botrys and Vulpia unilateralis.

As a means of evaluating the national importance of a site, JNCC’s selection guidelines for biological SSSIs, whilst slightly out of date, are very useful. Under the current selection guidelines for communities of non-vascular plants (Hodgetts 1992), the presence of populations of two nationally scarce bryophytes (Abietinella abietina var. hystricosa and Didymodon acutus) would not score sufficiently highly to merit SSSI selection. However, the whole SINC should certainly be regarded as a fine example of a rich chalk grassland

1 Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (2006) Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom

SLR Clean Power Properties Ltd 15 402.03620.00004 App 12-3: Botanical Survey and Assessment November 2013 bryophyte assemblage and of high county importance. As previously discussed, most of the richest bryophyte habitat is within the CG7 of the application site.

The SSSI selection criteria for vascular plants (JNCC 1989) sets out that all ‘viable populations’ of Schedule 8 plants qualify as a SSSI. A Schedule 8 plant (Teucrium botrys) is found within the site. This is an outlier colony of the local population centred within the Micheldever Spoil Heaps SSSI. The SSSI near to the application site therefore safeguards the core of the population of this dynamic species (a short lived plant requiring bare ground and disturbance to survive). Though such outlier colonies do contribute to the survival of such a population they are not entirely critical to its viability. It is therefore considered to contributing to the value of a colony of national importance. The presence of populations of two other nationally scarce species present (Potentilla tabernaemontani and Vulpia unilateralis) would also be considered important.

Because of its relatively small size, neither the application site nor the entire SINC would meet the SSSI selection criteria for lowland grassland, despite containing qualifying grassland communities (CG6 and CG7). JNCC (1989 as amended) states that a minimum of 10ha (single communities) or 20ha (mixed communities) is the minimum area.

Whilst most of the survey effort for this assessment was concentrated on that part of Micheldever Oil Terminal SINC included in the application site, NVC sampling of different stands (or areas) of calcareous grassland, pioneering vegetation and calcicolous scrub confirmed that vegetation communities and species present in the potential mitigation area are very similar to their counterparts in the application site.

4.2 Lichens

The 2013 lichen survey of the Micheldever Oil Terminal SINC found one BAP/ NERC Act, Section 41 lichen, Toninia sedifolia, one Nationally Scarce lichen Agonimia gelatinosa s. str., which is the first confirmed record of the nominate segregate of Agonimia gelatinosa s. lat. from Hampshire. The Nationally Rare, but certainly under recorded, fungal parasite Polycoccum peltigerae found on Peltigera rufescens, the parasite is also new to Hampshire. This would not be an assemblage of national interest (i.e. SSSI quality) following Hodgetts (1992), although these guidelines are out of date and do not deal with Section 41 species. There can be no doubt, however, that this is an assemblage of county importance.

The lichen assemblage of the SINC could also be regarded as an extension of the lichen interest of the Micheldever Spoil Heaps meta site, which is within the Micheldever Spoil Heaps SSSI. The SSSI is with 100m of the SINC at the closest point. The SINC shares most of the downland species recorded within the SSSI, but Agonimia gelatinosa s. str. Nb (NS) has not been recorded from the SSSI and some of the rarest species of the spoil heaps, e.g. Cladonia symphycarpia Nb (NS) and Placidium pilosellum NT (NS) were not found in the SINC.

Gilbert (1993) carried out a survey of chalk grasslands across England and graded the importance of the sites surveyed. They did not survey Micheldever Spoil Heaps, probably because of access difficulties. His data can be compared to the result of the 2013 survey of Micheldever Oil Terminal SINC. This data shows the chalk pebble assemblage of the SINC to be very poor, with Gilbert (1993) recording between 4 to 28 species per site. This is probably because the site lacks any hard chalk rock horizons. The lichen assemblages on the flints were much more respectable with a total of 17 species recorded from the SINC. Gilbert (1993) records a range of 3 to 41 species with only six out of twenty sites richer than the SINC. For the terricolous species a total of 19 species were recorded from the SINC. Gilbert (1993) records a range of 3 to 42 species with nine out of twenty sites richer than the SINC. For the latter, the sites assessed by Gilbert as internationally or nationally important

SLR Clean Power Properties Ltd 16 402.03620.00004 App 12-3: Botanical Survey and Assessment November 2013 for chalk downland terricolous lichens had 18 – 42 species terricolous, while the regionally important sites ranged from 13 – 23 species terricolous. For flints the equivalent numbers for lichen assemblages on flints are 6 – 41 species on nationally important for chalk downland and 7 – 22 species for regionally important sites.

The results of this comparison, along with the presence of rare species, would suggest that the lichen assemblage of Micheldever Oil Terminal SINC is of regional importance in the terms of Gilbert (1993). Of the regionally important sites in southern England listed by Gilbert (1990), all but one are within SSSIs.

The lichen assemblage in the Micheldever Oil Terminal SINC is of regional importance using the definition of Gilbert (1993); it is certainly well qualified as a SINC on its lichen interest alone.

SLR Clean Power Properties Ltd 17 402.03620.00004 App 12-3: Botanical Survey and Assessment November 2013

REFERENCES

Biodiversity Reporting and Information Group (2007) Report on the Species and Habitat Review, Report to the UK Biodiversity Partnership. Peterborough: JNCC.

Coppins, B. J. (2002) Checklist of Lichens of Great Britain and Ireland. London: British Lichen Society.

Dobson F.S. 2000. Lichens. An Illustrated Guide to the British and Irish Species (4th Edition). The Richmond Publishing Co., Slough.

Gilbert, O. L. (1993) The lichens of chalk grassland. The Lichenologist 25: 379-414.

Hawksworth, D. L. (2003) The lichenicolous fungi of Great Britain and Ireland: an overview and annotated checklist. The Lichenologist. 35: 191-232.

Hill M.O., Blackstock T.H., Long D.G. and Rothero G.P. 2008. A Checklist and Census Catalogue of British and Irish Bryophytes. British Bryological Society.

Hodgetts, N. G. (1992) Guidelines for Selection of Biological SSSIs: Non-Vascular Plants. Peterborough: JNCC.

Hodgetts, N. G. (2007) Compiling Dossiers for Bryophytes and Lichens – Final Report. An unpublished report by Nick Hodgetts Botanical Services for English Nature/Natural England Contract No. VT0527

IUCN (2001) IUCN Red List Categories & Criteria. Version 3.1. Gland, Switzerland, IUCN.

JNCC. 1989. Guidelines for the Selection of Biological SSSIs. Online at www.jncc.defra.gov.uk

Mundell R and M. and A.R.G. 2011. Hampshire Rare Plant Register. Trollius Publications.

Preston C.D., Pearman D.A. and Dines T.D. 2002. New Atlas of the British and Irish Flora. Oxford University Press.

Purvis O. W., Coppins B. J., Hawksworth, D. L., James P. W. & Moore, D. M. (1992) The Lichen Flora of Great Britain and Ireland. London: British Lichen Society.

Ralfs. I. (2012) Micheldever Oil Terminal SINC, 24th September and 12th October 2012. Comments on species and habitats. An unpublished survey report by HBIC.

Rodwell J.S. (Ed.) 1992. British Plant Communities Volume 1: Woodlands and scrub. Cambridge University Press.

Rodwell J.S. (Ed.) 1992. British Plant Communities Volume 3: Grasslands and montane communities. Cambridge University Press.

Rodwell J.S. (Ed.) 2006. National Vegetation Classification user’s handbook. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough.

Sandell, K. A. & Rose, F. (1996). The Lichen Flora. In: The Flora of Hampshire (ed. A. Brewis, P. Bowman & F. Rose) 306-324. Harley Books, Colchester, Essex.

SLR Clean Power Properties Ltd 18 402.03620.00004 App 12-3: Botanical Survey and Assessment November 2013

Sanderson, N. A. (2006) Woolmer Link Road: Monitoring of Lichen and Ephemeral Rich Acid Grassland, 2006. An EPR report to Hampshire County Council.

Sanderson, N. A. (2009) North Exmoor SSSI – Site Dossier for Lichen Interest. An unpublished report by Botanical Survey & Assessment to English Nature.

Sanderson, N. A. (2011) Scoring of threatened, rare and scarce lichens for site assessment. British Lichen Society Bulletin. 109: 12-24.

Smith, C. W., Aptroot, A., Coppins, B. J., Fletcher, A., Gilbert, O. L., James P.W. & Wolseley. P. A. (2009) The of Lichens of Great Britain and Ireland. London: British Lichen Society.

Stace C.A. 2010. New Flora of the British Isles (3rd Edition). Cambridge University Press

Woods, R. G. & Coppins, B. J. (2003) A Conservation Evaluation of Lichens. London: British Lichen Society.

Woods, R. G. & Coppins, B. J. (2012) Species Status No. 13 A Conservation Evaluation of British Lichens and Lichenicolous Fungi. Peterborough: JNCC.

SLR Clean Power Properties Ltd 19 402.03620.00004 App 12-3: Botanical Survey and Assessment November 2013

FIGURES

SLR Clean Power Properties Ltd 20 402.03620.00004 App 12-3: Botanical Survey and Assessment November 2013

SLR Clean Power Properties Ltd 21 402.03620.00004 App 12-3: Botanical Survey and Assessment November 2013

SLR Clean Power Properties Ltd 22 402.03620.00004 App 12-3: Botanical Survey and Assessment November 2013

SLR Clean Power Properties Ltd 23 402.03620.00004 App 12-3: Botanical Survey and Assessment November 2013

SLR Clean Power Properties Ltd 24 402.03620.00004 App 12-3: Botanical Survey and Assessment November 2013

APPENDIX A: CRITERIA USED TO DEFINE VASCULAR PLANTS AND BRYOPHYTES OF CONSERVATION SIGNIFICANCE

Conservation Status Definition Source - Bryophytes Source - Plants Category A revised list of A taxon present in 1-15 10km nationally rare Nationally Rare Ordnance Survey grid squares in bryophytes (2010) (NR) Britain post-1950 by C.D Preston, in New Atlas of the

Field Bryology 100 British and Irish Flora (2002) by C.D A revised list of Preston, D.A. Pearman A taxon present in 16-100 10km nationally scarce and T.D. Dines. Nationally Ordnance Survey grid squares in bryophytes (2006) Extent Scarce (NS) Britain post-1950 by C.D Preston, in

Field Bryology 90

LR – a taxon recorded in 1-3 sites Hampshire Rare Locally Rare in North Hampshire since 1987. Plant Register (2011) (LR) or Locally LS - recorded in 4-10 sites since Not applicable by M. Rand and A. Scarce (LS) 1987. Mundell.

Critically A taxon facing an extremely high Endangered risk of regional extinction in the (CR) wild in the near future.

A taxon that is not CR but facing Endangered an very high risk of regional EN) extinction in the wild in the immediate future.

A taxon that is not CR or EN, but Vulnerable facing a high risk of regional (VU) extinction in the medium-term future. The Vascular Plant A revised Red List Red Data List for A taxon that has been evaluated of bryophytes in Threat (IUCN Great Britain (2005) against the criteria but does not Britain (2011) by Red List) by JNCC (Eds. C.M qualify for CR, EN or VU, but is N.G. Hodgetts, in Field Cheffings and L. close to qualifying for a Bryology 103 Farrell). threatened category in the future. Near Threatened A taxon is regarded as close to (NT) qualifying for a threatened category in Britain if it occurs in 6- 15 10km squares (post-1979) but it has not declined; or in 16-19 10km squares (post-1979) and has declined.

Least Concern A taxon that occurs in 20 or more (LC) hectads (post-1979) or in 16-19 hectads (post-1979) and shows no decline A taxon identified by the Section 41 of the Conservation Section 41 Secretary of State as being of Natural Environment principle importance for the and Rural

SLR Clean Power Properties Ltd 25 402.03620.00004 App 12-3: Botanical Survey and Assessment November 2013

Conservation Status Definition Source - Bryophytes Source - Plants Category purpose of conserving Communities (NERC) biodiversity in England. Act 2006

A taxon identified as being the UKBAP Priority most threatened and requiring Species conservation action under the UK UK Biodiversity Action Biodiversity Action Plan (UK Plan (as updated) BAP).

SLR Clean Power Properties Ltd 26 402.03620.00004 App 12-3: Botanical Survey and Assessment November 2013

APPENDIX B: CRITERIA USED TO DEFINE LICHENS OF CONSERVATION SIGNIFICANCE RARITY & THREAT

The British Lichen Society reassessed the rarity and level of threat to lichen species (Woods & Coppins, 2003) and this replaced previous Red Data Books and lists of Nationally Rare and Scarce species. A second review has been completed and was published in 2012 (Woods & Coppins, 2012).

The following categories are used:

Rarity.

This is a simple assessment of geographical rarity:  Nationally Rare: recorded from 15 or less 10x10km national grid squares.  Nationally Scarce: recorded from 16 to 100 10x10km national grid squares.

Hodgetts (1992) gives a scoring system with 200 points given to a Schedule 8 species, 100 points given to a Nationally Rare species and 50 to a Nationally Scarce species with a total of 200 or more in southern indicating an SSSI quality rare lower plant assemblage. Hodgetts (2007) stressed that this is intended as a guideline rather than a rule. This system always seem to be fitted more to bryophytes than lichens. It is now even less satisfactory; with the application of the Red Data Book (RDB) threat criteria threat criteria to the whole lichen flora, many Nationally Scarce species are now recognised as being Near Threatened or an even higher threat level. In addition, some Nationally Rare species are under recorded ephemeral species and have not been assessed as threatened at all. As a result, a different scoring system was proposed and tested in the recent Exmoor SSSI site dossiers (RDB/Nb Scoring) (Sanderson, 2009) and is now published (Sanderson, 2011) (see below). Woods & Coppins (2012) have also given the NR & NS status for fungi parasitising lichens (lichenicolous fungi), which are not included within the lichen flora (Smith et al, 2009). These are mainly very under recorded and are not used in any calculations of scores or numbers of NR or NS species in this report.

Threat.

This is based on the International Union for Nature Conservation criteria (IUNC, 2001) that takes factors such as decline and population into account, as well as geographic restriction. A series of complex, but fairly self explanatory, categories are used. Of these, Extinct, Critically Endangered, Endangered, Vulnerable and Near Threatened are collectively referred to here as Red Data Book (RDB) species. The occurrence of any of these species is of national significance. Data Deficient species are those that may be of RDB status but for which insufficient data was available to fully assess their status.

International Responsibility Species.

This was a new category in Coppins & Woods (2003) that recognises that some species are commoner in Britain than elsewhere. They are absent, rare or threatened in the rest of Europe and are thought, on existing data, to have 10% or more of their European or World population in Britain. These could be considered as more important than some Red Data Book species, which are common elsewhere in the world. The significance of these species depends on their actual British and local rarity but special attention needs to be paid to them in management.

SLR Clean Power Properties Ltd 27 402.03620.00004 App 12-3: Botanical Survey and Assessment November 2013

Section 41 Species/Biodiversity Action Plan Species.

Any priority species listed in the former UK Biodiversity Action Plan are also indicated in the above summary (S41). The BAP priority species are species thought to be under particular threat. The BAP list had been revised (Biodiversity Reporting and Information Group, 2007) and, unlike the earlier list, is a reasonably comprehensive list of those lichen species likely to be under particular stress and amenable to conservation action to reverse this. Conservation of these species is regarded as being an important contribution to Britain’s obligations under the Rio Convention on Biodiversity. Collectively, however, they are not an objective tool for assessing site conservation importance, RDB assessments and the Nationally Rare and Scarce assessments of restricted national distribution provide this.

The English species in the BAP list have now made into Species of Principal Importance in England under The Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act. The S41 list is used to guide decision-makers such as public bodies, including local and regional authorities, in implementing their duty under section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, to have regard to the conservation of biodiversity in England, when carrying out their normal functions.

Summary & RDB/Notable Scoring System.

The above system, with three separate assessments, is rather complex, so the rarity and threat status of species is summarised in the text below as ‘Red Data Book species’ as defined above, with all other Data Deficient, Nationally Scarce, S41 or International Responsibility species called ‘Notable species’. With both categories, the rarity or International Responsibility status is indicated in brackets e.g. Near Threatened (NS/IR) or Notable (IR). This is not an official system but simply used as a presentational convenience. Any priority species listed in the UK Biodiversity Action Plan are also indicated in the above summary (BAP).

It has, however, been used as the basis of a more appropriate scoring system than that given in Hodgetts (1992). In this system the following scores are used:  Red Data Book species with a threat level of Vulnerable or higher = 200  Red Data Book species with a threat level of Near Threatened = 100  Notable species (NR, NS, IR or S41 species which are not RDB NT or higher. Includes species listed as Data Deficient in the RDB) = 50.

Trials with this system indicated that a score of 600 was a reasonable guideline threshold for SSSI quality across southern English epiphytic sites. There is not a noticeable increase in the combined RBD and Notable species in the south west England over south central England (there tend to be less RDB and more Notables in the SW and the reverse in south central England) that would justify a differential score for the two regions as given in Hodgetts (1992). This regional differential appears to be a feature of bryophyte floras not epiphytic lichen floras. Sea cliff and eastern woodland habitats, with fewer International Responsibility species, gave similar scores to the NR/NS scoring system. Some lowland habitats, such as heaths and chalk grasslands can be of high interest for their lichen assemblages, without being rich in nationally rare species. These are probably best assessed using habitat quality indicator lists. One is being devised for heathlands, but there has been no recent work on chalk grassland, although Gilbert (1993) gives a good indication of the numbers of species to be expected in rich chalk grassland sites.

SLR Clean Power Properties Ltd 28 402.03620.00004 App 12-3: Botanical Survey and Assessment November 2013

Abbreviations used in the text are listed below:  RDB = Red Data Book Species, (CR, EN, VU & NT Species)  CR = Critically Endangered Red Data Book species  EN = Endangered Red Data Book species  VU = Vulnerable Red Data Book species  NT = Near Threatened Red Data Book species  DD = Species listed as Data Deficient in the Red Data Book  Nb = Notable species (NR, NS, IR or BAP species not RDB NT or higher)  NR = Nationally Rare  NS = Nationally Scarce  IR = International Responsibility species  S41 = Section 41 Species

Local Status.

Local rarity was determined by consulting Sandell & Rose (1996) and the NBN .

SLR Clean Power Properties Ltd 29 402.03620.00004 App 12-3: Botanical Survey and Assessment November 2013

APPENDIX C: BRYOPHTE SPECIES LIST Species Abundance (DAFOR) Abietinella abietina var. hystricosa F Aloina aloides O Barbula convolute O Barbula sardoa R Barbula unguiculata R Brachythecium rutabulum O Bryum argenteum O Bryum capillare R Bryum dichotomum O Bryum pallens O Bryum rubens O Bryum ruderale O Calliergonella cuspidate O Campylium protensum R Cryphaea heteromalla O Ctenidium molluscum F Dicranella varia O Didymodon acutus O Didymodon fallax F Didymodon insulanus O Ditrichum flexicaule R Ditrichum gracile LA Encalypta streptocarpa O Encalypta vulgaris R Entodon concinnus LF Eurhynchium striatum O Fissidens dubius O Fissidens taxifolius O Frullania dilatata O Grimmia pulvinata R Homalothecium lutescens A Hypnum cupressiforme var. lacunosum F Kindbergia praelonga O Leiocolea badensis R Leiocolea turbinata R Metzgeria furcata O Microbryum curvicollum R Microbryum floerkeanum R Orthotrichum affine LF Orthotrichum anomalum R Orthotrichum diaphanum O Phascum cuspidatum R Pseudoscleropodium purum LF Rhytidiadelphus squarrosus LA Rhytidiadelphus triquetrus R Schistidium crassipilum O Seligeria calycina O Syntrichia ruralis R Tortula lanceola R Tortula muralis R Tortula protobryoides R Trichostomum crispulum A Ulota phyllantha R Weissia brachycarpa var. obliqua LF Weissia controversa O Weissia longifolia var. angustifolia R

SLR Clean Power Properties Ltd 30 402.03620.00004 App 12-3: Botanical Survey and Assessment November 2013

Zygodon viridissimus

SLR Clean Power Properties Ltd 31 402.03620.00004 App 12-3: Botanical Survey and Assessment November 2013

APPENDIX D VASCULAR PLANT SPECIES LIST - APPLICATION SITE Scientific name Common name Acer pseudoplatanus Sycamore Achillea millefolium Yarrow Agrimonia eupatoria Agrimony Agrostis capillaris Common Bent Agrostis stolonifera Creeping Bent Anagallis arvensis Scarlet Pimpernel Arenaria serpyllifolia Thyme-leaved Speedwell Arrhenatherum elatius False Oat-grass Bellis perennis Daisy Brachypodium sylvaticum False Brome Briza media Quaking-grass Campanula rotundifolia Harebell Carex flacca Glaucous Sedge Catapodium rigidum Fern-grass Centaurea nigra Common Knapweed Centaurium erythraea Common Centaury Cerastium fontanum Common Mouse-ear Cirsium acaule Dwarf Thistle Cirsium arvense Creeping Thistle Cirsium vulgare Spear Thistle Clinopodium acinos Basil Thyme Clinopodium vulgare Wild Thyme Cornus sanguinea Dogwood Cotoneaster horizontalis Wall Cotoneaster Crataegus monogyna Hawthorn Crepis capillaris Smooth Hawk’s-beard Cynoglossum officinale Hound’s-tongue Dactylis glomerata Cock’s-foot Echium vulgare Viper’s-bugloss Epilobium sp. A willowherb Erigeron acris Blue Fleabane Euphrasia nemorosa Common Eyebright Festuca ovina Sheep’s-fescue Festuca rubra Red Fescue Fragaria vesca Wild Strawberry Galium parisiense Wall Bedstraw Glechoma hederacea Ground-ivy Hieracium aggregate A hawkweed Holcus lanatus Yorkshire-fog Hypericum perforatum Perforate St. John’s-wort Inula conyzae Ploughman’s-spikenard Iris foetidissima Stinking Iris Leontodon hispidus Rough Hawkbit Leontodon saxatilis Lesser Hawkbit Ligustrum vulgare Wild Privet Linum catharticum Fairy Flax Lotus corniculatus Common Bird’s-foot-trefoil Luzula campestris Field Wood-rush Malva moschata Musk-mallow Mercurialis perennis Dog’s Mercury Myosotis arvensis Field Forget-me-not Pilosella officinarum Mouse-ear Hawkweed Plantago lanceolata Ribwort Plantain Plantago major Greater Plantain Plantago media Hoary Plantain Poa annua Annual Meadow-grass Poa pratensis Smooth Meadow-grass

SLR Clean Power Properties Ltd 32 402.03620.00004 App 12-3: Botanical Survey and Assessment November 2013

Polygala vulgaris Common Milkwort Potentilla reptans Creeping Cinquefoil Potentilla tabernaemontani Spring Cinquefoil Poterium sanguisorba Salad Burnet Prunella vulgaris Self-heal Prunus spinosa Blackthorn Ranunculus repens Creeping Buttercup Rhamnus cathartica Buckthorn Rosa canina Dog-rose Rubus caesius A bramble Rubus fruticosus aggregate Bramble Rumex acetosa Common Sorrel Sagina apetala Annual Pearlwort Sambucus nigra Elder Scorzoneroides autumnalis Autumn Hawkbit Senecio jacobaea Common Ragwort Taraxacum aggregate Dandelion Teucrium botrys Cut-leaved Germander Thymus polytrichus Wild Thyme Trifolium repens White Clover Trisetum flavescens Yellow Oat-grass Verbascum thapsus Great Mullein Veronica arvensis Wall Speedwell Veronica chamaedrys Germander Speedwell Veronica serpyllifolia Thyme-leaved Speedwell Viburnum lantana Wayfaring-tree Viola hirta Hairy Violet Vulpia bromoides Squirreltail Fescue Vulpia unilateralis Mat-grass Fescue

SPECIES LIST - AREA OF BALLAST Species Abundance (DAFOR1) Abietinella abietina var. hystricosa F Anagallis arvensis O Aphanes arvensis R Arenaria serpyllifolia R Bellis perennis O Campylium protensum R Catapodium rigidum O Centaurium erythraea F Cerastium fontanum O Cladonia rangiformis F Clinopodium acinos O Didymodon fallax F Echium vulgare R Encalypta streptocarpa F Entodon concinnus O Epilobium sp. R Erigeron acris F Fissidens dubius F Fragaria vesca A Galium parisiense O Glechoma hederacea R Homalothecium lutescens F Inula conyzae R Ligustrum vulgare O Myosotis arvensis O

SLR Clean Power Properties Ltd 33 402.03620.00004 App 12-3: Botanical Survey and Assessment November 2013

Poa annua R Potentilla reptans R Potentilla tabernaemontani R Poterium sanguisorba F Prunella vulgaris F Sagina apetala R Senecio jacobaea O Taraxacum aggregate O Teucrium botrys R Thymus polytrichus O Trichostomum crispulum F Veronica arvensis F Viola hirta R Vulpia bromoides O

SLR Clean Power Properties Ltd 34 402.03620.00004 App 12-3: Botanical Survey and Assessment November 2013

APPENDIX E: NVC FLORISTIC TABLES – APPLICATION SITE

SLR Clean Power Properties Ltd 35 402.03620.00004 App 12-3: Botanical Survey and Assessment November 2013

SLR Clean Power Properties Ltd 36 402.03620.00004 App 12-3: Botanical Survey and Assessment November 2013

SLR Clean Power Properties Ltd 37 402.03620.00004 App 12-3: Botanical Survey and Assessment November 2013

SLR Clean Power Properties Ltd 38 402.03620.00004 App 12-3: Botanical Survey and Assessment November 2013

APPENDIX F: NVC FLORISTIC TABLES – AREA TO SOUTH OF APPLICATION SITE

SLR Clean Power Properties Ltd 39 402.03620.00004 App 12-3: Botanical Survey and Assessment November 2013

SLR Clean Power Properties Ltd 40 402.03620.00004 App 12-3: Botanical Survey and Assessment November 2013

SLR Clean Power Properties Ltd 41 402.03620.00004 App 12-3: Botanical Survey and Assessment November 2013

SLR Clean Power Properties Ltd 42 402.03620.00004 App 12-3: Botanical Survey and Assessment November 2013

APPENDIX G: LICHEN & ASSOCIATED FUNGI SPECIES LIST Lower Middle Upper Conservation Frequency Epiphytes Species Terrace Terrace Terrace Status over Site Agonimia gelatinosa s. str. T T Nb (NS) R Agonimia tristicula T R Arthonia punctiformis Bt R Aspicilia contorta subsp. contorta Fl, Cr Cr, Lm O Bacidia arceutina Ctb R Bacidia bagliettoana T T F Bilimbia sabuletorum Thy O Buellia ocellata Fl Fl R Caloplaca oasis Cr Cr R Candelariella reflexa Sm R Candelariella vitellina f. vitellina Fl, Cr Fl O Catillaria chalybeia var. chalybeia Fl, Cr Fl O Cladonia furcata subsp. furcata T T O Cladonia furcata subsp. T T T C subrangiformis Cladonia pocillum T T A Cladonia rangiformis T T T O Collema auriforme T T F Diploschistes muscorum T, Z407 T, Z407 A Fuscidea lightfootii Lvu R Lecania erysibe s. str. Fl R Lecanora albescens Cr O Lecanora campestris subsp. Fl Fl O campestris Lecanora dispersa Fl Fl R Lecidea grisella Fl Fl O Lecidella elaeochroma f. Lvu F elaeochroma Lecidella scabra Fl O Leptogium pulvinatum T R Leptogium schraderi T T F Melanelixia subaurifera Lvu, Csan O Peltigera rufescens T T T F Phaeophyscia orbicularis Sm R Sm, Csan, Fl F Physcia adscendens Vlan Physcia tenella Vlan R Placidium squamulosum T T F Placynthium nigrum T R Polycoccum peltigerae Z1051 Z1051 [NR] R Porpidia soredizodes Fl R Fl, Lm, Fl, Lm A Protoblastenia rupestris Cn Ramalina fastigiata Lvu R Rhizocarpon reductum Fl Fl F Sarcogyne regularis Cr R

SLR Clean Power Properties Ltd 43 402.03620.00004 App 12-3: Botanical Survey and Assessment November 2013

Lower Middle Upper Conservation Frequency Epiphytes Species Terrace Terrace Terrace Status over Site Toninia sedifolia T Nb (S41) O Fl, Ck, Fl F Verrucaria muralis Lm Verrucaria nigrescens f. Fl, Lm Fl, Ck C nigrescens Xanthoria calcicola Cr Cr O Xanthoria parietina T, Fl T Lvu, Sm, Vlan O Xanthoriicola physciae Lvu, Z1530 R Totals all substrates, 46 28 36 3 11 Totals downland substrates, 33 26 32 3

Key

Downland habitats:

T = Terricolous, growing on soil or mosses, Fl = Saxicolous on flint, Ck = Saxicolous on chalk, Lm = Saxicolous on limestone, Cr = Saxicolous on concrete, Z407 = On Diploschistes muscorum, Z1051 = On Peltigera rufescens, Thy = woody base of Thyme, Ctb = Rabbit browsed base of Hawthorn stub.

Epiphytic habitats:

Bt = Birch, Csan = Dog Wood, Lvu = Privet, Sm = Elder, Vlan = Wayfaring Tree, Z1530 = On Xanthoria parietina.

Conservation Status:

Nb = Notable species, (S41) = Section 41 lichen, (NS) = Nationally Scarce lichen, [NR] = Nationally rare lichenicolous fungi, likely to be very under recorded

Frequency:

C = Common, A = Abundant, F = Frequent, O = Occasional, R = Rare

SLR Clean Power Properties Ltd 44 402.03620.00004 App 12-3: Botanical Survey and Assessment November 2013

APPENDIX H: LICHEN SURVEY TARGET NOTES Name Comment Grid Reference More stable to the north of this, with F Placidium MD001 squamulosum and Bacidia bagliettoana present along with SU51927 43631 the moss Abietina abietinella locally F MD002 Rich area with Placynthium nigrum on soil SU51960 43551 MD003 Rich area with Leptogium pulvinatum SU51964 43568 MD004 Toninia sedifolia in rich area SU51976 43578 Agonimia gelatinosa (specimen retained, herbarium No. SU51991 43544 MD005 Sanderson 1946) on small patch bare soil in rich area. MD006 Toninia sedifolia on track, F SU51964 43514 MD007 On slope rich community with Leptogium pulvinatum SU51991 43510 MD008 Toninia sedifolia on track, A and fertile SU51958 43390 MD009 Toninia sedifolia on track, O SU51968 43395 MD010 Toninia sedifolia on track, O SU51965 43447 MD011 Toninia sedifolia off track, R, fertile SU51943 43487 MD012 Toninia sedifolia on track, O SU51958 43485 MD013 Toninia sedifolia on track, R SU51961 43468 Agonimia gelatinosa, on small patch of bare earth in rich SU51972 43479 MD014 area Agonimia gelatinosa in small patch of bare soil within SU51972 43483 MD015 Placidium squamulosum patch Toninia sedifolia O, and Polycoccum peltigerae SU51960 43490 MD016 parasitising Peltigera rufescens MD017 Toninia sedifolia on track, F SU51964 43505 Toninia sedifolia of track, R, with Agonimia gelatinosa in SU51955 43500 MD018 small patch of bare soil in rich area Toninia sedifolia off track, R, with Agonimia gelatinosa in SU51953 43514 MD019 small patch of bare soil in rich area MD020 Agonimia gelatinosa in small patch of bare soil in rich area SU51981 43478 Agonimia gelatinosa in small patch of bare soil within rich SU51980 43419 MD021 area South facing slope above terrace, Toninia sedifolia O, SU51981 43591 MD022 moss Abietina abietinella 8m to west MD023 South facing slope above terrace, Toninia sedifolia R SU51983 43601 MD024 South facing slope above terrace, Toninia sedifolia R SU51967 43604 Agonimia gelatinosa in small patch of bare soil within SU51902 43462 MD025 Placidium squamulosum patch MD026 Polycoccum peltigerae parasitising Peltigera rufescens SU51933 43571

SLR

ECOLOGY 12

Appendix 12-4 Rev 1

Bat Survey and Assessment (November 2013)

Land Adjacent to Micheldever Rail Sidings P a g e | 12-44 SLR Consulting Limited

Land adjacent to Micheldever Rail Siding

Appendix 12-4: Bat Survey and Assessment SLR Ref: 402-03620-00004

November 2013

Version: Rev 1

Clean Power Properties Ltd i 402.03620.00004 App 12-4: Bat Survey and Assessment November 2013

CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Legislative Background...... 1 1.2 Survey Aims ...... 1 2.0 SURVEY METHODOLOGY ...... 2 2.1 Survey Area ...... 2 2.2 Ecological Data Collection ...... 2 2.3 Field Survey Methods ...... 2 3.0 SURVEY RESULTS ...... 6 3.1 Contextual Survey: Local Distribution of Bats ...... 6 3.2 Habitats ...... 6 3.3 Tree Assessment ...... 6 3.4 Emergence and dawn surveys ...... 6 3.5 Transect Surveys ...... 7 4.0 DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION ...... 9 APPENDIX A: 2013 TREE ASSESSMENT RESULTS ...... 14 APPENDIX B: EMERGENCE SURVEY RESULTS ...... 17 APPENDIX C: 2013 ACTIVITY SURVEY RESULTS ...... 18 APPENDIX D: DETERMINATION OF COMMUTING AND FORAGING HABITAT FOR BATS ...... 20

TABLES

Table 1 Bat Tree Assessment Grades

DRAWINGS Drawing 01 Bat Tree Roost Assessment (South) Drawing 02 Bat Tree Roost Assessment (North) Drawing 03 2012 Bat Transect Survey Routes Drawing 04 2012 Bat Survey Results

SLR Clean Power Properties Ltd 1 402.03620.00004 App 12-4: Bat Survey and Assessment November 2013

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report presents the findings of bat surveys undertaken at the application site at Micheldever in 2012 and 2013. It has been prepared by SLR Consulting Limited (SLR) on behalf of Clean Power Properties Limited to provide information in support of a planning application and environmental impact assessment.

1.1 Legislative Background All British bats are protected by their inclusion on Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (as amended), 1981 (WCA) and Schedule 2 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (Habitats Regulations). In combination, this legislation fully protects bats and their roosts, making it an offence to:

 (a) deliberately capture, injure or kill any wild animal of an EPS;  (b) deliberately disturb wild animals of any such species . For the purposes of paragraph (1)(b), disturbance of animals includes in particular any disturbance which is likely— . to impair their ability—  to survive, to breed or reproduce, or to rear or nurture their young; or  in the case of animals of a hibernating or migratory species, to hibernate or migrate; or . to affect significantly the local distribution or abundance of the species to which they belong.  (c) deliberately take or destroy the eggs of such an animal; or  (d) damage or destroy a breeding site or resting place of such an animal.

Section 9(4) and 9(5) of the WCA offer additional protection to bats, i.e.:

 intentional or reckless disturbance any such animal while it is occupying a structure or place which it uses for shelter or protection;  intentional or reckless obstruction of access to any shelter or place which any such animal uses for shelter or protection;  sells, offers or exposes for sale or has in his possession or transports for the purpose of sale any live or dead animal included in Schedule 5, or any part of, or anything derived from, such an animal; or  publishes or causes to be published any advertisement likely to be understood as conveying that he buys or sells, or intends to buy or sell, any of those things.

These offences apply to all stages of the life of the animal and roosts are protected at all times, whether bats are present at the time or not.

1.2 Survey Aims

The objectives of the study were to:

 document the bat interest of the site and its surrounds through consultation and survey and to identify any areas of particular significance for bats;  evaluate the bat interest of the site in a local, regional and national context; and,  recommend sensitive design principles and outline mitigation measures to avoid, minimise or compensate for, any identified impacts.

SLR Clean Power Properties Ltd 2 402.03620.00004 App 12-4: Bat Survey and Assessment November 2013

2.0 SURVEY METHODOLOGY

2.1 Survey Area

The survey area included the application site and land surrounding it.

2.2 Ecological Data Collection

Records of bats within 2km of the application site were sought from Hampshire Biological Information Centre (HBIC). These records are reproduced below. Data received from HBIC is presented in Appendix 12-1 of Chapter 12 of the Environmental Statement.

2.3 Field Survey Methods

2.3.1 Bat Tree Assessment

No specific guidelines for assessing trees in relation to development have been produced and as such, assessment of these trees is based upon the methodologies devised for assessing trees in relation to arboricultural work together with the professional opinion of experienced SLR bat ecologists. Trees are shown on Drawings 01 and 02.

A ground-based visual assessment of the trees located adjacent to the eastern boundary of the site was undertaken on March 29th 2012 and updated on March 18th 2013. March is within the optimal season for on the ground assessments of trees (Table 4.5, page 27 – BCT guidelines). The ground based tree assessments were undertaken by R Hendry, SLR Senior Ecologist and licensed bat ecologist.

All trees with a diameter at breast height of above 300mm were carefully scrutinised from the ground to check for features that might offer potential for roosting bats - i.e. holes and cavities, cracks and splits in limbs, loose bark, ivy cover and dense ‘epicormic’ growth - as well as for evidence of bat use (i.e. droppings, scratch marks, staining around potential entry points caused by urine and natural oils in bat fur). Each inspected tree was categorised according to published BCT guidelines 1(Table 1):

Table 1 Bat Tree Assessment Grades

Tree category Description Confirmed Confirmed bat roost tree. Category 1* Trees with multiple highly suitable features capable of supporting larger roosts. Category 1 Trees with definite bat potential supporting fewer features than category 1* trees or with potential for use by single bats. Category 2 Trees with no obvious potential, although the tree is of a size and age that elevated surveys may result in cracks or crevices being found; or the tree supports some features which may have limited potential to support bats. Category 3 Trees with no potential to support bat roosts.

Trees were tagged with an aluminium tag and given a unique number, to aid future identification if required. Where additional trees were surveyed in the 2013, these have been numbered with spray paint.

1 Hundt L (2012) Bat Surveys: Good Practice Guidelines, 2nd edition ,. Bat Conservation Trust.

SLR Clean Power Properties Ltd 3 402.03620.00004 App 12-4: Bat Survey and Assessment November 2013

2.3.2 Climb and Inspect Surveys

As recommended in current best practice guidelines, all Category 1* and Category 1 which could be impacted upon by the proposed development were subject to a further survey to determine the presence of bat roosts. Trees in proximity to the proposed new access route and associated visibility splay (and therefore potentially subject to direct or indirect development impacts including felling, surgery, light spill, or other disturbance) were subject to an elevated inspection on 26 June 2013 by qualified and experienced tree climbers, led by J. Colebrook, SLR Associate Ecologist (Natural England Bat Class Licence CL18 holder).

The assessment entailed inspection of all safely accessible cracks, holes, fissures, peeling bark and dense ivy for evidence of bat roosts including bats, droppings, urine staining and scratch marks around the entrance to cavities. An endoscope was used where necessary to inspect cavities.

2.3.3 Emergence Surveys

2012

Emergence surveys were undertaken at five of the seven trees that had been provisionally identified as either Category 1* or Category 1. Trees T07, T15, T20, T21 & T26 were subject to emergence surveys. Trees T29 and T45 were considered to be a sufficient distance from the proposed development areas (at the time of the assessment) to be unaffected by proposals and were therefore not surveyed.

Each tree was subject to a single emergence survey by one surveyor. The surveyors were positioned to allow the best view of each tree; specifically, any previously identified potential roost access points. Each tree was closely watched from half an hour before sunset until approximately 1 hour after. After one hour, the low light level was such that actually viewing each tree was not possible and therefore the surveys were terminated at this point.

Each surveyor listened for bat calls on hand-held frequency division Bat Box Duet ‘bat detectors’ and recorded all activity on MP3 players, for later computer analysis, using the ‘BatSound’ program.

2013

Following the elevated inspection in June 2013, five trees were considered to require further survey in order to determine presence or absence of bat roosts. These were trees in proximity to the proposed development which had been identified as supporting potential roost features that could not be comprehensively inspected during the roped climbing surveys on health and safety grounds (i.e due to presence of unstable dead wood or adjacent to live roads) or where thorough inspection of such features could not conclusively rule out presence of bat roosts. These trees (Appendix B) were subject to further evening emergence and dawn swarming surveys in September 2013.

Evening emergence surveys commenced approximately 15 minutes before local sunset and continued for up to 90 minutes thereafter. Dawn surveys commenced some 90 minutes before sunrise and ended at or just after local sunrise. During each session, surveyors were strategically positioned so as to be able to observe any bats that might be leaving or entering roosts.

During each survey session, three surveyors were positioned so as to be able to observe any bats entering roosts. Given the close proximity of the trees, it was considered that three surveyors were able to comfortably cover all aspects of the trees (particularly at dawn). It is

SLR Clean Power Properties Ltd 4 402.03620.00004 App 12-4: Bat Survey and Assessment November 2013 considered that the level of survey undertaken was sufficient to assess presence of roosts (see Constraints Section 2.3.5) and complies with the spirit of the best practice guidelines (namely survey effort must be proportionate to the likely use of the site by bats).

All observed bat passes in the vicinity of the trees were noted including records of time, location and, where possible, direction of flight, species and behaviour of the bat (i.e. commuting, foraging, social calling). Particular importance was placed on noting the location of any points where bats were observed entering / leaving the tree. Surveyors were equipped with Duet type combined frequency division and heterodyne bat detector, connected to an MP3 recording device.

Temperature, wind speed/direction and cloud cover were recorded at the beginning and end of the survey, along with any significant weather changes during the survey (e.g. heavy showers).

After completion of each survey session, where required, the digital bat recordings were analysed using BatScan v8.7 (Batbox Ltd) sonogram analysis software to confirm species identification.

2.3.4 Bat Activity Surveys

2012

The application site and surrounding habitats were subject to a daytime walkover to assess potential value to bats, with potential commuting routes and foraging areas identified. The application site was assessed to have a low potential to support foraging and commuting bats, with only a single sheltered potential commuting route present along the eastern boundary.

Activity surveys were undertaken in April and May 2012 (See Appendix B). Each activity survey commenced following completion of the emergence surveys, outlined in section 2.3.3. Each transect route had 10 recording points, at which each surveyor stopped for 5 minutes. Transects and transect points were focused on areas that had previously been identified as having potential for use by bats for commuting and/or foraging. Transect routes are marked on Drawing 03. Each transect took approximately 1 hr 30 mins to complete, with all data recorded within 2-3 hours of sunset, as recommended in the BCT guidelines (section 7.6.1, page 46).

Surveys were undertaken by experienced surveyors from SLR Consulting under the direct supervision of a licensed bat ecologist. All bat activity was recorded using (time expansion (Pettersson) or frequency division (Bat Box Duet) bat detector equipment, identifying bats to species where possible. In addition, recordings were also made of all calls for later computer analysis using the ‘Bat Sound’ (Pettersson) computer program.

2013

A series of three activity surveys were undertaken in 2013 to augment the 2012 data and provide a baseline against which the potential impacts of severance of the woodland belt to create site access could be assessed. Surveys were targeted to identify any bat flight paths and commuting activity along Overton Road and the woodland belt forming the eastern site boundary. Survey sessions were undertaken in May, August and September (See Appendix B) to assess pan-seasonal activity.

On each occasion, a surveyor was situated on the woodland edge adjacent to Overton Road at the approximate point of the proposed new access. Surveys commenced 15 minutes

SLR Clean Power Properties Ltd 5 402.03620.00004 App 12-4: Bat Survey and Assessment November 2013 prior to sunset and lasted over 2 hours to cover the key period for commuting bats. During the surveys, the surveyor made short transects to the north and south, recording all observed bat passes and noting the time, location, where possible the direction of flight, species and behaviour of the bat (i.e. commuting, foraging, social calling). The surveyor was equipped with a Duet (Batbox Ltd,) combined frequency division and heterodyne bat detector, connected to a digital recording device. Recordings were retained for later computer analysis using the ‘Bat Sound’ (Pettersson) computer program

Temperature and wind speed/direction were recorded at the beginning and end of the survey (see Appendix B), along with any significant weather changes during the survey (e.g. heavy showers).

2.3.5 Survey Constraints

All survey visits were conducted under the direct supervision of experienced bat licenced and senior ecologists within the optimal period for bat survey (as defined by the current best practice guidance).

Climbing surveys were restricted to healthy sections of trees which could support roped climbers. Potential for bats in sections of trees which could not be closely inspected during elevated inspections were highlighted and further survey undertaken as appropriate.

Emergence survey on 11th September 2013 was subject to a period of adverse weather (light but persistent rain from before to at least 45 minutes after sunset) and is not considered to represent a successful survey session. The results of the dawn survey on 12th September and further dusk and dawn surveys on 16th and 17th September in appropriate weather conditions (together with the survey undertaken in 2012) are considered to represent sufficient survey effort to assess the presence of bat roosts.

As tree roosts are typically used ephemerally by bats, it is impossible to preclude occasional use of trees by individual bats, whilst no evidence of bat roosts and only very low levels of bat activity in the vicinity of the woodland was identified during the 2012 and 2013 surveys, precautionary measures are recommended to prevent inadvertent impacts on bats which could utilise suitable features in the future.

It is not possible to accurately differentiate the calls made by most species of Myotis bats through call analysis; as a consequence, where other behaviour which can help determine species was not observed, calls from this group of bats have been referred to in this report to as belonging to Myotis sp.

SLR Clean Power Properties Ltd 6 402.03620.00004 App 12-4: Bat Survey and Assessment November 2013

3.0 SURVEY RESULTS

3.1 Contextual Survey: Local Distribution of Bats

Records for common pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus and brown long-eared Plecotus auritus bat roosts were provided by HBIC as part of the background data search. Both of these records where located in the village of Micheldever Station, which lies approximately 0.7km south of the application site. The records did not indicate if these were roosts, grounded bats or simply recorded calls.

No further records of bats were provided by HBIC.

3.2 Habitats

The application site comprises a mosaic of calcareous grassland and scrub. The scrub mosaic is contiguous with the northern and eastern boundaries of the application site, adjacent to which is a well-developed belt of mature woodland along the unlit Overton Road. The woodland supports sycamore Acer pseudoplantanus and silver birch Betula bendula in the north and a planted double row of mature beech Fagus sylvatica to the south. This plantation is approximately 15m wide at the north and up to 50m wide to the east of the site, though narrowing considerably towards to the south.

The railway line to the west of the site is subject to artificial lighting, although this alters illumination levels within the site minimally and is unlikely to affect bats.

3.3 Tree Assessment

The tree survey and assessment results are detailed in Appendix A and shown on Drawings 01 and 02. The elevated survey found no evidence of roosts and a number of trees provisionally assessed from ground level as Category 1 or Category 1* were subsequently downgraded as cavities and canker damage were found to be blind ended and shallow with limited bat potential and rot holes were wet and unsuitable for bats. As a result the woodland is considered to support five trees of Category 1* and five of Category 1.

This includes five trees which could be affected by the proposals which were unable to be fully assessed during 2013 elevated surveys (See Appendix A) due to health and safety concerns or the potential for survey activity to damage potential bat roost features. These trees were therefore subject to further survey.

3.4 Emergence and dawn surveys

3.4.1 2012

No bats were recorded emerging from the five surveyed trees which, based on provisional site layout were considered at risk from development impacts (T07, 15, 20, 21 and 26). In addition, no bat activity was recorded at all in the areas around the trees, during either of the two nights survey work. Full details of surveys are included in Appendix B.

3.4.2 2013

Further to the elevated survey, five trees which may be affected by final proposals (T20, 21, 26, 29 & 37) were identified as requiring further survey to assess roost presence. No bats were recorded emerging from any of these trees. Full details of surveys are included in Appendix B.

SLR Clean Power Properties Ltd 7 402.03620.00004 App 12-4: Bat Survey and Assessment November 2013

Only very low levels of bat activity were recorded in the approximate vicinity of the surveyed trees with common pipistrelle foraging activity recorded prior to dawn on the 12th September and at dusk and dawn on the 16th and 17th September. Passes were all heard and not seen and were determined not to have originated from bats associated with the observed trees. The timing and location of the passes (assumed to be above the canopy or over the adjacent section of Overton Road) suggest these bats had had emerged from roosts away from the woodland belt and the lack of activity in the period prior to dawn suggests that there is no swarming activity as would be expected if roosts were present within the surveyed trees or immediate surrounds.

3.5 Transect Surveys

3.5.1 2012 Surveys

Following completion of each of the emergence surveys, activity transect surveys were undertaken. Two defined routes were surveyed on both nights. The transects and results of the activity surveys are presented on Drawing 04. A summary of results of the activity surveys is presented below:

Transect Route 1

No bats were recorded on either date on transect route 1.

Transect Route 2

No bats were recorded on transect route 2 on 12/04/12.

Two species of bat were recorded on transect route 2 on 17/05/12; soprano pipistrelle Pipistrellus pygmaeus and an unidentified species of Myotis bat. Both species were recorded between points 2 and 4 on the transect route. The Myotis sp bat was recorded briefly commuting through the site in a southerly direction; the pipistrelle was recorded foraging along the scrub and tree line edge at the eastern margin of the site for the entirety of the transect between points 2 and 4. No more than a single bat was recorded at any one time.

3.5.2 2013 Surveys

Activity surveys to identify flight paths and commuting routes associated with the woodland belt along the eastern edge of the site were undertaken in May, August and September 2013. Full details for the surveys are included in Appendix C and summarised below

Low levels of bat activity were recorded during all surveys with common pipistrelle representing the majority of records. In May, two bats were recorded commuting along Overton Road with a common pipistrelle flying north, close to the woodland edge approximately 25 minutes after sunset, and a serotine Eptesicus serotinus commuting south 40 minutes after sunset (this bat was heard clearly but not seen). The remaining May activity comprised isolated passes and short periods of concentrated foraging from common pipistrelle and occasional serotine passes with bats utilising Overton Road and the adjacent woodland. A single noctule pass not related to the site or road was also recorded.

A similar pattern of activity was recorded in August and September. In August the earliest bat was a single commuting common pipistrelle (north along Overton Road), 15 minutes after sunset followed by occasional pipistrelle foraging activity along the woodland edge and over gardens to the east of the road. Only single bats were recorded at any one time. A

SLR Clean Power Properties Ltd 8 402.03620.00004 App 12-4: Bat Survey and Assessment November 2013 single Plecotus sp pass, most likely within the woodland was recorded approximately 85 minutes after sunset.

In September, common pipistrelle foraging passes (single bats) were recorded from approximately 30 minutes after sunset with regular foraging passes thereafter until one hour after sunset when activity ceased. Most passes were brief and few bats were observed. A single Myotis pass was also recorded in September.

SLR Clean Power Properties Ltd 9 402.03620.00004 App 12-4: Bat Survey and Assessment November 2013

4.0 DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION

Evaluation of bat species / bat assemblages follows guidelines set out by the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (2006)2 and assessment criteria determined by Wray et al3.

No evidence of roosting bats was recorded during the detailed surveys undertaken in 2012 and 2013 and, whilst the features identified within a number of trees retain potential to support occasional individual roosting bats, the site and immediate surrounds are not considered to support any active bat roosts.

Very little bat activity was noted during the activity surveys undertaken across two years. The site was found to support a very low number of foraging common and widespread bat species. The habitats comprise predominantly scrub and thin calcareous grassland and are of limited value for foraging bats Also, it should be noted that there is abundant habitat likely to be of greater interest to bats in the local landscape, away from the site.

The woodland belt that fringes the eastern boundary of the application site and the adjacent unlit section of Overton Road were not found to support any important or regular commuting routes. Small numbers of common pipistrelle and a serotine bat were recorded commuting along the road (generally close to the woodland). During the three surveys to assess commuting activity, single pipistrelle bats were identified commuting north along the road in May and August and a single serotine bat was recorded commuting (south) along the road in May. The remaining activity recorded comprised individual or small numbers of common pipistrelle foraging along the road and adjacent habitats including the woodland belt and gardens. Three other species, noctule, Plecotus sp and Myotis sp were also recorded on single occasions during the surveys.

In the experience of the surveyor and author of this report, hedgerow gaps up to 20m (created for pipeline construction) were not found to inhibit foraging or commuting behaviour of the species recorded regularly here. Therefore, as the survey undertaken found no important commuting routes, it is considered that the narrow breach (9m plus visibility splays) which would be created in the woodland along the eastern boundary would not result in the fragmentation of any important commuting.

Wray et al set out criteria of assessment for valuing habitats in relation to bats. An assessment using these criteria has been undertaken for foraging and commuting bats (see Appendix D) and the foraging and commuting bat assemblage at the application site is considered to be an ecological receptor of Parish value.

2 Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (2006) Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom 3 Wray, S., Wells, D., Long, E. and Mitchell-Jones, T. Valuing Bats in Ecological Impact Assessment December 2010. CIEEM In Practice. Vol 70. Pages 23-25.

SLR Clean Power Properties Ltd 10 402.03620.00004 App 12-4: Bat Survey and Assessment November 2013

Clean Power Properties Ltd 11 402.03620.00004 App 12-4: Bat Survey and Assessment November 2013

Clean Power Properties Ltd 12 402.03620.00004 App 12-4: Bat Survey and Assessment November 2013

Clean Power Properties Ltd 13 402.03620.00004 App 12-4: Bat Survey and Assessment November 2013

Clean Power Properties Ltd 14 402.03620.00004 App 12-4: Bat Survey and Assessment November 2013

APPENDIX A: 2013 TREE ASSESSMENT RESULTS Tag Species Features Category Elevated inspection Notes No 01 Beech Dense ivy, dead crown 1 Not climbed due to dense ivy. Sufficient distance from proposed development to prevent possible impacts 02 Beech 3 03 Beech Splits in bark, several 1 Not climbed for H&S reasons. Sufficient distance from dead limbs proposed development to prevent possible impacts 04 Beech upward facing canker 3 damage 05 Beech some ivy 3 06 Beech 3 07 Beech rot hole at 2m north side, 2 Full inspection possible, Rot hole was wet full of maggots, no with canker damage bats present. 08 Beech 3 09 Beech canker damage at 4m 2 northside 10 Beech 3 11 Beech 3 12 Beech 3 13 Beech numerous areas canker 2 damage 14 Beech upwards facing canker 3 damage 15 Beech heart rot, split trunk, 2 Full inspection possible All cavities were found to be "blind", canker damage at 5m very shallow. , no bats found. Low potential to be used by bats in future. 16 Beech single woodpecker hole, 2 Full inspection possible, Woodpecker hole is shallow. no bats north side 4m found. Low potential to be used by bats in future. 17 Beech w/pecker holes, rot hole 2 Full inspection possible, Woodpecker hole is shallow. no bats on N side found. Low potential to be used by bats in future. 18 Beech several areas canker 2 damage 19 Beech 3 20 Beech double trunk which 1* Rot areas too fragile to climb/inspect without damaging separates at base, south potential roost structures. trunk heart rot Dusk/dawn survey required to determine bat status. 21 Beech dead tree, woodpecker 1* Flaky bark too fragile to climb/inspect without damaging holes potential roost strutures. Dusk/dawn survey would be required to determine bat status. 22 Beech upwards facing canker 1 Full inspection possible. Moderate potential to support bats in damage future 23 Beech 3 24 Beech upwards facing canker 2 Full inspection possible Rot holes present. and found to have damage no bats. . Low potential to support bats in future 25 Beech ivy, rot hole at base 2 broken limb 26 Beech hole at 10m north, 1* Too fragile to climb/inspect without damaging potential roost w/pecker hole at 8m structures. Dusk/dawn survey would be required to determine bat status. 27 Beech some canker damage 2 03

Clean Power Properties Ltd 15 402.03620.00004 App 12-4: Bat Survey and Assessment November 2013

Tag Species Features Category Elevated inspection Notes No 28 Beech some canker damage 2 29 Beech rot hole 3m northside 2 Really wet, very large cavity. Considered to have low potential to support bats, but since a full inspection was not possible, Dusk/dawn survey would be required to determine bat status 30 Beech 3 31 Beech 3 32 Beech one large dead branch 1* Too fragile to climb/inspect without damaging potential roost with splits canker structures. damage and some Dusk/dawn survey would be required to determine bat staining status. 33 Beech 3 34 Beech 3 35 Beech numerous areas canker 2 Full inspection possible. All damage is upward facing and damage shallow. No bats, and low potential to support bats in future. 36 Beech 3 37 Beech ivy, small rot holes all 1 Tree not climbed due to presence of ivy and very delicate in over tree places. Dusk/dawn survey would be required to determine bat status. 38 Beech some canker damage 2 39 Beech 3 40 Beech 3 41 Beech 3 42 Beech 3 43 Beech upwards facing canker 2 damage and some Full inspection possible. All damage is upward facing and canker which looks shallow. No bats, and low potential to support bats in future. deeper 44 Beech 3 45 Beech large split at 15m south 1* Full inspection possible. Also has conjoined branches and east additional rot holes. No bats found, Remains of high potential to support bats in future but sufficient distance from proposed development to prevent possible impacts 46 Beech upwards facing canker 3 damage 47 Beech large crack at 5m with 1 Not climbed for H&S reasons. Sufficient distance from honey bee nest several proposed development to prevent possible impacts areas canker damage 48 Beech upwards facing canker 3 damage 49 Beech 3 50 Beech two areas canker - could 2 be deep 51 Beech 3 52 Beech 3 53 Beech 3 54 Beech split and broken limbs 3 55 Beech 3 56 Beech upwards facing canker 3 damage 57 Beech 3

Clean Power Properties Ltd 16 402.03620.00004 App 12-4: Bat Survey and Assessment November 2013

Tag Species Features Category Elevated inspection Notes No 58 Beech some canker damage, 2 ivy 59 Beech 3 60 Beech 3 61 Beech 3 62 Beech 3 63 Beech several areas canker 2 Full inspection possible All damage is upward facing and damage shallow. No bats, and low potential to support bats in future. 64 Beech 3 65 Beech dense ivy cover 2 66 Wild dead, choked by ivy 3 cherry 67 Wild covered on ivy 2 cherry 68 Wild covered in ivy 2 cherry 69 Wild 3 cherry 70 Ash 3 71 Ash 3 72 Ash upwards facing canker 3 damage Beech upwards facing canker 3 73 damage Beech some canker damage, 3 74 probable shallow 75 Beech 3 76 Beech 2 77 Beech some ivy cover 2 Beech some canker on east 3 78 side 79 Beech ivy cover 2 80 Beech sparse ivy cover 3 81 Beech 3 82 Beech 3 83 Beech 3

APPENDICES

APPENDIX B: EMERGENCE SURVEY RESULTS

Table 2: 2012 Survey Weather Conditions

Date Temperature Cloud Wind Precipitation 12/04/2012 10°C 70% Light breeze None 27/05/2012 12°C 50% Light warm breeze None

Table 3: 2012 Emergence Survey Results

Date Tree Method Sunset Start Finish Result T07 Surveyor No bats recorded 24/04/12 19.25 19.55 21.20 T15 Surveyor No bats recorded T20 Surveyor No bats recorded 17/05/12 T21 Surveyor 8.52 8.20 10.50 No bats recorded T26 Surveyor No bats recorded

Table 4: 2013 Bat Emergence/ Dawn survey weather Survey times Sunset/ Weather Date Sunrise 19.16 – 20.15 11 C, persistent light rain. Wind force 11.09.13 (abandoned – see 19.32 0 constraints) 12.09.13 05.10 – 06.35 06.35 9 C, dry, wind force 2-3 16.09.13 19.04 – 20.52 19.18 11 C, dry, wind force 2-3 17.09.13 05.20 – 06.42 06.42 8 C, dry, wind force 1-2

Table 5: 2013 Emergence Survey Results

Date Tree Result Summary of survey activity T20 - T21 - No bats recorded during truncated survey session. 11.09.13 T26 - Survey abandoned after 1 hour due to rain. T29 - T37 - T20 No bats returning No swarming/ returning bats recorded. Two common T21 No bats returning pipistrelle passes recorded by surveyors 55 - 50 minutes 12.09.13 T26 No bats returning before dawn. Calls were brief, feint and assumed to have T29 No bats returning been above canopy or over adjacent road, not in the vicinity of T37 No bats returning the trees T20 No bats emerging No emerging bats recorded. Intermittent common pipistrelle T21 No bats emerging foraging activity recorded (passes heard not seen) in wider T26 No bats emerging area and assumed to be along Overton Road. The earliest 16.09.13 T29 No bats emerging recording was 27 minutes after sunset and was not No bats emerging considered to have emerged from woodland belt. A single T37 Myotis sp bat pass was recorded (heard not seen) approximately 1 hour after sunset. T20 No bats returning No swarming/ returning bats recorded. Occasional common T21 No bats returning pipistrelle passes recorded along Overton road/ above canopy 17.09.13 T26 No bats returning until 54 minutes before sunrise. No activity recorded after this T29 No bats returning point. T37 No bats returning

APPENDICES

APPENDIX C: 2013 ACTIVITY SURVEY RESULTS

Table 6: 2013 Bat Activity survey conditions Date Survey times Sunset Weather 20.05.13 20.40 – 23.00 20.55 15 C, dry. wind force 1-2 18 C, dry (light rain 21.45-21.50), wind 21.08.13 20.00 – 22.14 20.15 force 0 16.09.13 19.04 – 20.58 19.18 11 C, dry, wind force 2-3

Table 7: 2013 May Activity Survey Results

Record Time Species Notes Single bat commuting south along road adjacent to woodland edge (4m off 21.20 Common pipistrelle ground) 21.40 Serotine Single bat commuting south along road (heard not seen) 21.43 Common pipistrelle Single bat (2 passes) foraging along woodland edge 21.50 Noctule Heard not seen – assumed to be well off site 21.52 - 21.56 Common pipistrelle Occasional foraging passes along road (both directions) Serotine & Foraging along road/ woodland edge. Repeated passes for approx 3 minute 21.57-22.00 common pipistrelle s(single bats) including pipistrelle social calling 22.01 -22.13 Common pipistrelle 12 minutes of foraging passes along road, 1 -2 bats Serotine & Foraging bats along woodland edge 22.16 – 22.18 common pipistrelle 22.20 – 22.45 Common pipistrelle Occasional foraging passes along road

Table 8: 2013 August Activity Survey Results Species Record Notes Time 20.30 Common pipistrelle Heard not seen: feint activity, probably of site 20.39 Common pipistrelle Single bat commuting north along western enge of road (under tree canopy) 20.45 Common pipistrelle Foraging over garden of house east of Overton Road Foraging over garden of house east of Overton Road and north along road (single 20.48 Common pipistrelle pass) 20.58 Common pipistrelle Brief foraging pass on edge of woodland. Heard not seen 21.10 Common pipistrelle Brief foraging pass on edge of woodland. Heard not seen 21.14 Common pipistrelle Brief foraging pass on edge of woodland. Heard not seen 21.22 Common pipistrelle Strong pass, possibly commuting north along road (not seen) 21.30 Pipistrellus sp. Brief foraging pass on edge of woodland. Heard not seen 21.34 Common pipistrelle Brief foraging pass on edge of woodland. Heard not seen 21.37 Common pipistrelle Foraging pass, south along centre of Overton Road 21.42 Plecotus sp Feint pass – probably within woodland 21.52 Common pipistrelle Foraging along road 22.03 Common pipistrelle Foraging along road (heard not seen)

APPENDICES

Table 9: 2013 September Activity Survey Results Species Record Notes Time 19.45 Common pipistrelle Brief pass. Heard not seen 19.54 Common pipistrelle Brief foraging pass north along edge of woodland. 20.04 Common pipistrelle Brief and feint pass, probably over woodland canopy 20.05 Common pipistrelle Intermittent foraging activity from single bat along road 20.08 Common pipistrelle Brief pass. Heard not seen 20.11 Common pipistrelle Brief foraging pass over road. 20.14 Myotis sp Brief pass, heard not seen 20.20 Common pipistrelle Brief pass quiet and off site

APPENDICES

APPENDIX D: DETERMINATION OF COMMUTING AND FORAGING HABITAT FOR BATS

Wray et al have set out the following assessment of foraging and commuting habitat for bats, using four key factors of each habitat. The four scores are added together to give and overall score which is then used to determine the ecological value. The four key factors are species rarity, number of bats recorded using the habitat, proximity of known bat roosts and quality/type of habitat present in commuting route OR foraging habitat. Of the four key factors, species rarity has been defined (see Table 1). The scores for the remaining key factors are to be assigned using survey data and professional judgement.

Table 1 – Determining rarity of species (Species recorded highlighted in bold, potential Myotis sp in Italics)

Rarity within England Wales Scotland Northern Ireland range greater horseshoe, Bechstein’s, whiskered, Rarest greater horseshoe, Barbastelle, Brandt’s, Popn below Bechstein’s, Whiskered, noctule, whiskered 10,000 Barbastelle, Brandt’s, Nathusius pipistrelle, grey long-eared noctule, Leisler’s Score: 20 Nathusius pipistrelle, serotine lesser horseshoe, whiskered, Rarer Brandt’s, Daubenton’s, lesser horseshoe, Popn 10,000 – Daubenton’s, Daubenton’s, Natterer’s, Daubenton’s, 100,000 Natterer’s, Natterer’s, Leisler’s, Natterer’s, Leisler’s, brown long-eared Nathusius pipistrelle, brown long-eared noctule, brown long-eared Score: 5 Nathusius pipistrelle, serotine Common common pipistrelle, common pipistrelle, common pipistrelle, common pipistrelle, Popn over soprano pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle soprano pipistrelle soprano pipistrelle 100,000 brown long-eared Score: 2 NB. Where more than one bat species is recorded within a particular habitat, the value of the rarest species recorded should be used.

Once the value of the species is assigned, the other three factors can be determined using the tables below, either for commuting or foraging.

APPENDICES

Table 2 – Valuing commuting habitat

Species No of Bats No of roosts nearby Complexity of Linear Features

Common Individual bats None Absence of (other) linear features (1) (2) (5) (1) Small number Unvegetated fences and large field sizes (2) (3) Moderate number/ Walls, gappy or flailed hedgerows, isolated Small number Rarer not known well grown hedgerows and moderate field (10) (5) (4) sizes (3) Large number, or close to bat SSSI Well grown and well connected hedgerows,

(5) small field sizes (4) Rarest Large number Close to or within a SAC for bats Complex network of mature establishes (20) (20) (20) hedgerows, small fields and rivers/streams (5)

Table 3 – Valuing Foraging Habitat

Species No of Bats No of roosts nearby Foraging habitats characteristics

Common Individual bats None Industrial or other site without established (2) (5) (1) vegetation (1) Small number Suburban areas or intensive arable land (2) (3) Rarer Small number Moderate number/ not known Isolated woodland patches, less intensive (5) (10) (4) arable and/or small towns and villages (3) Large number, or close to bat SSSI Larger or connected woodland blocks, mixed

(5) agriculture and small villages/hamlets (4) Rarest Large number Close to or within a SAC for bats Mosaic of pasture woodland and wetland (5) (20) (20) (20)

Once you have the total value for each foraging or commuting habitat it should be cross referenced with the table below to give ecological receptor value for that habitat.

Table 4 – Scoring system

Value of ecological Score receptor International >50 National 41 – 50 Regional 31 – 40 County 21 – 30 District, local or parish 11 – 20 Not important 1 – 10

Evaluation

Myotis sp (foraging) and Serotine (commuting) which are defined as ‘rarer’ species were recorded during the surveys therefore the value of ‘5’ is assigned

Only individual bats were recorded at any one time, which is assigned the value ‘5’.

Potentially, low numbers of roosts are recorded nearby, which is assigned the value ‘3’

APPENDICES

The habitats within the site are not easily placed within either the commuting or foraging categories, but fit best within the following

Commuting – Score ‘3’ – a single line of woodland belt acts as an ‘isolated well grown hedgerow’

Foraging – Score ‘3’ – small patches of woodland within and around the site acts as ‘isolated woodland patches’.

The equations for commuting and foraging both contain the same values:-

5 + 5 + 3 + 3 = 16

A total of ‘16’ denotes an ecological receptor of ‘Parish’ value in terms of both commuting and foraging habitat.

ECOLOGY 12

Appendix 12-8 Rev 1

Dormouse Survey and Assessment (November 2013)

Land Adjacent to Micheldever Rail Sidings P a g e | 12-45 SLR Consulting Limited

Land adjacent to Micheldever Rail Siding

Appendix 12-8: Dormouse Survey and Assessment SLR Ref: 402-03620-00004

November 2013

Version: Rev 1

Clean Power Properties Ltd i 402.03620.00004 App 12-8: Dormouse Survey and Assessment November 2013

CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Legislative Background...... 1 1.2 Survey Aims ...... 1 2.0 SURVEY METHODOLOGY ...... 3 2.1 Survey Area ...... 3 2.2 Pre-existing Data Collection ...... 3 2.3 Field Survey Methods ...... 3 2.4 Personnel ...... 3 2.5 Survey Constraints ...... 3 3.0 SURVEY RESULTS ...... 4 3.1 Contextual Survey: Local Distribution of Dormice ...... 4 3.2 Habitats ...... 4 3.3 Nest Tube Survey...... 4 4.0 DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION ...... 6

DRAWINGS Drawing 01 Survey Area & Results

SLR Clean Power Properties Ltd 1 402.03620.00004 App 12-8: Dormouse Survey and Assessment November 2013

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report presents the findings of the 2013 dormouse (Muscardinus avellanarius) surveys undertaken at the application site at Micheldever.

It has been prepared by SLR Consulting Limited (SLR) on behalf of Clean Power Properties Limited to provide further information in support of a planning application and environmental impact assessment.

1.1 Legislative Background Dormouse are protected by their inclusion on Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (as amended), 1981 (WCA) and Schedule 2 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (Habitats Regulations) (as amended). In combination, this legislation fully protects dormice and their nests, making it an offence to:

 (a) deliberately capture, injure or kill any wild animal of an EPS;  (b) deliberately disturb wild animals of any such species . For the purposes of paragraph (1)(b), disturbance of animals includes in particular any disturbance which is likely— . to impair their ability—  to survive, to breed or reproduce, or to rear or nurture their young; or  in the case of animals of a hibernating or migratory species, to hibernate or migrate; or . to affect significantly the local distribution or abundance of the species to which they belong.  (c) deliberately take or destroy the eggs of such an animal; or  (d) damage or destroy a breeding site or resting place of such an animal.

Section 9(4) and 9(5) of the WCA offer additional protection to dormice, i.e.:

 intentional or reckless disturbance any such animal while it is occupying a structure or place which it uses for shelter or protection;  intentional or reckless obstruction of access to any shelter or place which any such animal uses for shelter or protection;  sells, offers or exposes for sale or has in his possession or transports for the purpose of sale any live or dead animal included in Schedule 5, or any part of, or anything derived from, such an animal; or  publishes or causes to be published any advertisement likely to be understood as conveying that he buys or sells, or intends to buy or sell, any of those things.

These offences apply to all stages of the life of the animal and nests are protected at all times, whether bats are present at the time or not.

1.2 Survey Aims

Detailed survey work in line with best practice was undertaken in order to determine the following:

 dormouse presence/absence;  if present, to record distribution across the site and obtain an indication of population and local conservation status;

SLR Clean Power Properties Ltd 2 402.03620.00004 App 12-8: Dormouse Survey and Assessment November 2013

 determine the impact of development proposals on the dormouse population; and,  recommend appropriate and adequate mitigation.

The results of the study are presented within this report. Assessment of impacts is discussed in Chapter 12 of the Main ES, details of the outline mitigation proposals are set out in the Ecological Mitigation Plan (EMP).

SLR Clean Power Properties Ltd 3 402.03620.00004 App 12-8: Dormouse Survey and Assessment November 2013

2.0 SURVEY METHODOLOGY

2.1 Survey Area

The application site boundary and survey area (incorporating the application site and contiguous suitable habitat to the north, south and east) are shown on Drawing 1.

2.2 Pre-existing Data Collection

Records of dormouse within 2 km of the application site were sought from Hampshire Biological Information Centre (HBIC). Data received from HBIC is presented in Appendix 12-1 of Chapter 12 of the Environmental Statement and summarised in Section 3.1.

2.3 Field Survey Methods

2.3.1 Nest Tube Surveys

Dormouse nest tube surveys were undertaken in 2013 following methodology and best practice guidelines described by Chanin and Woods1 and Bright et al. 2. Some 65 artificial nest tubes were deployed in well-connected woodland and scrub habitat within and contiguous with the application site (See Drawing 1). Nest tubes were installed on 18th March 2013 with checks made on 20th May, 22nd August and 18th September when all tubes (with the exception of a single tube found to be occupied by an active nest containing dependent young) were removed.

2.4 Personnel

The installation of nest tubes was undertaken by D. Scholefield, Senior Ecologist at SLR and licensed dormouse ecologist (Natural England Dormouse Class Licence CLS001489) and R. Hendry, Senior Ecologist at SLR. The checking of nest tubes was undertaken by D. Scholefield and Dr B. Garnett, Senior Field Ecologist at SLR (Class Licence CLS002123).

2.5 Survey Constraints

Surveys were undertaken in strict adherence to best practice guidelines and there were no significant constraints to survey or assessment.

1 Chanin, P. and Woods, M. (2003) Surveying Dormice using Nest Tubes. Results and Experiences from the South West Dormouse Project. English Nature Research Report No.524. English Nature, Peterborough.

2 Bright, P., Morris, P. and Mitchell-Jones, A. (2006) The Dormouse Conservation Handbook 2nd Edition. English Nature, Peterborough.

SLR Clean Power Properties Ltd 4 402.03620.00004 App 12-8: Dormouse Survey and Assessment November 2013

3.0 SURVEY RESULTS

3.1 Contextual Survey: Local Distribution of Dormice

A number of dormouse records were provided by HBIC from between 2007 and 2010. The closest record related to the northern boundary of the application site, adjacent to the A303. Further records for dormouse have been recorded within the 1km grid square in which the application site is located, as well as the squares immediately east, north-east and south- west.

3.2 Habitats

The application site comprises a mosaic of calcareous grassland and scrub. The scrub was present in dense stands occupying parts of the steep west facing bank and much of the upper terrace along the eastern margin of the site. The scrub includes rich mixtures of such calcicolous species as dogwood, Cornus sanguinea, wild privet Ligustrum vulgare and wayfaring-tree Viburnum lantana, together with hawthorn Crataegus monogyna, bramble Rubus fruticosus agg., dog rose Rosa canina and blackthorn Prunus spinosa. Occasionally, silver Birch Betula pendula or sycamore Acer pseudoplatanus occurs within the scrub, with a small stand on silver birch in the northern part of the site. The presence of residual grassland plants such as wild strawberry Fragaria vesca and agrimony Agrimonia eupatoria in the ground layer indicates that the scrub had invaded previously open grassland and is relatively recent in origin. More open and scattered scrub habitat as within limited connectivity are present on the lower, western half of the site.

The scrub mosaic is contiguous with the northern and eastern boundaries of the application site, adjacent to which is a well-developed belt of mature woodland supporting sycamore and silver birch in the north and a planted double row of mature beech Fagus sylvatica to the south. This plantation is approximately 15m wide at the north and up to 50m wide at the east narrowing towards to the south, forming a deciduous hedge with mature trees.

Wooded vegetation cover in the surrounding area is frequent and typically linear in form; comprising predominantly hedgerows, shelter belts and copses which bound open agricultural land. Large areas of woodland are also common in this area, such as Black Wood, which is approximately 0.9 km east of the application site (ancient and ancient replanted woodland) and Freefolk Wood, which is 2 km northwest of the application site (ancient woodland).

3.3 Nest Tube Survey

Results of dormouse surveys are shown on Drawing 01. Evidence of dormouse was recorded within and adjacent to the site. In May, a woven nest containing an adult dormouse was found in dense scrub in the north east corner of the site (no recent activity was recorded in this tube during further checks) and a second tube, attached to a silver birch tree surrounded by dense bramble scrub inside the eastern boundary was found to contain a substantial number of fresh green leaves, and accordingly assumed to be a dormouse nest. Further fresh green leaves were found in this location in September.

In August, an adult dormouse and woven nest were recorded within a tube located in bramble scrub in the woodland adjacent to the eastern boundary of the application site and woven nests, typical of dormouse were present in two tubes in the scrub to the south of the application site. These nests were still present in September but had become damp and were not considered to be active. A further woven nest, containing an adult female and at least four dependent young (close inspection was not undertaken to minimise disturbance)

SLR Clean Power Properties Ltd 5 402.03620.00004 App 12-8: Dormouse Survey and Assessment November 2013 was noted in September in a tube located amongst thin beech saplings adjacent to Overton Road within the woodland outside the eastern boundary.

SLR Clean Power Properties Ltd 6 402.03620.00004 App 12-8: Dormouse Survey and Assessment November 2013

4.0 DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION

Evaluation of dormice follows guidelines set out by the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (2006)3 and best practice guidance2.

The results of the survey undertaken in 2013 confirm that dormouse utilise the well connected and continuous scrub habitats within the site. Evidence of dormouse was recorded within scrub along the upper terrace along the eastern margin the application site and as well as in contiguous habitat immediately east and south of the site. Whilst the shrub species mix present on the central slope is not considered to be ‘optimal’ for dormouse, as this area is contiguous with habitat where dormouse was recorded there is an assumption that all well connected scrub within the site is classified as dormouse habitat for the purpose of assessment and mitigation. The scrub present on the lower escarpment is generally scattered and of limited potential for this species.

The total area of suitable dormouse habitat within the application site boundary is approximately 1.5 ha. This size of area in isolation would represent a significant constraint to the potential for a self sustaining population of dormouse to exist as the size of habitat needed to sustain a viable population is estimated to be several magnitudes higher (20 ha for an isolated woodland)2. Given that the site contains strong habitat connections to substantial areas of habitat resource in the wider area and, as there are records of dormouse in the local area, it is reasonable to assume that the application site represents a small part of a wide ranging and well connected dormouse population.

Whilst no formal method exists for dormouse population size class assessment (as is used for example in amphibian survey), studies have shown that dormouse population density in optimal habitat (diverse deciduous woodland with abundant scrub and vigorous understorey) is between 4 to 10 adults per hectare4&5. Therefore, given the varying quality of the scrub habitat present, a tentative assessment is given of 5-8 adult animals within the application site boundary

Whilst listed as a Species of Principal Importance under the NERC Act 2006 and a Biodiversity Action Plan priority species in the national BAP, dormouse is widespread and locally abundant throughout Hampshire6 and the county is located within the southerly stronghold of the UK range of the species.

Nationally, the dormouse population is considered to have stabilised since its decline up to 2002 (National Dormouse Monitoring Programme data), particularly in the southern part of the UK range although population levels can oscillate between years.

3 Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (2006) Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom 4 Bright, P., Morris, P. and Mitchell-Jones, A. (2006) The Dormouse Conservation Handbook 2nd Edition. English Nature, Peterborough. March and September 2013 5 Bright, P.W. and Morris, P.A (1996) Why are dormice rare? A case study in conservation biology. Mammal Review 26 No. 4: 157-187 6 Ewald N (2004) Distribution and status of Dormouse Muscardinus avellanarius in Hampshire. Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust, Eastleigh

SLR Clean Power Properties Ltd 7 402.03620.00004 App 12-8: Dormouse Survey and Assessment November 2013

SLR ECOLOGY 12

Appendix A

Ecological Mitigation Plan (EMP)

Land Adjacent to Micheldever Rail Sidings P a g e | 12-46 SLR Consulting Limited

Land Adjacent to Micheldever Rail Sidings

Appendix A - Ecological Mitigation Plan (EMP) SLR Ref: 402-03620-00004

November 2013

V01 Clean Power Properties ii 402.03620.00004 Micheldever Rail Sidings EMP November 2013

CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 3 1.1 Terms of Reference ...... 3 1.2 Key Principles and objectives...... 3 1.3 Scope and layout of this plan ...... 3 1.4 Ecological works in advance of construction ...... 4 1.5 Mitigation and ongoing enhancement/ compensation works during the construction phase ...... 4 1.6 Operational phase monitoring and ongoing works ...... 4 1.7 Reporting ...... 4 2.0 ECOLOGICAL WORKS IN ADVANCE OF CONSTRUCTION ...... 6 2.1 Update Assessment of Site Ecology ...... 6 2.2 Dormouse European Protected Species Licence ...... 6 2.3 Schedule 8 Conservation Licence for translocation of cut leaved germander ...... 7 2.4 Bat, Dormouse and Bird Boxes ...... 7 2.5 Implementation of Habitat Management Scheme ...... 8 3.0 CONSTRUCTION PHASE ECOLOGICAL WORKS ...... 11 3.1 Habitat Clearance Works ...... 11 3.2 Cut leaved germander and other notable flora translocation ...... 13 3.3 Compensatory Habitat Establishment ...... 14 3.4 Habitat Enhancement ...... 16 4.0 OPERATIONAL PHASE ECOLOGICAL WORKS ...... 18 4.1 Grassland Management ...... 18 4.2 Scrub Management ...... 18 4.3 Woodland Management ...... 18 4.4 Monitoring ...... 18 5.0 CLOSURE ...... 20 REFERENCES & BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 21 APPENDIX A: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION ...... 23 APPENDIX B: DESIGN FOR A PEREGRINE NEST BOX ...... 25 APPENDIX C: NDMP SURVEY GUIDELINES ...... 29

DRAWING 01: HABITAT MITIGATION PLAN

SLR Clean Power Properties 3 402.03620.00004 Micheldever Rail Sidings EMP November 2013

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Terms of Reference

SLR Consulting Limited was commissioned by Clean Power Properties to prepare an Ecological Mitigation Plan (EMP) in connection with the proposed construction of an Advanced Conversion Technology (ACT) and an Anaerobic Digestion (AD) plant plus associated access and infrastructure at land adjacent to Micheldever Rail Sidings Drawing 1). The development comprises a land take of some 1.5ha in total.

This EMP describes in detail the measures that will be taken in order to safeguard important habitats and protected species identified during baseline surveys in the vicinity of the scheme and address the impacts identified within Chapter 12: Ecology of the Environmental Statement. These measures will also benefit general biodiversity.

It is intended that should the scheme be approved, the EMP would be implemented in full throughout the construction and operational phases of the development. All prescriptions have been agreed with the developer and the EMP will run for a period of 10 years, at which point the requirements for ongoing management and mitigation will be reviewed.

1.2 Key Principles and objectives

The ES to which this document relates sets out key principles for a mitigation, enhancement and monitoring programme. Some of these elements such as avoidance measures have been incorporated within the within the scheme design however a number of specific measures require delivery during the construction and operational phases of the scheme.

Key principles and objectives in the ES are as follows:

 To retain key features of nature conservation interest within the scheme design wherever possible (avoidance), in particular the calcareous grassland swards and areas of scrub considered to be most value for dormouse;  To maintain habitat connectivity to wider landscape within the scheme design wherever possible;  To take appropriate measures to ensure that populations of key byrophytes, lichens flora and fauna including cut leaved germander, spring cinquefoil, dormouse, peregrine, bats and reptiles are maintained at favourable conservation status; and  To create areas of compensatory habitat of significant ecological value within and adjacent to the development,  To manage retained and new habitat to ensure the existing range of species persists and the value of habitats is enhanced where possible  Monitor the success of the implemented management to inform future decision making.

Appendix A provides a summary of impacts, mitigation and residual impacts.

1.3 Scope and layout of this plan

The ecological mitigation, enhancement and monitoring components of the scheme comprise three elements:

1. Ecological works in advance of construction;

SLR Clean Power Properties 4 402.03620.00004 Micheldever Rail Sidings EMP November 2013

2. Mitigation and ongoing enhancement/ compensation works during the construction phase including commencement of long-term management; and 3. Operational phase monitoring and ongoing management.

1.4 Ecological works in advance of construction

These works are referred to collectively as Advanced Works and include:

1. update walkover surveys of the site to ascertain current ecological conditions and if significant changes to habitats (and thus potential for protected and key species) within the site boundary have occurred; 2. the preparation of a Method Statement and application for a European Protected Species Licence (EPSL) from Natural England with respect to dormouse; 3. the preparation of a detailed species mitigation plan to accompany an application for Natural England Conservation licence for a Schedule 8 plant (Cut leaved Germander Teucrium botrys) 4. the erection of bat, bird and dormouse boxes; and 5. the implementation of a management scheme for habitats to benefit wildlife.

1.5 Mitigation and ongoing enhancement/ compensation works during the construction phase

Delivery of mitigation measures once construction commences will be overseen by an Ecological Clerk of Works, to be appointed by the contractor. The Clerk of Works will be responsible for ensuring that all ecological mitigation works during construction are delivered according to the specification set out in this plan.

Mitigation during the construction phase will consist of:

1. the appropriate timing & methodologies of habitat clearance works to avoid sensitive periods for birds, dormouse and reptiles; 2. the preparation of a receptor site and translocation of cut leaved germander and other notable grassland species; 3. the creation and establishment of a brown roof over the 4. the establishment and protection of compensatory habitat including scrub and grassland, 5. enhancement and protection of retained habitat features;

1.6 Operational phase monitoring and ongoing works

The management and monitoring associated with the development will commence prior to the scheme becoming operational and will continue for a period of 10 years thereafter. These measures comprise:

1. the appropriate management of grassland (including brown roof), scrub and woodland habitats; 2. the monitoring of key indicator species; and 3. the maintenance of bat, dormouse and bird boxes.

1.7 Reporting

The progression of the above mitigation and enhancement measures including any monitoring results would be presented in the form of update reports and pertinent data will be disseminated via the Hampshire Biodiversity Information Centre. An annual report would

SLR Clean Power Properties 5 402.03620.00004 Micheldever Rail Sidings EMP November 2013 be submitted to the LPA and NE as necessary (for instance to comply with EPS legislative/ licensing requirements).

Following each years’ monitoring, the success of the mitigation and compensation scheme and the appropriateness of the monitoring methodology adopted will be reviewed in light of the data collected. As a consequence methods of habitat management and monitoring may need to be modified as necessary.

SLR Clean Power Properties 6 402.03620.00004 Micheldever Rail Sidings EMP November 2013

2.0 ECOLOGICAL WORKS IN ADVANCE OF CONSTRUCTION

2.1 Update Assessment of Site Ecology

In line with Natural England guidance1 where a European Protected Species Licence is to be applied for, once planning permission has been granted, update ecological survey would be undertaken to check that the habitats have not changed significantly since the survey was carried out. Information would be fed back in the EMP to ensure mitigation proposals are appropriate

Pre construction surveys would be undertaken at an appropriate period to

 highlight locations of cut leaved germander and distribution of notable plants & key grassland swards proposed for translocation (particularly important as these colonies and the habitats supporting them are dynamic and constantly developing and changing year by year);  assess current distribution of dormouse habitat to inform EPSL programme;  highlight areas where reptile site clearance methodology is required; and  re-assess trees proposed for felling / surgery in respect of bat roosts.

2.2 Dormouse European Protected Species Licence

A dormouse EPSL is to be submitted Natural England following determination of the planning consent and compliance with relevant conditions. The outline mitigation strategy for dormouse, to be detailed in the EPSL application, is as follows:

 to minimise the amount of dormouse habitat affected by the proposed works (achieved through iterative scheme design with consideration for engineering considerations);  to carry out works a manner most likely to reduce the risk of killing or injuring dormice; and  to provide compensatory and enhance existing habitat in order to maintain favourable conservation status for dormouse within the site.

In accordance with best practice guidance, the proposed measures for dormice will comprise five main strands:

 creation of areas of suitable habitat on and adjacent to the site using species of value for dormouse,  retention, protection and strengthening of habitat links to prevent isolation or fragmentation of habitat,  sensitive (supervised) habitat clearance, ensuring availability of habitat for displaced animals  provision of nest boxes to increase the carrying capacity of the wider site in advance of habitat clearance and  long-term management and monitoring of new/ retained dormouse habitat on and adjacent to the site

1 http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/planningdevelopment/spatialplanning/standingadvice/faq.a spx#q8

SLR Clean Power Properties 7 402.03620.00004 Micheldever Rail Sidings EMP November 2013

2.3 Schedule 8 Conservation Licence for translocation of cut leaved germander

Under the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) licences can be issued by Natural England for specific purposes only, such as science and education or conservation purposes. There is no provision for licensing the above actions for development operations under the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and as such the translocation of Cut-leaved germander would need to be undertaken under a ‘conservation’ licence after evidence is provided that the 'incidental result of a lawful operation 'incidental result of a lawful operation and could not reasonably have been avoided'.

Prior to commencement of works a site walkover, and if deemed necessary (depending upon the time that has lapsed between 2013 and the start point of development), a re-survey of the colony of Cut-leaved Germander would be undertaken to inform a detailed mitigation strategy.

This would advise the licence application which would need to be presented alongside a detailed translocation, aftercare and monitoring plan.

2.4 Bat, Dormouse and Bird Boxes

2.4.1 Dormouse

To provide assistance for dormice displaced during site clearance and to enhance the carrying capacity of the retained areas2, fifty dormouse nest boxes will be erected in suitable woodland and scrub habitat within and adjacent to the site bounds as indicated in Drawing 01. Boxes will be erected prior to commencement of habitat clearance by suitably qualified and experienced ecologists and will form part of the mitigation for dormouse identified within the EPSL application. Early installation of nest boxes will provide supplementary nesting opportunities in areas of retained habitat prior to habitat removal.

2.4.2 Birds

Twenty bird boxes will be installed on suitable trees within and adjacent to the site, where human disturbance is deemed minimal. Boxes will be installed at a minimum height of 3 m to prevent disturbance form humans and predators.

Boxes will comprise:

 10 no. Schwegler 1B boxes (26mm hole); and  10 no. Schwegler 1B boxes (32mm hole).

Peregrine nesting boxes will be installed on the new building at an appropriate point in construction (See Section 3.3.3).

2.4.3 Bats

Twenty-one bat boxes will be erected on trees along the eastern and northern site bounds prior to commencement of construction. All boxes will be placed outside areas of potential disturbance including light spill and noise. The bat boxes will be of a range of designs to provide roosting opportunities for the range of species identified during survey. Boxes will comprise:

2 Nest boxes have been shown to increase the carrying capacity of habitat by up to 100% (Morris et al 1990, Juskaitis 2005).

SLR Clean Power Properties 8 402.03620.00004 Micheldever Rail Sidings EMP November 2013

 14 no. Schwegler 2F;  4 no. Schwegler 65-1FF; and  3 no. Schwegler 95-1FS.

Bat boxes will be placed at least 4 m from the ground with at least one box per tree sited with the front facing SW to SE. Boxes will be placed in groups of three, all with different aspects, providing a choice of roost sites with different environmental conditions3. .

2.5 Implementation of Habitat Management Scheme

A long term management scheme will be instigated at the commencement of construction for new and retained habitat. The aim of management would be to maintain and enhance habitats for the range of species identified during baseline survey work. The areas of habitat subject to management are identified on Drawing 01 and include long-term enhancement of:

 grasslands,  scrub, and  woodland.

2.5.1 Grassland

The calcareous grassland communities that occupy the application site are typical of those across the wider Micheldever Oil Terminal SINC and nearby Micheldever Spoil Heaps SSSI. These have not arisen as a result of traditional land management practices such as livestock grazing but in this setting the substrate and landform has arisen from more industrial activities with the vegetation community establishing through the slow (particularly in such a stressed environment) process of succession on a stressed soil free substrate. The natural process of succession will ultimately, without any intervention or other forms of incidental interference (grazing, erosion, disturbance, fires etc) result in further colonisation of plants and a shift towards a vegetation community with more ground cover and biomass (coarse grassland and scrub). Such successional processes would be to the detriment of those plant and lichen species of conservation concern. The rates of succession will vary dependent upon the levels of grazing, from rabbits for example (whose population size can fluctuate and as such so can their influence), and from forms of surface disturbance such as rabbits digging or through unauthorised activities such as motorbike scrambling etc.

To ensure that the retained areas of calcareous grassland are maintained in favourable status for key species the following steps shall be taken prior to construction (or within the earliest suitable season after this):

Invasive species control

Remove invasive tree and shrub species (most notably silver birch), where necessary with consideration for dormouse (See section 2.2). Though hand pulling would be optimal as it removes the plant and creates a small local patch of bare ground for colonisation by key species it may not be wholly practical. Alternatively a targeted weedwipe of these invasive species may be more appropriate where the density is high. For trees and shrubs that have grown more than 50cm in height they would be removed after treatment either by pulling or cutting with arisings taken from the open grassland areas. Scrub invasion shall be monitored with further control measures being prescribed as and when necessary;

3 JNCC. 2004. Bat Workers Manual, 3rd Edition.

SLR Clean Power Properties 9 402.03620.00004 Micheldever Rail Sidings EMP November 2013

Creation of colonisation niches

In this initial phase of works a range of new colonisation niches will be created for those opportunistic bare ground species of conservation importance. Small areas (either in blocks or strips no greater than 2m wide) would be created through the raking over the surface with a toothed excavator bucket or through the ‘blading-off’ of surface vegetation (<10cm depth). Such areas would cover no more than 10% of the retained area in the first instance and would be selected by an ecologist on the basis of low quality existing habitat. There may be some benefit in phasing this work alongside/closely following the initial site infrastructure works so that a judgement can be made on how much new bare ground is required at the site following this phase of construction. This action is in effect and enhancement measure. Monitoring shall advise on when and to what extent the next phase of colonisation niche creation will be required, it is anticipated that this would be at around 5 years.

2.5.2 Scrub Management

Monthly visual inspections of all new shrub planting (See section 3.3.1) will be undertaken in the first two years following planting to ensure that they are in good health and establishing as expected. Remedial works will be undertaken as required (water, herbicide treatment of weeds, replacement of failing plants etc). Any plant which fails to successfully establish during this period should be replaced

Following this period, a low maintenance management regime will be implemented to enhance the habitat for dormouse, birds and other fauna. This will require scrub management only where undesirable outcomes occur. This would include a single species becoming dominant or scrub cover impinging on the success of other management proscriptions (i.e. grassland). The following management activities are prescribed in order to promote the fruiting of the shrub species over the initial 10 years:

 Any tree protection measures (tree guards) will be removed in year 5;  shrubs will be left until reaching a minimum height of 2 m,  Where shrub cutting is required, no more than 25% of shrub cover should be cut in a single year,  All shrub cutting (which may disturb dormouse or nesting bird) will be undertaken between November and February.

Management actions will be reviewed after 10 years in light of establishment rates and other management proscriptions.

2.5.3 Woodland Management

In order to improve the value of the dormouse habitat within the woodland along the eastern boundary of the site, management will aim to maintain the woodland belt with a high species diversity, a range of age-classes and a multi-tiered canopy.

Where necessary, crown raising or felling of low importance trees will be undertaken during construction to open the canopy and increase the light levels. This will encourage a dense and well connected shrub layer to develop and provide conditions for the establishment of a diverse ground flora providing additional food resources for a wide range of wildlife species. Caution would be taken to maintain arboreal links.

Logs and brush wood produced during habitat clearance will be retained and piled in the woodland as habitat for hibernating dormouse as well reptiles, amphibians and invertebrates.

SLR Clean Power Properties 10 402.03620.00004 Micheldever Rail Sidings EMP November 2013

For mature canopy trees, the general principal for maintaining wildlife interest is to minimise the amount of works required. Fallen/decaying wood will be left in situ, where practicable, as this will provide habitat for insects and fungi. Standing dead wood is an important ecological habitat and should be retained where there is no risk to health and safety. Where there is a potential health and safety issue, a tree hazard assessment will be conducted annually. Removal of hazardous trees or parts of trees will be undertaken only where necessary.

If tree felling or surgery is required, consideration should be given to retaining all features which offer some value to wildlife including dead wood, and cavities within branches. .

The likelihood of bats being present will be considered for all works to trees and a visual assessment will be undertaken by a licensed bat ecologist prior to any surgery. If limbs with cavities do require removal, consideration will be given to safely fastening these to retained trees. All other wood will be stacked on the margins of the shrubs to act as habitat piles.

Management actions will be reviewed after 10 years.

SLR Clean Power Properties 11 402.03620.00004 Micheldever Rail Sidings EMP November 2013

3.0 CONSTRUCTION PHASE ECOLOGICAL WORKS

3.1 Habitat Clearance Works

All vegetation clearance works, including grassland and scrub clearance would, where feasible, be conducted outside of the core bird breeding season (March – August). Active birds’ nests (in use or under construction) and eggs are protected by law and must be retained and protected from damage until the young have fledged. Therefore if nesting birds are found, a suitable habitat buffer zone of approximately 5 m around the nest site will be maintained. The buffer zone will be clearly marked with high visibility tape or temporary fencing and protected from disturbance until all the young have fledged.

Construction activities likely to disturb nesting peregrine falcon would commence outside the nesting season, which is typically February to July, so as to avoid disturbance during the breeding season. If the birds then choose to nest at the cliff face to the north of the application site following start of works it would be assumed that disturbance levels are tolerable to this species.

3.1.1 Scrub clearance

Approximately 0.4 ha of scrub will be affected by the scheme. The total area of scrub to be affected has been minimised through scheme design will be re-assessed during the site walkover survey (See section 2.1).

All scrub clearance works will be undertaken in accordance with the dormouse EPSL method statement and will follow best practice guidance (Bright et al, 2006).

Clearance would be undertaken as a two stage operation with appropriate scheduling of works within the dormouse life cycle to enable animals to retreat into adjacent habitat (exclusion), coupled with a hand search and translocation of animals / nests encountered. Persuasion will encourage animals to move east into directly connected habitat outside of the construction zone.

All contractors will be given a toolbox talk prior to works and the licensed ecologist’s contact details will be prominently displayed in the site office. In the unlikely event of a dormouse being encountered in the absence of the ecologist, contractors will be directed to immediately halt works in the vicinity of the sighting (50m) and contact the ecologist.

Stage 1 of vegetation clearance:

A precautionary hand-search for active dormouse nests will be undertaken by the ecologist prior to Stage 1 of the vegetation removal. This will comprise an appropriately licensed ecologist checking all vegetation to be removed for active dormouse nests ahead of the contractors.

Vegetation will be cut by the contractor by hand to between 150 and 300 mm above ground level between November – March. This will ensure no hibernating dormice are harmed but will remove sufficient vegetation to persuade dormice emerging from hibernation in May to move to more appropriate habitat nearby. Clearance will start at the western extremity of the habitat, working towards retained habitat, maintaining a route to undisturbed habitat for any active animals. Caution will be taken to ensure minimum disturbance to the ground below the shrubs where dormouse may be hibernating. Contractors will be directed to avoid standing upon the areas at the base of the shrubs and no tools or materials will be placed within this zone.

SLR Clean Power Properties 12 402.03620.00004 Micheldever Rail Sidings EMP November 2013

A thin layer of light brash (unsuitable for bird nesting) will be left to help maintain a more stable environmental temperature for any hibernating dormice. Dormice awakening from hibernation throughout April at ground level should relocate independently into adjacent habitat, as arboreal habitat will be absent within the affected areas.

Stage 2 of the vegetation clearance:

A precautionary hand-search for dormouse nests will be undertaken by the ecologist prior to Stage 2 of the vegetation removal. Immediately prior to removal of shrub stools, the licensed ecologist will undertake a fingertip search of exposed roosts and other ground features which may support remnant torpid animals (this is purely a precautionary measure as no dormouse are expected to be encountered).

Removal of the retained shrub stools will be undertaken by the contractor between late April - June once any dormice potentially present will have emerged from hibernation and vacated the denuded habitat. A machine with a small, toothed bucket will be used to remove rootballs.

Following completion of scrub removal, Heras fencing (or similar) would be used to demarcate and protect the retained habitat to prevent accidental construction creep. This will include sufficient root protection areas

3.1.2 Trees

A small number of trees will require felling to create the new access route. No evidence of roosts was identified during baseline surveys however, as a precautionary measure, these trees will be subject to re-assessment during the site walkover (See section 2.1)

Where the trees affected by the proposed have potential for supporting bat roosts, best practice indicates that works should be undertaken in line with the following methodology:

1. Felling would occur under a watching brief by a bat ecologist 2. Work should be undertaken in Spring or Autumn when it is least disruptive to the bats’ life cycle and when bats are most able to escape should a roost be inadvertently removed. Avoid felling or surgery in winter when bats are likely to be torpid and thus much more likely to be killed or adversely affected by works; 3. Where the supervising ecologist is certain, following detailed inspection, that cavities are clear, these can be filled with expanding foam to prevent bats or birds using them in the future. 4. Felling and surgery should always follow a precautionary ‘soft fell’ methodology if there is a risk of harming bats of affecting roosts. This involves identification of the most appropriate cut points (well away from any cavities) followed by cutting and lowering suspect limbs to ground level in a controlled manor to allow inspection by the ecologist

If a roost is confirmed within any of the trees, a European Protected Species licence would be obtained from Natural England. The associated method statement would detail the necessary mitigation, the detail of which would be dependent on the species and type of roost present.

Any temporary lighting during construction would be designed to minimise light spill into adjacent habitats as far as possible, particularly in proximity to features which could be used by bats including hedgerows and mature trees.

SLR Clean Power Properties 13 402.03620.00004 Micheldever Rail Sidings EMP November 2013

3.1.3 Grassland

Grassland will cleared with consideration for reptiles (Section 3.1.4). In addition where clearance works occur within the bird breeding season a walkover survey will be conducted by an ecologist immediately prior to clearance works commencing to ensure no nesting birds are present.

Additional measures adopted when the grassland is stripped to conserve key species of conservation importance as discussed below in 3.2.

3.1.4 Reptile Displacement

Every reasonable effort will be undertaken to safeguard reptiles. All suitable areas of reptile habitat will be mapped during the walkover survey (See section 2.1).Given the limited extent of habitat affected and the low level of the slow worm population present, mitigation will comprise staged vegetation clearance of suitable habitat. Areas of grassland, scrub margins and scattered scrub will be cleared under an ecological watching brief by the Ecological Clerk of Works or other competent ecologist.

Standard working methods to minimise the risk of harming or killing reptiles, will include the following:

 Coarse grass and scrub will be cleared progressively using hand tools to provide reptiles with an opportunity to move out of the area. Areas of tall grassland will be strimmed, and scrub cut down to ground level and removed  If reptiles are found during the clearance operations they will be moved to adjacent areas of suitable habitat that are not affected by development.

3.2 Cut leaved germander and other notable flora translocation

The British Red Data book for vascular plants (Wiggington, 1999) sets out that Cut leaved Germander is a plant of bare or sparsely vegetated places on chalk and limestone. It has been recorded from a variety of habitats, including open grassland, arable field margins, chalk and limestone spoil tips, a disused chalk quarry, and open fallow. It also states that a very open community is essential, as it is intolerant of shade or competition, and open and broken ground is essential for germination, factors that have been considered in the management proposals set out in this report.

It is predominantly a biennial though in some instances it is also an annual such as in the 2013 growing season at Micheldever. The life-cycle is variable, and depends on the time of germination and yearly weather conditions. The seeds usually germinate in spring or autumn but seedlings may appear at other times of year depending on the weather, and bare ground is essential for this to happen. The seeds are heavy, and fall close to the parent plant, so the species is not a very good coloniser of new suitable habitats hence the management interventions proposed. It is likely that the chalk substrates at the Micheldever site are more prone to summer drying and this population may behave as an annual in most years as a result. Winship (1994) noted that management activities such as 'harrowing' to create bare areas and to break up the soil; scrub clearance and turf cutting has lead to the species has responding well.

Based upon the known biology of the Cut-leaved Germander it is proposed that the translocation strategy focuses primarily on collecting and moving the seed bank of the colony and the substrate in which the plant is known to grow. By translocating the substrate where the plant grows there is added surety that the growth medium has suitable chemistry

SLR Clean Power Properties 14 402.03620.00004 Micheldever Rail Sidings EMP November 2013 and structure for germination and if there are any essential mychorrizal associations required for germination and establishment these will be moved along with the materials.

The objective of the strategy based upon the plants life cycle is to provide conditions to maintain a viable colony of the species on site rather than seeking to move every single plant which has a very short lifespan.

Prior to stripping, an ecologist would re-assess the Cut-leaved Germander colony location and extent and select areas of greatest plant density for targeted stripping of the top layer of substrate. At least 50m2 of substrate from areas where this species has been recorded shall be subject to the following treatment. If the extent of the colony fails to cover such an area the core of the colony plus a 2m zone around it shall be selected for translocation. The translocation shall be as follows;

 prior to any activity any undesirable invasive tree and shrub species shall be hand pulled and removed from the area to prevent their spread;  using a flat edged excavator bucket a ‘skim’ of 100-150mm of the top surface of chalk shall be taken from the selected area and moved to a pre prepared receptor area;  several receptor areas will be prepared as follows to correspond with the area of translocation materials generated as detailed above. Surface vegetation shall be stripped/pushed to one site to create bare blocks of no more than 10m2. Some of these areas to receive translocated materials may have resulted from disturbance associated with the infrastructure construction works. The receptor areas shall be in a range of suitable locations throughout the undeveloped part of the site where land shall be managed for its nature conservation interests; and  placement of the stripped materials shall be at a depth of no greater than that stripped (approximately 100mm), it will be spread evenly and levelled either with the back of an excavator bucket.

The exact details of this method would be subject to agreement with Natural England and all work would be undertaken under a ‘Conservation licence’ (See Section 2.3).

The same steps are equally applicable to the colony of Wall Bedstraw Galium parisiense, a Nationally Scarce and Vulnerable species, in this instance it is proposed that the same method be applied but a target of a minimum of 10m2 be set for this species to ensure it is redistributed within the safeguarded areas of the site. Given that approximately half of the area where Spring Cinquefoil Potentilla neumanniana is recorded as being Frequent to Abundant is to be retained and put into a scheme of suitable management no further translocation is proposed for this species.

With respect to the lichen flora, the main mitigation measure proposed is that of the management and enhancement of existing retained habitats and this alone will assist with the conservation of at least three of the five notable species recorded. Where such colonies will be lost to the development the translocation method, as set out above shall be employed to ‘inoculate’ retained areas with propagules from these species. Again, a minimum target area for transfer is 10m2.

3.3 Compensatory Habitat Establishment

3.3.1 Scrub

Areas of new scrub will be planted in the first appropriate planting season (between November and March). The planting will form a belt of dense habitat connecting to existing scrub and woodland along the eastern and northern site boundaries. A scalloped edge will

SLR Clean Power Properties 15 402.03620.00004 Micheldever Rail Sidings EMP November 2013 be created and maintained along the western edge of the woodland. This will provide bays that offer wind shelter and different thermal conditions, increasing the complexity of available habitat.

The scrub habitat will be developed with dormouse occupation as a key consideration and the aim will therefore be to provide a well connected and diverse shrub layer reflecting the species already present within the site and providing a variety of fruiting and flowering woody plants to supply a succession of food throughout the year.

To provide the maximum potential for rapid establishment, the habitat creation will follow the protocols set out below;

 all plants will be obtained from reputable suppliers, and delivered to site ready for planting,  all plants will receive a thorough watering 48 hours prior to planting,  whips will be planted via notch planting,  no planting will be undertaken if the ground is frozen or waterlogged,  the plants will consist of two year old bare rooted transplants c. 40 - 60 cm high,  a dense planting regime will be undertaken to improve establishment success rates and encourage rapid early growth, and  all newly planted areas will be protected by rabbit proof fencing. Where fencing is inappropriate, rabbit spirals / guards will be used.

The species mix will include the following species (percentages are approximate):

 Hazel (Corylus avellana) 31%  Oak (Quercus robur) 10%  Hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna) 10%  Blackthorn (Prunus spinosa) 10%  Wayfaring tree (Vibernum lantana) 10%  Spindle (Euonymus europaeus) 7%  Field maple (Acer campestre) 7%  Dog rose (Rosa canina) 7%  Honeysuckle (Lonicera periclymenum) 7%

In addition 90 – 120 cm feathered trees will be staggered through planting at approximate 10 m intervals.

 Bird cherry (Prunus avium) 33%  Sweet chestnut (Castanea sativa) 33%  Crab apple (Malus sylvestris) 33%

3.3.2 Grassland

The landscape strategy plan (incorporated into Drawing 01) sets out a scheme which retains large areas of existing grassland habitat and this shall be subject to enhancement works as set out in 2.5.1.

A brown roof shall be installed on main building covering an area of xxm2 , though the profile and construction shall follow that of a standard brown roof the top layer of substrate shall comprise no less than 150mm of chalk spoil. As the area will not receive direct ‘seed rain’ from all species in the vicinity some of the substrate used to cap it shall be from those areas of the development site with a diverse and valued assemblage of calcicolous species.

SLR Clean Power Properties 16 402.03620.00004 Micheldever Rail Sidings EMP November 2013

The roof habitat shall be subject to regular annual monitoring checks and management requirements shall be prescribed following such inspections. The objective would be to maintain a thin and patchy sward of opportunist stress tolerant species typical of the spoil heaps and to avoid successional advancement to coarse grassland and scrub.

In addition to this, initial discussions have with Natural England (Harold Makant, Nov 2013) about some of the management issues facing the Micheldever Spoil Heaps SSSI have identified a number of potentially beneficial compensation and enhancement measures within the SSSI which cannot be delivered though the standard management agreements that Natural England make with land owners and occupiers. The measures discussed which would have beneficial effects upon key calcareous grassland communities and the species of conservation importance that they support are as follows:

 removal of an invading strip of scrub (where this does not conflict with other interests) at the foot of the slope of the chalk spoil tips to ‘push back’ the front of the invasive species and to distance the source of seed from these species onto the chalk. This may also provide opportunities to open up more bare chalk too that is currently over shaded; and  creation of new bare areas through physical disturbance and removal of ‘less favourable’ colonised plant species and vegetation.

Such measures could provide significant enhancements within the SSSI for the key species associated with the spoil heaps. Discussion about delivery mechanisms for such measures are being discussed with Hampshire Wildlife Trust.

3.3.3 Peregrine nest boxes

Peregrine nest boxes will be incorporated within the development at the appropriate stage. Two such features would be attached to the western aspect of the main building, one at each end. The third would be attached to the flue stack in a south east facing direction. The box in this location would be attached in such a way that it was not directly touching the chimney stack, to minimise the transfer of any fluctuations in heat from the chimney to the nest box. This would provide alternative nesting sites, in addition to the cliff face already present. Specifications for box design are given in Appendix B.

3.4 Habitat Enhancement

3.4.1 Grassland

Measures to enhance the grassland habitats are set out in section 2.5.1 of this report.

3.4.2 Woodland

Management of the mature woodland along the eastern boundary of the site will involve maintaining and enhancing this habitat as suitable for dormouse and as such will also provide suitable habitat for numerous other species of fauna.

In order to provide optimal dormouse habitat, management will aim to maintain woodland with a high species diversity, a range of age-classes and a multi-tiered canopy. Young growth stands, particularly a dense shrub layer improve connectivity through the woodland and provide important food sources for dormouse. Steps will be undertaken to improve this habitat (See 2.5.3)

SLR Clean Power Properties 17 402.03620.00004 Micheldever Rail Sidings EMP November 2013

Hazel whips and honeysuckle plants will be planted within the woodland in areas with a sparse under canopy. These will be planted at a density of 1 per m2 and will be protected with spiral tree guards.

SLR Clean Power Properties 18 402.03620.00004 Micheldever Rail Sidings EMP November 2013

4.0 OPERATIONAL PHASE ECOLOGICAL WORKS

Key Indicators will be assessed at regular intervals in order to provide a means by which all other management measures can be evaluated and revised where necessary. The following section outlines the surveys proposed to assess the management objectives and the appropriate timing (Year 1 being the commencement of construction).

4.1 Grassland Management

See Section 2.5.1

4.2 Scrub Management

See Section 2.5.2

4.3 Woodland Management

See Section 2.5.3

4.4 Monitoring

4.4.1 Habitat Monitoring

The woodland and grassland surveys will provide information on the maturation of habitats and guide future management. Where the monitoring highlights habitats which are not developing as would be expected (in order to provide maximum ecological benefit), remedial measures will be recommended, these may include measures to reduce the fertility of the grassland or changes in management regimes to promote the growth of desirable species or inhibit the spread of undesirable species.

Grassland

The Conservation Licence issued by Natural England will define a detailed monitoring programme following the translocation of Cut-leaved germander. For the monitoring of the grassland habitats and to advise any specific remedial management works a scheme of annual monitoring is proposed for the first five years (the period when most change and management intervention is required) after this need and frequency for monitoring visits could reviewed and redefined depending upon the needs of the site and the species of importance. Monitoring will include fixed point botanical assessment at appropriate periods for key species.

The brown roof would be subject to annual monitoring checks to determine appropriate management requirements shall

Scrub and woodland

Beyond the 2 year new planting establishment inspections proposed in Section 3.3.1, a walkover survey of scrub and woodland would be undertaken on an annual basis. This would include

 an assessment of the extent of scrub communities; to balance requirements for dormouse and grassland communities and inform decisions about future management,

SLR Clean Power Properties 19 402.03620.00004 Micheldever Rail Sidings EMP November 2013

 an assessment of the structure and species composition of scrub stands; to identify the need for diversifying structural mosaics or encouraging flowering and fruiting, and  an assessment of invasive or undesirable species and to enable their eradication.

4.4.2 Dormouse Monitoring

The dormouse boxes would be checked in line with the National Dormouse Monitoring Program (See Appendix C). This will involve checks of the boxes in the key months for dormouse; May, June, September and October. Dormouse box checks will require personnel with relevant Natural England Survey Licence. Boxes will be cleaned and replaced as necessary and would be used to determine that the dormouse population has been maintained at a favourable conservation status.

A nest tube survey of newly created scrub habitat in Year 10 will provide information on the success of the planting for this species. The confirmation of dormouse presence or absence within the new woodland after ten years is imperative to guide future woodland management. If dormouse is absent, further steps to encourage this species may be necessary and, if dormouse if present, sensitive management of habitats will be required.

4.4.3 Bat Monitoring

A simple monitoring programme is recommended due to the limited impacts on bats. The objective of the monitoring programme is to ascertain if habitat enhancement measures are successful.

Bat box checks will be undertaken on an annual basis from the commencement of construction. Boxes will be checked in September by personnel with the relevant Natural England Survey Licence. All boxes will be cleaned and replaced as necessary.

4.4.4 Bird Monitoring

The objective of the monitoring programme is to ascertain if habitat enhancement measures are successful. Annual monitoring will be undertaken to determine occupation of peregrine nest boxes and use of the existing nesting site. This would require a site visit to observe nesting locations using a scope or binoculars during the courtship period (March – April) and a second visit when nesting birds and/ or young would be expected (May – July).

SLR Clean Power Properties 20 402.03620.00004 Micheldever Rail Sidings EMP November 2013

5.0 CLOSURE

This report has been prepared by SLR Consulting Limited with all reasonable skill, care and diligence, and taking account of the manpower and resources devoted to it by agreement with the client. Information reported herein is based on the interpretation of data collected and has been accepted in good faith as being accurate and valid.

This report is for the exclusive use of Clean Power Properties; no warranties or guarantees are expressed or should be inferred by any third parties. This report may not be relied upon by other parties without written consent from SLR.

SLR disclaims any responsibility to the client and others in respect of any matters outside the agreed scope of the work.

SLR Clean Power Properties 21 402.03620.00004 Micheldever Rail Sidings EMP November 2013

REFERENCES & BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anon (2004) Reptiles: Guidelines for Developers. English Nature, Peterborough.

Bright, P.W., Morris, P.A. & Mitchell-Jones, A.J. (2006) The Dormouse Conservation Handbook. English Nature, Peterborough.

Gent, T. & Gibson, S. (1998) Herpetofauna Workers Manual. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough.

Mitchell-Jones, A.J. (2004) Bat Mitigation Guidelines. English Nature, Peterborough.

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

Winship, H. R. (1994) The conservation of cut-leaved germander Teucrium botrys Linnaeus. Eastleigh: Hampshire Wildlife Trust.

Wigginton M.J. (1999) British Red Data Books. 1. Vascular plants, edn 3. JNCC.

Web addresses for access to full UK legislation text:

Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2010/uksi_20100490_en_1

Habitats Directive:

www.europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/lif/dat/1992/en_392L0043

Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981:

www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1981/cukpga_19810069_en_1

Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000:

www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/20000037

Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/ukpga_20060016_en_1

SLR Clean Power Properties 22 402.03620.00004 Micheldever Rail Sidings EMP November 2013

SLR Clean Power Properties 23 402.03620.00004 Micheldever Rail Sidings EMP November 2013

APPENDIX A: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION

Important Ecological Residual Impact following Mitigation and Feature Description of Potential Impact Mitigation and Compensation Proposals Significance Indirect effects caused by dust, aerial pollutants and particulate None required Not significant River Itchen SAC matter Micheldever Spoil Heaps Indirect effects caused by dust, SSSI and three other aerial pollutants and particulate Implementation of Air quality management plan. Not significant SSSI’s within 10km matter Retention of remaining habitats and management to increase calcareous grassland Minor negative - Overall loss of approximately Direct effects as a result of habitat Re-instatement of grasslands on green roof and 0.25ha of calcareous grassland (not including loss implementation of ecological management plan to aid potential areas re-instated through scrub grassland re-instatement throughout application site. management) Restriction of public access to retained habitats Indirect effects caused by dust, Micheldever Oil Terminal aerial pollutants and particulate Dust suppression techniques Not significant SINC matter Slow worm habitat displacement Removal and fragmentation of Habitat management to enhance retained habitats habitat which supports low Not significant Creation of grassland wildlife corridor through site population of slow worm Slow Worm Removal of Cat 1 trees with Re-inspection prior to felling. potential bat roost features (no Relocation of suitable roost features onto retained roosts identified during baseline trees surveys) Installation of 20 bat boxes Not significant to minor positive Installation of cowled directional lighting, angled Bats (trees with roost Installation of artificial lighting away from semi-natural habitats. poetnial) Security lighting triggered by movement Implementation of EPS licence and mitigation Loss of nesting habitat and strategy to include cutting scrub at least-sensitive Not significant Dormouse (assumed connectivity across application site time of year (winter) and replacement habitat present) planting.

SLR Clean Power Properties 24 402.03620.00004 Micheldever Rail Sidings EMP November 2013

Important Ecological Residual Impact following Mitigation and Feature Description of Potential Impact Mitigation and Compensation Proposals Significance Commencement of development outside of peregrine nesting season Disturbance of nesting peregrines Not significant Installation of 3 artificial nest sites to secure nesting Peregrine falcon pair on site in long term Removal of habitat outside of nesting season or following survey and fencing off nest sites if Removal of habitat with the required by a suitably qualified ecologist. Not significant to minor positive potential to support nesting birds

Nesting birds Reinstatement of green roof Introduction of conservation management programme to improve retained habitats for use by Removal of habitat known to invertebrate assemblage Not significant to minor positive support invertebrate assemblage Installation of solitary bee habitat within northern Invertebrates retaining wall

SLR Clean Power Properties 25 402.03620.00004 Micheldever Rail Sidings EMP November 2013

APPENDIX B: DESIGN FOR A PEREGRINE NEST BOX taken from http://www.raptorresource.org/build.htm

SLR Clean Power Properties 26 402.03620.00004 Micheldever Rail Sidings EMP November 2013

SLR Clean Power Properties 27 402.03620.00004 Micheldever Rail Sidings EMP November 2013

SLR Clean Power Properties 28 402.03620.00004 Micheldever Rail Sidings EMP November 2013

SLR Clean Power Properties 29 402.03620.00004 Micheldever Rail Sidings EMP November 2013

APPENDIX C: NDMP SURVEY GUIDELINES http://www.ptes.org/files/2082_ndmp_guidelines_and_forms_2013.pdf

Setting up a nest box scheme

 50 or more nest boxes should be put up at a site, spaced about 10-20m apart in parallel lines, 10-20m apart. This can either be in one large grid system or in smaller grids throughout the wood  The nest boxes should be sited in hazels, other shrubs or young trees which are well linked to the adjacent understorey and canopy  The most convenient height for the nest boxes is about 1.5m off the ground, about chest height. Tie the nest box to the tree or shrub with plastic covered wire, so that it can be lifted down easily  Number the boxes sequentially with waterproof ink. Make a map showing the location of each numbered box, it can be helpful to note what tree type the box is on  See pages 25 to 30 of The Dormouse Conservation Handbook for full details

Getting started

 Nest boxes can be checked once each month from May to October (April to November if possible). Or 4 times a year in the months May, June (pre-breeding), September and October (post-breeding). As an absolute minimum two box checks should be carried out during the year in May or June and September or October. The box checks should be carried out between 15th and 25th of the month  For each check you will need a supply of large clear polythene bags into which to empty the nest boxes containing dormice, two or three small polythene bags for weighing and scales weighing in grammes (up to 50g)  Carry out the checks in the morning, if possible, in order not to miss torpid dormice because they are of particular interest - they tend to warm up about midday. Process and return to the box as quickly as possible, so as to avoid too much disturbance.

SLR ECOLOGY 12

Appendix B

Aerial Deposition Information

Land Adjacent to Micheldever Rail Sidings P a g e | 12-47 SLR Consulting Limited

Land Adjacent to Micheldever Rail Sidings

Appendix B – Aerial Deposition

SLR Ref: 402-03620-00004

November 2013

Version: Rev 1

Clean Power Properties i 402.03620.00004 Appendix B - Micheldever Rail Sidings November 2013

CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ...... 2 Aerial Deposition ...... 2 Critical Levels of NOx and SO2 ...... 2 Contribution of N Deposition to Eutrophication ...... 3 Contribution of N and S Deposition to Acidification ...... 3 Conclusions ...... 5

SLR T:\Projects\402\03620 - Clean Power Properties Ltd\00004 - Micheldever EIA\Tech\PLA\Output\Ext\additional information 2013\Ecology\13.11.22 Appendix B Aerial Deposition.dotx Clean Power Properties 2 402.03620.00004 Appendix B - Micheldever Rail Sidings November 2013

INTRODUCTION

1.1 In November 2012, Hampshire County Council (HCC) requested additional ecological information to help consideration of the planning application by Clean Power Properties and Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd for a waste management development at Micheldever Railway Sidings

1.2 Appendix B to Chapter 12 of the Environmental Statement ‘Ecology’ provides additional information to confirm that there will be no adverse impacts from aerial deposition.

Aerial Deposition

1.3 Chapter 7 of the ES (Air Quality) investigates the potential impacts of the stack emissions of Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) and Sulphur Dioxide (SO2) on the nearby ecological features, however in accordance with EA guidance (H1), where the airborne levels of a pollutant are classified as ‘insignificant’ the assessment of deposition is not required. No source of phosphate emission to air is known to be present at the site and therefore this has not been assessed further.

Critical Levels of NOx and SO2

1.4 In relation to the SINC and SSSI, the predicted NOx and SO2 levels as a result of stack emissions from the proposed waste management development are as follows; (from Table 7-14 of the Chapter 7 of the ES).

Table 1 Annual Mean NOx Process Contribution at Sensitive Ecosystems

Local Site NOx NOx SO2 SO2 PC (µg/m3) % of EAL PC (µg/m3) % of EAL Micheldever Spoil Heaps SSSI 0.245 0.82% 0.375 1.88% Micheldever Oil Terminal SINC 0.138 0.46% 0.497 2.49%

1.5 From this it is clear that NOx impacts are <1% and can therefore be classified as ‘insignificant’ in accordance with EA H1 guidance.

1.6 The impacts of SO2 are >1% of the critical and were classified as ‘insignificant’ in the ES in accordance with the criteria in the EA’s briefing note for ammonia from agriculture. More recent Environment Agency (EA) guidance (Operational Instruction 66_12 ‘Simple assessment of the impact of aerial emissions from new or expanding IPPC regulated industry for impacts on nature conservation’) indicates that a 100% significance threshold for LWS’s should be used and a 1% significance threshold for SSSI.

1.7 Therefore, as the percentage of SO2 is in excess of 1% at the SSSI, further consideration of the Predicted Environmental Concentration (PEC) of SO2 is 3 required. A background concentration for SO2 of 1.7µg/m was applied in the ES, which results in a PEC of 2.075µg/m3. This equates to approximately 10% of the Environmental Assessment Level (EAL). In accordance with EA H1 guidance, this PEC is significantly below 70% of the EAL and is therefore ‘not significant’.

SLR Clean Power Properties 3 402.03620.00004 Appendix B - Micheldever Rail Sidings November 2013

Contribution of N Deposition to Eutrophication

1.8 In order to clarify the significance of the deposition of Nitrogen (N) as a result of NO2 emissions from the stacks serving the proposed waste management development, as no species specific critical loads are available through the APIS database, a site relevant critical load of 5kgN/ha/yr for the SSSI (based on limestone pavements as the most sensitive listed feature) and a critical load range of 5-10kgN/ha/yr for the SINC (based on a broad habitat type of ‘calcareous grassland’) have been applied.

1.9 The contribution of NO2 emissions from the stacks serving the proposed Micheldever Rail Sidings waste management development to N deposition is shown in Table 2 below: Table 2 Predicted N deposition Local Site Critical Load N deposition rate % of Critical (kgN/ha/yr) PC (kgN/ha/yr) Load Micheldever Spoil Heaps SSSI 5 0.025 0.49% Micheldever Oil Terminal SINC 5 0.014 0.28%

1.10 On this basis the impact of N deposition resulting from NO2 emissions from the stacks serving the proposed development can be classified as ‘insignificant’ according to EA and Natural England (NE) guidance, and no further assessment is considered to be required.

Contribution of N and S Deposition to Acidification

1.11 The acidity critical load functions for the SSSI and SINC have been obtained from the APIS resource and are presented in Table 3 below:

Table 3 Acid Critical Load Functions and Current Loads (keq/ha/yr) Name / Type Critical Load Function Current Current N Dep S Dep SSSI MaxCLminN: 0.178 MaxCLMaxN: 4.328 MaxCLMaxS: 4.15 1.325 0.308 MinCLminN: 0.178 MinCLMaxN: 1.078 MinCLMaxS: 0.9 SINC CLminN: 0.85 CLMaxN: 4.77 CLMaxS: 3.91 1.22 0.29

1.12 The calculation of the significance of the process contribution of N and Sulphur (S) to the acidity critical load function is carried out according to the guidance on APIS, which is as follows:

‘The potential impacts of additional sulphur and/or nitrogen deposition from a source are partly determined by PEC, because only if PEC of nitrogen deposition is greater than CLminN will the additional nitrogen deposition from the source contribute to acidity. Consequently, if PEC is less that CLminN only the acidifying affects of sulphur from the process need to be considered:

Where PEC N Deposition < CLminN

PC as % CL function = (PC S deposition/CLmaxS)*100

Where PEC is greater than CLminN (the majority of cases), the combined inputs of sulphur and nitrogen need to be considered. In such cases, the total acidity input should be calculated as a proportion of the CLmaxN.

SLR Clean Power Properties 4 402.03620.00004 Appendix B - Micheldever Rail Sidings November 2013

Where PEC N Deposition > CLminN

PC as %CL function = ((PC of S+N deposition)/CLmaxN)*100’

1.13 A summary of the maximum predicted NO2 and SO2 contribution to acid deposition and as a percentage of the CLmaxN at the SINC and SSSI are presented in Table 4 below. Table 4 Predicted Acid Deposition on Nature Conservation Sites (keq/ha/yr) Site PC N PC S PC –N+S CLmaxN % of CLmaxN SSSI 0.0010 0.0444 0.0453 4.328 1.05% SINC 0.0018 0.0588 0.0606 4.77 1.27%

1.14 From this it is clear that PC to acid deposition at the SINC are <1.5% and can therefore be classified as ‘insignificant’ in accordance with EA operational instruction 66_12.

1.15 The PC to acid deposition at the SSSI is marginally >1% of the critical level and therefore cannot be classified as ‘insignificant’ and further consideration of the PEC is required. This has been undertaken using the background values for N and S acid deposition presented in Table 3, and indicates a PEC of 1.68Keq/ha/yr. This equates to 39% of the CLmax N of 4.328Keq/ha/yr and can therefore be classified as ‘not significant’ according to EA H1 guidance.

1.16 This acidity critical load function is shown graphically in Figure 1 below:

SLR Clean Power Properties 5 402.03620.00004 Appendix B - Micheldever Rail Sidings November 2013

Figure 1 Acidity Critical Local Function - SSSI Conclusions

1.17 In response to the queries raised, further clarification has been provided in relation to the impacts of NOx and SO2 emission from the stacks serving the proposed waste management development. This has confirmed that the predicted impacts, in terms of both critical levels and critical loads, are not significant and no further assessment is required.

SLR Clean Power Properties 6 402.03620.00004 Appendix B - Micheldever Rail Sidings November 2013

SLR

AYLESBURY EDINBURGH NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE 7 Wornal Park, Menmarsh Road, No. 4 The Roundal, Roddinglaw Sailors Bethel, Horatio Street, Worminghall, Aylesbury, Business Park, Gogar, Edinburgh Newcastle-upon-Tyne NE1 2PE Buckinghamshire HP18 9PH EH12 9DB T: +44 (0)191 2611966 T: +44 (0)1844 337380 T: +44 (0)131 3356830

BELFAST EXETER NOTTINGHAM 24 Ballynahinch Street, Hillsborough, 69 Polsloe Road, Exeter EX1 2NF Aspect House, Aspect Business Park, Co. Down, BT26 6AW Northern Ireland T: + 44 (0)1392 490152 Bennerley Road, Nottingham NG6 8WR T: +44 (0)28 9268 9036 T: +44 (0)115 9647280

BRADFORD-ON-AVON FARNBOROUGH Treenwood House, Rowden Lane, The Pavilion, 2 Sherborne Road, South ST. ALBANS Bradford-on-Avon, Wiltshire BA15 2AU Farnborough, Hampshire GU14 6JT White House Farm Barns, Gaddesden T: +44 (0)1225 309400 T: +44 (0)1252 515682 Row, Hertfordshire HP2 6HG T: +44 (0)1582 840471 BRISTOL GLASGOW Langford Lodge, 109 Pembroke Road, 4 Woodside Place, Charing Cross, SHEFFIELD Clifton, Bristol BS8 3EU Glasgow G3 7QF STEP Business Centre, Wortley Road, T: +44 (0)117 9064280 T: +44 (0)141 3535037 Deepcar, Sheffield S36 2UH T: +44 (0)114 2903628 CAMBRIDGE HUDDERSFIELD 8 Stow Court, Stow-cum-Quy, Westleigh House, Wakefield Road, SHREWSBURY Cambridge CB25 9AS Denby Dale, Huddersfield HD8 8QJ Mytton Mill, Forton Heath, Montford T: + 44 (0)1223 813805 T: +44 (0)1484 860521 Bridge, Shrewsbury SY4 1HA T: +44 (0)1743 850170 CARDIFF LEEDS Fulmar House, Beignon Close, Ocean Suite 1, Jason House, Kerry Hill, STAFFORD Way, Cardiff CF24 5PB Horsforth, Leeds LS18 4JR 8 Parker Court, Staffordshire Technology T: +44 (0)29 20491010 T: +44 (0)113 2580650 Park, Beaconside, Stafford ST18 0WP T: +44 (0)1785 241755 CHELMSFORD Unit 77, Waterhouse Business Centre, LONDON WARRINGTON 2 Cromar Way, Chelmsford, Essex 83 Victoria Street, Suite 9 Beech House, Padgate Business CM1 2QE London, SW1H 0HW Park, Green Lane, Warrington WA1 4JN T: +44 (0)1245 392170 T: +44 (0)203 691 5810 T: +44 (0)1925 827218

DUBLIN MAIDSTONE WORCESTER 7 Dundrum Business Park, Windy 19 Hollingworth Court, Turkey Mill, Suite 5, Brindley Court, Gresley Road, Arbour, Dundrum, Dublin 14 Ireland Maidstone, Kent ME14 5PP Shire Business Park, Worcester T: + 353 (0)1 2964667 T: +44 (0)1622 609242 WR4 9FD T: +44 (0)1905 751310