Costed Plans and Options for Herpetofauna Surveillance and Monitoring English Nature Research Reports
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Report Number 663 Costed plans and options for herpetofauna surveillance and monitoring English Nature Research Reports working today for nature tomorrow English Nature Research Reports Number 663 Costed plans and options for herpetofauna surveillance and monitoring Chris Gleed-Owen, John Buckley, Julia Coneybeer, Tony Gent, Morag McCracken, Nick Moulton, & Dorothy Wright You may reproduce as many additional copies of this report as you like for non-commercial purposes, provided such copies stipulate that copyright remains with English Nature, Northminster House, Peterborough PE1 1UA. However, if you wish to use all or part of this report for commercial purposes, including publishing, you will need to apply for a licence by contacting the Enquiry Service at the above address. Please note this report may also contain third party copyright material. ISSN 0967-876X © Copyright English Nature 2005 Cover note This report is the result of a project designed jointly by The Herpetological Conservation Trust (The HCT), English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales. The lead researcher was Chris Gleed-Owen at The HCT, and the English Nature project officer was Jim Foster. The views in this report are the authors’ own and do not necessarily represent those of English Nature. For further information on amphibian and reptile conservation please contact: The Herpetological Conservation Trust 655A Christchurch Road Boscombe Bournemouth Dorset BH1 4AP Tel: 01202 391319 Website: www.herpconstrust.org.uk English Nature Northminster House Peterborough PE1 1UA Tel: 01733 455000 Website: www.english-nature.org.uk This report should be cited as: GLEED-OWEN , C. and others. 2005. Costed plans and options for herpetofauna surveillance and monitoring English Nature Research Reports, No 663. Acknowledgements The HCT wishes to acknowledge the financial support of English Nature, the Countryside Council for Wales, the Esmée Fairbairn Foundation, and SITA Environmental Trust. The HCT would like to thank Jim Foster and Liz Howe in particular for their involvement in this project. Many other people have helped in some way by providing advice, information or other assistance: Rick Anstis, Neal Armour-Chelu, Henry Arnold, John Baker, Keith Balmer, Trevor Beebee, Jeremy Biggs, David Bird, Lee Brady, Andy Brewer, Lars Briggs, Bill Butcher, Paul Callister, Ruth Carey, Veronica Carnell, Colin Catto, Jan Clemons, Nigel Clemons, Margaret Cole, David Coles, Keith Corbett, Nicky Court, Lynda Darbey, Rod d’Ayala, Paul Edgar, Matthew Ellis, Gemma Fairchild, Helen Fearnley, Helen Forster, Eric Fletcher, Kåre Fog, Jean Glasscock, Oliver Grafton, Tom Gray, Viv Geen, Rachel Green, Richard Griffiths, Tim Halliday, Nigel Hand, Matthew Harris, Martin Harvey, Rebecca Haworth, Andrew Heaton, Jon Houghton, Jules Howard, Liz Howe, Peter Hughes, Howard Inns, Trevor James, Gus Jones, Alistair Kirk, Steve Lane, John Leaver, Paul Lockhart, Pat Lorber, David Lowe, Gareth Matthes, Andi Meyer, Adrian Middleton, Chris Monk, Jean-Claude Monney, James Mortimer, Nick Moyes, Mark Nicholson, Martin Noble, David Orchard, Terry Parr, Angela Peters, Tony Phelps, Delphine Pouget, Mike Preston, Chris Reading, Adam Rowe, Mandy Rudd, Sheila Ryan, Martin Sanford, Benedikt Schmidt, Alan Shepherd, Paul Sison, Craig Slawson, John Smith, Nick Smith, Alison Stewart, Nick Squirrell, David Tamarind, Peter Tipping, Anita Weatherby, Jon Webster, Bill Whitaker, Paul Wisse, Simon Wood, Nick Woods, Helen Wraight, Sheila Wright, Julia Wycherley, Annie Zuiderwijk, Silvia Zumbach. Countless other people have helped indirectly by their involvement in survey, monitoring and conservation. Summary and conclusions This project was initiated in response to a growing realisation that current knowledge on amphibian and reptile status in Britain does not meet the many demands for such information. Existing knowledge of amphibian and reptile status is largely based upon subjective opinion, albeit the collective opinion of many experts. Survey and monitoring efforts have generally been uncoordinated, short-term, patchily distributed, and with widely differing methods and scope. As a result, they do not lend themselves easily to comparison and extrapolation. This project assesses current needs for information on herpetofauna status, and explores potential options for developing surveillance and monitoring systems to meet these needs. English Nature needs herpetofauna surveillance and monitoring data for various purposes: with regard to interest features on designated sites, status of BAP and other nationally important species, assessment of national trends in widespread species, European legal obligations for Species of Community Interest, information for miscellaneous tasks, and data on non-native species. We examined the types of information needed for each objective, and the reporting timeframes relating to each. Recent work has attempted to develop indicators of ‘conservation status’, and we discuss the philosophy of selecting suitable parameters and models. By assessing the extent to which existing data can satisfy English Nature’s herpetofauna information needs, it is clear that current surveillance and monitoring systems are inadequate, and to meet the required objectives, an effective system would need to be developed. The viability of developing a national recording scheme for herpetofauna is therefore explored in depth. A review is presented of previous herpetofauna surveys, monitoring schemes and pertinent literature from the UK and abroad, and their efficacy at reflecting biological and conservation status. Some key examples of non-herpetofauna monitoring schemes are also presented. Currently-practised data collection methodologies and sampling regimes are discussed, and options for large-scale delivery mechanisms are evaluated, with particular emphasis on the use of volunteers. Opportunities for wider community involvement would be central to the success of a National amphibian and Reptile Recording Scheme (NARRS). The existing community of Amphibian and Reptile Groups (ARGs) would logically form the basis of the recording network, but new groups (or alternatives) would have to fill geographical gaps, and existing groups would need to recruit more people. A consultation of the ARG network by questionnaire showed strong support for NARRS, and a willingness to participate in it. Many volunteers felt that appropriate training would be an important pre-requisite. Systems of data collation, management and dissemination are addressed, and a survey of local record centre data holdings is presented. Various structural and logistical issues are explored, including the feasibility of developing and sustaining a large national volunteer network. Examples of sampling regimes and survey structures are proposed, and the cost implications are examined. Fully costed options are given for delivering each of the four main objectives for which English Nature needs information (widespread species, BAP/nationally important species, very rare species, Common Standards Monitoring of SSSI interest features). The costs of each are interdependent, and it would be most efficient and synergistic to run all four elements concurrently. The total cost may be several hundred thousand pounds per year. In order to construct an adequate and achievable surveillance system, with broad consensus from stakeholders, a preliminary development stage should be carried out, lasting between six months and a year, culminating in a strategic project design, funding partnership and bid(s). The earliest feasible start date for data collection would be spring 2007. Further research would still be needed to improve methodological approaches iteratively over time. Contents Acknowledgements Summary and conclusions 1 Introduction..................................................................................................................11 1.1 General.............................................................................................................11 1.2 Species coverage..............................................................................................11 1.3 Discussion of terms and strategies...................................................................16 2 Monitoring objectives..................................................................................................19 2.1 (A) Condition of interest features on designated sites.....................................19 2.1.1 Herpetofauna on designated sites.........................................................19 2.1.2 Condition assessment process..............................................................23 2.2 (B) Status of BAP and other nationally important species ..............................25 2.3 (C) Assessment of national trends in widespread species ...............................27 2.4 (D) Legal obligations to report on conservation status of Species of Community Interest .....................................................................................................27 2.4.1 Origin of obligations............................................................................27 2.4.2 Current work in the EC, UK and other Member States .......................32 2.5 (E) Use of species information for miscellaneous English Nature tasks.........35 2.6 (F) Distribution and status of introduced herpetofauna species.......................36 3 General information requirements to meet surveillance and monitoring objectives ...38 3.1 Defining and monitoring species