Strawberry Field, Knowle Wall Farm, Staffordshire Great
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
COPY OF THE BASELINE ECOLOGY DATA FOR KNOWL WALL FARM Application Number S.09/13/436 M The Methodology used to determine the baseline ecology data is described in Section 6.4 of the Environmental Statement (ES). The analysis of any desk-based information is presented in Sections 6.5.1- 6.5.4 of the ES. The results of the ecological assessment are reproduced below as requested. 1.1 Results of the Field Surveys The habitat, bat and bird surveys and habitat assessment were undertaken on 20 May 2009; a great crested newt survey was carried out on four separate occasions during April and May 2009. There were no constraints with regard to weather conditions or access to the site/ponds for survey. The proposed site is within semi-improved grass field managed by mowing. 1.1.1 Phase 1 Habitat Survey Results The phase 1 habitat map shows the habitat types within an approximate 200 m radius from the proposed site (Appendix 1). In some cases, detailed notes were taken for a habitat type and/or some locations; the locations of where these target notes were taken are indicated by a red encircled number on the phase 1 habitat map, the details of which are outlined in Appendix 2.1. A botanical species list is provided in Appendix 2.2. A summary of the habitats is outlined below. Where necessary, the target notes are referred to. Improved Grassland The site is within a field with no single dominant species but with abundant Yorkshire fog (Holcus lanatus) and hairy brome (Bromus ramosus), frequent creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens), creeping bent (Agrostis stolonifera) and with other grass and herbaceous species present only occasionally or rarely. Nursery Planting The southern part of the site comprised broad cultivated strips of young Christmas tree (Norway spruce, Picea abies) plantation and daffodil bulbs. Broadleaved Woodland To the north and east of the site was a small block of semi-natural broadleaved woodland extending eastwards towards the M6 motorway. Tree species include sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus), Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris), rowan (Sorbus acuparia), silver birch (Betula pendula), pedunculate oak (Quercus robur), alder (Alnus glutinosa), willow (Salix sp.) and beech (Fagus sylvatica). The ground flora was diverse and included bluebell (Hyacinthoides non-scripta), male fern (Dryopteris felix-mas), lemon-scented fern (Oreopteris limbosperma), a moss (Polytrichum commune), wood melick (Melica uniflora) and bracken (Pteridium aquilinum). This woodland is not recorded as "ancient woodland". Scattered scrub and trees Surrounding and immediately to the north of the pond was an area of mostly young and semi-mature trees including sycamore and hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna), with an impoverished ground flora. Of note was a group of five mature pedunculate oaks adjacent to the A519. These were ivy covered with some broken limbs. Hedgerows There was a single hedgerow bordering the A519, approximately 1m in height and varying from 0.7m to 2 wide in places with groups of standard trees at approximately 5m intervals. The hedge was cut to a height of 0.7 m in February this year. The dominant species was hawthorn with sycamore, elder (Sambucus nigra), bramble (Rubus spp.), holly (Ilex aquifolium), pedunculate oak and Swedish whitebeam (Sorbus intermedia). The hedgerow was identified as having five woody species in any given 30 m stretch and has two associated features described as "important" under the Hedgerows Regulations: Less than 10% gaps; and A parallel hedge within 15 m. Because it runs alongside a byway open to all traffic, this hedgerow is assessed as being ‘Important’ under the Hedgerow Regulations. A completed Hedgerow Regulations assessment sheet is provided as Appendix 2.3. Pond A single pond in the northern corner of the site measuring approximately 8m by 5m supported a diverse range of aquatic and marginal plant species. It was surrounded by bulrush (Typha latifolia) and covered, by at least two thirds, of the pond weed Potamogeton spp. Protected Species (other than bats, birds and amphibians) No evidence of, or potential for the following species, or species groups, was noted within or adjacent to the site: badger, otter, water vole and reptiles. Value of the habitats at the site: whilst the majority of habitats within the site (i.e. grassland and nursery plantings) have negligible value, the pond and the boundary hedge are assessed as having local status (as defined in Table 6.2 of the original ES). 1.1.2 Bat Habitat Suitability Assessment Results There are records of pipistrelle and noctule bats within 1 km of the site from SERC. One pipistrelle roost was recorded in 1995 at Knowl Wall Farm approximately 200 m south of the site. Roosting Habitat Oak trees external to the north-west corner of the site have a moderate-high bat roost potential by virtue of the presence of cracks and crevices, and ivy covering. No detailed survey has been undertaken to date to establish if the trees are used as roosting sites because none of these trees will be disturbed. The one tree within the section of hedgerow to be removed is a small Swedish whitebeam (Sorbus intermedia) with no features likely to be used by roosting bats. Foraging Habitat and Commuting Routes The edge of the woodland, scrub and scattered trees are likely to provide bat foraging habitat and potentially a commuting route linking the woodland to hedgerows along the A519 and to the wider countryside. Value of the site for bats: bats may roost within oak trees adjacent to the proposed access track and it is likely that they forage along the woodland edge and over the pond and adjacent habitats; potentially also commuting along the site boundaries. The habitats adjacent to the site are therefore regarded as being of local importance for bats (as defined in Table 6.2 of the original ES) although the site itself is of negligible importance. Following Staffordshire County Council's request (e-mail from David Bray to David Harper dated 28 August), a bat survey was undertaken by RPS Leeds. No tree was identified as requiring an endoscopic survey. In order to be clear as to whether the foraging routes as presumed within the Environmental Statement are bat foraging routes, a dusk emergence survey was undertaken on 31st August, 1st and 2nd September. Dawn swarming surveys were undertaken on 1st and 2nd September. The full bat report from RPS is appended to this report as Appendix 3. The RPS bat survey results confirmed the assumptions made in the Environmental Statement. The full list of recommendations made by RPS was: light levels be kept to a minimum where possible. Any lighting in the close vicinity of trees should be directed away from these features to minimise impact. The hedgerows on site should be managed to maintain their existing condition. The 25 m section of hedgerow along the western site boundary to be removed should be reinstated using retained native species as soon as possible. The recommendations from RPS may be compared against the mitigation measures outlined in the Environmental Statement Section 6.7, namely: Mitigation during site preparation and drilling The existing hedgerow would be relocated to the east side of the pond adjacent to the site. Further planting will extend this hedgerow to a total length of about 35 m extending along the southern and eastern perimeter of the pond, i.e. along the line of the site boundary and access track. Existing gaps will be restored by planting suitable native species (a gap in the hedgerow adjacent to the scattered trees, and which would not be removed, is about 4-5 m wide). Noise: plant equipment will be silenced and located at least 5 m from the boundary hedgerows to provide a protection zone for any foraging bats. Lighting: lights will be mounted on lighting towers and their height altered according to the level required so that all lighting will be directed downwards towards the working area, leaving linear habitats in shadow. Mitigation during gas production and restoration The new relocated hedgerow (with the extension) would be 75% longer than the hedgerow removed. It would provide a complete circular route from the northern woodland and scattered trees, around the southern edge of the pond. The ditch would also be placed along this new hedgerow external to the pond side. This would also increase biodiversity value in time, particularly with respect to invertebrates and therefore foraging for bats. The presence of a ditch will also ensure that the characteristics of the relocated hedgerow will attain an even greater level of 'importance' as defined by the Hedgerow Regulations 1997. 1.1.3 Breeding Bird Habitat Suitability Assessment The site itself is contained within the grass field. However, the woodland edge, scrub, scattered trees and boundary hedgerow provide suitable breeding habitat for woodland edge and farmland birds during March-August. Value of the site for birds: this site therefore is regarded as having negligible status as breeding bird habitat (as defined in Table 6.2 of the original ES) although the woodland and hedgerow habitat adjacent to the site might be regarded as being of local importance. 1.1.4 Great Crested Newt Survey The pond that occurs on the map about 200 m to the east of the site is unsuitable for great crested newt as it contains no aquatic flora and is used by heron. No other potential great crested newt habitat occurs at the site or along the track. A great crested newt survey recorded no great crested newts during April-May 2009, although smooth newt (Lissotriton vulgaris) and small numbers of common frog (Rana temporaria) and common toad (Bufo bufo) tadpoles were observed.