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. The full methodology and results of this survey are provided in Appendix 2.4. (The recommendations within this report have been taken into consideration during the development of this project, in particular that the proposed access track now comes into the site on the southern edge of the pond and that any storage of soil is away from the pond in order to protect the habitat for these amphibian species.)
Value of the site for amphibians: this site is therefore regarded as having negligible status as great crested newt habitat although of intrinsic value for other amphibian species.
Appendix 1 – Phase 1 Habitat Map
Map Legend Site Boundary Scattered scrub Scattered trees 22 Pond
Fence
77 11 Green house
33 Nursery planting Planted coniferous trees II 55 Hedgerow 44 66 Wall Semi-natural Woodland
Planted Trees
Hard-standing II II Improved grassland
11 TargetTarget NoteNote
Approximate Scale: NTS II Original Map: As provided by client
II Date: May 09 Rev: 00
Prepared by: R Dollery
Approved by: S Rogers II Client: Greenpark Energy Ltd
Reproduced from Ordnance Survey map data Knowl Wall Farm, Staffordshire 1380.S © Crown Copyright copied under licence: AL 52638A0001 Figure 01: Extended Phase 1 Habitat Map Appendix 2 - Ecology Appendix from the ES
Phase 1 Habitat Target Notes
Number Note 1 Area of semi-mature and young trees including sycamore, oak and Scots pine separated from the site by a row of hawthorn. Ground flora including common nettle, bramble, red campion, cleavers, herb Robert and ground ivy.
2 Five mature oak trees adjacent to site boundary, three are ivy covered and all have some broken limbs but no visible rot holes. Moderate – high potential to support roosting bats.
3 Standing dead wood within woodland offering habitat for invertebrates. 4 Semi-natural broadleaved woodland adjacent to site comprising mature specimens of sycamore, silver birch, oak, alder, willow species and ash. Within the woodland dead wood is scattered across the woodland floor. The field layer includes elder, bramble, blackthorn and rowan whilst the ground flora is scarce due to the shading but comprises common nettle, bluebell, male fern, lemon-scented fern, bracken, wood melick and the mosses Polytrichum commune and Eurhynchium species.
5 Pond approximately 8m x 5m containing pond weed and surrounded by Glyceria species, flag iris and reedmace. Surrounding the pond are scattered trees and scrub including alder, bramble and hawthorn.
6 Hedgerow bounding A519 adjacent to site. Approximately 1m tall and 0.7m-2m wide this hedgerow is kept low to assist with the sight lines of the road. There was evidence of historic laying and gaps accounted for less than 10%. Standard trees were found approximately every 5m. Species include hawthorn, sycamore, elder, holly, oak, blackthorn and Swedish whitebeam. A single tree adjacent to the target note is a young Swedish whitebeam (Sorbus intermedia) with no features suitable for bat roosting.
7 Hedgerow lining opposite side of road (A519) containing many mature trees overhanging the road. Species in this area included sycamore and oak.
Botanical Species List
Common name Latin name DAFOR Alder Alnus glutinosa O Blackthorn Prunus spinosa R Bracken Pteridium aquilinum R Bramble Rubus fruticosus agg. O Broad-leaved dock Rumex obtusifolius O Broad-leaved willowherb Epilobium montanum R Cleavers Galium aparine R Cock’s-foot Dactylis glomerata O Common field-speedwell Veronica persica R Common mouse-ear Cerastium fontanum O Common nettle Urtica dioica LA Common ragwort Senecio jacobea R Common vetch Vicia sativa R Cotoneaster Cotoneaster sp. R Cow parsley Anthriscus sylvestris O Creeping bent Agrostis stolonifera F Creeping buttercup Ranunculus repens F Creeping thistle Cirsium arvense LF Daisy Bellis perennis O Daffodil Narcissus sp. LD Dandelion Taraxacum officinale agg. O Elder Sambucus nigra O Garlic mustard Alliaria petiolata R Ground ivy Glechoma hederacea R Hairy brome Bramopsis ramosa A Hawthorn Crataegus monogyna agg O Herb-Robert Geranium robertianum R Ivy-leaved speedwell Veronica hederifolia R Meadow buttercup Ranunculus acris O Pedunculate oak Quercus robur R Perennial rye-grass Lolium perenne A Red campion Silene dioica R Red clover Trifolium pratense O Reedmace Typha latifolia R Scots pine Pinus sylvestris R Soft rush Juncus effuses O Swedish whitebeam Sorbus intermedia R Sweet vernal grass Anthoxanthum oderatum LA Sycamore Acer pseudoplatanus R Timothy grass Phleum pratense O White clover Trifolium repens O Yorkshire fog Holcus lanatus A
Hedgerow Regulations Recording Form
HEDGEROW RECORDING FORM Hedge Reg’s1 and BAP2 assessments (not HEGS) – For Wildlife and Landscape Date: 20 May 2009 Hedgerow No: Hedgerow 1
Project name and ref: Knowl Wall Farm, Staffordshire
Surveyor: Rebecca Dollery Photo ref (if relevant): No
Hedge length (to end or intersection): Height:1m Width: 0.7–2m Age (+/- 200m 30yrs ?): Hedge Surveyed From (pref’ both sides): >30 years East MANAGEMENT
Trimmed? A Shape Box Other:
Layed? Recent Historical
Grown out?
Newly planted? Notes on Recent Management: Trimmed to height of 1m (presumably to maintain visibility along highway)
HEDGEROW FEATURES Score Supporting bank or wall present along half length N Gaps less than 10% of length in total Y Standard trees at least every 50m3 Y Ditch along at least half length N Parallel hedge within 15m Y At least three woodland herb species present Y Number of hedge connections (1 point each)4 0
Number connections with pond/B-L woodland (2 points)5 1 Total score for features Evidence of protected/RDB species Schedule 1 birds: none Schedule 5 animals: none Schedule 8 plants: none Red Data Book (RDB)6: none
Rights of way: Tick Geographical Location: Staffordshire Adjacent to a bridleway or footpath? NO
Adjacent to a road used as a public path? YES
Adjacent to a byway open to all traffic? Yes
1 Use associated flow-chart and refer to 1997 Act if unsure 2 Refer to NBAP priority Habitats list www.ukbap.org 3 Must be >15cm girth @ 1.3m or 20cm girth for single stemmed trees 4 Needs a combined connection score of 4 or more to gain a feature score point 5 Note if hedgerow is within 10m, and in direct line of feature, then connection point is scored 6 RDB Category 3 species only (declining breeders) for birds plus all other endangered, extinct rare or vulnerable spp listed in Appendix 1
WOODY SPECIES PRESENT/30M SECTION 100- 30- 200m 100m S = shrub T = standard tree <30m all central >200m central 30m All species centr species 30m in in each 1/3 present al each 30m half Acer campestre field maple Alnus glutinosa alder Betula pendula silver birch Corylus avellana hazel Cornus sanguinea dogwood Crataegus laevigata Midland hawthorn Crataegus monogyna hawthorn Y Y Y Euonymus europaeus spindle Fraxinus excelsior ash Ilex aquifolium holly Y Y Y Ligustrum vulgare wild privet Malus sylvestris crab apple * Populus nigra spp black-poplar betulifolia Prunus spinosa blackthorn Y Y Y Quercus robur pedunculate oak Y Y Y Rosa arvensis field-rose Rosa canina agg dog-rose Rhamnus cathartica buckthorn Salix sp willow Sambucus nigra elder Y Y Y * Sorbus torminalis wild-service tree * Tilia cordata small-leaved lime * Tilia platyphyllos large-leaved lime Ulmus glabra wych elm Ulmus procera English elm Viburnum opulus guelder-rose * Special interest species Other woody sp present: Swedish whitebeam, sycamore, bramble 5 5 5 + + + divide divide by 3 by 2 Total number of HR species in each 30m: 5 Total number of species in whole length surveyed: 5 All herbaceous species present (optional records of spp. within 1m of the outermost edge of the hedge): Woodland herb species present (within 1m of the outermost edge of the hedge)
Barren strawberry Hairy brome Y Primrose Wood millet Bluebell Hairy woodrush Ramsons Wood sage Broad buckler fern Hard fern Sanicle Wood sedge Broad-leaved helleborine Hard shield fern Scaly male-fern Wood sorrel Bugle Hart’s tongue Small cow-wheat Wood speedwell Common cow-wheat Heath bedstraw Soft shield fern Wood spurge Common dog violet Herb paris Sweet violet Woodruff Common polypody Herb -robert Y Toothwort Yellow archangel Dog’s mercury Lady fern Tormentil Yellow pimpernell Early dog violet Lords -and-ladies Wild strawberry Early purple orchid Male fern Wood anemone TOTAL PRESENT: 2 Enchanter’s nightshade Moschatel Wood avens Giant fescue Narrow buckler-fern Wood false-brome Goldilocks buttercup Nettle -leaved bell-flower Wood horsetail Great bell-flower Oxlip Wood meadow-grass Greater wood-rush Pignut Wood mellick
STRAWBERRY FIELD, KNOWLE WALL FARM, STAFFORDSHIRE
GREAT CRESTED-NEWT SURVEY
Prepared for GREENPARK ENERGY
June 2009 STRAWBERRY FIELD, KNOWLE WALL FARM, STAFFORDSHIRE
GREAT CRESTED-NEWT SURVEY
Prepared for
GREENPARK ENERGY
Prepared by
APEX ECOLOGY LIMITED
Synchro House, 512 Etruria Road, Newcastle-under-Lyme Staffordshire ST5 0SY
Survey undertaken by Max Robinson
Report produced by Max Robinson
Report checked by Helen Ball
June 2009 Strawberry Fields Pond, Newcastle-under-Lyme Great Crested Newt Survey
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION
2. SURVEY METHODS
2.1 Search of Existing GCN Records 2.2 Survey Methods 2.5 Bottle Trapping 2.6 Torchlight Counting 2.7 Hand Netting 2.8 Egg Searching 2.9 Weather Conditions during Survey
3. SURVEY FINDINGS AND INTERPRETATION
3.1 Review of Existing GCN Records 3.2 Pond Description 3.3 Survey Findings 3.6 Interpretation of Survey Findings
4. RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 In Relation to the Proposed Development 4.5 Management of Pond
5. REFERENCES
TABLES
I Amphibian survey results
APPENDIX
I Legislation Relating to Great Crested Newt
Apex Ecology Limited June 2009 Report MR090623 Strawberry Fields Pond, Newcastle-under-Lyme Great Crested Newt Survey
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 This report presents the results of great-crested newt (GCN) surveys at Strawberry Fields, Knowle Wall Farm, Newcastle-under-Lyme in Staffordshire undertaken by Apex Ecology Limited. The surveys were carried out between April and May 2009.
1.2 The surveys were commissioned by Greenpark Energy in April 2009 in support of a planning application to Newcastle-under-Lyme District Council. The proposals relate to the extraction and processing of coal bed methane. The surveys were undertaken to establish if the proposals would impact upon GCN.
1.3 The GCN is legally protected under both European and domestic legislation and it is, therefore, a material consideration when determining the planning application. A summary of the key legislation protecting GCN is provided in Appendix I at the end of the report.
1.4 The site comprises a mixture of semi-improved grassland bordered by broadleaved woodland. The pond itself is surrounded by extensive marginal vegetation.
1.5 The site lies to the south west of the city of Stoke-on-Trent, around 1.1km from the village of Beech. The M6 motorway is situated around 120m to the east of the site. Access to the site can be gained from the adjacent A519. The OS grid reference for the farm is SJ 852 395. The surrounding landscape comprises agricultural fields, grasslands, woodland and hedgerows.
1.6 The report describes the methods used for the survey, including dates and conditions, and any constraints encountered. It then presents the results of the survey (accompanied by raw data in tables, where appropriate) and provides an interpretation of the findings in relation to the proposed development.
Apex Ecology Limited June 2009 Report MR090623 Strawberry Fields Pond, Newcastle-under-Lyme Great Crested Newt Survey
2. METHODOLOGY
Search of Existing GCN Records
2.1 Greenpark Energy approached the local biological records centre Staffordshire Ecological Record (SER) for records of GCN from the site and surrounding area. The radius of the search was 2km. Such information is important as it can help put the site and the survey findings into context.
Survey Methods
2.2 An initial scoping survey was undertaken by Greenpark Energy to assess the suitability of the site and surroundings for GCN. A single pond deemed suitable for use by GCN was found on the site proposed for development. Thus surveys were deemed necessary to establish if GCN would be affected by the proposals. The following pond was identified:
Pond 1 –to the north of the site, adjacent to the proposed access track.
2.3 The surveys were undertaken by Max Robinson, a licensed GCN ecologist (Natural England licence number 20083814).
2.4 The pond was surveyed using bottle traps, nocturnal torchlight methods and egg- searching or hand netting with a pond net during spring 2009. The methods followed those recommended in English Nature (2001). The surveys were undertaken on the following dates:
29-30th April 09 6-7th May 09 13-14th May 09 27-28th May 09
Bottle Trapping
2.5 Bottle traps were set in the evening and checked early the following morning. The bottle traps used allowed air breathing by newts and were checked within 17 hours of setting. The submerged bottle traps were held firmly in place with a cane inserted into the substrate to prevent the bottle from tilting and air loss. The trap placement followed recognised guidelines and they were placed at approximately 2m sampling points along the edge of the pond. The bottle trap survey attempted to target the edges of the waterbodies supporting the most suitable habitat for GCN (such as areas with shallower banks or lush marginal or submerged plant growth). Following the identification and counting of any captured newts, they were released back into the pond.
Apex Ecology Limited June 2009 Report MR090623 Strawberry Fields Pond, Newcastle-under-Lyme Great Crested Newt Survey
Torch Counting
2.6 The waterbodies were slowly walked around and scanned with a powerful torch at night. The score is expressed as the total number of GCN observed during a circuit of the pond or waterbody (Gent and Gibson, 1998). This method is less useful in turbid water or during heavy rain or windy conditions.
Hand Netting
2.7 A long-handled hand net was used for this method. From the banks, the water and vegetation along the water’s edge was carefully netted in an attempt to capture GCN. This method was used during the later stages of the survey where the edges of the aquatic vegetation were netted in an attempt to net larvae that may be present.
Egg Searching
2.8 Newt eggs were searched for within the areas that contained submerged or floating aquatic vegetation. Where egg laying has been undertaken on vegetation this is easily recognisable as the vegetation suitable for egg laying such as Glyceria sp. leaves are markedly folded over the eggs. A fold in the vegetation is then opened and the egg identified to species.
Weather Conditions during the Surveys 2.9 The weather conditions during the surveys ranged from cool to mild (between 7.5 and 12 degrees centigrade during night time torchlight surveys and 10.5 and 17 degrees centigrade during setting and retrieval of the bottle traps). During the visits the conditions were mixed, although were mainly cloudy with drizzle and light winds. Overall, conditions were optimal for GCN survey, both during the day and at night.
Apex Ecology Limited June 2009 Report MR090623 Strawberry Fields Pond, Newcastle-under-Lyme Great Crested Newt Survey
3. SURVEY FINDINGS AND INTERPRETATION
Review of Existing GCN Records
3.1 Greenpark Energy noted that the data search undertaken by SER did not reveal any existing records of GCN on either the site or within the 2km search radius.
Pond Description
3.2 A single pond with an approximate circumference of 18m, the pond is heavily vegetated around the periphery with reedmace Typha latifolia dominating. Other marginal vegetation is also present with species such as soft rush Juncus effusus and water plantain Alisma plantago-aquatica also present. Within the open water of the pond a considerable amount of broad-leaved pondweed Potamogeton natans is present. The pond is surrounded by unmanaged semi-improved grassland and broad-leaved woodland is located around 10m to the north.
Survey Findings
3.3 No great crested-newts were recorded as being present during the surveys. The detailed survey results are presented in Table 1.
3.4 Small numbers of smooth newt Lissotriton vulgaris were recorded in the pond on all four survey dates. Both male and female were caught in the bottle traps as well as seen during the torch light surveys. The highest count of smooth newts was recorded during bottle trapping on the 13/14th May 09, where a total of 14 newts were recorded. There is a high likelihood that smooth newts are breeding within the pond, although no egg laying was recorded.
3.5 Additionally to smooth newt, small numbers of tadpoles of both common frog Rana temporaria and common toad Bufo bufo were recorded during the surveys, as well as a single adult frog.
Interpretation of Survey Findings
3.6 The survey results suggest that the pond is not used by great crested newts. The absence of a local network of ponds further reduces the likelihood of any great crested-newts being present. The pond is however considered to have suitable habitat for the species.
Apex Ecology Limited June 2009 Report MR090623 Strawberry Fields Pond, Newcastle-under-Lyme Great Crested Newt Survey
4. RECOMMENDATIONS
In Relation to the Proposed Development
4.1 Given that the possibility of an offence being committed by the proposed development is considered highly unlikely, as such, it is advised that a statutory licence would not be required to undertake the proposals.
4.2 However, in the unlikely event that GCN are found to be present during the works, where found the materials should be carefully replaced so as to shelter the animals. A licensed GCN worker or Natural England should then be contacted for advice on how to progress.
4.6 Additionally, it is considered prudent to ensure a minimum of a 2m vegetated ‘stand-off’ zone is created/retained between the proposals and the pond. This would create a buffer between the site and the pond allowing fauna a degree of sheltered access to the pond on the.
4.7 As a bund is proposed for construction near to the pond it is recommended that a buffer zone is created prior to works commencing. This should be installed so as to prevent the encroachment of plant, machinery and contractors onto the areas immediately surrounding the pond.
Management of Pond
4.5 Although the pond does not appear to support a population of great crested- newts it does support other amphibian species. All native species of amphibians are in decline in the UK largely from a loss of habitat. Habitat loss can occur due to a lack of suitable management of water bodies and as such the water body is often lost to encroaching vegetation. The following suggestions are made to the management of the surveyed pond:
A small long-armed digger or hand tools can be used to periodically to maintain around a 50% coverage of emergent vegetation (most notably reedmace). Vegetation removal should take place ideally in late summer, early autumn when most amphibians have breed and the young left the pond and whilst hibernation is not taking place. The removed vegetation should then be left on the side of the pond for at least 24hours to allow any fauna to return to the pond. Composting of the removed vegetation would be considered beneficial.
Because the pond currently exhibits steep sides, it is suggested that a small long-armed digger or hand tools be used to ‘pull back’ the banks and create an area of shallow margin. Ideally the pond margin should show gradual undulations on both the vertical and horizontal plain. This will then create areas of water with varying temperatures and conditions and as such increase biodiversity. Species of semi/aquatic invertebrates, such as dragonflies, are likely to utilise such areas, as well as amphibians.
Apex Ecology Limited June 2009 Report MR090623 Strawberry Fields Pond, Newcastle-under-Lyme Great Crested Newt Survey
The inclusion of dead wood and brash piles around the pond. These will not only provide a potential foraging resource for amphibians but also an area for the animals to shelter.
The grassland around the pond should not be subject to intensive management. If the grassland is to be cut this should be confined to between 2-3 times a year. The grassland habitat currently surrounding the pond can promote invertebrate populations, as well as provide shelter for amphibians from predators. Where possible additional grassland on site should be managed similarly.
Apex Ecology Limited June 2009 Report MR090623 Strawberry Fields Pond, Newcastle-under-Lyme Great Crested Newt Survey
5. REFERENCES
English Nature. (2001). Great Crested Newt Mitigation Guidelines. English Nature.
Gent, T. and Gibson, 1998. Herpetofauna Workers’ Manual. JNCC, London.
Apex Ecology Limited June 2009 Report MR090623 Strawberry Fields Pond, Newcastle-under-Lyme Great Crested Newt Survey Summary of Amphibian Survey Results Strawberry Field, Knowle Wall Farm.
Capture Results Visit 1 Survey Date: 29th April - 30th April 2009 Weather Conditions: Eve- Light drizzle 10°C- 7.5°C. Morn- Cloudless and Time of Survey: 19.00-22.00 clear. Mild 9.5 °C. Bottle trap captures Torchlight findings Netting & Egg search Waterbody GCNSN Other GCNSN Other GCNSN Other Pond 0 4(M) 2(F) 0 0 0 2Tad 0 0 0
Capture Results Visit 2 Survey Date: 6th May - 7th May 2009
Weather Conditions: Eve- breezy with broken cloud 11.5°C. Morn- Broken Time of Survey: 19.15-22.15 cloud 60% cover 14.5 °C
Bottle trap captures Torchlight findings Netting & Egg search Waterbody GCNSN Other GCNSN Other GCNSN Other Pond 0 1(F) 0 0 1 (M) Tad 0 0 0
Capture Results Visit 3 Survey Date: 13th May - 14th May 2009
Weather Conditions: Eve- Breezy with light drizzle 12°C. Morn- 15°C high Time of Survey: 19.15-22.10 cloud
Bottle trap captures Torchlight findings Netting & Egg search Waterbody GCNSN Other GCNSN Other GCNSN Other Pond 0 12(M) 2(F) 1CF, Tad 0 0 0 0 0 0
Capture Results Visit 4 Survey Date: 27th May-28th May 2008
Weather Conditions: Eve-Light drizzle 12°C. Morn- Overcast 100% cloud Time of Survey: 19.00-22.15 cover 15.5°C
Bottle trap captures Torchlight findings Netting & Egg search Waterbody GCNSN Other GCNSN Other GCNSN Other Pond 0 6 (M) 1 CT Tad 0 1(M) 2 CT Tad 0 0 0
Key: GCN - Great Crested Newt; SN - Smooth Newt; Other - Other amphibian species F - Female; M - Male; U - Unknown sex CT - Common Toad; CF - Common Frog; Tad - Tadpoles Blank squares = surveyed but no amphibian species recorded. ns = not surveyed during visit.
Apex Ecology Limited June 2009 Report MR090623 Strawberry Fields Pond, Newcastle-under-Lyme Great Crested Newt Survey
APPENDIX I – LEGISLATION RELATING TO GREAT CRESTED-NEWTS
The information below is intended only as guidance to the legislation relating to great crested- newts. The Acts themselves should be referred to for the correct legal wording.
Great crested-newts are protected under the Conservation (Natural Habitats and Wild Fauna and Flora (92/43/EEC)) Regulations 1994 (Statutory Instrument No. 2716 known as the Habitats Regulations), which have been amended by the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) (Amendment) Regulations 2007 (Statutory Instrument 2007/1843). The amended regulations largely came into force on the 21st August 2007, with further amendments made in January 2009 (Statutory Instrument 2009/6). Due to their inclusion on Schedule 2 of the Habitats Regulations, great crested-newts are considered ‘European Protected Species’
In summary, this legislation makes it an offence to:
deliberately capture, injure or kill a great crested-newt; deliberately disturb a great crested-newt; damage or destroy a breeding site or resting place of any great crested-newt; possess a great crested-newt (alive or dead) or any part of a great crested-newt.
Disturbance of great crested-newts includes in particular any disturbance which is likely: (a) to impair their ability: (i) to survive, to breed or reproduce, or to rear or nurture their young; or (b) to affect the local distribution or abundance of the species to which they belong. Great crested-newts are also protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), which has also been amended by the Countryside and Rights of Way (CRoW) Act, 2000. In summary, this legislation makes it an offence to:
intentionally or recklessly disturb a great crested-newt while it is occupying a structure or place which it uses for shelter or protection; intentionally or recklessly obstruct access to any structure or place which any great crested-newt uses for shelter or protection.
In addition, the great crested newt is a Priority Species within the UK Biodiversity Action Plan with a Species Action Plan aimed at maintaining the existing range and population status, as well as increasing the number of populations through re-colonisation.
Apex Ecology Limited June 2009 Report MR090623 Appendix 3 - The Bat Survey Report by RPS
Knowl Wall Farm, Staffordshire.
Bat Emergence/ Dawn Swarm Survey Report for
Greenpark Energy Ltd.
Prepared by: Checked by: Helen Lloyd Vicki Hanslip
Approved for issue Project Ref: DLE1970 Date: September 2009
3rd Floor 34 Lisbon Road Leeds LS1 4LX
Tel 0113 220 6190 Fax 0113 243 9161 Email [email protected]
Planning and Development Ltd. CONTENTS
1. Introduction 2
1.1 Background 2
1.2 Scope 2
1.3 Legal status of bats 2
2. Methodology 2
2.1 Background 4
2.2 Emergence survey 4
2.3 Dawn swarm survey 4
2.4 Limitations to survey 5
3. Results 6
3.1 The Tree Belt 6
3.2 Tree cluster 7
4. Conclusions and Recommendations 8
4.1 Conclusions 8
4.2 Recommendations 8
5. References and Bibliography 9
Appendices
Plan 1 - Survey Location (Tree belt)
Plan 2 - Survey Location (Tree cluster)
Appendix 1 - Summary table of results.
RPS Planning and Development Ltd. DLE1970 September 2009 1
1. Introduction
1.1 Background
1.1.1 An emergence and dawn swarm bat survey was commissioned by Greenpark Energy Ltd, to be undertaken at the Knowl Wall Farm site, near Tittensor in Staffordshire following recommendations made as part of the Phase I Habitat Survey report (issued September 2009).
1.1.2 The site is centred upon OS Grid Reference: SJ 852 395 and has a number of mature trees within close proximity to the site boundary that have moderate potential to support roosting bats. The trees may be indirectly impacted upon by the proposed site works and therefore required survey to confirm bat presence/ absence and the level of mitigation measures required where relevant.
1.1.3 The current development proposals for the site involve the drilling of boreholes for the exploration, testing and appraisal of coal bed methane gas and the subsequent development and operation of a hub for CBM gas production.
1.2 Scope
1.2.1 The emergence and dawn swarm surveys were undertaken on a belt of six trees and a cluster of five trees in August/ early September by experienced ecologists from Lobo Ecology.
1.2.2 The results of the surveys will be used to support a planning application for the proposed CBM gas works.
1.3 Legal Status of Bats
1.3.1 All British species of bats are protected under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act, 1981 (as amended). They are also listed in Schedule 2 of the Conservation (Natural Habitats & c.) Regulations 1994, the domestic implementation of the EU Habitats Directive.
1.3.2 This legislative background makes it an offence to intentionally kill, injure or capture (take) bats and intentionally or recklessly disturb any bat while it is occupying a structure or place that it uses for shelter or protection. Under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act (2000) it is also an offence to intentionally or recklessly damage, destroy or obstruct access to any place that a bat uses for shelter or protection. This is taken to mean all bat roosts whether bats are present or not.
RPS Planning and Development Ltd. DLE1970 September 2009 2 1.3.3 The implications of the above with relation to the proposals are that where it is necessary during the development of the area to remove trees, buildings or structures in which bats roost, it must first be determined that this work is necessary and permissible, and if so that any necessary licenses are subsequently obtained from Natural England (formerly DEFRA). Licenses will only normally be issued in such cases if Natural England is satisfied that the works are permissible and that appropriate measures are being put into place to mitigate adverse effects.
RPS Planning and Development Ltd. DLE1970 September 2009 3 2. Methodology
2.1 Background
2.1.1 The emergence/ dawn swarm surveys were focused at two key locations:
a. Tree belt (area A) – A linear belt of trees running north to south along the A519 road and on the opposite side of the road to the proposed site location. (See Plan 1).
b. Tree cluster (area B) – An area of woodland to the north-west of the proposed site, located immediately outside of the site boundary. (See Plan 1 and 2).
2.1.2 A stand alone mature oak (Tree C, See Plan 1) was also noted during the daytime survey (1st September), but was considered to have low potential and therefore was not included within the emergence and dawn swarm surveys.
2.1.3 All surveys were undertaken by suitably qualified and experienced personnel.
2.1.4 All surveys were undertaken in accordance with guidelines set out in;
• Bat Surveys Good Practice Guidelines, Bat Conservation Trust (BCT);
• Bat Workers Manual, JNCC; and
• Bat Mitigation Guidelines, English Nature.
2.2 Emergence survey
2.2.1 Emergence surveys should begin at least 15 minutes before sunset and continue for approximately two hours after sunset in order to take account of all species. For example, natterer’s (Myotis nattereri), daubenton’s (Myotis daubentoni) and brown long-eared (Plecotus auritas) bats often emerge well after dark. Other species, for example, serotines (Eptesicus serotinus) and pipistrelles (Pipistrellus sp) can emerge sooner, so an earlier start time (30 minutes before sunset) may be required. The BCT recommend that a total of two/ three emergence/ dawn surveys should be carried out during March – September (the optimum period being June – August), dependant upon the level of potential i.e. low to high.
2.3 Dawn swarm survey
2.3.1 Dawn re-entry surveys to identify roosts are often most successful in August when young bats have only just begun to fly and their attempts to re-enter the roost are both obvious and of extended duration; but such surveys can be useful at any time during the summer to identify a possible roost. Dawn surveys begin at least 90 minutes before sunrise until sunrise, as (Myotis sp.) bat species return to their roost sites much earlier than other species.
RPS Planning and Development Ltd. DLE1970 September 2009 4 2.3.2 Surveyors should be positioned so that all possible bat ingress/ egress points can be observed at the same time and the line-of-sight should not exceed 50 m.
2.4 Limitations to Survey
2.4.1 Sound and visual detection during the survey was occasionally impeded by the close proximity of the A519 road and the movements of heavy goods vehicles.
2.4.2 Access to the field was prevented by a double barbed wire fence. As such, observations of the trees were made from the road/ verge side reducing visual coverage.
2.4.3 Although these limitations were present, they are not considered to have a significant effect on the overall outcome of the survey.
RPS Planning and Development Ltd. DLE1970 September 2009 5 3. Results
3.1 The Tree Belt
3.1.1 Dusk emergence surveys were undertaken on 31st August, 1st and 2nd September. Dawn swarming surveys were undertaken on 1st and 2nd September.
3.1.2 A roost was located in the most southerly mature oak in the tree belt opposite the site (Tree A4, Plan 1). Up to three pipistrelle bats appeared to emerge from the tree although the exact egress point was masked by the leaves of the tree.
3.1.3 Bats were observed and recorded commuting with occasional foraging along the linear belt of trees identified as ‘A’ in Plan 1. On average approximately 12 passes were recorded by each surveyor on each tree survey. The highest number of recorded passes by a single surveyor in a single survey was 26.
3.1.4 The greatest activity occurred along the western edge of the tree belt and in the barley field to the west of the tree belt. A number of bats were observed to commute out in to the barley field in the direction of two stand alone trees, although the use of these as roosts could not be confirmed.
3.1.5 The lowest levels of bat activity were recorded at Tree Aa (See Plan 1) where activity averaged six passes per survey per surveyor.
3.1.6 All bats were observed to avoid commuting along the road side. It is considered that this is due to the disturbance from traffic along the road.
3.1.7 Species recorded were Pipistrellus pipistrellus, Pipistrellus pygmaeus and Myotis species. Nyctalus sp. were also observed and recorded over the adjacent barley field to the west of the treebelt.
3.1.8 Sound analysis of the myotis calls appear to most closely equate to those of Myotis daubentonii. M daubentonii. If present, they may be utilising the tree belt to commute to and from Black Lake which lies to the east of the M6 motorway. Anecdotal evidence indicates large numbers of bats forage over the lake. Both Daubentons and soprano pipistrelle are associated with aquatic habitats.
3.1.9 It is notable that the area of Knowl Wall is not subject to light pollution and this will be of direct benefit to the bats. Lighting can impact negatively on woodland bats.
3.1.10 All results are presented in Appendix 1.
RPS Planning and Development Ltd. DLE1970 September 2009 6 3.2 Tree Cluster
3.2.1 A single dusk activity survey was undertaken on Wednesday 2nd September 2009.
3.2.2 Conditions were not optimal for bat surveys with wind speed approximately F 3-5 with occasional stronger gusts and light to heavy rain.
3.2.3 A single surveyor was located within the wood and an additional surveyor was located 5 m to the south east of the pond (See Plan 2). Both surveyors noted common pipistrelle and soprano pipistrelle present. A short, faint Nyctalus sp. call was also recorded during the survey.
3.2.4 A maximum if 10 passes was recorded by the surveyor located within the wood to the north of the pond. Bats were observed commuting from the east in a westerly direction along the woodland edge to the north of the proposed site. A single bat was observed briefly foraging over the field before continuing in an easterly direction.
RPS Planning and Development Ltd. DLE1970 September 2009 7 4. Conclusions & Recommendations
4.1 Conclusions
4.1.1 The area surveyed offers the following positive elements for bats;
• roosting opportunities in mature oak and beech;
• linear landscape features for commuting and foraging; and
• an area that it not subject to light pollution.
4.1.2 The wider area provides;
• foraging and roosting in the form of ancient and semi-natural ancient woodland; and
• waterbodies benefitting species such as Daubentons and soprano pipistrelle.
4.1.3 The area offers high value habitat for bats in terms of foraging and commuting. It is also probable that bats will use the woodland and mature trees for roosting.
4.1.4 A major constraint to commuting bats is the bisection of the wider area by the M6 to the east of the proposed site. However it is considered that bats may be utilising a small access track to the south of the site for crossing the M6 and gaining access to the woods east of the M6.
4.1.5 Bats commuting along the tree belt were not observed to commute along the roadside. This is most likely a result of disturbance from road traffic including heavy goods vehicles.
4.1.6 It is considered that the existing low lighting levels in the area will be a direct benefit to bats commuting and foraging in the area.
4.2 Recommendations
4.2.1 It is recommended that 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. It is understood that a 25 m section of hedgerow along the western site boundary will be removed to allow access to the site. It is recommended that this hedgerow be reinstated using the retained native species as soon as possible.
RPS Planning and Development Ltd. DLE1970 September 2009 8 5. References and Bibliography
Bat Conservation Trust (2007) Bat Surveys: Good Practice Guidelines.
English Nature (2004) Bat Mitigation Guidelines
Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management ‘Guidance on Survey Methodology (Sept 2006)
Joint Nature Conservation Council (2004) Bat Workers Manual.
Multi Agency Geographical Information for the Countryside, www.magic.gov.uk.
RPS Planning and Development Ltd. DLE1970 September 2009 9
Plan 1: Survey Location (Tree belt).
RPS Planning and Development Ltd. DLE1970 September 2009 10 Survey Locations Aa Knowl Wall
KEY
A Linear treebelt
Aa Additional survey ARABLE:BARLEY B Cluster of Trees
C Dead Oak 1 2 B A 3 4
C
Plan 1: Knowl Wall
Plan 2: Survey Location (Tree cluster).
RPS Planning and Development Ltd. DLE1970 September 2009 11 Survey Locations & Bat Activity Groundslow farm
KEY
Surveyor Location ARABLE:BARLEY
Observed Flightpath
Observed foraging
B
Plan 2: Tree Cluster
Appendix 1: Summary of Table of Results
.
RPS Planning and Development Ltd. DLE1970 September 2009 12 Feature ID Date Survey Type Start /Finish Time Conditions Results
Tree Aa 31/8/09 Dusk 19:50/21:15 20oC, Light Rain, 100% Cloud No bats entered or emerged from tree. Species Mature Oak Cover, Light Breeze. commuting and foraging in the area: P.pipistrellus, with High P.pygmaeus, Nyctalus sp. and possible Myotis Potential for sp*. Bats 1/9/09 Dawn 4.30/6.00 12oC, No Rain, 80% Cloud No bats entered or emerged from tree. Species Cover, No Breeze. noted commuting and foraging in the area: P.pipistrellus, P.pygmaeus, Nyctalus sp. and Myotis sp.
Tree A1 1/9/09 Dusk 19:49/21:45 16oC. Occ. Light rain early in No bats entered or emerged from the tree. Semi-mature survey, 90% Cloud Cover, Species noted commuting and foraging in the Oak with Calm. area: P.pipistrellus, P.pygmaeus and possible High Myotis sp. Potential for 2/9/09 Dawn 4:40/6:05 11oC, No Rain, 90% Cloud No bats entered or emerged from the tree. Bats Cover, Calm. Species noted commuting and foraging in the area: P.pipistrellus, P.pygmaeus, Nyctalus noctula and Myotis sp.
Tree A2 2/9/09 Dusk Only 19:40/21:30 14oC, Occ. Light to Heavy No bats entered or emerged from the tree. Mature Oak Rain, 100%Cloud Cover, Light Species noted commuting and foraging in the with High to Fresh Breeze. area: P.pipistrellus, P.pygmaeus, Nyctalus noctula Potential for and possible Myotis sp*. Bats
Tree A3 1/9/09 Dusk 19:45/21:45 16oC. Occ. Light rain early in No bats entered or emerged from the tree. Mature Oak survey, 90% Cloud Cover, Species noted commuting and foraging in the with High Calm. area: P.pipistrellus, P.pygmaeus and Myotis sp. Potential for 2/9/08 Dawn 4:40/6:05 11oC, No Rain, 90% Cloud No bats entered or emerged from the tree. Bats Cover, Calm. Species noted commuting and foraging in the area: P.pipistrellus, P.pygmaeus and possible Myotis sp.*
Tree A4 31/8/09 Dusk 19:50/21:15 20oC, Light Rain, 100% Cloud 3 bats observed to exit the tree at dusk. No Mature Oak Cover, Light Breeze. bats observed re-entering at dawn. Species with High commuting and foraging in the area: P.pipistrellus, Potential for P.pygmaeus, Nyctalus sp. and possible Myotis
RPS Planning and Development Ltd. DLE1970 September 2009 1 Feature ID Date Survey Type Start /Finish Time Conditions Results
Bats sp*.
1/9/09 Dawn 4:20/6:00 12oC, No Rain, 80% Cloud No bats entered or emerged from the tree. Cover, No Breeze. Species noted commuting and foraging in the area: P.pipistrellus, P.pygmaeus, Nyctalus noctula and possible Myotis sp*.
Tree C 1/09/09 Daytime 2pm Occasional Light Rain Tall, thin dead oak, covering of ivy up to 4m. The Dead survey tree offers limited potential for bats in the form of Quercus sp. lifted bark. The tree is quite exposed and in the with Low context of the wider area assessed as having low Potential for potential for bats and as such was no subject to Bats. dusk and dawn surveys. * Myotis species can be problematic to identify in ‘cluttered environments’ especially where Pipistrellus species are also present. It is considered by the surveyors that Myotis (Myotis daubentonii) species were present by this cannot be regarded as a definitive ID.
Feature ID Date Survey Type Start /Finish Time Conditions Results
Cluster of 2/9/09 Dusk Activity 19:45/21:25 14oC, Occ. Light to Heavy Two surveyors, one positioned in the wood to the Trees with Survey Rain, 100%Cloud Cover, Light North of the pond and the second located 5m High to Fresh Breeze. from the pond to the East. Species noted were Potential for P.pipistrellus, P.pygmaeus, Nyctalus sp and Bats. Myotis sp. Single bat observed to commute from Identified as east to west along the woodland edge and briefly area B on forage in the area of the proposed development. Plan 1:Knowl 15 passes noted in the woodland and 3 passes Wall near pond.
RPS Planning and Development Ltd. DLE1970 September 2009 2