ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT Ecology and Nature Conservation 7 ECOLOGY AND NATURE CONSERVATION 7.1 Introduction 7.1.1 This chapter of the ES considers the likely significant effects of the Proposed Developments on ecology and nature conservation interests at the Application Site, as defined by the Parameters Plans (see Figures 3.1 to 3.4 in Chapter 3 of this ES). The chapter describes the methods used to assess the effects and determines the baseline conditions currently existing at the Application Site. Mitigation measures are detailed, where required, to prevent, reduce or offset the effects. 7.2 Assessment Approach 7.2.1 The methodology utilised for the survey work is split into three main areas: a desktop study, habitat survey and faunal survey, which are described in more detail below. Methodology: Desktop Study 7.2.2 In order to compile background information on the wider site (defined by the red line on Figure 7.2), and its immediate surroundings, the Wiltshire and Swindon Biological Records Centre and the Wiltshire Badger Group were contacted with a request for ecological data. Where relevant information has been received, this is discussed within this report and reproduced at Appendix 7.1 and on Figure 7.1, where appropriate. 7.2.3 Information on statutory designated sites was obtained from the online Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside (MAGIC) database, which utilises data provided by Natural England, and Natural England’s website (www.natureonthemap.org.uk). This information is reproduced at Appendix 7.1, and where appropriate on Figure 7.1. 7.2.4 The National Biodiversity Network (NBN) database was also searched for any relevant biological records of nature conservation interest within the locality, with relevant information discussed within this report, where appropriate.1 Methodology: Habitat Survey 7.2.5 The Application Site was surveyed in August 2012 and again in October 2012 in order to ascertain the general ecological value of the land and to identify the main habitats present. This follows on from survey work undertaken by previous consultants to inform the 2005 ES. 7.2.6 The Application Site was surveyed based on extended Phase 1 survey methodology (Joint Nature Conservation Committee, 20102), as recommended by Natural England, whereby the habitat types present are identified and mapped, together with an assessment of the species composition of each habitat. This technique provides an inventory of the basic habitat types present and allows identification of areas of greater potential which require further survey. Any such areas identified can then be examined in more detail. 7.2.7 Using the above method, the Application Site were classified into areas of similar botanical community types, and mapped accordingly (see Figure 7.2), with a representative species list compiled for each habitat identified. All of the species that occur in each habitat would not necessarily be detectable during survey work carried out at any given time of the year, since different species are apparent at different seasons. The surveys were undertaken during the optimal seasonal period for botanical work, allowing a robust assessment of the intrinsic ecological interest of the Application Site to be made. 1 Please note that the data provider, the original recorder of the data, and the NBN Trust bear no responsibility for any further analysis or interpretation of that material, data and/or information. 2 JNCC (2010) “Handbook for Phase 1 habitat survey: A technique for environmental audit”. CIR.P.0625 Old Sarum Additional Housing ES 2012 ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT Ecology and Nature Conservation Methodology: Faunal Surveys 7.2.8 General faunal activity, such as mammals or birds observed visually or by call during the course of the surveys was recorded. Attention was also paid to the potential presence of any protected, rare or notable species, and specific survey work was undertaken for Badger and bats. Mammals: Badger3 7.2.9 Specific surveys for Badger Meles meles were undertaken in conjunction with the Phase 1 survey work in August and October 2012. 7.2.10 The survey comprises two main elements. Firstly, searching thoroughly for evidence of Badger setts. For any setts that were encountered, each sett entrance was noted even if the entrance appeared disused. The following information was recorded: • The number and location of well used or very active entrances; these are clear from any debris or vegetation and are obviously in regular use and may, or may not, have been excavated recently. • The number and location of inactive entrances; these are not in regular use and have debris such as leaves and twigs in the entrance or have plants growing in or around the edge of the entrance. • The number of disused entrances; these have not been in use for some time, are partly or completely blocked and cannot be used without considerable clearance. If the entrance has been disused for some time all that may be visible is a depression in the ground where the hole used to be and the remains of the spoil heap. 7.2.11 Secondly, Badger activity such as well-worn paths and push-throughs, snagged hair, footprints, latrines and foraging signs were recorded so as to build up a picture of the use of the Application Site by Badgers. Mammals: Bats4 7.2.12 Building/Tree Inspections. There are no buildings within the Application Site. An examination of the trees within the Application Site was undertaken in August and October 2012 to search for the presence of features which could provide roosting potential for bats (such as splits, cracks, rot holes, coverings of ivy, peeling bark or similar). The potential for the trees to support roosting bats has been ranked in accordance with the criteria set out in the Bat Conservation Trust (BCT, 2007) guidelines, and these trees are mapped accordingly on Figure 7.2: • Category 1 – confirmed bat roost tree with field evidence of the presence of bats (e.g. droppings, scratch marks, grease marks or urine staining). • Category 2a – trees that have a high potential to support bat roosts. This includes trees displaying extensive splits, cavities, rot/woodpecker holes, large areas of peeling bark, dense Ivy cover and or a combination of those features listed above which may also be uncommon in the local area. • Category 2b – trees with a moderate/low potential to support bat roosts. This includes trees with a small number of features offering shelter for roosting bats, such as splits, cavities, rot/woodpecker holes, Ivy cover or peeling bark. Such features may be less substantial or extensive than on high potential trees, and more exposed to the elements. 3 Based on: Mammal Society (1989) “Occasional Publication No. 9 – Surveying Badgers” 4 Surveys based on: English Nature (2004) “Bat Mitigation Guidelines” & Bat Conservation Trust (2007, 2012) “Bat Surveys – Good Practice Guidelines” CIR.P.0625 Old Sarum Additional Housing ES 2012 ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT Ecology and Nature Conservation • Category 3 – trees with negligible potential to support bat roosts, often immature trees, displaying no suitable features. 7.2.13 Activity Surveys. In order to ascertain the current status of bat activity and use of the Application Site by foraging/commuting bats, static Anabat SD2 detectors were deployed at key locations (see Figure 7.3) and left in situ for up to six days to record the level of bat activity and help identity the bat species passing through these locations. The bat activity monitoring was carried out during broadly suitable weather conditions, i.e. no heavy rain or strong winds, and temperatures above 7oC, as set out in Table 7.1. 7.2.14 Data Analysis. The data captured by the Anabat SD2 recorders was analysed using AnalookW (version 3.7.23, 2009). All ultrasound captured was analysed by a suitably experienced ecologist. Using Analook, individual files were labelled up where bat species could be identified with reasonable certainty. Calls that appeared to have been produced by bats but could not reliably be attributed to a species were labelled with a “?” or similar identifier. The “Count Label” tool was then used to export the data into tables displaying counts per 24 hour period, and the data were then summarised (see Appendix 7.2). Table 7.1: Dates and weather conditions for static bat detector surveys Sunrise Sunset Static Bat Detector Survey Date Weather Conditions Time Time Locations 06 September 2012 - 19.42 Area 10; MOD land Dry, BF 0-3, 13-15°C 07 September 2012 06.29 19.40 Area 10; MOD land Dry, BF 0-3, 10-15°C 08 September 2012 06.31 19.37 Area 10; MOD land Dry, BF 0-3, 9-14°C 09 September 2012 06.32 19.35 Area 10; MOD land Dry, BF 0-3, 9-14°C 10 September 2012 06.34 19.33 Area 10; MOD land Some drizzle, BF 3-4, 14-16°C 11 September 2012 06.35 19.30 Area 10; MOD land Some drizzle at dawn, BF 2, 9-13°C 12 September 2012 06.37 - Area 10; MOD land Dry, BF 0-3, 7-9°C 14 September 2012 - 19.24 Mixed Use Land Dry, BF 2-3, 9-14°C 15 September 2012 06.42 - Mixed Use Land Dry, BF 1-2, 9-11°C Limitations to the Assessment 7.2.15 Surveyors were able to access all areas within the Application Site during the survey work conducted, except working construction areas where rubble and other materials are being stored. The surveys were conducted throughout the optimal season for botanical and Badger work, and it is therefore considered that a robust assessment of the ecological interest of the site to be made. The bat activity survey work was conducted just outside of the optimal survey period of June - August, but given that bat commuting activity is often elevated during the transitional month of September, and given that the weather conditions were broadly suitable during the surveys conducted, this is not considered to represent a constraint to the analysis of the results.