ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT SUFFOLK COASTAL DISTRICT COUNCIL COUNTY W ILDLIFE SITE REVIEW 2009 Project no. Report Date 09/09 Final October 2009 Prepared by Checked and approved by P Hemphill & T Seagon Simone Bullion Prepared by: Prepared for: SWT Ecological Con ultant Suffolk Coa tal Di trict Council Brooke Hou e Melton Hill A hbocking, Ip wich Woodbridge Suffolk Suffolk IP6 9J, IP12 1A. Suffolk Coastal District Council County Wildlife Site review 2009 Contents 1 0 Introduction 1 2 0 Objectives 1 3 0 Methodolo1y 1 3 , Criteria for site evaluation 2 3.2 System of site rankin1 2 3.3 Conservation value 3 3 0 Sites Martlesham Martle ham Common (north of Te co0 1 O ier Bed and Martle ham Plantation Meadow (2ittle Bealing 1 Old Rotary Camping Ground Bloomfield0 Farm Meadow Martle ham Plantation Acid Gra land 6y on Meadow (Woodbridge1 Sluice Wood Martle ham Creek Kes1rave 6e grave Wood and Sink Valley Fo9hall Stadium Wood Rushmere 3u hmere Heath Ip wich Golf Cour e Tuddenham Pumping Station Meadow Fo4hall5Purdis Farm The Mount 8alley Farm Meadow Feli4stowe Feli9 towe Ferry – Golf Cour e and Ditch 6ing fleet Egypt Wood Trimleys St Mary & Trimley St Martin Painter /Salter Wood Mor ton Hall Wood SWT Ecological Consultants Suffolk Coastal District Council County Wildlife Site review 2009 Kirton5Falkenham 6irton Re ervoir Paul0 Rough Ground Corporation Mar he (Falkenham1 Newbourne Mill River Newbourne Spring Meadow Brightwell Grazing Meadow Playford Playford Alder Carr Playford Re ervoir 2u9 Wood Pog on0 Farm Meadow Playford Mere SWT Ecological Consultants Suffolk Coastal District Council County Wildlife Site review 2009 Ecolo1ical assessment of County W ildlife Sites 1 Introduction SWT Ecological Con ultant (trading a SWT Trading Ltd1 wa commi ioned in 2009 by Suffolk Coa tal Di trict Council to undertake ecological a e ment of elected County Wildlife Site /CWS1. A total of thirty one County Wildlife Site /CWS1 were surveyed in the pari he of Martle ham, Ke grave, Ru hmere St Andrew, Tuddenham, Fo9hall, Purdi Farm, Feli9 towe, Trimley St Mary and Trimley St Martin, Kirton, Falkenham, Newbourne and Playford. Some of the site selected have been de ignated in part for feature that are apparent at time out ide the scope of the e survey , such a spring flora or overwintering bird . Recommendation for further vi it have been made for the following: 6y on Meadow – winter vi it to confirm overwintering bird population Sluice Wood – spring vi it to confirm early flora O ier Bed and Martle ham Plantation Meadow – spring vi it to check management and early flora Feli9 towe Ferry – spring vi it to check early flora Egypt Wood - spring vi it to check early flora Mor ton Hall Wood – spring vi it to check early flora Brightwell Grazing Meadow - spring vi it to check early flora 2u9 Wood - spring vi it to check early flora Pog on Farm Meadow - spring vi it to check early flora 2 Objectives The aim of the survey wa to provide: • information and a de cription of the wildlife intere t of each site • highlight i ue a ociated with the pre ence of Biodiver ity Action Plan (BAP1 habitat and BAP & protected specie • a relative ranking of the current ecological value of the site to wildlife • identification of link between the survey site and adjacent site of wildlife intere t and the pre ence of any wildlife corridor . 3 Methodolo1y In order to achieve the overall aim of the project the following ta k were undertaken: • e9i ting digital information for each site wa collated u ing data provided by Suffolk Biological Record Centre and from 1:10,000 map and aerial photograph • every site wa surveyed and a record made of it con ervation value • photograph were taken of the relevant site • criteria and a ranking sy tem wa u ed to evaluate site • comment were made on habitat /specie of wildlife intere t • ecological i ue were highlighted. 1 SWT Ecological Consultants Suffolk Coastal District Council County Wildlife Site review 2009 3 1 Criteria for site evaluation At each site of the five site identified for full survey the following wa recorded: 8abitat type: di tinct, dominant habitat type were briefly detailed Subsidiary habitat: thi included additional habitat of particular note such a dead wood Site description: a detailed account of the site Si9e: the size wa noted in hectare (ha1 Connectivity: if a site linked to other green corridor , thi wa noted and de cribed in detail where relevant Structural diversity: the differing vegetation structure (height1 providing a variation in niche potential for a wide range of ta9a wa de cribed for each site if relevant Protected species: the e were noted if recorded, or if previou ly recorded Protected species potential: thi wa noted if the habitat wa deemed suitable for named protected pecie :AP species: the e were noted if seen, or if previou ly recorded :AP habitats: the e were noted if pre ent :AP species potential: thi wa noted if the habitat wa deemed suitable for BAP specie Flora, avifauna, herpetofauna, mammals, invertebrates etc: specie seen or recorded were noted and habitat which offered potential for specific ta9a wa noted Comments and recommendations: overall impre ion of each site were noted and although detailed management recommendation were not part of the remit, the e were in some in tance offered and further survey work wa recommended where relevant Definitions :AP species and habitats: priority specie or habitat (u ually tho e that are threatened, rare or declining in a U6 or European conte9t1 that have been identified by the U6 government in the U6 Biodiver ity Action Plan (DoE 199A1 amended Augu t 2007. Local plan have al o been produced for tho e priority specie and habitat occurring in Suffolk (Suffolk Local Biodiver ity Action Plan 1. In addition, habitat and specie special to Suffolk have been identified and termed ‘Suffolk Character Plan 0. Protected species: specie protected by law under the Wildlife and Country ide Act 1981, The Con ervation (Natural Habitat &c.1 Regulation 199E and the Protection of Badger Act 1992. 3 2 System of site rankin1 A sy tem of ranking each ite from the information gathered during survey wa e tabli hed, u ing a imple numbering method. Number 1-6 were u ed (1 = high, 6 = low1. 1 Statutory de ignation e.g. SSSI (Site of Special Scientific Intere t1 scheduled under the Wildlife and Country ide Act 1981. 2 Non- tatutory de ignation e.g. County Wildlife Site (CWS1. CWS are site regarded a important in a county/regional conte9t. 3 Non- tatutory de ignation e.g. Local Wildlife Site (2WS1, Biodiver ity Action Plan (BAP1 pecie and habitat (e9cept tho e that are locally common e.g. song thru h1 and/or pecie protected under the Wildlife and Country ide Act (19811. E No de ignation but clearly of value due to size, connectivity, specie diver ity, potential for BAP and protected specie and locally common BAP and protected specie . A No de ignation but ha some natural capital: i in character with the area (e.g. woodland1, provide limited connectivity. 6 No de ignation and of no con ervation value. 2 SWT Ecological Consultants Suffolk Coastal District Council County Wildlife Site review 2009 Site Rankin1 1: Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs): the mo t important site for wildlife within a national conte9t. The criterion u ed to a e such ite ha been developed by Engli h Nature. Site Rankin1 2: County W ildlife Sites (CW Ss): the e site have a high priority for protection. Although there i currently no statutory protection, all of Suffolk0 local authoritie have included a policy in their local plan to protect CWS from development. The criteria u ed to a e CWS have been developed by Suffolk Wildlife Tru t, Suffolk County Council and Suffolk Biological 3ecord Centre (SB3C1 (The County Wildlife Site panel1. Site Rankin1 3: Local Wildlife Sites (LW Ss): site which do not fulfil the criteria for SSSI or CWS statu but have a high con ervation value. The e site compri e the be t e9ample of different habitat or are important for a particular specie . The criteria for LWS are: • Non-recreatability. The site mu t have some degree of naturalne • Diver ity and pre ence of indicator specie . Site that are le diver e than CWS will be included. For e9ample, gra land that i not a remnant of old meadow but ha a good number of gra and herb pecie . Area dominated by amenity gra land will not be included • 3arity. Site that contain habitat , plant and animal that are rare within the town but may be common throughout the county are included here • Potential value. A number of 2WS are site that have been neglected. The e ite may have potential value once appropriate con ervation management work i carried out. Some ite that could benefit from habitat creation are included, but only tho e that already have ome con ervation value • Size. There i no minimum ize for LWS but site that do not have a great diver ity of specie or habitat and contain no rare pecie are unlikely to be included if they are le than 0.2A ha • Woodland. Many LWS are econdary woodland a all ancient wood are de ignated a CWS . The e9ception are small site that may contain remnant of ancient woodland within wood of more recent origin. All secondary woodland with a rea onably diver e ground flora or containing some old woodland indicator pecie are included.