PHASE 2 ECOLOGICAL SURVEYS REPORT · 2.7 Detector surveys, using point survey methodology, have...

LAND AT

WILDWOOD GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB

PHASE 2 ECOLOGICAL

SURVEYS REPORT

Prepared by

ACD Landscape Architects

for

WILDWOOD GOLF AND

COUNTRY CLUB

Written By: F Oliver Checked By: SJD

Date: Nov 2009 ACD File Ref: WILD16981Ph 2

Revision: B

Wildwood Golf & Country Club Phase 2 Ecological Surveys

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ACD Ecology Page 1

PHASE 2 ECOLOGICAL SURVEYS REPORT AT WILDWOOD GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB

1.0 BACKGROUND

Development Background 1.1 ACD Landscape Architects were commissioned by Wildwood Golf & Country Club

to carry out ecological survey work for the joint venture proposals between Wildwood Golf & Country Club with the Professional Golfers’ Association (P.G.A.) to create a National Headquarters (South Region) for the enhancement of golfing opportunities, events and training in the South of England.

1.2 The proposals are specifically to provide the enhanced visitor accommodation

required by the National Golfers’ Association to support its essential functions and reflect its national significance as a centre of excellence.

Ecology Background

1.3 Initially, an ecological site walk-over was undertaken in early May 2009 prior to the

full extended Phase 1 habitat survey on 20th May 2009 by ACD Landscape Architects. Both the ecological site walk-over and the habitat survey were carried out in order to provide a preliminary assessment of any identified or potential ecological constraints associated with the re-development proposals. A desk study was also undertaken in support of the site ecological survey work.

1.4 The findings of the extended phase 1 habitat survey and desk study are reported

within ACD’s report (WILD16981 Ph 1) which makes recommendations for a suite of further ecological surveys, bulleted as follows:

§ Bat § Great crested newt § Reptile § Badger § Breeding birds § Invertebrates § Dormouse

1.5 ACD Landscape Architects were accordingly commissioned between spring and

autumn 2009 by Wildwood Golf and Country Club to carry out a selection of the recommended ecological surveys listed above, as follows:

§ Roosting bat § Great crested newt § Reptile § Dormouse

This report documents the findings of the 4 commissioned further ecological surveys. The further badger, bird and invertebrate surveys would be required prior to commencement of construction on site.


__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ACD Ecology Page 2

Survey Objectives

1.6 The objectives of the above recommended ecological surveys were to:

§ determine the presence or likely absence of these species / species groups from the proposed re-development areas; § identify any legal and planning policy constraints relevant to the surveyed

species / species groups which may affect the development; and, § determine the need for further surveys and / or mitigation, as appropriate.

2.0 BATS

Introduction

2.1 The existing golf course buildings vary in their potential to support roosting bats.

Based upon the proposed layout, the 3 buildings associated with the current workshop will be demolished, i.e. B6-B8. The two dilapidated buildings (B6 and B7) possess some, though modest (i.e. low) bat roost potential.

2.2 It was therefore recommended that Building B6 and B7 be subject to specific bat

survey work. Existing trees and vegetation, which have the potential to provide bat roosts, around the existing ponds, under the current proposals, will remain unaffected.

2.3 Most bat populations have declined dramatically in recent years and as a

consequence all sixteen species of bat resident in the UK receive full protection under the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981, Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 and Conservation (Natural Habitats etc) Regulations 1994. Taken together, this makes it an offence to intentionally or deliberately capture, kill or injure or disturb bats (whether in a roost or not), and intentionally or recklessly damage, destroy or obstruct access to their roosts.

2.4 In addition, existing legislation (subsequent to the amendment of the Conservation

Regulations) and planning policy is currently being re-interpreted and emerging thinking is that there is legal basis for the protection of important bat foraging and commuting habitats or else for mitigation and/or compensation for its loss.

2.5 Seven species of bat – Greater horseshoe Rhinolophus ferrumequinum, Lesser

horseshoe Rhinolophus hipposideros, Barbastelle Barbastella barbastellus, Bechstein’s Myotis bechsteinii, Noctule Nyctalus noctula, Brown long-eared bat Plecotus auritus and Soprano Pipistrelle Pipistrellus pygmaeus - are also listed as Priority Species on the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP), following changes made in 2007.


__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ACD Ecology Page 3

Methodology - Buildings

2.6 Detector Surveys

2.7 Detector surveys, using point survey methodology, have been undertaken of those on-site buildings B6 and B7.

2.8 One dusk and 1 dawn detector survey of each of these two buildings was

undertaken.

2.9 In accordance with current guidelines (Bat Conservation Trust, 2007; Mitchell-Jones, A.J, 2004) and best practice, the evening surveys commenced approximately half an hour before sunset and continued for the following two hours, whilst the dawn surveys commenced two hours before sunrise and ended at sunrise.

2.10 Time expansion bat detectors (Batbox Duet and Pettersson D240X) were used by

each surveyor and calls were recorded on to a minidisk or MP3 recorder and later analysed using computer software (BatSound 3.31) to species level (where possible); bat passes which were either too brief and/or faint to record and/or analyse were recorded as unidentified bats.

2.11 The bat detector survey work was undertaken on 15th and 16th June 2009 given

the initial project deadline for completion of survey work and reporting by the end of July 2009. Dates and weather conditions of each detector survey are provided below.

Building No.

Survey Date

Dusk or Dawn Survey Weather Conditions

B7 15-06-09

Dusk Min. temp. 15.2°C, Max. temp. 19.2 °C, mild and humid, dry, still, 7-8/8 cloud cover

B6 16-06-09

Dawn Min. temp. 14.1°C, Max. temp. 10.4 °C, dry, still, 1/8 cloud cover

B7 15-06-09

Dusk Min. temp. 15.2°C, Max. temp. 19.2 °C, mild and humid, dry, still, 7-8/8 cloud cover

B6 16-06-09

Dawn Min. temp. 14.1°C, Max. temp. 10.4 °C, dry, still, 1/8 cloud cover

For building locations, as denoted by Building No. in above table, refer to Appendix 1: Habitat Map.

2.12 The bat survey work was carried out during the optimal survey window (i.e.

between June and August) when maternity roosts are present and every effort was made to conduct the survey work during suitable weather conditions.


__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ACD Ecology Page 4

Results - Buildings

2.13 Detector Surveys

2.14 No definitive emergence from or return to either building B6 or B7 was observed during the survey visits, and no bat activity (e.g. circling at dawn) was noted to indicate the use of either building by roosting bats.

2.15 Incidental bat activity, however, was encountered in the vicinity of both buildings

and comprised passes by foraging and / or commuting common and soprano pipistrelles, noctule and Nyctalus sp. bats. In addition, bat passes were detected / observed during the incidental foraging bat activity following the dusk survey, and immediately prior to the dawn survey within Pickenswood Copse, around Pond P1 and around Ponds P19-P22. Specifically, the same species were recorded as well as a number of Myotis sp. bat passes around Ponds P19-P22, though it has not been possible to determine the species of these Myotis passes.

2.16 The bat survey work has confirmed the use of the golf course by a suite of bat

species, which is consistent with the habitat types found at the site. The presence of soprano pipistrelle is not unexpected since this species has a strong affinity with wetland habitats, including ponds. The occurrence of noctule is also as expected since it is associated with woodlands given that it is a tree-roosting species. Nyctalus sp. (noctule or Leisler’s) bats were also observed during the great crested newt surveys above Ponds P9 and P10. In terms of Myotis species, Daubenton’s have been confirmed by visual observations (made during the great crested newt surveys) to be present, as would be expected since this species is specifically adapted to forage above water. It is, however, expected that the undetermined Myotis sp. may include other species, such as whiskered/Brandt’s and Natterer’s (given their widespread distribution and nature of habitats present), and potentially also Bechstein’s, a woodland species which typically requires water within 500 m of its roost. Similarly, the occurrence of barbastelle bat (a colony of which occurs at Eberoe Common SAC beyond 9 km from the site), which is another woodland species, cannot be discounted given that some individuals may forage some significant distances from their colony, i.e. Greenway (2001) found non-breeding females foraged up to 9.1 km from their roost site during summer months.

2.17 To conclude, these bat surveys and incidental visual observations have

determined that a total of a minimum of 5 different bat species (common pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle, noctule, Nyctalus sp. [i.e. noctule or Leisler’s], daubenton’s and Myotis [not Daubenton’s] sp.) occur at the golf course. That said, given both the difficulty in distinguishing different Myotis and two Nyctalus species’ sonographs and the variety of prime habitat found at the golf course, it is considered that the golf course, including the proposed re-development areas, would likely be used frequently by at least 5 different species, potentially including also Bechstein’s and barbastelle bats.

2.18 The golf course site is therefore considered to be of high value to foraging and

commuting bats.


__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ACD Ecology Page 5

Discussion 2.19 Ecological valuation

2.20 It is considered relevant to compare the golf course’s foraging bat assemblage

against the Surrey Wildlife Trust’s guidance for the selection of Sites of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCIs) within Surrey, in order to evaluate the ecological value of the assemblage in the context of Surrey. This document states that, for bats, sites which meet at least 1 of 3 set criteria should be considered for selection.

2.21 A minimum of 5 bat species have been confirmed at the golf course and therefore

it is assumed that at least 5 bat species use the golf course area regularly, In conclusion the expected foraging bat assemblage identified at the golf course site is expected to meet 1 of these criteria, specifically:

§ Foraging sites not associated directly with roosts should be considered for

selection if more than 5 species are regularly recorded there or if used by any Annex II species.

2.22 In summary, therefore, the golf course’s foraging bat assemblage may be of up to

county level importance given that it potentially would meet SNCI criteria.

2.23 Detailed survey results are provided in Appendix 2 and photographs of buildings B6 and B7 are provided in Appendix 3.

Impacts and Legal Constraints

2.24 The foraging / commuting bat habitats within and / or adjacent to the proposed re-

development areas could be impacted by the re-development works in the following manners:

§ Short-term construction phase impacts on re-development areas and their

surrounding habitats § Long-term increased lighting and disturbance levels of the re-development

areas and their surrounding habitats

2.25 To re-iterate, the legal basis for avoiding and/or mitigating for any impact on roosting bats are provided by the full legal protection afforded to bats under the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981, Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 and/or Conservation (Natural Habitats etc) Regulations 1994. Taken together, this makes it an offence to intentionally or deliberately capture, kill or injure or disturb bats (whether in a roost or not), and intentionally or recklessly damage, destroy or obstruct access to their roosts.


__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ACD Ecology Page 6

Further survey 2.26 No further planning-stage survey work is recommended for either building B6 or

Building B7, though pre-demolition mitigation work should be adopted (see Recommendations).

2.27 If trees are proposed for removal, they should be assessed for potential bat roosts.

Recommendations

2.28 Despite the detector survey work having found no current evidence of roosting

bats within buildings B6 and B7, it is nonetheless recommended that a soft approach to the demolition works and sensitive timing of the works be adopted.

2.29 The justification for such a soft approach pertains to the fact that these buildings

posses suitable roosting features and given the changeable roosting patterns of some bat species (particularly common pipistrelles) their use by roosting bats cannot be discounted.

2.30 The soft approach to demolition will likely encompass (but not be limited to):

§ Sensitive timing (i.e. works to be undertaken outside the bat hibernation

period); and, § Hand removal of potential bat roost features, e.g. damaged soffits etc.

2.31 If roosting bats are found during the demolition works, then works will cease and

advice be sought as to the requirement for a European Protected Species (EPS) Natural England (NE) Licence.

2.32 Further, the buildings should be subject to a pre-demolition bird nest check if the

demolition works are conducted during the breeding bird season (i.e. March to July inclusive).


__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ACD Ecology Page 7

3.0 DORMOUSE

Introduction 3.1 Suitable dormouse habitat (i.e. ancient woodland, mature hedgerows and scrub)

has been identified to occur within and/or adjacent to the proposed re-development areas. Based upon the desk study records, the closest known dormouse records are from a large tract of woodland to the east of Cranleigh, c. 5.5 km from Wildwood golf course and according to the Surrey BAP is patchily distributed throughout the county.

3.2 That said, the golf course includes blocks of ancient woodland, with hazel coppice

and these woods are linked via long-standing hedgerows with trees, and therefore the presence of this species cannot be discounted.

3.3 Based on the re-development proposals, some areas of suitable dormouse habitat

would be cleared to accommodate the development, whilst other areas would be retained but impacted indirectly by increased lighting and noise levels.

3.4 Given that suitable dormouse habitat has been identified within and immediately

adjacent to the proposed re-development areas, it would be necessary to undertake specific survey work to determine this species presence and / or likely absence.

Methodology

3.5 A search for hazel nuts opened by dormice was undertaken of the following areas:

§ Hazel within hedgerows adjoining Pickenswood Copse (as well as incidental

check for day nests) § Hazel coppice in Little Wildwood & Stoney Copses SNCI, which connects with

the aforementioned hedgerows (5 10 m by 10 m quadrats) § Hazel coppice in Moat Copse and Wildwood Copse, which connects with the

aforementioned hedgerows (a further 5 10 m by 10 m quadrats) 3.6 The nut search followed the survey protocol and survey effort given in English

Nature (2006): Dormouse Conservation Handbook.

3.7 The nut search method relies upon the distinctive manner in which dormice gnaw holes in hazel nuts. This allows the presence of dormice within a habitat containing hazel to be determined simply be searching for opened hazel nuts. Survey effort was in accordance with EN 2006.

3.8 The nut search was undertaken on 24th September, 23rd October and 4th

November 2009.


__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ACD Ecology Page 8

3.9 In terms of survey limitations, the nut search was undertaken during the recommended survey window for this type of survey which runs between August and March (optimal: mid-August to mid-December [Bright, P, Morris P & Mitchell-Jones T, 2006.]). The greatest success of detecting dormouse presence using the nut search is between mid-August and mid-December since hazelnuts are both plentiful and fresh at this time. By the month of February the condition of the nuts has deteriorated somewhat through decay, which in some instances may preclude confident and reliable identification of gnawed nuts.

3.10 A potentially significant survey limitation, however, was the large number of

squirrel gnawed nuts that were encountered during the nut searches, which necessitated doubling of the standard search effort, as discussed in the results section.

Results

3.11 No dormouse gnawed hazel nuts were found, despite searching hazel stools along

hedgerows and conducting 5 10 m by 10 m quadrats in Little Wildwood & Stoney Copses SNCI, and a further 5 10 by 10 m quadrats in Moat Copse and Wildwood Copse.

3.12 The vast majority of hazel nuts were determined to have been opened by squirrel,

with the minority (a total of c. 30) opened by either wood mouse or bank vole. 3.13 Although the guidance states that if after conducting a total of ten 10 m by 10 m no

characteristically dormouse-gnawed nuts are found, it is c. 90% certain that dormouse are likely absent, where the predominance of squirrel-gnawed nuts could potentially (at lower search efforts) result in false negative findings. On this basis, it could be concluded the dormouse is likely absent from the surveyed areas.

Recommendations

3.14 A precautionary approach to the timing and working methods for the clearance of

suitable dormouse habitats would need to be adopted, which should be formalised as a non-licensed method statement, which should be approved by the LPA.


__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ACD Ecology Page 9

4.0 GREAT CRESTED NEWT

Introduction

4.1 The extended Phase 1 habitat survey has identified both aquatic and terrestrial habitats which are potentially suitable for great crested newt, both within the re-development areas and within close proximity to these areas.

4.2 Most ponds built for the golf course are man-made and were installed around

1995. 4.3 Based upon the desk study results, SARG held no great crested newt records for

the search area. However, ecological surveys conducted in respect of the Dunsfold Aerodrome re-development (which is c. 1.1 km from the golf course), identified great crested newt to occur in three waterbodies, namely two ponds and a disused canal. This species is therefore evidently present in the local area.

4.4 Great crested newts are fully protected under both UK and European legislation,

and accordingly protection not only pertains to individual newts but extends to their habitats (both aquatic and terrestrial). This species is also a Priority Species in the UK Biodiversity Plan and species of principal importance for the conservation of biodiversity in England.

4.5 In practice, the legal and planning policy protection afforded to this species means

that the great crested newt is a material consideration in the determination of a planning application. Loss of great crested newt habitat (aquatic and/or terrestrial) would likely require a Natural England (European Protected Species) licence in respect of the development and appropriate mitigation.

Methodology

4.6 Habitat Suitability Assessment 4.7 Initially a habitat suitability assessment of all water bodies (to which access was

permitted) within 500 m of the proposed development areas was undertaken. This assessment encompassed a survey visit during which each water body was assessed for its suitability to support breeding great crested newts. The methodology used to assess suitability was based upon the same set of variables as those used in the Habitat Suitability Index created by Oldham et al 2001:

§ Location (in Britain) § Pond Area § Dessication Rate (years out of 10 that pond dries) § Water Quality (subjective assessment) § % Shade § Number of Waterfowl § Fish Population (subjective assessment) § Number of Ponds within 1km § Terrestrial Habitat Quality § % Macrophyte Cover


__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ACD Ecology Page 10

4.8 These 10 variables were selected by Oldham on the basis of their established or presumed importance to great crested newt survival and for ease of field determination. Following the field survey, professional judgement, rather than Oldham’s HSI, has been used to assess the potential suitability of the water bodies.

4.9 Presence / Absence Survey and Population Size Class Assessment 4.10 A presence / absence great crested newt survey was subsequently undertaken for

each of the water bodies which were deemed to possess at least some potential to support this species.

4.11 Initially, 4 visits were made to each potentially suitable water body, following the

survey guidelines in English Nature’s Great Crested Newt Mitigation Guidelines 2001 (EN, 2001). For each visit, a total of three survey techniques were used (i.e. egg search, torching and bottle trapping). A further 2 visits (using 2 techniques – bottle trapping and torching) were subsequently made to those water bodies within which great crested newts were found to be present.

4.12 Summer larval search 4.13 A larval search was made of those ponds within 500 m of the proposed re-

development areas for which no evidence of great crested newt presence was initially found during the spring egg search. These ponds comprised the moat (n/a as dry), P13-P16 and P24-27.

4.14 Survey dates 4.15 A total of six visits, during suitable weather conditions, were undertaken on the

following dates:

Visit No. Date 1 07/08-05-09 2 13/14-05-09 3 19/20-05-09 4 26/27-05-09 5 02/03-06-09 6 10/11-06-09


__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ACD Ecology Page 11

4.16 The weather conditions for each of the six visits were as follows:

Date Visit no. Temperature Weather 07/08-05-09 1 Temp while torching 11.9oC

Min overnight temp 9oC Dry, mild, cool wind – moderate gusts

13/14-05-09 2 Temp while torching 15oC Min overnight temp 13oC

Rain during torching then calm and overcast

19/20-05-09 3 Temp while torching 10.5oC Min overnight temp 6oC

Dry, calm

26/27-05-09 4 Temp while torching 14.5oC Min overnight temp 13oC

Dry (rain during day), westerly breeze with moderate gusts

02/03-06-09 5 Temp while torching 14oC Min overnight temp 12oC

Dry, clear, calm

10/11-06-09 6 Temp while torching 11C Min overnight temp 5oC

Dry , calm

4.17 Limitations 4.18 The survey work was undertaken during the appropriate survey window of mid

March to mid June. The published guidance (EN, 2001), however stipulates that 3 of the 6 survey visits should be conducted between mid April and mid May. Given the late commissioning of this survey work, the first 3 survey visits were necessarily conducted between early May and mid/late May, in an attempt to meet with EN 2001’s stipulation as far as possible.

4.19 Every effort was made to conduct the survey visits during suitable weather,

however rainfall and/or wind was encountered during the 1st, 2nd and 4th visits’ torch light survey which made detecting, sexing and counting newts within the pond difficult.

4.20 That said, taking the 3 survey techniques and 6 survey visits together, the survey

work is considered to provide a reliable assessment of the occurrence and abundance of great crested newt in the surveyed ponds.

4.21 No access could be gained to Ponds 2, 3 and 28 refer to Appendix 4 for locations.


__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ACD Ecology Page 12

Results 4.22 Habitat Suitability Assessment

4.23 A summary of the assessment findings is given in the table below, a plan showing

the ponds is provided in Appendix 4 whilst the detailed survey data used to derive the HSI for all ponds identified within 500 m of the proposed re-development areas is given in Appendix 5.

Pond HSI Pond suitability

1 0.51 below average 2 0.59 below average 3 0.71 good 4 0.71 good 5 0.72 good 6 0.72 good 7 0.75 good 8 0.79 good 9 0.70 good

10 0.72 good 11 0.77 good 12 0.70 good 13 0.79 good 14 0.73 good 15 0.78 good 16 0.68 average 17 0.74 good 18 0.69 average 19 0.72 good 20 0.73 good 21 0.68 average 22 0.79 good 23 0.73 good 24 0.74 good 25 0.76 good 26 0.83 excellent 28 0.79 good 28 n/a n/a

4.24 According to this methodology, all ponds score between 0.51 (below average) and

0.83 (excellent), with the intermediate ponds scoring either average or good suitability for great crested newt. Further, all scores are above the lowest HSI score (0.43) at which great crested newts were found to be breeding during Oldham’s validation process. In conclusion, therefore all the surveyed ponds are potentially suitable for use by great crested newt.

4.25 Presence / Absence Survey 4.26 Great crested newts were found to be present at a number of the surveyed ponds.

4.27 A total of 17 ponds were subject to a 4-visit presence / absence survey, namely

Ponds P1, P4-P12 and P17-P23.


__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ACD Ecology Page 13

4.28 An egg search determined that eggs had been laid by great crested newt in the following ponds: Pond 7, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 24.

4.29 Great crested newt has been confirmed to be present in a total of nine of the

surveyed ponds, namely Ponds P7, P8, P10, P11, P12 and P19-22. In addition, on two occasions a single adult great crested newt was encountered in grass adjacent to Pond P4, whilst a single great crested newt was observed upon the grass adjacent to Pond 17.

4.30 Other amphibian species encountered within at least some of the ponds comprise

smooth newt, palmate newt, common frog and common toad. Some of the ponds were additionally noted to support stickleback, whilst some of the ponds supported other (coarse) fish species, such as perch.

4.31 The amphibian species recorded in each of the surveyed ponds (ponds not

included in survey highlighted grey), alongside the occurrence of fish populations, is summarised in the following table:

Pond Great

crested newt

Smooth newt

Palmate Newt

Common Frog

Common Toad

Stickleback Other Fish

1 ü ü 2 3 4 on grass

adjacent ü ü ü ü

5 ü ü ü 6 ü ü ü ü 7 ü ü ü ü ü 8 ü ü ü ü ü ü 9 ü ü 10 ü ü ü ü ü ü 11 ü ü ü ü ü ü 12 ü ü ü 13 14 15 16 17 on

grass adjacen

t

ü ü

18 ü ü 19 ü ü ü ü ü 20 ü ü ü ü ü 21 ü ü ü ü ü 22 ü ü ü ü 23 ü ü ü ü

4.32 Photographs of the ponds are provided in Appendix 6 and detailed survey results

are given in Appendix 8.


__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ACD Ecology Page 14

4.33 A water shrew was accidentally captured within a bottle trap in Pond P22 during the 2nd presence / absence survey visit. The bottle traps were therefore modified to include a large hole, to enable any shrews which entered the traps to escape, unharmed, of their own accord.

4.34 Population size class assessment

4.35 A total of 10 ponds were subject to a further 2 visits, to allow a population size

assessment to be made, namely P4, P7, P8, P10, P11, P12 and P19-22.

4.36 The maximum adult GCN count per pond visit (per technique) ranged from 1 (Ponds 8, 10 and 19) to 51 (Pond 22), as shown in the table below:

Visit

Pond 1 2 3 4 5 6 4 adjacent adjacent 0 0 0 0 7 1 4 1 3 0 0 8 1 0 1 0 0 0 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 11 6 10 7 6 2 0 12 0 0 6 1 3 2 17 0 adjacent 0 0 0 0 19 adjacent 0 1 0 0 0 20 12 8 3 5 0 1 21 10 12 16 19 2 1 22 10 51 29 32 16 6

Site 41 85 61 66 23 10

4.37 According to published guidance (EN, 2001), for sites where there is reasonable

certainty that there is regular interchange of animals between ponds (typically, within 250m and with an absence of barriers to dispersal), counts can be summed across ponds.

4.38 It is therefore considered reasonable to calculate the peak total site count for each

visit. As shown in the table above, the peak total site count varies between 10 and 85 over the 6 visits.

4.39 Although it is difficult to establish the true size of a population of great crested

newts, due to a range of factors, notably the variable sampling efficiency attained even by the most-efficient survey methods and the complex (meta) population dynamics involved (English Nature, August 2001), a method proposed by English Nature gives an indication of whether a population of great crested newts is small, medium or large in terms of the number of adult newts present in the breeding water body.


__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ACD Ecology Page 15

4.40 The maximum adult count per water body (obtained from torching and bottle trapping) can be expressed as a peak count per water body or per site. Populations can then be classed as:

§ ‘small’ for maximum counts up to 10 § ‘medium’ for maximum counts between 11 and 100 § ‘large’ for maximum counts over 100

4.41 According to current published guidelines (English Nature, 2001), therefore, the

site’s great crested newt population falls within the upper range of the ‘medium’ population size class.

4.42 It should however be noted, that since only ponds within 250 m of the proposed re-

development areas were subject to population size class assessment, it cannot be discounted that the site’s great crested newt population actually falls within the ‘large’ population size class if ponds within 250 m to 500 m of the re-development area are included also.

4.43 Further, it should be noted that relatively new ponds have been created by the golf

club throughout the golf course at distances of beyond 250 m but within 500 m of the proposed re-development areas, though these ponds are too newly constructed to be shown on Google Earth aerial imagery. Such ponds have not been subject to a larval search. It cannot therefore be discounted that additional ponds occurring within 250-500 m of the proposed re-development areas may also support great crested newt.

4.44 Given the above, it is most appropriate to conclude that the great crested newt

population at the golf course falls into the ‘large’ population size class.

4.45 Summer larval search

4.46 All ponds within 500 m of the proposed re-development areas which are not separated by significant barrier and to which access was permitted (i.e. access was not gained to P28) were subject to an egg search and / or larval search.

4.47 Great crested newt larvae were confirmed to be present in Ponds P13, P24, P25,

P26 and P27.

4.48 No evidence of great crested newt was found in Pond P16.


__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ACD Ecology Page 16

Discussion 4.49 Ecological valuation 4.50 The ponds found on site are largely man-made having been installed in the mid

1990s at the creation of the golf course.

4.51 It is also relevant to compare the golf course’s great crested newt and other amphibian populations against the Surrey Wildlife Trust’s guidance for the selection of Sites of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCIs) within Surrey, in order to evaluate the ecological value of the identified populations in the context of Surrey. This document states that, for amphibians, sites which meet at least 1 of 5 set criteria should be considered for selection. The amphibian populations identified at the golf course site meet 3 of these criteria, specifically:

§ Sites that regularly record ‘good’ or ‘exceptional’ breeding populations of Great Crested Newt, Triturus cristatus. § Sites which support populations of four or more native amphibian species. § Sites that have recorded 'exceptional' populations of any amphibian species

4.52 The scoring system upon which these criteria are based in Surrey is as follows:

Low Population

Good Population

Exceptional population

Score 1 Score 2 Score 3 Seen or netted in day <5 5-30 >30 Great Crested

Newt, Triturus cristatus

Counted at night <10 10-50 >50

Netted in day Smooth Newt, Lissotriton vulgaris


Netted in day Palmate Newt, Lissotriton helveticus


Estimated <300 300-2,000 >2,000 Common Toad, Bufo bufo Counted <100 100-800 >800 Common Frog, Rana temporaria

Spawn clumps counted

<50 50-500 >500

4.53 Ecological constraint 4.54 All the re-development areas either include a confirmed great crested newt

breeding pond (i.e. Pond 19) or else occur within close proximity (i.e. within 250 m) of ponds which have be determined to support (breeding) great crested newt.


__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ACD Ecology Page 17

4.55 It is widely acknowledged that great crested newts may range 1 km or more from their ponds when they are not breeding, though in practice the typical ranging distance is taken to be 500 m. Great crested newts may make use of a variety of different habitats during their terrestrial phase: woodland and scrub is highly favourable whilst amenity grassland is sub-optimal though may be used for foraging. This means that all land within 500 m of a great crested newt breeding pond, unless separated from the pond by a major road, river or other barrier to great crested newt movement, is considered to be protected great crested newt habitat.

4.56 It should be acknowledged, however, that although newts may move c. 500 m

between their breeding pond and terrestrial habitats, research has shown that habitats within 250 m of a breeding site are likely to be used most frequently and further recent research has shown that the majority of newts occur within 50 m of ponds, with few individuals being found at greater distances (EN, 2004).

4.57 Given that all of the proposed re-development areas occur within 250m of the

identified great crested newt breeding ponds and that no absolute barriers to newt movement exist between the ponds and the proposed re-development areas, it is possible that great crested newts may forage and shelter within, and disperse through, suitable habitats within the re-development areas (e.g. woodland, coarse grassland and hedgerows etc) during their terrestrial phase.


__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ACD Ecology Page 18

Impacts and Legal Constraints 4.58 The proposed site re-development works will necessarily involve the loss of

suitable great crested newt terrestrial habitat (within the footprint of the new proposals) and modification of aquatic habitats also (in particular there will be a net loss of marginal edge habitat along Pond P19 with the introduction of decking and other landscape features).

4.59 Further, depending upon the timing of the re-development works, it is possible that

the works could potentially result in the killing and/or injury of individual great crested newts and/or significant disturbance: these activities would be unlawful without a licence and would adversely impact upon the identified local great crested newt populations.

4.60 Given the legal protection afforded to this species, however, the re-development

works would need to be undertaken under licence and timed and conducted in such a manner as to minimise the impact upon great crested newts.

4.61 To re-iterate, the legal basis for avoiding and/or mitigating for any impact on the

local great crested newt populations are provided by the full legal protection afforded to this species under the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981, Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 and/or Conservation (Natural Habitats etc) Regulations 1994. Taken together, this makes it an offence to intentionally or deliberately capture, kill or injure or disturb great crested newts, and intentionally or recklessly damage, destroy or obstruct access to their places of shelter.

4.62 European Protected Species Licensing

4.63 A European Protected Species (EPS) licence from Natural England (NE) would

need to be gained in order to permit the re-development works to proceed lawfully.

4.64 Full planning permission for the development must be in place (and all relevant conditions must have been discharged) before the licence from Natural England will be granted, unless the development meets with NE’s prescribed ‘exceptional circumstances’.

4.65 Further, Natural England will only grant licences for works affecting great crested

newt if it can be demonstrated that the actions taken will not be detrimental to the favourable conservation status of this species in its natural range. The licence application would therefore need to be accompanied by a detailed method statement which would include all necessary mitigation measures (e.g. sensitive timing of works, exclusion and habitat creation – see below). Natural England typically takes in excess of c. 30 days to process a licence application.


__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ACD Ecology Page 19

4.66 The specifics of any licensed mitigation strategy are beyond the scope of this report. However, published guidance (EN 2001) provides recommendations as to the necessary level of mitigation, based upon the relative conservation significance of the local population of great crested newts. In accordance with EN 2001 it is expected that the method statement for the licence application would include (but not necessarily be limited to) the following elements:

§ A full impact assessment for this species in relation to the proposed

development; § A programme of capture and removal to exclude great crested newts from the

re-development areas, including Pond P19, by way of the erection of amphibian proof fencing and implementing a trapping [pitfall traps / carpet tiles / bottle traps] programme;

§ Habitat creation and enhancement (i.e. creation of additional shrub, grassland

areas, provision of artificial refugia and hibernacula, and adoption of sympathetic management regime)

§ Identification of a suitable receptor for any excluded great crested newts -

given the golf course’s significant land-holdings, it is anticipated that there would be scope to identify a suitable receptor on-site;

§ Integration of newt-friendly drainage systems; and, § Commitment to manage the newly created aquatic and terrestrial habitats,

including the receptor site and monitor the ponds’ great crested newt populations post-development – this may need to be formalised and submitted to NE as part of the EPS GCN licence application for site in the event that (1) the great crested newt population size class is taken to be ‘large’ and (2) the impacts are predicted to be moderate-high.

4.67 In terms of great crested newt exclusion, as bulleted above, a programme of

capture and removal would be undertaken to exclude great crested newts from the re-development areas, including Pond P19, by way of the erection of amphibian proof fencing and implementing a trapping [pitfall traps / carpet tiles / bottle traps] programme.

4.68 Published guidance (EN, 2001) suggests a minimum of 60 and 90 trapping visits

for exclusion of medium and large great crested newt population size classes, respectively, from terrestrial habitats. Further, trapping can only be undertaken between the months of February and October, and only then when the weather conditions are suitable (i.e. summer months and even dry/mild spring months are not conducive to trapping). In terms of aquatic habitats, to exclude great crested newts from a pond, this same guidance document states that exclusion should be from February to October. However, EN 2001 is a guidance document only and so is generic, whilst the mitigation strategy would be prepared to be site-specific, i.e. to be tailored to the specific circumstances at the site. Accordingly, it is possible that shorter trapping periods may be appropriate both for terrestrial and aquatic habitats.


__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ACD Ecology Page 20

5.0 REPTILES

Introduction 5.1 The extended Phase 1 habitat survey has identified several areas of suitable

reptile habitat within the re-development areas.

5.2 All British reptiles are protected under the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981, as amended, from killing and injury. Following the revision of the UKBAP priority species list in 2007, all native reptile species are now listed as UK priority species and by mid to late 2008 priority actions for each species are expected to be refined.

5.3 Given that suitable reptile habitat has been identified within the site, it would be

necessary to determine whether reptiles are present on-site, in order to avoid intentionally harming or injuring reptiles during any development works.

Methodology

5.4 An initial walkover of the site was undertaken to identify areas of the site within

which to focus survey effort.

5.5 Subsequently, two survey methods were used to determine the presence or possible absence of reptiles within the selected areas. These were a visual search for basking reptiles and the checking of artificial refugia laid down specifically to attract reptiles.

5.6 Visual Search

5.7 For the visual search, on 7 occasions with intermittent or hazy sunshine and an air

temperature between 16.5 and 21°C suitable reptile habitat within the site was walked-over slowly looking for basking reptiles. Any reptiles seen were approached cautiously so as not to disturb them and thereby allow species identification. The number, species and location of any reptiles seen were recorded.

5.8 Refugia Search

5.9 Artificial refugia were placed in suitable locations within the surveyed areas at a

density of at least an average of c. 50 artificial refugia per hectare of surveyed suitable habitat, as per the guideline figure.

5.10 The artificial refugia comprised 1.0 m x 0.5 m and 0.5m x 0.5m cuts of roofing felt.

The refugia were positioned so that they are in contact with the ground and/or underlying vegetation, with the black non-granulated side facing upwards and exposed to sunlight. Metal refugia were not used for health and safety reasons given the public accessibility of the site.


__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ACD Ecology Page 21

5.11 Each artificial refuge was numbered and marked on a map of the survey area. The artificial refugia were then left in place for at least two weeks before the survey commenced. Subsequently, on 7 occasions all of the refugia were cautiously checked for reptiles, both on top and underneath. If any reptiles were found, the refuge identification number and the species and numbers of reptiles were recorded.

5.12 Survey Dates

5.13 The table below shows the date, weather conditions (including air temperature in

shade), and sample refuge temperature(s) for each of the 7 survey visits. Each visit was conducted both in the morning and evening.

Visit No. Date Weather Sample refuge

temp. 1 16-06-09 17.5oC, dry, still, 0/8 cloud cover,

previous night dry 22 oC

2 22-06-09 19-21oC, dry, still, 5/8 cloud cover, previous night dry

28oC

3 09-07-09 17 oC, dry, light SW breeze, 6/8 cloud cover, previous night dry

22 oC

4 15-07-09 16.5-19.5 oC, dry, moderate SW breeze, 3/8 cloud cover, previous night wet

20-21.5 oC

5 29-07-09 21oC, dry, 6/8 cloud cover, light to moderate south-easterly breeze, previous night dry.

23 oC

6 04-08-09 19oC, dry, still, 8/8 cloud cover, previous night wet

22 oC

7 17-08-09 21oC, dry, still, 5/8 cloud cover, previous night dry

24.5 oC

Results

5.14 Two species of reptile were found within the survey area: slow worm (Anguis fragilis), and grass snake (Natrix natrix), with a maximum total count per visit of 1 individuals and 11 individuals, respectively. The total number of individuals of each species across the survey area (which encompasses the re-development areas) is provided in the table below:

Visit No. Species

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Grass snake 2 1 5 4 11 4 3 Slow worm 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

5.15 Indicative locations at which the reptiles were recorded are shown in plan in

Appendix 9 for Visits 1-7. Detailed information for each individual reptile recorded, including age and sex, where determined, is provided in Appendix 7. Photographs of selective areas of suitable reptile habitat within the re-development areas are given in Appendix 10.


__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ACD Ecology Page 22

5.16 Based upon these figures it is evident that grass snake, which is a wide ranging species, is widespread and common throughout the golf course, whilst a single slow worm was identified in the disused car park, towards the golf club’s entrance.

5.17 Further, the findings indicate that common lizard and adder are likely to be absent

from the golf course. However, it should be cautioned that the caretaker provided anecdotal evidence of adder at the golf course.

Discussion

5.18 Ecological valuation

5.19 It is also relevant to compare the golf course’s reptile populations against the

Surrey Wildlife Trust’s guidance for the selection of Sites of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCIs) within Surrey, in order to evaluate the ecological value of the identified populations in the context of Surrey. This document states that, for reptiles, sites which meet at least 1 of 4 set criteria should be considered for selection. The reptile populations identified at the golf course site meet 2 of these criteria, specifically:

§ Sites with an ‘exceptional’ population of a single reptile species or a ‘good’ population of adders. § Sites supporting an assemblage of species scoring at least 4 points using the scoring system below can be considered for selection.

5.20 The scoring system upon which these criteria are based in Surrey is as follows:

Low Population

Score 1 Good Population Score 2

Exceptional Population Score 3

Adder Vipera berus

<5 5-10 >10

Grass snake Natrix natrix

<5 5-10 >10

Viviparous lizard Zootaca vivipara

<5 5-20 >20

Slow worm Anguis fragilis

<5 5-20 >20

5.21 According to the scoring system and the SNCI selection criteria, the golf course’s

grass snake population alone and also its overall reptile populations (i.e. slow worm and grass snake taken together) meet with the SNCI criteria and so are afforded up to county ecological value.

5.22 Ecological constraint 5.23 Two species of common reptile have been identified within the site: slow worm and

grass snake. It is evident that grass snake, which is a wide ranging species, is widespread and common, throughout the golf course (being associated with the various ponds), whilst a single slow worm was identified in the disused car park, towards the golf club’s entrance.


__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ACD Ecology Page 23

5.24 As aforementioned in the introduction, the 4 common native reptile species (which

include slow worm and grass snake) are protected under UK wildlife legislation (the Wildlife & Countryside Act, 1981, as amended) from intentional killing or injury and all 6 native reptile species are also listed as UK priority species.

5.25 Site clearance, construction and / or the proposed re-development works within

the areas where reptiles have been found to be present and potentially clearance works within other areas of suitable reptile habitat could potentially result in the killing and injury of reptiles.

5.26 As intentional killing or injuring reptiles would be an offence under UK wildlife law,

a reptile mitigation strategy would need to be prepared to ensure that the works proceed lawfully.

5.27 Further, as protected, UKBAP species (both slow worm and grass snake), the

presence of these two reptile species at the golf course is also a material consideration under PPS9 and thus in the planning process. The reptile mitigation strategy will therefore need to be reviewed and approved by the local planning authority.

5.28 Outline details are provided under Mitigation in the Recommendations section that

follows, though provision of a full, detailed mitigation strategy is beyond the scope of this report.


__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ACD Ecology Page 24

Recommendations

5.29 As outlined in the Legal and Planning Policy Constraints section above, a reptile mitigation strategy should be prepared.

5.30 The mitigation strategy should be devised in accordance with English Nature’s

(2004) guidelines, with a view to achieving the twin objectives of:

1. Protecting reptiles from any harm that may arise during the development activities; and,

2. Ensuring that sufficient quality, quantity and connectivity of habitat is provided to accommodate the reptile populations with no net loss of local reptile conservation status.

5.31 A summary of the principal components which should be included in the

recommended mitigation strategy are provided for information in the sections below. Provision of a full, detailed mitigation strategy, however, is beyond the scope of this report. Once such a strategy is commissioned and prepared, it should be submitted to the local planning authority for approval.

5.32 Reptile trapping programme

5.33 The principal aim of the mitigation strategy will be to exclude reptiles from those areas of suitable reptile habitat which occur within the proposed re-development areas. Exclusion would be by way of erection of exclusion fencing and programme of habitat manipulation / reptile trapping. The captured reptiles would be re-located to a safeguarded area of retained habitat, termed the ‘receptor area’.

5.34 In terms of the capture effort necessary to exclude reptiles from a proposed

development area, the HGBI (now ARG UK) has published guidelines on capture effort, with effort being governed by the reptiles’ population sizes, i.e. whether the populations of slow worm and grass snake are considered to be low, medium or high. These guidelines state, for each reptile population size class, the minimum number of capture days.

5.35 Those which are relevant are re-produced below:

Minimum number of trapping days, as governed by

population size (adult density) Species

Low Medium High Slow worm 60 70 90

Grass snake 60 70 90

5.36 Based upon the indicative population assessment given in the Results section, the golf course is considered to support a low slow worm and a ‘exceptional’ (as per SNCI selection criteria) but ‘average’ medium grass snake population (according to HGBI guidelines), which (according to the HGBI guidelines) would require a minimum of 60 trapping days and a maximum of 70 trapping days. That said, given that each proposed re-development area from which reptiles are to be actively excluded are relatively modest in size, there is expected to be scope to negotiate with the LPA to reduce the trapping period.


__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ACD Ecology Page 25

5.37 Specifically, it is proposed that a reduced trapping programme (say 35 trapping visits, with a maximum of 2 trapping visits per day) be undertaken, with the caveat that the trapping programme would halt when 5 consecutive zero capture visits are gained: this may occur sooner than 35 visits or potentially (though unlikely) reptiles may continue to be caught beyond the 35th visit, necessitating the extension of the trapping programme. Trapping can only be conducted during the reptiles’ active season, March to September inclusive, and during weather conductive to trapping.

5.38 This trapping programme would form part of the required great crested newt

mitigation strategy. It would be completed with a destructive search, which would include the sensitive dismantling of all potential reptile habitat features (e.g. rubble and spoil mounds within the footprint of the proposed new workshop) under the supervision of a suitably experienced ecologist, whom would, where possible, also undertake a hand search.

5.39 Receptor area

5.40 Given the extensive landholdings of the golf course, there is ample opportunity to

create a receptor area within the golf course itself. This approach is in accordance with Natural England’s preference to accommodate re-located reptiles within an ‘on-site’ receptor area.

5.41 It is standard practice for the proposed receptor area to be subject to a presence /

absence reptile survey as it is typically reptiles should not be re-located into existing populations. However, given that grass snake is a wide-ranging species, it is expected that it would not to practicable to identify a receptor area that does not fall within the existing home range of a grass snake. Instead, it is proposed that an area of habitat close to any of the ponds (preferably of size comparable to the total footprint of the re-development area) that is currently unsuitable to reptiles is modified and enhanced to increase its suitability. This could be achieved by relaxing the management regime of a strip of greenway and by creating log piles and mounded hibernacula, to order to provide key reptile habitat features for both basking and over-wintering. These features would also provide raised, and thus, relatively drier, habitat features (compared to the relatively wet marshy grassland) which will ensure there are suitable, drier areas for slow worm.

5.42 These habitat management changes and enhancements should take place in

advance of the reptile trapping programme commencing. 5.43 Habitat management and population monitoring

5.44 In order to safeguard the re-located reptile populations in the long-term it would be

necessary to devise and implement an appropriate habitat management regime for the receptor area. This will ensure it remains suitable for reptiles, including great crested newt. It will also be necessary to carry out post-development monitoring (2-year monitoring period, with 4 monitoring visits per year) of the re-located reptile population to ensure it is surviving and to inform the need for any remedial action.

5.45 These elements will be formalised in the detailed reptile mitigation strategy, which

itself is expected to be included within the re-development’s Ecological Management Plan.


__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ACD Ecology Page 26

6.0 OTHER RECOMMENDED PHASE 2 SURVEY WORK

6.1 Various other Phase 2 surveys were recommended in earlier correspondence. 6.2 These surveys will be commissioned prior to commencement on site, when they

will be required (badger, invertebrate, bird nesting).

7.0 REFERENCES

7.1 Bat Conservation Trust. (2007): Bat Survey Guidelines 7.2 English Nature (2001) Great Crested newt Mitigation Guidelines

7.3 English Nature (2004) Bat Mitigation Guidelines

7.4 Froglife (1999) Froglife Advice Sheet 9 Reptile Survey

7.5 Froglife (2001) Great Crested Newt Conservation Handbook

7.6 Gent, T., & Gibson S, (2003) Herpetofauna Workers Manual

7.7 Institute of Ecological and Environmental Management (2006) Ecological Impact

Assessment Guidelines

7.8 Mitchell-Jones, T. & McLeish, A.P. (2004) Bat Worker’s Manual 7.9 www.ukbap.co.uk

http://www.ukbap.co.uk

APPENDIX 1: HABITAT MAP

APPENDIX 2: BAT SURVEY RESULTS

Building No.

Date Dusk or Dawn

Surveyor Position Species Comments

B6/B7 15-06-09 Dusk 1 South side and southeast corner of B6

Soprano pipistrelle, common pipistrelle, Noctule, Nyctalus sp., Myotis sp.

No emergence observed or detected. The earliest bat passes were made by noctule bat passes. The first, at 21:37 (20 minutes after dusk) was unseen. The second, at 21:40 (22 minutes after dusk) was also unseen. An unseen Nyctalus sp. bat pass (considered to be a noctule) was detected again at 22:26. A distant pipistrelle sp bat pass was heard not seen at 21:48 (i.e. 29 minutes after sunset). The timing of this implies that the bat may have emerged relatively nearby. Unseen common pipistrelles were detected at 22:29 and 22:30. A soprano pipistrelle was detected at 21:57. It was unseen but thought to be commuting. After 22:30, the surveyor walked around the ponds of the short golf course (i.e. Ponds P19-P22) and the following observations/detections were made: Common pipistrelle passes were detected around P19, including over the bridge on P19. between 22:33 and 22:39, next to P21 at 22:41and next to P20 at 22:43. They were also detected along the hedge to the east of P19 at the end of the survey at 22:45. Soprano pipistrelles were also detected by P19 (and by the bridge) at 22:33, 22:37 and 22:39. A Myotis sp. bat was observed over P19 at 22:36 and 22:38. Another Myotis sp. pass was detected by the hedge to the east of P19 at 22:46.track Other Myotis sp bat passes were detected next to the hedge

Building No.

Date Dusk or Dawn


to the east of P19 at 22:45 and 22:46.

B6/B7 15-06-09 Dusk 2 Northwest side/corner of B7

Common pipistrelle, Pipistrelle sp, Soprano pipistrelle, Nyctalus sp. (including probable noctule)

No emergence was observed or detected. Bat passes occurred between 21:35 and 22:47 The earliest passes were made by common pipistrelles, all unseen, at 21:35, 21:38, 21:39, 21:40, 21:41, 21:45, 21:46, 21:48 and 21:50. Further unseen common pipistrelles were detected at 21:51, 21:52, 21:57, 22:00, 22:08, 22:11, 22:13, 22:15, 22:16, 22:17 and 22:19. Additional unseen common pipistrelles were detected in the nearby woodland (to the northwest of the building during the incidental bat activity survey) at 22:32, 22:34 and 22:38 and by the nearest pond (Pond P1) at 22:43. Unseen soprano pipistrelle bat passes were detected at 21:58, 22:13 and at 22:23 in the woodland and at 22:40 and 22:47 by the nearby pond (Pond P1). Pipistrelle sp bat passes (with peak frequencies intermediate between common and soprano pipistrelles) were detected at 21:49 and 21:50, the latter when it was seen to fly up a nearby track into Pickenswood Copse woodland, along with a common pipistrelle bat. At 21:42, a common pipistrelle and a soprano pipistrelle were detected, and one bat was seen to fly south to north over B6. A noctule was detected and seen fling north to south overhead at height at 21:40. Unseen Nyctalus sp. bat passes were detected at 22:01, 22:09 and 22:13. An unseen Nyctalus sp. bat pass (considered to be a noctule) was detected in the nearby (Pickenswood Copse) woodland at 22:26.

B6/B7 16-06-09 Dawn 1 South side Soprano pipistrelle, No re-entry observed or detected.

Building No.

Date Dusk or Dawn


and southeast corner of B6

common pipistrelle, noctule

A soprano pipistrelle pass was detected at 03:36, the bat was foraging long the hedge to the east of P19…. Other bat passes were of bats along this hedge – a common pipistrelle at 03:37, a common pipistrelle and a pipistrelle sp at 03:39 and a soprano pipistrelle at 03:40. The only bat pass near the building was of an unseen noctule at 03:58.

B6/B7 16-06-09 Dawn 2 North-west side and corner of B7

Soprano pipistrelle, common pipistrelle, pipistrelle sp

No re-entry was observed or detected. Bat passes were detected between 03:29 and 04:07, all were pipistrelle sp, common pipistrelle or soprano pipistrelle bats. Common pipistrelles were seen foraging along the track to the west of the building at 03:29 and 03:30. They were also seen foraging in the canopy overhead of the observer (x2 common pipistrelles) at 03:34, and five unseen common pipistrelle passes were detected between 03:45 and 04:00. Pipistrelle sp bat passes were detected at 03:35, and 03:36 and 03:38, when one pipistrelle sp bat and a common pipistrelle were overhead of the observer in the tree canopy. At 04:07, the final bat pass of the survey was made by a pipistrelle sp bat (unseen). Soprano pipistrelle bat passes were made at 03:31, 04:00 and 04:05, all unseen.

APPENDIX 3: SELECTED BUILDING PHOTOGRAPHS

Building B7

Building B7

Building B6

APPENDIX 4: PLAN SHOWING PONDS WITHIN WHICH GREAT CRESTED NEWT HAS BEEN CONFIRMED PRESENT

APPENDIX 5: GREAT CRESTED NEWT HABITAT SUITABILITY ASSESSMENT Habitat variable Pond

Location Pond area, m2

Permanence Water quality

Shading % Waterfowl Fish Pond density

Good terrestrial habitat, ha

Macro-phytes

HSI, Habitat

suitability index (2

d.p.) 1 A [1] 3500 [0.8] 0 [0.9] 2 [0.67] 60 [1.0] 2 [0.67] 4 [0.01] >4 [1.0] 1 [1.0] 10 [0.4] 0.51 2 A [1] 45 [0.1] 3 [0.5] 3 [0.33] 40 [1.0] 1 [1.0] 2 [0.67] >4 [1.0] 1 [1.0] 15 [0.45] 0.59 3 A [1] 1600 [0.86] 0 [0.9] 2 [0.67] 5 [1.0] 2 [0.67] 3 [0.33] >4 [1.0] 2 [0.67] 15 [0.45] 0.71 4 A [1] 2600 [0.8] 0 [0.9] 2 [0.67] 5 [1.0] 2 [0.67] 3 [0.33] >4 [1.0] 2 [0.67] 15 [0.45] 0.71 5 A [1] 1400 [0.89] 0 [0.9] 2 [0.67] 5 [1.0] 2 [0.67] 3 [0.33] >4 [1.0] 2 [0.67] 20 [0.5] 0.72 6 A [1] 1400 [0.89] 0 [0.9] 2 [0.67] 2 [1.0] 2 [0.67] 3 [0.33] >4 [1.0] 2 [0.67] 20 [0.5] 0.72 7 A [1] 600 [1.0] 2 [1.0] 2 [0.67] 10 [1.0] 2 [0.67] 3 [0.33] >4 [1.0] 2 [0.67] 25 [0.55] 0.75 8 A [1] 800 [0.99] 2 [1.0] 2 [0.67] 25 [1.0] 2 [0.67] 3 [0.33] >4 [1.0] 2 [0.67] 25 [1.0] 0.79 9 A [1] 3000 [0.8] 0 [0.9] 2 [0.67] 40 [1.0] 2 [0.67] 3 [0.33] >4 [1.0] 2 [0.67] 10 [0.4] 0.70 10 A [1] 800 [0.99] 0 [0.9] 2 [0.67] 35 [1.0] 2 [0.67] 3 [0.33] >4 [1.0] 2 [0.67] 15 [0.45] 0.72 11 A [1] 1200 [0.92] 3 [0.5] 2 [0.67] 60 [1.0] 1 [1.0] 3 [0.33] >4 [1.0] 1 [1.0] 40 [0.7] 0.77 12 A [1] 100 [0.2] 2 [1.0] 2 [0.67] 40 [1.0] 1 [1.0] 3 [0.33] >4 [1.0] 1 [1.0] 35 [0.65] 0.70 13 A [1] 200 [0.4] 2 [1.0] 2 [0.67] 35 [1.0] 1 [1.0] 2 [0.67] >4 [1.0] 1 [1.0] 20 [0.5] 0.79 14 A [1] 800 [0.99] 3 [0.5] 2 [0.67] 80 [0.6] 2 [0.67] 2 [0.67] >4 [1.0] 1 [1.0] 20 [0.5] 0.73 15 A [1] 800 [0.99] 3 [0.5] 2 [0.67] 65 [0.9] 2 [0.67] 2 [0.67] >4 [1.0] 1 [1.0] 30 [0.6] 0.78 16 A [1] 80 [0.18] 3 [0.5] 2 [0.67] 50 [1.0] 1 [1.0] 2 [0.67] >4 [1.0] 2 [0.67] 100 [0.8] 0.68 17 A [1] 2500 [0.8] 0 [0.9] 2 [0.67] 10 [1.0] 2 [0.67] 3 [0.33] >4 [1.0] 2 [0.67] 35 [0.65] 0.74 18 A [1] 650 [1.0] 3 [0.5] 3 [0.33] 40 [1.0] 1 [1.0] 3 [0.33] >4 [1.0] 2 [0.67] 40 [0.7] 0.69 19 A [1] 4450 [0.8] 0 [0.9] 3 [0.67] 5 [1.0] 2 [0.67] 3 [0.33] >4 [1.0] 2 [0.67] 25 [0.55] 0.72 20 A [1] 300 [0.6] 3 [0.5] 2 [0.67] 15 [1.0] 2 [0.67] 1 [1.0] >4 [1.0] 2 [0.67] 20 [0.5] 0.73 21 A [1] 1700 [0.85] 3 [0.5] 2 [0.67] 5 [1.0] 2 [0.67] 3 [0.33] >4 [1.0] 2 [0.67] 20 [0.5] 0.68 22 A [1] 500 [1.0] 3 [0.5] 2 [0.67] 0 [1.0] 2 [0.67] 1 [1.0] >4 [1.0] 2 [0.67] 30 [0.6] 0.79 23 A [1] 2300 [0.8] 0 [0.9] 2 [0.67] 30 [1.0] 2 [0.67] 3 [0.33] >4 [1.0] 1 [0.1] 10 [0.4] 0.73 24 A [1] 500 [1.0] 3 [0.5] 2 [0.67] 90 [0.4] 1 [1.0] 2 [0.67] >4 [1.0] 1 [1.0] 25 [0.55] 0.74 25 A [1] 2100 [0.8] 2 [1.0] 2 [0.67] 10 [1.0] 2 [0.67] 2 [0.67] >4 [1.0] 2 [0.67] 10 [0.4] 0.76 26 A [1] 1200 [0.92] 2 [1.0] 2 [0.67] 60 [1.0] 2 [0.67] 2 [0.67] 4 [1.0] 2 [0.67] 50 [0.8] 0.83 27 A [1] 600 [1.0] 2 [1.0] 2 [0/67] 20 [1.0] 2 [0.67] 2 [0.67] 4 [1.0] 2 [ 0.67] 20 [0.5] 0.79 28 A [1] n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Explanatory Key: Location Zone A includes Alfold Crossways and is defined as optimal, with a high probability of crested newt occurrence within each 10 km square Pond Area Is a determinant of the magnitude of the biological productivity of the pond ecosystem upon which the newt population depends Permanence Years out of ten in which pond dries – the optimal frequency of drying is assumed to be one year per decade Water quality Subjective 4 point scale: 1 = bad 2 = poor 3 = moderate and 4 = good Shading Estimate of the % of perimeter shaded (to at least 1m from the shore) Fowl Subjective 3 point scale: 1 = absent 2 = minor 3 = major Fish Subjective 4 point scale: 4 = absent 3 = possible 2 = minor (crucian carp and sticklebacks) 1 = major (other species or carp/sticklebacks in dense populations Pond Number of ponds occurring within 1 km of the target site (excludes the target site and ponds on the distal side of important barriers) Terrestrial habitat ‘Newt-friendly’ habitat using subjective 4 point scale: 1 = good 2 = moderate 3 = poor 4 = none

APPENDIX 6: SELECTED POND PHOTOGRAPHS

Pond P1

Pond P2 in foreground with Pond P3 in background

Pond P4

Pond P5

Pond P6

Pond P7 (October 2009)

Pond P8

Pond P9

Pond P10

Pond P11

Pond P12

Pond P13

Pond P14

Pond P15

Pond P16

Pond P17

Pond P18

Pond P19

Pond P20

Pond P21

Pond P22

Pond P23

Pond 24 (October 2009)

Pond P25 (October 2009)

Pond 26 (first section)

Pond 26 (second section)

Pond 27 (October 2009)

APPENDIX 7: GREAT CRESTED NEWT PRESENCE / ABSENCE & POPULATION SIZE CLASS ASSESSMENT

Pond Torching Bottle Traps Date

Pond no.

Egg Search GCN SN PN CF CT GCN SN PN CF CT

Fish Notes

1 Tadpoles

Perch black stripe red fin

Bottle traps: 30 Turbidity: 1 Macrophytes: Adult toad walking towards pond 1

2 Bottle traps: Turbidity: Macrophytes:


4 F1 in ditch

M1 F1 in ditch

M1 in ditch

2x10cm perch in bottle trap

Bottle traps: 30 Turbidity: 3/4 Macrophytes:

5 Tadpoles

4x10cm long whiskered fish

Bottle traps: 30 Turbidity: 3/4 Macrophytes:

6 F1 M1 F1 ?tadpoles

Bottle traps: 25 Turbidity: 3 Macrophytes:

7 GCN eggs

F1 M4 F2 M12 F2 6 Canada geese and swan, no fish


8 M1 F6 M1 M2 F2 Fish (maybe perch)


9 Small fish, sticklebacks


10 M1 Tadpoles

Little fish, abundance of sticklebacks


11 M2 F4 F1 M1 M3 M1 M3 F1 Lots of sticklebacks and tadpoles

Bottle traps: 15 Turbidity: Macrophytes:

7/8

May

2009

12 Slug eating dead 9cm

Bottle traps: 20 Turbidity: 1 Macrophytes: surface


Pond no.


Fish Notes

F?GCN covered in dead typha





In front of house

17 Dead fish on side, small fish seen


18 2 large koi carp, tadpoles

Bottle traps: 30 Turbidity: 3 Macrophytes: Oily sheen on surface

19 1 F On grass beside pond

M3 F2 Bottle traps: 5 Turbidity: 2 Macrophytes: much floating dead vegetation

Elongated part of pond

19 M5 F4 F1? M2 M6 F4 Small fish – stickleback size. CF tadpole


20 M1 F1 M4 F4 M8 F4 M4 F5 Bottle traps: 30 Turbidity: Macrophytes:

21 M6 F4 M3 F2 F1? M1 M1 F4 M1 F1 Bottle traps: Turbidity: 0 Macrophytes:

22 M2 F5 M1 F1 M1 F9 M2 F17 Bottle traps: 25 Turbidity: 1 Macrophytes: 1

23 Tadpoles

Little fish x many



25 Bottle traps:


Pond no.


Fish Notes

Turbidity: Macrophytes:


1 18 torched Bottle traps: 30 Turbidity: 1 Macrophytes: 0



4 F1 on grass

Tadpoles, sub-adult frog, fish stickleback

Bottle traps: 30 Turbidity: 4 except at shallow edge Macrophytes: 1 Ducks, geese

5 F2 Many fish Bottle traps: 30 Turbidity: 4 Macrophytes:

6 F1 F1 Many fish Bottle traps: 25 Turbidity: 4 Macrophytes: 1

7 M2 F1 imm1

M1 F12 M2 F1 3 spawn

Fish, tadpoles, dungbeetles in bottle

Bottle traps: 21 Turbidity: 0 Macrophytes: 2

8 M1 M1 M1 F3 2++ Bottle traps: 20 Turbidity: 1 Macrophytes: 1 Cover round edge=3

9 Small fish Bottle traps: 25 Turbidity: 2 Macrophytes: 0

10 M2 M1 6cm F2

Many fish Bottle traps: 25 Turbidity: 3 Macrophytes: 1

11 M1 F2 M3 F7 M2 F1 100 larvae

Many fish Bottle traps: 15 Turbidity: 1 Macrophytes: 2

13/14

May

2009

12 F2 Bottle traps: 20 Turbidity: 1 Macrophytes: 2


Pond no.


Fish Notes





17 F1 on bank

M1 Carp Bottle traps: 30 Turbidity: Macrophytes: Dead water shrew

18 Big goldfish x2


19 M1 F1 M1sub adult

M18 F10

16 fish Bottle traps: 35 Turbidity: 1 Macrophytes: Ducks, swan, moorhen

20 M2 M2 F1 M1 F1 M6 F2 imm1

M9 F3 Bottle traps: 30 Turbidity: 1edge 2middle Macrophytes: 1 middle, 4 round edge

21 M1 M1 F4 M4 F8 M1 F2 Bottle traps: 30 Turbidity: Macrophytes:

22 M3 F3 F3 M1 M32 F19

F3 Bottle traps: 25 Turbidity: 1 Macrophytes: 1, 4 round edge

23 25ish Yes Bottle traps: 30 Turbidity: 3 Macrophytes:




1 Bottle traps: 30


Pond no.


Fish Notes

1 Turbidity: 3 Macrophytes: 1



4 F1 25 larvae

12 fish Bottle traps: 30 Turbidity: 4 Macrophytes:

5 1 spawn

24 bottled fish, tadpoles


6 M1 14 bottled fish

Bottle traps: 25 Turbidity: 4 Macrophytes: 1, dense round half edge

7 M1 F1 25 larvae

F1 M3 F3 Bottle traps: 20 Turbidity: 1 Macrophytes: 2

8 M1 F1 M1 F1 F1 spawn tadpoles Bottle traps: 20 Turbidity: Macrophytes:

9 100+ small fish

Bottle traps: 25 Turbidity: 1 Macrophytes: 0-1

10 M1 Many bottled fish

Bottle traps: 25 Turbidity: clear at edges Macrophytes:

11 F2 F4 M3 F4 F2 M1 F3 Many fish Bottle traps: 15 Turbidity: 2 Macrophytes: 3

12 M1 F5 M2 Bottle traps: 20 Turbidity: 2 Macrophytes:




19/20-

May

2009

16 Bottle traps: Turbidity:


Pond no.


Fish Notes

Macrophytes: 17 Small fish Bottle traps: 30

Turbidity: 4 Macrophytes:

18 goldfish Bottle traps: 30 Turbidity: 4 Macrophytes: 3

19 M1 F4 M1 M7 F6 70 small fish Bottle traps: 35 Turbidity: 3 Macrophytes:

20 M1 M2 M2 F1 M1 F3 Bottle traps: 30 Turbidity: 4 Macrophytes: 1 overall, 4 round edge

21 M5 F4 F8 M9 F7 M5 F3 imm1

Bottle traps: 30 Turbidity: 0 Macrophytes: Coot, geese

22 M16 F7

M1 F3 F2 M5 F24

imm1

F5 Bottle traps: 25 Turbidity: 3 Macrophytes: 4

23 18 fish 11 bottled fish tadpoles





1 fish Bottle traps: 30 Turbidity: 3 Macrophytes: 0-1



26/27

May

2009

4 3 fish in bottle



Pond no.


Fish Notes

5 M3 F2 Small fish, tadpoles


6 M2 M3 F4 13 fish bottled


7 M1 F2 M1 F1 M1 F1 7 larvae

2 small fish Bottle traps: 20 Turbidity: 1 Macrophytes: 1

8 F2 ditch M2 F1 M1 7 spawn


9 100+ fish fry, sticklebacks


10 M1 F1 35 spawn

Many small fry, sticklebacks


11 M2 F4 F2 Many fish Bottle traps: 15 Turbidity: 2/1 Macrophytes: 4 round edge, 2 overall

12 M1 M1 F1 Fish, 2 dung beetles






17 fish Bottle traps: 30 Turbidity: 4 Macrophytes:

18 7 larvae

Large carp x2


19 M3 F10 M7 3Imm

F3

Fish Bottle traps: 35 Turbidity: 2 Macrophytes:


Pond no.


Fish Notes

7Imm 20 M2 F3 M4 F3 Bottle traps: 30

Turbidity: 3 Macrophytes: 1

21 F2 Imm1 M9 9cm F7

M14 F5 Fish Bottle traps: Turbidity: Macrophytes:

22 M10 F10

F1 2 larvae

M12 F20

M2 F1 Imm3

Bottle traps: 25 Turbidity: 1 round edge 3 elsewhere Macrophytes: 1

23 F1 13 fish Bottle traps: 29 Turbidity: 3 Macrophytes:







4 3 large fish red fins. sticklebacks




7 F1 F2 fish Bottle traps: 20 Turbidity: 1-2 Macrophytes:

2

June

2009

8 Bottle traps:


Pond no.


Fish Notes



10 3 larvae

Many fish Bottle traps: 25 Turbidity: 3 Macrophytes:

11 F1 M2 F1 sticklebacks Bottle traps: 15 Turbidity: 4 Macrophytes: 4

12 F1 M1 F1 F3 Bottle traps: 20 Turbidity: 2 Macrophytes:







19 M5 F2 M1 F1 fish Bottle traps: 35 Turbidity: Macrophytes:

20 M1 M1 F6 Bottle traps: 30 Turbidity: 3 Macrophytes: 2

21 F1 F2 M5 F5 Bottle traps: 30 Turbidity: 1 Macrophytes:

22 M3 F3 M3 F2 M3 F13

M3 F2 Bottle traps: 25 Turbidity: 1 Macrophytes: 2-3



Pond no.


Fish Notes







4 2 large bottled fish, fish fry




7 7 larvae

F2 Occasional fish




10 Many fish, sticklebacks


11 M1 F1 Bottled minnows


12 M1 F1 F1 F1 Bottle traps: 20 Turbidity: Macrophytes:

11

June

2009

13 Bottle traps:


Pond no.


Fish Notes







19 M3 F4 Bottled fish Bottle traps: 35 Turbidity: Macrophytes:

20 F1 F1 F1 M1 M1 1larva

e

M1 Bottle traps: 30 Turbidity: 1 Macrophytes:

21 M1 F3 F1 M1 F2 Bottle traps: 30 Turbidity: Macrophytes:

22 M2 F4 imm1

F3 M1 F2 M1 F3 Bottle traps: 25 Turbidity: 0 Macrophytes:





APPENDIX 8: REPTILE SURVEY RESULTS Key: M = male, F – female, U – unknown, A = adult, SA = sub-adult I = immature, J = juvenile Visit 1 – 16th June 2009 Species Sex Age Time Grass snake U J 0900 Grass snake U I 0930 Visit 2 – 22ND June 2009 Species Sex Age Time Grass snake U I 1200 Visit 3 – 4th July 2009 Species Sex Age Time Grass snake U J/I 11:34 Grass snake U SA 11:35 Grass snake U I 11:50 Grass snake U J 11:50 Grass snake F A 12:20 Visit 4 – 15TH July 2009 Species Sex Age Time Grass snake U SA/A 09:40 Grass snake U J/I 10:05 Grass snake U J 10:30 Grass snake U J 10:34 Visit 5 – 29th July 2009 Species Sex Age Time Grass snake F A 15:31 Grass snake M A 15:31 Grass snake F J 15:35 Grass snake F J 15:35 Grass snake M J 15:35 Grass snake M J 15:35 Grass snake U J 12:44 Grass snake U J 12:46 Grass snake F A 12:49 Grass snake U J 12:56 Grass snake U J 13:00 Slow worm F A 12:46

Visit 6 – 4th August 2009 Species Sex Age Time Grass snake U J Grass snake F A Grass snake F J Grass snake M J Visit 7 – 17th August 2009 Species Sex Age Time Grass Snake F A 16:10 Grass Snake M A 16:15 Grass Snake U I 17:00

APPENDIX 9: REPTILE SURVEY PLANS

APPENDIX 10: SELECTED REPTILE SURVEY AREA PHOTOGRAPHS

Tall ruderal and scattered scrub from north end of unused car park area

View looking north-east across proposed new workshop site

Tall grass and herb verge to Pond P1

Suitable reptile habitat area margins of ponds and periphery of course

PHASE 2 ECOLOGICAL SURVEYS REPORT · 2.7 Detector surveys, using point survey methodology, have...

Documents

Transcript of PHASE 2 ECOLOGICAL SURVEYS REPORT · 2.7 Detector surveys, using point survey methodology, have...