Reptile Survey Report - Staffordshire Moorlands

SR/Oakamoor/Reptile survey Land off Churnet View Road, Oakamoor, ST10 3AE Final Draft Issue 1/ August 2014

Reptile Survey Report

Land off Churnet View Road, Oakamoor, Staffordshire. ST10 3AE.

July 2014

1


Notice to readers

This report has been prepared by Charnia Ecology with all reasonable skill, care and diligence,

within the terms of the contract with the client. The actions of the surveyor on site and during the

production of the report were undertaken in accordance with the Code of Professional Conduct for

the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (www.ieem.org.uk).

No part of this document may be reproduced without the prior written approval of Charnia Ecology.

Client: Mr Steve Robinson c/o Knights Solicitors LLP, Brampton Rd, Newcastle-under-Lyme, Staffordshire ST5 0Q.

Postcode/ OS Grid Ref: SK 04844 45053

Issue No: Final Draft Issue 2

Date Issued: July 2014 / August 2014

Author: Mark Weston BSc, GradCIEEM, AMSB

2


Contents

Non-technical Summary

Contents

1.0 Introduction

Background

Site Characteristics

2.0 Legislation and Status

3.0 Methodology

Field Survey

Site Status Assessment

4.0 Results

Field Survey

5.0 Evaluation

Presence/Absence


6.0 Impacts and Recommendations

Impacts

Further Surveys

Legislation

Care and Vigilance During Works

7.0 References

Appendices

Photographic plates

Maps

Reptile Survey Results

3


Non-technical Summary

i) This report has been prepared at the request of the client, Mr. Steve Robinson c/o Knights LLP ; in

relation to the identification of protected reptile species at Land off Churnet View Road, Oakamoor,

ST10 3AE. The proposed application area off Churnet view road is approximately 1.1 hectares in

coverage, and will involve the creation of a six unit residential dwellings and associated access/drive

road. The development will also include a degree of soft landscaping to areas, with an a 1 ha

woodland strip to be retained.

ii) Aims and objectives of the field survey were to establish presence/absence of reptiles within the

proposed development area. A minimum of seven extant and artificial refugia surveys were

undertaken during the optimum survey season, under suitable weather conditions, and spread out

during May to early July 2014, in order to allow for any temporal variation over space and time and

provide an accurate representation of any reptile activity onsite.

Iii) Given the excellent linear connectivity with surrounding higher ecological value habitats, there is

good potential for reptiles within the survey area. There is a moderate to high degree of artificial and

manmade features onsite that may attract reptiles, including dead wood piles and building debris and

rubble. Conversely, and despite pre-survey information showing presence of reptiles in the

immediate area, the survey results returned no evidence of reptiles onsite. A number of contributing

factors may explain this outcome; The site has undergone recent disturbance due to authorized

clearance of trees and general maintenance, resulting in potential habitat and micro-habitat

degradation; The land is close to residential dwellings and is subject to disturbance by dogs and

potential predation by domestic cats. There are Invasive exotic plant species onsite which may

degrade overall community habitat.

iv) At such, the proposed development area does not meet the register criteria for a Key Reptile Site,

and no mitigation for protected reptile species is considered. However, the land proposed for

development is considered as being highly dynamic, being in a constant transitional flux between

disturbance and seral stages of successional vegetation. This coupled with historic data records,

local knowledge and excellent linear connectivity to surrounding higher ecological value habitats,

would infer good potential for reptiles to (re)colonize, as seral stages continue to establish overtime.

v) Thus it is recommended that Best Practice dictates a precautionary approach in situations of

uncertainty. It is therefore recommended that the site is cleared of extant refugia and selected

vegetation to make it less attractive to fauna overall. Ground clearance should progress in a

systematic fashion from east to west within the application, and be supervised by a suitably qualified

ecologist, who should undertake a finger-tip search ahead of any machinery used. Such works

should be undertaken outside the hibernation period (October to April).

4


vi) Further presence/absence surveys would only be deemed necessary, should the recommended pre-

works maintenance and clearance of the site be delayed for more than one year, due to the highly

labile nature of succession, and subsequent increase in refuge potential for any local reptile

populations in the immediate catchment area over space and time.

vii) In addition, the client has happily agreed in principal to the erection of general wildlife fencing around

the proposed development area. This is intended to holistically deter/exclude and minimize potential

impact to any local reptile and/or amphibian populations, plus small mammals that may migrate onto

site during the period prior to works commencing. Although considered unlikely, such fencing will

enable any species interned within the application area to be safely corralled during site preparation,

and ushered out under their own volition, into more optimal receptor areas outside the western

perimeter boundary.

5


NOTES

6


1.0 Introduction

Background

1.1 This report has been prepared at the request of the client, Mr. Steve Robinson c/o Knights LLP ; in

relation to the identification of protected reptile species at Land off Churnet View Road, Oakamoor,

ST10 3AE (OS grid reference SK 04844 45053). The proposed application area off Churnet view

road is approximately 1.1 hectares in coverage, and will involve the creation of a six unit residential

dwellings and associated access/drive road. The development will also include a degree of soft

landscaping to areas, with an ca 0.2 hectares woodland strip to be retained.

1.2 The scope of this survey has been determined in-line with the proportional approach to ecological

survey, assessment and subsequent recommendations for avoidance and mitigation of impacts,

which is encouraged in the emerging ‘BS 42020: Biodiversity – Code of practice for planning and

development’. This report has been prepared with du consideration for various best-practice

guidance and methodologies including those of the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental

Management (CIEEM (2012)1 and the emerging BS 42020

1.3 Aims and objectives of the field survey were as follows:

• To establish presence/absence of reptiles

• If reptile presence confirmed, to determine species, sex, an approximate density and distribution.

1.4 Habitat was assessed on the following:

• Rough neutral grassland, particularly:

• south-facing and other sunny slopes, including vegetated soil bunds;

• in close proximity to standing water with amphibian populations;

• in close proximity to dry-stone walls or piles of stones;

• in close proximity to areas of bare ground; or

• in close proximity to rock outcrops

7


Site Characteristics

Figure 1. Location of land (outline in red), off Churnet View Roadin context to the surrounding landscape (source:www.gridref.org.uk).

1.5 The proposed application area off Churnet view road is approximately 1.1 hectares in area, with the

northern bank of the River Churnet forming its southern boundary, this elongated site consists of flat,

recently cleared, naturally regenerating woodland (including several semi-mature and mature trees)

and scrub. The northern boundary of the site is formed by the leeward, wooded valley side

comprising of broadleaf Pedunculate oak Quercus robur, Birch Betula sp., Holly Ilex aquifolium, Goat

willow, Rowan Sorbus aucuparia, Hazel and Elder Sambucus nigra with a Bramble Rubus fruticosus

agg. and Bracken Pteridium aquilinum understorey and scattered Rhododendron Rhododendron

ponticum clumps. with mixed conifer plantation beyond into Carr Wood. A disused railway line with a

few associated outbuildings sits against the western boundary and domestic housing lies to the

eastern boundary. Himalayan balsam Impatiens glandulifera is prevalent throughout the site.

1.6 The central grassland area is a former brownfield site, but has undergone various transitions of

physical disturbance, and regenerating seral-stage succession, resulting in ruderal herbs

(predominantly Great willowherb Epilobium hirsutum) and recolonizing vegetation such as common

grass species, broad-leaved dock Rumex obtusifolius and common ragwort Senecio jacobaea as the

survey period progressed. Thus the site can be considered highly dynamic and in continual flux, with

increasing potential for reptiles as successional colonization continues.

1.7 The ground around out-buildings which adjacent rubble piles at the eastern end of the site is

considered as providing suitable habitat for slow worm Anguis fragilis. There are a number of wood

piles on-site, being a by-product of some of the clearance works started, which provide good

potential of refugia for reptiles.

8


2.0 Legislation and Status

2.1 The Smooth Snake and Sand Lizard are fully protected under Schedule 5 of The Wildlife and

Countryside Act (1981). As such they receive full protection under Section 9 of this Act. This Act has

been amended several times, most recently by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 which

added ‘or recklessly’ to Section 9(4) (a) and (b). They also are protected under Regulations 41/42 of

The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. Collectively these pieces of legislation

mean that it is an offence to;

• intentionally kill, injure, disturb or take any individual of these species

• intentionally take or destroy the eggs of any individual of these species

• intentionally or recklessly damage, destroy or obstruct access to any structure or place used for

shelter or protection by any individual of these species

• intentionally or recklessly disturb any individual of these species while it is occupying a structure

which it uses for that purpose

• keep, transport, sell or exchange or offer for sale any individual of these species or anything derived

from these species.

2.2 Common or Viviparous Lizard, Adder, Grass Snake and Slow Worm are partially protected under

Schedule 5 of The Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981), under part of Section 9(1) and all of Section

9(5). As such it is an offence to;

• intentionally kill or injure an individual of these species

• transport for sale or exchange, or offer for sale or exchange a live or dead an individual or any part

of an individual of these species.

• All native reptile species are UK BAP Priority Species (UK BAP, 2007), Slow Worms, Grass Snakes

and Adders are listed under the local Staffordshire BAP list.

2.3 Edgar, Foster & Baker (2010) note declines in all the common reptile species in Britain in recent

years, and in some regions severe. Factors may include:

• Habitat and micro-habitat degradation; Changes in land use such as agriculture and development;

• Fragmentation of habitats and population isolation; Ecological succession;

• Predation by domestic cats (and pheasants) and disturbance by dogs; Fire (especially moors and

heaths);

• Inappropriate conservation/habitat management; Overgrazing; Invasive exotic plant species;

• Damage to habitats by excessive visitor pressure/off-road vehicles; Deliberate killing by people,

especially adder, grass-snake and slow-worm.

9


3.0 Methodology

Desktop Survey Methodology

3.1 Ecological records were requested from the local ecological records centre (Staffordshire Ecological

Record). Details were obtained of all protected species recorded within a 1km radius of the site. The

National (UK) and local (Staffordshire Churnet Woodlands) Biodiversity Action Plans (BAPs) were

also interrogated for protected habitats and species relevant to this site.

Field Survey

3.2 To establish presence or absence, a minimum of seven visits were undertaken during the optimum

survey season, and under suitable weather conditions during May to early July 2014. Methodology

conformed to the standards outlined in the Herpetofauna Workers’ Manual (Gent and Gibson,

2003) and more specific guidelines in Froglife Advice Sheet 10: Reptile Survey (Froglife,

1999). A combination of methods were used, including:

• Artificial refuge survey;

3.3 Artificial refugia comprised of roofing felt mats (700 mm x 700 mm), which were laid down in habitat

areas considered potentially suitable for basking reptiles. In principal, reptiles take advantage of the

higher temperature radiated by these artificial refugia to optimize their body temperature, and can be

considered an effective way to establish presence/absence of reptiles, whilst remaining both ethical

and inert in the immediate landscape.

3.4 In accordance with Gent & Gibson (2003) refugia should be deployed at a density of at least 5-10/ha.

The site is approximately 1.1 hectares in area, although ca 0.2 hectares comprises of a steep sided

woodland strip which is to be retained within the development. Thus ten mats were calculated into

the survey methodology, and were placed in sunny areas near to exposed banks and cover, typically

areas of emerging bracken and marginal scrub. These were then left to bed down for 1 week prior to

the survey commencing, in order for them to establish in terms of suitable humidity and temperature

gradient, whilst allowing any reptiles to familiarize themselves to the additional refugia also

• Searching extant features likely to shelter reptiles;

3.5 There is a moderate to high degree of artificial and manmade features onsite that may attract

reptiles, including dead wood piles and building debris and rubble. Potential areas and features were

searched for reptiles during survey periods.

10


3.6 The location of both extant refugia and artifical refugia were mapped to record any reptile

distribution, and to calculate population density. All artificial refugia was removed from site upon

completion of the field surveys. In circumstances where reptiles are found, the refugia would be

checked for a further eight days to obtain a population size class assessment, in accordance with

recommendations set out by Hill et al. (2005).

• Careful observation of basking / moving reptiles.

3.7 Direct observation is the least reliable method of recording reptiles, although important to record

species such as common lizard which use refugia less frequently, and adder (Vipera berus ) can

frequently be seen basking in areas where they occur. Slow-worm are probably the least likely to be

observed because of their greater affinity for dense vegetation and subsurface habitats, although

they can be encountered quite frequently in some habitats, particularly where they are abundant.

• Timing and weather conditions.

3.8 To assess presence or absence, visual inspection of natural and artificial refugia was inspected per

week over a period of eight weeks total, in order to allow for any temporal variations over space and

time. Surveys commenced either between mid morning (9:00-11:00hrs) or late afternoon (16:00-

18:00hrs). Where possible, surveys were undertaken during optimal weather conditions (Air

temperature 10-20°C), in accordance with Gent and Gibson (2003).

11



3.9 The four widespread species of reptile in the UK, i.e. common lizard Zootoca vivipara, slow-worm

Anguis fragilis, grass snake Natrix natrix and adder Vipera berus, are all protected under the terms

of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), however, they are not fully protected under

European law. This level of protection prohibits the intentional killing and injuring and trade of these

reptiles. Where a survey identifies potential habitat for reptiles at a development site, a reptile survey

may be needed prior to submission of a planning application and mitigation may be required by

Natural England for any loss of reptile habitat as a result of a site’s re-development.

3.10 Each survey visit may reveal only a small sample of the reptile population occurring on site because

the proportion of individuals recorded varies according to weather, migration patterns etc. A

mechanism known as the Key Reptile Site Register can be used to obtain a basic evaluation of the

population size and importance of the site. It has been designed to identify and promote the

safeguarding of important reptile sites, with outstanding assemblages being the guiding principle in

judging sites.

3.11 To qualify for the Key Reptile Site Register, the site must meet at least one of the following criteria

(Froglife, 1999):

• Supports three or more reptile species

• Supports two snake species

• Supports an exceptional population of one species (see Table 1)

• Supports an assemblage of species scoring at least 4 (see Table 1)

• Does not satisfy any of the above but which is of particular regional importance due to local rarity

12


4.0 Results

Pre survey data

4.1 Desktop survey also provided multiple records (2008) of common lizard Zootoca viviparia from a

section of the disused railway line 369-487m from the centre of the site. Between 2003 and 2013

grass snake Natrix natrix was also recorded within 1km of this site, making it more likely that suitable

habitat at this site does support some reptile species, although there are historical records of slow

worm Anguis fragilis (1963-2001) within 600m of the site are recorded. The client believes he may

have seen reptiles on the site ca. five to six years ago; during which time, the site has been subject

to an increase in human, domestic pet disturbance, trespassing and general maintenance and

usage.

Field Survey

4.2 Given the excellent linear connectivity with surrounding higher ecological value habitats, there is

good potential for reptiles within the survey area. The partial removal of debris during pre-works has

also provided additional refuge in the form of log piles, that would further encourage reptiles onsite if

left to establish. Conversely, no species of reptile was recorded on site during the survey period (Full

survey result data and weather conditions can be found in Appendix 1).

5.0 Evaluation

Presence/Absence

5.1 During the survey no reptiles were evident during the survey periods, thus the proposed

development area does not meet the register criteria for a Key Reptile Site.


5.2 Despite pre-survey information showing presence of reptiles in the immediate area, coupled with

excellent connectivity to optimal habitat, the survey results returned no evidence of reptiles onsite. A

number of contributing factors may explain this outcome; The site has undergone recent disturbance

due to authorized clearance of trees and general maintenance, resulting in potential habitat and

micro-habitat degradation; The land is close to residential dwellings and is subject to disturbance by

dogs and potential predation by domestic cats. There are Invasive exotic plant species onsite which

may degrade overall community habitat.

5.3 Due to the particularity warm weather encountered during the surveying periods, a number of

surveys were conducted at slightly higher temperatures than preferred, although this is not thought

to have been a significant limitation overall, as the surveys were spread over a longer time period to

allow for stochastic and temporal variation.

13


5.4 As such, the proposed development footprint is considered as being highly dynamic, beginning

initially as disturbed brownfield land, which is now in constant transitional flux between successional

stages of vegetation types. This coupled with historic data records, local knowledge and excellent

linear connectivity to surrounding higher ecological value habitats, would infer good potential for

reptiles to (re)colonize over time as seral stages continue to establish within this period. Thus it is

recommended that a Best practice dictates a precautionary approach in situations of uncertainty, and

will need to be taken to ensure observance of regulations, maintenance of the reptiles’ favourable

conservation status, and in observance of the Biodiversity Duty is upheld.

6.0 Impacts and Recommendations

Impacts

6.1 The site is the subject of a planning application to permit the construction of residential buildings,

which will involve substantial works on site. As no reptiles were identified it is not considered that the

proposed development will have any adverse impact on reptiles locally as none were identified

during the surveys.

Further Surveys

6.2 As no evidence of reptiles was recorded, further presence/absence surveys would only be deemed

necessary, should the recommended pre-works maintenance and clearance of the site be delayed

for more than one year. This recommendation is based on evidence that Reptiles are recorded within

a 1km radius; the highly labile nature of succession onsite, and subsequent increase in refuge

potential for reptiles as time elapses. (see section 6.5).

Legislation

6.3 Common Reptile species are partially protected under Schedule 5 of The Wildlife and Countryside

Act (1981), under part of Section 9(1) and all of Section 9(5). This means that they are protected

from killing or injury. No licence is required to permit development but some form of mitigation to

avoid contravention of the legislation afforded to common reptiles must be approved by the Local

Planning Authority Ecologist or the statutory consultee, which in this instance would be Natural

England. Maintenance of conservation status can be achieved in one or more of the following ways:

• Identification of a safe receptor site that will not be affected by works

• Use of exclusion fencing to prevent reptiles entering the working footprint

• Capture and translocation of reptiles

• Creation and/or enhancement of reptile habitat

• Post development management and monitoring.

14


Recommendations

Pre-development works

6.4 In addition to this reptile survey report, a Reasonable Avoidance Measure report for Great Crested

Newt and also Otter and Water vole has been produced by Charnia Ecology (2014a, 2014c), in order

to ecologically support the same planning application proposal. Upon consultation, the client has

happily agreed in principal to the erection of general wildlife fencing around the proposed

development area. This is intended to holistically deter/exclude and minimize potential impact to any

reptile and/or amphibian populations, plus small mammals that may migrate onto site during the

period prior to works commencing. Such fencing will also enable any species interned within the

application area to be safely corralled during site preparation and ushered out under their own

volition into receptor areas outside the western perimeter boundary.

6.5 It is also recommended that the site is cleared of extant refugia and selected vegetation to make it

less attractive to fauna overall. All pre-works site clearance should be undertaken under the

supervision of a suitably qualified ecologist, which will include a finger tip search ahead of any

machinery used. Such works should be undertaken outside the hibernation period (October to April)

and should include the following:

• To discourage reptiles from colonizing the site in future, the vegetation should be kept as low as

possible.

• Soil stripping works will progress in a systematic fashion from east to west within the application

• Supervision of ground preparation by an experienced and licensed ecologist;

• Erection of perimeter “wildlife” fencing;

Figure 2. Location of proposed wildlife fencing around proposed development area (Red).

15


Care and Vigilance During Works

6.6 Where supervision by a suitably qualified ecologist is not deemed necessary; contractors working in

the development area should be briefed on the following protocol in the event a reptile is found

during works:

• Halt work.

• Capture reptile using gloves.

• Place in container provided and store in the site office.

• Contact appointed ecological consultant to transfer reptiles found to a safe receptor site

and to seek confirmation that work can continue.

• Careful storage of building materials onsite;

• All works, plant and materials remain on existing open areas of hard-standing; avoiding

the surrounding boundaries and woodland margins.

• Immediate removal of waste and appropriate storage of waste materials;

Post-development works

• Removal of “wildlife” fencing;

• Sensitive incorporation of lighting within the development to prevent light spill onto

adjacent habitats (as discussed in bespoke ecological reports for bats (Charnia Ecology

2014b) and Otter/Water vole (Charnia Ecology 2014c) for the same application.

16


7.0 References

• The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations (2010) SI 2010/490

• Charnia Ecology (2014a) Reasonable Avoidance Measures for Great Crested Newt.

SR/Oakamoor/ RAM/01

• Charnia Ecology (2014b) Preliminary Roost Assessment – bat and bird activity survey report.

• Charnia Ecology (2014d) Water vole and Otter survey report. August 2014.

• Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, (c.37), London: HMSO.

• English Nature (2004) Reptiles: guidelines for developers. Peterborough, UK.2

• Froglife (1999) Reptile Survey: An introduction to planning, conducting and interpreting

surveys for snake and lizard conservation. Froglife Advice Sheet 10. Froglife, Halesworth.

• Herpetofauna Groups of Britain and Ireland (1998) Evaluating Local Mitigation/Translocation

Programmes: Maintaining Best Practice and Lawful Standards.

• Hill D., Fasham. M., Tucker. G., Shrewry, M. and Shaw P. (2005) Handbook of Biodiversity

Methods, Survey, Evaluation and Monitoring, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

• ODPM (2005) Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation (PPS9).

ODPM: London.

• UK Biodiversity Action Plan (2007) UK List of Priority Species. Joint Nature Conservation

Committee. [Online]. Available at: http://www.ukbap.org.uk/NewPriorityList.aspx [accessed on

14th July 2010].

• Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (and amendments), (c.69), London: HMSO

17


Appendices

Photographic plates

Fig A. Looking east across central area (Nov 2013) Fig. B. Buildings and overgrown areas of rubble at south-west corner

Fig C. Colonizing vegetation and scrub (May 2014) Fig D. Extant refugia includes a wood piles (Top left) and tree stumps/root systems.

Fig E. Good connectivity to river corridor Fig F. Dead wood piles in southern compartment

18


Maps

Ext Phase 1 Habitat map (Nov 2013)

19

Reptile Survey Results

Slow Worm Common Lizard Grass Snake

Date Time Temp °C Weather ConditionsAdult Male

Adult Female Juvenile

Adult Male

Adult Female

Unknownsex Juvenile Adult Juvenile

16/05/1424/05/14

10.0016.00

16.112.1

15% cloud cover, light wind40% cloud cover, light wind

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

30/05/14 16.00 13.7 20% cloud cover, light wind 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

06/06/14 16:00 21.5 0% cloud cover, Nil wind 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

13/06/14 16.15 19.6 35% cloud cover, light wind 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

20/06/14 16:00 20.5 40% cloud cover, light wind 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

04/07/14 18:00 18.7 30% cloud cover, Nil wind 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Reptile Survey Report - Staffordshire Moorlands

Documents

Transcript of Reptile Survey Report - Staffordshire Moorlands