pebsham hwrs reptile mitigation strategy

Prepared for

Veolia Environmental Services Ltd

Pebsham HWRS

Reptile Mitigation Strategy

FINAL

January 2011


Pebsham HWRS

URS/Scott Wilson Scott House Alençon Link Basingstoke RG21 7PP Tel: 01256 310200 Fax: 01256 310201 www.urs-scottwilson.com

This document has been prepared in accordance with the scope of Scott Wilson's appointment with its client and is subject to the terms of that appointment. It is addressed to and for the sole and confidential use and reliance of Scott Wilson's client. Scott Wilson accepts no liability for any use of this document other than by its client and only for the purposes for which it was prepared and provided. No person other than the client may copy (in whole or in part) use or rely on the contents of this document, without the prior written permission of the Company Secretary of Scott Wilson Ltd. Any advice, opinions, or recommendations within this document should be read and relied upon only in the context of the document as a whole. The contents of this document do not provide legal or tax advice or opinion. © Scott Wilson Ltd 2010

Revision Schedule Reptile Mitigation Strategy Project number: D130669 January 2011

Rev Date Details Prepared by Reviewed by Approved by

01 21/12/10 DRAFT FOR COMMENT

James Wrixon Graduate Ecologist

John Simmons Senior Ecologist

Enter Name Enter Position

02 14/01/11 FINAL Abel Drewett Senior Ecologist

Abel Drewett Senior Ecologist

Abel Drewett Senior Ecologist


Pebsham HWRS

Table of Contents

1 Introduction ..................................................................................... 4

1.1 Scheme background....................................................................................................... 4

1.2 Background to current works .......................................................................................... 4

2 Relevant legislation......................................................................... 5

3 Overview of mitigation strategy ..................................................... 6

3.1 Controlled site vegetation clearance ............................................................................... 6

3.2 Habitat enhancement works within receptor site ............................................................. 7

3.3 Reptile translocation ....................................................................................................... 7

3.4 Ongoing habitat management......................................................................................... 7

4 Habitat enhancement within receptor site..................................... 8

4.1 Key design issues........................................................................................................... 8

4.2 Creation of south facing bunds ....................................................................................... 8

4.3 Creation of artificial hibernacula...................................................................................... 9

4.4 Planting of native scrub species.................................................................................... 11

4.5 Creation of grass snake egg laying compost heaps ...................................................... 11

5 Reptile translocation..................................................................... 12

5.1 Reptile exclusion fencing .............................................................................................. 12

5.2 Reptile trapping methodology ....................................................................................... 14

5.3 Destructive search........................................................................................................ 15

6 Management plan for receptor site .............................................. 16

6.1 Grassland ..................................................................................................................... 16

6.2 Scrub............................................................................................................................ 16

6.3 Reptile bunds and hibernacula...................................................................................... 17

6.4 Grass snake egg laying compost heaps ....................................................................... 17

Figure 1 – Site location plan.................................................................... 19

Figure 2 - Reptile receptor site habitat creation scheme ...................... 20

Figure 3 – Temporary & Perimeter reptile exclusion fencing plan ....... 21


Pebsham HWRS

Reptile Mitigation Strategy January 2011 D130669 – FINAL

4

1 Introduction

1.1 Scheme background

Veolia Environmental Services (South Downs) Ltd. (VES) operates the Integrated Waste

Management Service for East Sussex County Council and Brighton & Hove Council. As part of

this service VES has obtained planning permission to construct a new Household Waste

Recycling Site (HWRS) at Freshfields, Pebsham, East Sussex (see Figure 1). The site will be a

replacement for the nearby Hastings HWRS providing a modern split level facility.

1.2 Background to current works

Survey work in connection with the planning application and Environmental Impact Assessment

(EIA) conducted by Jacobs 20081 indentified that the site of the new HWRS supports ‘low’

populations of common lizard (Zootoca vivipara), slow worm (Anguis fragilis) and grass snake

(Natrix natrix). The site was also found to contain scrub habitat suitable to be utilised by

common species of nesting bird.

Subsequent work conducted by Scott Wilson (now URS/Scott Wilson) during 2009 identified a

suitable nearby receptor site of approximately 0.7 hectares, located to the north of the existing

Waste and Recyclables Transfer Station (WRTS) (see Figure 1). Prior to construction all

reptiles will be trapped from the new HWRS site and released into the receptor.

URS/Scott Wilson was commissioned by VES in December 2010 to produce a reptile mitigation

strategy in support of the works proposed to construct the new Pebsham HWRS. The following

document includes details on the following aspects of the strategy:

• Habitat creation works to be conducted at the receptor site;

• Proposed translocation exercise;

• Plan for the ongoing management of created habitats.

It is envisaged that the mitigation strategy will be agreed with the Local Planning Authority

(LPA) in accordance with Condition 19 of the planning consent (ref. RR/578/CM(EIA)).

1 Jacobs (2008) Pebsham HWRS and WRTS – Final Environmental Statement (dated November 2008). Unpublished

Jacobs (2008) Pebsham waste depot – Reptile Survey Report (dated June 2008). Unpublished


Pebsham HWRS


5

2 Relevant legislation

Reptiles

Common Lizard, slow worm and grass snake are all afforded partial protection under the

Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). Under this legislation it is an offence to

intentionally or recklessly kill or injure these species. As such it is necessary for developers to

demonstrate that reasonable measures have been taken to avoid such an eventuality.

In addition all three species have been listed as Priority species in the UK Biodiversity Action

Plan (BAP), however species action plans are yet to be prepared.

Nesting birds

All birds, their nests and eggs are protected by law under Part 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside

Act 1981 (as amended). Under this legislation if is an offense to injure or kill a nesting bird,

and/or damage or destroy an active birds nest.

Badgers

Badgers and their setts receive protection under the Protection of Badgers Act (1992) and the

Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). Under the above legislation relevant offences

include to wilfully kill, injure or ill-treat a badger; to damage, destroy or obstruct access to a

sett; or to disturb a badger when it is occupying a sett.

A badger sett is defined in the legislation as any structure or place, which displays signs

indicating current use by a badger.

Guidance on the interpretation of the terms ‘disturbance’ and ‘current use’ in relation to the

above legislation is provided in the following Natural England publications:

• Guidance on ‘current use’ of a badger sett (Natural England, 2009) – available to download

at http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/WMLG17_tcm6-11815.pdf ;

• Interpretation of “disturbance” in relation to badgers occupying a sett (Natural England,

2009) – available to download at http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/WMLG16_tcm6-

11814.pdf


Pebsham HWRS


6

3 Overview of mitigation strategy

The following section provides an overview of the proposed mitigation strategy. Table 1 below

summarises the proposed programme for these works. Subsequently detailed prescriptions

and methodologies for each part of the mitigation strategy are provided within Sections 4, 5 and

6.

Table 1: Summary programme for reptile mitigation strategy works

Activity Jan 2011

Feb 2011

Mar 2011

Apr 2011

May 2011

Jun 2011

Controlled clearance of woody vegetation from within new HWRC site

Reptile habitat creation works within receptor site (see Section 4)

Erection of temporary reptile fencing around new HWRC site, and laying of artificial refugia. (see Section 5)

Reptile trapping of new HWRC site (exact start date dependent on weather conditions, and duration dependent on capture rates – see Section 5)

Destructive search of new HWRC site for reptiles (if necessary), full vegetation clearance and removal of pre-approved sections of reptile fencing (to be conducted following completion of reptile trapping - see Section 5)

3.1 Controlled site vegetation clearance

In order to prevent delays to programme, vegetation clearance at the new HWRS site will be

conducted during January/February 2011, prior to the commencement of the bird nesting

season (generally regarded as March to September inclusive).

As these works will occur prior to translocation of reptiles they will be conducted in a sensitive

manner that will avoid adverse impacts on reptiles. An ecological method statement detailing

how these works will be conducted in a controlled manner has been produced2 and will be

implemented by the contractor.

The aim of the works is to make the site unsuitable for nesting birds by removing all woody

vegetation which has the potential to provide nesting habitat. In order to prevent impacts on

reptiles vegetation will be cut no lower than 200mm, thus preventing damage to any likely

hibernacula and retaining some vegetation that provides cover and foraging habitat.

Woody material generated during the site clearance process may be kept for use during habitat

creation works in the reptile receptor site.

2 URS/Scott Wilson (2010) Pebsham HWRS: Ecology Method Statement for Vegetation Clearance Works. Unpublished


Pebsham HWRS


7

3.2 Habitat enhancement works within receptor site

Habitat enhancement works are proposed to enhance the value of a 0.4ha area of semi-

improved grassland that forms part of the proposed off-site receptor site located to the north of

the existing WRTS (see Figure 1). A reptile survey of the site was conducted by Scott Wilson in

20093 and the area was found to support ‘low’ populations of common lizard, slow worm and

grass snake.

While reptiles were found to be present in some areas of the site, the majority of the site was

considered to be of very limited value to reptiles (based on current habitats and management

regimes). Consequently the site as a whole would benefit from habitat enhancement works. In

order to create an area of high quality reptile habitat within the receptor site works the following

works are proposed:

• Creation of small south facing bunds to enhance the availability of basking habitat;

• Creation of artificial hibernacula to increase the availability of suitable hibernation habitat;

• Planting of native scrub species to provide areas of suitable cover;

• Creation of grass snake egg laying compost heaps.

As stated at paragraph 5.2 of the January 2010 survey report, in combination with the areas of

suitable habitat which are already present at the receptor site, this area would be considered

sufficient to support both the existing populations and those translocated from the proposed

HWRS site.

3.3 Reptile translocation

A reptile translocation is programmed to begin in 2011 to relocate the reptiles present within the

new HWRS site to the receptor site. This reptile translocation is to be conducted after the

proposed habitat creation works within the receptor site have been completed.

The habitat features to be created at the receptor site, including their design, construction

method and management, mean that they will become established rapidly in the early part of

spring 2011 and therefore become suitable for the existing and translocated reptiles to utilise,

with immediate effect. In addition to this, the majority of the surrounding rough grassland with

the receptor site will remain undisturbed for reptile use.

The translocation process will involve the erection of temporary reptile fencing during Spring

2011 followed by a series of daily checks by ecologists to capture reptiles from the new HWRS

and relocate them to the receptor site. The duration of the translocation exercise will be

dependent on weather conditions and the number of reptiles captured.

3.4 Ongoing habitat management

In order to ensure that the value of the receptor site with regard to reptiles is enhanced in the

long term a programme of ongoing habitat management works are proposed.

3 URS\Scott Wilson Ltd (2009) Reptile Population Survey of the land to the north of Pebsham WRTS site (dated January 2010).

Unpublished.


Pebsham HWRS


8

4 Habitat enhancement within receptor site

4.1 Key design issues

The layout and design of the proposed enhancement features have taken into consideration

the following key design issues:

• Works to be conducted during February and early March 2011 therefore avoiding any

disturbance of areas which may be utilised by hibernating reptiles;

• A requirement to maintain the existing north to south access in the west of the site which will

be utilised by farm machinery accessing adjacent fields;

• Minimising the creation of basking sites in close proximity to the farm track which runs

through the site as this is used by dog walkers which may deter reptiles from utilising the

feature;

• Those features to be utilised by breeding grass snakes should be located near to the

existing ditch in the north of the receptor site , as this is likely the primary foraging resource

for the specie within the site;

• Features which require southern exposure should be located within the northern section of

the site, as this is the area which will receive the greatest amount of sunlight; and

• Maintaining the potential for future vehicular access to all areas of the site to avoid

restricting ongoing management operations.

4.2 Creation of south facing bunds

To enhance the availability of basking habitat within the receptor site, five small south facing

bunds will be created and positioned so that they receive maximum southern exposure. The

approximate locations of the five proposed bunds are shown in Figure 2.

Bund specification

• Each bund will be approximately 5-8m in length, 1m in height and 2-3m in width, and

constructed using soil re-profiled from within the site;

• Bunds will where possible be created using a combination of soil generated from the

creation of reptile hibernacula (see Section 4.3), and localised reprofiling of areas

immediately surrounding the proposed bund location (avoiding any disruption of longer

sward areas of grassland around the margins of the site);

• Where additional material is required a combination of wood and inert rubble can be

utilised. However, in all cases the finished bund should be covered with a layer of topsoil;

• Bunds, where possible will be largely unconsolidated material (i.e. avoiding excessive

compression of the materials) in order to maximise the potential value for reptiles.

Prior to construction of the bunds an ecologist will mark out the exact locations required, as

well as the areas from which soil can be re-profiled. A badger sett is known to be located on the

ditch-bank in the north of the site. While the sett itself is suitably distant from the works to avoid

disturbance, badgers are a transient species and regularly establish new setts throughout their

territory. Therefore the ecologist will also check the site for new signs of badger activity prior to

works commencing, and relocate the bunds should it be likely that their creation will impact

upon any badgers present within the site.


Pebsham HWRS


9

After the bunds have been completed all areas that have been re-profiled, as well as the bunds

themselves, will be sown with a standard wildflower seed mix. This will allow the bunds to

quickly vegetate and provide the necessary cover for reptile species.

• All areas of ground disturbed during the creation of the bunds will be sown with a suitable

native wildflower mix (approved by the consultant ecologist) during March 2011;

• All areas except for the bunds themselves should be suitably prepared prior to sowing; and

• Seed should be broadcast using a rotary fertiliser hopper at a rate of 4g/m2, evenly spread.

A typical seed mix (which can be obtained ‘ready made’ from a commercial supplier such as

Emorsgate seeds) is shown in Table 2 below.

Table 2: Typical wildflower seed mix

Latin Name Common Name Proportion (%)

Wild Flowers

Achillea millefolium Yarrow 0.5

Centaurea nigra Common Knapweed 2

Daucus carota Wild Carrot 0.8

Galium verum Lady's Bedstraw 1.5

Knautia arvensis Field Scabious 1.2

Leucanthemum vulgare Oxeye Daisy 1.5

Lotus corniculatus Birdsfoot Trefoil 1

Malva moschata Musk Mallow 1.5

Plantago lanceolata Ribwort Plantain 1

Plantago media Hoary Plantain 1

Primula veris Cowslip 1

Prunella vulgaris Selfheal 1.5

Ranunculus acris Meadow Buttercup 3

Rhinanthus minor Yellow Rattle 1

Rumex acetosa Common Sorrel 1.5

Grasses

Agrostis capillaris Common Bent 5

Cynosurus cristatus Crested Dogstail 35

Festuca rubra ssp commutata

Red Fescue 15

Festuca rubra Slender Creeping Red Fescue 25

4.3 Creation of artificial hibernacula

To increase the availability of suitable reptile hibernation habitat within the receptor site, three

reptile hibernacula will be created. To reduce the chance of the hibernacula becoming

flooded/water-logged in severe weather conditions they have been located on the higher

ground located in the southern section of the site (see Figure 2).


Pebsham HWRS


10

Hibernacula specification

• Each of the three hibernaculum will be approximately 4-5 m in length 1-2m in width and

0.5m in depth (below ground);

• An ecologist will mark out the areas to be used for hibernacula prior to works commencing.

To create each hibernaculum firstly the topsoil should be carefully removed so that it can be

reapplied. Then a trench dug to a depth of 0.5m and loosely filled with logs, wood and/or

rubble, and finally the topsoil reapplied (see Plate 1);

• Construction should ensure that access points are retained around the margins by allowing

timber or rubble to protrude around the margins at surface level creating crevices that allow

reptiles to access.

Since large amounts of woody material are to be cleared from the new HWRS site, any

material of more than 150mm in diameter may be retained for use within the construction of

these hibernacula. Any additional wood or rubble material required in the construction of the

hibernacula will be sourced from the existing HWRS.

Plate 1 – General design of reptile hibernacula

Source: Highways Agency (2005) Design Manual for Roads and Bridges: Volume 10

Section 4 Part 7 – Nature Conservation Advice in Relation to Roads and Reptiles


Pebsham HWRS


11

4.4 Planting of native scrub species

To provide additional areas of cover for reptiles within the grassland portions of the receptor

site, native scrub species will be planted in small clumps. The approximate location of these

plantations is shown in Figure 3.

The plantations have been positioned to fulfil two aims:

• To provide a refuge near to the farm tack which runs through the site so that reptiles can

easily retreat from foot traffic if threatened; and

• To provide refuges within the open grassland area so that reptiles can easily retreat from

predators if threatened.

Scrub planting specification

• Scrub planting will consist of a series of blocks approximately 4 m2 in size (See Figure 2),

comprising a mixture of at least 4 of the following native species:

� blackthorn (Prunus spinosa);

� hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna);

� hazel (Corylus avellana);

� dogwood (Cornus sanguinea);

� guelder rose (Viburnum opulus);

� spindle (Euonymus europaea).

• Prior to planting the top layer of turf should be removed from the planting area to prevent

grass species from competing with the young trees/shrubs. Planting should occur so that all

plants are approximately 0.3m from each other to give them the space needed for them to

successfully establish. No planting should be undertaken in frozen conditions.

• Following planting tree protectors (plastic tubes) should be placed around each plant to

protect them from damage cause by grazing animals such as rabbits. In addition mulch or

wood chippings should be put around the base of the plants to ensure that weeds do not

establish and out-compete the young trees/shrubs.

4.5 Creation of grass snake egg laying compost heaps

To provide additional grass snake egg laying features within the receptor site, three compost

heaps will be created, comprising of organic material which will be left to decompose (creating

the heat necessary in incubate grass snake eggs). The approximate location of these heaps is

shown in Figure 2.

Specification for egg laying compost heaps

• Each of the compost heaps should be at least 2m³ and made up of loose grass cuttings and

hay, piled up in a location where it is directly exposed to the suns rays (therefore increasing

the rate of decomposition and generating more heat;

• An ecologist will mark out the areas to be used for the compost heaps prior to the works

commencing;


Pebsham HWRS


12

5 Reptile translocation The construction phase of the new HWRS is programmed to commence during summer 2011,

once reptiles have been successfully translocated into the receptor site.

In order to avoid potential for delays later during the programme, all vegetation clearance works

will be conducted during January/February 2011, in advance of the reptile translocation. These

works will be conducted in accordance with an ecological method statement produced by

URS/Scott Wilson4. This approach aims to make the site unsuitable for nesting birds by

removing all woody vegetation which has the potential to provide nesting habitat, while

maintaining the site’s suitability for reptile species. By cutting vegetation no lower than 200mm

the disturbance of above and below ground hibernacula will be avoided. Subsequently the

reptile translocation exercise will commence in Spring 2011 as soon as reptiles emerge from

hibernation. This is anticipated to be from mid-March 2011 onwards, however exact timing will

be dependent on weather conditions.

Details of each of the processes that will be involved in the translocation process are explained

in detail within Sections 5.1 to 5.3 below.

5.1 Reptile exclusion fencing

Installation of fencing

Reptile exclusion fencing will be erected at the site during early March 2011, following the

completion of vegetation clearance works. This will consist of perimeter fencing which will

remain in place for the duration of works, and internal drift fencing which will be removed

following completion of the translocation. The aim of the perimeter exclusion fencing is to stop

reptiles from re-entering the new HWRS site, thus allowing the site to be cleared of reptiles and

ensuring it remains reptile free throughout construction. Internal drift fencing will sub-divide the

site helping to speed the process of reptile capture.

Exclusion fencing specification

• Several designs of reptile exclusion fencing are available varying from temporary (polythene

or geo-textile) to semi-permanent (polypropelene panels). The final type of fencing utilised

should be agreed between the contractor, VES and VES’ consultant ecologist taking into

account the duration of proposed works, budgetary constraints and the sustainability targets

of the client. Semi-permanent fencing is both more robust (and therefore requires less repair

inputs during works) and panels used can be re-used or recycled.

• All fencing utilised should comply with the following key points:

� Fencing should consist of polypropelene panels, plastic or geotextile sheeting

supported by timber stakes;

� The fence should be buried to depth of approximately 250mm within a shallow

trench created using a chain trencher, mini-digger or by hand;

� The above ground vertical section of the fence should be at least 600mm in height

(excluding top fold);

� A top fold of at least 100mm is required for perimeter fencing only (no top fold

required for internal drift fencing). In all areas the top fold must face away from the

4 URS/Scott Wilson (2010) Pebsham HWRS: Ecology Method Statement for Vegetation Clearance Works. Unpublished


Pebsham HWRS


13

area that reptile are being excluded from (i.e. towards the outside of the site into

areas where reptiles are still able to access);

� Attachment of panels to the wooden stakes will depend on the form of fencing

utilised. In all cases manufacturers guidance should be followed with regard to the

method and frequency of attachment required.

• Exclusion fencing will be erected during early March 2011 in order to ensure fencing is in

placed by the time that reptiles begin to emerge from hibernation (mid-March onwards

based on seasonal weather conditions).

The proposed layout of reptile exclusion fencing is shown in Figure 3. Prior to the

commencement of fencing a site meeting will be held between the fencing contractor, ecologist

and a representative of VES to ensure that the proposed fencing design will encompass all

areas where works are required to construct the new HWRS. During this meeting any minor

changes to the fencing design shown in Figure 3 that are required will be agreed.

Wherever possible the fencing alignment will avoid areas which support potential reptile

hibernacula. However, in those areas where this is unavoidable works the installation of fencing

within discrete areas of the site will be conducted under the supervision of an ecologist.

Plate 2 – Generalised reptile fencing design

Source: http://www.wildlifefencing.co.uk/product.php?productid=3&cat=1&page=1

Removal of fencing

Following the completion of reptile trapping and destructive clearance (see Section 5.2 & 5.3

below) all sections of internal drift fencing will be removed. In addition small gaps (2-3m in size)

Key A & B – Method of fixing should match manufacturer’s recommendations. C – Vertical section of fence to measure at least 600mm (excluding top fold). D – Wooden stake (as per manufacturer’s recommendations). E – Below ground section approximately 250mm. F – Underlap (optional). G - Top fold (100mm curled over).

G


Pebsham HWRS


14

in the perimeter fencing will be created at one or two locations to allow vehicular access to the

site.

All remaining perimeter fencing will remain in place for the duration of construction works (or

until an ecologist confirms it is safe to remove it) in order to prevent reptiles from re-entering

the site.

Reptiles can be attracted to temporary rubble piles or other similar construction features within

the site as these can offer them cover or hibernation sites. Therefore, by retaining perimeter

exclusion fencing the potential for delay to works due to the discovery of reptiles during

construction will be greatly reduced.

At time of production of this document final design plans are not yet available. Should access

be required through an area of perimeter fencing, marked on Figure 3 as being retained

throughout construction, then the ecologist should be contacted to confirm if removal of fencing

is acceptable in this area.

5.2 Reptile trapping methodology

Artificial reptile refugia

Artificial reptile refugia consist of sheets of corrugated metal and/or roofing felt, sized 50 to

100cm2 which are used to facilitate the clearance of reptiles from a site. Reptiles are exothermic

and therefore need to use external heat sources (such as the sun) to warm their bodies to allow

them to hunt for and digest food. As the refugia will absorb heat more readily than the

surrounding environment, and also provide visual cover, reptiles are attracted to these features,

making it easier to locate and capture reptiles from within the development site

Approximately 75 artificial refugia (a combination of corrugated iron and roofing felt) will be

positioned in all areas of habitat suitable for reptiles within the translocation site on the

completion of vegetation clearance during late February 2011. Refugia will be supplied and

positioned by the consultant ecologist.

The artificial refugia will be allowed to settle for at least two weeks prior to the commencement

of trapping. Allowing them to “bed in” and reptiles to become acclimatised to their presence.

Reptile trapping

Reptile trapping will commence from mid-March onwards as soon as conditions are considered

suitable for reptiles to have emerged from hibernation. As such the exact start date of trapping

works will be dependent on weather conditions.

Reptile trapping will consist of a suitably qualified ecologist checking each of the refugia twice

daily, both in the morning and afternoon. Any reptiles encountered during the visits will be

captured and their species, life stage and sex recorded. The reptiles will be placed and

transported in a cloth sack, such as a pillow case (to avoid causing injury during the transfer),

and released within areas of the receptor site which provide suitable cover.

Checks are scheduled to continue until a total of 60 checks have been conducted under

suitable conditions (defined as temperature of between 10-18°C and avoiding strong winds and

heavy rain). However, if following completion of a minimum of 30 valid checks a period of

five consecutive days (as opposed to checks) of no capture (under valid conditions)

occurs then this will be taken as an indication that reptiles numbers at the site have

dropped to a level low enough to commence the destructive clearance process (see

Section 5.3).


Pebsham HWRS


15

All reptile trapping works will be conducted by a suitably qualified ecologist.

The proposed trapping duration will be extended if high numbers of reptiles are still being

captured at the end of the proposed 60 valid checks.

5.3 Destructive search

At the end of the trapping period key areas of site where there is the potential that small

number of reptiles may remain present will be subject to a process of destructive clearance.

Examples of such features are rubble piles, earth banks and mammal burrows.

The destructive clearance process will involve the use of a mini-digger to sensitively dismantle

suitable features under the supervision of an ecologist. Any reptiles encountered during this

process will be captured and released into areas of suitable habitat within the receptor site.

The final extent of areas requiring destructive clearance at the site will be determined by an

ecologist on completion of the reptile trapping. However, it is currently anticipated that given the

size of the site, destructive clearance of suitable features will take no more than 2 working days

to complete.

Once the destructive clearance is complete the site will be considered clear of reptiles and

enabling and construction works will be allowed to commence.


Pebsham HWRS


16

6 Management plan for receptor site In order to ensure that the receptor site remains suitable for reptiles in the long term the

habitats will be managed in the long term. The main aim of the management will be to create

and then maintain a mosaic of grassland and scrub habitats which will provide cover, foraging

and hibernating resources for reptile species.

The following management strategy (summarised in Tables 3 to 5 below) lays out proposed

management for the five year period from November 2011 to November 2015. It is envisaged

that in 2015 the management plan will be reviewed and an ongoing programme for future

management produced.

6.1 Grassland

• During Year 1 (2011) the grassland areas of the receptor site should be mechanically cut

during November. All arisings should be collected and used to bulk up the grass snake egg

compost laying heaps (see Section 4.5);

• In Year 1 newly replanted grassland that surrounds the planted scrub, earth mounds and

hibernacula will be subject to a further cut in April 2012 using a metal bladed strimmer to

reduce the establishment of ruderal species;

• During Years 2 to 5 approximately 75% of the grassland areas should be mechanically cut

each November and arisings utilised to bulk up snake egg laying heaps. The area left uncut

should be rotated to ensure some continuity of longer grassland areas, but prevent invasion

of scrub;

• Care should be taken to avoid the disruption of bunds and artificial hibernacula during

mowing;

• During all years should any grassland areas have suffered from severe desiccation due to

damage from water, drought, trampling etc then the area should be re-sown with a standard

wildflower mix (such as that shown in Table 2) according to the following methodology:

� The area should be sown during March-May or September-October;

� The area should be prepared prior to sowing; and

� Seed should be broadcast using a rotary fertiliser hopper at a rate of 4g/m2 evenly

spread.

6.2 Scrub

Existing scrub

• All of the existing scrub habitat, located along the boundary of the site, should be trimmed

once every two years using a tractor mounted flail or hand tools (at the landowner’s

discretion) to halt its encroachment into the grassland habitat;

• Cutting should be performed during January and February to ensure that fruiting berries are

not lost and to avoid the period in which bird species are likely to be nesting. However as

this is also the period in which reptiles are likely to be hibernating care should be taken not

to uproot scrub species during the cutting, as reptiles may be hibernating below areas of

dense scrub.


Pebsham HWRS


17

Newly planted scrub

• Annual checks should be conducted on the newly planted areas of scrub during November

of Years 1 and 2, and any dead or dying individuals replaced using the same methods

described in Section 4.4;

• From Year 3 onwards the areas of newly planted scrub should undergo the same

management as that proposed for the existing areas (described above), with the aim of

producing stands of scrub which are approximately 2m in height.

6.3 Reptile bunds and hibernacula

• Yearly visual inspections should be conducted during November in Years 1 and 2 after

creation to ensure that the features have not suffered any significant damage throughout the

year. Should remediation works be necessary these should be conducted under the

supervision of an ecologist and during the following spring/summer when reptiles are active

(i.e. March to October), so that they can retreat from the works without harm.

6.4 Grass snake egg laying compost heaps

• During November in Years 1 and 2 the heaps should be checked to ensure that they still

comprise of at least 2m³ of decomposing organic material. If they are smaller than this they

should be bulked up with grass cuttings and hay bales;

• It should be noted that, as well as providing egg laying features for grass snakes, the heaps

may also be used by hibernating reptiles. Therefore care should be taken not to break apart

the existing compost heap when adding new material to it;

• The larger the heaps the greater the ecological resource they represent, as larger heaps will

generate more heat, and have more space to incubate grass snake eggs. Therefore, even if

the heaps are of adequate size, it is recommended that the grass cuttings from the ongoing

yearly mowing regime be collected and added to the heaps.

Table 3 – Summary of proposed management during Year 1

Activity Nov 2011 Dec 2011 Jan 2012 Feb 2012 Mar 2012 Apr 2012

Mow all grassland areas

�

Cut all areas of replanted grassland using metal bladed strimmer

�

Trimming of pre-existing scrub

� �

Check newly planted scrub and replace where required

�

Visual inspection of bunds and hibernacula

�

Check integrity of grass snake egg laying heaps

�


Pebsham HWRS


18

Table 4 – Summary of proposed management during Year 2

Activity Nov 2012 Dec 2012 Jan 2013 Feb 2013 Mar 2013 Apr 2013

Mow 75% of grassland area

�


� �

Check newly planted scrub and replace where required

�


�


�

Table 5 – Summary of proposed management during Year 3 to 5 (Nov 2013 to Nov 2015)

Activity Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr

Mow 75% of grassland area

�


� �

Trim newly created scrub (as appropriate)

� �


�


�


Pebsham HWRS


19

Figure 1 – Site location plan

Drw:

Chk:

App:

Date: Date:

Rev:

PEBSHAM HWRS

SITE LOCATION PLAN JMJW

JW14.01.11

Scale at A4:

I:\500

4 - In

forma

tion S

ystem

s\D12

6868

_Peb

sham

\ArcG

IS\MX

Ds\Si

te Lo

catio

n Plan

.mxd

Drawing Title

Project Title

Contains Ordnance Survey Data© Crown Copyright and database right 2011

This document has been prepared in accordancewith the scope of Scott Wilson's appointment withits client and is subject to the terms of thatappointment. Scott Wilson accepts no liability forany use of this document other than by its clientand only for the purposes for which it wasprepared and provided. © Scott Wilson Group PLC 2011

www.scottwilson.com

FIGURE 11:2,500

WRTS SiteProposed HWRS SitePotential Receptor SiteExisting HWRS Site and Landfill


Pebsham HWRS


20

Figure 2 - Reptile receptor site habitat creation scheme

No features to be constructedwithin route of existing access

track used by farm vehicles

THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN PREPARED IN ACCORDANCEWITH THE SCOPE OF SCOTT WILSON'S APPOINTMENT WITH

ITS CLIENT AND IS SUBJECT TO THE TERMS OF THATAPPOINTMENT. SCOTT WILSON ACCEPTS NO LIABILITY FORANY USE OF THIS DOCUMENT OTHER THAN BY ITS CLIENT

AND ONLY FOR THE PURPOSES FOR WHICH IT WASPREPARED AND PROVIDED. © SCOTT WILSON LTD 2010

NOTES

Revision Details

Drawing Status

Job Title

Drawing Title

ByCheck

Date Suffix

Scale at A3

Drawn Approved

Stage 1 check Stage 2 check

Drawing Number Rev

1:600

Reproduced from Ordnance Survey digital mapdata © Crown copyright 2010. All rights reserved.Licence number 0100031673.

Copyright

Grass Snake Egg Laying HeapsPlanted ScrubReptile HibernaculaSouth Facing Earth Bunds

REPTILE RECEPTORSITE HABITAT

CREATION SCHEME

PEBSHAM HWRS

FINAL

JM

FIGURE 2

Filep

ath: I:

\5004

- Info

rmati

on S

ystem

s\D13

0669

Peb

sham

\ArcG

IS\Re

ptile

Rece

ptor S

ite H

abita

t Crea

tion S

chem

e.mxd

Date:

14th

Janu

ary 20

11

JW

Scott HouseAlençon Link, BasingstokeHampshire, RG21 7PPTelephone (01256) 310200Fax (01256) 310201www.urs-scottwilson.com

Scott Wilson Ltd

DateOriginated

Note:Size of features indicative only (NTS)


Pebsham HWRS


21

Figure 3 – Temporary & Perimeter reptile exclusion fencing plan

THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN PREPARED IN ACCORDANCEWITH THE SCOPE OF SCOTT WILSON'S APPOINTMENT WITH

ITS CLIENT AND IS SUBJECT TO THE TERMS OF THATAPPOINTMENT. SCOTT WILSON ACCEPTS NO LIABILITY FORANY USE OF THIS DOCUMENT OTHER THAN BY ITS CLIENT

AND ONLY FOR THE PURPOSES FOR WHICH IT WASPREPARED AND PROVIDED. © SCOTT WILSON LTD 2010

NOTES

Revision Details

Drawing Status

Job Title

ByCheck

Date Suffix

Scale at A3

Drawn Approved

Stage 1 check Stage 2 check

Drawing Number Rev

1:500

Reproduced from Ordnance Survey digital mapdata © Crown copyright 2010. All rights reserved.Licence number 0100031673.

Copyright

Perimeter Fencing (TBC)Internal drift fencing -to be removed upon completionof reptile translocationHWRS site

TEMPORARY ANDPERIMTETER REPTILEEXCLUSION FENCING

LAYOUT

PEBSHAM HWRS

FINAL

JM

FIGURE 3

Filep

ath: I:

\5004

- Info

rmati

on S

ystem

s\D13

0669

Peb

sham

\ArcG

IS\Te

mpora

ry Re

ptile

Exclu

sion F

encin

g Lay

out.m

xdDa

te: 14

th Ja

nuary

2011

JW

Scott HouseAlençon Link, BasingstokeHampshire, RG21 7PPTelephone (01256) 310200Fax (01256) 310201www.urs-scottwilson.com

Scott Wilson Ltd

DateOriginated

pebsham hwrs reptile mitigation strategy

Documents