report 2202014, habitats and protected speciesplanapps.torfaen.gov.uk/varteg/documents/volume 3...17...

HAWKESWOOD ECOLOGYSpecialists in Ecological Survey and Assessment

17 Heol Henrhyd, Coelbren, Nr. Ystradgynlais, POWYS. SA10 9PG. Tel/Fax: 01639 701304Mobile: 07957 154794 E-mail: [email protected]

VAT Reg No 926 9271 93(Proprietors: Niki and Eric Hawkeswood)

REVIEW OF HABITAT AND PROTECTED S

SURVEYS, PROPOSED COAL RECOVERY

LAND RECLAMATION SCHEME, VART

ON BEHALF OF

THE GLAMORGAN POWER COMPANY

September 2014

Ref: HE/22/2014

PECIES

AND

EG.

LTD

Review of habitat and Protected Species Surveys, VartegHawkeswood Ecology – September 2014

2

Copyright and Non-Disclosure NoticeThe contents and layout of this report are subject to copyright owned byHawkeswood Ecology (© Hawkeswood Ecology 2014) save to the extent thatcopyright has been legally assigned by us to another. To the extent that we own thecopyright in this report, it may not be copied or used without our prior writtenagreement for any purpose other than the purpose indicated in this report.

The methodology (if any) contained in this report is provided to you in confidenceand must not be disclosed or copied to third parties without the prior writtenagreement of Hawkeswood Ecology. Disclosure of that information may constitutean actionable breach of confidence or may otherwise prejudice our commercialinterests. Any third party who obtains access to this report by any means will, inany event, be subject to the Third Party Disclaimer set out below.

Third Party DisclaimerAny disclosure of this report to a third party is subject to this disclaimer. The reportwas prepared by Hawkeswood Ecology at the instruction of, and for use by, ourclient(s) named on the front of the report. It does not in any way constitute advice toany third party who is able to access it by any means. Hawkeswood Ecologyexcludes to the fullest extent lawfully permitted all liability whatsoever for any lossor damage howsoever arising from reliance on the contents of this report. We do nothowever exclude our liability (if any) for personal injury or death resulting from ournegligence, for fraud or any other matter in relation to which we cannot legallyexclude liability.

We confirm that in preparing this Report we have exercised reasonable skill andcare, taking into account the project objectives, the agreed scope of the work,prevailing site conditions and the degree of manpower and resources allocated tothe project.


3

CONTENTS

1. Introduction

2. Surveyor Experience

3. Walkover Survey Methodology and Constraints

4. Desk Top Study Update

5. Walkover Habitat Re-assessment Findings

6. Review of Impacts on Protected Species and Habitats

7. Conclusions

FIGURES

Figure 1 Location of Areas as Described in text

Appendix 1: Photographs


4

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Hawkeswood Ecology was instructed to undertake a review of previous surveysrelating to the proposed coal recovery and land reclamation scheme at Varteg,Torfaen.

1.2 A walkover assessment was made of the site to assess if there were any significantchanges to the habitats present on Site, or opportunities for Protected Speciesavailable since the detailed surveys presented in the Environmental ImpactAssessment in 2006, the preparation of the ‘Restoration Plan’ in November 2009 orthe updated survey effort of 2010.

1.3 The current surveys reviewed the 2006 Etiological Assessment and the 2010 re-surveys and updated them accordingly following discussions with the Torfaen LPAEcologist and review of updated data searches. Comment from Natural ResourcesWales (NRW) was also taken into consideration.

1.4 Surveys undertaken following consultations were: An updated Walkover of the site to assess for significant change in habitat; A Silurian moth survey following the apparent expansion of this species in the

local area; A bat activity survey undertaken with the expansion of lesser horseshoe bat

populations in the region particularly in mind; A reptile refugia survey to assess changes in populations spread, if any, across

the Site; A survey for great crested newt.

1.5 The specific species surveys noted above are reported on separately. This reportcontains the Walkover survey review and an assessment of the Site with regard toprotected species.

1.6 The detailed survey reports are presented separately to this document with theexception of the Walkover survey. This report will also consider the other groups ofplants and animals that have been highlighted as significant in earlier surveys butnot subjected to update survey in 2014.

2 SURVEYOR EXPERIENCE

2.1 The Walkover survey was carried out by Eric Hawkeswood. Eric has many yearsexperience of broad habitat and detailed botanical and species surveying. He hasbeen a professional in the nature conservation field for twenty five years formerlyworking as Reserves Manager and Conservation Officer at Gwent Wildlife Trustand Woodland Manager for the Ruperra Conservation Trust. He is currently jointproprietor of Hawkeswood Ecology.


5

2.2 Groups that were not re-surveyed were subject to re-assessment and are discussedin this document. For the other detailed species surveys undertaken, surveyorexperience is highlighted within the separate survey reports. This review should beread in conjunction with all existing reports.

3 WALKOVER SURVEY METHODOLOGY AND CONSTRAINTS

3.1 The walkover survey consisted of comparing the habitats broadly against thefindings of the 2010 walkover assessment which was based on comparisons withthe descriptions and Target Notes of the botanical surveys of 2004 (Wye ValleySurveys) and 2005 (Hawkeswood Ecology). The findings of the 2004 and 2005surveys were collated in the Ecological Assessment presented in the EnvironmentalStatement (2005).

3.2 Each area described was revisited and notes made on any significant changes inhabitat. A number of photographs were taken and are included in the Appendix 1,Site Photographs.

3.3 As in 2010, the Site was split into four areas which cover the main habitat areas ofthe Site. These areas are shown on Figure 1. The basic description for each area is:

Area 1 translates to the heath and acid grassland areas to the north east ofthe Site, north of Salisbury Terrace;

Area 2 covers the area of the coal tips and associated area adjacent to them; Area 3 relates to the grazed field at the south and east of the Site, south of

Salisbury Terrace; Area 4 covers the west of the Site including the restored grassland valley in

which tipping of over burden is proposed and the area to the southcomprising made ground with scrub growth and tree plantings.

3.4 In addition, the area of the housing application is also reviewed, this area is shownin Figure 1.

3.5 The walkover assessment was undertaken on 3rd July 2014.

Constraints3.6 No specific constraints to the walkover survey were noted.

4 DESK TOP STUDY UPDATE

4.1 The South East Wales Biodiversity Records Centre (SEWBReC) were asked tosupply records for protected and Priority Species for the Site and up to 500 metresfrom it (Bats for up to 2 kilometres from the Site) and for protected habitats for upto 500 metres from the site.


6

4.2 The detailed results of the original desk top study are contained in the document'Ecological Assessment, Varteg Hill Land Reclamation Scheme'. (HawkeswoodEcology 2006). Biological data received relating to the groups re-surveyed in 2014(bats, herpetofauna and Silurian moth) are discussed within those reports.

4.3 Concentrating on records of Protected and Priority Species reports gathered sincethe 2005 biological data trawl for the site, only a small number of new records arepresented. Specifically these are otter, red kite and redwing.

4.4 Otter was recorded in 2007 and 2010, both records relating to road casualties. Bothrecords were associated with the Cwmavon Road, from Blaenavon, approximately830 metres to the north-east and 450 metres to the east respectively and within afew metres of the Afon Llwyd.

4.5 Redwing and red kite are Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended)Schedule 1 species which are both likely to forage over the site but not bedependent upon it. The presence redwing would not be surprising and it would beexpected on passage, or overwintering, in such habitats as those in and around theVarteg area. The presence of red kite is an indication of the range of this onceuncommon species as its recovery as a breeding bird in Wales continues. There isno suitable breeding habitat for this species at Varteg, but the landscape is typical oftheir foraging habitat.

4.6 Other Species of Conservation Concern not previously recorded include jack snipe,an overwintering wading bird that could be expected on site in passage or duringmild winter, which is a Welsh Amber list species (RSPB, 2009) and Ctenicerapectinicornus, a beetle; both species recorded from Varteg.

4.7 Species of local conservation concern recorded since 2005 include small floweredcranesbill and slender ground hopper, both recorded from Varteg and Species ofLocal Interest in the SEWBReC area.

4.8 SEWBReC data is confidential and cannot be released in to the public domain. Therecords will be held by Hawkeswood Ecology in accordance with the terms ofSEWBReC in case of need for further consultation.

5 WALK-OVER HABITAT RE-ASSESSMENT FINDINGS

5.1 As in 2010 the whole of the application site was visited. In addition, the proposedhousing development site (Figure1) was also re-assessed against the findings ofinitial surveys also carried out in 2010. Photographs of the areas are shown inAppendix1. The descriptions below are based on the same Areas described in the2010 walkover report (Figure 1).


7

Area 15.2 This part of the Site is described as being dry heath and mosaics of dry heath/acid

grassland and acid flushes. Fields near to Salisbury Terrace have been affected byhorse grazing and appeared improved.

5.3 The walk-over survey did not detect any significant changes to the report findings,the Site is still subjected to horse grazing and some drainage works have beencarried out by the tenant. These works have consisted of clearing the stream lineand effectively removing small ponds which were present along the course of thestream (See also the accompanying report Reptile presence/Absence and GreatCrested Newt Surveys, Proposed Coal Recovery and Land Reclamations Scheme,Varteg, Hawkeswood Ecology September 2014.

5.4 The lack of scrub control is evident as the scrub is maturing and becoming veryapparent in areas. The ground shrubs, heather and bilberry, are dominant over largeareas. Purple moor-grass is perhaps more abundant in some of the less intensivelygrazed areas to the north of this part of the Site.

5.5 The Restoration Plan calls for an acceptable maximum limit of scrub cover afterrestoration of 5%. At the present time we estimate the scrub cover in this areremains below this figure overall but at the north of the site exceeds this in places.A baseline figure will be calculated prior to commencement of any works.

Area 25.6 Area 2 comprises the old spoil tips and immediately surrounding areas. In 2010

significant changes were noted relating particularly to the spoil tips without a grasssward. Wash out had occurred on a large scale and the waste had been carried somedistance from the tips themselves. Extensive use of the Site as in illegal off roadarea had also exacerbated the erosion problems.

5.7 On re-visiting in 2014, the tips appear to have stabilised to some extent with muchof the wash out now being colonised by grasses, particularly mat grass and wavyhair-grass, and heath. The faces of the tips are still friable and it is clear wash out isstill occurring but not at the same level as previously. Off-road 4x4 driving remainsan issue with new tracks apparent on some of the tip faces.

Areas 3 and 45.8 No significant change to the state of the vegetation was noted to either of these

areas. Use of the western valley (Area 4) by 4x4 vehicles remains evident.

5.9 A large pond which first was noted in 2009 adjacent to the boundary of the Site hascontinued to grow in size and now abuts the Site. This pond was not present in 2005during the initial surveys and only noted in the later follow ups in 2010. It appearsto have been created by a blocked or collapsed culvert under the embankment andclearly cannot, therefore, be considered permanent. The vegetation is now changing


8

to reflect open water with water weed appearing and soft rush dominant around thepond edge and in the margins.

Proposed Housing Area5.10 The initial survey of the proposed housing development area was undertaken in

May 2010 and reported on in the document 'Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey,Land at Varteg, Hawkeswood Ecology – June 2010'. That survey found theproposed housing area to be dominated by agriculturally improved neutral andsemi-improved acid grassland with areas of heath vegetation and marshygrassland/acid grassland mosaic.

5.11 Although the habitats present were poorly managed and not considered goodexamples, it was considered that two were representative of the UK BiodiversityAction Plan Priority Habitat ‘Lowland Acid Grassland’. The heath vegetation couldbe considered to represent the UK BAP Priority Habitat ‘Open Mosaic Habitat onPreviously Developed Land’.

5.12 The present survey found no significant changes to the Site. Grazing across thenorth of the Site appears less intensive, which is reflected by some increase in scrubcover, but elsewhere where grazing is occurring the Site is tightly grazed. This is asubjective assessment however.

6 REVIEW OF IMPACTS ON PROTECTED SPECIES AND HABITATS

6.1 The detailed survey and study of 2005 presented the potential impacts on a numberof species groups and habitats present on the Varteg Site. Following discussion withthe Torfaen Council Ecologist surveys were undertaken on species where it wasconsidered more information was required to confirm their use of the site, or wherepopulations of mobile species were thought to have changed and this may haveaffected their potential presence on Site.

6.2 As a result of these discussions and reviewing the biological data update, detailedupdated surveys for bats, reptiles, great crested newt and Silurian Moth wereundertaken. The reports of those surveys accompany this document.

6.3 The Site was also walked over and assessed against previous surveys for anysignificant changes. This walkover survey took in the applications sites of both theCoal Recovery/Land Reclamation and proposed Housing schemes.

6.4 The various habitats and species groups are discussed below and the impactassessments have been reconsidered in the light of new information wherenecessary.


9

Habitats6.5 No significant changes to the habitats in either the Coal Recovery/Land

Reclamation or proposed Housing scheme areas were found to have significantlychanged since the original surveys. There has been some scrub development inparts of the Site and impacts from natural and anthropomorphic erosion on the spoiltips but they currently appears relatively stable and vegetation is re-colonising bareareas and wash out.

6.6 The detailed rationale for impact assessment for these habitats is given in theEcological Assessment of 2006 and in the light of the limited changes to the Site itis considered that the evaluation and impact assessments made at that time remainvalid currently.

6.7 The detailed and prescriptive Restoration Plan (Cooper Partnership 2009) isconsidered to reduce impacts in the long term to neutral for overall habitat diversityon Site.

6.8 There is a need to make some amendments with regard to the new pond adjacent tothe Western Valley in the Restoration Plan. As mentioned in paragraph 5.6 it isdoubtful that this pond can be considered permanent due to the apparent reason forits occurrence. Other than this, there are no significant changes to the Site thatwould alter these findings or require any significant alterations to the previouslyaccepted Restoration Plan.

Protected Species6.9 This section discusses any change or otherwise to the impact assessment of the

protected species identified in 2006 and takes into account any changes in policy orlegislation affecting those species since that date.

6.10 Silurian moth has seen an apparent increase in range which is possibly due to anincreased observer effort. A specimen was reported from Varteg but was found tobe a misidentification. However, the survey for this species was considered to beprudent and in this case has shown the site to be unsuitable for the species. Thedetailed reports contain updated impact assessments but generally no significantchanges were found since the re-assessments of 2010.

6.11 For other groups of protected species, re-survey was not considered necessary.Previous survey had either shown that the Site had importance for certain speciesgroups or that they would not or were unlikely to occur on the Site. These groupsare considered below. Initial survey and assessments are given in the EcologicalAssessment (2006) and that document should be read in conjunction with the detailbelow which follows the order given in that report.

Moonwort6.12 The site was considered to be of moderate importance for this species locally as it

appears on the eastern edge of its range. Impacts for this species were assessed as


10

neutral with a potentially minor positive residual outcome following appropriatemanagement being implemented. No changes are foreseen to alter these findings.

Lichens and Bryophytes6.13 The Site was considered to be of low to moderate and moderate importance

respectively for these groups. In respect of lichen, an undescribed species ofPsoroglaena was recorded on the proposed Housing area. This was later found tobe far more widespread than originally thought and this matter was addressed at thePlanning Inquiry Appeal of 2012.

6.14 With respect of these species groups, it is considered the original survey findingsremain relevant and that the proposed mitigation and compensation features are stillvalid. Outcomes post operation remain as negative outcomes for both groups.

Birds6.15 The Site was considered to be of moderate importance for both important species of

bird and for the breeding bird assemblage present. Adventitious records from theSite and new records added to the Biological Data held by SEWBReC support thisassessment. Many species using the Site do so on a seasonal basis or for foraging.

6.16 Snipe has been recorded during surveys undertaken in 2010 and 2014 and weredemonstrating breeding behaviour. These sightings were beyond the WesternValley area to the west but their use of the Western Valley habitats for breedingcannot be ruled out. This species is Welsh Amber list species1.

6.17 Red grouse, a Welsh Red list species, has also been recorded in 2012 from a gridreference close to the Varteg Site but named from Mynydd Garnclochdy which is tothe east of the Afon Llwyd and separated from the site by main roads and a river.Although red grouse may occur on Site, it is not considered to be suitable forbreeding birds as the habitat requirements of red grouse, heather moors, arelocalised on the Site and of relatively small area. They are also subject to off roadvehicle disturbance and pressure from grazing horses.

6.18 In 2006 the residual impacts of the development were assessed as minor negativeand it is considered unlikely that this impact level will have changed. However,with the appropriate management implemented, it is possible that the Site willcontinue to support a good assemblage of breeding birds and remain valuable towintering and passage species.

Bats6.19 A detailed review of bats species using the Site is given in the accompanying report,

'Bat Activity Survey, Coal Recovery and Land reclamation Scheme, Varteg,Torfaen. Hawkeswood Ecology – September 2014'.

1 Population status of Birds in Wales, RSPB 2009


11

6.20 This survey identified two previously unknown species from the Site, Leisler's andlesser horseshoe bats. Both species were rarely recorded. It was confirmed from thenew survey that the value of the site for foraging bats was very much determined bythe prevailing weather, on the second survey visit with fresh winds there were norecords of bats made. The Site is not of prime importance for foraging are for bats.and it was considered that the proposed recommendations with regard to batsmaintain a favourable outcome for bat species suing the site for foraging purposes.The provision of dark routes and linear feature discussed in the Restoration Planadequately provide for the new species identified in survey.

Badgers, otter, white clawed crayfish and water vole6.21 The site was considered to have limited value for these species, and no suitable

habitat for water vole or white clawed crayfish in 2006. There has been nosignificant changes in habitat or populations of these species to change thesefindings. Two records of otters have been reported, both road casualties from thelocal area. This confirms the findings of the 2006 Assessment that they are presentin the area and it is possible they may cross the site at some time. The habitatspresent are not of significant importance for them however.

Reptiles6.22 An updated survey for reptiles was carried out in 2014 and the report 'Reptile

Presence Absence and Great Crested Newt Surveys, Coal Recovery and LandReclamations Scheme, Varteg Hill, Torfaen. Hawkeswood Ecology – September2014' accompanies this document. This report confirmed a probable low populationof common lizard across the Site.

6.23 A total of 86 sightings were recorded during 2014 which is an increase from 25 in2005 and 41 in 2010. It is unclear whether this represents an actual increase inpopulation or is a reflection of the variability of the local climate over the past fewyears and in particular the very mild winter of 2013/14.

Amphibians6.24 The Site was considered to be of low significance for amphibians and following

survey in 2014 it is considered to still be so. No evidence of great crested newt wasfound and the vast majority of amphibians found were palmate newt, generally inlow numbers across the Site. The large pond on the boundary of the western valleysmay hold substantially larger populations of palmate newt, up to 30 being countedduring torchlight survey.

6.25 The biological data search did not show any recent records of great crested newtwithin 500 metres of the Site. There is a record from the Canada Tips area north ofBlaenavon (2008) approximately three kilometres north of the site. It is consideredthe habitat quality and connectivity on site is poor for this species.


12

Lepidoptera6.26 The Site was assessed as moderate significance for both assemblage and important

species in a local context in 2006. The Lepidoptera survey was updated in 2010when the value of the Site was confirmed. It was not considered necessary to updatethe survey in 2014. The authors of the 2010 survey considered that 'As long as somecomparable sites are retained within 2-3 kilometres of this site, retention of somehabitat around the periphery of the study area, and this site is restored with anequivalent range of habitat mosaics, the authors consider that the majority ofspecies found will be likely to recolonise within a 10-20 year timespan'.

6.27 The Restoration Plan identifies a variety of habitat mosaics across the Site that willprovide suitable substrate for the Lepidoptera presently found on Site. Followingthe conclusions of the report authors of 2010 it is considered that the significance ofthe impact upon Lepidoptera is changed from minor negative for assemblage andmoderate negative for important species to neutral impact in the longer (10 - 20years) term fit he Restoration plan is properly implemented.

Odonata6.28 The Site was found to support an assemblage of Odonata (dragonfly's and

damselfly's) of high regional and high local importance. For important species, itwas considered to be of low regional and moderate local importance. No furthersurvey was conducted in 2010 or 2014 and it was accepted that the value of the Siteand potential long term impacts are unlikely to have changed in that time.

7 CONCLUSIONS

7.1 Overall there appear to be no significant changes to the Site that would infer anysignificant new impacts or changes to the previous impact assessment for eitherhabitats or Protected Species resulting from the proposed scheme.

7.2 The most significant change to the Site is the large pond adjacent to the Siteboundary by the valley to the west (Area 4). This should be addressed within theRestoration Plan and the impact and extent of overburden tipping in this areaassessed for any impact upon the pond.

7.3 It is noticeable that whilst there were concerns in 2010 that the heavy stormsappeared to be increasing the amount of spoil wash out from the tips there has beenvegetative colonisation of the washed out materials. However, it is evident thatstorm wash out is still occurring. Control of off road vehicles across the Site postrestoration is a necessity.


13

FIGURE 1AREA LOCATIONS AS DESCRIBED IN TEXT


14


15

APPENDIX 1PHOTOGRAPHS


16

Area 1, top 2014, bottom 2010


17

The Tips, Area 2, 2014, heather colonising the wash out below.


18

The Tips, Area 2 2010 showing extent of wash out


19

Typical Views across Area 2, top 2014, bottom 2010.


20

Area 4, the Western Valley, 2014


21

Area 4, The Western Valley 2010


22

The housing application area 2014


23

The housing application site 2010

HAWKESWOOD ECOLOGYSpecialists in Ecological Survey and Assessment

17 Heol Henrhyd, Coelbren, Nr. Ystradgynlais, POWYS. SA10 9PG. Tel/Fax: 0Mobile: 07957 154794 E-mail: [email protected]

(Proprietors: Niki and Eric Hawkeswood)

Hawkeswood Ecology is an Ecological Consultancy basedin South Wales offering a wide range of expertise inecological assessment for a broad range of clients.

1639 701304

report 2202014, habitats and protected speciesplanapps.torfaen.gov.uk/varteg/documents/volume 3...17...

Documents