pre-construction ecological survey report (additional) · pre-construction ecological report...

$: Pre-Construction Ecological Survey Report (Additional) · Pre-Construction Ecological Report (Additional) Northamptonshire County Council H:\New Structure Folders\MAJOR PROJECTS\MPT$
Northamptonshire County Council

A509 Isham Bypass

Pre-Construction Ecological Survey Report (Additional)

December 2008

Northamptonshire County Council

A509 Isham Bypass

Pre-Construction Ecological Report (Additional)

December 2008

Notice

This document has been produced by Atkins Ltd for Northamptonshire County Council as a report on ground conditions to facilitate the development of the Isham Bypass. It may not be used by any person for any other purpose other than that specified without the express written permission of Atkins. Any liability arising out of use by a third party of this document for purposes not wholly connected with the above shall be the responsibility of that party who shall indemnify Atkins against all claims costs damages and losses arising out of such use. This report has been prepared by an environmental specialist and does not purport to give legal advice.

Document Control

JOB NUMBER: 5072404.221

DOCUMENT REF: P:\GBCBA\DE2\P&L\5026518 Northamptonshire

Projects\914 Isham Bypass\Ecology surveys 2008\40 tech\Pre-Construction Reports Phase 2\2nd Pre-Con report\A509 Isham Bypass Pre-Construction Ecological Survey Report(Additional)Final.doc

Originated Checked Reviewed Authorised Date

01 Final report for issue to Client

C. Weaire M C Archer J Box G Woodward 23/12/08

Revision

Purpose Description

A509 ISHAM BYPASS

Pre-Construction Ecological Report (Additional) Northamptonshire County Council

H:\New Structure Folders\MAJOR PROJECTS\MPT - PROJECTS\ISHM - A509 Isham Bypass\Planning App for extension of time\Appendix A - scope of permission\Doc

C1 - Pre-con report Dec 2008\A509 IB Pre-ConEcological Survey Report(Additional)Final.doc 3

Contents

Section Page

Executive Summary 3

1. Introduction 7

2. Methodology 9

3. Otters and Water Voles 12

4. Reptiles 15

5. Bats 17

6. Badgers 19

7. Other Notable Species 231

8. Summary 23

Appendices

Appendix 1 Figure 1- Reptile and Bat Potential Habitat 27

Appendix 2 Figures 2, 3 and 4- Otter Activity 29 Appendix 3 Table 1: Simplified Summary of Relevant Legislation 31 Appendix 4 Figure 5- Kingfisher Planting Screen 35 Information on badger sett locations and activity and mitigation is provided in a separate report (A509 Isham Bypass Badger Survey Report, Atkins, October 2008), which should be treated as confidential due to the risk of persecution of badgers.

A509 ISHAM BYPASS




Executive Summary Northamptonshire County Council is proposing to construct a bypass around the western fringe of the village of Isham. An Environmental Statement was produced by Atkins Limited (Atkins) in August 2005 which presented the baseline ecological information for the site and outlined what further ecological surveys were required. The project has since undergone examination at a Public Inquiry with a successful result for Northamptonshire County Council. The extent and location of the scheme is shown in Figure 7 Environmental Constraints Plan in Volume 2 of the Environmental Statement.

Pre-Construction Ecological Survey Report was produced by Atkins in March 2008 to summarise the ecological work undertaken up to that date following recommendations in the Environmental Statement. This report sought to give existing conditions on site which may have changed from those identified in the 2005 ES and outline further survey work required prior to construction.

After issuing the Pre-Construction Ecological Survey Report in March 2008, Atkins were commissioned to undertake the further ecological work that this report recommended: bat emergence /re-entry and activity surveys, reptile surveys, an extended badger survey and badger bait marking exercise, a re-survey for water vole activity, an updated otter survey and a white-clawed crayfish check of features within the watercourses immediately prior to construction. It was also recommended (by the Pre-Construction Ecological Survey Report March 2008) that a reptile method statement should be prepared and implemented on road verge habitats with a grass sward height of over 5cm in the areas that will be directly affected by linkage of the proposed bypass to the A509 and on bankside habitats along the side of the watercourses. These surveys undertaken for the Pre-Construction Ecological Survey Report in March 2008 identified the following:

An abundance of badger activity and setts identified within and in proximity to the proposed bypass route;

Evidence of otter activity on both Pytchley Brook and Hardwick Brook and a potential otter print on Watercourse 3;

A low potential for water vole offered by all three watercourses but some potential burrows are known to be present, suitable banks for burrow excavation and some foraging potential;

All three watercourses had little potential habitat for white clawed crayfish with only a few suitable features such as exposed underwater tree roots;

Habitat with low potential for reptiles along the existing verges of the A509 and along the watercourses. Areas of semi-improved grassland to the north and south of Pytchley Brook were identified as having good potential for reptiles;

A number of trees with potential bat roost features along and within the route, potential foraging corridors along the watercourses and potential flight paths along hedgerows severed by the route;

A509 ISHAM BYPASS




One pond with low great crested newt potential within 500m of the proposed bypass route but which is separated from the footprint of the works by the A509 which forms a barrier to newt dispersal to the footprint of the proposed bypass;

None of the hedgerows to be bisected by the proposed bypass could be classified as „Important Hedgerows‟ under ecological/landscaping criteria at the time of survey;

Evidence that kingfisher are foraging and potentially breeding on Pytchley Brook. Kingfisher receive special protection under Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act;

Further surveys and mitigation proposed by the Pre-Construction Ecological Survey Report in March 2008 are summarised below. A badger bait marking exercise and territory mapping along with ground measurements of distance of badger setts from works once the proposed route has been „pegged out‟ (to set up exclusion zones). Badger tunnels, fencing and strategic planting to be incorporated into design. Monitoring of badger activity needed continuously until the start of, and potentially during construction. Mammal ledges with complimentary planting will be included in the design of culverts on the watercourse crossing to minimise habitat fragmentation for mammals. Fencing should be erected at the edge of the working width to minimise the risk of impacts on areas used as resting sites by otters. Care should be taken to minimise the impact on the banks of all three watercourses during construction and the flow should be kept continuous throughout works. Resurvey for otters 3 months prior to the commencement of construction. Working at night on, or in proximity to, the watercourses should be avoided

Resurvey for water vole between mid-April and late August (in the year prior to construction). Flow of all three of the watercourses should be kept continuous throughout the works to minimise the impact on riparian species.

Hand search of features with white-clawed crayfish potential prior to removal by a suitably experienced ecologist. Machinery and personnel to be cleaned and disinfected prior to entering the water. Timing of works close to watercourses should be as such that they do not interfere with spawning fish. Reptile method statement to be produced and implemented on road verge habitats that will be directly affected by linkage of the proposed bypass to the A509 and backside vegetation. A reptile survey to be undertaken within the areas of semi-improved grassland to the north and south of Pytchley Brook. Further surveys required to determine bat activity (roosts and foraging routes). Clearance of breeding bird habitat should be undertaken outside of the bird nesting season (February to August inclusive, weather dependent) The most recent surveys identified the following: evidence of otter activity on both Pytchley Brook and Hardwick Brook; low potential for water vole offered by all three water courses but no evidence of current activity; no reptiles were identified during the presence/absence surveys for reptiles; bat activity along hedgerows and watercourses (foraging routes) but no

A509 ISHAM BYPASS




bat roosts identified; evidence that kingfisher are foraging and potentially breeding on Pytchley Brook and Hardwick Brook; Diverse invertebrate communities using semi-improved/rough grassland habitat either side of Pytchley Brook.

A509 ISHAM BYPASS




1. Introduction

Terms of Reference

1.1. Northamptonshire County Council is proposing to construct a bypass west of the village of Isham. The bypass would consist of a dual carriageway which would adjoin the south side of the A14 Pytchley roundabout, run to the west of Isham and rejoin the A509 Wellingborough Road midway between Hill Top and Great Harrowden. The route of the proposed road scheme is shown on Figure 7, Environment Statement Volume 2 Illustrations (Atkins, 2005) and will be 4.3 km in length.

1.1.1 Atkins Limited (Atkins) was commissioned to undertake the further surveys as recommended in the Atkins Pre-Construction Ecological Survey Report (March 2008).

Background

1.1.2 The existing A509 Wellingborough Road is a strategic route, running in a north south direction, between A14 Pytchley roundabout south of Kettering and the A509/A510 roundabout, located to the north of Wellingborough. The village of Isham is located on the A509 and suffers from the effects of through traffic. The observed current two-way traffic flows (base year 2002) through the village are approximately AADT 23,000 with 10% HGVs. The bypass aims to relieve Isham of this through traffic.

1.1.3 Atkins issued an Environmental Statement in August 2005 detailing the assessment of the environmental impacts likely to result from the construction and operation of the Isham Bypass. This Environmental Statement was prepared to accompany a planning application for the bypass.

1.1.4 Construction is now scheduled to commence in February 2009.

1.1.5 Atkins were commissioned at the start of 2008 to undertake further surveys as recommended in the Environmental Statement, to provide baseline ecological data for existing conditions on site. Results of these surveys were presented in the A509 Isham Bypass Pre-Construction Ecological Survey Report (Atkins, March 2008).

1.1.6 During the pre-construction surveys of the watercourses during February and early March 2008 evidence of otter activity was identified on both Pytchley Brook and Hardwick Brook and a potential otter print was identified on the small watercourse that lies on the southern extent of the scheme (referred to as Watercourse 3). Habitat with low potential for water voles was identified on sections of all three of the watercourses, as were potential burrow entrances that could have suggested the presence of water vole. A low suitability of habitat for white-clawed crayfish was identified in all of the three watercourses with some features which may have

A509 ISHAM BYPASS




potential to support this species. Relevant legislation for all of these species can be found in Appendix 3.

1.1.7 Trees and hedgerows with bat potential were identified, habitat with reptile potential and evidence of badger activity along with setts were also identified in the Pre-Construction Ecological Survey Report and further surveys for these species were recommended prior to construction.

1.1.8 The Pre-Construction Ecological Survey Report (March 2008) recommended species specific ecological surveys including;

Emergence and re-entry surveys on all trees identified as having potential as bat roosts along with activity surveys on hedgerows connecting to Ashpole Plantation and Cock-O-Roost Spinney which have potential as bat flight paths,

Reptile surveys to be undertaken within the areas of semi-improved grassland to the north and south of Pytchley Brook and in suitably open areas within the scrub mosaic to the north of the brook,

Extended badger survey, badger bait marking and territory mapping,

Resurvey for water vole activity,

Updated otter survey three months prior to construction,

White-clawed crayfish check of features within the watercourses immediately prior to construction.

1.1.4 Atkins where re-commissioned to undertake the species specific ecological surveys listed above. The following report provides the results of these surveys and any further recommendations.

1.1.5 Checks of features with white-clawed crayfish potential have not been undertaken as these were recommended immediately prior to construction, i.e. February 2009.

1.1.6 This report summarises the background of ecological works and details of methodologies employed during the further ecological surveys as recommended in the Pre-Construction Ecological Survey Report (March 2008). It presents the results of all of the surveys undertaken including likely impacts and constraints, proposed mitigation and retention or enhancement of biodiversity. The final section of this report summarises the findings, and mitigation recommended in addition to that specified in the Environmental Statement (2005) and Pre-Construction Ecological Survey Report (March 2008).

A509 ISHAM BYPASS




2. Methodology

2.1 FIELD SURVEY

2.1.1 This section describes the methodologies used for the field surveys (as recommended in the Pre-Construction Ecological Survey Report (March 2008) undertaken by Atkins ecologists between April to October 2008.

2.1.2 Full details of methodologies used for the further badger surveys undertaken between May-August, including the bait marking exercise, are outlined in A509 Badger Report (Atkins, October 2008).

2.2 OTTERS AND WATER VOLES

Otters

2.2.1 An updated survey for otter activity was undertaken on 22nd October 2008 and involved examining the banks of the three watercourses (Figures 2, 3 and 4 - Otter Activity, Appendix 2) traversed by the route corridor (where possible from within the water) approximately 250m up and downstream from proposed work and up to approximately 50m from the banks searching for evidence of otter activity including:

Holts;

Hovers and couches (above ground resting places);

Spraints (droppings);

Feeding remains;

Paths and slides; and,

Footprints.

Water Voles

2.2.2 An updated water vole activity survey was undertaken on 22nd October 2008 and followed guidance in the Water Vole Conservation Handbook (WildCru, 2006). The work involved examining the banks of the three watercourses in locations previously identified as having water vole potential (Pytchley Brook, Hardwick Brook and Water course 3 are shown on Figures 2, 3 and 4 - Otter Activity, Appendix 2). The survey was undertaken for approximately 250m up and downstream from proposed work and up to approximately 50m from the banks searching for evidence of water vole activity such as the presence of:

Burrows;

Latrines;

Feeding stations;

Lawns (area around burrow entrances where there is often an area of grazed vegetation, surrounded by taller vegetation);

Runways;

A509 ISHAM BYPASS




Nests;

Footprints;

Sightings; and

Sounds (characteristic „plop‟ sound when water voles enter the water that warns other water voles in the area of possible danger).

2.3 REPTILES

2.3.1 A reptile survey was undertaken within the areas of semi-improved grassland to the north and south of Pytchley Brook (Figure 1 Reptile and Bat Potential Habitat, Sheet 2, Appendix 1). The survey involved the provision of carpet/refuge tiles as artificial refuges within these areas.

2.3.2 For general survey purposes between five and ten refuges per hectare are recommended by Froglife Reptile Survey Advice Sheet 10 (1999). Fifteen 0.5m x 0.5m squares of roofing felt were laid around each section of grassland either side of the brook. All of the refuges were placed in locations most likely to find reptiles.

2.3.3 A programme of surveying the artificial refuges for reptiles was scheduled for a period of eight weeks between July and August 2008 with seven surveys in total. Site surveys were programmed to broadly follow optimum timing and weather conditions, as set out in the Froglife Reptile Survey Advice Sheet 10 (1999).

2.3.4 Surveys were typically undertaken between 9:00 am and 11:00 am or between 4 pm and 6 pm with a temperature ranging between 10 and 17 0

C and ideally during periods of intermittent sunshine.

2.3.5 During each survey, observations for reptiles between refuge locations was also undertaken to maximise the survey effort.

2.3.6 A reptile survey form was completed on each visit to record the location, species and life stage of each reptile captured. General site observations such as weather conditions and temperature were also recorded.

2.4 BATS

2.4.1 Emergence and re-entry surveys were undertaken during June-July 2008 on all trees identified as having potential as bat roosts (marked on Figure 1, Appendix 1. Target note details provided in Table 1: Bat trees, in Section 5), along with activity surveys on hedgerows connecting to Ashpole Plantation and Cock-O-Roost Spinney. Bat surveys were undertaken between May and September when bats are active in summer roosts. This is the ideal time of year to undertake bat activity surveys (can be brought forward to April depending on seasonal variation and weather conditions).

2.4.2 Frequency Division Duet detectors and a heterodyne Bat Box III were used. 2.4.3 Dusk surveys commenced 10-15 minutes before sunset and continued until 90

minutes after sunset. Dawn surveys commenced 90 minutes before sunrise and finished at sunrise.

2.4.4 All bats heard during the surveys were recorded, with the time, species and direction

of flight noted (if seen) and any other information about the bat such as feeding or social calls.

A509 ISHAM BYPASS




2.4.5 Surveys were conducted in suitable weather conditions; dry, still-light wind only, above 9°C.

2.5 BADGERS

2.5.1 Monitoring of previously identified badger activity and further badger surveys to update information gathered for the Pre-Construction Ecological Survey Report (March 2008) were undertaken between May and August 2008. The surveys involved searching for and recording any new evidence of badger activity including:

Setts;

Badger tracks;

Snuffle holes;

Latrines;

Scratch posts;

Day beds (bundles of grass or other vegetation);

Footprints (in mud along tracks or by watercourses); and

Guard hairs (in the entrances of holes or along badger tracks).

2.5.2 A bait marking exercise was undertaken in summer 2008 to determine sett usage and interactions between the setts identified. Bait marking techniques rely on the fact that badgers mark the boundaries of their territory and setts with dung pits (latrines). Bait marking involves feeding markers to the badgers and tracking them to latrines sites.

2.5.3 Full details of methodologies used and recommended mitigation and further surveys are provided in Atkins report A509 Isham Bypass Badger Survey Report October 2008.

A509 ISHAM BYPASS




3. Otters and Water Voles

3.1 RESULTS OF SURVEY

Otters

3.1.1 The location of any evidence of otter activity was noted on a map of the watercourses (Figures 2, 3 and 4 - Otter Activity, Appendix 2). All survey data from February – March 2008 surveys is indicated in red on these plans whilst subsequent evidence is marked in blue.

3.1.2 Pytchley Brook- The previously identified otter spraint site on Pytchley Brook, within the existing culvert under the A509, had no fresh spraint at the time of the survey. However, fresh spraint had been recorded at this spraint site on previous site visits for other protected species surveys (Figure 2 – Pytchley Brook Otter Activity, Appendix 2). Droppings potentially from an American mink were identified within this culvert on the most recent survey visit (October 2008).

3.1.3 Hardwick Brook- Fresh otter prints and spraint were found on an alluvial gravel bund within the channel in Hardwick Brook, approximately 120m downstream from the proposed crossing point. Potential resting sites were also identified within 250m either side of the proposed crossing point; one in the hollow of a crack willow within an area of scrub immediately adjacent to the brook, approximately 70 m upsteam of the proposed crossing point; another was identified approximately 115m downstream under a hollow crack willow tree. Faint „slides‟ were identified on the brook‟s vegetated banks next to these features a potential indicator that they are both used as resting sites for otter, although no further evidence, such as feeding remains or spraint, was found within there features (Figure 3 – Hardwick Brook Otter Activity, Appendix 2).

3.1.4 Crack willow trees and stumps with resting site potential exist along the brook, although none lie within the proposed crossing point of the road over the watercourse.

3.1.5 Water Course 3 - No evidence of otter activity was identified on this watercourse during this most recent survey (Figure 4 – Watercourse 3 Otter Activity, Appendix 2).

Water vole

3.1.6 Habitat with low potential, i.e. suitable sub-optimal habitat, for water voles was identified within the areas surveyed on each of the three watercourses. Conclusive identification of potential water vole burrows could not be made due to the lack of corroborative field signs however burrows were found along all watercourses during the February-March 2008 surveys that were considered likely to be used by water voles. A lack of corroborative evidence was thought to be due to reduced water vole activity during the winter months but the subsequent survey in October 2008 revealed no evidence of activity. However, no evidence of water vole activity was

A509 ISHAM BYPASS




identified on Pytchley Brook, Hardwick Brook or Watercourse 3 during the most recent survey.

3.2 POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND DEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINTS

3.2.1 The resting otter sites identified will not be lost. However, measures should be taken to minimise the risk of any disturbance to otters or negative impacts of the proposed work to habitats known to be utilised by this European protected species.

3.2.2 Works within the main channel of the watercourses could lead to water sedimentation. Suspended particulates can have a negative effect on aquatic organisms; smothering aquatic vegetation, clogging breathing apparatus of aquatic invertebrates and reducing the respiratory ability of aquatic vertebrates. This temporary reduction in water quality can have significant indirect effects on other members of the riparian food chain, such as otter, by reducing prey numbers.

3.3 PROPOSED MITIGATION

3.3.1 This section contains updated mitigation from otters and is consistent with the mitigation proposed in the Pre-Construction Survey Report (March 2008). Any additional mitigation is recommended on the basis of the most recent surveys and current indications about watercourse crossing design.

Otter

3.3.2 Fencing should be erected at the edge of the working corridor for the bypass close to watercourses to ensure no works vehicles stray into areas used as resting sites by otters. Care should be taken to minimise the impact on the banks of all three watercourses during construction and a precautionary method of works should be produced by a suitably qualified ecologist and implemented on site.

3.3.3 Otters are largely nocturnal, with foraging activity commencing at dusk. Working at night on, or in proximity to, the watercourses should therefore be avoided to minimise any negative impact on natural otter foraging behaviour.

3.3.4 If possible the flow of all three of the watercourses should be kept continuous throughout the works. Where there is interruption to flow care should be taken to reduce the duration of the interruption with appropriate Environment Agency „Pollution Prevention Guideline 5: Works and maintenance in or near water‟ being followed (all Environment Agency Pollution Prevention Guidelines can be found at http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/444251/444731/ppg/?version=1& lang=_e). In channel work should be avoided as far as possible. If work to modify the channel shape, width or depth is required consultation with Natural England is recommended and Environment Agency (EA) Consent will be required. Works in proximity to the watercourse channels will also require EA consent.

3.3.5 Due to the presence of features which may provide suitable refuge locations for otters on Hardwick Brook, the proposed crossing point and 250m up and downstream should be monitored throughout construction, ensure that otters are

http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/444251/444731/ppg/?version=1&%20lang=_e

http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/444251/444731/ppg/?version=1&%20lang=_e

A509 ISHAM BYPASS




continuing to use the water channel and to monitor the effects of construction upon otters.

3.3.6 Designs for crossings on all three watercourses should seek to preserve the current topography, with over bridges being the preferred structure. Over bridges with bench seats set back from the existing banks would allow mammals (such as otter, badger, deer and foxes) to continue the using banks as foraging/commuting routes. If sensitively installed, over bridges would also mitigate against potential negative impacts on water quality and aquatic communities through avoidance of disturbance to current back side/in channel habitats.

3.3.7 If another form of crossing is to be used over the three watercourses mammal ledges should be incorporated into the design of the new bridges/culverts to reduce the effects of habitat fragmentation as a result of the new bypass for otters and badger in particular. Specifications for design of these ledges should follow guidance set out in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (The Highways Agency (1999). Design Manual for Roads and Bridges. Volume 10, Section 1, Part 9: The Good Roads Guide New Roads, Nature Conservation Advice in Relation to Otters).

Water voles

3.3.8 The banks of all watercourses at proposed crossing point locations should be strimmed (as required by implementation of the reptile method statement) in advance of mobilisation and hand searched to ensure no potential water vole burrows exist in these locations.

3.3.9 This hand search is recommended as, due to a suitability of watercourse habitats, there is a low potential for water voles to colonise the crossing sites prior to construction. Water voles are now fully protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended in April 08), this legislation makes it an offence to intentionally kill, injure or capture a water vole or damage, destroy or obstruct access to a breeding site or resting place used by a water vole. If burrows are identified a license application and further ecological mitigation will need to be undertaken.

General

3.3.10 All machinery and personnel should be cleaned and disinfected prior to entering the water. Pollution control measures detailed in Environment Agency Pollution Prevention Guidelines: Works and maintenance in or near water PPG5 should be implemented.

3.4 ENHANCEMENT OF BIODIVERSITY

3.4.1 Installation of mammal ledges in the existing culverts under the A509 would allow otters (and potentially badgers) to move more freely between habitats either side of the existing A509, further reducing the effects of habitat fragmentation caused by the construction of the bypass. A specification and methodology for retrofitting mammal ledges should be written by a suitably qualified ecologist with input from engineers at detailed design phase.

A509 ISHAM BYPASS




4. Reptiles

4.1 RESULTS OF PRESENCE/ABSENCE SURVEY

4.1.1 During the presence/absence surveys undertaken in the summer of 2008 on the two areas of semi-improved grassland by Pytchley Brook (Figure 1.2, Appendix 1) no reptiles were identified.


4.2.1 Although no reptiles were identified by the presence/absence survey, the semi-improved grassland either side of Pytchley Brook still represents good potential reptile habitat for common reptiles species (common lizards, slow worms and grass snakes). The following reptile habitats are to be lost as a result of the proposed bypass: sections of mosaic habitats along the watercourses; areas of existing roadside verge on the A509; an area of semi-improved grassland and scrub mosaic area to the north of Pytchley Brook; and a section of the semi-improved grassland to the south of Pytchley Brook (Figure 1, Appendix 1).

4.2.2 Destruction of hedgerow habitat is not anticipated to have any direct impact on reptile species, with a lack of features commonly associated with hibernating potential. Severance of these potential corridors may indirectly affect reptiles by breaking links between habitats, fragmenting populations.


4.3.1. Although no reptiles were identified by the presence/absence survey, it is recommended that a reptile method statement should be implemented on the sections of land either side of Pytchley Brook which have been identified as having reptile potential. A specific reptile method statement is required to clear vegetation in areas where reptiles are likely to be present and are implemented to avoid killing or injuring reptiles, in order to comply with the legal protection afforded to common reptile species (see Table 1: Simplified Table of Relevant Legislation, Appendix 3).

4.3.2. Bankside habitats along the side of the watercourses should also be cleared under a reptile method statement. This method statement would seek to safely disperse any reptiles present in the area and to reduce suitability of the habitat for reptiles. Implementation of the method statement would be supervised by a suitably qualified ecologist.

4.3.3. A reptile method statement should be produced and should also be implemented on road verge habitats with a grass sward height of over 5cm in the areas that will be directly affected by linkage of the proposed bypass to the A509. The reptile method statement will include a plan with details these areas.


4.4.1 The creation of balancing ponds and the associated soft landscaping around them could benefit reptiles. Suitable enhancement for reptiles would include creation of

A509 ISHAM BYPASS




shallow pond margins and rough grassland/meadow around the balancing ponds to reflect current grassland habitat either side Pytchley Brook.

4.4.2 Top soil from the areas of existing semi-improved grassland either side of Pytchley Brook should be retained separately from the surrounding soils and reinstated around the proposed balancing pond to the north of the brook and along the new highway margins at this location if surplus soil remains.

4.4.3 These areas would further benefit biodiversity through sowing of a suitable indigenous species rich meadow mix and implementation of an annual mowing regime.

A509 ISHAM BYPASS




5. Bats 5.1 RESULTS OF SURVEY

5.1.1 Trees identified as having bat potential that were surveyed for activity are shown as target notes on Figure 1 (Appendix 1). A list of target notes can be found in Table 1 below:

Table 1: Bat trees

Target note number

Target note

1 Line of four mature oak trees with potential bat roost features.

2 Mature ash tree with dense, thick stemmed ivy growth, bat roost potential.

3 Mature ash with crevices, bat roost potential.

4 Mature ash tree with dense, thick stemmed ivy growth, bat roost potential.

5 Mature ash tree with thick stemmed but sparse ivy growth, bat roost potential.

6 Scattered mature trees (ash and willow) with bat potential.

7 Mature ash tree with cracks and fissures, bat roost potential.

8 Mature oak and ash trees with bat potential.

5.1.2 No bats were observed emerging or re-entering any of the trees surveyed. Foraging

and commuting bats were observed using the hedgerows to which these trees are associated.

5.1.3 Low numbers (approx. 2-7) common pipestrelles were recorded foraging during the

dusk surveys along all of the hedgerows and along Pytchley and Hardwick Brook (marked in pink on Figure 1.2 & 1.3, Appendix 1).

5.1.4 A noctule was heard commuting towards Cock-O-Roost Spinney, along with low levels of pipestrelle activity recorded along the hedgerows which connect to Ashpole Plantation and Cock-O-Roost Spinney (marked in purple on Figure 1.4, Appendix 1).

5.1.5 Higher levels of activity were recorded along Watercourse 3 and along the existing roadside hedgerow by Watercourse 3. Low numbers of common pipestrelles, soprano pipestrelles and a few Daubenton‟s bats were recorded commuting and foraging along these linear features (marked in red on Figure 1.5, Appendix 1).


5.2.1 Although no roosts were identified, all of the hedgerows and watercourses surveyed act as linear features for bats to commute between roosts and foraging habitats. All of the hedgerows surveyed are to be severed by the proposed bypass route.

A509 ISHAM BYPASS




5.2.2 As emergence and re-entry surveys were undertaken in summer the months, the potential for trees surveyed to act as hibernation sites cannot be ruled out.

5.3 FURTHER SURVEY & PROPOSED MITIGATION

5.3.1 With construction due to commence in February 2009 tree felling is likely to be required prior to the end of March 2009. It is strongly recommended that trees identified as having bat potential are felled prior to the end of March 2009 to avoid the requirement for further surveys (as detailed below). These trees must be felled sensitively using one of the following methods:

A. Visual inspection by bat worker of features with bat roost potential using

endoscope, access to features likely to be used by bats using a cherry picker and/or ladders;

Or B. Soft felling technique employed, which involves roping off limbs and lowering

sections of the tree to the ground gently under ecological supervision. 5.3.2 If felling work on the trees identified as having bat potential is delayed until after the

end of March there is some potential for bats to colonise these trees. As such a dawn re-entry survey is recommended the morning prior to felling to ensure no bats have taken to using the trees. If bats are identified by these surveys a Natural England licence application will be necessary prior to any works which have the potential to disturb a roost. Licence applications can take up to five weeks to be processed by Natural England and mitigation with regards to bats will need to be detailed within the application and agreed by Natural England.

5.3.3 Landscaping around the scheme will include the provision of hedgerows along both sides of the new bypass boundary. With the length of the bypass route being approximately 4.3 km, a considerable amount of new hedgerow is to be created although it will take time for this hedgerow to mature, it may be used by bats to navigate from initially and is likely to eventually provide foraging opportunities and even roost potential once standard trees have matured.


5.4.1 The creation of balancing ponds as part of the design of the proposed bypass will be of benefit to local bats as new feeding sites. Standing water supports increased invertebrate numbers providing potential prey species for bats. These ponds are likely to benefit different species of bats in this way including pipestrelle and noctule, and particularly Daubenton‟s bats that are known to glean insects from the water surface.

A509 ISHAM BYPASS




6. Badgers 6.1 RESULTS OF SURVEY AND INTERPRETATION SUMMARY

6.1.1 Results are presented in full in the Atkins A509 Badger Survey Report (October 2008).

6.1.2 A synopsis of badger results from the February-March 2008 surveys and from the summer 2008 surveys is presented in Table 1 below:

Table 1: Sett activity

Sett Distance from scheme

February- March 2008 Surveys

Summer 2008 Surveys

Sett 1 80m Six hole disused sett Disused by badgers

Sett 2 80m 5 hole active sett Disused by badgers

Sett 3 40m 4 hole active sett Disused by badgers

Sett 4 180m 3 hole disused sett Disused by badgers

Sett 5 40m Active single hole sett Disused by badger; evidence of fox

Sett 6 40m Disused/collapsed single hole sett

Still disused

Sett 7 369m 45 holes active sett (18 well used, 10 well/partially used, 12 partially used and 5 disused holes)

Main sett showing high level of activity. Hole usage same as Feb‟-March surveys

Sett 8 221 m 3 hole active sett (mis-recorded)

2 hole annex sett

Sett 9 Within width of proposed bypass

27 hole active sett (11 well used, 12 partially used and 4 disused holes)

Reduced activity, only 14 holes still showing signs of use

Sett 10 640m - 37 hole active annex sett (10 well used, 23 partially used and 4 disused)

Sett 11 700m - 7 hole partially used subsidiary sett

A509 ISHAM BYPASS




6.1.3 Bait was laid at setts 7, 8, 9 and 10. Bait uptake was good from all selected locations around these setts but generally could only be traced to latrines closely associated to the setts where it had been laid (Figure 3, Appendix 3 of the Atkins report A509 Badger Survey Results (October 2008) shows the locations of baited setts and their associated bait colours, along with latrines where coloured pellets were identified).

6.1.4 Purple pellets were the only pellets which were found a substantial distance (approx.

468 m) from where they were laid. Faeces containing purple pellets from Sett 10 were identified in a dung pit within approx. 50m the nearest hole of Sett 7.

6.1.5 Results of bait marking gathered from summer surveys cannot be used to accurately

plot clan territories. Results can still, however, provide information about sett usage and interactions between setts, which assists in designing mitigation.

6.1.6 As results of the badger bait marking exercise were not conclusive there and are two

different interpretations for the results provided in the A509 Isham Bypass Badger Survey Report (October 2008);

A. Setts 7, 8, 9 and 10 and 11 are occupied by the same family group or B. Setts 7, 8, 10 and 11 are occupied by one family group with a territory mostly to the north and west of the scheme and that Sett 9 is occupied by a second family group with a territory largely south and east of the proposed scheme.

6.1.7 For details of mitigation and further surveys recommended for badgers please refer

to A509 Isham Bypass Badger Survey Report (October 2008).

A509 ISHAM BYPASS




7. Other Notable Species

7.1 RESULTS OF SURVEY

7.1.1. During the course of the 2008 surveys note was made of evidence of the presence of any other protected or notable species within or in proximity to the proposed bypass route other than those noted in the original A509 Isham Bypass Environmental Statement (August 2005).

7.1.2. Kingfisher

7.1.3. Two pairs of kingfisher (Schedule 1 Wildlife and Countryside Act species, for summary of relevant legislation please refer to Table 1: Summary of relevant legislation, Appendix 3), were noted foraging on Pytchley Brook during the February-March surveys. A lone kingfisher was also noted on Hardwick Brook during the most recent watercourse survey. Both brooks have an abundance of fish and sections of vertical bank clear of vegetation which are suitable for kingfisher nest construction.

7.1.4. White-clawed crayfish- Features which have the potential to support white clawed crayfish (such as exposed underwater tree roots and overhanging ledges) that are to be removed or directly affected by clearance/construction works should be searched immediately prior to removal as recommended in the Pre-Construction Ecological Report (March 2008). This search must be undertaken by a suitably experienced ecologist who possesses the relevant survey licences.

7.1.5. Invertebrates- Numerous common butterfly and moth species were seen along with grasshoppers, a variety of bumblebees and an abundance of ant hills on the rough semi-improved grassland either side Pytchley.

7.2. DEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINTS

7.2.1. Potential loss of kingfisher nesting habitat i.e. stream banks.

7.2.2. Fragmentation of riparian habitat used by kingfisher.

7.2.3. Loss of habitat associated with invertebrate communities either side of Pytchley Brook.


7.3.1 Clearance of breeding bird habitat, including habitats along watercourses, agricultural fields, hedgerows, scrub or trees should be undertaken outside of the bird nesting season (February to August inclusive, weather dependent). Any clearance works to be undertaken during the nesting bird season must be checked prior to removal by a suitably qualified ecologist. If breeding birds are identified on site an exclusion zone would then be erected to ensure no nests are disturbed whilst they are active.

A509 ISHAM BYPASS




7.3.2 It is recommended that over bridges should be used for watercourse crossings, they would benefit kingfisher by allowing continued thru fare along their known ranges. If culverts are to be used as part of watercourse crossing structures, vegetation screens should be planted inline with end of the culverts on both sides of the carriageway to force commuting kingfisher up and over the road, with a view to reducing vehicle/bird collisions (Figure 5 Kingfisher screen, Appendix 4. Perching posts should be provided on either side of the crossing structure within clear view of each other. This will allow kingfishers to rest on either side of the structure and will encourage them to fly through/under the structure.

7.3.3 All machinery and personnel should be cleaned and disinfected prior to entering the water. Pollution control measures detailed in Environment Agency Pollution Prevention Guidelines: Works or maintenance in or near water (PPG5) should be implemented.

7.3.4 Timings of works on/close to watercourses should be as such to minimise the impact on spawning fish populations. Advice should be sought from a suitably qualified ecologist and from the Environment Agency on how to best mitigate impacts on these aquatic communities.

7.4. RETENTION OR ENHANCEMENT OF BIODIVERSITY

7.4.1. In the long term landscaping features associated with the proposed bypass such as the creation of hedgerows and balancing ponds will be of benefit to breeding birds.

7.4.2. The creation of meadow/rough grassland habitat around proposed balancing ponds and along side the proposed bypass near to Pytchley Brook will benefit local invertebrate communities by providing compensatory habitat for the loss of existing grassland habitat in this location.

7.4.3. An attempt should be made to mark up and translocate anthills identified within the footprint of the proposed bypass prior to the start of construction within the rough semi-improved grassland areas either side of Pytchley Brook. Anthills will need to be translocated outside of the land take of the proposed bypass route to allow recovery and re-establishment of the colonies (an appropriate methodology for the relocation of anthills can be found in Box, J.D. (1987). A simple technique for translocation of anthills. Field Studies, 6, 617-618).

A509 ISHAM BYPASS




8. Summary

8.1. The surveys undertaken since April 2008 along the route of the proposed Isham bypass have found:

Fresh evidence of otter activity on both Pytchley Brook and Hardwick Brook and no further evidence on Watercourse 3;

A low potential for water vole offered by all three water courses but no evidence of current activity;

No reptiles were identified during the presence/absence surveys for reptiles.

There was bat activity along the surveyed foraging route but no bat emergence from the individual trees surveyed.

Evidence that kingfisher are foraging and potentially breeding on Pytchley Brook and Hardwick Brook;

Diverse invertebrate communities using semi-improved/rough grassland habitat either side of Pytchley Brook.

The table overleaf summarises mitigation required prior to and during construction.

A509 ISHAM BYPASS




Table 2: Summary of ecological mitigation Timing Habitat Actions

Design recommendation

Watercourses Over bridges at crossing points to allow thru fare of mammals and riparian birds and to preserve the current stream bank topography.

Where over bridges are not feasible mammal ledges should be included in the design of culverts to minimise habitat fragmentation for mammals.

Design recommendation

Planting If culverts are to be used vegetation screens should be planted to reduce the risk of vehicle/bird collisions for kingfishers. Perches to be provided both sides of each crossing structure to encourage thru fare. Creation of meadow/rough grassland habitat around proposed balancing ponds and along side the proposed bypass near to Pytchley Brook to benefit local invertebrate communities and biodiversity on a whole.

Pre-construction Watercourses Strimming of crossing point locations and hand searched up to 3 months prior to mobilisation to ensure no potential water vole burrows exist in these locations.

Pre-construction Bankside habitat, rough semi-improved grassland either side of Pytchley Brook and existing road verge habitats directly affected by linkage of the proposed bypass to the A509

Implement reptile method statement.

Pre-construction Nesting bird habitats (trees, hedgerows, agricultural fields, scrub and watercourse banks)

Clearance undertaken outside of the bird nesting season (February to August inclusive, weather dependent).

Immediately prior to the start of works

Watercourses Any features which have the potential to support white clawed crayfish searched prior to removal by a suitably experienced ecologist (with relevant survey licences).


Bankside habitat, rough semi-improved grassland either side of Pytchley Brook and existing road verge habitats directly affected by linkage of the proposed bypass to the A509

Anthills to be translocated outside of the land take of the proposed bypass route prior to implementation of reptile method statement

Implement reptile method statement


Trees with bat potential

To be felled prior to the end of March 2009 using one of two proposed methods (specified in Section 5.3).

A509 ISHAM BYPASS




Timing Habitat Actions


Nesting bird habitats (trees, hedgerows, agricultural fields, scrub and watercourse banks)

Clearance undertaken outside of the bird nesting season (February to August inclusive, weather dependent).

During construction

Watercourses Fencing should be erected along side works close to the watercourses during construction at the edge of the working width to minimise the risk of impacts on areas used as resting sites by otters. Monitoring of crossing point on Hardwick Brook during construction to gauge the impacts of construction on otter activity. Working at night on, or in proximity to, the watercourses should be avoided to minimise any negative impact on natural otter foraging behaviour. The flow of all three of the watercourses should be kept continuous throughout the works to minimise the impact on riparian species. If flow is interrupted care to be taken to reduce the duration of the interruption and consultation with Natural England and Environment Agency consent will be required. All machinery and personnel should be cleaned and disinfected prior to entering the water. Pollution control measures detailed in Environment Agency Pollution Prevention Guidelines: Works or maintenance in or near water (PPG5) should be implemented. Timings of works on/close to watercourses to minimise the impact on spawning fish populations. Advice sought from a suitably qualified ecologist and from the Environment Agency on how to best mitigate impacts on these aquatic communities.

During construction

Bankside habitat, rough semi-improved grassland either side of Pytchley Brook and existing road verge habitats directly affected by linkage of the proposed bypass to the A509

Implement reptile method statement

During construction

Trees with bat potential

Dawn re-entry surveys will be required on any trees identified as having bat roost potential which are to be felled after the end of March.

During construction

Nesting bird habitats (trees, hedgerows, agricultural fields, scrub and watercourse banks)

Any clearance works to be undertaken during the nesting bird season must be checked 24-48 hours prior to removal by an ecologist.

A509 ISHAM BYPASS




A509 ISHAM BYPASS




APPENDIX 1

Figure 1- Reptile and Bat Potential Habitat Plan

A509 ISHAM BYPASS




A509 ISHAM BYPASS




APPENDIX 2 Figures 2, 3 and 4 – Otter Activity

A509 ISHAM BYPASS




A509 ISHAM BYPASS




Appendix 3

Table 1: Simplified Summary of Relevant Legislation

A509 ISHAM BYPASS




A509 ISHAM BYPASS

Ecological Pre-Construction Survey Report Northamptonshire County Council

H:\New Structure Folders\MAJOR PROJECTS\MPT - PROJECTS\ISHM - A509 Isham Bypass\Planning App for extension of time\Appendix A - scope of permission\Doc C1 - Pre-con report Dec 2008\A509 IB Pre-ConEcological Survey

Report(Additional)Final.doc 33

Table 1: Simplified Summary of Relevant Legislation

This report has been prepared by an environmental specialist and does not purport to provide legal advice. You may wish to take separate legal advice'

Species Legislation

(England & Wales) Offences

Licensing procedures (England & Wales)

Bats European protected species

Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations 1994 (as amended) Reg.39

Deliberately1 capture, injure or kill a bat; deliberately

disturb2 a bat; or damage, destroy or obstruct access

to a breeding site or resting place used by a bat. The protection of bat roosts is considered to apply regardless of whether bats are present, and there is no guidance on when a roost ceases to be protected if it is not used by bats.

A licence in respect of development is required from Defra (through Natural England) in England or from Welsh Assembly Government.

European Protected Species Guidance Note (Natural England 2007)

Bat Mitigation Guidelines (English Nature 2004)

Bat Workers Manual (JNCC 2004)

Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) S.9

Intentionally kill, injure or take a bat; intentionally or recklessly obstruct access to any structure or place used for shelter or protection or disturb

3 a bat in such

a place.

Licence from Natural England or Countryside Council for Wales is required for surveys (scientific purposes) that would involve disturbance of bats or entering a known or suspected roost site.

Breeding birds Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) S.1

Intentionally kill, injure or take any wild bird; take, damage or destroy the nest of any wild bird while that nest is in use or being built; intentionally take or destroy the eggs of any wild bird. Special penalties are liable for these offences involving birds on Schedule 1 (e.g. most birds of

prey, kingfisher, barn owl, black redstart, little ringed plover). Intentionally or recklessly disturb a Schedule 1 species while it is building a nest or is in, on or near a nest containing eggs or young; intentionally or recklessly disturb dependent young of such a species.

No licences are available to disturb any breeding birds in regard to development. Licences are available in certain circumstances to damage or destroy nests, but these only apply to the list of licensable activities in the Act and do not cover development. General licences are available in respect of „pest species‟ but only for certain very specific purposes e.g. public health, public safety, air safety.

A509 ISHAM BYPASS


H:\New Structure Folders\MAJOR PROJECTS\MPT - PROJECTS\ISHM - A509 Isham Bypass\Planning App for extension of time\Appendix A - scope of permission\Doc C1 - Pre-con report Dec 2008\A509 IB Pre-ConEcological Survey

Report(Additional)Final.doc 34

Otter

European protected species

Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations 1994 (as amended) Reg.39

Deliberately1 capture, injure or kill an otter;

deliberately disturb2 an otter; or damage, destroy or

obstruct access to a breeding site or resting place used by an otter.

Licence issued for development by Defra (through Natural England) or from Welsh Assembly Government.

European Protected Species Guidance Note (Natural England 2007)

Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) S.9

Intentionally kill, injure or take an otter; intentionally or recklessly obstruct access to any structure or place used for shelter or protection or disturb

3 an otter in

such a place.

No licence is required for survey in England. However, a licence would be required if the survey methodology involved disturbance. Licences issued for survey by Countryside Council for Wales

Adder Common lizard Grass snake Slow worm

Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 S.9(1) (part) only

Intentionally kill or injure any common reptile species.

No licence is required for surveying in England. It is good practice to undertake an assessment of any likely populations on a site prior to any development works which have potential to affect these animals.

Water vole

Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) S.9(4) only

Killing, injuring or taking (section 9(1)); possession or control (section 9(2)); damage or destruction of its places of shelter, or disturbance while such animals are occupying places of shelter (section 9(4)), and sale, possession or transport for the purpose of sale, and advertising the buying or selling of such animals (section 9(5));

No licence is required for survey in England. Licences issued for survey by Countryside Council for Wales. There is no provision for licensing the intentional destruction of water vole burrows for development or maintenance operations. The Water Vole Conservation Handbook (R. Strachan & T. Moorhouse, Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, 2

nd Edition

2006)

White-clawed crayfish

Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 S.9(1) (part) only

Intentionally take from the wild.

Licences issued for survey by Natural England and by Countryside Council for Wales. No licences in respect of development are available. Trapping and removal of crayfish for maintenance or development activities in a watercourse requires a conservation licence from Natural England or Countryside Council for Wales and a permit from the Environment Agency.

1Deliberate capture or killing is taken to include “accepting the possibility” of such capture or killing

2Deliberate disturbance of animals of a European Protected Species (EPS) will constitute an offence under the Conservation Regulations if it is likely to significantly affect the ability of

any significant group of animals of that species to survive, breed or rear or nurture their young, or affect the local distribution or abundance of the species.

3Lower levels of disturbance, not covered by the Conservation Regulations, remain an offence under the Wildlife and Countryside Act, however a defence is available where such actions

are the incidental result of a lawful activity.

A509 ISHAM BYPASS




Appendix 4

Figure 5- Kingfisher screen

A509 ISHAM BYPASS




A509 ISHAM BYPASS




Atkins Limited The Axis 10 Holliday Street Birmingham B1 1TF

Telephone number: +44 (0) 121 483 5000

Fax number: +44 (0) 121 483 5858

Email: [email protected]

Web address: www.atkinsglobal.com

pre-construction ecological survey report (additional) · pre-construction ecological report...

Documents