Reptile Method Statement

Transcription

1 , Northamptonshire A Report on behalf of March 2013

2 M1 CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Purpose of this Method Statement 1.2 Site Background 1.3 Reptile Ecology & Legal Protection 2.0 Methodology 2.1 Tool Box Talk 2.2 Destructive Search 3.0 Conclusions REFERENCES

3 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Purpose of this Method Statement The purpose of this Method Statement is to ensure that the measures set out within the Ecology Chapter of the Environmental Statement (see Sections & 8.6.8) are met and that there will not be a contravention of legislation. Results of ecology surveys on site were discussed with Caroline Harrison, of Natural England, on 10 January It was agreed in principle that a reptile presence / absence survey was not required. As a precautionary approach, to avoid inadvertently killing or harming reptiles, agreement was met for a destructive search of key habitat (restricted to habitat bordering the proposed access track adjacent to the M1 underpass) to be undertaken prior to construction. As set out within Table 8.12 of the Ecology Chapter, to avoid a contravention of legislation a Reptile Method Statement would be produced. This Method Statement has been written by Dr John Knight CEnv MIEEM and Dr Tessa Knight MIEEM. Both Dr.s J and T Knight are experienced herpetologists, having written and carried out the terms of numerous method statements with regards the destructive search for reptiles, and both have handled all six native British reptile species. 1.2 Site Background A desk study was carried out as part of an Extended Phase 1 Habitat survey of the site. No reptile records were present for the site itself. The desk study included four records of Slowworm Anguis fragilis, one of Common Lizard Zootoca vivipara and seven of Grass Snake Natrix natrix, all at least 1.1km east of the site. The majority were historic four-figure grid reference records with none post Habitat on site was considered to have limited suitability to support reptile species. The two areas to be included within the destructive search are immediately adjacent to either side of the M1 underpass. The small area to the west comprised tall grass and Common Nettle Urtica dioica bordering an arable field (see Photo 1 below), whilst that to the east comprised isolated dumped material and a small area of spoil with associated Elder Sambucus nigra, with an improved pasture field further to the east (see Photo 2 below). The working footprint to the west covers an area measuring approximately 25m x 25m, whilst that to the east is marked by isolated features. This habitat itself was not considered

4 particularly notable for its potential to support reptile species. However the embankments of the adjacent M1 contain a mixture of dense and scattered scrub and trees, considered suitable to support reptiles, and a destructive search is to be carried out on the precautionary approach that reptiles may be present on site (though sub-optimal) habitat adjacent to the underpass. Photo 1: Habitat west of the M1 underpass to be included within a destructive search. Photo 2: Habitat east of the M1 underpass to be included within a destructive search (circled in red).

5 1.3 Reptile Ecology & Legal Protection Of the six native British reptiles, Common Lizard and Slow-worm are both widespread throughout mainland Britain, with Grass Snake being common throughout much of Southern England but much rarer further north (Arnold 1995). Of the other common species, Adder Vipera berus has a widespread although patchy distribution in England (Beebee and Griffiths 2000). Adders are more abundant in the south (particularly the coastal south west) and are infrequently recorded in central England (Arnold 1995). It is considered extremely unlikely that Grass Snake or Adder would be present within the habitat to be included within the destructive search. These four species are often grouped together under the term common reptiles to distinguish them from the two rarer species, Sand Lizard Lacerta fragilis and Smooth Snake Coronella austriaca which are limited in distribution to sandy heaths in Hampshire, Dorset and Surrey, with Sand Lizard also being present at isolated sand dune sites in Lancashire (Arnold 1995) and have a higher level of legal protection. As these two rarer species do not occur within the area of the M1 site they (including their legal protection) are not discussed further here. All British reptiles are afforded legal protection under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) largely as a consequence of a national decline in numbers associated with persecution and habitat loss. Under the terms of the Act, it is illegal to intentionally kill or injure a reptile. 2.0 Methodology 2.1 Tool Box Talk Immediately prior to the destructive search commencing, the operator of the digger (see below), will be given a tool box talk on the reasoning behind the works, basic reptile ecology (including photographic evidence of each of the four common species), and what actions should be taken in the event of reptiles being found within the work area.

6 Whilst the probability of recording reptiles elsewhere on site during construction works is considered unlikely, as a precautionary approach, immediately prior to works commencing, on site operatives will be given a tool box talk by Dr J or T Knight setting out basic reptile ecology, the legal protection of reptiles within the UK, and what actions should be taken in the unlikely event of reptiles being found within the work area, these being namely: 1) Identify where possible the species recorded: A copy of the Field Studies Council fold out colour chart Guide to the reptiles and amphibians of Britain and Ireland, will be provided to the Site Manager together with the ecologist s contact details, which are both to be set on the wall within the Site Manager's office for reference. 2) Should Common Lizard be recorded then it is to be removed from the working footprint by hand and placed at the base of the nearest hedgerow and covered with a light scattering of leaves. 3) Whilst Slow-worms are relatively easy to identify by a non-specialist, should a probable Slow-worm be recorded then the site ecologist is to be contacted for advice regarding identification, for though it is extremely unlikely that Adder will be recorded during works, given its poisonous nature, a precautionary approach is recommended. In the event that the species is clearly identified as a Slow-worm then it is to be removed by hand and translocated to the nearest hedgerow and covered with a light scattering of leaves. If it is unclear whether the species recorded is Adder then works are to cease in that area until it has left the working footprint (unless recorded in the early morning, cold or wet conditions, it is likely that the reptile recorded will immediately move upon being found). A copy of this document is to be kept within the Site Manager's office as a reference copy and referred to in the unlikely event that reptiles are recorded during any unsupervised works on site. 2.2 Destructive Search In order to comply with current guidelines and best practice and prevent a contravention of law, a destructive search will be undertaken on site. A destructive search refers to the process by which all suitable habitat for reptiles adjacent to the M1 underpass is removed

7 ('destroyed') and reptiles recorded are translocated to adjacent suitable habitat. It is an extended, careful, site clearance under ecological supervision using a trained ecologist (Dr John Knight or Dr Tessa Knight) to check for and collect any wildlife uncovered. The reptile translocation protocol below will also be suitable to allow translocation of any amphibians recorded (in the unlikely event of their occurring in this area). Works are scheduled to commence on site during autumn 2013, this being an optimum time of year to undertake such works. At each stage a suitably experienced ecologist (Dr J or T Knight) will be present to check for, collect and deal appropriately with any wildlife uncovered. Two phases of a destructive search will be undertaken and are as follows: Phase 1 - Hand Clearance Phase 1 is the initial part of the destructive search which will commence on the same day as and immediately prior to Phase 2 (described below). Any debris / features (e.g. large stones, rubbish, dead branches) will be carefully lifted / dismantled by hand by Dr J or T Knight and removed from the site. Any reptiles recorded would then be moved to the on-site edge of the adjacent motorway embankment which contains a mixture of scrub and trees, considered suitable to support reptiles. Phase 2 - Machine Clearance Immediately following Phase 1 works, Phase 2 will involve a skilled operator using a longarmed digger/360 machine with a toothed bucket under the guidance of the on-site herpetologist. The bigger the toothed bucket the more effectively it can clear larger areas and the less risk there is of damaging reptiles. Smaller buckets need to make more scrapes which increases the chance of injuring any reptiles that may be present. The destructive search will comprise a turf strip and soil rake / strip, the details of which are included below: Turf strip = The toothed bucket is used like a giant rake to carefully 'peel' back grass turfs to a depth, on well turfed ground, of approximately 15 cm though will depend on conditions noted during the works, uncovering any animals which may be present below the root line. The herpetologist will collect and translocate any reptiles recorded.

8 Soil rake / strip = The toothed bucket will also be used to 'rake' through the top layer of any loose soils (typically to a depth of 10 cm); any reptiles present are usually exposed unharmed as they can pass between the teeth of the bucket. The herpetologist will collect and translocate any reptiles recorded. The exact detail of Phase 2 is variable and will be prescribed by the specialist herpetologist on site who may vary instructions according to the variation in conditions recorded during the works or catch results for particular sections. On completion of the works the area will be tracked over by the digger to compact the soil, thus further reducing its suitability to support reptiles. 3.0 Conclusions It is considered that a tool box talk and phased destructive search will allow for the safe translocation of reptiles (if present) within the small area of habitat adjacent to the M1 underpass. In addition, management and planting regimes to be undertaken elsewhere on site and detailed within the Environmental Management Plan, will compensate for the loss of the small area of habitat adjacent to the M1 underpass, providing net enhancement to support a range of reptile species.

9 REFERENCES Arnold, H.R. 1995: Atlas of Amphibians and Reptiles in Britain. HMSO. Beebee,T. & Griffiths,R. 2000: Amphibians and Reptiles. The New Naturalist. Froglife. 1999: Reptile survey: An introduction to planning, conducting and interpreting surveys for snake and lizard conservation. Froglife Advice Sheet 10, Froglife, Halesworth. Gent,T. & Gibson,S. (ed.s) 2003: Herpetofauna Workers Manual. Joint Nature Conservation Committee. Revised Reprint. Herpetofauna Groups of Britain and Ireland (HGBI). 1998: Evaluating Local Mitigation / Translocation Programmes: Maintaining Best Practice and Lawful Standards. HGBI Advisory Notes for Amphibian and Reptile Groups (ARGs).