Appendix 11-4 Reptile and amphibian Survey · 2020. 7. 17. · Appendix 11-4 Reptile and amphibian...

Proposed Extension to the Existing Allington Integrated Waste Management Facility Appendix 11-4 Reptile and amphibian Survey

Prepared for FCC

Luke Cartlidge MSc GradCIEEM

Version 1.0/ Ref: 19-024

08/06/2020

Proposed Extension to the Existing Allington Integrated Waste Management Facility Appendix 11-4 Reptile and amphibian Survey

Issue Prepared by Checked by Approved by Status Date

V1 Luke Cartlidge MSc

GradCIEEM

Paul Lupton MSc Kevin Honour MSc

MCIEEM

DRAFT 08/06/2020

0

All Argus Ecology Ltd. staff subscribe to the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental

Management (CIEEM) code of professional conduct in their work.

This report has been prepared in accordance with CIEEM’s Guidelines for Ecological Report

Writing.

This report is not to be used for contractual purposes unless this approval sheet is signed and designated as

‘FINAL’.

This report has been prepared by Argus Ecology Ltd. in its professional capacity as Ecological Consultants.

Its contents reflect the conditions that prevailed and the information available or supplied at the time of

preparation. The report, and the information contained therein, is provided by Argus Ecology Ltd. solely

for the use and reliance by the Client in performance of Argus Ecology Ltd.’s duties and liabilities under its

contract with the client. The contents of the report do not, in any way purport to include any manner of

legal advice or opinion.

Report Reference 19-024

Date 08/06/2020,

Date of survey/s 02/09/2019, 03/09/2019, 10/09/2019, 11/09/2019, 16/09/2019, 17/09/2019,

24/09/2019

Proposed Extension to the Existing Allington Integrated Waste Management Facility 2

Argus Ecology Ltd. Appendix 11-4 Reptile and amphibian Survey 08/06/2020

Contents

1 Introduction 3

1.1 Site location and context 3 1.2 Proposed works 3 1.3 Survey objectives 3

2 Scope and methodology 4

2.1 Scope 4 2.2 Methodology 4 2.3 Personnel 7

3 Results 8

3.1 Summary of results - Reptiles 8 3.2 Summary of results – Amphibians 8

4 Evaluation 10

4.1 Ecological constraints to works 10

5 References 10

Figure 1: Reptile refugia locations (and pond numbers) 11 Appendix 1 - eDNA results 12



1 Introduction

1.1 Site location and context

This report presents the results of a series of reptile surveys carried out by Argus

Ecology on behalf of Axis PED on land at the Allington Integrated Waste Management

Facility (IWMF), Kent, central grid reference TQ 73535 57864 (the ‘Site’). The Site is

approximately 34 ha and is adjacent to the M20. The Site is comprised of grassland,

scrub and immature plantation woodland to the south of the M20, and broadleaved

woodland at the north of the M20. The surrounding landscape is mainly industrial and

residential, with some agricultural land and woodland.

1.2 Proposed works

The reptile surveys were part of a set of ecological surveys, undertaken in order to

inform the production of the Preliminary Environmental Information Report (PEIR) for

the Proposed Extension to the Allington IWMF (the ‘Existing Station’), Kent.

1.3 Survey objectives

The study’s aims were to:

• Ascertain whether reptiles and amphibians are present at the Site;

• If any reptiles or amphibians are present, determine their population sizes;

• Assess the potential impact of the Proposed Extension on reptiles and

amphibians;

• Specifically assess the on-site pond and attenuation lagoon for the possible

presence of great crested newt (GCN).

• Provide recommendations for mitigation, compensation and enhancement

measures where appropriate; and



2 Scope and methodology

2.1 Scope

The survey area included all of the land within the proposed DCO application boundary

(referred to as the ‘Site’). A walkover survey was completed during the Phase 1 habitat

survey to assess the suitability of the Site for reptiles and amphibians. The surveyor

considered the vegetation structure, insolation, aspect, topography, surface geology,

habitat connectivity, prey abundance, refuge opportunity, hibernation habitat potential,

disturbance and egg-laying site potential. The Phase 1 survey confirmed the suitability

of the Site for reptiles and amphibians and it was recommended that further surveys

are carried out.

2.2 Methodology

Field surveys

2.2.1 Reptiles

The surveys followed Reptile Presence / Likely Absence Survey methodology from the

Herpetofauna Workers’ Manual1 and Froglife Advice Sheet 102, with the deviation that

the number of visits was reduced to seven: as this is usually sufficient to give a

reasonable estimation of reptile species composition and population class.

During an initial visit, 0.5 x 0.5 metre refugia, made from flat roofing felt or corrugated

bitumen roofing sheet, were placed in locations suitable for basking reptiles. An initial

visit was undertaken to set out numbered shelters when 100 refugia were placed across

the Site. Refugia were placed in areas assessed as most likely to support reptiles.

The location of refugia were plotted on site using a Topcon GMS Pro differential GNSS

(GPS / GLONASS) receiver, which achieves sub-metre accuracy outside of wooded

habitats. The location of reptile refugia is illustrated on Figure 1. Following placement,

refugia were allowed to ‘bed-in’ for 12 days prior to the first survey, to increase the

chances of utilisation by reptiles.

After a sufficient bedding-in time, seven survey visits were made by an experienced

ecologist. Whenever possible, surveys were conducted in optimal weather conditions.

During each survey all refugia were scanned with binoculars from a distance for basking

1 Gent, A. H., & Gibson, S. D. (2003). Herpetofauna Workers’ Manual. Peterborough: Joint Nature Conservation Committee. 2 Froglife. (1999). Reptile Survey: An Introduction to Planning, Conducting and Interpreting Surveys for Snake and Lizard Conservation. Halesworth.



reptiles and then checked underneath for sheltering reptiles; natural basking locations

were also checked as were potential feeding habitats such as the on-site pond.

Any materials found on Site with the potential to act as a refugium (e.g. sheet metal,

plywood sheeting, rubble, bricks or logs) were searched and turned over during the

surveys.

Another method employed was casual Site observation. Although the least reliable

method of recording reptiles, it can be important to record species such as common

lizard which use refugia less frequently In addition adder (Vipera berus) can frequently

be seen basking in areas such as bare ground on south facing banksides. Slow-worm

are probably the least likely to be observed because of their greater affinity for dense

vegetation and subsurface habitats, although they can be encountered quite frequently

in some habitats, particularly where they are abundant.

2.2.2 Amphibians

There are two water bodies on Site (an existing pond in the western part of the site and

a man-made surface water attenuation lagoon in the east) and these were investigated

for the potential presence of great crested newt (Triturus cristatus). Other amphibian

species were also recorded in the course of the survey work. This report describes the

survey methodology and discusses the implications of the results.

Survey dates, times and weather conditions are summarised below.

Table 2.1: Survey dates, times and weather conditions

Date Survey time Temperature (°C) Wind -

Average speed

Beaufort :

Direction

Precipitation,

% Cloud cover

02/09/2019 17:30-19:00 18-17 B2 : WSW Dry, 75

03/09/2019 09:00-10:45 17-19 B3 : W Dry, 75

10/09/2019 17:00-18:30 19 B2 : SW Dry, 90

11/09/2019 09:15-10:45 15 B3 : W Dry, 90

16/09/2019 17:00 -18:15 15 B1 : W Dry, 70

17/09/2019 09:00-10:30 10 B1: N Dry, 20



Date Survey time Temperature (°C) Wind -

Average speed

Beaufort :

Direction

Precipitation,

% Cloud cover

24/09/2019 16:00-18:00 14 B2 SSW Dry after showers, 90

2.2.3 Amphibian methods

At the time of the initial survey, water levels were low in both the pond and the

attenuation lagoon. In addition the lagoon reedbed vegetation was very dense with

little open water. As a consequence, none of the normal survey methods (torchlight,

bottling, netting, egg search) would have been practicable in order to identify the

presence of GCN. The use of eDNA was the only practicable survey method.

Habitat Suitability indices

Habitat suitability assessment methods followed those developed by Oldham et al with

modifications suggested in ARG UK Advice Note 5 (Oldham, et al. 2000, ARG-UK 2010).

A series of habitat criteria are scored and converted into a signal Habitat Suitability

Index (HSI) ranging from 0: Unsuitable habitat to 1: Optimal habitat. The numerical

index can also be converted to a categorical value from Poor to Excellent. The HSI is

therefore a means of evaluating the general suitability of a waterbody to support GCN.

Environmental DNA analysis

Environmental DNA (eDNA) sampling was carried out on the first survey visit. Field

sampling was undertaken by a licensed great crested newt surveyor following methods

detailed by Biggs (Biggs, et al. 2014) and sampling instructions provided by SureScreen

Scientifics. The method detects GCN occupancy using traces of DNA shed into the pond

environment. The detection of GCN eDNA is carried out using real time Polymerase

Chain Reaction (PCR) to amplify part of the mitochondrial cytochrome 1 gene. Testing

was performed by SureScreen Scientifics, a Natural England recognised testing company

and the results can be found in Appendix 1.

Refuges



In addition, reptile survey methods involving placement of refugia would assist in

determining if terrestrial habitats were being used by GCN. Amphibians often use

reptile refugia and it is a recognised method employed when assessing the use of

terrestrial habitats by amphibians.

2.3 Personnel

The field survey, data analysis and assessment were undertaken by Kevin Honour MSc

MCIEEM, Paul Lupton MSc MCIEEM and Luke Cartlidge MSc GradCIEEM; all experienced

reptile surveyors.



3 Results

3.1 Summary of results - Reptiles

3.1.1 Local records

Kent and Medway Biological Record Centre provided data on reptile records within 3km

of the Site. Four species are well represented in the area. These are;

• Viviparous lizard;

• Slow worm;

• Grass snake; and

• Adder.

3.1.2 Site survey

No reptiles or signs of reptiles were recorded during any survey occasion. This would

suggest reptiles are likely to be absent from the Site, or possibly present in very low

numbers. Explanations for their absence could include the fairly recent creation of the

habitat and the isolation created by the surrounding roads.

3.2 Summary of results – Amphibians

3.2.1 Local records

Records of protected and priority species records within 3km of the Site were received

from Kent and Medway Biological Record Centre (KMBRC). There are numerous Great

crested newt records with the nearest located 1.12km north-east of the Site.

The nearest EPS licence application is to the east (approximately 1km from the Site).

Field survey

Habitat suitability indices were calculated for both the pond and attenuation lagoon

and the results are provided in Table 3.1. The ponds were suitable for eDNA analysis

and the results are provided in Appendix 1.

Habitat suitability indices (HIS) are a way of assessing habitat quality for great crested

newt it takes weighted habitat characteristics (both positive and negative) and

calculates from these the likelihood that a pond can support a GCN population. For

example the presence of fish is an important contra-indicator for GCN presence while



good water quality is a positive indicator. Using the various criteria the following

calculations have been determined, generally higher numbers are positive in terms of

habitat suitability whilst low numbers indicate contra-indicators.

Table 3.1: GCN Habitat Suitability Assessment

Pond ref. P1

(attenuation

lagoon)

P2 (Allington

Quarry)

SI1 - Location 1 1

SI2 - Pond area 0.9 0.6

SI3 - Pond drying 0.9 1

SI4 - Water quality 0.33 0.67

SI4 - Shade 1 0.6

SI6 - Fowl 1 0.67

SI7 - Fish 1 1

SI8 - Ponds 0.4 0.4

SI9 - Terrestrial habitat 0.01 1

SI10 - Macrophytes 0.8 0.9

HSI 0.49 0.75

The attenuation lagoon P1 has a relatively low Habitat suitability index (HSI) largely due

to its poor water quality and its relative isolation in the context of the Existing Station.

This HSI would represent a ‘poor’ suitability for GCN. The pond on the restored quarry

(P2) has a much higher score of 0.75 which would give it a ‘good’ assessment in terms of

GCN habitat suitability.

Great crested newt were not detected under refugia on any survey occasion.

There was enough water in the attenuation lagoon and ‘Quarry’ pond to satisfactorily

take valid water samples for DNA analysis. The two water bodies on Site tested negative

for eDNA (see appendix 2) suggesting that for this survey season no GCN have occupied

either pond. The presence of GCN will not be considered further within this report.



4 Evaluation

4.1 Ecological constraints to works

No reptiles were located during the survey. Although suitable habitat is present in the

wider site to support the commoner reptile species (in particular grass snake, slow-

worm and common lizard), the degree of isolation from other populations and past

history of disturbance on the Site is likely to have prevented colonisation.

Based on the results of the surveys, it is unlikely that any reptiles would be harmed in

the course of the Proposed Extension. Therefore, reptiles are not considered to be an

ecological constraint to the development and no specific mitigation is required..

The eDNA anlysis of the pond and attenuation lagoon demonstrated that great crested

newt are not using the water bodies. There were no amphibians under the regfuges (we

may have expected frogs, toads and other newt species) and this suggests that

amphibians have not yet colonised the site. Amphibians are not a constraint to the

development.

5 References

Edgar, P. Foster, J & Baker, J. (2010) Reptile habitat management handbook. Amphibian

and Reptile Conservation Trust. Bournemouth.

Froglife (1999). Reptile survey: an introduction to planning, conducting and interpreting

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

Gent, A.H. & Gibson, S.D. (Eds.) (2003). Herpetofauna Workers’ Manual. Joint Nature

Conservation Committee. Peterborough.

HCT (2006). National Amphibian and Reptile Recording Scheme - Widespread Reptile

Survey. Herpetological Conservation Trust, Boscombe, Dorset.

Oldham, et al. (2000), Great Crested Newt Habitat Suitability Index HSI ARG-UK 2010



Figure 1: Reptile refugia locations (and pond numbers)

P2

P1



Appendix 1 - eDNA results

Appendix 11-4 Reptile and amphibian Survey · 2020. 7. 17. · Appendix 11-4 Reptile and amphibian...

Documents

Transcript of Appendix 11-4 Reptile and amphibian Survey · 2020. 7. 17. · Appendix 11-4 Reptile and amphibian...