Lamb Drove SuDS Showcase Project Cambourne Phase 1 Habitat Survey 2011

Transcription

1 Lamb Drove SuDS Showcase Project Cambourne Phase 1 Habitat Survey 2011 Cambridgeshire County Council 7 July 2011 Final Report 9S7422

2 A COMPANY OF HASKONING UK LTD. WATER Rightwell House Bretton Peterborough PE3 8DW United Kingdom +44 (0) Telephone Fax Internet Document title Lamb Drove SuDS Showcase Project Cambourne Phase 1 Habitat Survey 2011 Document short title Phase 1 Habitat Survey 2011 Status Final Report Date 7 July 2011 Project name Project number Client Reference Lamb Drove SuDS Monitoring 9S7422 Cambridgeshire County Council 9S7422/R00001/303653/PBor Drafted by Checked by Emma Mundy Carina Oliver Date/initials check CO. Approved by Fola Ogunyoye Date/initials approval

3 SUMMARY Royal Haskoning was commissioned to carry out three Extended Phase 1 Habitat Surveys (JNCC, 2003) of two residential areas in Cambourne, Cambridgeshire. These are the Lamb Drove Site which has Sustainable Drainage System (SuDS) features present and the Control Site near Friar Way, which has traditional urban drainage features. The different drainage systems of the sites have the potential to impact upon both the habitats and species present. The first survey was undertaken on the 3 rd of October 2007, the second on 19 th of May 2010 and the third, which this report covers on 27 th June All surveys have been undertaken by experienced ecologists from Royal Haskoning. The aim of the surveys was to assess whether SuDS features improve biodiversity in urban areas. The Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey methodology was used to gather information on habitat types, as well as recording any signs of protected or notable species, at both the Lamb Drove Site and the Control Site. No evidence of protected species was recorded during the surveys. However, there are several habitat features within both study areas which offer opportunities for reptiles and birds, as well as some limited potential for bat foraging and commuting habitat. MAVIS analysis (Modular Analysis of Vegetation Information System) a classification program available from the Centre of Ecology and Hydrology (CEH) website (CEH, 2000), has been used to analyse the vegetation present at both sites. The analysis indicated that there is an acidic presence in the plant communities at both sites. The Countryside Vegetation System (CVS) classification identified the Lamb Drove Site predominantly as rye-grass grassland with Yorkshire fog or fertile grassland. The Control Site was identified as grassy roadsides and rye grass / clover grassland, in 2007 and re-evaluated as just rye grass grassland, which is considered a common, undiverse class. Although these classifications are similar and a certain number of species are present on both sites, the diversity of the sites is very different. The Control Site has seen a decline in species present since 2007, following management activities to turn it into an amenity area. Due to the regime of regular mowing, species diversity is low and there is very little range in habitats. Plant species at the Lamb Drove Site have been left to develop within the swales with minimal maintenance undertaken. Stands of rush species, dock species, and flag iris are now present, which offer habitat for a range of invertebrate species. The grass areas, which do not undergo such a strict management regime in comparison to the Control Site, show a greater range on plant species present. Although there has been a decline in aquatic species since 2007 at the Lamb Drove Site, overall the area offers more ecological potential for faunal species and is a more diverse habitat. The three surveys undertaken from 2007 to 2011 clearly indicate that the SuDs features present at Lamb Drove have improved biodiversity in area. However, a large factor in this success is ensuring that the appropriate management is undertaken to enable certain areas to develop and become more diverse. Also, the surveys have indicated that weather conditions can have a significant role in the success of SuDS features. Phase 1 Habitat Survey i - 9S7422/R00001/303653/PBor Final Report 7 July 2011

4 CONTENTS Page 1 INTRODUCTION Project background Report Structure Scope of Work Study Limitations 1 2 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY Phase 1 Habitat Survey MAVIS 2 3 ASSESSMENT OF HABITATS FOR FAUNAL SPECIES AND GROUPS Survey Results Biological Records Search 3 4 RESULTS Control Site (CS) Target note CS Target note CS Target note CS Target note CS Target note CS Target note CS Lamb Drove Site (LD) Target note LD Target note LD Target note LD Target note LD Target note LD Target note LD Watercourse (W) Target note W Target note W Target note W Target note W Habitat Classifications Control Site Lamb Drove Site 24 Phase 1 Habitat Survey ii - 9S7422/R00001/303653/PBor Final Report 7 July 2011

5 5 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 25 6 REFERENCES 26 APPENDIX A 27 APPENDIX B 31 APPENDIX C 35 APPENDIX D 42 APPENDIX E 92 Phase 1 Habitat Survey iii - 9S7422/R00001/303653/PBor Final Report 7 July 2011

6 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project background Royal Haskoning was commissioned to undertake three Extended Phase 1 Habitat Surveys of two residential areas in Cambourne, Cambridgeshire, based upon the revised Phase I methodology established by JNCC (2003). The two sites surveyed were the Lamb Drove Site (GC16), a residential development of 35 homes (built by Cambridge Housing Society) on a one hectare site which has Sustainable Drainage System (SuDS) features and the Control Site (GC21), which has traditional urban drainage features. Cambourne is a new settlement, approximately nine miles west of Cambridge (TL ). Surveys have been conducted three times during the lifetime of the project; the first took place in October 2007 and a second survey in May This report documents the third and final survey undertaken on the 27 th June 2011 by experienced ecologists from Royal Haskoning. 1.2 Report Structure Section 1 provides an introduction into this study. Section 2 provides an account of the methodology adopted during the Phase 1 Habitat Survey, including details of the area subject to survey. Section 3 provides an assessment of the faunal species for each site, whilst the results of the habitat survey, including analysis, are provided in Section 4. A discussion about the findings of the survey is included as Section 5. References are provided in Section 6. The figures of the sites showing the habitats present are provided in Environmental Survey: Appendix A, with a full species list in Environmental Survey: Appendix B and a comparison of analysis for the 3 years surveyed in Environmental Survey: Appendix C. 1.3 Scope of Work The aim of the extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey and the resultant report was to provide: A description of the habitats and species located within the study area; An assessment of the habitats with potential to support protected species; An assessment of the frequency of distribution of floral species; A comparison with the 2007 and 2010 surveys to determine changes in community and vegetation composition; and Recommendations. 1.4 Study Limitations Phase 1 Habitat Surveys can be undertaken at any time of year, although the optimum time is between April and September. The 2007 survey was undertaken outside of this period; however, conditions were considered suitable in early October when the study was undertaken. The following surveys have both been undertaken within the optimal period. Although the seasonal constraint in 2007 is unlikely to significantly affect the overall conclusions, it is important that this be taken into consideration when comparing the surveys results. Phase 1 Habitat Survey S7422/R00001/303653/PBor Final Report July 2011

7 2 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY 2.1 Phase 1 Habitat Survey 2.2 The third and final survey was conducted on 27 th June 2011, following the basic methodology established within the revised Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey (JNCC, 2003). All habitats and plant communities within the study area were recorded and annotated on a colour-coded map indicating broad habitat types and boundary features. Detailed descriptions and botanical species lists were recorded for each section of the sites. A full botanical species list is also provided as Environmental Survey Appendix B. Nomenclature of higher plants is as given by Stace (1999). Although no systematic surveys were carried out for either protected or United Kingdom Biodiversity Action Plan (UKBAP) species, the Phase 1 Habitat Survey was extended to include an assessment of the habitat suitability for faunal species and groups. The survey focused on the SuDS Site and the corridor of open space at the Control Site. The Lamb Drove SuDS scheme flows to a natural watercourse, a section of this watercourse was also surveyed to show the potential for colonisation of the study area by native species. As with previous surveys, the scale has been used to provide an estimation of the abundance for the floral species recorded within a 50cm radius of each target note location. The grass species present at each target note have been grouped together to make the approach simpler and still representative of the area. The approach is detailed within the methodology section of the 2010 report. 2.3 MAVIS The result of this analysis is presented with each target note in Section 4 and also for each site in Environmental Survey: Appendix C. The 2011 data has been added to alongside the previous surveys to provide a comparison for the sites. MAVIS analysis (Modular Analysis of Vegetation Information System) a vegetation classification program available from the Centre of Ecology and Hydrology (CEH) website (CEH, 2000), has been used to analyse the vegetation present at both sites for this and all previous surveys. MAVIS is a programme for analysing vegetation data using different types of classifications developed for Great Britain, including the Countryside Vegetation System (CVS) and National Vegetation Classification (NVC), as well as other measures, such as fertility and competitor scores. MAVIS enables links to be made between botanical field data and a number of widely used classifications of plant species. The result is a standard description of the target note in terms of the various plant classifications. The species recorded from several of the target notes for each site were inputted into MAVIS to produce a typical classification of the habitat type present. MAVIS was not undertaken for each target note. Each species is ranked, in a similar method to, to provide the program with information regarding the species composition of the site. Details on the findings of MAVIS are outlined within Section 5. Phase 1 Habitat Survey S7422/R00001/303653/PBor Final Report July 2011

8 3 ASSESSMENT OF HABITATS FOR FAUNAL SPECIES AND GROUPS 3.1 Survey Results Although it is not the standard approach of a Phase 1 Habitat Survey, the sites were also assessed for their potential to support faunal species. Trees were examined for their potential to support bats and breeding birds, as were areas of scrub. The potential for reptiles at each site was also assessed. Although previous surveys discounted the presence of species such as great crested newt and badgers, potential for the presence of these species was also included in the survey for completeness. None of the three surveys undertaken have found any signs of protected species, such as bats, reptiles or breeding birds. Due to the urban nature of the sites, it is unlikely that these species will be in large abundance, although bat species could use the area for foraging. Once the trees at both sites have become more established there could be more potential for breeding birds. 3.2 Biological Records Search Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Biological Records Centre (BRC) undertook a search of biological records in 2008, within a 2km radius of the study area, which produced a list of records, detailing species, importance and the date recorded. No records were found of any rare or important floral species within the area (CPBRC, 2008). Some records of Schedule 1 and 5 faunal species were found in the wider 2km search area (CPBRC, 2008). Full details of all records discovered can be found in Environmental Survey Appendix B in the 2008 report. Another data search was requested in 2011 to confirm if any new species had been found within the two study areas. Again, a 2km search radius was requested. As with the previous search, a large number of species were recorded which is typical of the rural area surrounding Cambourne, however, no records of important or rare species within the study areas were found. Figure 3.1 identifies the records closest to the two sites. As is evident from the figure, the majority of species recorded were birds, which are mobile and therefore could potentially use the study area, although this is unlikely for the birds of prey or waterfowl due to the lack of suitable habitat. The full records search results can be found in Environmental Survey Appendix D. Phase 1 Habitat Survey S7422/R00001/303653/PBor Final Report July 2011

9 Phase 1 Habitat Survey S7422/R00001/303653/PBor Final Report July 2011

10 4 RESULTS The sections below detail the findings of the 2011 survey at each target note for the control site, Lamb Drove site and the nearby watercourse. The location of these target notes for the two sites can be found on the figures in Environmental Survey Appendix A. 4.1 Control Site (CS) Target note CS1 Housing development on Friar Way (B3.6), with no natural habitat features. Area is urban (B3.6), with small strips of amenity grassland (J1.2) adjacent to properties (Plate 4.1). This area has not changed since 2007 and due to its urban nature; no analysis has been undertaken. Plate 4.1 Location of target note CS Target note CS2 This site is bordered by Foxhollow Road to the south east and was classified in 2007 as poor semi-improved grassland (B6) amongst a residential development (B3.6) and adjacent to a dry ditch (J3.6). The grassland changed to amenity grassland (J1.2) in 2010 due to works to the site to make it a recreational area, with paths etc. The 2010 survey indicated that the plant diversity had declined since 2007 and that the site was predominantly grass species with ribwort plantain, red clover, dandelion, creeping buttercup, daisy and cabbage thistle. Since the 2010 survey, further decline in diversity has occurred and the area is dominated with grass species with rare occurrences of the previously recorded species (Plate 4.2). However, three new species were recorded in the area, although not within the target note. These were oxeye daisy, black medick and knapweed. Also, ragwort which hadn t been recorded since 2007 was present. Phase 1 Habitat Survey S7422/R00001/303653/PBor Final Report July 2011

11 analysis of the vegetation present at location CS2 (TL ) is presented in Table 4.1. Plate 4.2 Location of target note CS2 Table 4.1 Target note location analysis of floral species recorded at location CS2 Scientific name Vernacular name CS2 Trifolium pratense Red clover A O Not present Senecio jacobea Common ragwort A Not present O Cirsium oleraceum Cabbage thistle A R Not present Picris echioides Bristly oxtongue O R R Plantago lanceolata Ribwort plantain A O R Ranunculus repens Creeping buttercup A R R Rumex obtusifolius Broad leaved dock O R O Rumex sanguineus Wood dock R Not present Not present Silybum marianum Milk thistle A Not present Not present Taraxacum officinale agg. Dandelion O R R Urtica dioica Common nettle R R Not present Bellis perennis Daisy R R R - Grass sp. - D D Phase 1 Habitat Survey S7422/R00001/303653/PBor Final Report July 2011

12 4.1.3 Target note CS5 In the 2007 survey, CS5 was classified as ephemeral / short perennial (J1.3) with small areas of poor semi-improved grassland (B6), surrounded by residential development (B3.6). In 2010, the CS5 was classified as amenity grassland (J1.2) amongst a residential development (B3.6). The area was dominated by perennial rye grass with ribwort plantain, black medick, red clover, slender speedwell, cabbage thistle and spear thistle. The same classification of amenity grassland remains for the 2011 survey (Plate 4.3). However, there had been a decline in species composition in the target note area, with very few species other than grass present. However, ragwort which hadn t been recorded since 2007 was present. analysis of the vegetation present at location CS5 (TL ) is presented in Table 4.2. Plate 4.3 Location of target note CS5 Table 4.2 Target note location analysis of floral species recorded at location CS5 Scientific name Vernacular name CS5 Trifolium pratense Red clover A O Not present Senecio jacobea Common ragwort A Not present R Cirsium oleraceum Cabbage thistle A R R Picris echioides Bristly oxtongue O O R Plantago lanceolata Ribwort plantain A F R Phase 1 Habitat Survey S7422/R00001/303653/PBor Final Report July 2011

13 Target note location Scientific name Vernacular name Ranunculus repens Rumex obtusifolius Rumex sanguineus Taraxacum officinale agg Creeping buttercup Broad leaved dock Wood dock Dandelion F Not present Not present O Not present Not present R Not present Not present R R R Urtica dioica Common nettle R Not present Not present Bellis perennis Daisy R R R - Grass sp. - D D Medicaga lupiluna Black medick - R Not present Target note CS6 In 2007, CS6 was classified as poor semi-improved grassland (B6), with a few scattered trees along the fence/ditch boundary, surrounded by a residential development (B3.6). In the 2010 survey, CS6 was recorded as amenity grassland (J1.2), with grass species being the dominant vegetative form, with common floral species such as willowherb, black medick, ribwort plantain and cabbage thistle also present. As with the previous target note locations, a decline in plant species had been recorded during the 2011 survey (Plate 4.4). However, ragwort which hadn t been recorded since 2007 was present. analysis of the vegetation present at location CS6 (TL ) is presented in Table 4.3. Phase 1 Habitat Survey S7422/R00001/303653/PBor Final Report July 2011

14 Plate 4.4 Location of target note CS6 Table 4.3 analysis of floral species recorded at location CS6 Target note Scientific name Vernacular location name CS6 Trifolium pratense Red clover O O Not present Senecio jacobea Common ragwort O Not present R Cirsium oleraceum Cabbage thistle A O Not present Picris echioides Bristly oxtongue O Not present Not present Plantago lanceolata Ribwort plantain A O O Ranunculus repens Rumex obtusifolius Creeping buttercup Broad leaved dock A Not present Not present O Not present Not present Rumex sanguineus Wood dock R Not present Not present Taraxacum officinale agg. Dandelion R R R Urtica dioica Common nettle R Not present Not present - Grass sp. - D D Medicaga lupiluna Black medick - O O - Willowherb sp - R Not present Target note CS7 In 2007, the Phase 1 Habitat Survey classified this area as an area of poor semiimproved grassland (B6) and bare earth (J4). Since then the site has changed to Phase 1 Habitat Survey S7422/R00001/303653/PBor Final Report July 2011

15 amenity grassland (J1.2). Species recorded in 2010 included ribwort plantain, hoary plantain and creeping thistle. These species had shown a decline in the 2011 survey, with other species such as red clover and cabbage thistle no longer present at the target note location. However, ragwort which hadn t been recorded since 2007 was present. analysis of the vegetation present at location CS7 (TL ) is presented in Table 4.4. Plate 4.5 Location of target note CS7 Table 4.4 analysis of floral species recorded at location CS7 Target note Scientific name Vernacular location name CS7 Trifolium pratense Red clover A O Not present Senecio jacobea Common ragwort F Not present O Cirsium oleraceum Cabbage thistle A R Not present Picris echioides Bristly oxtongue A Not present R Plantago lanceolata Ribwort plantain A O R Ranunculus repens Creeping buttercup F Not present R Rumex crispus Curled dock O Not present R Rumex obtusifolius Broad leaved dock O Not present Not present Rumex sanguineus Wood dock O Not present Not present Silybum marianum Milk thistle A Not present Not present Taraxacum officinale Dandelion R R Not present Phase 1 Habitat Survey S7422/R00001/303653/PBor Final Report July 2011

16 Target note Scientific name Vernacular location name agg. Urtica dioica Common nettle R Not present Not present Bellis perennis Daisy R R R - Grass sp - D D Plantago media Hoary plantain - O O Target note CS10 This area was classified as poor semi-improved grassland (B6), bordered by a residential development (B3.6) in In 2010, the area was classified as amenity grassland (J1.2) and this classification remains accurate for the 2011 survey (Plate 4.6). Species present amongst the grassland included hoary plantain, spear thistle, ribwort plantain, dandelion and slender speedwell. The species composition recorded in 2011 showed a decline since Thistle species, hoary plantain and dandelion were no longer recorded within the target note location. Ragwort was again recorded on site in 2011, having not been previously recorded in the 2010 survey. analysis of the vegetation present at location CS10 (TL ) is presented in Table 4.5. Plate 4.6 Location of target note CS10 Phase 1 Habitat Survey S7422/R00001/303653/PBor Final Report July 2011

17 Table 4.5 analysis of floral species recorded at location CS10 Target note Scientific name Vernacular location name CS10 Senecio jacobea Common ragwort O Not present R Cirsium oleraceum Cabbage thistle A Not present Not present Picris echioides Bristly oxtongue F Not present Not present Plantago lanceolata Ribwort plantain A O O Ranunculus repens Creeping buttercup O Not present Not present Rumex crispus Curled dock O Not present Not present Rumex obtusifolius Broad leaved dock A Not present Not present Silybum marianum Milk thistle O Not present Not present Taraxacum officinale agg. Dandelion O R Not present Urtica dioica Common nettle R Not present Not present Bellis perennis Daisy R R R - Grass sp. - D D Plantago media Hoary plantain - R Not present Cirsium vulgare Spear thistle - R Not present Veronica filiformis Slender speedwell - R Not present 4.2 Lamb Drove Site (LD) Target note LD16 This location was classified in 2007 as an area of unimproved acid grassland (B1) leading to a retention pond (Plate 4.7). The 2010 survey recorded similar species composition to 2007, with a few key water tolerant species absent (see Table 4.6). In the 2011 survey, common mallow was again recorded on site, although it was not wide spread. Rosebay willowherb and spear thistle were also present in the area, although not within the location of the target note. Yarrow has increased in abundance to become one of the more dominant species present at the target note. analysis of the vegetation present at location LD16 (TL ) is presented in Table 4.6. Phase 1 Habitat Survey S7422/R00001/303653/PBor Final Report July 2011

18 Plate 4.7 Location of target note LD16 Table 4.6 analysis of floral species recorded at location LD16 Target note Scientific name Vernacular name location LD16 Iris pseudacorus Flag iris R R R Lythrum salicaria Purple loosestrife R Not present R Rumex sanguineus Wood dock O Not present Not present Rumex obtusifolius Broad leaved dock O O O Picris echioides Bristly oxtongue A O O Trifolium incarnatum Long-headed clover O Not present Not present Trifoilum repens White clover A F F Trifolium pratense Red clover A F O Eupatorium cannabinum Hemp agrimony R R R Chenopodium polyspermum Many-seeded goosefoot R Not present Not present Plantago media Hoary plantain A F F Achillea millefolium Yarrow R O F Malva sylvestris Common mallow R Not present R leucanthemum vulgare Ox eye daisy - F O Plantago lanceolata Ribwort plantain - F F Ranunculus acris Meadow buttercup - O O Cardamine pretensis Cuckoo flower - O O Medicaga lupiluna Black medick - O O Phase 1 Habitat Survey S7422/R00001/303653/PBor Final Report July 2011

19 Target note Scientific name Vernacular name location Vicia sativa Common vetch O O Grass species D A Target note LD17 This target note was classified as an area of unimproved acid grassland (B1), leading from Basin C (Plate 4.8) in Despite several aquatic species being recorded in 2007, no aquatic plant species were recorded in either the 2010 or 2011 surveys. Similar species were recorded in 2011 as the 2010 survey, including ox eye daisy, black medick, common vetch, ribwort plantain, yarrow, hoary plantain, alder, clover species, broad leaved dock and creeping buttercup. Common mallow was recorded in the area, which had not been present since Also, rosebay willowherb and knapweed were recorded in the wider area. analysis of the vegetation present at location LD17 (TL ) is presented in Table 4.7. Plate 4.8 Location of target note LD17 Phase 1 Habitat Survey S7422/R00001/303653/PBor Final Report July 2011

20 Table 4.7 analysis of floral species recorded at location LD17 Target note Scientific name Vernacular location name LD17 Alnus glutinosa Alder R R R Iris pseudacorus Flag iris R Not present Not present Lythrum salicaria Purple loosestrife R Not present R Picris echioides Bristly oxtongue O O R Trifolium spp. Clover species A F O Ranunculus repens Creeping buttercup O R R Achillea millefolium Yarrow R O O Plantago media Hoary plantain A O O Rumex spp. Dock species A O A Malva sylvestris Common mallow R Not present R Caltha palustis Marsh-marigold R Not present Not present Mentha aquatica Water mint R Not present Not present Carex acutiformis Lesser pond sedge R Not present Not present Rorippa nasturtiumaquaticum Watercress R Not present Not present Medicaga lupiluna Black medick - F F leucanthemum vulgare Ox eye daisy - O O Plantago lanceolata Ribwort plantain - A A Grass species D D Target note LD19 Target note LD19 is an area of unimproved acid grassland (B1) and marshy grassland (B5) next to the cycleway (Plate 4.9). Changes were recorded in species composition in 2011 in comparison to the previous surveys. There was a decline in bristly oxtongue within the target note location, although the species is still present on site. Also, black medick has increased in abundance to become one of the more common species in the area. Thistle species, meadow buttercup and purple loosestrife were also present. Rush species were again recorded in the wider area, as was ox eye daisy, knapweed, rosebay willowherb, ragwort, red clover and common daisy. analysis of the vegetation present at location LD19 (TL ) is presented in Table 4.8. Phase 1 Habitat Survey S7422/R00001/303653/PBor Final Report July 2011

21 Plate 4.9 Location of target note LD19 Table 4.8 analysis of floral species recorded at location LD19 Target note Scientific name Vernacular name location LD19 - Grass sp. D D A Picris echioides Bristly oxtongue F O R Trifolium spp. Clover species O O O Achillea millefolium Yarrow R R R Plantago media Hoary plantain O R R Rumex spp. Dock species F F F Medicaga lupiluna Black medick - F A Plantago lanceolata Ribwort plantain A F Target note LD20 Target note LD20 is classified as an area of marshy grassland (B5) close to a play area (Plate 4.10). Species recorded in 2010 survey included black medick, common vetch, slender speedwell, rough hawksbit, meadow buttercup, dandelion, flag iris, purple loosestrife, dock, rush, clovers, yarrow, hoary plantain, ribwort plantain and grass species. These species were recorded again in 2011, as were common mallow, ragged robin and rosebay willowherb. Species composition for this target note has not changed significantly since 2007, although some species such as bristly oxtongue have declined in abundance and clover species have increased. analysis of the vegetation present at location LD20 (TL ) is presented in Table 4.9. Phase 1 Habitat Survey S7422/R00001/303653/PBor Final Report July 2011

22 Plate 4.10 Location of target note LD20 Table 4.9 analysis of floral species recorded at location LD20 Target note Scientific name Vernacular name location LD20 - Grass sp. D D D Picris echioides Bristly oxtongue O O R Lythrum salicaria Purple loosestrife R R R Trifolium spp. Clover species O O F Juncus spp Rush species O O O Achillea millefolium Yarrow R R R Plantago media Hoary plantain O O O Rumex spp. Dock species O O O Medicaga lupiluna Black medick - F F Taraxacum officinale agg Dandelion - O O Target note LD21 Basin B is an area of marshy grassland (B5) with a drainage ditch (Plate 4.11). Flag iris, purple loosestrife, alder, grass, bristly oxtongue, clovers, yarrow, hoary plantain, ribwort plantain, dandelion, dock, meadow buttercup, rush, common vetch and willowherb were recorded on site during the 2010 survey. The marginal aquatic species water mint, lesser pond sedge, meadow sweet and marsh marigold recorded in 2007 have not been recorded in either the 2010 or 2011 surveys. In 2011, common mallow and ox eye daisy, two new species, were recorded in the target note area. With the exception of these new species, species composition was Phase 1 Habitat Survey S7422/R00001/303653/PBor Final Report July 2011

23 very similar to In the wider area, knapweed, ragwort and common daisy were also recorded. analysis of the vegetation present at location LD21 (TL ) is presented in Table Plate 4.11 Location of target note LD 21 Table 4.10 analysis of floral species recorded at location LD21 Target note Scientific name Vernacular name location LD21 - Grass sp. D D D Picris echioides Bristly oxtongue A O O Lythrum salicaria Purple loosestrife R R R Trifolium spp. Clovers O A F Achillea millefolium Yarrow R R R Plantago media Hoary plantain F O O Taraxacum agg. officinale Dandelion O O O Rumex spp. Dock species O O O Medicaga lupiluna Black medick A A Plantago lanceolata Ribwort plantain A F Malva Sylvestris Common mallow - - R leucanthemum vulgare Ox eye daisy - - O Phase 1 Habitat Survey S7422/R00001/303653/PBor Final Report July 2011

24 4.2.6 Target note LD22 Swale A is an area of improved grassland (B4) outside residential properties (B3.6) (Plate 4.12). Species recorded at this location in 2010 included ribwort plantain, smooth hawksbeard, clovers, ox eye daisy, cuckoo flower, black medick, spear thistle, grass species, bristly oxtongue, dandelion and dock species. Apart from the absence of dock species, this species composition has remained the same for analysis of the vegetation present at location LD22 (TL ) is presented in Table Plate 4.12 Location of target note LD22 Table 4.11 analysis of floral species recorded at location LD22 Target note location Scientific name Vernacular name LD22 - Grass sp. D D D Picris echioides Bristly oxtongue A O O Ranunculus repens Creeping buttercup O Not present Not present Plantago media Hoary plantain A Not present Not present Taraxacum officinale agg. Dandelion O O O Phase 1 Habitat Survey S7422/R00001/303653/PBor Final Report July 2011

25 Target note location Scientific name Vernacular name Rumex spp. Dock species O O Not present Medicaga lupiluna Black medick - O O Plantago lanceolata Ribwort plantain - A F - Clover species - F F 4.3 Watercourse (W) Target note W12 The area is marshy grassland (B5) comprising a drainage ditch with areas of acid grassland around (B1) (Plate 4.13). Due to the area being fenced, the vegetation classification for the target note was undertaken from the fence line and therefore a full species count may not have been recorded. The species identified in the 2010 survey included wild teasel, rushes, Italian rye grass, broad leaved dock, clover species, bulrush and willowherb. These species had continued to develop on site in the 2011 survey. Bramble was also recorded as present on the site for the first time during the 2011 survey, as was hogweed and spear thistles. analysis of the vegetation present at location W12 (TL ) is presented in Table Plate 4.13 Location of target note W12 Phase 1 Habitat Survey S7422/R00001/303653/PBor Final Report July 2011

26 Table 4.12 analysis of floral species recorded at location W12 Target note Scientific name Vernacular name location W12 Alopecurus geniculatus Marsh foxtail R Not identified Not identified Cruciferae Unknown crucifer species R R R Dipsacus fullonum Wild teasel O O O Juncus spp Rushes A A F Lolium multiflorum Italian rye-grass A A A Picris echioides Bristly oxtongue O O O Plantago lanceolata Ribwort plantain R O O Rumex hydrolapathum Water dock O Not identified Not identified Rumex sanguineus Wood dock R R R Senecio jacobea Common ragwort R Not identified O Sparganium erectum Branched bur-reed O Not identified Not identified Taraxacum officinale Dandelion O R R Trifolium spp Clovers O O O Typha latifolia Common reedmace A O O Urtica dioica Common nettle O O O Chamerion angustifolium Rosebay willowherb - F O Rubus fruticosus Bramble - - A Heracleum sphondylium Hogweed - - R Target note W13 This area has been inaccessible since 2010 and has therefore not been re-surveyed Target note W14 A drainage ditch (B5) comprised of marshy grassland bordered by tall ruderals (Plate 4.14). Species recorded at this location in 2007 included rushes, grasses, Italian ryegrass, cow parsley and common nettle. The same species were recorded in 2010 and 2011, although the abundance of rushes has declined. In addition, bramble, ox eye daisy, bindweed, hogweed and red dead nettle were also recorded in Common mallow and herb robert were also present in the wider area. analysis of the vegetation present at location W14 (TL ) is presented in Table Phase 1 Habitat Survey S7422/R00001/303653/PBor Final Report July 2011

27 Plate 4.14 Location of target note W14 Table 4.14 analysis of floral species recorded at location W14 Target note Scientific name Vernacular location name W14 Juncus spp Rushes F F O - Grass species A F D Anthriscus sylvestris Cow parsley R R R Urtica dioica Common nettle O O O - Willowherb species - O F Rubus fruticosus Bramble - - O Heracleum sphondylium Hogweed - - R Lamium purpureum Red dead nettle - - R Calystegia sepium Bindweed - - R leucanthemum vulgare Ox eye daisy - - R Target note W15 The area is comprised of scrub (A2), predominantly hawthorn and bramble next to the watercourse (Plate 4.16). The species recorded in the 2010 survey were also present during 2011, although there had been an increase in willowherb species. Cleavers and hogweed were recorded for the first time at the target note location. analysis of the vegetation present at location W15 (TL ) is presented in Table Phase 1 Habitat Survey S7422/R00001/303653/PBor Final Report July 2011

28 Plate 4.15 Location of target note W15 Table 4.14 analysis of floral species recorded at location W15 Target note Scientific name Vernacular name location W15 Crataegus monogyna Hawthorn A A A Lolium multiflorum Italian rye-grass F F F Chamerion angustifolium Rosebay willowherb R R O Anthriscus sylvestris Cow parsley R R R Rubus fruticosus Bramble A A A Urtica dioica Common nettle - O O Galium aparine Cleavers - - R Heracleum sphondylium Hogweed - - O 4.4 Habitat Classifications Control Site Since the 2010 survey, the control site has been comprised of amenity grassland (comprised of perennial rye grass with barren brome and common couch) surrounded by a housing development. A dry ditch runs along the western boundary of the site and is culverted at the junction with the road at the southern site boundary. The ditch is small and appears to be predominantly dry and it is therefore considered as unlikely habitat to support protected species which require damp conditions. Hedgerow species, such as hawthorn and hazel have been planted along the western edge of the site, and Phase 1 Habitat Survey S7422/R00001/303653/PBor Final Report July 2011

29 majority of these plants have grown since first being recorded in However, a number were noted to have died, possibly due to the dry summer periods over the past years. Tree planting in the centre of the site has been successful and these plants have put on new growth. With respect to the Phase 1 Habitat classification system (JNCC, 2003); the following habitats recorded in 2010 were present in the 2011 survey: Amenity grassland (J1.2); Scattered trees (A.3.1); and Bare ground (J4) (in the form of paths). Figure A in Environmental Survey Appendix A provides a Phase I habitat (JNCC, 2003) map of the control site, including locations of target notes Lamb Drove Site The Lamb Drove Site contains a series of swales, mown amenity grassland planted with saplings such as alder and a retention pond. Grass species recorded include Yorkshire fog, common bent and common couch. The site is bordered by housing developments and associated infrastructure network (roads and footpaths). There have not been any changes to the Phase I habitat types (JNCC, 2003) since the 2007 survey, with the following habitats being noted as being present: Poor semi-improved /marshy grassland (B6); Amenity grassland (J1.2); Scattered trees (A.3.1);and Hard standing / built-up areas (J3). Figure B in Environmental Survey Appendix A provides a Phase I habitat (JNCC, 2003) map of the control site, including locations of target notes. Phase 1 Habitat Survey S7422/R00001/303653/PBor Final Report July 2011

30 5 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Since the first survey was undertaken in 2007, both the Lamb Drove and Control Sites have maintained a moderate diversity of plant species which can be considered to be of limited conservation significance. The photographic record in Environmental Survey Appendix E indicates how each site has developed over the four year period. From this record it is evident that the species present on the Lamb Drove Site have developed and become more established, forming a diverse wildlife area. The number of species present at the Control Site has declined from 34 in 2007 to 21 species in 2011, with this figure including the tree species which were planted between 2008 and This decline is likely to be due to the establishment of the amenity grassland and the associated management regime. However, it is also possible that weather conditions, in particular the dry period before the survey could also have impacted species numbers. The Lamb Drove Site has shown a slight increase from 30 to 34 species present. Since 2007 there has been an increase in ephemeral/short perennial species such as ox eye daisy and black medick. Yarrow has also increased dramatically on site, especially around the lower swales. In 2011 common mallow was recorded on site after being absent since The marginal and aquatic plant species first recorded on site have not been seen since 2007 and flag iris and rush species are now the only aquatic plants present on the site. Although a detailed assessment of invertebrate species was not undertaken, a number were noted at the Lamb Drove site during the 2011 survey. A range of butterflies, damselflies, grasshoppers and bumble bees were noted and is evidence of the diversity within the SuDS area and the importance of the habitats present. MAVIS analysis has been used to classify the vegetation present at both sites in the previous surveys. In 2007, the Lamb Drove Site was identified as a mix between ryegrass grassland and fertile mixed grassland. The Control Site was identified as grassy roadsides and/or rye grass / clover grassland. The 2011 MAVIS analysis indicates similar results; the Control Site is still rye grass grassland. The Lamb Drove Site is classified as a combination of fertile grassland and rye grass/yorkshire fog grassland, both of which are common grass types in the UK. The Lamb Drove Site although not being a significantly different vegetation classification from the Control Site does show more diversity, which is primarily due to the SuDS features and the associated management regime which has allowed to development of the swales to form stands of vegetation capable of supporting invertebrate life. It is recommended that this management regime be continued at Lamb Drove, and that other areas in the large swale could also be allowed to develop and become more diverse. There is also scope to improve the biodiversity value of the site further through the planting of more trees or the retention of water to allow aquatic plants to develop further on site. Once existing trees have become established then bird or bat boxes could be added to encourage faunal species into the site. Although, further surveys are not considered necessary it is important that some monitoring is undertaken Phase 1 Habitat Survey S7422/R00001/303653/PBor Final Report July 2011

31 6 REFERENCES Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (2000) MAVIS Modular Analysis of Vegetation Information System. Available from URL: Accessed on 19/05/2010. CPBRC (2008) Biological records data for Cambourne, Cambs. Data provided to Royal Haskoning by Cambridgeshire Wildlife Trust Biological Records Centre. HMSO (1995) Biodiversity: The UK Steering Group Report, Volume 1. HMSO, London, UK. Joint Nature Conservation Committee (2003) Handbook for Phase 1 habitat survey: A technique for environmental audit. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough, UK. MAGIC (2010) Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside (MAGIC). Available from URL: Accessed on 19/05/2010. Royal Haskoning (2008) Lamb Drove SUDS Showcase Project, Cambourne: Phase 1 Habitat Survey. Report for Cambridgeshire County Council. Royal Haskoning (2010) Lamb Drove SUDS Showcase Project, Cambourne: Phase 1 Habitat Survey Report for Cambridgeshire County Council. Stace C. (1999) New Flora of the British Isles. CUP, Cambridge, UK. Phase 1 Habitat Survey S7422/R00001/303653/PBor Final Report July 2011

32 APPENDIX A PHASE 1 HABITAT MAPS Phase 1 Habitat Survey S7422/R00001/303653/PBor Final Report July 2011

33 Final Report July 2011

34 Final Report July 2011

35 Phase 1 Habitat Survey S7422/R00001/303653/PBor Final Report July 2011

36 APPENDIX B BOTANICAL SPECIES LISTS Phase 1 Habitat Survey S7422/R00001/303653/PBor Final Report July 2011

37 BOTANICAL SPECIES Both English and scientific names of higher plants are as given by Stace (1999). Control Site Vernacular name Maple Sycamore Daisy Barren brome Hawthorn Hazel Common couch Beech Ash Perennial rye-grass Black medick Bristly oxtongue Ribwort plantain Hoary plantain Creeping buttercup Bramble Curled dock Broad leaved dock Dandelion Common ragwort Red clover Scientific name Acer campestre Acer pseudoplatanus Bellis perennis Bromus sterilis Crataegus monogyna Corylus avellana Elymus repens Fagus sylvatica Fraxinus excelsior Lolium perenne Medicaga lupiluna Picris echioides Plantago lanceolata Plantago media Ranunculus repens Rubus fruticosus agg. Rumex crispus Rumex obtusifolus Taraxacum officinale agg. Senecio jacobea Trifolium pratense Phase 1 Habitat Survey S7422/R00001/303653/PBor Final Report July 2011

38 Lamb Drove Site Vernacular name Yarrow Common bent Alder Daisy Cuckoo flower Common kanpweed Rosebay willowherb Cabbage thistle Spear thistle Smooth hawksbeard Common couch Hemp agrimony Yorkshire fog Flag iris Rushes Ox eye daisy Rough hawkbit Perennial rye-grass Ragged robin Purple loosestrife Common mallow Black medick Bristly oxtongue Ribwort plantain Hoary plantain Meadow buttercup Creeping buttercup Broad leaved dock Ragwort Dandelion White clover Red clover Slender speedwell Common vetch Scientific name Achillea millefolium Agrostris capillaris Alnus glutinosa Bellis perennis Cardamine pretensis Centaurea nigra Chamerion angustifolium Cirsium oleraceum Cirsium vulgare Crepis capillaris Elymus repens Eupatonum cannabinum Holcus lanatus Iris pseudacorus Juncus spp. leucanthemum vulgare Leontodon hispidus Lolium perenne Lychnis flos-cuculi Lythrum salicaria Malva sylvestris Medicaga lupiluna Picris echioides Plantago lanceolata Plantago media Ranunculus acris Ranunculus repens Rumex obtusifolus Senecio jacobea Taraxacum officinale Trifoilum repens Trifolium pratense Veronica filiformis Vicia sativa Phase 1 Habitat Survey S7422/R00001/303653/PBor Final Report July 2011

39 Watercourse downstream of Lamb Drove site Vernacular name Bindweed Rosebay willowherb Conifer sp. Hawthorn Unknown crucifer species Wild teasel Great willowherb Cleavers Herb robert Hogweed Rushes Red dead nettle Ox eye daisy Italian rye-grass Gipsywort Common mallow Bristly oxtongue Ribwort plantain Blackthorn Bramble Water dock Wood dock Goat willow Osier Dwarf elder Elder Common ragwort Branched bur-reed Dandelion Clovers Common reedmace Common nettle Scientific name Calystegia sepium Chamerion angustifolium Coniferae spp. Crataegus monogyna Cruciferae Dipsacus fullonum Epilobium angustifolium Galium aparine Geranium robertiianum Heracleum sphondylium Juncus spp Lamium purpureum leucanthemum vulgare Lolium multiflorum Lycopus europaeus Malva sylvestris Picris echioides Plantago lanceolata Prunus spinosa Rubus fruticosus agg. Rumex hydrolapathum Rumex sanguineus Salix caprea Salix viminalis Sambucus ebulus Sambucus nigra Senecio jacobea Sparganium erectum Taraxacum officinale Trifolium spp Typha latifolia Urtica dioica Phase 1 Habitat Survey S7422/R00001/303653/PBor Final Report July 2011

40 APPENDIX C RESULTS OF ANALYSIS Phase 1 Habitat Survey S7422/R00001/303653/PBor Final Report July 2011

41 Target note English name Latin / Scientific name location Red clover Trifolium pratense A O Not present Common ragwort Senecio jacobea A Not present O Cabbage thistle Cirsium oleraceum A R Not present Bristly oxtongue Picris echioides O R R Ribwort plantain Plantago lanceolata A O R Creeping buttercup Ranunculus repens A R R Broad leaved dock Rumex obtusifolius O R O Wood dock Rumex sanguineus R Not present Not present Milk thistle Silybum marianum A Not present Not present Dandelion Taraxacum officinale agg. O R R Common nettle Urtica dioica R R Not present Daisy Bellis perennis R R R Grass species - D D 05 Red clover Trifolium pratense A O Not present Common ragwort Senecio jacobea A Not present R Cabbage thistle Cirsium oleraceum A R R Bristly oxtongue Picris echioides O O R Ribwort plantain Plantago lanceolata A F R Creeping buttercup Ranunculus repens F Not present Not present Broad leaved dock Rumex obtusifolius O Not present Not present Wood dock Rumex sanguineus R Not present Not present Dandelion Taraxacum officinale agg. R R R Common nettle Urtica dioica R Not present Not present Daisy Bellis perennis R R R Grass species - D D Black medick Medicaga lupiluna R Not present 06 Red clover Trifolium pratense O O Not present Common ragwort Senecio jacobea O Not present R Cabbage thistle Cirsium oleraceum A O Not present Bristly oxtongue Picris echioides O Not present Not present Ribwort plantain Plantago lanceolata A O O Creeping buttercup Ranunculus repens A Not present Not present Broad leaved dock Rumex obtusifolius O Not present Not present Wood dock Rumex sanguineus R Not present Not present Dandelion Taraxacum officinale agg. R R R Common nettle Urtica dioica R Not present Not present Phase 1 Habitat Survey S7422/R00001/303653/PBor Final Report July 2011

42 Target note English name Latin / Scientific name location Grass species - D D Black medick Medicaga l upiluna O O Rosebay willowherb Chamerion angustifolium R Not present 07 Red clover Trifolium pratense A O Not present Common ragwort Senecio jacobea F Not present O Cabbage thistle Cirsium oleraceum A R Not present Bristly oxtongue Picris echioides A Not present R Ribwort plantain Plantago lanceolata A O R Creeping buttercup Ranunculus repens F Not present R Curled dock Rumex crispus O Not present R Broad leaved dock Rumex obtusifolius O Not present Not present Wood dock Rumex sanguineus O Not present Not present Milk thistle Silybum marianum A Not present Not present Dandelion Taraxacum officinale agg. R R Not present Common nettle Urtica dioica R Not present Not present Daisy Bellis perennis R R R Grass species - D D Hoary plantain Plantago media O O 10 Common ragwort Senecio jacobea O Not present R Cabbage thistle Cirsium oleraceum A Not present Not present Bristly oxtongue Picris echioides F Not present Not present Ribwort plantain Plantago lanceolata A O O Creeping buttercup Ranunculus repens O Not present Not present Curled dock Rumex crispus O Not present Not present Broad leaved dock Rumex obtusifolius A Not present Not present Milk thistle Silybum marianum O Not present Not present Dandelion Taraxacum officinale agg. O R Not present Common nettle Urtica dioica R Not present Not present Daisy Bellis perennis R R R Grass species - D D Hoary plantain Plantago media R Not present Spear thistle Cirsium vulgare R Not present Slender speedwell Veronica filiformis R Not present 16 Flag iris Iris pseudacorus R R R Purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria R Not present R Wood dock Rumex sanguineus O Not present Not present Phase 1 Habitat Survey S7422/R00001/303653/PBor Final Report July 2011