Appendix 8.F Additional Great Crested Newt Survey 2009
Technical Note 1 Proposed Kelmarsh Wind Farm Additional Great Crested Newt Survey 2009 1. Introduction Entec UK Ltd (Entec) was commissioned by E.ON Climate and Renewables (EC&R) to undertake a great crested newt (GCN) survey of a site proposed for a wind farm development known as Kelmarsh Wind Farm. The site is located to the west of Kelmarsh village in Northamptonshire (NGR 721 785). A great crested newt survey and assessment had been undertaken by Baker Shepherd Gillespie (BSG) in 2008. However, the number and location of the proposed wind turbines within the development site boundary has been altered since the surveys were completed in 2008 resulting in a requirement to re-assess and survey all additional waterbodies that may be affected as a result of the amendments to the proposed development. With regards to the terminology used in this assessment, the term survey area refers to areas covered by the ecological surveys. The term construction area refers to the areas within the development site boundary that will be directly affected during construction (e.g. construction of wind turbines and access tracks). This technical note identifies all ponds within 500m of the construction area that are additional to those examined in 2008, and presents the results of an assessment of their suitability to support great crested newts. This technical note should be read in conjunction with Appendix 8.B Great Crested Newt Survey Report detailing BSG s survey results. The location of all ponds assessed for their potential to support great crested newts by both BSG and Entec are displayed on Figure 2. 2. Survey Methodology 2.1.1 Pond screening Great crested newts may use terrestrial habitat up to 500m from their breeding ponds, based on guidelines from English Nature 1 (now Natural England). All ponds within 500m of the proposed construction areas (turbine bases and access tracks) were identified from 1:10,000 OS maps and web-based aerial photographs. A screening exercise was undertaken to assess whether the ponds had the potential to support great crested newts, and which would therefore need to be surveyed. The 1 English Nature (2001). Great Crested Newt Mitigation Guidelines. English Nature, Peterborough.
Technical Note 2 criteria used in the assessment are based on those contained in the Herpetofauna Workers Manual 2 and are summarised as follows: sufficient water depth to enable successful amphibian breeding from spring (egg laying) through to autumn when the larvae mature and leave the water bodies; aquatic vegetation or other suitable medium that could be used for egg laying; obvious signs of poor water quality; signs of other amphibians e.g. tadpoles; evidence of fish being present (which reduces the likelihood of newt presence and may limit population size); and quality of surrounding habitat for great crested newts (e.g. presence of suitable refugia, i.e. stable, cool, damp and shaded areas that may be used by great crested newts, particularly during the winter months). In applying these criteria a precautionary approach was adopted, since great crested newts can be found breeding in water bodies that do not provide the ideal conditions for them. In order to provide a more robust assessment, and in line with Natural England guidance, the waterbodies were also assessed using the Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) 3. A general habitat-based assessment of the potential value of the terrestrial habitats present within the development site was likewise undertaken. Full results of the HSI assessments are provided in Appendix A. 2.1.2 Presence/Absence Survey The screening survey identified four ponds that were additional to those identified in the 2008 survey (ponds E, F1, F2 and G) with the potential to support breeding great crested newts within 500m of the construction area. A further two waterbodies (ponds H and I) identified on Ordnance Survey maps as springs are now defunct (i.e. no longer in existence) and therefore no further consideration of them is necessary. Whilst several additional ponds are present to the south between 500m and 550m from the nearest proposed areas of construction, any potential great crested newt populations present are very unlikely to be significantly affected should there be a requirement to micro-site 4 the turbines/access tracks and therefore no further consideration is given to these ponds. Great crested newt presence absence surveys were carried out on all four waterbodies following the standard methodology, described in English Nature s Great Crested Newt Mitigation Guidelines. Each waterbody was visited on up to four occasions (with at least two visits within the period mid-april to mid-may). If great crested 2 Gent, T and Gibson, S (1998) The Herpetofauna Workers Manual Joint Nature Conservation Committee. 3 The HSI was developed by Oldham et al. (2000) and measures the habitat suitability of a waterbody by considering a range of factors though to affect great crested newts. 4 50m allowance for micro-siting
Technical Note 3 newts are identified on a first, second or third visit, no subsequent visit was undertaken. The great crested newt mitigation guidelines recommend that at least three survey techniques are employed during each visit, and the following methods were carried out at each pond: Bottle trapping: Bottle traps constructed from two litre plastic bottles were set around the margin of each waterbody. The traps were checked early the next morning. Torch-light survey: Each waterbody was illuminated with a powerful torch after dusk, to search for presence of great crested newts and other amphibians. Egg search: Suitable aquatic vegetation was searched for great crested newt (and other amphibian) eggs. The survey work was undertaken by Entec Ecologists; Jennie Caddick (Natural England great crested newt survey licence number 20090407.), Charlotte Webbon (Natural England great crested newt survey licence number 20082341), Tessa Jenkins (Natural England great crested newt survey licence number 20091474) and Jack Crump (Natural England great crested newt survey licence number 20090997), between 28 th April and 21 st May 2009. All surveys were undertaken in appropriate weather conditions. 3. Survey Results 3.1.1 Survey Constraints Pond F2 lies below ground level with steep-sided banks making bottle trapping and netting dangerous and therefore these methods were not used. Egg searching was likewise hindered due to health and safety reasons. Artifical eggs strips were therefore lowered into the pond on the 30 th April 2009 and checked during further surveys and the pond was also torch surveyed. 3.1.2 Pond screening Four ponds (ponds E, F1, F2 and G) were present and assessed for their potential to support great crested newts. A further two waterbodies (ponds H and I) that are now defunct were scoped out of any further survey work. The location of the waterbodies is shown on Figure 1 and the results of the waterbody assessments are provided below. The exact distances of the ponds from the construction site are not provided due to the likely potential need for micro-siting the turbines +/-50m. Pond E (NGR SP 371 780) A 20m x 30m circular pond on the edge of an arable field. Floating sweet-grass (Glyceria fluitans) is abundant on the surface. No evidence of fish or wildfowl. The HSI score of 0.58 indicates that the pond suitability for great crested newts is (just) below average. Pond F1 (NGR SP 720 781) Pond F1 lies adjacent to an arable field and rough grassland track with dimensions of approximately 40m x 10m. The pond is linked to a spring with filamentous algae
Technical Note 4 covering 60% of the pond s surface. No other aquatics are present or evidence of use by wildfowl. The HSI score of 0.9 indicates that the pond suitability for great crested newts is excellent. Pond F2 (NGR SP 720 781) A brick-lined circular pond, approximately 10 x 15m bordered by elder (Sambucus nigra) scrub and tall ruderals. No aquatics recorded although filamentous algae covers 60% of the surface most likely due to run-off from the adjacent arable field. No evidence of use by wildfowl. The HSI score 0.66 indicates that the pond suitability for great crested newts is average. Pond G (NGR SP 717 783) A recently dug-out pond (approximately 20 years old) with dimensions of 25 x 35m. Some, albeit limited shading is caused by overhanging trees. No marginal or aquatics recorded. There is evidence of use of the pond by wildfowl. The HSI score of 0.5 indicates that the pond suitability for great crested newts is below average. Terrestrial Habitat Assessment An assessment of the terrestrial habitat is detailed alongside the 2008 great crested newt surveys undertaken by BSG (Appendix 8.B Great Crested Newt Survey Report). 3.1.3 Presence/Absence Surveys The results of the great crested newt survey are detailed in Appendix B. Great crested newts were recorded in two of the four ponds surveyed, in ponds F1 and F2, as shown on Figure 1. A maximum count of seven adults was recorded on one survey night from pond F1 and five adults from pond F2. Although the aim of the survey was not to establish population size, the results of the presence/absence survey can be used to indicate the likely size of the population. In line with the NE s GCN Mitigation Guidelines, 2001 (referred to as GCN Mitigation guidelines in this document) counts can be summed across ponds where there is a reasonable certainty that there is a regular interchange of animals between ponds (typically within 250m and with an absence of barriers to dispersal). Given that the ponds F1 and F2 lie less than 25m apart they are therefore considered as single meta-population and therefore counts can be summed across ponds in any one night. The maximum count of individuals recorded in any one night was seven individuals. The guidelines assess maximum counts of up to 10 individuals to represent a small population (see page 28 of the guidance). Given that the maximum count was seven and that pond F2 could not be bottle trapped due to Health and Safety reasons the surveys may have marginally underestimated the numbers of great crested newts present. It is therefore considered that the meta-population is on the cusp of the higher end of a small population and it is assumed that it is most likely to represent a small to lower ended medium-sized population.
Appendix A HSI Scores Pond Reference E F1 F2 G SI1 - Location 1 1 1 1 SI2 - Pond area 0.1 1 0.1 0.95 SI3 - Pond drying 0.5 0.9 0.9 0.9 SI4 - Water quality 0.33 0.67 0.33 0.67 SI4 - Shade 0.6 1 1 1 SI6 - Fowl 1 1 1 0.67 SI7 - Fish 1 1 1 0.33 SI8 - Ponds 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.75 SI9 - Terrestrial habitat 1 1 1 0.67 SI10 - Macrophytes 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.5 HSI 0.58 0.90 0.66 0.50
Appendix B Great Crested Newt Survey Results Pond Reference Number Survey Date (2009) Bottle Trap Torch Survey Notes Maximum GCN Count GCN 6 Smooth Newt Unknown Other GCN Smooth Newt Unknown Eggs E 28 th April 1M 2 30 th April Turbid 19 th May 21 st May F1 28 th April 2M, 5F 1M, 1F 2F 1 7 30 th April GCN 7 th May 2M Turbid 2 19 th May 3M, 2F 2 5 F2 28 th April N/A 6F Due to Health and Safety issues, can t bottle trap 30 th April N/A 1F 2M, 4F Egg strips set 1 7 th May N/A 5F 2 GCN, SN 7 5 19 th May N/A G 28 th April Poor visibility 30 th April 1 frog, tadpoles Turbid 7 th May Turbid 19 st May Temperatures: 28 th April 2009 7 C, 30 th April 2009 11 C, 7 th May 2009 12 C, 19 th May 2009 11 C, 21 st May 2009 11 C 6 GCN Great Crested Newt 7 SN Smooth newt