Lee Brady's Recording Blog

CIEEM Updates Its Position Statement on DLL

Full details are available on the Institute's website. Link here. 

I won't repeat the whole document here, but two items from the statement are worth highlighting.

 

2. There should be a Favourable Conservation Status Strategy for the species. A clear national strategy should be in place for each species setting out what must be achieved to fulfil international and national commitments for the species concerned. Any local or district level licensing (DLL) scheme, strategy, or new approach taken under new licensing policies should clearly demonstrate how it contributes to the delivery of Favourable Conservation Status for the species in its natural range.

 

This really should be a given and it is disappointing that Natural England need to be reminded of the fact. In Kent, one of the arguments that Natural England used to collect data from data providers such as myself was that a delay in providing data may prevent Natural England from publishing a Conservation Strategy for GCN in Kent. Unfortunately once Natural England had obtained data they promptly abandoned their promise to publish the strategy document. After using the data to create their model for the county they also promptly dissolved the data sharing agreement. Unbelievable I know and this has resulted in a complete breakdown in trust. It remains to be seen whether NE will review its position. 

 

3. The mitigation hierarchy should be followed. Strategic licensing schemes should require developers to seek all possible means to avoid impacts on protected species and ameliorate them as far as possible before resorting to compensation via strategic licensing. Strategic licensing should not be seen as a ‘licence to trash’ and, whilst delays associated with translocating each individual could be reduced, proportionate efforts should still be made to rescue and relocate species to safety where possible.

 

One of my particular concerns over the DLL is that it permits the destruction of high quality breeding ponds. I think we all accept that DLL is a development based tool rather than a tool designed to promote conservation. However, NE has taken this approach too far. Not only is it possible for developers to destroy breeding ponds regardless of their importance to local populations, but developers are financially encouraged to do so. Developers that undertake gcn survey work are penalised by having to pay more for their DLL licence than developers that do no survey work. So not only does DLL facilitate the destruction of important breeding ponds, but it does so in a manner that actively reduces the likelihood that data will be collected to demonstrate the impacts.  How can the mitigation hierarchy be followed if survey work to collect baseline data is not undertaken? 

 

GCN and Arable - Some Thoughts

 

[this information was originally in the previous post, but I put it here to unclutter the status assessment]

 

Mike Phillips dropped me an email to query the arable. So I thought it worthwhile to post my thoughts. 

A problem we have is that there is little available quantitative data on terrestrial habitat use. Since most gcn records are collected from ponds, the model is therefore scoring terrestrial landscape features based on their suitability as locations for gcn ponds. 

A grassland location scores much better than a woodland location (the latter barely positive). Arable is in the middle. Builtup locations and locations with conifer typically score negatively (ie. newts are infrequently recorded in these areas). 

One possible modification to the status assessment would be to provide a range of values. For terrestrial habitat, the lower range would exclude arable, the maximum would include it. However, I am reminded of mitigation projects that capture many gcn in arable fields.

Since the model used for the Kent Status Assessment is summing the % habitat cover in only those squares where gcn presence is predicted, it already controls for arable areas with high % cover where gcn are likely to be absent.

Looking at the model outputs, 1 km squares with very extensive % cover of arable cannot overcome the low score generated if the square has few ponds. So 1 km squares with very high (>90%) arable cover and 3 or less ponds typically generate a Low score in terms of their suitability for gcn.

In comparison, 1 km squares with few ponds and high % cover of improved grassland will usually generate a Medium score in terms of their suitability for gcn. 

Of course the overall score depends on the mix of landscape features that are present, with pond density being the main positive influence (by a long way).

Expressed another way. A 1 km square located in the range of gcn with very high arable % cover will need more ponds created than a square with a lower % cover of grassland to achieve the same suitability score. 

For interest, the highest scoring 1 km square with low pond density (3 ponds in this case) has the following mix of terrestrial habitat classifications:

Improved Grassland = 54.7%
Arable = 39%
Broadleaf = 0
Conifer = 0
Semi-Natural = 2.6%
Upland = 3.7%
Builtup = 0

For low pond density squares with an overall score of High, the square with the highest arable % cover has the following composition:

Improved Grassland = 22%
Arable = 63.4%
Broadleaf = 0
Conifer = 0
Semi-Natural = 6.6%
Upland = 7.8%
Builtup = 0

(there are 3 ponds in this square and gcn are confirmed present)

 

Last comment. Providing there are a reasonable number of ponds present, the presence of arable will not prevent pond occupancy by gcn - providing the square is actually within their range.   

 

Early Reports of Amphibian Activity

The very mild winter conditions continue. Nowadays it isn't unusual to observe smooth and palmate newts active in early January (sometimes even in an ice covered pond). But reports of active toads in Kent in December?! Unusual December records in other parts of the country include adders on the Isle of Wight. Today I received a report from Neil Phillips of calling marsh frogs on the Isle of Sheppy. Active marsh frogs in January! Not quite the earliest record on the database (that award also goes to Neil who reported Marsh frogs calling at Oare Marsh on the 2nd January in 2013), but it's none-the-less very interesting. 

If you see (or hear) any early activity, please do send in your records.

 

UK's Only Poisonous [sic] Snake is the Most Misunderstood Treasure....

“Sadly there are indications of a decline in UK adder numbers,” adds Foster. “We have lost populations to habitat destruction, lack of management and persecution. Our last major survey, via our National Amphibian and Reptile Recording Scheme, found adders in only 7% of survey areas.

via www.westernmorningnews.co.uk

 

In Kent, adders have been recorded in just over 10% of surveyed 1 km squares, so perhaps a little higher than the national average. We still need more records though.

If you see an adder in Kent this year please let KRAG know!

I don't know what it is about journalists, but adders are venomous not poisonous...

 

Can We Save the Adder from Extinction in Middle England?

I believe we can if we protect all its remaining breeding sites, supplement small colonies with snakes from elsewhere, prevent adverse predation and learn to love the adder. Otherwise when historians come to write the epitaph of the adder in middle England it will read like a Shakespearian tragedy.

via www.theguardian.com

And in order to do that, we need to know where the species occurs and in what numbers. Recording by volunteers is a vital element in any adder conservation strategy. We need your records!

Amphibians on the Move!

There are quite a few rumblings of amphibian movement over the past few days. The mild wet conditions have even brought out toads on roads. Smooth newts have been active in garden ponds since January and great crested newt eggs were observed in a pond near Challock yesterday afternoon. Have you seen any amphibians this year? Is there frogspawn in your garden pond? If so, please submit your observations to your local reptile and amphibian group:

In Kent records should be submitted to KRAG.

In Lancashire they can be submitted through ARGSL. 

 

What is Causing the Extreme Cold Over North America?

The weather over North America has been hitting the headlines over the last few days with record breaking cold conditions spreading south from the Arctic. This has been linked to a ‘polar vortex’, but what is this and what could it mean for the UK?

via metofficenews.wordpress.com

 

Short answer - it won't affect the UK. 

 

Seen any Snakes this Summer?

In a rather timely manner, RSPCA has just published a blog entry providing information on snakes and slow-worms.

 

 

Reptile Receptor Sites

In light of various recent discussions regarding reptile receptor sites I've decided to put forward my thoughts on their selection, recording and possible protection. This is too large a subject to cover in a single post, so I intend to develop my ideas over time. Several previous blog entries provide background to the subject.

In 2008 I commented on a reptile translocation project that involved capturing large numbers of slow-worms. 

 

I remember a lady in Harrietsham who told me about a very unpleasant sight she witnessed. Apparently consultants had undertaken a destructive search during the winter and released large numbers of slow-worms into a so-called artificial hibernaculum. Unfortunately it was much too cold for the slow-worms and a few days after the release the lady was walking her dog and saw tens of dead animals strewn around the ground by the hibernaculum.  

 

Of course we do need to be careful over unsubstantiated anecdotal reports. However, reports like this are of concern. What is the point of a developer being significantly delayed and then paying large amounts of money for reptiles to be captured and translocated if the animals are simply left to die at the receptor site?

When protected species mitigation work affects the public, sympathy for the animal's conservation status can be in short supply. 

 

'It's typical of this country to put animals before people.' Another driver going by the name 'Irate Commuter' on a local internet forum wrote: 'If I dressed in a lizard costume, would I get a police escort through the roadworks? Officials who make these decisions are plain daft, because it doesn't affect their livelihood and income.'

It is therefore important on many different levels (not least for the animals concerned), that consultants do everything they can to maximise the chances of the translocation being successful. If we lose the support of the public, it will become much easier for unsympathetic government ministers to push for changes in legislation that may decrease levels of protection for species that experts consider to be under significant threat. 

International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) is a heavy weight organisation founded in 1948 that supports scientific research, manages field projects and provides advice to governments across the world. Governments pay attention to IUCN. In 1987 IUCN published a position statement on the translocation of living organisms (pdf download). Its only 13 pages long but includes sensible recommendations that have since been developed further.

 

Translocations are powerful tools for the management of the natural and man made environment which, properly used, can bring great benefits to natural biological systems and to man, but like other powerful tools they have the potential to cause enormous damage if misused. This IUCN statement describes the advantageous uses of translocations and the work and precautions needed to avoid the disastrous consequences of poorly planned translocations.

 

Disastrous consequences? Consider cane toads in Australia. 

Using the definitions proposed by IUCN, the translocation of reptiles from a proposed UK development to a receptor site is akin to 'restocking'. 

 

Before deciding if restocking is necessary, the capacity of the area it is proposed to restock should be investigated to assess if the level of the population desired is sustainable. If it is, then further work should be undertaken to discover the reasons for the existing low population levels. Action should then be taken to help the resident population expand to the desired level. Only if this fails should restocking be used.

 

The challenge then is to ensure that protected species mitigation work in the UK, meets the criteria set by IUCN. 

It is important to stress that the IUCN guidelines are based on conservation projects. Most reptile  translocations that occur in the UK are undertaken due to a need to satisfy domestic legislation and commercial development projects. Fitting a square peg into a round hole can be difficult! But there should at the very least be a requirement for minimum standards. 

Back in 2011 I provided a quick summary of protected species mitigation work. 

 

Do not under-estimate the amount of time required to capture and remove species such as slow-worms from areas that will be subject to disturbance. Animals cannot simply be let free in the nearest field. If animals are to be relocated to a site that is situated some distance away from the development area, additional survey work is likely to be required to ensure that the site can support the translocated animals. Habitat enhancement work may also need to be undertaken and such work may only be possible at certain times of the year. 

 

That advice still holds true. 

The next step is to identify the factors that need to be considered when selecting a receptor site. We then need to develop a (simple) methodology that allows these factors to be compared between different sites. 

 

Bee Orchid

Had a great day out with Christian Randriantoandro at Quilters Wood on Saturday. Christian is one of my Malagasy colleagues who works with Madagasikara Voakajy and was excited to see several young adder. It was also very pleasing to be able to show Christian an orchid in Britain (actually several orchids)!